Fight or not?

jank

jimmmy wrote: »

You would not be laughed out of it ....while pogrom may be a strong word to use, its undeniable in many parts of the country there was intimidation , murders, house burnings etc only several generations ago. There was an innocent family called the Pearsons , for example....look what happened to them....there was a programme about that atrocity on the tv a while ago...how the Protestant farmer men were taken out and shot deliberately to bleed to death while their women looked on etc.

LOL. Eh yea he would. As a Cork person myself that comes from a mixed background the idea that there was some sort of genocide in West Cork, Bandon and places like that is tin foil hat stuff. I also have many friends from both sides and im sure I have more who are from a protestant background but dont really know because I dont give a **** and 99.9999% of the other cork people dont give a **** either. I know some west cork protestant farmers who are salt of the earth people, who are into the local GAA club and mix with everyone.

Trying to compare the south of ireland with the sectarian cancer that has inflicted the north shows up people for what they are. Robert Mugabe would be proud IMO.

But I see why this stuff is put out there. Throw enough mud and some will stick. Dictate the arguement and you can hide what you dont want to hear and made public.

How about we start a discussion about the treatment of Catholics in the north so. Never mind the 1920's how about the 1960's. I suppose the Civil rights marches organised by the SDLP was a conspiracy or maybe my imagination.

But please do start a discusion but put it in a new thread.
Please do really, you can start with "I think the treatment of the protestant population was much worse then how catholics were treated in the north".

There ya go!
If ye have the guts you will, but i doubt it.Because you know what it will turn out like. Most people will think its a wind up anyway.


Anyway regardless of a new thread or not can we keep this to the topic please?

jank

junder wrote: »

For all you armchair warriors i recommend you read politicla murder in northern ireland by Martin Dillon and Denis Lehane, not normally a fan of dillion but this is a good interesting read, maybe its becuse it his first book and also its co-written by Denis Lehane but it does not have the sensationalism of his later books. Its one of the few books thats shows the conflict for what it was reallyn was, a grim, unromantic sectarian slaughter perpetuated by both sides in the conflict.

I dont think anyone here disputes this junder. What happened in the north got way out of control and turned into mindless tit for tat killings that should have never happened.

Dannyboy83

walrusgumble wrote: »

i am not too sure if modern liberal theologists would completely be of the opinion that JPII was a great pope. he did after all completely denounce the idea of issues like condems (in a time when aids became known), i believe the pope who brought in vatican 2 is held in high esteem. by all means theologists with more knowledge, please contribute to this discussion. look at the influence charles j mcquiad had, many ordinary people supported him. i know times have changed and that people have more freedom to dissent etc, but surely people in the 1950's etc were not mere sheep and they had their own minds and opinions?

the pope who authorised the english to land in ireland was, i think, an englishman, though of course, i dont think nationality (whatever it was then, came into the equation, sure even the pope had little trust for dev in 1926). as for the pope having a big say, well, its was the people who gave them there power. you would appreciate that some people went to the church during the war years, abortion , divorce etc looking for guidance. they then had a duty (i guess) to speak out, after all this is a democracy.

i think, in some parts the pope is ignored in this day and age, i am sure you would agree. but people of the faith should be allowed to speak also. you are right what you say in the last paragraph, but thankfully, there is nothing Rome is going to do or wishes to do, if or more to the point when some of the rights you speak of become laws of the land.

You may be very right, I honestly don't remember enough to comment.
About JPII, I cannot remember now, but he did some good things.

Most of the other popes just seemed like Kings, I wasn't too impressed when I studied them myself.

Anyway, government should be completely secular in my opinion.

sher, What will happen when the likes of Turkey join the EU?

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Those employed by Parnell and co.

Fair enough. We agree to disagree.

djpbarry wrote: »

It was nothing like the Rising – that’s an absolutely ridiculous statement. I suggest you read up on the prelude to the Hungarian revolution of 1956.
And I don’t recognise terms such as “occupation” and “tyranny” when applied to present-day Northern Ireland.

I was using it an example where people will rise up when "push comes to shove" regardless what your idealistic mind tells you.

Here are 2 of your quotes where you totally contradict yourself.

Oh please do provide an example of an occasion when a killing just “happened” because "push came to shove"

No, I don’t. In the two cases you cited, violence occurred because people’s lives were being threatened. There is simply no comparison between them and the Rising.

This is a compelling argument for killing people to further a political end, exactly how?

I could go on.

junder

jank wrote: »

I dont think anyone here disputes this junder. What happened in the north got way out of control and turned into mindless tit for tat killings that should have never happened.

the good thing about the book is it also shows you why the term 'colloborater' can be so dangerous a justification for murder

jank

junder wrote: »

the good thing about the book is it also shows you why the term 'colloborater' can be so dangerous a justification for murder

I agree much like the term "terrorist" can be branded about to bystanders aswell.

jimmmy

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

There was no ethnic cleansing campaign in Cork

Apologies if I assumed you were a republican of whatever hue. I am glad you acknowledge there were shootings, intimidation, land grab, etc.
Nobody claimed it was "ethnic cleansing" on the scale of hutu / tutu ...however the Protestant population did decline to a fraction of its previous size in this country. I do not think the shootings, intimidation, land grab, etc - which even you acknowledge - directed against the minority in those times was helpful to the overall situation. Thankfully things are a lot better nowadays.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

What has it to do with the rising. You said that Westminister were doing a great job ruling Ireland.

No I didn’t. I said Irish people were well represented (by Parnell and co.) – big difference.

jank wrote: »

Of course not but it depends if something on that scale happened, if an event that took place that time that changed the country and society forever then of course it would.

So if the famine occurred 70 years ago, it would have a significant influence on your political leanings?

jank wrote: »

Still waiting for all the other questions I put to you.

Such as? As far as I’m aware I addressed all your points.

jank wrote: »

I was using it an example where people will rise up when "push comes to shove" regardless what your idealistic mind tells you.

And I’m saying it’s a ridiculous example, because defending one’s life cannot possibly be described as “push coming to shove”. The Hungarian Revolution wasn’t about politics so much as human rights, it had massive popular support and it was peaceful until demonstrators were fired upon. The Rising was very different.

FTA69

Camelot wrote: »

Whats with this use of the term 'British Empire'? (I dont get that) seeing as 'we' spread the Empire all over the globe along with Britain.

More balls. So the fact that Irish people joined the British Army somehow equates that we weren't a colony? Empires have always recruited those which they colonised, the French had plenty of Vietnamese in their army, and the Belgians recruited numerous people from the Congo. Were the French and the Belgians not empires either?

Ah yes, the 'Ne Temere decree' > the perfect ethnic cleansing tool (no blood spilt) yet they disappeared.

Right so now a Papal doctrine is akin to exterminating the cockroaches is it? As someone who worked with people from Central Africa and Kosovo I think your comments are a disgrace to be honest, you're attempting to latch the views of crackpots like Peter Hart onto the genuine and horrific suffering of those in other parts of the world.

Now I'm away to shoot myself in the name of Republican sectarianism.

Junder,

the fact that they were unionist means they were in their eyes doing the patriotic thing since they would consider the republicans to be the traitors.

You got the same attitude from the French Algerians. The fact was they were doing the opposite of patriotism by facilitating the occupation that was rejected by the vast majority of the Irish people. The Vichy French supported the Germans for patriotic reasons as well, in order to restore the national character so to speak. It doesn't mean they were any less a bunch of treachorous b*stards though.

the term Collaborater is a very useful justification for killing people since it can incompass alot of people

It's fairly black and white to be honest, if you help the occupational forces you're a collaborater. In times of war you're either with your own people or you're with the enemy.

junder

FTA69 wrote: »

Camelot wrote: »

More balls. So the fact that Irish people joined the British Army somehow equates that we weren't a colony? Empires have always recruited those which they colonised, the French had plenty of Vietnamese in their army, and the Belgians recruited numerous people from the Congo. Were the French and the Belgians not empires either?



Right so now a Papal doctrine is akin to exterminating the cockroaches is it? As someone who worked with people from Central Africa and Kosovo I think your comments are a disgrace to be honest, you're attempting to latch the views of crackpots like Peter Hart onto the genuine and horrific suffering of those in other parts of the world.

Now I'm away to shoot myself in the name of Republican sectarianism.

Junder,



You got the same attitude from the French Algerians. The fact was they were doing the opposite of patriotism by facilitating the occupation that was rejected by the vast majority of the Irish people. The Vichy French supported the Germans for patriotic reasons as well, in order to restore the national character so to speak. It doesn't mean they were any less a bunch of treachorous b*stards though.



It's fairly black and white to be honest, if you help the occupational forces you're a collaborater. In times of war you're either with your own people or you're with the enemy.

the Provies used the same excuse when they lined up protestant workmen and executed them, the RIRA used the same excuse a couple of weeks ago.

Exile 1798

jimmmy wrote: »

Apologies if I assumed you were a republican of whatever hue. I am glad you acknowledge there were shootings, intimidation, land grab, etc.
Nobody claimed it was "ethnic cleansing" on the scale of hutu / tutu ...however the Protestant population did decline to a fraction of its previous size in this country. I do not think the shootings, intimidation, land grab, etc - which even you acknowledge - directed against the minority in those times was helpful to the overall situation. Thankfully things are a lot better nowadays.

You are obsessed with this decline of the Protestant population in the South, in your mind it proves that they were murdered, intimidated, burnt out.

The Catholic population has increased markedly in the Six Counties since the founding of that state. Can we derive from that that Catholics have been safe, secure and generally well treated in the North?

Dannyboy83

jimmmy wrote: »

Apologies if I assumed you were a republican of whatever hue. I am glad you acknowledge there were shootings, intimidation, land grab, etc.
Nobody claimed it was "ethnic cleansing" on the scale of hutu / tutu ...however the Protestant population did decline to a fraction of its previous size in this country. I do not think the shootings, intimidation, land grab, etc - which even you acknowledge - directed against the minority in those times was helpful to the overall situation. Thankfully things are a lot better nowadays.

No bother mate.

About the land grab etc, I don't even know where to start.
The people who owned the land were Irish people, just protestants.
It should not have been taken from them.
A typical republican argument will be - "well yea, but how did the protestants get the land in the first place? Desmond rebillion etc. etc."

The fact that they were Irish protestants was conveniently ignored in some cases I'm sure.
In other cases, there was probably a clear cut distinction which made it easier for them to justify theft.

But above all, its about Rich & Poor.

I certainly don't think its an anomaly.
I guess we should compare it to Zimbabwe.

p.s. I'm am by no means trying to justify it, anymore than I would justify a member of the travelling community robbing your car, but there is an easy distinction between settled & traveller. Or black & white etc.

jimmmy

Exile 1798 wrote: »

You are obsessed with this decline of the Protestant population in the South, in your mind it proves that they were murdered, intimidated, burnt out.

I am not obsessed with it : it is just that it is a fact there were murders committed ( some may try to justify that by saying they were informers / collaborators - but if they were loyal to the government of the day how could they be called that ? ) , much intimidation, some house burnings etc. I am not saying most people were murdered or burnt out. That would be unfair and untrue. The vast majority were not. But it was a cold house for Protestants, they learnt to keep quiet and their heads down. Not too many got government jobs. If a shopkeeper stepped out of line he got his windows broken. Look at the boycott of Protestant businesses in Fethard on Sea. If they got married they were told their religion was not good enough / an underclass religion, and they would have to bring up their children as Roman Catholics. A lot went on and its no surprise there was a big decline. Thankfully its not like that nowadays. The whole world has moved on.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The Catholic population has increased markedly in the Six Counties since the founding of that state.

Perhaps it was not as cold a house so as many would have you believe....or the refugees would have moved south of the border instead of the other way around. The Ireland of the Magdalene Laundries ( see that film the other night ? ) was a different world to today.

Dannyboy83

jimmmy wrote: »

I am not obsessed with it : it is just that it is a fact there were murders committed , much intimidation, burnings etc. I am not saying most people were murdered or burnt out. That would be unfair and untrue. But it was a very cold house for Protestants, they learnt to keep quiet and their heads down. Not too many got government jobs. If a shopkeeper stepped out of line he got his windows broken. Look at the boycott of Protestant businesses in Fethard on Sea. A lot went on and its no surprise there was a big decline. Thankfully its not like that nowadays.

This is true, but how many Irish people in the UK changed their names, repressed their culture and religion etc?

Its was horrible on both sides

jimmmy

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I guess we should compare it to Zimbabwe.

While I agree with much of what you write, I do not think the situation was as bad as, or comparable to, Zimbabwe.

jimmmy

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

This is true, but how many Irish people in the UK changed their names, repressed their culture and religion etc?

I have quite a few relatives and friends who went to England. I never heard anyone talking of anyone who changed their names, repressed their culture and religion etc when they went there. If anything, I think the opposite happens when Irish people go abroad. This was explained to me once by a German. He wanted to know why the Irish fail to integrate when they go abroad, be it America or England. I was talking about all the Irish-Americans....he explained about all the Germans who had gone to America but they were integrated now. Think of many Irish when they go abroad to Britain for example....many seem to become more Irish instead of less....look at many Irish pubs, Cricklewood, the followers of Celtic etc.

FTA69

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

About the land grab etc, I don't even know where to start.
The people who owned the land were Irish people, just protestants.
It should not have been taken from them.
A typical republican argument will be - "well yea, but how did the protestants get the land in the first place? Desmond rebillion etc. etc."

The fact that they were Irish protestants was conveniently ignored in some cases I'm sure.
In other cases, there was probably a clear cut distinction which made it easier for them to justify theft.

But above all, its about Rich & Poor.

Not to mention the fact that many of these cattle thefts and land grabs were directed equally as much against large Catholic farmers by more radical elements in the IRA, this was eventually suppressed by the Army leadership.

Similarly some of these cattle raids etc were simply done by criminal elements within the IRA at that time.

Religion had shag all to do with it.

jimmmy

FTA69 wrote: »

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that many of these cattle thefts and land grabs were directed equally as much against large Catholic farmers by more radical elements in the IRA, this was eventually suppressed by the Army leadership.

Similarly some of these cattle raids etc were simply done by criminal elements within the IRA at that time.

Religion had shag all to do with it.

We were talking about more than cattle thefts. " It is a fact there were murders committed ( some may try to justify that by saying they were informers / collaborators - but if they were loyal to the government of the day how could they be called that ? ) , much intimidation, some house burnings etc. I am not saying most people were murdered or burnt out. That would be unfair and untrue. The vast majority were not. But it was a cold house for Protestants, they learnt to keep quiet and their heads down. Not too many got government jobs. If a shopkeeper stepped out of line he got his windows broken. Look at the boycott of Protestant businesses in Fethard on Sea. If they got married they were told their religion was not good enough / an underclass religion, and they would have to bring up their children as Roman Catholics. A lot went on and its no surprise there was a big decline. Thankfully its not like that nowadays."

Exile 1798

jimmmy wrote: »

I am not obsessed with it : it is just that it is a fact there were murders committed ( some may try to justify that by saying they were informers / collaborators - but if they were loyal to the government of the day how could they be called that ? ) , much intimidation, some house burnings etc. I am not saying most people were murdered or burnt out. That would be unfair and untrue. The vast majority were not. But it was a cold house for Protestants, they learnt to keep quiet and their heads down. Not too many got government jobs. If a shopkeeper stepped out of line he got his windows broken. Look at the boycott of Protestant businesses in Fethard on Sea. If they got married they were told their religion was not good enough / an underclass religion, and they would have to bring up their children as Roman Catholics. A lot went on and its no surprise there was a big decline. Thankfully its not like that nowadays. The whole world has moved on.

Perhaps it was not as cold a house so as many would have you believe....or the refugees would have moved south of the border instead of the other way around. The Ireland of the Magdalene Laundries ( see that film the other night ? ) was a different world to today.

No jimmy.

We know the treatment of Catholics in the North does not even remotely compare to the experience of Protestants in the South.

Catholics in the north faced murder, job discrimination, gerry mandering to keep the out of government and pogroms.

But they kept having kids, because they where Catholic and poor. That's what they do. Their numbers increased.

Protestants in the South where middle-class. For many of them the main reason for their affiliation was not the writings of Martin Luther but the advantage that being Church of Ireland gave them in society. With independence those advantages disappeared. They got on with their life. If they married another Protestant they didn’t have 11 kids. Many married Catholics. Some of the posters in this thread have stated that they are the products of these unions.

I’m sorry, the truth isn’t nearly as riveting as the ideas you’ve conceived to fit your political outlook.

...and the Black and Tans like lighting ran from the rifles of the IRA.

jimmmy

Exile 1798 wrote: »

We know the treatment of Catholics in the North does not even remotely compare to the experience of Protestants in the South.

Catholics in the north faced murder, job discrimination.. .

Do you think there were no Protestants murdered during the troubles around our time of independence ? And do you think many got government jobs in the 20's or 30's ?

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Protestants in the South where middle-class.

Not all were, far from it.
I’m sorry, the truth isn’t nearly as riveting as the ideas you’ve conceived to fit your political outlook.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

For many of them the main reason for their affiliation was not the writings of Martin Luther but the advantage that being Church of Ireland gave them in society.

Charming. That is like saying Jews in 1930's Germany were not Jewish because of their religion, but rather the advantage that being Jewish gave them in society. For your information, most people in early / mid 20th century Ireland stayed the religion they were born in to ; they did not change because of society.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

They got on with their life.

Yes, and kept their heads very low in the new Ireland. They saw what happened to those who did not.

FTA69

jimmmy wrote: »

We were talking about more than cattle thefts. " It is a fact there were murders committed ( some may try to justify that by saying they were informers / collaborators - but if they were loyal to the government of the day how could they be called that ? )

I couldn't give a f*ck who they were loyal to, the fact they were "loyal" to those occupying the country does make them collaboaters. The same way the Vichy French were "loyal" to the German occupation of France, or the same way certain people in Croatia were "loyal" to the German occupation of Yugoslavia.

It wasn't just Protestants who were loyal either, the Catholic RIC were too and they were shot in their hundreds by the IRA. That's the crux of my argument, the IRA weren't sectarian because as an organisation they didn't target people because of religion, rather because of an individual's particular action or role during the conflict.

I mean what were the Army supposed to do with touts?

"Oh you're a Protestant? My apologies, I didn't realise. Inform away mad, and sure considering you're a Protestant we'll let you shoot at Volunteers as well. We wouldn't want to come across as sectarian now would we?"

:rolleyes:

I am not saying most people were murdered or burnt out. That would be unfair and untrue. The vast majority were not.

At the same time I'm not denying sectarian actions took place, they did, as I said it was a messy conflict and all concerned got their hands dirty. All I'm saying is that like Kingsmills, there were unrepresentative anomalies but as a whole the Republican Movement was not and is not sectarian.

But it was a cold house for Protestants, they learnt to keep quiet and their heads down. Not too many got government jobs. If a shopkeeper stepped out of line he got his windows broken. Look at the boycott of Protestant businesses in Fethard on Sea. If they got married they were told their religion was not good enough / an underclass religion, and they would have to bring up their children as Roman Catholics. A lot went on and its no surprise there was a big decline. Thankfully its not like that nowadays."

They were hardly an oppressed underclass in fairness, some people in my family were quite wealthy publicans at the time of the Tan War, they continued this on for years in Cork City and never suffered any discrimination. Similarly many Protestants were over-represented in the legal profession etc. Likewise, the same strong farming community that was supposedly decimated in West Cork exists today, as does their religious and social structures which survived relatively intact considering the circumstances.

jimmmy

FTA69 wrote: »

At the same time I'm not denying sectarian actions took place, they did

Indeed they did and I would imagine a lot more than you were taught to believe.

FTA69 wrote: »

some people in my family were quite wealthy publicans at the time of the Tan War

We are not talking about individual families....there were many poor Protestants in the country too...this is a fact which seems to escape you. The Protestant population throughout the country declined during those years.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote: »

It's fairly black and white to be honest, if you help the occupational forces you're a collaborater.

In which case, all you have to do is make up your own definition of "occupation", and tada: you've got the perfect excuse to shoot pizza deliverymen.

Sand

Can FTA think of a single reason why a state wouldnt be justified in employing a similar logic in targetting of Provo collaborators - i.e. people who spoke to or for the Provos, voted for the Provos, supported the Provos in a discussion?

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

No I didn’t. I said Irish people were well represented (by Parnell and co.) – big difference.

Liar...

Nonetheless, Irish people were represented (rather effectively) at Westminster.

djpbarry wrote: »

So if the famine occurred 70 years ago, it would have a significant influence on your political leanings?

Who can say as it didnt happen. But society in ireland has very much changed because of the famine. That much we do know. But alot of people in Ireland vote ff/fg because of family alliances going back almost 100 years.

djpbarry wrote: »

Such as? As far as I’m aware I addressed all your points.

Yea, as far as you are aware:rolleyes:

To you the American Revolution shouldnt have happened....

djpbarry wrote: »

And I’m saying it’s a ridiculous example, because defending one’s life cannot possibly be described as “push coming to shove”. The Hungarian Revolution wasn’t about politics so much as human rights, it had massive popular support and it was peaceful until demonstrators were fired upon. The Rising was very different.

Tell me, what Human rights were they looking for?
And you do know that this discussion encapsulated the whole war of independance not just the rising.

Anyway what about the Indian Mutiny of 1857? Were they justifed? Boer war? The boxers? Suppose they were all different to what happened in Ireland eh? :pac:

jank

jimmmy wrote: »

This was explained to me once by a German. He wanted to know why the Irish fail to integrate when they go abroad, be it America or England. I was talking about all the Irish-Americans....he explained about all the Germans who had gone to America but they were integrated now. Think of many Irish when they go abroad to Britain for example....many seem to become more Irish instead of less....look at many Irish pubs, Cricklewood, the followers of Celtic etc.

Well you should really check your facts and not take all your opinion from some random German you meet. Irish integration in the States in the 19th centuary paved the way for countless other nationalities to go to the states. The reason why the Irish were different is because they were Catholics. They broke down those barriers and the rest is history. JFK became the ultimate symbol of this, much like Obama for African Americans.

Seriously tell me one place in America that the Irish have failed to integrate. You my friend should travel a bit because it will open your closed mind. Sydney has a huge Irish population but the people who stay there for a few years (non backpackers who generally stay in manly) settle all over the place. The Irish are an exception to the rule as sydney is very non-integrated. Same here in NZ. There is no one area that is full of Irish.

Oh no there is an Irish pub here, must mean that it must be all Irish live near by:rolleyes:

Seriously.........

TomRooney

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Self-determination including EVERYONE living there (even if they're Unionists) and "the exclusion of INSIDE selfish interests" who'd prefer to murder people than negotiate or compromise with them ?

of course Ireland includes the unionist people, but as members of Ireland not Britiain.

Dannyboy83

jimmmy wrote: »

I have quite a few relatives and friends who went to England. I never heard anyone talking of anyone who changed their names, repressed their culture and religion etc when they went there. If anything, I think the opposite happens when Irish people go abroad. This was explained to me once by a German. He wanted to know why the Irish fail to integrate when they go abroad, be it America or England. I was talking about all the Irish-Americans....he explained about all the Germans who had gone to America but they were integrated now. Think of many Irish when they go abroad to Britain for example....many seem to become more Irish instead of less....look at many Irish pubs, Cricklewood, the followers of Celtic etc.

What you've written above is not true and you know it.
I'm not biased, I am neutral.
I'm seeking reconcilliation, but also the truth.
I'm not gonna argue about it, I know you're trying to defend your position, you can defend a position based on flawed logic but you cannot defend a position based on fallacy, it destroys your credibility.

http://www.paradigme.com/sources/SOURCES-PDF/Sources15-1-04.pdf

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:mCxQ70nYyysJ:www.referrersguide.com/Diversity/race%2520and%2520ethnicity/Race%2520Legislation%2520Overview.doc+Race+Relations+Act+1976+irish&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie&client=firefox-a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_racism
(Also read about Noel & Liam Gallagher)
Here, have it from another angle:

Education

The Education (Scotland) Act 1872, which completely ignored Gaelic, and led to generations of Gaels being forbidden to speak their native language in the classroom, is now recognised as having dealt a major blow to the language. People still living can recall being beaten for speaking Gaelic in school.[17] The first modern solely Gaelic-medium secondary school, Sgoil Ghàidhlig Ghlaschu (‘Glasgow Gaelic School’), was opened at Woodside in Glasgow in 2006 (61 partially Gaelic-medium primary schools and approximately a dozen Gaelic-medium secondary schools also exist). A total of 2,092 primary pupils are enrolled in Gaelic-medium primary education in 2006-7.

Another

Liam Neeson was offered the 'Freedom of the Town of Ballymena' by Ballymena Borough Council, but because of objections made by members of the Democratic Unionist Party regarding his comments that he had felt like a 'second-class citizen' growing up as a Catholic in the town, the offer was withdrawn. Neeson continues to practice the Catholic faith and has reared his children as Catholics.[26]

He was named an Officer of the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II in her 1999 New Year's Honours List. The American Ireland Fund honoured Liam Neeson with their Performing Arts Award for the great distinction he has brought to Ireland at their 2008 Dinner Gala in New York.

jimmmy

jank wrote: »

Irish integration in the States in the 19th centuary paved the way for countless other nationalities to go to the states. The reason why the Irish were different is because they were Catholics. They broke down those barriers and the rest is history. JFK became the ultimate symbol of this

You think all Irish who went to the states were Catholic ? Thats what you have said above. Sorry to inform you, but at least twenty-three presidents of the United States have some Irish and/or Scots/Irish origins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American#Presidents_of_Irish_and_Scots-Irish_descent

Obviously the non-Catholic Irish must have integrated better when you do not even recognise them.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

djpbarry wrote:

No I didn’t. I said Irish people were well represented (by Parnell and co.) – big difference.

Liar...

djpbarry wrote:

Nonetheless, Irish people were represented (rather effectively) at Westminster.

Eh, those too statements are almost exactly the same; your definition of “liar” is obviously very different to mine.

jank wrote: »

But alot of people in Ireland vote ff/fg because of family alliances going back almost 100 years.

And would you not agree that is totally daft?

jank wrote: »

To you the American Revolution shouldnt have happened....

Your argument might be better served if you replied to what I actually post, rather than replying to what you would like to think I post.

jank wrote: »

Tell me, what Human rights were they looking for?

You know, for someone who brought up the Hungarian Revolution, you seem to have very little knowledge of the event.

You are aware that 'dissident' Hungarians were rounded up in their thousands and sent off to concentration camps (post WWII), aren’t you? Hundreds of thousands of people were imprisoned and often tortured having been found guilty of crimes against the state in highly-politicised show trials.

jank wrote: »

Anyway what about the Indian Mutiny of 1857? Were they justifed? Boer war? The boxers? Suppose they were all different to what happened in Ireland eh?

You see, the problem with your argument is that you are starting from the position that the Rising (and subsequent events) was wholly justified, i.e. there was no alternative. Because I disagree with this position, I am dismissed as a pacifist who will condemn violence in all its forms. While I am not a pacifist, I do believe (like any reasonable person) that violence is almost always avoidable. The fact that human history is littered with violent events (and in all likelihood, the future too) does not change this fact.