John Mitchel - a lover of slavery - time to remove his name from GAA clubs?

[Farrandeelin]

MacHale Park should be renamed too, if we're going to include all faiths and none.

[BennyCake]

Couldn't they just say they are named after Joni instead of John?

Or Frank. Keep it local

Haha-or Phil from Eastenders

Or Charles from RTE back in the day...

surprised there's not a George Mitchell's somewhere

You couldn't get any more neutral than him!

[Rossfan]

I see Leo wants the statue of "Nazi collaborator" Seán Russell removed in Dublin.

[Eire90]

where does it end we are going down a dangerous road here people will gaa have to removed all religious names will all religious statues have to removed

[naka]

John Mitchel must be judged in the context of his contribution to the people of Ireland and his contribution to the cause of Irish Freedom, a man who helped aid the plight of Irish Catholic's and unite them with their Protestant countrymen and neighbours. A man who influence Padraic Pearse it's on this contribution he ought to be judged and not his politics in another country which he had little influence in. While no doubt his support of slavery was wrong it must be judged through the prism and experiences Mitchel himself witnessed in his own life. Acknowledge John Mitchel wasn't perfect but remember John Mitchel the Republican and Patriot who contributed and sacrificed for Ireland

Actually think this sums up my view on the subject.
Do we pull down all statues  which don-t suit our 21st century view, it is so wrong that we think we are so much better than our predecessors when I look at the hunger, racism and strife in the world

[macdanger2]

I think it's wrong to equate John Mitchell with Edward Colston - Colston's good deeds were possible solely because of his involvement in the slave trade so those good deeds were in effect tainted by that association. John Mitchell can be remembered for his contribution to Irish nationalism independently of his stance on slavery.

On the other hand, I think most people in Ireland would consider that John Mitchell's views on slavery were outright wrong and offensive in an objective way, I don't see any way in which they could be condoned. However, I don't think this can be equated with someone being "offended" by a club being named after a saint for example - typically, any "offence" that might arise from such a name would be subjective rather than objective which is an important distinction imo.

In my opinion, Mitchell's contribution to Irish nationalism independently outweighs his contribution to the Confederacy & slavery so I wouldn't be in favour of the GAA as a whole requiring these clubs to change their names. I think though that it would be worthwhile for the clubs to discuss the matter internally with particular respect to the views of members with non-Irish heritage to get their views

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Modern snowflakism and whataboutery. Did people not think and do their research about naming after these people at the time or is it just acceptable to jump on the bandwagon now and start removing statues and the likes of dubious characters.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Apparently it's unacceptable to deface a statue of Churchill but it's perfectly acceptable to remove the ones of the other racists and slave traders

[J70]

Modern snowflakism and whataboutery. Did people not think and do their research about naming after these people at the time or is it just acceptable to jump on the bandwagon now and start removing statues and the likes of dubious characters.

You don't get that cultural and societal standards and mores evolve?

[johnnycool]

Can I ask for anything related to Eoin O'Duffy to be fcuked out please?

seconded.

[J70]

I think it's wrong to equate John Mitchell with Edward Colston - Colston's good deeds were possible solely because of his involvement in the slave trade so those good deeds were in effect tainted by that association. John Mitchell can be remembered for his contribution to Irish nationalism independently of his stance on slavery.

On the other hand, I think most people in Ireland would consider that John Mitchell's views on slavery were outright wrong and offensive in an objective way, I don't see any way in which they could be condoned. However, I don't think this can be equated with someone being "offended" by a club being named after a saint for example - typically, any "offence" that might arise from such a name would be subjective rather than objective which is an important distinction imo.

In my opinion, Mitchell's contribution to Irish nationalism independently outweighs his contribution to the Confederacy & slavery so I wouldn't be in favour of the GAA as a whole requiring these clubs to change their names. I think though that it would be worthwhile for the clubs to discuss the matter internally with particular respect to the views of members with non-Irish heritage to get their views

Good post. Personally, I think it is absolutely a matter for the wider GAA, but reasonable people can disagree.

[whitey]

A few years ago on Willie Joes blog someone recommended changing the Mayo Crest to be more open and welcoming to some of our new citizens.   It was an interesting question....to a Muslim or a non Catholic is Dia is Muire linn offensive and exclusionary?  What about a club named after a Saint? 

I agree with J70 to an extent about the need for dialogue, but I disagree that it's a question for the wider community......leave it up to the clubs and their members to decide and Let them use it as an opportunity to have broader discussions around racism and exclusion

Gaelic Games are part of our national identity.....is that an element we want to retain, or in the interests of political correctness, dispatch to the dustbin?

[GiveItToTheShooters]

I think it's wrong to equate John Mitchell with Edward Colston - Colston's good deeds were possible solely because of his involvement in the slave trade so those good deeds were in effect tainted by that association. John Mitchell can be remembered for his contribution to Irish nationalism independently of his stance on slavery.

On the other hand, I think most people in Ireland would consider that John Mitchell's views on slavery were outright wrong and offensive in an objective way, I don't see any way in which they could be condoned. However, I don't think this can be equated with someone being "offended" by a club being named after a saint for example - typically, any "offence" that might arise from such a name would be subjective rather than objective which is an important distinction imo.

In my opinion, Mitchell's contribution to Irish nationalism independently outweighs his contribution to the Confederacy & slavery so I wouldn't be in favour of the GAA as a whole requiring these clubs to change their names. I think though that it would be worthwhile for the clubs to discuss the matter internally with particular respect to the views of members with non-Irish heritage to get their views

Hit the nail on the head.

[sid waddell]

In my opinion, Mitchell's contribution to Irish nationalism independently outweighs his contribution to the Confederacy & slavery

You can't be serious in believing that, can you?

This holds that because the victims of Mitchel's racism and love for slavery were not Irish, or probably more to the point, because his pro-racism and pro-slavery propagandising was not done in the name of the British Empire, we should overlook it.

Incidentally, Irish nationalism in and of itself was never necessarily a force for good. Self-rule was not the point, fair and just government and law was the point, or should have been the point.

The calls for self-rule only existed because Irish people were treated as effectively sub-human by the British, and could never receive fair and just government and law under the British Empire.

Mitchel treated blacks as literally sub-human. Belief in the principles of fairness and justice are universal, or they don't exist at all. Mitchel was categorically not a believer in such. He is not an appropriate person to celebrate via the names of GAA clubs.

If Mitchel had gone to India and been a propagandist for British rule there, if he had propagandised that Indians were sub-human and that it was righteous that they be enslaved by the British, instead of going to America and being a propagandist for racism, slavery and the Confederacy, would he have several GAA clubs named after him?

The answer is no, he would not.

[sid waddell]

I see Leo wants the statue of "Nazi collaborator" Seán Russell removed in Dublin.

He's right too.

Which is quite rare.