Retired Gardai to commemorate RIC

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.