| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
pre Madonna 
Robbie Keane
I am MALDING
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Location: Trumpton
Status: Offline
Points: 44659
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 2:28pm |
 sid waddell wrote:
pre Madonna wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
I referenced another Brolly piece to show that assertions of his supposed notions of "cultural superiority" are erroneous.
In that article he's very complimentary to association football and association football supporters and how the game can be a positive force.
You can take pride in your culture without denigrating others.
In my memory of reading his articles, any of Brolly's disparaging references to association football have concerned how it has embraced the corporate agenda and how that corporate money is dispossessing supporters, which is something most supporters of the game would wholeheartedly agree with.
If you can find a reference to, say, a disparaging remark about Derry City, the League of Ireland or supporters of such, feel free to reference one, but I've never seen one. |
IN that article he may be, he often comes across as a decent skin; in his most recent article he doesn't. He lost all sight of what he was trying to say and went off on a tangent that ended up in a tree. He may not have notions of "cultural superiority" but if you only read the original article you would think differently. That whole article is incoherent, misjudged and nationalist overtones of cultural superiority and not cultural difference. |
Which part of the article asserts "cultural superiority"? |
So you don't think the tone and language used suggests that what he sees as 'Gaels' are superior people? I would say the whole piece implies that.
|
 |
seaniemac
Jack Charlton
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 6245
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 2:35pm |
|
In the last year or so, Brolly's columns have started to become less about Mayo being bottlers/Tyrone being a disgrace to mankind/the shocking standard of Leinster football and become more about society and what's wrong with modern Ireland. There's a politician waiting to break out of him. Wouldn't be surprised to see him go down that path in a few years.
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 2:49pm |
SuperDave84 wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
SuperDave84 wrote:
Hmmm, the Vertex point is completely different.
Joe comes across like Vertex, if anything: unwilling to compromise, unwilling to even try and understand things from the other size.
His is not so much about "respecting" the other side but about refusing to even consider compromise. How is it possible to have respect if all you do is accentuate differences? It's like Brexit and Trump: look at what the bad people did (the soccer lovers, the murderers, the compromisers), against what the good people of Slaughtneil are (relentlessly, aggressively Irish nationalist, "famous gaels", "steeped in the GAA"). Flip around his argument that there is no appeasement that would satisfy Tom Elliott and Gregory Campbell, and you have an argument that there is no appeasement that would satisfy Joe Brolly and "famous gaels"; it's not about respecting difference at all. He is refusing to even think about movement on the anthem and flag issues, refusing to try to come to an inclusive ideology, because he sees them as outsiders.
He's only a step removed from calling for planters and prods to be put back on the boats to Scotland, and it's a deplorable, retrograde attitude that makes him sound like a Northern Trump, giving out about Protestants rather than Mexicans.
|
The GAA was set up specifically to promote the goal of a 32 county Ireland and to promote Gaelic culture.
It's as much a cultural organisation as a sporting one.
Why should it abandon one of its founding principles to appease Tom Elliott and Gregory Campbell?
Why should not wanting to abandon that be seen as a dangerous ideology?
If anything, the view that says the GAA should moderate its position as regards flags and the anthem to appease Unionists is the dangerous one which doesn't recognise difference.
I don't tell Unionists whether they should fly flags from their house or on orange marches and have no intention of doing so. |
The Orange Order was set up specifically to promote the goal of the Crown and the House of Orange and its culture.
It's as much a cultural organisation as a political one.
Why should it abandon its founding principles of cultural opposition to Republicanism to appease the likes of Joe Brolly?
Why should not wanting to abandon that be seen as a dangerous ideology?
If anything, the view that says the Orange Order should moderate its position as regards flags and parades to appease Republicans is the dangerous one which doesn't recognise difference.
I don't tell the GAA whether they should fly flags from their house or on St Patrick's Day marches and have no intention of doing so.
|
That's a lovely leap you've made there.
The GAA as far as I'm aware doesn't insist on holding matches and flying tricolours on the Shankill Road.
It doesn't insist on flying a tricolour above Belfast City Hall.
It also not an organisation specifically restricted to people of a certain religion.
I have no objection to the existence of the Orange Order itself as long as they do not infringe on the civil rights of others.
Do you?
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 2:51pm |
pre Madonna wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
pre Madonna wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
I referenced another Brolly piece to show that assertions of his supposed notions of "cultural superiority" are erroneous.
In that article he's very complimentary to association football and association football supporters and how the game can be a positive force.
You can take pride in your culture without denigrating others.
In my memory of reading his articles, any of Brolly's disparaging references to association football have concerned how it has embraced the corporate agenda and how that corporate money is dispossessing supporters, which is something most supporters of the game would wholeheartedly agree with.
If you can find a reference to, say, a disparaging remark about Derry City, the League of Ireland or supporters of such, feel free to reference one, but I've never seen one. |
IN that article he may be, he often comes across as a decent skin; in his most recent article he doesn't. He lost all sight of what he was trying to say and went off on a tangent that ended up in a tree. He may not have notions of "cultural superiority" but if you only read the original article you would think differently. That whole article is incoherent, misjudged and nationalist overtones of cultural superiority and not cultural difference. |
Which part of the article asserts "cultural superiority"? |
So you don't think the tone and language used suggests that what he sees as 'Gaels' are superior people? I would say the whole piece implies that. |
Superior to who?
|
|
pre Madonna
Robbie Keane
I am MALDING
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Location: Trumpton
Status: Offline
Points: 44659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 2:56pm |
sid waddell wrote:
pre Madonna wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
pre Madonna wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
I referenced another Brolly piece to show that assertions of his supposed notions of "cultural superiority" are erroneous.
In that article he's very complimentary to association football and association football supporters and how the game can be a positive force.
You can take pride in your culture without denigrating others.
In my memory of reading his articles, any of Brolly's disparaging references to association football have concerned how it has embraced the corporate agenda and how that corporate money is dispossessing supporters, which is something most supporters of the game would wholeheartedly agree with.
If you can find a reference to, say, a disparaging remark about Derry City, the League of Ireland or supporters of such, feel free to reference one, but I've never seen one. |
IN that article he may be, he often comes across as a decent skin; in his most recent article he doesn't. He lost all sight of what he was trying to say and went off on a tangent that ended up in a tree. He may not have notions of "cultural superiority" but if you only read the original article you would think differently. That whole article is incoherent, misjudged and nationalist overtones of cultural superiority and not cultural difference. |
Which part of the article asserts "cultural superiority"? |
So you don't think the tone and language used suggests that what he sees as 'Gaels' are superior people? I would say the whole piece implies that. |
Superior to who? |
Anyone who isn't a 'Gael', the fact he doesn't clarify what that is just adds to the general ambiguity of such a tortured piece of writing.
|
|
SuperDave84
Robbie Keane
ooh Thomas, how could you do this to me!
Joined: 26 Aug 2011
Location: Far Fungannon
Status: Offline
Points: 21384
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 2:57pm |
sid waddell wrote:
SuperDave84 wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
SuperDave84 wrote:
Hmmm, the Vertex point is completely different.
Joe comes across like Vertex, if anything: unwilling to compromise, unwilling to even try and understand things from the other size.
His is not so much about "respecting" the other side but about refusing to even consider compromise. How is it possible to have respect if all you do is accentuate differences? It's like Brexit and Trump: look at what the bad people did (the soccer lovers, the murderers, the compromisers), against what the good people of Slaughtneil are (relentlessly, aggressively Irish nationalist, "famous gaels", "steeped in the GAA"). Flip around his argument that there is no appeasement that would satisfy Tom Elliott and Gregory Campbell, and you have an argument that there is no appeasement that would satisfy Joe Brolly and "famous gaels"; it's not about respecting difference at all. He is refusing to even think about movement on the anthem and flag issues, refusing to try to come to an inclusive ideology, because he sees them as outsiders.
He's only a step removed from calling for planters and prods to be put back on the boats to Scotland, and it's a deplorable, retrograde attitude that makes him sound like a Northern Trump, giving out about Protestants rather than Mexicans.
|
The GAA was set up specifically to promote the goal of a 32 county Ireland and to promote Gaelic culture.
It's as much a cultural organisation as a sporting one.
Why should it abandon one of its founding principles to appease Tom Elliott and Gregory Campbell?
Why should not wanting to abandon that be seen as a dangerous ideology?
If anything, the view that says the GAA should moderate its position as regards flags and the anthem to appease Unionists is the dangerous one which doesn't recognise difference.
I don't tell Unionists whether they should fly flags from their house or on orange marches and have no intention of doing so. |
The Orange Order was set up specifically to promote the goal of the Crown and the House of Orange and its culture.
It's as much a cultural organisation as a political one.
Why should it abandon its founding principles of cultural opposition to Republicanism to appease the likes of Joe Brolly?
Why should not wanting to abandon that be seen as a dangerous ideology?
If anything, the view that says the Orange Order should moderate its position as regards flags and parades to appease Republicans is the dangerous one which doesn't recognise difference.
I don't tell the GAA whether they should fly flags from their house or on St Patrick's Day marches and have no intention of doing so.
|
That's a lovely leap you've made there.
The GAA as far as I'm aware doesn't insist on holding matches and flying tricolours on the Shankill Road.
It doesn't insist on flying a tricolour above Belfast City Hall.
It also not an organisation specifically restricted to people of a certain religion.
I have no objection to the existence of the Orange Order itself as long as they do not infringe on the civil rights of others.
Do you?
|
So you accept the principle that they should compromise for the sake of civic unity?
|
|
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:08pm |
SuperDave84 wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
SuperDave84 wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
SuperDave84 wrote:
Hmmm, the Vertex point is completely different.
Joe comes across like Vertex, if anything: unwilling to compromise, unwilling to even try and understand things from the other size.
His is not so much about "respecting" the other side but about refusing to even consider compromise. How is it possible to have respect if all you do is accentuate differences? It's like Brexit and Trump: look at what the bad people did (the soccer lovers, the murderers, the compromisers), against what the good people of Slaughtneil are (relentlessly, aggressively Irish nationalist, "famous gaels", "steeped in the GAA"). Flip around his argument that there is no appeasement that would satisfy Tom Elliott and Gregory Campbell, and you have an argument that there is no appeasement that would satisfy Joe Brolly and "famous gaels"; it's not about respecting difference at all. He is refusing to even think about movement on the anthem and flag issues, refusing to try to come to an inclusive ideology, because he sees them as outsiders.
He's only a step removed from calling for planters and prods to be put back on the boats to Scotland, and it's a deplorable, retrograde attitude that makes him sound like a Northern Trump, giving out about Protestants rather than Mexicans.
|
The GAA was set up specifically to promote the goal of a 32 county Ireland and to promote Gaelic culture.
It's as much a cultural organisation as a sporting one.
Why should it abandon one of its founding principles to appease Tom Elliott and Gregory Campbell?
Why should not wanting to abandon that be seen as a dangerous ideology?
If anything, the view that says the GAA should moderate its position as regards flags and the anthem to appease Unionists is the dangerous one which doesn't recognise difference.
I don't tell Unionists whether they should fly flags from their house or on orange marches and have no intention of doing so. |
The Orange Order was set up specifically to promote the goal of the Crown and the House of Orange and its culture.
It's as much a cultural organisation as a political one.
Why should it abandon its founding principles of cultural opposition to Republicanism to appease the likes of Joe Brolly?
Why should not wanting to abandon that be seen as a dangerous ideology?
If anything, the view that says the Orange Order should moderate its position as regards flags and parades to appease Republicans is the dangerous one which doesn't recognise difference.
I don't tell the GAA whether they should fly flags from their house or on St Patrick's Day marches and have no intention of doing so.
|
That's a lovely leap you've made there.
The GAA as far as I'm aware doesn't insist on holding matches and flying tricolours on the Shankill Road.
It doesn't insist on flying a tricolour above Belfast City Hall.
It also not an organisation specifically restricted to people of a certain religion.
I have no objection to the existence of the Orange Order itself as long as they do not infringe on the civil rights of others.
Do you?
|
So you accept the principle that they should compromise for the sake of civic unity?
|
Your comparison starts from the default position that one is the equivalent of the other in terms of its actions, which is obviously wrong.
I can list you numerous examples of the Orange Order infringing on the civil rights of others.
As long as they refrain from doing that I don't have problem with their existence. Do you?
Can you list me any examples of the GAA infringing on the civil rights of others?
What's your stance on, say, Algerian flags being flown in Paris when Algera are playing an important World cup game?
Or, say, Scottish flags being flown in Scotland by pro-independence campaigners? Or Catalan flags being flown in Catalonia? Or Pakistani flags being flown in Bradford during a Cricket World Cup? Or Italian flags being flown from chippers when Italy are playing?
|
|
Het-field
Roy Keane
By Appointment to His Majesty The King
Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 10732
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:11pm |
|
In fairness there were certain rules which were set by the GAA which may not have infringed rights, but were certainly incredibly, and needlessly myopic. Rules which ultimately required to play "foreign games" under pseudonyms is an example.
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:14pm |
Het-field wrote:
In fairness there were certain rules which were set by the GAA which may not have infringed rights, but were certainly incredibly, and needlessly myopic. Rules which ultimately required to play "foreign games" under pseudonyms is an example. |
Which was abolished 45 years ago.
|
|
Het-field
Roy Keane
By Appointment to His Majesty The King
Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 10732
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:16pm |
sid waddell wrote:
Which was abolished 45 years ago. |
You asked for an example. it may be old, but it existed in the lifetime of many people, including those on this forum.
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:19pm |
Het-field wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
Which was abolished 45 years ago. |
You asked for an example. it may be old, but it existed in the lifetime of many people, including those on this forum. |
But it didn't infringe their civil rights, so it's not an example.
|
|
Het-field
Roy Keane
By Appointment to His Majesty The King
Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 10732
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:21pm |
sid waddell wrote:
But it didn't infringe their civil rights, so it's not an example.
|
I said that already. But it is an example of a myopic policy of the GAA, which certainly determined the behaviours of its participants.
|
|
pre Madonna
Robbie Keane
I am MALDING
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Location: Trumpton
Status: Offline
Points: 44659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:24pm |
|
The rule may have been abolished but the attitude persists in places.
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:25pm |
Het-field wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
But it didn't infringe their civil rights, so it's not an example.
|
I said that already. But it is an example of a myopic policy of the GAA, which certainly determined the behaviours of its participants. |
You can consider it a myopic policy. So would I.
But it wasn't infringing anybody's civil rights, so it's irrelevant in the context of the discussion.
And, as I said, it was abolished in 1971, which makes it even less relevant to the discussion, if that were possible.
|
|
Het-field
Roy Keane
By Appointment to His Majesty The King
Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 10732
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:28pm |
sid waddell wrote:
You can consider it a myopic policy. So would I.
But it wasn't infringing anybody's civil rights, so it's irrelevant in the context of the discussion.
And, as I said, it was abolished in 1971, which makes it even less relevant to the discussion, if that were possible. |
Its mainly for context. Like I said, the GAA may never have infringed Civil Rights (unless somebody happens to believe that Rule 21 did), but they were happy to dictate quite a bit.
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:28pm |
pre Madonna wrote:
The rule may have been abolished but the attitude persists in places. |
There are plenty of association football people with extremely hostile attitudes to the GAA.
There are plenty of rugby people with extremely hostile attitudes to the GAA.
There are plenty of association football people with extremely hostile attitudes to rugby.
There are plenty of rugby people with extremely hostile attitudes to association football.
C'est la vie.
|
|
pre Madonna
Robbie Keane
I am MALDING
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Location: Trumpton
Status: Offline
Points: 44659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:35pm |
sid waddell wrote:
pre Madonna wrote:
The rule may have been abolished but the attitude persists in places. |
There are plenty of association football people with extremely hostile attitudes to the GAA.
There are plenty of rugby people with extremely hostile attitudes to the GAA.
There are plenty of association football people with extremely hostile attitudes to rugby.
There are plenty of rugby people with extremely hostile attitudes to association football.
C'est la vie.
|
Indeed, the difference between the GAA and the other sports mentioned is their ability to cooperate for the greater good. I never heard of people being ejected from an association football club for playing hurling on their pitch for example, and aside from Davy Tweed, I have never heard religion mentioned in a rugby club., etc.
|
|
sid waddell
Roy Keane
On a dark desert highway
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12173
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Dec 2016 at 3:37pm |
Het-field wrote:
sid waddell wrote:
You can consider it a myopic policy. So would I.
But it wasn't infringing anybody's civil rights, so it's irrelevant in the context of the discussion.
And, as I said, it was abolished in 1971, which makes it even less relevant to the discussion, if that were possible. |
Its mainly for context. Like I said, the GAA may never have infringed Civil Rights (unless somebody happens to believe that Rule 21 did), but they were happy to dictate quite a bit. |
Rule 21 didn't infringe civil rights either. That doesn't mean it wasn't a myopic policy, but it also doesn't mean it was a myopic policy either, given the way the British security forces engaged in systematic intimidation and discrimination against non-unionists.
It was what it was, a policy of its time. And it goes back to the central fact - the GAA is much a cultural and national and anti-imperial organisation as a sporting one, which makes it very different to the FAI, IFA and IRFU.
|
|
Tweet
