“Subsections” for Slow Learners
Some readers of the Ghost of The
Billy Boy blog seem either unable
- or unwilling - to comprehend the word subsection.
For those unable to distinguish between a team’s support and a subsection thereof, see the Oxford
Dictionary definition of subsection;
A division of a section
Get it? A division of a
section. i.e. not the whole section.
Should the Oxford dictionary not be an authoritative enough source,
try the Collins dictionary;
A section of a section;
subdivision
Get it? A section of a
section. i.e. a subdivision of a
section.
In the interest of leaving no stone unturned, check the Cambridge
dictionary definition of subsection;
One of the smaller parts into
which the main parts of a document or an organisation are divided
It would be hard to deny then that there’s a consensus as to what a subsection is. Yet a subsection of Rangers fans have been unwilling
to understand what a subsection is. (Predictably, many fans and commentators
didn’t actually read the blog before commenting, preferring instead to rely on
Chinese whispers, perhaps not the most forensic analytical tool available to
them).
For instance, I’d referred to a subsection
of Rangers supporters as being unduly sympathetic to Billy Boy Fullerton and
indeed sought in the modern age to emulate to a degree similar tactics to their
hero.
Fullerton, who’d used intimidation to further the aims of British anti-left
elements during the late 1920s and 30s, was, we all know, an inspiration for The
Billy Boy song. Some objected to the application of the term fascist to
Fullerton and his fellow travellers. Yet how else should we describe a chap who
joined The British Union of Fascists in the 1930s? Or who helped found a
Glasgow branch of the Ku Klux Klan?
A subsection (i.e. a subdivision of a section) of Rangers
supporters over decades have been, and indeed remain, sympathetic to the aims,
beliefs and character of Billy Fullerton, a man who, remember, joined the
British Union of Fascists at a time when a Fascist threat to the UK, indeed the
world, was developing in Germany and elsewhere. All this is uncontentious by any
objective measure, notwithstanding Fullerton’s own personal journey which did
involve, post 1945, a degree of redemption.
Let’s say for the sake of this argument that this subsection (i.e. not the
whole section) is small in number. This small subsection, when it is called out, shamelessly suggests that any
complaints against it are complaints against every Ranger’s fan. In other
words, the subsection claims to be
the whole. But, of course, it is not.
Clearly not every Rangers fan admires Billy Fullerton, or sings The
Billy Boy song, or sings the Famine Song (deemed racist by a Scottish court),
or hates Catholics, or seeks political association with the UVF and other
terrorist organisations, or is sympathetic to Far Right organisations such as the
BNP, or the often balaclava-wearing EDL. Nor does every Rangers fan seek to stifle any debate
among others about their club or to intimidate anyone who even refers to the
existence of such debate.
I happen to know this because, though I am an Aberdeen supporter, I
grew up with many who supported Rangers, my maternal grandfather being a season
ticket holder, attending games from the 1920s to the 1970s. My step-dad was a
fan, though didn’t go to many games. Neither of them, nor the pals I grew up
with, had a racist, sectarian or fascist bone in their bodies. Nor would they have
rushed to identify themselves with the subsection
described above. Nor would they have been tricked by such a subsection into defending it.
Is the term fascist appropriate
when describing at least elements within this subsection? How should fascist
be defined in this context? Perhaps people within this subsection, who sang the praises of Fascist party members like Fullerton,
shouldn’t be surprised if they themselves are suspected of sharing – or at
least sympathising with – certain fascist views.
Perhaps those who seek to intimidate book shops from stocking books,
or who hound book editors, writers and journalists to the point they fear their
employment - or worse their safety - is compromised could come up with an
alternative term to describe their antics.
Who precisely is being described as being part of this particular subsection? In my view it is anyone who
doesn’t condemn intimidation, sectarianism, Islamophobia, racism, and who
resorts to intimidation in order to force their views on others and to create a
climate where certain alternative views cannot be uttered - or even referred
to.
Many football clubs in the UK have subsections
that are unduly sympathetic to unsavoury characters and/or beliefs. This is not about one club’s subsection and
it’s understandable that any club’s supporters would not thank outsiders for
judging its worst elements.
Let’s hope then that the vast majority of real supporters don’t let
these subsections (i.e. divisions of
sections) present themselves as the sole representatives of the whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment