Newcastle V Sunderland Sunday 31st October 2010 This extract was taken from the guardian in 2005. On Sunday afternoon, about one million people in Tyne and Wear and an additional million more from the North-Eastâs diaspora, will watch and listen to what they consider to be the most important match of the season. Yet, to the rest of the watching world, the outcome will be observed with indifference. The Tyne-Wear derby may be perceived by the uninitiated as parochial and unsophisticated, but like the worldâs greatest derbies it has a historical conflict as its bedrock. And if anything, as a basis for a rivalry, the Sunderland-Newcastle derby is the most legitimate conflict anywhere. Some of the great derbies are based on issues that are trite and irrational. The historical class difference, for example, between the Milan clubs â Milan traditionally unionist and working-class, Inter upper-class and conservative â is now moot, given the chairmanship of the right-wing Silvio Berlusconi at Milan. Their historical reason for difference has dissipated, as it arguably has for Juventus-Torino, Real Madrid-Atletico, and Panathinaikos-Olympiakos. The Celtic-Rangers rivalry has been written about extensively, and needs no elaboration. Other than to say that if football can act as a metaphor for international and jingoistic warfare, then the Old Firm is the most articulate. But the Tyne-Wear derby wins in its secular and concise regional conflict. It does, after all, predate football by 226 years. It is a conflict that has divided two cities, 12 miles apart, for more than three centuries. In the epoch before the 1600s, King Charles I had consistently awarded the East of England Coal Trade Rights (try to contain your excitement) to Newcastleâs traders, which rendered the Wearside coal merchants redundant. People died because of it. Coal and ships were Sunderlandâs raison dâetre. But when, in 1642, the English Civil War started, and Newcastle, with good reason, supported the Crown, Sunderland, because of the trading inequalities, sided with Cromwellâs Parliamentarians, and the division began. It became a conflict between Sunderlandâs socialist republicanism, against Newcastleâs loyalist self-interest. A purposeful enmity if ever there was one. Unlike rivalries between other clubs, the differences between Newcastle and Sunderland date back to fighting based on the necessity to live and feed oneâs children, and benefit oneâs city. The political differences between the two culminated with the battle of Boldon Hill. A loyalist army from Newcastle and County Durham gathered to fight an anti-monarchist Sunderland and Scottish army at a field equidistant between the two towns. The joint Scottish and Sunderland army won â and Newcastle was colonised by the Scottish. It was subsequently used as a Republican military base for the rest of war. And while this is a lucid basis for two cities hating each other, it has, like every other modern-day derby, developed profoundly irrational manifestations. It has been noted that some Newcastle fans refuse to buy bacon, because of its âred-and-white appearanceâ â the pinnacle, regardless of any jovial flippancy, of irrational behaviour. Likewise the past Mackem boycott of a particular breakfast cereal, because of the Newcastle-orientated marketing of its brand, is silly beyond words. However, these are benign occurrences. In March 2000, more than 70 Sunderland and Newcastle hooligans took part in some of the worst football-related violence ever seen in Britain. It was not even a match day. What the police called âusually respectable men and fathersâ had decided to meet in mutual territory with their enemies, to fight with knives, bats and bricks. Sunderland fans boarded a ferry towards Tyneside, found the awaiting âarmyâ, and fought. One man was left permanently brain-damaged. Dozens of people were arrested, and years upon years of prison-time was sentenced. The continuation of tension involves a new sense of injustice. For well over a decade, Sunderlandâs population has bemoaned that they have been paying their local taxes to finance both the Newcastle Metro and airport. A perceived bias towards Tyneside in the regional and national media further compounds a feeling of inequality. It seems that history is repeating itself for the people of Sunderland, albeit in a less livelihood-threatening sort of way. Perhaps a more trivial, city-image sort of way. But this makes little sense. Letâs just hope that despite the hijacking of the game by the corporate class, and the working-class ostracising that comes with it, there remain terraces from which Mackems and Geordies can vent their invariably abusive opinions of each other without violence and civil war. Why Mackems and Geordies? The derivations are uncertain, but both have theories based in historical political allegiances. âGeordieâ because of Tynesideâs staunch support of the Hanoverian King George II during the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion â âGeordieâ is a common diminutive of âGeorgeâ; and Mackem because of Wearsideâs accommodation of the Scottish âBlue Macâ army during the civil war. It is more likely, however, that the origins stem from aspects of the shipbuilding and coalmining industries. The Tyneside coalminers preferred George Stephensonâs âGeordieâ safety lamp over the more widely used Humphry Davy lamp. And it has been accepted almost universally that Mackem is derived from the phrase Mak(e)âem and Tak(e)âem, coined by Tyneside shipbuilders to insult their counterparts on the River Wear, who would build the ships and have them taken away by the richer classes. NOT MY STORY, HOPE IT HELPS SYD.
Stevenson's 'Geordie' lamp (named after him) was used extensively all over the Northumberland and Durham coalfield. And when NE miners were employed to open the newly found Kent coalfield in the early 1800s, Kent people first refered to the men who carried the lamp as 'Geordies'. So Geordie applies to everyone from the coalfield. Newcastle was the administrative centre of the region so they got the name as well. But, with typical Newcastle arrogance, the time came when they claimed to be the only true Geordies (which was laughable in the extreme when you consider they don't have a pit in their city boundaries!!!). And Sunderland people were soft enough to pander to that. Some imbecile around 1980 dreamt up the joke word 'Makem' and it was accepted - but not by me. My mother's family came to the NE around 1853 to escape the Irish famines, and from that day to about 1960 every generation worked at Wearmouth Colliery. I am a proud Geordie, born and bred in Sunderland of coal-mining stock. And no one to this day has ever insulted me with the word makem without getting a gobfull. I'm just not prepared to have my rightful heritage stolen by a bunch of arrogant little twerps up the road, who were 'office Geordies' at best and never had a pit of their own. If anyone should have changed their names, Newcastle should have. They were never pit-working Geordies anyway. We are the proper Geordies, and should never have let them get away with their cultural rip-off.
You're one of the few who acknowledge that the word mackem is a derogatory term. I have many Sunderland supporting mates who I'd never dream of calling a mackem. I call them (the good ones) red and whites. People like Bart are mackems.
I am a proud Geordie, born and bred in Sunderland of coal-mining stock. |Sorry but that's a contradiction in terms??????
The Scots crossed the Tweed in 1644, with eighteen hundred infantry, and three thousand five hundred cavalry. Sir Thomas Glenham was at Alnwick; he retreated before them, and entered Newcastle. The Scots encamped before Newcastle, and then summoned it to surrender,âthey besieged the town three weeks; but being afraid of the loyalists, they precipitately, on the twenty-eighth of February, left their encampments, crossed the river Tyne, and entered the town of Sunderland. General King, of the loyal party, when he learned they had taken shelter in Sunderland, left Newcastle, and advanced towards Sunderland; he sent them a summons, and defied them to meet him, At this, their national Scotch spirit took fire; they left the town, accepted the challenge, and a battle took place, between the parties at Boldon Hills. The Scots were beat by the royalists, and retreated before them, taking refuge in their trenches; (the vestiges of the Scotch camp and trenches were visible all along the north side of the Pan-field, previous to the ground being levelled and built upon) but during the night, they received a reinforcement, of both horse and foot, which so revived their courage, that they trusted they should be able to overcome the loyalists; they, therefore, on the morning, furiously attacked them, and, with great impetuosity, they came upon the rear of the Marquis of Newcastle's army; so furious was this attack, that the Marquis' men could not stand the first onset, and were just upon the point of giving way. General Lucas, the commander of the right wing of the royalist army, at once saw the danger of the rear, and immediately, with great promptitude, advanced to their assistance. The contest now became very furious; the Scots were, however, after some time, compelled to retreat. During the time the Scots lay in Sunderland, several of their ships laden with provisions from Scotland, were either taken or lost; they of course were greatly distressed for want of provisions; therefore, all the garrison, except two regiments of infantry, marched from Sunderland, and encamped in the neighbourhood of South Shields. Newcastle was closely besieged by General Leven, at the head of the Scotch army. The beseiged made a stout and obstinate resistance; they were, however, on the 19th October, 1644, under the necessity to surrender. The only mention of a sunderland army is in your makem propaganda billofengland?
Badger If you studied your history, you would know that Sunderland was already a parliamentarian stronghold, and the reason for that was that Charles the 1st had granted the coal trading rights to Newcastle despite Sunderland producing more coal and also being closer to the London market. The Scots were just a part of the parliamentarian army who slaughtered the loyalists who had been based in Skunksville.
No, my ancestors (and probably yours) earned that name from the lamp by working down the pit. Newcastle people never did. (It's a bit of a moot point. It was always generally accepted that they were Geordies as well, because it was the administrative capital of the coalfield. But they didn't physically earn it as our ancestors did). We are the true Geordies, not them. I say 'we' but that's not to forget the rest of the coalfield - Horden, Dawdon, Stanley, Ashington, Blyth - they're Geordies). I never heard the word mackem before about 1980 or so. It's a meaningless joke and I will never be refered to that way without stopping to correct it. Newcastle has pulled off the biggest cultural rip-off I know, and Sunderland people allowed it to happen. But, I doubt we can put the clock back. I don't doubt there are loads of 17 year-olds walking the streets of Sunderland tonight, not knowing the facts, and proud as hell to be 'mackems'. A contradiction in terms. It never was, but I think you're probably right now. The majority have probably accepted the rip-off and learned to live with it. For the future - I'm certain that it will become a contradiction in terms, as you say. Those "proud" 17 year-olds are going to grow up with it. That's life I guess.
OK Mr.White studying history! Tell me about the "Battle of Bolden hill" then? Which version is right? The article in the Guardian or the piece I posted? As far as I can see billofengalnd is using the Gaurdian's article as gospel. You and I both know that it is factually incorrect and lacking in historical value.
The battle itself ended in the royalist army being slaughtered almost to a man. This was mainly down to the royalist commander being unwilling to retreat/surrender even when the cause was regarded as hopeless. Most historians agree that the civil war as a whole resulted in neighbour fighting neighbour and sometimes even brother fighting brother. However, regarding the the battle of Boldon Hill, the consensus of opinion agree that the vast majority of Sunderland people supported the Roundheads and the vast majority from Newcastle supported the Cavaliers.
On what grounds can you justify that statement? I really tried to answer your question in an honest unbiased fashion, even giving credit to the crazy royalist bravado. Everything that I have stated is based on history books that I have read from one time or another...Or are you trying to say that the royalist army actually won the day. When reading history you have always got to be aware of its source and if any bias is attached to it. And to be honest, the vast majority of historical accounts leans towards the royalists. So for that reason I think that the account that I have portrayed is closer to the actual truth than most.
THE DOMESDAY BOOK 'A description made of all England- covering the lands of every shire and the property of every magnate in fields, manors and men - whether slaves or freemen, cottagers or farmers - in plough teams, horses and other stock, in services and rent.' So wrote a monk in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about the Doomsday survey. WHY ? In a violent age William had a well earned reputation for ruthless efficiency both as a soldier and tax-collector. In the turbulent years following the Battle of Hastings, William had rewarded his chief barons with land confiscated from these landowners and from tens of thousands of lesser men. He now realised that he had little idea as to their exact holdings: this meant that it he was not raising as much geld as he might and also that he might not be able to spot any potential power-blocks that could be a focus for future rebellions. The Doomsday ensured that all land holdings and tax liabilities were revealed; THE Boldon Buke Although William Conquered north east England as far as the Scottish border, he did not include it in the Doomsday, The reason for this seems to have been that his control of the area was somewhat tenuous and he did not dare send commissioners north of the Tees without an army to back them up, A century later, however, the Bishop of Durham, very much an independent power in the land, carried out a complete survey of the church lands under his control. One of the first places to be recorded in detail is Boldon , and throughout the rest of the book the phrase 'they pay taxes as at Boldon constantly occurs. The name 'Boldon Book' was therefore soon coined and has stuck to this day. The rivalry between Newcastle and Sunderland goes back to 1642, when King Charles I awarded the East of England coal trade rights to the coal merchants in Newcastle upon Tyne. In effect Newcastle had effective control of the movement of coal in and out of the North East of England. This put their counterparts in Sunderland out of business. In 1644 during the early stages of the English Civil War, Newcastle was attacked by the Scottish army siding with Cromwell against King Charles. Sunderland, probably for the reasons above acted as a supply base for the Scottish army. There followed the Battle of Boldon Hill, in which an army gathered from Newcastle and County Durham was defeated by the Scottish army. Newcastle was subsequently captured by the Scottish. Unfortunately today, some of the people involved in this rivalry are not aware of its historical roots. The motive is pinned wholely on the rivalry between the football clubs of the two cities and often leads to violence. A lot of people in the area have merely been brought up to hate the residents of the rival city without actually knowing exactly why or having any reason of their own. Could this be the reason.If you know of a different explanation E.mail the webmaster and we will endeavour to put it on the site. .............................................................. This is one of the typical accounts of the events of the battle.
There followed the Battle of Boldon Hill, in which an army gathered from Newcastle and County Durham was defeated by the Scottish army...... Prove it! let's have your sources...
