Any protestants in NI that feel Irish?

Duckworth_Luas

Jesus f***ing Christ, if Jason "Trigger" McAteer could learn the national anthem then anyone can!

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You were the one who argued earlier that most people pick up their national anthem through gradual absorption. Not satisfied with arguing with me you're now arguing with yourself.

I argued they pick it up through national absorption in their own language. Not what might as well be foreign.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I didnt cut it down, that's what it is. Pointing out that the chorus is the anthem is factual, not anal. The Irish national anthem is not anti anything, it's pro-Ireland. There are lots of anti-British songs out there (they have a habit of inspiring those feelings in people) Amhrán na bhFiann is not one of them.

Yes it is the national anthem consists only of the chorus which alludes to an unseen battle against an unknown enemy. Taken out of context it's impossible to tell who the enemy is. Only by looking at the whole soldiers song can we tell the enemy is Britain. We need a new anthem that reflects modern Irish society.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

And there have been anti-Scottish (a constituent country of the UK) sentiments expressed in some versions of GSTQ.

Why would I care about the English anthem?

AEDIC

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I argued they pick it up through national absorption in their own language. Not what might as well be foreign.


Yes it is the national anthem consists only of the chorus which alludes to an unseen battle against an unknown enemy. Taken out of context it's impossible to tell who the enemy is. Only by looking at the whole soldiers song can we tell the enemy is Britain. We need a new anthem that reflects modern Irish society.


Why would I care about the English anthem?

British...and because you have said that you prefer it - tune or not.

I have a question for you, would you stand and sing the National Anthem of Ireland (current one) if it was in English?

Jimoslimos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why would I care about the English anthem?

Because it is one of the two national anthems currently in use on this island. If criticism is to be directed at a very obscure verse of Amhrán Na bhFiann then seems only correct to do the same to the other official anthem used by people in Ireland

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again if there is a new constitution, and i think we should only change the anthem if there is one, irish may not be the national language. Sure it will probably still be an official language or one of two national ones. But I can't see it keeping the privileged position Dev gave it. This will all be for the better of course because it gives us more scope to argue issues like the anthem, or translating documents and it's status as a compulsory language in schools.

Well arn't you the optimist, hope you won't be too disapointed.

Ah let's not let bias get in the way. God Save the Queen has one of the nicest tunes of any anthem. Words aside it's far nicer then our own. And all the British people can sing along to it as well.

Really? I think its a bit dire to be honest.

Iwasfrozen

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Because it is one of the two national anthems currently in use on this island. If criticism is to be directed at a very obscure verse of Amhrán Na bhFiann then seems only correct to do the same to the other official anthem used by people in Ireland

No it isn't. Northern Ireland is outside our jurisdiction. It's none of our business what their language is.

AEDIC wrote: »

British...and because you have said that you prefer it - tune or not.

I have a question for you, would you stand and sing the National Anthem of Ireland (current one) if it was in English?

I said I prefer the tune and I do. And yes I would.

An Coilean wrote: »

Well arn't you the optimist, hope you won't be too disappointed.

Really? I think its a bit dire to be honest.

Thanks Coilean, that means a lot. And yeah each to their own I guess.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I argued they pick it up through national absorption in their own language. Not what might as well be foreign.

it is our own language, but by all means grasp at those straws

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes it is the national anthem consists only of the chorus which alludes to an unseen battle against an unknown enemy. Taken out of context it's impossible to tell who the enemy is. Only by looking at the whole soldiers song can we tell the enemy is Britain. We need a new anthem that reflects modern Irish society.

Why would you look at the whole song when we are talking about the national anthem and nothing else.
Yep, something to reflect modern Ireland, that will really lift the spirits

Stone broke are we
Whose lives are pledged to drudgery
Loads have gone
To a land beyond the wave
Sworn to be freezing
In this our ancient Sire land
Which shelters the despot and the slave
Tonight we're mounted by Fine Gael
The Troika has our balls on sale
Mid EU threats we'll grovel and wail
We don't deserve The Soldier's Song

Hmm, think we should just leave it actually

Jimoslimos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it isn't. Northern Ireland is outside our jurisdiction. It's none of our business what their language is.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Because it is one of the two national anthems currently in use on this island. If criticism is to be directed at a very obscure verse of Amhrán Na bhFiann then seems only correct to do the same to the other official anthem used by people in Ireland

Now unless I've missed some massive seismic shift in the last few hours we are all on the same island, Ireland, no?

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

it is our own language, but by all means grasp at those straws

It's not our language. We don't speak it. It might as well be foreign.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Why would you look at the whole song when we are talking about the national anthem and nothing else.
Yep, something to reflect modern Ireland, that will really lift the spirits

Because the national anthem, i.e the chorus of soldier's song in Irish describes a battle against an unseen enemy. This doesn't make any sense until you put it into context and you see that the song is inherently anti British.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Stone broke are we
Whose lives are pledged to drudgery
Loads have gone
To a land beyond the wave
Sworn to be freezing
In this our ancient Sire land
Which shelters the despot and the slave
Tonight we're mounted by Fine Gael
The Troika has our balls on sale
Mid EU threats we'll grovel and wail
We don't deserve The Soldier's Song

Hmm, think we should just leave it actually

haha that's good actually I'll give you that but I would rather a whole new song that described modern multi cultural Ireland and our place in the world rather then one written during ideological revolutionary times.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Now unless I've missed some massive seismic shift in the last few hours we are all on the same island, Ireland, no?

Well google maps says we're still attached but I don't know if that updates every few hours. Not that being on the same island gives us the right to a say on our neighbours anthems.

AEDIC

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I said I prefer the tune and I do. And yes I would.

So the 'perceived' anti British tone of it doesn't concern you too much then...even though you have gone on about it insessantly for a good few posts now.

Glad we got that out of the way at least.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not our language. We don't speak it. It might as well be foreign.

Well now you're just denying reality

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because the national anthem, i.e the chorus of soldier's song in Irish describes a battle against an unseen enemy. This doesn't make any sense until you put it into context and you see that the song is inherently anti British.

You dont have to see the enemy. It's about vowing to protect Ireland from any enemy.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

haha that's good actually I'll give you that but I would rather a whole new song that described modern multi cultural Ireland and our place in the world rather then one written during ideological revolutionary times.

What better time to write an anthem than in ideological revolutionary times. Why write it now when there is no ideology but me feinism and apathy?

Iwasfrozen

AEDIC wrote: »

So the 'perceived' anti British tone of it doesn't concern you too much then...even though you have gone on about it insessantly for a good few posts now.

Glad we got that out of the way at least.

It does bother me. I'd rather we changed it. Just not enough to stop me singing it... If it were in English.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well now you're just denying reality

No I'm saying that to the vast vast majority of people Irish may as well be a foreign language.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You dont have to see the enemy. It's about vowing to protect Ireland from any enemy.

I disagree with your interpenetration but even if I did there are no enemies to protect Ireland from. Such paranoid thinking isn't going to help us.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

What better time to write an anthem than in ideological revolutionary times. Why write it now when there is no ideology but me feinism and apathy?

That's what you believe the modern era is? Selfishness and apathy?

Jimoslimos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

haha that's good actually I'll give you that but I would rather a whole new song that described modern multi cultural Ireland and our place in the world rather then one written during ideological revolutionary times.

Enough with the wishy-washy, namby pamby, let's all hold hands and sing about rainbows nonsense. A lot of national anthems were written in times of strife, uprising, wars, etc to motivate soldiers before fighting. Still sound great today, La Marseillaise for example.

Nowadays the main use is in motivating sportsmen and women before competition. A song about brutally destroying your foe certainly seems more rousing than one about 'standing tall, shoulda to shoulda'

Iwasfrozen

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Enough with the wishy-washy, namby pamby, let's all hold hands and sing about rainbows nonsense. A lot of national anthems were written in times of strife, uprising, wars, etc to motivate soldiers before fighting. Still sound great today, La Marseillaise for example.

Nowadays the main use is in motivating sportsmen and women before competition. A song about brutally destroying your foe certainly seems more rousing than one about 'standing tall, shoulda to shoulda'

A lot yes. But we don't have the power to change other countries national anthems. We can change our own. And yes while a song about killing your neighbours night be nice during war time to inspire moral. In this day and age we should not be glorifying violence in the name of nationalism.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A lot yes. But we don't have the power to change other countries national anthems. We can change our own. And yes while a song about killing your neighbours night be nice during war time to inspire moral. In this day and age we should not be glorifying violence in the name of nationalism.

I think it is entirley appropriat that our national anthem should remember those who fought and died for our national freedom, I find it a bit strange to see something wrong with a state remembering those to whom it owes its existance.
And yes it is still appropriat 'in this day and age'.:rolleyes:

p.oconnor

An Coilean wrote: »

I think it is entirley appropriat that our national anthem should remember those who fought and died for our national freedom, I find it a bit strange to see something wrong with a state remembering those to whom it owes its existance.
And yes it is still appropriat 'in this day and age'.:rolleyes:

Totally agree with you but if a united Ireland was ever to come about the protestant/unionists would have to be included in some way in the new state, be that a change in anthem/flag in some way.

An Coilean

p.oconnor wrote: »

Totally agree with you but if a united Ireland was ever to come about the protestant/unionists would have to be included in some way in the new state, be that a change in anthem/flag in some way.

A United Ireland would be a new state, so everything would be up for being changed.

For the Flag I would like the Tricolour to remain, representing both traditions on the Island was what it was designed for after all.
Perhaps if it was altered in some way it would be less objectional to the Orange tradition, perhaps a harp over the green and a red hand over the orange.

As for Anthem, much as I like Amhrán na bhFian, I think it would be only fair to change it, perhaps a song could be found with an Irish and English version, and either language can be used depending on place and individual preference.

Richard

An Coilean wrote: »

For the Flag I would like the Tricolour to remain, representing both traditions on the Island was what it was designed for after all.
Perhaps if it was altered in some way it would be less objectional to the Orange tradition, perhaps a harp over the green and a red hand over the orange.
.

That would be ugly. And what about the many, many Protestants who don't feel represented by the colour Orange? They're not all members of the Orange Order there, you know.

Better to have a new flag. Regardless if the meaning behind it, the Irish Tricolour, or any variation thereof would be a non-runner.

The four provinces flag would probably be fine.

Jimoslimos

An Coilean wrote: »

A United Ireland would be a new state, so everything would be up for being changed.

German flag (West) didn't change after the Wall came down I think, but I guess that was 're-unification' with the west rather than a merging of two states.

Richard wrote: »

That would be ugly. And what about the many, many Protestants who don't feel represented by the colour Orange? They're not all members of the Orange Order there, you know.

I'm not Christian, yet don't object to the shamrock being used as a de-facto national emblem.

steddyeddy

Before the orange terror in the north there was a lot of protestants that felt Irish. When catholics were targeted so where their protestant friends. Roy walker of catchphrase fame being one of them.

This whole only catholics in the north is an artificial thing.

An Coilean

Richard wrote: »

That would be ugly. And what about the many, many Protestants who don't feel represented by the colour Orange? They're not all members of the Orange Order there, you know.

Better to have a new flag. Regardless if the meaning behind it, the Irish Tricolour, or any variation thereof would be a non-runner.

The four provinces flag would probably be fine.

Its not there to represent members of a particular Religion, its there to represent the Orange tradition on the Island, be they Protestant, Catholic or none of the above.

bernardamaac.

Why should we change our national anthem if "that" part of the country was re-united with the south? Only time it's heard is at sporting event's and i dont think the people down croker would be happy singing an english version especially as the gaa was founded to support irish pastime's and culture.Especially when many member's of the gaa died for this freedom.And not to forget the men at sporting event's who fought to show they were irish and not english before any war of independance.(E.G) Tom kiely 1904 olympic's was not giving his gold medal until 1954 because two of the "royal princes" refused to judge him he went on to climb a flag pole and put up an irish flag gaurded by irish and american men.that's a reason why we should never change our n.anthem and they still class him as british.Beside's any normal person would fell sick to there stomach's if an (english version) n.anthem was heard.

Yamanoto

An Coilean wrote: »

Perhaps if it was altered in some way it would be less objectional to the Orange tradition, perhaps a harp over the green and a red hand over the orange.

Sweet Jesus, you forgot to add a smiling friendly dove superimposed on the white part.

marienbad

Yamanoto wrote: »

Sweet Jesus, you forgot to add a smiling friendly dove superimposed on the white part.

would that be a white dove ?

LordSutch

Happyman42 wrote: »

May do, but doesn't change the fact that you are Irish. For instance, my son feels American some mornings because it's 'cool' at his age. Does that mean he's American? As I said, don't confuse things, giving yourself a moniker for poitical reasons doesn't change who you are.

But from an adult point of view (as opposed to your sons) if a DUP voter wakes up in the morning in some part of NI in posession of a British passport, and then truly looks forward 'camera in hand' to one of the Royals visiting their home town, knowing that they might actually get to shake a Royal hand while holding a Union flag in the other hand, might they then have a claim to be British? (in the context of also being Irish of course).

Happyman42

LordSutch wrote: »

But from an adult point of view (as opposed to your sons) if a DUP voter wakes up in the morning in some part of NI in posession of a British passport, and then truly looks forward 'camera in hand' to one of the Royals visiting their home town, knowing that they might actually get to shake a Royal hand while holding a Union flag in the other hand, might they then have a claim to be British? (in the context of also being Irish of course).

It's like I say....it's a conveinience to adopt dual nationality. It has nothing to do with passports, or a flag you choose to wave, nor has it anything to do with excitement about seeing a royal, lots in the republic where excited to see Mrs Windsor when she came here.
You cannot have dual nationality in a real sense, it's always a conveinence; for my son it's a fashion conveinence, for others it's an employment, residence or political one. Doesn't for one minute change who you really are.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

I think it is entirley appropriat that our national anthem should remember those who fought and died for our national freedom, I find it a bit strange to see something wrong with a state remembering those to whom it owes its existance.
And yes it is still appropriat 'in this day and age'.:rolleyes:

You mean the people who murdered innocent soldiers, policemen and civilians to achieve their political aims? By that logic we should be glorifying the PIRA too.

old hippy

Just come back from visiting my family in the USA; they consider themselves both Irish and British. We went to some "Irish pubs" which had maps of Ireland, Scotland and plenty of British brews - a charming mix where nobody gives a feck about the details that cause division. It was... refreshing

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You mean the people who murdered innocent soldiers, policemen and civilians to achieve their political aims? By that logic we should be glorifying the PIRA too.

Would you prefer that we swept it all under the carpet and pretended it never happened? Is this what you're yearning for freedom and money entails?

LordSutch

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's like I say....it's a conveinience to adopt dual nationality. It has nothing to do with passports, or a flag you choose to wave . . .

So if I am correct then what you are saying is that those people who claim to be British are not in fact really British at all . . .

Which I guess would be a bit of a bombshell for them, as their whole identy would be turned on its head

Happyman42

LordSutch wrote: »

So if I am correct then what you are saying is that those people who claim to be British are not in fact really British at all . . .

Which I guess would be a bit of a bombshell for them, as their whole identy would be turned on its head

I am saying that issues with their identities and their ever futile attempts to cling to it and to force others (including genuine Brits) to acknowledge it, have been surfacing since partition. If they want to successfully integrate into the United Ireland then they will have to deal with their schizoprenia.

Hannibal

look up the history of the United Irishmen and you will see republicans like Wolfe Tone and Emmet who were also presbyterians. Presbyterians were backing the catholics for greater control of the country as control at the time was being held by an anglican minority. The British mantra of divide and rule split the presbyterian and catholic bond and sent most Protestants (both presbo and anglican) back into the tribal way of thinking that catholics are trying to take over.

There is a growning section in both communities in the north that just simply want a better future for their children and they don't care whether they're being ruled from London, Dublin or Belfast.

LordSutch

Happyman42 wrote: »

If they want to successfully integrate into the United Ireland then they will have to deal with their schizoprenia.

I strongly suspect that Unionists don't want a united Ireland.

fasttalkerchat

LordSutch wrote: »

I strongly suspect that Unionists don't want a united Ireland.

Well if they still don't want to integrate into the country their ancestors came to several generations ago that's their choice.

p.oconnor

I think if a united Ireland was ever to come about the tri-colour would have to be made redundant. I think Dublin would get rid of both the flag and anthem in order to accommodate the unionist people, most of which would be totally against the new state. I think the country would return back to something like below, something I would'nt have much of a problem with.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would you prefer that we swept it all under the carpet and pretended it never happened? Is this what you're yearning for freedom and money entails?

Not pretend it never happened. It's never good to do that. We should acknowledge it happened but not celebrate it.

p.oconnor wrote: »

I think if a united Ireland was ever to come about the tri-colour would have to be made redundant. I think Dublin would get rid of both the flag and anthem in order to accommodate the unionist people, most of which would be totally against the new state. I think the country would return back to something like below, something I would'nt have much of a problem with.

The flag of Leinster? There's three other provinces.

p.oconnor

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The flag of Leinster? There's three other provinces.

Ah ya I know that but something like it, maybe a variation with the four provinces represented, although if the tri-colour was taken as it was made to symbolise it could remain.

Iwasfrozen

p.oconnor wrote: »

Ah ya I know that but something like it, maybe a variation with the four provinces represented, although if the tri-colour was taken as it was made to symbolise it could remain.

hmm, maybe but I think the tri colour has been corrupted beyond repair. Better to start a fresh with a whole new state, flag, anthem and constitution. A new republic. A chance to set right all the wrongs from the last one.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You mean the people who murdered innocent soldiers, policemen and civilians to achieve their political aims? By that logic we should be glorifying the PIRA too.

Ill put it in the words of one of my heros, Tony Benn, "There is no difference between killing with a stealth bomber and killing via suicide bomb. Both are killing to further your political aims." I assume you apply the same logic to all wars, conflicts, murders ect that are carried out to further political ideals.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ill put it in the words of one of my heros, Tony Benn, "There is no difference between killing with a stealth bomber and killing via suicide bomb. Both are killing to further your political aims." I assume you apply the same logic to all wars, conflicts, murders ect that are carried out to further political ideals.

I have to disagree with Tony Benn there. The difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber may not mean much to the person getting blown up. But stealth bombers are expensive so tend to be used only by legitimate armies. Who are, one would hope, restrained by international law. On the other hand any loony can blow himself up.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have to disagree with Tony Benn there. The difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber may not mean much to the person getting blown up. But stealth bombers are expensive so tend to be used only by legitimate armies. Who are, one would hope, restrained by international law. On the other hand any loony can blow himself up.

Whats the difference to the people being killed? Legitimate army is mainly used by the ones doing the invading. Legitimate army is a matter of opinion. Stealth bombers are expensive so getting killed that way is better than getting blown up by semtex?

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You mean the people who murdered innocent soldiers, policemen .......?.

You know, theres a number of sourced and educational articles you can read on how war works. I'm here most nights for any questions you might have afterwards.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have to disagree with Tony Benn there. The difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber may not mean much to the person getting blown up. But stealth bombers are expensive so tend to be used only by legitimate armies. Who are, one would hope, restrained by international law..........

Yeah, if it wasn't for international law, there would have been an illegal war against nicaragua unpunished, and a second Iraq war, likewise unpunished. Imagine that.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Whats the difference to the people being killed? Legitimate army is mainly used by the ones doing the invading. Legitimate army is a matter of opinion. Stealth bombers are expensive so getting killed that way is better than getting blown up by semtex?

There's no difference to the person getting killed I mentioned that. I don't think you grasp what I mean, stealth bombers are expensive so that trait in itself limits their use to legitimate militaries that are governed by international law. I'm defining legitimate in this sense to any army that obeys international law.

Nodin wrote: »

You know, theres a number of sourced and educational articles you can read on how war works. I'm here most nights for any questions you might have afterwards.

Is that what murder is called now?

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, if it wasn't for international law, there would have been an illegal war against nicaragua unpunished, and a second Iraq war, likewise unpunished. Imagine that.

Again I did say one would hope. There is a case of international law being ignored by the bigger bullies in the play ground from time to time.

p.oconnor

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

hmm, maybe but I think the tri colour has been corrupted beyond repair. Better to start a fresh with a whole new state, flag, anthem and constitution. A new republic. A chance to set right all the wrongs from the last one.

Ya you are probably right, although it would mean a referendum to completely get rid of the current constitution ... don't know would a vote like that ever go through.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Is that what murder is called now?.

Now now. No need to be upset. Maybe you think everything can be solved by hugz?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again I did say one would hope. There is a case of international law being ignored by the bigger bullies in the play ground from time to time.

"from time to time".....? The only country that has stealth bombers is the US, afaik. They do as suits them and have never been prosecuted. Russia suits itself, as does China. As to lesser extents do the French and anyone with a seat on the UNSC. As do those allied with a power on the UNSC. So, while there is "international law", it's no deterrent to the powers of the world.

bbm1

why should the south have to change the tricolour or national anthem, when catholics in the north are forced to live under the english national anthem and the union jack. If they think it is good enough for us then the irish national anthem and the tricolour should be good enough for them.

dara.obriain

i know a whole city full of irish catholics who do anything they can to avoid being irish and everything they can to be british- call their kids english names, wear english soccer jersys, ridicule anything irish like the games, language, music, etc. i live there and its called dublin!

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There's no difference to the person getting killed I mentioned that. I don't think you grasp what I mean, stealth bombers are expensive so that trait in itself limits their use to legitimate militaries that are governed by international law. I'm defining legitimate in this sense to any army that obeys international law.


Is that what murder is called now?


Again I did say one would hope. There is a case of international law being ignored by the bigger bullies in the play ground from time to time.

Legitimate army again is a matter of opinion and again killing people for political aim is the same whether one person thinks its legitimate or two million. The only difference is the support being for either side.

gallag

I am a N.I Atheist from a protestant background, I fell strongly about being a proud Brit, I also love Ireland as my closest neighbors. People always look to history to help prop their agenda, but how far in history can we go, a long time ago we lived as one on one island, then Ireland separated but still our blood line is the same.
I would only be happy with a United Ireland if it was an Ireland back in the u.k. the answer for the future is not separation and with a population of over 70 million, a kingdom of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales would weather the future well, image an Irish man or woman being prime minister.