The Rangers Standard - Lessons From History? Apparently Not...

[no12 0]

I just dont get the point of that article at all, sorry.

 

What is it he is trying to say?

 

It's trying to say exactly what it does say.

If you're looking for something like "I love Rangers" or "I hate Rangers" don't bother reading stuff written by a historian.

[Tannochsidebear 2,314]

I've never heard of him personally, and it may be just that his writing style didnt hit my reading tastebuds. Thanks to AMMS for expaining it to me, that makes better sense, although I disagree with many of his sentiments and for others to say he is well informed about all things OF goes completely against what he says in that he is surprised at us getting no support.

 

If he truly had been an OF expert or observer he will have seen the political manoeverings done by them post-bunnet and how they have positioned into a controlling power in all walks of football life, be it legislative, disciplinary, media, and we have been left stranded many miles behind.

[der Berliner 3,247]

He may be informed but then why is writing stuff in a way that I find to be misinformation?

 

It seems he's fallen for the two Timmy lies that persuades the neutral against Rangers in that:

 

a) We're sectarian and they are not as they were not exclusive

 

and

 

b) That they were never exclusive

 

If he's informed then why doesn't he get it? It's an incredibly pivotal point and not understanding it means that you can never see a neutral picture and I really get the impression from his piece that he is far from neutral.

 

Ain't he saying the opposite...

 

In the mid-1980s, no club benefited more than Celtic from Rangers’ “no Catholics at Ibrox” policies, both morally and in terms of player selection. Over the next two decades the moral pendulum swung in the other direction as Celtic, a club that had never had a Protestant on its Board (Stein was a brief cover-up), but did play Protestants and had a sizable non-Catholic following, became increasingly obsessed among its “Celtic-minded” custodians with its Irish origins and the wickedness of those Scottish bigots who did not share their love for all things Irish.

 

... ? As I said, in TOF he clearly points at the bigotry/sectrianism at both clubs and in the mid-80s ours was sure greater than theirs - at least to the public. That has changed though.

 

What strikes me more than that is the utter turnaround in the media percerption. For while Rangers have not cared a jot about the pedigree of their players essentially ever after Souness - a feeling shared by our support - the Scottish press looked for some other excuse to harm us and found it in some supposed loyalistic-pro-British "sectarianism". And to put the icing on that cake, they gave us flak from all angles (after we backed down on "in-bred sectarianism" with regards to Protestant signings et al) while leaving the terrorist minded singing to pro-IRA songsheet et al. Methinks I should write an article about that ...

[calscot 0]

Ain't he saying the opposite...

 

In the mid-1980s, no club benefited more than Celtic from Rangers’ “no Catholics at Ibrox” policies, both morally and in terms of player selection. Over the next two decades the moral pendulum swung in the other direction as Celtic, a club that had never had a Protestant on its Board (Stein was a brief cover-up), but did play Protestants and had a sizable non-Catholic following, became increasingly obsessed among its “Celtic-minded” custodians with its Irish origins and the wickedness of those Scottish bigots who did not share their love for all things Irish.

 

... ?

 

No, that's the problem. "no Catholics at Ibrox", "but did play Protestants".

 

He also puts a pretty ignorant and irrelevant point in here: "had a sizable non-Catholic following".

 

That ignores so much it's shameful. Celtic have about 25-30% of the support of all clubs in Scotland from a base of 18% Catholics. Even if every Catholic in Scotland supported Celtic, all things being equal they would HAVE to have a sizable non-Catholic support. But then, where are the Catholics that support all the other clubs?

 

Celtic have a "sizable" non-Catholic support but that ignores the fact that they have an endigenously disproportionate number of Catholics supporting them and in fact MOST Catholics do. Why is this? From what I gather is that they are institutionally indoctrinated into supporting Celtic. Catholics who support Rangers are shunned. What was the proportion of Celtic versus Rangers versus other clubs in Catholic schools? I gather it was unfeasible to openly support Rangers in a Catholic school unless you wanted a lot of trouble.

 

So the reason that Catholics support Celtic and none support Rangers is obviously sectarian by them in nature and more a negative for Celtic than for Rangers but he's done the Timmy thing and turned that around.

 

The problem here is separating the chicken and the egg. Catholics are far more likely to support a team based on their religion than a protestant but that is considered fine. A much lower percentage of protestants choose a team based on their religion (and I'm talking about a "sizable" number of Rangers fans but not all) and that team is thereby labelled bigoted.

 

This is the tangled web you need to clear yourself from before you can call yourself a historian and this guy is very much entangled.

[amms 0]

There is some merit in what you are saying Calscot but I think you need to be careful at describing the choosing of a football team to support as being "sectarian". It's a loaded word and implies a conscious decision which most of us didn't really make. In truth most Celtic supporters 'choose' Celtic because of family ties and peer pressure, they are 'introduced' to them by older brothers, fathers, uncles and school friends but the decision to support a team is made at an age when you are in no position to understand the implications of it. In the same way many of us 'chose' Rangers because of the influence of family members or friends. There will be exceptions obviously but I'm not sure it is fair to describe a process many of us went through as sectarian. It could be argued that I support Rangers because I'm a Glasgow Protestant, however in truth I support Rangers because my Dad did, my older cousins did and most of the boys in my class did, throw in Davie Cooper and Bobby Russell and you have a lifetime love.

Is my being 'Protestant' incidental or was it critical to my 'decision'?

 

If someone chooses to raise their child as a Roman Catholic in Scotland and send them to a RC school the likelihood is they will support Celtic because most of their school friends will. Choosing to be an RC is a sectarian decision then, so is choosing to be an agnostic, or a Sikh or a Zoroastrian. I don't think that's what Murray is getting at. His point, and this is one that's been made on the Rangers Standard by others as well, is that some of the Rangers support and indeed aspects of the club, weren't pro-Protestant they were anti-Catholic when the opposite couldn't really be levelled at Celtic. It's arguable if that's entirely true but I think thats his point.

[calscot 0]

From talking to Celtic fans who are also friends, I have come to understand that they have been brought up to believe that they HAVE to support Celtic and that Rangers are evil and to be despised. They are taught a lot of anti-GB, anti-Protestant and anti-OO, anti-UK army dogma and are encouraged to call Rangers fans and protestants, "Huns" in a way neo-nazis would use the word, "kyke", never said normally but spat out with venom. They are taught that anything to do with history that is negative towards them is, "revisionism", that the OO are the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan and that the army are murderers and baby killers. GB is of course an imperialist, nazi state of invaders and a Union Jack is not allowed past their doorstep.

 

And these are the nicer ones that can't help but believe all this.

 

That all sounds a bit sectarian to me. I experienced NONE of that kind of stuff for protestants or Rangers at a west coast, non-denominational school. I supported Rangers with no pressure from anyone except for the fact that you were normally asked, "Who do you support, Rangers or Celtic?" and I chose Rangers because I liked the colour blue. It was a free choice and there were Celtic fans at my schools who were not victimised in the slightest. I only discovered the religious element when I became older and even then I still couldn't really understand it except that I was definitely against the IRA.

 

I did however, among Rangers fans hear a lot of FTP and Fen**** stuff that I always thought was a bit out of order, although most of it was more banter than real feeling. The words were rarely spat out and were more expletives than anything else.

 

There is still some Rangers fans who come out with anti-Catholics or anti-Irish stuff but there are many Rangers fans, including myself who condemn it, I don't see that condemnation on their side for their bigoted side.

[amms 0]

Calscot, I'm not sure about some of that, some pretty big generalisations being made there. I take it you aren't suggesting that stuff is taught at school but rather in the home? I think you need to find some new friends mate, the ones you have sound bonkers.

[no12 0]

"Who do you support, Rangers or Celtic?" and I chose Rangers because I liked the colour blue. It was a free choice and there were Celtic fans at my schools who were not victimised in the slightest. I only discovered the religious element when I became older and even then I still couldn't really understand it except that I was definitely against the IRA.

 

Hah! That's bringing back memories - I chose Rangers because blue was the colour of my favourite jiumper.

[TheWeeBlueDevil 0]

I support Rangers because my Dad was A Bear, just like his dad before him was also a Bear. I,m happy that my 3 kids have followed in the same tradition. In many ways the words of the great Bill Struth ring true for me, 'chosen not manufactured' I was introduced to Rangers at a very young age , as were my own kids and I never had an option to support any other club. Religion or political view points played no part in it.

[der Berliner 3,247]

@ calscot ... I see your point. Murray's article for the standard was but a glimpse on the topic and/or his opinion though. If he gets future appointments with TRS, he might be more acurate or detailed in his statements.