Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What did Bobby Sands die for?
Comments
-
Accuracy hardly comes into it, with as stirring a performance as Gleeson gave, a highly underrated actor who captured the character of Collins superbly, although for what it's worth as far as I'm aware it was quite accurate and detailed.Never seen that one,but if it is as inaccurate as the newer one.....
0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Egypt (except Suez Canal)
Libya
Sudan
Nigeria
India
Covered by myself and others above.Canada
Indian wars, wars against the US an the French.South Africa (notwithstanding Boer War)
Rhodesia (notwithstanding political complications)
Others aboveMalaya
the corrupt British rubber baron colony?Gold Coast
With an emphasis on the "Gold"?
this actually argues against the thesis of "Irish independence anyway" as a sort of West British Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast_%28British_colony%29#Early_manifestationsNotwithstanding their call for elected representation as opposed to a system whereby the governor appointed council members, these nationalists insisted that they were loyal to the British Crown and that they merely sought an extension of British political and social practices to Africans. Notable leaders included Africanus Horton, Jr.; J.M. Sarbah; and S.R.B. Attah-Ahoma. Such men gave the nationalist movement a distinctly elitist flavor that was to last until the late 1940s.
the source continuesChange that would place real power in African hands was not a priority among British leaders until after rioting and looting in Accra
No violence? No British hand in the problems?British Honduras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Honduras#The_colonial_order.2C_1871.E2.80.931931...the increasing consolidation of capital and the intensification of British landownership. The British Honduras Company emerged as the predominant landowner of the crown colony. ...1875 the firm became the Belize Estate and Produce Company, a London-based business that owned about half of all the privately held land in the colony. The new company was the chief force in British Honduras's political economy for over a century.
...
worst hurricane in the country's recent history demolished Belize Town on 10 September 1931, killing more than 1,000 people and destroying at least three-quarters of the housing. The British relief response was tardy and inadequate. The British government seized the opportunity to impose tighter control on the colony and endowed the governor with reserve powers, or the power to enact laws in emergency situations without the consent of the Legislative Council.
...
Since 1875 various members of the Hoare family had been principal directors and maintained a controlling interest in the company. Sir Samuel Hoare, a shareholder and former director, was a former British cabinet member and a friend of Leo Amery, the British secretary of state for the colonies
...
orkers and their families suffered from malnutrition and were continually in debt to their employers. The law governing labour contracts, the Masters and Servants Act of 1883, made it a criminal offence for a laborer to breach a contract. The offence was punishable by twenty-eight days of imprisonment with hard labour.
...
Riots, strikes, and rebellions had occurred before, during and after the period of slavery, but the events of the 1930s were modern labour disturbances in the sense that they gave rise to organisations with articulate industrial and political goals.
Sound familiar?Guyana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Guiana#Eastern_boundary_with_Suriname
In 1938 the West India Royal Commission ("The Moyne Commission") was appointed to investigate the economic and social condition of all the British colonies in the Caribbean region after a number of civil and labour disturbances.
[/quote]
Probably an even better example of British slave labour plantation politics.Malta
Gozo
Same place. Sound familiar???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Malta#Attempted_integration_with_the_United_Kingdom...the islands being placed under direct rule from London, with the MLP abandoning support for integration and now advocating independence.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
LOL! Ireland has several revolts every 50 years for four centuries. after that thyey have a vote to become independent. Your claim is that the violence never happened or is it the violence had nothing to do with them not being independent and under British Imperial rule?
Your judgement about what constitutes violence is kind-of odd. A revolt where nobody dies is not worth mentioning really.
Before 1916 the only really significant incident was in 1798. Sure, the Young Irelanders did some mucking about, but that's not even worth talking about except in the sense of how Ireland was practically the ONLY country not to engage in the 1848 rebellions.
So 110 years between violent outbursts? That would constitute quite peaceful, no?
But Ireland bucks the trend. It was one of the few countries which decided to abandon the diplomatic, political process, and instead engage in warfare. The fact that it was so totally unnecessary was highlighted by the granting of Home Rule to Northern Ireland (it was also granted to southern Ireland, but rejected as insufficient) and also by the ease with which Ireland moved out of the Commonwealth. The USA is really the only other example of this sort - but, unlike the Irish, the United States had NO REPRESENTATION. That was of course, their central complaint.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Well, Timur Leng also invaded India in 1398. The relevance? None.
Tamerlane has not relaqtion to British in Canada.
Indian wars, wars against the US and the French were not by Tamerlane but by the British. Sorry if you didn't understand that comment.Okay, so you agree that you questioning whether or not independence from the British Empire was a mostly pacific affair was pretty nonsensical.
No It was also an AtlaNTIC aFFAIR
British rule was maintained by the military i.e violence.
Just as in Iraq.
British Redcoats committed genocide in Australia.The rest of your post comments on mismanagement of the colonies by the British. Duh!
And "duh!" means???Why do you think they wanted independence? (As is par for the course with all empires, colonised regions are treated primarily from the point of view of how they will benefit the coloniser rather than the colonised. Pointing this out is both tangential to anything of any relevance and completely obvious, of course.
actually it isnt! Since you claim Imperialists are on the take all the time and colonies are always giving and the Imperialists maintain this by using their military...just how do you think the Imperialists will be made to stop taking all the time?The fact that the colonised nations can coincidentally significantly benefit from this process in also entirely besides the point.
Oh Please. Dont give me "What did the Romans ever do for us anyway" rhetoric! the Paddies and wogs don't depend on crumbs for the Rich mans table. Yes we wil take a LOAN from the UK but it isnt a gift you know! How magnanimous England giving Ireland a loan when they took a load! What did you bring to the Carribean? Oh yeah , Slavery Piracy, syphilis, rum sodomy and the lash. Oh yeah on the positive side - Cricke.tIf the main thesis of your argument that only bloody revolution is the only means to self determination you have provided neither any evidence of the sort or any logical basis to support yourself.
Mine is the counter argument bub! Don't try to shift the burden the claim was made by others about moist of the British Empire being at peace with the world as if some great democratic cultural lesson was brought to them by Empire and not death and rape.However, I will point you on the right track. Perhaps self-determination of all the colonised nations of the world (of France, Britain, Germany and Dutch) would not have been as simple if said countries had not experienced WWII.
Yu don't need to point me anywhere. Irish nationalists died in their tens of thousands years before that in fighting in WWI for the rights of small nations! Germany had no really significant colonies in WWII it was almost all heartland! And "what ifs" about Imperialist countries ( literally the exact same alliances) who fought WWI and WWII for to stop Imperial expansion and the other side to expand (except it was done by the same side for the opposite reason each time ) are not addressing the issue of "most Ex Colonies didn't suffer violence"0 -
-
RandomName2 wrote: »Your judgement about what constitutes violence is kind-of odd. A revolt where nobody dies is not worth mentioning really.
1601 1641 1690 1798, 1803, 1848 to name a few. all involved people dying.Before 1916 the only really significant incident was in 1798. Sure, the Young Irelanders did some mucking about, but that's not even worth talking about except in the sense of how Ireland was practically the ONLY country not to engage in the 1848 rebellions.
Ill take just one counter example to disprove that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1641The Irish rebellion broke out in October 1641 and was followed by several months of violent chaos before the Irish Catholic upper classes and clergy formed the Catholic Confederation in the summer of 1642. The Confederation became a de facto government of most of Ireland, free from the control of the English administration and loosely aligned with the Royalist side in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The subsequent war continued in Ireland until the 1650s, when Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army decisively defeated the Irish Catholics and Royalists, and re-conquered the country.So 110 years between violent outbursts? That would constitute quite peaceful, no?
Hard to raise an army in the 1700 when poverty and famine abound!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_%281691%E2%80%931801%29In the 1740s, these economic inequalities, when combined with an exceptionally cold winter and poor harvest, led directly to the famine of 1740-1741, which killed about 400,000 people. In the 1780s, due to increased competition from salted-meat exporters in the Baltic and North America, the Anglo-Irish landowners rapidly switched to growing grain for export, while the Irish themselves ate potatoes and groats.
Peasant secret societies became common in 18th century Ireland as the only means of tenant farmers to redress grievances against their landlordsBut Ireland bucks the trend. It was one of the few countries which decided to abandon the diplomatic, political process, and instead engage in warfare.
complete ****e! Utter nonsense. The history of rape and take is clear to see but you appear to be blind! From Poynings law to the 1920s Colonial squireen rule was firmly imposed at the barrel of a gun!
the longest period lacking widespread revolution was marked by famine and secret societies planning to overthrow the English.The fact that it was so totally unnecessary was highlighted by the granting of Home Rule to Northern Ireland (it was also granted to southern Ireland, but rejected as insufficient)
Quiote the opposite. The N Ireland Parliament proves the gerrymander and empty promise of fair play. Why should they Iriah have to wait from 1920 to 2005 in order for Catholics to get fair play at elections? Your "solution" is ponderous and took over a century and was couples with armed struggle anyway.and also by the ease with which Ireland moved out of the Commonwealth.
announced by a Minister after a few drinks in Canada.The USA is really the only other example of this sort - but, unlike the Irish, the United States had NO REPRESENTATION. That was of course, their central complaint.
The US nearly lost the colonial war! By chance the British monarch went mad! But the US did lose many a soldier. At they time their politicians fought wars. Nowadays they are back to the old British idea of getting the poor to fight the war for them.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDQ6qR9Ow7E
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement