No I fecking well don't...
Printable View
No I fecking well don't...
Sorry, Fly! Long one ahead... :p
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
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/...ng-men-from-t/
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick Fealty
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/upl...er-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, 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! ;)
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?)
So, Danny, let's look at one thing you've made clear over your previous posts. Here are the relevant quotes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
But it charmed you, endeared you to him, made it impossible not to love him. You were pleasantly surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
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.
Sledgehammer and nut, in both cases springs to mind.
Especially a lot based on conjecture. A bit pointless ultimately.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
It might even have made you chuckle? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I've been having a think about this; can a position be both comfortable and contradictory at the same time? I don't see the necessary contradiction in the position I've outlined. To use another fairly loose analogy - I'm sure there's better - a footballer might injure an opponent unintentionally; the incident will have broader meaning, impact and consequences, be they negative or beneficial (not that I'm suggesting injuries to opponents are to be celebrated), but it would be perhaps unreasonable for supporters of the opponent's team to accuse and condemn the footballer for causing the injury or setting out to do harm. Is that a good analogy?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Danny what is your solution to the Israel / Palestine conflict?
That's it - I'm getting out of here!!!:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
Hes preparing a gensementhe about it right now.
Well, first of all, I'm of the opinion that your description represents a false dichotom-... Wait, what's a gensementhe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
Never mind this, what do DI & Fly (& our other Ulaidh correspondents) think of the alternative flegs that may be representing them one day, as per the last Paddy B.post...
Actually some of them are, interesting?
Its gethsemane. Its like a long emotianal speech that defines things. Go on you tube and watch "armisteads gethsemane" from the terrific ron maxwell film gettysburg. Its so you.
And what's a fleg? Do you have a samsung galaxy tablet too?
Whilst the Irish flag will always be the one that represents me, here are my favourite submissions:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
http://cdn4.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/i...+McMenemie.png
http://cdn4.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/i.../flag_2_21.png
and just for the childhood memories.....
http://cdn2.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/i...342/flag27.jpg
Like Fly, the tricolour represents me fine. I enjoyed this submission though:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
http://cdn2.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/i...342/flag31.jpg
And these two are kind of compelling, for some reason:
http://cdn2.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/i.../flag_2_15.png
"A white and golden cross of Saint Brigit's placed over a blue field of Saint Patrick." - Rodney Tyson Jr
http://cdn1.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/i.../flag_2_16.png
"A white and blue cross of Saint Bridget placed over a field of Irish green." - Rodney Tyson Jr
Ah, "gethsemane", like the garden?... Doesn't that refer to a moment of suffering? Link me up, Crosby; I can't find the scene and I've never seen the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
A "fleg" is a flag in Belfast-speak.
And, no, I don't have a tablet, although I have a Galaxy S4, if that's of any consequence... :confused:
'Spide-man'Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Oh you!
Given the descriptions, the thing I find most compelling about those is that they were submitted by someone called Rodney Tyson Jr.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
Good reference, Crosby - worth a thanks. It was all the more poignant for being Richard Jordan's (Armistead) last film.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Danny, you need to take four hours away from your keyboard and watch it (8 hours if you include the later prequel, Gods and Generals).
Am I allowed to say ha ha, Fly/DI??
As for GR...
:rolleyes:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U1xLCnzsvfw
Danny its a great scene. Armistead was a souther gnl whilst his best bud Winfield Scott Hancock,
Who survived the war and later ran for president, was a northern gnl who was in command of the union army that day... Tom Berringer is playing Lee's right hand man, Gnl James Longstreet.
Eminence I agree Richard Jordan was a great actor. He was also in red october...
It was the history and social reality of the region bubbling to the surface, verbalised through an unwitting servant?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Sorry, I don't buy that. The thoughts may indeed have been in his head, but he chose to speak the words he spoke.
No. I saw it as a silly, petty dig. Nothing to celebrate. Digs are insulting by design, so I can't agree that there was nothing to take offence about. I'd guess that your opinion of 'the symbolism concerned, no doubt, coloured [your] pleasantly-surprised reaction' as to how to offensive it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Shoot 'em all and let god sort them out. That's what I say.
Nothing to do with ye Fly or even GR, but that is the most unrepresentive fleg of the latter ever...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
What the hell are those? One's a map of Brazil, which is in, er, South America...and the other some sort of Blockbusters 'meme'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
It's just a guess, but this may be related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFA_Pre...and_runners-upQuote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
It's a stylised map of NI election constituencies, showing the Nationalist vote percentage for each in 2010.
Hmm, surely a pie chart would have been more relevant...
;)
Not to mention the wrong colours! Or is this a more oblique comment on political leanings there.
Ironically which could help form 'eligibility', before anyone goes off on one.
Good grief Ardee, you really know how the suck the fun out of a simple joke.
Hehe, I'll have to get working on my beard!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
And I'll be sure to set some time aside, EG. :o
He did choose to utter the words but, unlike you, I don't think he was explicitly intending or going out of his way to cause offence in verbalising his thought. Are you implying that the thought ("this isn't my anthem") is an offensive thought to hold?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Just to be clear, because you keep using it as if to insinuate I was on the verge of popping champagne corks, I never used the word "celebrate". I saw humour in the incident and an allusion to a wider socio-cultural issue in which I happen to have an interest.Quote:
No. I saw it as a silly, petty dig. Nothing to celebrate. Digs are insulting by design, so I can't agree that there was nothing to take offence about.
There's no reason to guess; I've already outlined perfectly clearly as to how I came to a judgment regarding its potential (non-)offensiveness. Whilst challenging the possible presumption that nationalists might feel represented by such contentious and out-dated symbolism, it was harmless, trampled upon nobody's culture and was not a pre-meditated insult.Quote:
I'd guess that your opinion of 'the symbolism concerned, no doubt, coloured [your] pleasantly-surprised reaction' as to how to offensive it was.
When, where, how??Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
And presumably you're being ironic...
;)
Fair enough, I'd say he was. Let's leave it there.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
No of course not. But even if that thought was on his mind, he did have the capacity not to say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Not 'celebrate' as in popping champagne corks, but 'celebrate' as in see as a positive thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I can see how some people might take offence. Again, let's just leave it there, shall we?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Well, if that is equivalent to being humoured by something and seeing a broader social implication in it...Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
C'mon, I'm sure we could get at least three more pages out of this! :pQuote:
Again, let's just leave it there, shall we?
The former must be a reference to the old Windsor favourite 'We're Not Brazil...'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy