cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 8,846
Just left this comment on Sam Lee's piece for The Athletic:
Something often missing from Western journalists & commentators passing judgements of the UAE is the actual history of the region. It was the British who put the House of Al-Nahyan on the throne in the UAE in order to guarantee it’s, & intern the West's oil rights. Something that has worked out very nicely for all involved indeed. It was the West who betrayed the Arabs at the end of the First World War after promising them a state of their own that has led to much of, if not all, the destruction in the region that has followed since. The fact that the UAE is based in the middle of probably the most conservative religious region of the world, & is only 51 years old, yet one of the more progressive regions in the area should not go without note.
The simple fact is you cannot apply Western morals & culture to a region that is deeply conservative & based in Islamic Sharia, it has a totally different moral compass to the West & a different way of life. It should be noted however, that through investing in the West the UAE has improved, admittedly not to a level we as Westerners would like to see on Human Rights, but it is certainly much more Western than its immediate neighbours like the Saudis, Iran or even Russia who have just invaded a sovereign European neighbour nation. It is a 51-year-old state that is still growing & learning culturally. You can't monopolise their resources by electing their head of state then moan when they use said gains to invest back into your culture, because you don't like how that region of the world operates culturally.
Now, I'm not saying they are perfect; I'm just pointing out that through their ownership of Western institutions like Manchester City, it can be used to instigate improvements in their culture, bringing their human rights record more into line with how we view it should be in the West. What should be applauded is that a deeply Islamic conservative City ownership, has led the way in establishing & investing in the women's game at the club, something that was totally neglected beforehand. It has backed the establishment of gay supporters’ clubs, invested heavily in the economy of East Manchester, & Manchester as a whole, whilst being one of the leading football clubs in tackling Climate Change, all great & notable causes.
Finally, I simply will not accept, so called 'human rights activist' supporters of other football clubs & journalists, who are driven by nothing other than football tribalism, with little to no understanding of life in the UAE & its culture, using a very serious matter as a front to attack City. The fact of the matter is they don't like City because they are a better ran club than their own, more successful on the pitch & are at the forefront of what it is to be a modern football club. You never heard any of this prior to Guardiola arriving and dominating the domestic game, or indeed even under Mancini & Pellegrini when City won titles. In fact, for that matter, when City did have a truly terrible former despot in Thaksin Shinawatra running the club, not a peep was heard from any of these people, just proving to underline my point.
I accept City isn't the only club who receive criticism of its owner, but it pales into insignificance compared with the coverage of others, & that is because of its success. Football is at the forefront of modern capitalism & is thus owned by modern capitalists.
Just missing 1 sentence
Sam Lee is a twat!