The GAA - A Good or Bad Influence in Ireland

ejmaztec

As a more recent example, I don't think that Seán Kelly would have been elected as an MEP without the support of GAA fans in the area.

Ash.J.Williams

Judgement Day wrote: »

I think that while the GAA does a lot of good in the country, and in some ways is the lifeblood of many a community, it is largely representative of one tradition. The ban on members of the British forces/RUC etc which was in force until fairly recently did little to endear it to members of the minority faith and it will take a long time for that antipathy towards the GAA to die out. The GAA being the 'IRA at play' was a phrase that I grew up with. I have never been to a GAA games at any level and it's highly unlikely that I ever will. I won't even watch it on TV. I dislike the way county colours, inasmuch as they are a real thing, are adopted by the GAA in the same way as Sinn Fein hijacked the Irish language. There's no point throwing up the token Prods such as Sam Maguire and Jack Boothman - as I don't believe they represent mainstream Protestant feelings towards the GAA. Neither my mother or her brother would have been allowed by the GAA to become members so it's hardly surprising that I hold the views that I do. I am doing my best to ensure that my sons stay well clear of the GAA (and Soccer) too - difficult as it is - due to the GAA is doing its best to penetrate every school regardless of tradition.

Jack Boothman was schooled at Kings hospital and the old trinity vet college. He played Rugby, Cricket and hockey up to his twenties. He was was rather protestant to be fair!

hotmail.com

If particular sports got involved in politics, it was done in an individual manner - i.e. the whole sport wasn't embroiled, it was usually between one or two countries.

The GAA, on the other hand, is completely different. It established itself as a political organisation, with political aims and members that were political - "the IRA at play".

Regarding the language change, 50% of people spoke Irish up until the Famine. After the Famine the language went into terminal decline - why? Because people chose to speak English. They were not forced, they chose.

What the Irish langauge has to do with a sport I cannot understand. It was never an inclusive organisation and one can understand why non-Catholics aren't interested in the sport.

HellsAngel

hotmail.com wrote: »

Was the GAA's policy to mix itself up with politics and culture a good or bad thing for Ireland?

The GAA started out, not as a sporting organisation, but as political and cultural force designed to promote a sense of "Irishness" in an era of growing international nationalistic sentiment.

What's wrong with promoting a sense of Irishness ?? Do you see anything wrong with promoting "Englishness" when England play a match and they play God save the Queen and fly the flag of St George ? Or "Scottishness" with flag of St Andrew and singing the Flower of Scotland which refers to the victory of the Scotland over England's Edward II at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 ?

Or the America's anthem the Star Spangled Banner which celebrates the defence of Fort McHenry against the invading British ?

HellsAngel

hotmail.com wrote: »

If particular sports got involved in politics, it was done in an individual manner - i.e. the whole sport wasn't embroiled, it was usually between one or two countries.

The GAA, on the other hand, is completely different. It established itself as a political organisation, with political aims and members that were political - "the IRA at play".

Regarding the language change, 50% of people spoke Irish up until the Famine. After the Famine the language went into terminal decline - why? Because people chose to speak English. They were not forced, they chose.

What the Irish langauge has to do with a sport I cannot understand. It was never an inclusive organisation and one can understand why non-Catholics aren't interested in the sport.

Like thousands of others, I'm not a Catholic and I happily played Gaelic and Hurling.

R P McMurphy

hotmail.com wrote: »

If particular sports got involved in politics, it was done in an individual manner - i.e. the whole sport wasn't embroiled, it was usually between one or two countries.

The GAA, on the other hand, is completely different. It established itself as a political organisation, with political aims and members that were political - "the IRA at play".

Regarding the language change, 50% of people spoke Irish up until the Famine. After the Famine the language went into terminal decline - why? Because people chose to speak English. They were not forced, they chose.

What the Irish langauge has to do with a sport I cannot understand. It was never an inclusive organisation and one can understand why non-Catholics aren't interested in the sport.

Seriously if you are going to make an argument would you not try to have at least a small understanding of the issue. I am not going to get into an argument about the decline of the language as you haven't even for the faintest idea

hotmail.com

listermint wrote: »

TBH,

I believe Owen , Kevin and Hotmail are choice picking items at the extreme ends of the spectrum, Mossy has displayed extreme opinions some that are clearly displayed by owen and kevin.

But there are extreme opinions in every society. Mostly ignored by the vast majority of people. I think the GAA has to be viewed in the context of the overall island and not just examining the northern context. Because as we are all clearly aware to put the north into context of normal society does not work.

It is true to say the GAA was originally setup as an organisation to promote an identity that people found was being quashed by the input from our nearest neighbour. The organisation wished to promote all things the viewed as uniquely irish. (a noble goal in the context of the island at the time) Admittedly there was aspects and rules that are purely reactionary in part of the non inclusiveness of native irish in huge areas of the country. Governance being one. But that is the human condition, You exclude me, ill exclude you...etc. Rightly or Wrongly.


Aside from the initial standings of what organisation was setup to achieve, to hang on these ideas is a fallacy in itself. And shows poor knowledge of how organisations can implement change based solely on changing conditions. For this alone the GAA must be commended on its ability to change. We all know none of the rules affore mentioned in this thread exist anymore. This is down to the attitudes of grass roots members. The day to day people within the GAA, those ladies and gents who paint the pitch, serve the sandwhiches, turn on the lights in the changing rooms. These people are not sectarian they are the community on which it has thrived. The believe in inclusiveness, they are out there to help neighbours friends and enjoy there locality.

As for the community in the north, well tbh there is no fixing that on either side its only going to disappear through generations. So you can never give a proper analysis of the GAA within that extreme regional aspect.



@ Hotmail - If you really believe that FIFA have no political motivations or are some sort of un-corruptable entity it really shows your distinct lack of knowledge to the sporting world. But hey FIFA arent an organisation started in Ireland so we cant really Self Loath them can we.......

This does not take away from the rules that the GAA had - the ban on RUC members joining - disgraceful.

The FIFA corruption thingy isn't the same. That's greed. Poor comparison, the GAA has shown itself to be nothing but shameful when it comes to politics. As already mentioned in this thread, the GAA maintained their ban on English sports being played in their grounds after the Omagh Bombing, even though they had bigger grounds and more money could have been raised.

hotmail.com

HellsAngel wrote: »

What's wrong with promoting a sense of Irishness ?? Do you see anything wrong with promoting "Englishness" when England play a match and they play God save the Queen and fly the flag of St George ? Or "Scottishness" with flag of St Andrew and singing the Flower of Scotland which refers to the victory of the Scotland over England's Edward II at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 ?

Or the America's anthem the Star Spangled Banner which celebrates the defence of Fort McHenry against the invading British ?

National anthems are traditionally played at international matches. No problem at all with that.

What I have an issue with is a sporting organisation founded up and feeding off a political agenda. Politics divides, it does not unite. Hence sport needs to stay away from politics.

Your version of Irishness is going to be different from other people. It's going to lead to conflict, so why bother promoting something that will lead to conflict? Just stick to the pitch.

Ash.J.Williams

hotmail.com wrote: »

National anthems are traditionally played at international matches. No problem at all with that.

What I have an issue with is a sporting organisation founded up and feeding off a political agenda. Politics divides, it does not unite. Hence sport needs to stay away from politics.

Your version of Irishness is going to be different from other people. It's going to lead to conflict, so why bother promoting something that will lead to conflict? Just stick to the pitch.

I think you need an educational field trip to the croke park offices to see for yourself how much sh*te you are spouting....

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In general if you want to look into some of the more controversial aspects of the GAA then you need to consider the context of the situation more than has been done so far in the thread. There are problems highlighted so far without considering why some of these aspects are in place. For example if you say have a recent discriminatory history you should also consider if there are any valid reasons for this.

+ 1
Still waiting for this to happen on this thread.

The cultural and political movements of the 19th century were not by any means exclusively Catholic as has been suggested on the thread. The Gaelic culture was not seen as exclusively belonging to one religion. Douglas Hyde [Protestant] founded the Gaelic League and famously wrote about 'The Necessity of De-Anglicising Ireland' - a centralist view amongst many nationalists of any denomination of the time.

And the central Irish politic aspiration in the manifestation of Home Rule was dominated by two Irish Protestants: Isaac Butt and Charles Parnell.

Nhead

I agree with MarchDub, the OP needs to bring in context, the GAA has a long history so let us look at it from the start and in the context of the Gaelic Revival: my understanding of the revival was not so much an anti-Englishness but anti-low brow (as they seen it) Anglo pastimes such as the penny-dreadful i.e Yeats et al had no problem with Shakespeare, Keats or Shelley. They wanted to promote Irish Culture as they believed it was firstly, important and secondly at risk of disappearing. Now, what were the aims of the GAA? another question which must be at the centre when discussing the GAA and politics: is it the remit of the GAA to tell it's members how to vote and which party it could or could not be aligned to? I have never heard of a GAA club in my area saying that it would ban somebody over who they vote for be that Sinn Fein or Fine Gael etc. As for the 'IRA at play' I know many members of the Irish Defence Forces that have and continue to play/ed Gaelic games now the IRA had a green book that didn't recognise them PDF as the legitimate army of the republic, so if the GAA, as a whole and I stress as a whole, were the IRA at play how come the PDF were allowed to play?

As for other organisations bringing politics into it's sport I have given examples of the organisations that have ,not individuals but organisations, became embroiled in politics.

Judgement Day

Nhead - Why wouldn't the Irish Army have been allowed to play GAA games as it wasn't the Irish State that regarded the GAA as 'the IRA at play' it was many of us in the Unionist minority that held those views. While I'm off topic, I'm sick of the likes of Parnell, Tone, Hyde (a distant relative), Jack Boothman etc continually being wheeled out as representing the Protestant community - in the case of the political figures, at least, they were regarded as renegades and worse.

Nhead

hotmail.com wrote: »

National anthems are traditionally played at international matches. No problem at all with that.

What I have an issue with is a sporting organisation founded up and feeding off a political agenda. Politics divides, it does not unite. Hence sport needs to stay away from politics.

Your version of Irishness is going to be different from other people. It's going to lead to conflict, so why bother promoting something that will lead to conflict? Just stick to the pitch.

Show us some of the sources that illustrate it was founded on feeding off the political agenda (
I am asking as an historian not to have a dig). Politics and sport shouldn't mix is an argument that is often made but sport is made up of people and people are political. Think of Jessie
Owens at the Olympics proving that the Nazi ideology was flawed ( this isn't Goodwins law:)) or Ali throwing his gold medal into a river as he couldn't get served in a restaurant because of
his skin colour. The black power salute in 1968 was a powerful as a political statement as you
could get. The Hillsborough petition is another example and in particular illustrates why politics
and sport should sometimes mix as answers are required and supporters should have a voice. I witnessed the British Armed Forces take on the Irish army in a game of GAA in the Curragh Camp and it was great to see as it illustrated that people, through a game, could overcome the political situation and that people's politics can be different but not the only marker of what they are.

Nhead

Judgement Day wrote: »

Nhead - Why wouldn't the Irish Army have been allowed to play GAA games as it wasn't the Irish State that regarded the GAA as 'the IRA at play' it was many of us in the Unionist minority that held those views. While I'm off topic, I'm sick of the likes of Parnell, Tone, Jack Boothman etc continually being wheeled out as representing the Protestant community - in the case of the political figures, at least, they were regarded as renegades and worse.

To clarify: what I mean is if the GAA were nothing more than the IRA at play they would have had a problem with the PDF as the IRA did. Judgement Day I wouldn't for a moment like to downplay that a Unionist might have a problem with the GAA for various reasons such as the political situation that exists/ existed in NI, cultural identity etc. This is why I was talking about the geographic dimension initially, as a club such as Moorefield in Newbridge wouldn't have been set up to be sectarian etc They are more concerned with beating Sarsfield's then politics. In case you haven't guessed I am from Kildare.

MarchDub

Judgement Day wrote: »

Nhead - Why wouldn't the Irish Army have been allowed to play GAA games as it wasn't the Irish State that regarded the GAA as 'the IRA at play' it was many of us in the Unionist minority that held those views. While I'm off topic, I'm sick of the likes of Parnell, Tone, Hyde (a distant relative), Jack Boothman etc continually being wheeled out as representing the Protestant community - in the case of the political figures, at least, they were regarded as renegades and worse.

They were representative of Irish nationalism - not their religion. The fact that some of their religion regarded them as 'renegades' is the religion's loss - and a very sad commentary IMO.

Judgement Day

MarchDub wrote: »

They were representative of Irish nationalism - not their religion. The fact that some of their religion regarded them as 'renegades' is the religion's loss - and a very sad commentary IMO.

I have no difficulty with them being held up as outstanding Nationalists but they keep being put forward as being somehow proof that all Protestants in the 26 counties are closet Nationalists.

hotmail.com

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Seriously if you are going to make an argument would you not try to have at least a small understanding of the issue. I am not going to get into an argument about the decline of the language as you haven't even for the faintest idea

So people didn't choose to speak English? They were forced to change their langauge?

hotmail.com

Nhead wrote: »

Show us some of the sources that illustrate it was founded on feeding off the political agenda (
I am asking as an historian not to have a dig). Politics and sport shouldn't mix is an argument that is often made but sport is made up of people and people are political. Think of Jessie
Owens at the Olympics proving that the Nazi ideology was flawed ( this isn't Goodwins law:)) or Ali throwing his gold medal into a river as he couldn't get served in a restaurant because of
his skin colour. The black power salute in 1968 was a powerful as a political statement as you
could get. The Hillsborough petition is another example and in particular illustrates why politics
and sport should sometimes mix as answers are required and supporters should have a voice. I witnessed the British Armed Forces take on the Irish army in a game of GAA in the Curragh Camp and it was great to see as it illustrated that people, through a game, could overcome the political situation and that people's politics can be different but not the only marker of what they are.

Evidence - their rule book is evidence. Excluding members of society, banning English sports being played on their grounds, promoting a national identity, promoting Irish...this is like something from a political party and not a sporting organisation.

The examples you give are once and few and far between. Athletics, the sport itself, does not align itself with politics. The black salute example wasn't an action sanctioned by the athletics organisation. So it's a bogus comparison.

Some in Ireland are just so used to the GAA, they can't see what's wrong with the organisation.

Nhead

hotmail.com wrote: »

Evidence - their rule book is evidence. Excluding members of society, banning English sports being played on their grounds, promoting a national identity, promoting Irish...this is like something from a political party and not a sporting organisation.

The examples you give are once and few and far between. Athletics, the sport itself, does not align itself with politics. The black salute example wasn't an action sanctioned by the athletics organisation. So it's a bogus comparison.

Some in Ireland are just so used to the GAA, they can't see what's wrong with the organisation.

Link it, show us where, that is the remit of the historian. Some in Ireland can't see what is
wrong with the organisation some can. Some in Ireland can see what it does right some can't no one denies this. Contextualise it, what was the situation when it was founded, what were the rules when it was founded, how has it changed? Your original question was was it good or bad, you have highlighted the bad, is there any good? I only say this not to argue or to catch you out but to bring it into a historical perspective as otherwise it will just become a sectarian slinging match IMO.

The examples I have given are a small representative sample there are many, many more

hotmail.com

Nhead wrote: »

Link it, show us where, that is the remit of the historian. Some in Ireland can't see what is wrong with the organisation some can. Some in Ireland can see what it does right some can't no one denies this.

Link what exactly? All of what I've said is common knowledge.

Ash.J.Williams

Judgement Day wrote: »

I have no difficulty with them being held up as outstanding Nationalists but they keep being put forward as being somehow proof that all Protestants in the 26 counties are closet Nationalists.

utter tripe...

gbee

hotmail.com wrote: »

Was the GAA's policy to mix itself up with politics and culture a good or bad thing for Ireland?

The GAA was akin to a paramilitary organisation and their drilling with hurleys did not in fact fool the British at all, but that's in the deep past now anyway.

Is it much the dame today? Yes.

Does it actually promote "Irish" culture? I think not, it does promote rivalry and as we can see from many matches this aspect of its promotion works very well indeed.

It also has a very serious mix of youths attending various events with adults drinking alcohol ~~ this worried me.

It is fractious, and we have seen many more GAA clubs than a county can support, spring up through inter management or inter siblings disputes. The whole organisation is punctuated by disputes, secrecy and distrust.

As you say it has not thrown off it's root foundations and think the inter-county rivalry is divisive.

Yet, it does allow young kids to have summer camps and join their local club and it can be great, it can be very beneficial and assist a talented young fella with boots, hurleys, bus fares etc, ect ~ you won't be out of work and there is a protective cloak.

But they are somewhat passive ~ they don't preach on street corners and don't try to recruit people, so their influence is largely limited to their numbers, so overall I'd say the GAA has been a benefit and one gets the best sandwiches and freshest cakes ~ so they have that priority right ~ I've never had so many dinners as I've had from the GAA above all other sporting bodies that I've worked with.

MarchDub

hotmail.com wrote: »

Link what exactly? All of what I've said is common knowledge.

Great reply you think for the history Forum - no source, no evidence just 'common knowledge'?

Judgement Day

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

utter tripe...

Great post! :rolleyes:

MarchDub

Judgement Day wrote: »

I have no difficulty with them being held up as outstanding Nationalists but they keep being put forward as being somehow proof that all Protestants in the 26 counties are closet Nationalists.

I never said so - and many like my own grandmother who was C of I was a nationalist, and would have been in a rage if anyone suggested that she was considered a 'renegade' to her own country, Ireland.

BrianBoru00

hotmail.com - all your doing is repeating the same comments over and over again - you havent backed up any of your comments with actual fact or shown where to get such facts Are all of your 2000 odd posts really just about 40 comments repeated again and again??

Make a point and back it up.

byhookorbycrook

hotmail.com wrote: »

The rule was only temporarily lifted, the ban on English sports remains in GAA policy. Still in 2011. And people support this organisation??

So can I swing by my local cricket club and demand to be allowed to play rounders???

Judgement Day

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

So can I swing by my local cricket club and demand to be allowed to play rounders???

Rounders comes under the control of the GAA in Ireland. http://www.gaarounders.ie/

Ash.J.Williams

The Gaa were never the "IRA at play" ...the fact that most able bodied catholic men played gaa sports simply made the gaa the obvious place to look for fighters...
The gaa are apolitical end of story. With that said, it's impossible to paint everyone in the gaa with that brush....there are some members who are interested in politics, just like EVERYWHERE ELSE....

The only thing that annoys me about the gaa is their strength in numbers in local villages and towns...that can be a real pain in the hole if you're not one of them!

byhookorbycrook

Judgement Day wrote: »

Rounders comes under the control of the GAA in Ireland. http://www.gaarounders.ie/

I'm aware of that,hence, my question, would I be allowed demand to play rounders at a cricket ground?Just like hotmail is saying we should all be allowed play soccer at a GAA ground, by right.