Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Towards a United Ireland
Options
Comments
-
Soulandfarms comment was out of order, but let's face it, the British army have so much blood on their hands when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq, innocent blood at that.0
-
Has there ever been a war were innocents didn't die? It's the nature of the beast but I don't think you'll find many here who would condone that invasion..jacksparrow. wrote: »Soulandfarms comment was out of order, but let's face it, the British army have so much blood on their hands when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq, innocent blood at that.0 -
I'm wondering why a citizen of ROI would want to be in the BA, i'm not saying they shouldn't but I'm curious at why people would want to be in a foreign army? i know nothing about modern armies so maybe it's normal.
I remember a friend at my catholic secondary school in N.Ireland getting friendly abuse as he wanted to join the British Army but I think that was just a phase for him and didn't actually join0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Has there ever been a war were innocents didn't die? It's the nature of the beast but I don't think you'll find many here who would condone that invasion.
Then the question has to be asked is the murder of innocents worth it in Iraq, does the end justify the means, much like the IRAs history.0 -
SoulandForm wrote: »Catch yourself. You are talking about people filled with blood lust on their way to commit murder who ended getting a taste of their own medicine. Far worse things have been said on this forum. Dont be a drama queen.SoulandForm wrote: »Catch yourself. You are talking about people filled with blood lust on their way to commit murder who ended getting a taste of their own medicine. Far worse things have been said on this forum. Dont be a drama queen.
You where talking about sappers, engineers. Not front line combat soldiers. Moreover all soldiers are subject to the law of international armed conflict which not only defines what are legitimate targets. What defines as solider as opposed to paramilitary or terrorist. It also makes each individual soldier responsible for his / her own actions, there is no such defence as 'I was only following orders' ultimately if I carry out an illegal action I could not only face internal discipline but also the discipline of Hague, certainly won't be getting any jobs in government. As I said before I am a loyalist I have certain political beliefs however when I joined the BA I swore on oath which I did not take lightly. Every year I have to do training to remind me of my responsibilities of being a soldier, non of which involves rape or torture0 -
Advertisement
-
No and no. Question answered..jacksparrow. wrote: »Then the question has to be asked is the murder of innocents worth it in Iraq, does the end justify the means, much like the IRAs history.0 -
You where talking about sappers, engineers. Not front line combat soldiers. Moreover all soldiers are subject to the law of international armed conflict which not only defines what are legitimate targets. What defines as solider as opposed to paramilitary or terrorist. It also makes each individual soldier responsible for his / her own actions, there is no such defence as 'I was only following orders' ultimately if I carry out an illegal action I could not only face internal discipline but also the discipline of Hague, certainly won't be getting any jobs in government. As I said before I am a loyalist I have certain political beliefs however when I joined the BA I swore on oath which I did not take lightly. Every year I have to do training to remind me of my responsibilities of being a soldier, non of which involves rape or torture
Fair enough but are you trying to deny that some British army has disobeyed orders and committed atrocities?0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »No and no. Question answered.
Exactly, so the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong on so many levels, so why are they allowed continue?0 -
.jacksparrow. wrote: »Fair enough but are you trying to deny that some British army has disobeyed orders Joe committed atrocities?
Some have and be disciplined for it, wether it military prison, civilian prison. Many have been kicked out for bring the army into disrepute. I am sure Pablo is familiar with solid c0 -
.jacksparrow. wrote: »Exactly, so the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong on so many levels, so why are they allowed continue?
That is for the politicians to answer. I t is always much harder to get out of conflict that get in though .0 -
Advertisement
-
.jacksparrow. wrote: »Exactly, so the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong on so many levels, so why are they allowed continue?
That's a government decision, soldiers just fight its the politicans that send them out to the wars0 -
Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die..jacksparrow. wrote: »Exactly, so the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong on so many levels, so why are they allowed continue?
In other words it's allowed to continue because America says so and no one can stop them. Does that answer your question? Welcome to the real world.0 -
I will always remember going home to Donegal during the 'troubles' going through a checkpoint outside Belfast. We had a wee soldier checking the cars going through, holding his gun which was almost the same size as him. My mother looked at him, turned to us and said 'aww will you look at that wee dote'.... Mammy's eh?0
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die.
In other words it's allowed to continue because America says so and no one can stop them. Does that answer your question? Welcome to the real world.
America **** yeeahhh!0 -
SoulandForm wrote: »What do you think British soldiers do in Afghanistan?
They dont "murder and rape" as you put it. You clearly havent a clue what the BA or US armies actually do in Afghanistan.0 -
-
given the level of atrocities carried out by the army in the north of Ireland alone. everybody knows this is manureYou where talking about sappers, engineers. Not front line combat soldiers. Moreover all soldiers are subject to the law of international armed conflict which not only defines what are legitimate targets. What defines as solider as opposed to paramilitary or terrorist. It also makes each individual soldier responsible for his / her own actions, there is no such defence as 'I was only following orders' ultimately if I carry out an illegal action I could not only face internal discipline but also the discipline of Hague, certainly won't be getting any jobs in government. As I said before I am a loyalist I have certain political beliefs however when I joined the BA I swore on oath which I did not take lightly. Every year I have to do training to remind me of my responsibilities of being a soldier, non of which involves rape or torture0 -
-
You where talking about sappers, engineers. Not front line combat soldiers. Moreover all soldiers are subject to the law of international armed conflict which not only defines what are legitimate targets. What defines as solider as opposed to paramilitary or terrorist. It also makes each individual soldier responsible for his / her own actions, there is no such defence as 'I was only following orders' ultimately if I carry out an illegal action I could not only face internal discipline but also the discipline of Hague, certainly won't be getting any jobs in government. As I said before I am a loyalist I have certain political beliefs however when I joined the BA I swore on oath which I did not take lightly. Every year I have to do training to remind me of my responsibilities of being a soldier, non of which involves rape or torture
Part of a killing machine. No conscription exists in the UK. To me there deaths were exactly the same as gangsters death.
The rest is laughable- http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/oct/19/torture-uk-britain-blood-government
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/torture/uk-complicity-in-torture/index.php
I think you once praised in a post that murderer David Irvine?0 -
SoulandForm wrote: »Part of a killing machine. No conscription exists in the UK. To me there deaths were exactly the same as gangsters death.
The rest is laughable- http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/oct/19/torture-uk-britain-blood-government
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/torture/uk-complicity-in-torture/index.php
I think you once praised in a post that murderer David Irvine?
David ervine had international respect, which included the respect of the Irish government as well as republicans as can be seen by who attended his funeral. What has that got to do with relishing the death of three young soldiers?0 -
Advertisement
-
It wasn't a dead certainty but it was inevitable the British would have eventually acquiesced under a sustained peaceful campaign. There was no need for war.Bertie Woot wrote: »The third Home Rule Bill was postponed by the first world war and was on the cards, but Home rule was not a dead certainty, and Irish Nationalists joined the British Army and fought at the Somme to help forward the goal of 32 county independence. 1916 was not a popular uprising, with the rebels having rotten vegetables thrown at them on the streets by many Catholic Irish of Dublin.
One war leads to another you mean. And we never achieved anything from war and death that couldn't be achieved peacefully.Bertie Woot wrote: »1916, the war of independence and the civil war all paved the way to the independence from Britain that you enjoy today. A peaceful and bloodless separation from Britain would have been the ideal, some might say 'wishful thinking', but that didn't happen, and you have no option but to accept historicity.
I disagree that NI is occupied. NI is no more occupied then Scotland.Bertie Woot wrote: »NI is a part of the UK, and Irish Republicans would still argue that NI is still a British occupied territory, and despite the GFA, which effectively provides legitimacy for the existence of NI.
We have always used geography to define borders but never geography on it's own. There are many divided islands, Timor being one of them. Now I ask you a question. What to you defines a nation and why do the Ulster-Scots not constitute a separate nation in your view?Bertie Woot wrote: »Since when have we not? Look at the borders which divide France, Belgium, Holland et al. Are they not geographical demarcations of nations? Of course language and culture also contribute to defining nations, but you cannot ignore very real geographical borders and boundaries, which as you rightly point out, are susceptible to change.
But how can one be nationalist and socialist when Marx called for the removal of national boundaries? Nationalism and socialism strikes me as two seperate and irreconcilable ideologies.Bertie Woot wrote: »Ireland is "made up of an ethnically mixed population", north and south. We have different ancestral lineages and varying national allegiances, religions, cultures, classes, races et al. Nationality is a part of ethnicity, a single segment of ethnicity, and even internationalist Socialists cannot deny that there have been Socialists who have also been Nationalists.
No side is more valid. It's no more valid to wish to be an Irish citizen then British.Bertie Woot wrote: »I'm an Agnostic and doubtful of the existence of a supernatural entity that allegedly created the world and the universe, but shall argue that Irish Nationalists have a valid and legitimate right to pursue Irish reunification, and moreso than Unionism's claimed right to continue partition.
.
The past is unalterable but the future isn't, put aside those wrongs and step forward into a new age of harmony.Bertie Woot wrote: »But that is the crux of the problem - the British colonial has traditionally never treated the indigenous Irish people as equals, and has attempted to relegate Ireland to a position of social, national and cultural inferiority. The Irish were stereotyped as "Thick Paddies" and a backward and inward looking people, the Gaelic language was suppressed, and by preventing food relief from landing In Ireland during the famine Britain effectively attempted what has been viewed as "genocide" on the Irish people. My ancestors, the British colonial settlers of the early 17th century Ulster plantation, were planted here by a British government which wanted to make Ireland more easily governable by transplanting a British population which would remain loyal to the British crown.
I don't, to side with the Irish republicans you must first accept that we have a right to govern the North and I don't believe we do.Bertie Woot wrote: »I didn't and don't agree with their violence, but believe that the Irish Republican analysis of the British-Irish situation is correct.
Nothing. We have nothing to offer you. I'm surprised you want to join us. That's not trying to downplay my country far from it. But the truth is the truth.Bertie Woot wrote: »We have a good country here too and I could be a typical Unionist and ask you the exact same questions, but instead prefer to look upon it as what both sections of this island can offer eachother. We have an educated workforce in NI, our industry is strong, we have a successful and burgeoning private sector and an effective public sector, we no longer have Harland and Wolf ship building, but we have aircraft manufacturers "Bombardier Aerospace" (formerly Shorts), we have two world class Universities (Queens and the University of Ulster), we have areas of outstanding natural beauty which act as very lucrative tourist attractions (eg. Giants Causeway, Mournes region ..), we have the newly built Titanic Quarter exhibition which rakes in revenue from visitors from all over the world, Belfast City is an excellent city of culture, history, architecture and atmosphere which recently hosted the MTV awards, the city of Derry/Londonderry is currently European city of culture 2013 with lots of cultural events taking place on a daily basis, the Protestant work ethic built Belfast and the industry of the North; for such a small country, we have a lot to offer a reunified Ireland.
In the short term but these things are cyclical.Bertie Woot wrote: »And your economy collapsed because you mismanaged it and consequently you are dependent on foreign investment and EU bail out.
First off one can be patriotic and not favour unification. The two are not directly linked. Secondly if someone wants unification I can't stop them. I think it's ill advised and I'd try talk sense into them but at the end of the day their vote is their vote.Bertie Woot wrote: »See the long answer I gave to this question above, and then ask yourself why we should risk reunification for those patriotic Southern and Northern Irishmen who haven't abandoned the Nationalist/Republican goal, and who still desire and seek reunification.
I'm really not I'm just a guy who's happy with the status quo. Happy with my lot in life and don't want to do anything to jeopardise that. You may think I'm selfish but politics is the science of self interest.Bertie Woot wrote: »Seemingly. I can't help but feel that you are playing devil's advocate and that you don't truly believe in what you are saying. It seems like you are attempting to test me, to see if I truly believe in reunification.0 -
SoulandForm wrote: »Being from the south of Ireland would known have known well the history of the British Army in this country and a bit of research would have shown you that they have never changed their spots- you are not stupid person at all clearly so you dont have that in your defense. Your argument is as full of holes as a hungry squaddie in Masserene.
Mod: Poster Banned.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Mod:
Ok, thread back open, but it will be monitored closely as I'm wondering if there is any point keeping it open. This is a thread about a United Ireland, not Afghanistan, Iraq nor the history of the Civil War and the partition of the island. I doubt anybody on this thread needs an education on that.
Focusing on the thread title Towards a United Ireland would be a good guideline, rather than going over the same stuff we do on all the other threads on the topic.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »
But how can one be nationalist and socialist when Marx called for the removal of national boundaries? Nationalism and socialism strikes me as two seperate and irreconcilable ideologies.
Nationalism in the north has nothing to do with the variety of nationalism you speak of. You should already be aware of this. In fairness I've always thought it was a rather unfortunate term to have it applied as it has been but I guess we're stuck with it and I could see how an outsider could get confused, but someone from Ireland?0 -
Nationalism in all forms concerns itself in national identity. Socialism on the other hand is supposed to be above national identity. To socialist a working class English man has more in common with him then a bourgeois Irish man. The idea is to stir the working class into revolution to overthrow their oppressors and create a free equal society without national boundaries. You should already be aware of this.Nationalism in the north has nothing to do with the variety of nationalism you speak of. You should already be aware of this. In fairness I've always thought it was a rather unfortunate term to have it applied as it has been but I guess we're stuck with it and I could see how an outsider could get confused, but someone from Ireland?0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »It wasn't a dead certainty but it was inevitable the British would have eventually acquiesced under a sustained peaceful campaign. There was no need for war.
Perhaps not, but Republicans at that time concluded that Britain needed a jolt. It is my view that the current Republican leadership within SF in the North shall become so disillusioned with the current process that they too shall inevitably come to a similar conclusion.One war leads to another you mean. And we never achieved anything from war and death that couldn't be achieved peacefully.
Controversial.I disagree that NI is occupied. NI is no more occupied then Scotland.
Scotland was settled by the Irish, so you could argue that Scotland is indeed occupied.We have always used geography to define borders but never geography on it's own. There are many divided islands, Timor being one of them. Now I ask you a question. What to you defines a nation and why do the Ulster-Scots not constitute a separate nation in your view?
A nation has been defined as "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory". The people of most nations however do not have common "descent". You are probably descended from continental Gaels, whereas I am descended from Norse Vikings, Scots and English. I have no "Celt" in my lineage that I am aware of.
I am Ulster-English on my dad's side (Co. Durham) and an Ulster-Scot on my mother's side (Galloway, lowlands). The Ulster-Scots are known as the "Scots-Irish" in America. Mostly Presbyterian, they took part in the American war of Independence, and the Irish in general (not just Scots-Irish) have provided the the US with no less than 20 of their Presidents.
Whilst the Ulster-Scots constitute a distinct ethnicity and culture within NI, they do not constitute a distinct and separate nation, merely a part of the 6 counties of Ulster Northern Ireland nation, with not all Unionists/Protestants/Loyalists being of exclusively Scottish descent.
Despite their concerted attempt to portray "Ulster-Scots" as a language, it is not in the proper sense of the word, merely English spoken with a Scottish-Ulster dialect. Gaelic on the other hand is a proper language, and separate from and distinct to the English language. It's also important to note that Gaelic is also a language of a foreign invader and coloniser.But how can one be nationalist and socialist when Marx called for the removal of national boundaries? Nationalism and socialism strikes me as two seperate and irreconcilable ideologies.
Socialism was initially internationalist in nature, and diametrically opposed to narrow nationalism. The working class had no country according to some Socialists, and were one people who had been divided by national boundaries. But like Wolfe Tone, James Connolly, a Republican/Nationalist Socialist, recognised that Ireland's difficulties were the product of England's interference in Ireland's domestic affairs, and wanted to see a Socialist revolution in Ireland which would remove capitalism and put an end to British rule, thus liberating Ireland from two forms of oppression and tyranny.
I consider myself to be a Socialist and a Nationalist, but I'm reluctant to use the term "Irish Republican", as most people associate Irish Republicanism with Catholicism and PIRA violence in NI. I'm a Protestant (Agnostic actually), and was opposed to all violence in NI.No side is more valid. It's no more valid to wish to be an Irish citizen then British.
The terms of the GFA provide the citizens of NI to choose their nationality. You can either be British, Irish or both. I consider myself both, as if I was to simply say that I was a "British" citizen, I would be denying the fact that I was born in a part of Ireland and am thus Irish. And if I simply said that I was an "Irish" citizen, I would be failing to acknowledge and provide the fact that I am descended from British settlers of the Ulster plantation, and was born in a part of Ireland which is a part of the UK and that I consequently hold a British passport. I intend to also apply for an Irish passport, to reflect my dual nationality. When Ireland reunifies, if it ever does, I shall have no issue with handing in my British passport and keeping my Irish passport.
I am "British-Irish, or alternatively, an Irish person of British ancestry. This duality of nationality is not unique to Northern Ireland. In America many people acknowledge their land of origin and country of birth with dual nationality eg. Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Afro-Americans et al.The past is unalterable but the future isn't, put aside those wrongs and step forward into a new age of harmony.
So why not the harmonisation of Ireland with reunification? Must North and South remain separate and apart to sustain harmony?I don't, to side with the Irish republicans you must first accept that we have a right to govern the North and I don't believe we do.
It's not about the South governing the North. It's about a truly free and independent united Ireland governing itself.Nothing. We have nothing to offer you. I'm surprised you want to join us. That's not trying to downplay my country far from it. But the truth is the truth.
Dublin is a historical city with a lot of culture and atmosphere, the Irish economy shall recover, I've seen Donegal, Carlingford, Dundalk, Drogheda and Dublin and and am about to embark on a tour of the the remainder of the ROI this summer, as I'm keen to see the rest of the island I was born on and live on. If I find nothing I'll be extremely surprised.First off one can be patriotic and not favour unification. The two are not directly linked. Secondly if someone wants unification I can't stop them. I think it's ill advised and I'd try talk sense into them but at the end of the day their vote is their vote.
Most Irish Republicans would argue that the desire for Irish reunification lies at the heart of all Irish patriots.I'm really not I'm just a guy who's happy with the status quo. Happy with my lot in life and don't want to do anything to jeopardise that. You may think I'm selfish but politics is the science of self interest.
That's an arbitrary definition of politics, but like I've already stated twice; I respect your right to oppose reunification, and for whatever reasons.
Perhaps I'm being foolish by being in favour of a united Ireland, and if it were to come about in my lifetime and I found myself a member of a persecuted, discriminated against, marginalised and alienated minority, and consequently a member of a Protestant Civil Rights organisation on the back of which Loyalist paramilitaries launched a 30 year campaign of violence against the new Irish state, perhaps I'd regret ever having entertained the silly concept of a united Ireland where British-Protestant-Unionists could live in peace and harmony with Irish-Catholic-Nationalists and expect the past to be forgotten and for them to receive fair and equal treatment.
It's a risky endeavour, for sure, and judging by the continued divisions here in the North, with bigotry once again on the rise in this decade of commemorations, a symbiotic assimilation of North and South is not going to be an effortless task. However, I live in hope that we can one day overcome our divisions, and peacefully share the same living space without one community feeling that it has to surrender to the other.0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »Most Irish Republicans would argue that the desire for Irish reunification lies at the heart of all Irish patriots.
Most people think with their brains these days, all that heart and spleen thinking is a bit out of fashion.0 -
I agree republicans will become disillusioned but I disagree the result will be a re spark of violence. More likely as the years go on republicans will become disillusioned with the ideal of a UI and believe it's not possible. It'll still be there, the ideal will never die but every year the calls for unity will get quieter. And honestly this is the best solution for everyone.Bertie Woot wrote: »Perhaps not, but Republicans at that time concluded that Britain needed a jolt. It is my view that the current Republican leadership within SF in the North shall become so disillusioned with the current process that they too shall inevitably come to a similar conclusion.
Except it's not. And neither is NI.Bertie Woot wrote: »Scotland was settled by the Irish, so you could argue that Scotland is indeed occupied.
By that definition Ulster Scots constitute a separate nation. You have a shared distinct ancestry from me. A separate unique culture. And you occupy a demarcated territory. Sounds like a nation to me.Bertie Woot wrote: »A nation has been defined as "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory". The people of most nations however do not have common "descent". You are probably descended from continental Gaels, whereas I am descended from Norse Vikings, Scots and English. I have no "Celt" in my lineage that I am aware of.
Whilst the Ulster-Scots constitute a distinct ethnicity and culture within NI, they do not constitute a distinct and separate nation, merely a part of the 6 counties of Ulster Northern Ireland nation, with not all Unionists/Protestants/Loyalists being of exclusively Scottish descent.
I'm aware of the difference between Ulster Scot and unionist, that's why I made the distinction.
A nation doesn't need a language. There are many nations without one.Bertie Woot wrote: »Despite their concerted attempt to portray "Ulster-Scots" as a language, it is not in the proper sense of the word, merely English spoken with a Scottish-Ulster dialect. Gaelic on the other hand is a proper language, and separate from and distinct to the English language. It's also important to note that Gaelic is also a language of a foreign invader and coloniser.
So why do you want an independent Ireland? Surely your ideology would be better served by a decentralised one world nation.Bertie Woot wrote: »Socialism was initially internationalist in nature, and diametrically opposed to narrow nationalism. The working class had no country according to some Socialists, and were one people who had been divided by national boundaries. But like Wolfe Tone, James Connolly, a Republican/Nationalist Socialist, recognised that Ireland's difficulties were the product of England's interference in Ireland's domestic affairs, and wanted to see a Socialist revolution in Ireland which would remove capitalism and put an end to British rule, thus liberating Ireland from two forms of oppression and tyranny.
I consider myself neither. I was born in this country randomly, if anything if to define me it should be my achievements in life not circumstance I have no control of.Bertie Woot wrote: »I consider myself to be a Socialist and a Nationalist, but I'm reluctant to use the term "Irish Republican", as most people associate Irish Republicanism with Catholicism and PIRA violence in NI. I'm a Protestant (Agnostic actually), and was opposed to all violence in NI.
[QUOTEE=Bertie Woot;84399117]I am "British-Irish, or alternatively, an Irish person of British ancestry. This duality of nationality is not unique to Northern Ireland. In America many people acknowledge their land of origin and country of birth with dual nationality eg. Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Afro-Americans et al. [/QUOTE]
America is a melting pot and humans feel the need to categorise themselves.
It will work either way but Unity carries extra security risks which makes the status quo preferable.Bertie Woot wrote: »So why not the harmonisation of Ireland with reunification? Must North and South remain separate and apart to sustain harmony?
We outnumber you, in practical terms any unification is going to result in us dictating your home policies. Similar to how the British dictated to us. Even unintentionally the numbers just stack up that way.Bertie Woot wrote: »It's not about the South governing the North. It's about a truly free and independent united Ireland governing itself.
All those points you mention are not dependent on unification.Bertie Woot wrote: »Dublin is a historical city with a lot of culture and atmosphere, the Irish economy shall recover, I've seen Donegal, Carlingford, Dundalk, Drogheda and Dublin and and am about to embark on a tour of the the remainder of the ROI this summer, as I'm keen to see the rest of the island I was born on and live on. If I find nothing I'll be extremely surprised.
I'm sure they would. But I don't agree with them.Bertie Woot wrote: »Most Irish Republicans would argue that the desire for Irish reunification lies at the heart of all Irish patriots.
If it's risky why take the risk? There are no benefits to speak of. Some people (not saying you) just need something to live for, and this distant goal gives them that. It's change for changes sake.Bertie Woot wrote: »Perhaps I'm being foolish by being in favour of a united Ireland, and if it were to come about in my lifetime and I found myself a member of a persecuted, discriminated against, marginalised and alienated minority, and consequently a member of a Protestant Civil Rights organisation on the back of which Loyalist paramilitaries launched a 30 year campaign of violence against the new Irish state, perhaps I'd regret ever having entertained the silly concept of a united Ireland where British-Protestant-Unionists could live in peace and harmony with Irish-Catholic-Nationalists and expect the past to be forgotten and for them to receive fair and equal treatment.
It's a risky endeavour, for sure, and judging by the continued divisions here in the North, with bigotry once again on the rise in this decade of commemorations, a symbiotic assimilation of North and South is not going to be an effortless task. However, I live in hope that we can one day overcome our divisions, and peacefully share the same living space without one community feeling that it has to surrender to the other.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »I agree republicans will become disillusioned but I disagree the result will be a re spark of violence. More likely as the years go on republicans will become disillusioned with the ideal of a UI and believe it's not possible. It'll still be there, the ideal will never die but every year the calls for unity will get quieter. And honestly this is the best solution for everyone.
Not everyone agrees, and that's a typically negative and defeatist attitude from someone who seems to revel in partition.Except it's not. And neither is NI.
So Irish Republicans branding NI the "occupied six counties" is wrong? Explain how it's wrong.By that definition Ulster Scots constitute a separate nation. You have a shared distinct ancestry from me. A separate unique culture. And you occupy a demarcated territory. Sounds like a nation to me.
It's a different and demarcated territory, but like I said, not all PUL's are Ulster-Scot. They are however, British. There's a fundamental difference, as British includes English.A nation doesn't need a language. There are many nations without one.
Really? Name one.So why do you want an independent Ireland? Surely your ideology would be better served by a decentralised one world nation.
I don't believe in globalism or multi-national corporatism, so why should I believe in internationalist Socialism?
Like James Connolly, I believe that independence from Britain can create the conditions for a return to real Irish Republican Socialist politics.America is a melting pot and humans feel the need to categorise themselves.
Perhaps they're just being comprehensive about their national and cultural identity.It will work either way but Unity carries extra security risks which makes the status quo preferable.
You selfishly enjoy your comfort zone and have no desire to risk full national liberation.We outnumber you, in practical terms any unification is going to result in us dictating your home policies. Similar to how the British dictated to us. Even unintentionally the numbers just stack up that way.
Our home shall be your home and vice versa. You won't be dictating anything, as Unionists shall play a significant role in legislation and policy making within a democratic state.All those points you mention are not dependent on unification.
I didn't say they were.I'm sure they would. But I don't agree with them.
Explain why you don't agree with them.If it's risky why take the risk? There are no benefits to speak of. Some people (not saying you) just need something to live for, and this distant goal gives them that. It's change for changes sake.
Explain how there are "no benefits" to reunification. Explain how it's "just change for change sake".0 -
Advertisement
-
Bertie Woot wrote: »Scotland was settled by the Irish, so you could argue that Scotland is indeed occupied.
That's a viewpoint that I've heard more than once from Unionists, and it puzzles me.
The version of history that I learned at school would say that Columbanus moved to Iona, and was eventually joined by other monks, who initially traded with the picts, and eventually went on to convert many of them.
I use the term "version" of history, because, as I'm sure you're aware, historians traditionally managed to imbue history with their own viewpoint, eg: In Britain, colonisation is part of a "glorious history", and Cromwell was a hero.
In Ireland, on the other hand, there was nothing glorious about being colonised (or oppressed), and Cromwell is viewed as something which is quite unprintable on Boards.:D (No offence intended!).
I'd be genuinely interested in hearing the British viewpoint on how Scotland was settled.
It would be quite ironic, really, if it proved to be the case that Ulster Scots were descended from the Irish, as opposed to sharing part of their culture.Bertie Woot wrote: »I consider myself to be a Socialist and a Nationalist, but I'm reluctant to use the term "Irish Republican", as most people associate Irish Republicanism with Catholicism and PIRA violence in NI. I'm a Protestant (Agnostic actually), and was opposed to all violence in NI.
I wouldn't worry too much about calling yourself a Republican.
I'm a Republican, though a strictly non-violent one.
I'm Catholic - but Republicanism existed long before the PIRA - and will exist as an ideal in many Countries that have nothing to do with Ireland, no matter what happens in Ireland.Bertie Woot wrote: »Perhaps I'm being foolish by being in favour of a united Ireland, and if it were to come about in my lifetime and I found myself a member of a persecuted, discriminated against, marginalised and alienated minority, and consequently a member of a Protestant Civil Rights organisation on the back of which Loyalist paramilitaries launched a 30 year campaign of violence against the new Irish state, perhaps I'd regret ever having entertained the silly concept of a united Ireland where British-Protestant-Unionists could live in peace and harmony with Irish-Catholic-Nationalists and expect the past to be forgotten and for them to receive fair and equal treatment..
But there are Irish Protestants, who are Unionists, members of the Orange Order, and they are not discriminated against.Bertie Woot wrote: »It's a risky endeavour, for sure, and judging by the continued divisions here in the North, with bigotry once again on the rise in this decade of commemorations, a symbiotic assimilation of North and South is not going to be an effortless task. However, I live in hope that we can one day overcome our divisions, and peacefully share the same living space without one community feeling that it has to surrender to the other.
If it's been achieved in 26 Counties, why would it not be achieved in 32?0
Advertisement