An Englishman Abroad: Can you sing ‘Jerusalem’ in Cardiff?
8am Set off from Yeovil for the SWALEC stadium in Cardiff for Day 3 of England v Australia, the first Ashes Test of 2009. Weather forecast is good.
10am Arrive at the Park and Ride: specially arranged for the event, it’s hosted by IKEA (?!) There’s plenty of space – obviously furniture and meatballs with cranberry sauce isn’t top of the list for the Welsh at the moment. Well organised – there’s a bus waiting, and we drive through some ‘interesting’ bits of Cardiff on the way to the stadium.
10.30am Dropped by the pub at the main gate, which is surrounded with ticket touts. 2 min walk to the ground, great atmosphere. We’re in the Cathedral Road stand, which is steeply racked and topped by a plush media centre. The steepness means we’re not far from the action, and the ground looks lovely. No longer the ‘unfriendly gulag’ it was in March.
10.45 Pre-match some opera guy serenades the crowd. Not sure why we’re singing ‘Jerusalem’ in Cardiff – does anyone in Wales care whether that countenance divine shone upon English hills? Bizarre to be in Wales, supporting England, listening to songs in Latin (Nessun Dorma? You haven’t seen how much these guys normally drink have you?)
11.00 Joined by 3 blokes wearing dresses at the end of our row. Pass ‘the only gay at the Ashes’ wearing pink tights on the way back from the loo. Here we go.
12.00 Wickets! Something to cheer as Anderson knocks over a couple of Aussies, and then Monty gets Ponting. The yellow-clad Aussies just below us are not singing anymore. But not for long.
1pm Lunch: there’s a ‘food village’ behind the stand to our right, the burger joint is serving chips at £4.50 a portion. I thought things were cheaper in Wales? Shopping around reveals that everyone else is selling them at £2.50. Lots of adverts on the screen during the interval, including Boris Johnson talking about his preference for cricket over politics (”Whilst MP’s are making a nice little earner, you’re trying to win a nice little urn. I’d rather be out for a duck than a duck house”).
Afternoon: volume levels rise from the Barmy Army, especially after Flintoff is put on the boundary just below them. There are Smurfs, Pedalo lifeguards, a man dressed in a green bodysuit, bears, Mexicans and goodness knows what else. Plenty of friendly rivalry with the Aussie group, who are enjoying watching their batsmen stuff us (again).
Mid Afternoon: someone just along from us starts blowing up those long thin buzzing balloon things, and letting them off. One lands on the pitch.
Late Afternoon: spending more time watching the crowd than the cricket, as England become increasingly toothless. Major excitement when Collingwood comes on and spits two balls past the bat for 4 byes each.
5-ish Drizzle starts, then gets heavier. Big hovercraft emerges from behind some hoardings and within minutes the covers are on – very efficient. At 5.40 the umpires announce a restart for 6.15 – the staff are ready by 6pm, so we wait for 15 minutes for no particular reason. Floodlights come on. More singing in Latin to keep us entertained.
6.30 A bit more light drizzle, the umpires talk to each other, drop the ball on the wicket a couple of times then walk off. It’s still playable, the light hasn’t got any worse, and there’s no explanation for a further 25 minutes. Having shelled out £85 a ticket, there are still a few of us in the crowd sober enough to feel pretty annoyed. The stewards and groundstaff have been great, but the umpires/announcers have treated the crowd as an afterthought, and forgotten that we paid good money to come and watch some cricket.
6.50pm The Park and Ride bus is waiting, from the top floor we can watch a game of cricket going on in front of the pub. The batsman is stark naked. And rather portly. And about 60 years old. Not a pretty sight. 2 PCSO’s make their way through the crowd, and he disappears behind a tree to put his trousers on. Resist the temptation to buy a red and white spotted futon at IKEA, and head home.
Oh yes, the cricket. 4 wickets for England, a sackful of runs for the Aussies, but with rain forecast it’s looking like a draw.
Categories: All WW, Columns, Cricket, Sport, Touching Base
Seeing as I was serenaded by raucous renditions of “Land of My Fathers” in an English pub in Shropshire, I don’t see why you can’t sing “Jerusalem” in Cardiff!
>Pass ‘the only gay at the Ashes’ wearing pink tights on the way back from the loo. Here we go.
Has he not been to the *other* Ashes (the ones we won)(?). A couple of years ago you were lucky to find one who *wasn’t*. That’s according to my inside info, anyway.
Oh brother! a man in pink must always be gay crap, can’t understand why Jerusalem is sung at an English v Aussie game crap, Swedes and meatballs crap. You can see why the CoE is such decline with its vicars thinking in stupid stereotypes all the bleeding time and then trying to pass it off as funny. It is not, its pathetic. Get with vicar and join the real world or if you can’t do that at least try to understand it a little more.
David – the man in pink had ‘the only gay at the Ashes’ written across the back of his t-shirt. I guess you had to be there. And do you know the lyrics of ‘Jerusalem’? – the bit about Englands green and pleasant land just seemed a bit incongruous in Wales. But then I guess you’ve just looked at what I do for a job and decided you don’t like me.
And if you’ve eaten at IKEA you’ll know that the meatballs are the best thing on the menu, really tasty.
But I was right about the draw. Never in question….
David Keen´s last blog ..Latest Fresh Expressions Newspaper
Know Jerusalem – I sang it every school prize giving, Can even sing it in French! There is no defence to using stereotypes, they are ultimately destructive and my reference to your being a vicar was to point out that the same lazy thinking in terms of stereotypes lies at the core of any of the arguments raised at the Synod (though often through the veneer of scripture). Typically though, instead of addressing the point (connection between expressing yourself in stereotypes/out-moded generalisations and decline of church) you make yourself the victim and become overtly subjective, thinking it is personal and something to do with your being a vicar. wrong line of thinking.
As for the gay comment – Oh, so now he was wearing T-shirt, so that is OK? No, it does not. Why? Because it still reinforces a stereotype that is false ie all gays = effeminate = pink tights or from your view perhaps pink tights = effeminate so that in a man must = gays.
And why is this different some say dressing as a green monster? Because it is gay lads who are bullied at school due to the stereotype, gay youths who are attacked in the streets due to a stereotype, gay men even murdered because of prejudice based upon stereotype. And that is the problem. You cannot see the connection between a stereotype that you promote as “funny” and the destructive nature of it.
The same goes for the racist/nationalist them and us stereotypes promoted as worthy of humour as well.
David: “You can see why the CoE is such decline with its vicars thinking in stupid stereotypes all the bleeding time and then trying to pass it off as funny” sounded to me like you didn’t rate vicars, so I think my interpretation of first your comment was fair enough.
The bloke in tights etc. was obviously taking off ‘the only gay in the village’ from Little Britain, I only mentioned him to give a flavour of the dressing up at the game, and don’t make any observations either away about whether pink=gay or otherwise. Maybe that’s a question for the editor of Pink News.
Not aware that I was promoting any racist stereotypes, a lot of people were playing up to national stereotypes at the game (Aussies with inflatable kangaroos etc.) as part of the friendly rivalry that’s the Ashes. It was all good fun.
For the record I do know why Jerusalem is sung at an England v Australia game, it just struck me as slightly incongruous to be singing it in Wales, that’s all. Plenty of other people in the cricketing world have talked about the quirkiness of Wales hosting the England cricket team for the first Ashes test, so it’s not as though I’m the only one who’s noticed.
David Keen´s last blog ..Should Christians Vote Tory?
FCS. I’m gay and I think it is GREAT that someone can wear that teeshirt and everyone gets along with it. I can remember when that would have got you beaten or isolated with a cricket crowd. The world’s changed and that’s for the good.
Now if we could only get some of the players to come out …
paul canning´s last blog ..Music: Grace Jones Hula Hoops while performing ‘Slave to the Rhythm’
David, David David. You are not being attacked because you are a vicar. You are not being attacked full stop. It is your arguments that are being attacked, your thoughts, your expression of those thoughts is a piece about cricket. So calm down, nobody is really concerned that you are a vicar but I am concerned that you think stereotypes are acceptable and “funny”. I am concened that the stereoypes that you express are destructive. If you want to address that point then show me by robust argument that I am wrong but please stop whining about being attacked because you are vicar.
Equally, if you do not think that the CoE is in decline in England then prove it. I mean, take my local parish. We share a parish priest with 3 other parishes because there are not enough vicars to go around, our local congregation is 1/3 of what it was 20 years ago and is mainly old folks, and I am one of many who are concerned about the great hole in the church finances (read the latest report by the Church commissioners on the gapping hole in pensions alone). If I am wrong then show me I am wrong by robust argument not whining that you are some poor victim being attacked. Look to your arguments, that is all this is about.
Next, the connection between that decline and vicars (most not all) who express stereotypical views that are increasingly out of tune with the society that the C0E is embedded in. My point is, from my personal observations in my own parish that such antiquated views alienate people from the Church. Now, and this point seems to have escaped you, I mentioned the connection between your steroetypical views and that decline because today, as I write, there is a huge debate going on. Vicars in the CoE here in England are saying, using the same stereotypes of gays that you promote (ie the pink tights brigade) to stop gay men being ordained. A view that is opposed in the US where that very stereotype is being rightly attacked as destructive.
In the US the church is saying there should be no discrimination against gay men. In England the view is that discrimination is quite acceptable. And, there is the crunch, there is substantial evidence that shows that such views are unacceptable to more and more people who understand that discrimination is bad, and that stereotypes that support discrimination (those that you have advanced as “funny”) are wrong, and it is these people, in droves, who how have increasing showing little or not interest in joining a church that advances them. This is my point that you do not address.
As for “isn’t it good that someone can dress in pink tights at the Ashes because it did not happen 20 years ago” or whatever. Well, no is is not. Why? Because it is a parody, a stereotypical image, it is something that is laughed at. It does not signal an advance just as white men dressing up as the black and white minstrels years ago, did not signal an advance in race relations.
For proof of this of this start reading the depositions from the numerous court cases concerning both the attacks on and murder of gay men in England and Wales, where time and again the same stereotypes that you advance as funny are advanced as reasons why the attacks took place. Or if you are on a board of governors of a school that suffers gay bullying then read what those bullies say. Time and again they state stereotypes as the reason for the attack, the most forceful of which is that gay boys/men are effeminate and not “real men” which is precisely what the stereotype of gay men in pink tights promotes.
“As for “isn’t it good that someone can dress in pink tights at the Ashes because it did not happen 20 years ago” or whatever. Well, no is is not. Why? Because it is a parody, a stereotypical image, it is something that is laughed at. It does not signal an advance just as white men dressing up as the black and white minstrels years ago, did not signal an advance in race relations.”
No it is not because that’s how some gay men are, have you seen pictures from the Pride march? Being effeminate is not a ’stereotype’, it is part of the glorious variety of what makes up gay men (actually men, as some straight men are also effeminate). They are all ‘real men’ and characterising them all as ’stereotypes’ is actually reinforcing another stereotype!
This is nothing at all like the black and white minstrels, or Horne and Corden and Chris Moyles antics.
Gay men created a space and then a visibility for themselves through the invention of camp. That is a wonderful aspect of our history. But that doesn’t mean we should reject camp in order to pretend to all be happily domestic and fit another stereotype of what ‘real men’ are supposed to be.
paul canning´s last blog ..Listen to Gay Life After Saddam
David: I agree that the CofE is in decline, and I too am concerned about the great hole in its finances, not least because some of that hole is where my pension used to be. All of the rural parishes around here share a vicar between 3-5 parishes, and the urban ones are increasingly stretched. Our church is growing, and does so by engaging with the community and welcoming people.
There seems to be far more to the sexuality debate in the church than just stereotypes. For evangelicals it’s very much about what the Bible says about sexuality, rather than a particular mental picture of gay people. The argument is also made in both directions – the Episcopal church in the USA is declining even faster than we are, despite becoming more ‘liberal’ and open towards gay people, so that’s clearly not the only factor at work.
I found it interesting that there could be men dressed in pink, dressed as women, dressed as pretty much anything, and nobody batted an eyelid. Is that progress? Is it symbolic of a wider tolerance of sexual diversity? David says no, Paul says yes, and I think I’m with Paul on this one.
David Keen´s last blog ..Bible Knowledge – The Generation Gap
Paul. What you say would be correct if being gay and being camp were one and the same thing. They are not. One can be camp and be gay, or be camp and be straight or as you observed be effeminate and be gay or straight etc. But the steroeptype is so entrenched that gay and effeminate or gya and camp is the say thing that even gay men have to describe themselves or be described as “straight-acting” gay men.
The stereotype is that camp and gay are one and the same and that is a fiction.
Perhaps I am camp and effeminate and gay as well. Good for me. But I recognise that a lot of gay men are not like me and far, far from any stereotypical image that I might fit. We are talking about balance here and honesty and not, not about putting one “type” before the other as better or worse. This is not a put down of gay men who also happen to be camp or a pumbing up of those that are not.
You think that gay men invented camp – of-course, that suits your line of thinking so why not say something that cannot be proved either way. You might think that Gay Pride is the test of all things gay whereas others see it as little more than an entertainment predominated by those that fall into the exhibitionist side of the camp (pun intended). Fine, Fine, Fine. You call it “glorious variety”, others yawn with boredom “here comes the same old thing year in year out”.
No one is denying you the right to dress in pink tights and flap camp as Christmas up and down the Gay Parade but stop pretending that this is
A. because you are gay (proof that it ain’t is found in the fact that others who are gay do not act like this ie that it ain’t pre-programmed that just because you are gay you do have to act in any particular manner.
B. that it is a stereotypical image that you are presenting of what it is to be gay ie that camp and gay are one and the same or effeminate and gay are one and the same.
And the point of the reference of “real men” in the earlier post was a juxaposition of another stereotype to drive a point home. It was irony!
The black and white minstrels was a parody. It was the image of steroetype that many at that time had about black men which is why the stereotype worked. It is exactly that same as the parody “pink tights = gay” because it the same idea of fiction presented as truth. Pink tights may = effeminate or camp (as you equate them) but it does not = gay. That is the fiction and that is the stereotype.
David. Quite agree, there are many factors involved when it comes to decline. Who knows perhaps it is God’s will and the CoE has done its dash and all we are doing is playing a rear-guard action.
Lets agree to differ on that one as I would maintain that that once you dig through all the veneer of scripture etc (as advanced by the Evangelists and the literal readers of the Bible) it does come straight back to stereotype and prejudice in one form or another.
Evidence of this is found when you debate with these people and having shown them that they have cherry picked from the Bible to support their view or have a particular interpretion that is often of their own making, and you then force them to justify their view pragmatically, what comes out is stereotypical thinking. All I was trying to demonstrate to you was that your piece on the Ashes reflected that limited thinking, and limited thinking of all kinds, is in my view helping the decline of the CoE and that makes me sad. You see, for all her faults I think that she plays a worthy and important part in our world which is why I am so strong on condemning those that raise arguments that I think weakens her.
Please do not think though that I am suggesting that people at the Synod or elsewhere are standing up and boldly saying “Yuk, they wear pink tights, off with their gay heads”. No, it is usually more subtle than that. Take the old device : “Sex can only be had within marriage. Gay men have sex outside marriage and that is unacceptable, and wrong and a sin” You then ask “But how can gay men not not do this if you do not allow them to be married in the first place”. Once you are lead through their interpretaion of the Bible, only to put out contradictions it comes down to a stereotypical views like – gay men can’t have children – actually yes they can and do , or we need two to tango, a male and female to bring up children – actually no, there are many families of same sex parents. You see the pink tights stereotype is only one of many.
Paul and you think that there has been an advance in acceptance of gay men because someone plays an image (thus recognisable to most) of a gay man at the Ashes. No point in repeating my arguments on this one. If you are unsure about the connection between gay and fey, then consider the new slang “That is so gay” – ask someone who uses that phrase what they mean and you will find the pink tights stereotype will leap before you ie a derogatory use of the stereotype that you and Paul think is so positive and an blinding examople of progress and acceptance.
If I am wrong then time will prove me wrong but I predict two things: that within the next 30 years the image of gay men will move away from that “pink tights” stereotype, in the same way and largley for the same reasons that steroetypes of women being there only to raise children or slave in the kichen or black men being all like something out of Uncle Tom Cabin, have largely disappeared.
Secondly, I think that the CoE will be disestablished and that when the real debate comes all the poisons in the mud will hatch out and one of these will be the wrongs that the church has inflicted on gay men and women and by supporting discrimation against them, as thr majority votes in the church still does. And at that time all the stereotypes and limited thinking that so pigeonholes gay men and distorts what a gay man may actually be beneath all the projected taddle of pink tights or unsuitable parents, will be exploded in our faces and those many fictions reflected in the stereotypes you support, or as reflected in many of the arguments echoing throughout the churchs in this land today, will be swept away as being as much of a spoof and just as much nonsense as your man pink tights.