So, what REAL reasons for the union or not?

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

I find it very hard to have a rational discussion with someone who keeps making up stuff they have decided I believe so that they can disagree with it.

Nope. It would be nice if they did, yes. None that the good people of Northern Ireland are likely to listen to, no. But then, if the good people of Northern Ireland were in the habit of listening, they might not have quite the problems they have today.

These people to which these BBC News article is refering to are hardly those "good people of Northern Ireland" you would address. The "good people of NI" are supposedly the silent ones who demonstrated for once against violence in front of Belfast City Hall. They are in the habit of listening for they are obviously far more intelligent than these other thugs, but thugs it is you´d have to deal with.

R P McMurphy

I think the answer for unionists is obvious - accept the decision and view it for what it was, a compromise. What is not stressed enough is that sinn fein actually voted in favour of flying the union flag. What the protests have highlighted is how regressive unionism is. The future of unionism should be the pragmatism shown by the alliance party but that is sadly not the case

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just call it OscarBravo, what should Unionism do about the flag issue?

They should accept the democratic decision of the city council.

I do find it depressingly ironic that, once the decision not to fly the flag year-round was taken, it's now the nationalists who are saying, in effect: "jesus lads, calm down, it's only a flag."

What's even more depressing is that that irony is almost certainly lost on you.

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

They should accept the democratic decision of the city council.

I do find it depressingly ironic that, once the decision not to fly the flag year-round was taken, it's now the nationalists who are saying, in effect: "jesus lads, calm down, it's only a flag."

What's even more depressing is that that irony is almost certainly lost on you.

To the nationalists it has always been more than just a flag and you know that. The unionists aren´t that bad off today than the others were for decades.

And yet you speak about irony, that´s almost unbearable, let alone to say "depressing".

oscarBravo

Thomas_I wrote: »

To the nationalists it has always been more than just a flag and you know that.

Yes, I do. I'm also capable of recognising that to the unionists it's also more than just a flag. Are you?

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, I do. I'm also capable of recognising that to the unionists it's also more than just a flag. Are you?

Of course but just with the difference that the Irish in NI suffered for decades on the deprivement of existencial rights and had to "fight back" (also with non-violent protests by the Civil Rights Movement). The Unionists are making a fuss about a flag because they "just fear" that this is the sign that leads them to the end of their "triumphalism". Who´s going to take the Unionists identity away from them? No one is and to say it quite frankly what´s their identity if this has its grounds only on the display of the Union Flag? This is what I believe that it is the case and I can´t regard such hysterial outrages as justification for a "supposed deprivation" of civil rights towards the Unionist community because it´s simply not true. If a flag enbodies a whole of an identity than it´s very less and therefore they´d have not much to lose, because they can wrap themselves in Union Flags until they can´t go out on the street on their own.

If you disagree on that (which I assume you do), could you be so kind and provide some proved examples by which the Unionists have been deprived of their civil rights recently, or even at all in the past decades?

oscarBravo

Thomas_I wrote: »

If you disagree on that (which I assume you do), could you be so kind and provide some proved examples by which the Unionists have been deprived of their civil rights recently, or even at all in the past decades?

I don't disagree with it, but it rather neatly misses the point. It's an entirely nationalist perspective on the issue, and shows no willingness to empathise with the unionist perspective.

Now, it's your right to refuse to empathise with a unionist perspective. The problem is that as long as both sides refuse to show any empathy towards the other, conflict is inevitable.

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't disagree with it, but it rather neatly misses the point. It's an entirely nationalist perspective on the issue, and shows no willingness to empathise with the unionist perspective.

Now, it's your right to refuse to empathise with a unionist perspective. The problem is that as long as both sides refuse to show any empathy towards the other, conflict is inevitable.

I agree with you on the need of empathy in that case, but what you call an "entirely nationalist perspective" is - like it or not - what happened and these are historical facts. The point and the question is whether it is really necessary to bring up these old stories again and again with no end? I´d say it isn´t necessary because it is an sensitive issue and rather useful for stirring up old emotions. Such things are better dealt with from an historical point of view.

Empathy should not necessarily lead one to pity about a hysterical stirred up perspective that neglects the truth of reality. The latter is what I´m refusing to accept because most of these protesters are grown ups and one can expect from them that they behave themselves as such and not like children who got robbed off their toys.

If these people would had a clear conscience, there would be nothing to fear at all. It´s a long way for people accustomed to be the ruling class to share a democratic society, but both sides have to walk that road. Maybe they made more progress already than they think. This unnecessary flag issue rather threatens these progress already made than help the whole peace process to move forward.

junder

Thomas_I wrote: »

Of course but just with the difference that the Irish in NI suffered for decades on the deprivement of existencial rights and had to "fight back" (also with non-violent protests by the Civil Rights Movement). The Unionists are making a fuss about a flag because they "just fear" that this is the sign that leads them to the end of their "triumphalism". Who´s going to take the Unionists identity away from them? No one is and to say it quite frankly what´s their identity if this has its grounds only on the display of the Union Flag? This is what I believe that it is the case and I can´t regard such hysterial outrages as justification for a "supposed deprivation" of civil rights towards the Unionist community because it´s simply not true. If a flag enbodies a whole of an identity than it´s very less and therefore they´d have not much to lose, because they can wrap themselves in Union Flags until they can´t go out on the street on their own.

If you disagree on that (which I assume you do), could you be so kind and provide some proved examples by which the Unionists have been deprived of their civil rights recently, or even at all in the past decades?

When where unionists deprived of civil rights in the past decades? Well lets see certinly for working class poor unionists they had no civil rights either ( or atleast exactly the same civil rights as thier poor nationalist / republican neighbours, because let's face it, before the peace walls went up they were literally neighbours) back in the 60's and 70's

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

When where unionists deprived of civil rights in the past decades? Well lets see certinly for working class poor unionists they had no civil rights either ( or atleast exactly the same civil rights as thier poor nationalist / republican neighbours, because let's face it, before the peace walls went up they were literally neighbours) back in the 60's and 70's

If that´s the case they hardly can blame the Catholics for that and I wonder where you get your assumptions from. Your description looks more like an display of the Victorian Society with its class system, adopted and kept by Stormont. I´ve never read of such things you told me in your post.

junder

Thomas_I wrote: »

If that´s the case they hardly can blame the Catholics for that and I wonder where you get your assumptions from. Your description looks more like an display of the Victorian Society with its class system, adopted and kept by Stormont. I´ve never read of such things you told me in your post.

Then read more

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

Then read more

Any suggestions what to read? But please just unbiased books, if they are available at all. It would be a waste of time to struggle through the "only truth" by either Unionists / Loyalists or Republican sources. I´ve read enough of such things on the internet. Just the history books about Ireland are more balanced.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

They should accept the democratic decision of the city council.

I do find it depressingly ironic that, once the decision not to fly the flag year-round was taken, it's now the nationalists who are saying, in effect: "jesus lads, calm down, it's only a flag."

What's even more depressing is that that irony is almost certainly lost on you.

SF are putting it down to political cloak and dagger and are rightfully critical. I don't see or hear them telling them 'it's only a flag'.
But of course you can't help having a dig anyway.
Personally, I see no harm in rubbing their noses in their own hypocrisy an odd time, it's character forming.:D

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Personally, I see no harm in rubbing their noses in their own hypocrisy an odd time, it's character forming.:D

If that's the real world for which you want me to reject my "utopia" - if that's the context within which you're demanding that I come up with workable solutions to a conflict where both parties' first priority is pissing the other side off - you're welcome to it.

Just as long as you keep it out of my country.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

SF are putting it down to political cloak and dagger and are rightfully critical. I don't see or hear them telling them 'it's only a flag'.
But of course you can't help having a dig anyway.
Personally, I see no harm in rubbing their noses in their own hypocrisy an odd time, it's character forming.:D

It hasn´t been "only a flag" anyway and still it isn´t.

Have a look at this if you like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtt6Or_y1sY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N1tJWOZqkQ

The only thing in the first video that I rather like are these bagpipe players. Curiously that music is on an international basis more common known as Scottish tradition and therefore "British" in a wider sense. Although I know that there are also bagpipe bands in Ireland I was a bit surprised to find the like of it among Republicans. Look at these Scottish style uniforms of the players and then look at the counterpart of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHeFaokZyV8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDsSfmYL5ZA

There are also some flute players in Scottish style uniforms, even the tartan is of green colour. The Republicans honouring the dead and it´s more a mixture between a costume re-enactment event and a procession, the Orangemen just making noises with flute and drums celebrating their culture.

When I see and compare that, I can only say "I wish I was in Scotland and listen to a Regiment of Scottish Bagpipeplayers". What I can understand is, that all these flute and drums might drive one mad. I´d prefer the bagpipes but the most British of them, even doesn´t seem to have some of these (but I haven´t seen the whole of the videos because it´s boring to me).

Both parades with a link to Scottish tradition and if there isn´t anything British they both have in common than I don´t know what´s the point anyway, aside from their political message.

In all, it´s all very militaristic on both sides but more on the Republican part, the Orangemen are just noisemakers.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that's the real world for which you want me to reject my "utopia" - if that's the context within which you're demanding that I come up with workable solutions to a conflict where both parties' first priority is pissing the other side off - you're welcome to it.

Would that southerners had gotten so indignant when that ^^ was being visited on their fellow citizens every live long day of most of the last century and much of this one.
In the real world most people are only human and it would be untruthful to say that there are not those who are getting some pleasure fron the discomfort of Unionism. I think a little bit of discomfort will do the complacent no harm at all, they have learned and realised a good bit about what it was like for those they oppressed (and more importantly, wished to continue to oppress) since the GFA and it needs to continue until full normalisation is reached.

hatrickpatrick

I kinda like having the border tbh. It allows you to get past several utterly nanny-state and ridiculous laws in Ireland, such as the ban on garden fireworks, the higher alcohol prices and the ban on bodybuilding supplements containing more than 100% RDA of vitamins (yes, this one is actually a real thing and is why it's hard to find Animal Pak anymore).

Really though that's more an issue with our government than it is an argument in favour of partition :pac:

Gosub

junder wrote: »

When where unionists deprived of civil rights in the past decades? Well lets see certinly for working class poor unionists they had no civil rights either ( or atleast exactly the same civil rights as thier poor nationalist / republican neighbours, because let's face it, before the peace walls went up they were literally neighbours) back in the 60's and 70's

In the 60s and 70s, and indeed for many decades before that, the catholic minority were denied jobs in the like of Mackies, H&W, etc. These jobs were reserved for the protestant workers you see as in some way equal. The protestant controlled councils reserved the housing stock for their own communities. The catholics only got whatever houses that the protestants didn't want. This is what sparked the civil rights movement. To state that the two communities were equal at the working class level shows a complete lack of knowledge of the facts. It should be remembered that propoganda doesn't equal fact.

It could be argued that if the protestant rulers weren't so ruthless in the repression of the minority, there wouldn't have been 30 years of violence.

My source of the above information: personal experience.

PS: I hate the terms 'protestant' and 'catholic' I refuse to capitalise the words. Unfortunately, they are the only words that define the divide of that time. Republican and Unionist are relatively modern terms for the same people.

Thomas_I

Gosub wrote: »

In the 60s and 70s, and indeed for many decades before that, the catholic minority were denied jobs in the like of Mackies, H&W, etc. These jobs were reserved for the protestant workers you see as in some way equal. The protestant controlled councils reserved the housing stock for their own communities. The catholics only got whatever houses that the protestants didn't want. This is what sparked the civil rights movement. To state that the two communities were equal at the working class level shows a complete lack of knowledge of the facts. It should be remembered that propoganda doesn't equal fact.

It could be argued that if the protestant rulers weren't so ruthless in the repression of the minority, there wouldn't have been 30 years of violence.

My source of the above information: personal experience.

PS: I hate the terms 'protestant' and 'catholic' I refuse to capitalise the words. Unfortunately, they are the only words that define the divide of that time. Republican and Unionist are relatively modern terms for the same people.

Thanks very much for that.

junder

Gosub wrote: »

In the 60s and 70s, and indeed for many decades before that, the catholic minority were denied jobs in the like of Mackies, H&W, etc. These jobs were reserved for the protestant workers you see as in some way equal. The protestant controlled councils reserved the housing stock for their own communities. The catholics only got whatever houses that the protestants didn't want. This is what sparked the civil rights movement. To state that the two communities were equal at the working class level shows a complete lack of knowledge of the facts. It should be remembered that propoganda doesn't equal fact.

It could be argued that if the protestant rulers weren't so ruthless in the repression of the minority, there wouldn't have been 30 years of violence.

My source of the above information: personal experience.

PS: I hate the terms 'protestant' and 'catholic' I refuse to capitalise the words. Unfortunately, they are the only words that define the divide of that time. Republican and Unionist are relatively modern terms for the same people.

Houses where given to favoured people of that there is No doubt, but my area and the neighbouring nationalist / republican area used to be cheek by jowel. The road I live on carrys on, on the other side of the peace wall and the houses are NI different. My own grandmother only got an indoor bathroom built into her house inn 1994 there are still houses in my area with no inside bathrooms. The reality is that for most working class Protestants thier lot in life was generally the same or only marginally better and at the end of the day they Still only had exactly the same civil rights as thier Catholics neighbours. Of course catholic controlled councils where also guilty of gerrymandering to

Gosub

junder wrote: »

Houses where given to favoured people of that there is No doubt, but my area and the neighbouring nationalist / republican area used to be cheek by jowel. The road I live on carrys on, on the other side of the peace wall and the houses are NI different. My own grandmother only got an indoor bathroom built into her house inn 1994 there are still houses in my area with no inside bathrooms. The reality is that for most working class Protestants thier lot in life was generally the same or only marginally better and at the end of the day they Still only had exactly the same civil rights as thier Catholics neighbours. Of course catholic controlled councils where also guilty of gerrymandering to

No comment on the job prospects of both communities?

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

Houses where given to favoured people of that there is No doubt, but my area and the neighbouring nationalist / republican area used to be cheek by jowel. The road I live on carrys on, on the other side of the peace wall and the houses are NI different. My own grandmother only got an indoor bathroom built into her house inn 1994 there are still houses in my area with no inside bathrooms. The reality is that for most working class Protestants thier lot in life was generally the same or only marginally better and at the end of the day they Still only had exactly the same civil rights as thier Catholics neighbours. Of course catholic controlled councils where also guilty of gerrymandering to

As you haven´t give me some recommendations, I suppose that it hasn´t been any book written yet that covers what you´re saying(?) Aside from what you´re telling from your family background.

junder

Thomas_I wrote: »

As you haven´t give me some recommendations, I suppose that it hasn´t been any book written yet that covers what you´re saying(?) Aside from what you´re telling from your family background.

Well you could try google or even amazon you could try to to expand your search to include authors who are not republican sympathisers. But you know what I passed my cat c theory today so im in a good mood so I will start you of

'Northern Ireland: the politics of war and peace' Paul Dixon

'A history of the ulster unionist party: 'Protest, pragmatism and pessimism' graham walker

Both are more academic books not easy readers

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

Well you could try google or even amazon you could try to to expand your search to include authors who are not republican sympathisers. But you know what I passed my cat c theory today so im in a good mood so I will start you of

'Northern Ireland: the politics of war and peace' Paul Dixon

'A history of the ulster unionist party: 'Protest, pragmatism and pessimism' graham walker

Both are more academic books not easy readers

Thanks for that. Did you read these books yourself?

junder

Thomas_I wrote: »

Thanks for that. Did you read these books yourself?

I did, read them at Universty, has been a while since I have picked them up to read again though

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

I did, read them at Universty, has been a while since I have picked them up to read again though

I´ve checked the books via goole and found Dixon´s book with a look inside on amazon. The overview looks interesting, the comment on a review about that from a reader doesn´t because he says that Dixon´s books is too superficial. Anyway I´ll think about that and also whether I´m interested to get meself that deep involved in the history of NI to learn about the details of the past.

I haven´t searched about Graham Walkers book because the title itself is about the UUP alone. But I did some research about himself and he seems to be unbiased in his works.

junder

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´ve checked the books via goole and found Dixon´s book with a look inside on amazon. The overview looks interesting, the comment on a review about that from a reader doesn´t because he says that Dixon´s books is too superficial. Anyway I´ll think about that and also whether I´m interested to get meself that deep involved in the history of NI to learn about the details of the past.

I haven´t searched about Graham Walkers book because the title itself is about the UUP alone. But I did some research about himself and he seems to be unbiased in his works.

The walker book is more a history of ulster unionism of which the uup was the major part until recently. It encompass's political developement within unionism as well

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

The walker book is more a history of ulster unionism of which the uup was the major part until recently. It encompass's political developement within unionism as well

Dixon´s book has according to its content a wider range of topics which covers both sides and might be more of use to me.

Quite honestly, before I would buy any book about the history of NI, I first have to overcome my reluctance towards these topics. It is one thing to take part in threads on boards like this and exchange opinions with different people. To "work" oneself throught the horrible history of NI is quite another and is like a journey into a dark land.

Although I admit that it gave me some fun to tease you in some posts re your Unionism and view about your identity linked to that, I honestly tell you that in some ways I really value your posts. There are some things that sound interesting and are telling me the view from the Unionists side.

To me it would mean to take up the ordeal to go deeper into your countries history as an outsider who was lucky to not have been born in NI and been spared the suffer of the troubles there. To you it is quite another thing and from my imagination this must have been sometimes even harder.

At least I´m trying to get the picture from both sides and also to understand both sides. The truth is as often to find in the middle, but that´s the point at all. To find the truth, one has to go a long way and I´ll see whether I´m taking that road or even if I´m not quite content with that what I´ve learned about NI already.

junder

Thomas_I wrote: »

Dixon´s book has according to its content a wider range of topics which covers both sides and might be more of use to me.

Quite honestly, before I would buy any book about the history of NI, I first have to overcome my reluctance towards these topics. It is one thing to take part in threads on boards like this and exchange opinions with different people. To "work" oneself throught the horrible history of NI is quite another and is like a journey into a dark land.

Although I admit that it gave me some fun to tease you in some posts re your Unionism and view about your identity linked to that, I honestly tell you that in some ways I really value your posts. There are some things that sound interesting and are telling me the view from the Unionists side.

To me it would mean to take up the ordeal to go deeper into your countries history as an outsider who was lucky to not have been born in NI and been spared the suffer of the troubles there. To you it is quite another thing and from my imagination this must have been sometimes even harder.

At least I´m trying to get the picture from both sides and also to understand both sides. The truth is as often to find in the middle, but that´s the point at all. To find the truth, one has to go a long way and I´ll see whether I´m taking that road or even if I´m not quite content with that what I´ve learned about NI already.

If you want to understand unionism then walkers book is the way to go although both books are good

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

If you want to understand unionism then walkers book is the way to go although both books are good

I´ll take a note from both books and see when and from where to get on of these for a start.

A couple of years ago, I´ve had a book about the troubles. It was a compilation of stories from various people who suffered from them (both sides of the conflict). The stories told in that book were dealing in detail with who was how, where and for what "reason" killed. That was quite a shocker and after I´ve read a few of these stories I´ve had to give it away because it was unbearable to me to continue in reading these horror stories. I can´t remember the title of that book anymore just that it had a red cover. My reluctance towards reading about the troubles comes from there.

Your suggested books seem to deal with that on a different level, so it might be an option to take it on.

This is the source from where I´ve got the first insight on Unionism in its original outset by the PUP

http://www.pupni.com/index.php/features/pup-history/principles-of-loyalism

This is also from where I was referring to the depiction of the RoI which are outdated, but what I´ve learned from reading this is, that the people there have some concern regarding their own identity. This is undenyable. The point is whether some of their expressed fears and perceptions are still valid in putting them to test to the present reality.

In my perception of Unionism and Loyalism I haven´t come across some significant difference between them. So they both mean to me one and the same, so to say they´re equal in their aims and political content. Just their names differ.

Maybe you can tell me what the difference between them is(?)

guttenberg

I know you mentioned a red cover, but any chance was the book your referring to this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/184018504X/

Pretty much the definitive "guide" to all that happened during the conflict, who died and how etc. very sad read!

Thomas_I

guttenberg wrote: »

I know you mentioned a red cover, but any chance was the book your referring to this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/184018504X/

Pretty much the definitive "guide" to all that happened during the conflict, who died and how etc. very sad read!

Yes, that´s the book. I remember it from the description there.

junder

Not a fan of Dillon but his book political murder in Northern Ireland while grim reading does remove alot of the 'romance' of the troubled that some people still seem to have. It shows the conflict to be what it really was a grim slog of tit for tat sectarian murder perpetrated by both sides in the conflict

blatantrereg

My impression is that extremist nationalism has become unfashionable and withered in the Republic. The sort of rancour that had once been directed by the Catholic church is now largely being directed at the Catholic church.

What would it take for a similar thing to happen in the Orangeman types in NI I wonder.

Before the outbreak of World War 1 GB was in the process of implementing Home Rule in Ireland. This didn't come to pass for two reasons: Ulster Orangemen threatened to march on Dublin Castle if it was implemented, and then World War 1 broke out - meaning GB particularly didn't want to have to deal with a domestic conflict.

The rationale the Ulster unionists gave was that they thought Ireland would come too much under the influence of the Catholic church. History suggests they were right, though they themselves were largely to blame. They encouraged antipathy towards protestants, and they laid the groundwork for extremists to get into power in the south [by blocking the process through threat of violence].

And it is true that extremists did get into power in the south. There was not a prevalence the sort of antipathy in the south toward Britain in the time leading up to the Easter Rising as people would now suppose. The majority of protestants in Ireland wanted Home Rule, as did most English people and Westminster itself (Ireland was costing Britain a significant amount of money by this time). The republicans were only one faction amongst the rebels (socialists being another), and they were led by extremists. Extremists who would later commiserate with Germany on the death of Hitler just to thumb their noses at Britain. Extremists who declined to enter into negotiation for six counties in exchange for the use of the treaty ports by Allied troops during WW2.

But those extremists became Fianna Fáil, who are now largely hated, just like the Catholic church, and you encounter less and less bigotry in the south as a result... That in itself could only be a good thing as far as reconciliation with Orangemen in the north, if their stated concern about the Catholic church is [still] their genuine reason. Taking the church out of education in the south would be a good idea too. Expensive perhaps, but perhaps there is grounds to demand or even seize the property given all that has come to light. If the influence of the catholic church were expunged, and if people were prepared to absorb elements of a culture they might dislike into the country, then perhaps some Ulster Orangemen might become somewhat amenable to discuss things.

All that said, the Orangemen are no longer the whole story. I dont see any benefit to the north or south to Northern Ireland becoming part of the republic.