Northern Ireland

Cú Giobach

sensibleken wrote: »

Yes I do. why

This.

maybe if the republicans from the republic wanted a united ireland (not re-united) it would be more successfull if they were a little less grabby grabby and allowed the people of the north to make up their own bloody mind.

The people of Ireland voted to 1. change the constitution and 2. to allow the people of the north to decide for themselves.
Your comment might have been valid 13/14 years ago.

getz

Notorious97 wrote: »

In 1916 the Irish Republic was proclaimed, and our volunteers fought against the British Army

april 1916,nationalists seized the dublin genaral post office and proclaimed a republic.after a week of fighting,the [revolt] was suppressed by the british army and most of its leaders executed, they had very little backing from the general public, in fact most people in ireland then looked on them as trouble makers,good post but you are on sticky ground

sensibleken

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This.


The people of Ireland voted to 1. change the constitution and 2. to allow the people of the north to decide for themselves.
Your comment might have been valid 13/14 years ago.

Yes I know that. Yet people are still insisting that 'its ours' and the British have no right to be there.

dlofnep

getz wrote: »

in 1916 that wasent the irish/republic/free state in that war, it was british ireland and you cannot sue yourself

You don't know much about the Easter Rising, do you?

getz wrote: »

,in 1798 that was a rebellion not a war

lol..

Cú Giobach

sensibleken wrote: »

Yes I know that. Yet people are still insisting that 'its ours' and the British have no right to be there.

And others feel the Brits should be there, hence the "problem".
Just telling one side to stop is a bit silly. What matters at the moment are the terms of the GFA.

dlofnep

getz wrote: »

april 1916,nationalists seized the dublin genaral post office and proclaimed a republic.after a week of fighting,the [revolt] was suppressed by the british army and most of its leaders executed, they had very little backing from the general public, in fact most people in ireland then looked on them as trouble makers,good post but you are on sticky ground

A common myth - Newspapers local to Dublin which were sympathetic to the union naturally reported scorn against the Rising - but if it had the lack of support that you claim - then Sinn Féin would have never received nearly 70% of all seats in the 1918 elections 2 years later.

The reality of the matter is - the public did not want British rule in Ireland.

sensibleken

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And others feel the Brits should be there, hence the "problem".
Just telling one side to stop is a bit silly. What matters at the moment are the terms of the GFA.

ok. Everyone butt out. Thats the point i was trying to make

Cú Giobach

sensibleken wrote: »

ok. Everyone butt out. Thats the point i was trying to make

Aint gonna happen, no more than the Unionist pop of NI are gonna say OK we'll join the republic.

Notorious97

getz wrote: »

april 1916,nationalists seized the dublin genaral post office and proclaimed a republic.after a week of fighting,the [revolt] was suppressed by the british army and most of its leaders executed, they had very little backing from the general public, in fact most people in ireland then looked on them as trouble makers,good post but you are on sticky ground

"When we are all wiped out, people will blame us. …In a few years they will see the meaning of what we tried to do." Pearse

Many suffer so that some day all Irish people may know justice and peace.." Theobald Wolfe Tone

getz

dlofnep wrote: »

A common myth - Newspapers local to Dublin which were sympathetic to the union naturally reported scorn against the Rising - but if it had the lack of support that you claim - then Sinn Féin would have never received nearly 70% of all seats in the 1918 elections 2 years later.

The reality of the matter is - the public did not want British rule in Ireland.

easy to change a view on history to suit,certainly people will want to rule themselves and have a independence,that happened in ireland,but many 100s of thousands left ireland after independance,and took their families to the UK,that was hardly a thumbs up for the new goverment,what was your take on that

getz

dlofnep wrote: »

A common myth - Newspapers local to Dublin which were sympathetic to the union naturally reported scorn against the Rising - but if it had the lack of support that you claim - then Sinn Féin would have never received nearly 70% of all seats in the 1918 elections 2 years later.

The reality of the matter is - the public did not want British rule in Ireland.

the vote was exceptance as the status quo,the exceptance of partition of ireland,and over 70% voted to except it,another view of history

Notorious97

getz wrote: »

easy to change a view on history to suit,certainly people will want to rule themselves and have a independence,that happened in ireland,but many 100s of thousands left ireland after independance,and took their families to the UK,that was hardly a thumbs up for the new goverment,what was your take on that

The majority of who left for the UK would have considered themselves British, they didn’t wish to remain within a Free Irish State

Fratton Fred

How exactly will the island benefit from unification?

Other than nationalism, which in itself is a fairly intangible thing, what are the advantages?

dlofnep

getz wrote: »

the vote was exceptance as the status quo,the exceptance of partition of ireland,and over 70% voted to except it,another view of history

Um, the 1918 election was prior to the partition of Ireland. How exactly is that an acceptance of partition? It might serve you well to get your timeline straight before you attempt to debate Irish history.

Wolfe Tone

getz wrote: »

the vote was exceptance as the status quo,the exceptance of partition of ireland,and over 70% voted to except it,another view of history

A blatantly incorrect view of history, sure. At least you are consistent.

philologos

KeithAFC wrote: »

I have pointed out the reality of the situation. Saying religion has nothing to do with any of the problems in Northern Ireland is naive and stupid. Im telling you the facts.

Young unionists who grow up in a family from a protestant back ground WILL have the political ideology of unionism and they have the majority in Northern Ireland.

It's very little to do with it. It has to do with political attachment based on demographic rather than the substance of those beliefs. Northern Ireland is more concerned with how ethnic groups applied politics to themselves rather than on the basis of religion.

Do you think the core teaching of Protestantism really influenced the conflict, and vice versa? Did people pick up guns and fight eachother because of Transubstantiation or did people pick up guns and fight due to the influence of political rule?

niallers1

Of course we can afford the north of Ireland, We've just come into 85 billion Euros..

Woo Hoo... Lets spend spend spend..

PatsytheNazi

RMD wrote: »

People seem to think reuniting Ireland will end all violence and unrest about Northern Ireland's relation to Britain.

Seems most people have never opened a history book and read about the Loyalists "no surrender" ideology. There would be civil war yet again, bombing campaigns, tit-for-tat killings etc.

Oh here we go again :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Heard it all before about " a blood bath from Dundalk down to CorK etc, etc, etc ". They were going to do the same if the B Specials were disbanded, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if they didn’t get down Garvagh Road, the Good Friday Agreemnet, if the RUC cap badge was changed blah, blah, blah How many times did we hear Paisley saying " This means war " :rolleyes:

History actaully tells us the exact opposite. Their were no shortage of unionists in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan etc as well as even Dublin where Carson was from and elected several unionists in the 1918 election gobbing off how there would be a blood bath etc if Home Rule/Irish Independence came about. But when the Britsw were leaving, did they do much fighting ? Ofcourse not.

Carson and Donegal UVF says “ No Surrender “


http://ams2-aai-web-1.anu.net/reading-room/history-heritage/heritage-towns/the-heritage-towns-of-don/raphoe/the-laggan-and-the-ulster/

getz

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

A blatantly incorrect view of history, sure. At least you are consistent.

thank you mussolini this thread would not be the same without you, the partition of ireland was damanded by ulster unionists in 1914, the IPP conceded to a temporary form of partition in 1914 as a measure to pacify ulster,that was still in when the incoming political parties came to power,

paky

getz wrote: »

thank you mussolini this thread would not be the same without you, the partition of ireland was damanded by ulster unionists in 1914, the IPP conceded to a temporary form of partition in 1914 as a measure to pacify ulster,that was still in when the incoming political parties came to power,

it didn make a difference that the unionists were a minority then, they still got what they wanted. i dont care what the unionists want today, whether their a majority or minority. i've had enough of their bloody sectarian history.

its time ireland was united

dlofnep

getz wrote: »

thank you mussolini this thread would not be the same without you, the partition of ireland was damanded by ulster unionists in 1914, the IPP conceded to a temporary form of partition in 1914 as a measure to pacify ulster,that was still in when the incoming political parties came to power,

The IPP was redundant at the time of partition. They had no mandate to make any such decisions on behalf of the Irish people, given that they held only 6 seats in 1918.

And who cares what Ulster unionists demanded? Ulster unionists demanded that counties and cities with nationalist majorities were included in their new sectarian, orange state. They demanded the partition of Ireland against the will of the majority. They did not have a mandate to make any such demands.

getz

dlofnep wrote: »

The IPP was redundant at the time of partition. They had no mandate to make any such decisions on behalf of the Irish people, given that they held only 6 seats in 1918.

And who cares what Ulster unionists demanded? Ulster unionists demanded that counties and cities with nationalist majorities were included in their new sectarian, orange state. They demanded the partition of Ireland against the will of the majority. They did not have a mandate to make any such demands.

is that some sort of apology, and you are now admitting i was right ?. even today the same things that happened to ireland is being played out in places like kosovo,only difference northern ireland has its own EU MP,

dlofnep

getz wrote: »

is that some sort of apology, and you are now admitting i was right ?

LMAO.

Apology for what? Admitting you were right about what?

This is what you said in response to the 1918 Irish elections.

the vote was exceptance as the status quo,the exceptance of partition of ireland,and over 70% voted to except it,another view of history

If you don't know what's wrong with your statement, then you're not qualified to discuss Irish history I'm afraid.

getz

dlofnep wrote: »

LMAO.

Apology for what? Admitting you were right about what?

This is what you said in response to the 1918 Irish elections.



If you don't know what's wrong with your statement, then you're not qualified to discuss Irish history I'm afraid.

1918 elections SF 73 seats [25 not contested] unionists 22 plus 3 from the satellite labour unionists the irish nationalists won 6 seats plus one from liverpool ? asquiths comments of the goverment of irelands home rule bill in 1914,was on the statute book,with a promise to meet all the fair scruples and objections of the ulster minority,then followed the assembly of the irish national convention which sat for some months at the end of 1917 and the beginning of 1918,owing to the statesmanlike attude of mr raymond on one side and lord middleton on the other side,the convension had advanced ,the irish knew at this time the north would not except a single state,without an opt out

KeithAFC

deise go deo wrote: »

I know, but when it is most, and not all, why use it to refer to unionists when you can use the more accurate worde unionists to refer to them as a group?

Well, i could but at the end of the day, its the same thing. The vast majority of protestants in Northern Ireland come from a Unionist political background. So it doesn't matter much.

HavingCrack

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well, i could but at the end of the day, its the same thing. The vast majority of protestants in Northern Ireland come from a Unionist political background. So it doesn't matter much.

Would you just use the term 'Unionist' if that's the case and leave the sectarian connectations out of it. If a person is an atheist and a Unionist referring to them as 'Protestants' is just wrong. If it doesn't matter call them Unionists.

Mike 1972

I know it doesnt make it right but to be entirely fair more than one poster on this thread has been using the terms interchangablty (and at least he can actually spell "Protestant")

KeithAFC

HavingCrack wrote: »

Would you just use the term 'Unionist' if that's the case and leave the sectarian connectations out of it. If a person is an atheist and a Unionist referring to them as 'Protestants' is just wrong. If it doesn't matter call them Unionists.

Well, they still most likely celebrate protestant cultures.

Mike 1972

Why would an Atheist(/Catholic/Other non-Protestant) Unionist celebrate "Protestant Culture" ?

philologos

KeithAFC what is a "Protestant" culture? Or do you just mean Ulster-Scots culture?

KeithAFC

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Why would an Atheist celebrate "Protestant Culture" ?

I know many of them who do.

HavingCrack

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well, they still most likely celebrate protestant cultures.

Why would an atheist celebrate Protestant culture?? What you're referring to is a Unionist culture. For whatever reason you're refusing to call a spade a spade.

KeithAFC

Jakkass wrote: »

KeithAFC what is a "Protestant" culture? Or do you just mean Ulster-Scots culture?

Burning of lundy celebrations, guy fawkes night, plus a few others linked to the protestant culture.

KeithAFC

HavingCrack wrote: »

Why would an atheist celebrate Protestant culture?? What you're referring to is a Unionist culture. For whatever reason you're refusing to call a spade a spade.

There is many events in the calender which have nothing to do with unionism but are directed more towards a protestant angle and i know many people who don't believe in god or go to church who celebrate at these occasions.

Cú Giobach

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well, they still most likely celebrate protestant cultures.

I know many protestants (as do all people) who would not consider your Unionist/Ulster Scot culture as anything to do with them. It's not protestant culture.

philologos

KeithAFC wrote: »

Burning of lundy celebrations, guy fawkes night, plus a few others linked to the protestant culture.

Right but what about the odd 500+ million Protestants who don't celebrate any of these events in the world? Are they not in the "Protestant" culture, or is this only referring to Ulster-Scots culture? It's quite confusing the way you are discussing this.

Sofiztikated

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How exactly will the island benefit from unification?

Other than nationalism, which in itself is a fairly intangible thing, what are the advantages?

Unfortunately Fred, this isn't going to get answered. I've asked this same question a couple of times, and its always ignored.

KeithAFC

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I know many protestants (as do all people) who would not consider your Unionist/Ulster Scot culture as anything to do with them. It's not protestant culture.

The thousands of people who travel up to the apprentice boys parade in Londonderry is another example.

Right but what about the odd 500+ million Protestants who don't celebrate any of these events in the world? Are they not in the "Protestant" culture, or is this only referring to Ulster-Scots culture? It's quite confusing the way you are discussing this.

We are talking about the Protestant culture in Northern Ireland.

Mike 1972

KeithAFC wrote: »

guy fawkes night.

I wasnt aware it was widely celebrated in NI (though Ive always been a bit suprised/curious about this) Thought it was more of a mainland thing although I know English Catholics who would celebrate it but in England it seems to have largely lost the original sectarian connotations. Most people there seem to be only vaugely aware of what the whole thing was actually about and just use it as an excuse to let off fireworks and have a p1$$ up

KeithAFC wrote: »

I know many of them who do.

Doesnt make a lot of sense but then again If one thinks about it they could say the same about Atheists/Non-Christians in Ireland who celebrate Patricks day ?

Cú Giobach

KeithAFC wrote: »

We are talking about the Protestant culture in Northern Ireland.

There is a difference between "The culture the protestants of NI have" and "protestant culture".

KeithAFC

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I wasnt aware it was widely celebrated in NI (though Ive always been a bit suprised/curious about this) Thought it was more of a mainland thing although I know English Catholics who would celebrate it but in England it seems to have largely lost the original sectarian connotations. Most people there seem to be only vaugely aware of what the whole thing was actually about and just use it as an excuse to let off fireworks and have a p1$$ up

The original story though was about treachery to the protestant government. Of course, nowadays a lot of this is lost on people but that is what guy fawkes night really is.

KeithAFC

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I wasnt aware it was widely celebrated in NI (though Ive always been a bit suprised/curious about this) Thought it was more of a mainland thing although I know English Catholics who would celebrate it but in England it seems to have largely lost the original sectarian connotations. Most people there seem to be only vaugely aware of what the whole thing was actually about and just use it as an excuse to let off fireworks and have a p1$$ up


Doesnt make a lot of sense but then again If one thinks about it could say the same about Atheists/Non-Christians in Ireland who celebrate Patricks day ?

Yeah. Thats exactly it. Many Irish people who celebrate St patricks day which is a religious holiday at the core of it, many Irish atheists would still celebrate the whole culture which it brings.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

The thousands of people who travel up to the apprentice boys parade in Londonderry is another example.

We are talking about the Protestant culture in Northern Ireland.

keith are you not being slightly insulting to the catholic unionists they do exist?

Cú Giobach

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yeah. Thats exactly it. Many Irish people who celebrate St patricks day which is a religious holiday at the core of it, many Irish atheists would still celebrate the whole culture which it brings.

And Paddys day is not considered by anybody as catholic culture, because it isn't.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

keith are you not being slightly insulting to the catholic unionists they do exist?

Nope. Why?

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

A common myth - Newspapers local to Dublin which were sympathetic to the union naturally reported scorn against the Rising - but if it had the lack of support that you claim - then Sinn Féin would have never received nearly 70% of all seats in the 1918 elections 2 years later.

I would say the boast for SF had much to do with the execution of the 1916 leaders, Connolly in particular. And there’s nothing unique about 1916. Republicanism has often got a boost in the wake of bad British behaviour, real or perceived. Bloody Sunday and the 81 hunger strikes for example. People don’t necessarily back a party for noble ideological reasons. If FG emerge as the biggest party after the next GE, as is likely, would you interpret that to mean that the Irish have finally opted to embrace the FG philosophy?

dlofnep wrote: »

The reality of the matter is - the public did not want British rule in Ireland.

Well a sizable minority did, and do. But certainly the majority probably did not, just as they do not today. But the majority of that majority do not give their backing to the gunmen of the dissidents, nor PIRA before them. Just as they declined to support the gunmen of 1916.

KeithAFC

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And Paddys day is not considered by anybody as catholic culture, because it isn't.

It is seen as a celebration which a lot more catholics would celebrate than Protestants.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Nope. Why?

because you have exclusivly mentioned protestant unionists

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

because you have exclusivly mentioned protestant unionists

Well that is what it is.

Sofiztikated

KeithAFC wrote: »

It is seen as a celebration which a lot more catholics would celebrate than Protestants.

Sorry, seriously? Are you demented?

It must be terrible to live in your little world of "Protestants" and "Catholics."

Jaysus, if a hindu ever came to power oop nort, you'd have a vagina fit!