Northampton_Loyalist
Well-Known Member
I caught up with an old friend from Northampton on Facebook tonight and we were talking about the last few days and the difference in reporting. His thoughts are that the word 'Hun' is not seen as sectarian in the same way as '19th Century Terrorist' because it is more a general term for Rangers fans, used by absolutely everyone else, including people who would be termed as 'culturally Protestant'. He cited the abuse Jones took from Killie fans a good example and linked me some pictures from twitter of comments from their support, which were all 'Hun' this and 'hun' that. I would not imagine that a huge proportion of people using that language against him were anti-Protestant at all and were using it as an insult to a 'future Ranger player' rather than an insult to a 'Protestant Scot'.
The more I have thought about his point, the more it kind of makes sense and the more work it shows we need to do. The word is 100% used as a sectarian slur by scum, there is no way around it and the connotations that travel across the Irish sea are clear but when supporters of other clubs use it, I think they are almost certainly doing so without applying anything religious or political to it and most, going by the demographics of Scotland, are deeply offending people who are cultural and political brothers. It is simply their go to word of choice rather than something they believe us to be.
If he is right, and to be honest, it is making sense to me, then it goes a little way towards explaining why there is no equal condemnation by the general public for it's use. If the majority of folk see it as a simple insult, then reports about it are viewed as football banter rather than sectarian attacks and because the word 19th Century Terrorist is just blindly accepted as sectarian, regardless of context, a narrative is easy to construct that shows one side being victimised and the other not even having anything sectarian that CAN be used against them.
I would not know where to begin, but if he is close to right, we need to look at ways of bringing into the public eye the meaning behind the word, the links with NI and how it is used there, and the level of offence it can cause.
Not proof read or read back so quite likely to be a load of shite, absolutely steamboats!!!
The more I have thought about his point, the more it kind of makes sense and the more work it shows we need to do. The word is 100% used as a sectarian slur by scum, there is no way around it and the connotations that travel across the Irish sea are clear but when supporters of other clubs use it, I think they are almost certainly doing so without applying anything religious or political to it and most, going by the demographics of Scotland, are deeply offending people who are cultural and political brothers. It is simply their go to word of choice rather than something they believe us to be.
If he is right, and to be honest, it is making sense to me, then it goes a little way towards explaining why there is no equal condemnation by the general public for it's use. If the majority of folk see it as a simple insult, then reports about it are viewed as football banter rather than sectarian attacks and because the word 19th Century Terrorist is just blindly accepted as sectarian, regardless of context, a narrative is easy to construct that shows one side being victimised and the other not even having anything sectarian that CAN be used against them.
I would not know where to begin, but if he is close to right, we need to look at ways of bringing into the public eye the meaning behind the word, the links with NI and how it is used there, and the level of offence it can cause.
Not proof read or read back so quite likely to be a load of shite, absolutely steamboats!!!