McDowell calls for 12 July to be public holiday in Ireland

KrazeeEyezKilla

The worst thing about people calling for the 12th to be made a holiday is the smug way that they constantly go on about "maturity", "forward thinking" and calling anyone who disagrees with them bigoted. The OO is completely driving by bigotery and triumphalism. It has nothing to do with protestant culture. Defending them isn't tolerance, it's cowarice (or in some cases a barely disguised bigotry of their own).

20Cent

PeteEd wrote: »

If your goal is a truly United Ireland, the hundreds of thousands of people who feel allegiance to the OO need to feel accepted.

This makes no sense. The purpose of the oo is that there is not a united Ireland.
How is one supposed to accept someone who wants their country under foreign rule?

johnnyskeleton

20Cent wrote: »

This makes no sense. The purpose of the oo is that there is not a united Ireland.
How is one supposed to accept someone who wants their country under foreign rule?

I dunno, I'd love to have the Germans running this place instead of FF. It would make the trains run on time at least.

Wolfe Tone

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dunno, I'd love to have the Germans running this place instead of FF. It would make the trains run on time at least.

The Italians are good at that too......

junder

bobbysands81 wrote: »

No they don't. A hate organisation such as the orange order should have no place in a modern democracy.

On the other hand I believe that this State should bend over backwards to welcome our unionist friends in a shared future free of sectarianism and discrimination.

Parhaps you should remove the colour orange from your flag then

Wolfe Tone

so the OO is the Orange part of the flag? The OO is all protestants?

junder

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote: »

The worst thing about people calling for the 12th to be made a holiday is the smug way that they constantly go on about "maturity", "forward thinking" and calling anyone who disagrees with them bigoted. The OO is completely driving by bigotery and triumphalism. It has nothing to do with protestant culture. Defending them isn't tolerance, it's cowarice (or in some cases a barely disguised bigotry of their own).

The orange order has nothing to do with Protestant culture in northern Ireland then? So what about the 60,000 orange men and women who paraded in northern Ireland over the 12th with parhaps double that in bands men and women plus who knows how many thousands of people watching the parades

murphaph

The last thing the Republic of Ireland is another public holiday. A day's lost production. Maybe move one of the existing ones, 17th of March maybe <ducks for cover>.....

Wolfe Tone

What about the idea of a new public holiday? Maybe like "National heritage day" where people celebrate the things about their heritage they want?

junder

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

so the OO is the Orange part of the flag? The OO is all protestants?

Why was the colour orange chosen to represent the unionist tradition in the first place?

hitbit

It was the British Empire when it had all of this country enslaved.
This country is as free as it will ever get. You only have to read the utterings of the muppets here to see that there is little or no support for the ongoing republician " armed struggle ". That cause was lost long ago as the atrocities became more and more stomach churning. Now most people south of the border see those involved in the continued " armed struggle " as terrorists rather than freedom fighters.

hitbit

hitbit

The muppets here keep ranting on about the Green White and Orange colours of our national flag signifying peace or understanding or whatever between the south and the north / nationalists and unionists, protestants etc etc.
For your information this is incorrect. The Tricolour was originally presented to Tom Meagher by a group of female French sympathisers in 1848 and only came to prominence in 1916 when it was raised over the GPO. It has f**K all to do with peace and or Ulster, orangemen, protestants etc. Because of its raising over the GPO and the brutality of the empire towards those who were forced to surrender it became a symbol of the struggle for independence and was subsequently adopted as the national flag. ok

hitbit

hitbit

junder wrote: »

Why was the colour orange chosen to represent the unionist tradition in the first place?

The Dutch royal family who ruled Britain at the time originated from the town of Orange in France. Hence William of Orange. They chose orange in honour of the scumbag who butched many Irishmen, women and children both catholic and protestant.

Denerick

hitbit wrote: »

It was the British Empire when it had all of this country enslaved.
This country is as free as it will ever get. You only have to read the utterings of the muppets here to see that there is little or no support for the ongoing republician " armed struggle ". That cause was lost long ago as the atrocities became more and more stomach churning. Now most people south of the border see those involved in the continued " armed struggle " as terrorists rather than freedom fighters.

hitbit

How were we 'enslaved' by the British Empire? The Liberal British Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech for a wide range of extreme publications, Republicans among them. Its hardly a slave relationship when the dominant State is subsidising land redistribution from its dominant and most loyal class to a generally disloyal peasantry and who allowed the likes of D.P. Moran to publically publish seditious tracts calling for an overthrow of the State.

I almost feel I have to post this disclaimer, judging by the ill thought passions that run amock in this thread - I am not a Unionist, a Nationalist or a Republican. I am just an Irishman able to see bull**** when its staring right back at me.

junder

hitbit wrote: »

The Dutch royal family who ruled Britain at the time originated from the town of Orange in France. Hence William of Orange. They chose orange in honour of the scumbag who butched many Irishmen, women and children both catholic and protestant.

So the orange part of your flag represents king William of orange so does that mean the green part of your flag represents king James?
Enlighten me just when did king William of orange butchered Catholics and Protestants think I missed that in history

gurramok

Denerick wrote: »

Where did I say I speak on behalf of them? What is your purpose in this thread, if you don't mind me asking?

To counter your insulting point about the 1916 heroes. The British Empire is over, we're not going back to rejoin it, get over it.

Denerick wrote: »

I almost feel I have to post this disclaimer, judging by the ill thought passions that run amock in this thread - I am not a Unionist, a Nationalist or a Republican. I am just an Irishman able to see bull**** when its staring right back at me.

Pull the other one:rolleyes:

From your posts, you'd be delighted to have 12th July as a public holiday without a doubt.

Fratton Fred

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The Italians are good at that too......

Not since your namesake got strung up they aren't, unless things have changed significantly in the past couple of years.

bobbysands81

Denerick wrote: »

How were we 'enslaved' by the British Empire? The Liberal British Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech for a wide range of extreme publications, Republicans among them. Its hardly a slave relationship when the dominant State is subsidising land redistribution from its dominant and most loyal class to a generally disloyal peasantry and who allowed the likes of D.P. Moran to publically publish seditious tracts calling for an overthrow of the State.

I know this is off topic and I know you are a well read person but seriously... open your eyes... have a look at British misrule in Ireland over the centuries, it has been the cause of the death of over 1 million Irish people yet some are so blinkered that they cannot see. (Try reading about The Confederate War, Cromwell's coquest of Ireland and sending Irish folk off to slavery in the West Indies, all lands were taken away from Irish Catholics who were then not allowed run for election to Irish parliament, were unable to live in towns or to marry Protestants, then move on to 1690 and 1691 and the re-introduction of the Penal Laws, then the Rebellion of 1798 and all the deaths associated with that, the so called "Famine", the Land Wars (which you obviously never read about), the needless deaths of as many as 50,000 Irishmen fighting for England in World War 1, the 1916 Rising, the treatment of Irish people by the Black n Tans, and then on to the Civil Right's Movement and her refusal to see Irish Catholic people as first class citizens with a vote and an end to discrimination which led to the murder of 14 innocent people on Bloody Sunday.)

England's involvement is Irish affairs has been (literally) a bloody mess, to dress it up that they gave us "freedom of speech" and redistributed land (that THEY already stole for us) shows an ignorant knowledge of the past.

When you refuse self determination to a people they usually fight back.

The British Government has no right in Ireland, never had any right in Ireland, and never can have any right in Ireland.

Kev_ps3

Denerick wrote: »

How were we 'enslaved' by the British Empire? The Liberal British Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech for a wide range of extreme publications, Republicans among them. Its hardly a slave relationship when the dominant State is subsidising land redistribution from its dominant and most loyal class to a generally disloyal peasantry and who allowed the likes of D.P. Moran to publically publish seditious tracts calling for an overthrow of the State.

I almost feel I have to post this disclaimer, judging by the ill thought passions that run amock in this thread - I am not a Unionist, a Nationalist or a Republican. I am just an Irishman able to see bull**** when its staring right back at me.

Well we were litterly enslaved when Cromwell sent our people to Barbados and American colonies. Thousands of Irish people.
Thats not to mention the master and slave relationship that went on here for hundreds of years.

bobbysands81

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Well we were litterly enslaved when Cromwell sent our people to Barbados and American colonies. Thousands of Irish people.
Thats not to mention the master and slave relationship that went on here for hundreds of years.

"To Hell or Barbados" is a good book to start with about this time... Sean O Callghan (not the informer dude!) is the author I think.

Denerick

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I know this is off topic and I know you are a well read person but seriously... open your eyes... have a look at British misrule in Ireland over the centuries, it has been the cause of the death of over 1 million Irish people yet some are so blinkered that they cannot see. (Try reading about The Confederate War, Cromwell's coquest of Ireland and sending Irish folk off to slavery in the West Indies, all lands were taken away from Irish Catholics who were then not allowed run for election to Irish parliament, were unable to live in towns or to marry Protestants, then move on to 1690 and 1691 and the re-introduction of the Penal Laws, then the Rebellion of 1798 and all the deaths associated with that, the so called "Famine", the Land Wars (which you obviously never read about), the needless deaths of as many as 50,000 Irishmen fighting for England in World War 1, the 1916 Rising, the treatment of Irish people by the Black n Tans, and then on to the Civil Right's Movement and her refusal to see Irish Catholic people as first class citizens with a vote and an end to discrimination which led to the murder of 14 innocent people on Bloody Sunday.)

England's involvement is Irish affairs has been (literally) a bloody mess, to dress it up that they gave us "freedom of speech" and redistributed land (that THEY already stole for us) shows an ignorant knowledge of the past.

When you refuse self determination to a people they usually fight back.

The British Government has no right in Ireland, never had any right in Ireland, and never can have any right in Ireland.

Its funny how the litany of historical grievances get rolled out by Republicans to justify terrorism. Do you know something, we are not the only nation with a dark history. Our history doesn't justify anything. Get over it.

LordSutch

hitbit wrote: »

Now most people south of the border see those involved in the continued " armed struggle " as terrorists rather than freedom fighters. hitbit

Just in case there's any grey area about this Hitbit, we never saw them as 'freedom fighters' in the first place, not fifteen years ago, not twenty years ago, not thirty years ago, they were always viewed as terrorists by 'most' people North & South of the border!

bobbysands81

Denerick wrote: »

Its funny how the litany of historical grievances get rolled out by Republicans to justify terrorism. Do you know something, we are not the only nation with a dark history. Our history doesn't justify anything. Get over it.

It's funny how people become hypocrites when talking about atrocities carried out by the Brits.

Denerick - you agreed earlier that the British had no moral or legal right to be in Afghanistan or Iraq - who are the terrorists now?

Britain IS a terrorist state (and that's according to America's definition of a terrorist state).

Denerick

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It's funny how people become hypocrites when talking about atrocities carried out by the Brits.

Denerick - you agreed earlier that the British had no moral or legal right to be in Afghanistan or Iraq - who are the terrorists now?

Britain IS a terrorist state (and that's according to America's definition of a terrorist state).

I don't see how that follows.

bobbysands81

Denerick wrote: »

I don't see how that follows.

Which bit do you not understand?

Denerick

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Which bit do you not understand?

That a democratically elected government that in both the UK and the US were elected before the invasions and after the invasions are comparable to a small, tiny group of gun toting fanatics incapable of either compassion or reason.

bobbysands81

Denerick wrote: »

That a democratically elected government that in both the UK and the US were elected before the invasions and after the invasions are comparable to a small, tiny group of gun toting fanatics incapable of either compassion or reason.

But the British Army are a group of gun toting fanatics.

No matter what you say the Brits had no mandate for their wars... yet they went ahead with them.

The only difference between violent Republicans and the Brits is that the Brits have been responsible for the deaths of countless multiples more people that Republicans have been responsible for.

Britain is a terrorist state.

junder

bobbysands81 wrote: »

But the British Army are a group of gun toting fanatics.

No matter what you say the Brits had no mandate for their wars... yet they went ahead with them.

The only difference between violent Republicans and the Brits is that the Brits have been responsible for the deaths of countless multiples more people that Republicans have been responsible for.

Britain is a terrorist state.

I am not a fanatic, generally I think I am quite level headed of course as a trained solider I am bound by the international law of armed conflict, and of course can be held accountable for my actions by civilian, military or international courts and I am accountable as a individual for my actions, the excuse of ' I was just carrying out orders' is no longer a viable defence.

ChristopherUno

Denerick wrote: »

Its funny how the litany of historical grievances get rolled out by Republicans to justify terrorism. Do you know something, we are not the only nation with a dark history. Our history doesn't justify anything. Get over it.

Without the Fenians, the Young Irish, the IRA and other 'terrorist' organisations how could Ireland have ever regained its freedom? We were barred from politics remember. What diplomatic solution is there when you aren't allowed to the negotiating table? The deaths of almost one quarter of the population, by violence and starvation, is surely a legitimate reason for grievance.

Our relations with the Brits have improved considerably but I wonder whether we're forgetting just how bad they were when they ruled here? As for making the 12th a public holiday, unless the Brits celebrate the French Revolution and the Japanese celebrate the dropping of the bomb why on earth should we celebrate the event which heralded the enslavement of our nation for hundreds of years?

Denerick

ChristopherUno wrote: »

Without the Fenians, the Young Irish, the IRA and other 'terrorist' organisations how could Ireland have ever regained its freedom?

Ireland did not become a Republic because of violence. Ireland became a Republic after 20 odd years of Dominion, peaceful rule.

We were barred from politics remember.

No we weren't.

What diplomatic solution is there when you aren't allowed to the negotiating table? The deaths of almost one quarter of the population, by violence and starvation, is surely a legitimate reason for grievance.

What on earth are you talking about?

Our relations with the Brits have improved considerably but I wonder whether we're forgetting just how bad they were when they ruled here? As for making the 12th a public holiday, unless the Brits celebrate the French Revolution and the Japanese celebrate the dropping of the bomb why on earth should we celebrate the event which heralded the enslavement of our nation for hundreds of years?

No offence, but have you actually read any Irish history?

stevoslice

Denerick wrote: »

Ireland did not become a Republic because of violence. Ireland became a Republic after 20 odd years of Dominion, peaceful rule.

Yeah peaceful right. ask the people who had their lives ruined by the black and tans about peaceful dominion (i mean are you for real).

No offence, but have you actually read any Irish history?

ChristopherUno

Denerick wrote: »

Ireland did not become a Republic because of violence. Ireland became a Republic after 20 odd years of Dominion, peaceful rule.

Yes of course we did. And if we hadn't initiated violent struggle Britain would have given back the land to the people out of the goodness of their little hearts. Sure wasn't that the same reason they gave back India, Pakistan, Hong Kong and the half of Africa they subjugated for hundreds of years? "Now chaps, we really have been jolly well awful of late, let's let poor Ireland decide it's own fate." Not likely. We made a problem and forced them to deal with it, politics came later.

Denerick wrote: »

No we weren't.

Funny that. Here's a law you might like. And here's a link to texts of the Penal Laws: http://library.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/subjectlist.html (from the University of Minnesota Law Library). Quote is from "Elections & Voting Rights".

12.03
1 Geo II c.9 (1727):
An Act for the further regulating the Election of Members of Parliament; ...
Sec. 7. No papist, though not convicted as such, shall be intitled to vote at the election of any member to serve in parliament, or at the election of any magistrate for any city or other town corporate.

Sounds to me like us papists weren't allowed all that much involvement in politics. The whole voting section is littered with this terminology. And need we mention the more recent tradition of gerrymandering?

Denerick wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about?

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. In a previous post you said:

Denerick wrote:

Its funny how the litany of historical grievances get rolled out by Republicans to justify terrorism. Do you know something, we are not the only nation with a dark history. Our history doesn't justify anything. Get over it.

My point was that 'trotting out old grievances' is a belittlement of the seriousness of British actions in Ireland and other parts of the world. I feel they were a legitimate cause of anger in Ireland and justified our actions since we had no recourse, as we can see above, to other means.

Denerick wrote: »

No offence, but have you actually read any Irish history?

Yes I have. Rather than post one-liners baiting/belittling others how about you make some points of your own?

junder

ChristopherUno wrote: »

Without the Fenians, the Young Irish, the IRA and other 'terrorist' organisations how could Ireland have ever regained its freedom? We were barred from politics remember. What diplomatic solution is there when you aren't allowed to the negotiating table? The deaths of almost one quarter of the population, by violence and starvation, is surely a legitimate reason for grievance.

Our relations with the Brits have improved considerably but I wonder whether we're forgetting just how bad they were when they ruled here? As for making the 12th a public holiday, unless the Brits celebrate the French Revolution and the Japanese celebrate the dropping of the bomb why on earth should we celebrate the event which heralded the enslavement of our nation for hundreds of years?

So just how do you propose to accommodate us unisonists if you ever got a united Ireland then how would you live up to the orange in your flag

Denerick

ChristopherUno wrote: »

Yes of course we did. And if we hadn't initiated violent struggle Britain would have given back the land to the people out of the goodness of their little hearts. Sure wasn't that the same reason they gave back India, Pakistan, Hong Kong and the half of Africa they subjugated for hundreds of years? "Now chaps, we really have been jolly well awful of late, let's let poor Ireland decide it's own fate." Not likely. We made a problem and forced them to deal with it, politics came later.

The independence of the Indian subcontinent came after a long period of peaceful protest and civil disobedience. The 000s of Indians who signed up to fight in WWII probably helped as well. There are other methods of attaining national independence. Home Rule was on the cards, and over time it was pretty much inevitable that greater and greater amounts of freedom would have been attained. Without a single drop of blood. Sounds almost romantic.

Funny that. Here's a law you might like. And here's a link to texts of the Penal Laws: http://library.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/subjectlist.html (from the University of Minnesota Law Library). Quote is from "Elections & Voting Rights".

Whoa boy. You're talking through your hat. Are we really going to go so far back? By 1793 Catholics had de facto emancipation, by 1829 they were emancipated. Thus your argument has no basis for the lions share of the 19th century.

Sounds to me like us papists weren't allowed all that much involvement in politics. The whole voting section is littered with this terminology. And need we mention the more recent tradition of gerrymandering?

I'm familiar with the Penal Laws, thanks very much. That was well over 200 years ago. Its about time you got over it. And again, they was not exceptional by continental standards. It was a religiously intolerant age.

My point was that 'trotting out old grievances' is a belittlement of the seriousness of British actions in Ireland and other parts of the world. I feel they were a legitimate cause of anger in Ireland and justified our actions since we had no recourse, as we can see above, to other means.

My point was that most countries have an unjust past, but that doesn't justify acts of extreme cowardice, such as the murder of a mother of ten for giving a British soldier a fúcking glass of water. Or blowing up a pub in England were off duty British soldiers like to have a quiet pint with their girlfriends. There is no other word for this kind of atrocity - the perpetrators of these acts can only ever be one thing, complete and utter scum.

Yes I have. Rather than post one-liners baiting/belittling others how about you make some points of your own?

You juxtaposed several centuries of Irish history and combined them to make one fourth dimensional current in order to justify a rather silly interpretation of Irish history. I was left with no other conclusion, judging by the facts presented to me.

pajero2.8

i see the old saying is true two things that should never be discussed in a pub polotics and releigon, maybe we should also include forums:D
it really gets things going eh. just a thought thats all.

KeithAFC

Sounds good to me.

ChristopherUno

Denerick wrote: »

The independence of the Indian subcontinent came after a long period of peaceful protest and civil disobedience. The 000s of Indians who signed up to fight in WWII probably helped as well. There are other methods of attaining national independence.

Yes, the Indian Independence Movement culminated in the non-violent protests of Mohandas Ghandi, but the start of the movement was the revolt of 1857, the defeat of which spawned nationalist and pro-independence groups of both a cultural and political nature which were to culminate in the pacifist movement. And Hindu attacks were prevalent for a long time in India. As with most independence movements violence brought the dominant party to the table and diplomacy won independence.

Denerick wrote: »

Home Rule was on the cards, and over time it was pretty much inevitable that greater and greater amounts of freedom would have been attained. Without a single drop of blood. Sounds almost romantic.

You're right, it does almost sound romantic, and naive to boot. Do you really believe the Houses of Parliament would have handed Home Rule to the Irish after the war? Or that the Queen would have intervned? Not a chance I'm afraid. And "without a drop of blood"? Really? Because that just sounds like a blantant denial of the facts leading up to the Home Rule movement and a belief in some half-promised ideal the British used to show the Irish as warmongering savages.

Denerick wrote: »

Whoa boy. You're talking through your hat. Are we really going to go so far back? By 1793 Catholics had de facto emancipation, by 1829 they were emancipated. Thus your argument has no basis for the lions share of the 19th century.

So you feel that 600 years of oppression had been annulled because we were legally emancipated by 1829? How about the Punch cartoons that depict us as semi-feral apes until the late 19th century and beyond? Anti-Irish rhetoric and private prejudices changed far far slower than did the relevant laws. Catholics were second class citizens in NI until the not too distant past. Emancipation is not just some pretty words on a bill of rights.

Denerick wrote: »

I'm familiar with the Penal Laws, thanks very much. That was well over 200 years ago. Its about time you got over it. And again, they was not exceptional by continental standards. It was a religiously intolerant age.

Hmm so by that logic rampant anti-semitism in Europe prior to WW II made it ok to send Jews to their deaths? Widely held beliefs that black people were inferior to white people justified the slave trade? Accepting widespread intolerance as an excuse for domination, dispossession and genocide, which the British perpetrated in Ireland just as the Nazi did in mainland Europe and the empires did in Africa, is morally unjustifiable. If everyone had such a laissez-faire attitude to personal and religious freedoms the world would be run by despots and autocracies without any hope of change.

Denerick wrote: »

My point was that most countries have an unjust past, but that doesn't justify acts of extreme cowardice, such as the murder of a mother of ten for giving a British soldier a fúcking glass of water. Or blowing up a pub in England were off duty British soldiers like to have a quiet pint with their girlfriends. There is no other word for this kind of atrocity - the perpetrators of these acts can only ever be one thing, complete and utter scum.

So those attacks were cowardice; Bloody Sunday, internment, Cromwellian massacres, execution of prisoners of war, murdering civilians in football grounds, none of these acts and many more were cowardice? War is cowardice, war is catching the enemy unawares so as to minimise the danger to your own troops. The IRA and all the other revolutionaries served their purpose. I am proud that Ireland stood up and fought the British in the same way the British are proud of the RAF for standing up to the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain (and if you wish to say the two are unrelated, that the RAF only attacked enemy combatants, explain the Bombing of Dresden).

When invaders come to your shore, you fight them; if you are outmanned, outgunned and have your back to the wall, you fight dirty. That is the nature of war and the British of all people should know that, they've been involved in enough of them. The reason there is such anti-British sentiment should be no mystery to them.

Denerick wrote: »

You juxtaposed several centuries of Irish history and combined them to make one fourth dimensional current in order to justify a rather silly interpretation of Irish history. I was left with no other conclusion, judging by the facts presented to me.

Yes I did use examples from several centuries of Irish history. My reason: the British have been here committing atrocities for several centuries. Their bad for giving so many examples for the Irish to use, not mine for utilising them. If you think my interpretation of Irish history is silly then so be it, I find yours equally so.

ChristopherUno

pajero2.8 wrote: »

i see the old saying is true two things that should never be discussed in a pub polotics and releigon, maybe we should also include forums:D
it really gets things going eh. just a thought thats all.

Although given that it's the politics forum it might be just about acceptable!

Denerick

ChristopherUno wrote: »

Yes, the Indian Independence Movement culminated in the non-violent protests of Mohandas Ghandi, but the start of the movement was the revolt of 1857, the defeat of which spawned nationalist and pro-independence groups of both a cultural and political nature which were to culminate in the pacifist movement. And Hindu attacks were prevalent for a long time in India. As with most independence movements violence brought the dominant party to the table and diplomacy won independence.

The Sepoy mutiny was only casually nationalistic. There were far greater forces at work here, a struggle for independence being quite low down the list of priorities. I do not agree with your analysis that 'violence brought the dominant party to the table' as this was clearly not the case in India. In fact, violence would have been easier to deal with as the British army could have quelled a rebellion and started afresh. The genius in Gandhi's campaign was in civil disobedience, which made the country ungovernable.

You're right, it does almost sound romantic, and naive to boot. Do you really believe the Houses of Parliament would have handed Home Rule to the Irish after the war? Or that the Queen would have intervned? Not a chance I'm afraid. And "without a drop of blood"? Really? Because that just sounds like a blantant denial of the facts leading up to the Home Rule movement and a belief in some half-promised ideal the British used to show the Irish as warmongering savages.

The Home Rule Act was passed in parliament and only suspended due to WWI. It was on the statute book. It was due to come into law. As we have seen with Lloyd George following the war's completion, he was desperate to settle the Irish problem once and for all and he considered Home Rule to be that solution. The British politicians were not completely stupid you know, they did understand that Ireland was an unreliable constituent of its nation. They wanted to appease nationalists and move on. The question was a major factor in British politics for decades and they wanted done with it.

So you feel that 600 years of oppression had been annulled because we were legally emancipated by 1829? How about the Punch cartoons that depict us as semi-feral apes until the late 19th century and beyond? Anti-Irish rhetoric and private prejudices changed far far slower than did the relevant laws. Catholics were second class citizens in NI until the not too distant past. Emancipation is not just some pretty words on a bill of rights.

Yes, yes, plenty of prejudice. Boo hoo.

Hmm so by that logic rampant anti-semitism in Europe prior to WW II made it ok to send Jews to their deaths? Widely held beliefs that black people were inferior to white people justified the slave trade? Accepting widespread intolerance as an excuse for domination, dispossession and genocide, which the British perpetrated in Ireland just as the Nazi did in mainland Europe and the empires did in Africa, is morally unjustifiable. If everyone had such a laissez-faire attitude to personal and religious freedoms the world would be run by despots and autocracies without any hope of change.

What a stupid thing to say. I was merely commenting that the Irish experience under the Penal Laws was not exceptionable, there was no unique evil in the British dominance of Ireland. Religious discrimination laws were widespread in Europe at the time. Why is it I never hear the Czechs whinge about their treatment in the early modern period? We have a serious culture of self flagellation, the misery tales of the 800 years dragged out by men of violence to justify mass murder and other untold atrocities. The Irish people have had enough of these weepy tales of self mortification. Get over it.

So those attacks were cowardice; Bloody Sunday, internment, Cromwellian massacres, execution of prisoners of war, murdering civilians in football grounds, none of these acts and many more were cowardice? War is cowardice, war is catching the enemy unawares so as to minimise the danger to your own troops. The IRA and all the other revolutionaries served their purpose. I am proud that Ireland stood up and fought the British in the same way the British are proud of the RAF for standing up to the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain (and if you wish to say the two are unrelated, that the RAF only attacked enemy combatants, explain the Bombing of Dresden).

When invaders come to your shore, you fight them; if you are outmanned, outgunned and have your back to the wall, you fight dirty. That is the nature of war and the British of all people should know that, they've been involved in enough of them. The reason there is such anti-British sentiment should be no mystery to them.

Thats all well and good when there is no alternative but war. I'm far from convinced, as are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other Irish people that war was the last resort.

Yes I did use examples from several centuries of Irish history. My reason: the British have been here committing atrocities for several centuries. Their bad for giving so many examples for the Irish to use, not mine for utilising them. If you think my interpretation of Irish history is silly then so be it, I find yours equally so.

I think you are rooted in the past. The historian studies history to understand why we are were we are now. The terrorist studies history to justify why he wants to kill, rape and murder. So I apologise, I don't think your interpretation of Irish history is silly, I think it is criminal.

ChristopherUno

Meh, I looked through your previous posts on the politics forum and felt this was no longer worth continuing. Keep being opinionated and arrogant.

Denerick

ChristopherUno wrote: »

Meh, I looked through your previous posts on the politics forum and felt this was no longer worth continuing. Keep being opinionated and arrogant.

I thanked your post as I think this was one of the best comebacks ever on boards.ie. I would recommend that if you dislike opinionated people then politics forums are not the ideal setting for you. If you dislike arrogant people then politics forums are not the ideal setting for you. There is a super secret Republican forum on this website, you'll be more at home there. I'd love to ask Mussolini if I could join but he'd never allow it

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

I thanked your post as I think this was one of the best comebacks ever on boards.ie. I would recommend that if you dislike opinionated people then politics forums are not the ideal setting for you. If you dislike arrogant people then politics forums are not the ideal setting for you. There is a super secret Republican forum on this website, you'll be more at home there. I'd love to ask Mussolini if I could join but he'd never allow it

What! How you find that out??? Someone is colluding?


Haha, if you look at my sig you will see I am not the man to ask


Denerick, I like your posts, always interesting, however to me, you seem to have a degree of idealistic naivety with regards to the necessity of violence. No one wants violence for violences own sake, but I feel that in Ireland's case at least, with regards to both the north and south, it was a necessary evil, and like in most wars things got out of hand, perfectly illustrated by the horrendous examples you have highlighted. Thats not saying that they don't matter, they do. Damaging to everyone involved(thats putting it lightly)
I understand and respect that for whatever reasons you feel differently. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What! How you find that out??? Someone is colluding?


Haha, if you look at my sig you will see I am not the man to ask


Denerick, I like your posts, always interesting, however to me, you seem to have a degree of idealistic naivety with regards to the necessity of violence. No one wants violence for violences own sake, but I feel that in Ireland's case at least, with regards to both the north and south, it was a necessary evil, and like in most wars things got out of hand, perfectly illustrated by the horrendous examples you have highlighted. Thats not saying that they don't matter, they do. Damaging to everyone involved(thats putting it lightly)
I understand and respect that for whatever reasons you feel differently. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Some of the best discussions I've ever had were with Republicans (In real life and on the internet) Some have a thorough and a unique insight into Irish history and politics. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree.

On the internet I adopt the Conor Cruise O'Brien style because I think its both effective and entertaining. It forces people out of their shell and provokes a reaction and the other persons true feelings. My rhetoric and were I really stand do intermingle. I find I learn more if I present a fully fledged argument, yet in reality the world is more subtle. I do realise this.

aDeener

Denerick wrote: »

Yes, yes, plenty of prejudice. Boo hoo.

i could never understand why people here completely dismiss the sufferings of their forefathers, as if it wasn't proper suffering.

i bet you wouldn't have the balls to reply to a black person or a jew with that sort of response....

Denerick

aDeener wrote: »

i could never understand why people here completely dismiss the sufferings of their forefathers, as if it wasn't proper suffering.

i bet you wouldn't have the balls to reply to a black person or a jew with that sort of response....

If I were a black person or a Jew who was sick and tired of terrorists exploiting historical grievances for modern political ends, then yes, I would say it. Since I am neither of those I will not.

I am a proud Irishman. I am sick and tired of the virtuous minority lecturing the rest of us about our past, and exploiting and manipulating the shame faced masses into consenting to acts of terrorism. Think what you will about that.

aDeener

Denerick wrote: »

If I were a black person or a Jew who was sick and tired of terrorists exploiting historical grievances for modern political ends, then yes, I would say it. Since I am neither of those I will not.

I am a proud Irishman. I am sick and tired of the virtuous minority lecturing the rest of us about our past, and exploiting and manipulating the shame faced masses into consenting to acts of terrorism. Think what you will about that.

no one here is a terrorist exploiting past sufferings for their own gain, yet you still dismiss them.

ChristopherUno

Denerick wrote: »

I thanked your post as I think this was one of the best comebacks ever on boards.ie. I would recommend that if you dislike opinionated people then politics forums are not the ideal setting for you. If you dislike arrogant people then politics forums are not the ideal setting for you. There is a super secret Republican forum on this website, you'll be more at home there. I'd love to ask Mussolini if I could join but he'd never allow it

Well arrogance and insulting the intelligence of about three quarters of the people in every thread you've posted in gets annoying (I've found several examples of you telling people to "read books" or something to that tune in the last few threads you've posted in, just because they disagreed with you) . I enjoy a debate rather than being told my ideas on history are "crinimal", an unusual and quite fascist way of thinking. Maybe you have more in common with Mussolini than you let on? Other than the petty insults to people's intelligence you might actually have been fun to debate with as our views on history are just about polar opposites. As is I'll keep posting on the politics forum, just try to avoid your intellectual high horse. Thanks.

Fratton Fred

ChristopherUno wrote: »

Funny that. Here's a law you might like. And here's a link to texts of the Penal Laws: http://library.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/subjectlist.html (from the University of Minnesota Law Library). Quote is from "Elections & Voting Rights".

How many people in Ireland did the Penal laws affect? In reality, the penal laws only affected a few middle and upper class people. The vast majority of people in Ireland, Britain and across europe would only have had the right to vote if their personal wealth allowed it, so in 1797, if there was no such thing as the penal laws, the vast vast majority of people (As was the case in Britain) would not have been able to vote anyway.

Denerick

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How many people in Ireland did the Penal laws affect? In reality, the penal laws only affected a few middle and upper class people. The vast majority of people in Ireland, Britain and across europe would only have had the right to vote if their personal wealth allowed it, so in 1797, if there was no such thing as the penal laws, the vast vast majority of people (As was the case in Britain) would not have been able to vote anyway.

Thats a good point. For years the Catholic committee was dominated by the surviving members of the Catholic aristocracy, such as Lord Kenmare and Lord Fingall. They were much more interested in repealing certain sections of the law, such as the law prohibiting a Catholic from owning a horse worth more than £5, than in any kind of mass Catholic participation in politics. This is why its important to understand the continental context of the times and not read any unique evil in the British treatment of Ireland.

Denerick

aDeener wrote: »

no one here is a terrorist exploiting past sufferings for their own gain, yet you still dismiss them.

You may well be correct that nobody here is an active terrorist, but there are certainly active sympathisers about.

In Ireland there are two historiographical traditions - the nationalist and the Unionist camps. Over the last fifty years a new camp emerged, led by Moody and Lyons which came to look at Irish history with the sympathy of nationalism and the cynicism of unionism. I consider myself to be a fond supporter of that third camp.