Why must we claim non-Irish people for Ireland?

CiaranMcDCFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You say rule, I say occupation. That's interpretation based on perspective.
Ulster is in Ireland, hence everyone from Ulster is Irish. Ulster is British ruled/occupied, hence everyone there is also entitled to be British too.
Yes, I am Irish. So are you. This does not affect your right to be British in the slightest. You may choose never to exercise your Irish nationality or engage with it at all. That's up to yourself. But you're Irish. Ask Big Ian if you don't believe me. To state otherwise is risible. Look at a map.

I think you will find one third of Ulster (county wise) is under rule from Dublin and always has been. You need to clarify that Ulster is a province of the Island of Ireland and Northern Ireland, (which encompasses six of the nine counties of Ulster) is the part under rule from London and a devolved government in Belfast.
I always had great fun trying to explain this to the Spanish when I lived there.

billybudd

AngryBollix wrote: »

What planet have you been living on?

Im confused, what do you mean and in what context do you think i am not living in this planet?

bwatson

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You say rule, I say occupation. That's interpretation based on perspective.
Ulster is in Ireland, hence everyone from Ulster is Irish. Ulster is British ruled/occupied, hence everyone there is also entitled to be British too.
Yes, I am Irish. So are you. This does not affect your right to be British in the slightest. You may choose never to exercise your Irish nationality or engage with it at all. That's up to yourself. But you're Irish. Ask Big Ian if you don't believe me. To state otherwise is risible. Look at a map.

If you look at said map, I think you will see rather a prominent division in the North. Usually, in this small area you will see the words "Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)".

Your arrogance is astonishing. How dare you try and dictate to people who and what they are. Ireland in the case of British citizens in Northern Ireland is nothing more than a geographic location and is certainly not in any way linked with nationality as you maintain. Irish by description of geographic origin? Yep. Irish by nationality, whether you chose to engage with it or not? No way.

davet82

Being Irish is a state of mind

Cavehill Red

CiaranMcDCFC wrote: »

I think you will find one third of Ulster (county wise) is under rule from Dublin and always has been. You need to clarify that Ulster is a province of the Island of Ireland and Northern Ireland, (which encompasses six of the nine counties of Ulster) is the part under rule from London and a devolved government in Belfast.
I always had great fun trying to explain this to the Spanish when I lived there.

I'm entirely aware of this. I was simply trying to communicate with Keith using his own (erroneous) terminology so he'd understand.
In fact, the point becomes even clearer if we substitute Northern IRELAND for Ulster to designate six rather than nine counties.
The clue for Keith is there in the very title. It's Northern IRELAND. Hence people from there are Irish.

KeithAFC

bwatson wrote: »

If you look at said map, I think you will see rather a prominent division in the North. Usually, in this small area you will see the words "Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)".

Your arrogance is astonishing. How dare you try and dictate to people who and what they are. Ireland in the case of British citizens in Northern Ireland is nothing more than a geographic location and is certainly not in any way linked with nationality as you maintain. Irish by description of geographic origin? Yep. Irish by nationality, whether you chose to engage with it or not? No way.

I was surprised at the dictating tone as well. To try and say an ethnic group in Ulster doesn't exist is rather surprising. And a people which have done so much in the Western world in helping build countries like the United states.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm entirely aware of this. I was simply trying to communicate with Keith using his own (erroneous) terminology so he'd understand.
In fact, the point becomes even clearer if we substitute Northern IRELAND for Ulster to designate six rather than nine counties.
The clue for Keith is there in the very title. It's Northern IRELAND. Hence people from there are Irish.

You are talking about geography and possibly passport. I am talking about blood and ethnicity. Which runs much deeper.

Chuck Stone

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42124000/jpg/_42124798_irish416.jpg

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

You are talking about geography and possibly passport. I am talking about blood and ethnicity. Which runs much deeper.

Neither cancels the other out.
Geographically you are Irish. Suck it up. You're not English, Scottish, Welsh or geographically British. You may choose to be culturally British and obtain British subject status and a passport if you wish, and you are equally entitled to choose to be culturally Irish and obtain Irish citizenship and a passport if you wish.
As for your blood argument, if your family have been in Ireland for more than a couple of generations, then it's almost definite that you aren't of entirely British (ie from Britain) origin and have plenty of Irish blood in you too.
As for ethnicity? I'm betting you're white.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

I was surprised at the dictating tone as well. To try and say an ethnic group in Ulster doesn't exist is rather surprising. And a people which have done so much in the Western world in helping build countries like the United states.

Guess who said this, Keith? Is he wrong?

"I was born in the island of Ireland. I have Irish traits in me - we don't all have the traits of what came from Scotland, there is the celtic factor... and I am an Irishman because you cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman."

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Neither cancels the other out.
Geographically you are Irish. Suck it up. You're not English, Scottish, Welsh or geographically British. You may choose to be culturally British and obtain British subject status and a passport if you wish, and you are equally entitled to choose to be culturally Irish and obtain Irish citizenship and a passport if you wish.
As for your blood argument, if your family have been in Ireland for more than a couple of generations, then it's almost definite that you aren't of entirely British (ie from Britain) origin and have plenty of Irish blood in you too.
As for ethnicity? I'm betting you're white.

Yes it does. Blood is thicker than water. My people came from Scotland and supported their own kind. It is you who is dictating what nationality/ethnicity some one is. I don't deny you are Irish. So have the same respect back in regards to the Ulster Scots people.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Guess who said this, Keith? Is he wrong?

"I was born in the island of Ireland. I have Irish traits in me - we don't all have the traits of what came from Scotland, there is the celtic factor... and I am an Irishman because you cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman."

General Robert E. Lee was once asked this question: "What race of people do you believe make the best soldiers?" His reply: "The Scots who came to this country by way of Ireland".

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes it does. Blood is thicker than water. My people came from Scotland and supported their own kind. It is you who is dictating what nationality/ethnicity some one is. I don't deny you are Irish. So have the same respect back in regards to the Ulster Scots people.

I entirely respect that you are from the other Irish community which has roots in the island of Britain. If you wish to call that Ulster Scot, that's fine by me, but it in no way erodes your Irishness, which is inherent in the fact that you hail from Northern IRELAND.
I've dictated neither your nationality (which like my own is either Irish, British or both) nor your ethnicity, which I suspect is white/caucasian, though I'm happy to be corrected if you are of another ethnicity.
Care to tell us who that quote came from Keith? Did he deny your identity too?

billybudd

bwatson wrote: »

If you look at said map, I think you will see rather a prominent division in the North. Usually, in this small area you will see the words "Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)".

Your arrogance is astonishing. How dare you try and dictate to people who and what they are. Ireland in the case of British citizens in Northern Ireland is nothing more than a geographic location and is certainly not in any way linked with nationality as you maintain. Irish by description of geographic origin? Yep. Irish by nationality, whether you chose to engage with it or not? No way.

How is it arrogant? all he said was by definition you are Irish by the way of geography which is true, whether your an Irish national or British subject is your own choice and ulster is more that just six counties it is nine and therefore not totally ruled by westminister or the dail.

Napper Hawkins

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes it does. Blood is thicker than water. My people came from Scotland and supported their own kind. It is you who is dictating what nationality/ethnicity some one is. I don't deny you are Irish. So have the same respect back in regards to the Ulster Scots people.

Ah yes, the Irish Ulster Scots. Who live in Ireland.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

General Robert E. Lee was once asked this question: "What race of people do you believe make the best soldiers?" His reply: "The Scots who came to this country by way of Ireland".

More often, though, he simply referred to them as Scotch-Irish.

120_Minutes

Standard Toaster wrote: »

Éamon de Valera, James Larkin and Adam Clayton are turning in their respective graves.

Adam isnt dead, but you could be forgiven that by listening to his bass playing.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I entirely respect that you are from the other Irish community which has roots in the island of Britain. If you wish to call that Ulster Scot, that's fine by me, but it in no way erodes your Irishness, which is inherent in the fact that you hail from Northern IRELAND.
I've dictated neither your nationality (which like my own is either Irish, British or both) nor your ethnicity, which I suspect is white/caucasian, though I'm happy to be corrected if you are of another ethnicity.
Care to tell us who that quote came from Keith? Did he deny your identity too?

I am not Irish though. The eroding is impossible because it doesn't exist. My blood is not Irish, my passport is not Irish. Being born in a stable does not make one a horse.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

I am not Irish though. The eroding is impossible because it doesn't exist. My blood is not Irish, my passport is not Irish. Being born in a stable does not make one a horse.

Said by an Irishman, if I recall. From Dublin, in fact.
You are Irish, though. You were born in Ireland, live in Ireland of Irish heritage. Your 'blood' is neither here nor there, being on one of these types, like all other homo sapiens.

Still not answering my question, Keith. Who said that quote, and is he denying your identity in doing so?

Napper Hawkins

KeithAFC wrote: »

I am not Irish though. The eroding is impossible because it doesn't exist. My blood is not Irish, my passport is not Irish. Being born in a stable does not make one a horse.

Do you have an Irish accent, Keith?

billybudd

KeithAFC wrote: »

I am not Irish though. The eroding is impossible because it doesn't exist. My blood is not Irish, my passport is not Irish. Being born in a stable does not make one a horse.

#

As a matter of interest if you where in Canada lets say and someone asked you where you where from, what would be your answer?

Cavehill Red

Keith isn't answering because he knows that to answer my question would destroy any argument he has.

Let's have that quotation again: "I was born in the island of Ireland. I have Irish traits in me - we don't all have the traits of what came from Scotland, there is the Celtic factor . . . and I am an Irishman because you cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman."

Who said it, Keith? Let me tell you:

Rev. Ian Paisley, in J. Loughlin, Ulster Unionism and British National Identity Since 1885 (London and New York, 1995), p. 217.

/thread

billybudd

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Keith isn't answering because he knows that to answer my question would destroy any argument he has.

Let's have that quotation again: "I was born in the island of Ireland. I have Irish traits in me - we don't all have the traits of what came from Scotland, there is the Celtic factor . . . andI am an Irishman because you cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman."


Thats the important bit and keith has every right to keep his scottish heritage.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Said by an Irishman, if I recall. From Dublin, in fact.
You are Irish, though. You were born in Ireland, live in Ireland of Irish heritage. Your 'blood' is neither here nor there, being on one of these types, like all other homo sapiens.

Still not answering my question, Keith. Who said that quote, and is he denying your identity in doing so?

The quote from the great Duke was spot on in what he was saying.

My heritage and the heritage of my people is not Irish. To suggest so is rather insulting. Being called Irish is one of the worst insults we could receive.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

The quote from the great Duke was spot on in what he was saying.

My heritage and the heritage of my people is not Irish. To suggest so is rather insulting. Being called Irish is one of the worst insults we could receive.

Even when Ian Paisley says so?

You're like a flat-earther, Keith, in utter denial of reality because for some strange reason you find reality unpalatable.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Keith isn't answering because he knows that to answer my question would destroy any argument he has.

Let's have that quotation again: "I was born in the island of Ireland. I have Irish traits in me - we don't all have the traits of what came from Scotland, there is the Celtic factor . . . and I am an Irishman because you cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman."

Who said it, Keith? Let me tell you:

Rev. Ian Paisley, in J. Loughlin, Ulster Unionism and British National Identity Since 1885 (London and New York, 1995), p. 217.

/thread

I know who said it. And just because it comes from Ian Paisley does not make it true. I could pick out quotes which say the complete opposite. It is cherry picking.

The Robert E Lee quote summed it perfectly up. The Scots who came from Ireland. It is completely different from being Irish.

I don't see the big problem you have with accepting this though.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Even when Ian Paisley says so?

You're like a flat-earther, Keith, in utter denial of reality because for some strange reason you find reality unpalatable.

Ian Paisley believes the earth was created 6 thousand years ago and believes in Adam and Eve. Not exactly the best person to pick to get a point across.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

I know who said it. And just because it comes from Ian Paisley does not make it true. I could pick out quotes which say the complete opposite. It is cherry picking.

The Robert E Lee quote summed it perfectly up. The Scots who came from Ireland. It is completely different from being Irish.

I don't see the big problem you have with accepting this though.

I think it makes it damning of your argument because the man who said it has been the strongest defender of your sense of identity for the past 50 years, including leading the biggest political party, and administering British rule in Ireland as First Minister.

I can only repeat, Robert Lee referred incessantly to the Scots-IRISH. He repeatedly acknowledged the hybrid identity because that's what those people called themselves.

You're not Scottish by any stretch of the imagination. You are Irish, from Ulster, with Scottish heritage. You may choose to avoid that formulation Scots-Irish which apparently causes you so much anguish by referring to yourself by the recently created 'Ulster-Scots' identity instead if you prefer. It doesn't affect what nationality you wish to claim or how you choose to express your culture or heritage.

But those Scots who came to Ireland in the 16th and 17th century weren't, as Ali G wonderfully put it, on holiday. They stayed and their descendants, including you and him, became a new form of Irish, as Ian Paisley quite rightly acknowledged.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

Ian Paisley believes the earth was created 6 thousand years ago and believes in Adam and Eve. Not exactly the best person to pick to get a point across.

Whereas the confederate General Lee is? Let's remember his defence of slavery: "The painful discipline they [the black slaves] are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence."

If Ian Paisley inflicted on your people "the worst insult" he possibly could have in 1995, how come he was repeatedly elected by those same people?

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I think it makes it damning of your argument because the man who said it has been the strongest defender of your sense of identity for the past 50 years, including leading the biggest political party, and administering British rule in Ireland as First Minister.

I can only repeat, Robert Lee referred incessantly to the Scots-IRISH. He repeatedly acknowledged the hybrid identity because that's what those people called themselves.

You're not Scottish by any stretch of the imagination. You are Irish, from Ulster, with Scottish heritage. You may choose to avoid that formulation Scots-Irish which apparently causes you so much anguish by referring to yourself by the recently created 'Ulster-Scots' identity instead if you prefer. It doesn't affect what nationality you wish to claim or how you choose to express your culture or heritage.

But those Scots who came to Ireland in the 16th and 17th century weren't, as Ali G wonderfully put it, on holiday. They stayed and their descendants, including you and him, became a new form of Irish, as Ian Paisley quite rightly acknowledged.

Ian Paisley is a Presbyterian preacher. Politics found him. Ian Paisley is a Unionist, his political ideology is Unionist. He wasn't the defender of our people in terms of ethnicity. He was a defender of the Union and the Protestant faith in Ulster. It is a big difference.

Robert E Lee quote summed it up perfectly because he was referring to a group of people who were ethnically Scottish who came from Ulster. Not that they were Irish.

Chuck Stone

I'll just leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tamf5CI1yVY

/thread

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

Ian Paisley is a Presbyterian preacher. Politics found him. Ian Paisley is a Unionist, his political ideology is Unionist. He wasn't the defender of our people in terms of ethnicity. He was a defender of the Union and the Protestant faith in Ulster. It is a big difference.

Actually, it isn't such a big difference. As Steve Bruce wrote:

A people need a shared ideology if they are to remain a people. Although the minority in the North does draw on religious symbolism, Catholics do not need religion. Three-quarters of a united Ireland already exists within travelling distance. Nationalism is so well-established as to provide a strong source of identity. Ulster loyalists, however, need their evangelical religion because it is the only viable source of a shared identity. After all, they want to be British, but the British do not want them. They are loyal, but loyal to what? The only coherent set of ideas which explains the past, which gives them a sense of who they are, which makes them feel justifiably superior to Catholics, and which gives them the hope that they will survive, is evangelical Protestantism.

KeithAFC wrote: »

Robert E Lee quote summed it up perfectly because he was referring to a group of people who were ethnically Scottish who came from Ulster. Not that they were Irish.

So what was General Lee saying when he referred to them as Scotch-Irish?

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Whereas the confederate General Lee is? Let's remember his defence of slavery: "The painful discipline they [the black slaves] are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence."

If Ian Paisley inflicted on your people "the worst insult" he possibly could have in 1995, how come he was repeatedly elected by those same people?

The Robert E Lee quote is the angle I take it on. You have a different view on it. Ian Paisley was elected because he was a Unionist. It is that simple. He just isn't informed as he should be on the topic of ethnicity.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Robert E Lee quote is the angle I take it on. You have a different view on it. Ian Paisley was elected because he was a Unionist. It is that simple. He just isn't informed as he should be on the topic of ethnicity.

1. ONE Robert E Lee quote. You're carefully ignoring all the other times he referred to the Scotch-Irish.

2. Your ethnicity is caucasian. Unless you're significantly darker than most people in Northern IRELAND.

3. There are plenty of other unionist politicians. So how come the man who made the worst insult possible, according to you, was repeatedly elected and led his people?

4. I see David Irvine agrees with him too. Seriously, Keith, how come your own political leaders can be allegedly so wrong on this and you right?

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Actually, it isn't such a big difference. As Steve Bruce wrote:





So what was General Lee saying when he referred to them as Scotch-Irish?

Yes it is.

That quote has some vital errors in what it says. Catholics don't need religion. I have to say, I have never seen such an oxymoron as that. The other vital error about loyalty is wrong too. It isn't just about loyalty but the land and the will to not join an Irish Republic.

I don't need a faith to celebrate my cultural heritage. That is the other huge mistake that quote makes which is ignorant in all aspects of Ulster Scots culture. It is trying to claim that evangelical Protestantism is what keeps our people together but it could not be more wrong.

CageWager

Ah sure we're all Europeans at the end of the day......











................. I'll get my coat

StephenHendry

imo anyone born on the island of ireland is irish. for those like mcilroy, darren clarke, yes they can seen as british as well as irish. they have dual nationality. likewise those who have irish parents, grandparents but living abroad in england, america , australia are irish as well. its how you feel ,and for those living away from ireland with parents who are irish then they would be brought up to appreciate their irishness even more

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

1. ONE Robert E Lee quote. You're carefully ignoring all the other times he referred to the Scotch-Irish.

2. Your ethnicity is caucasian. Unless you're significantly darker than most people in Northern IRELAND.

3. There are plenty of other unionist politicians. So how come the man who made the worst insult possible, according to you, was repeatedly elected and led his people?

4. I see David Irvine agrees with him too. Seriously, Keith, how come your own political leaders can be allegedly so wrong on this and you right?

It is the vital quote though. You are trying to dilute our ethnicity and our culture as a different people. The quote separates them from the real Irish who fought for the South alongside them.

George Washington even reconsigned it too.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes it is.

That quote has some vital errors in what it says. Catholics don't need religion. I have to say, I have never seen such an oxymoron as that. The other vital error about loyalty is wrong too. It isn't just about loyalty but the land and the will to not join an Irish Republic.

I don't need a faith to celebrate my cultural heritage. That is the other huge mistake that quote makes which is ignorant in all aspects of Ulster Scots culture. It is trying to claim that evangelical Protestantism is what keeps our people together but it could not be more wrong.

He's saying Catholics in Northern Ireland don't rely on a religious identity to define themselves as a people because they have nationality to do that for them. That's perfectly clear and eminently true.
The correlative is a lot harder to demonstrate, especially when faced with the fact of Paisley's rise to power, the religious identity of Orange marching, and the religious element of most other aspects of Scots-Irish identity.
If the loyalty is to resistance to an Irish republic (rather than the crown - interesting distinction there, implying Ulster nationalism), then the question arises as to what that resistance stems from. Historically and into the present day, it has been fear of 'Rome Rule', and is again religious in origin.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

It is the vital quote though. You are trying to dilute our ethnicity and our culture as a different people. The quote separates them from the real Irish who fought for the South alongside them.

George Washington even reconsigned it too.

Washington who said if defeated he would fight his last stand with the Scotch-Irish? You're being risible now. They were Americans who came from Ireland of Scottish heritage.

Your ethnicity is white, your culture is whatever you choose to define it as, as an individual and as a people. I'm not diluting anything, any more than Paisley or Irvine, two of your political leaders, did.

Your Irishness is a fact, and it would perhaps benefit you to think on how best to reconstitute your sense of identity to accommodate that as Irvine and Paisley did, perfectly successfully and without any diminution of their own sense of self, culture, heritage or identity.

guitarzero

Blow this thread out your 3rd eye OP.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

He's saying Catholics in Northern Ireland don't rely on a religious identity to define themselves as a people because they have nationality to do that for them. That's perfectly clear and eminently true.
The correlative is a lot harder to demonstrate, especially when faced with the fact of Paisley's rise to power, the religious identity of Orange marching, and the religious element of most other aspects of Scots-Irish identity.
If the loyalty is to resistance to an Irish republic (rather than the crown - interesting distinction there, implying Ulster nationalism), then the question arises as to what that resistance stems from. Historically and into the present day, it has been fear of 'Rome Rule', and is again religious in origin.

Catholics don't need religion is what it said. It is just utter drivel. Irish people have an identity and so do we. This is historically recognised. In regards to Rome rule, you don't need to be religious to be against Rome rule. Indeed in origin, that is what it was. But again, culturally, the resistance to Home Rule wasn't just about Rome rule.

Washington who said if defeated he would fight his last stand with the Scotch-Irish? You're being risible now. They were Americans who came from Ireland of Scottish heritage.

Your ethnicity is white, your culture is whatever you choose to define it as, as an individual and as a people. I'm not diluting anything, any more than Paisley or Irvine, two of your political leaders, did.

Your Irishness is a fact, and it would perhaps benefit you to think on how best to reconstitute your sense of identity to accommodate that as Irvine and Paisley did, perfectly successfully and without any diminution of their own sense of self, culture, heritage or identity.

That is exactly it. Washington recognised the difference between two groups of people with that quote. He didn't say just Irish and was ignorant to the facts. He was a very smart man.

The diluting comes when completely denying the existence of a group of people who aren't Irish.

mattjack

bwatson wrote: »

Please be aware that not everybody is looking at it through your eyes, and that in general political factors are far more influencial than geographic factors in determining who and what somebody is. Especially on this island. I'm from Northern Ireland, thanks.

Anyway, its part insecurity and part desperation. You are a small country with a small population. You feel a need to cling on to any worldwide recognition or admiration that you can get.

It happens a lot in the North too. There are some there who will do the same thing and make sure everyone knows McIlroy is from Northern Ireland at every opportunity. It just comes from being rather small and insignificant on the world stage and knowing that this is the case.

In my experiences it happens in England and Scotland too, but to a lesser extent. An example - far more of the English I know are content to support Andy Murray's opponent because he is a Scot who (in jest or not) expressed his dislike of the English, than there are who will desperately try and promote him as Britain's number one.

I'm not small ,I'm 5 foot 9

Explosions in the Sky

At the end of the day I don't care, I'm form the South and I know what I am and arguing whats what is pointless From what a poster stated a few pages back people around the world have limited geography or historical knowledge when it comes to Ireland and don't know there is a whole south and North border with difference currencies . In my opinion (Imo) guys being Irish will always mean being from the Republic to me as I class Irish with not being British but that will never take away from the north of Ireland's people who call themselves Irish and rightfully deserve too.

JerryHandbag

Rory McIlroy, Darren Clarke & Graeme McDowell are Irish as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't be rooting so heavily for them in tournaments otherwise.

It would be a different matter if N.Ireland played competitively in team competitions against the Republic, but they dont...its an all Ireland sport. Those 3 Ulster golfers have worn green jumpers and represented IRELAND at Dunhill Cups and World Cups.

The anomaly is of course, when TV broadcasters put "N.Ire" and the NI flag beside their names, but I think thats just a geographical thing.

As to what they feel themselves, well they probably look on themselves as Northern Irish and thats perfectly fine. I do remember though being at the European Open golf tournament in the K Club in Kildare in 1999, and Darren Clarke having lost a large lead on the last day, addressed the crowd afterwards and said "I'm sorry I couldnt win for you guys on home soil"....clearly he sees himself as Irish, in golfing terms at least.

I dont understand why folks get worked up about this, its not like we are claiming and celebrating people from Mars?!

Madam

I'm Irish through and through, but like Keith my ethnicity is Scots/Irish, it's a pity he does'nt think of himself as Irish as I wager his ancestors who colonised what is now Scotland where originally from the North West of Ireland.

Agricola

Madam wrote: »

I'm Irish through and through, but like Keith my ethnicity is Scots/Irish, it's a pity he does'nt think of himself as Irish as I wager his ancestors who colonised what is now Scotland where originally from the North West of Ireland.

The only thing that will change this is time. We've only had peace a wet week. For lots of people in the North, the term "Irish" or "Irishness" equals catholicism, nationalism, terrorism, the usurpation of the union etc etc. It will take many long years of peace where people of different backgrounds live side by side, before many would be comfortable with that label.

lugha

Cavehill Red wrote: »

But you're Irish. Ask Big Ian if you don't believe me. To state otherwise is risible. Look at a map.

There is a certainly logic in this argument that says if you are of the island of Ireland, then to deny that being Irish plays any part of what defines you, is to deny a geographical reality.

But would you not similarly argue that for if you are of the British jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, then to deny that being a citizen of the British state plays any part of what defines you, is to deny a political reality?

Of course there isn’t any great confusion here. The small number of unionists who deny that they are Irish are essentially refuting that they are off the Irish nation and not of the island. I would suggest they do so because nationalists frequently try to muddle the distinction between the two.

As for big Ian, well to be quite honest, the odd time he has come up in conversation with non-Irish (of the island ) people, especially British folk, I am at pains to emphasize than he is British rather than Irish. I cannot fathom why so many Irish people seem intent on claiming him as one of us.

Cavehill Red

lugha wrote: »

There is a certainly logic in this argument that says if you are of the island of Ireland, then to deny that being Irish plays any part of what defines you, is to deny a geographical reality.

But would you not similarly argue that for if you are of the British jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, then to deny that being a citizen of the British state plays any part of what defines you, is to deny a political reality?

I agree, but your terms of use are a little vague. To be specific, I'd agree that for anyone like me from British-ruled Ireland, to deny the fact of British rule (or concomitant benefits such as entitlement to British nationality) is ridiculous. That's a little different to saying I am 'of' the British state or even a subject (or to use your inaccurate term, citizen) of that state. My citizenship of any state is a legal definition defined in other ways. As it happens, I have held British passports in the past, currently do not, but may do so again.

lugha wrote: »

Of course there isn’t any great confusion here. The small number of unionists who deny that they are Irish are essentially refuting that they are off the Irish nation and not of the island. I would suggest they do so because nationalists frequently try to muddle the distinction between the two.

Again, I question your terminology. The Irish nation stretches far beyond these island shores and is in no way limited to the 26 counties. What people like Keith are doing is denying the reality of their own lengthy Irish heritage. No one has suggested they must engage with that heritage, nor that they are required to learn gaeilge, take up riverdancing and join the GAA. There are many types of Irishness, and theirs is one of them.

lugha wrote: »

As for big Ian, well to be quite honest, the odd time he has come up in conversation with non-Irish (of the island ) people, especially British folk, I am at pains to emphasize than he is British rather than Irish. I cannot fathom why so many Irish people seem intent on claiming him as one of us.

I'm not claiming Ian as 'one of us'. I'm recognising the truth of his own words - he is Irish, of Scottish heritage, loyal to continued British rule in Ireland.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

Catholics don't need religion is what it said. It is just utter drivel. Irish people have an identity and so do we. This is historically recognised. In regards to Rome rule, you don't need to be religious to be against Rome rule. Indeed in origin, that is what it was. But again, culturally, the resistance to Home Rule wasn't just about Rome rule.

I can quote him more extensively if you prefer, Keith. He's saying this in the context of discussing identity in Northern Ireland. There isn't one form of Irish identity, and yours is as hybrid an Irish identity as those of the Scotch-Irish who travelled to America. Moreso, in fact, since their identity was further hybridised and subordinated by being American.

And let's not be silly, Keith. Do I really need to quote you Carson to demonstrate that opposition to Home Rule was opposition to Rome Rule?

lugha wrote: »

That is exactly it. Washington recognised the difference between two groups of people with that quote. He didn't say just Irish and was ignorant to the facts. He was a very smart man.

No, he identified a particular type of Irish people, because there is more than one Irishness.

lugha wrote: »

The diluting comes when completely denying the existence of a group of people who aren't Irish.

I didn't deny the existence of anyone. I refuted your nonsensical statement that you're not Irish. Clearly you are, of a different form to how I am and we are both differently Irish to a Dubliner, an Irish emigree in Boston or a nationalised Nigerian immigrant. All Irish, all differently so.