Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
End Irish anthem at GAA matches, demands DUP minister
Comments
-
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.
Yes, I think that Windsors would be as embarrassing here as they are in the UK. "Queen" Mary's doing a good enough job anyway, with minimal hangers-on.0 -
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.
:rolleyes: Why would I take offence? I wasn't advocating the re-instatement of the monarchy.
Our own deposed monarch? Our monarchs submitted to the new monarchs, the Irish line ended there.0 -
But the question is whether they were justified campaigns for national liberation while Loyalist violence was simply a reaction fuelled by bigotry.
That is an entirely different debate my friend!
Loyalists of the HR crisis were ultimately proved right that an Irish state would be overly influenced by catholicism. Look at how long it took to shake off the shackles of the RC church. Their fears were justified.
Howver, I do not think they were justified in arming themselves. It was highly undemocratic but I am not going to take a moral high ground about it. Republicans have been known to act undemocratically too.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...
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Nowhere did I mention ethnic cleansing. Cheers for reading something that wasn't there.
I said sectarian campaign.
Anyone who looks at the evidence honestly can only come to one conclusion:
-There was a small scale sectarian campaign but certainly no ethnic cleansing.
Do you think Protestants are a different ethnicity to the rest of us?The majority killed by the IRA were combatants, the vast majority killed by Loyalists were simply innocent Catholics killed because of their religion.
Right, combatants.
I must have imagined all those bombings of shopping centres and pubs. Full of soldiers so they were. How about forcing an innocent man to drive a truck into an army barracks and forcing him to become a suicide bomber? With the threat of his family's execution if he did not drive the truck into the barracks?
Check the figures again. The provos killed more catholics than loyalists. Read it on cain, an independent resource site.
So much for defending their community.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.
Well now that I could find some common ground with. Reactionary, yes. Very much a case of what we have we hold. But its quite a different thing to say its bigotted.0 -
That is an entirely different debate my friend!
Indeed it is.Loyalists of the HR crisis were ultimately proved right that an Irish state would be overly influenced by catholicism.
But religion was simply one aspect of the reasons behind their rejection of Home Rule, they were also eager to preserve their "civil liberties" as well as their religious ones, eg their position of relative privilige in Ireland. It is very interesting how up until 1920 Unionists had no problem describing themselves as Irish or having a leader from Dublin, but after that suddenly abandoned that indentity and now swear blind they are completely British.
Basically I'd say Loyalists always supported the political framework which guaranteed their hegemony in Ireland, or parts of it. That framework is the union with Britain, but as we saw with the original UVF, they were prepared to go against in order to secure their position in Ireland. Their siege mentality has many likenesses around the world.Nowhere did I mention ethnic cleansing. Cheers for reading something that wasn't there.
I said sectarian campaign.
The phrase "ethnic cleansing" is frequently used by some Unionists and the likes of Eoghan Harris (loves to bullsh*t about the West Cork Prods), that is why I brought that up. I can see in my post how I may have insinuated you labelled it "ethnic cleansing". That wasn't my intention.-There was a small scale sectarian campaign
There were a few incidents, and in actuality it was Tom Barry of the IRA who placed guards on the farms of many Protestants in West Cork to prevent further occurences; it wasn't as if the incidents that occurred were part of a sectarian strategy by organised Republicans.Do you think Protestants are a different ethnicity to the rest of us?
I'm of a Protestant background so no. However some of the DUP obviously do considering the amount of times they bandy the term about the place.Right, combatants.
Yes combatants. Out of about 1500 people killed by the IRA about 800 were soldiers or police. I never stated that the IRA never killed any civilians, or that it didn't commit any acts which were wrong, simply the fact that the majority of those they killed were combatants. Contrast this to the 85% plus of Loyalist victims who were civilians killed because of their religion. Look it up on CAIN.Reactionary, yes. Very much a case of what we have we hold. But its quite a different thing to say its bigotted.
But it manifests itself in bigotry, when you have one section of the population viewing itself as slightly superior and viewing everyone else as a horde waiting to push you into the sea then bigotry usually crops up ie white South Africa.0 -
its good that more protestants from the unionist background are coming to the games. pooth is the minister for sport so its right that he attends games.
this anthem thing is up to the ulster gaa branch, which considering the deaths of innocent civillians outside the gaas during the trouble and crossmaglen and some members attitude towards the opening of croker to rugby and soccer i doubt it will happen.
one thing though, the unionists cant have it their bread buttered on both sides. they will have to guarantee that the orange orders NEVER AGAIN march down roads/estates of dominate republican/nationalists areas . its a bit rich from some members of the church of ireland to whinge about the proposals for a charter for fundamental human rights in northern ireland (which was agreed by good friday agreement) if unionsts wish for anthems to be turned down unionist should also be more supportive of the irish language (ok, i see kind of see the point of not wishing to publish legisaltion etc in irish if demand is not there because the money is needed in social areas etc - but still its is our culture) fair game?
i am not from up that way but i know from experience the amount of work parishes etc put into the gaa clubs etc and have to put up with the snides remarks of the pasts. so its easy for me to say yes get ride of it if i thought it should stop, i dont
the gaa always wished to expand worldwide, here is the chance to open up to the unionists community. maybe this is a stepping stone to getting them to think a united ireland is the real solution? if this day ever come, the anthem would have to change, an anthem for a new era.
some might say that would not happen etc but its my humble opinion and i do aspire for a united ireland
sorry for the rant, maybe anthems should be done away with in sporting events bar finals0 -
Advertisement
-
But religion was simply one aspect of the reasons behind their rejection of Home Rule, they were also eager to preserve their "civil liberties" as well as their religious ones, eg their position of relative privilige in Ireland. It is very interesting how up until 1920 Unionists had no problem describing themselves as Irish or having a leader from Dublin, but after that suddenly abandoned that indentity and now swear blind they are completely British.
That did not happen post-partition. That happened during the troubles.
Many older unionists still would refer to themselves as Irish or Northern Irish. Pre-Troubles, most unionists considered themselves Irish and British.
The PIRA campaign can be thanked for pushing younger generations of unionists away from the Irish identity.Basically I'd say Loyalists always supported the political framework which guaranteed their hegemony in Ireland, or parts of it. That framework is the union with Britain, but as we saw with the original UVF, they were prepared to go against in order to secure their position in Ireland. Their siege mentality has many likenesses around the world.
I would agree there is some truth in this statement. I don't believe it is as significant as you think.
I would place more emphasis on the religious dimension and the civil liberties issue as explanations for their oppostion to HR. (I think those of us not from the orange tradition often overlook the importance of religion to them. While it is not a consideration for republicans, it definitely is for loyalists).
But undoubtedly there was an element who wanted to keep their 'elite' position. I think we differ on how central that was to their stance on HR.The phrase "ethnic cleansing" is frequently used by some Unionists and the likes of Eoghan Harris (loves to bullsh*t about the West Cork Prods), that is why I brought that up. I can see in my post how I may have insinuated you labelled it "ethnic cleansing". That wasn't my intention.
Ok fair enough, sorry for the sarcasm earlier so. I resent any implications that protestants are a different ethnicity, they are as Irish as anyone else!There were a few incidents, and in actuality it was Tom Barry of the IRA who placed guards on the farms of many Protestants in West Cork to prevent further occurences; it wasn't as if the incidents that occurred were part of a sectarian strategy by organised Republicans.
It wasn't an overall strategy perhaps, but undoubtedly there were local sectarian cliques who hated Prods.
I dont mean to single out republicans alone for this, similar stuff was happening to catholics in Belfast. But I do think its important that both sides can acknowledge what was happened (without point-scoring).
.Yes combatants. Out of about 1500 people killed by the IRA about 800 were soldiers or police
So 700 civilians, 800 combatants. Roughly.
Of those 800 combatants, about 250 were RUC men, many of whom were shot when they were at home with their families and unarmed.
I would consider them civilian killings, I guess the IRA considers them combatants.I never stated that the IRA never killed any civilians, or that it didn't commit any acts which were wrong, simply the fact that the majority of those they killed were combatants. Contrast this to the 85% plus of Loyalist victims who were civilians killed because of their religion. Look it up on CAIN.
Again, I think we differ on what constitutes a civilian.
I would fundamentally disagree with you on many issues but I can appreciate that you are knowledgeable and you do not resort to cliches or typical 'brits out' attitude that others have displayed on this and other threads.
I think its important for republicans like yourself not to allow your more intolerant brethren to shout over you. It gives other republicans a bad image and they are tainted by association with the prod and brit haters. IMHO anyway.0 -
Many older unionists still would refer to themselves as Irish or Northern Irish. Pre-Troubles, most unionists considered themselves Irish and British.
True, but a sort of Irish which often viewed the majority tradition as a lower rung on the ladder.The PIRA campaign can be thanked for pushing younger generations of unionists away from the Irish identity.
It was Loyalism and Loyalism's discrimination and pogroms which provided the material basis for the IRA campaign.I think those of us not from the orange tradition often overlook the importance of religion to them. While it is not a consideration for republicans, it definitely is for loyalists
Very true, more so amongst the Unionists of Antrim and North Down, the DUP's bibile belt.I resent any implications that protestants are a different ethnicity, they are as Irish as anyone else!
I agree. I wouldn't be much of a Republican if I didn't!It wasn't an overall strategy perhaps, but undoubtedly there were local sectarian cliques who hated Prods.
I dont mean to single out republicans alone for this, similar stuff was happening to catholics in Belfast. But I do think its important that both sides can acknowledge what was happened (without point-scoring).
True, but it is also important to acknowledge that what was being done to Belfast Catholics was far more severe.Of those 800 combatants, about 250 were RUC men, many of whom were shot when they were at home with their families and unarmed.
I would consider them civilian killings, I guess the IRA considers them combatants
Right, you make two points here; one, that the RUC should not be considered combatants and two, the fact they were killed off-duty makes them civilians.
The RUC played a key protagonistic role in the conflict, they were in effect an armed wing of the northern state and were later pushed into a central role in combatting the IRA (Ulsterisation policy). They were armed, at all times, and were as much a part of the British apparatus as the British Army were. The police have always fulfilled this role, and as such Republicans have always targetted them, ever since they targetted the RIC as a native-recruited British force.
Secondly, you seem to balk at the notion of targetting policemen in their homes. The fact remains that the conflict was a guerilla war, a warfare which necessitates striking when the enemy is unawares or off guard before fleeing. Personally I believe that an RUC man doesn't cease to be a combatant or a cop when he goes home (armed by the way) at the end of the day. If you chose to join the RUC, the IRA or whomever then you should have been fully prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. A cop getting shot on uniform in the street is pretty much the same as him getting shot in his house, I see little moral distinction between the two.
[*]Again, I think we differ on what constitutes a civilian.
[*]85% odd of Loyalist casualties were civilians, there is no ambiguity about that. When you abduct people in taxis and slit their throats or riddle betting shops with bullets the people on the recieving end are usually civilians.
[*]I think its important for republicans like yourself not to allow your more intolerant brethren to shout over you. It gives other republicans a bad image and they are tainted by association with the prod and brit haters. IMHO anyway.
[*]Generally I believe those involved in organised Republicanism are intelligent and reasoned individuals. I wouldn't tar Republican activists because of a few clowns in Celtic jerseys declaring themselves Republicans.0 -
Can we get away from defining someone's nationality as Catholic or Protestant ?? It perpetrates the myth, and THE BIG LIE that the conflict is solely about something like a religious battle in 1690 that the mad, irrational, ignornant backward Orish are fightin', well, because that's the mad, irrational, ignornant backward Orish for you. It's also an insult to Protetstant'swho beleive they are nationalists. As for Catholic unionists, well there so small in numbers it's barely worth considering, though of the Catholics who are unionists most of them probably write for Sir Tony O'Reilly's indepenedent papers :rolleyes:.
BTW, I'm not a Catholic - serious.0 -
That did not happen post-partition. That happened during the troubles.
Many older unionists still would refer to themselves as Irish or Northern Irish. Pre-Troubles, most unionists considered themselves Irish and British.
The PIRA campaign can be thanked for pushing younger generations of unionists away from the Irish identity..
Your living in dream land Pal, you might as well say most Isreali's considered themselves Palestinian and Isreali, most Croats considered themselves Serbian and Croat etc. Troubles or no troubles, they were undoutably among the most secterian and triumphalist/offensive rabble in world. The KKK in Alabahma would be the only fair comparision.
" So 700 civilians, 800 combatants. Roughly. Of those 800 combatants, about 250 were RUC men, many of whom were shot when they were at home with their families and unarmed. " " From what I remember a certain 'terrorist' called Micheal Collins was found of organising his men to shoot the RIC/ DMP shot - often at " home with their families and unarmed. " Likewise, the 'goodie IRA' (i.e. 1916 to 1921 ) around the country, the first british casuality in Cork was an DMP who on a weeks holidays came down from Dublin to help his brother save the hay and was shot unarmed in the back from behind a wall. Ah yes, the 'goodie IRA', unlike the baddie Provos. And ofcourse, the RUC wouldn't engage in comabt with their Heckler Koch's if they surprised a Provo :rolleyes:, it's completely illogical to call the RUC combatants isn't it !!!!
If you check the link, you'll see the first killings in the troubles were carried out by that fine police body, the RUC http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html0 -
any chance of getting back to the topic?
whilst your views are worth discussing, this is the kind of thing that has frightened the unionist away from organisations like the gaa. how many have actually being to north of ireland lately?
if people, like ian paisley and martin mcguinness have the balls and strenght to put their differences aside and work for a united six counties administration, that for the FIRST time is making efforts to reconcille, unsure human rights for ALL members of the six counties, and improve the economic well being of their communities and distrubute the wealth to all the community in a fair manner, then surely its time to put the past to one side. yes its important that the past is investigated eg bloody sunday tribunal (thats what they are there for, not the gaa), but it took along time for the current situation to get to where it is today, whats the point in taking three steps back. we as an island need to progress. the gaa under mccabe and kelly were able to swollow its pride and revoke the rules on member's of the ruc from particapting in the games ( ric and ruc - one of the organistations biggest enemies of the past) and the temporary opening of croker
for all who have actually lived or visited (for a substantial period of time) in the six counties, they will know that at this time their are more important things to be worried about that the ceremony of playing national anthems
one person made an excellent point of making an anthem for northern ireland being more inclusive to the nationalist/catholic/rerpublic side (should they choose to do so, at least they would have an option)
the g.a.a. and the gaelic league were initially established in the late 1800's (as ye all know) their aim was to promote all things irish, (in todays society the gaa's rules on the ban on certain garrison games would be out of hand, but then, society's attitude was different then). the gaelic league, initially was one of few organistations that brought people of all creeds, political opinion, professions and class together with the united love of the irish language. it was until nationalism was revived after the death of parnell that actions were taken to alienate the protestant unionist. dp moran's rantings about only the irish catholic was truely irish etc.(of course the integration of the irb into the league and gaa cemented the nationalist/republican ethos)
my point is, as far as sports are concerned, why can't people of all walks of life come to play a Sport they like and are proud of its distinctions from the typical garrison games, without certain ethos being forced upon them? (forced upon is probably a strong word)
maybe then, when we have more co-operation and intergration, we as irish people might find it easier to be identify what it means to be irish (an issue some people are unable to answer when they respond to thread about immigration)0 -
Advertisement
-
The DUP minister was extremely unhelpful in his remarks. He has to go to some of these events obviously because his job as sports minister requires it. To tell the people both not to be playing the Irish anthem, and to rename clubs that have been named after Irish rebels, smacks of sectarianism. This Poots guy is a joke.
The anthem is part of the culture of GAA, and I see no reason to change it. His assertion that Unionists will take to the game more if it was removed is a complete red herring. The reality is most Unionists would'nt have the interest anyway. He is just trying to see what concessions he can persuade them into. Is it worth abandoning the history, and diluting the culture of the games in the outside chance it will attract a few Unionists? I'd say absolutely not!0 -
Erin Go Brath wrote: »The DUP minister was extremely unhelpful in his remarks. He has to go to some of these events obviously because his job as sports minister requires it. To tell the people both not to be playing the Irish anthem, and to rename clubs that have been named after Irish rebels, smacks of sectarianism. This Poots guy is a joke.
The anthem is part of the culture of GAA, and I see no reason to change it. His assertion that Unionists will take to the game more if it was removed is a complete red herring. The reality is most Unionists would'nt have the interest anyway. He is just trying to see what concessions he can persuade them into. Is it worth abandoning the history, and diluting the culture of the games in the outside chance it will attract a few Unionists? I'd say absolutely not!
yes i agree with you out pooth and his remarks, as a gaa man i went balistic myself when i heard the news (even in paisley fashion shouted never never never) for all the reasons everyone else have stated, they got that then they would want no games to be played on a sunday. but then i cooled down and thought about it.
he is a member of the dup - as you well know, you know what to expect from them -this is the same group who find the irish language as "suspicous". in the worlds of ian paisley jnr they "should free themselves" from such suspicion.
remember how delighted his colleague jeffrey donaldson was when "two british teams" were in the all ireland final ie armagh v tyrone (he should have known better, particularily with the good friday agreement saying otherwise)
i am not disagreeing with your view, i know you are being realistic - but for arguments sake and on a gaa/non political point, it was acknowledge that the gaa is the most popular sporting in northern ireland. surely some unionists have played the game at some point. remember that chap from fermanagh who made headlines last year about quiting the gaa due to abuse he received (his dad and uncle were members of the udr in the troubles) do you know any unionists? how do you know that they would not take to the game if given the oppurtunity?
they of course would have to respect our traditions and issues we have with them, eg our language, the orange order and their parades etc
two other core ideas of the gaa in the past was the prevention of members playing or attending "garrison games", ban on british military and ruc/ric from games, and complete prohibition of considering opening games to "garrison sports" all done to ensure the survival of the games - and you know what happened there - all because of improvments with other communities
second thing, if and when this country becomes a united ireland, do you really believe that amhran na bhfinn will be retained as an anthem? this song being strongly incorporated into republican ethos,would amhran na bhfinn then be sang at gaa games? the gaa are not meant to be exclusive. is it worth excluding all members of the island from a simple sport? sport is not meant to do that.
then again, this is all easy for me to say, i am not from the six counties, i was lucky that i did not get hassled by other communities and the police when going to training or matches.
what is the view of gaa members from the north?0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »remember that chap from fermanagh who made headlines last year about quiting the gaa due to abuse he received (his dad and uncle were members of the udr in the troubles) do you know any unionists? how do you know that they would not take to the game if given the oppurtunity?
That guy decided to play GAA i'm assuming because he enjoyed the games. Didn't seem to bother him that there were tricolours at matches, or the Irish anthem may sometimes have been played at them, the Club may be named after an Irish Patriot etc etc. Theres nothing stopping any Unionist from picking up a hurley, the same as theres nothing stopping any Nationalist up there from throwing around a rugby ball. However instances of these happening are the exception rather than the rule unfortunately, largely down to the 2 tribes nature of life in general in the North.
I suspect Amhran may well be replaced when Unification occurs as a sop to Unionists. A new anthem will be created, just like there was for the Rugby. I hope its a better tune though.walrusgumble wrote: »second thing, if and when this country becomes a united ireland, do you really believe that amhran na bhfinn will be retained as an anthem? this song being strongly incorporated into republican ethos,would amhran na bhfinn then be sang at gaa games? the gaa are not meant to be exclusive. is it worth excluding all members of the island from a simple sport? sport is not meant to do that.
This new Anthem will then i'm assuming be played at GAA matches, where appropriate. (We must remember that the anthem is only played at a very small number of GAA games) I still don't think the uptake in GAA participation from the Unionist community will increase dramtically either with Unification or with a new anthem, but who knows?
For the moment i see no reason for the GAA to abandon its roots in Gaelic Irishness for a watered down sense of identity!0 -
Erin Go Brath wrote: »For the moment i see no reason for the GAA to abandon its roots in Gaelic Irishness for a watered down sense of identity!
I understand the GAA and holding onto Irish/Gaelic culture, I think that is to be applauded. I do think it, as an organisation needs to move with the times a bit more. It is firstly a sporting organisation and sport should be inclusive and unite communities, if dropping the National Anthem helps unite a community then I think it should be done.
It is extending the olive brach, if the unionists refuse to take it then that's their problem.0 -
You can extend the olive branch, but some people won't be happy until the whole tree is chopped down and the whole lot burnt on the Twelfth.
I've often wonder which is better an aspiratation for a united Ireland or a negative "never, no surrender" attitude. Which would find compromise the easiest?0 -
You can extend the olive branch, but some people won't be happy until the whole tree is chopped down and the whole lot burnt on the Twelfth.
I've often wonder which is better an aspiratation for a united Ireland or a negative "never, no surrender" attitude. Which would find compromise the easiest?
if the old heads of dup got their way, all games, regardless of code, would be banned on sunday. bloody gormless so and so's the lot of them0 -
Walrusgumble, good post, you make a lot of valid points.walrusgumble wrote: »remember how delighted his colleague jeffrey donaldson was when "two british teams" were in the all ireland final ie armagh v tyrone (he should have known better, particularily with the good friday agreement saying otherwise)
I don't remember hearing him say that but if he did it was a very childish thing to come out with, (but then again it is Jeffrey Donaldson after all!).walrusgumble wrote: »surely some unionists have played the game at some point.
Of course they have, even King Rat, Billy Wright played gaelic football as a youngster.walrusgumble wrote: »two other core ideas of the gaa in the past was the prevention of members playing or attending "garrison games", ban on british military and ruc/ric from games, and complete prohibition of considering opening games to "garrison sports" all done to ensure the survival of the games - and you know what happened there - all because of improvments with other communities
The RUC even have their own football and hurling teams now. A positive step in my opinion.
We have to realise its just a sport, everyone should be encouraged to play it, religion and politics should not come into it. The GAA should be more proactive in encouraging people that traditionally would not play it to join a club.
It is easy for us to say this of course as there is still a lot of mistrust. For example as recent as the weekend before last there was an arson attack on a GAA club building in Armagh.
I think Pooth by at least attending the game last week was also a good thing. I don't know if him not arriving until after the anthem was a stunt or not but that should not grab the headlines, the fact that a member of the DUP attened a GAA match in the first place should be the main headline.0 -
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.
In the name of jaysus there was never 12,000 protestants living in the bogside for starters . probaly not even 12 . I believe your possibly referring to the cityside bank of derry and the protestant exodus from the area during the last phase of conflict . These people were neither burnt out nor intimidated out .
The fact is their comfortable and affluent political leadrship upped sticks from the cityside as soon as conflict broke out , and of course as property vlaues plummeted , and sought residence elsewhere in more stable , affluent and comfortable surroundings accross the river where there was very little conflict . Left absolutely leaderless their flock simply followed the leaders . If 12,000 protestants were ethnically cleansed from any area of the north somebody would have noticed it and perhaps remarked upon it . Particlarly the unionist owned and controlled media .0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »yes i agree with you out pooth and his remarks, as a gaa man i went balistic myself when i heard the news (even in paisley fashion shouted never never never) for all the reasons everyone else have stated, they got that then they would want no games to be played on a sunday. but then i cooled down and thought about it.
he is a member of the dup - as you well know, you know what to expect from them -this is the same group who find the irish language as "suspicous". in the worlds of ian paisley jnr they "should free themselves" from such suspicion.
remember how delighted his colleague jeffrey donaldson was when "two british teams" were in the all ireland final ie armagh v tyrone (he should have known better, particularily with the good friday agreement saying otherwise)
i am not disagreeing with your view, i know you are being realistic - but for arguments sake and on a gaa/non political point, it was acknowledge that the gaa is the most popular sporting in northern ireland. surely some unionists have played the game at some point. remember that chap from fermanagh who made headlines last year about quiting the gaa due to abuse he received (his dad and uncle were members of the udr in the troubles) do you know any unionists? how do you know that they would not take to the game if given the oppurtunity?
they of course would have to respect our traditions and issues we have with them, eg our language, the orange order and their parades etc
two other core ideas of the gaa in the past was the prevention of members playing or attending "garrison games", ban on british military and ruc/ric from games, and complete prohibition of considering opening games to "garrison sports" all done to ensure the survival of the games - and you know what happened there - all because of improvments with other communities
second thing, if and when this country becomes a united ireland, do you really believe that amhran na bhfinn will be retained as an anthem? this song being strongly incorporated into republican ethos,would amhran na bhfinn then be sang at gaa games? the gaa are not meant to be exclusive. is it worth excluding all members of the island from a simple sport? sport is not meant to do that.
then again, this is all easy for me to say, i am not from the six counties, i was lucky that i did not get hassled by other communities and the police when going to training or matches.
what is the view of gaa members from the north?
you seem to be of the opinion a united ireland is somehow inevitable , despite both governemnts being totally staisifed that the constitutional issue is "settled" . Their words ,particularly berties , not mine .
I also dont see why your from the 26 counties as a valid reason to believe a national anthem which isnt to unionists liking is excluding them from the GAA . As opposed to an upbringing of their own which dictates the maintenance of partition requires an end to all examples of an ethos opposed to partition .
In such a context the GAA becomes political . It was set up as a political ( albeit not party political ) organisation in that the issues it addressed were by their very nature political . An Irish national ethos as opposed to a British ethos . Thats the core issue of the GAA . That is why it has been so resolutely defended and participated in against attempts to crush it . Very simply Irish people have been beaten , harrased , threatened and many of them murdered by British forces in and out of uniform for simply attending the games . Anyone wishing to sterlise this aspect of the GAA is simply ripping the balls from the GAA itself , the very reason for its existence in the first place .
Ireland is still an occupied country as regards the north east . In such a context the GAAs detractors are demanding submission to their own political agenda . Theyve had a great deal of success thus far in persuing this agenda on the grounds it promotes peace when in reality the basis is its all about securing and cementing an acceptance of the partition of Ireland . Removing all contradictions which exist in Irish society which reflect badly upon the acceptance of partition . Its a slavish mindset which automatically assumes its the Irish who are at fault for the ills of irish society , sectarianism being one , as opposed to the political system which bred it and sustained it for centuries . That now seems to be the prdominant mindset within the GAA . Poots ungracious snub to them is one from a man who knows he can walk all over the GAA in the knowlege that the southern based GAA will asume its not because hes an arrogant little bigot but that its all their fault really and will just kow tow to him in order to gain his acceptance . Its his behaviour which is unacceptable . Im not giving up my national ethos for Edwin bloody Poots and the DUP . But hes confident enough to know the southern GAA will probably make that decision for me .0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Your living in dream land Pal, you might as well say most Isreali's considered themselves Palestinian and Isreali, most Croats considered themselves Serbian and Croat etc. Troubles or no troubles, they were undoutably among the most secterian and triumphalist/offensive rabble in world. The KKK in Alabahma would be the only fair comparision.
Why not just say that northern Ireland Irish nationalists were the greatest victims of all time? You seem to be trying to engage in a competition of 'who are the most oppressed people?'
Northern nationalists suffered dreadfully under stormont rule. That is indisputable.
You seem to think however, that it somehow justified thirty years of indiscriminate murder. :rolleyes:
That makes you as bad or worse than your ''oppressors''.
And you really think unionists didnt consider themselves Irish prior to the troubles?
How many unionists do you know? I know many who would call themselves British only but they would admit that their grandparents would have called themselves Irish.
Just because it doesn't fit with your narrow version of Irishness does not make it less true." So 700 civilians, 800 combatants. Roughly. Of those 800 combatants, about 250 were RUC men, many of whom were shot when they were at home with their families and unarmed. " " From what I remember a certain 'terrorist' called Micheal Collins was found of organising his men to shoot the RIC/ DMP shot - often at " home with their families and unarmed. " Likewise, the 'goodie IRA' (i.e. 1916 to 1921 ) around the country, the first british casuality in Cork was an DMP who on a weeks holidays came down from Dublin to help his brother save the hay and was shot unarmed in the back from behind a wall. Ah yes, the 'goodie IRA', unlike the baddie Provos. And ofcourse, the RUC wouldn't engage in comabt with their Heckler Koch's if they surprised a Provo :rolleyes:, it's completely illogical to call the RUC combatants isn't it !!!!
Terrorist is an unhelpful and emotive label that I did not use. I do not see the point of labelling any provo a terrorist. It is merely a derogatory label.
It doesn't matter to me who shoots unarmed policemen, it is wrong no matter who does it, whether its Michael Collins, Vinnie Byrne, or Joe Bloggs from west Belfast.
For the record, I do not see it as the goodie and baddie IRA:rolleyes:
You are making presumptions. Nowhere did I say that I supported the actions of the 1916-1921 IRA.
I'd appreciate it if you did not try that patronising crap with me. I have read widely on the period you have mentioned and I do not need to be patronised.
An RUC man lying in bed at home unarmed is not a combatant. Neither is a Provo who is at home unarmed.If you check the link, you'll see the first killings in the troubles were carried out by that fine police body, the RUC http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html
Oh, they killed first did they?
Silly me, the PIRA campaign was completely justified so.
30 years of bombings and murder was fine.:rolleyes:
There were two elements to the PIRA campaign-
-Defending the catholic community
-A united Ireland
If you want to pretend that the whole campaign was about defending nationalists, fine.
The evidence says otherwise.
The fact is that the dominant reason for the campaign was to establish a united Ireland. That is not to say that many good men with good intentions didnt join the PIRA. Because they did.
But if it was ALL about guaranteeing nationalist safety, the campaign would have been over years before the ceasefire was called.
Nationalists in NI had legitimate grievances. I am not a unionist and I am not trying to take any sides in the conflict. Both sides have legitimate arguments.
What I detest is loyalists or republicans trying to retrospectively justify unacceptable actions.
Neither side has a monopoly on suffering. Neither side is fully right. Both sides need to start taking responsibility for wrongdoings.
SF has spoken of a reconciliation forum, which might be a good idea.
Anyway, I have dragged this thread far enough off-topic now.
Thats my 2cents on the matter. Mods I wont make any more off-topic posts:)0 -
kreuzberger wrote: »??????
was there a fecking werewolf or someething running about the place I never heard about ?
Yeah, it was the subject of little-known sequel "American Werewolf in Crossmaglen".0 -
kreuzberger wrote: »you seem to be of the opinion a united ireland is somehow inevitable , despite both governemnts being totally staisifed that the constitutional issue is "settled" . Their words ,particularly berties , not mine .
I also dont see why your from the 26 counties as a valid reason to believe a national anthem which isnt to unionists liking is excluding them from the GAA . As opposed to an upbringing of their own which dictates the maintenance of partition requires an end to all examples of an ethos opposed to partition .
In such a context the GAA becomes political . It was set up as a political ( albeit not party political ) organisation in that the issues it addressed were by their very nature political . An Irish national ethos as opposed to a British ethos . Thats the core issue of the GAA . That is why it has been so resolutely defended and participated in against attempts to crush it . Very simply Irish people have been beaten , harrased , threatened and many of them murdered by British forces in and out of uniform for simply attending the games . Anyone wishing to sterlise this aspect of the GAA is simply ripping the balls from the GAA itself , the very reason for its existence in the first place .
Ireland is still an occupied country as regards the north east . In such a context the GAAs detractors are demanding submission to their own political agenda . Theyve had a great deal of success thus far in persuing this agenda on the grounds it promotes peace when in reality the basis is its all about securing and cementing an acceptance of the partition of Ireland . Removing all contradictions which exist in Irish society which reflect badly upon the acceptance of partition . Its a slavish mindset which automatically assumes its the Irish who are at fault for the ills of irish society , sectarianism being one , as opposed to the political system which bred it and sustained it for centuries . That now seems to be the prdominant mindset within the GAA . Poots ungracious snub to them is one from a man who knows he can walk all over the GAA in the knowlege that the southern based GAA will asume its not because hes an arrogant little bigot but that its all their fault really and will just kow tow to him in order to gain his acceptance . Its his behaviour which is unacceptable . Im not giving up my national ethos for Edwin bloody Poots and the DUP . But hes confident enough to know the southern GAA will probably make that decision for me .
well its a good thing thing that it will or at least should be left to the ulster gaa council to even as much consider a change. the members will raise their voice, which i would be very doubtful they could accept such change.(and rightly so in light of the past) you do make some great points there and thanks.
i am a gaa person my self, and i do understand the traditional ethos and reason for its existence. i am glad someone from that area has spoken as its those people instead of people like me from down the country who know whats REALLY going on up there day in day out. (i have some past experience so i am not a complete novice or naive) also more refreshing than all the history buff and stence of revision that is on going in irish society. my points were just to get people to explore the options available i have already expressed my attitude when i heard about poots, you have cracked a few issues on the head.
as for united ireland. no it is not inevitable yet, but i dont believe any nationalist should not stop aspiring to an united ireland or attempting to get the unionist see things our way without bending over to them ( look at the economy- brown is not keen on allowing the north 12.5.% corporation tax they so badly want as it is not applied in the rest of britain). i think for now, i just would like to see both communities getting together and arguing over boring isses like houses, roads, tax etc in a fair and equitable manner for all the people in the six counties.
ok this still accepts partition, but as michael collins said "this is a stepping stone", here it took over 30 years to get. i do believe that the ira were effective in that they got britain's attention, and some how got the political wings to the table. after all, despite political isolation imposed by its enemies in both the six counties, the free state and britain, sinn fein (i am not saying they are associated with ira) never went away and are now a dominant party and the parties down here should treat both sinn fein and sdlp equally with respect.0 -
kreuzberger wrote:
the GAA bans on foreign games extended only to GAA players . They didnt disrupt other sports and interfere with the activity of non members .
Only extended to GAA members, you mean. Poor old Douglas Hyde was hardly an active playing member when he was suspended from the GAA for having the effrontery to ATTEND an international rugby match in his capacity as president of the Irish Free State.
And really, to say that it had no effect on other games is just disingenuous nonsense. By refusing to let its grounds be used (for a fee) by other sports and refusign to countenance shared grounds they effectively excluded other sports from much of the country.kreuzberger wrote: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 .
So we got our free state in 1921, our new constitution in the 1930s our republic in the 1940s. How come the ban stayed in place until 1970?
And it wasn't new liberalism sweeping the country that got rid of it; just RTE.
The abililty to sit at home and watch a rugby match on the telly (which strictly speaking was breaking the ban) and the impossibility of enforcing such laws, made the ban unworkable.kreuzberger wrote: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 .
Culture is a shifting thing. one's culture is always modified by new influences. You can't ban new influences out of your culture. Would you ban Irish folk bands from using such outlandish non native instruments as the bouzouki and bongos? What about teh guitar? Again, not a native instrument.
The ban was a sterile, defeatist, pathetic unworkable attempt to impose a cultural uniformity on the irish people. IT belongs in the bin.0 -
To get back to the simple issue
As a GAA supporter and a citizen of the ROI, I would support a generosity of spirit approach. i actually have met Edwin Poots and hes an agreeable chap.
As part of the generosity of spirit approach I think we should remove nationalistic symbols from sporting events completely. Why the neccessity to proclaim the republic at county GAA matches. I certainly dont see the need.( no more then i see the need to do it at discos and cinemas!)
We have to get away from a zero sum game approach, you do this an i'll do that. I am a citizen of the second wealthist nation in the EU, proud and confident, I was born after a histiorical conflict that divided this island and I have not been affected by it. I want to be generous to our neighbours and dont expect specifically something in return for every gesture. I dont care what happened in Cork in some time past or elsewhere for that matter. its in the past its history, to be looked up in books and pondered upon by acedemics
Come on, lets leave the "count the dead approach" behind, most people here ( possibly everyone here) was not around for the "troubles". I respect the pain of everybody in NI, but again trawling over the past is a complete waste of time, nor are arguments based on "them and us " etc
if for example removing the athem and the tricolour at matches would encourage more unionists to play then great lets do it. Surely its the game that is important, not its symbolic value, and dont give me the GAA cultural bulwark thing, please, this is 2008 not 1916. Do we ( ROI citizens) really need to reemphasie our identify ( with flags and symbols) in this way, I certainly dont. The rugby guys handled the situation without me or people like me feeling the team isnt irish ( in the sense of being from the island)
It really depresses me when people rant on about "irish culture" as if it was some precious unchanging monument. We live in a integrated modern environment, one that changes over time, the notion of culture and cultural identify also changes over time. We actually cant "abandon" our culture, its like saying you can "abandon" your skin. It comes with us, is defined by what we do today, changes, mutates.
Look at the great strides that have been achieved in Northern Ireland, we need to be forthcoming and make gestures ( great and small) not start counting gains and losses0 -
Well said, BoatMad. But I think the problem is the nature of the GAA, which more or less insists that you have to have a certain basic political outlook before you can join it.
You effectively HAVE to be an Irish nationalist. Which by default and with a small n most people south of the border already are intrinsically.
But those who do not regard themselves as Irish, or who regard themselves as Irish and British at the same time, this is not possible.
this is probably unique among sporting organisations. Most other games don't give a damn what your political outlook is. It's no part of their make up.
The challenge for the GAA is how to move to a position that is more representative of the "New Ireland" both north and south of the border - moves towards conciliation up north, thousands of new immigrants down south - without losing the community based ethos which is its true source of greatness.0 -
I agree thathe GAA is "nationalist " in nature ( as to what that really means I dont know", i dont agree you have to be a nationalist to support gaelic games.
but I do agree that teh GAA needs to dump its political baggage and remodel itself as a sporting body, not a pseudo-political one, ( we have quite enough of thoese , thank you)0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »Only extended to GAA members, you mean.
thats precisely what I said ?Poor old Douglas Hyde was hardly an active playing member when he was suspended from the GAA for having the effrontery to ATTEND an international rugby match in his capacity as president of the Irish Free State.
only a few years earlier he could well have been shot , beaten , arrested or harassed by men with guns for attending a GAA match . That was the bans context , an understandable one .And really, to say that it had no effect on other games is just disingenuous nonsense. By refusing to let its grounds be used (for a fee) by other sports and refusign to countenance shared grounds they effectively excluded other sports from much of the country.
those inferior and much less popular sports had the patronage of a colonial power for generations . That they failed to secure either a popular following or maintain sports grounds is their own problem . What the GAA attained it did in the face of tremendous odds , including the harassment and murder of their members and the criminalising of the games themselves at various periods . The grounds the GAA secured were secured from scratch . Its highly unlikely those who donated ground or begged borrowed and stole to aquire it would want foreign games played there . Foreign games were and are contradictory to the GAAs ethos , which is the promotion of native over foreign culture . Their promotion has no place within the GAA .Culture is a shifting thing. one's culture is always modified by new influences. You can't ban new influences out of your culture. Would you ban Irish folk bands from using such outlandish non native instruments as the bouzouki and bongos? What about teh guitar? Again, not a native instrument.
No , of copurse not . The fiddle is hardly a native instrument either . I wouldnt however demand trad afficionados give their support to morris dancing in order to demonstrate their inclusivity . The decision to broaden the base of traditional music came from within that tradition itself , it was not imposed from without .The ban was a sterile, defeatist, pathetic unworkable attempt to impose a cultural uniformity on the irish people. IT belongs in the bin.
it went in the bin a very long time ago after it had outlived its purpose . I fail to see why you are still so exercised about it . It could very easily be mistaken for the self flagellation demanded of Irish people by Eoghan Harris0 -
To get back to the simple issue
As a GAA supporter and a citizen of the ROI, I would support a generosity of spirit approach. i actually have met Edwin Poots and hes an agreeable chap.
As part of the generosity of spirit approach I think we should remove nationalistic symbols from sporting events completely. Why the neccessity to proclaim the republic at county GAA matches. I certainly dont see the need.( no more then i see the need to do it at discos and cinemas!)
then bring it up at your local club meeting and have them bring the issue before congress in a properly structured motion . You obviously feel quite strongly on the subject so i suggest you persue it . Let us know how you got on .if for example removing the athem and the tricolour at matches would encourage more unionists to play then great lets do it. Surely its the game that is important, not its symbolic value, and dont give me the GAA cultural bulwark thing, please, this is 2008 not 1916. Do we ( ROI citizens) really need to reemphasie our identify ( with flags and symbols) in this way, I certainly dont. The rugby guys handled the situation without me or people like me feeling the team isnt irish ( in the sense of being from the island)
if you expect GAA supporters to adopt that dreadful half witted pub dirge youve another thing coming . But like i said bring it up at your club meeting and have them bring it before congress as a motion . And dont forget to tell us how you got on .It really depresses me when people rant on
me too0 -
Advertisement
-
I dont agree you have to be a nationalist to support gaelic games.
Don't take my word for it. I'm not a GAA member. Take Kreuzberger's. In this post he makes it quite clear that the GAA's ethos is the promotion of "native" culture over "foreign" culture.
By which he means "British" culture.
When I went to Irish college in the Gaeltacht in the 1970s we had inter house competitons. We were of course not allowed play "foreign" games like soccer, which was and is the default game for all little boys from the places the students came from. But we were of course allowed to play, indeed encouraged to play those "native" Irish games of Cis Pheil and Eitleog Pheil.
(That's basketball and volleyball to you)
Go figure.0
Advertisement