r/Glasgow Tools

I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. Neds were oppressed - I agree. So was everyone else in the scheme. Responding to oppression of any sort (economic, cultural or whatever) is a human impulse - channelling that response in a pro-social way is a requirement to be considered a moral being.

,Goths and Moshers, a subgroup that I identified as also consistent of mostly poorer kids who came from schemes - but it wasn't an overtly racist, violent or homophobic culture. Ned culture was. And it was because the people within it made choices. And their primary choice was to attempt to monopolise violence within their schemes. This is why they tagged their schemes in the same way a dog pisses on the ground around it's home - they thought (and acted like) they owned it. In other words, their reaction to the oppression they faced was to ensure that they would be the ones to oppress others in their scheme.

So when the writer writes:

"resentment for those who were deemed to have had more, was reflected in their behaviours ... Treatment and relations with other subcultures such as ‘Moshers’ or ‘Goths’ was for some Neds a way of expressing their anger at the ‘middle-class’ children who had come from wealthier areas, and who had more stable homes and families "

This is nothing but a justification for the violence that one sub-group of people applied to another. What else where they to do, they had no outlet, they had to attack goths (ironically not once did I see a mosher or a goth with an item of clothing as expensive as a Berghaus jacket, a Burberry cap or the trainers they wore)

He goes on to write that:

" many of those who were Moshers or Goths were not middle-class, but they did not tend to speak like Neds, or rarely hung around in the same areas (schemes) as Neds "

I wonder why it is that Neds didn't hang about in schemes. I wonder why it is that we congregated for years between the GOMA and Borders bookshop - no matter which scheme we came from. Wait, I don't need to wonder, it's because the neds successfully monopolised violence within their schemes - and if they didn't think you fit into their extraordinarily narrow vision of what youth should look like, you would soon find out. So we grouped together centrally and organically for protection. Half the people at the GOMA didn't know each other, but we made sure that we where in sight of each other.

He also goes on further laud the community spirit of these people, despite acknowledging their capacity for violence:

"The schemes were essentially places of belonging, and that extended also to the local populous. Where one might fight members of a rival scheme, that same individual might ensure that the elderly lady on the same street could climb the stairs with her shopping. Thus, there is a complexity evident here that shows one must be cautious of relating anti-authority with a lack of morality – something the media had intentionally tried to do."

This, I'm afraid, is complete pish. Neds where not secretly very sweet people who spent most of their time helping the community and who only became violent on the borders of their community. They where people who chose to elevate their own status within their community via violence or the threat of violence - this is one of the oldest ways societies organise themselves. And for a while, it worked. But there's a reason why the politicians saw this as an issue they could campaign on - it was bloody popular with the people who actually lived among these people.

I repeat. There are good things about ned culture, and the culture itself is interesting and worth studying. But it is worth studying as a warning. The kids these days are much better people, and good on them for not following a much easier path.