The Death of the British Empire

Jackie laughlin

MadFinn,
I agree with you: the government and ruling classes were wedded to laissez-faire. Whenever this free-market credo is applied, it always happens in an existing state of inequality and someone ends up suffering or dead.

Tom and MadFinn,
There is a strange tendency to polarise: All British Vs All Irish. All the British did not behave badly. All the irish did not behave well. Some of the landlord class tried to help.

There was not universal racism towards the Irish. Many Irish were prominent in political and cultural circles. On the other hand, I was reared on anti-British racism.

One final point and I've had to mention this so many times on threads here. The British army was deployed in Northern Ireland to protect Catholics from loyalist mobs. The army was welcomed with tea and cake. This was intolerable to the IRA who fomented trouble and the British army were foolish enough to behave badly and lose the support of the Catholic people.

Mad Finn

Jackie laughlin wrote:

One final point and I've had to mention this so many times on threads here. The British army was deployed in Northern Ireland to protect Catholics from loyalist mobs. The army was welcomed with tea and cake. This was intolerable to the IRA who fomented trouble and the British army were foolish enough to behave badly and lose the support of the Catholic people.

Now hold on there. The Army was sent into Northern Ireland to restore order which had broken down irretrievably. It was not sent in to take the Catholics' side. Certainly, in the very short term the army in effect replaced the RUC and B-Specials who were laying into the Catholic areas with gusto and so they were originally welcomed. But when it became obvious that the army was there to protect the interests of London and that safety for Catholics was actually quite low down the list of priorities that attitudes changed.

It's the same of any occupying army. Usually they are welcomed in by some segment of the population. But it quickly turns sour. And not just in the case of Britain, either.

There are some poignant photographs taken of the Israelie invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Then, the Israelis were wellcomed by the Shi-ites of southern Lebanon as liberators. The Shi'ites had little time for the PLO and so when the Israelis invaded to get at the PLO, the Sh'ites got ready to celebrate. There are dozens of pictures of Shi'ites pelting Israeli tanks with rice and other goodies. That didn't last long though, did it?

Jackie laughlin

MadFinn,
Sorry but this has been sorted many times in these pages. The British Army was indeed deployed to protect Catholics.

Tom Barry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

One final point and I've had to mention this so many times on threads here. The British army was deployed in Northern Ireland to protect Catholics from loyalist mobs. The army was welcomed with tea and cake. This was intolerable to the IRA who fomented trouble and the British army were foolish enough to behave badly and lose the support of the Catholic people.

Okay, I'm feeling pretty tired at the moment, (2am :eek: ), so I just want to address this point for now. Everyone in Northern Ireland is taught this, believe me. If you study the 'honeymoon' period you'll find the blame for a resurgence of violence rests almost entirely with the Stormont government and it's actions. During said 'honeymoon' period, the IRA was actually pretty indifferent towards the British presence, some volunteers even grudgingly appreciative. The aim of expelling the British during this period was very much in the backburner. The IRA's aims where focused almost entirely upon defence against Loyalist aggression.

As rediculous as it sounds, according to Peter Taylor's "Provos", a very objective and excellent book by an Englishman, it wasn't uncommon for a British Soldier to look in on an IRA training session and ask "What weapons are you training on tonight lads?", humourously of course. The 'franterinization' even went so far as Republicans and B.A sharing drinks together in pubs. The IRA was not particularly aggressive towards the Army at all. Remember, that the first British Army fatality in N.Ireland was in 1971 with Gunner Curtis 2 YEARS after the British arrived on the streets.

No I think you've got your history slightly wrong here. Providing "Tea and Cake" to the British during the Honeymoon period was not intolerable to the IRA. Some didn't like it, but generally, it was allowed. If you want I can quote now prominent Republicans who professed relief upon seeing British soldiers on the streets. The belief present was that they would not be staying to enforce the rule of Stormont. However, they where put under the control of Stormont which was possibly the stupidest thing the British could have done.

The resurgence of violence can be attributed to 2 main factors. Sectarian Loyalist violence/Marching and over the top Stormont usage of the British Army. Take the marching season of 1970 for example. In the April Ballymurphy Riots the British Army was utilized to agressively defend a blatatntly sectarian and triumphalist march through a catholic area. In another example, the St Matthews Church siege, the British Army where not present in the Short Strand to defend catholics from rampaging Loyalist mobs, (some whom had guns). The defence fell to 3 members of the provisonials.

However, as stated, the real reasons for the complete alienation of Catholics to the British Army was it's self-liquidating use by Stormont Unionists, who where still, undeniably, sectarian. In the Falls Road Curfew Catholic homes where torn to pieces in search of arms, and several civillians where shot by the BA. The later 1971 British policy of Internment alienated Catholics even more by interning mainly innocent men on thin premises and commiting human rights abuses. An example of how ludicrous this policy was, is that ill old age pensioners where arrested for minimal involvement in the Old IRA in the 20s. It was basically very discriminatory, with the first sweeps targeting catholics exclusively, while Loyalist murder gangs rampaged the country blowing up water stations in an attempt to put the blame on the IRA and randomly targeting catholic civillians. Bloody Sunday tipped Catholics over the edge and for good reason.

You seem to have an overly simplistic view of the Provisonal IRA, they where and are no angels, and I detest 95% of their actions, but taking into consideration the climate of the time, they had very solid reasons to exist and where not as anti-British Army during the honeymoon period as you'd like to think. The Unionists of the time where self liquidating with their sectarianism and heavy handed oppressive tactics, as they have always been throughout Irish History. In my opinion, the Unionist government had only itself to blame for the re-emergence of the IRA.

Victor

No offence intended, but its this thread a bit overdone?

Mad Finn

Tom Barry wrote:

During said 'honeymoon' period, the IRA was actually pretty indifferent towards the British presence, some volunteers even grudgingly appreciative. The aim of expelling the British during this period was very much in the backburner. The IRA's aims where focused almost entirely upon defence against Loyalist aggression.

I don't mean to nitpick but at the time the British Army was sent in (August 13 1969) the IRA hardly existed. The troops were deployed to quell the riots in Derry that ensued from the annual ritual August 12 March which celebrates the relief of the siege of Derry. As the Orange Men marched around the walls overlooking the slum Catholic area of the Bogside riots broke out. The Battle of Bogside (catholic residents v RUC and B-Specials) went on for more than 24 hours after which the army was sent in to relieve the exhausted police.

Probably the best book about Derry in those times is Eamon McCann's 'War and an Irish Town'. When the troops appeared in the bogside he describes the mixed feelings of the rioters in the Bogside with the wonderfully laconic phrase 'it wasn't in our tradition to make British soldiers welcome.' Bernadette Devlin, another leftie first and foremost tried making a speech about British imperialism with regard to Cyprus and Aden (two recent conflicts) but it fell on rather deaf ears. The police had been beaten. That was all there was to it.

Tom Barry wrote:

Remember, that the first British Army fatality in N.Ireland was in 1971 with Gunner Curtis 2 YEARS after the British arrived on the streets.

Nit picking again but it's fairer to say 18 months. Troops sent in August 1969; Curtiss killed February 1971. But you're quite right to point out that at the time of the Falls Road curfew, no British soldier had been killed to date. Largely because the IRA was a moribund organisation that was in a load of internal turmoil anyway with the 'Official Wing' trying to fit its Loony Lefty analysis on to the sectarian mayhem that was springing up all round them and The Provisiional wing demanding that guns were needed urgently to defend the Catholic areas from the forces of the Stormont government (then still in place) and the loyalist mobs.

TomBarry wrote:

You seem to have an overly simplistic view of the Provisonal IRA, they where and are no angels, and I detest 95% of their actions, but taking into consideration the climate of the time, they had very solid reasons to exist....The Unionists of the time where self liquidating with their sectarianism and heavy handed oppressive tactics, as they have always been throughout Irish History. In my opinion, the Unionist government had only itself to blame for the re-emergence of the IRA.

Couldn't argue with any of that. I'd never vote for the bastards either.

Tom Barry

Mad Finn wrote:

I don't mean to nitpick but at the time the British Army was sent in (August 13 1969) the IRA hardly existed. The troops were deployed to quell the riots in Derry that ensued from the annual ritual August 12 March which celebrates the relief of the siege of Derry. As the Orange Men marched around the walls overlooking the slum Catholic area of the Bogside riots broke out. The Battle of Bogside (catholic residents v RUC and B-Specials) went on for more than 24 hours after which the army was sent in to relieve the exhausted police.

Yep, believe me though, at that point the IRA still existed. The officials that is. The Provsionals where formed in December so they where present for most of the honeymoon period and before the clean break, the IRA was still split into factions. Northern Command situated in Belfast had been operating independantly from Cathal Goulding for quite a while. They existed, they just didn't have many weapons at all.

Probably the best book about Derry in those times is Eamon McCann's 'War and an Irish Town'. When the troops appeared in the bogside he describes the mixed feelings of the rioters in the Bogside with the wonderfully laconic phrase 'it wasn't in our tradition to make British soldiers welcome.' Bernadette Devlin, another leftie first and foremost tried making a speech about British imperialism with regard to Cyprus and Aden (two recent conflicts) but it fell on rather deaf ears. The police had been beaten. That was all there was to it.

I agree there. It wasn't all tea and cake. Older Republicans would have been pretty cautious, it would've been conceivable that some had been around for the Black and Tans, so the caution would be understandable. Things where still largely cordial though when compared with later years. There was alot of tongue in cheek hostility with children throwing stones etc.

Nit picking again but it's fairer to say 18 months. Troops sent in August 1969; Curtiss killed February 1971. But you're quite right to point out that at the time of the Falls Road curfew, no British soldier had been killed to date. Largely because the IRA was a moribund organisation that was in a load of internal turmoil anyway with the 'Official Wing' trying to fit its Loony Lefty analysis on to the sectarian mayhem that was springing up all round them and The Provisiional wing demanding that guns were needed urgently to defend the Catholic areas from the forces of the Stormont government (then still in place) and the loyalist mobs.

Well, it was just an approximation. It was an extended period of time at any rate. Yep, when it came to weapons the Officials where holding back, though large tracts of the organisation had defected and many arms dumps where uncovered anyway, giving antique weapons like thompsons and M1 Carbines. Also, the Stickies or Officials did their fair share of defence. They had an m60 LMG behind sandbags beside the Bogside Inn, but there was a good bit of friction between the two organisations for sure.

Jimboo_Jones

Tom Barry wrote:

You obviously haven't been to the North if you think those one million consider themselves Irish. As the English say, they're more British than the English. Nothing would be a greater insult to call a Loyalist an Irishman, these days at least. And as a Northerner, I don't consider myself British BTW. Britishness is a concept that involves racial intolerance and superiority based around a class system.

My Relatives from northern Ireland consider themself both Irish and British, while this wont hold true for everyone I'm sure that there are and always have been a fair percentage of people there who have felt that way.

*humm reading further into yours and mads comments makes interesting reading.

Jackie laughlin

Jimboo,
I was about to get involved yet again in the debate about the modern origins of Anglo/Irish violence, when i read your post.

Like you, I think, I find this desire to insist on simple identities and condemn another race a bit bizarre. I was exposed to it in school and had to sit there listening to anti-British ranting while knowing that my British/Irish cousins would be home for the summer. On a lighter level when British born players played for Ireland, I couldn't understand why anyone was upset.

Don't misunderstand me. Some people assume that because I'm besotted with my Irishness that I'm a pseudo-nationalist or pseudo-republican in the SF/IRA mould. I regard these people as marginally Irish and the same goes for most of FF. How can a Wolfe Tones listener and non-Irish speaker who knows little or nothing about Anglo/Irish culture be taken seriously as Irish? Elitist? Perhaps but these crazies tried for years to exclude soccer playing, working class Dubs with British relatives by referring to us as West Brits.

Tom Barry

Don't misunderstand me. Some people assume that because I'm besotted with my Irishness that I'm a pseudo-nationalist or pseudo-republican in the SF/IRA mould. I regard these people as marginally Irish and the same goes for most of FF. How can a Wolfe Tones listener and non-Irish speaker who knows little or nothing about Anglo/Irish culture be taken seriously as Irish? Elitist? Perhaps but these crazies tried for years to exclude soccer playing, working class Dubs with British relatives by referring to us as West Brits.

Is this the same elitest attitude shared by most Southerners? I listen to the Wolfe Tones OCCASIONALY so am therefore not Irish... also, there's quite a few Southerners can't speak fluent Irish either. So don't deny them their nationality. If you're refering to me, I'm not sure if you are, it would be nice if you'd confirm whether you are. To be honest, considering the decline of the Gaeltacht in the South and it's growth in the North, you're in no position to call Northerners "marginally Irish". I myself live 6 miles from the border to Donegal. Where does this elusive "Irishness" end eh? On the border? There are places in Donegal farther from Dublin than Derry. Are they now less Irish as well? Not to mention the North has provided Ireland with some of it's finest talent. Seamus Heaney? Patriots and mythology, the Ulster Cycle.

We have our own Gaelic and hurling teams, we have your TV stations for the most part, and your radio stations. We learn Irish history (our history), we can learn Gaelic if we so wish. Gaelic tradition is alive in the North, probably moreso than in the South in many ways, and no, not a perverse tradition that glorifies the IRA. Or perhaps it's our different accents? Irish is a nationality, northern Ireland is a British state, therefore people are allowed to consider themselves Irish in the North whether you like it or not. In fact they are entitled to it under your constitution which is why I can claim an Irish passport. You don't define Irish Nationality. Nationality is defined as a group of people with common origins and traditions. As far as I know, I am of Irish origion, my name is Irish and my cultural tradition is Irish. Northerners are welcome to consider themselves as of British Nationality, I won't begrudge them of it, but as far as I know, I do not come from British ancestry, and there is no family tradition that sings God Save the Queen or serves the British Army...

Your views on the North are simplistic at best. "The IRA misbehaved and the Army clamped down", it's the other way around. The sectarian monkies in Stormont who considered the Pope the anti-christ are responsible for the Northern Ireland situation. Paisley foremost among them. Believe me, when the bullets started flying on Bloody Sunday, many Nationalists where damn glad of the IRA. It's a terrible shame that they became what they became, murderous terrorists, because at the time, they where normal young men in extraordinary circumstances. Had your civil rights been suppressed, and your neighbours been brutalised by Loyalist Stormont sponsored mobs, I wonder how you would felt about the IRA AT THAT TIME.

So please, any Southerner on his Holier and Thou platform, looking down on Northerners as somehow less Irish in Nationality had better check himself. Where the boundary commision of 1924 to include Derry in the Free State, would I be 'more' Irish? It's inconceivable anyway, considering the boundary commision was biased from the start. Some would say, the decision of your government not to force the envelope on the commision and make them put Nationalist dominated areas in the Free State is little more than a betrayal, abandoning nationalists to 50 years of tyrannical so called democracy.

Jackie laughlin

Tom,
Wow! That was quite a tirade. My comments certainly weren't directed against you. If I had targets in the back of my mind, they were from this part of the country.

I certainly don't exclude Northeners from Irish nationality. I had that exclusion done to me by fior-gaels and pseudo-republicans. I claimed my heritage and I'm not letting go.

My experience of the Troubles is not of course extensive. What I know is mostly book learned but I'm proud to say that I've been threatened by SF/IRA. However, it frightened the bejasus out of me! My best mate is a refugee from the north whose wife survived an assasination attempt.

I'd like to think that had I lived in the North, I would have been involved in the Civil rights movement and the SDLP. They are heroes!

However, I do think that Irish culture has to be defended against parodies, whether that parody is "the pig in the parlour", "the stupid Irish", "the fighting Irish", "the drunken Irish", American/British stage Irishness, "Tooraloora Galway Bay", The Wolfe Tones, "fior Gaels", pseudo republicans etc etc.

I don't trail my Irishness; I don't call myself a nationalist but it does seem to me that many of those who are most vocal couldn't be arsed about what it means. I've been to see the Wolfe Tones and watched an audience baying for British blood but incapable of doing it (Thank Christ!) as Gaeilge.

darkman2

Might aswell get my two cents in:

The Republic of Ireland is an independent, sovereign, nation state. Why would we want anything to do with the UK? We are a different jurisdiction and our independance has been hard fought for. This is what the vast majority of Irish ppl know hence the tripe a few years back on 'debating about re-entering the commonwealth' was an absolute failure because this country would never vote for it. The reasons are very simple and shouldnt have to be explained here at all. This country was oppressed and I dont care whether it was for 800 years or 8 years, thats the reality. Irish ppl are very proud of our country and its acheivements particularly recently. We are economically extremely ept and versatile. We have more money in this country then we ever thought imaginable only 15 years ago. We are now putting a credible, world class infrastructure in place to secure our future prosperity. This sort of debate here about our 'relationship' with the UK maybe would have been more relevant back in the 80s when we were on the verge of bankruptcy. Today you can equate its relevance to that of a fly on the windowsill. We are a very confident nation and punch well above our weight on a stage the Scottish and Welsh have pipe dreams about. We control what we do, when we do it, how we do it and most Irish ppl are damn happy we have given ourselves such privilage. Of course we get things wrong from time to time. Thats the nature of sovereignty - Its called responsibility. If you dont like it go and live in Scotland or Wales or England. Fact - this country is sovereign - that will never change. Fact - the UK is a different country - different jurisdiction - Get over it for god sake and move on. Our relationship with the UK is economic like our relationship with most other countries on the planet - nothing more. This is reality. As for the North they will decide when they want to join us but dont be supprised if we turn around and say - No!.

Jackie laughlin

Darkman,
Have you had a look at the names over the shops in our cities? Have you had a look at the viewing figures for British TV in Ireland? Do you realise that the Taoiseach "supports" Manchester United despite having 2 Eircom league sides in his constituency? Who is our largest trading partner? Who provides our abortion services?

We live in one of the richest but most unequal nations on earth.

Strange sovereignty! Strange republic!

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Who provides our abortion services?

As an aside, we would probably still use the UK for abortion, even if it were legal here. Like dentistry, it would most likely cost less under the NHS.

Jackie laughlin

Good gracious, surely in a free, democratic republic we would have a universal health service that provided abortion without charge! Afterall, "Kevin Barry gave his young life for the cause of liberty."

HellOrConnaught

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Good gracious, surely in a free, democratic republic we would have a universal health service that provided abortion without charge! Afterall, "Kevin Barry gave his young life for the cause of liberty."

Okay, slightly off topic here, but there's no cause to mock the memory of a dead teenager who died for what he believed. I wouldn't deny any dead man respect, whether they be a UVF man on the Somme or a Republican in your war for Independance. The truth is, I doubt Barry knew the complete pigs ear the early Free State politicians where going to make of an Independant Ireland.

darkman2

Have you had a look at the names over the shops in our cities? - Thats known as the free market. Should I take the site of French fashion shops or American pizza outlets as having anything to do with Irish sovereignty?!

Have you had a look at the viewing figures for British TV in Ireland? Yeah and I watch alot of American movies too. So whats your point? That says nothing.

Do you realise that the Taoiseach "supports" Manchester United despite having 2 Eircom league sides in his constituency? Do you know that I support an Amercan basetball team? - So what? Plenty here support Italain and Spanish soccer team. So your point.

Who is our largest trading partner? The US remains Irelands largest export market, it overtook the UK in 2003. The UK is marginally still our largest trading partner but this will be surpassed soon.


Who provides our abortion services? No-one provides 'our' abortion services. We dont have abortion in this country. If you want to go to the UK or another country for an abortion thats your option.

We live in one of the richest but most unequal nations on earth. We live in a Capitalist society. The UK is far more socialist then us. Of course if you are unhappy with making money here then go to the UK and live there.

Strange sovereignty! Strange republic!

Not at all.

Jackie laughlin

HorC,
It wasn't my intention to mock Kevin Barry or his memory. (I don't admire him. He was young and probably misguided or under the influence of murderers. He most certainly should not have been subjected to capital punishment.) My point was that all that bloodshed and the death of that young man to oust the British and then we rely on Britain to sort out our problems.

I have long thought that our separatives are incapable of understanding the word, "republic". I now realise that "sovereignty" may be beyond them too!

Jackie laughlin

Oops! Typo! Should have been "separatists".

darkman2

Jackie laughlin wrote:

HorC,
we rely on Britain to sort out our problems.

word, "republic". I now realise that "sovereignty" may be beyond them too!

What are you on about?. FFS If your unhappy here then go and live elsewhere.

sceptre

darkman2 wrote:

What are you on about?. FFS If your unhappy here then go and live elsewhere.

Considering your sig that's somewhat ironic. I see no reason why anyone who in particular is a citizen of this "great little nation" should consider going and living elsewhere for any particular reason unless they choose to. It's rather different from people in a job that they're forever complaining about (those guys really should at least consider going down the street and working elsewhere) and I'm rather amused that far beyond the yobbos perched on the harbour wall with the muttered stammers of "if yiz don't like it feck off back to where you came from" anyone would seriously consider "if your (sic) unhappy here then go and live elsewhere" towards someone who was presumably born here (but in my mind that's a moot issue) a reasonable contribution, let alone a valid point.

So I'll ask the same question that you asked and add a "hell": what the hell are you on about?

HellOrConnaught

Jackie laughlin wrote:

HorC,
It wasn't my intention to mock Kevin Barry or his memory. (I don't admire him. He was young and probably misguided or under the influence of murderers. He most certainly should not have been subjected to capital punishment.) My point was that all that bloodshed and the death of that young man to oust the British and then we rely on Britain to sort out our problems.

The War for Independance is a very grey area. I wonder what your opinion of Michael Collins is. Arguably the biggest 'murderer' of them all. It's unfair to paint the IRA of this time as gang of murderers, they where overmatched in their cruelty by British State sponsored terrorism. These are the men who gave you your Celtic Tiger. Look at Scotland, they've been in the Union since 1707 and they have never had a Celtic Tiger. "Sovereignty" and "Republic" where the tenants of the Old IRA. The elections gave Sinn Fein an overwhelming mandate for Irish Independance. The democratic will of the people was not realised by the British, who sent in terrorists to curb democracy. The IRA retaliated in kind, that's really all there is to it.

Of course, the Unionists exercised their minority veto against the will of the people and the artificial statelet of Northern Ireland was created as a microcosm of the Old Protestant dominated Ireland. Now, I am not a Republican, but the evil legacy of partition can be seen throughout the North and can be gauged by the 30 years of violence. The type of Unionism exercised by majority parties such as the DUP is a selfish philosphy aimed toward maintaining Protestant/British domination over Northern Catholics. It is a deep embarrasment to Britain, judging by so called "Loyal" actions perpetrated in the name of the Crown by Ulster Loyalists. The Curragh mutiny, Larne gun-running, Ulster Vanguard, Ulster Workers councils strike, Loyalist paramilitaries, Paisley's opposition to Sunningdale, Paisley's opposition to the Anglo Irish agreement, Paisley's connections with Loyalist paramilitaries, Ulster Unionists smuggling weapons in from South Africa for Ulster Resistance, Paisley's opposition to the Good Friday agreement and Peter Punt's actions in Clontibert are just some of the Loyal actions practiced by Good Ulster Unionists.

If anything is to blame for the 80 years of politicial tension and violence following partition, it is not the majority public supported actions of the Old IRA, but the legacy of the treaty and British complacency to the undemocratic actions of so called Ulster Unionists. Unionists who laughably considered breaking from Clement Atlee's British government in the 40s due to the introduction of the Welfare State.

"Loyal" indeed. Unionism has a glorious history of such loyalty, funnily enough, the sort of Loyalty the British hate. As far as I'm concerned, we owe the troubles almost exclusively to Big Ian's sectarian hate mongering.

darkman2

sceptre wrote:

Considering your sig that's somewhat ironic. I see no reason why anyone who in particular is a citizen of this "great little nation" should consider going and living elsewhere for any particular reason unless they choose to. It's rather different from people in a job that they're forever complaining about (those guys really should at least consider going down the street and working elsewhere) and I'm rather amused that far beyond the yobbos perched on the harbour wall with the muttered stammers of "if yiz don't like it feck off back to where you came from" anyone would seriously consider "if your (sic) unhappy here then go and live elsewhere" towards someone who was presumably born here (but in my mind that's a moot issue) a reasonable contribution, let alone a valid point.

So I'll ask the same question that you asked and add a "hell": what the hell are you on about?

If wannabe Brits are so unhappy with the way we do things in this country then a) they should form a unionist political party and try and get elected or b) go and live in the UK. Simple as that.

Also note the sarcasm in my sig.

sceptre

darkman2 wrote:

If wannabe Brits...

I assumed there was nothing of value after that so I stopped reading. I'm astounded by many things every day but few things have astounded me over such a period of time as this notion that some people have that people who have particular criticisms of their own country are "West Brits", "wannabe Brits", "poppy wearing lily-livered Thatcherite lackeys" or any other insult I can think of that has little basis in reality in this universe. Frankly it's idiocy of the highest order, idiocy in basis and idiocy in execution. It's also one of those things (like the "if yiz don't like it...") I've always assumed that people trot out when they themselves lack the coherency to put up a reasonably valid thought-out argument as to why we do in fact live in a "great little nation", with or without the underlying sarcasm that phrase has come to contain. It's got all the validity and all the thoughtfulness of "go and ****e" and while the latter phrase may sound like a great riposte while thumbs are clutched at the bottom of a bar seat to avoid falling off I'd like to think, in my optimistic moments, that most people are capable of something more than that. I'd also like to think that most of the people who went out and died for our right to self-determination did so with at least the hope that we'd have an independent country that had at least some notion of tolerance, as well as oratory. My country (by the way, it's this one with the green, white and orange tricolour) doesn't tell its own people to sod off elsewhere merely because they don't like the colour of their underwear or their political views. Then again I'm optimistic.


Now, this thread has moved rather away from its original purpose so I'd like to pointedly suggest to all that some reference be kept to the original start or to remember that the option to start a new one is always there.

darkman2

sceptre wrote:

I assumed there was nothing of value after that so I stopped reading. I'm astounded by many things every day but few things have astounded me over such a period of time as this notion that some people have that people who have particular criticisms of their own country are "West Brits", "wannabe Brits", "poppy wearing lily-livered Thatcherite lackeys" or any other insult I can think of that has little basis in reality in this universe. Frankly it's idiocy of the highest order, idiocy in basis and idiocy in execution. It's also one of those things (like the "if yiz don't like it...") I've always assumed that people trot out when they themselves lack the coherency to put up a reasonably valid thought-out argument as to why we do in fact live in a "great little nation", with or without the underlying sarcasm that phrase has come to contain. It's got all the validity and all the thoughtfulness of "go and ****e" and while the latter phrase may sound like a great riposte while thumbs are clutched at the bottom of a bar seat to avoid falling off I'd like to think, in my optimistic moments, that most people are capable of something more than that. I'd also like to think that most of the people who went out and died for our right to self-determination did so with at least the hope that we'd have an independent country that had at least some notion of tolerance, as well as oratory. My country (by the way, it's this one with the green, white and orange tricolour) doesn't tell its own people to sod off elsewhere merely because they don't like the colour of their underwear or their political views. Then again I'm optimistic.


Now, this thread has moved rather away from its original purpose so I'd like to pointedly suggest to all that some reference be kept to the original start or to remember that the option to start a new one is always there.

Your after completely misreading what im after saying. The term 'wannabe Brit' is not derogeratory. It is merely a factual description of those who see us as inferior to the British. It should be pointedly obvious to whom Im referring on this thread. Some of them have valid points and im not disputing that however they also come across as patronising and condescending and making rediculous statements as to how we would be better off if we didnt bother leaving the 'Empire' when we did. You know what - that does annoy me and I dont care if its 'intolerant'. Solution to their plight? - Go and live in the UK. If you like it so much - then go and live there.

mike65

I think we should just give the country back and appologise for the state its in

Mike.

Jackie laughlin

I take it the "go and live in Britain" was directed at me. I'm the least likely to want to go elsewhere. As I said, I'm besotted by being Irish. I love being here. I'm glad I was born here. I love and speak both of our languages. I love the culture - Gaelic, Anglo-Irish, Hiberno-English. I could go on and on.

I have a certain sympathy for the Brit-bashing pseudo-republicans who are motivated by feelings of inferiority. If they more firmly grasped being Irish, it might help them understand their history and give them confidence. The Irish don't have to be always right and the British wrong. We're not desperately in need of national justification.

I've made my point on political violence clear many times in these pages. There has been no need and no mandate for violence in Ireland certainly since the beginning of the 20th century. Yes, sure, Collins was a terrorist thug.

Most of the SF seats won in 1918 were uncontested and that will remain Labour's shame and lost opportunity.

darkman2

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I take it the "go and live in Britain" was directed at me. I'm the least likely to want to go elsewhere. As I said, I'm besotted by being Irish. I love being here. I'm glad I was born here. I love and speak both of our languages. I love the culture - Gaelic, Anglo-Irish, Hiberno-English. I could go on and on.

I have a certain sympathy for the Brit-bashing pseudo-republicans who are motivated by feelings of inferiority. If they more firmly grasped being Irish, it might help them understand their history and give them confidence. The Irish don't have to be always right and the British wrong. We're not desperately in need of national justification.

I've made my point on political violence clear many times in these pages. There has been no need and no mandate for violence in Ireland certainly since the beginning of the 20th century. Yes, sure, Collins was a terrorist thug.

Most of the SF seats won in 1918 were uncontested and that will remain Labour's shame and lost opportunity.

OK - your happy living here - so whats the problem then? BTW I hate SF, I despise their very existence, their criminality and their thuggery. I hate their policies and I hate their politicians. However Im every bit as nationalist/republican as they are. They dont hold a monopoly on Republicanism. Fine Geal and the PDs and Fianna Fail are in my view much more worthy of the Republican label then SF. SF are criminals IMO.

You mention violence. I beleive it was very nessacary at the time because the British were never going to leave of their own accord. That was very much the way across the entire 'Empire'.

Mad Finn

mike65 wrote:

I think we should just give the country back and appologise for the state its in

Mike.

That was Brendan Behan and he was probably pissed when he said it.

gandalf

Ok I have just gone through the last page of this thread and it has veered way off topic. If it doesn't go back on topic I will close it and you can start up a new one about "Little Ireland" or whatever you lot are whinging about.

Btw my opinion is the British Empire started to crumble when we left it, after all we ran it for the British.