Celtic Discussion

aussie_tim_1798 · 29/10/2003, 12:42 PM

yes, James Connolly supported Hibs, presumably because as a 7-year-old boy he was present at the founding of the club, grew up in Edinburgh, and the first football game he went to was that of Hibernian FC!

but the last thing that would mean is that he would have been anti-Celtic. even today, Celtic fans universally list Hibernian as their second favorite club...

however, Hibernian, unlike Celtic, have in a typically Brit fashion, abandoned all their sociopolitical origins and are now as apolitical as any generic Scottish or English geographically-bound club. not only that, but its hardcore element have sided with the SNF (Scottish National Firm) - an alliance of BNP fascist "casuals" from Rangers, Hearts, St Mirren, Aberdeen etc. whereas the hardcore Celtic faithful have remained committed (if only in name for most) to the Left: Anti-Fascist Action, Red Action and Celtic Fans Against Racism all have a base in the Celtic support.

and i marvel at the hypocrisy inherent with those who say: "Irish people should support Hibs instead of Celtic", while slagging off Celtic fans for supporting a team that doesn't play in the FAI! it seems to me just a massive case of "tall-poppy syndrome" (i.e., jealousy), all this hostility towards one of the most successful clubs in Northern Europe...

**S.E.P.1990** · 29/10/2003, 1:35 PM

Rangers never had any connection to Ulster, yet fans fly the Unionist Northern Ireland St. George's Cross, give a "red-hand salute" (that they themselves invented) and sing songs about The Sash and the Orangemen etc. even though these things have nothing to do with the club.

let me put it this way: if Celtic re-located to Ireland, virtually nothing would change in terms of culture. if Rangers re-located to England, their flying of the Union Flag and singing of Rule Britannia etc would become quite irrelavant, even laughable.

Aussie Tim, interesting post.

If Rangers, as u said earlier in the post, represented the "establishment" then this establishment had very close links to Ulster in the late 19th century/early 20th century.

I dont get ur point about Rangers relocating in England. Rangers culture is British/Scottish/Ulster, its not English (i think u r making the usual mistake of mixing up the word British and English) - i think a more valid point would be if Rangers re-located in Northern Ireland would they there singing become irrelevant? i think the answer would be no.

Hibernian, unlike Celtic, have in a typically Brit fashion, abandoned all their sociopolitical origins

I am beginning to think that this abandonment is a good thing - it allows people to get outside both social and political stereotypes and become part of a wider community. It also seperates sport and politics - which is the way it should be. I am not too sure why u r saying its in typical Brit fashion here??

aussie_tim_1798 · 29/10/2003, 2:20 PM

If Rangers, as u said earlier in the post, represented the "establishment" then this establishment had very close links to Ulster in the late 19th century/early 20th century.

firstly, it is not a controvertible statement to say that Rangers represented the establishment... it is excellently documented; Bill Murray, outlines it quite well in his famous book on the Old Firm. secondly, can you please provide citations for these "very close links"? obviously, both societies had a large Presbyterian and Masonic contingent in a wider sociopolitical sense, but my point is that Rangers FC only became concsious, and vocal, about their religion and Unionism, AFTER the overtness of the predominantly Irish Celtic FC success.

I am beginning to think that this abandonment is a good thing - it allows people to get outside both social and political stereotypes and become part of a wider community. It also seperates sport and politics - which is the way it should be. I am not too sure why u r saying its in typical Brit fashion here??

this is a common mistake made by observers of the Old Firm troubles. an analogy: would you ask the Muslims in Scotland to abandon their social, political, and cultural edifices? or Indians/Pakistanis in England? Blacks in the United States of America? of course you wouldn't. it is unfair to expect those Celtic supporters conscious of their heritage, ethnic (Irish) and political (Left), to abandon it in favor of apsorption into the mainstream whole, thereby vindicating the intolerance and bigotry that created the tension in the first place.

(i think u r making the usual mistake of mixing up the word British and English)

no, i think you're making the common mistake of thinking they're not the same thing. in ancient times, there was Britannia (England), Caledonia/Alba (Scotland), and Cambria (Wales). the application of Britain, to the entire Island, was an invention at the time of "Union". thus, you can probably bet that those living in Scotland, or Wales, or Cornwall, who call themselves British citizens, are for all intents and purposes Anglicized. Rangers culture is Anglicized to a great extent, viz., hooligan casual element, Union Flag (the only Scottish club to really fly it), Rule Britannia. it is Anglo-Scottish. just as the Scots-descended northern Irish in Ulster are...

i think a more valid point would be if Rangers re-located in Northern Ireland would they there singing become irrelevant? i think the answer would be no.

you've just further illustrated my point! the identity of Rangers FC only makes sense because it exists in opposition to something - Northern Ireland is the only place outside of Scotland that said identity would be relavant, since it would then exist in opposition to the Gaelic and/or Catholic community.

"seperates sport and politics - which is the way it should be" according to whom, and why? this is what i meant was "typically Brit". in Spain, Italy, and other places, the connections between sport and politics is much more overt than Celtic and Rangers. e.g., Roma (socialist) and Lazio (fascist), Real Madrid (right-wing), Barcelona (left-wing), Basque clubs Real Sociedad and Athletico Bilbao, etc, etc. there is a strong case to be made for that fact that since you will never separate sport and politics, the latter should be pushed as far to the front as possible. consider the official anti-Racism campaigns: footballers, and football clubs, are in a special and unique position to influence society, particulary youngsters. and of course, anti-Racism isn't the only cause worth giving attention to... but (a hardcore Celtic fan might argue): a United Ireland, anti-fascism, Scottish independence, general leftist concerns, etc, etc.

the fans of Celtic FC have created a highly unique club and culture. becoming "part of a wider community", is a euphemism for created a monoculture........... and environment where only a certain culture is accepted by the "wider community". you see what i mean? it's not Celtic who have the problem, it's those who fail to accept their differing self-identity.

**gspain** · 29/10/2003, 3:33 PM

Originally posted by aussie_tim_1798

and i marvel at the hypocrisy inherent with those who say: "Irish people should support Hibs instead of Celtic", while slagging off Celtic fans for supporting a team that doesn't play in the FAI! it seems to me just a massive case of "tall-poppy syndrome" (i.e., jealousy), all this hostility towards one of the most successful clubs in Northern Europe...

Agreed it is ridiculous and disgraceful to expect Irish people to support Hibs or indeed any other British club - they should support Limerick or Shelbourne or Longford or whoever.

**S.E.P.1990** · 29/10/2003, 3:33 PM

the fans of Celtic FC have created a highly unique club and culture. becoming "part of a wider community", is a euphemism for created a monoculture........... and environment where only a certain culture is accepted by the "wider community".

becoming part of a wider community is not a euphemism for creating a monoculture - just like for me to say that ur approach to society could be seen as an attempt to segregate everyone into there own little boxes (the purest form of which we saw in Nazis Germany and apartheid in South Africa). Pakistanis and Indians in the UK, for example, have their own culture plus the culture of the nation they live in.

you've just further illustrated my point! the identity of Rangers FC only makes sense because it exists in opposition to something - Northern Ireland is the only place outside of Scotland that said identity would be relavant, since it would then exist in opposition to the Gaelic and/or Catholic community.

Now i am no supporter of Rangers, but I fail to see how it doesnt make sense for a Scottish team, which is part of Britain and has a link to Protestantism doesnt make sense??? U can see it crudely as opposition to someone/something or you can see it as representative of someone or something. By choosing to place it in opposition you are trying to strip it of any real meaning, you also seem to think that all followers of Rangers are either members of the "establishment" or easily led by these people (whoever they are).

a hardcore Celtic fan might argue): a United Ireland, anti-fascism, Scottish independence, general leftist concerns, etc, etc.

he/she might - then again he/she might not have any interest in any of these. i personally hope that all Celtic fans are individuals who are not (in a favourite word of yours) monocultural.

Rangers culture is Anglicized to a great extent, viz., hooligan casual element, Union Flag (the only Scottish club to really fly it), Rule Britannia. it is Anglo-Scottish. just as the Scots-descended northern Irish in Ulster are...

Naturally the great politically motivated clubs of Lazio, Roma, Athletico Bilbao, etc are also anglicized with their hooligan casual elements also??????

Now i know we r completely off the point of this thread but Scots descended in Northern Ireland are almost completely Scots, not Anglo-Scots. In what way are they anglo? do they share the same religion? are they all descended from english settlers in scotland? As i said earlier you seem to be getting Britain (a concept and word developed by the Scots, not the English) confused with the English (or anglo or anglicized).

aussie_tim_1798 · 29/10/2003, 4:05 PM

look at a picture of a highlander, a clansman, in traditional Scottish dress.

then look at a picture of an Ulster-Scot, in his traditional Orangemen dress. marching with a bowler's hat, playing little English-style diddies on flute, and distinctly non-Celtic drums, speaking solely English, singing songs about a monarch of England.

at one point yes....they could be called Scots, of a sort...lowlanders all.... i'm sure you've heard the famous tales of when the marauding rebels of 1641 used to spare Scottish planters as opposed to English planters on the basis of their "race". and of course the United Irishman org was instigated by Presbyterians, who were also being discriminated against on account of the fact that they weren't Anglican. but that soon changed, and they thence sought to become as close to London as possible. now what are they? they're not Scottish, or English, or Irish, but a bunch of Unionist (no doubt because of their ambiguous culture) anglo-scottish-irish nutjobs with nothing positive to contribute to anyone.

"Britain" is not a concept and word developed by the Scots! it is a word in the ENGLISH language, an anglicization of the Latin Britainnia, and it is a concept, "developed" at the time of Henry VIII (NOT James I as is often thought) in connection with efforts to "unite" the two kingdoms, by the ENGLISH crown, not the Scottish one.

"There were nine counties in the province of Ulster at the time of the Plantation. Of those counties, two were to be settled entirely by Scots, two mostly by English and two mixed. The remaining three counties were not part of the 1610 Plantation scheme, but they had already been settled by both, the English and Scots. King James specifically excluded Highlander Scots from the colonization scheme; he believed that they would simply team up with the native Irish to cause discord and unrest."

- http://www.motherbedford.com/Irish3.htm

**Scotsman** · 29/10/2003, 5:18 PM

Aussie Tim have you ever been to Scotland?

You talk about Scotland but do you know how a Scotsman thinks?

Britain derives from Brythnic which is the Celtic clans of Wales and Cornwall.

Strathclyde Britons were of the same Celtic clan as the Welsh.

So someone from the Lowlands of Scotland is not Scottish?

Well I'm a Lowlander and my name is Watson - This derives from the Highland Clan of Buchannan.

When the Scotti 1st moved to Scotland there were PICTS (Celtic) Welsh (Celtic) and a small number of Angles in Scotland.

The 1st King of Scotland united Scotland and the main language was Gaelic.

The Scottish culture was taken on.

Scots language derives from the Angles but was never considered English.

This became the common political language and with English invations and then finally the Union English became the main language.

I support Celtic and support them as a football team and that is all.

Lionel Hutz · 30/10/2003, 1:49 AM

Originally posted by Scotsman
Hey troops this has turned a wee bit political.

Lionel I did think you sounded a wee bit Anti-Scottish but you did mention facts - I could it turn round and say that alot of innocent folk have died at the hands or Irishmen - IE Bombs etc - Now I know nothing of this topic and care not to and I also realise that not ALL irish folk condemn this.

Im sorry if the stating of these facts offend you but I do not see how stating these facts as a counterweight to the argument that Ireland and Scotland have had a perfect relationship in the past could be deemed "anti-scottish"
I was simply trying to point out that there are usually two sides to every story!

As for the remarks about Irishmen and bombs.....just cheap, and indeed somewhat childish point scoring in my opinion as it had nothing to do with how the thread had developed to that point and in any case is hardly a topic that has been swept under the carpet in recent years!

**Scotsman** · 30/10/2003, 10:15 AM

So in one hand you're saying that by staing facts about Scotland I took offence but on the other me stating fact about Ireland you have taken offence and that's acceptable as it's childish from me.

Hello!!

Practice what you preach Lionel!!

You talk a good game and that' s all.