Awesome & Inclusive: Running in Multilcultural Ireland

ultrapercy

davedanon wrote: »

In Tallaght we have a few black kids (sprinters, of course), and we did have two senior members from the sub-continent (I'm not actually sure if India or Pakistan), but one has now moved to the UK. Running is overwhelmingly a white sport in Ireland, though, it must be said. I don't mean that in a negative way, but obviously it would be nice if the running demographic reflected the national racial mix. What does hearten me, to look at it another way, is the increasing incidence of lads, again most likely from the sub-continent, that you see out having an off-the-cuff game of cricket. These people's kids will one day play for Ireland. I think that's fantastic, just like one or two of our sprinters in Tallaght are making a name for themselves nationally.

When you said sub continent I thought you were going to say Kildare.

walshb

Inclusivity breeds mediocrity!

Chivito550

Sacksian wrote: »

Generally, my observation is that running clubs do reflect the diversity of their local community, particularly at juvenile level. So, clubs that draw from areas which have muslim populations nearby have muslim kids in the club and the same goes for the socio-economic profile (based on what I see).

Most clubs have oversubscribed juvenile sections though and the adult recruitment issue is a question of resources, mainly time, which will depend on volunteers. Most clubs don't have a surplus of volunteering time that can go into adult recruitment - the juvenile section is the future of most clubs.

Problem there is that most juveniles will quit the sport before adulthood. This will inevitably keep happening. So to be honest they aren't really the future of a club, only part of the future. Adult recruitment is hugely important. I was an adult taking up the sport. There are plenty of others who are the same. The disproportionate level of focus on juveniles in this country (you see it at provincial championships where adults are a mere afterthought) gives the impression that adults aren't seen as all that important. Not exactly something that might attract a 20-something in.

ultrapercy

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Tell me Crusaders were founded with the Cambridge definition in mind??

"› [C] a ​long and ​determined ​attempt to ​achieve something that you ​believe in ​strongly:
They have ​long been ​involved in a crusade for ​racial ​equality.
a ​moral crusade against ​drugs"

Correct, this common sense thing will never catch on though. My advice to you is to deny it at every turn and abandon it if possible it can only cause you to be uninclused. (I thought I made up a word there but spellchecker seems to know it allready, smarter than meself he/she is)

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Problem there is that most juveniles will quit the sport before adulthood. This will inevitably keep happening. So to be honest they aren't really the future of a club, only part of the future.

They are (not completely but overwhelmingly) the future of high performance in the club, and (not c but o) the future of track and field in the club, and especially the future of the overlap. How many senior national medal winners took up athletics as seniors? And how many in events other than distance running?

Juvenile members take up most coaching time, though, because they have to. The ratio of coaches per kid, requirements for facilities, and the range of events each kid will do, demands a lot of coaching time. It isn't all "I believe the children are our future", it's just what you have to do if you're going to have a juvenile section

Peterx

IMRA (the mountain runners) aren't even a club and spend inordinate amounts of time and money on juniors, nearly all of whom disappear and never run as seniors.
It is something you have to do, as they are literally the future. Sometimes..

Enduro

PaulieC wrote: »

I would imagine that was the idea, but that doesn't explain the cross emblem(unless you could go down the etymological path and then it's pretty hard to separate), but I doubt very much whether the founding fathers had killing Muslims in mind when they started the club.

Yup the Crusader's cross emblem is a bit of a snag if you're trying to escape the association with the holy war against the Muslims.

I too would doubt that the founding fathers had killing Muslims in mind. Given the age of the club I'd imagine it would have been more along the DeValera "catholic country for a catholic people" type of thinking. Relgion got tied up into all sorts of things in this country where it shouldn't belong ("The Catholic Boy Scouts of Ireland", for example, hospitals, schools etc etc), and athletics certainly wasn't immune to it. Religion can be divisive though, so IMHO it's good to break with those connections (So we now have the more inclusive "Scouting Ireland" for example).

I don't doubt the orginals intentions behind the original naming of the club were good. However I think we're leaving that era behind. In modern Ireland nobody who wasn't Islamophic would be likely to set up any club with the same name or symbolism, with good reason.

Enduro

PaulieC wrote: »

WTAF ? Do you actually think they are non-inclusive because of their name or are you just looking for a rise ?

To be precise I think the name itself (and the Crusader's cross symbol) is non-inclusive. I would assume that the club itself (And every Irish Athletics club I've come accross) is totally inclusive.

Enduro

RayCun wrote: »

not to get too far off-topic, but there were debates in my own club about the club name and political baggage. The reference is obvious if you think about it, but afaik most people don't. (I was in the club a year at least before my "oh yeah!" moment, but I'm slow on the uptake ) 'Crusaders' is a lot more obvious, especially with that badge.

But I don't know if it does put people off. And I'm sure any suggestion to change the club name would be massively divisive, such an enormous break with the past...

For reference, when I was looking to join a club, and your club was probably the geographically closest to my home at the time, I ruled it out because of the name.

Agree totally that name changes can be divisive. But names and symbols can in themselves be divisive. An Irish person should get this fairly easily (What's your reaction to the name "Londonderry").

RayCun

yeah, I can understand it, and there were debates about it

but (apart from the expense!) changing the name of the club would mean cutting ourselves off from all the people who have run for that club name in the past.

I'd never suggest this as a name for a new club (though I'd like something more imaginative than "Location AC" or "Location Harriers AC" ) but I don't think it's a big enough problem that I'd want to change the name.

Enduro

RayCun wrote: »

but (apart from the expense!) changing the name of the club would mean cutting ourselves off from all the people who have run for that club name in the past.

I don't think that's necessarily true though. I doubt the residents of Volgograd feel cut off from their WWII history just because the name of the city changed, for example. AAI itself has gone through multiple name changes (and more) without loosing any historical connections to the past

demfad

Enduro wrote: »

Yup the Crusader's cross emblem is a bit of a snag if you're trying to escape the association with the holy war against the Muslims.

I too would doubt that the founding fathers had killing Muslims in mind. Given the age of the club I'd imagine it would have been more along the DeValera "catholic country for a catholic people" type of thinking. Relgion got tied up into all sorts of things in this country where it shouldn't belong ("The Catholic Boy Scouts of Ireland", for example, hospitals, schools etc etc), and athletics certainly wasn't immune to it. Religion can be divisive though, so IMHO it's good to break with those connections (So we now have the more inclusive "Scouting Ireland" for example).

I don't doubt the orginals intentions behind the original naming of the club were good. However I think we're leaving that era behind. In modern Ireland nobody who wasn't Islamophic would be likely to set up any club with the same name or symbolism, with good reason.

In fairness to Crusaders they seemed to have been a progressive club, the first to establish a women's section in the 40's.


(In fairness to De Valera (and I'm not a fan) it was Lord Craigavon who said "a Protestant Government for a Protestant people" in reference to NI in the 30's. To be fair to Devalera also, most regressive legislation took place in the early Free State Dails, the Constitution is relatively mild. Many people do not realise this)

Any name referencing a group defined by religion and worse is not inclusive though.

average_runner

Enduro wrote: »

Yup the Crusader's cross emblem is a bit of a snag if you're trying to escape the association with the holy war against the Muslims.

I too would doubt that the founding fathers had killing Muslims in mind. Given the age of the club I'd imagine it would have been more along the DeValera "catholic country for a catholic people" type of thinking. Relgion got tied up into all sorts of things in this country where it shouldn't belong ("The Catholic Boy Scouts of Ireland", for example, hospitals, schools etc etc), and athletics certainly wasn't immune to it. Religion can be divisive though, so IMHO it's good to break with those connections (So we now have the more inclusive "Scouting Ireland" for example).

I don't doubt the orginals intentions behind the original naming of the club were good. However I think we're leaving that era behind. In modern Ireland nobody who wasn't Islamophic would be likely to set up any club with the same name or symbolism, with good reason.

So should the names of Kildare and Wicklow change, as they both stand for church of ***** and linked directly to the christian religion.
I am sure they aren't the only ones either.

demfad

average_runner wrote: »

So should the names of Kildare and Wicklow change, as they both stand for church of ***** and linked directly to the christian religion.
I am sure they aren't the only ones either.

I think that is what you call "whataboutery". How is this equivalent?

If it was not possible to change the name 'Crusaders' or if it were easily possible to change a county name there might be some small equivalence. There isn't.

average_runner

demfad wrote: »

I think that is what you call "whataboutery". How is this equivalent?

If it was not possible to change the name 'Crusaders' or if it were easily possible to change a county name there might be some small equivalence. There isn't.

I was just highlighting that if we are going to get all PC about the club name, where does it stop?

demfad

average_runner wrote: »

I was just highlighting that if we are going to get all PC about the club name, where does it stop?

Can you explain why you think these names are equivalent? You haven't made that clear at all.

Kildare is a county name. The name is an anglised version of Cill Dara which means 'Church of the Oak'. Cill Dara was a townland 5th century around where Kildare county town is now. It was named after the significant church that was founded there at that time.

You have heard why 'Crusaders' might be offensive to Muslims. Please tell us why 'Kildare' would be offensive to anyone?

(The tired old 'PC gone mad' argument wont cut it. Please back it up.)

PaulieC

demfad wrote: »

You have heard why 'Crusaders' might be offensive to Muslims. Please tell us why 'Kildare' would be offensive to anyone?

(The tired old 'PC gone mad' argument wont cut it. Please back it up.)

What's really tired is your crusade to find things to be offended by and to demand that others be offended by. Why not leave folks to decide for themselves whether or not they are/should be offended ?

And to take the Kildare argument further down the inane route, church (Kil) might be offensive to non-Christians. There.

walshb

demfad wrote: »

You have heard why 'Crusaders' might be offensive to Muslims. Please tell us why 'Kildare' would be offensive to anyone?

You're on a wind up here. "Might" be offensive......

Enduro

walshb wrote: »

You're on a wind up here. "Might" be offensive......

I think it's a bit more than might. It's equivalent to saying that "Klu Klux Klan A.C." might be offensive, no matter how inclusive and welcoming the club actually is, especially once you add in the highly recognisable emblems.

And I genuinly don't think I'm exaggerating to say that the KKK and the crusades (NOT crusaders A.C.) have a high degree of equivalence.

Enduro

Also, this is not the equivalent to Kildare/Wicklow etc where the orginal meanings have been lost in time. If you pay any attention to middle eastern politics you should realise that "crusader" is a highly loaded term that still carries a huge impact. That's why any western intervention in the region will be accused of being "crusaders" by any local opponents. The term (and the symbol) carries large power and is well understood.

Wild Garlic

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades
The name could be a reference to this crowd. Insulting to all non believers.

Coffee Fulled Runner

Enduro wrote: »

Also, this is not the equivalent to Kildare/Wicklow etc where the orginal meanings have been lost in time. If you pay any attention to middle eastern politics you should realise that "crusader" is a highly loaded term that still carries a huge impact. That's why any western intervention in the region will be accused of being "crusaders" by any local opponents. The term (and the symbol) carries large power and is well understood.

While the KKK still exist and there are people still alive today who suffered under some of their darkest days, it's what 500 years since the crusaders? Should Barbarians rugby club change their name because Barbarians killed Christians etc. And a Christian might be offended. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill

demfad

PaulieC wrote: »

What's really tired is your crusade to find things to be offended by and to demand that others be offended by. Why not leave folks to decide for themselves whether or not they are/should be offended ?
And to take the Kildare argument further down the inane route, church (Kil) might be offensive to non-Christians. There.

So basically: Inclusivity in the sport of running should not be relevant to the running community..... rather it is only relevant for those who are actually excluded (whether they know it or not)?

BTW: Enduro seems to have been affected (put off joining) by the naming of two clubs. If you don't agree with Enduro's views about the name 'Crusaders AC' (I do) then try and compose a reasonable response. If that is too much to ask then please refrain from trying to get personal with me.

Coffee Fulled Runner

I don't think PaulieC is trying to get personal demfad it's your interpretation of this post thats incorrect. The same way you interpreted my post incorrectly too.

glacial_pace71

There are over 300 athletics clubs in Ireland. The names of about one third of them could cause offence on the basis of religion (e.g. Kil-this/that) or nationality (e.g. named after local prominent republicans etc).

Starting alphabetically, take Co Carlow: St Laurence O'Toole could potentially be offensive to Muslims, or to certain Reformed Christian Faiths who regard saints as idolatrous. Bagenalstown could be offensive on the basis that some (including the former town council, many local schools) regard the placename as 'Munie Bheag', in the same way that Cobh, Dún Laoghaire, Portlaoise etc don't have to bear a name that relates to an English royal or lord.

On the wearing of a hijab? If they can see safely then why not? The major problem arises in Middle Eastern countries, where the wearing of it places pressure on others to do so, e.g. this is why the Turkish authorities banned it in the workplace - it allowed many women the freedom to choose to remain uncovered once they were coming from/going to work, without being denounced for apostasy etc. Take an extreme example such as Afghanistan. (Ok 'Great Game' between Russian and British Empires, later USSR and various Western Powers, so not a typical example). But women did wear Western attire in the immediate post-imperial years, e.g. see a pic of students in Kabul bareheaded. For better or worse the Cold War and civil wars of the 1970s, 80s, 90s saw this level of tolerance disappear. Quite a lot of Saudi oil money has funded some ultra-conservative interpretations of Islam in the past three decades, so expect to see this effect in some of the more tolerant Sufi strands of Islam being undermined as more Salafist ideology is exported via Gulf State funded madrasas.

We should certainly welcome anyone regardless of anything that anyone wishes to wear, but don't expect a Muslim girl to have to wear a hijab. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/

Gavlor

There have been quite a few p!ss poor threads over the years on boards but this one takes the biscuit.

What a load of sh!t.

PaulieC

Enduro, I am genuinely interested in what it is in the names of those two clubs that is so offensive to you.

jackofalltrades

Enduro wrote: »

I think it's a bit more than might. It's equivalent to saying that "Klu Klux Klan A.C." might be offensive, no matter how inclusive and welcoming the club actually is, especially once you add in the highly recognisable emblems.

Has any muslim runner actual said that they didn't or wouldn't join the club due to it's name?

And I genuinly don't think I'm exaggerating to say that the KKK and the crusades (NOT crusaders A.C.) have a high degree of equivalence.

Your comparing a racist, pro-slavery organisation to a military campaign in the middle ages.

DubOnHoliday

Gavlor wrote: »

There have been quite a few p!ss poor threads over the years on boards but this one takes the biscuit.

What a load of sh!t.

Couldn't agree more and its the same people (person) starting these threads all the time.

Chivito550

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

Couldn't agree more and its the same people (person) starting these threads all the time.

Who has done his classic hit and run.