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

[sid waddell]

The exact nonsense right-wing cliches I expected, ie, "where does it stop?", the dumb whataboutery and deflection, have been trotted out here ad nauseum.

We've even had it argued that if GAA clubs were no longer named after John Mitchel, the pyramids of Egypt would then have to be knocked down.

Like, where do you even start with that sort of stuff.

What we haven't had yet is any sort of a serious argument as to why GAA clubs should continue to be named after a vile propagandist for racism and slavery.

[whitey]

The exact nonsense right-wing cliches I expected, ie, "where does it stop?", the dumb whataboutery and deflection, have been trotted out here ad nauseum.

We've even had it argued that if GAA clubs were no longer named after John Mitchel, the pyramids of Egypt would then have to be knocked down.

Like, where do you even start with that sort of stuff.

What we haven't had yet is any sort of a serious argument as to why GAA clubs should continue to be named after a vile propagandist for racism and slavery.

So if a unionist in the North objected to a team or a ground being named after a Republican, should the name be changed? Yes or no?

[sid waddell]

The exact nonsense right-wing cliches I expected, ie, "where does it stop?", the dumb whataboutery and deflection, have been trotted out here ad nauseum.

We've even had it argued that if GAA clubs were no longer named after John Mitchel, the pyramids of Egypt would then have to be knocked down.

Like, where do you even start with that sort of stuff.

What we haven't had yet is any sort of a serious argument as to why GAA clubs should continue to be named after a vile propagandist for racism and slavery.

So if a unionist in the North objected to a team or a ground being named after a Republican, should the name be changed? Yes or no?

This thread is for the likes of you to try and come up with a decent argument as to why GAA clubs should be named after a propagandist for racism and slavery.

So far, you haven't come remotely close to coming up with one.

Whataboutery is not an argument.

If you want to start a thread about the above scenario you mention, by all means do so, and I'll be happy to contribute.

This is a thread about John Mitchel.

[J70]

The exact nonsense right-wing cliches I expected, ie, "where does it stop?", the dumb whataboutery and deflection, have been trotted out here ad nauseum.

We've even had it argued that if GAA clubs were no longer named after John Mitchel, the pyramids of Egypt would then have to be knocked down.

Like, where do you even start with that sort of stuff.

What we haven't had yet is any sort of a serious argument as to why GAA clubs should continue to be named after a vile propagandist for racism and slavery.

So if a unionist in the North objected to a team or a ground being named after a Republican, should the name be changed? Yes or no?

That is obviously something that various unionists have raised over the years about the GAA. No one gave a shit because the unionists were never going to join or show much of an interest in GAA anyway. And its not like they don't have plenty of skeletons in their own closet, between institutional sectarianism, loyalist paramilitaries and various sectarian fraternal orders.

The debate here is whether WE, as members of the GAA community, should be looking at this issue.

[whitey]

The exact nonsense right-wing cliches I expected, ie, "where does it stop?", the dumb whataboutery and deflection, have been trotted out here ad nauseum.

We've even had it argued that if GAA clubs were no longer named after John Mitchel, the pyramids of Egypt would then have to be knocked down.

Like, where do you even start with that sort of stuff.

What we haven't had yet is any sort of a serious argument as to why GAA clubs should continue to be named after a vile propagandist for racism and slavery.

So if a unionist in the North objected to a team or a ground being named after a Republican, should the name be changed? Yes or no?

This thread is for the likes of you to try and come up with a decent argument as to why GAA clubs should be named after a propagandist for racism and slavery.

So far, you haven't come remotely close to coming up with one.

Whataboutery is not an argument.

If you want to start a thread about the above scenario you mention, by all means do so, and I'll be happy to contribute.

This is a thread about John Mitchel.

Well what if I'm not offended by John Mitchell, but I am offended by a Hurling Club in Co Derry named after an INLA member and hunger striker?

[whitey]

The exact nonsense right-wing cliches I expected, ie, "where does it stop?", the dumb whataboutery and deflection, have been trotted out here ad nauseum.

We've even had it argued that if GAA clubs were no longer named after John Mitchel, the pyramids of Egypt would then have to be knocked down.

Like, where do you even start with that sort of stuff.

What we haven't had yet is any sort of a serious argument as to why GAA clubs should continue to be named after a vile propagandist for racism and slavery.

So if a unionist in the North objected to a team or a ground being named after a Republican, should the name be changed? Yes or no?

That is obviously something that various unionists have raised over the years about the GAA. No one gave a shit because the unionists were never going to join or show much of an interest in GAA anyway. And its not like they don't have plenty of skeletons in their own closet, between institutional sectarianism, loyalist paramilitaries and various sectarian fraternal orders.

The debate here is whether WE, as members of the GAA community, should be looking at this issue.

So do you think this is an issue for the members of the "offending" club to address or do you think that people who dont belong to the club club should also have a say?

What if the club holds a vote, and the members vote to retain their name?  Do you respect their wishes?

[Gaagaagaa20]

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

[J70]

The exact nonsense right-wing cliches I expected, ie, "where does it stop?", the dumb whataboutery and deflection, have been trotted out here ad nauseum.

We've even had it argued that if GAA clubs were no longer named after John Mitchel, the pyramids of Egypt would then have to be knocked down.

Like, where do you even start with that sort of stuff.

What we haven't had yet is any sort of a serious argument as to why GAA clubs should continue to be named after a vile propagandist for racism and slavery.

So if a unionist in the North objected to a team or a ground being named after a Republican, should the name be changed? Yes or no?

That is obviously something that various unionists have raised over the years about the GAA. No one gave a shit because the unionists were never going to join or show much of an interest in GAA anyway. And its not like they don't have plenty of skeletons in their own closet, between institutional sectarianism, loyalist paramilitaries and various sectarian fraternal orders.

The debate here is whether WE, as members of the GAA community, should be looking at this issue.

So do you think this is an issue for the members of the "offending" club to address or do you think that people who dont belong to the club club should also have a say?

What if the club holds a vote, and the members vote to retain their name?  Do you respect their wishes?

I don't know.

This is not an issue where a satisfactory decision can be reached based on a single morning of debate on the gaaboard.

IF I was a club member, I would hope it would be something that would be seriously debated.

But, the wider GAA is also entitled to an opinion. Beyond that, again, I don't know.

I do know that I would not think twice about refusing to let my kids join a club named after Jefferson Davis or Nathan Bedford Forrest or PW Botha. How that extends to controversial GAA names I haven't thought through.

Which I guess is my point.

Would a new club forming today use Mitchel's name?

[Milltown Row2]

Was this not common knowledge at the time when these clubs were formed?

[RedHand88]

The exact nonsense right-wing cliches I expected, ie, "where does it stop?", the dumb whataboutery and deflection, have been trotted out here ad nauseum.

We've even had it argued that if GAA clubs were no longer named after John Mitchel, the pyramids of Egypt would then have to be knocked down.

Like, where do you even start with that sort of stuff.

What we haven't had yet is any sort of a serious argument as to why GAA clubs should continue to be named after a vile propagandist for racism and slavery.

So if a unionist in the North objected to a team or a ground being named after a Republican, should the name be changed? Yes or no?

That is obviously something that various unionists have raised over the years about the GAA. No one gave a shit because the unionists were never going to join or show much of an interest in GAA anyway. And its not like they don't have plenty of skeletons in their own closet, between institutional sectarianism, loyalist paramilitaries and various sectarian fraternal orders.

The debate here is whether WE, as members of the GAA community, should be looking at this issue.

So do you think this is an issue for the members of the "offending" club to address or do you think that people who dont belong to the club club should also have a say?

What if the club holds a vote, and the members vote to retain their name?  Do you respect their wishes?

What GAA clubs name themselves after is the business of the members of that club and no one else be it Saint, Patriot or Patron

What if there was a Harold Shipman GAC?

[whitey]

Was this not common knowledge at the time when these clubs were formed?

Some of these clubs were formed in the 1880s and were heavily involved in Ireland's fight for Independence. I doubt too many of the founding members were doing a deep dive on his life story

[Milltown Row2]

Hated Jews as well it seems. If these clubs were formed in the 1880's they rushed into that one lol!

[naka]

The club named after him in Newry isn't much use anyway.

Last newry team to win the down senior championship.

[Rossfan]

White "Christian' Europeans n the 19th Century generally felt superior to negroes*  and didnt like Jews.

*A bit ironic when you consider Africans are 100% Homo sapiens while Europeans have Neanderthal DNA mixed in with hs.

[J70]

Doesn't really matter when they were formed though. You can't change that. The issue is whether, society having evolved for the better in the meantime, such names and symbols are maintained.