What will Big Ians Legacy be

TOMASJ

I see the last thread on Ian Paisley, was closed very quickly, goodness you would nearly think the DUP was controlling these boards, what do people think Paisley's finest hour was.

gurramok

TOMASJ wrote: »

I see the last thread on Ian Paisley, was closed very quickly, goodness you would nearly think the DUP was controlling these boards, what do people think Paisley's finest hour was.

Taking nearly 40yrs to say yes.

Obviously making peace with his enemies would be the legacy, just took him too damn long which would of spared alot of heartache for many.

flogen

In the short term he'll be remembered as the long-term dissenter who had an important but perhaps belated change of heart.

In the long term he'll be remembered as the man who brought the most extreme of Unionists into the middle and into peaceful co-operation with Nationalists.

In other words I think his few years of positive action will overshadow his lifetime of negative action and I think he will be seen as perhaps the most critical aspect of the success of the peace process, more than Bertie, Blair and Adams combined I'd guess.

Lemming

flogen wrote: »

In the short term he'll be remembered as the long-term dissenter who had an important but perhaps belated change of heart.

I think the above is an overly flattering view of the man. Whilst I have heard that he looked after both nationalist & unionist constituents very well, we need to bear in mind the strong possibility that his apparent change of heart was less benevolent and more pragmatic. After all, it's easy to be extreme and uncompromising when you're on the political fringe (so you can say what you like - it'll make little odds) and not in power. Once in power, you can't remain extreme for long - and stay in power - because you are now the focus of attention and have to deal with everyone (whether you like it or not) and try to find compromise & balanace with varying groups all vying for a slice of power.

Erin Go Brath

He'll be remembered as a racist bigot, and for speeches that contain the words "NO, NO, NO", and "Ulcer says No" etc.

Fratton Fred

I think the thing to be remembered about him, ignoring for a minute 40 years of bigotry, is that he was probably the only unionist who could have stood side by side with Martin McGuinness in Stormont and not be called a traitor and dismissed.

kmick

A big fat rogue who turned in to loveable teddy bear?

Lemming

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

He'll be remembered as a racist bigot, and for speeches that contain the words "NO, NO, NO", and "Ulcer says No" etc.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think the thing to be remembered about him, ignoring for a minute 40 years of bigotry, is that he was probably the only unionist who could have stood side by side with Martin McGuinness in Stormont and not be called a traitor and dismissed.

Whilst he will certainly be remembered in part for being a fire-brand preacher of sorts laced with bigotry, he'll also be remembered for playing what can only be described as an outstanding game of brinksmanship with Sinn Fein. In some respects his playing hard-ball turned things out for the better since SF had to do a little re-assessing of their own stance and were forced to make some unwilling concessions of their own (i.e. didn't get it all their own way)

is_that_so

Legacies tend to be a long way distant from what happened. Even the savagely bigoted Paisley of the 60s and early 70s is almost a generation back. It think it'll be positive on him merely because he appeared to have so far to go to agree.

More importantly in recent years he stood his ground, for his constituents, on the standards expected for power-sharing. I think he is a complex man who , in the end , may have seen that history could allow him to genuinely achieve something. And he took that chance. It doesn't excuse what came before but it went a little way, consciously or not,towards making up for it.

LordSutch

gurramok wrote: »

Taking nearly 40yrs to say yes.

Obviously making peace with his enemies would be the legacy, just took him too damn long which would of spared alot of heartache for many.

Dunno about the "heartache" seeing as that was mostly caused & created by the other "chuckle brother" but from my perspective as a Unionist I think Paisley was very corrageous when he finally made the decision to go into Government with the foe for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland & the bigger picture.

In his day, Paisley was Loud, Paisley was Vocal, Paisley was fervently Anti-Pope, Anti-Republican, Anti-The South, whilst being very Pro-British, Pro-The Union, Pro-the Monarchy, and dont forget that Paisley said he would go into Government once the IRA had got rid of the Guns/ Semtex & said that "their war was over" ~ (Trimble was conned) by Sinn Fein, Paisley was voted-in & promptly went into Government like he said he would.

History will see him as the 'The First Minister of Northern Ireland' after the troubles.

duggie-89

TOMASJ wrote: »

I see the last thread on Ian Paisley, was closed very quickly, goodness you would nearly think the DUP was controlling these boards, what do people think Paisley's finest hour was.

well tomasj, firstly for your own safety you might want to well...... stop saying the obvious lol

i think his legacy will be well waking up and saying yes to sharing power with republicans

Running Bing

All I have read today is about how great he was.

What exactly did he do?


All he did was make demands until it got the stage where he couldnt possibly say no any more.

Ill always remember him as a biggoted racist, full of hatred and as a representation of everything wrong with the north of ireland(on both sides).

Running Bing

ArthurF wrote: »

Dunno about the "heartache" seeing as that was mostly caused & created by the other "chuckle brother" but from my perspective as a Unionist I think Paisley was very corrageous when he finally made the decision to go into Government with the foe for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland & the bigger picture.

We certainly have radically different ways of viewing things.:)

ArthurF wrote: »

I think Paisley was very corrageous when he finally made the decision to go into Government with the foe for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland & the bigger picture.

Thats the sort of thing I am talking about. There was nothing corageous about it. He was backed into a corner where he could not possibly have said no anymore. He would have looked a fool and it would have completely undermined him. He didnt do it for the "sake of the people" or for "the bigger picture", he did it because he had to.

flogen

Lemming wrote: »

I think the above is an overly flattering view of the man. Whilst I have heard that he looked after both nationalist & unionist constituents very well, we need to bear in mind the strong possibility that his apparent change of heart was less benevolent and more pragmatic. After all, it's easy to be extreme and uncompromising when you're on the political fringe (so you can say what you like - it'll make little odds) and not in power. Once in power, you can't remain extreme for long - and stay in power - because you are now the focus of attention and have to deal with everyone (whether you like it or not) and try to find compromise & balanace with varying groups all vying for a slice of power.

Wasn't meant to flatter the man - just put it in a simple sentence!

I was going to add that his change of heart may have come about because of his long-term dissent - by that I mean he began to realise his mortality and realise his ranting was all he had as a legacy.

His change of heart surely does come from the pragmatism of wanting to remain in power, but I think it also comes from the pragmatism of wanting to be remembered for something good and not something bad. Remember that his extreme views gained opposition within Unionism too, so his ability to bridge extremism and moderation, leading ultimately to peace gives him a good chance of being idolised by all Unionists like his hero Carson.

flogen

Babybing wrote: »

Thats the sort of thing I am talking about. There was nothing corageous about it. He was backed into a corner where he could not possibly have said no anymore. He would have looked a fool and it would have completely undermined him. He didnt do it for the "sake of the people" or for "the bigger picture", he did it because he had to.

I think there's a certain element of truth in the fact that he made demands until he could demand no more - but at the same time it can be argued that that's the point of making demands... you say you want X, Y and Z done before you share power and when your demands are met and you have no more left you then share power.

I also think the idea that he was backed into a corner simplifies things too much. He surely was walking a tightrope between saying Yes too quickly or saying No for too long but if he really was the unwilling participant in a coalition of enemies we wouldn't have seen the emergence of "the chuckle brothers".

Lemming

flogen wrote: »

I was going to add that his change of heart may have come about because of his long-term dissent - by that I mean he began to realise his mortality and realise his ranting was all he had as a legacy.

His change of heart surely does come from the pragmatism of wanting to remain in power, but I think it also comes from the pragmatism of wanting to be remembered for something good and not something bad.

That's an interesting point and one I hadn't considered. Hard to tell of course since you'd only have the man's own words to go on if you asked him and he answered. Still, an interesting point and entirely within the realms of possibility. I'd like to think that he (or anyone else) would come to the same sort of realisation that continuing on an extremist path was counter-productive.

Kev_ps3

As an anti-Irish, anti-Catholic bigot.

Riddle101

The only thing i like about Paisley is from the last two years or since agreeing on power sharing, that's really it. His bigotry will always be a flaw in his history but at least he was man enough to finally say Yes. It's just too bad that it's taken him nearly 40 years to do so

nacho libre

my abiding memory of him will be as one half of the chuckle brothers:D

Running Bing

flogen wrote: »

I think there's a certain element of truth in the fact that he made demands until he could demand no more - but at the same time it can be argued that that's the point of making demands... you say you want X, Y and Z done before you share power and when your demands are met and you have no more left you then share power.

Yep that is a fair point flogen. But................

"Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners"

Describing the then Roman Catholic Primate of All-Ireland, the late Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich as "The IRA's bishop from Crossmaglen"

"The Provisional IRA is the military wing of the Roman Catholic Church."

"I am anti-Roman Catholic, but God being my judge, I love the poor dupes who are ground down under that system."


I just cant respect a man who talks about another faith in that way and I cant believe such a person would genuine want to share power unless it was required out of necessity.

flogen wrote: »

I also think the idea that he was backed into a corner simplifies things too much. He surely was walking a tightrope between saying Yes too quickly or saying No for too long but if he really was the unwilling participant in a coalition of enemies we wouldn't have seen the emergence of "the chuckle brothers".

Perhaps so. Those comments were made a long time ago and people change, I just dont think they change that much and especially not Ian Paisley.


Im sorry but no matter what his achievements I just could not respect a man who talks like that.

dresden8

A prick who was only interested in projecting his own power and getting his arse into a ministerial seat. Blocked all attempts at compromise until he had destroyed those in the centre (as did Sinn Fein) and then did exactly what he had called down hellfire and damnation on others for, he went into power sharing with the Shinners.

In other words, a consumate politician, who stood for nothing except hearing the sound of his own voice.

What part of "NEVER!!!!!" did I mis-understand Ian?

bobbyjoe

TOMASJ wrote: »

I see the last thread on Ian Paisley, was closed very quickly, goodness you would nearly think the DUP was controlling these boards, what do people think Paisley's finest hour was.

Finest hour was resigning.
He will be remembered as the person who stirred up more hatred and violence in the North than any other individual. Its a pity he did not let the civil rights movement protest peacefully a lot of pain might have been avoided.

gandalf

As Lemming said he was/is supposed to be a very fair and balanced constituency representative. On the other hand he was a man whose firebrand style of Anti-Nationalist, Anti-Catholic rhetoric in the 60's & 70's could have and may have inspired others to step over the line in their reactions. That will always have to be remembered about him.

He was a good politician from the point of view that he knew the time had come to move in the right direction and leave some of the past behind him. He is definitely a larger than life character and politics in NI will be much more boring without him.

Raintonite

I suppose we can be satisfied that he had a 13th hour conversion to sanity. But then power has always been this man's passion. Unfortunately his path to power resulted in great harm and carnage. No amount of revisionism from any quarter is going to lessen the negative impact this man had on so many of us who lived through the troubles.

A Dub in Glasgo

He will be remembered as the best orator Ireland has had over the last 40 years as well as a **** stirrer who caused a lot of havoc.

St333ve

ArthurF wrote: »

History will see him as the 'The First Minister of Northern Ireland' after the troubles.

The man who created the troubles, the man who threatened a nationalist area with a loyalist mob because there was a tri colour in a SF office, a man who demonised and drove all the protestanst out of the civil rights movement, a man who supported the fascist way that ni was run for 50 years, a man who stopped powersharing for decades, destroyed the sunningdale agreement, destroyed O'neill because he negotiated with the south and tried to build peace, a man who pulled down anyone who was priminister of the north, a man who stood up and read out the names of peaceful catholics living in unionits areas and then washed his hands of all wrong doing when their houses were burnt to the ground, a man at the top of the loyalist paramilitary food chain the man who glorified sectarianism and who's words inspired loyalist paramilitaries to murder, a man who has had a total and complete negative impact in the north and without him there would have been peace long long ago.

Infact if northern ireland wasnt run in a blatently sectarian way, denying people jobs, voting rights and housing allocation because of their religion, denying them the right to peaceful protest in their own area, and if northern ireland didnt trample its orangism revisionist british history and hatered for all things irish through peoples towns and villages, and if Paisley didnt stir up the pot of hatered and prevent powersharing - we wouldnt of had the troubles.

Im sure theres people who desire to remember this man because he was a huge part of the history here, but be under no impression that this mans impact was ever anything but negative, he pushed and cheated his way to the top and fulfilled his greed for power.
I can honestly not think of one positive thing this man has done, and if there is one i bet its something he should have done decades ago.

Good riddings!

Bush and Paisley gone in the same year, glad to see the worlds getting rid of the imperial loving war mongers who luckily never met the rath they stirred up from afar and inflicted on others!

stovelid

He never had one. Why pretend otherwise?

For 30 years, he strangled any tentative unionist approach to power sharing at birth, eventually destroying mainstream unionism in tandem with the SF marginalization of middle-ground nationalism...

I don't think we should offer false eulogies to someone who basically woke up and smelt the coffee (a few decades too late) just so he could end up as a 'statesman', and mitigate the fact that he did as much to foster hatred in the North as anybody.

Ri na hEireann

Just watching Questions and Answers there and the question concerning the grant for intercounty GAA players came up.
Anyway just as the discussion was being concluded Johnathon Bowman, in what seemed an intergrating action posed the same question to the UUP's Maurice Murrow. Needless to say his answer was well ouside the terms of reference of the question and he went on a five minute rant about how the Unionist community cannot begin to understand the GAA's motives in remaining a political body and a sports body.
When informed this had nothing to do with the question,was a topic for another days' debate and was a matter for history he began to express his outrage at the naming of GAA grounds and trophies after "republicans" who have committed the greatest of attrocities.
This reinstated my fear of Paisley's departure. This sort of staunch baseroot unionist attitude will,I fear, become more and more part of Nothern politics, perhaps undoing the good that had been done over the last 12months.

LordSutch

Ri na hEireann wrote: »

Just watching Questions and Answers there and the question concerning the grant for intercounty GAA players came up.
Anyway just as the discussion was being concluded Johnathon Bowman, in what seemed an intergrating action posed the same question to the UUP's Maurice Murrow. When informed this had nothing to do with the question,was a topic for another days' debate and was a matter for history he began to express his outrage at the naming of GAA grounds and trophies after "republicans" who have committed the greatest of attrocities.
This reinstated my fear of Paisley's departure. This sort of staunch baseroot unionist attitude will,I fear, become more and more part of Nothern politics, perhaps undoing the good that had been done over the last 12months.

But as a Unionist myself I would agree with Murrow 100% regarding the naming of GAA grounds after dead terrorists! & its not just Irish Unionists like myself who object, its 'middle of the road' nationalists also who feel somewhat uneasy about this shameful & hurtful exercise in provocation. Wasnt there a proposal recently to change the name of a Main Road in Ballsbridge to 'Bobby Sands Avenue' or some such madness, and as I recall the Sinn Fein proposal was thankfully shot down in flames (by a Southern Government).

What next? the GAA proposing that the New Maze Sports Stadium to be be re-named 'The Miread Farrell Memorial Stadium' in remembrance of the deceased IRA bomber

Murrow was correct to make a point on the GAA naming issue, its not helping things one iota up North, and with the (easy to get on with Paisley) going soon & the Very Hard & Tough Robinson about to be un-leashed I think any provocation by anybody (GAA inc) should be avoided.

TOMASJ

ArthurF wrote: »

But as a Unionist myself I would agree with Murrow 100% regarding the naming of GAA grounds after dead terrorists! & its not just Irish Unionists like myself who object, its 'middle of the road' nationalists also who feel somewhat uneasy about this shameful & hurtful exercise in provocation. Wasnt there a proposal recently to change the name of a Main Road in Ballsbridge to 'Bobby Sands Avenue' or some such madness, and as I recall the Sinn Fein proposal was thankfully shot down in flames (by a Southern Government).

What next? the GAA proposing that the New Maze Sports Stadium to be be re-named 'The Miread Farrell Memorial Stadium' in remembrance of the deceased IRA bomber

Murrow was correct to make a point on the GAA naming issue, its not helping things one iota up North, and with the (easy to get on with Paisley) going soon & the Very Hard & Tough Robinson about to be un-leashed I think any provocation by anybody (GAA inc) should be avoided.

This is a historic thing in Ireland especially in the six county's'
I think a bit of give and take is what's required, GAA grounds were the only area where nationalist had authority to give a name to throughout the North,
There are Buildings, Bridges, Roads, Towns, Soccer grounds , ect named after Royals, Lady, this and Sir that, (quiet a few of who could be termed terrorists) and 'all' of which come from british and the unionist majority in the six county's,the The difference was that if nationalist were upset about these place names it was a case of hard luck croppie. if their is to be change it should apply across the board.
when you say, 'middle of the road' nationalists also who feel somewhat uneasy about this shameful & hurtful exercise in provocation.
you can be assured that those same folk were less than over joyed by this practice.

Ri na hEireann

But as a Unionist myself I would agree with Murrow 100% regarding the naming of GAA grounds after dead terrorists! & its not just Irish Unionists like myself who object, its 'middle of the road' nationalists also who feel somewhat uneasy about this shameful & hurtful exercise in provocation. Wasnt there a proposal recently to change the name of a Main Road in Ballsbridge to 'Bobby Sands Avenue' or some such madness, and as I recall the Sinn Fein proposal was thankfully shot down in flames (by a Southern Government).

Firstly the question was relating to grants for intercounty players. Murrow is perfectly entitled to his outlandish theories as regards the GAA but to bring a point into a conversation which it had no place in ,is provacative in itself. His demeanour was that of a childish schoolboy trying to bully an illogical point across. My point is, there was no need for it. I welcomed his contribution to the programme with regard practical political issues and saw it as a forward moving step to see a unionist speak on southern political issues from a purely unbiased point of view. However, true to form he had his little dig at nationalist culture.

What next? the GAA proposing that the New Maze Sports Stadium to be be re-named 'The Miread Farrell Memorial Stadium' in remembrance of the deceased IRA bomber

This is just plainly immature. I would like to see proof of stadia with names of near equivalence.

Murrow was correct to make a point on the GAA naming issue, its not helping things one iota up North, and with the (easy to get on with Paisley) going soon & the Very Hard & Tough Robinson about to be un-leashed I think any provocation by anybody (GAA inc) should be avoided.

Murrow classed the GAA as a half sport half political movement. This theory may have had some foundation decades ago but to hold onto this sentiment is trivial. Of course the GAA is going to name places after Irish fugures most of whom contributed to the playing fields.

I'd also have reservations as to what you would class a terrorist and what you would class a freedom fighter. Do you suggest that the men of 1916 were terrorists?

This proves my point exactly though. I feel we're about to take a step backwards in Northern politics.The two extremes will dominate at the expense of everyone else and progress will be hindered. I think the hardline unionists need to step back a reassess the situation before they launch another negative campaign for Ulster.