Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
93 years today!!
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
no i mean like anybody claiming any part of Ireland to be non Irish. namely Planters who have deluded themselves into thinking the north east of Ireland is actualy the UK,
But it is
they have not been without help from some of there fellow eqauly deluded west brit partners.
Ah yes, the west brits > that would be people like me then, who feel a kindred spirit & a deep cultural identity with the people on the island next door! Actually, the older I get the more comfortable I feel with the term 'west brit' which Republicans insist on calling people like me who openly embrace a different more inclusive tradition of Irishness (from theirs).0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Shane-1 said:So again, do you condone the actions of the unionist leadership in relation to the catholic people of the north? Its just that you have so much to say on the wrongdoings of the IRA that I felt it would be interesting to see what you had to say about the wrongdoings from the orange/unionist side, which of course predated the IRA reaction.
I have several times explained the reasoning for the inequalities that developed in The North. Primarily the resistance of Northern Catholics initially to make Northern Ireland work. Consequently they were treated as a fifth column. As for such 'wrongdoings' predating IRA re-action, I think you'll find there was militant Republican action in every decade from the creation of Northern Ireland, most famously the border campaign, which preceded 'the troubles' by a decade. You see my friend if you feel a section of society is loyal primarily to a foreign and hostile state, you are hardly likely to treat such people in the same manner you treat those loyal to your own state.Have you ever heard of the Special Powers Act of 1922, an 'emergency' legislation renewed each year to legalise discrimination.
I'm not aware of the details of this act, perhaps you could show me how it discriminated against Roman Catholics (if at all)?Internment without trial,
The Republic interned people, were they wrong?banning of any meetings/ demonstrations etc.
Orange marches were banned from time to time.Police commonly used very violent tactics against the catholic population, especially the B Specials whose actions were essentially those of a legalised militia.
Could you give me details of when The RUC or B Specials killed Roman Catholics prior to 69? Excluding the violence at Northern Ireland's birth which mirrored the violence occurring in The South at that time.With regards the where is the violence I mention? You tell me I have a narrow point of view, well if you even read page one of a northern history book you would see that in the very first two years of the states existance there was 557 people killed, and who were the majority? Dead right, got it in one - catholics.
And how many were being killed in political violence in The South at that time? Both The Free State and Northern Ireland were born in violence. Nationalists had very aggressive claims on Northern Ireland at that time (and since), and yet you expect them to have been treated with 'kid gloves'. :rolleyes:The protesters were not concerned with the idea of a united Ireland, they wished for equality and fair treatment within the northern state.
And yet Republicans have since admitted they had infiltrated it and were manipulating it for their own purposes.Im sure you will jump in again now with your speil about viewing all this in terms of IRA campaign etc etc, in fact the attack mentioned above there at Burntollet bridge is regarded by many as being the start of the troubles
Your problem is you ignore the context of Northern Ireland prior to 68/69, a context I've already explained several times.Are you serious? These people were marching to demand even the most basic human rights that they were entitled to, rights denied to them by the northern state, and you are honestly suggesting that they should have brought along union jacks! Would you celebrate a state which discriminates against you to this level? Would your southern blacks have brought along a few confederate flags?
Southern blacks never had The US flag away from their hands.Mr Sands was not connected to the civil rights movement, you are getting confused here. The civil rights movement was seperate from the IRA, Im sure if you dont have the narrow minded view of history you accuse me of holding then you know this already.
The civil rights movement was not separate from Irish Republicanism. The IRA were not fighting for civil rights. It's only looking back from a position of defeat that some Republicans are revising their position. The IRA fought for a 32 county, socialist, Gaelic, Republic. If you don't believe me, ask some of them - those who don't now work for The UK state that is.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement