GAA Outreach in Action...

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Times have changed since Dungiven named their club, if it was to renamed today I am not it would happen but I don't think that you can retrospectively change these things.

I think the GAA/Ulster Council should be harder on clubs that host tournaments in honour of terrorists etc..  (Looking at the example that started this thread).  As a GAA member I entitled to have an opinion on what a club does if I feel it reflects on the rest of the organisation.

I also think the GAA should engage with those that want to constructively engage with them, accept their suggestions and act on them where appropriate.  There is no point in engaging with the Jim McAllisters of the world.  Nothing the GAA could ever do will appease them (short of disbanding). However someone who is genuninely interested in supporting/playing the games should always be listen to.

Myles Na G is one that there is no point engaging with and will take umbrage with everything.  Previously he has criticised the GAA for not having a formal view on candidates for the Irish Presidency and eligibility rules of international soccer.  Not only did he want them to have such formal views but ranted that members were no disciplined for expressing contrary positions to these views.

That's what you are dealing with here.

/Jim.

[deiseach]

Did I fear the security forces? No, they were no threat or bother to me. Nor did they ever bother the older members of my family who were members of GAA clubs.

It's possible that an individual or a handful of individual members of the GAA might have never suffered harassment at the hands of the security forces. But that these people would not hear chapter and verse about it from their fellow GAA members and not be influenced by that is unbelievable - in the sense of not being plausible, not the Chris Kamara type of unbelievable.

[johnneycool]

As a matter of interest, did your father and older siblings wear any GAA paraphernalia out on the streets at this time?

[Applesisapples]

I'm gonna be honest here. Since when was the GAA about appeasing Unionists?

Some people might argue that the Orange Order was never "about appeasing" nationalists, but it doesn't mean that some people from the "other side" don't find some parts of their organisations/ activities offensive.

Are we still content in 2013 to operate an "I don't give a f*** what they think" attitude?  We know Brolly is, but I was hoping to come on here and see more liberal/ open-minded thinking from some others here.

The truth is that, whatever the circumstances of Lynch's death, he wasn't put away for handing out sweeties to sick children, but was, in fact, a member of a terrorist organisation. No amount of revisionism from Irish Republicans will change that and, although I have no time for Robinson or the DUP, I agree with him that there is no difference between historical or contemporary terrorism.  The scum who murdered Mr Black or Constable Carroll or the soldiers in Antrim a few years ago are exactly the same class of human being as those who carried out similar acts in the 70s, 80s or 90s.

If people don't understand why the name "Kevin Lynch" attached to a sports club can be deemed offensive then, to be honest, I don't see much evidence of community outreach. But if you don't understand that, then here is a heads-up: don't bother criticising unionists for being openly anti-GAA.

OK then, if that is a fact then NI was founded on historic terrorist violence and the threat of inssurection. That makes it an illegal entity...applying your logic. I have said before I suspect that many of those debating the troubles were either not born or too young to remember the '60's, '70's and early '80's. There would have been widespread support and sympathy for the IRA and the hunger strikers in that period when catholics and nationalists were very much under siege from the British and Unionists. Time have changed and we are inching towards equality, it is therefore hard to judge that period by what we have today. I applaude Joe Brolly for saying what he said, whatever his motives. Unionism still cherry picks what is terrorism and what is acceptable violence.

That's not true, and I speak as someone old enough to remember the 60s, 70s and 80s. The IRA may have enjoyed support in Catholic working class areas, but it was by no means universal and it didn't extend much outside those areas. The SDLP was the largest supported nationalist party right up to the 1980s. Sinn Fein only became the best supported nationalist party after the peace process had started and when they showed they were prepared to move beyond violence, after John Hume had opened the door for them and shown them the road forward.

What exact part of the north did you grow up in? I am not from a working class background. I and my family would not have had any support for the IRA's killing. But at that time to be catholic was to be second class, to play GAA was to be a terrorist and that was evident from the actions of the state, unionism and state forces. So with the exception of the uncle toms most catholic nationalists whilst not on the face of it supportive of some of the IRA's actions would have had an understanding. This is a fact lost on a lot of Southerners and conveniently forgotton by some nationalists. You drew the line and everyone new which side to stand on.

I grew up in north Belfast, where something like 25% of all the killings during the troubles took place. Who did I fear in those dark days? The tartan gangs; the sectarian killers of the uvf and uda, who trawled the streets looking for random Catholics to kill; and the IRA, with their indiscriminate, no warning bombs. Of that list, only the IRA was a threat to me personally. The others were more of a threat to my father and older members of my family, but IRA bombs killed children too. Did I fear the security forces? No, they were no threat or bother to me. Nor did they ever bother the older members of my family who were members of GAA clubs. Do I 'understand' the IRA? Yes, but then I also 'understand' why the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I still think that those actions were immoral and unjustifiable. I also 'understand', to an extent, what motivates Islamist extremists to strap themselves with bombs and blow themselves up in crowded places, but not for a moment do I think what they're doing is right. Most Catholics in the north knew where the IRA came from, most Catholics may have shared some of their aims, but not for a second do I believe that the majority of Catholics were supportive of their actions. And your Uncle Toms jibe is an insult to people like John Hume who believed passionately in non violence and did far more to bring about conditions of equality than McGuinness, Adams or Kelly ever did.

I think you'd need to look in the mirror for an uncle tom, but if you read what I wrote I did not claimthat most catholics supported their actions. I don't consider Hume to be an uncle tom, but the SDLP have a few. I do not belie.ve you grew up in north belfast as a catholic and did not experience harrassment from the British Army/UDR...

[theticklemister]

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 26, 2008, 12:58:19 PM

Most of that post is just standard Irish republican revisionism, especially the attempt to make some equivalence between the state forces and the IRA. That doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all, but that's for another thread. You compare the Garnerville Gaels with the Dungiven club and hint that you have some difficulty in seeing them as Gaels. Why? Who died and made you arbiter of all things Irish? Because they happen to be police recruits you think that makes them somehow less Irish than you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see your first ever post was about the Kevin Lynchs club also.

[Applesisapples]

Jarlath Burns article in the Irish News today hits the nail exactly on the head.

[CD]

Times have changed since Dungiven named their club, if it was to renamed today I am not it would happen but I don't think that you can retrospectively change these things.

I think the GAA/Ulster Council should be harder on clubs that host tournaments in honour of terrorists etc..  (Looking at the example that started this thread).  As a GAA member I entitled to have an opinion on what a club does if I feel it reflects on the rest of the organisation.

I also think the GAA should engage with those that want to constructively engage with them, accept their suggestions and act on them where appropriate.  There is no point in engaging with the Jim McAllisters of the world.  Nothing the GAA could ever do will appease them (short of disbanding). However someone who is genuninely interested in supporting/playing the games should always be listen to.

Myles Na G is one that there is no point engaging with and will take umbrage with everything.  Previously he has criticised the GAA for not having a formal view on candidates for the Irish Presidency and eligibility rules of international soccer.  Not only did he want them to have such formal views but ranted that members were no disciplined for expressing contrary positions to these views.

That's what you are dealing with here.

/Jim.

I hold very similar views to you Jim. I'm very proud of the GAA. It is something we should all be very proud of. I don't think the celebration of patriot dead in 2013 is appropriate or in the interests of the Association. At the moment, the Protestant/Loyalist community have been led into one PR disaster after another by their public representatives. This is a time when we should sit back quietly and allow the rest of the world to see their narrow, bigotted sectarianism in all its horrendous glory. The last thing we should be doing is giving their representatives any ammunition with which to attack the GAA.

There may be a time again in the future when it will be OK to hold a tournament or name a trophy in honour of a volunteer but this isn't the time. We have worked hard to cultivate a positive public image and these things do nothing to help. By all means, clubs should celebrate the lives of their team mates and members and I would encourage this, but there are more subtle and dignified ways of doing it than putting a sticker on the back of a medal.

[theticklemister]

Times have changed since Dungiven named their club, if it was to renamed today I am not it would happen but I don't think that you can retrospectively change these things.

I think the GAA/Ulster Council should be harder on clubs that host tournaments in honour of terrorists etc..  (Looking at the example that started this thread).  As a GAA member I entitled to have an opinion on what a club does if I feel it reflects on the rest of the organisation.

I also think the GAA should engage with those that want to constructively engage with them, accept their suggestions and act on them where appropriate.  There is no point in engaging with the Jim McAllisters of the world.  Nothing the GAA could ever do will appease them (short of disbanding). However someone who is genuninely interested in supporting/playing the games should always be listen to.

Myles Na G is one that there is no point engaging with and will take umbrage with everything.  Previously he has criticised the GAA for not having a formal view on candidates for the Irish Presidency and eligibility rules of international soccer.  Not only did he want them to have such formal views but ranted that members were no disciplined for expressing contrary positions to these views.

That's what you are dealing with here.

/Jim.

I hold very similar views to you Jim. I'm very proud of the GAA. It is something we should all be very proud of. I don't think the celebration of patriot dead in 2013 is appropriate or in the interests of the Association. At the moment, the Protestant/Loyalist community have been led into one PR disaster after another by their public representatives. This is a time when we should sit back quietly and allow the rest of the world to see their narrow, bigotted sectarianism in all its horrendous glory. The last thing we should be doing is giving their representatives any ammunition with which to attack the GAA.

There may be a time again in the future when it will be OK to hold a tournament or name a trophy in honour of a volunteer but this isn't the time.  We have worked hard to cultivate a positive public image and these things do nothing to help. By all means, clubs should celebrate the lives of their team mates and members and I would encourage this, but there are more subtle and dignified ways of doing it than putting a sticker on the back of a medal.

Yip. Honour people when it suits sure.

[glens abu]

I'm gonna be honest here. Since when was the GAA about appeasing Unionists?

Some people might argue that the Orange Order was never "about appeasing" nationalists, but it doesn't mean that some people from the "other side" don't find some parts of their organisations/ activities offensive.

Are we still content in 2013 to operate an "I don't give a f*** what they think" attitude?  We know Brolly is, but I was hoping to come on here and see more liberal/ open-minded thinking from some others here.

The truth is that, whatever the circumstances of Lynch's death, he wasn't put away for handing out sweeties to sick children, but was, in fact, a member of a terrorist organisation. No amount of revisionism from Irish Republicans will change that and, although I have no time for Robinson or the DUP, I agree with him that there is no difference between historical or contemporary terrorism.  The scum who murdered Mr Black or Constable Carroll or the soldiers in Antrim a few years ago are exactly the same class of human being as those who carried out similar acts in the 70s, 80s or 90s.

If people don't understand why the name "Kevin Lynch" attached to a sports club can be deemed offensive then, to be honest, I don't see much evidence of community outreach. But if you don't understand that, then here is a heads-up: don't bother criticising unionists for being openly anti-GAA.

OK then, if that is a fact then NI was founded on historic terrorist violence and the threat of inssurection. That makes it an illegal entity...applying your logic. I have said before I suspect that many of those debating the troubles were either not born or too young to remember the '60's, '70's and early '80's. There would have been widespread support and sympathy for the IRA and the hunger strikers in that period when catholics and nationalists were very much under siege from the British and Unionists. Time have changed and we are inching towards equality, it is therefore hard to judge that period by what we have today. I applaude Joe Brolly for saying what he said, whatever his motives. Unionism still cherry picks what is terrorism and what is acceptable violence.

That's not true, and I speak as someone old enough to remember the 60s, 70s and 80s. The IRA may have enjoyed support in Catholic working class areas, but it was by no means universal and it didn't extend much outside those areas. The SDLP was the largest supported nationalist party right up to the 1980s. Sinn Fein only became the best supported nationalist party after the peace process had started and when they showed they were prepared to move beyond violence, after John Hume had opened the door for them and shown them the road forward.

What exact part of the north did you grow up in? I am not from a working class background. I and my family would not have had any support for the IRA's killing. But at that time to be catholic was to be second class, to play GAA was to be a terrorist and that was evident from the actions of the state, unionism and state forces. So with the exception of the uncle toms most catholic nationalists whilst not on the face of it supportive of some of the IRA's actions would have had an understanding. This is a fact lost on a lot of Southerners and conveniently forgotton by some nationalists. You drew the line and everyone new which side to stand on.

I grew up in north Belfast, where something like 25% of all the killings during the troubles took place. Who did I fear in those dark days? The tartan gangs; the sectarian killers of the uvf and uda, who trawled the streets looking for random Catholics to kill; and the IRA, with their indiscriminate, no warning bombs. Of that list, only the IRA was a threat to me personally. The others were more of a threat to my father and older members of my family, but IRA bombs killed children too. Did I fear the security forces? No, they were no threat or bother to me. Nor did they ever bother the older members of my family who were members of GAA clubs. Do I 'understand' the IRA? Yes, but then I also 'understand' why the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I still think that those actions were immoral and unjustifiable. I also 'understand', to an extent, what motivates Islamist extremists to strap themselves with bombs and blow themselves up in crowded places, but not for a moment do I think what they're doing is right. Most Catholics in the north knew where the IRA came from, most Catholics may have shared some of their aims, but not for a second do I believe that the majority of Catholics were supportive of their actions. And your Uncle Toms jibe is an insult to people like John Hume who believed passionately in non violence and did far more to bring about conditions of equality than McGuinness, Adams or Kelly ever did.

ha ha that is the greatest load of balls I have ever read on this board.Where in N.Belfast as a "Catholic" did you grow up without harassment from the Brits but lived in fear of no warning IRA bombs and felt no threat from the UDA/UFF/UVF/RED HAND/UDR or any other Loyalist killer gangs.

[CD]

Times have changed since Dungiven named their club, if it was to renamed today I am not it would happen but I don't think that you can retrospectively change these things.

I think the GAA/Ulster Council should be harder on clubs that host tournaments in honour of terrorists etc..  (Looking at the example that started this thread).  As a GAA member I entitled to have an opinion on what a club does if I feel it reflects on the rest of the organisation.

I also think the GAA should engage with those that want to constructively engage with them, accept their suggestions and act on them where appropriate.  There is no point in engaging with the Jim McAllisters of the world.  Nothing the GAA could ever do will appease them (short of disbanding). However someone who is genuninely interested in supporting/playing the games should always be listen to.

Myles Na G is one that there is no point engaging with and will take umbrage with everything.  Previously he has criticised the GAA for not having a formal view on candidates for the Irish Presidency and eligibility rules of international soccer.  Not only did he want them to have such formal views but ranted that members were no disciplined for expressing contrary positions to these views.

That's what you are dealing with here.

/Jim.

I hold very similar views to you Jim. I'm very proud of the GAA. It is something we should all be very proud of. I don't think the celebration of patriot dead in 2013 is appropriate or in the interests of the Association. At the moment, the Protestant/Loyalist community have been led into one PR disaster after another by their public representatives. This is a time when we should sit back quietly and allow the rest of the world to see their narrow, bigotted sectarianism in all its horrendous glory. The last thing we should be doing is giving their representatives any ammunition with which to attack the GAA.

There may be a time again in the future when it will be OK to hold a tournament or name a trophy in honour of a volunteer but this isn't the time.  We have worked hard to cultivate a positive public image and these things do nothing to help. By all means, clubs should celebrate the lives of their team mates and members and I would encourage this, but there are more subtle and dignified ways of doing it than putting a sticker on the back of a medal.

Yip. Honour people when it suits sure.

History has a habit of changing our perceptions Tickle.

[lynchbhoy]

with history all the bile will be forgotten, just as our men of 1916 are now venerated, when at the time they were spat on and villified.

I dont fully agree with Jim or CD, but I certainly understand their points. Valid enough.

However, the club (plus others and tournaments) are now named and thats done.

It is a bit different for Kevin Lynch Hurling club though.
The Lynch family were and still are steeped in GAA history. Kevins father played a few games at full back for Derry and was a huge GAA man.
Kevins brothers all played football - withvarious levels of success- only kevin and Gerald played hurling.
Kevins oldest brother was hounded out of Derry mostly because he was captain of the Banagher team and the security forces wanted to choose leaders in the communty to harrass and show everyone that by targetting their leaders, they controlled the people.
The Lynch family remain involved in GAA. Kevins nephew won an all Ireland u21 football medal as part of the Derry u21 all Ireland winning side - containing Lockhart muldoon et al.
So its not a simple political action that meant the hurling club was named after him. The family were humbled by the notuon and gratefully accepted.
you have to know the man , the family and the area and its GAA people to fully understand.

however, I accept Jim and CD's points.

[deiseach]

with history all the bile will be forgotten, just as our men of 1916 are now venerated, when at the time they were spat on and villified.

The idea that the men (and women) of 1916 were universally despised at the time is a myth.

[Franko]

As is the idea that the IRA were universally despised in 80's.

[deiseach]

As is the idea that the IRA were universally despised in 80's.

Who claims that?

[Franko]

As is the idea that the IRA were universally despised in 80's.

Who claims that?

It's claimed fairly regularly on here (most recently by MNaG) that the IRA only drew it's support from 'hardcore' nationalist areas and outside that they were thought of as murderers.

I was just re-inforcing the fact that this is also a myth.