Eligibility Rules, Okay

[paul_oshea]

I love the last line a subtext to strike home a dig
but it wouldn't bother me personally.

is Rory actually Catholic gr? I thought he went to a Catholic primary but secondary comprehensive so I just assumed it was for different reasons than religion.

I know Mcdowell is from a mixed marriage but I thought McIlroy was full lineage protestant.

[Charlie Darwin]

Zzz, get some new material/ fabric ffs. It's official in the CG, FIFA, UEFA, has been for decades, recognised as such Worldwide. Maybe the UN will get round to acknowledging it once they've persuaded Enda and co. to support an end to killing civilians in Gaza.
Why would the UN recognise any national symbol of Northern Ireland when they don't even recognise it as a country?

[Gather round]

Paul: Never been to Church with the guy but I know a few teachers and ex-pupils at his secondary school. For what it's worth it's quite posh and in one of the most unionist towns in NI.

Charlie: my flight of fancy, not meant to be taken literally
:D

[ArdeeBhoy]

Ginger Spide in no-class non-shock, yet again. The only surprise is that anyone's surprised. You couldn't really love it if ye reared it :D

This is the same guy who got worked up on T*watter when McIlroy supposedly couldn;t make up his mind which team to support. He's a knob.

Of course there are pros and cons for both sides. Poison Dwarf wins a regional competition but has to endure the agonies of Danny Boy while the fans put up with his cartoon Provo gibberish in return for a medal.

You're welcome to him, bye.

Hmm, bile 1 rational debate 0
Though apparantly later contradicted below?


Sectarian intent- sneering at McIlroy basically as a Unionist although he's only ever represented one country, unlike the hypocritical Barnes, then gurning through Danny Boy, then posting the usual incoherent sh*te on Twitter. So sectarian effect. Admittedly reading his account is marginally less painful than listening to him talk (and I went to school round the corner from his club).

You can't seriously be suggesting that him and McIlroy being the same (or any) religion is relevant. Atheist paramilitaries who shoot people are the most sectarian of all.
Don't think PB had any sectarian intent, just that he saw double-standards in terms of the Olympics. As in someone with a more 'glamorous' image.

As for McIlroy, he comes from a mixed heritage, not too many uber-Prods would call their lad Rory...
Plus like most other all-island sports, he's pretty much obliged to represent Ireland.
Big deal.

And 'atheist paramilitaries'? :confused:


Sure, I celebrated PB's gold for the reasons already given in my first post on the subject. Basically, there are pros and cons for both sides. His d*ckwad behaviour on Saturday just tips the scales. Without him we'd have got one less medal and finished one place lower in the table. I could live with him deliberately missing the games-it'd be similar to our two hockey players who got medals for England.

As for the rest, AB has either been sitting in the sun too long or is tired after re-typing the collected works of a chimpanzee. I've never suggested that the Irish Republic should join the Commonwealth or would gain any real benefit from it. After all you already hae a good relationship with England, adoring crowds to meet Betty Windsor and the rest.

The first part of that doesn't really make sense in the context of the earlier quote, whilst the latter you've normally said in a usually patronising or sneering tone regards Ireland being part of the Commonwealth. Dunno about the royals but the only potential 'advantage' might be increased trading partners, those most of them compared to the EU seem too far away?

Oh and one last thing, there is no country called the 'Irish Republic'. Get over it.
:rolleyes:

[Charlie Darwin]

Charlie: my flight of fancy, not meant to be taken literally
:D
Perhaps you should begin to instruct your elected politicians that you will like to be recognised as an independent country :p

On McIlroy, the kid was brought up with the best of everything. The established order has been very good to him so it's hardly surprising he supports its continuation.

[DannyInvincible]

Sectarian intent- sneering at McIlroy basically as a Unionist although he's only ever represented one country, unlike the hypocritical Barnes, then gurning through Danny Boy, then posting the usual incoherent sh*te on Twitter. So sectarian effect. Admittedly reading his account is marginally less painful than listening to him talk (and I went to school round the corner from his club).

It's convenient for you that he wears his heart on his sleeve - it helps to frame him as a rash mouth - but I think the charge you level is pretty spurious. Barnes wasn't complaining about McIlroy participating for the Irish team because McIlroy happens to be a constitutional/default unionist; the problem he saw was with McIlroy's wavering in coming to a final decision (http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/paddy-barnes-i-dont-want-to-see-mcilroy-represent-ireland-at-olympics-30365786.html), combined with fact that OCI president Pat Hickey had been chasing (or "crawling", in the words of Barnes) after him with the carrot-offer of carrying the Irish tricolour in Rio whilst McIlroy had yet to indicate any commitment whatsoever and was seriously pondering the merits of representing another nation (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/irish-olympic-boss-crawling-to-rory-mcilroy-with-flag-offer-says-paddy-barnes-28872602.html).


The reason I don't like Mcilroy representing Ireland at the Olympics is because he doubted going for Ireland, you should be proud to!

Why is Barnes a hypocrite? He would never have considered representing any other nation over his own at the Olympics?

His tweets do border on the incoherent, I'll grant you that, but since when did incoherence amount to sectarian intent? Can you point me towards at least one tweet that you feel indicates sectarianism on his part? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but you're the one levelling the accusation, so I'd imagine you'll be able to back it up fairly easily. That you feel pain from the sound of the "ginger spide" talking is maybe more indicative of the personal prejudice you hold yourself?...


You can't seriously be suggesting that him and McIlroy being the same (or any) religion is relevant. Atheist paramilitaries who shoot people are the most sectarian of all.

Religion has long played the role of socio-political marker in the north, but I wouldn't be so sweeping in my distribution of such an accusation. Are you saying then that a nationalist taking issue with another individual's unionism, or, vice versa, a unionist taking issue with another individual's nationalism, must harbour some (even mild) form of sectarian prejudice? At times in practice, perhaps things became strained due to the increasingly entrenched polarisation of orange and green along religious lines - who was it played the Orange card again? - but the broadly-secular Irish republican movement has always been strictly unsectarian, at least in theory. There's a broad separation of religious faith and green politics.

Loyalism (both its militant and constitutional versions), on the other hand, has always been the bedfellow of conservative biblical/evangelical Ulster Protestantism, and, dare I say, anti-Catholicism/"Popery". The marginalised "Protestant" atheist David Ervine was a breath of fresh air. I loathe to sound biased, but sectarianism of a supremacist bent has been integral to loyalism's very fabric in a way that republican political thought has never been directly led or influenced by Catholic theology, never mind by a sense of superior entitlement. You'd never have a working-class republican organisation entitle itself the "Catholic People's Forum", for example, nor do you see significant numbers of nationalist politicians fill the ranks of what you might (at a stretch) refer to as republicanism's equivalent of the Orange Order, the Ancient Order of Hibernians; a fairly marginal Catholic fraternal organisation established in response to 19th-century anti-Catholicism and now popular, mainly (only?), amongst a minority fringe of Irish-Americans keen to prove their devoutness to "Catholic Ireland's cause".


While I quite like the NI flag, I'd be quite prepared to compromise on a new one, take the crown off for instance. Are there any suggestions that would get both community support? No, in fact there are no suggestions at all from SF and SDLP, who (like you, presumably) think it's more politically adroit, or funnier, to riff incessantly that NI somehow isn't 'official' without one. Whatever floats your boat...

Whether I find it amusing or not, I'm not sure how its use can be reconciled with the purported shared-future-for-all-style objectives of bodies, such as the IFA, who have adopted it. Why those in such a progressive and forward-thinking organisation like the IFA would want to wait for the initiative of SF or the SDLP on the matter of their chosen representative symbolism, I just don't know...


The Flaggers are ridiculed both for mass intolerance and minority turnout, clearly one contradicts the other.

Broad intolerance. And the disaffected from loyalist communities have been fairly numerous, no?


His d*ckwad behavior on Saturday just tips the scales.

I wouldn't advocate someone going out to a podium with the intention of causing offence, especially if they'd voluntarily signed up to the whole affair under a culturally-alien banner in the first place and used it as a platform for their self-promotion. Barnes knew what flag would be flown and what anthem would be played. However, I don't think he had any pre-intent to insult anyone, nor did he indicate that the situation of having to stand on a podium whilst the dust was removed from the 'Danny Boy' record and olde 'Ulster Banner' (it must have been a while since they'd seen the daylight!) was intolerable for him. He offered no opinion on that. He was clearly prepared to put up with it and keep his head bowed. The likes of Wayne McCullough misinterpret when they scold Barnes for the alleged contradictory nature of his conduct (http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/former-world-champion-slams-disrespectful-barnes-after-anthem-remark-1-6217204):


“He knew going in. If he didn’t wanna stand for the anthem he shouldn’t have chosen to be part of the team,” he said.

He was doing OK, just about to stand through it, head down. He didn't say he couldn't put up with it. Nevertheless, the incident happened. The imprudent interruption wasn't necessarily something I would have encouraged in advance, but it was something I was able to laugh at in hindsight. It was done and we were where we were. It sat on the same level as harmless banter for me. Not a big deal, personally. Is that puerile? There's a time and place for getting precious, as the better of the two EGs said. Barnes corrected or enlightened an inquisitive fellow boxer who, for whatever reason, decided to interact with him at what happened to be a pretty awkward moment. It was surely, from Barnes' perspective, a bit of an unexpected turn and, for everyone else, a rather absurd and surreal calamity. He wasn't really intending to make a statement, but in his perhaps guileless need to correct his opponent, lest the opponent thought he identified politically with the loaded symbolism on display, it kind of became one. Gary Neville might have done similar had anyone ever asked him mid-anthem why on earth he wasn't singing 'GSTQ' with the rest of his England team-mates every time he took to the field to play an international game.

Maybe I found it almost comic because you wouldn't remotely expect such forthrightness as that in such a context; from a public competitor of the "officially neutral" post-peace process north and especially not one standing on a podium, all eyes and cameras focused on him, receiving a medal under that said banner of pretence. Maybe it was a refreshing change from the heroically-celebrated non-committal aloofness of the likes of blandly-wavering establishment-favourite Rory McIlroy; a shining example for the rest of us embittered cretins, allegedly... Barnes isn't some national republican hero - he remains light entertainment - but it was mildly subversive and transgressive, and, yes, I found that amusing. The context and symbolism concerned, no doubt, coloured my pleasantly-surprised reaction. I thought it was a funny moment and, as I've said, importantly, harmless. Intentional desecration of some sort would have been a different matter, but he didn't engage in anything of the sort. He answered a question to set the record straight - maybe the timing was somewhat off - but he didn't stage a political protest. It has been near-elevated to the level of one due to the over-reaction of some precious observers, mind.


is Rory actually Catholic gr? I thought he went to a Catholic primary but secondary comprehensive so I just assumed it was for different reasons than religion.

I know Mcdowell is from a mixed marriage but I thought McIlroy was full lineage protestant.

He was baptised a Catholic and possibly raised as one, but he's not of a religious disposition, as far as I know. In fact, he'd have us believe he doesn't believe in anything!

[ArdeeBhoy]

As ever, Danny wins by miles. If it was a fight would have been stopped etc.

Though in this case a wee bit of a sledgehammer to crack the nut...

[paul_oshea]

DI where do you find out such information "he was baptised a catholic"?

[Charlie Darwin]

Church records I'd imagine

[The Fly]

DI where do you find out such information "he was baptised a catholic"?

It's well known.


As ever, Danny wins by miles. If it was a fight would have been stopped etc.


To be fair, Danny could very well type someone into submission. ;)

[DannyInvincible]

Church records I'd imagine

St. Colmcille's in Holywood, to be precise. :p


DI where do you find out such information "he was baptised a catholic"?

It's mentioned at the beginning of the second chapter (third paragraph down) in his biography by Frank Worral (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X1JlAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT25&dq=5Ly3m1_XC8rXS2sw&pg=PT25#v=onepage&q&f=false):


Gerry McIlroy (then 27) had married Rosaleen McDonald (27) in St Colmcille's Church in Holywood, East Belfast, County Down on 13 January 1988. A year and a half later, on 4 May 1989,their son Rory was born – also in Holywood – and would be baptised in the church where they were wed.

Of course, it's easy for McIlroy to be the shining light and modern-day poster-boy for the "new NI for all"; very few have experienced the luxury he enjoys and shared the opportunity he's had, or "God-given" talent, as Worral would have us believe. For anyone interested in exercising good communal relations whilst still cherishing a strong bond with their national identity, maybe Barnes, of humble beginnings, is the more realistic and worthy example for anyone in the north not living in a privileged Holywood bubble; he was able to represent all creeds whilst still holding his own nationality dear. Barnes' reality is the more commonly relevant one. OK, I won't quite espouse idolatry, but maybe something to chew on... :o

And I really don't see why his participation for NI in the Commonwealth Games necessarily has to make him a hypocrite. For sporting reasons, irrelevant and suspect symbolism aside, he seems to have been proud to represent and win a medal for the people of his local region supporting him, both "Catholics and Protestants alike".

[paul_oshea]

I typed rory mcllroy well known in google it didnt come up with that.

[Charlie Darwin]

You probably should have entered something about his religion then.

[Crosby87]

Caroline said he wasn't circumcised.

[DannyInvincible]

I typed rory mcllroy well known in google it didnt come up with that.

Ha, I'm not quite sure if you're being serious. Deciphering your posts can be difficult at the best of times, Paul, but I'll assume you're joking, possibly through a subtle reference to your apparent inability to find the FAI's e-mail address via Google the other week?... :p

Either way, information on Rory McIlroy isn't all that difficult to come by. He has a published biography, as has been mentioned above. Typing a few fairly obvious key words like "mcilroy baptised catholic (https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mcilroy+baptised+catholic)" into Google (not even his first name would have been required) would have gotten you some material from which to further investigate.


Caroline said he wasn't circumcised.

Believe it or not, Crosby, circumcision is somewhat of a rarity outside North America, the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East and Australasia.

[The Fly]

Believe it or not, Crosby, circumcision is somewhat of a rarity outside North America, the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East and Australasia.

At least there's something that unites America and the Muslim world.

edit: Oh, and Capital punishment. (forgot about that!)

[osarusan]

The context and symbolism concerned, no doubt, coloured my pleasantly-surprised reaction.


I'd say this is the most important point in all this.

From your perspective, he's one of 'us' doing something which ****ed 'them' off, and you're pleasantly surprised and happy to play it down, just as they are outraged and happy to play it up.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Clearly PB was impressed by the veracity of GR's (and the other begrudgers) 'argument', hence
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/barnes-quells-anthem-controversy-30479510.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/paddy-barnes-time-for-new-flag-and-national-anthem-for-northern-ireland-30482513.html

[Fixer82]

Believe it or not, Crosby, circumcision is somewhat of a rarity outside North America, the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East and Australasia.

My wife asked me the other day, 'if we have a son, would you get him circumcised?' because the American women on her pregnancy app were all talking about it.
'Why', I asked her 'would I unnecessarily mutilate my child?'.
She kind of went quiet and thought about it for a while and eventually said 'I don't know'.*

*this may belong in the 'World Football' thread

[geysir]

I'd say this is the most important point in all this.

From your perspective, he's one of 'us' doing something which ****ed 'them' off, and you're pleasantly surprised and happy to play it down, just as they are outraged and happy to play it up.
I'd say you have totally missed, with deliberation or prejudice or it just escaped you, the import of Danny's lengthy post and you strongly imply, taking a line out of context, that Danny had just another bigoted perspective of the event, the other side of the red neck, backwood reactionary coin.

Danny wrote "The context and symbolism concerned, no doubt, coloured my pleasantly-surprised reaction. I thought it was a funny moment and, as I've said, importantly, harmless. Intentional desecration of some sort would have been a different matter, but he didn't engage in anything of the sort".

I also thought the event had some humour and I had absolutely no opinion about the Danny Boy song. Possibly it is more appropriate than the only song that nationalist and loyalist workers could sing together "Yes, we have no bananas today", when they joined forces to strike in the 1930's.

[osarusan]

I'd say you have totally missed, with deliberation or prejudice or it just escaped you, the import of Danny's lengthy post and you strongly imply, taking a line out of context, that Danny had just another bigoted perspective of the event, the other side of the red neck, backwood reactionary coin.

You may choose to infer that meaning of it so you can groundlessly suggest that I think Danny is a bigot and a redneck. But there is no such implication in the post.

[geysir]

You may choose to infer that meaning of it so you can groundlessly suggest that I think Danny is a bigot and a redneck. But there is no such implication in the post.
Not quite so shockingly emotively neat as you interpret and there is plenty of ground for my reply.
I did not write two side of the same coin, as in you claimed Danny was the same as bigot and a redneck, but I said you claimed Danny had the opposite reaction, on the other side of the outraged bigot, the us and them scenario, which you imply, the us (Danny) and the them (outraged loyalist), are equally to be an issue.
And that snip was what you regarded as the most pertinent point from Danny's missive.

This is what you wrote. Fair enough if it is not what you intended, but it's just a familiar refrain.
"From your perspective, he's one of 'us' doing something which ****ed 'them' off, and you're pleasantly surprised and happy to play it down, just as they are outraged and happy to play it up."

[The Fly]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/paddy-barnes-calls-for-new-northern-ireland-flag-we-are-asking-you-to-send-us-your-submissions-30487825.html

[Charlie Darwin]

Barnes contradicted that on twitter too. Said he didn't call for a new flag, just to agree on one of the existing ones.

[The Fly]

Barnes contradicted that on twitter too. Said he didn't call for a new flag, just to agree on one of the existing ones.

Existing ones?

[Charlie Darwin]

Existing ones?
https://twitter.com/paddyb_ireland/status/496988579030392832

[The Fly]

https://twitter.com/paddyb_ireland/status/496988579030392832

"There should be an actual flag, not a new one."

Wahey Paddy!

That's more grist for GR's pithy, yet predictable offerings; which in turn will provoke an eloquent and (unnecessarily) lengthy response from Danny (Sorry Danny ;)); AB will then....err....make some....err....comment on the rotund one and declare game, set & match for Danny; Crosby will deliver some surreal left-field one liner from New York later this evening; Paul will...:confused:; and then Geysir will deaden most of it by calling a spade a spade.

I can't wait.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Tbf, my 'point' is a consistent one, on the basis DI has done it so frequently, in that context...

Whilst geysir's last post was a good example of his capabilities, done with equal ruthlessness.

[osarusan]

Not quite so shockingly emotively neat as you interpret and there is plenty of ground for my reply.
I did not write two side of the same coin, as in you claimed Danny was the same as bigot and a redneck, but I said you claimed Danny had the opposite reaction, on the other side of the outraged bigot, the us and them scenario, which you imply, the us (Danny) and the them (outraged loyalist), are equally to be an issue.


I didn't say you said Danny was a bigot and a redneck. I just said that you said he had a bigoted perspective and was as bad as the bigots and rednecks.

Gold medal-standard of verbal gymnastics there.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except geysir still wins by a country mile...

[The Fly]

Ever suffered from cherry blossom poisoning AB?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Shoe polish??

[The Fly]

Shoe polish??

Yeah.

(You do a fair amount of boot licking ;))

[Gather round]

Afternoon all. Is this still the Rory McIlroy pullover thread? Seems to have taken a cavalier direction recently.

The Fly's right, I just can't resist a predictable knob gag...

[Crosby87]

Jack said he can win "15 or 20 majors." Kiss of death. No uncircumcised man will ever beat Jack's majors record!

[Fixer82]

Afternoon all. Is this still the Rory McIlroy pullover thread? Seems to have taken a cavalier direction recently.

The Fly's right, I just can't resist a predictable knob gag...

Don't be a dick man

[ArdeeBhoy]

Yeah.

(You do a fair amount of boot licking ;))
Agreeing with a good post is 'ar*e licking' surely...

There's plenty of eejits I'd slag off directly at times, but it's 'not the done thing' and they take it so personally...

[ArdeeBhoy]

Anyway, 116 (so far) reasons to read this as a local theme park tries to find a new fleg...
;)
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/paddy-barnes-calls-for-new-northern-ireland-flag-we-are-asking-you-to-send-us-your-submissions-30487825.html

[Crosby87]

Speaking of theme parks you chaps should visit my friend the worm in chicago. Six flags has a roller coaster called goliath you all would love. Irish people love roller coasters. Irish people love six flags.

[The Fly]

Agreeing with a good post is 'ar*e licking' surely...


You do more than just agree, and I thought boot licking less crude. ;)

[ArdeeBhoy]

No I fecking well don't...

[DannyInvincible]

Sorry, Fly! Long one ahead... :p


I'd say this is the most important point in all this.

From your perspective, he's one of 'us' doing something which ****ed 'them' off, and you're pleasantly surprised and happy to play it down, just as they are outraged and happy to play it up.

Was that the most important point?... Of what grave consequence might it be, even if it were true? I gave as broad and considered an assessment of the situation as I could muster, along with a detailed explanation of my immediate reaction. I'd have left it at just that line you cherry-picked if I thought it could so neatly summarise the entirety of my thoughts on the matter. 'Twould have saved me a bit of time, if anything!

Nevertheless, I don't think I'd be human if I could completely detach myself emotionally (and politically) from Barnes' unintentional act of quasi-iconoclasm. It wasn't that the incident bore strict connotations of "us" and "them", whoever you define "us" and "them" to be exactly. The 'Ulster Banner' (the "proud" raising of which invariably overshadows the playing of the pretty damn dour 'Danny Boy' at these types of affairs), for all the nastiness it is perceived to represent and the connotations it is thought to possess by its declared detractors and enemies, is, whether I like it or not, indirectly relevant to my own background and experience; it has never ever purported to be a friend of mine/my kin, not even in its official use. It has always been there flying off overhead lamp-posts next to UVF flags representing something hostile, threatening and sinister. Objectively-speaking, with royal crown and biblical Davidic-style star resting on a cross of St. George, I fail to see what place it has in the north of today. It doesn't have to be either nothing or that, I'm sure; bodies like the IFA could always do better if they were bothered enough to try harder. I don't see how its maintenance, so "resolute", does them any favours, but, ultimately, the cultural aura they wish to emit is their own business. When Paddy Barnes expresses that the aforementioned emblems imposed upon him are actually alien to him, I can't help but feel some sort of affinity. The above is all part of the context to which I was referring; frame that how you wish. I can't pretend such feelings don't exist.

I must point out though, I don't crudely bask or glory in a moment just because it might have been a case of "us" having p*ssed "them" off. Believe it or not, my moral compass can transcend such petty tribalism now and again... I don't play something down simply because it might have been one of "us" who executed it. Who "they" might be isn't the major concern really. If the vague "they", or anyone really, happen to be doing or preserving something unpalatable, why would I entertain it with an absolute sense of sensitivity and fearful deference just because it might amount to "tradition" for "them"? Does possessing some traditional quality render something sacrosanct? Does the optimistic notion of "parity of esteem/equity of treatment" mean I have to suppress my critical faculties to a limited level of dispensing criticism in equal measure too?... One need not respect the intolerable in order to successfully plead his tolerance. If those with whom I share a national-cultural heritage were to do wrong, I would similarly call them out on it. I wouldn't, simply for the sake of it, revel in, say, the needless and provocative burning of a Union flag by a group of Derry hoods. As I've said, Barnes trampled upon nobody's culture. If "they" were p*ssed off, it's because he wasn't seen to be falling in line. I'd thought such chauvinistic expectations of subservience had been long extinguished...

The Belfast Telegraph (and the healthy number of participants) in their call for new-flag-idea submissions wouldn't have given Barnes the time of day if they'd thought there was absolutely no merit in his supposed faux-pas and later words. They virtually converted the fall-out from the affair into a fun-time competition!

Here was a semi-relevant commentary that I came across by Slugger O'Toole's Mick Fealty about a few-years-old Fintan O'Toole piece on the Irish nation's hypocritical rallying around young men from the otherwise-maligned underclass, but only every four or eight years!: http://sluggerotoole.com/2008/08/26/every-four-or-eight-years-ireland-is-forced-to-rally-round-young-men-from-t/


And [O'Toole] believes the dominant narrative in the Irish media about this ‘underclass’ is faintly somatic and comforting to the easy affluence of the chief beneficiaries of the Celtic Tiger years:


It finds it convenient when young men from the working class reservations live up to the stereotypes, when they wear hoodies and white socks and throw shapes and sip cans of Dutch Gold lager on the back seat of the bus. The threatening signals allow for the maintenance of a reassuring distance. These people are stupid and crude and potentially violent, and it’s best to stay out of their way.

But “every four or eight years, Ireland is forced to rally round young men from this class and adopt them as our great national hopes”:


We get to hear them speak in their guttural urban accents – and discover that they have something to say for themselves....

You could just as well apply the same observation to those of the north's "overclass" getting behind (patronising) "their" Commonwealth Games (boxing) team. However, when Barnes committed his clanger and fouled his golden moment - where was his loyalty; won't somebody think of the fleg, dear God?! - he was back to being that bitter, sectarian spide again. He had made the "wrong" choice - how dare he even have been there in the first place if he wasn't going to play along?! - and was, thus, supposedly deserving of vilification as a result.

Why did Paddy Barnes get involved in boxing? Because he wanted to represent Northern Ireland with all its loaded symbolic trappings?... Unlikely. As stated, he's a sportsman; he'd rather just have boxed. When McIlroy promptly dismissed the Irish tricolour by throwing it to the ground a few years back at the US Open, there was very little hoot made in the media; McIlroy, no matter how hard he desperately tries to raise above it, can't escape the sectarianism of his bigoted and troubled region, we're told when the media discuss what they feel so often ensnares him. When it comes to McIlroy and how the matter of identity troubles him, it's really everyone else's fault as they unduly try to foist their cultural expectations and definitions upon him. Everyone else just tries to pull him back down to earth. Lowly Barnes wanted to rise above it all too, but when he became ensnared, it was all his fault; he knew what he signed up to and bitterness is evidently integral to his character anyway, so where did he even get the cheek to think he was above it? His type are holding everyone else (the civilised) back. Or so the narrative goes... I think comparisons between the experiences, perceptions and consequent portrayals of the two sportsmen are fascinating.

Given the wider context, Barnes' participation can never be simplified down to being a case of: "He knew what he was signing up to; therefore, he ought to have put up and shut up!" I wasn't alive at the time, but I am able to admire this even more irreverent gesture:

http://fast.swide.com/wp-content/uploads/olympics-1968-black-power-salute-tommie-smith-john-carlos-peter-norman.jpeg

Now, there's spoiling a moment! Of course, that was premeditated, and those "tossers"/"dickwads"/"knobs" also knew what they'd signed up to. I don't require any parochial notions of "us" and "them" to help guide my judgment of their expression, and there is a cultural parallel. I have no immediate cultural affinity with those athletes, but I can see merit in the subversiveness of their act, just as I saw humour and inherent political value in Barnes' mild transgression, whether it was intentional or not. Even if you don't want to acknowledge any parallel and you think I'm glorifying the conduct of Barnes who was just a gormless, undignified idiot speaking out of turn, you can't just invalidate his opinion and experience by dismissing him a "tosser". Just as barely-legible and seemingly ill-informed graffiti daubed on run-down inner-city walls in, say, the Bogside can reveal powerful truths of the community, its perceptions and experiences (http://www.thedetail.tv/system/photos/images/967/article/967.jpg?1330431883), Barnes' behaviour and vocalisation was symptomatic of the wider flags and emblems issue that still plagues political and social life in the north. Conveniently frame him as an uneducated cartoon Provo all you want, GR; he's still a product of the surrounding circumstances and has a voice, like you.

And, importantly, the last thing you can do, GR, is thank that post after admitting to having enjoyed Rory's little moment with the tricolour. Worse, the tricolour is actually your friend! ;)

[ArdeeBhoy]

Hmm, most of that paragraph referring to GR is going to go way over his head...given the inherant, er, big-gut factor. Usually in the form of oft repeated paranoia, about matters on here...
(That disparaging enough, Fly?)

[osarusan]

So, Danny, let's look at one thing you've made clear over your previous posts. Here are the relevant quotes:


he was going to quietly stand through it with his head bowed, presumably like he'd done in 2010 when he similarly won gold and stood through an irrelevant dirge for formality's sake. It was only when he was asked a question by an interrupting voice to his side that he replied back to enlighten said interrupter with the now-infamous words and was caught on camera doing so.



Barnes corrected or enlightened an inquisitive fellow boxer who, for whatever reason, decided to interact with him at what happened to be a pretty awkward moment.

....

He answered a question to set the record straight - maybe the timing was somewhat off - but he didn't stage a political protest. It has been near-elevated to the level of one due to the over-reaction of some precious observers, mind.


So, according to you (repeatedly), Barnes was doing nothing other than answering a question and enlightening the person who asked him, setting the record straight. That's all. There was nothing intentional or pre-meditated about it. People reading more into it are being precious.

But the problem, in my opinon, with this argument is that it makes quite a bit of your most recent post irrelevant.




Nevertheless, I don't think I'd be human if I could completely detach myself emotionally (and politically) from Barnes' unintentional act of quasi-iconoclasm. It wasn't that the incident bore strict connotations of "us" and "them", whoever you define "us" and "them" to be exactly. The 'Ulster Banner' (the "proud" raising of which invariably overshadows the playing of the pretty damn dour 'Danny Boy' at these types of affairs), for all the nastiness it is perceived to represent and the connotations it is thought to possess by its declared detractors and enemies, is, whether I like it or not, indirectly relevant to my own background and experience; it has never ever purported to be a friend of mine/my kin, not even in its official use. It has always been there flying off overhead lamp-posts next to UVF flags representing something hostile, threatening and sinister. Objectively-speaking, with royal crown and biblical Davidic-style star resting on a cross of St. George, I fail to see what place it has in the north of today. It doesn't have to be either nothing or that, I'm sure; bodies like the IFA could always do better if they were bothered enough to try harder. I don't see how its maintenance, so "resolute", does them any favours, but, ultimately, the cultural aura they wish to emit is their own business. When Paddy Barnes expresses that the aforementioned emblems imposed upon him are actually alien to him, I can't help but feel some sort of affinity. The above is all part of the context to which I was referring; frame that how you wish. I can't pretend such feelings don't exist.


But, going by your argument, all he did was to answer a question. He isn't expressing anything about the emblems being alien or hostile to him, so why do you read this into his comments? Why do you feel the need to asociate this with his comments, if you believe he was just setting the record straight and enlightening an enquisitive boxer.




Now, there's spoiling a moment! Of course, that was premeditated, and those "tossers"/"dickwads"/"knobs" also knew what they'd signed up to. I don't require any parochial notions of "us" and "them" to help guide my judgment of their expression, and there is a cultural parallel. I have no immediate cultural affinity with those athletes, but I can see merit in the subversiveness of their act, just as I saw humour and inherent political value in Barnes' mild transgression, whether it was intentional or not. Even if you don't want to acknowledge any parallel and you think I'm glorifying the conduct of Barnes who was just a gormless, undignified idiot speaking out of turn, you can't just invalidate his opinion and experience by dismissing him a "tosser". Just as barely-legible and seemingly ill-informed graffiti daubed on run-down inner-city walls in, say, the Bogside can reveal powerful truths of the community, its perceptions and experiences (http://www.thedetail.tv/system/photos/images/967/article/967.jpg?1330431883), Barnes' behaviour and vocalisation was symptomatic of the wider flags and emblems issue that still plagues political and social life in the north. Conveniently frame him as an uneducated cartoon Provo all you want, GR; he's still a product of the surrounding circumstances and has a voice, like you.


But his vocalisation wasn't symptomatic of anything, parallel to anything. There was no intent. There was no iconoclasm, no subversiveness, all he did was answer a question to set the record straight, nothing more. It'd be precious to read more into it. According to you.



I must point out though, I don't crudely bask or glory in a moment just because it might have been a case of "us" having p*ssed "them" off. Believe it or not, my moral compass can transcend such petty tribalism now and again...

But it charmed you, endeared you to him, made it impossible not to love him. You were pleasantly surprised.

Pleasantly surprised by what? I mean, what is there for you to bask in if he did nothing other than simply answer a question?



It seems to me that you are making two contradictory arguments. The first is that he did nothing other than respond to an ill-timed question, and therefore there is nothing to criticise him for. And people reading more into it have an agenda for doing so.

But on the other hand, given the symbolism of the flag and the song, given the sectarian history of that part of Ireland, wouldn't it be perfectly legitimate for him to make some kind of statement? And it would be unfair to criticise, to invalidate his opinion, to attempt to silence his voice. Who could blame him for wanting to make his voice heard?

The answer to that last question is you, apparently, because you commented quite a few times that if he'd gone out to make some kind of political statement, you'd have seen the whole thing very differently. You'd have no time for that.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Sledgehammer and nut, in both cases springs to mind.

Especially a lot based on conjecture. A bit pointless ultimately.

[DannyInvincible]

So, according to you (repeatedly), Barnes was doing nothing other than answering a question and enlightening the person who asked him, setting the record straight. That's all. There was nothing intentional or pre-meditated about it. People reading more into it are being precious.

Yes, more or less. I've been pretty clear and I don't see why there should be such a problem in reconciling my various points, but I'll explain again. I don't think it was pre-meditated, nor was it consciously ideologically-driven. For those reasons, I feel those condemning him for "insulting" conduct are being unreasonable. I've already acknowledged he might have been a bit imprudent, but that's a much lesser infraction, if a serious one at all. The test for criminal liability (and perhaps also what you might call moral liability, in the minds of most) requires not merely actus reus (the guilty act), but also mens rea (the guilty mind). He went out to offend no-one. There was nothing calculated about it and if people took offence by the fact that he didn't feel represented by the anthem that was playing and the flag that was being raised, they're guilty of trying to impose upon him their alien demands and identity.


But the problem, in my opinon, with this argument is that it makes quite a bit of your most recent post irrelevant.

...

But, going by your argument, all he did was to answer a question. He isn't expressing anything about the emblems being alien or hostile to him, so why do you read this into his comments? Why do you feel the need to asociate this with his comments, if you believe he was just setting the record straight and enlightening an enquisitive boxer.

...

But his vocalisation wasn't symptomatic of anything, parallel to anything. There was no intent. There was no iconoclasm, no subversiveness, all he did was answer a question to set the record straight, nothing more. It'd be precious to read more into it. According to you.

In responding to the other boxer, Barnes did express that the anthem was alien to him; he said: "That's not my anthem." If that's not an expression of alienation, I don't know what is. The brief disclosure became an inherently political expression due to its context, even if unwitting. That's what endeared me to it and it was in that that I found humour. (That "irrelevant" paragraph served to outline the reasoning for my emotional attachment.) To use a fairly loose analogy (not that I found humour in this), disparaging observers who attempted to discredit the validity of the UK city riots a few summers ago condemned the rioting and rioters as aimless, indiscriminate and mindlessly criminal. Just because the rioters had no identifiable ideological cause or badge with which to align themselves and just because they weren't taking guidance from an organised party or taking direction from the writings of Marx or whoever, it didn't mean that their direct agitation lacked a sense of political authenticity or validity. Their impulsive acts were inherently political - maybe purely so - by their very nature; they were a direct consequence of their social reality. Their own disaffection was their cause. Their conduct betrayed the grim social reality of an ignored underclass and represented a perhaps inadvertent political statement of disapproval in response to that. Barnes did not go out to the podium with the intention of staging an offensive protest, but by expressing that he felt no connection with the anthem being played "for him", he inadvertently alluded to the wider divisive issue of flags, emblems and symbolism in the north. The incident didn't happen in isolation and was the manifestation of a broader socio-cultural problem of representation and allegiance.


It seems to me that you are making two contradictory arguments. The first is that he did nothing other than respond to an ill-timed question, and therefore there is nothing to criticise him for. And people reading more into it have an agenda for doing so.

But on the other hand, given the symbolism of the flag and the song, given the sectarian history of that part of Ireland, wouldn't it be perfectly legitimate for him to make some kind of statement? And it would be unfair to criticise, to invalidate his opinion, to attempt to silence his voice. Who could blame him for wanting to make his voice heard?

The answer to that last question is you, apparently, because you commented quite a few times that if he'd gone out to make some kind of political statement, you'd have seen the whole thing very differently. You'd have no time for that.

I said I'd have had a problem had he gone out of his way to insult others or had he intended to unduly trample upon someone else's tradition. Even if his conduct had inherent political connotations in light of the context, I don't think it would be fair to say he was intending to provoke. I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's difficult to neatly fit the act and response into a black-or-white moral pigeonhole given the complex nature of its cultural context, but I don't think I'm offering contradictory arguments.

[osarusan]

It'a a very comfortable position.

His comments were unwitting and inadvertent, therefore he can't be criticised for them, yet the inherently political nature they take on, due to the context, can be celebrated.

But I'm sorry, I do think it's contradictory.

I don't think it's possible to argue that the "incident didn't happen in isolation and was the manifestation of a broader socio-cultural problem of representation and allegiance", while also arguing that nothing would have happened if the other boxer hadn't asked an ill-timed question.

[osarusan]

For what little it's worth, I'll give my take on it.

Barnes and the NI games team realised that there was a mutually beneficial medal opportunity offered by his participation, so they both decided to grin (or bow) and bear it as far as the issue of political allegiance and representation was concerned.

Barnes won, and it was a rewarding situation for all, until the ill-timed question. Then Barnes, spontanaeously, decided to have a dig, with his response. Not a big incident, but a dig, nonetheless. Nothing to get too excited over really, except for the serially outraged.

I don't really see why the possibility of Barnes taking the opportunity to have a dig is something you appear not to consider possible.

[DannyInvincible]

I don't think it's possible to argue that the "incident didn't happen in isolation and was the manifestation of a broader socio-cultural problem of representation and allegiance", while also arguing that nothing would have happened if the other boxer hadn't asked an ill-timed question.

I imagine he would have kept his head down, like many footballers from nationalist backgrounds similarly do when they represent NI, whilst possibly thinking the same in his head: "This isn't my anthem/flag." Such a thought would spire from the social reality quoted. That such a thought became verbalised was simply because the other boxer made some sort of enquiry.


I don't really see why the possibility of Barnes taking the opportunity to have a dig is something you appear not to consider possible.

It's possible, sure, but I saw it as Barnes feeling a need to enlighten ignorance or possible misinterpretation. He sought to ensure that the other boxer knew he did not affiliate with the anthem and symbolism as the other boxer evidently hadn't gotten the point from Barnes bowing his head. If it was a dig, it's not really as if he went out of his way to commit it; it was a harmless one and infringed upon nobody. No worse than a bit of banter. One would be fishing for offence to be insulted by it.

[DannyInvincible]

Barnes won, and it was a rewarding situation for all, until the ill-timed question. Then Barnes, spontanaeously, decided to have a dig, with his response. Not a big incident, but a dig, nonetheless. Nothing to get too excited over really, except for the serially outraged.

It might even have made you chuckle? :p