Would you like to see a united Ireland?

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Good. The fewer people there are who identify themselves as protestants the better.

It would do your argument no harm at all if you were to tone down the religious prejudice just a tad.

O'Morris wrote: »

The only reason they would be opposed to a united Ireland would be because of their fears over the economic consequences of Irish unity. I think there heart is with their kinsmen in the 26 counties though.

That’s rather presumptuous, isn’t it? It seems somewhat at odds with the same survey, which found that only 4% of Northern Ireland’s population would find it impossible to accept if “the majority of people in Northern Ireland NEVER voted to become part of a United Ireland”:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/FUTURE2.html

O'Morris wrote: »

I think we should welcome both results for showing that the political divisions are not as aligned to the religious divisions as...

…you had made out in previous posts?

O'Morris wrote: »

I agree, I'm sure a large chunk of them would not. I believe the majority would though.

I think that would largely depend on the cost, wouldn’t it?

O'Morris wrote: »

If they want to hold on to their British nationality then good luck to them. I don't want to force them to become Irish any more than I want to force the Nigerians or Poles or Chinese to become Irish. They will become Irish after a few years though, just as the Nigerians and the Poles will become Irish.

Why will British, Polish and Nigerian nationals all suddenly become Irish?

O'Morris wrote: »

I never said that she should become the head of state. I just think we should give her some minor constitutional role. It's the least we could do for her after all she did to help this country.

Yeah…

Good luck finding Republicans who agree with you.

O'Morris wrote: »

Either that or we could be like Japan and have neither a high level of immigration or a basket case economy.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times in other threads, Japan will end up with a basket case economy in the not-too-distant future if they don’t up their level of immigration; their population is on the verge of collapse.

O'Morris wrote: »

I'd even settle for the kind of society the Norwegians and the Icelandics have.

Iceland and Norway both have admirable societies, but what specifically is it about those societies that you would “settle for”?

Bottle_of_Smoke

I don't want to see a UI. The decendents of Ulster Scot planters can trace local decendents back hundreds of years so it's as much their country as anyone elses.

I think a dual identity, that you can see yourself as British or Irish is the best way. If a UI happened in the next 100 years Ulster Volunteer Force type groups would start bombing/shooting campaigns & of course then Republican groups would begin retaliation attacks.

Check out www.pulsersources.org forums & you'll agree Loyalists will not be giving up their province. I'm not suggesting anyone there is militant, just giving an indication as to how devoted the PUL community are to a British Ulster

pablomakaveli

I think the real question that should be asked is that are our lives in any way disadvantaged by the situation as it is now.

The answer i think is no. I don't think anyone here could say there life is very badly effected by a divided ireland. in fact most people on this island have a good life as things are now.

i doubt a united ireland would improve our lives by much. if anything it would probabaly make things worse.

O'Morris

I'm not going to bother replying to those gents who continue to only half-read what I've written. If you want my reply to your recent comments then read back over what I've written previously and you'll find it all there.

I'm only going to reply to my old sparring partner djpbarry because I think he's the only one who truly understands me and what I'm trying to achieve.

djpbarry wrote:

It would do your argument no harm at all if you were to tone down the religious prejudice just a tad.

It's not religious prejudice, I'm not saying anything bad about protestants or about any other religious group. You yourself thought it was a good thing that fewer people identify themselves along traditional religious lines. I agree with that, the fewer people who label themselves catholics or protestants the better. I just think that when it comes to uniting the fatherland we'll be better off if there are fewer people who oppose Irish unity for ethnic and cultural reasons.

I'm not anti-protestant. I've being thinking of converting to the Church of Ireland myself (even though I'm an atheist and I was born and raised a catholic and all my ancestors are all Irish catholics) because I think it would help ease the sectarian tensions in this country if all atheists were to officially adopt the religion of the minority and made a commitment to raise their offspring in the protestant faith. I think it was a great tragedy that the reformation wasn't a success in Ireland. An ideal situation for me would be if the entire country was protestant and if with was only a small population of Roman Catholics who were opposed to Irish unity.

djpbarry wrote:

That’s rather presumptuous, isn’t it?

I don't think it is presumptuous. Very few Roman Catholics have the kind of emotional attachment to the union with Britain that the orangemen have.

djpbarry wrote:

It seems somewhat at odds with the same survey, which found that only 4% of Northern Ireland’s population would find it impossible to accept if “the majority of people in Northern Ireland NEVER voted to become part of a United Ireland”:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Polit...s/FUTURE2.html

How is it at odds with it?

djpbarry wrote:

…you had made out in previous posts?

I would much rather see a situation where 20% of protestants supported a united Ireland while 60% of roman catholics were opposed to it. If I ever have children (God forbid) I'm planning on raising them as good little protestants. I want to see an end to sectarianism and racism and sexism and homophobia and every other form of prejudice in Ireland.

djpbarry wrote:

I think that would largely depend on the cost, wouldn’t it?

It would.

djpbarry wrote:

Why will British, Polish and Nigerian nationals all suddenly become Irish?

They won't. I thought you have known me well enough at this stage to know that I don't seriously think they will become Irish. I was being sarcastic. I thought you would have picked up on it and would have understood the point I was trying to make.

djpbarry wrote:

Good luck finding Republicans who agree with you.

Republicans are a minority of the population and so I see no reason why we would need to get their approval for anything. They'll just have to put up and shut up. If they were a different religious or ethnic group it would be different but as they're our own people we can get away with ignoring them.

djpbarry wrote:

As has been pointed out to you numerous times in other threads, Japan will end up with a basket case economy in the not-too-distant future if they don’t up their level of immigration; their population is on the verge of collapse.

It would be such a tragedy to see Japan go the direction of Ireland. I hope they work something out that doesn't involve them throwing open their borders and losing their national identity in the same way that the countries of western Europe seem intent on doing. I think the Japanese value their identity enough that will come up with a solution to the problems caused by their falling population. I'm sure they'll do something to increase their birth-rate.

djpbarry wrote:

Iceland and Norway both have admirable societies, but what specifically is it about those societies that you would “settle for”?

National independence and ethnic homogeneity.

Fratton Fred

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not religious prejudice, I'm not saying anything bad about protestants or about any other religious group. You yourself thought it was a good thing that fewer people identify themselves along traditional religious lines. I agree with that, the fewer people who label themselves catholics or protestants the better. I just think that when it comes to uniting the fatherland we'll be better off if there are fewer people who oppose Irish unity for ethnic and cultural reasons.

That is a big change from what you said originally. your original statement made it sound as if being protestant was a bad thing or that protestants were a problem. (I took offence at what you said originally, I am a "Protestant)

TBH, it has feck all to do with Protestant and Catholic. Being a protestant does not mean you oppose a united ireland, just as being a Catholic does not mean you are for it. It is just a nice convenient way to label people. This country is not the most welcoming for protestants, just as it not very welcoming for any other non catholics.

If you want to talk about christian denominations and their interference with Irish unity, then a better place to start would be the amount of integration between church and state in the south, that is probably a bigger factor in unification than the birth rate of catholics and protestants in Belfast.

aquascrotum

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not religious prejudice, I'm not saying anything bad about protestants or about any other religious group. You yourself thought it was a good thing that fewer people identify themselves along traditional religious lines. I agree with that, the fewer people who label themselves catholics or protestants the better. I just think that when it comes to uniting the fatherland we'll be better off if there are fewer people who oppose Irish unity for ethnic and cultural reasons.

I'd agree that it shouldn't be brought down a religious level - but it is an historical fact that tha majority of Unionists are Protestants.

Regardless, the idea of a "fatherland".....what sort of idealistic nonsense is that? Ireland is not homogenous and hasn't been for centuries.

Whether you like it or not, people exist in Northern Ireland (myself included), who have British/Irish heritage and have family histories in Ireland stretching back to the original plantations. My nationality (whilst I am proud of Irish heritage) is British, my head of state is British, my allegiance is to Britain, my national broadcaster is the BBC. Where do I fit in your "Fatherland"? Or should I pack my bags and scoot off back to Engerland? I'm as indigenous to this island as anyone else on this forum, and the idea that it would be to the benefit of you and your ilk if I and my kind (British, not necessarily Protestant) didn't exist is frankly insulting.

O'Morris wrote:

I'm not anti-protestant. I've being thinking of converting to the Church of Ireland myself (even though I'm an atheist and I was born and raised a catholic and all my ancestors are all Irish catholics) because I think it would help ease the sectarian tensions in this country if all atheists were to officially adopt the religion of the minority and made a commitment to raise their offspring in the protestant faith.

Is that a wind-up?

O'Morris

Fratton Fred wrote:

your original statement made it sound as if being protestant was a bad thing or that protestants were a problem.

I think it's obvious from the context in which I made the statement that it was the label of protestant that I wanted to see less of. I think it's a good thing that fewer people label themselves as catholic and it's also a good thing that fewer people label themselves as protestants. I've never suggested that being a protestant was a bad thing.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I took offence at what you said originally, I am a "Protestant

My children will be protestants. I want them to be treated well in a united Ireland and so I would hardly want to do or say anything that would contribute to any anti-protestant bigotry that they might subjected to when they're growing up.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Being a protestant does not mean you oppose a united ireland, just as being a Catholic does not mean you are for it.

I would like that to be the case but sadly it isn't. People who label themselves as protestants are much more likely to be opposed to Irish unity than people who label themselves as catholic. I wish it was the other way around but it isn't.

Fratton Fred wrote:

This country is not the most welcoming for protestants

In what way? What do you think could be done to make it more welcoming?

Fratton Fred wrote:

If you want to talk about christian denominations and their interference with Irish unity, then a better place to start would be the amount of integration between church and state in the south

I hate all religious influence in politics and so I would support anything that could be done to reduce it.

aquascrotum wrote:

My nationality (whilst I am proud of Irish heritage) is British, my head of state is British, my allegiance is to Britain, my national broadcaster is the BBC. Where do I fit in your "Fatherland"? Or should I pack my bags and scoot off back to Engerland?

Not at all. I've no interest in forcing you to change your nationality or to emigrate to another country, any more than you want to force your nationalist neighbours to become British or to move south of the border. I just think your future belongs with your fellow countrymen in the 26 counties. The British don't want you, we do. Most of us are prepared to make sacrifices so that you feel at home in a united Ireland.

aquascrotum wrote:

I'm as indigenous to this island as anyone else on this forum, and the idea that it would be to the benefit of you and your ilk if I and my kind (British, not necessarily Protestant) didn't exist is frankly insulting.

I've a great deal of respect and admiration for the northern protestant population and I have a lot of sympathy for your desire to hold onto your culture and identity. If you want me to be honest though I'll admit that things would have been a lot better if you fellas never came over here in the first place. That doesn't mean that I want us to try to reverse the ulster plantation though or to force you to leave the country. I want the opposite, I want you to feel fully at home in a united Ireland with the rest of us.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm only going to reply to my old sparring partner djpbarry because I think he's the only one who truly understands me and what I'm trying to achieve.

Let’s have sex.

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not religious prejudice, I'm not saying anything bad about protestants or about any other religious group.

Yes, you have:

“Good protestants were taught from their youth to be always on their guard against the enemy in their midst. Violence didn't suddenly erupt in the 1960s because the nationalists suddenly decided that they didn't like partition. It was protestant paranoia about the motives of the civil rights people that ignited the sectarian backlash and that gave the republicans the fuel to relaunch their armed campaign against the occupying forces.”

“The fewer people there are who identify themselves as protestants the better.”

I would consider both of those statements rather offensive.

O'Morris wrote: »

You yourself thought it was a good thing that fewer people identify themselves along traditional religious lines.

I never said any such thing.

O'Morris wrote: »

An ideal situation for me would be if the entire country was protestant and if with was only a small population of Roman Catholics who were opposed to Irish unity.

That totally contradicts what you said earlier (see above).

O'Morris wrote: »

Very few Roman Catholics have the kind of emotional attachment to the union with Britain that the orangemen have.

Really? According to the 2001 census, there are over 5 million Catholics in Great Britain. They have no “emotional attachment” to Britain, do they not?

O'Morris wrote: »

How is it at odds with it?

You have said that Catholics in Northern Ireland would only oppose a United Ireland on economic grounds. If that is the only reason, then surely more than 4% of the population would find it rather difficult to accept that a United Ireland would never materialise.

O'Morris wrote: »

I would much rather see a situation where 20% of protestants supported a united Ireland while 60% of roman catholics were opposed to it. If I ever have children (God forbid) I'm planning on raising them as good little protestants. I want to see an end to sectarianism...

And yet you are enforcing it with this statement.

O'Morris wrote: »

Republicans are a minority of the population and so I see no reason why we would need to get their approval for anything. They'll just have to put up and shut up.

Yeah, history has shown that they’re not very good at that. Besides, I’d imagine the overwhelming majority of people in this country would object to the Queen being given any form of constitutional role.

O'Morris wrote: »

National independence and ethnic homogeneity.

May I suggest you read up on the demographics of both countries, Norway in particular. And don’t ever go to Oslo; I suspect the large number of brown faces you would encounter may give you quite a shock.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

...I'll admit that things would have been a lot better if you fellas never came over here in the first place.

How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with crap like that?

aquascrotum

O'Morris wrote: »

Not at all. I've no interest in forcing you to change your nationality or to emigrate to another country, any more than you want to force your nationalist neighbours to become British or to move south of the border.

No, according to your previous posts you'd just rather I wasn't here in the first place.

O'Morris wrote:

I just think your future belongs with your fellow countrymen in the 26 counties. The British don't want you, we do. Most of us are prepared to make sacrifices so that you feel at home in a united Ireland.

According to this thread there are quite a few making their point fairly vociferously that they aren't prepared to make those sacrifices.....if I was an RoI citizen I wouldn't either!

O'Morris wrote:

If you want me to be honest though I'll admit that things would have been a lot better if you fellas never came over here in the first place.

Care to elaborate who "you fellas" are who are diluting your vision of pure bred Irishness? The Vikings? Normans? Plantationers? The homogenous or otherwise nation you wish to revert to has never existed. Have you researched your own family history?

djpbarry

aquascrotum wrote: »

According to this thread there are quite a few making their point fairly vociferously that they aren't prepared to make those sacrifices...

I'm curious to hear what these great big sacrifices are.

aquascrotum wrote: »

Have you researched your own family history?

Jaysus, don't start him off on that again.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with crap like that?

Now come on, djpbarry, you know what I meant. Why are you always trying to falsely portray old Mac as a bigot. I notice you're not as quick to quote me when I say good liberal things about wanting to wipe out racism and sectarianism.

You know exactly what I meant when I said that it would be a lot better if they had never come here in the first place. You could hardly deny that Irish history would have been a lot less violent if the Ulster plantation never happened.

aquascrotum wrote:

No, according to your previous posts you'd just rather I wasn't here in the first place.

Yes, if I'm being honest, I would have to admit that I would rather that you weren't here in the first place. That does not mean that I feel any resentment or hostility towards you or that I want to try to reverse what has happened. You were born here and you had no choice over events that happened 400 years ago. You're here now and so we just have to do best we can to make sure you're made to feel welcome.

And can you not partly empathise with that view? If you are honest I'm sure you would admit that you feel the same way about the nationalist population in the north. Wouldn't you rather they weren't there in the first place? Wouldn't things be a lot easier for your people?

aquascrotum wrote:

who are diluting your vision of pure bred Irishness?

I never said anything about diluting any vision of pure bred Irishness.

aquascrotum wrote:

Have you researched your own family history?

All gaelic Irish that I'm aware of, all the way back. It's possible that I do have some Viking ancestry but I'm not certain.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

All gaelic Irish that I'm aware of, all the way back. It's possible that I do have some Viking ancestry but I'm not certain.

And a high king of Ireland in the family tree too, no doubt...

Fratton Fred

The Corinthian wrote: »

And a high king of Ireland in the family tree too, no doubt...

aren't we all related to Brian Boru anyway?

The Corinthian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aren't we all related to Brian Boru anyway?

Personally, I'm descended from a pope... but that's another story.

The reason I raised 'the high kings of Ireland' is because they essentially never existed - more correctly they likely existed in much the same way as King Arthur, who - if he existed - was probably a local Romano-British warlord who had a small fiefdom somewhere in Wales. Historically, the 'high kings' - if they even existed - were probably little more.

Like Arthur, they are a pseudohistorical invention - propaganda that helped create the myth of the Irish nation, because, in reality, Ireland was never united outside of foreign rule. Just a bunch of squabbling warlords - or did people think that the four (originally five) provinces were invented for the benefit of Rugby?

I think it's important to remember this because, like 'Irish Dancing', much of our national identity was invented not too long ago, just as it has been invented in other countries.

Accept this and you can begin to view the 'Irish question' without the sense of self-entitlement that the north and south should be united by Historic Right, and actually assess it with your head outside of your arse.

Time Magazine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ireland was never united outside of foreign rule. Just a bunch of squabbling warlords - or did people think that the four (originally five) provinces were invented for the benefit of Rugby?

Typical West Brit bullshit with your English game. Everyone knows they were invented for GAA.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by The Corinthian: The reason I raised 'the high kings of Ireland' is because they essentially never existed - more correctly they likely existed in much the same way as King Arthur, who - if he existed - was probably a local Romano-British warlord who had a small fiefdom somewhere in Wales. Historically, the 'high kings' - if they even existed - were probably little more.

Like Arthur, they are a pseudohistorical invention - propaganda that helped create the myth of the Irish nation, because, in reality, Ireland was never united outside of foreign rule. Just a bunch of squabbling warlords.

Correct to a certain extent. However by the 12th century, an amalgamation process was underway amongst the Celtic (Hiberno-Norse?) kingdoms on the island. It is believed that at some point in the future, a single kingdom may have emerged. However the Anglo-Norman intervention from 1169 onwards disrupted this process so we'll never know...............

O'Morris

The Corinthian wrote:

The reason I raised 'the high kings of Ireland' is because they essentially never existed

So what if they never existed? What difference does it make?

The Corinthian wrote:

in reality, Ireland was never united outside of foreign rule.

So? It was still united. The fact that it was under foreign rule is of less significance than the fact that it was united. For hundreds of years Irish people have thought of their country as the island of Ireland and most of us will always consider it to be the island of Ireland.

The Corinthian wrote:

I think it's important to remember this because, like 'Irish Dancing', much of our national identity was invented not too long ago

Much of it was invented not too long ago. However, our national identity is based on far more than recent historicising. An Irish national consciousness has existed since at least as far back as the dark ages and that national consciousness was shared by people throughout the island. We spoke the same language, we had the same basic culture and we had the same basic laws. The fact that much of what is believed about Irish history might be fabricated or romanticised does not change the fact that a Irish national consciousness exists and has existed for hundreds of years.

The Corinthian wrote:

Accept this and you can begin to view the 'Irish question' without the sense of self-entitlement that the north and south should be united by Historic Right

I don't think the north and south should be united by Historic Right. I think they should be united only if the people in the north and south want to be united, the same way I believe the countries of Europe should be united if the people of each European country wants it to be united. I think many people in the north and south do want to see their country united and so the question of Historic Right is irrelevant.

The Corinthian wrote:

and actually assess it with your head outside of your arse.

That kind of language doesn't help change minds. You should really try to change your tone and be a bit less abrasive in the way you address people.

The Corinthian

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Correct to a certain extent. However by the 12th century, an amalgamation process was underway amongst the Celtic (Hiberno-Norse?) kingdoms on the island. It is believed that at some point in the future, a single kingdom may have emerged. However the Anglo-Norman intervention from 1169 onwards disrupted this process so we'll never know...............

I wasn't discussing what might have been but what was, because the myth of a past united Ireland is the justification that is often used to justify a future unification - "a nation once again" as the song goes, except it never was, except, ironically, under the rule of another.

O'Morris wrote: »

So what if they never existed? What difference does it make?

See above.

So? It was still united. The fact that it was under foreign rule is of less significance than the fact that it was united. For hundreds of years Irish people have thought of their country as the island of Ireland and most of us will always consider it to be the island of Ireland.

Not entirely true, especially with regards to the cultural divide between the north and south.

An Irish national consciousness has existed since at least as far back as the dark ages and that national consciousness was shared by people throughout the island.

Arguable. And even if not, the fact remains that a significant proportion of the population up north do not share the same sense of Irishness. In fact, a good proportion of the north, both catholic and protestant, see themselves as a different type of Irish, and really don't see a hell of a lot in common with us.

I don't think the north and south should be united by Historic Right.

Absolutely, except they don't, and it's arguable that us southerners would too if we saw the price. The problem with this Historic Right is that it is often given as the basis of justification - were we to discuss unification based upon commonality I'd understand, but all too often the arguments are couched in terms of reunification - which is based upon a myth.

Myths, when tied to religion or ideology (such as nationalism) are dangerous things as they give us the moral weight to dispense with petty things such as democracy and consent, because we have the weight of History behind our cause.

That kind of language doesn't help change minds. You should really try to change your tone and be a bit less abrasive in the way you address people.

Language conveys meaning and sometimes the crudity of a statement, if not overused, will jar the reader into paying attention. So, don't lecture me on my language boy.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by The Corinthian: Myths, when tied to religion or ideology (such as nationalism) are dangerous things as they give us the moral weight to dispense with petty things such as democracy and consent, because we have the weight of History behind our cause.

Which is what Unionists did after the December 1918 general election. A majority of the people on the island voted for some form of independence, be it the Sinn Fein model or the Nationalist Party's version. Both Unionism and the British government at the time, refused to accept the outcome.

O'Morris

The Corinthian wrote:

"a nation once again" as the song goes, except it never was, except, ironically, under the rule of another.

The nation that Thomas Davis was referring to was the Irish nation that existed prior to the Act of Union. The nation that had it's own parliament based in Dublin and that had representation from throughout the island. The parliament may have excluded Roman Catholics and may have been subject to a British executive and subservient to a British parliament but it was still the parliament of a self-consciously Irish nation that many people believed should not have come to an end at the beginning of the 19th century.

The Corinthian wrote:

Not entirely true

What's not entirely true? It's not entirely true that Ireland was united for hundreds of years and that most people during that time considered and still consider their country to be the island of Ireland? Are you saying that statement isn't entirely true?

The Corinthian wrote:

especially with regards to the cultural divide between the north and south.

There is no significant cultural divide between the north and the south. If a cultural division exists it's between the unionist and nationalist populations within the 6 counties. There is no noticeable cultural division between someone in Donegal and a nationalist in Derry, any more than there is a noticeable cultural difference between someone living in Galway and someone living in Wexford.

The Corinthian wrote:

Arguable. And even if not, the fact remains that a significant proportion of the population up north do not share the same sense of Irishness.

And a significant proportion do share the same sense of Irishness. The Catalans don't feel the same sense of Spanishness as the rest of the Spanish population. Many Northern Italians feel they don't have much in common with the southern Italians. People in the south-west of England probably would not consider themselves English in the same sense as people in the south-East or north-west of England. I'm sure if you look in any country in Europe you'll see the same, if not greater, level of heterogeneity as exists in Ireland.

The Corinthian wrote:

In fact, a good proportion of the north, both catholic and protestant, see themselves as a different type of Irish

A good proportion of people in the north, both catholic and protestant, do consider themselves to be the same type of Irish. I'm sure some people in Dublin would consider themselves to be a different type of Irish to people living in Achill. Neither of those "facts" make Ireland unique among European nations or can be used as an argument either in favour or against Irish unification.

The Corinthian wrote:

and really don't see a hell of a lot in common with us.

I don't think that's true. I think they have a hell of a lot in common with us and most of them know it. Many of them might want to exaggerate the differences for political reasons, the same way that a Fianna Fail man would exaggerate his differences from a Fine Gael man, but deep down we all know that the things uniting us are greater than the things dividing us.

When you think about it there's feck all that really separates the people of the north and south. We speak the same language, we have the same weather, we watch the same television programmes, support the same kinds of sports, work in the same kinds of jobs, live in the same kinds of houses, live in the same kinds of towns, shop in the same kinds of shops, listen to the same kinds of music, spend our free time in the same kinds of ways, spend our Saturday nights and Sunday mornings doing the same kinds of things. If it was 40 or 50 years ago it would have been different but not any longer. With the decline in religious belief in the north and south, and with the transformation of the southern economy over the last decade, it's hard to point to any significant cultural difference other than political loyalty that separates the unionist people in the north and the nationalist people in both the north and the south. Of course the same could be said for people throughout the British Isles. There's not much separating us from the people in Britain either. I don't think anyone in Newry could honestly say that he feels less in common with someone in Dundalk than he would with someone in a similarly sized town in England though.

We're just a small island with a small population and the differences between us are really no greater than the differences that exist in any other European country. Many people who are in favour of further European integration tend to overlook the fact that we don't have much in common with people in Europe either. I think it's fair to say that we have a lot more in common with northerners than we do with the Austrians, Portuguese, Italians or Finns. If "they're not like us" can be used to argue against Irish unity then it can also be used to argue against further European integration.

The Corinthian wrote:

all too often the arguments are couched in terms of reunification - which is based upon a myth.

It's not a myth at all. It's a historical fact that Ireland was united prior to partition and that if partition comes to an end that Ireland will be reunited. Please read up on Irish history and you might have a better idea of what you're talking about.

The Corinthian wrote:

Myths, when tied to religion or ideology (such as nationalism) are dangerous things as they give us the moral weight to dispense with petty things such as democracy and consent, because we have the weight of History behind our cause.

Does that just apply to myths or would it not also apply to truths? Suppose the most romantic republican interpretation of Irish history was also the most accurate one. Suppose the High Kings did exist and Ireland was a single united political entity prior to being invaded by the Normans. Would that therefor make it acceptable to dispense with democracy and consent because we have the weight of history behind our cause? I don't believe it would. I believe in respecting the principle of consent regardless of whether the High Kings existed or not. I also want to see Ireland united whether the High Kings existed or not.

The Corinthian wrote:

were we to discuss unification based upon commonality I'd understand

And I think there would be a very strong case for unification based upon commonality, a much better one than can be made for further European integration based on commonality.

Mayo Exile wrote:

Both Unionism and the British government at the time, refused to accept the outcome.

Sounds familiar

McArmalite

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I'm descended from a pope... but that's another story.

The reason I raised 'the high kings of Ireland' is because they essentially never existed - more correctly they likely existed in much the same way as King Arthur, who - if he existed - was probably a local Romano-British warlord who had a small fiefdom somewhere in Wales. Historically, the 'high kings' - if they even existed - were probably little more.

Like Arthur, they are a pseudohistorical invention - propaganda that helped create the myth of the Irish nation, because, in reality, Ireland was never united outside of foreign rule. Just a bunch of squabbling warlords - or did people think that the four (originally five) provinces were invented for the benefit of Rugby?

I think it's important to remember this because, like 'Irish Dancing', much of our national identity was invented not too long ago, just as it has been invented in other countries.

Accept this and you can begin to view the 'Irish question' without the sense of self-entitlement that the north and south should be united by Historic Right, and actually assess it with your head outside of your arse.

Well maybe this should be discussed on a history forum, but since you brought it up and it is central to what Irish citizens today see as their heritage,, what references, ( books or web ) do you have to back up the above ??

" Historically, the 'high kings' - if they even existed - were probably little more. " I thought most of anicent Irish historical records were preserved by the Annals of the Four Masters from a Donegal monastery that were compiled between 1632 and 1636. They were a compilation of collections of earlier medieval annals and the later entries come from the records such as the Annals of Ulster, while the 1600's ones are based on personal observation and memory ?

" Just a bunch of squabbling warlords " What nation didn't have it's squabbling warlords. The Roman nation state were quite found of more than squabbling, full blown civil wars more like it. Would the Japanese people of today infer that they were never a nation, but a bunch of " squabbling warlords " ( the Shogun, Samurai etc ) down the centuries ??

As for Irish Dancing ( and music, Celtic Art etc, etc for that matter ) been " invented not too long ago " . I would have thought that the steps etc would have evolved gradually into thier own unique style like in any other folk tradition, be it Dutch clog dancing, Austrian thigh slapping, Czech dancing etc.
In fact since Ireland ( and Scotland ) been very isolated from the rest of Europe, would have evolved their very own and unique folk customs down the years, or are you implying that the Irish didn't have any music and dance down the centuries and hence couldn't have evolved their own unique style ?? Again, references please to prove to the contrary.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Yes, if I'm being honest, I would have to admit that I would rather that you weren't here in the first place. That does not mean that I feel any resentment or hostility towards you or that I want to try to reverse what has happened. You were born here and you had no choice over events that happened 400 years ago. You're here now and so we just have to do best we can to make sure you're made to feel welcome.

So every single unionist in Northern Ireland is directly descended from the original planters, are they? That is what you are implying with this kind of nonsense.

O'Morris wrote: »

And can you not partly empathise with that view? If you are honest I'm sure you would admit that you feel the same way about the nationalist population in the north. Wouldn't you rather they weren't there in the first place? Wouldn't things be a lot easier for your people?

What’s this “your people” bull****? Why do you insist on defining people based on religion or (perceived) ethnicity? We’re talking about political views here and you are putting a sectarian slant on it.

O'Morris wrote: »

All gaelic Irish that I'm aware of, all the way back.

All the way back to when? The Big Bang?

O'Morris wrote: »

There is no significant cultural divide between the north and the south.
…
I'm sure if you look in any country in Europe you'll see the same, if not greater, level of heterogeneity as exists in Ireland.

Ireland is either culturally homogenous (whatever that means) or it isn’t; you’re contradicting yourself here.

O'Morris wrote: »

When you think about it there's feck all that really separates the people of the north and south. We speak the same language, we have the same weather, we watch the same television programmes, support the same kinds of sports, work in the same kinds of jobs, live in the same kinds of houses, live in the same kinds of towns, shop in the same kinds of shops, listen to the same kinds of music, spend our free time in the same kinds of ways, spend our Saturday nights and Sunday mornings doing the same kinds of things.
…
Many people who are in favour of further European integration tend to overlook the fact that we don't have much in common with people in Europe either. I think it's fair to say that we have a lot more in common with northerners than we do with the Austrians, Portuguese, Italians or Finns.

Really? Aside from the different languages spoken, what is so different between, say, the German way of life and the Irish? There’s a bigger difference between a Dublin-man and a Hamburg-man than there is between a Dublin-man and a Belfast-man? I wouldn’t have thought there’s a huge difference between any of them.

O'Morris

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm not anti-protestant. I've being thinking of converting to the Church of Ireland myself (even though I'm an atheist and I was born and raised a catholic and all my ancestors are all Irish catholics) because I think it would help ease the sectarian tensions in this country if all atheists were to officially adopt the religion of the minority and made a commitment to raise their offspring in the protestant faith. I think it was a great tragedy that the reformation wasn't a success in Ireland. An ideal situation for me would be if the entire country was protestant and if with was only a small population of Roman Catholics who were opposed to Irish unity.

I know.
It must be awfull to be at one with stormfront and have catholic lineage given what klu kluxers think of that religion..
It's worse than having black blood in you (to them)

I won't say a word though.Your secret is safe with me.

turgon

So O'Morris wants the Unionists/Protestants to ideally leave the North, so as to ease the 'divide'. Well lets see what Padraig Pearse had to say about this divide:

Easter 1916 Proclamation wrote:

The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, ... oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

He was onto something there - having the unionists/protestants leaving the island as part of the ideal is not going to help yourself - in fact it will only alienate them and make them grasp more tightly onto what they believe in.

CCCP^

I'd like to see a United Irish Soccer team.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

So every single unionist in Northern Ireland is directly descended from the original planters, are they?

Not all of them are descended from the original planters but most of the hard unionists are. I think it's safe to say that if there was no Ulster plantation in the 17th century that Ireland would be united today.

djpbarry wrote:

What’s this “your people” bull****? Why do you insist on defining people based on religion or (perceived) ethnicity?

I'm not defining them by religion or ethnicity. They define themselves by religion and ethnicity. I wish that wasn't the case, I wish it was simply a case of nationalist versus unionist but sadly it isn't.

djpbarry wrote:

We’re talking about political views here and you are putting a sectarian slant on it.

I'm not putting a sectarian slant on anything. What is it about the phrase 'your people' that makes you think that I was referring to a religious or ethnic group? You're the one who's putting the sectarian slant on it. I was referring to a group of people holding the same political views about Irish unification, that's all.

djpbarry wrote:

All the way back to when? The Big Bang?

All the way back to when Ireland was first inhabited 9,000 years ago. The original inhabitants wouldn't be described as gaelic, I just used the term because it's normally applied to the indigenous Irish people.

djpbarry wrote:

Ireland is either culturally homogenous (whatever that means) or it isn’t; you’re contradicting yourself here.

I'm not contradicting myself. I don't believe there is any signicant cultural difference between the people of the north and the south but it's obvious their is a cultural difference between the people in the north who are most strongly in favour of the union with Britain and the people who are not strongly in favour of it. Apart from that I don't think the religious or cultural differences are as significant as they are in many other European countries.

djpbarry wrote:

Really? Aside from the different languages spoken, what is so different between, say, the German way of life and the Irish?

I don't know what specifically because I don't know enough about the German culture. I've been in both Berlin and Belfast several times though, and although I prefer Berlin, I feel much more at home in Belfast than I do in Berlin. I don't know what it is, it's just that I see Belfast as an Irish city while Berlin isn't.

djpbarry wrote:

There’s a bigger difference between a Dublin-man and a Hamburg-man than there is between a Dublin-man and a Belfast-man?

Yes, a much bigger difference in my opinion. I've never met any Hamburg men so maybe I'm wrong to hold that opinion. The Germans I have met though seem to be me to be much more dissimilar to us than the unionist people up in the north. Again, I can't point to what it is specifically that makes me hold that opinion.

Deleted User wrote:

I know.
It must be awfull to be at one with stormfront and have catholic lineage given what klu kluxers think of that religion..

I couldn't give a damn what those bigotted rednecks in the KKK think. I have nothing against the catholic people or their religion. All my ancestors are Irish catholics. I do think that it's a pity that the reformation wasn't a success in Ireland but that's a subject for another thread.

Deleted User wrote:

It's worse than having black blood in you

People have no control over what religion or race they're born into so having black blood or being a catholic cannot be considered a bad thing. I have several friends who are black and many more who are protestants and I have certainly never seen anything bad in them.

turgon wrote:

So O'Morris wants the Unionists/Protestants to ideally leave the North, so as to ease the 'divide'.

I have repeatedly said that I don't want to force them to leave. I want northern protestants to be first class citizens in a united Ireland with the rest of us.

I have always admired the Ulster Scots for their culture of individualism and industriousness and I think they can make a huge contribution to the development of a successful united Ireland, in the same way that they made a huge contribution to the development of a successful United States of America in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. I want to see Ulster becoming a great industrial heartland again, like it was in the old days. I can see Ulster being the powerhouse of the Irish economy in a united Ireland.

O'Morris

CCCP^ wrote: »

I'd like to see a United Irish Soccer team.

I think there'd be a lot of support for it as well. I remember seeing a poll that BBC NI news did once that found most people in the north supported the idea.

pablomakaveli

On the point that ireland has never been historically united before the english invasions, i think that is only partially true. i think ancient ireland is comparable to ancient greece where there was different city states but there was still a pan-hellenic concept as all these city states would have the same language,culture etc. the relationships between these city states would have been a bit unique compared to how they dealt with other nations such as persia.

ancient ireland was also divided into different kingdoms and there would have been a pan-gaelic quality to ancient ireland similar to greece. you can also see this with medieval italy and germany. so while there was never officially a "united ireland" before the english invasions there still was a pan-gaelic area in the island of ireland.

ireland has in the past absorbed settlers into the irish way of life, the vikings and the early norman settlers who famously became "more irish than the irish themselves". the unionists however are different. they dont want to be absorbed into a united ireland and want to remain british. a united ireland would see them lose their link with britain.

to be fair though a lot of people in the irish republic dont want a united ireland either. a lot of young people have grown up seeing northern ireland as a foreign country and view it as such .

the people who want a united ireland in the republic have often been raised to believe it is in the countrys best interest even though this is no longer true. its turned into a situation where people want a united ireland just for the sake of it.

LordSutch

CCCP^ wrote: »

I'd like to see a United Irish Soccer team.

We call it Football ..........