No worries about the go-slow/take things one at a time approach. Where’s the hurry, anyway? Righty…. The principle is sound, but I feel the realities (and practicalities) are somewhat different. You wouldn’t ask anyone to curb a legitimate political expression anywhere? Fair enough. I probably would. And if I didn’t – I would have no real expectation of success, after all, but for the sake of a harmonious dinner party I may very well ask someone to shut it - I would certainly be very happy to temporarily curb my own, most especially in a setting where the majority of people might be seen to be enjoying “time-out” from the stresses and strains of the world. It’s a game, after all, and I’m always minded to consider it as such, a useful (and often necessary) distraction. The key word I suppose is “temporarily”. It’s not a permanent muzzling or a constant decree that these things must never be aired, after all, merely a request that an understanding is given that we all need space to be free from such considerations at certain points in our lives. There are Irish newspapers, Irish TV stations, Irish politicians, whole books devoted to just such subjects as Republicanism….all manner of avenues, in other words, where these concerns may be (and are) openly addressed/celebrated/challenged. You feel Rosa Parks was similarly represented? I don’t. And, as such, I’m not sure I would necessarily accept such a premise – that the actions of Celtic fans at a football match are either a) born of a similar, and currently present, oppression and discrimination or b) that the suppression of Irish Republican ideals – and it may be useful to have these briefly outlined – may currently be said to be at such a heightened and systematic level that every opportunity must be grabbed to air them. I just don’t see this. There are also Scottish newspapers and TV stations and British newspapers and TV stations where it might fairly be noted that an articulation of Irish Republicanism can often be seen and heard. Never minding the vast (and powerful) body of support and articulation as found in North America. I just don’t believe Rosa Parks had this level of (very public) support. Do you? And then, of course, there is Ireland itself, as useful a place as any for the promotion of such ideas. And no, this isn’t some cheap jibe about keeping Irish affairs out of Britain – and that would be ironic, I feel, if we cast our minds back through the history books to the Plantation of Ulster – it is merely pointing to the fact that such ideas and values have a very obvious home, a place where they might flourish and be embraced, which is a long way short of anything Rosa Parks ever had in her noble attempt at a life. So.....the principle you outline is sound, I feel, but I'm afraid I don't really see the connection between Rosa Parks and the current levels of discrimination suffered by those who would like to air their views on Irish Republicanism. Anyway, I have no objection to such things being raised in (a distinctly Scottish) public – I even have a vague sort of an interest in seeing them done so – it’s merely that I would personally be very happy to forego such expressions of my political beliefs for ninety minutes on a Saturday afternoon. Personal preference, but I could think of better ways of getting my point across or of showing my affiliation to a political ideal. I also simply need a break from **** like this every once in a while. I think most people do. (Not specifically Irish Republicanism, I hasten to add - about which I know very little, although suspect I may have a fair amount in common with - just life.)
Aha. You've posted Part 2. Nice one, thanks. I'll need to get back to you on this (and all subsequent things) as I'm heading off to read the rape threads. It's the weekend, Mr B, and I need the lighter thrills of rape and racism to gladden my permanently sinking heart. Back soon enough, though......
I understand that this is the position adopted by Mick. He can correct me i he likes. My position is that there is probably no better place to do it. If the point is to reach out to educate folk, then there is no better place. You might not get folk to read a book ......but you might if they are familiar with the names, ideals and principles. The Celtic support, (a large number of whom) coming from the Irish diaspora is imo exactly the right kind of people to share that message with. Again, I understand that you are going to get that element of people who are going to do it just to noise people up. They maybe miss the point but as with any other method of teaching you find another method to deliver the message.
It isn't beyond me to change my ways. That tends to suggest a degree of belligerence. I am not incapable of change, nor am I steadfastly sticking to an opinion just because I held that opinion 5, 10 or 15 years ago. I do and will continue to revisit why I hold these views and indeed having these conversations is a valuable way to do that. If adopting that position is no longer tenable, then I'd not view it as a climb-down, rather that the circumstances had changed and with it my opinion. As for the causing of offence, I hope that I have detailed the reasons for why this is not the purpose behind singing these songs. I have said here and elsewhere that I understand the capacity for causing offence. I genuinely do understand that. However, to take that offence you do have to take a leap away from what and who is being sung about. Unless someone can illustrate otherwise, I don't know of any songs sung by the support that relate to specific instances. If people are broadly offended by militant Republicanism from a now defunct organisation, then fine, but that doesn't de-legitimise who and what is being sung about. Emotive or not, it remans only a political objection.
I would always expect a fair hearing in a true democracy. Not getting one would illustrate an inability or refusal to change on the part of the person(s) who are taking the opposing view. On that basis those who share my views have to continue to try and engage whether it is futile or not.
Rebel - it's clear that you are a 'real' irish republican with genuine political beliefs and knowledge of the subject (unlike some of those who sing the songs, I suspect). You make a decent case for the legitimacy of singing republican, non-sectarian songs in the context of Celtic games (although like Psycho, my tendency is to argue against that viewpoint). But I'm interested in your views of singing lines like 'Oooh-ahhh-up-the-RA' in the Celtic Symphony? It's easily changed to 'Up-the-celts' (as played on the tannoy), it's not a republican or political song, doesn't tell any great historical truths and singing it seems to me utterly pointless as it does nothing but give others ammunition against the Celtic support. To be honest I find it quite moronic.
Quite simply if you stop talking about it, it gets forgotten or put to one side. A legitimate political expression should not be legislated against or forcibly removed. If it dies out organically, then that is the way it goes. I'll have to accept that. It would also change my relationship with the club. The club has always had that link with those seeking Irish freedom. Be it the boardroom in the early years, or the fans in later years. I accept that to many this aspect of the club is not of major importance. That is fine. Those folk would have to concede that this is a major part of the clubs DNA and that it matters to some. Perhaps that is getting away from the point.
I accept that but it is primarily a Celtic song. It is maybe unfortunate in that is how it was written (to reflect a Republican element within the support). I'd have to question its relevance now as it doesn't do anything to educate or promote the "cause" other than tie it to the Celtic support. To be honest it is a good song and I'm wary of changing it but only from the perspective of where censorship may take us. Whether that is a battle worth having, I don't know.....I'd suggest probably not. Although this is tempered by the deep irony in the PLC approved amendments to the song entitled "Let the People Sing" That troubles me more. I can be unequivocal in saying the PIRA chants at Tynecastle last year were gratuitous and borne out of the exact kind of "Up yees" attitude i mentioned earlier. I don't believe the same was true 15-20 years ago so it is much easier to deal with that kind of unambiguous stuff than it is with the Celtic symphony. But I do accept what you say.
I think it's a great song too RB, one of the best we have. But there's just no need at all for the 'Up the RA' bit now and I'm not convinced that there was when it was written either. Showing my ignorance now - what were the amendments to 'Let the People Sing'?
I think I have probably addressed the rest of your Psycho’s post in answering the questions, if I haven’t, point it out and I’ll have a go. I didn’t really get at the idea of whether or not this cheapens the Republican ideal by associating it with a football club. In my opinion I don’t think it does. Whether I am right or not, I don’t believe that Celtic is “just another club”. Whilst the circumstances of the formation of our club are not unique, they have been more enduring than others still in existence that share a similar root (Hibs and Dundee United). The very existence of the club was dictated by a political circumstance and as such a football club hijacked a political circumstance rather than the other way round. The other thing was about tarnishing a cause I hold dear. I don’t know if you mean Celtic or Republicanism. If you mean Celtic, then I think that given a fair chance to explain myself then people will either respectfully disagree or agree with me. A tarnishing of the clubs’ name only happens if I don’t explain myself well enough or if people deliberately misconstrue the message. If you meant Republicanism, then I have had this argument with Republicans who despise the link with Celtic for that very reason. Again, I’ll point to the same thing that is the enduring link between the two. They are intrinsically linked, without being interdependent.
I don't think it would mention the IRA if written today, that is for sure. the 2nd verse is reworked in the version played at Celtic park of LTPS. Celtic version: It was back in ancient times, The bard would tell his stories Of the heroes, of the villain, Of the chieftains in the glen. through the passages of time with passion and of glory to those who've gone before, I'll sing for you once more. Actual version: It was back in ancient times, The bard would tell his stories Of the heroes, of the villain, Of the chieftains in the glen. Through Elizabethian time And Cromwellian war and fury Put our pipers to the sword, Killed our harpers and our bards.
I take the point, but equally a football stadium is not the place to meekly cede ground. It is difficult to quietly champion a cause. Again, I take that on board but I have always thought of a sporting arena as a perfect place to share political ideals. The people who say sport and politics don't mix are usually the ones who don't like your politics or the ones who lack the moral fortitude to address it. I'm thinking of the touring teams to apartheid SA here. The singing of rebel songs is borne out of the continued occupation of Ireland. It is from that perspective that I put forward the comparison. At a time where a Bill is put forward that can effectively criminalise political expression within our support then reinforcing the legitimacy of the songs is perhaps more important right now than at any other time. Fair point, although I would add that the actions of Rosa Parks became a focal point and an inspiration for the civil rights movement in Alabama and beyond. Her notoriety for a simple act is testament to how much her legend is promoted and valued. even if this support was given in retrospect. Citing the plantation as a reference point to why Republicanism might more readily find a home in Ireland is an interesting take on it. In 1607, just prior to the plantation of Ulster was an event known as the Flight of the Earls pre-empting the plantation where Hugh à Neill of TÃr Eóghain, Rory à Donnell of TÃr Chonaill left Ireland for mainland Europe to seek support to recover lands taken from them. They never made it back. You also previoeusly mentioned support from North America. So I guess the point is that there is a place where these ideals can flourish and it is amongst the diaspora. Celtic is a seminal symbol of that diaspora, so finding Republicans in Scotland shouldn’t be considered unusual or inappropriate imo. I guess I was suggesting that Rosa Parks took an unpopular step and was ultimately vindicated. Whether I was being overly dramatic or not, I don’t know.
Beautiful stuff, Rebel, I’ll look forward to ploughing through it all and responding in due course. Is this addressed to me? I’ll just imagine that it is and answer accordingly, okay? You seem to make the common mistake of believing that one must choose a preference one way or the other, a perennial failing of fans of the Old Firm teams when assessing the arrival of a remarkably good-looking neutral. Is it really so hard for you to understand that other people – those of us who live outwith the suffocatingly black and white landscape of a Glasgow-scented mentality - may like raping just as much as we like to be raped? Some of us are perfectly well able to appreciate the respective validities (and heightened pleasures) of both initiating rape and getting a good hard raping, Superhoops, without ever feeling any particular need to side with one practice over the other. Raping is valid. Being raped is equally valid. I’m entirely comfortable and capable of holding both these competing ideas in my head at the same time, as are the rest of my people. Why won’t you simply respect our culture without trying to force us to take needlessly partisan decisions? Unbelievable.
Hello again. I imagine Iâll only get through one segment of punch-up today, but Iâll be sure to get through everything else later on. (Itâs quite good, anyway, to get down to rather sharper specifics about certain things, rather than wildly flail about all over the place with multiple strands going on. Thatâs what Iâm telling myself, in any event.) Fair enough about the songs not being intended as an intentional provocation to those who may recoil from the sentiments. I feel I may have occasionally seen different whilst living in Glasgow, right enough, but Iâm certainly very happy to trust your sincerity. But âthese songs are sang to educate those within our own support and to facilitate education.â How do you â not you personally, Rebel, but all those who may subscribe to such views - feel qualified to assume the role of teacher to those people in Scotland who may not necessarily feel the need of your particular brand of education? Can you see why this might seriously get peopleâs backs up, perhaps even to the detriment of the efficacy of those lessons you seem to feel we need taught? (It would certainly bemuse me if someone said they were singing songs in my ear because they felt I needed educating â about a cause close to their heart - in my free time. As a means of generating goodwill and support for a cause, this may be right up there with the menacing amiability of a big tent evangelist smiling as he damns us all to hell. Jeezo.) âIf folk reject that notion, then fine.â Really? But you donât leave them in peace, surely, if they reject this notion, because you keep on singing, so itâs clearly not âfineâ â not for them, anyway, because they still have to endure being taught through the medium of song. Is there an opt-out clause? This may all seem flippant, I know, but how do you make provisions for those people â letâs stick to Celtic fans - who donât want to be subjected to your teachings? Are they even considered in all of this, in fact, or must your own views and wishes always have primacy? Something about this makes me uneasy. (Again, I need to stress, the âyouâ I am using represents all who subscribe to such views and should not be seen as being personalised in any way.) Would you at least agree that whilst you have a right to sing these songs other people may equally be said to have a right not to be subjected to them? And if you do concede such a point, how do you generally go about the business of respecting their rights? And if you donât respect their rights, do you feel itâs reasonable to expect others to respect yours? If so, why? And if you donât concede the point, how is it that you feel other people donât have a right not to be subjected to your songs and teachings and yet you have a right to both sing and teach? How do you strike a balance, or do you not aim to strike one to begin with? And if you donât aim to strike a balance to begin with, is it reasonable to expect other people to try to strike a balance with you? And if you donât expect anyone on either side to ever strike a balance, how do you see things progressing and would this be your idea of a functioning and/or healthy democracy? Does any of this make sense or do I just sound utterly mad? I'm just going through the questions as they naturally fall out of my head. (I leave the legislation aspect out of all this, of course, because I think youâre quite right about that and weâll only end up agreeing even more and falling quite hopelessly in love. Messy business.) Aidan McAnespie: good point and very nicely explained. If learning about this from Celtic supporters means something personally to you then Iâm not about to argue with that. How could I? Right so, my eyes turn anxiously towards Pittodrie, sorry if this all feels rushed.....
