"1874" or "What makes us, Us?"

[Ruck'n'Roll]

As it's the off season, and the question was raised, I thought the following digression it might make an interesting discussion thread in it's own right.

and 19 is not just in our history, its at the start of our history. The club was born on the 19th June 1874.

Such a nonsensical date. It gives me the irrits whenever I hear 1874 mentioned. I understand that its a simple convenient date, and therefore attractive to some people, but its simply wrong!
The club founded on that day wasn't called "Sydney" or even "South Melbourne" - it didn't play in red and white - it wasn't nicknamed "The Swans" - so how on earth can people claim continuity?

Um, because it's been the same club throughout that time. The name, the location and even the colours are irrelevant.

While I appreciate the strength of your feelings about the club, is there any actual evidence to support the claim that it's the same club that was founded in 1874?

As previously noted, there's plenty of evidence/irrelevancies that suggest it isn't the same club at all.

If as Bloods05 suggests, colours, location, name, ownership, mascot etc. etc. are irrelevant, then what is relevant? What makes us, Us?

[CJK]

So what's the question?

[spiffy-dude]

So what's the question?

Who are we?

What gets me is, if we did get established or founded in 1874 then why dont we ever include our glorious VFA era to our flags? The VFA was huge back in the late 1800s.

[spiffy-dude]

Emerald Hill football Club doesnt have the same ring to it.

[jono2707]

Emerald Hill football Club doesnt have the same ring to it.

"Emerald City Swans" perhaps?

[Bloods05]

Who are we?

What gets me is, if we did get established or founded in 1874 then why dont we ever include our glorious VFA era to our flags? The VFA was huge back in the late 1800s.

That's a fair question, but for whatever reason, virtually every former VFL club takes the same approach to VFA premierships. To suggest, though, that there is no continuity between the club formed in 1874 and the present club is ludicrous. What is the evidence that there was ever a break in that continuity? Clubs change names, colours, guernsey designs and locations all the time, have done since footy started, but they remain an identifiable entity.

[Bloods05]

Its first incarnation was as the Cecil Football Club, believe it or not. Lasted about a month.

- - - Updated - - -

While I appreciate the strength of your feelings about the club, is there any actual evidence to upport the claim that it's the same club that was founded in 1874?

As previously noted, there's plenty of evidence/irrelevancies that suggest it isn't the same club at all.

What evidence?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

What evidence?

Why ask a question AND quote the answer provided?

As for the whole 1874 Cecil Football club thing, that argument collapses as soon as you ask yourself: Why do we wear red and white?

[Xie Shan]

It's a good question! It's interesting to ask these things.

I don't claim to know much about that part of the club's history, and obviously, it wouldn't be appropriate to include those VFA flags in our 'official' premiership tally, since they were not won in the current competition. Nevertheless, whichever way you look at it, those years are part of the series of events that led to us becoming one of the foundation clubs of the VFL/AFL. History might not give us all the answers, but I find it helpful to have an understanding of the past and how it has shaped the present.

[Bloods05]

Why ask a question AND quote the answer provided?

As for the whole 1874 Cecil Football club thing, that argument collapses as soon as you ask yourself: Why do we wear red and white?

I ask again, what evidence is there that the club has had any discontinuity as an entity since 1874? This seems like such a non-issue to me. In the absence of that evidence, it seems patently obvious to me that we are the same club we have always been. Since 19/6/1874. And I find it incomprehensible that anyone should make an issue of this. Why on earth would you be bothered about it? Pending the production of said evidence, of course.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Dear Bloods, as it's Christmas I shall assume your not just playing rhetorical games. Let me try to explain about continuity with a simple analogy.

Imagine a simple glass of water, add grain, yeast, hops and heat the mixture, cool it, filter it, put it in a barrel, move it to the SCG, chill it and pour it into a plastic cup. . . . now ask yourself what would you call this beverage?

Based on your argument you would call it a simple glass of water. you might also wonder why you are being asked to pay $8 for it. I on the other hand would call it a plastic cup of slightly watery beer (but would also wonder why I was being asked to pay $8 for it). Cheers!

To leave the mysteries of brewing and return the discussion back to 1874 and the origins of this team:

The changes that turned your glass of water are far less significant than those that were applied to the Cecil football club since 1874!

To restate the "previously noted" evidence for you:
Name Changed (actually change 3 times)
Colours Changed (did you ever get around to asking yourself why we wear read and white? If you need a clue, see the next line)
Amalgamated (with a more senior club)
Ownership Changed (at least five times)
Guernsey Changed (lost count)
Location Changed
Supporter Base changed
Clearly there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that remains of the old Cecil club.

Which in turn makes the clubs choice of the 1874 date look a bit silly (a bit like the AFL's blithe assumption that premierships won prior to the VFA schism don't count).

FWIW
I think both 1880 and 1868 are better candidates than 1974.

FYI
The Australian Football Gallery of the National Sports Museum dates us from 1982.

& PS
The only thing that will be achieved by turning this thread into yet another arena for ill considered and adversarial point scoring is to kill off the discussion? If the subject is an "incomprehensible" "non-issue" why post in this thread?

[Doctor J.]

You do make some valid points R'n R, but the brewing analogy is flawed.

I'm pretty sure that no one disputes that your overpriced beer is not the same thing as the water it originally was, yet I'm fairly confident that most would recognise that where it came from was indeed the water, and of course a few other additives.

Similarily, I don't think anyone is saying that the current Sydney Swans football club is the Cecil Football club. Its the result of an evolutionary process that can trace its origins back to 1874, and perhaps further as you have pointed out.

Yes the Australian Football Gallery of the National Sports Museum dates us from 1982, that being the date of the current incarnation of the club. The Sydney Swans football club didn't just start from nothing. There is a clear connection back to SMFC, and from there back to the Albert Park Football club and the Emerald Football Club, and then back to the Cecil Football club. Just because there is nothing that remains of the Cecil Football club, you cannot use that as a basis to say that the roots of the current club are not founded in the past history of that club. And thats all the 1874 number is recognising.

[Bloods05]

There is a world of difference between evidence and interpretation/opinion. You meant the latter when I thought you meant the former. That's why I was bewildered. I thought you had some actual evidence that the club had ceased to exist at some point and then been reconstituted as a different entity, which was clearly not what you meant. You are entitled to interpret those things in the way you have, but I'd suggest not many would share your interpretation. Your analogy explains your thought process very clearly, but it falls over as a metaphor as soon as you look at the club's history from a different angle.

Furthermore, the National Sports Museum is flat wrong. The idea that we were created out of nothing in 1982 is plainly ridiculous, as we see every time we play in Melbourne, every time the Skilton Medal is awarded, every time the victorious premiers pay tribute to the old South people the morning after a GF victory..... I could go on, but I don't want it to turn into a slanging match either. Your somewhat snarky tone doesn't help in that regard. It's simply a difference of opinion, which has been clarified by discussion. Let's leave it at that.

[Ratna]

A different analogy to the beer might be my family immigrated from Germany 6 generations ago, since arriving in Sydney they have moved to rural NSW where a great majority are still based, then I have moved to the ACT. Our sirname has been altered to reflect our situation and possibly avoid harassment in war times. From photos I know my descendants dressed very different to how I do.

Currently most of my family lives in a town in rural NSW and there is communication back to the descendants in Germany.

I recognise the background in Australia and Germany as being a part of who I am, just as I believe the swans should recognise all of the history that the made the great team we support today. We are who we are now but without all aspects of the history, even if they are still not having direct influence, we would be something else. Individual interpretation of the history will always vary little so be it.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

PM