800 years

gurramok

ArthurF wrote:

Being British is a geographical fact if you come from (the island of Britain) or in the case of people from this island identifying with Britishness or (frame of mind) and the fact that you belong to this "Family of islands" forever connected by the Blood, Family & Cultural ties of Britain & Ireland.

Yes true, many hundreds pf thousands of ethic Irish emigrated including some of my relatives to Britain in the last couple hundred odd years or so.
In the example of my relatives, they'd identify themselves as having Irish heritage first and being UK citizens second, not culturally British though.

ArthurF wrote:

Many Americans claim also to be Irish, even though their only connection with Ireland might be that a great grand Mother came from Enniskillen, in which case, they might claim British ancestry?

Same again with ancestry, they came from all over the country of Ireland, not just in Enniskillen

ArthurF wrote:

Scots are certainly British in one context as in (born on the island of Britain) & of course they are also Scottish ~ English people are British too, but no more than Scots, unless you are refering to England & Englishness (but thats another story altogether)!

Most Scots bar the pro-union fundamentalists would identify themselves as Scottish first and maybe British second if they bother!.

ArthurF wrote:

As for people from this island, you try telling a McCartney, a Trimble or a Paisley that he is not British and see what reply you get, and I suspect the answer will be that he is most certainly British as well as being Irish!

Try telling them that they are Irish and try run as fast as you can!

ArthurF wrote:

Apart from what it says on your Passport "Britishness is a frame of mind" as well as being a geographical fact.

Correct assuming for those that hold a British passport and are strong believers of it and its crown on the front rather than take one as 'its more convenient'.

ArthurF wrote:

One question which eludes me is "Why some Scots may dismiss being British even though, they & all their ancesters were born in BRITAIN".

Correct, they don't identify with the British state which is a whole world of difference from identifying with a geographical area called Britain which is quite reasonable.

discopantslisa

csk wrote:

Your whole argument is based on the false premise that knowing what we know now Home Rule was "absolutely unquestionable" coming.
As has been demonstrated that is wrong, Home Rule was not inevitable and it did not guarnatee that a) there would have been no violence or b) that Full Independence would have come.
Yet look to what we actually know, that Full Independence was achieved with the help of violence. That with that Independence, the one aim of the people of Ireland through all the long years of various struggles was finally realised and was enshrined in the Free State Constitution.This was popular sovereignty.
In your desperation to condenm what you see as a crazed cabal of extremist Republicans, you seem to exonerate the people of Ireland from all blame. To do so is foolish, it was the will of the people that allowed Sinn Féin to do what it did, the same as it was the will of the people that allowed the IPP to do what it did, it was the same will that erupted in 1798 and the same will that supported a Catholic King of England or an undersiege Protestant one. A crazed cabal of republican extremeists did not manipulate or "bully their way forward", the were carried on the tide of the people's desire to be free.
Now 1916 was not a manifestation of this will. Yet it turned peoples opinion towards those who were in a better position to achieve what it was the people wanted. Why is this wrong? In the end 1916 kickstarted the process(if I can be so crude), the process ended with the ultimate desire of every generation of Irishmen to ever have walked the earth: Popular Sovereignty.
Ultimately this goal was only ever symbolic but over the years as I have stated this desire was expressed in different ways, in 1690, they Looked to King James II, in the latter half of the 19th Century they looked to Home Rule and in the years after 1916 they looked to Sinn Féin and the Republic. Yet it didn't matter to the vast majority of people what form that freedom would take be it monarchy, Home Rule or Republic. All these organisations were entrusted by the people of Ireland to do, was their best to further the goal of Freedom.
Ultimately this symbolic goal was enshrined in the Free State Constitution that stated "the soveriegnty of the state is derived solely from the people of the State"(not a direct quotation but close enough). This was tremendously important, it negated the oath of fealty to the King and it allowed the eventual declaration of the Republic and finally escaping the evil clutches of the British Empire. No other Dominion had been granted the priviledge of this (AFAIK) at the time.
Now for you to turn around knowing all this and tell me that I should now look to 1916 and say "I condemn these men", simply because today Palestinians, Afhgani's and the Provisional IRA are branded Terrorist and these have some small things in commom with The founding Fathers of this State, as all the while you ignore the element of British fault, is in my opinion disgusting, deplorable, degrading and decrepit.

(after rereading this last point I see it is couched in overtly Nationalistic tones but I still stand by everything I said.)

maybe i should just let sleeping dofgs lie but none of what you said throughout this topic has actually justified 1916 really. these men did awful things killing innocent policmen why should we look to them now?

csk

discopantslisa wrote:

maybe i should just let sleeping dofgs lie but none of what you said throughout this topic has actually justified 1916 really. these men did awful things killing innocent policmen why should we look to them now?

Look you should just have left this thread to die. I never set out to attempt to justify 1916. The only reason I responded to the poster who started this Irish independence is "petty" thing, was to point out that what they were saying was wrong, looking back I realise that I gave that poster too much credit and should have just pointed out what was wrong more bluntly.

What I actually was responding to was the poster InFront's thesis (if such a word could describe such nonsense) that was built on three faulty premises of lies, falsehoods and a logical fallacy.

First off the acusation of terrorist that is a lie, pure and simple. The word terrorist has no place in an historical debate anyway, as it cannot escape its propagandist and subjective conotations (actually maybe falsehood is better or is lie and falsehood interchangeable? any way I don't care bottom line; wrong)

Secondly there was the falsehood, that Home Rule was "absolutely unquestionably coming". Home Rule had been postponed indefintinly because of Unionist threats and WWI. If anything 1916 actually sped up it's implementation. The second falsehood was that Home Rule would have been less bloody, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest such a thing. In fact I would argue that the opposite would have the case and it would have been far more bloody.

Thridly, the logical fallacy that knowing what we know now we should condemn those men. Now I don't know what world InFront inhabits but where I live is known as the Republic of Ireland and very proud too am I of this little republic and all it has achieved. Now if you were to put down what we know, it would be very simple, the Republic was proclaimed in 1916, ratified by the people in 1919, defended valiantly in arms until it was downsized to dominion status in 1921, and resurrected through Bunreacht na hÉireann and the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Now that may read like a very cosy, simplistic non-historical way of looking at things but that is the lineage of this State and of my government, of Ireland's government today.

Obviosuly history is open to intrepretation but at the end of the day what we know is that Ireland won its Independence in 1921, simple really. Whether the British would have deigned to give us independence at a later stage is purely speculation and unfounded speculation at that, not to mention a tad ridiculous.


I think An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern put the whole "what we know thing" perfectly in a recent speech, when he said:

"We will commemorate inclusively the greatest generation we have ever produced. We want to celebrate the freedom we achieved. And we want more publicly to recognise all of those who gave us the opportunity to acquire and develop that freedom. This is our national inheritance and it is incumbent on all who value our democracy to join in suitably recognising the bravery, dignity and sacrifice of our forebearers. "

If you are going to start with the whole, they were bad men, angle then all I can say is so where the British Government(who are still bad men judging by the report about collusion). If you want me to attempt to justify 1916, then I will attempt to do so. However first you must answer one simple question

What right did the British Government have to subjugate the people of Ireland ?

walrusgumble

well said csk

one difference between 1916-1921 and the troubles, was the actions of the old ira were supported and directed by our government, dail eireann, whoose members were elected by the people. one must remember that other paries such as irish parliamentary party were invited to mansion house on 19th january 1919 (why no mention of its anniversary a few days ago?)

majority of people contributed to the cause be it providing food and shelter, information, shunning members of the ric. it was sad that such members were murdered as they were irishmen who simply wanted to be policemen. but remember these guys and the black and tans gave as good as they got to many an innocent victim. had the war of independence gone on any longer britain may have crippled us. incidently ric men were not purposely put on the hit list for the hell of it. the chief or sergeant was on the list if they had tortured/harmed any volunteer in their custody. a republic was claimed and they, the ric, were held for treason.so were all the people of rural ireland terriorist? (ie outside the lushy streets o south dublin)

the south's attitude towards ira and sinn fein changed dramactically when civil war occured, and has continued since.no government approved of their actions. but yes there was some sympathy towards the innocent victims of nationalist northern ireland, who were forced out of their homes and discriminated from employment oppurtunities, prevented from playing their gaa due to suspions of ire at work (crossmaglen, armagh until recently) did kevin meyers mention that or was the idea of nationalist's struggle for civil rights as seen in black america not sexy enough for him, whats his views on someone say, malcolm x? i mean this is the same tw^t how last year echoced a very interesting opinion on single mothers of today. look who lead the line for revionists history, conor cruise o'brien, not exactly a nationalist, was he, too many cheeries with his friends in the unionist parties.

as a nationalist i am not ashamed of how independence was won, it was a war and informers or protectors of the crown were the emeny. now despite this because i wish for an island to move forward and buid bridges with unionist community i wish that events of 81 years ago can be celebrated with dignity whilst not overhyped or glorified.

LordSutch

Not so sure about the use of the word 'Celebrate' in the context of 1916.

Blackjack

ArthurF wrote:

Not so sure about the use of the word 'Celebrate' in the context of 1916.

Ever heard of relativaty?. For a number of people, 1916 is Cognisant with the formation of an Independant Ireland.

For me, an Ireland Independant of the UK is worth Celebrating, and 1916 is the original catalyst for that.

LordSutch

I still say that to 'Celebrate' the events of 1916 in Dublin is wrong!
'Remember' by all means, and mourn the dead, but by all accounts the events of 1916 in Dublin 'helped' to divide this island to an even greater extent, and as a matter of interest, I also Remember 1916, but for another reason & on a much Greater scale altogether (WW1) & usually on or about the 11th/November, when approximately thirty thousand Irish men died in mainland Europe fighting the Hun.

Nothing to celebrate, but we will always remember.

csk

ArthurF wrote:

'Remember' by all means, and mourn the dead, but by all accounts the events of 1916 in Dublin 'helped' to divide this island to an even greater extent

This island was divided since 1691, 1916 did no more to 'help' that divide than the formation of the UVF.

Dyr

ArthurF wrote:

but by all accounts the events of 1916 in Dublin 'helped' to divide this island to an even greater extent,

by all accounts? oh dear :rolleyes:

vesp

ArthurF wrote:

I still say that to 'Celebrate' the events of 1916 in Dublin is wrong!
'Remember' by all means, and mourn the dead, but by all accounts the events of 1916 in Dublin 'helped' to divide this island to an even greater extent, and as a matter of interest, I also Remember 1916, but for another reason & on a much Greater scale altogether (WW1) & usually on or about the 11th/November, when approximately thirty thousand Irish men died in mainland Europe fighting the Hun.

Nothing to celebrate, but we will always remember.

good point well made.

walrusgumble

ArthurF wrote:

I still say that to 'Celebrate' the events of 1916 in Dublin is wrong!
'Remember' by all means, and mourn the dead, but by all accounts the events of 1916 in Dublin 'helped' to divide this island to an even greater extent, and as a matter of interest, I also Remember 1916, but for another reason & on a much Greater scale altogether (WW1) & usually on or about the 11th/November, when approximately thirty thousand Irish men died in mainland Europe fighting the Hun.

Nothing to celebrate, but we will always remember.

far enough. you honour the hero's of the somme, and rightly so. but peope like me, as a nationalist, (without the anti british guff/codology) shall honour people of my hometown who went to dublin on easter monday.

as for dividing the nation, eh ye kind of agree in a small way. but remember 1912 and the ulster covanent and 1913 the establishment of the uvf, they made it clear that they did not want home rule at all and even threaten to fight against it.even prepared to hit britain, now surely this could not be ignored in westminster.parnell had set out for a 32 county home rule. 1916 was just the ignition to independence. far point 1916 made unionist actions of 1912-13 as justifible in their eyes.

"we shall not serve king nor kaiser, but only ireland"

Dontico

at no stage in the history of england, would i have considered them civilised.

Fratton Fred

Dontico wrote:

at no stage in the history of england, would i have considered them civilised.

thank you.:rolleyes:

brianthebard

eh, wtf?

Steyr

Dontico wrote:

at no stage in the history of england, would i have considered them civilised.

:rolleyes:


Funny how many Anti British people there are around saying "British Scum f**k the Brits etc" yet i suppose they love an aul cuppa tea and sit down to watch "corrie" or "enders" or watch an aul soccer match and support the "pool" or whatever:rolleyes: These people dont know their arse from their elbow.

Im a proud Irish man and love my Country and everything we stand for and have no hatred whatsoever for the British, leave History where it belongs in the past, Forgive but never Forget.

LordSutch

Dontico wrote:

at no stage in the history of england, would i have considered them civilised.

Have you got the wrong thread?

Dontico

Steyr wrote:

:rolleyes:


Funny how many Anti British people there are around saying "British Scum f**k the Brits etc" yet i suppose they love an aul cuppa tea and sit down to watch "corrie" or "enders" or watch an aul soccer match and support the "pool" or whatever:rolleyes: These people dont know their arse from their elbow.

Im a proud Irish man and love my Country and everything we stand for and have no hatred whatsoever for the British, leave History where it belongs in the past, Forgive but never Forget.

i dislike waring nations. they've tried take over the world and they still are.

anyway i dont watch soaps. and tea is from india. which they got from them when they invaded.

Fratton Fred

Dontico wrote:

i dislike waring nations. they've tried take over the world and they still are.

anyway i dont watch soaps. and tea is from india. which they got from them when they invaded.

Wow, you dislike a lot of people. Can you actually name a European country which has not been a warring nation? Given the chance, there is every possibility that Ireland would have tried to conquer Wales (In fact, parts of Wales were under the control of Leinster) or even England. As it was, the various Kings of Ireland were at war with each other. The only reason Cromwell came to Ireland was because the Irish Confederaes were planning to invade England, a very uncivilised act.

War is an unfortunate fact of life on this planet.

Oh, tea came from India, the British grew it there because they couldn’t grow it in the UK, but they originally got it from China.

InFront

Dontico wrote:

anyway i dont watch soaps. and tea is from india.

But you don't like India either right? Being a warring nation with the third biggest army on the globe and refusal to sign up to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and an atrocious policing reputation...

I see what you're saying Dontico. I don't consider British War Policy, historic or present, particularly civilized either but you just have to realize Britain does not necessarily equal British Government.
While it does exist and has existed heavily there, inhumanity is a global policy that was not dreamed up at Westminster. They are good at perpetuating though.

Dontico

Fratton Fred wrote:

Wow, you dislike a lot of people. Can you actually name a European country which has not been a warring nation? Given the chance, there is every possibility that Ireland would have tried to conquer Wales (In fact, parts of Wales were under the control of Leinster) or even England. As it was, the various Kings of Ireland were at war with each other. The only reason Cromwell came to Ireland was because the Irish Confederaes were planning to invade England, a very uncivilised act.

War is an unfortunate fact of life on this planet.

Oh, tea came from India, the British grew it there because they couldn’t grow it in the UK, but they originally got it from China.

ireland as a single nation has never invaded anyone. the worst thing we have ever done was persecute homosexuals.

england was still incontrol over ireland before cromwell.

most european nations are currently not at war. england is. germany hasnt invaded anyone in over 60 years. i consider them now to be civilised.

Brian Capture

Dontico:

Were you happy when London was bombed on 7 July 2005?

If you say no, you're a hypocrite.

vesp

Dontico wrote:

most european nations are currently not at war.

"At war" Do you mean Iraq ? The UK is on friendly terms with the govt, and acting in support of, the govt of Iraq.
Among the coalition forces in the middle east during the liberation of Kuwait and Iraq, when the UK was at war, were soldiers from Denmark and Germany and Spain

Dontico wrote:

england is.

:rolleyes:

Dontico wrote:

germany hasnt invaded anyone in over 60 years. i consider them now to be civilised.

In terms of warfare, they consider the UK just as civilised. By invading someone, do you mean the liberation of Kuwait / war with Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait ? Do you think Saddam should have been allowed to get away with invading little Kuwait ?

Brian Capture

Dontico and you other England-haters will probably be jumping for joy when you read this.

One less English person on this earth.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

walrusgumble

i think the problem some people have with the US and UK going to war in Iraq was that they lied to their people about weapons of mass destruction in Saddams possession. (and of course some claiming its all about the oil) Would everyone, bar the people who oppose war outright, be more satisified that the situation was reasonably justified if it had been found the WOMD were actually there?

but hopefully with the help of hindsight in the future, people might see it was justified in the sense that they killed defeated a tyrant and his regime. It is now a matter of how the UK/US forces spend their time in Iraq,help to repair the country for the good of Iraqi people and not shoove western values down their throat and get out.

it is time for the UN to pull themselves together and send in peacekeepers or some indpendent group to observe what is really going on there and take a load of the US/UK work load. are there more than UK/US soldiers in allegiance side in Iraq?

Aedh Baclamh

Brian Capture wrote:

Dontico and you other England-haters will probably be jumping for joy when you read this.

One less English person on this earth.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

There's a lot of silly posts flying about, but that one beats them all.

Fratton Fred

Dontico wrote:

ireland as a single nation has never invaded anyone. the worst thing we have ever done was persecute homosexuals.

england was still incontrol over ireland before cromwell.

most european nations are currently not at war. england is. germany hasnt invaded anyone in over 60 years. i consider them now to be civilised.

way way off topic and miles away from reality.

csk

Brian Capture wrote:

Dontico and you other England-haters will probably be jumping for joy when you read this.

One less English person on this earth.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

England-haters? Who are these England haters you refer to ?
If you are painting everyone who argued against British policy in Ireland in this thread with the same brush, then retract that statement please.

One flawed and ignorant argument does not a group of "england-haters" make.

Hagar

Brian Capture wrote:

Dontico and you other England-haters will probably be jumping for joy when you read this.

One less English person on this earth.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

That post is a disgrace.

InFront

Hagar wrote:

That post is a disgrace.

I think you're missing his point, it doesn't make a difference to that pedestrian whether she was killed in the name of the IRA or by a drunken driver.

Would her death be validated if the IRA carried it out? No. Not now, not ever. The murder of civilians is always unquestionably wrong. Not just civilians now, but a hundred years ago as well. That woman is no more responsible for the plantations, for example, than your average British unionist or policeman.
If somebody argues in favour of militant republicanism, they might as well be arguining in favour of what happened to this woman. The two arguments are equally stupid

Hagar

No I don't think I'm missing his point at all.

Would it be credible to think that the Japanese read road accident statistics from the USA and rejoice because what happened between them in the past? No?

I think the poster is saying that there are people here who hate the English so much that they revel in the death of an English person however caused. How could anyone believe that? It can only be intended as an absolute insult to anyone who has expressed Nationalist sentiment so far in this thread.
A crass generalization at best, a disgraceful comment at worst.