Ibrox: Jurassic Park?

[D'Artagnan 173]

As a piece of writing Andy I enjoyed it immensely.

 

As a critique of my original article however - you have missed some critical points and, of particular disappointment on a personal level - you have misrepresented some of the original.

 

Permit me to give you an example..

 

'Times change', the article notes, but Rangers must stay the same, 'no matter how society moves on to other things'. This is a bit of a contradiction. Heritage is important, but why are certain bits of heritage more important than others? Why must we hold on to those bits of heritage from a certain period (which we happen to agree with) but ignore all the other points in the clubs heritage in which these credos hardly featured at all?

 

And again...

 

One respondent to D'Artagnan's piece even went so far as to suggest these traditional virtues are Rangers 'USP' and we ought to promote them positively. One might as well argue for a positive promotion of the workhouse, so out of date is this attitude. 'Times change', but Rangers stays the same 'no matter how society moves on'.

 

However what I actually wrote was...

 

Times change and so do attitudes and beliefs, often for the better. But for several generations, including my own, Rangers were not just a football club.

 

This is not about heritage of the club Andy - its about personal beliefs. Those personal beliefs do not change irrespective of societal shifts. I have never, in this article nor any other for that matter suggested as per your assertion - "Rangers must stay the same"

 

The fact that earlier this month a Southern Irish Roman Catholic captained our club - illustrates the complete folly of such a belief.

 

This is fundamental to the whole discussion and I think it only fair to allow you to respond before we venture further.

[Frankie 8,186]

Sorry Frankie, I meant to address these points but have been busy building a wall.

 

Even as footballing small fry, both halves of the Old Firm offer companies the chance to advertise to profitable markets - look at our TV figures from last year, and <grits teeth> looks at Timothy's European exposure also. I don't say we are a fallen Barca, but we can certainly sell a good return with our fanbase(s).

 

The Rule Brittania thing is interesting and I'd like to address it at some length (cue for those already bored to scroll down fast).

 

I was born in 1970. The Empire, knocked by the Boer War, hammered by the Great War, and more or less destroyed by the 2nd WW, was already a historical curiosity by the time I was in my teens and able to think about such things objectively. Thus I don't feel any great empathy with it, but I likewise don't feel any massive liberal guilt. Expecting all white people to feel guilty for the actions of historical white people seems about as racist as expecting all black people to be good dancers, or whatever stereotype you want.

 

My family were all pretty strong Imperialists, being of that generation, and felt that the Empire was beneficial and benevolent. I can see that bringing the railways and banning suttee were good things, but when you put them on one side and set them against the death of one person, never mind tens or hundreds of thousands, they don't seem quite so fabby.

 

Add to that the fact - might horrify liberals, can't help that - that people really object to being invaded at all and especially by peple of a different colour or creed than themselves. We see how much people resent Muslim expansion in Britain, imagine how we'd have felt if the Ottoman Empire had lurched into Britain in the 18th century and lorded it over us for a couple of centuries. You then get, I dunno, some Turkish team coming to Ibrox and singing the song that represented that invading force. Doubt we'd dig it.

 

RB is the Hymn of Empire. The Empire, if one digs out books and looks at the nuts and bolts of it, was nasty and brutal. What Conrad called 'the idea at the back of it, something you can bow down before' isn't enough to save it from the nasty taste of violence and control it left in the mouths of many. While some songs can leave their associations behind I don't think you can say that of RB yet.

 

On the other hand it probably drives Timmy nuts, which is always a plus.

 

I'll wager that the huge majority of fans who sing RB don't do so because they wish a return to the brutal days of the Empire but merely, like you concede, to annoy others.

 

I'd say that goes for most songs - including stuff about the Pope and/or the IRA.

[Frankie 8,186]

As a piece of writing Andy I enjoyed it immensely.

 

As a critique of my original article however - you have missed some critical points and' date=' of particular disappointment on a personal level - you have misrepresented some of the original.

 

Permit me to give you an example..

 

 

 

And again...

 

[/b']

 

However what I actually wrote was...

 

Times change and so do attitudes and beliefs, often for the better. But for several generations, including my own, Rangers were not just a football club.

 

This is not about heritage of the club Andy - its about personal beliefs. Those personal beliefs do not change irrespective of societal shifts. I have never, in this article nor any other for that matter suggested as per your assertion - "Rangers must stay the same"

 

The fact that earlier this month a Southern Irish Roman Catholic captained our club - illustrates the complete folly of such a belief.

 

This is fundamental to the whole discussion and I think it only fair to allow you to respond before we venture further.

 

I'll admit that I've not read your original article properly mate so trusted Andy to counter/quote your piece accurately.

 

Apologies if that hasn't happened but I'm sure Andy won't have misquoted you deliberately - possibly more that's how he interpreted your words. We'd be happy to edit anything that you find unsuitable.

[der Berliner 3,290]

I'll wager that the huge majority of fans who sing RB don't do so because they wish a return to the brutal days of the Empire but merely, like you concede, to annoy others.

 

I'd say that goes for most songs - including stuff about the Pope and/or the IRA.

 

I'd throw in: and because they are great to sing along and create a feeling of togetherness. "The cry was no surrender" can obviously also be interpreted in a way that means that the "Rangers team will never give up", akin to "you never walk alone".

 

As I said before, Penny Arcade and Blowing bubbles are probably as appropriate to a football match as these songs. If the context of the song is extended beyond that (usually by people not involved in the game or sports in general), the problems start. The latter should be addressed as well, IMHO. UEFA and 30odd countries we visited had for 50odd years no problem with TBB or RB or the like. It usually comes from agenda-driven people at home and that should be made clear to anyone deciding on the issue.

[Frankie 8,186]

I'd throw in: and because they are great to sing along and create a feeling of togetherness. "The cry was no surrender" can obviously also be interpreted in a way that means that the "Rangers team will never give up", akin to "you never walk alone".

 

As I said before, Penny Arcade and Blowing bubbles are probably as appropriate to a football match as these songs. If the context of the song is extended beyond that (usually by people not involved in the game or sports in general), the problems start. The latter should be addressed as well, IMHO. UEFA and 30odd countries we visited had for 50odd years no problem with TBB or RB or the like. It usually comes from agenda-driven people at home and that should be made clear to anyone deciding on the issue.

 

Like I say, IMHO, the main reason for people singing songs is because of camaraderie and/or banter. I'm no Loyalist but I love Derry's Walls and sing it with complete gusto for exactly the reasons you highlight.

 

Sure, there will be some who genuinely mean some offensive lyrics when they sing them but I doubt many will be as well read as Andy on the British Empire or Irish history.

 

All in all, I find it a bit of a nonsense but will definitely concede football and football fans shouldn't be exempt from having an inclusive attitude towards matches and chants.

[D'Artagnan 173]

I'll admit that I've not read your original article properly mate so trusted Andy to counter/quote your piece accurately.

 

Apologies if that hasn't happened but I'm sure Andy won't have misquoted you deliberately - possibly more that's how he interpreted your words. We'd be happy to edit anything that you find unsuitable.

 

I dont think your offer to edit is practical Frankie given the nature of the article.

 

Erroneous interpretation of what I had written would have been understandable - however the offending sentence is written as a quotation, as you can see on not just one but two occasions.

[Frankie 8,186]

I dont think your offer to edit is practical Frankie given the nature of the article.

 

Erroneous interpretation of what I had written would have been understandable - however the offending sentence is written as a quotation' date=' as you can see on not just one but two occasions.[/quote']

 

I'm sure Andy will concede his error and we can amend his original to address your frustration.

 

Poor bugger is away building a wall just now so we can use that as some community service for his misdemeanour.

[D'Artagnan 173]

I'm sure Andy will concede his error and we can amend his original to address your frustration.

 

Poor bugger is away building a wall just now so we can use that as some community service for his misdemeanour.

 

The quotation marks actually refer to my original comments in the first part - the part in the middle appears to be an inference - with the latter part, again in quotes, relates to words I never actually said. Very misleading for those who have not read the original.

 

My considerable disappointment is that it is suggesting something which I never said in the original article.

[Frankie 8,186]

The quotation marks actually refer to my original comments in the first part - the part in the middle appears to be an inference - with the latter part' date=' again in quotes, relates to words I never actually said. Very misleading for those who have not read the original.

 

My considerable disappointment is that it is suggesting something which I never said in the original article.[/quote']

 

I appreciate your annoyance so I've added some text to the online article - which links to your original and apologises for any misquote and inconvenience.

 

I hope that's satisfactory for you.

[D'Artagnan 173]

I appreciate your annoyance so I've added some text to the online article - which links to your original and apologises for any misquote and inconvenience.

 

I hope that's satisfactory for you.

 

Its more than satisfactory Frankie.

 

Its a great pity that the riposte contains inaccuracies from the original, as it is an excellent article otherwise with a differing viewpoint to my own.