britain

axer

ArthurF wrote:

Looking at this thread from an Irish Unionist point of view I find the whole notion of Ireland being an Ex British Colony fatuous!

Explains alot about unionism!

ArthurF wrote:

I was watching a documentary on RTE the other night about the so called war of independence (early 1920's) and I couldnt help noticing the large amount of Union Jacks flying all over Cork and Dublin, I am also aware that the Union Flag was flown by the vast majority of people in 1901 to welcome Queen Victoria into Kingstown harbour (Dun Laoghaire) I also know from my Grandmother (Born in Dublin British Passport) that most people back in the 1920's considered themselves Irish/British or vice versa!

You do realise Ireland wasn't independant from Britain until 1922 - hence the flags?! And then of course you have the plantations etc on top of that.

ArthurF wrote:

The whole concept of a Gaelic speaking, Roman Catholic, independent, Anti-British Nation has only come about relatively recently (if you scratch beneath the surface) and so, as a Northern Irish/British person whose flag is the Union Jack (or part of) - (see St Patrick's cross) I share so much of my culture/customs with all the peoples of the British Isles, both Gaelic & Non-Gaelic alike, the island of Britain is our next door neighbour they were once the Worlds Super Power and this Island was part of that Super Power (not by Force) but by choice as we still are in the North, and I think that the worst thing to ever happen in these islands was for the Republic of Ireland to leave the UK and the Commonwealth, specially (in the circumstances that it did) ...............

And we salute the Queen! (not!) In my head ideas like these can only be explained by the Stockholm Syndrome.
EDIT: Since when has the Anti-British Nation only come about recently? Should we bend over and let britain f.uck us up the ass again and be grateful?!

secret_squirrel

I think anyone who thinks Ireland could have escaped Invasion over the last 1000 is being Naive. Not even Britain managed that.

If you look at european history over the same time period its been a huge melting pot. Many nations that we take for granted now have only been around a relatively short time.

I think even if Ireland had remained un- molested (unlike imo) at best it would have been a shifting mass of nation-states and small kingdoms until very recent history. (bit like germany infact).

None of the major colonial and pre-colonial european powers treated their captured territories particularly well.

The major thing that ireland did have over the rest of europe is its Island status - which possibly might have fostered a sense of nationhood in time. But lets face it thats didnt really happen with Britain.

axer wrote:

Should we bend over and let britain f.uck us up the ass again and be grateful?!

This is relevant how? I worry about people who cant divorce speculation about what might have been and the situation now.

Maskhadov

hmm....very intresting outlook ArthurF

Ajnag

I think that the worst thing to ever happen in these islands was for the Republic of Ireland to leave the UK and the Commonwealth, specially (in the circumstances that it did) ...............

Our gdp per capita is now greater then britian after only a hundred years. Due to the factors of various northern european power struggles by proxy of religion britians rule here was harsh and uncaring with less focus on infrastructure and economic development which make's our independance no mistake.

but by choice

Home rule or lack of, Penal laws? Are these the democratic mandate's you speak of?

I am also aware that the Union Flag was flown by the vast majority of people in 1901 to welcome Queen Victoria into Kingstown harbour (Dun Laoghaire)

Hence the derogatery term west brit :rolleyes:

I share so much of my culture/customs with all the peoples of the British Isles, both Gaelic & Non-Gaelic alike

Thus I presume the mandate of unionism now spreads to the continental congress in washington? How much modern culture/costoms do you now share with the us?

samb

I think that the 1916 rising and the War of Independance were a mistake.
If we had stayed part of Britian and peacefully requested independance we would have it by now. If Scotland want independance they will get it. Irish nationalists had a voice in Westminster and many british such as Gladstone were far from hostile towards them.
I think by now we would have a united republic without the troubles of the last 35 years and a better relationship with the British.

Laguna

Here's a mind **** for all of the folk who love to hate the 'Brits' who invaded us in the 10th century...


Have you heard of the battle of Hastings in 1066?, no?, oh okay then, it was a 'minor' skirmish that involved the Anglo-Saxons against a group of chaps called Normans (who were from Normandy, France, fact fans!). The Norman invaders to Britain, happened to beat the British and take control of the majority of what is regarded as present day England. When this country was subsequently invaded and colonised (for want of a better word), would you not rationalise that it was indeed the NORMANS (i.e. FRENCH) who came and took over your country?.:eek: :eek: :eek:

Another thing people seem to forget when talking about the hardships the British forced upon the citizens of this country for the occupation is that the British treated their own people AND the peoples of their other colonies just as bad, if not worse.

For the record, it's extremely naive to think Ireland would have received any better treatment from one of the colonial superpowers if they had been colonised by someone else. You wonder if things would have been better if you'd have been colonised by France, *cough* have a look at Algeria, *cough* Vietnam *cough* the majority of continental Africa...

Spain?, ****, I won't even bother coughing this time, have a look at what they did to their colonies in South America and the West Indies, they wiped out the Inca and Aztec races from the face of the Earth.

Which other colonial superpower shall we discuss next?

Hotblack Desiato

No doubt there were plenty of English people who hated Cromwell, but most of them had the sense to keep quiet for their own sake, and British history paints him in a good light. There are Cromwell Streets everywhere, and he made the BBC's Top 10 Britons poll. He wasn't tried for treason, he died in bed - still in power.
http://www.olivercromwell.org/faqs8.htm

In March 1658 he delivered a two hour speech to the Lord Mayor, aldermen and councillors of the City of London, as usual speaking largely extempore, and he responded vigorously to problems and events during spring and summer 1658. ...
The sickness which eventually killed Cromwell probably began at the end of July 1658 ... He also suffered pain in his stomach, back and elsewhere about his body, was given to vomiting and diarrhoea and at one point was found to have an irregular pulse. The fifth and, as it turned out, final bout began on 2 September and death occurred at around 3pm on 3 September.

Laguna

Yep, you're right, I got the treason part mixed up with Guy Fawkes as when I was posting I was thinking of a conversation I had with my dad this evening about Fawkes, my mistake, the digging up and hanging, drawing and quartering is still accurate though!.

Unpossible

would you not rationalise that it was indeed the NORMANS (i.e. FRENCH) who came and took over your country?.

Well the normans were decendants of....dum dum duuuummmm.... viking settlers (apparently Norman comming from the word Norseman).

But now we are opening up a whole new debate, because the anlgo saxons came from what is now Germany. So it brings up the question, who were the original british & where are they now? (according to a BBC documentary I saw a few years back, where they DNA tested a bunch of people from the UK & Ireland, most of them are here in Ireland, or at least we have the closest DNA to them).

But like I said that is a whole new debate on who the "British" really are.


note: Im not a historian but am very interested in these things, correct me if my points are wrong

axer

samb wrote:

I think that the 1916 rising and the War of Independance were a mistake.
If we had stayed part of Britian and peacefully requested independance we would have it by now. If Scotland want independance they will get it. Irish nationalists had a voice in Westminster and many british such as Gladstone were far from hostile towards them.
I think by now we would have a united republic without the troubles of the last 35 years and a better relationship with the British.

I very much doubt it considering when they passed the home bill in 1914 the unionists kicked up a storm and started using violence with the UVF. The army (down in the curragh) refused to attack their own. So what makes you think that would have changed by today? If we hadn't gotten a grip on some of the island when we did we would be like Scotland or Wales now with no prospect of a republic in sight (sorry, but they are not even countries!). They are too mixed with England etc now for the whole country to vote for independence. The 1916 rising and the war of independence were not mistakes, the mistake was probably accepting only a portion of the island (but I can understand why it was accepted). The Republic of Ireland would have consisted of the whole of this island a long time ago had it not be for those damn unionists!!

Seth Brundle

I reckon that if the British didn't invade us, the French and Spanish would have fought and lost many bloody battless to take over the place.
However, in the early 20th century the Americans invade us because we have a dangerous weapon of mass destruction

robinph

If Ireland hadn't been part of the British Empire or the French or Spanish etc, then it would have just meant that Ireland would have been fighting with the British, French and Spanish etc over the Americas and Africa for thier own empire. As it is Ireland can now claim they were not involved in any of that and pass all of the blame over to the British instead.

secret_squirrel

axer wrote:

like Scotland or Wales now with no prospect of a republic in sight (sorry, but they are not even countries!).

I suspect most scottish and welsh would strongly disagree with that point of yours.

axer

secret_squirrel wrote:

I suspect most scottish and welsh would strongly disagree with that point of yours.

I hope they would and I would hope that they keep fighting to become countries but the fact remains that they are not countries. They do not have seats in the UN and no other country recognise them as being countries and their head of state is Tony "I love Bush" Blair.

murphaph

axer wrote:

They are too mixed with England etc now for the whole country to vote for independence.

Yes, that disgusting Anglo-Saxon blood courses through their veins, not nice pure celtic, or is it viking or norman or african blood like the folks here! :rolleyes:

axer wrote:

The Republic of Ireland would have consisted of the whole of this island a long time ago had it not be for those damn unionists!!

With attitudes like yours is it any wonder that they don't buy the whole SFIRA "inclusiveness" line that Gerry Armani trots out.

Lots of countries that live next to eac other have had violent pasts and even bits of modern european countries used to be bits of the neighbouring country a hundred years ago. Borders are not fixed.

Flex

Another thing people seem to forget when talking about the hardships the British forced upon the citizens of this country for the occupation is that the British treated their own people AND the peoples of their other colonies just as bad, if not worse.

So what if they treated their own badly aswel. How does that rationalise coming to Ireland and treating the people here even worse?

For the record, it's extremely naive to think Ireland would have received any better treatment from one of the colonial superpowers if they had been colonised by someone else. You wonder if things would have been better if you'd have been colonised by France, *cough* have a look at Algeria, *cough* Vietnam *cough* the majority of continental Africa...

I think if a catholic nation like spain had occupied ireland things wouldve been better (ie. penal laws). Also i doubt france or spain would have carried out plantations like the british did, and i dont know how any nation couldve made the great famine any worse for us either. so id say things wouldve been better under some other rule, if we were indeed destined to be occupied.

dRNk SAnTA

My points are very simpistic but I've always thought about what Ireland might be like if we had been 'liberated' by the french, maybe in 1798 or something like that.

I wonder would Dublins prosperity before the act of union have continued. Dublin could now be full of fine french boulevards etc! Or maybe cork or waterford would have become the capital because of proximity to france. How would the french have treated us?

Of course if France controlled us, might Ireland have simply been a battlefield between England and France? Would we then have been occupied by the nazi's and been destroyed by bombing and war? If the nazis had controlled us might they have beaten Britain and won the war?!

Would we be giving out about how everyone speaks french instead of gaelic? and be moaning about the proliferation of english in the world aswell?

In my opinion our painful history has brought us to where we are today. If we didn't have this tough history, would we have had the courage to take the steps neccessary to become as successful as we are? You really have to be proud of the way we've climbed out of that hole. economically, we are now the shining light in europe. Speaking english has helped us a lot of course. The irish diaspora caused by the famine etc has surely helped also.

Oh, just like to say that I'm an Irish protestant (though my dads family are catholic) and i certainly have no unionist feelings. I'm quite happy to see that the irish are literally buying and selling england (property wise) and the fact that our per capita GNP is considerably higher than theirs. I'm not anti-english but its an amazing turn around which we should recognise and be proud of.

mike65

Flex wrote:

I think if a catholic nation like spain had occupied ireland things wouldve been better (ie. penal laws). Also i doubt france or spain would have carried out plantations like the british did, and i dont know how any nation couldve made the great famine any worse for us either. so id say things wouldve been better under some other rule,

When will people learn some history, when England first took an interest in this sceptic isle it was a Catholic country and second whats with the famine bit? Your logic is odd, would one expect the Spanish to have made a worse famine?

Mike.

secret_squirrel

axer wrote:

I hope they would and I would hope that they keep fighting to become countries but the fact remains that they are not countries. They do not have seats in the UN and no other country recognise them as being countries

I think you are confusing the meanings of country and state. Wales is a country but not a state.

their head of state is Tony "I love Bush" Blair.

Actually its the Queen.

Do you even check your facts before you post? Or would you rather spout inaccuracies that support your views?

axer

secret_squirrel wrote:

I think you are confusing the meanings of country and state. Wales is a country but not a state.


Actually its the Queen.

Do you even check your facts before you post? Or would you rather spout inaccuracies that support your views?

Yep sorry typo, i meant head of government - scotland is still not a country - maybe you should check before you post!!

Sorry but this is off topic I guess.

I think if the spainish or french had colonised Ireland instead of the English we may have faired out better. Firstly we would have probably had 3 languages growing up as we would have had to learn English because we would probably still do alot of trade with the UK and I'm sure Irish would have survived maybe not the same but some form of it. I don't think we would have been worse off anyways. At least we might not have had the problem that still lingers today with a division within such a small island as ours.

secret_squirrel

axer wrote:

I don't think we would have been worse off anyways. At least we might not have had the problem that still lingers today with a division within such a small island as ours.

You mean better off like the algerians?

Every colonial power treated both their colonies and their own citizens like shít. It was the done thing in those times. Its not right by our standards today (or maybe they were just less hipocritical back then) but that really doesnt matter. It was acceptable behaviour back then.

Stop pretending Ireland has any additional martyr rights because of it. Its just another colony that has to deal with it and move on.

Ajnag

Some one already said that this was all pointless suposition, I would tend to agree in that there is no solid way of quantifying "what if's".

I would also tend to agree with drnk santa in that we are here now, and thing's seem to have worked out well the way they have.

The only way I can address the question of the "what if" is that based on history up until independance, the effects of colonialism were negative towards this country, its people culture and economy. Based on record we can only calculate that the probability was that the relationship under colonialism would not have improved until possibly post war europe based on Britains release of most of it's colonys then. That would mean we would have lost the years of development since independance, and that more then likely would mean a deficite in comparision to modern Ireland.

samb

Ajnag wrote:

Some one already said that this was all pointless suposition, I would tend to agree in that there is no solid way of quantifying "what if's".

I would also tend to agree with drnk santa in that we are here now, and thing's seem to have worked out well the way they have.

The only way I can address the question of the "what if" is that based on history up until independance, the effects of colonialism were negative towards this country, its people culture and economy. Based on record we can only calculate that the probability was that the relationship under colonialism would not have improved until possibly post war europe based on Britains release of most of it's colonys then. That would mean we would have lost the years of development since independance, and that more then likely would mean a deficite in comparision to modern Ireland.

So you have joined us in all this pointless speculation (you are right it is a bit silly, but fun). Ireland developed little until Lemas opened us up. Under british rule our ecomony would have been better off. Our economy has always been dependant on the British and still is now, although to a lesser extent. We would not have had dev and the isolationists keeping us away culturally from Europe and America, and probably would have enjoyed the sixties a lot more.:D





Oh more for the Brits Out Brigade..
Who united Ireland?, well for a while.
Where did our legal system come from?
Our democracy?
Our language?
Where did we come from?
Where did they come from?
What culture has the most in common with ours?

robinph

Every other European country had a invaded and colonised some other part of the world, except for the likes of Luxemboug, Switzerland etc but then they had no seas from which to launch thier invading navys from. It does seem strange that everyone seems to be convinced that if the English hadn't 'invaded' that one of the other European powers would have done instead and the Irish almost seem to want to have been beaten into submission by another country just so that there is someone else to blame for all their problems.

mountainyman

'Red leader blue Alpha Centauri in sight'

The earth colony mission from the cities in the asteroid belt to Alpha Centauri landed. Interstellar colonisation had begun.

Earth had solved the major problems of poverty and hunger, ecological degradation and war.

The evil and savage nature of the English had been restrained and as a consequence humanity was much better off.

MM

mountainyman

For Samb

Unity
We were united in slavery and tyranny
The Law
We would be far better off with a civil law system. Our hybrid common and civil law system makes no sense. Would you care to comment on the role of English caselaw in Irish life?

Democracy?
Like there are no other democracies in Europe.

Where did we come from?
When a mummy and a daddy love each other very much...

Culture?
Jodie Marsh, the invention of the concentration camp, the gin soaked masses, genocide and practically comulsory homosexuality.

Thank God we have nothing in common with those 'people' (if the English are people.

Jimboo_Jones

mountainyman wrote:

Culture?
Jodie Marsh, the invention of the concentration camp, the gin soaked masses, genocide and practically comulsory homosexuality.

Thank God we have nothing in common with those 'people' (if the English are people.

lol, and how are they enforcing this complusory homosexuality?

mountainyman

It is a well known tradition in the Royal Navy and in the elite training camps of the English.

Now all the best pubs and nightclubs are gay.
I support gay rights but homosexuality MUST BE VOLUNTARY.

Thank God we won our freedom and can choose our sexual behavious for ourselves.

Unlike the God Forsaken English.

MM

Gatster

It is a well known tradition in the Royal Navy and in the elite training camps of the English.

'Tradition' in any navy in the world

I support gay rights but homosexuality MUST BE VOLUNTARY. Thank God we won our freedom and can choose our sexual behavious for ourselves.

Hmmm. So the God-knows how many children born today across the UK are parts of a sinister IVF program for pro-creation as the government enforces the gay law

Have you ever actually been to England? Shame with all the salient points here that you haven't got an intelligent thing to say.

rsynnott

I assume it was a troll.

Though, indeed, if we had remained part of Britain, gay rights would have been much less of a disaster here...