Retired Gardai to commemorate RIC

Beir Bua

ejmaztec wrote: »

At the time, the RIC wasn't the only armed police-force.



http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/police-arms-and-weaponry

I think it a safe bet to say that there weren't (and still aren't) many police-forces on the planet that didn't involve themselves in military-style drilling.

What is the point?

Why cherry pick one aspect (they were armed) and ignore everything else I said and asked?

How were they not paramilitary? I think I have demonstrated that they clearly were and were different to the police force in Britain who were more civilian in nature (like AGS are) and not a pseudo military force, which you say that the RIC were not, why do you hold that opinion in the face of the facts? Do you have a different definition of paramilitary than I do?


BB

Beir Bua

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is not why AGS are unarmed. There predecessors, the Civic guard that were formed in 1922 were initially armed.

It is part of the reason, people, especially the recruits at the Kildare Mutiny were wary of the ex-RIC elements so the AGS was intrinsically different than the RIC in organization and operation, this was essential so the populace would have faith in the new police service especially seen as a number of members were ex-RIC men, they had to be seen as reformed, being unarmed was a central part of this.


BB

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

It is part of the reason, people, especially the recruits at the Kildare Mutiny were wary of the ex-RIC elements so the AGS was intrinsically different than the RIC in organization and operation, this was essential so the populace would have faith in the new police service especially seen as a number of members were ex-RIC men, they had to be seen as reformed, being unarmed was a central part of this.
BB

But was it intrinsically different outside of 1917-22? I understand the problems people have with commemorating this period but outside of that time I do not see any proof that the RIC function was different to other Police services in other countries. They were based in the community, not aloof in separate areas in most rural places and their role was keeping the peace, not making trouble. For the most part this would have been in the general agreement of the community.

Due to their ubiquity from the 1850s the RIC were tasked with a range of civil and local government duties together with their existing ones, closely tying the constables to their local communities. By 1901 there were around 1,600 barracks and some 11,000 constables. The majority of the lower ranks in rural areas were of the same social class, religion and general background as their neighbours. Through their enforcement of evictions in rural Ireland and their approach to Land league leaders, the RIC had attracted widespread opprobrium among the Irish Catholic population during the nineteenth century. However, during the relative calm of the late Victorian and Edwardian periods, the RIC won general acceptance as an efficient organisation which served as a model for similar forces elsewhere in the British Empire and was no more unpopular at home than effective police forces generally are.

..............

The comparative ease of the RIC's existence was however increasingly troubled by the rise of the Home Rule campaign in the period prior to World War I.
http://www.royalirishconstabulary.com/

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

What is the point?

Why cherry pick one aspect (they were armed) and ignore everything else I said and asked?

How were they not paramilitary? I think I have demonstrated that they clearly were and were different to the police force in Britain who were more civilian in nature (like AGS are) and not a pseudo military force, which you say that the RIC were not, why do you hold that opinion in the face of the facts? Do you have a different definition of paramilitary than I do?


BB

All police forces have to be based along military lines, or how on earth can one expect uniformity or a sense of discipline. Just because a police force carries guns doesn't make it paramilitary. If the RIC were a paramilitary organisation, there would never have been Black and Tans or Auxiliaries, as they would have all been members of the RIC, and they clearly weren't.

Beir Bua

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

But was it intrinsically different outside of 1917-22? I understand the problems people have with commemorating this period but outside of that time I do not see any proof that the RIC function was different to other Police services in other countries. They were based in the community, not aloof in separate areas in most rural places and their role was keeping the peace, not making trouble. For the most part this would have been in the general agreement of the community.

Ok, I'm growing bored with this topic now, I've written thousands of words in this thread, however I will entertain you one last time.

The RIC was organized in a military way as I have already said. It was a pseudo military force designed to suppress any rebellion without the help of the army. (this failed hence the need for the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries, but remember that these were part of the RIC and NOT the British army, they supplemented the RIC and carried out the same role they did but in higher numbers and with greater brutality [not that the regular RIC were not brutal, they undoubtedly were])

The RIC were very aloof, by design. Recruits could not marry for seven years and were sent to a distant part of the country where they had no relatives. When they married they were then sent to a part of the country where neither spouse had any relatives. They were purposefully kept at arms length from the general populace. They even lived in barracks like the army did. Some even lived with their families in the barracks. They were not like the police of the day in Britain and were hugely different to AGS. They were not community based, they were strangers shipped into an area.

They played a brutal role during the Land League and Land War eras backing up the British State and evicting tens of thousands of Irish men, women and children from their homes.

Finally, why on earth would you cite such a biased source to back you up? You are the mod I would expect better in all honesty. From memory that site describes the IRA killing of RIC men as "atrocities". It is a thoroughly unreliable site and due to it's biased nature you cannot take what it says like you have at face value, for instance it claims that the RIC where the "finest police force in the 19th and 20th century".


BB

Beir Bua

ejmaztec wrote: »

All police forces have to be based along military lines, or how on earth can one expect uniformity or a sense of discipline. Just because a police force carries guns doesn't make it paramilitary. If the RIC were a paramilitary organisation, there would never have been Black and Tans or Auxiliaries, as they would have all been members of the RIC, and they clearly weren't.

You seem to be struggling, let me detail it more clearly. Lets define "paramilitary"

: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force <a paramilitary border patrol> <paramilitary training>
— paramilitary noun

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) denoting or relating to a group of personnel with military structure functioning either as a civil force or in support of military forces

A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military, but which is not considered part of a state's formal armed forces.

The rank structure was paramilitary in nature, similar to that of the British Army of the period:
Inspector-General (insignia of a Lieutenant-General)
Deputy Inspector General (insignia of a Major-General)
Assistant Inspector General (insignia of a Brigadier-General)
Commissioner (insignia of a Colonel)
County Inspector (insignia of a Lieutenant-Colonel)
District Inspector 1st Class (insignia of a Major)
District Inspector 2nd Class (insignia of a Captain)
District Inspector 3rd Class (insignia of a Lieutenant)
Head Constable Major (insignia of a Warrant Officer)
Head Constable (insignia of a Warrant Officer)
Sergeant
Acting Sergeant (insignia of a Corporal)
Constable

They drilled like an army, they lived like an army, they looked like an army, they acted like an army, all in contrast to how the police in England for example were organized and operated. It is simply inaccurate to maintain that the RIC were not a paramilitary force, other police were armed yes, but they did not have the military structure or modi operandi the RIC did.

Finally, the Auxiliaries and Black and Tans were part of the RIC, the RIC didn't have sufficient numbers so these men were drafted in to supplement the RIC.

The AGS were, in contrast (like police in England), a civilian force and not a pseudo military one like the RIC.


BB

johnny_doyle

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm wondering whether any information pertinent to his appointment is still under lock and key in London, with any other official documents that still haven't been disclosed. I think that there are a lot of War of Independence papers that are still regarded as too sensitive to be released.

They obviously thought it a good idea to appoint an ex-military man to control the RIC in Munster, and the fact that he was a military mean makes me think that he was trying to turn the RIC into something that it was not i.e. a para-military police-force as I mentioned in an earlier post.

He appears to have been seconded to the RIC and was still a serving officer. As a result he has a Commonwealth War Graves Commission grave. Auxiliaries and Black and Tans killed weren't eligible for CWGC graves as they were not serving soldiers/sailors/airmen.

I understand the controversy about his comments at Listowel and why he might be deemed a high profile target as a result. Given the good propaganda and publicity machinery that SF/IRA had there should be more information in the public domain about his activities.

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

Ok, I'm growing bored with this topic now, I've written thousands of words in this thread, however I will entertain you one last time.

The RIC was organized in a military way as I have already said. It was a pseudo military force designed to suppress any rebellion without the help of the army. (this failed hence the need for the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries, but remember that these were part of the RIC and NOT the British army, they supplemented the RIC and carried out the same role they did but in higher numbers and with greater brutality [not that the regular RIC were not brutal, they undoubtedly were])

The RIC were very aloof, by design. Recruits could not marry for seven years and were sent to a distant part of the country where they had no relatives. When they married they were then sent to a part of the country where neither spouse had any relatives. They were purposefully kept at arms length from the general populace. They even lived in barracks like the army did. Some even lived with their families in the barracks. They were not like the police of the day in Britain and were hugely different to AGS. They were not community based, they were strangers shipped into an area.

They played a brutal role during the Land League and Land War eras backing up the British State and evicting tens of thousands of Irish men, women and children from their homes.

Finally, why on earth would you cite such a biased source to back you up? You are the mod I would expect better in all honesty. From memory that site describes the IRA killing of RIC men as "atrocities". It is a thoroughly unreliable site and due to it's biased nature you cannot take what it says like you have at face value, for instance it claims that the RIC where the "finest police force in the 19th and 20th century".

You may have written thousands of words but if you want to convince people of your opinions you need to substantiate them. You have said that you have evidence to back up your opinion but it is not with you at the moment. So I have been patient but now you are seeming to be impatient in your insistence that the RIC were a wholely paramilitary organisation whereas it seems clear to me that for the greater part of their existence they fulfilled a role of law and order in the same way as other police services in the late 19th century. You have discounted the first source I gave that suggested the role of the RIC for quite a period of time was standard rather than military. Diarmaid Ferriter suggested similar in his book 'the transformation of Ireland 1900-2000', pg 65. "policing was perhaps not to arduous of a task" He also refers on the same page to the contributions of ex-RIC men to the military bureau of the 1940s and 50s where a number of contributions were "adamant that there was nothing incompatible between their membership and a nationalist identity". He goes on to refer to one RIC man, JJ O'Connell who noted "that even his Fenian father approved of him joining. Regarding his duties in the early days he remembered a quiet time, occasionally punctuated by drink-induced disorder".
Hardly the paramiltary organisation or 'brutal' behaviour that you are suggesting even by the widest stretch of imagination. So before you get to "bored with this topic" you might properly back up your propositions.

Respectfully I would say that your contributions are welcome but you need to substantiate them better (sources) for them to be accepted.

Rebelheart

johnny_doyle wrote: »

I understand the controversy about his comments at Listowel and why he might be deemed a high profile target as a result. Given the good propaganda and publicity machinery that SF/IRA had there should be more information in the public domain about his activities.

:rolleyes:. Spot the anti-Irish, europhobic rightwing British nationalist.

jonniebgood1

Rebelheart wrote: »

:rolleyes:. Spot the anti-Irish, europhobic rightwing British nationalist.

Enough of this. The conversation is good and anymore of this or any response by other posters to this will result in an infraction. If there is any problem with this send me a PM as a response here will get an infraction.

Moderator.

johnny_doyle

Rebelheart wrote: »

:rolleyes:. Spot the anti-Irish, europhobic rightwing British nationalist.

where?

Beir Bua

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You may have written thousands of words but if you want to convince people of your opinions you need to substantiate them. You have said that you have evidence to back up your opinion but it is not with you at the moment. So I have been patient but now you are seeming to be impatient in your insistence that the RIC were a wholely paramilitary organisation whereas it seems clear to me that for the greater part of their existence they fulfilled a role of law and order in the same way as other police services in the late 19th century. You have discounted the first source I gave that suggested the role of the RIC for quite a period of time was standard rather than military. Diarmaid Ferriter suggested similar in his book 'the transformation of Ireland 1900-2000', pg 65. "policing was perhaps not to arduous of a task" He also refers on the same page to the contributions of ex-RIC men to the military bureau of the 1940s and 50s where a number of contributions were "adamant that there was nothing incompatible between their membership and a nationalist identity". He goes on to refer to one RIC man, JJ O'Connell who noted "that even his Fenian father approved of him joining. Regarding his duties in the early days he remembered a quiet time, occasionally punctuated by drink-induced disorder".
Hardly the paramiltary organisation or 'brutal' behaviour that you are suggesting even by the widest stretch of imagination. So before you get to "bored with this topic" you might properly back up your propositions.

Respectfully I would say that your contributions are welcome but you need to substantiate them better (sources) for them to be accepted.

What part of anything I said was incorrect? I can assure you it is not, rather pitiful you berate me for not substantiating claims (which are obviously true to anyone with any understanding of the area, my claims have all been of a general nature, I have refrained from making specific claims [except about Bloody Sunday] because I can't currently supply references from primary or reliable secondary sources, however if you want me to back up anything in particular feel free to mention it and I will work from memory and supply a source) when in backing up your own you post excerpts from a pro unionist, self proclaimed revisionist website. If you feel that is a reliable source I see no point in conversing with you. Your quotes don't even contradict what I said!

I have explained how they were paramilitary in set up, do you dispute this? (Compare them to police in Britain, observe how their set up did not change greatly during the tan war, they mainly just got extra men). As for their "brutality" yes of course there were lulls but when the Irish people attempted to rise in any fashion they were brutally put down by the RIC on the orders of the British. That was their primary function, to maintain British rule in Ireland. It was in fulfilling that function they got the prefix Royal. That is why the British were confident the RIC could deal with the uprising, they were not just ordinary bobbies. See the 1867 rising and the land league/war for prime examples of their brutality outside the 1917-21 period.

I never said they were constantly running around the country acting like they did during the tan war throughout their history, but whenever British domination was threatened they acted brutally in suppressing the native populace. They were the main tool of the British in Ireland and they were the single most important tool in maintaining control over Ireland.

Great Irish patriots like Dan Breen recognized this and that is why they felt the RIC were the Irish peoples greatest enemy. Do you think they felt this way for another reason? What do you think of the IRA and before them the Fenians, targeting them in that case?


BB

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

What part of anything I said was incorrect? I can assure you it is not, rather pitiful you berate me for not substantiating claims (which are obviously true to anyone with any understanding of the area, my claims have all been of a general nature, I have refrained from making specific claims [except about Bloody Sunday] because I can't currently supply references from primary or reliable secondary sources, however if you want me to back up anything in particular feel free to mention it and I will work from memory and supply a source) when in backing up your own you post excerpts from a pro unionist, self proclaimed revisionist website. If you feel that is a reliable source I see no point in conversing with you. Your quotes don't even contradict what I said!

I have explained how they were paramilitary in set up, do you dispute this? (Compare them to police in Britain, observe how their set up did not change greatly during the tan war, they mainly just got extra men). As for their "brutality" yes of course there were lulls but when the Irish people attempted to rise in any fashion they were brutally put down by the RIC on the orders of the British. That was their primary function, to maintain British rule in Ireland. It was in fulfilling that function they got the prefix Royal. That is why the British were confident the RIC could deal with the uprising, they were not just ordinary bobbies. See the 1867 rising and the land league/war for prime examples of their brutality outside the 1917-21 period.

To simplify this you have said they were paramilitary. This means their function was military. The evidence I see (as per the passage I typed from Diarmaid Ferriters book) suggests that the role was in the main not military and it seems that the more militant approach was only apparant in times of uprising. I am quite open to looking at evidence that day to day RIC activity was similar to military but I just have not seen this thus far.

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

You seem to be struggling, let me detail it more clearly. Lets define "paramilitary"





They drilled like an army, they lived like an army, they looked like an army, they acted like an army, all in contrast to how the police in England for example were organized and operated. It is simply inaccurate to maintain that the RIC were not a paramilitary force, other police were armed yes, but they did not have the military structure or modi operandi the RIC did.

Finally, the Auxiliaries and Black and Tans were part of the RIC, the RIC didn't have sufficient numbers so these men were drafted in to supplement the RIC.

The AGS were, in contrast (like police in England), a civilian force and not a pseudo military one like the RIC.


BB

That definition of paramilitary is too weak in my opinion, because if that's the universal definition, it must mean that the English police-force was also of a paramilitary nature, because it too was developed along military lines. My idea of a paramilitary police-force would be for a group like the B&Ts, which did have military training. Military training to me isn't just beeing shown how to fire a weapon, and marching up and down.

When Sir Robert Peel decided to set up a police-force for London (7 years after the RIC was founded), he wanted the London Metropolitan Police to be similar to the RIC.
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/England-History/SirRobertPeel.htm

Following the success of the Royal Irish Constabulary it became obvious that something similar was needed in London, so in 1829 when Sir Robert was Home Secretary in Lord Liverpool’s Tory Cabinet, the Metropolitan Police Act was passed, providing permanently appointed and paid Constables to protect the capital as part of the Metropolitan Police Force.

It seems to me that the RIC was seen as a model, and the same model was used to set up any Crown police-forces afterwards.


You say that the RIC “looked” like an army and “acted” like an army. I'd say that, despite your thinking that they wore military style clothing, they couldn't act like an army. If, as the statistics of post 1900 are accurate, i.e, there were 11000 barracks for 1600 RIC men, that would mean an average of 7 men at each, which couldn't “act” like an army even if they tried (unless it was a Hollywood movie).

Ireland was riddled with army barracks, so I don't think the country needed military actors, not with those men available.


By the time the War of Independence kicked off, Ireland hadn't seen much in the way of trouble for a long time, so the RIC got on with the same kind of mundane police-work that its English colleagues got on with. Some other statistics maintain that the RIC was no more disrespected than any other police-force at the time. This was of course years after it was involved in enforcing thousands of evictions from the estates, at which time it was hated with a vengeance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Constabulary


Even in times of insurrection, I think they acted in the same way as their English counterparts. The Sidney Street siege is a prime example of this. The police started out trying to bring the situation under control, but then had to call in the army because the people they were up against were armed to the teeth and the police couldn't win on their own.


I know this is Wiki, but it does give a good account of the action that took place in 1911, which is relatively close to the start of the Irish War of Independence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sidney_Street


Nothing that you've come up with has proven to me that the RIC acted in a completely different way to the English police-forces of that time. And I still think, despite your assertions otherwise, that the AGS would act in exactly the same way now as the RIC did then, were a large group of Irish insurgents to decide that the ballot box wasn't going to get them the desired result.

Beir Bua

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

To simplify this you have said they were paramilitary. This means their function was military. The evidence I see (as per the passage I typed from Diarmaid Ferriters book) suggests that the role was in the main not military and it seems that the more militant approach was only apparant in times of uprising. I am quite open to looking at evidence that day to day RIC activity was similar to military but I just have not seen this thus far.

Do some digging yourself, I'm sure you are capable.

Check how the Irish Constabulary during the famine served Britain by protecting and assisting Bailiffs in evicting tens of thousands of Irish people to their deaths. I've already mentioned the 1867 rising and the Land League/War eras. Their aim was always to protect Britain's interests, often at the expense of the native Irish.

Yes you are right, that role may only have been more apparent during times of struggle against colonial rule, but that role was always there. Perhaps I have given the impression that I think they went around behaving like thugs and murderers 24/7, if so I apologize. The point I have made is that their primary function was to maintain British rule by any means necessary, and that their organization reflected this in that they were a pseudo military force. That does not mean they were massacring people 24/7, it means that they were quite unlike AGS who were much more civilian in nature, this was to differentiate them from the RIC so the Irish people would accept them.

If you still believe I am lying or making things up then I am afraid you will have to wait until after Christmas when I return to my house, then I will supply quotes etc from some other academic.

Again I ask, why do you think the RIC deserve a state sponsored memorial dedicated to those who died during the Tan War? Please articulate why, I'm curious.

Again I ask what you think of the IRA, and in particular the Fenians before them, targeting and killing RIC members? Opinion on Soloheadbeg?

FInally I'll just say I won't lose any sleep if you don't believe me, for the benefit of the audience I felt obliged to confront the revisionism/errors in this thread, which I have done so, people will not be left with the exclusive impression that the RIC behaved like ordinary bobbies on the beat during the Tan War, which was the suggestion before I arrived.

And I still think, despite your assertions otherwise, that the AGS would act in exactly the same way now as the RIC did then, were a large group of Irish insurgents to decide that the ballot box wasn't going to get them the desired result.

Delusional. (look at how the free state dealt with the IRA, look at how the RUC behaved during the troubles while being utter thugs they were not as bad as the RIC. If you removed the sectarian nature of the RUC their behavior would have been better still, and I just can't imagine AGS being leagues worse than the RUC! The UDR were more reminiscent of the RIC)



BB

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

Delusional. (look at how the free state dealt with the IRA, look at how the RUC behaved during the troubles while being utter thugs they were not as bad as the RIC. If you removed the sectarian nature of the RUC their behavior would have been better still, and I just can't imagine AGS being leagues worse than the RUC! The UDR were more reminiscent of the RIC)



BB

In relation to how the IRA was treated, I don't think you can ignore the atrocities of the Civil War. I live in Kerry, the home of the Ballyseedy massacre to name but one. I'm not surprised they kept a low profile after the Civil War, they must have been completely demoralised and washed up. The Free State kept a very close eye on their activities.

There is no doubt that RUC were a complete bunch of sectarian bastards (to put it into layman's terms), but this thread has nothing to do with them. As far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve any commemoration.

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

Again I ask, why do you think the RIC deserve a state sponsored memorial dedicated to those who died during the Tan War? Please articulate why, I'm curious.

Where did I suggest that "the RIC deserve a state sponsored memorial dedicated to those who died during the Tan War?"

If you have taken this view of my posts then you are not reading them properly. I refer you back to posts 2 & 4 of this thread to clarify my view.

Beir Bua wrote: »

Again I ask what you think of the IRA, and in particular the Fenians before them, targeting and killing RIC members? Opinion on Soloheadbeg?

There are nuances in the answers to all these questions but in general I would admire those who put their lives on the line to fight for Irish freedom. I would be biased towards this position though as my family has ties to the IRA in the war of independence. I like to look at these things from both sides of the argument, there are always 2 different sides with 2 different views and often this can be understood.

For example I would say it was entirely possible to have an Irish man serve in the RIC and love his country (Ireland) passionately. You may say he was mistaken in the role he chose but it is a likely situation. Would you accept this suggestion?

Judgement Day

ejmaztec wrote: »

In relation to how the IRA was treated, I don't think you can ignore the atrocities of the Civil War. I live in Kerry, the home of the Ballyseedy massacre to name but one. I'm not surprised they kept a low profile after the Civil War, they must have been completely demoralised and washed up. The Free State kept a very close eye on their activities.

There is no doubt that RUC were a complete bunch of sectarian bastards (to put it into layman's terms), but this thread has nothing to do with them. As far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve any commemoration.

This is quite an appalling generalisation in my opinion and a topic for a separate thread. While there were bad eggs in the RUC - as there were in the Gardai - in general they held the line against anarchy as did the RIC in their day. Today the PSNI and the Gardai continue to do their best to keep a lid on things. I find it offensive in the extreme for somebody to describe the whole force in this way. Happy Christmas.

ejmaztec

Judgement Day wrote: »

This is quite an appalling generalisation in my opinion and a topic for a separate thread. While there were bad eggs in the RUC - as there were in the Gardai - in general they held the line against anarchy as did the RIC in their day. Today the PSNI and the Gardai continue to do their best to keep a lid on things. I find it offensive in the extreme for somebody to describe the whole force in this way. Happy Christmas.

I withdraw my wild generalisation. Merry Christmas.

I look forward to having my eyes opened in another thread.

Seanchai

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'll try not to mention the name of the previous owner of Ireland more than once, in case you come out in a rash.:D

Oh no; please do. It's been a while since I've heard a British nationalist try to legitimise British rule in Ireland by instancing some nebulous past. I look forward to the specifics.

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Irish state pretty much inherited all of the laws and legal trappings from the British, so basically the AGS has been upholding the same laws as the RIC.

I don't believe anybody is saying otherwise. It would be an odd turn of events if AGS were to arrive and centuries of legislation had been overturned the night before. Why bother with the strawmen arguments?

ejmaztec wrote: »

The only difference that I can see is the body to which each swore its allegiance.

And herein lies your problem, and it seems to be a particularly British problem: you don't appear to understand the importance of legitimacy to rule. In Ireland, Britain did not have it; the government of the First Dáil did have it, as testified to by the 73 Sinn Féin TDs who were elected in 1918 standing upon an 'independent sovereign Ireland' platform, out of 105 TDs/MPs for the entire island. When this inconvenient reality happened, the British state overthrew democracy in Ireland and partitioned the country. In typical British hypocrisy, they've since been rabbiting on about "respecting democracy" in Ireland.

This lack of understanding of Max Weber's most famous thesis, the basis of political legitimacy, is all the more depressing because British nationalists so love to quote his "Protestant work ethic" thesis.

Seanchai

Judgement Day wrote: »

This is quite an appalling generalisation in my opinion and a topic for a separate thread. While there were bad eggs in the RUC.... I find it offensive in the extreme for somebody to describe the whole force in this way.

This is ignorant nonsense of the most abject variety. The raison d'être of the RUC was sectarianism. It was about propping up a sectarian statelet. Without sectarianism, "Northern Ireland" would not exist. It was about keeping the taigs in their place. It was about ambushing them on a roadside if they sought civil rights, or about telling loyalist mobs of their timetable so they could do the ambush. It was about beating the pulp out of them when they arrived back in towns like Derry from such marches. In any organisation with so many members there are bound to be decentskins - witness the decent Nazi in The Pianist - but to deny, after all the examinations of collusion, that sectarianism and racism pervaded the RUC is at best wrong, and at worst self-servingly dishonest.

ejmaztec

Seanchai wrote: »

Oh no; please do. It's been a while since I've heard a British nationalist try to legitimise British rule in Ireland by instancing some nebulous past. I look forward to the specifics.



I don't believe anybody is saying otherwise. It would be an odd turn of events if AGS were to arrive and centuries of legislation had been overturned the night before. Why bother with the strawmen arguments?



And herein lies your problem, and it seems to be a particularly British problem: you don't appear to understand the importance of legitimacy to rule. In Ireland, Britain did not have it; the government of the First Dáil did have it, as testified to by the 73 Sinn Féin TDs who were elected in 1918 standing upon an 'independent sovereign Ireland' platform, out of 105 TDs/MPs for the entire island. When this inconvenient reality happened, the British state overthrew democracy in Ireland and partitioned the country. In typical British hypocrisy, they've since been rabbiting on about "respecting democracy" in Ireland.

This lack of understanding of Max Weber's most famous thesis, the basis of political legitimacy, is all the more depressing because British nationalists so love to quote his "Protestant work ethic" thesis.

I'm not a British nationalist, I just have the ability to stand back and see several points of view at once (an ability not shared by everyone here, unfortunately). I like sitting on a fence with a bag of popcorn.

Descriptions such as "British nationalist" seem to get bandied about a lot when these emotive "800-year" issues are discussed. It seems that everyone has to have a label.

I did fall of the fence in post 47, but accidents will happen.

Seanchai

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm not a British nationalist, I just have the ability to stand back and see several points of view at once (an ability not shared by everyone here, unfortunately). I like sitting on a fence with a bag of popcorn.(

Isn't that just the great thing about the English apologists for British rule; they always have "the ability to stand back and see several points of view at once" - as long as those views don't clash with British interests, while at the same time financing one view - unionist desires for British rule. Mea culpa for the addendum. If there's one thing the English are good at, it's declaring their moral superiority and distance over the people whom they conquer.

I have yet to see a British person who says "I'm open-minded about the North" while also advocating that the British state withdraws its massive subsidisation to unionists to keep declaring their loyalty to British rule in Ireland.

Beir Bua

Judgement Day wrote: »

This is quite an appalling generalisation in my opinion and a topic for a separate thread. While there were bad eggs in the RUC - as there were in the Gardai - in general they held the line against anarchy as did the RIC in their day. Today the PSNI and the Gardai continue to do their best to keep a lid on things. I find it offensive in the extreme for somebody to describe the whole force in this way. Happy Christmas.

Obvious unionist if ever I saw one. The RUC were scum, utter scum. Obviously you, your relations or your friends never suffered at the hands of that human bile. UTP.

Nollaig shona duit.

BB

ejmaztec

Seanchai wrote: »

Isn't that just the great thing about the English apologists for British rule; they always have "the ability to stand back and see several points of view at once" - as long as those views don't clash with British interests, while at the same time financing one view - unionist desires for British rule. Mea culpa for the addendum.

I have yet to see a British person who says "I'm open-minded about the North" while also advocating that the British state withdraws its massive subsidisation of funding for unionists to declare an interest in British rule.

I must be psychic, because this is exactly the typically venomous response that I expected.:D

As for the second paragraph, I've yet to meet a British person who gives a toss about the North. I've also never met one with a desire to have any of his tax deductions pumped into it.

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

Obvious unionist if ever I saw one. The RUC were scum, utter scum. Obviously you, your relations or your friends never suffered at the hands of that human bile. UTP.

Nollaig shona duit.

BB

The RUC weren't around when my family got kicked out of Derry in the 1850s, or when my great grandfather was grabbed by the B&Ts in Kerry in 1920.

Beir Bua

ejmaztec wrote: »

The RUC weren't around when my family got kicked out of Derry in the 1850s, or when my great grandfather was grabbed by the B&Ts in Kerry in 1920.

I was on the smart phone which quoted yourself as well for some reason, that was not aimed at you.

I've edited my post.

Seanchai

ejmaztec wrote: »

I must be psychic, because this is exactly the typically venomous response that I expected.:D

OK, let's add prescient powers to the enormous paraphernalia of British skills. How happy-go-lucky would you feel, exactly, if talking to somebody who decided to express indifference to British rule, while his very state was entirely funding British rule in Ireland?


Would you feel even slightly disgusted at the hypocrisy?

Beir Bua

ejmaztec wrote: »

I withdraw my wild generalisation. Merry Christmas.

I look forward to having my eyes opened in another thread.

Your eyes are open a chara with regards to the RUC, don't let yourself be confused. Note how he says the following "While there were bad eggs in the RUC - as there were in the Gardai" that is impling the two forces were the same, or engaged in a similar amount of brutal activity. That is utter bollocks.

"Held the line against anarchy"?

Ah yes, when they beat the civil rights marchers off the streets, when they colluded with loyalist death squads, when they murdered innocent nationalists, when they tortured nationalists etc etc etc.

Don't back down from your position so quickly, you were right in the first instance.

Jut to elaborate on my previous point, the RUC faced a massive threat from the IRA, a popular uprising on a huge scale. I would say that they did not act as badly as the RIC did. Why do you think AGS would act worse in a similar situation? (and remember, most members are not armed, unlike the RUC)

Also, when I spoke of the IRA in the south I did not mean in the civil war era, but in the 40s, 50s, and 60s (when they introduced internment for example)

BB

ejmaztec

Seanchai wrote: »

OK, let's add prescient powers to the enormous paraphernalia of British skills. How happy-go-lucky would you feel, exactly, if talking to somebody who decided to express indifference to British rule, while his very state was entirely funding British rule in Ireland?


Would you feel even slightly disgusted at the hypocrisy?

You should really ask a British person.