Tuesday, December 04, 2007
God save The Queen (from offending Scots and Irish)…
THE British national anthem has been in the news again. Lord Goldsmith suggests it is not inclusive and should perhaps be changed. This - like the talk over a Welsh dragon in the Union flag - is to dissipate Scottish nationalism, although it appears the UK’s Scottish Prime Minister doesn’t mind the slur in the national anthem directed at his fellow countrymen (that bit about crushing rebellious Scots). Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, ex-rugby player Trevor Ringland has been criticising Irish rugby’s governing body for opposing the playing of God Save the Queen before Irish international matches played in Northern Ireland’s Ravenhill stadium. The former Irish international argues that the rules were changed to prevent the anthem being played in Belfast, and that since northern unionists have always stood for the Republic’s Soldier’s Song in Dublin, there should be a reciprocal goodwill gesture (or at least an agreed single anthem).
Belfast Gonzo @ 01:17 PM
Democratic, what you’re describing is a Catch-22. Try and work this out logically.
* Possibility 1: All-Ireland anthem (unacceptable because it’s “what nationalists want”?)
* Possibility 2: RoI anthem, UK anthem (unacceptable because it’s “what unionists want”?)
* Possibility 3: RoI anthem, agreed NI anthem (unacceptable because “nationalists are represented twice”?)
* Possibility 4: RoI anthem, no UK/NI anthem (unacceptable because it “lacks parity”?)
* For fullness - Possibility 5/6: no ROI anthem, UK/NI anthem (assume unacceptable because it “lacks parity” too?)
Which leaves us with ...
* Possibility 7: No anthems ...
Honestly, I think you are being too harsh on the “it what Nationalists want” arguments. An agreed all-Ireland or Northern Ireland anthem would surely be inclusive by necessity?
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 07:59 PMIt nicely illustrates why an all-Ireland is an unworkable substitute for a united Ireland: the problem of two competing nationalisms linked to two separate and independent sovereign states is not resolved by the dismal expedient of pretending it doesn’t exist.
Nations invest in sports to promote their own national interests. That is why teams play at the Olympic Games under the banner of nations and not as individuals. The flag and anthem of the national team in sport is the flag and anthem of the nation - it represents the nation and not the players, and it is the nation’s choice, not the players. That is why, for example, Sven-Göran Eriksson did not demand that the Swedish anthem was played alongside GSTQ despite being a Swedish manager of the English national football team. It is only in NI that politics (as distinct from nationalism) enters sport, due to NI’s aforementioned dysfunction.
George is absolutely spot-on: we should not import NI’s dysfunctional behaviour into the Republic or pander to or appease it in any way, treating the pathology as though it was normal well-adjusted behaviour. There is an ulterior agenda to undermine Irish nationalism by conflating ‘parity of esteem’ with ‘parity of nationalism.’ In short, it is proffered that unionists and nationalists in NI agreeing to have equal civil and political rights should also translate as equality between nationalisms on both sides of the border, completely negating the concept of national self-determination and the nation state. Failing in their attempts to oppose the right of the Irish people to a nation state, they now seek an alternative of ‘sharing’ Ireland with the Irish as equal partners and owners despite being an irrelevant minority in the grand democratic design who are now far outnumbered by other minorities in the New Ireland.
This is why Lord Lard will inject politics into sport by saying: “I call for sanity by taking politics out of rugby by giving the two states on the island of Ireland equal status as agreed in the Belfast Agreement.” That’s the actual agenda here. It isn’t surprising that certain ‘republicans’ would play along with the idea of unifying the island under Her Majesty’s de facto dominion, completely missing the point of self-determination since they signed away their own right to it when they grandiosely renamed the Unionist Veto as the ‘Principle of Consent’ in the GFA.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 08:34 PMGeorge and Dubliner, this is our (southerners) dysfunction too. The Republic of Ireland does not have a rugby team. If you want an all-Ireland rugby team (accepting that a united Ireland is a long way off) then we are dysfunctional too for exactly the reasons you state. If Northern Ireland cannot agree on a song then “we” cannot agree on a song. If two songs are played before a game in one jurisdiction, but not in another, then that is, by definition, dysfunctional. We are dysfunctional. Learn to live with that fact.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 09:06 PMTrevor Ringland is right on the money here - the Irish Rugby team is an all-Ireland team from both of Ireland’s traditions and it should respect the National Anthem of both parts of Ireland - whether it’s Amhrann na bhFiann in Dublin or God Save the Queen in Belfast.
The Agreement promised equality of respect for the two traditions, and this is a prime example of why many unionists are suspicious that the Unionist/British tradition can be equally respected in the all-Ireland context.
Given that unionist supporters of the Irish rugby team have stood for many years for Amhrann na bhFiann at Lansdowne Road, it was the least they should expect in return for their anthem to be respected at Ravenhill
- instead the current position of the IRFU writes off Ravenhill as “just another foreign rugby ground” which is ridiculous.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 09:55 PMHi Olifear,
I fully understand that what I described is a catch 22 - I hope that my previous postings had pointed out that I am not necessarily digging my heels in as it were - I am merely pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in some of postings here regarding the nature of mutual respect for our respective identities and it’s application.
To be honest my problem is more with the attitutes of some of our Southern cousins on this one. Dubliner’s recent contribution though beautifully written does not fill me with any optimism for the future either I must say.Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 10:11 PMIf my expererience in Buenos Aires is anything to go by there’s a lot of foreigners who think “Ireland’s Call” * is* the national anthem
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 11:16 PMI think Trevor Ringland makes a decent point.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 11:19 PMSheesh again and again and again.
How about instead of a song we start something new with lambegs (for you lot), bodhrans (us lot) and a big bunch of travellers (the other lot) in a feast of fisticuffs for a purse of a conemara pony while the kiwis do the haka but nobody notices as the crowd demand blood?
We could gradually build it up with acts of machismo added as necessary, perhaps a few gaa lads with hurls bateing at the lads who throw the pole at the front of an Orange walk using the pole to hold them off.
It’d be great, honest would you even care for the game after that?
Irelands Call is maybe not the best, but it’s yours and mine and with that said the IRB can drop both anthems.
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 12:31 AMWe need to be totally inclusive, ND.
What exactly is your objection to dwarf tossing?Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 01:01 AMThe words are:
“Our camp fires now are burning low;
See in the east a silv’ry glow,
Out yonder waits the Saxon foe,
So chant a soldier’s song.”I wouldn’t consider this to be racist. I think Peader Kearney uses the word “foe” here in the sense of an “opposing team”.
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 02:06 AMNo need to change the words,just change the status of GSTQ.Make it the Royal anthem and then England, Scotland,Wales,and NI could each have their own national anthems.
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 03:29 AM*Maybe with a couple of changes to an old republican song*
It’s interesting that you describe On the One Road as Republican, I always took it to be one of the few examples of a specifically “Free State” song.
The lyrics appear to me to be telling the defeated Republicans to forget all that silly little unpleasantness of the Civil War, put it all behind us and work together with the new 26 county administration to build a happier Ireland.
I trust I will be corrected if I got this wrong.
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 05:19 AMHarry
“North men, South men, comrades all
Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Donegal
We’re on the one road swinging along
Singing a soldier’s song”“Soon we’ll all be United Irishmen
Make our land a Nation Once Again”Seems pretty republican to me.
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 06:14 AM*Seems pretty republican to me.*
Well vaguely united Irish nationalist certainly but like I said I understood the origins of the song to have come from the Free Staters after the Civil War, hence;
“Though we’ve had our troubles now and then
Now is the time to make them up again
Sure aren’t we all Irish anyhow
Now is the time to get together now.”Like I said I may have picked that up wrong but if my memory serves me correctly I heard this theory from a Republican I knew who always dismissed the song as “Free State shite” and pointedly refused to sing it on the bus going to football matches.
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 08:17 AMOf course there is always the Sex Pistols version of God Save the Queen!
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 08:52 AMIrishmen claiming the anthem of an English monarch as their own is absurd, IMO!
Although the melodic and lyrical merits of the Soldiers Song maybe disputable, but is it the line about the ‘Saxon foe’ that offends Unionists, or the notion of an independant Ireland having it’s own anthem?
‘See in the east a silv’ry glow
Out yonder waits the Saxon foe
So chant a soldier’s song’The poor old Jocks!…
Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring
May he sedition hush
And like a torrent rush
Rebellious Scots to crush
God save the King...Unionists sing it out loud of course, as there is only one type of Scotsman too, the ‘loyal’ type!
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 09:12 AMGreagor
Schoolboy error: the possessive “its” doesn’t take an apostrophe.
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 09:17 AMTheo Logical
Shouldn’t the word Saxon be replaced by Cambro-Scoto-Norman to be more exact?Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 10:56 AMGréagóir O’ Frainclín: ...Unionists sing it out loud of course, as there is only one type of Scotsman too, the ‘loyal’ type!
When and where did you ever hear that verse sung?
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 11:23 AMTheo Logical, so we could replace the phrase “Saxon foe” on a case-by-case basis depending on who we play?
“Our camp fires now are burning low;
See in the east a silv’ry glow,
Out yonder waits the [replace as necessary] foe,
So chant a soldier’s song.”All we got to do is insert Saxon/Scottish/Cumbric/Gallic/Italic/Ozzie/Kiwi/Boerish/etc. in the relevant part. Hmmm ... catchy.
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 11:35 AMHowdy Y’all
I’m back after a work-related absence from the site of about 4 weeks. Another fascinating topic about flags and anthems...(yaaawn).
By the way I’m STILL waiting for UEFA to pass their famous ‘ruling’ that claims their statutes carry more weight than international laws and treaties signed and ratified by sovereign countries, re NI-born players not being able to play for ROI. (Sorry I know it’s off topic but just had to throw that in there).
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 12:13 PMZzzzzzzz
The Belfast Agreement has no jurisdiction over FIFA.
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 12:42 PMOlifear,
Why exert yourself finding an alternative to ‘Saxon foe’ when it does not feature in the national anthem?
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 12:44 PMzzzzz...and FIFA has no jurisdiction over anybody’s right to represent their own country once they qualify as a citizen and arguing from now until the end of time that they do will not change reality...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 12:54 PMUm, yes FIFA does. FIFA is the governing body for football and makes the rules!
You’re just being stupid.
Posted by on Dec 05, 2007 @ 02:14 PM
