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

[imtommygunn]

St Teresa

[Baile Brigín 2]

So no actual or Irish women?

[Baile Brigín 2]

Cora Finn obviously.

[macdanger2]

So what about the clubs in the 6 counties, named after INLA members and Hunger Strikers

I'm sure many people in the broader community would find those names objectionable......should they be changed?

What about a club or county logo that promotes one religion over another?  Should new logos and crests be mandated?

(I could be mistaken, but naming clubs after Nationalist icons was very common in the early years of the organization-so the older the club, the more likely they would have such an association)

I think there's a difference between say for example the hunger strikers and Mitchell's stance on slavery - opposition to /support for the hunger strikers is pretty much a subjective thing  whereas Mitchell's views on slavery are objectively wrong for most people, virtually nobody in the Ireland/GAA would think otherwise; it's a matter of whether those views sufficiently overshadow his contribution in other areas.

[whitey]

How is it subjective

What if the hunger strikers had been IRA/INLA members who "murdered" people? 

Would the  family members of their victims not be entitled to object?

Casements name came up.....there's some pretty credible evidence that he sexually abused minors?

I'm sure victims of sexual abuse would find it abhorrent that a stadium is named after a paedophile!

Who gets to decide what is objectionable and what isn't?

Is it a conversation for the club members or is it a conversation for the broader community?

[macdanger2]

How is it subjective

What if the hunger strikers had been IRA/INLA members who "murdered" people? 

Would the  family members of their victims not be entitled to object?

Casements name came up.....there's some pretty credible evidence that he sexually abused minors?

I'm sure victims of sexual abuse would find it abhorrent that a stadium is named after a paedophile!

Who gets to decide what is objectionable and what isn't?

Is it a conversation for the club members or is it a conversation for the broader community?

It's subjective in that some reasonable people would justify the actions of those INLA men while other reasonable people would condemn them - that's what makes it subjective. I don't think anyone is trying to justify Mitchell's views on slavery but I'm open to correction on that - as such his views can be considered objectively wrong.

If Casement was proven to be a paedophile (and I understand those claims are unproven?), then I don't think anyone would attempt to justify what he did, most would objectively consider it to be wrong.

Anyone can object about whatever they want but the point I'm making is whether the thing they're objecting about is a matter of opinion (people can reasonably hold either viewpoint on whether or not INLA members actions were right or not) or whether the thing they're objecting about is something which is generally accepted as being wrong (e.g. Mitchell's view on slavery or someone being a paedophile)

[Baile Brigín 2]

How is it subjective

What if the hunger strikers had been IRA/INLA members who "murdered" people? 

Would the  family members of their victims not be entitled to object?

Casements name came up.....there's some pretty credible evidence that he sexually abused minors?

I'm sure victims of sexual abuse would find it abhorrent that a stadium is named after a paedophile!

Who gets to decide what is objectionable and what isn't?

Is it a conversation for the club members or is it a conversation for the broader community?

It's subjective in that some reasonable people would justify the actions of those INLA men while other reasonable people would condemn them - that's what makes it subjective. I don't think anyone is trying to justify Mitchell's views on slavery but I'm open to correction on that - as such his views can be considered objectively wrong.

If Casement was proven to be a paedophile (and I understand those claims are unproven?), then I don't think anyone would attempt to justify what he did, most would objectively consider it to be wrong.

Anyone can object about whatever they want but the point I'm making is whether the thing they're objecting about is a matter of opinion (people can reasonably hold either viewpoint on whether or not INLA members actions were right or not) or whether the thing they're objecting about is something which is generally accepted as being wrong (e.g. Mitchell's view on slavery or someone being a paedophile)

Is that not his point? Should this objective/subjective debate be up to the club and the club only or a broader, even enforced, conversation?

You might consider Kevin Lynch a valid name for a GAA club. Sponsors might run for cover. Should that even matter? If a club wants to make a statement should they sink or swim on it?  Do the county boards have no say?

[macdanger2]

How is it subjective

What if the hunger strikers had been IRA/INLA members who "murdered" people? 

Would the  family members of their victims not be entitled to object?

Casements name came up.....there's some pretty credible evidence that he sexually abused minors?

I'm sure victims of sexual abuse would find it abhorrent that a stadium is named after a paedophile!

Who gets to decide what is objectionable and what isn't?

Is it a conversation for the club members or is it a conversation for the broader community?

It's subjective in that some reasonable people would justify the actions of those INLA men while other reasonable people would condemn them - that's what makes it subjective. I don't think anyone is trying to justify Mitchell's views on slavery but I'm open to correction on that - as such his views can be considered objectively wrong.

If Casement was proven to be a paedophile (and I understand those claims are unproven?), then I don't think anyone would attempt to justify what he did, most would objectively consider it to be wrong.

Anyone can object about whatever they want but the point I'm making is whether the thing they're objecting about is a matter of opinion (people can reasonably hold either viewpoint on whether or not INLA members actions were right or not) or whether the thing they're objecting about is something which is generally accepted as being wrong (e.g. Mitchell's view on slavery or someone being a paedophile)

Is that not his point? Should this objective/subjective debate be up to the club and the club only or a broader, even enforced, conversation?

You might consider Kevin Lynch a valid name for a GAA club. Sponsors might run for cover. Should that even matter? If a club wants to make a statement should they sink or swim on it?  Do the county boards have no say?

I wasn't making a comment on who should make the decision. I was drawing a distinction between someone like Kevin Lynch where the discussion is around whether what he did was right/wrong and someone like John Mitchell (where it's accepted that his views on slavery were wrong) and the discussion is around whether his views on slavery outweigh the good work he did.

It's a subtle but important distinction imo although I may not be explaining it as well as I'd like

[whitey]

How is it subjective

What if the hunger strikers had been IRA/INLA members who "murdered" people? 

Would the  family members of their victims not be entitled to object?

Casements name came up.....there's some pretty credible evidence that he sexually abused minors?

I'm sure victims of sexual abuse would find it abhorrent that a stadium is named after a paedophile!

Who gets to decide what is objectionable and what isn't?

Is it a conversation for the club members or is it a conversation for the broader community?

It's subjective in that some reasonable people would justify the actions of those INLA men while other reasonable people would condemn them - that's what makes it subjective. I don't think anyone is trying to justify Mitchell's views on slavery but I'm open to correction on that - as such his views can be considered objectively wrong.

If Casement was proven to be a paedophile (and I understand those claims are unproven?), then I don't think anyone would attempt to justify what he did, most would objectively consider it to be wrong.

Anyone can object about whatever they want but the point I'm making is whether the thing they're objecting about is a matter of opinion (people can reasonably hold either viewpoint on whether or not INLA members actions were right or not) or whether the thing they're objecting about is something which is generally accepted as being wrong (e.g. Mitchell's view on slavery or someone being a paedophile)

Is being offended over an "opinion" an historic figure had about something they had no meaningful role in, 130 years ago,  in a country over 3000 miles away not the epitome of subjectivity. People choose what they wanted to be offended about. It's called selective outrage

[Baile Brigín 2]

How is it subjective

What if the hunger strikers had been IRA/INLA members who "murdered" people? 

Would the  family members of their victims not be entitled to object?

Casements name came up.....there's some pretty credible evidence that he sexually abused minors?

I'm sure victims of sexual abuse would find it abhorrent that a stadium is named after a paedophile!

Who gets to decide what is objectionable and what isn't?

Is it a conversation for the club members or is it a conversation for the broader community?

It's subjective in that some reasonable people would justify the actions of those INLA men while other reasonable people would condemn them - that's what makes it subjective. I don't think anyone is trying to justify Mitchell's views on slavery but I'm open to correction on that - as such his views can be considered objectively wrong.

If Casement was proven to be a paedophile (and I understand those claims are unproven?), then I don't think anyone would attempt to justify what he did, most would objectively consider it to be wrong.

Anyone can object about whatever they want but the point I'm making is whether the thing they're objecting about is a matter of opinion (people can reasonably hold either viewpoint on whether or not INLA members actions were right or not) or whether the thing they're objecting about is something which is generally accepted as being wrong (e.g. Mitchell's view on slavery or someone being a paedophile)

Is being offended over an "opinion" an historic figure had about something they had no meaningful role in, 130 years ago,  in a country over 3000 miles away not the epitome of subjectivity. People choose what they wanted to be offended about. It's called selective outrage

No meaningful role? Just an opinion?

He was an employed spokesperson for the Confederacy (two of his sons died in the war) and he edited their main newspaper.

You make it sound like he was overheard in a pub as opposed to a conviction that he was full time engaged in.

[macdanger2]

How is it subjective

What if the hunger strikers had been IRA/INLA members who "murdered" people? 

Would the  family members of their victims not be entitled to object?

Casements name came up.....there's some pretty credible evidence that he sexually abused minors?

I'm sure victims of sexual abuse would find it abhorrent that a stadium is named after a paedophile!

Who gets to decide what is objectionable and what isn't?

Is it a conversation for the club members or is it a conversation for the broader community?

It's subjective in that some reasonable people would justify the actions of those INLA men while other reasonable people would condemn them - that's what makes it subjective. I don't think anyone is trying to justify Mitchell's views on slavery but I'm open to correction on that - as such his views can be considered objectively wrong.

If Casement was proven to be a paedophile (and I understand those claims are unproven?), then I don't think anyone would attempt to justify what he did, most would objectively consider it to be wrong.

Anyone can object about whatever they want but the point I'm making is whether the thing they're objecting about is a matter of opinion (people can reasonably hold either viewpoint on whether or not INLA members actions were right or not) or whether the thing they're objecting about is something which is generally accepted as being wrong (e.g. Mitchell's view on slavery or someone being a paedophile)

Is being offended over an "opinion" an historic figure had about something they had no meaningful role in, 130 years ago,  in a country over 3000 miles away not the epitome of subjectivity. People choose what they wanted to be offended about. It's called selective outrage

I would have thought everyone would find his views offensive, do you not find his views on slavery offensive? Edit: I think think most reasonable people would consider his views on slavery to be flat out wrong and I'm not aware of anyone on here who have said otherwise

[Milltown Row2]

Whitey has selective outrage on a daily basis. I wouldn't get flustered too much on his musings

[Baile Brigín 2]

How is it subjective

What if the hunger strikers had been IRA/INLA members who "murdered" people? 

Would the  family members of their victims not be entitled to object?

Casements name came up.....there's some pretty credible evidence that he sexually abused minors?

I'm sure victims of sexual abuse would find it abhorrent that a stadium is named after a paedophile!

Who gets to decide what is objectionable and what isn't?

Is it a conversation for the club members or is it a conversation for the broader community?

It's subjective in that some reasonable people would justify the actions of those INLA men while other reasonable people would condemn them - that's what makes it subjective. I don't think anyone is trying to justify Mitchell's views on slavery but I'm open to correction on that - as such his views can be considered objectively wrong.

If Casement was proven to be a paedophile (and I understand those claims are unproven?), then I don't think anyone would attempt to justify what he did, most would objectively consider it to be wrong.

Anyone can object about whatever they want but the point I'm making is whether the thing they're objecting about is a matter of opinion (people can reasonably hold either viewpoint on whether or not INLA members actions were right or not) or whether the thing they're objecting about is something which is generally accepted as being wrong (e.g. Mitchell's view on slavery or someone being a paedophile)

Is being offended over an "opinion" an historic figure had about something they had no meaningful role in, 130 years ago,  in a country over 3000 miles away not the epitome of subjectivity. People choose what they wanted to be offended about. It's called selective outrage

I would have thought everyone would find his views offensive, do you not find his views on slavery offensive? Edit: I think think most reasonable people would consider his views on slavery to be flat out wrong and I'm not aware of anyone on here who have said otherwise

You sailed close to it with the 'just an opinion' and 'no influence' guff

[whitey]

Yes-of course I find it offensive, but I'm sure if we go back and look at every significant figure in Irish history, someone could find something to be offended about

As regards Mitchels role in the Civil War, from what I have read he was not a major or influential figure in the overall context of the war unlike say a Thomas Francis Meagher

[sid waddell]

So what about the clubs in the 6 counties, named after INLA members and Hunger Strikers

I'm sure many people in the broader community would find those names objectionable......should they be changed?

What about a club or county logo that promotes one religion over another?  Should new logos and crests be mandated?

(I could be mistaken, but naming clubs after Nationalist icons was very common in the early years of the organization-so the older the club, the more likely they would have such an association)

At least you could argue Kevin Lynch was a member of the club.

Mitchel died 23 years before the GAA was founded. I doubt Roger Casement or Countess Markievicz were big sports fan, and had hee haw to do with Belfast or Sligo. I think the arbitrary nature of naming may come home to roost.

Plenty of religious iconography in other sports, do they have the same arguments? St Pats spring to mind, catholic iconography on their crest too. I think thats maybe more a county argument, clubs don't necessarily have to be as inclusive.

By the way, if this new East Belfast club names themselves after Carson or Cromwell nobody who thinks names are just namrs can object.

Maybe they should go the whole hog and name it after Lenny Murphy, Billy Wright or Soldier F. Would give it that lived experience feel, given that all were "active" within many people's lives and memories. Be interesting if only to see the reaction here.

Clubs should only be named after local figures, preferably with some form of connection to hbe sport.

Billy Wright actually played Gaelic football, so that's that sorted.