Quote
Sorry, Fly! Long one ahead...
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!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.
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:
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!
Bookmarks