Armistice Day

magpie

Everyone accepts that the war of independance would probably never have happened were it not for the 1916 rising

Everyone except the Historians who argue that the War of Independence was really triggered by British attempts to introduce conscription in 1918, and that it was more effectively waged than the Easter Rising owing to the vast majority of those involved having served in France for 4 years and therefore knowing a thing or two about fighting.

You have made a quite outrageous assertion that the WW1 volunteers would have been able to gain independance without partition

If home rule had been granted it would have been 32 County, from which position it would have been easier to devolve a United Ireland.

Why is it Republicans have such a problem with the Volunteers? If you could explain without using terms like "oppressors" and "imperialists" for a change that would be helpful.

And CatholicIreland:

yes we were, but only because they invaded us and it was no choice of the Irish people.

I presume the "they" you are referring to is the Normans? Who you will remember from your history books had invaded Britain some hundred years previously and only arrived in Ireland under invitation to fight for the Irish against the Norwegian King of Dublin. But never let complicated things like facts get in the way of Provo Dogma.

Nearly all of the Irish who went and faught in WW1 and 2 did it so they could get some money and send it home for their familys.

In WW1 nearly all the Irish people who fought were members of the Volunteers who signed up under the understanding given to John Redmond that Home Rule would be granted on the cease of hostilities. Of course the Easter Rising changed that, so we will never know if they were right or wrong

In WW2 I imagine any Irishmen who served did so out of ideological reasons, and if anyone signed up to feed their families surely it says more about Ireland under the inept revolutionary rule of Fianna Fail in the 1930s than the "Imperial Oppressors".

Diorraing

magpie wrote:

Everyone except the Historians who argue that the War of Independence was really triggered by British attempts to introduce conscription in 1918, and that it was more effectively waged than the Easter Rising owing to the vast majority of those involved having served in France for 4 years and therefore knowing a thing or two about fighting.

Utter nonsense! There would have been no support for the War of Independance were it not for the idealism of the 1916 rising. Those who led and fought in the War of Independance were for the most part people who were imprisoned after the rising (c.f. Michael Collins etc.). Dan Breen, Tom Barry, Denny Lacey...these men led the War of Independance and didn't fight in WW1. And would you mind telling me how rotting away in a trench in the Somme teaches you "a thing or two about fighting", especially as it was a guerilla war being fought in Ireland.
Anyway, you're drifting off topic. The forum is about WW1 - which I thought was a waste of time for Irish people to fight in.

magpie

There would have been no support for the War of Independance were it not for the idealism of the 1916 rising

*cough* Dogma *cough*

would you mind telling me how rotting away in a trench in the Somme teaches you "a thing or two about fighting", especially as it was a guerilla war being fought in Ireland.

Presumably this logic explains why the Black and Tans and the Auxiliary Corps were such a useless laughing stock not taken seriously by anyone in Ireland then :rolleyes:

Anyway, you're drifting off topic. The forum is about WW1

Its about Armistice Day actually, which you seem to object to because of "oppressors", "Imperialism" and a variety of other terms gleaned from the Crossword in An Phoblacht.

Diorraing

magpie wrote:

*cough* Dogma *cough*

This is the best rebuttle you can come up with!?! Can't refute the point that it was those who survived 1916 and were inspired by it as opposed to your beloved WW1 volunteers who won are independance. You still haven't proved why anyone was doing a service by fighting WW1 - the most unwarranted war ever.
As for your snide remarks about An Phoblacht, I fail to see the point you are making. Firstly I don't read it and secondly it is accepted by all, bar yourslef, that the English were an oppressive force. The board is for making political points not putting in random comments that don't mean anything.

magpie

This is the best rebuttle you can come up with!?!

No, I don't feel the need to come up with any rebuttal to the stream of unsubstatiated comments you are trotting out as if they were well-accepted facts. Unfortunately they are nothing but Provo dogma.

Can't refute the point that it was those who survived 1916 and were inspired by it as opposed to your beloved WW1 volunteers who won are independance

Some people who survived 1916 were involved in the War of Independence, the vast majority however were not - only a tiny number of people were involved in the Easter Rising. A large number of Irishmen returned from France with military training and a considerably larger proportion of them were involved in the war of Independence than the 1916 veterans.

You still haven't proved why anyone was doing a service by fighting WW1 - the most unwarranted war ever.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were expecting me to prove the worth of WW1. What I can prove is that 170,000 Irishmen served in WW1 with what they believed was good reason, and I fail to see why they should not be remembered because of the objections of a few snotty shinners with a propagandised version of history.

As for your snide remarks about An Phoblacht, I fail to see the point you are making

Based on your remarks so far you're clearly a Sinn Fein/IRA sympathiser, and many of the comments you've been trotting out are repeated verbatim in every issue of the party rag.

it is accepted by all, bar yourslef, that the English were an oppressive force

By the English, do you mean the Germanic tribe the Angles who settled in the island of Britain in the 5th/6th century, after massacring the native British? Or do you mean the Norman (Franco/Norwegian) conquerors who vanquished the Angles in 1066 and then come to Ireland?

I'm just confused that in all your statements about 700 years of oppression you don't seem to have a clear grasp of who was involved?

If the Normans are to blame why aren't you in Normandy demanding that everyone with a surname beginning with Fitz be forcibly repatriated?

I find it incredibly sad that the version of Irish 'history' concocted by Fianna Fail in the 1930s as a bulwark against counter-revolution is accepted by so many as fact. Then again if you only study history to secondary school level that's to be expected. Its high time the curriculum was changed to move away from dogma towards an understanding of the multi-racial, multi-cultural nature of these islands and the interdependence of the 'nations' therein.

jank

I presume the "they" you are referring to is the Normans? Who you will remember from your history books had invaded Britain some hundred years previously and only arrived in Ireland under invitation to fight for the Irish against the Norwegian King of Dublin. But never let complicated things like facts get in the way of Provo Dogma.

What? You mean people were happy with the way things were run in this country in all of those 800 years?
Cromwell was a figment of my imagination?
The Battle of Kinsale, the uprising in Wexford and countless other incidents of "military oppresion" are just stories made up by Sinn Fein?
Fighting for the British in WW1 was more just then fighting for the independance??

Its funny though. The majority of people on this Island didnt support 1916 (bit like you) infact many especailly in dublin hated them because they destroyed the city centre but it was the British actions after that it, Killing prisoners young, old, wounded it didnt matter that detter public opinion

It became apparent what the British were actually doing in ireland at that time. Trying to keep control of their imperial empire and Ireland was part of that like it or not.

(You can mock me if you want but thats what Britian was at the time. An Imperial Empire. If it wasnt that what was it circa 1914. They werent different then other europeans like the french, germans they had their own empires too.)

I take my hats off to the men in WW1 but we should take our hats off to ALL men who died in conflict here at home and abroad. Trying to say that one sacrifce is better then the other is just lame, tasteless political point scoring

PS There is a Programm on the BBC tonight about the Somme at 9. Should be interesing.

murphaph

If we are to 'upgrade' the rememberance proceedings for WWI, we should make sure all those countries whose peoples fought in it are invited, ie the ambassadors of Germany, France, Russia, Turkey, The United States, The UK etc. The proceedings should be dignified and not in any way triumphalist. A sombre day of reflection on a lost generaton of Europe and beyond.

Diorraing

magpie wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were expecting me to prove the worth of WW1. What I can prove is that 170,000 Irishmen served in WW1 with what they believed was good reason, and I fail to see why they should not be remembered because of the objections of a few snotty shinners with a propagandised version of history.

Well, the IRA fought for what they believed was a good reason but I don't see you rushing to commemorate them. I have never been a member of Sinn Féin by the way, have never read An Phoblacht so if you could please refrain from implying that I do. You still dodge the question: What was achieved by anyside in fighting WW1?

magpie wrote:

By the English, do you mean the Germanic tribe the Angles who settled in the island of Britain in the 5th/6th century, after massacring the native British? Or do you mean the Norman (Franco/Norwegian) conquerors who vanquished the Angles in 1066 and then come to Ireland?

I'm just confused that in all your statements about 700 years of oppression you don't seem to have a clear grasp of who was involved?

If the Normans are to blame why aren't you in Normandy demanding that everyone with a surname beginning with Fitz be forcibly repatriated?

I find it incredibly sad that the version of Irish 'history' concocted by Fianna Fail in the 1930s as a bulwark against counter-revolution is accepted by so many as fact. Then again if you only study history to secondary school level that's to be expected. Its high time the curriculum was changed to move away from dogma towards an understanding of the multi-racial, multi-cultural nature of these islands and the interdependence of the 'nations' therein.

I've heard about holocaust deniers but this surely has to take the biscuit. Denying that we were subjects of a foreign crown against our will - it takes a brave man or someone with absolutely no understanding of Irish history to come out with something like that. As the previous poster said: Do you think Oliver Cromwell is a bed-time story Gerry Adams tells young children? I accept totally that there are people who have reservations about armed nationalism - I may be not entirely agree with them but I understand where they come from. But you, you just lose the argument coming out with this utter tripe about "interdependance" I'll tell you what "interdependance" there was. Our potatoes went to England, in return we got famine, oppression, penal laws etc.
Anyhow, in an effort not to get this thread closed again I will try to direct the conversation more towards WW1. Does anyone know why the Italians sided with the Allies, I thought they were in the Triple Alliance with Austria and Germany?

Snickers Man

I had loads of relatives (at least five that I know of) who served in the British Army in WWI (a couple more in WWII) and several of them were killed, or died later at young ages from wounds received.

And I've always known about these men. I've seen their campaign medals for the 'Great War for Civilisation 1914-1919'

So why don't I want to parade around with a poppy remembering with pride their feats and sacrifice?

Because to do so would be to align with and support an analysis of the reasons for the war with which I do not concur.

I don't believe they were 'fighting for the freedom of small nations.' , although they may have thought they were

I don't believe they were fighting 'a great war for civilisation' which their medals claim they were.

I don't believe they were fighting to 'make the world safe for democracy' which is what the Americans said was the purpose of the war when they entered in 1917.

To wear a poppy, as some other posters have pointed out here, is to align oneself with the official British view of history, which with the benefit of a dangerous mixture of hindsight and revision, seeks to portray the history of the two world wars as being a seamless sequence of struggles of good versus evil. They have managed to backdate, in many people's minds, the tyranny of the Nazis to the Imperial court that ruled Germany until 1918. Tommy Atkins was fighting against Hitler in 1940; so of course his father was doing the same back in 1914.

In one sense, of course, they were right. The Second World War was indeed a continuation of the first and they both had in common the fact that they were really titanic struggles for international influence--tending indeed to global influence--by the major powers of the day.

In WWI the struggle for influence between Europe's great empires Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia--adding in the declining Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, had led to such a pressure cooker of conflicting aims and strategies that the slightest incident could set the whole shebang off. Which it eventually and inevitably did.

Each empire shamelessly and cynically claimed to be on the side of 'small nations' but only those small nations that were currently under the thumb of their rivals. So for example, the Germans heroically sent weapons to those Irish patriots who were keen to see independence for their own small nation, while the British happily put them up against a wall and shot them for having such an impertinent sentiment.

Then again, when the Germans trampled all over the independence of the small Belgian nation because they wanted to attack France's undefended northwest frontier rather than the fortress-strewn Franco-German border, the British nobly sprang to the aid of the Belgians and declared war on Germany.

That's what the First World War was about: a scramble for power between the bigger empires in which the national aspirations of smaller countries were mere pawns inthe game.

Certainly, a lot of small countries got their independence after the war at the expense of the defeated powers. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, YugoSlavia, Estonia Latvia Lithuania and Poland had not existed prior to the war. Rumania, which had, doubled in size.

But all of these new countries were born out of the ruins of the defeated powers (including Russia who had surrendered to the Germans and then had the effrontery to turn communist). When small nations like the Irish asked to be represented at the Versailles Peace Conference when all these new countries were being given their freedom on the principle of 'national self-determination' they got short bloody shrift.

It is vitally important, I believe, to remind ourselves of the history of that time. And to reflect on the effect of the events of those years on today.

But wearing a bloody poppy, which as the Republican posters here have pointed out, quite justifiably in this case, is a sign of endorsement of all actions of the British Army in the world wars 'AND ALL OTHER CONFLICTS' is not the way to do it.

It aligns you with the Black and Tans.
It aligns you with the British soldiers who committed the Amritsar massacre in India.
It aligns you with the SAS who propped up some of the most medieval sultanates in the Gulf States.
It aligns you with the soldiers in all THREE attempts this century to engage in regime change in Iraq. (When are the Brits going to realise that they're not very good at that. )
It aligns you with those who attempted to repress countless national uprisings in the 20th century in Cyprus, Aden, Kenya, Malaya, Palestine, Ghana etc etc etc

If we should remember the fallen of the First World War it should be with a spirit of horror at what we allowed to take place and a determination not to let such a catastrophe happen again.

Wearing the poppy won't do that. It only encourages the British to take up the white man's burden and screw over places like Iraq.

Again.

And again.

jank

I don't believe they were 'fighting for the freedom of small nations.' , although they may have thought they were

Agree totally.

The Treaty of Versailles made a mockery of that term.

Britian went into it defending poor ol Belgium against the Brute Germans(Ye have seen those ape like posters)

All these small nations in 1919 thought they had done their duty in giving their men for the cause and expected some type of reward namely independance and freedom, but they got nothing!!

The terrortories of the defeated powers were divided up by the French and British and the rest were laughed off with the scraps from the table where the victors had previoulsy had feasted.

It wasnt till 1945 that these 2 powers woke up and realised that the world had changed.

Ah well at least the women got the vote...but was that a good thing?;)

Mr.Nice Guy

Snickers Man wrote:

To wear a poppy, as some other posters have pointed out here, is to align oneself with the official British view of history, which with the benefit of a dangerous mixture of hindsight and revision, seeks to portray the history of the two world wars as being a seamless sequence of struggles of good versus evil.

Yet another person who buys into the guff about the poppy being a predominantly British symbol. Historical facts shatter that myth. You want to know the origin of the poppy and its use as a token of remembrance?:

It was a French woman, Madame E. Guérin, who conceived the idea of widows and orphans manufacturing artificial poppies in the devastated areas of Northern France that could be sold by veterans' organisations overseas for the benefit of veterans as well as the destitute children of northern France.

http://www.rsa.org.nz/remem/poppy_hist.html

Snickers Man wrote:

But wearing a bloody poppy,

It never ceases to amaze me how a little flower can evoke such hostility!

Snickers Man wrote:

which as the Republican posters here have pointed out, quite justifiably in this case, is a sign of endorsement of all actions of the British Army in the world wars 'AND ALL OTHER CONFLICTS' is not the way to do it.

LOL! The same people who no doubt urged a rejection of the Nice Treaty to preserve Irish neutrality - while the IRA's war machine was still active in the North.

The poppy is not about the British, it's about paying homage to brave and courageous men who were effectively spit on by later generations of Irish people.

Snickers Man wrote:

It aligns you with the Black and Tans.

A lie.

Snickers Man wrote:

It aligns you with the British soldiers who committed the Amritsar massacre in India.

Another lie.

Snickers Man wrote:

It aligns you with the SAS who propped up some of the most medieval sultanates in the Gulf States.

You're on a roll. More lies!

Snickers Man wrote:

It aligns you with the soldiers in all THREE attempts this century to engage in regime change in Iraq. (When are the Brits going to realise that they're not very good at that. )

Ridiculous lies!

Snickers Man wrote:

It aligns you with those who attempted to repress countless national uprisings in the 20th century in Cyprus, Aden, Kenya, Malaya, Palestine, Ghana etc etc etc

Utter madness!

Snickers Man wrote:

If we should remember the fallen of the First World War it should be with a spirit of horror at what we allowed to take place and a determination not to let such a catastrophe happen again.

Surely by hanging on to the prejudice and hate of the past (like yourself) then we are greatly increasing the chances of such catastrophes happening again?

Snickers Man wrote:

Wearing the poppy won't do that. It only encourages the British to take up the white man's burden and screw over places like Iraq.

Oh man, you do talk some rubbish.:)

Snickers Man wrote:

I had loads of relatives (at least five that I know of) who served in the British Army in WWI (a couple more in WWII) and several of them were killed, or died later at young ages from wounds received

What a shame you can't offer them any respect. Don't worry, there are Irish people around nowadays who will do their best to proffer respect in your absence.

DublinWriter

landser wrote:

I agree with you. I am a Nationalist, but today i'm wearing a poppy. I had two great - uncles in the first war, one of whom was killed at Messines. both were catholics. I have no problem wearing a lilly at easter and a poppy in november

Yer all probably too young to remember the sh*te that Gay Byrne got in when he wore a poppy on the Late Late sometime in the early 80's.

The problem with wearing the poppy here is that the whole thing is loaded with additional political symbolism in relation to how Irish people percieve it.

It's the same with 1916. Do any in-depth reading on the events in Dublin of Easter Week 1916 and you'll realise that it wasn't a popular thing at the time. Pearce & Co were spat on by Dubliners when they were lead out of the GPO.

The feeling about them at the time was that they were a bunch of middle-class burgeois loonies. It was only when they were executed that people started to turn.

And now we have this whole revisionist movement heaping sentiment on the glory of 1916. 1916 was a shambles both in military and poltical terms, yet most Irish people are happy to subscribe to those events our current state of Republichood. We weren't a Republic until 1949 FFS.

The real villian of the piece (peace?) for me is Dev. Close to a million Irishmen served in the British Army in both wars, yet were made feel like pariahs when they got home.

And even today we still debate over the wearing of a symbol to honour their memory. For shame.

Diorraing

I would like to see a symbol of the 1916 rising. I know they have the Easter Lily but that goes to IRA prisoners funds and not many people would agree with that. There should be a badge or something that everyone can wear to pay respect to our volunteers.

robinph

DublinWriter wrote:

Yer all probably too young to remember the sh*te that Gay Byrne got in when he wore a poppy on the Late Late sometime in the early 80's.

Nobodys having a go at Keith Wood and Craig Doyle for wearing poppies at the rugby over the weekend yet are they?

breandan

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Yet another person who buys into the guff about the poppy being a predominantly British symbol. Historical facts shatter that myth. You want to know the origin of the poppy and its use as a token of remembrance?:

What is done with the money raised from the sale of these poppy's?

DublinWriter

breandan wrote:

What is done with the money raised from the sale of these poppy's?

Goes to the British Legion Associations as far as I know.

magpie

Trying to say that one sacrifce is better then the other is just lame, tasteless political point scoring

Presumably this would also apply to those suggesting that those who took part in the Easter Rising were better than those in France? Or is there one rule for you and another for everyone else?

What? You mean people were happy with the way things were run in this country in all of those 800 years?
Cromwell was a figment of my imagination?
The Battle of Kinsale, the uprising in Wexford and countless other incidents of "military oppresion" are just stories made up by Sinn Fein?

No, but I am saying that making reference to "800 years of oppression" is ludicrous, it makes it seem like a songle malign entity was responsible, whereas in fact there were a number of nationalities (the French and Dutch for starters), regimes and personalities involved. The version of history taught in schools was concocted by Fianna Fail in the 1930s to make it seem like there was a clear line from one revolt to the next culminating in 1916 and its just not that simple.

As for Cromwell, I would've thought you'd be a fan of his work. He's the only effective Republican there's ever been in these islands. I've yet to see the Provos have a King executed.

I would like to see a symbol of the 1916 rising

How about a a pink poppy?

I don't believe they were 'fighting for the freedom of small nations.' , although they may have thought they were

I don't believe they were fighting 'a great war for civilisation' which their medals claim they were.

Here's a quote from Tom Kettle, a member of the Volunteers killed at the Somme in 1916

"Know that we the fools, now with the foolish dead,

Died not for flag, nor King, nor Emperor,

But for a dream, born in a herdsman's shed,

And for the secret scripture of the Poor".

Make of that what you will.

Anyway, regardless of motives its surely a sorry state of affairs where 170,000 men are effectively written out of history and their motives questioned while the actions of 1600 men (only 10% of those who stayed behind) are given the hagiography treatment.

Diorraing

magpie wrote:

Anyway, regardless of motives its surely a sorry state of affairs where 170,000 men are effectively written out of history and their motives questioned while the actions of 1600 men (only 10% of those who stayed behind) are given the hagiography treatment.

Its a sorry state of affairs when they go fighting for Belgian freedom when we didn't have our own freedom at the time

magpie

By 1914, the Home Rule Bill for Ireland had been passed by the British Parliament on the third attempt. A special arrangement was promised for Ulster. However, it was suspended until the after the end of the War

Depends if you view Home Rule as freedom, or whether you believe it would have resulted in Independence. Either way, these men shouldn't be written out of history purely because other events triggered by a tiny minority ensured we would never know if they were right or wrong.

county

as for myself having lost family in the 1st and 2nd world wars i feel great pride in wearing the poppy as it remembers their sacrifice

ISAW

magpie wrote:

Everyone except the Historians who argue that the War of Independence was really triggered by British attempts to introduce conscription in 1918, and that it was more effectively waged than the Easter Rising owing to the vast majority of those involved having served in France for 4 years and therefore knowing a thing or two about fighting.

to which a counter argument would be if that is so then why did more Republicans/nationalists/catholics and Sinn Feiners sign up than Unionist/loyalist/protestant/ ulster will fight people? And I mean More per capita whether you take a 9 county or a 6 county ulster or n Ireland.

If home rule had been granted it would have been 32 County, from which position it would have been easier to devolve a United Ireland.

If and ans and pots and pans. the FACT is that Scotland and Walse have Home rule of a sort. Do you think that is anything like the constitutuionalk position of Ireland?

Why is it Republicans have such a problem with the Volunteers? If you could explain without using terms like "oppressors" and "imperialists" for a change that would be helpful.

I assume you do not mean "Irish Volunteers" here?

I presume the "they" you are referring to is the Normans? Who you will remember from your history books had invaded Britain some hundred years previously and only arrived in Ireland under invitation to fight for the Irish against the Norwegian King of Dublin. But never let complicated things like facts get in the way of Provo Dogma.

I remember it was 101 years 1066 and 1167 but did they take some more time to arrive and put up castles say 1169? I also remember the battle of Clontarf as 1014. I seem to recall Mc Murragh left ireland to get Norman help to depose O connor who was up Sligo way and not anywhere near Dublin.

You are not confusing O connor with Sitric are you?

In WW1 nearly all the Irish people who fought were members of the Volunteers who signed up under the understanding given to John Redmond that Home Rule would be granted on the cease of hostilities. Of course the Easter Rising changed that, so we will never know if they were right or wrong

No. You WOULD know since the Home Rule bill was already enacted and the Lords could not repeal it or veto it! Which is ANOTHER reason for the 1916 rising. Home Rule was already accepted but not introduced!

In WW2 I imagine any Irishmen who served did so out of ideological reasons, and if anyone signed up to feed their families surely it says more about Ireland under the inept revolutionary rule of Fianna Fail in the 1930s than the "Imperial Oppressors".

People signed up for various reasond. Adventure and finances were two very big ones. There is also the tradition of Irish people fighting British wars for them.

ISAW

county wrote:

as for myself having lost family in the 1st and 2nd world wars i feel great pride in wearing the poppy as it remembers their sacrifice

But why only remember the British sacrifice? Why not remember the Irish sacrifice or the sacrifice of all the allies powers. Why not commemerate all the UN peacekeepers? Indeed what about the Germans and Japaneese (in particular civilians who dies in WWII)?

Do the French wear a poppy? Do the Belgians or Dutch? The poppy can be construed as a British symbol. That is why irish people traditionally had a problem with it. You see there are Irish people who do not like the idea of commemerating their dead who fought for other peoples armies in other peoples wars.

But let us say you accept that Irish people fighting in WWII should be commemerated. How about those who fought for the Germans? and what about the Spanish war? Irish fought on BOTH sides in that one!

magpie

Home Rule was already accepted but not introduced

Home rule was defered until the end of the war, as any fule kno.

ISAW

Diorraing wrote:

Well, the IRA fought for what they believed was a good reason but I don't see you rushing to commemorate them. I have never been a member of Sinn Féin by the way, have never read An Phoblacht so if you could please refrain from implying that I do. You still dodge the question: What was achieved by anyside in fighting WW1?

I also get that simplistic analysis: You dont agree with me therefore you are a shinner. I don't support Sinn Fein! I dont get an Phobleacht!

But to answer your question with an implication of the values involved. What was achieved?
WWI and WWII were fought between basically the same powers. In BOTH there was a battle for and against Imperialism. the irony is that the side that fought for imperialism in WWI fought AGAINST it in WWII and vice versa!

I've heard about holocaust deniers but this surely has to take the biscuit.... Do you think Oliver Cromwell is a bed-time story Gerry Adams tells young children?

Ever heard of the "Plantation of Munster" and where the word "TORY" comes from?

magpie

Quote:
I've heard about holocaust deniers but this surely has to take the biscuit.... Do you think Oliver Cromwell is a bed-time story Gerry Adams tells young children?


Ever heard of the "Plantation of Munster" and where the word "TORY" comes from?

Funnily enough the guy you're quoting and attacking was arguing on your side. This must be one of these Republican feuds we hear about

murphaph

Diorraing wrote:

Its a sorry state of affairs when they go fighting for Belgian freedom when we didn't have our own freedom at the time

Not every irish person living at the time felt they were unfree because Ireland was part of the United Kingdom :rolleyes:

jank

murphaph wrote:

Not every irish person living at the time felt they were unfree because Ireland was part of the United Kingdom :rolleyes:

Yea they were called Unionists.

BuffyBot

Yea they were called Unionists.

No, I think quite a few of them were called "the general public".

Diorraing

murphaph wrote:

Not every irish person living at the time felt they were unfree because Ireland was part of the United Kingdom :rolleyes:

Then why did they vote Home Rule for all their seats and then Sinn Feinv(except the obvious exception of the Loyalists). If Ireland was "free" why did they need to look for home rule and then independance.

Snickers Man

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Yet another person who buys into the guff about the poppy being a predominantly British symbol.

It's not guff. It's a fact. When do you ever see the French wearing a poppy? Or the Americans? Or the Germans? If it's all about remembering the fallen of the First World War, why don't all nations wear it?

It might have originated as an idea by a French woman but that doesn't mean that it represents some sort of universal symbol of remembrance. It's administered by the Royal BRITISH Legion (in this hemisphere) and it commemorates the actions of people in the British Army. In all conflicts since WWI. Don't take my word for it. Ask the RBL. Somebody has already helpfully pointed out exactly where they are.

NiceGuy wrote:

The poppy is not about the British, it's about paying homage to brave and courageous men who were effectively spit on by later generations of Irish people.

Yes it is and no they weren't. I have never spat on my ancestors or their comrades. I spit on the notion that now that we and the British are all friends again (which I warmly welcome) we can rewrite history to suggest that we were always on the same side really, that we never had any real disagreements and that the only people who did were deranged blood thirsty republican/fascist zealots.

That's just not true.

NiceGuy wrote:

A lie. Another lie. You're on a roll. More lies! Ridiculous lies!

They're not lies. They're all true. Careful about personal attacks. The mods don't like them.

Surely by hanging on to the prejudice and hate of the past (like yourself) then we are greatly increasing the chances of such catastrophes happening again?

I'm not hanging on to any prejudices and hate of the past. I merely dislike people trying to rewrite history, which is what Irish people wearing the poppy implies.

It suggests that, apart from the aberrations of a few blood thirsty fanatics, the Irish people were always on the side of the British Army right throughout the 20th century. That is manifestly untrue.

We stayed out of WWII, even though surreptitiously we had a far more collaborative relationship with the British and Americans than we let on at the time.

Garret Fitzgerald has a good piece about how 'neutral' Ireland was and how the interests which informed our policy changed with circumstance in his new book.

But that doesn't mean that we can now pretend that we were just as committed as they were, honest. We weren't. We stayed out of it, because we were smart.

We should be less apologetic about our role in WWII. I'm sure my grandfather, who died while serving His Majesty would agree. Certainly all his sons do.



We have a far more complicated relationship with the British Army than the British people do.

Many of our ancestors fought in it.
Many of our ancestors fought against it.
Not a few of our ancestors did both. Not at all unusual for people from countries dominated by another. There are dozens of examples in history of this and not just from Ireland or Britain.

The poppy is the British people's way of remembering their fallen soldiers in all wars. It's perfectly right for them to do so. For us to wear it, smoothes over the complexities and tries to hide the fact that we have had differences for a long time. That's unhealthy and untrue.

Oh man, you do talk some rubbish.:)

Well you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Nice but Dim, I fear.