Rangers staff risk stoking sectarianism hints Glasgow council boss Susan Aitken

[Bill 13,717]

3 hours ago, Gaffer said:

I don't know but let me get it kicked off with some hypotheses that we can tackle ...

 

1.  Rangers fans tend to have no need to shout about being fans of our club.  We are quietly confident that our success speaks for itself.  Others shout more because they feel they need to for some reason.  You're asking me to enter the mind of one of "them" and gladly I'm unable to.

 

2.  We are widely regarded as a bigoted support.  By stating their allegiance to our club, they fear being branded a bigot. 

By whom? Who is it that promotes and fosters the idea of Rangers fans being bigoted? It's not me and it's not you, so who is behind this?

 

3.  They are embarassed at being associated with a club that is perceived to have cheated by lots of other clubs' fans.  Has the number of politicians claiming allegiance to our club diminished since the admin fiasco?  Were there many open about it before?

I think the disinclination to be seen as associated with Rangers goes back well before the admin era. The Rangers brand has been eroded and ridiculed for many years. The question again is who promoted this idea and in what cause were they acting?

 

4.  Good and smart politicians don't create division where it is unnecessary.  If there's no need to disclose their football allegiance, why do it?  Maybe Rangers fans are just smarter.

That's a logic that doesn't seem to apply to supporters of Hearts, Celtic, etc. Turning up to parliament in a Celtic shirt for instance. Nor does flaunting allegiance to Celtic seem to have impaired any politician's career, you could argue the reverse in fact.

 

I really don't know the answer to this but as Stewarty and John said, this is a good discussion for us to have.  I think that it would be incredibly enlightening to reach a conclusion on it.

So far you're the only one I can see offering any suggestions. I suspect many more believe they know exactly who's/what's behind the clear assault on the Rangers brand but I predict every one of them will shirk from saying it.

Cheers Gaffer. It will be interesting to see if anyone else, particularly those who asked the question, is willing to try to answer it.

 

[JohnMc 2,496]

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Thanks for biting. Before I answer your question, can you help me out ... have any of the organisations or nationalities you mention been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans as the SNP. I'm not aware they have and have no issue with any of them but since you choose to name them here, in the context of this topic, I suspect you have some knowledge I don't. Once again thanks for biting.

 

22 minutes ago, Bill said:

I admit I've only gone back to April but I can see nowhere that I even mentioned Roman Catholics. Only you did.

You're trying to be smart ... and failing. Try it somewhere that's more receptive ?

Read the thread Bill, read your own words, the ones you actually typed. I'll help you. You said "have any of the organisations or nationalities you mention been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans as the SNP". Yes Bill, both Ireland and Roman Catholics, have, at times "been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans". But you know this Bill, you're being obtuse because you'd rather not answer the question I think. 

So what's it to be Bill, shall we call RCs and non-Brits who support Rangers collaborators too? Are they living "a contradiction" too Bill? 

 

Thing is Bill it's entirely possible to want Rangers to beat every other side in the world and at the same time not give a flying fuck about the Act Of Union. These are two entirely compatible points of view, held by many, many people.  

[Bill 13,717]

8 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

 

Read the thread Bill, read your own words, the ones you actually typed. I'll help you. You said "have any of the organisations or nationalities you mention been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans as the SNP". Yes Bill, both Ireland and Roman Catholics, have, at times "been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans". But you know this Bill, you're being obtuse because you'd rather not answer the question I think. 

So what's it to be Bill, shall we call RCs and non-Brits who support Rangers collaborators too? Are they living "a contradiction" too Bill? 

 

Thing is Bill it's entirely possible to want Rangers to beat every other side in the world and at the same time not give a flying fuck about the Act Of Union. These are two entirely compatible points of view, held by many, many people.  

There you are. You mention, not me.

[Gonzo79 13,826]

25 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

shall we call RCs and non-Brits who support Rangers collaborators too?

You're suggesting Rangers is anti-RC and anti-foreigner.  History would suggest otherwise.

 

We're suggesting Rangers is pro-Union.  History suggests this is the case.

 

For the record, I don't consider myself a Royalist (nor a Republican) and I have Bear mates who regularly moan at me about this.  

 

The SNP voting Bears seem easily upset when queried, even if in a reasonable fashion.  One wonders if they realise how conflicted they are and thus it is a continually touchy subject for them.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Gonzo79

[JohnMc 2,496]

3 hours ago, Gaffer said:

I don't know but let me get it kicked off with some hypotheses that we can tackle ...

 

1.  Rangers fans tend to have no need to shout about being fans of our club.  We are quietly confident that our success speaks for itself.  Others shout more because they feel they need to for some reason.  You're asking me to enter the mind of one of "them" and gladly I'm unable to.

 

2.  We are widely regarded as a bigoted support.  By stating their allegiance to our club, they fear being branded a bigot.

 

3.  They are embarassed at being associated with a club that is perceived to have cheated by lots of other clubs' fans.  Has the number of politicians claiming allegiance to our club diminished since the admin fiasco?  Were there many open about it before?

 

4.  Good and smart politicians don't create division where it is unnecessary.  If there's no need to disclose their football allegiance, why do it?  Maybe Rangers fans are just smarter.

 

I really don't know the answer to this but as Stewarty and John said, this is a good discussion for us to have.  I think that it would be incredibly enlightening to reach a conclusion on it.

The bigotry thing is at the heart of the problem in my opinion. I don't think being large and successful is a reason for politicians and thought leaders to desert us, Man Utd and Barcelona have no shortage of prominent influential supporters. 

 

I don't think the issue is with the club but rather with elements of the support. Organisations like Orange Order have lost support and popularity, the singing of songs about the Pope and Northern Ireland is seen as bigoted by some and anachronistic by many. That we seem unable to drop these songs has alienated many people who might otherwise have been sympathetic to Rangers. 

Society has changed yet, for some, our support hasn't. 

 

The fight over those types of songs has been fought and those who think they're freedom of speech related have lost to those who think they've no place in society. As long as people can beat us with the 'bigots' stick we're not going to find many politicians or media people willing to stick their heads above the parapet and help us. 

 

I think we've been slow to adapt to changes in Scottish society. Much slower than Celtic, who are much savvier politically and socially than us. 

[JohnMc 2,496]

13 minutes ago, Bill said:

There you are. You mention, not me.

I apologise Bill, I hadn't realised English wasn't your first language. You keep avoiding the question Bill. 

[Bill 13,717]

2 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

I apologise Bill, I hadn't realised English wasn't your first language. You keep avoiding the question Bill. 

You keep asking it and somehow it's hard not to just enjoy the indignation. Cheers ?

[JohnMc 2,496]

9 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

You're suggesting Rangers is anti-RC and anti-foreigner.  History would suggest otherwise.

 

We're suggesting Rangees is pro-Union.  History suggests this is the case.

 

For the record, I don't consider myself a Royalist (nor a Republican) and I have Bear mates who regularly moan at me about this.  

 

The SNP voting Bears seem easily upset when queried, even if in a reasonable fashion.  One wonders if they realise how conflicted they are and thus it is a continually touchy subject for them.

No Gonzo, I'm not suggesting that. Read it again. 

 

Bill used pretty emotive language earlier in this post to describe SNP supporters. I'd be touchy if someone called me a collaborator. 

[JohnMc 2,496]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

You keep asking it and somehow it's hard not to just enjoy the indignation. Cheers ?

Whatever works for you, but you're being shown up for what you are on this thread. 

[Gonzo79 13,826]

8 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

The fight over those types of songs has been fought and those who think they're freedom of speech related have lost to those who think they've no place in society. 

Have you seen our attendance figures recently?