End Irish anthem at GAA matches, demands DUP minister

kreuzberger

#15 wrote: »

Thats not what I'm saying.

Promoting Irish culture is fine.

So is promoting nationalism.

But they cannot claim to be inclusive if they remain a nationalist organisation. It is their right to promote nationalism and Irish culture, and to fly the tricolour.
But they can hardly complain when unionists want no part of it, as the flag and the anthem of this country are (unfortunately) seen as symbols of militant republicanism by unionists.

Unionists cannot ''appreciate'' the GAA in that context, the same way that any republican in NI could not ''appreciate'' soccer or rugby if it promoted unionism, played GSTQ before every match, flew the Union flag and named stadiums after loyalist killers.

the GAA was very consciously founded as an engine of national consciousness , its not just a sporting organisation but one with a definite national ethos . In a country where occupation and colonisation has taken place , not just physically but culturally , then such an ethos is bound to raise hackles and come into conflict with a seperate ethios and outlook . As it has done since the very day the GAA was conceived . At times the hurl and even its games were made illegal . The GAA is not just about playing a sport but promoting an ethos . Those who are vehemently opposed to that ethos are the ones who will simply have to deal with their opposition to it . Over the years that has included making various aspects of the game and the games themselves illegal . Any attempt by their modern counterparts to outlaw the GAAs national ethos should be firmly resisted in my opinion .

Im mindful of the fact that my childhood club was in a DUP controlled council area , and their attacks on the club on the basis it played games on a sunday were a constant feature of my childhood . Despite our parents being ratepayers they banned our club from playing on any council property on purely religious grounds . Now theyve come up with another excuse to have a go .

they also employed a council official to tie up all the swings in the playpark on a saturday noght to prevent children from improperly observing the sabbath day by playing on a swing . Grown adults actually did this .

At the end of the day Poots comments and mindset are a product of the countrys abnormal political situation . Only fundamnetal change in the countrys political structures are ever likely to change it . Therefore we'll just have to put up with it and persevere in the face of the inevitable hostility

dewsbury

snyper wrote: »

or at the end of the night in the nightclubs :rolleyes: like they used to do 15 years ago...

..or still in the west of Ireland.

Yes snyper, I just remembered that awful habit of playing anthem at the end of a night.

... typically some young DJ misjudging the situation...a national anthem at 3 in the morning with many bellies full of beer is not appropriate.. more an ego trip for the DJ

With apologies to all DJ's who play the anthem

Lux23

I think we could do with a new anthem. One in english and one that reflects all traditions in Ireland, some loyalists are willing to take an interest in our culture and its about time nationalists did the same. I think if there is to be a united ireland we should include loyalist culture in the same way that we are trying to integrate all the other traditions we have here today. I for one also think its a high time we had a new bank holiday in July just like our neighbours up north!!

And apart from anything else its a woeful ****ing anthem, it means nothing to most people.

Hagar

Lux23 wrote: »

I think we could do with a new anthem. One in english

Why? It's no worse than any other National Anthem. The current one has an English language version.

Lux23 wrote: »

And apart from anything else its a woeful ****ing anthem, it means nothing to most people.

Says you.

kreuzberger

Lux23 wrote: »

some loyalists are willing to take an interest in our culture and its about time nationalists did the same..

by doing what ? picketting catholic primary schools schools and funeral services or kicking someone to death at a bonfire ? or maybe just banging a drum outisde someones chapel ?

what particular aspect of this culture do you think we should adopt ?

#15

the GAA was very consciously founded as an engine of national consciousness , its not just a sporting organisation but one with a definite national ethos . In a country where occupation and colonisation has taken place , not just physically but culturally , then such an ethos is bound to raise hackles and come into conflict with a seperate ethios and outlook . As it has done since the very day the GAA was conceived . At times the hurl and even its games were made illegal . The GAA is not just about playing a sport but promoting an ethos .

Agree. But that ethos is in conflict with unionism. So why are people complaining if unionists do not like the sport?

Those who are vehemently opposed to that ethos are the ones who will simply have to deal with their opposition to it . Over the years that has included making various aspects of the game and the games themselves illegal . Any attempt by their modern counterparts to outlaw the GAAs national ethos should be firmly resisted in my opinion .

The GAA were just as bad with their ban on foreign games, etc.

Both sides commited wrong. Theres no point in criticising just one side.

Im mindful of the fact that my childhood club was in a DUP controlled council area , and their attacks on the club on the basis it played games on a sunday were a constant feature of my childhood . Despite our parents being ratepayers they banned our club from playing on any council property on purely religious grounds . Now theyve come up with another excuse to have a go .

they also employed a council official to tie up all the swings in the playpark on a saturday noght to prevent children from improperly observing the sabbath day by playing on a swing . Grown adults actually did this .

Absolutely disgusting behaviour alright. But I'm presuming it occurred pre-GFA?
In which case, there were many other disgusting acts committed by all sides.

I'm not trying to belittle your experiences mate, but members of your own community were doing wrong also.

Its no use complaining about just one side IMO.

At the end of the day Poots comments and mindset are a product of the countrys abnormal political situation .

Agree.

Only fundamnetal change in the countrys political structures are ever likely to change it . Therefore we'll just have to put up with it and persevere in the face of the inevitable hostility

I would suggest a fundamental change in the attitudes of both communities.

#15

kreuzberger wrote: »

by doing what ? picketting catholic primary schools schools and funeral services or kicking someone to death at a bonfire ? or maybe just banging a drum outisde someones chapel ?

what particular aspect of this culture do you think we should adopt ?

Come on now, thats hardly fair. Thats like equating your community with the murder of children or forcing innocent men to become suicide bombers.

kreuzberger

#15 wrote: »

Come on now, thats hardly fair. Thats like equating your community with the murder of children or forcing innocent men to become suicide bombers.

it may sound unfair but if you can physically point me to one aspect of loyalist cultural activity that might broaden my mind Ill consider giving it a try . Is there anything you can suggest ?

kreuzberger

#15 wrote: »

Agree. But that ethos is in conflict with unionism. So why are people complaining if unionists do not like the sport?

possinbly because theyre annoyed at the state of society in general in which a national ethos comes into direct conflict with a British ethos which views an Irish national ethos as a threat to the political status quo ie the states legitimacy being questioned . I didnt claim the complaints were actually logically thought out , i pointed to the case that such a conflict is inevitable in a scenario of a partitioned Ireland , an abnormal political situation

The GAA were just as bad with their ban on foreign games, etc.

Both sides commited wrong. Theres no point in criticising just one side.

the GAA bans on foreign games extended only to GAA players . They didnt disrupt other sports and interfere with the activity of non members . GAA also had a yearly congress in which the membership of the organisation could freely opt to overturn the ban on themselves playing foreign sports . The reason for the ban on foreign games was quite logical , in a society in which a foreign governemnt in concert with native political and religious instituions had come together and suceeded in eradicating the Irish language and many outward expressions of the national culture and psyche in the space of only a few decades , from the 1840s to the 1880s . Both the catholic church and the Irish nationalist political class such as Daniel OConnell were as guilty as anyone else for this , indeed were instrumental in it by deriding irish ways and language as backward while effectively beating the Irish language and the old ways and customs out of the kids and silencing their parents by reading their names out at the pulpit for being backward and disobeying the church .

In truth it was protestant academics who were to the fore in attempts to not only preserve but revive them . The GAA was part of this revival movement .
Ireland faced cultural genocide and the GAA was launched in response to that . The ban was integral to that position of reversing the horrendous cultural damage inflicted on the country by conserving native culture in the face of threats to its existence by much more powerful political , economic and cultural forces .

Absolutely disgusting behaviour alright. But I'm presuming it occurred pre-GFA?
In which case, there were many other disgusting acts committed by all sides.

I'm not trying to belittle your experiences mate, but members of your own community were doing wrong also.

Its no use complaining about just one side IMO.

Im not just complaining about one side . The issue however is edwin poots opposition to the GAA and his partys track record in this regard , which is lengthy , bitter and substantial . But its not just edwin poots fault . He ws led to believe northern nationalists had opted to accept the legitimacy of the northern state , indeed the norths political leaders signed a treaty to that effect . He is then confronted with a tradition and ethos which opts to show outward allegiance to a 32 county republic as opposed to British institutions in Ireland as opposed to the state which he seeks to secure . An ethos which just happens to be the biggest sporting organisation in the north . This presents him with a political difficulty , forcing him as someone who demands the staus quo is upheld to attack that ethos . The only manner in which this situation can be resolved is either within a united political entity of all 32 counties or by forcing the GAA to abandon its core ethos , that of an Irish nation . Effectively sterilising it . Its highly unlikely GAA stalwarts and even caual supporters in the north will abandon notions of nationhood on the basis of edwin poots demands . I dont believe Gerry Adams Martin McGuinness and the pope combined could manage that one .
Therefore an abnormal political situation will continue to produce conflict on one level or another .

I would suggest a fundamental change in the attitudes of both communities

sadly i would suggest that in a partitioned society normal politics will only function on the surface and paper over the cracks until the next crises arrives . In such a scenario different ethos' will continually and inevitably come into confrontation due to the abnormality of the situation . while the gfa has managed to cobble together an agreement between professional politicians it has had the added effect of reinforcing tribalism on both sides . Whilst institutionalised sectarianism thrives within mainstream politics abnormality will continue . To change that requires fundamental change which the existing constitutional arrangements cannot deliver , and indeed actively prevent .

Tommy T

kreuzberger wrote: »

by doing what ? picketting catholic primary schools schools and funeral services or kicking someone to death at a bonfire ? or maybe just banging a drum outisde someones chapel ?

what particular aspect of this culture do you think we should adopt ?

We embrcae many aspects of British culture.. We watch thier TV stations, are obsessed by their 'Celebs', travel in our thousands every weekend to watch their football, buy their newspapers(don't be fooled by the "Irish" Daily Mail, Sun etc...

In other words Unionists are normal human beings like the rest of us...

RedPlanet

If Donegal were playing than it's only right that the Irish National Anthem was played. Just like when England played in Croke Park and we played GSTQ for them.
If anything, the minister should question why GSTQ wasn't also played on the night, or before every GAA match in the Six Counties.
I think you'll find the answer to that, is that practically nobody in attendence identifies with GSTQ as part of their ethos.

Perhaps the minister should wonder how he can make GSTQ or a Northern Ireland equivalent, more inclusive so people of the other dispensation can identify with it.

Fratton Fred

RedPlanet wrote: »

Perhaps the minister should wonder how he can make GSTQ or a Northern Ireland equivalent, more inclusive so people of the other dispensation can identify with it.

good point

ejmaztec

One of the local amateur historians in Kerry maintains that, were the Irish monarchy to be re-introduced, then Mrs Windsor would be eligible to sit on the Irish, as well as the English throne. I've yet to find the proof that what he's said is correct, but it would be interesting if it were. Unfortunately, this fellah has been a bit liberal with the truth in the past where history's involved.:)

Lux23

kreuzberger wrote: »

by doing what ? picketting catholic primary schools schools and funeral services or kicking someone to death at a bonfire ? or maybe just banging a drum outisde someones chapel ?

what particular aspect of this culture do you think we should adopt ?

And I suppose the nationalists are completely innocent. They didn't tear people limb from limb, kidnap and kill women who happened to help dying soldiers on their doorstep, cut of the hair and pour paint over girls who dated protestants.

We have to meet them halfway and maybe if you opened your mind a little you may see that they are exactly the same as us. At the moment from your posts I can see you are incredibly hostile towards them and seem to think they have no right to a voice.

FTA69

#15 wrote: »

But they can hardly complain when unionists want no part of it, as the flag and the anthem of this country are (unfortunately) seen as symbols of militant republicanism by unionists.

Probably because they are symbols of militant Republicanism. The Tricolour was always a Republican flag, invented by the Young Irelanders. The anthem is called the "Soldier's Song" in all fairness.

FTA69

Lux23 wrote: »

And I suppose the nationalists are completely innocent. They didn't tear people limb from limb, kidnap and kill women who happened to help dying soldiers on their doorstep, cut of the hair and pour paint over girls who dated protestants.

First of all the tarring and feathering happened to women who dated soldiers, not Protestants. That having been said I accept your point, there was a lot of pain, death and agony doled out by Nationalists as well. However, the inherent bigotry of Loyalism has no real equivalent within Irish nationalism.

Lux23

FTA69 wrote: »

First of all the tarring and feathering happened to women who dated soldiers, not Protestants. That having been said I accept your point, there was a lot of pain, death and agony doled out by Nationalists as well. However, the inherent bigotry of Loyalism has no real equivalent within Irish nationalism.

I disagree. I remember as a teen hearing people using the word black as in protestant and I asked another 14 year old girl what that meant. She said quite calmly it refers to the colour of their heart and not their skin, this was said in front of adults and she wasn't admonished for it. So I think bigotry plays a huge part in both sides.

I do remember a story in 1995 of a girl who was dating a protestant who wasn't a soldier and she got that special treatment from some local provo yobs. The photo was on the front of a number of newspapers.

It was actually 1997, I do remember when I read it in the Irish Indpendent it just said she was dating a protestant, makes no mention here.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970228/ai_n14098303

RedPlanet

A good friend of mine's dad is a protestant.
He married a catholic (they're ma) and they used to live in Co. Down somewhere and when the troubles kicked off, well their protestant neighbors burnt them out!
They ended up settling in West Belfast where they went from over crowded house to overcrowded house. Finally SQUATTED a newly built house in Poleglass where they remain today.
The dad's got King Billy tattos on his arms yet never a nasty word was said to him by his catholic neighbors.
His sons all grew up good republicans too.

Lux23

RedPlanet wrote: »

A good friend of mine's dad is a protestant.
He married a catholic (they're ma) and they used to live in Co. Down somewhere and when the troubles kicked off, well their protestant neighbors burnt them out!
They ended up settling in West Belfast where they went from over crowded house to overcrowded house. Finally SQUATTED a newly built house in Poleglass where they remain today.
The dad's got King Billy tattos on his arms yet never a nasty word was said to him by his catholic neighbors.
His sons all grew up good republicans too.

The same thing happened to Protestants in the Bogside but as usual our history books like to gloss over that fact. :rolleyes: Although in fairness it wasn't as common but 12,000 of them left the area around the time the trouble kicked off so they must have had some fears.

RedPlanet

Lux23 wrote: »

The same thing happened to Protestants in the Bogside but as usual our history books like to gloss over that fact. :rolleyes:

Oh right!
Sure those poor Protestants were getting all burnt out of their homes by those Catholic gangs :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

RedPlanet wrote: »

A good friend of mine's dad is a protestant.
He married a catholic (they're ma) and they used to live in Co. Down somewhere and when the troubles kicked off, well their protestant neighbors burnt them out!
They ended up settling in West Belfast where they went from over crowded house to overcrowded house. Finally SQUATTED a newly built house in Poleglass where they remain today.
The dad's got King Billy tattos on his arms yet never a nasty word was said to him by his catholic neighbors.
His sons all grew up good republicans too.

That surprises me. I used to kow a catholic republican from Co. Down and he always gave me the impression his area was pretty trouble free. Still, I guess it's like anywhere, it only takes a few scumbags....

Lux23

RedPlanet wrote: »

Oh right!
Sure those poor Protestants were getting all burnt out of their homes by those Catholic gangs :rolleyes:

Some were, yes.

#15

ejmaztec wrote: »

One of the local amateur historians in Kerry maintains that, were the Irish monarchy to be re-introduced, then Mrs Windsor would be eligible to sit on the Irish, as well as the English throne. I've yet to find the proof that what he's said is correct, but it would be interesting if it were. Unfortunately, this fellah has been a bit liberal with the truth in the past where history's involved.:)

I think this is true, I heard it somewhere else a long time ago.

I would guess it is because Ireland, England and Scotland were all seperate kingdoms (which shared a monarch) prior to the Acts of Union.
So it would be logical if Ireland ever had a monarch that they would pick up where they left off. It would be possible for her to be the monarch without Ireland being in political union with her other kingdom.
In theory anyway!!!

#15

FTA69 wrote: »

First of all the tarring and feathering happened to women who dated soldiers, not Protestants. That having been said I accept your point, there was a lot of pain, death and agony doled out by Nationalists as well. However, the inherent bigotry of Loyalism has no real equivalent within Irish nationalism.

And the inherent violence of republicanism has no real equivalent within unionism either.

RedPlanet

#15 wrote: »

And the inherent violence of republicanism has no real equivalent within unionism either.

Um yeah, except when they threatened to go to war against britian to remain part of britain (Home Rule is Rome Rule).
And not forgetting the history of the Ulster Volunteers (which predates the IRA) and of course all the Loyalist paramilitaries whom are still armed to this very day.

FTA69

#15 wrote: »

And the inherent violence of republicanism has no real equivalent within unionism either.

Really? The B-Specials, UDR and RUC were all largely Unionist organisations, and all of them were up to their necks in violence. The current leader of mainstream Unionism, Ian Paisley, set up 3 paramilitary groups. Both the DUP and UUP sat on the Loyalist Commission which contains paramilitaries, at the same time they said they wouldn't talk to terrorists. Unionism has had as much a part in political violence as Republicanism has.

Lux,

It was actually 1997, I do remember when I read it in the Irish Indpendent it just said she was dating a protestant, makes no mention here.

I once read in the Independent that Josie Dwyer, a city centre drug dealer, was beaten to death by ten Provos wielding lump hammers. In actuality he was a six-stone addict who died from a ruptured spleen after being punched by someone in COCAD. In other words, the Independent is full of sh*t at the best of times, and even more so when discussing Republicans.

The same thing happened to Protestants in the Bogside but as usual our history books like to gloss over that fact. Although in fairness it wasn't as common but 12,000 of them left the area around the time the trouble kicked off so they must have had some fears.

There is no point in equating the two and trying to spin 1969 into a fairytale of mad paddies at each others' throats. Nationalists within the north were the subject of economic and social discrimination, living in a state where the cops, courts and army were under Unionist control. 1969 was nothing short of a pogram against Nationalists, which in fact resulted in the biggest forced movement of people since WW2. Even today, according to Anne Cadawallader, Catholics are three times as likely to be attacked outside of their home areas while Protestants are twice as likely to be attacked inside their own areas. It's a statistic from the opening chapter of her book Holy Cross.

#15

RedPlanet wrote: »

Um yeah, except when they threatened to go to war against britian to remain part of britain (Home Rule is Rome Rule).
And not forgetting the history of the Ulster Volunteers (which predates the IRA) and of course all the Loyalist paramilitaries whom are still armed to this very day.

Still not equivalent to republican violence.
The republican tradition stretches back further than loyalist violence (1798).
For every loyalist threat or act, I could name you two acts of republican violence. The 19th century uprisings, 1916, 1919-1921, the sectarian campaign against cork protestants post-independence, and all the border campigns of the 20th century.
The PIRA were much more violent and efficient than loyalists. In fact the difference is almost incomparable. Without trying to get bogged in a headcount, just check the CAIN website to see who were the most efficient killers (by a long way).


But my statement was made somewhat sarcastically in response to the one about bigotry being inherent to loyalism but not to republicanism.

To suggest that only republicans are capable of violence is as foolish as saying that only loyalists are capable of bigotry.

My point went over your head, either you didnt grasp my point or I didnt make myself clear enough. Apologies if that was the case. I hope I have explained myself better now and you can see what I'm saying.

#15

FTA69 wrote: »

Really? The B-Specials, UDR and RUC were all largely Unionist organisations, and all of them were up to their necks in violence. The current leader of mainstream Unionism, Ian Paisley, set up 3 paramilitary groups. Both the DUP and UUP sat on the Loyalist Commission which contains paramilitaries, at the same time they said they wouldn't talk to terrorists. Unionism has had as much a part in political violence as Republicanism has.

That is true and I do not dispute that. But republicans have proved themselves to be much better and efficient killers than loyalists, who at times were inadequate at best and buffoon-like at worst. Any succes they had was due to help from the british military.

See my post above re: violence and bigotry.
My main point was that neither side had a monopoly on either. My original statement was sarcastic! Sorry if it wasn't clear.

FTA69

#15 wrote: »

The 19th century uprisings, 1916, 1919-1921, and all the border campigns of the 20th century.

But the question is whether they were justified campaigns for national liberation while Loyalist violence was simply a reaction fuelled by bigotry.

the sectarian campaign against cork protestants post-independence,

Oh merciful hour, he's off about the "ethnic cleansing" of Cork Protestants now... Odd enough really, when one considers the example of Bandon, the large Protestant farming community there as well as the thriving Grammar School. I don't know what the Tutsis are complaining about...

The PIRA were much more violent and efficient than loyalists. In fact the difference is almost incomparable. Without trying to get bogged in a headcount, just check the CAIN website to see who were the most efficient killers (by a long way).

The majority killed by the IRA were combatants, the vast majority killed by Loyalists were simply innocent Catholics killed because of their religion.

But my statement was made somewhat sarcastically in response to the one about bigotry being inherent to loyalism but not to republicanism.

I am not denying that individual Republicans can be bigoted, I know I've certainly met a few. My point was that Loyalism as an ideology is inherently reactionary and is based on a planter, siege mentality as opposed to anything progressive. In other words it is similar to the attitudes held by many French Algerians and white South Africans.

Hagar

#15 wrote: »

I think this is true, I heard it somewhere else a long time ago.

I would guess it is because Ireland, England and Scotland were all seperate kingdoms (which shared a monarch) prior to the Acts of Union.
So it would be logical if Ireland ever had a monarch that they would pick up where they left off. It would be possible for her to be the monarch without Ireland being in political union with her other kingdom.
In theory anyway!!!

No thanks, we had royalty of our own before any English/British monarchy made their presence felt. If we are going to pick up where we left off I'd rather not have a mixed German/Greek royal family, I'd much rather we picked up by tracing our own deposed monarchy, subject to the approval of the rest of the people of Ireland. No offence.