What did Bobby Sands die for?

Japer

T runner wrote: »

In the free state we have a huge scandal about a librarian who loses her job.

If you read Dev's speech it explains how extremely few Protestants ever got a public sector job in those decades - the Taoiseach admitted himself he would rather employ Catholics - and together with the murders and intimidation it partly explains the more than 50% reduction in the protestant population of the 26 counties in those years.
Thankfully nowadays minorities in both parts of Ireland are treated properly.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So the hunger strike began because the conditions they lived in were unbearable.

It was jail conditions ; throwing their own excrement on the walls instead of down the toilets provided, and refusing to eat the food provided, was not going to make it more bearable. These same people were part of the organisation which planted bombs and blew up innocent men, women and children....the conditions they left many of their families was indeed unbearable , if you want to use that word.

marienbad

T runner wrote: »

Not comparable. We dont rule Britain and the 100,000 arent sent as "loyalists with benefits for remaining loyal".

Your further point about the saints and scholars is unfair and illogical.

Only <1%? of priests seem to have been involved in sexual abuse of children. Saying "All" may be being completely unfair on many innocent priests.
I dont think Britain is enamored with its politicians either. Youre a scholar. Are you a crook?

Apparently the Irish are fond of grossly exagerating even when putting their own country down.

Get a sense of irony T-runner, I was replying ironically to a post suggesting, ironically that the Unionists return to the land of the queen ,
I think the were the giveaway.

marienbad

T runner wrote: »

Sorry Marienbad but the "division" in Ulster has been there for over 400 years.
This division is on religious, social and economic grounds and the entry point to either group is religion.

There was a heightening of tensions during the war of independence in NE Ulster where thousands of Catholics were murdered. (Many Protestants also).

There is strong evidence of a pattern in Ulster history where any advancement of the Catholic position (often peaceful, non-sectarian) is responded to by massive violence against the local Catholic population by Protestants usually aided by the police force of the day.

The nature of the political settlement of the early 20s meant that the problem was exacerbated by firstly: partition, secondly: the amount of territory that was given to the Northern state (they had only a majority in 3 counties) and thirdly teh fact that power was given to that state i.e the creators of the zero-sum sectarian society in NE Ulster now had complete political control over that territory. The predictable de facto sectarian state that emerged didnt unravel politically until 1972 and is only now starting to unravel socially and economically.

The problem was thus not Irish independence, it was partition and the nature of it.

The Irish question has really been the Ulster question since the 1870s.

If the Protestants of Ulster threatened to murder many Catholics if there was a united Ireland, then a temporary and fair part of Ulster should have been all that was available for them. This would have caused a lot less violence and may even have seen a federal Union in Ireland by now.

I am well aware of the history , thank you very much, but none of the above is relevant to the the somewhat philosophical/speculative point I was making.

The trend of history is towards super states, here we find ourselves in a shared European Union where individual borders matter less every decade or so.

Also if we were to take just Canada and Australia for example , both have had referenda on the nature of their political relationships, in Canada on the status of Quebec and in Australia (twice I think) on a republic. That both issues have lost is not the issue , but that they were able to have them at all is just the point I was making

marienbad

T runner wrote: »

That has not or never has been my logic.

Catholics by and large have not behaved badly when given power to do so.

You stated that Irish independence may have accounted for divisions today. I rebuffed that stating it was partition based on a sectarian conflict in NE Ulster taht caused it. The divisions predate independence by some 300 years.




What is not quite so well documented is the roots of sectarian conflict in NE Ulster. This is the Ulster question. And it didnt stsrt after Irish independence.



It has been documented well enough. The facts are that, given the circumstances, Protestants in the free state were treated remarkeably well.

If you compare any country after independence there is always a backlash against the people who were loyal to the imperialist side. This was minor in Ireland. There were murders sure, that is deplorable but in a brand new country it can be difficult to stop reprisals after a war of independence.

Thankfully the atrocities were kept to a minimum relative to other states in Irelands situation. You are looking at short term stuff, not endemic societal sectarianism and de facto apartheid as witnessed in E Ulster.

Also even Northern (Unionist) historians like ATQ Stewart concede that southern Protestants were extremely well treated in teh 26 counties. They are the most elite group in the 26 counties, even after independence. It is almost unheard of that a group who remained by and large loyal to the imperial side should be treated so well after independence.


As rgds your explanations for the decline of the Protestant population in the Republic, you fail to acknowledge that there were relaitively few mixed marriages. The patterns of Protestant marriage remained as before. A massive difference for the people in the 26 counties, of course, is that the Protestant population was decimated by almost 80% at the stroke of a pen by the partition of Ireland.

They still married Protestants but they were in a different state and the couple would naturally settle in the "Protestant State". I detest religion but the blame for this cannot be left at the Catholic church.

This was what Unionists wanted, backed by the British army, conservative party, and eventually the British Government.







Was there ever 7000 Protestants taken from there palce of work, beaten and ejected from their jobs as the state looked on? Was there ever even 7? The answer is no.

Youa re comparing minor unusual sectarian trouble after indepence here with widespread state sectarianism in the North.


The point of looking at the mistakes of the past is to ensure that they do not happen again. That is why we must analyse partition and analyse the roots of sectarianism. The principle unreconciled problem in Irish/Ulster history has been the festering anti-Catholicism in E Ulster over the past 400 years.

T-Runner , you have just yet again proved my point for me, can we never, ever , discuss rights and wrongs in the Republic without always saying the other guy was worse or we were driven to it or whatever.

For the record the discrimination,violence,terror, triumphalism visited on the Catholic and Nationalist community in N.Ireland , and involving as it did every organ of society, Government, Civil Service, Police, Business, everything,for over 50 years was without doubt ( to use a mis-quote) wrong, wrong, wrong .There can be no excuse for it- none.

Now, can we accept that we could have treated the Protestant Community in the republic a little better ? Not for a second equating what happened in the Republic as in any way similar to N.ireland ?

Could we accept that we allowed the Church to much influence in policy as for example - adoption, whereby rather than let childless Protestant (and other faiths) adopt, it was deemed a better option to leave those kids in ''care'' (what a euphemism) and we all know how that ended.

Can we accept that we allowed the Church too much influence in general, and in mixed marriages in particular in relation to education, contraception, reading material.

Can we accept that there was tacit job descrimination , but not for a minute forgetting that the Protestant community themselves were better than most at this in the Republic.

Can we accept than intimidation, violence and murder were visited on this community and was on occasion blatantly sectarian . But was just a drop
in the bucket compared to N.Ireland

Finally, as for the cliche about '' the mistakes of the past and repeating them'' blah blah , I think I will shoot myself if I see that again.
We only analyse the mistakes of the past so that we can repeat them !:)

Bottle_of_Smoke

junder wrote: »

Inthe beginning the dirty protest involved all prisoners including loyalists, the entire campaign was supposed to involve all prisoners until sinn fein and the provisional ira took it over for thier own ends. I have a book with some photos of loyalist prisoner cells involved in the dirty protest. During thus time s close working relationship was formed between uvf members and offical ira members

Do you know if the spreading of excrement on their walls was a result of them not being allowed to slop out without uniform/were attacked when going to the bathrooms or was it a protest in itself?

Wolfe Tone

junder wrote: »

Inthe beginning the dirty protest involved all prisoners including loyalists, the entire campaign was supposed to involve all prisoners until sinn fein and the provisional ira took it over for thier own ends. I have a book with some photos of loyalist prisoner cells involved in the dirty protest. During thus time s close working relationship was formed between uvf members and offical ira members

Indeed, loyalists helped republicans with food when they burned the kesh too I believe?

KeithAFC

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Loyalists-passed-parcelsto-dirty-protest.4829478.jp?articlepage=1

Scotia Major

Some interesting posts here. Still apart from the obvious I cant under stand why Northern Ireland should even have come into being. As it is, it has a minority community of 45% but if there was no border there would be a minority community of 10 to 15%. So which is fairer.

ISAW

Scotia Major wrote: »

Some interesting posts here. Still apart from the obvious I cant under stand why Northern Ireland should even have come into being. As it is, it has a minority community of 45% but if there was no border there would be a minority community of 10 to 15%. So which is fairer.

Scotia. You should look up "The Boundary Commission" Originally the unionists probably would have liked that Ulster would be N Ireland i.e. all NINE counties. But when they realised they could not maintain a majority the Unionists opted for control of six counties. As it was they barely controlled three of those counties by gerrymander. Ironic that the border was drawn up by a south African Judge and a unionist newspaper editor with one representative from the Free State government against which Sinn Fein were entering into a Civil War.

sceptre

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Do you know if the spreading of excrement on their walls was a result of them not being allowed to slop out without uniform/were attacked when going to the bathrooms or was it a protest in itself?

You need a few additional intermediate steps. The blanket protest started in 1976. In early 1978 (the blanket protest continuing) a few participants refused to leave their cells for showers or the toilet, partly due to attacks from prison officers. They called for showers to be installed in the cells and this was refused (tbh that can't couldn't have come as a surprise). After about a month a prisoner and prison officer were involved in a fight. The furniture in the cells was smashed by the prisoners and hence the furniture was removed, leaving just a mattress. Then the prisoners (a few hundred of them) refused to leave their cells at all, meaning that slopping out couldn't take place. That's when the dirty protest started.

ISAW

Japer wrote: »

That was because the librarian slipped through the net + got a job, but who lost her job because of her religion. In those decades the minority religion ( which was R. Catholic ) in N. Ireland increased in numbers , while the minority religions ( those not R. Catholic ) decreased in numbers in the Rep. Of Ireland. Thankfully minorities in both jurisdictions nowadays do not find it a cold house.

Actually ther was a case in the last few months where a Protestant primary teacher had been offered a job. She hadent doine the Catholic religion cert as part of her teacher training. As it happens the person offering the job said that was ok since she would not teach any communion or confirmation class. when the school Board noticed she hadent the cert they sacked her. She got a job in another school a few weeks later and sued the board and got something like 10k I think for her loss.

Yeah - it was 12,697
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/protestant-teacher-gets-euro12000-over-religious-bias-2423750.html

Can'tseeme

marienbad wrote: »

Why would you say that, the Deep South, South Africa, Poland,E,Germany and the whole of the east bloc have changed beyond recognition,

Why would Ireland be any different, it is a tenable proposition that all the civil rights gains could have been achieved without the violence and the consequent polarisation of communities that have made the prospect of a united Ireland as distant as ever.

Is it a coincidence that the two entities ,ETA and PIRA that espoused a physical force philosophy have made the least progress towards their ultimate goals ?

Your free state was formed out of physical force.

marienbad

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Your free state was formed out of physical force.

So it was, don't get your point though .

Can'tseeme

marienbad wrote: »

So it was, don't get your point though .

Do you justify the use of violence which created the Free State?

marienbad

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Do you justify the use of violence which created the Free State?

I dont justify it or not justify it. It Happened, could we have gained independance any other way ? possibly but we can never know, but was I do know is that what was deemed necessary in 1916 is not acceptable in 2016.

Bottle_of_Smoke

marienbad wrote: »

I dont justify it or not justify it. It Happened, could we have gained independance any other way ? possibly but we can never know, but was I do know is that what was deemed necessary in 1916 is not acceptable in 2016.

It was't just 1916 that got it. There was always a wish for independence from a majority of Irish people. I reckon if 1916 didn't happen a different government of Ireland would have come about (peacefully) where the whole of Ulster would have remained in the UK or only Down/Derry/Armagh & Antrim would have.

Mike 1972

A lot of people seem to confuse the concepts of "being prepared to die for something the believe in" with "being right"

The September 11th and July 7th terrorists were prepared to die for what they believd in but their "beliefs" are still a crock of shyte and dont merit respect.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

where the whole of Ulster would have remained in the UK or only Down/Derry/Armagh & Antrim would have.

An alternative border wouldnt necessairly have to been based on county lines

Bottle_of_Smoke

Mike 1972 wrote: »

An alternative border wouldnt necessairly have to been based on county lines

True but seems likely given they chose such a bad 6.

If I wanted to maintain a Protestant state for a Protestant people I would have cut out Derry City/South Armagh and Down (just above newry) Fermanagh and parts of Tyrone would best have been ceded too.

Obviously West Belfast would be a problem but perhaps nationalists being such a minority they wouldn't be seen as such a threat to the state.

I reckon the growth in the nationalist community wasn't predicted and they thought they could make Northern Ireland unionist as time went on.

KeithAFC

There is a movement for an independent Ulster from the ROI and the UK. They see Ulster as being its own country and completely different from the ROI and the UK. They take great pride in the land.

marienbad

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It was't just 1916 that got it. There was always a wish for independence from a majority of Irish people. I reckon if 1916 didn't happen a different government of Ireland would have come about (peacefully) where the whole of Ulster would have remained in the UK or only Down/Derry/Armagh & Antrim would have.

Completely agree with you there on independance, as to where the border would be who knows.

maxxie

KeithAFC wrote: »

There is a movement for an independent Ulster from the ROI and the UK. They see Ulster as being its own country and completely different from the ROI and the UK. They take great pride in the land.

How would it work? NI relies on the UK to sustain itself.

Nehaxak

KeithAFC wrote: »

There is a movement for an independent Ulster from the ROI and the UK. They see Ulster as being its own country and completely different from the ROI and the UK. They take great pride in the land.

Sounds more like an admission of defeat than anything else and a sense of finally realising you don't actually belong anywhere other than that in which your ancestors were intentionally planted which was not and never will be your land nor your country until you fully and wholly accept the island as a whole in which you live, is one land united, free and belonging to the Irish people, of which you are now one, whether you like it or not.

Or you could always get the boat and go home to Scotland. I'd prefer you stay and accept your Irish overlords though, we have potatoes and cabbage and other cool stuff.

KeithAFC

Nehaxak wrote: »

Sounds more like an admission of defeat than anything else and a sense of finally realising you don't actually belong anywhere other than that in which your ancestors were intentionally planted which was not and never will be your land nor your country until you fully and wholly accept the island as a whole in which you live, is one land united, free and belonging to the Irish people, of which you are now one, whether you like it or not.

Or you could always get the boat and go home to Scotland. I'd prefer you stay and accept your Irish overlords though, we have potatoes and cabbage and other cool stuff.

Eh im a loyalist. I ain't Irish either. Dictate away though.

Nehaxak

KeithAFC wrote: »

Eh im a loyalist. I ain't Irish either. Dictate away though.

If you were born on the island of Ireland, you're Irish.

KeithAFC

Nehaxak wrote: »

You live on the island of Ireland, you're Irish.

Werid logic to use.

Had this discussion before. Was pretty clear i wasn't Irish. But if it helps you sleep at night thinking everyone who lives on the Island is Irish, then good for you.

Mike 1972

Nehaxak wrote: »

You live on the island of Ireland, you're Irish.

Must let all my Polish friends know......

Perhaps Keith you should consider moving to Rathlin ?

Nehaxak

I did edit to clarify before you both posted replies.

KeithAFC

Nehaxak wrote: »

I did edit to clarify before you both posted replies.

Nope. Being born on the Island doesn't make you Irish.

Nehaxak

KeithAFC wrote: »

Nope. Being born on the Island doesn't make you Irish.

It does, my Irish brother.

KeithAFC

Nehaxak wrote: »

It does, my Irish brother.

How so? The actions, family, culture all dictate what some one is. Trust me, i ain't Irish.