George Washington had slaves. Should they rename Washington? Where does it stop?
Kansas City Chiefs.
Washington Redskins.
Atlanta Braves
Cleveland Indians
Chicago Blackhawks
All names viewed as offensive by Native Americans. America is inconsistent on this.
If you go back America is arguably founded on genocide of indigenous peoples.
At any rate applying 21sr century standards to historical figures is a less than perfect formula. By modern standards Abraham Lincoln was a racist.
1 Like
At least that 
2 Likes
Yes
I’m not defending the guy, just cautioning on the dangers of revisionism.
He was a cunt
Scrap America and start again?
He is a hell of a lot more important to America than Mitchell is to Ireland and was far less “enthusiastic” about slavery. So I don’t know. It’s not straightforward.
I’m not talking about George Washington though. I think the John Mitchel example is much more clear cut. And I don’t think Washington enters into the argument about whether it’s appropriate to name Irish sports teams after such a racist asshole.
Give it back to natives
This is about renaming and revisionism, I think washington is a good example. He was a slave owner but not racist? Come on.
Why was there no clamour to rename the club before now? He was always a racist and racism has always been wrong. Why now?
so was Jock Stein but you idolise him
They’ve made some fuck of it. Be like moving back into your house after it’s been rented by students for a few years
1 Like
I didn’t say Washington wasn’t racist. Start another debate about him somewhere else. He has absolutely nothing to do with the name of any GAA clubs in Ireland to the best of my knowledge.
I’ve seen calls for it before. They’re gathering momentum now, because people are talking about these issues. I really don’t buy the argument that it’s not ok to question something now if it hasn’t been questioned before anyway. It’s healthy to revisit these things and think about the messaging associated with such things. Isn’t it useful for people to know the ideologies of the man their club is honouring? Isn’t i useful to then think about whether those are things young people in particular should be associated with?
And as I said before, he only gained celebration because of revisionism in the 20th Century anyway. Slavery was viewed as wrong then but his past was whitewashed (unfortunate phrase). It’s no harm for his past to be dragged out into the light again so he can be condemned for the asshole he was.
Padraig Pearse, Liam Mellows, Austin Stack were all violent men.
Is it a good example for kids to play for GAA clubs named after them?
Considering the GGA were against the rising they shouldn’t name clubs after Pearse
1 Like
They should name them whatever they want to name them and not be worried about it. The clubs values aren’t the values of who they are named for. They’re the values of the parish and the people who run it, now.
It’s just a name. If you start at this shit, you’ll never end it. There’ll be nothing left. The past was violent and horrible and shitty and racist, women were treated horribly. Leave it the fuck alone and worry about what’s happening now.
1 Like
Pearse also wrote a poem that was more than a little creepy…
Why do you insist on debating people other than Mitchel? Can’t you just see that slavery is abhorrent, the man was abhorrent and he shouldn’t be honoured?
The thread title is clubs and is a question. The thread starter has already said he thinks no club should be called after Pearce.
I’ve agreed he is abhorrent, and his deeds were abhorrent. They still shouldn’t be forced to change the name
You’re reluctant to answer any of the questions
Is violence and killing not abhorrent to you?
Churchill GAA in Kerry should be forced to lead the way.