Commemorate 1798 with a 'United Irishmen' Day petition

O'Morris

Bond-007 wrote: »

That would just get up the noses of other people that do not agree with an independent Ireland.

Why would it get up their noses? What's offensive about the idea of Irish national independence?

Our man in Havana

It may be offensive to those on the island that do not support 1798/1916 and other ill conceived pointless rebellions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

O'Morris

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I honestly don't know the answer to that question. What is offensive about the idea of an independent Ireland?

Jesus1222

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This has nothing to do with the matter being discussed.

For the unionist, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and should always remain so. So you're never going to get the unionist to "respect the opinions" of Wolfe Tone and friends.

I don't think staunch Unionists respect anything other than Unionism tbh, from liberation theology to new-puritanism if it's not part of the Unionist agenda then they're against it! Whatever it may be. I'm talking though about a healthy respect for the ideals of the United Irishmen, as a legitimate, non-threatening political position that we, in this State, could celebrate without it causing ructions in North for having the temerity to hold an opinion on Irish history down there.

Clearly, I'm not saying they should start dancing around in Wolfe Tone death masks and doing jigs and so on just cos' I like the United Irishmen. I'm not sure where you're getting that from or what you're even talking about there. Frankly you're missing the point completely.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

junder

b12mearse wrote: »

wasn't the orange order introduced to create sectarianism in ireland. they were formed a couple of years before the united irishmen to divide and combat republicanism?

No they were form in responce to the ribbon men. As for the 1798 rebelion, Scullaboge and Portadown are reason enough for any unionistr not to want to remeber the united irish men

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Our man in Havana

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also threatening to unionists in the south.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jesus1222

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I dislike it when political opinions are elevated to religious opinions that people can become "offended" over if they hear somebody dare to express a contrary opinion. And if you believe that the sacred ground of NI must always remain part of the UK then you must also believe that the island of Ireland must again become part of the UK. The Northern State is less than 90 years old. A legitimate political opinion that Ireland should be united (it is a small island afterall) and independent should not "offend" anybody who is in their right mind. It's called "tolerance" and an big part of being a member of a civilised society based on democracy.

I could say I find ethnic cleansing and colonialism offensive and that anybody who questions my logic on this in relation to the legitimacy of Northern Ireland as a political entity is "offending" me. But that would be senseless.

The fact is that the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland was artificially created through a campaign that by today's standards would result in prosecutions in the Hague. The process is known today as ethnic cleansing. That does not mean I believe the descendents of settlers should be forcibly removed, attacked or that their opinions shouldn't be heard in a democratic way but I think elevating their history, which sometimes involved some truly despicable attacks on the pre-existing culture, to some sort of religiously untouchable belief system that takes precedence over other opinions is absolute nonsense. It's part of an idealogy of supremacy in my opinion. I don't look at Ulster colonialists any different than I do Spanish or British colonialists who went to the new world or even Israeli settlers btw. I judge them by the same standards. It's not a political opinion I hold.

I hope those sort of opinions are changing and that everybody, no matter who they are or what their beliefs are, could look at something like the United Irishmen without becoming "offended".

Jesus1222

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's the problem, people who hold a contrary opinion to you are not "threats". That is actually quite dangerous. We live in a civilised democracy. It's part of the deal. I would suggest to anybody who feels threatened a positive view of the United Irishmen that their viewpoint is immature, putting it politely.

Our man in Havana

Many people would not consider that united irishmen as a postive thing.

Jesus1222

Bond-007 wrote: »

Many people would not consider that united irishmen as a postive thing.

:rolleyes:

I'm not saying they have to, they can disagree with them. I'm basically saying that the reactionary Unionist opinion, shared by many people on this forum, that any positive opinion of <insert something pro-Irish, pro-Independence or pro-Catholic civil rights> is dirty, threatening or offensive is very wrong. Respecting the ideals of the United Irishmen if not their actions and in the process acknowledging that a pro-unity pro-independent opinion is a legitimate one, should not be beyond anybody on his island.

GuanYin

Moderation Note:

There will be a zero tolerance approach by me to sectarian-themed/Northern Ireland threads in future.

Any hint of baiting, flaming, abuse, fog of war or derailing will lead to an immediate sanction and set you up for an auto 1 month ban for subsequent breaches in such threads.

I'm putting out this fire and I don't mind how many I take out while doing it

Any feedback or response to this does not belong in this thread

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FTA69

Many people would not consider that united irishmen as a postive thing.

Why not? Ireland was a dirt-poor, agrarian colony where peasants lived in abject poverty under the thumb of absentee landlords and the cities contained the worst slums in Europe. Similarly the country was divided into three-tier society, split along sectarian lines with an Anglican ascendancy.

The United Irishmen stood against colonialism, against imperialism and against slavery. They articulated egalitarianism, an end to sectarianism and the concept of Irish freedom. How could you not consider that positive?

DF,

On similar grounds, would you support abolishing the United States and transferring all current U.S. territory back to the descendants of Native Americans?

No. But it would be a good start if they'd stop treating them like sh*t.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jesus1222

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yet the Orange Order itself resulted from an attack by Protestant gangs to this end; establishing Protestant supremacy over the native Gaelic population. I don't agree anyway, establishing your power over a neighbouring island and people by military force, following it up by a campaign of ethnic cleansing, does not legitimise your State's power there. Furthermore, the United Irishmen wanted to unite everybody on the island, settlers included, they wanted to hand power TO settlers, not take their land and sovereignty.

You simply can't expect unionists to celebrate such ideals along with you. And you can't expect them to see the very act of celebrating such ideals as anything other than sectarian and divisive.

How does Unionist opinion expect us to see the 12th of July?

And I don't expect them to celebrate it, I expect, in a democratic society, for them to respect a certain opinion of the United Irishmen as a legitimate one and also to respect those who think this island should be one state and recognise it as a legitimate political aspiration. One that does not "threaten" them.

No, you don't, given the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, passed by the British Parliament.

Exactly.

Of course it offends unionists. The entire unionist identity is oriented around maintaining the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No other arrangement is acceptable, in their view.

That's fine, but I can't understand how anybody could be "offended" by a legitimate political aspiration. This seems to be a very immature and reactionary viewpoint. People who believe in socialism don't offend me, people who vote for the PDs don't offend me, not even Unionists offend me. I can't see how anybody could take offence at a viewpoint on a united Ireland being expressed.

On similar grounds, would you support abolishing the United States and transferring all current U.S. territory back to the descendants of Native Americans?

No. No more than I would support abolishing the Northern Statelet and transferring all land and property down to those with Gaelic heritage. I would just take exception to any history or political viewpoint that does not acknowledge the suffering and dispossession of Native Americans. I should also think that Native Americans expressing an opinion on what happened to them could never be "offensive" to a US citizen, in fact such viewpoints should and probably are accepted with some humility. A humility which we will never see in Unionism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RiverWilde

Oh god not another, 'we were downtrodden and miserable so we had to have a revolution and we wound up getting shot for the cause,' threads.

Why do we have to live in the past in this country? I'm not saying the past should be forgotten, it just seems that so many people want to live there.

Instead of concentrating on what our grandfathers did or our great grandfathers did, why not concentrate on what we can do and how to cement our relationships with the other political entities in the Isles.

Riv

conchubhar1

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

what about the hundreds of years before they were there? (before it was british) (i use hundreds purely just to draw a line because otherwise we go into a swirl of but before that there was this group and then we were part of mainland europe and then we were .....)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

O'Coonassa

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

FYP lol but you're exactly right in what you're saying here, it's a great pity.

It'd be good to go back to the roots of libertarian Republicanism but to get the message of the United Irish across to the Dissenters we'd have to go further back than 1798 and co-opt the first Republican to come here; Mr Oliver Cromwell.

Let's celebrate Cromwell's day Without the people he 'planted' there'd have been no United Irish movement.

Benedict XVI

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The point, I suppose, is that the June bank holiday itself is pointless.

I am quiet happy with the June bank holiday weekend as it is.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, Im illustrating they aren't, contrary to your earlier assertions eg "A nonsectarian Irish republic?That's a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it?

gurramok

Riverwilde wrote:

Oh god not another, 'we were downtrodden and miserable so we had to have a revolution and we wound up getting shot for the cause,' threads.

Why do we have to live in the past in this country? I'm not saying the past should be forgotten, it just seems that so many people want to live there.

Instead of concentrating on what our grandfathers did or our great grandfathers did, why not concentrate on what we can do and how to cement our relationships with the other political entities in the Isles.

To understand present difficulties, one has to look at past difficulties to help resolve them. Its the same anywhere else where there is\was a conflict

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

On reading through the thread, i was wondering who was threatened and got an answer here.

Bond-007 wrote: »

Also threatening to unionists in the south.

But this part confuses me. Where are they?

There are no Unionist political reps in the south so there is no threat at all.

Our man in Havana

Just because there are no unionist parties in the south don't mean there are none here. You do realise there are orange lodges in the south. I would bet money that the members are unionists.

gurramok

Bond-007 wrote: »

Just because there are no unionist parties in the south don't mean there are none here. You do realise there are orange lodges in the south. I would bet money that the members are unionists.

Yes, there are Orange lodges in the South. They are tiny in number. There are probably more people affliated to the Muslim faith than there are to the Orange lodges

If independence and allegiance to a foreign nation was such an issue, why do these 'Southern Unionists' you speak of not have a political voice for their views?

Maybe they are loyal to this state after all as they have not bothered to oppose it politically through any political party representation in the Dail.

On the topic, the United Irishmen united both traditions on this island for a brief period until brutally suppressed and this uniting voice has not happened politically since so what they did was a good thing and they should be remembered.