A Fermanagh GAA player and journalist has called for a more substantial push to make the GAA more attractive to Unionists including changing Rule 2. Martin O’Neill and Pat Jennings have expressed support for an All-Ireland football team.
Are you confused about ‘dissident’ Irish Republicanism? Anxious about its existence and its seemingly increasingly deadly capabilities? Martyn Frampton’s new book, Legion of the Rearguard: Dissident Irish Republicanism (Irish Academic Press, 2011) serves both as a primer on active dissident groups and a timely analysis of their historic significance and contemporary capabilities. This book clears [...] read our review »
It’s the quiet ones you have to watch, they say. When I last saw Eamonn Namcarrow, back in the mid 1980s he was a congenial, good-natured and highly sociable young lad. The next time was 26 years later, in Lavery’s Gin Palace in Bradbury Place. He’d just brought out his first book, Holywood Star about [...] read our review »
Oh dear Darth, you just keep tripping yourself up…..
“Cromwell was enlightened and progressive in the context of his time. Hence his admirers include such well known left wing poster boys Tony Benn and Michael Foot.”
So that makes Ollie alright overall then?
“He extended religious tolerance to many non-conformist sects (OK not Roman Catholics but you’ve got to start somewhere). He permitted Jews to return to England in the face of anti-semitism.”
But what about the substantial amount of British papists throughout the isles and their right to practice their faith? They don’t count then?
“And as for cutting off the king’s head being a source of protestant guilt-well, you’re really floundering there.
The next king we didn’t like we bucked out, replacing him with his son-in-law, and accidentally inventing covenant theory of government and the constitutional monarchy. Charles- or George VII as he plnas to be known- better watch his step”
So any old king or queen will do, as you once mentioned before refering to King Zog (or an English cricketer) of Albania.
“Olly’s use of shock and awe tactics in Ireland was no worse than happened every year on continental Europe in wars- indeed he was following accepted codes of war at Drogheda for instance.
Perhaps the army’s PR was a bit primitive in those days, but you can’t make an omelette without breaking skulls..er I meant eggs.”
Sure wasn’t Hell, Connaught, or slavery in Barbados a summer camp for the poor illiterate destitute peasants.
I have a few thoughts on this.
First of all, I would have little or no objection to the recently added overtly political language being removed.
I would object to Amhrán na bhFiann and the Tricolor not being flown at major matches. At the end of the day there is no objection to either in the South or in Northern GAA circles.
If the southern counties tried to enforce these changes on the northern counties then there could well be a disastorous spilt in the GAA, something which would delight unionism but objectional to all GAA members.
No reader of Slugger would fail to see that many (most?) unionists find the use of the Gaelic language to be offensive, and certainely believe its use in a public theatre should be prohibited. What then would become of the use of Irish on the team sheet, jerseys?
I would be suspect also of the potential of a foot falling onto a slippery slope. Some in the GAA might see this as an oppurtunity to de-Gaelicise as ridiculous as that sounds.
The GAA have in many ways developed a negative view of the Gaelic language in recent years and the word Gael and Gaelic have dropped out of fashion, well on the way to becomming the exclusive possession of Gaelic speakers as is the case in Alba and Mann.
I know a particular Irish language raidió program which frequently refers to the GAA as the Irish Rule Football association, formerly in jest but perhaps the day is not too far away.
I would agree to a large extent with the following arguements …
http://www.gaelport.com/index.php?page=clippings&id=3067&viewby=date
In short I agree with Trevor Ringland, ‘There is a gaelic culture in the GAA and you don’t want to remove that’, if there is political language, by all means scrap it.
But the chances of many unionists partaking in Gaelic games are slim because they dont see themselves as Gaels, or see themselves as post-Gaelic. By all means encourage them to take part but lets not destroy Cumann Luthchleas Gael to encourage something which will probably never happen.
Take the Gaelic out of GAA and what are you left with?
PS, Any club that does not actively promote Hurling should have its chairperson publically horse whipped.
And what happen top rounders?
This is a pet hate of mine.
willowfield
“But they use the Southern flag to represent the whole island: that needs to change.”
The GAA is merely an organisational and administrative body to help promote games and culture.
It was founded in the south, has it’s HQ and major venues in the south. Even the largest Ulster venue is in the south, Clones. It has the majority of it’s members and clubs in the south. Why SHOULDN’T it fly the ‘southern flag’ in the south? You think it reasonable for the English FA to play GstQ.
” think I’ve already said that this is a long-term thing. The present generation of unionists is already lost to GAA. It might have some small effect, though”
We already have a unionist on this thread who has attended games, we have Mr Bradley suggesting he has unionist friends who are interested in attending. Perhaps you mean, you are lost to the GAA.
I take heart from your small effect implication. From tiny acorns…
Congal
“When the Army fired into the crowd at Croke Park and killed innocent spectators that game was a fund raiser for the Ra. If that happens at the HQ, fek knows what happens at some of the grounds. “
Have you got sources to back up the claim in the first sentence? You’re just being a troll with your second sentence.
Willow
Can you please name one club which is involved in terrorism?
“I can’t name any, but I was referring to clubs named after, or which honour, terrorists. “
But you didn’t say that you were referring to clubs named after, or which honour, terrorists. The words you used were “terrorist clubs” inferring that there were clubs involved in terrorism. Seeing how you are so boringly pedantic, why did you not say what you meant?
“Actually, I’m also intolerant of terrorism.”
Me too. I’m also intolerant of hypocracy.
KENSEI
Because I said that your position is that the display of the Tricolour anywhere in the six counties is automatically offensive to Unionists and should therefore never be done, and you said the GAA is free to do what it wishes.
First, that is not my position: I think certain, appropriate displays are inoffensive (e.g. when the flag is used to represent the Republic of Ireland).
Second, even if that were my position, the fact that the display of the Southern tricolour is offensive to unionists doesn’t mean that the GAA is not entitled to do what it wishes. The GAA is entitled to offend unionists if it so wishes.
GAELGANNAIRE
I would object to Amhrán na bhFiann and the Tricolor not being flown at major matches. At the end of the day there is no objection to either in the South or in Northern GAA circles.
Then you might as well keep in the political stuff in the constitution, as there is no objection in the South or in Northern GAA circles. … of course there are no objections: it is a nationalist organisation, and therefore there are no unionists to object!
In short I agree with Trevor Ringland, ‘There is a gaelic culture in the GAA and you don’t want to remove that’, if there is political language, by all means scrap it.
I don’t think anyone’s advocating the removal of “Gaelic culture” from the GAA. The issue is the political stuff. A new policy on flags and anthems would not affect the “Gaelic culture”.
Take the Gaelic out of GAA and what are you left with?
No-one’s advocating taking the Gaelic out of GAA!
CLADYCOWBOY
It was founded in the south, has it’s HQ and major venues in the south. Even the largest Ulster venue is in the south, Clones. It has the majority of it’s [sic] members and clubs in the south. Why SHOULDN’T it fly the ‘southern flag’ in the south? You think it reasonable for the English FA to play GstQ.
I’ve no objection to (a) Southern institutions flying the Southern flag; or (b) all-Ireland institutions flying the Southern flag in the South and the Northern flag in the North. But (a) the GAA is not a Southern institution: it is an all-Ireland one; and (b) the GAA flies the Southern flag throughout Ireland and uses it abroad to represent the whole island.
We already have a unionist on this thread who has attended games, we have Mr Bradley suggesting he has unionist friends who are interested in attending. Perhaps you mean, you are lost to the GAA.
Four or five unionists is not very many out of a population of some several hundred thousand. I was talking in general terms, and my point remains regardless of the handful of exceptions.
I take heart from your small effect implication. From tiny acorns…
That is how the GAA should be thinking.
LENNY
But you didn’t say that you were referring to clubs named after, or which honour, terrorists.
No, but I have now.
The words you used were “terrorist clubs” inferring that there were clubs involved in terrorism. Seeing how you are so boringly pedantic, why did you not say what you meant?
First, it was you doing the inferring, not me (if anything, I was implying).
Second, I used the phrase as shorthand.
Third, when you asked, I clarified.
Me too. I’m also intolerant of hypocracy.
That makes two of us: I am also intolerant of hypocrisy (note the spelling).
willowfield
“I’ve no objection to (a) Southern institutions flying the Southern flag; or (b) all-Ireland institutions flying the Southern flag in the South and the Northern flag in the North. But (a) the GAA is not a Southern institution: it is an all-Ireland one; and (b) the GAA flies the Southern flag throughout Ireland and uses it abroad to represent the whole island.”
I’ve played less exhausting Gaelic Football matches!
The GAA was formed islandwide in 1884 . It’s older than NI. It’s older than the IFS and RoI. It flew the tricolour/’southern flag’ for a generation before these constructs came into existence.
If anything the RoI is flying the flag of the GAA rather than the reverse.
I addressed your main point of the ‘southern flag’ being flown in NI and suggested a temporary ban on this as a gesture. I think this would have positive effects and if this is done in tandem with GAA outreach in state schools we could have lots of progress.
Evolution will have to be a two-way process.
As has been pointed out many times before the GAA is a political organisation – it is just not party political.
I for one would not like to see the political aspects go. I play Gaelic Football and the cultural and aspects are important to me and so are the political ones believe it or not.
Maybe that means it excludes Unionists. I honestly dont see what the problem is with that.
This is not politically correct and will probably get me shouted down but if I am honest I dont want to get rid of Mairead Farrell Cup or Burns/Moley Cup never mind get rid of the political comments in the constitution.
Maybe The solution here is a separate organisation called the NPIGA or Non Political Irish Games Association where whoever is offended by the politics or culutre of the GAA and wants just games can join.
Maybe we can merge when there is a United Ireland.
willow
First, that is not my position: I think certain, appropriate displays are inoffensive (e.g. when the flag is used to represent the Republic of Ireland).#
Ah, but if it was used to express an aspiration for an All Ireland republic, it becomes offensive? That si still nto a reasonable position, and I note it would also have made it “offensive” at any point pre-1921.
Second, even if that were my position, the fact that the display of the Southern tricolour is offensive to unionists doesn’t mean that the GAA is not entitled to do what it wishes. The GAA is entitled to offend unionists if it so wishes.
But the implication is they are bad people for doing it, rather than Unionism is simply uptight and unable to cope with Nationalist expressions. Also see the Irish language.
CLADYCOWBOY
The GAA was formed islandwide in 1884 . It’s older than NI. It’s older than the IFS and RoI. It flew the tricolour/’southern flag’ for a generation before these constructs came into existence.
It’s not 1884 anymore: it’s 2008. Time to get with the programme.
J
As has been pointed out many times before the GAA is a political organisation – it is just not party political.
But why is there any need for it to be political?
I for one would not like to see the political aspects go.
Why?
Maybe that means it excludes Unionists. I honestly dont see what the problem is with that.
Fair enough. At least you are honest about it.
KENSEI
Ah, but if it was used to express an aspiration for an All Ireland republic, it becomes offensive?
Offensive, I think, is too strong.
But the implication is they are bad people for doing it, rather than Unionism is simply uptight and unable to cope with Nationalist expressions.
I don’t think so: unless you think that being a nationalist makes you a bad person. I don’t.
willowfield
“It’s not 1884 anymore: it’s 2008. Time to get with the programme.”
The GAA is with the ‘programme’. It has never been more successful than it is now.
If you like, perhaps the Ulster council could present a motion to HQ that the GAA ask the Dublin Government from flying the GAA flag as a means of outreach
The GAA is with the ‘programme’. It has never been more successful than it is now.
Oh, there’s no doubt about that insofar as Gaelic games are concerned. But I was referring to the constitutional programme: things have changed a lot since 1884!
Nothing can ever be done to entice people who give their loyalty to another country. End of. The Poles, Latvians and Chinese are enjoying themselves here in my club, but I’d suspect that you wouldn’t be too comfortable with them either. Have fun anyway in your cricket club.
“Nothing can ever be done to entice people who give their loyalty to another country. End of.”
“The Poles, Latvians and Chinese are enjoying themselves here in my club …”
Spot the contradiction!
Never felt the need to state the obvious. See can you figure out the real meaning of it.
Offensive, I think, is too strong.
I don’t think so: unless you think that being a nationalist makes you a bad person. I don’t.
Excellent, then there is no reason why the GAA cannot continue proudly flying the flag and playing the anthem and Unionists can continue to be not offended.
“Excellent, then there is no reason why the GAA cannot continue proudly flying the flag and playing the anthem and Unionists can continue to be not offended.”
As long as we’re all agreed that the organisation is not inclusive.
Excellent, then there is no reason why the GAA cannot continue proudly flying the flag and playing the anthem and Unionists can continue to be not offended.
Apart from a possible desire to become inclusive (the subject of this thread!).
Chekov
As long as we’re all agreed that the organisation is not inclusive.
Why is being “inclusive” always a virtue? People are different, sometimes that needs reflected. I think the OO needs to change, but I don’t think it should be anything other than P/U/L organisation, and proud of it.
Also – why can we not simply accept other people’s culture for what it is? If you go to a GAA game, I sincerely doubt you’ll catch Nationalist off it, flag and anthem or no.
Willow
I’ve just slapped myself on the head for bothering to debate with you. It’s like teaching a pig to sing. What is it about the GAA that gives you such a hard on.
Chekov
“As long as we’re all agreed that the organisation (sic
) is not inclusive.”
Can’t agree Chekov. You won’t be refused admission to any GAA club on the grounds of your colour, creed or politics. Its like the Indian restaurant analogy. I don’t like spicy food so I don’t go to Indian restaurants. Its my problem, not theirs. Likewise, you don’t like tricolour and AnB so you exclude yourself from the GAA.
KENSEI
Why is being “inclusive” always a virtue? People are different, sometimes that needs reflected. I think the OO needs to change, but I don’t think it should be anything other than P/U/L organisation, and proud of it.
Also – why can we not simply accept other people’s culture for what it is? If you go to a GAA game, I sincerely doubt you’ll catch Nationalist off it, flag and anthem or no.
There’s not necessarily anything wrong with being exclusive, and if the GAA wants to be exclusive that is its choice.
That doesn’t mean that those who would like it to be inclusive shouldn’t put forward their arguments and seek to persuade the excluders.
LENNY
Can’t agree Chekov. You won’t be refused admission to any GAA club on the grounds of your colour, creed or politics. Its like the Indian restaurant analogy. I don’t like spicy food so I don’t go to Indian restaurants.
It’s not a case of being refused entry. If the Indian restaurant is bedecked in Islamic fundamentalist material, for example, many people will not feel comfortable going in, notwithstanding their love of spicy food or the fact that they wouldn’t be banned.
Its my problem, not theirs. Likewise, you don’t like tricolour and AnB so you exclude yourself from the GAA.
No, the GAA excludes unionists by being nationalist. The GAA doesn’t need to be nationalist, so there is a good argument for change. But it’s down to the GAA – if it wants to remain nationalist it may do so.
Kensei,
“Why is being “inclusive” always a virtue? People
are different, sometimes that needs reflected.”
I would not suggest that being inclusive always is a virtue. I think that difference sometimes does need to be reflected. If sacrificing the politics in order to become more inclusive is too big an ask for the GAA then I can accept that. As someone observing from outside I do not think that it should be.
“I think the OO needs to change, but I don’t think it should be anything other than P/U/L organisation, and proud of it.”
I do not count parading as a sport.
“Also – why can we not simply accept other people’s culture for what it is? If you go to a GAA game, I sincerely doubt you’ll catch Nationalist off it, flag and anthem or no.”
I have been to a GAA game. I was not overly perturbed by the flag or the anthem, but whilst I was not necessarily offended or perturbed by those things, they do exclude me. If I wished to I could not join the GAA or accept its constitution. If the GAA want to exclude me then I can accept that, but that is what they are doing.
Hi Lenny,
“Have you got sources to back up the claim in the first sentence? You’re just being a troll with your second sentence.”
I read it in a paper in and around the time of the England rugby match. Can’t find it – I’ve tried! Anyhow, whilst searching I came across this ticket for sale in Mealy’s…
“Unique Memento of “Bloody Sunday” G.A.A. An original printed Ticket for the Tipperary V. Dublin Football Match at Croke Park, on November 21st, 1920, “Bloody Sunday,” during which British soldiers fired into the crowd indiscriminately killing twelve people and wounding about sixty. Inscribed on verso, Pass Miss [M.] Byrne and lady friends I.R.P.D. F. [Irish Republican Prisoners Dependents Fund] Collectors.”
Suggests at the very least they were collecting for the Ra prisoners. So, don’t go trip, trotting over my bridge ;o)
Congal
“I read it in a paper in and around the time of the England rugby match. Can’t find it – I’ve tried! Anyhow, whilst searching I came across this ticket for sale in Mealy’s… ”
Please don’t be offended if I don’t take your word for it that the match was organized to raise proceeds for the RA. But lets just for the sake of argument say that its true, how does a football match in 1920 support Willows inference that present day GAA clubs are involved in terrorism.?
willow
There’s not necessarily anything wrong with being exclusive, and if the GAA wants to be exclusive that is its choice.
The GAA is not “exclusive”. It does not actively exclude anyone, nor does it have any rules that would. It is simply unappealing to a section of society. This is not at all the same thing, and you are back at the pejorative language.
Chekov
I do not count parading as a sport.
It is irrelevant whether it is parading, sport, literature or whatever else. If an organisation has a history and character that goes beyond its primary remit, then that is worthy of respect and consideration. We do not live in a utilitarian world, nor do organisations only have to be one thing and one thing only.
I have often heard it here that the main goal of the OO is religious. In which case there are no need for Union Jacks there, either.
I have been to a GAA game. I was not overly perturbed by the flag or the anthem, but whilst I was not necessarily offended or perturbed by those things, they do exclude me. If I wished to I could not join the GAA or accept its constitution. If the GAA want to exclude me then I can accept that, but that is what they are doing.
No, the GAA is not excluding you. The GAA does not ask for any oaths of fidelity, public or private as far as I’m aware. It is possible to join and ignore political and cultural elements, (while simply respecting their existence as part and parcel of the organisation and its history) especially these days. If you find yourself unable to join because of it, that is a personal decision. The GAA is not excluding you. You remain free to join at any point.
I find the pro-Britain supporting culture around Linfield or Rangers unappealing. The clubs could take efforts to totally eradicate that to make it more appealing to me. But I don’t think it would be a positive move, and I don’t think it makes them exclusive if they don’t.
There is a distinction between that and the same supporters carrying loyalist paramilitary flags or chanting certain anthems. There is a line between unacceptable and disliked. The GAA should remove unacceptable elements, like grounds named after PIRA men, and Unionists just need to learn to cope with what they dislike.
Congal
“If you followed my logic in the example you give “soccer and beer” would be interchangeable with “bloke”. So, I’m guessing you didn’t. A better example is English commentators interchanging English with British as and when suits them. Again fekking annoying!”
I think i did follow. I replied not to your suggestion that some people use Gaelic and Irish interchangably but your point that if you don’t enthuse about Gaelic then you’re not considered really Irish. It fits quite well then i think.
willowfield
“Oh, there’s no doubt about that insofar as Gaelic games are concerned. But I was referring to the constitutional programme: things have changed a lot since 1884!”
I suppose some things have but why should the GAA change? If it was good enough for the most eminent Unionist leader to participate in its activity then, when it’s political connotations were a lot more to the fore then why not now, when the union is secure under PoC?
The GAA has remained successful throughout this period but none moreso than now. It is open to all. No-one is forcibly excluded. The only thing that has changed is that the minority who had no interest in its sports (despite their leaders enthusiasm) now form a tenuous majority in a partitioned part of the area the GAA organizes.
It may not be 1884 but it isn’t 1968 either. It should be ok to visit somewhere like the magnificent Croke park and watch the game, even if there is a tricolour in the building, Paisley won’t be calling for it to be taken down. Relax.
“It is irrelevant whether it is parading, sport, literature or whatever else. If an organisation has a history and character that goes beyond its primary remit, then that is worthy of respect and consideration. We do not live in a utilitarian world, nor do organisations only have to be one thing and one thing only.”
I would not contend that history and character do not deserve consideration. Nor do I think that organisations only need fulfil one purpose. I simply believe that if the GAA’s primary aim is to promote the sport and the culture which is intrinsic to its ethos (i.e. those things which have become identified as ‘Gaelic’), the organisation would suffer no disability in pursuing those aims without an explicitly nationalist political agenda. If the GAA believe this is not possible, then I accept that decision, but then they are retaining something which excludes me and others like me.
“I have often heard it here that the main goal of the OO is religious. In which case there are no need for Union Jacks there, either. “
I have no interest in defending aspects of the Orange Order. Neither would I for a moment contend that the OO is an inclusive organisation. The OO is very explicitly an exclusive organisation.
“No, the GAA is not excluding you. The GAA does not ask for any oaths of fidelity, public or private as far as I’m aware. It is possible to join and ignore political and cultural elements, (while simply respecting their existence as part and parcel of the organisation and its history) especially these days. If you find yourself unable to join because of it, that is a personal decision. The GAA is not excluding you. You remain free to join at any point.”
The GAA is excluding me. The GAA’s constitutions states “membership of the Association shall be granted only by a Club, to persons who subscribe to and undertake to further the aims and objects of the Gaelic Athletic Association, as stated in the Official Guide”. Given that these aims include an explicitly nationalist programme and symbols, how can the GAA not be excluding me? I can either join and abandon my own political beliefs, or I can join and remain a member whilst not complying with the constitution. It would not be honest to join knowing full well that I could not comply with the constitution would it? If I can not comply with the Ulster Unionist Party’s party rules should I join that party?
“I find the pro-Britain supporting culture around Linfield or Rangers unappealing. The clubs could take efforts to totally eradicate that to make it more appealing to me. But I don’t think it would be a positive move, and I don’t think it makes them exclusive if they don’t.”
But neither Linfield nor Rangers have club rules demanding that members undertake to advance any pro-British objectives. The culture of supporters is a completely different matter to rules contained within a sporting organisation’s constitution or national flags / symbols which must by that organisation’s laws be displayed at every game. Of course you know this full well and your arguments are disingenuous.
“There is a distinction between that and the same supporters carrying loyalist paramilitary flags or chanting certain anthems. There is a line between unacceptable and disliked. The GAA should remove unacceptable elements, like grounds named after PIRA men, and Unionists just need to learn to cope with what they dislike.”
Unionists do not need to cope with anything. Unionists are not obliged to accept things about the GAA which are not convivial. However if the GAA was to remove its unnecessary political trappings, unionists would be obliged to acknowledge that the organisation is inclusive and does not exclude them. Currently this is not the case.
I agree with Chekov and Willowfield here. I am not sure about whether it qualifies in the directionary definiteion of exclusive or not but there is no doubt that to become a member you have to sign up to promote the aims and objectives of the organisation.
Perhaps, there might be room for sporting only membership? (by the way not sure how PSNI can be members give the constitution but that is for another day)
To address Willowfields earlier question to me I dont really know why I want it to be political. It is probably because its politcal beliefs overlap to a large extent with my own so anything that furthers those beliefs is good news in my book. If it never had have been there in the first place, it might not be much of an issue but I think those of us who live in Northern Ireland would feel like we got a kick in the b*llox if they removed the nationalist stuff now.
“But they use the Southern flag to represent the whole island: that needs to change.”
I agree Willowfield, wholeheartedly!
The Green standard emblazoned with a Gold Harp would suffice instead, as it did before!
Besides, I dunno why we have the orange portion on our Irish flag when it supposedly represents a part of the island’s population whose allegiance is clearly to the English crown and government. After all, such people as yourself are British subjects. (But then again I suppose, it represents the Orangemen living in Donegal and around the ‘border’ areas as well as those belonging to the Wicklow and Dublin Orange Lodges.)
Na, perhaps the sooner the better that we change it, and consign the tri-colour to the bin. Would stop us being reminded of yourselves. Why indeed, should we fly a flag that represents in part the Orange of this island who if they could
would never give the rest of us the light of day?
If I can not comply with the Ulster Unionist Party’s party rules should I join that party?
I think there is a clear distinction about ignoring the primary purpose of something, and ignoring a secondary function, particularly where that secondary function is not always rigorously enforced.
Second, suppose for a second the flags and promotion were of any other country but Ireland. Let’s run with the US: I’m sure you’d could join sports clubs there where you would encounter US state symbols and a high degree of patriotism. It would be unlikely to deter you from playing, if that’s what you really wanted to do. But you are an intolerant of Irish nationalist symbols, and use the word “exclusive” in pejorative fashion.
Third, there is probably a compromise whereby the organisation can Nationalist but individual members are free to act within their own conscience.
But neither Linfield nor Rangers have club rules demanding that members undertake to advance any pro-British objectives. The culture of supporters is a completely different matter to rules contained within a sporting organisation’s constitution or national flags / symbols which must by that organisation’s laws be displayed at every game. Of course you know this full well and your arguments are disingenuous.
I don’t believe so. The responsibility to attract membership remains with the clubs. If Rangers were to ever attract my support, they would need to deal with it regardless if there are official rules or not.
Lots of Unionists are apparently offended by the Irish language. Perhaps the GAA should remove that to be more “inclusive” too?
Unionists do not need to cope with anything. Unionists are not obliged to accept things about the GAA which are not convivial. However if the GAA was to remove its unnecessary political trappings, unionists would be obliged to acknowledge that the organisation is inclusive and does not exclude them. Currently this is not the case.
No one ever has to accept anything. But regardless, it’s not the GAA excluding you, anymore than the DUP excludes me from joining. Simply, neither of us what to. This is a different thing entirely.
willow,
ok, you and i seem to have reached some sort of agreement. debating with you is a bit like picking mercury up with a fork, but i’m glad that you said in response to my ideas that that “is the type of creative thinking that is needed”.
i take it that if the gaa were to say that it was an irish nationalist organisation in the sense that it wished to see a wholly independent ireland wherein both traditions could be equally
cherished but that for the time being it accepted the poc, then you would not have a problem with that? in other words a nationalism that believes in the union of both parts of ireland into something new rather than nationalist anshcluss (spelling?)… do you think unionists could live with that in the GAA?
This is of course not all just academic but touched on whole ui debate too. I recently read biography of Roger Casement by Brian Inglis. Casement believed in seducing Ulster and Ulster playing a very important role in an independent Ireland. It is sad that contemporary Irish nationalism appears at least until very recently to have lost this way of looking at things. strangely i believe that Sinn Fein is rediscovering this way of looking at things. their partnership with unionism is not a temporary thing. and i believe that they have digested the many consequences of this…
regards,
dub.
KENSEI
The GAA is not “exclusive”.
It is: it’s a nationalist organisation. You’ve already conceded that.
It does not actively exclude anyone, nor does it have any rules that would.
No-one said that it did. Exclusion doesn’t need to be “active”, you know!
Second, suppose for a second the flags and promotion were of any other country but Ireland. Let’s run with the US: I’m sure you’d could join sports clubs there where you would encounter US state symbols and a high degree of patriotism. It would be unlikely to deter you from playing, if that’s what you really wanted to do. But you are an intolerant of Irish nationalist symbols, and use the word “exclusive” in pejorative fashion.
Er, US flags and symbols in the US would be entirely appropriate! If you were referring, say, to a Mexican organisation which required the US flag be flown, then, that would be a better analogy, and Mexicans would be quite reasonable in feeling excluded.
CLADYCOWBOY
I suppose some things have but why should the GAA change?
To reflect the fact that we’re not living in 1884 anymore.
The GAA has remained successful throughout this period but none moreso than now. It is open to all. No-one is forcibly excluded.
It’s not open to all, and you can exclude people other than by force.
GREAGOIR
I agree Willowfield, wholeheartedly! The Green standard emblazoned with a Gold Harp would suffice instead, as it did before!
Excellent.
DUB
i take it that if the gaa were to say that it was an irish nationalist organisation in the sense that it wished to see a wholly independent ireland wherein both traditions could be equally cherished but that for the time being it accepted the poc, then you would not have a problem with that?
The problem – for unionists – is the fact that the GAA is a nationalist organisation. We see no need for that and, apparently, many GAA members agree (the ones who say they are only interested in the games and take no notice of the politics).
Nonetheless, a statement such as you suggest – if it were accompanied by consequential actions, e.g. change in flags and anthems policy, disciplining of terrorist-supporting clubs – would be very positive and welcome.
Hi Lenny,
“Please don’t be offended if I don’t take your word for it that the match was organized to raise proceeds for the RA. But lets just for the sake of argument say that its true, how does a football match in 1920 support Willows inference that present day GAA clubs are involved in terrorism.?”
It suggests where support lies does it not? I guess that is what Willow is suggesting with the naming of clubs,grounds,etc. There was also the hungerstrike debacle only a few years ago at Casement. I certainly know of leading members of the Ra who were active members of the GAA. Do you not think their presence alone would put off prods? I’ve also heard anecdotals of goings on at halls. Although, of course, that’s not worth the paper it’s written on. I also thought that there was a team in the Maze entirely composed of terrorists? Correct me if I’m wrong there.
Hi Cowboy,
I guess we were talking at cross purposes. Sorry for any confusion on my part.
willowfield
“To reflect the fact that we’re not living in 1884 anymore”
Yeah, and as i pointed out we’re not in 1968 anymore so the sight of a tricolour shouldn’t cause this allergic reaction.
“It’s not open to all, and you can exclude people other than by force”
Really?
Would you classify the Scouts as an exclusionary organisation? I ask because as a teenager i joined up and not only had to be ok with the fact there was a Union Jack in our Scout Hall but actually had to unfurl it every week and stand in front of it pledging allegiance to the British monarch.
I could have bemoaned being excluded and not undergo this monarchial lipservice (many times more demanding than any GAA spectator would have to endure) but i’d have missed out on all the rest of the fun. Small price to pay for me. Am i just less republican than you are unionist or am i just more respectful of others beliefs whilst in their house?
Kensei
“I think there is a clear distinction about ignoring the primary purpose of something, and ignoring a secondary function, particularly where that secondary function is not always rigorously enforced. “
Good god. You’re really grasping at straws now. Should I join an organisation knowing full well that I can’t comply with its rules? If I cannot do so because of my political beliefs is the organisation not excluding me on the basis of those beliefs? If the function barring my joining is secondary, if the function is not intrinsic to the organisation, if the organisation serves a more important purpose – then why not get rid of those secondary functions which are debarring people from entering and participating?
“Second, suppose for a second the flags and promotion were of any other country but Ireland. Let’s run with the US: I’m sure you could join sports clubs there where you would encounter US state symbols and a high degree of patriotism. It would be unlikely to deter you from playing, if that’s what you really wanted to do. But you are an intolerant of Irish nationalist symbols, and use the word “exclusive” in pejorative fashion.”
I could not join that organisation if joining meant accepting a constitution which said I had to further an agenda implying a territorial claim of the US on Northern Ireland. Of course I couldn’t. I am not intolerant of Irish nationalist symbols, but they certainly do not represent me and I certainly cannot assent to them and assent to promoting Irish nationalist objectives. The GAA’s constitution asks me to do so as a prerequisite to joining the organisation. When I refer to something which could be inclusive then certainly ‘exclusive’ does not connote something positive. I believe inclusion is in general a good thing, which is why I am not a nationalist of any type. I do not think inclusion is always possible, but I like it as an idea.
“Third, there is probably a compromise whereby the organisation can Nationalist but individual members are free to act within their own conscience.”
Such a compromise may be possible, but it is not as yet enshrined in the GAA’s constitution. A compromise would allow me technically to join the organisation, although the trappings and ethos would obviously remain a disincentive. I would suggest that although such a compromise might represent progress, remaining a proudly Irish and Gaelic organisation, but dropping the nationalist symbolism would make me feel properly included. Such a compromise would actually make your Rangers / Linfield analogy more pertinent.
“I don’t believe so. The responsibility to attract membership remains with the clubs. If Rangers were to ever attract my support, they would need to deal with it regardless if there are official rules or not.”
Of course you are wrong. The responsibility to attract membership may lie with the clubs (whose club rules do not exclude anyone), but if you find the trappings of Rangers unpalatable for example (and I do too), then you can support or join another club whose ethos is more amenable. Currently GAA clubs are not free to make themselves more amenable to unionists. Constitutionally clubs can only take on members who do not have unionist beliefs. Just as in the case of your curry house the analogy not only does not work, but you know fine well that it does not. Would you support a resolution by FIFA demanding that all its members should promote a political ethos of some type?
“Lots of Unionists are apparently offended by the Irish language. Perhaps the GAA should remove that to be more “inclusive” too?”
I do not for a minute believe that the GAA should remove the Irish language. That would be preposterous.
“No one ever has to accept anything. But regardless, it’s not the GAA excluding you, anymore than the DUP excludes me from joining. Simply, neither of us what to. This is a different thing entirely.”
The DUP do exclude you and they also exclude me. But it is intrinsically necessary for the DUP to exclude both of us to advance their objectives (I draw your attention to your own comments as regards primary and secondary aims). The GAA is also excluding me, quite explicitly (as has been patiently explained to you). If it is necessary for the GAA to exclude unionists to remain true to their ethos then that is fine, but that is very evidently what they are doing.
“Such a compromise would actually make your Rangers / Linfield analogy more pertinent.”
That is the original compromise suggested – retaining nationalist symbols and a nationalist objective but allowing freedom of conscience.
I may be out of line with other GAA members on this to answer Chekovs question:
If it is necessary for the GAA to exclude unionists to remain true to their ethos then that is fine, but that is very evidently what they are doing.
I say yes to all of that (not in a I hate Unionists type way – just in a I want the GAA to remain political and necessarily exclude Unionists kind of way).
willow,
ok, good. last question: would you accept, in the context of the statement i suggested, that the gaa could pursue one of 2 policies in relation to flags and emblems: fly both flags (ie tricolour and ni flag (you know the one i mean)) or just fly province of ulster flag (you know the one i mean) at matches in 6 or perhaps 9 counties. and likewise could look for an ulster only anthem in ulster (danny boy?) or play 2 anthems. i ask this question because in general i know you will say (at least i think so) yes yes that’s fine, but i want to know specifically could you get over the tricolour being flown by the gaa in northern ireland if always flown together with, for example, the ni flag? or would you insist on primacy of british sovereignty in ni and that therefore, in order to attract unonists, the tricolour would have to be dtiched altogether in northern ireland? i’m asking you this not to look for disagreement but to see how far you might be prepared to go, too.
regards,
dub.
“Would you classify the Scouts as an exclusionary organisation? I ask because as a teenager i joined up and not only had to be ok with the fact there was a Union Jack in our Scout Hall but actually had to unfurl it every week and stand in front of it pledging allegiance to the British monarch”
Quite blatantly scouts in the Republic of Ireland were not asked to go through the same rigmarole.
“I say yes to all of that (not in a I hate Unionists type way – just in a I want the GAA to remain political and necessarily exclude Unionists kind of way).”
Thanks for your honesty J. I’d argue that unionists should be included, but I acknowledge that your argument is a valid one.
Checkov,
This is where the big disagreement surely lies. Yourself and Willowfield both argue (correctly in my view) that the GAA is exclusive because of constitution, flags etc, but the scouts arent because it is part of the UK therefore legitimately can ask for oath of allegience, GSTQ etc. This goes to the heart of the GFA and you either get it or you dont. That excludes nationalists I am afraid whether you like it or not.
I believe inclusion is in general a good thing, which is why I am not a nationalist of any type. I do not think inclusion is always possible, but I like it as an idea.
Rofl! You are a British Nationalist, else you would believe in World Government.
Such a compromise may be possible, but it is not as yet enshrined in the GAA’s constitution. A compromise would allow me technically to join the organisation, although the trappings and ethos would obviously remain a disincentive. I would suggest that although such a compromise might represent progress, remaining a proudly Irish and Gaelic organisation, but dropping the nationalist symbolism would make me feel properly included.
Okay, I accept the point about requiring a declaration to pursue certain political beliefs being a prerequisite to joining. I could see how that could offer difficultly, though I’m still not sure that qualifies as some negative version of “exclusive”, strictly, as it could be implied to any other number of bodies where it doesn’t make sense.
But suppose a sport-only membership was possible. Why are you seeking to remove the ethos and symbolism from that organisation? Why can you not accept it as it is? Why is a proudly Irish GAA lessor than some watered down “inclusive” one that removes all its symbols and breaks from its history? Removing the Irish language would also make Unionists feel more comfortable, but as you point out that is “preposterous”.
What separates it out from everything else is what makes it unique, partly why people that visit go to see matches, grounds and the museum. It’s part of the fabric of what it is, and part of the reason why it is so meshed into Nationalist life North and South. Why must you be intolerant of that, other than for your own political ends?
chekov,
taking your point about the gaa remaining proudly irish and gaelic, what nationalist symbols exactly would it be necessary to remove for you to feel not excluded?
Chekov
“Quite blatantly scouts in the Republic of Ireland were not asked to go through the same rigmarole”
No, but elsewhere in the UK, republicans (Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English) were asked to swear allegiance to a monarch (not just tolerate a flag in a stadium) and this is exclusionary on your very own terms.
Fair Deal,
for today’s journalism class we will consider and pair the following four statements.
dog bites man = not news
Man bites dog = news
Pat Jennings and Martin O’Neill call for all-Ireland team.
Billy Hamilton and John McClelland call for all-Ireland team.
Interesting how those who claim to be British don’t understand the definitions of english words.
The Orange Order does not allow catholics to join – that is an example of exclusion. Even if a catholic wished to join the OO they couldn’t.
The GAA does not prevent catholics, protestants, nationalists or unionists from joining. If a protestant unionist wanted to join the GAA they could. That is not exclusion.
Unless you can point to the rule that states a protestant, a unionist or a protestant-unionist cannot join the GAA then the GAA is not excluding them.
Either someone is not very bright or desperately clinging to a belief that is not supported by reality.
/ctcp dcc send lithium
‘dog bites man = not news
Man bites dog = news
Pat Jennings and Martin O’Neill call for all-Ireland team.
Billy Hamilton and John McClelland call for all-Ireland team.’
Clearly this is your less subtle code-speak for ‘them Fenians aren’t to be trusted’-eh,FD?-Bloody Quislings, the lot of them.
Telling that you confirm that NI fans do indeed continue to look at their players along narrow sectarian lines. Have you got your CD from the Windsor Souvenir Shop, yet?
Willow
>>And why might (some) unionists/Prods be hostile to the GAA? Do you think it might be because of its exclusive nature?< <
The GAA does not exclude anyone, some Unionists perhaps exclude themselves because they cannot look past one of the central ethos ie. to promote a united Ireland. Many Nationalists play for the six counties team despite the many uncomfortable and highly objectionable behaviour of the crowd toward Nationalists. Also some bigots from the Unionist community see the GAA as something hate worthy simply because it is unashamedly Irish, and therefore worthy of hate on those grounds alone.
>>If you set up and run an organisation as an exclusively nationalist and Catholic one<<
*Nationalist in outlook aye, but non-Nationalists don’t have to pass a test or give a salute to join. I believe you fill in a registration form, just like any(well most) other organisations. *Catholic, plenty of Prods play in Ireland, they don’t seem to have a problem that the majority of their team mates are Catholics, do you? As for exclusive, bullshit! Please show me where anyone would be excluded if they tried to join the GAA?
How dare the GAA dare to champion Gaelic culture and Irish nationalism, I mean how dare they!