Easter Rising vs modern day terrorism

jimmmy

futurehope wrote: »

Your comparison is bogus. Once Irish independence was secured and the 11% Protestant population gradually whittled down to 2%, The Republic was under no real threat. Unfortunately, this did not happen in Northern Ireland, where The Catholic population started at a much higher percentage and continued to grow. This meant that said Catholic population remained a threat to the very existence of Northern Ireland and still does to a degree.

+1

jimmmy

jank wrote: »

Jimmy has a major complex about Irishness and all things Irish in general. To say that he would like Ireland to be much more like england is an understatement

That is a personal attack and as it happens has no basis in fact, and is completely irrelevant. I actually live in Ireland and have an Irish passport. I had to learn Irish at school, just the same as it was beaten in to my parents at school. I do not discuss your personality or experiences jank ; I would ask you not to attack others again like that.

guinnessdrinker

futurehope wrote: »

Once Irish independence was secured and the 11% Protestant population gradually whittled down to 2%

Just out of interest, when exactly did the Protesteant population decline to a level of only 2%? Any source?

futurehope

Exile 1798 wrote: »

No, the majority of Ireland wanted independence.

And what makes you think that The Island of Ireland had to be the territory that exercised self determination? Does Dublin have the right to go independent if the people there want it? If not, why not?

guinnessdrinker

futurehope wrote: »

And what makes you think that The Island of Ireland had to be the territory that exercised self determination? Does Dublin have the right to go independent if the people there want it? If not, why not?

I think he might have been refering to the people that voted in the 1918 Irish general election.

jimmmy

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Just out of interest, when exactly did the Protesteant population decline to a level of only 2%? Any source?

The central statistic office.

It was actually closer to 3% than 2% as far as I remember, but point something of a percent is not really the point. 11% to 2% or 11% to 2.something percent : same difference. No wonder many northeners are wary of a "united Ireland". Hard to blame them.

guinnessdrinker

jimmmy wrote: »

The central statistic office.

It was actually closer to 3% than 2% as far as I remember, but point something of a percent is not really the point. 11% to 2% or 11% to 2.something percent : same difference. No wonder many northeners are wary of a "united Ireland". Hard to blame them.

Just looked at the CSO website. The first census after the War Of Independance was in 1926, unless I made an error in calculation the figure for protestants is 7% which was down from almost 10% in 1911.

There is no doubt that between 1911 and 1926 the number of protestants declined, for example the number of people from the Church of Ireland fell by 85,320.

However, in the same period the number of Catholics fell by 61,240.

There is a general trend from 1881 to 2006 that shows as the country's population decreased, so too, (obvioulsy enough did the members of each religion). The membership of the catholic church reached it's lowest level in 1961 after which an upward trend in membership began right up to the 2006 census. The membership of the Protestant faiths decreased and reached it's lowest level of membership in 1991, the 2002 and 2006 shows that it's membership figure is also currently on an upward trend.

ilkhanid

"The people on these islands came here at the end of the last ice age, whatever divisions they've put up and imagined between themselves in the meantime don't alter the fact that it's really just one culture in the four nations."

Actually, some of the people in the North came here around 1600, and they are rather different.

"They are Irish, as you well know."

Yes, and both the people of the USA and Canada are Americans. The point is clear.

"How dare you equate the Irish Language with the Republican movement."

Were the Unionist people supposed to appreciate the fine differences between the different strands of Republicanism,Nationalism, and Catholicism, between the theory and the practice?
When they looked South they saw the IRA, attacks on poppy wearers and boy scouts,Union flags pulled down and burnt, Protestant librarians dismissed, the Fethard boycott,censorship,an enforced Irish language, Protestant demographic decline,divorce and contraception banned,John Charles McQuaid, Article 44,The Eucharistic congress,Cosgrave and De Valera kowtowing to the hierarchy etc etc etc. Indeed as David Trimble said, they made a cold house for the Catholic minority, but what reason did they have to believe that the United Ireland prepared for them would be a warm place either?

Grudaire

ilkhanid wrote: »

Were the Unionist people supposed to appreciate the fine differences between the different strands of Republicanism,Nationalism, and Catholicism, between the theory and the practice?
When they looked South they saw the IRA, attacks on poppy wearers and boy scouts,Union flags pulled down and burnt, Protestant librarians dismissed, the Fethard boycott,censorship,an enforced Irish language, Protestant demographic decline,divorce and contraception banned,John Charles McQuaid, Article 44,The Eucharistic congress,Cosgrave and De Valera kowtowing to the hierarchy etc etc etc. Indeed as David Trimble said, they made a cold house for the Catholic minority, but what reason did they have to believe that the United Ireland prepared for them would be a warm place either?

Simply yes - they should be able to tell the difference (Although this tended to be a stumbling block for many with guns (on both sides, but the self proclaimed and actual British had BIG problems with it)). Either way I see no connection between the language and Republicanism - hell I've to learn English as well.

Now to get some context on what I said: "<rant>Those who enforced Irish language and culture <more rant>" by jimmmy - I don't for one second believe that the Irish language has got anything to do with the question at hand, so I invite further comments like this:

jimmmy wrote:

I actually live in Ireland and have an Irish passport. I had to learn Irish at school, just the same as it was beaten in to my parents at school.

... to another thread (in which we can all conspire to have it closed:pac:)

jank

jimmmy wrote: »

That is a personal attack and as it happens has no basis in fact, and is completely irrelevant. I actually live in Ireland and have an Irish passport. I had to learn Irish at school, just the same as it was beaten in to my parents at school. I do not discuss your personality or experiences jank ; I would ask you not to attack others again like that.

I was attacking your previous posts not you.

Regards you having to learn Irish at school. well poor you tbh. I would play a small violin for you if I knew how.

You do know to go to a University one needs a Leaving Cert in a european language, yet no one has a problem with this.

I had to lean french for 6 years. HELP ME, MY CIVIL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED!!!:rolleyes:

Irish people will always complain such is their nature. They have a huge inferoity complex about their language. I struggle to think of any other nation on this earth that has this issue. Here in NZ they learn Maori and it is no big deal. I worked with many Welsh IT consulatants and the majority of them spoke Welsh even on the phone to their wives. I thought it was brilliant but us Irish would be embarresed to speak the cupla focal.

Anyway this is a topic for another thread.
:pac:

Rebelheart

jimmmy wrote: »

The central statistic office.

It was actually closer to 3% than 2% as far as I remember, but point something of a percent is not really the point. 11% to 2% or 11% to 2.something percent : same difference. No wonder many northeners are wary of a "united Ireland". Hard to blame them.

I, too, would like to know where you are getting your figures. PartyGuinness has fortunately checked them and found them wanting. Many other sources collaborate his figure of over 7%. Ian Lustick of Cornell University puts the figure at 7.4%, and puts the decline down to the withdrawal of the British military garrison from Ireland and other emigration:

http://tinyurl.com/dcjmtq (page 531)

But as Todd and Ruane point out Protestant emigration was in fact lower than Catholic emigration:

http://tinyurl.com/chgre3 (page 244)

gurramok

O'Coonassa wrote: »

You think it had nothing at all to with the fact the the RC Church changed its doctrine so that children born to mixed couples had to be brought up Catholic?

Thats misleading. It is not the sole factor, its one of a number of factors which included military personnel leaving as well as Unionists migrating up north.

My grandfather was a Dublin Protestant who married a Catholic and whose kids were raised Catholic. Thats a result yes of the Catholic church rules, but he did not choose to marry within the Protestant faith, he chose to marry outside it. He was not forced to marry someone who was Catholic, big difference.

jimmmy

Rebelheart wrote: »

I, too, would like to know where you are getting your figures. PartyGuinness has fortunately checked them and found them wanting. Many other sources collaborate his figure of over 7%. Ian Lustick of Cornell University puts the figure at 7.4%, and puts the decline down to the withdrawal of the British military garrison from Ireland and other emigration:

http://tinyurl.com/dcjmtq (page 531)

But as Todd and Ruane point out Protestant emigration was in fact lower than Catholic emigration:

http://tinyurl.com/chgre3 (page 244)

I checked your link + found it was "over 10% ", not 7.4%

The "British military" in Ireland comprised mostly of Catholics.

jimmmy

gurramok wrote: »

My grandfather was a Dublin Protestant who married a Catholic and whose kids were raised Catholic. Thats a result yes of the Catholic church rules, but he did not choose to marry within the Protestant faith, he chose to marry outside it. He was not forced to marry someone who was Catholic, big difference.

The Catholic Church rules was that in the case of mixed marriages, the children had to be brought up Roman Catholics, and everything possible was done to have the marriage in a Catholic church etc. Roman Catholicism was the only "one true" religion, and everything possible was done to get the non-Catholic partner to convert. Remember the boycott at Fethard on Sea?

jimmmy

ilkhanid wrote: »

Were the Unionist people supposed to appreciate the fine differences between the different strands of Republicanism,Nationalism, and Catholicism, between the theory and the practice?
When they looked South they saw the IRA, attacks on poppy wearers and boy scouts,Union flags pulled down and burnt, Protestant librarians dismissed, the Fethard boycott,censorship,an enforced Irish language, Protestant demographic decline,divorce and contraception banned,John Charles McQuaid, Article 44,The Eucharistic congress,Cosgrave and De Valera kowtowing to the hierarchy etc etc etc. Indeed as David Trimble said, they made a cold house for the Catholic minority, but what reason did they have to believe that the United Ireland prepared for them would be a warm place either?

No reason, so hard to blame them.

Rebelheart

jimmmy wrote: »

I checked your link + found it was "over 10% ", not 7.4%

The "British military" in Ireland comprised mostly of Catholics.

I suggest you re-read then. And could you footnote that last claim? Last I looked at a book Catholics were leaving the British military forces in droves during the War of Independence, most noticably in the military police force named the RIC. And you are talking about the 1926 Census still, aren't you?

jimmmy

Rebelheart wrote: »

I suggest you re-read then.

One of your links says the protestant percentage of the populastion fell from over 10% in 1911 to 5% in 1961.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Last I looked at a book Catholics were leaving the British military forces in droves during the War of Independence, most noticably in the military police force named the RIC. And you are talking about the 1926 Census still, aren't you?

I did not mention the 1926 census at all : I merely noted " The "British military" in Ireland comprised mostly of Catholics. " I do not think the "British military" has a very big "garrison" in the 26 counties of Ireland in 1926, do you ?

O'Coonassa

ilkhanid wrote: »

"The people on these islands came here at the end of the last ice age, whatever divisions they've put up and imagined between themselves in the meantime don't alter the fact that it's really just one culture in the four nations."

Actually, some of the people in the North came here around 1600, and they are rather different.

They were deported here from just over the water and are therefore of the same stock that came here from the Basque region at the end of the last ice age. I can't see who you imagine to be 'different' and why. If you look at the distribution of genetic markers in Ireland and the UK it's all pretty much the same monkey more or less. Certainly there is no substantial genetic difference between the two bands of angry sectarian nut-jobs in the northeast. Any difference is purely imagined. In fact genetically speaking those people are more closely related to each other than they are, to say, people in Galway.

O'Coonassa

gurramok wrote: »

Thats misleading. It is not the sole factor, its one of a number of factors which included military personnel leaving as well as Unionists migrating up north.

I didn't say it was the only factor, the OP had entirely ignored it from his list of factors. Certainly it's an important one and as far as I know it remains one.

jimmmy

O'Coonassa wrote: »

They were deported here from just over the water and are therefore of the same stock that came here from the Basque region at the end of the last ice age.

The first settlers came to Ireland from Britain. It was much closer than any Basque region. Even today you can see Ireland from Scotland on a clear day.

O'Coonassa

jimmmy wrote: »

The first settlers came to Ireland from Britain. It was much closer than any Basque region. Even today you can see Ireland from Scotland on a clear day.

So then in your book everybody must be Brits lol If you investigate you'll find those Brits came from the Basque region.

Exile 1798

jimmmy wrote: »

The first settlers came to Ireland from Britain. It was much closer than any Basque region. Even today you can see Ireland from Scotland on a clear day.

Yes, you can see Ireland from some Gaelic speaking Scottish Islands...

What exactly was your point, a chara?

ilkhanid

O'Coonassa wrote: »

So then in your book everybody must be Brits lol If you investigate you'll find those Brits came from the Basque region.

Everybody in Ireland is really a Brit; every Brit is really Basque; every Basque is really an african and so on back to the Great Rift Valley. Most people are very closely related in genetic terms, even those who look very different. There is little to differentiate a Serb and a Kosovan, an Abkhazian and a Georgian,a Hutu and a Tutsi.The problem is culture and history. It is that which creates imagined communities that people call races, nations, religions...or what have you.

Erin Go Brath

ilkhanid wrote: »

Everybody in Ireland is really a Brit; every Brit is really Basque; every Basque is really an african and so on back to the Great Rift Valley. Most people are very closely related in genetic terms, even those who look very different. There is little to differentiate a Serb and a Kosovan, an Abkhazian and a Georgian,a Hutu and a Tutsi.The problem is culture and history. It is that which creates imagined communities that people call races, nations, religions...or what have you.

And we're all related to adam and eve etc etc etc. Like it or not the world is divided into different nations with different customs, cultures etc. Its what makes the world an interesting place. The world would be quite boring if all the countries in it were exactly the same.

By your way of thinking nobody would bother to support the Ireland soccer team for example. If Italy or Germany beat us thats just great because we're all the same anyway.

ilkhanid

"And we're all related to adam and eve etc etc etc. Like it or not the world is divided into different nations with different customs, cultures etc. Its what makes the world an interesting place. The world would be quite boring if all the countries in it were exactly the same.

By your way of thinking nobody would bother to support the Ireland soccer team for example. If Italy or Germany beat us thats just great because we're all the same anyway. "

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. If people were aware of the flimsiness of the base of racism, it would help a lot,but I'm not claiming culture is irrelevant;quite the contrary. Trying to push people into boxes that they "should" be in is a recipe for trouble and peoples religion ,historical heritage and language are usually just as important to them as their racial or ethnic heritage.