Is it time for Irish Republicans to admit their mistakes?

pragmatic1

People in the south need to get off their high horse. None of us are really qualified to pass judgement seeing as we didnt grow up in the north. Organisations like the PIRA dont just materialise out of thin air. The PIRA could only operate with the support of the community. A community at the mercy of loyalist death squads, a community forced into refugee camps at one time, a community burnt out of their homes.

steddyeddy

pragmatic1 wrote: »

People in the south need to get off their high horse. None of us are really qualified to pass judgement seeing as we didnt grow up in the north. Organisations like the PIRA dont just materialise out of thin air. The PIRA could only operate with the support of the community. A community at the mercy of loyalist death squads, a community forced into refugee camps at one time, a community burnt out of their homes.

I agree I do think violence was always going to happen in those conditions.

irishh_bob

lugha wrote: »

For me, the most grievous wrong is the one you commit against your own people. Your enemy of course can do great wrong as well but in a way, this is no more than what you would expect from them; that is a consequence of being your enemy.

Bur for me, the lingering sore is that a small group of men could elevate themselves above the Irish people and decide that they knew best what was in the better interests of their people. For me, this is the appalling vista, and I am perpetually perplexed that so many people fail to see this. For those that subscribe to democracy, it is a self-evident truth that it is wrong to purport to represent your people if they make clear that they do not want your representation.

Surely before you can contemplate any admission of concession of wrong-doing towards your enemy, you must first make amends, or at the very least acknowledge, that you have wronged your own. Regrettably, there are no indications that physical force republicans recognise, mush less concede, that their presumption to act in our name was wrong.

Unless and until this attitude changes I don’t think there can be meaningful reconciliation.

And OP, I take exception to your suggestion that the murder of Garda McCabe is being used solely for point scoring. It has been repeatedly explained by me and others what was different about that particular horror.

the men of 1916 didnt have the support of the majority of people on that easter sunday , the reality is that most people are cowards and will not support people who choose to stick thier head above the parapet untill they know the movement has a chance of succeeding , people in the republic of ireland had no idea what it was like for catholics living under the jackboot of orange fascism in northern ireland , the ira committed many despicable acts but the reality is that we in the south abandoned our brothers and sisters north of the border , we simply wanted to forget they existed

pragmatic1

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree I do think violence was always going to happen in those conditions.

It was inevitable. The same pattern repeats itself all over the world.

lugha

irishh_bob wrote: »

the men of 1916 didnt have the support of the majority of people on that easter sunday

Just as modern day republican dissidents don’t have the support of the people. But of course you do highlight a moral dilemma for many Irish people. They will condemn the dissidents (and PIRA too in most cases) on this basis, but hold the 1916 rebels up as deities.

irishh_bob wrote: »

people in the republic of ireland had no idea what it was like for catholics living under the jackboot of orange fascism in northern ireland , the ira committed many despicable acts but the reality is that we in the south abandoned our brothers and sisters north of the border , we simply wanted to forget they existed

The OP asked if republicans should admit to their mistakes. The role or republicans in defending Northern Catholics is not the one most of us take issue with

KeithAFC

lugha wrote: »

Just as modern day republican dissidents don’t have the support of the people. But of course you do highlight a moral dilemma for many Irish people. They will condemn the dissidents (and PIRA too in most cases) on this basis, but hold the 1916 rebels up as deities.

The OP asked if republicans should admit to their mistakes. The role or republicans in defending Northern Catholics is not the one most of us take issue with

Well I do. Republicans trying to change history by coming out with the defenders of the Catholic population is just utter nonsense. They killed a lot of Catholics. With gun attacks and bomb attacks. This myth really needs to be stopped.

Wolfe Tone

Reconciliation must come from all sides equally, crucifying one side would be damaging.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well I do. Republicans trying to change history by coming out with the defenders of the Catholic population is just utter nonsense. They killed a lot of Catholics. With gun attacks and bomb attacks. This myth really needs to be stopped.

You do realise Keith that by insinuating that the ira killed regardless of religion your refutting your own theory that they were sectarian?

snafuk35

irishh_bob wrote: »

the men of 1916 didnt have the support of the majority of people on that easter sunday , the reality is that most people are cowards and will not support people who choose to stick thier head above the parapet untill they know the movement has a chance of succeeding , people in the republic of ireland had no idea what it was like for catholics living under the jackboot of orange fascism in northern ireland , the ira committed many despicable acts but the reality is that we in the south abandoned our brothers and sisters north of the border , we simply wanted to forget they existed

The overwhelming majority of the Irish population in the south of Ireland in 1916 voted for and supported the Irish Parliamentary Party and the peaceful path toward Home Rule and future independence.

The men of 1916 had absolutely no democratic mandate. They were a bunch of nationalist and socialist extremists.

If the RIRA took over buildings in Dublin tomorrow and the Gardai and Army were forced to dislodge them and hundreds died would you support the RIRA?

Now to address you other point.

Any intervention by the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland would have been interpreted as an act of war against a member of NATO. The Americans, France, Germany and all the rest of the world would have seen Ireland as the aggressor if we invaded sovereign UK territory.

Military intervention in Northern Ireland would have been an act of utter insanity.

British would have landed in Ireland, captured Dublin and overthrown our government.

steddyeddy

snafuk35 wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of the Irish population in the south of Ireland in 1916 voted for and supported the Irish Parliamentary Party and the peaceful path toward Home Rule and future independence.

The men of 1916 had absolutely no democratic mandate. They were a bunch of nationalist and socialist extremists.

If the RIRA took over buildings in Dublin tomorrow and the Gardai and Army were forced to dislodge them and hundreds died would you support the RIRA?

Now to address you other point.

Any intervention by the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland would have been interpreted as an act of war against a member of NATO. The Americans, France, Germany and all the rest of the world would have seen Ireland as the aggressor if we invaded sovereign UK territory.

Military intervention in Northern Ireland would have been an act of utter insanity.

British would have landed in Ireland, captured Dublin and overthrown our government.

Well covert military engagment might no of had the same effect.

snafuk35

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well covert military engagment might no of had the same effect.

How long would covert military engagement have remained covert?

In the 1970s a group of SAS men were arrested in the south after crossing the border. The official excuse was that they had read their map wrong but many at the time suspected they were going to assassinate a leading republican or abduct him and bring him over the border so he could be arrested by the RUC.

There is no way the Irish Army could have launched covert military operations across the border with out risking discovery - an Irish soldier killed or captured and paraded in front of the world's press etc. The British intelligence were monitoring and had probably infiltrated all levels of the Irish government during the Troubles. Plenty of soldiers, gardai, civil servants, politicians and news people in Ireland were supplying information to British intelligence about Irish intentions and activities.

irishh_bob

lugha wrote: »

Just as modern day republican dissidents don’t have the support of the people. But of course you do highlight a moral dilemma for many Irish people. They will condemn the dissidents (and PIRA too in most cases) on this basis, but hold the 1916 rebels up as deities.

The OP asked if republicans should admit to their mistakes. The role or republicans in defending Northern Catholics is not the one most of us take issue with

perhaps not but our media ( for the most part ) potrays the republican movement in the north as pure evil , unionists are stoic salt of the earth types who done nothing whatsoever to create a sense of grievance in one side of the community

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of the Irish population in the south of Ireland in 1916 voted for and supported the Irish Parliamentary Party and the peaceful path toward Home Rule and future independence.

The men of 1916 had absolutely no democratic mandate. They were a bunch of nationalist and socialist extremists.

If the RIRA took over buildings in Dublin tomorrow and the Gardai and Army were forced to dislodge them and hundreds died would you support the RIRA?

Now to address you other point.

Any intervention by the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland would have been interpreted as an act of war against a member of NATO. The Americans, France, Germany and all the rest of the world would have seen Ireland as the aggressor if we invaded sovereign UK territory.

Military intervention in Northern Ireland would have been an act of utter insanity.

British would have landed in Ireland, captured Dublin and overthrown our government.

what an utterly facile comparison , thier isnt any foreign imperial power in dublin castle today , as for what the men of 1916 and how they are viewed in 2011 , who apart from the likes of kevin myers , eoghan harris and ruth dudley edwards , views them as anything but heroes , home rule had a nice ( if diluted ) ring to it but which would you rather be in 2011 , the republic of ireland or a part of the uk which is indistinguishable from scotland , bad weather and plenty of alcohol consumption

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of the Irish population in the south of Ireland in 1916 voted for and supported the Irish Parliamentary Party and the peaceful path toward Home Rule and future independence.

The men of 1916 had absolutely no democratic mandate. They were a bunch of nationalist and socialist extremists.

If the RIRA took over buildings in Dublin tomorrow and the Gardai and Army were forced to dislodge them and hundreds died would you support the RIRA?

Now to address you other point.

Any intervention by the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland would have been interpreted as an act of war against a member of NATO. The Americans, France, Germany and all the rest of the world would have seen Ireland as the aggressor if we invaded sovereign UK territory.

Military intervention in Northern Ireland would have been an act of utter insanity.

British would have landed in Ireland, captured Dublin and overthrown our government.

where did i mention invading the north , i said us down here made a conscious descision to pretend thier were no irish people living under a hostile regime north of the border , our politicians shared in this and the media went even further by demonising those who dared not take it lying down

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

You do realise Keith that by insinuating that the ira killed regardless of religion your refutting your own theory that they were sectarian?

No. The IRA aimed at people for only being a Protestant. So they did just what any other paramilitary outfit did. That has always been my point. People try to put the PIRA on a different shelve for some bizarre reason.

snafuk35

irishh_bob wrote: »

what an utterly facile comparison , thier isnt any foreign imperial power in dublin castle today , as for what the men of 1916 and how they are viewed in 2011 , who apart from the likes of kevin myers , eoghan harris and ruth dudley edwards , views them as anything but heroes , home rule had a nice ( if diluted ) ring to it but which would you rather be in 2011 , the republic of ireland or a part of the uk which is indistinguishable from scotland , bad weather and plenty of alcohol consumption

In 1916, Britain was not a foreign imperial power. The Act of Union had been in force since 1800 and the British monarchy had been Lords and Kings of Ireland since the 12th century. Irish MPs elected by the Irish peope north and south sat in the British House of Commons. In 1916 Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom just like Scotland and Wales. The Irish Citizen Army and the Irish Volunteers numbered only a few hundred men and they themselves were only a minority of the rump of a few thousand who remained in the Volunteers after the split in 1914. The overwhelming majority of the National Volunteers had followed Redmond and joined the British Army and approximately 50,000 Irish died fighting in the Great War 1914-1918. These men had wanted Home Rule and had no problem fighting for the Crown.

The majority who voted for Sinn Fein in 1918 did so because they still supported Home Rule. Arthur Griffth set up Sinn Fein in 1906 favouring Home Rule and a dual monarchy system. When he signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty he did so because the terms were an advance on the Home Rule deal secured by Redmond. Griffith was happy to remain in the Empire and had no problem with the King as Head of State.

When the IRA launched their campaign against the predominantly Irish Catholic membership of the RIC, they were opposed by the majority of Sinn Fein voters. Opinion swung against the British after Conservatives and Unionists who were hostile to the very concept of Home Rule unleashed the Black and Tans and Auxillaries.

After the IRA rejected the democratic majority who supported the Anglo-Irish Treaty, veterans of WWI and the RIC joined the Free State Army and Gardai in their thousands and fought and defeated anti-Treaty IRA. Many of these men would have voted for the IPP and supported Home Rule years before.

The thousands of Irish who later fought and died in British uniform including thousands of Catholics from Northern Ireland in World War 2 did so because they considered themselves part of the Commonwealth.

You should try reading a book and actually educating yourself in order to avoid future embarrassment. Your ignorance of Irish history is truly laughable friendo.

snafuk35

irishh_bob wrote: »

where did i mention invading the north , i said us down here made a conscious descision to pretend thier were no irish people living under a hostile regime north of the border , our politicians shared in this and the media went even further by demonising those who dared not take it lying down

That's utter rubbish.
The clear implication of your posts are that southern Ireland should have escalated the conflict in Northern Ireland by becoming overtly involved or giving the IRA a free hand to do as it wanted.
The IRA refused to recognise the Republic of Ireland, sought to overthrow it after the overthrew democracy in Northern Ireland and they killed members of the Irish defence forces and gardaí who got in their way.
The overwhelming majority of the people of the Republic of Ireland knew that Irish unity could not be brought about against the will of the majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland.
The aims of the IRA were utterly undemocratic and fascist and flew in the face of the democratic majority north and south.
The overwhelming majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland voted for the SDLP up until the end of the IRA campaign.
Sinn Fein currently enjoys the majority of nationalist votes in Northern Ireland because the majority want peace and support the peace process.
Sinn Fein would automatically lose its majority among Northern nationalists if it ever went back to war.

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

In 1916, Britain was not a foreign imperial power. The Act of Union had been in force since 1800 and the British monarchy had been Lords and Kings of Ireland since the 12th century. Irish MPs elected by the Irish peope north and south sat in the British House of Commons. In 1916 Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom just like Scotland and Wales. The Irish Citizen Army and the Irish Volunteers numbered only a few hundred men and they themselves were only a minority of the rump of a few thousand who remained in the Volunteers after the split in 1914. The overwhelming majority of the National Volunteers had followed Redmond and joined the British Army and approximately 50,000 Irish died fighting in the Great War 1914-1918. These men had wanted Home Rule and had no problem fighting for the Crown.

The majority who voted for Sinn Fein in 1918 did so because they still supported Home Rule. Arthur Griffth set up Sinn Fein in 1906 favouring Home Rule and a dual monarchy system. When he signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty he did so because the terms were an advance on the Home Rule deal secured by Redmond. Griffith was happy to remain in the Empire and had no problem with the King as Head of State.

When the IRA launched their campaign against the predominantly Irish Catholic membership of the RIC, they were opposed by the majority of Sinn Fein voters. Opinion swung against the British after Conservatives and Unionists who were hostile to the very concept of Home Rule unleashed the Black and Tans and Auxillaries.

After the IRA rejected the democratic majority who supported the Anglo-Irish Treaty, veterans of WWI and the RIC joined the Free State Army and Gardai in their thousands and fought and defeated anti-Treaty IRA. Many of these men would have voted for the IPP and supported Home Rule years before.

The thousands of Irish who later fought and died in British uniform including thousands of Catholics from Northern Ireland in World War 2 did so because they considered themselves part of the Commonwealth.

You should try reading a book and actually educating yourself in order to avoid future embarrassment. Your ignorance of Irish history is truly laughable friendo.

i aint your buddy pal and your ultra benign view of british history in ireland is even more hilarious , yeah ireland was part of the uk in 1916 , india was also the jewell in the crown , anyone who decided they no longer wished to doff the cap to their imperilist betters is someone to be respected in my book

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

That's utter rubbish.
The clear implication of your posts are that southern Ireland should have escalated the conflict in Northern Ireland by becoming overtly involved or giving the IRA a free hand to do as it wanted.
The IRA refused to recognise the Republic of Ireland, sought to overthrow it after the overthrew democracy in Northern Ireland and they killed members of the Irish defence forces and gardaí who got in their way.
The overwhelming majority of the people of the Republic of Ireland knew that Irish unity could not be brought about against the will of the majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland.
The aims of the IRA were utterly undemocratic and fascist and flew in the face of the democratic majority north and south.
The overwhelming majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland voted for the SDLP up until the end of the IRA campaign.
Sinn Fein currently enjoys the majority of nationalist votes in Northern Ireland because the majority want peace and support the peace process.
Sinn Fein would automatically lose its majority among Northern nationalists if it ever went back to war.

most people havent the stomach for armed conflict , thats a common theme the world over which is why through various means , millitarily , political and through the media , the forces of powerfull states usually manage to quell revolts

snafuk35

irishh_bob wrote: »

i aint your buddy pal and your ultra benign view of british history in ireland is even more hilarious , yeah ireland was part of the uk in 1916 , india was also the jewell in the crown , anyone who decided they no longer wished to doff the cap to their imperilist betters is someone to be respected in my book

Sorry but the facts speak for themselves.
Ireland did not become a republic until 1949.
We joined the EEC at the same time as Britain and we did not break the link with sterling until very recently.
In case you haven't noticed English is the spoken language in this country, British football teams are as popular as GAA teams and soccer is easily the most popular game in Dublin working class areas. Irish culture is swamped by British imports.
Britain and Ireland are much still considered a single bloc.
The only thing that distinguishes Irish people from the English, Scots and Welsh is our accent.
Now we have become secular, abandoned overt Catholicism, are intermarrying with a wave of immigrants and have left our narrow Irish nationalism behind.
The potato (originally a South American vegetable imported by the English) is giving way to a whole host of dishes from around the world.
The favourite foods in this country are burgers and chips, pizza and curry and we have embraced wine culture.
Irish Catholicism, Irish nationalism and Irish republicanism is increasingly a relic of the past.

[Jackass]

The problem with Sinn Fein, in my opinion, is that they are not only a socialist policy with more or less communist views (such as the entire ownership of the state to your personal assets), but their past is very dodgy.

I actually quite like McGuinness and Adams in terms of charisma, I even met the latter and found him quite a charming man, but when you ask their electorate what they stand for, beyond a united Ireland, I'd be very surprised if any of them knew, especially in terms of economic policy, and I'd be shocked if they did know and still gave them a vote.

I just think they are a politically and morally bankrupt party, but not particularly bankrupt in other ways....

Sunnyisland

[Jackass] wrote: »

when you ask their electorate what they stand for I'd be very surprised if any of them knew, especially in terms of economic policy, and I'd be shocked if they did know and still gave them a vote.

You can apply that to most of the the electorate or would you be implying that just the SF voters are a bit slow .;)

Sunnyisland

IMO For the most part the elected go for populists parties and are very slow to change,The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know etc,Unless a new strong political party is formed here I can see FF coming back in again at least in a coalition and maybe with SF.

snafuk35

realies wrote: »

IMO For the most part the elected go for populists parties and are very slow to change,The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know etc,Unless a new strong political party is formed here I can see FF coming back in again at least in a coalition and maybe with SF.

If Irish electoral politics changes into a typical left/right divide we are going to see conservative coalitions between FG/FF/SF - FG is the Irish equivalent of the British Tories, FF is a liberal conservative party and SF is left wing economically but a culturally conservative party so as I see it they are like the right/centre/left wings of pan nationalism in the south.
Similarly the Labour Party have already absorbed Democratic Left (the left wing equivalent of SF) and the various socialist parties and socialist independents orbit around them.
Civil War politics is completely irrelevant now and in time the politics of the Troubles will also become irrelevant as new generations emerge who see them as ancient history.
We will probably end up with a broad conservative party on one side and a broad left wing party on the other.
Increasingly the electorate in the south see Northern Ireland as a separate country.
Our political culture in the south and the sectarian head counts in the north are increasingly alien. A new generation has emerged who know nothing but peace and consider the Troubles utterly baffling and irrelevant. These people have known nothing but a secular multi-cultural society and are indifferent to the Irish nationalist republican Gaelic speaking Catholic ideal that drove the Irish Revolution between 1916-1923.

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

Sorry but the facts speak for themselves.
Ireland did not become a republic until 1949.
We joined the EEC at the same time as Britain and we did not break the link with sterling until very recently.
In case you haven't noticed English is the spoken language in this country, British football teams are as popular as GAA teams and soccer is easily the most popular game in Dublin working class areas. Irish culture is swamped by British imports.
Britain and Ireland are much still considered a single bloc.
The only thing that distinguishes Irish people from the English, Scots and Welsh is our accent.
Now we have become secular, abandoned overt Catholicism, are intermarrying with a wave of immigrants and have left our narrow Irish nationalism behind.
The potato (originally a South American vegetable imported by the English) is giving way to a whole host of dishes from around the world.
The favourite foods in this country are burgers and chips, pizza and curry and we have embraced wine culture.
Irish Catholicism, Irish nationalism and Irish republicanism is increasingly a relic of the past.

i love soccer and the premier league , im happy to see england win when they play the likes of germany or argentina , doesnt mean i have to despise my own country and its history , ireland has a noble history in terms of its ability to escape its opressor , i pity someone who feels shame about our achievements

gurramok

Somehow snafuk35's posts have descended into a disgraceful attack on the Irish nation, despite the thread having a discussion on republicans.

audi a4 2008

gurramok wrote: »

Somehow snafuk35's posts have descended into a disgraceful attack on the Irish nation, despite the thread having a discussion on republicans.

how right you are,we should not forget our history.

snafuk35

irishh_bob wrote: »

i love soccer and the premier league , im happy to see england win when they play the likes of germany or argentina , doesnt mean i have to despise my own country and its history , ireland has a noble history in terms of its ability to escape its opressor , i pity someone who feels shame about our achievements

After independence in 1922 we became an economically backward, theocratic, impoverished hellhole. Anyone bright or educated was shouted down by inflexible religious or political bigots. Children grew up in wretched poverty, were sexually and physically abused in slave camps run by the religious orders and when they reached adulthood they fled for a better life in England and America. If you are proud of that then good for you.

snafuk35

gurramok wrote: »

Somehow snafuk35's posts have descended into a disgraceful attack on the Irish nation, despite the thread having a discussion on republicans.

Our nation for much of our history has been nothing less than a disgrace.
Sexual abuse, Catholic bigotry, corruption, violence, murder, economic catastrophe, emigration, misery and poverty. Most who left never looked back.

Much of Ireland is an alcohol soaked, suicide ridden, ignorant, ill-mannered, cultural desert, full of gombeens, dole spongers, travellers, drug addicts, single mothers, thugs, thieves and bi-polar depression.

gurramok

snafuk35 wrote: »

Our nation for much of our history has been nothing less than a disgrace.
Sexual abuse, Catholic bigotry, corruption, violence, murder, economic catastrophe, emigration, misery and poverty. Most who left never looked back.

Much of Ireland is an alcohol soaked, suicide ridden, ignorant, ill-mannered, cultural desert, full of gombeens, dole spongers, travellers, drug addicts, single mothers, thugs, thieves and bi-polar depression.

You were going good till the 2nd paragraph. Generalise much? Me thinks you do not even live here as you are quite wrong.

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

After independence in 1922 we became an economically backward, theocratic, impoverished hellhole. Anyone bright or educated was shouted down by inflexible religious or political bigots. Children grew up in wretched poverty, were sexually and physically abused in slave camps run by the religious orders and when they reached adulthood they fled for a better life in England and America. If you are proud of that then good for you.

you,ve managed to fit in every shamefull eppisode of our history in the space of seven lines , il take that , were you to summarise britians list of dirty little secrets , id be buying the book

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

Our nation for much of our history has been nothing less than a disgrace.
Sexual abuse, Catholic bigotry, corruption, violence, murder, economic catastrophe, emigration, misery and poverty. Most who left never looked back.

Much of Ireland is an alcohol soaked, suicide ridden, ignorant, ill-mannered, cultural desert, full of gombeens, dole spongers, travellers, drug addicts, single mothers, thugs, thieves and bi-polar depression.

you have obviously lived a charmed life if ireland is the biggest hell hole you,ve ever visited

snafuk35

irishh_bob wrote: »

you,ve managed to fit in every shamefull eppisode of our history in the space of seven lines , il take that , were you to summarise britians list of dirty little secrets , id be buying the book

The British Empire would not have been possible without the willing collaboration of generations of Irish who enthusiastically conquered Africa and India on their behalf in British uniform. The Catholic Church engaged in their imperialism sending tens of thousands of Irish Catholic priestly fanatics to every corner of the world. O'Connell, Butt, Parnell, Redmond, Griffth and De Valera were all as imperialistic and racist toward people in with darker skins and broader noses as any Brit.

snafuk35

irishh_bob wrote: »

you have obviously lived a charmed life if ireland is the biggest hell hole you,ve ever visited

I said no such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth.

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

The British Empire would not have been possible without the willing collaboration of generations of Irish who enthusiastically conquered Africa and India on their behalf in British uniform. The Catholic Church engaged in their imperialism sending tens of thousands of Irish Catholic priestly fanatics to every corner of the world. O'Connell, Butt, Parnell, Redmond, Griffth and De Valera were all as imperialistic and racist toward people in with darker skins and broader noses as any Brit.

and i suppose the majority of indians were fond of the raj aswell , im actually quite proud of the way irish people opposed the empire in comparrison to those in other english speaking countrys

as for irish priests and nuns in africa , ask people in nigeria how they feel about the irish contribution there as opposed to the british one , the best chance many africans had of an education came by way of irish missionarys , i dont even believe in god but im wise enough to know that not all priests were inherently evil , the britts were out for what they could get in underdeveloped countrys , us irish were an overwhelmingly benign influence in poverty stricken nations , if this annoys you , again , i pity you

ilovelois

snafuk35 wrote: »

The British Empire would not have been possible without the willing collaboration of generations of Irish who enthusiastically conquered Africa and India on their behalf in British uniform. The Catholic Church engaged in their imperialism sending tens of thousands of Irish Catholic priestly fanatics to every corner of the world. O'Connell, Butt, Parnell, Redmond, Griffth and De Valera were all as imperialistic and racist toward people in with darker skins and broader noses as any Brit.

where do you get this stuff. lady birds books wouldnt get a look in with ya......

snafuk35

ilovelois wrote: »

where do you get this stuff. lady birds books wouldnt get a look in with ya......

Try the history section in your local library or try taking books out of UCD or TCD or any other university library history section. Primary sources are good place to start.

snafuk35

and i suppose the majority of indians were fond of the raj aswell

Actually most were. At any one time India was run by only a few hundred British civil servants. The rest of the administration was left up to the Indians themselves who ran the country on their behalf. A large portion of the British Army who fought the Japanese and the Germans and Italians was made up of Indians. Look it up.

ilovelois

snafuk35 wrote: »

Try the history section in your local library or try taking books out of UCD or TCD or any other university library history section. Primary sources are good place to start.

wow suppose if somebody prints this **** then somebody will read it. hard to accept anybody would believe it any names for these fine works of fiction

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

Actually most were. At any one time India was run by only a few hundred British civil servants. The rest of the administration was left up to the Indians themselves who ran the country on their behalf. A large portion of the British Army who fought the Japanese and the Germans and Italians was made up of Indians. Look it up.

im begining to think your a troll

Chuck Stone

Corruptable wrote: »

I am not saying that there was only one side in the conflict which took place during the "Troubles".

With a title that reads 'Is it time for Irish Republicans to admit their mistakes' I think you're above statement is contradictory if not disingenuous.

lugha wrote: »

Bur for me, the lingering sore is that a small group of men could elevate themselves above the Irish people and decide that they knew best what was in the better interests of their people. For me, this is the appalling vista, and I am perpetually perplexed that so many people fail to see this. For those that subscribe to democracy, it is a self-evident truth that it is wrong to purport to represent your people if they make clear that they do not want your representation.

Oh dear. I can't even begin to imagine the list of rebellions around the globe that didn't have the support of the majority. And do yourself a favour and try to gain some scintilla of understanding how democracy can be abused and used to frustrate minorities. What good would democracy have done for the native Americans for example?

Don't forget that the Nationalist minority was created in the north in such a way that Unionism could abuse democracy and it most certainly did.

Democracy shamocracy.

FTA69

Junder is absolutely spot on. The last thing Sinn Féin want coming out while they're in the process of building a "respectable", centrist political party; is revelations that Gerry Adams ordered people to be killed and that MLA's and TD's played an active and specific part in a very violent and very dirty conflict. Similarly, the Brits aren't ever going to admit they sponsored Loyalists in the murder of their own citizens. Neither side wants the truth to come out at this stage, but they'll posture to the opposite effect because that's what politicians do.

lugha

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Oh dear. I can't even begin to imagine the list of rebellions around the globe that didn't have the support of the majority.

Well if all of them involved groups taking up arms on behalf of a people, against the wishes of those people then your comparison with our quarrel might be valid. But if you did find such rebellions then they would be just as wrong as PIRA were. There are undoubtedly some that they believe that they are above the people and can act without mandate on their behalf. But if they call themselves republicans, they are that in name only.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And do yourself a favour and try to gain some scintilla of understanding how democracy can be abused and used to frustrate minorities. What good would democracy have done for the native Americans for example?

Don't forget that the Nationalist minority was created in the north in such a way that Unionism could abuse democracy and it most certainly did.

Yes. majorities can and have abused their advantage. That is not a reason to reject democracy. If you extend that argument and dismiss anything that has been abused then we would not have police, a legal system, a political structure, etc. Would you dismiss every product of civilization on the basis that it had been abused? (Republicanism would up on the scrapheap fairly quickly!)

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Democracy shamocracy.

My beef with republicans is premised on the notion that they accept democracy, and they SAY that they do. If they do not (and you certainly don’t seem to be a big fan of it) then what do you replace it with? If the people don’t decide their own fate, then whom?

irishh_bob

FTA69 wrote: »

Junder is absolutely spot on. The last thing Sinn Féin want coming out while they're in the process of building a "respectable", centrist political party; is revelations that Gerry Adams ordered people to be killed and that MLA's and TD's played an active and specific part in a very violent and very dirty conflict. Similarly, the Brits aren't ever going to admit they sponsored Loyalists in the murder of their own citizens. Neither side wants the truth to come out at this stage, but they'll posture to the opposite effect because that's what politicians do.

how many people did margaret thatcher ( and i liked her style on some issues btw ) order to be killed , beit during the falklands war or otherwise , ditto with president obama , bush or clinton , seems one form of murder is respectable but the other isnt , fact of the matter is that the world is ran by ruthless people and mc guinness and adams are just two more

EI_Flyboy

lugha wrote: »

My beef with republicans is premised on the notion that they accept democracy, and they SAY that they do. If they do not (and you certainly don’t seem to be a big fan of it) then what do you replace it with? If the people don’t decide their own fate, then whom?

The troubles started in earnest only after after all democratic and legal avenues had been exhausted. I think a forum already exists for dealing with outstanding grievances from the troubles, the peace process. Is something extra to it needed or is it that those who still feel aggrieved have failed to explore it?

Pride Fighter

Corruptable wrote: »

Is it time for Irish Republicans to admit their mistakes?

Does that include Fianna Fail call themselves a 'republican' party and who destroyed the country?

Chuck Stone

lugha wrote: »

My beef with republicans is premised on the notion that they accept democracy, and they SAY that they do. If they do not (and you certainly don’t seem to be a big fan of it) then what do you replace it with? If the people don’t decide their own fate, then whom?

I just don't have the swallow reflex that many seem to have when someone prefixes or imbues their argument with the lofty ideal of 'the democratic will of the people'.

As for replacements for democracy, and other ways of organizing, well perhaps that is for another thread.

snafuk35

ilovelois wrote: »

wow suppose if somebody prints this **** then somebody will read it. hard to accept anybody would believe it any names for these fine works of fiction

Do you only read books and accept facts that confirm your politics prejudices?

These books might be a good place to start to clear out all those cobwebs:

snafuk35

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

The troubles started in earnest only after after all democratic and legal avenues had been exhausted. I think a forum already exists for dealing with outstanding grievances from the troubles, the peace process. Is something extra to it needed or is it that those who still feel aggrieved have failed to explore it?

The Civil Rights Movement, the Peace People, the SDLP and many others were not exhausted. They sought a peaceful solution to Ireland's problems rather than the bomb and the gun which produced nothing but death and destruction. The outcome of decades of bombing and shooting was the GFA which was Sunningdale for slow learners - the SF and DUP were two sides of the same coin.

The IRA sought Brits out, an end to Stormont, the end of partition and the destruction of Unionism. They failed on all counts and set back any possibility there ever existed of an agreed unification of Ireland by at least a century.

lugha

Chuck Stone wrote: »

… the lofty ideal of 'the democratic will of the people'.

This is precisely the kind of remark that persuades me that I am justified in being suspicious about the commitment of republicans to democracy. For the majority of us, the democratic will of the people is not a lofty ideal, it is self-evidentially a basic principle. Indeed it is a principle Irish republicans always say they adhere to, with their mantra that the fate of Ireland should be decided by the Irish people. Regrettably, they failed to see any contradiction when they simply ignored the vast majority of Irish people who said to them, “not in our name”.

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

The troubles started in earnest only after all democratic and legal avenues had been exhausted. I think a forum already exists for dealing with outstanding grievances from the troubles, the peace process. Is something extra to it needed or is it that those who still feel aggrieved have failed to explore it?

Well I would dispute that all avenues were exhausted, or more pertinently, that this was the majority view of Northern nationalists. Sinn Fein had been eclipsed electorally by the SDLP until well after they abandoned violence. But my complaint relates to their purporting to represent all Irish people, including those of us in the South who did have a functioning democracy and did not sanction the pursuit of a united Ireland by violence means.

And I am not personally aggrieved. My concern is about the future, not the past. And what I would like to see from republicans in the future is an unequivocal commitment to democracy, especically if it becomes clear that democracy will not deliver their aims.

And one thing I find with almost all republican apologists who post here on this matter, or rather one thing I fail to find, is such an unequivocal commitment. If you are looking for evidence that the armelite and ballot box strategy is firmly in the past, that democracy is something to be exploited when it delivers but may be abandoned when there are no more dividends, then you won’t find much here (or anywhere else) that will do much to reassure you. See for example the comment of one C. Stone above.