Banned !

As they would say in that wee part of the north of Ireland that we have not got yet.

"see them other crowd you could not please them, no matter what you said or did they would want more"

 

Special.

 

Nice one, Rebel. (You've been busy in my absence. Good grief.)

I think I'm still floundering somewhere on page four - I'll need to check - but hopefully I'll start churning out my mouth-woofs before the week is out. (Same tactics as before: plodding through absolutely everything in the order it arrived. Slow and pedantic and tiresome for everyone, just as I like it.)

 

Rebel. Hello.

Forgive the rather long self-quote to kick things off. It’s as much to keep my own head straight as anything else, to remind me where we were and what I was saying and what you may have been responding to:

I suppose I was simply meaning that tacking one’s political affiliations onto the back of a football club seems kind of strange (and yes, cheapening) to me. Maybe it’s simply a matter of taste? I can see why it might be done with a national team, right enough, but struggle to imagine myself doing so with a club outfit, no matter their particular history.

Even then, as an approximation of an adult, I could only ever imagine investing so much hope in a national football team at a very large stretch - and I’m saying this in full awareness of the importance national teams (just look at Scotland’s history) may have to those people feeling politically dispossessed, culturally squashed, marginalised, entirely ignored, discriminated against or put upon in some way or another. If nothing else, it would certainly feel like the more natural home for an outpouring of a very national/nationalist type of sentiment. Like I said, however, this may simply be (inarguable) personal preference.

You don’t feel Celtic are “just another club”? That’s fair enough and perfectly understandable. I do. One of the great clubs in Scotland, true, with a long and colourful history, but, ultimately, just another football club all the same. I’m sure all Celtic fans would probably agree with you on this point, however, but that’s up to them.

And besides, fans of most (if not all clubs) could probably indulge in special pleading to make a case for the uniqueness/specialness of their own teams and of the obliterating joys of their own noisily affirming tribal comradeship etc, as viewed through a necessarily personal and subjective prism. I’m just not that interested in doing so, for whatever reason – the fact that I’ve never met an Aberdeen fan I’ve truly and wholly liked may be one reason, right enough, and I include my own mother in this observation - and find the notion of investing so much of myself in the good fortunes (or otherwise) of a football team rather troubling. I’m not convinced this makes for healthy adult individuals.* (We can excuse children on all counts.) Loyalty, an often indefinable and yet always enduring love, ridiculous pride and momentarily heartfelt disappointment…..no problem. Anything else? Not so much.

Once more, however, we’re simply wading through personal preference, and there’s not much more to be said about that, really, because these things are generally incontestable (and often unprovable, for want of a better word) and don’t readily fall into the “right” and “wrong” categories so beloved of those people quite desperate to moo compellingly fierce opinions on the perceived mistakes and shortcomings of others.

Righty. Moving on......back soon.


*Happy to elaborate.

 

I agree with you on this one Pyscho. I'd much prefer that Celtic concentrated on footballing matters. I've become a bit fed-up with the constant PR machinations of the current board.

 

Yes, I meant Republicanism, sorry if this wasn’t clear. My personal preference sees this (Irish Republicanism) as being very broadly more important than a single Scottish football team, probably because I simply view football as a mere game (and will hopefully always do so), representative of nothing much more than my eleven guys kicking lumps out of yours whilst trying to put a bouncy round thing into a net, although I suppose you’re quite right in that the question could be flipped either way. I hadn’t really been thinking of it like that at the time. Interesting. Many Celtic fans – possibly/probably the majority? - may feel that the association with Irish Republicanism cheapens/stains/disfigures Celtic in some way, who knows? Boffins should conduct a survey, for sure. (Seriously.)

Anyway, they could probably make a good enough argument on a few counts, if for no other reason than the fact that Celtic play in Scotland, not Ireland; the majority of the people they play before are currently (presumably) Scottish, not Irish - and a historical link with the cause of Irish Republicanism in no logical way legitimises or necessitates a present-day infatuation. In the same way, of course, that such a present-day infatuation is in no way de-legitimised by the club’s history. This comes down to personal choice.

And, as ever, once we make our personal choices, it would seem unappealingly high-handed and selfish not to take into consideration how these choices of ours may impact on other people in the society in which we choose to utilise these cherished and hard-won freedoms. I’m not sure how else a liberal democracy might usefully function. (I think I’ll be getting back to this in response to something else you said, however, so it can wait.)

I don’t know about that. I think it may be demonstrably false and, if not, it certainly runs the risk of appearing like one of those “I’m just misunderstood, me, is all” defences, which may be very, very insulting to those people who clearly and fully (and respectfully) understand the message and intentions (of Republicans) and don’t try to misconstrue the meaning at all and yet still feel that you (Republicans) tarnish the clubs’ name by choosing to follow the path that you choose to follow.

There must be room in the world, after all, for accepting that some people may perfectly well understand your message and may welcome the legitimacy of its expression, whilst perfectly legitimately arguing themselves that you are simply needlessly divisive and bring (what they perceive to be) harm to your club in the process of delivering it. They may even agree with your political outlook and the message you seek to deliver, in fact, and they may even know more about it than you do, whilst still holding true to their own convictions that you are simply wrong-headed to express them in such a way, in such a setting. Fair enough?

You’ll love this comparison, for sure, but maybe there is a touch of the Tony Blair in those sort of assertions, the faintly messianic belief that if only people could hear the power of his arguments – the truth of his word - they would soon enough fall into agreement or an appreciative understanding. The world just doesn’t work this way, though, and equally committed, intelligent and decent people on the other side will usually find equally valid counterpoints to all that may be thrown against them. And certitude itself, whilst bolstering the beliefs of the asserter – there is nothing wrong with my message, other people are simply at fault - may be seen as a corrosive flaw all on its own. The fault always and only lies with other people for not understanding the message? It never lies with those people delivering the message or with the message itself? I can’t buy into that.

Specifically back to Celtic, though: I’m not saying people don’t sometimes willfully (or otherwise) misunderstand the message and then use it as a stick to beat Celtic with, I’m just saying that it seems factually wrong to assert that the only way any damage is ever done to your club’s name is if other people fail to understand the Republican message, when the very message itself – once fully and appreciatively understood - may be seen by others to be damaging to begin with, however non-sectarian, however strictly Irish and political it may be. Anyway, the solution, as ever, may be to compromise? But, like I said earlier, we’ll probably get to that later on.

I'm getting some coffee and then I'll be back for a bit (but will probably manage only one more response, sorry).

 

Hmm. I had to read this sentence a good few times to try to make a sense of it and I’m still not sure that I recognise an observable logic in the words. I certainly see a clever turn of phrase (I’m a fan of such things, so this is high praise) and one, fair enough, that may very well satisfy those who wish to be satisfied at nothing more than a glance. I’m just not sure it actually makes any sense at all, though. (Sorry in advance, obviously, if I’m getting this wrong.)

And you are talking about the past, of course, whereas I was talking about the present. Fair enough, but why stop there? Why not broaden things out?

I mean, football or football clubs in themselves don’t hijack political (or religious) circumstances or ideals, surely, the people within or around football or football clubs do, if they are seen to do so at all? This may seem like a fiddly distinction, but it’s certainly not intended that way. In fact, I think it’s rather an important one to make.

And if we choose to strip things back further, I suppose, it might just as easily be argued that politically and/or religiously motivated people hijacked Scotland’s most popular pastime and used football – the useful idiot in all of this – as a giant billboard for their very particular set of ideals in their formation of, in this very particular instance, Celtic.

(And fair play to them, I suppose. In the days of Celtic’s formation, God alone knows Irish Catholic immigrants needed something to feel good about in an often distinctly unwelcoming Scotland, which was oftentimes either overtly or slyly prejudiced against both Catholics and the Irish. The predominantly sly sort of prejudice against (specifically) Catholics persists in pockets of Scottish society to this day, I feel, but that’s an argument for another time. (I’m not wishing to overlook the Protestant immigrants from Ireland – who made up roughly 25% of the dual-immigration of those abandoning Ireland (usually the north of Ireland, to be more specific) and moving to Scotland at the same time – but they don’t seem particularly relevant to all of this. Not yet, anyway. Who knows where it might all lead, though?))


Anyway, I think it might then become harder to see football as having hijacked the ideas/ideals that these men held – football existed before Celtic, after all, and often managed to find itself being played in Scotland without any particular political ideology in (overt) attendance – and they may instead simply see men sticking their ideas on top of football and, by extension, on top of their (soon to be formed) club.

In other words, in order for a football club to hijack a political circumstance – if such a thing is possible - the club (or sport) itself must first be hijacked (for want of a better word, it suddenly feels awfully pejorative, sorry) by the kind of people who may then be inclined to hijack a political circumstance thereafter.

Also, very strictly speaking and on a more pernickety note, I feel the two halves of your sentence as they stand (and I can only read the words before me and remain attractively receptive to clarifications) contradict each other:

If a political circumstance dictated the very existence of the club, then how can it reasonably be said that the club hijacked the political circumstance? The primary mover, surely, if the first half of your sentence is correct, would be politics, not football? Ergo: football was hijacked by politics and not the other way round.

I’ve officially got a sore head now.

Anyway, as I’m not a Celtic supporter, the circumstance of the club’s formation barely matters to me either way, I suppose – not that I know a great deal about it - and whilst I have a perfectly reasonable respect for the past, I don’t see that we must necessarily feel bound by it or to it. I like to think that we can change and move on, nodding respectfully to the past as we forge a very different kind of future. (And I’m an utter Luddite in most matters, Rebel, bewailing the imbecility of our modern day “progress”, but I’m still not inclined to see any logic in the belief that because things were such and such a way in the past that we must therefore endeavour to keep them that way in the present and/or the future or continually remind ourselves of how people thought and behaved one hundred and thirty odd years ago. Whilst the root cause of Irish Republican dissent and grief may understandably not have changed, times certainly have.)

You said earlier that the circumstances of Celtic’s formation are more enduring than those of either Dundee Utd or Hibs (and not forgetting all those other clubs with a similar sort of background who went to the wall). This seems true, but I can only really think to congratulate Dundee Utd and Hibs for having seemingly moved on from the past to a greater degree than some Celtic fans appear to have done. Or is that unfair?

And so this may be reasonably turned on its head, I suppose, by people who might ask themselves why Celtic*, given the template for a comparatively seamless assimilation as set out by the still living examples of Dundee Utd and Hibernian, find themselves continually and presently associated with/embroiled in the politics of Ireland?

(Is this possibly some sort of grisly tug-of-war between Scots and Irish we’re witnessing as they try to lay a greater claim to Celtic? I’m thinking out loud. Excuse any gauche questions, please, but the idea and imagery just sloped into my head.)


Okay, enough already. I’ll get back to everything else later on.


*Or some of her fans, more accurately, as I think the club itself, as represented by those in the boardroom, has sought to distance itself from Irish politics over the years?

 

Yes, but you're special, Venom.

 

If you refer to the team on the pitch, then I’d happily agree that a football stadium is probably not the place to cede ground. If you refer to the fans going (legally) mental in support of their team, then I’d also probably agree. But if you refer to anything else, then I can only really ask why not? Who says? When did that rule about football grounds come into place? I don’t really understand the logic behind such an idea, I’m afraid? Is it further explicable?

In any event, ceding ground may often be viewed as a finely judged (very classy, very considerate and conciliatory, anything but meek – I can’t emphasise that enough) political gesture. But I’m gay that way and love it when we all get along and look out for each other.

Excitingly underhand sidenote: if a football stadium in Scotland isn’t the place to cede some Irish Republican political ground, where is? Can you think of somewhere better? Either Celtic Park is the best place for Irish Republican political gestures or it isn’t, after all, and if Celtic Park is the best place for Irish Republican political gestures, then it must be equally valid as a place to witness the gesture of Irish Republican political retreat. On your terms, then, one that sees a football stadium as a perfect place to exchange political ideals, I see no particular barrier to a football stadium also being the place to cede some (political) ground. I don’t believe that such an idea or such an imagined obstacle to change makes sense. It just sounds like something someone might say – “a football ground is not the place to meekly cede ground” – without there being any real substance to the claim. (I do this all the time, I’m not saying you’re somehow unique in this.) But it simply doesn’t make any sense, surely? If you mean to say that a football stadium is not the sort of place normally associated with ceding ground, then fair enough, this would feel true. It still wouldn’t mean we were obliged to remain trapped in such static, one-dimensional thought-patterns, however. There is no discernible reason that a football stadium can’t be exactly the sort of place where people might cede ground, political or otherwise.*)

Is it? That may depend on how much (political) noise you think your (singing) noise is making, I suppose. (And yes, of course, there is a storm of delinquency surrounding these things at the moment as Scottish legislators rush to roll back the enlightenment etc, but you know what I mean: the general effectiveness of these songs in championing or progressing a cause, of making others interested enough to follow up the songs with some research of their own, of facilitating any meaningful political developments etc must be open to question; neverminding your own personal experience, obviously.) I’m not sure I’ve ever really equated loudness with political effectiveness, though, and I may even think the exact opposite. I don’t know. I’d need to think about it.

Personal preference: I’ve usually always been more receptive to (and persuaded by) a well-written polemic, written and then read in silence, than by the noise of a street harangue (or similar). I’m sure there must be others like me. I certainly hope so, anyway.

Point of order or possibly irony: you seem to be making a perfectly plausible case here, Rebel, maybe - and definitely, in my case (I have no pride) - helping to illuminate for others the way a certain breed of Irish Republican’s mind may work, amongst other things, and I’m almost certain you won’t have been singing your responses as you typed.

Purely in terms of effectiveness, I’m minded to believe that your calm exposition here is more likely to feel persuasive or lastingly relevant to some people (a good many people?) than any song being sung at a football match.** It’s really not all that hard to quietly champion a cause, then, as I think you’re more or less proving with every single word that you write. But this must surely be a side-issue. If that. (And, of course, we must allow for the fact that writing about our political beliefs in no way precludes us from singing about them, as well. These things may be claimed to work in conjunction, for those with a mind to have them do so.)


*Not that I’m particularly suggesting that the people who sing these songs at Celtic should necessarily feel obliged to cede any ground on this issue (at the moment), I’m merely talking about a point of principle. (Do always try to bear in mind, please, that I’m generally very sympathetic towards these (non-sectarian) songs and feel that people must – must - have a legal right to sing them. I find it an interesting enough subject, for sure, but it’s also entirely new to me, so I’m just trying to piece together some objections and then see what your own objections to the objections may be. This makes sense in my head, don’t worry about it.)


**Although, I suppose you could argue “but ha, up yours pizza-chest, the songs took us here in the first place; we wouldn’t be discussing this without these songs having first been sung, innit.” I’d probably need to lie down at that point.

Back after lunch......(hopefully).

 

And so it continues......

Fair enough.

Hmm. People who say sport and politics don’t mix are clearly wrong, of course, because sport and politics are often very obviously mixed. This isn’t to say that it’s always right (or wrong) for sport and politics to mix, it’s simply to say that to deny that it happens (or can happen or will happen again in the future) would seem baffling. No arguments there.

Also, it seems to unfairly disallow for those times when sport and politics may accidentally mix and create something rather beautiful (if ultimately futile) – the black Jesse Owens winning gold at the Berlin Olympics in 1936, for example, in front of a sea of white supermen Nazis.

Really? Fair enough. I wouldn’t know, but I’m happy to take your word for it if this has been your personal experience.

Hypothetical: You would afford an understanding (and warm?) welcome to a group of one thousand or so Unionist-minded Celtic fans, say, who took it upon themselves to sing the praises of Unionism and wave Union Jacks (or whatever these people wave) at Celtic Park, if they felt the club needed a new political direction? Celtic Park would be the ideal place for them to air their equally earnestly held political views? Or would this maybe lead to disharmony, petty insult and possibly violence, given the already excitable nature and mob mentality of the average football crowd?

Would you try to drown them out? If so, why? Or would you be happy, given that this was the ideal setting for political views to be aired and exchanged, to wait until they had finished their, um, presentation, before making a case of your own? I may be wrong, but the effectiveness of such political dialogue seems suspect - in which case, it might reasonably be extrapolated that a sporting venue is maybe more suited to the exchange of political views just so long as the political views being exchanged are broadly similar to each other - or not sufficiently different, in any event, to provoke (unjustifiable, obviously) physical assault or a much more general bedlam.

I have a broad suspicion – correct me if I’m wrong – that you would maybe always be more accepting/welcoming of political views similar to your own being aired at Celtic Park, as opposed to those views diametrically opposite. In which case, unless the politics of others (as revealed through the medium of song) were made wholly and unequivocally welcome at Celtic, you might eventually run the risk of at least appearing to some like one of those people “who say sport and politics don't mix” because they simply “don't like your politics”. (Should I be saying "Parkhead" or "Celtic Park"? I've just realised I don't know.) If Celtic and politics must mix, then Celtic and any politics (within legal reason) must mix - unless discrimination is to take a hold, obviously. (But you know this and I'm merely thinking out loud.)

Or would those proud, staunchly Unionist Celtic fans, waving their thousand flags or more and singing about all sorts of ancient Britishy stuff - we rule the waves, you know? Something to bear in mind, Rebel - be seen as the culmination of a dream; living proof that a football stadium really is a suitable place for a profitable exchange of political ideals? I struggle with that, I must admit.

On a happier note, however....

Rangers fans often sing Britishy things, you know? Great bunch of guys. You should maybe try singing/exchanging some of your Irishy songs with them. What’s the worst that could happen? I foresee great leaps in political discourse, Mr B. The tranquil setting of an Old Firm match will surely be the ideal backdrop for a discussion of those deeply emotional and intensely painful issues that may make us burn with a destabilising rage at the best of times.

Give it a whirl, for sure.

I'm not sure I properly understand what this means, sorry, although I have a feeling I may agree.

Right so, have a good Friday night and I'll see you soon.

 

Okay, fair enough.

Leaving aside the Rosa Parks comparison for the time being, if it is felt in Irish Republican circles that singing songs at football grounds in Scotland is a necessary addition to the many means they already have to get their points across, then that’s just the way it goes. <greedycreeps>

I can only say that I don’t particularly look forward to the day that every political party or movement takes it upon themselves to air their views in similar fashion. I prefer a more measured examination and don’t see that it is necessarily beneficial to Scottish society to have political views shouted in an already highly emotional setting – or anywhere much at all, come to think of it.

I think football fans may already be in a volatile enough state as they watch their teams play without adding the potentially incendiary spice of politics into the mix. In balancing the risks and benefits to Scottish society, then, I would probably tend to feel that the former may outweigh the latter. You may feel this is an ideal setting to “exchange political ideals”, but it may also look more like one-sided propaganda to others. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s not kid ourselves that this is a cultured or reflective way to go about the business of political discussion.

Unless it really is an "exchange", unless you really are taking on board the political ideals of others as you go about the business of singing? Or is your mind already made up, politically speaking? I’m not sure I see how this all works. How does the exchange manifest itself, come to think of it? Are fans of opposing teams part of the exchange? Or is this simply in-house, in-group politics?

And if the traffic is seen to be all one way – namely, some Celtic fans airing their political views for public consumption whilst playing Aberdeen, say – would this simply be the fault of Aberdeen fans for failing to respond in kind? Would it be our fault that an exchange of political ideals – and I’m all for exchanging political ideals, just to be clear - wasn’t really seen to be working in this instance? If so, does it then become preferable for all fans of all football teams to make a point of airing their political views whilst watching their teams play in order that this exchange may take place, or simply in order to even things up?

And what if fans of the same team hold a multitude of differing political views, how would we decide which political ideal best suited our club? And why would we choose to straitjacket the image of our club this way, in any event, rather than simply revelling in the simple fact that support of our team is the one thing that momentarily unites us all – class, age, sex and colour be damned - and that it would be a self-sabotaging act of peculiar disharmony to chip away at this fleeting sense of solidarity by concentrating on our respective political beliefs?

God, I was going to brief here, as well. Sorry, but the questions just keep on coming. It all feels so alien and perplexing. Good stuff.

Back whenever....

 

Sorry, one further thing:

Does this mean that the singing would immediately stop if the demands of Irish Republicans were satisfactorily met? Just say it all happened tomorrow - everything you'd ever hoped for as a Republican - would this stop you from singing the songs? And if it did, would this change your relationship with the club (as you mentioned previously)?

 

Some Hun plod on business in Rennes has reported Celtic to uefa for sectarian singing

 

That should certainly help clear things up here.

(I'll keep going forwards - I'm stuck in a rut - and we'll maybe collide in the middle one day or somewhere along the line.)

 

Do you happen to know the particular song(s) that he/she cited as being sectarian?

 

It's funny how Celtic and Rangers get reported to uefa , but Chelsea who got caught singing racist songs in their last champions league get away with it

 

.