Fight or not?

jank

junder wrote: »

and as well as a well trained army they had a full provisonel government waiting in the wings to take over the running of ulster should the british governmernt withdrawel, this should give a pretty good indication of the determination of the unionist people to resist home rule/independence. Parition was going to happen, either through the british government or through full scale civil war that would have brought the somme to this island

Same could be said about Sinn Fein and the IRA. Look im not disagreeing with you that parition was very likely of happening but it was not inveitable. History can be funny sometimes.

The Home Rulers were dead set against it so the Ulster question was put on the back burner until after the great war. However, what the outcome of the split would have been would certainly have been different to what happened. Maybe it would have been much more bloody, as you say.

Anyway here is a question for you. Do you see a united ireland anytime in the future under ANY curcumstances. Do you think partition has been good for northern Ireland?

Im just curious tbh what you think.

jank

junder wrote: »

who knows, after all protestants used to make up 8% of the population before the creation og the free state, maybe with they would have revolted as well had the unionists in ulster revolted

8% Much too small to make a difference. If it had then why wasnt there a peep out of them for years before 1916. And if they would have revolted why didnt they after 1916, 1918 or 1921? They were irrelivant to this part of the story, but very much part of the land question and the social aspects of life in Ireland.

But you agree then that it was for use of a better word an "occupation" by the British (26 counties;)).

junder

jank wrote: »

Same could be said about Sinn Fein and the IRA. Look im not disagreeing with you that parition was very likely of happening but it was not inveitable. History can be funny sometimes.

The Home Rulers were dead set against it so the Ulster question was put on the back burner until after the great war. However, what the outcome of the split would have been would certainly have been different to what happened. Maybe it would have been much more bloody, as you say.

Anyway here is a question for you. Do you see a united ireland anytime in the future under ANY curcumstances. Do you think partition has been good for northern Ireland?

Im just curious tbh what you think.

No i don't see a united ireland in my life time, i see the RoI as a forgein country, i do not hate the RoI or have any perticuler problem with the RoI but it is at the end of the day a forgein country in mine and most unionists eyes, you might as well ask as to unite with france. The only way partition will end is throughy demographics which is a slow process and not about to change any time soon, this 50%+1 idea is a non starter the british and irish governments both know this as this will still leave a very sizeable group of pissed of unionists, as i have mentioned before in order for partition to end peacefully ot atleast in a more manageable way there will need to be a 70%+ vote in favour of it

FTA69

Junder,

a tendacy to forget that in ulster we had a well trained and well equipped army, and that the vast majorty of unionist had signed the covenante both men and women declearing thier intention to defeat home rule by any means nesserary.

In other words Unionists were yet again giving the two fingers to the Irish nation and arming themselves so they could maintain their position of privilege in this country. Of course half of the eejits you're alluding to went on to be killed in the Somme in a war between Empires over trade routes.

djpbarry,

That's a ridiculous statement. Your use of "they" implies constancy in the British mentality over the last several hundred years, as if they were the same people. You really think that Britain would not wash their hands of Northern Ireland, given the opportunity

The Brits have had a consistant imperialist mentality over the past several hundred years. The only thing ridiculous is your assertion that the Brits are dying to leave this country. If they were so mad to leave they would have simply left, the same way they did in Cyprus and Aden. Do you really think that they fought a 25 year war here, armed death squads, practiced torture, practiced espionage north and south, and pumped countless of billion of pounds into a place that they're dying to leave?

That's a much more ridiculous position than mine to be honest.

junder

jank wrote: »

8% Much too small to make a difference. If it had then why wasnt there a peep out of them for years before 1916. And if they would have revolted why didnt they after 1916, 1918 or 1921? They were irrelivant to this part of the story, but very much part of the land question and the social aspects of life in Ireland.

But you agree then that it was for use of a better word an "occupation" by the British (26 counties;)).

could be something to do with the fact that they dropped form 8% to 2% of the population in the years immedality after partition, but lets not forget carson was a irish unionist from dublin, however what i said was if the unionists in ulster revolted then it would have quite possiable for the unionists of the south to join in the revolt. FYI no i do not agree with the term occupation

jank

Fair enough. But you didnt answer my question do you think its a good thing and why? Also do you see england or scotland as a foregin country. Would you call yourself Irish?

In the GFA there is terms for a vote on a united ireland to become a reality. Of course you need a mandate to govern this to the full.

jank

FYI no i do not agree with the term occupation

What would you call it then?

junder

jank wrote: »

Fair enough. But you didnt answer my question do you think its a good thing and why? Also do you see england or scotland as a foregin country. Would you call yourself Irish?

In the GFA there is terms for a vote on a united ireland to become a reality. Of course you need a mandate to govern this to the full.

Of course i think it was a good thing after all it ment we were not forced into a country that made 6% of its population disappear

Ironbars

Apologising for the murder of these men using nationalistic rhetoric and brainless ideology is for cowards.

This is what most civilized people think.........

If you believe in your heart that the Murder of those 3 men in the past week was nesessary then you are a sick and worthless human and have no place in our society.

FTA69

but lets not forget carson was a irish unionist from dublin

Indeed. Which is why the notion of Unionists in the north being some sort of national entity entitled to determine the political destiny of this country is completely flawed. The idea that Unionists aren't Irish is fallacious considering they had no bother referring to themselves as such for centuries and were actually led by a Dubliner who played hurling.

Of course i think it was a good thing after all it ment we were not forced into a country that made 6% of its population disappear

They're still under the floorboards. :rolleyes:

jank

junder wrote: »

Of course i think it was a good thing after all it ment we were not forced into a country that made 6% of its population disappear

See its talk like that is the reason why NI is the @rsehole of western europe.

Disappear you say? Must tell the UN so they can look for mass graves down in the south. :rolleyes:

I wonder how many catholics "disappeared" from Ulster when partition came to be.;)

Maybe they moved because they didnt want to live in a state where they are the minority, it happens. Check out a the history of India after they got freedom. You heard of Pakistan right.
Or closer to home, eastern and central europe after the break up of the Austrian and Russian empires. Check out the Balkans. Now compare what happened there over the course of the last 100 years to what happened in Ireland and you tell me which country came out the better.

Your figures are wrong by the way, as in the 2006 census about 4.5% of the population in Ireland were of a protestant denomination of some sort.

And if you cant suggest anything else other then religous freedom being a good thing for partition then no wonder the UK or Ireland dont want NI anymore. Check out the latest polls on the matter. Most people dont give a ****, especially in the UK.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that’s just speculation, isn’t it?

All of this is speculation. Your opinion is speculation. :rolleyes:

Does a clear majority of the population of Scotland demand independence?

Dunno.

Your argument seems to be essentially that Pearse and co. would have had to wait too long for independence, so killing for it was ok.

Nope, my argument being that the British Empire had shown very little desire to let any of its colonies go, especially ireland which was of such strategic interest to them. Especially prior to WW1, when Home Rule was on the books.

You continue to look back on history, without considering the image of the British Empire at the beginning of the 20th century. They were still the greatest Empire in the world, with power reaching across the world. Nothing suggested that the Empire was likely to lose any power or influence in the decades to come. So why would the British give freedom to a people when there was nothing in it for them?

Remind me how many “colonies” Britain retains control of today?

You missed my point completely. I'd suggest you reread what I said.

Nothing you have shown suggests that they were not.

I thought I wouldn't need to considering the history of British colonialism. All I need to do is look at history and the reasons why Britain let loose its colonies following WW2. And also consider that it took two world wars, which effectively crippled their economy to force them to such a state of allowing the remaining colonies the freedom of choice.

junder

touched a nerve there did'nt i. As it happens i was just making a wee joke about the 6% of the population but i see it dislodged the venner of civility:P

junder

FTA69 wrote: »

Indeed. Which is why the notion of Unionists in the north being some sort of national entity entitled to determine the political destiny of this country is completely flawed. The idea that Unionists aren't Irish is fallacious considering they had no bother referring to themselves as such for centuries and were actually led by a Dubliner who played hurling.



They're still under the floorboards. :rolleyes:

In 1921 the state of Northern Ireland was created, Northern Ireland is the only reality i have ever known, i was not alive pre-partition so as far as i am concerned the northern irish are a national entity. As for how we unionist define ourselves well thats up to us unionist now is'nt it

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

The Brits have had a consistant imperialist mentality over the past several hundred years.

Can I just clarify; you’re saying that Britain has the same attitude toward Ireland now as it had 300 years ago?

FTA69 wrote: »

The only thing ridiculous is your assertion that the Brits are dying to leave this country. If they were so mad to leave they would have simply left, the same way they did in Cyprus and Aden.

Did the majority of the populations in Cyprus and Aden wish to remain under British rule?

FTA69 wrote: »

Do you really think that they fought a 25 year war here, armed death squads, practiced torture, practiced espionage north and south, and pumped countless of billion of pounds into a place that they're dying to leave?

Let me ask the same question in a different way; do you think that the British government is prepared to continue to pump billions of pounds into Northern Ireland?

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

All of this is speculation. Your opinion is speculation.

But the difference is you are using speculation as justification for bloodshed.

Deleted User wrote: »

Dunno.

So your statement about Scottish “freedom” is pretty meaningless, isn’t it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope, my argument being that the British Empire had shown very little desire to let any of its colonies go, especially ireland which was of such strategic interest to them.

This fact was clearly illustrated by the House of Commons’ passing of the Third Home Rule bill three times. Oh, wait now…

Deleted User wrote: »

You continue to look back on history, without considering the image of the British Empire at the beginning of the 20th century.

No, I continue to look back at this particular period in history and wonder why, when progress was being made (albeit slow progress) in attaining Home Rule, Pearse et al. felt it necessary to shed blood.

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought I wouldn't need to considering the history of British colonialism. All I need to do is look at history and the reasons why Britain let loose its colonies following WW2. And also consider that it took two world wars, which effectively crippled their economy to force them to such a state of allowing the remaining colonies the freedom of choice.

Britain began to “let loose” it’s colonies long before the outbreak of WWI. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa were all granted self-governance of sorts before 1914.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

If it wasn't occupation, then what was it?

Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom.

What was it in India?

India was never part of the United Kingdom.

It's interesting that you should bring India into it. How many people were killed on Ghandi's orders?

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's interesting that you should bring India into it. How many people were killed on Ghandi's orders?

Ah, but India was far, far away. Apparently, the influence of the (supposedly) all-powerful British Empire was inversely proportional to one's distance from Britain.

Erin Go Brath

oscarBravo wrote: »

Very little is ever achieved through violence. It's claimed that the 1916 rebellion led to the Free State, but Home Rule was on the cards anyway, so there's no reason exactly the same settlement couldn't have been arrived at through peaceful negotiation as was achieved after years of slaughter.

So, no: as long as there's any possibility of achieving my aims through negotiation, I won't fight. I can't think of a political ideal that's worth killing another human being for.

I'm afraid thats just revisionism of the highest order! Any freedoms we have won from British rule have been won through armed rising against them. The 1916 rising and subsequent execution of our leaders acted as a catalyst for the war of independence. The IRAs relative successes in the War of Independence, in particular the ambush at Kilmichael where an entire squadron of crown forces were wiped out is why the Brits called a truce and why we got the free state. Ireland in other words was far too troublesome and unwieldy for Britain to control any more. They had to offer us at least partial freedoms or else many more of Britains finest would be strewn around the mountains of Tipperary and West Cork. They would not have granted us independence of their own volition of that there is no doubt!

oscarBravo

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Any freedoms we have won from British rule have been won through armed rising against them.

So O'Connell, Parnell, Davitt, Redmond and so on were just pissing into the wind, yes?

They would not have granted us independence of their own volition of that there is no doubt!

Of course there's a doubt. If there was no doubt, we wouldn't be having a discussion.

jimmmy

oscarBravo wrote: »

So O'Connell, Parnell, Davitt, Redmond and so on were just pissing into the wind, yes?

In the sense that we would have been better off staying with Britain, yes.

90 years ago we had a world class infrastructure ; canals, harbours ( the airports of their time ), railways, universities etc. A letter posted from Dublin to London was quicker 90 years ago than today. The train from Dublin to Galway was slightly quicker 90 years ago than today. One quarter of the ruling class in India was Irish. Britain was the force which defended us, like it or not, in the 20th century. But for it, whatever Irish jewish citizens there were would have perished in the concentration camps of the Continent.( and they thought the pogroms in Limerick in the early years of independence were bad). Just as other island groups of the world are united ( think of the Japanese islands, the 2 main islands of New Zealand, the Canaries, the Hawaiian islands etc ) it is arguable that we would have been better off playing a fulfilling role in a British Isles economy. Does it make sense of this little country to have embassies in every far flung little place in the world ?

gurramok

junder wrote: »

No i don't see a united ireland in my life time, i see the RoI as a forgein country, i do not hate the RoI or have any perticuler problem with the RoI but it is at the end of the day a forgein country in mine and most unionists eyes, you might as well ask as to unite with france. The only way partition will end is throughy demographics which is a slow process and not about to change any time soon, this 50%+1 idea is a non starter the british and irish governments both know this as this will still leave a very sizeable group of pissed of unionists, as i have mentioned before in order for partition to end peacefully ot atleast in a more manageable way there will need to be a 70%+ vote in favour of it

About 40%+ desire a UI by voting SF/SDLP so the arrangement presented by demanding a 70% agreement in favour is a non-runner hence power-sharing was needed to agree to some form of a governance!

Ironbars wrote: »

Apologising for the murder of these men using nationalistic rhetoric and brainless ideology is for cowards.

This is what most civilized people think.........

If you believe in your heart that the Murder of those 3 men in the past week was nesessary then you are a sick and worthless human and have no place in our society.

This post has nothing to do with this thread, we are talking about the Irish independence period about 100 years ago!

djpbarry wrote: »

But the difference is you are using speculation as justification for bloodshed.

This fact was clearly illustrated by the House of Commons’ passing of the Third Home Rule bill three times. Oh, wait now…
No, I continue to look back at this particular period in history and wonder why, when progress was being made (albeit slow progress) in attaining Home Rule, Pearse et al. felt it necessary to shed blood.

Mate, 45 years of first asking and then bloodthirsty blockage from Carson. Hardly inspiring.

djpbarry wrote:

Britain began to “let loose” it’s colonies long before the outbreak of WWI. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa were all granted self-governance of sorts before 1914.

Have you asked why? It wouldn't be got to do with the people of those regions wanting some say in runnning of their own countries now would it?:rolleyes:

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom. India was never part of the United Kingdom.

Against her will. The Protestant Ascendancy(COI not Presbyterian) which formed less than 10% of the population were only allowed to sit in the Irish parliament at the time of the Act of Union.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

Against her will.

A will that was in the process of being asserted by political means until it was interrupted by armed rebellion.

The Protestant Ascendancy(COI not Presbyterian) which formed less than 10% of the population were only allowed to sit in the Irish parliament at the time of the Act of Union.

Was this still the case in 1916?

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

A will that was in the process of being asserted by political means until it was interrupted by armed rebellion.

The political process failed, 45 years was too long. What does one do when the political process of the will of the vast majority fails after 45years?!:rolleyes:

oscarBravo wrote: »

Was this still the case in 1916?

No. It was a case of people of both religions trying to do a right on a wrong inflicted on the people for 115 years then.

They ran out of justifiable patience.

junder

gurramok wrote: »

About 40%+ desire a UI by voting SF/SDLP so the arrangement presented by demanding a 70% agreement in favour is a non-runner hence power-sharing was needed to agree to some form of a governance!


This post has nothing to do with this thread, we are talking about the Irish independence period about 100 years ago!



Mate, 45 years of first asking and then bloodthirsty blockage from Carson. Hardly inspiring.



Have you asked why? It wouldn't be got to do with the people of those regions wanting some say in runnning of their own countries now would it?:rolleyes:



Against her will. The Protestant Ascendancy(COI not Presbyterian) which formed less than 10% of the population were only allowed to sit in the Irish parliament at the time of the Act of Union.

I made no demands only pointed out the realitys of trying to unite this island.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

The political process failed, 45 years was too long. What does one do when the political process of the will of the vast majority fails after 45years?!:rolleyes:

For some people, the answer seems to be "go out and start killing people". For me, the answer is "keep trying".

What makes 45 years the arbitrary point at which it's ok to shed blood to further your political aims? Do you think it would be perfectly acceptable for the xIRA to start a bombing campaign in 2043 if a United Ireland has not come about?

No. It was a case of people of both religions trying to do a right on a wrong inflicted on the people for 115 years then.

By killing people. Way to do a right.

They ran out of justifiable patience.

"Fnck this, I'm fed up waiting, I'm gonna kill someone." Laudable.

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

Mate, 45 years of first asking and then bloodthirsty blockage from Carson. Hardly inspiring.

Had all diplomatic avenues been exhausted? Considering the Home Rule Bill had been passed, I think the answer to that question would have to be a resounding ‘No’.

gurramok wrote: »

Have you asked why? It wouldn't be got to do with the people of those regions wanting some say in runnning of their own countries now would it?

Obviously. What’s your point?

gurramok wrote: »

The political process failed, 45 years was too long.

The process was drawn out; it had not failed. How could the passing of a Home Rule Bill be considered a failure of the political process?

gurramok wrote: »

What does one do when the political process of the will of the vast majority fails after 45years?!

Wait another 45 if it means the loss of life will be prevented.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

For some people, the answer seems to be "go out and start killing people". For me, the answer is "keep trying".

What makes 45 years the arbitrary point at which it's ok to shed blood to further your political aims? Do you think it would be perfectly acceptable for the xIRA to start a bombing campaign in 2043 if a United Ireland has not come about? By killing people. Way to do a right. "Fnck this, I'm fed up waiting, I'm gonna kill someone." Laudable.

They had the vast majority of the vote to fight for an Irish parliament in whatever form it takes, thats a difference.

A brutal occupation did not exactly help a peaceful resistance, there is only so much a resistance can take peacefully before it is forced to take up arms.

There was no UN back then nor a powerful peacebroker process.

djpbarry wrote: »

Had all diplomatic avenues been exhausted? Considering the Home Rule Bill had been passed, I think the answer to that question would have to be a resounding ‘No’.

The process was drawn out; it had not failed. How could the passing of a Home Rule Bill be considered a failure of the political process?
Wait another 45 if it means the loss of life will be prevented.

Wait another 45 years? You are joking right?

We should then apply that to all matters of international dispute. Guess your advice should of been given to the Croats and Slovenes in 1991 then
If a majority of a region want freedom, well they can wait 90 years from first asking!!:D

On the Home Rule bill, you seem to be forgetting something.

There were 3 Home Rule bills, the first about 1870 or so. It passed on 3rd time asking with 'Royal Assent' just before WW1 and was being blocked by a bloodthirsty Carson. Throw in the mix of distrust of a British govt with past form and its quite easy to see why the Irish got fed up waiting.

junder

it was not carson that used violence now was it, moreover if 'irish' can use force to defend themselves against percieved injustices surly by your logic it was ok for the unionists.

gurramok

junder wrote: »

it was not carson that used violence now was it, moreover if 'irish' can use force to defend themselves against percieved injustices surly by your logic it was ok for the unionists.

Against percieved injustices like what?

Roughly 80% wanted Home Rule and 20% did not, thats a thumping majority. The UVF armed themselves first, you saying that was just for show?:rolleyes:

junder

gurramok wrote: »

Against percieved injustices like what?

Roughly 80% wanted Home Rule and 20% did not, thats a thumping majority. The UVF armed themselves first, you saying that was just for show?:rolleyes:

Maybe it was for show maybe it was'nt who knows since the weapons were only ever used in germany.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

They had the vast majority of the vote to fight for an Irish parliament in whatever form it takes, thats a difference.

Wait, what? Are you trying to claim that in 1916 there was a democratic mandate from the Irish people for armed rebellion?

A brutal occupation did not exactly help a peaceful resistance, there is only so much a resistance can take peacefully before it is forced to take up arms.

There was no brutal occupation in 1916. Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Dublin was a major UK city. There was a groundswell of popular support for a degree of autonomy, but even Sinn Féin wanted Home Rule with allegiance to the king.

There was no UN back then nor a powerful peacebroker process.

None was needed. All that was required was that the parliamentary process be allowed to take its course; a course that Pearse deliberately sabotaged.

Wait another 45 years? You are joking right?

Yeah, you're right. Killing people is so much more viscerally satisfying, isn't it?

If a majority of a region want freedom, well they can wait 90 years from first asking!!:D

Of course not. They should start killing people. It's a small price to pay for a political goal, after all.

On the Home Rule bill, you seem to be forgetting something.

There were 3 Home Rule bills, the first about 1870 or so. It passed on 3rd time asking with 'Royal Assent' just before WW1 and was being blocked by a bloodthirsty Carson.

What makes a bloodthirsty Carson an evil bogeyman, but a (self-confessedly) bloodthirsty Pearse a national idol? Is it simply that you agree with the aims of one, but not the other?

Throw in the mix of distrust of a British govt with past form and its quite easy to see why the Irish got fed up waiting.

The Irish didn't get fed up waiting. A tiny minority of a small minority decided that bloodshed was a better solution than diplomacy, and brought everyone else into the abyss with them.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

Against percieved injustices like what?

Well, let's follow your logic. The separation of part of Ireland from the UK was a major problem for Unionists. Accordingly, they would have been justified in starting a war in 1947. Right? That's about the timeframe for getting fed up with political processes, isn't it?

The UVF armed themselves first, you saying that was just for show?:rolleyes:

Were the IRB's arms for show?

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

But the difference is you are using speculation as justification for bloodshed.

justification for bloodshed? I suppose I am. I guess I believe that times were different, and the ability we have today to pass judgement has only come about from the actions of those in the past.

Simply because your opinion favours a non-violent means towards independence doesn't make your speculation any more accurate... Its still speculation no matter how you want to dress it up.

So your statement about Scottish “freedom” is pretty meaningless, isn’t it?

No, because Scotland still gained its independence to a degree, and it happened only in the last decade. No violence occured to create that independence, and you haven't shown that lack of violence would have guaranteed them independence prior to this time.

This fact was clearly illustrated by the House of Commons’ passing of the Third Home Rule bill three times. Oh, wait now…

And what happened then?

No, I continue to look back at this particular period in history and wonder why, when progress was being made (albeit slow progress) in attaining Home Rule, Pearse et al. felt it necessary to shed blood.

Perhaps because they didn't see that the British Empire was willing to let go of Ireland as a colony any time soon. I still haven't seen reasons from you as to why the British would have been willing to let us go...

Britain began to “let loose” it’s colonies long before the outbreak of WWI. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa were all granted self-governance of sorts before 1914.

Of sorts. Still with oath of allegience to the crown and to the queen. And still capable of being tried under British law for any offenses they felt appropiate.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

justification for bloodshed? I suppose I am. I guess I believe that times were different, and the ability we have today to pass judgement has only come about from the actions of those in the past.

Your mistake is to assume that such ability could only have come about through those actions.

And what happened then?

A handful of people for whom Home Rule was anathema started a shooting war to try to prevent it. Ironically, their aim of an independent republic was only partly realised some 33 years later - so much for running out of patience.

Perhaps because they didn't see that the British Empire was willing to let go of Ireland as a colony any time soon. I still haven't seen reasons from you as to why the British would have been willing to let us go...

Ireland wasn't a colony, and the Home Rule bill had been passed.

I'm curious: you and others seem utterly certain that the steady momentum towards Home Rule had somehow come to a complete halt in 1916. It's obvious Pearse didn't agree with your view. On what do you base your certainty?

Of sorts. Still with oath of allegience to the crown and to the queen.

Just as well Canada started an armed rebellion, so - otherwise they'd have ended up like those poor Australians, under the jackboot of British law to this day.

Right?

Erin Go Brath

oscarBravo wrote: »

So O'Connell, Parnell, Davitt, Redmond and so on were just pissing into the wind, yes? Of course there's a doubt. If there was no doubt, we wouldn't be having a discussion.

Daniel O'Connell the great liberator indeed. I'm sure Catholic emancipation was of great comfort to the Irish people when British Regiments were removing food from Ireland in the 1840s during the Great famine.

The British Government saw Ireland as a fertile colony where they could exploit for their own selfish ends. Ireland was never going to be allowed her freedom unless it became too troublesome for her imperial masters to handle. From an empire perspective if Ireland was granted her freedom then many of Britains far flung colonies might get similar notions. Another reason to deny Irelands sovereignty.

Erin Go Brath

jimmmy wrote: »

In the sense that we would have been better off staying with Britain, yes.

90 years ago we had a world class infrastructure ; canals, harbours ( the airports of their time ), railways, universities etc. A letter posted from Dublin to London was quicker 90 years ago than today. The train from Dublin to Galway was slightly quicker 90 years ago than today. One quarter of the ruling class in India was Irish. Britain was the force which defended us, like it or not, in the 20th century. But for it, whatever Irish jewish citizens there were would have perished in the concentration camps of the Continent.( and they thought the pogroms in Limerick in the early years of independence were bad). Just as other island groups of the world are united ( think of the Japanese islands, the 2 main islands of New Zealand, the Canaries, the Hawaiian islands etc ) it is arguable that we would have been better off playing a fulfilling role in a British Isles economy. Does it make sense of this little country to have embassies in every far flung little place in the world ?

Before you start pining for being back under the British jackboot you should cast your mind back to all the injustices perpetrated by your beloved British on the natives in Ireland. Ireland was always going to be better off independent than as a constituent part of the UK. We might be in a recession, we might have some shamefully corrupt leaders, and we have made many mistakes since independence but still we are a hell of a lot better off that we would be under UK rule.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wait, what? Are you trying to claim that in 1916 there was a democratic mandate from the Irish people for armed rebellion?

You misread. There was an overwhelming mandate from the Irish people to have a parliament of their own. It was denied continuously since 1801.

There was no brutal occupation in 1916. Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Dublin was a major UK city. There was a groundswell of popular support for a degree of autonomy, but even Sinn Féin wanted Home Rule with allegiance to the king.

An autonomy that was denied for 114 years despite the huge majority in favour of it.

None was needed. All that was required was that the parliamentary process be allowed to take its course; a course that Pearse deliberately sabotaged.

Yeh, lets have waited another 45years. That process you speak of failed miserably. I'm surprised someone like Pearse did not happen sooner. The Irish people certainly had patience to wait that long.

Yeah, you're right. Killing people is so much more viscerally satisfying, isn't it? Of course not. They should start killing people. It's a small price to pay for a political goal, after all.

Again, you're trying to legitimise an unwelcoming and brutal occupying power as peaceful when it was not.

What makes a bloodthirsty Carson an evil bogeyman, but a (self-confessedly) bloodthirsty Pearse a national idol? Is it simply that you agree with the aims of one, but not the other?

Why was Carson taking up arms in the first place and getting many Unionists to sign the Covenant in blood then? a new harmless hobby?:rolleyes:

The Irish didn't get fed up waiting. A tiny minority of a small minority decided that bloodshed was a better solution than diplomacy, and brought everyone else into the abyss with them.

Nice analysis.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, let's follow your logic. The separation of part of Ireland from the UK was a major problem for Unionists. Accordingly, they would have been justified in starting a war in 1947. Right? That's about the timeframe for getting fed up with political processes, isn't it? Were the IRB's arms for show?

Unionists had their own state in 1947, they were content that the Union was safe for them, had their own parliament, no need for uprising.
The IRB was a tiny organisation compared to the huge UVF(100,000 members) who armed first in 1913 to stop the democratic wishes of the majority, that is any sort of Home Rule.

Carson initiated the threat of violence hence deserved to be called bloodthirsty.

The Irish Volunteers were formed after the UVF to uphold the democratic wishes of the majority.

ChocolateSauce

OP:

Slaves to what? One of the worlds freest and most democratic states? Where slavery had been abolished generations before Ireland was seperated from Britian?

Anyway, that racist chip on your shoulder is really something. You need to get several history lessons, and not ones from a state-endorsed JC text book.

The idea that the British would occupy Ireland in this day and age is nothing short of impossible, so it really makes no sense to ask what would we do if it happened. For it to happen the circumstances of our relationship with them, and the circumstances of the world at large, would have to be so radically different from what they are as to make speculation impossible.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Simply because your opinion favours a non-violent means towards independence doesn't make your speculation any more accurate... Its still speculation no matter how you want to dress it up.

I never suggested otherwise. However, as oscarBravo has pointed out, you are among a group of posters here who seem utterly convinced that violence was the only option. That all diplomatic avenues had been explored and the drive for Home Rule was doomed to failure. I see little evidence (if any) to support this position.

Deleted User wrote: »

No, because Scotland still gained its independence to a degree, and it happened only in the last decade. No violence occured to create that independence, and you haven't shown that lack of violence would have guaranteed them independence prior to this time.

Scotland has attained devolved government through peaceful means, but you’re asking me to demonstrate that independence could have been achieved through peaceful means, even though there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that the majority of Scots favour independence? That makes absolutely no sense.

Deleted User wrote: »

I still haven't seen reasons from you as to why the British would have been willing to let us go...

Because it was costing Britain a small fortune to run this country? To quote Asquith:

A poor country, mainly agricultural, is, for financial purposes, yoked with a rich country, mainly industrial, and the standard and scale of financial provision suitable to England has been necessarily, and almost automatically, applied to Ireland.
...
If you continue what he calls this partnership—if, in other words, you continue to adopt Unionist methods for Ireland, and refuse to grant Home Rule, you are going to develop Irish resources at the cost of the British taxpayer. That is what this sort of partnership means if it means anything, and that is why I say to the House of Commons that, although we have now to face a deficit of £1,500,000 as compared with what twenty years ago was a surplus of £2,000,000, if you go on working this partnership on Unionist lines, the deficit of £1,500,000 will swell and swell and swell to dimensions which none of us can forsee. Home Rule, as we believe, will be, among other things, a means of adjusting Irish finance to Irish needs, and giving Irishmen a direct interest in economy which under the partnership they have not got, and a direct responsibility for waste which under the partnership they have not got, and so of gradually reducing this deficit, and in time, as we hope and believe, of producing a surplus which will be available for future common purposes. The Bill, therefore, by recognising this deficit as a necessary starting point, anticipates the future when Irish income will balance, and more than balance, Irish expenditure.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of sorts. Still with oath of allegience to the crown and to the queen. And still capable of being tried under British law for any offenses they felt appropiate.

Yes and of course Britain still has an overbearing influence on their affairs today. Oh no, wait now...

gurramok wrote: »

An autonomy that was denied for 114 years despite the huge majority in favour of it.

Was no progress made during that time? None whatsoever?

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

Was no progress made during that time? None whatsoever?

The right to vote, sit in parliament in London and also own property which is basic and shouldn't have been fought for in the first place if it was a just society...if that's whats your asking.

There was zero progress on the national question unless i missed something?

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

You misread. There was an overwhelming mandate from the Irish people to have a parliament of their own. It was denied continuously since 1801.

I'd really, really love to see your detailed logical assessment of exactly why all the political progress that had been made between 1801 and 1916 would suddenly have ground to a total and irrevocable halt had the Easter rising not taken place.

An autonomy that was denied for 114 years despite the huge majority in favour of it.

...and that was on the cusp of being granted.

Yeh, lets have waited another 45years.

Given that the Home Rule bill had been passed, on what do you base the figure of "another 45 years"? There is absolutely no logical basis - none whatsoever - for concluding that the British government would have waited 45 years to implement a bill that it had already passed.

That process you speak of failed miserably.

Of course it did. It was deliberately sabotaged by Pearse.

Again, you're trying to legitimise an unwelcoming and brutal occupying power as peaceful when it was not.

It wasn't an occupying power. I know, I keep repeating that, but that's because you keep re-stating that particular falsehood as if repetition will make it true.

As for it being brutal - in what sense did the average British citizen living in Ireland in 1916 feel brutalised by his government?

Why was Carson taking up arms in the first place and getting many Unionists to sign the Covenant in blood then?

Because he didn't want Home Rule, and was prepared to fight to prevent it. Which was also true of Padraig Pearse. The difference is, only one of them actually started a war. The one who threatened war you revile; the one who started the war you revere. Why the double standards?

Nice analysis.

Assuming that that's intended ironically: what's inaccurate about it?

Unionists had their own state in 1947, they were content that the Union was safe for them, had their own parliament, no need for uprising.

If Home Rule had been allowed to be implemented, nationalists would have had their own state sometime post-1916, they would have been content that Ireland was safe for them, they would have had their own parliament - where was the need for uprising?

The IRB was a tiny organisation compared to the huge UVF(100,000 members) who armed first in 1913 to stop the democratic wishes of the majority, that is any sort of Home Rule.

The democratic wishes of the majority should have been allowed to take fruition through the democratic process. There was certainly strong support for it from the Asquith - cf djpbarry's post above.

Carson initiated the threat of violence hence deserved to be called bloodthirsty.

Pearse started a war. Why doesn't he deserve to be called bloodthirsty?

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

The right to vote, sit in parliament in London and also own property...

How many people had to be killed to attain those rights?

There was zero progress on the national question unless i missed something?

Apart, of course, from the passing of a Home Rule bill.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd really, really love to see your detailed logical assessment of exactly why all the political progress that had been made between 1801 and 1916 would suddenly have ground to a total and irrevocable halt had the Easter rising not taken place. ...and that was on the cusp of being granted. Given that the Home Rule bill had been passed, on what do you base the figure of "another 45 years"? There is absolutely no logical basis - none whatsoever - for concluding that the British government would have waited 45 years to implement a bill that it had already passed.

You're missing something in you're argument. Granting home rule was part of a bartering agreement at the time between Liberals and the Irish MP's. There was no guarantee whatsoever(despite you might say Royal Assent) that it would of been followed through because Llyod Geroge the then PM from 1916 depended on Unionist votes in parliament and we know they were vehemently opposed to home rule.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course it did. It was deliberately sabotaged by Pearse. It wasn't an occupying power. I know, I keep repeating that, but that's because you keep re-stating that particular falsehood as if repetition will make it true.

Yes it was an occupying power as they forced Ireland into the UK without consent of the population(where 90% didnt have the vote to decide).

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for it being brutal - in what sense did the average British citizen living in Ireland in 1916 feel brutalised by his government?

Eh, firstly they were labelled as being British without their consent and secondly they would of been jailed(torture in some cases) if they disagreed with the status quo.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because he didn't want Home Rule, and was prepared to fight to prevent it. Which was also true of Padraig Pearse. The difference is, only one of them actually started a war. The one who threatened war you revile; the one who started the war you revere. Why the double standards?

Pearse knew that the vast the majority wanted freedom from British rule in whatever form and they had been denied their rights. He had tacit backing from the public as they came to understand that his and their comrades way was the right way.(see next reply)

Carson represented a vocal minority(20%). The Irish Volunteers who had public support went to fight in WW1(including my grandpa). They split and then the smaller Irish Volunteers stayed behind as they knew the war was a con. The remainder of the Irish Volunteers(now National Volunteers) came back and joined the freedom fight.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Assuming that that's intended ironically: what's inaccurate about it?

Because you implied they were akin to just bandits. Those guys were intelligent revolutionaries, they knew what would of happened publicily when it was all over. They knew the public would support them as they showed leadership.
Just in case, they were not peasants. Their leaders were mostly middle to upper class types who had a vision and the public bought it. If they had no support, why on earth did their associated party(SF) get so much support?

Answering by executions is only a part of garnering support. They gave hope to the Irish people which they never had before.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If Home Rule had been allowed to be implemented, nationalists would have had their own state sometime post-1916, they would have been content that Ireland was safe for them, they would have had their own parliament - where was the need for uprising? The democratic wishes of the majority should have been allowed to take fruition through the democratic process. There was certainly strong support for it from the Asquith - cf djpbarry's post above. Pearse started a war. Why doesn't he deserve to be called bloodthirsty?

Again, democratic process. 45 years of waiting, generations passed and yet no movement and that movement was not from goodwill but from balancing the votes in Westminister.

Asquith was dependent on Irish votes. He didnt push through home rule of good heart. He did it for his own political party's survival in govt.

The tables turned in 1916 when George became PM. Dependent on Unionist votes to survive, the home rule was torpedoed in all but name.

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many people had to be killed to attain those rights? Apart, of course, from the passing of a Home Rule bill.

Many were killed and injured in Ireland to attain those rights over many years. That home rule bill was finally given Royal Assent Sept 18th 1914, about 45 years later of first asking.

Btw, we know you would of not taking part in 1916 Rising. What would of been your stance in the War of Independence, would you have fought the British?

sr. kila

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wouldn't describe the actions of O'Connell, Parnell and Redmond as "sitting quietly in their houses and saying nothing", would you?

Redmond achieved nothing not even home rule and that was garunteed..lol..
O connell fair enough but he didnt really change much now did he...

but i would agree with parnell.... but he didnt deliver either

to be fair ireland achieved the most through voilence...

jank

Ireland wasn't a colony, and the Home Rule bill had been passed.

What?.... Of course it was.... It was the first colony of the British. Have you heard of the plantations? Ireland was a test bed for years for the future of british expansion before the new world became the place to go. Maybe technically it was a part of the Union after 1800 but the reality is that it was a colony, ruled by an anglo saxon elite, much like other colonies in the 19th centuary. Even Niall Ferguson in his books say this was so and he is anything but an Irish Republican. Just look at his views on British Imperialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

In fact I would like to see if there was any historian who said other wise.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Why? Because an Act of Union was passed where 90% of the population had no say in the matter at all? You have to do better then that. Technically it may have been but it was only on paper where this was true. Reality it never was hence the calls for independance and the idea behind Ireland as a nation state.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's interesting that you should bring India into it. How many people were killed on Ghandi's orders?

None id say. But how many died in the run up to India's independance and subsequent partition. Some people say it was over a million. Violence occured regardless of what Ghandi said or did. The british empire of post WW2 was much weaker then pre WW1. India's independance was just a matter of time. in 1914 things were not as clear cut and even post WW1 when the winners helped themselves to more subjects and land proved the imperialism was far from dead.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

You're missing something in you're argument. Granting home rule was part of a bartering agreement at the time between Liberals and the Irish MP's. There was no guarantee whatsoever(despite you might say Royal Assent) that it would of been followed through because Llyod Geroge the then PM from 1916 depended on Unionist votes in parliament and we know they were vehemently opposed to home rule.

...and a few years later, another PM may have been dependent on the Nationalists again. Basically, it boils down to this: a minority wanted a 32-county republic, they weren't prepared to wait for it, but they were prepared to kill for it.

At the end of the day we could argue this back and forth, but fundamentally the difference between us is that you believe that a political aim is worth the loss of hundreds or thousands of lives, whereas I believe it's worth working hard for by political and diplomatic means.

Yes it was an occupying power as they forced Ireland into the UK without consent of the population(where 90% didnt have the vote to decide).

How many things in 1800 had the consent of the population? It's a bit farcical to justify armed rebellion in 1916 by criticising the quality of representative democracy in 1800.

But, of course, hindsight is 20:20. A more useful question is: what percentage of Irish people in 1916 felt that their independent nation was occupied by a foreign country?

Eh, firstly they were labelled as being British without their consent and secondly they would of been jailed(torture in some cases) if they disagreed with the status quo.

How much time did Redmond (who most certainly disagreed with the status quo) spend in jail? How much torture did he endure?

Pearse knew that the vast the majority wanted freedom from British rule in whatever form and they had been denied their rights.

He also knew the majority backed a political approach to the issue, but he didn't let that stand in his way.

He had tacit backing from the public...

For an armed rebellion? Did he buggery.

If they had no support, why on earth did their associated party(SF) get so much support?

They didn't get that much support - they were pretty well insolvent by 1915. Even so, they were proposing a political solution to the issues, including the so-called "dual monarchy". They had no involvement in the Easter rising. It's beyond disingenuous to claim that what little support there was for Sinn Féin in 1916 translated into popular support for armed rebellion.

As for the support they gained post-1916, that was largely down to the stupidity of Dublin Castle in blaming them for the Easter rising.

Again, democratic process. 45 years of waiting, generations passed and yet no movement and that movement was not from goodwill but from balancing the votes in Westminister.

Political progress through horse-trading in parliament? Unheard of! Shocking!!

Asquith was dependent on Irish votes. He didnt push through home rule of good heart. He did it for his own political party's survival in govt.

And also because (again cf. djpbarry's quote) he believed it was in the best interest of both countries.

The tables turned in 1916 when George became PM. Dependent on Unionist votes to survive, the home rule was torpedoed in all but name.

Until next time.

But again, it comes down to a difference of opinion. I regularly don't get my way in debates with my peers. When that happens, I bide my time and revisit the issue another day. What do you do? Start a war?

Many were killed and injured in Ireland to attain those rights over many years.

Again, you're asking us to take your word for it that nothing could have been achieved without bloodshed. I don't accept that. How much blood was shed to achieve the independence of Canada? Australia? New Zealand? India?

Btw, we know you would of not taking part in 1916 Rising. What would of been your stance in the War of Independence, would you have fought the British?

I honestly don't know. I've reluctantly got into fights that other idiots have started in the past. That's reason enough for me to avoid starting fights myself.

sr. kila wrote: »

Redmond achieved nothing not even home rule and that was garunteed..lol..

Redmond had achieved Home Rule, until Pearse torpedoed it.

O connell fair enough but he didnt really change much now did he...

Nope. Just Catholic emancipation. But who wanted that?

but i would agree with parnell.... but he didnt deliver either

Not a damn thing, if by "deliver" you use the standard Republican measure of body count.

to be fair ireland achieved the most through voilence...

Again, if your measure of achievement is the amount of blood spilled, I can't argue with that.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just as well Canada started an armed rebellion, so - otherwise they'd have ended up like those poor Australians, under the jackboot of British law to this day.

Right?

Wrong because they were granted Home Rule years before Ireland. Why was this? Why had Canada, Australia, NZ more say in their own affairs. Because as you said the British saw Ireland as a

integral part of the United Kingdom.

They didnt need home rule as 1) The british can rule them better 2) Irish people were catholics i.e inferior.

Yet the reality of the ground was much different. If it wasnt, we would still be part of the union now.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

Maybe technically it was a part of the Union after 1800...

"Technically"? It was part of the Union. You can argue to your heart's content about the legitimacy of the tactics used to buy votes to that end, but that doesn't change the fact that Ireland was an integral part of the UK.

In fact I would like to see if there was any historian who said other wise.

I invite you to read the excellent The Green Flag, by Robert Kee.

Why? Because an Act of Union was passed where 90% of the population had no say in the matter at all?

Yes, because an Act of Union was passed.

You have to do better then that. Technically it may have been but it was only on paper where this was true.

At least I can refer to an Act of Parliament. What's your authority for your statement, beyond Nationalist folklore?

None id say. But how many died in the run up to India's independance and subsequent partition. Some people say it was over a million. Violence occured regardless of what Ghandi said or did.

Would you try to argue that fewer people would have died had Ghandi led an armed rebellion?

The british empire of post WW2 was much weaker then pre WW1. India's independance was just a matter of time. in 1914 things were not as clear cut and even post WW1 when the winners helped themselves to more subjects and land proved the imperialism was far from dead.

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

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

Wrong because they were granted Home Rule years before Ireland.

Whoah, wait a second. The great British Empire - at its zenith, as we've been repeatedly reminded in this thread - actually granted Home Rule to some of its colonies?

This is the undefeated, indivisible Empire that the Irish Republicans had to stage an armed rebellion against, because the dogs in the street knew that Home Rule could never be countenanced?

I'm confused...

Why was this? Why had Canada, Australia, NZ more say in their own affairs. Because as you said the British saw Ireland as a[n integral part of the United Kingdom]. They didnt need home rule as 1) The british can rule them better 2) Irish people were catholics i.e inferior.

And yet, Parliament after Parliament passed Home Rule bills. Strange, that.

Yet the reality of the ground was much different. If it wasnt, we would still be part of the union now.

I can't conceive of any circumstances under which we would still be part of the Union. The impetus towards Home Rule had reached the point where it was effectively unstoppable. It was only a matter of time. It's quite frankly silly to say that we would still be part of the UK now had Pearse not started his little war.