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
-
-
Bertie Woot wrote: »The Civil Rights Movement was looked upon by the Unionist establishment as a threat to law and order and a Nationalist ploy to destabilise Northern Ireland. Civil Rights marchers were viewed as Irish Republicans on a mission to create a united Ireland, and thus a threat to the Northern Irish state.
For the Unionist/Loyalist working class to have sided with the civil rights marchers would have been viewed as an act of treachery, and the 'herd mentality' you mention, coupled with a desire not to be seen as disloyal, compelled many wc Protestants to not only not empathise with Nationalist grievances, but to actually attack civil rights marches.
It was ethnic and sectarian tribalism as its very worst; ignoring social injustices being experienced by the 'other side' in order to perpetuate one's own side's tenuous hold on political power.
The British capitalist imperialist class have known only too well that to have allowed or encouraged the Protestant/Unionist and Catholic/Nationalist working class to reconcile and unite so as to establish peace would have been detrimental to their selfish and economic interests in Ireland.
Most revolutions have been bloody and violent, and very few democratic and peaceful. But violence failed the Republican Movement in Northern Ireland. Sure, the men of 1916 'struck for Ireland', and it was the sense of outrage caused by the way in which the rebels were executed by the British that compelled many who were otherwise indifferent to national liberation to take the fight to the British, and they succeeded.
30 years of PIRA violence may have taken Sinn Fein into a coalition government with Unionists at Stormont, but that is looked upon as abandonment and an act of betrayal of Republican values, ideals and principles as enshrined in the 1916 proclamation. So what has changed for the benefit of the Republican Movement after such a long period of struggle? Reunification is now on the distant horizon, with many Nationalists now feeling that it can never be achieved in their lifetime, if ever.
What we have is a painfully slow evolution, not revolution.
How on earth do you get a large group of people to behave like that?
Don't tell me all these people were evil, uncaring brutes. That's not possible.
So, whether through historical teaching, or government propaganda, for that level of groupthink, there has to have been manipulation?Bertie Woot wrote: »It usually works too.
It does.Bertie Woot wrote: »You come from a long line of IRA 'activists", and your ancestors were involved in the post 1916 war of Independence and then the Irish civil war. Am I right?
Good gracious, no! My republican credentials go back a lot further than that.:P:D:DBertie Woot wrote: »"Northern Protestants- an unsettled people" by Susan McKay, for an examination of Unionist-Protestant psychology and mindset.
"The Faithful Tribe" by Ruth Dudley Edwards (a Southern Irish Catholic), for a thorough and surprisingly sympathetic examination of the Orange Order.
If you want an insight into Loyalist paramilitarism:
"Gusty Spence" by Roy Garland; an autobiography of the Loyalist UVF leader and political prisoner turned peacemaker. A very surprising read (he attended an IRA man's funeral, sent a letter of sympathy to his widow, and encouraged Loyalist prisoners to learn Gaelic and told them that violence was futile).
"David Ervine" by Henry Sinnerton; another autobiography of a Loyalist UVF prisoner turned peacemaker, and former Progressive Unionist Party leader who made a huge contribution to the peace process, and whose funeral was attended by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. A man of intelligence, courage and wisdom and perhaps the only Unionist politician I ever felt any respect and admiration for, as he made very wise and thoughtful statements form personal experience and spoke from the heart.
Thanks. I must see if I can get a copy of some of these.Bertie Woot wrote: »I've argued with people on forums for years, usually about stupid sh*t, and until blue in the face. In the end it usually degenerates to the level of "U stoopid - no U!". You seem like a mature, adult sort of person who can talk about things calmly, logically and rationally, without the puerile sectarianism characteristic of most discussions of this nature.
I generally try to see both sides of an argument, because the truth is usually to be found somewhere in the middle. I also generally try not to rise to provocation - because the first person to lose their temper also generally loses the argument.Bertie Woot wrote: »Fair enough. A reunification agreement shall have to contain unequivocal safeguards, guarantees and assurances to the Unionist people on equality and freedom from persecution, and my personal thinking is that a relevant update or completely new Irish constitution might be desirable, along with a new flag and national anthem. As Sinn Fein recently stated; 'everything is on the table'.
It's entirely up to Sinn Fein what they decide.
It's also worth noting that there would have to be a referendum for any changes to the constitution - and whenever such changes take place, the discussions are rarely impartial, and the lobbyists are not generally lobbying for altruistic reasons. Hence my wariness at your suggestion.Bertie Woot wrote: »Ah, but how do you prevent thugs from joining paramilitary organisations? Most so-called Loyalist paramilitary organisations were full of them.
You can't. So what you have to do is remove the excuse that sectarianism provides for thuggery.
That can only be done through education, imo.Bertie Woot wrote: »The Orange order is just one (central, prominent and influential) aspect of Protestant-Unionist-Loyalist culture. I never questioned the songs and tunes I heard as a kid growing up in a Belfast Unionist environment. Neither did I question or analyse Unionism. I accepted who and what I was, as questioning things was dangerous.
Suffice to say, I began to question and analyse the culture into which I was born in adulthood, and after a very long, winding and reflective road, can only say that I understand Unionism and Unionists and empathise with their concerns on an emotional level, as that is where I come from but did not choose, but on a purely logical, rational and intellectual level, cannot agree with the partition of this island, as my politics have been traditionally left-wing and become increasingly Nationalist. For that I make no apology, as I am being true to what I think and feel is the best and only way forward for all of the post colonial period people of Ireland, including Unionists.
Which is why I wondered at the contribution these songs etc might have.
From watching tv footage of riots, it seems to me that it is mainly youths who are involved - and youth is not known for checking facts, and well known for blind reaction.Bertie Woot wrote: »The Ulster plantation was simply a British colonial strategy to sow the seeds of British imperialist power and watch the planted "loyal" grow and secure Ireland's status as a colony. Ulster was essentially colonised to prevent further rebellion, as it had been the region most resistant to English control during the preceding century. But with land taken the Ulster plantation resulted in widespread resentment among the Irish towards the Scottish and English settlers, which in turn led to a mass Irish uprising in 1641 which claimed the lives of thousands. Did the British government of the day foresee long term problems as a result of the plantations and forewarn the settlers about such a probability before they came over? Probably not.
I doubt if they cared, tbh. The thinking at the time appeared to be "Might is Right".Bertie Woot wrote: »Civil Rights abuses took place, of that there can be no dispute, but you won't hear too many Protestant-Unionists condemn what happened. Human competitive nature has simply predisposed both sides to want to play the 'victim' more than the other, and if we were to begin counting the 'victims' on both sides from the 12th century to the present day to establish who has been the real victim in all of this, we'd be hear to eternity. Suffice to say, if I'd been around and a person of political influence in the 12th century I'd probably have whispered in King Henry II's ear; 'ignore McMurrough's pleas for assistance, or if you do decide to go over, come back quickly and don't accept any offer of land or the hand of one of his daughters in marriage'. In other words; stay out of Ireland, it's going to cause a ruckus among the locals which might last a week or two. :rolleyes:
800 years later, and after the invention of "the internet" ...
I doubt if he'd have listened. Greed has a knack of making people manage to justify some pretty horrendous stuff........
Some links to Rebel songs, as promised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq5Q3YE5ebs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx3iB68EKUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VceiEk11r6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAQfJ5AZRyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9MRbek0JXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysH86MMwPs8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGMPUYfVw20
The last one is not a rebel song - but it is my favourite political song.........0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I'm inclined to think that a lot of Unionist (and Nationalist) "leaders" have a great deal to answer for in that regard.
Having said that, they were preaching to the converted, to a certain extent.
If you think about it dispassionately, the plantation of Ulster was ultimately achieved by exaggerating the number of early protestant planters killed by Irish rebels.
Those who then flooded into Ulster to "defend" Queen and Country, and "The faith" against the "savages" (who had the temerity to object to their lands and way of life being removed) were automatically predisposed to believe that the Irish people were something akin to the devil himself.
Being attacked by rebellious Irish people wouldn't have done anything to change that view....
I have no desire to engage in a numbers game. Let's allow historical facts to speak for themselves:
"1641 is regarded to some extent as a pre-emptive strike by ‘Catholic’ Ireland in an endeavour to overthrow the Protestant regime in Ireland. However, while there is considerable justification in affording importance to such short term factors, long-standing grievances associated with the Ulster Plantation remain a primary factor too. It is this smouldering resentment which contributed to the viciousness of the attacks on the Protestant settlers and the large numbers of fatalities involved.
The sheer volume of deaths associated with the 1641 rebellion is a contentious issue, not least because the number of Protestant fatalities was soon inflated to several hundreds of thousands by contemporary and subsequent Protestant writers. Modern research calculates the actual number of deaths to be 12,000 out of a total Protestant population in Ulster at the time of 40,000, a massacre by any scale even if some thousands of these occurred as a result of military combat rather than the slaughter of the defenceless."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/plantation/planters/es10.shtmlFrom an Irish perspective, the "Brits" were a bunch of turncoats who abandoned their Religion because of a King who required a son and heir, to put it delicately, or, if you want the forthright version, didn't see any reason to let religion get in the way of his fun, while using the requirement for an heir as an excuse. (In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not a fan of Henry VIII!:D)
Tis true, that Henry was a Catholic and when the Pope didn't allow him to divorce Catherine of Aragon, Henry declared himself the new supreme head of a new church of England and became a Protestant. This had the effect of convincing his people to become Protestants too.
I'm going to level with you here, and you probably won't like it. Although I was born into the Protestant (Presbyterian) fold and have for most of my adult life considered myself a non-religious person and an Agnostic, if I ever did decide to get all religious in old age, I would sooner practice the religion I was born into than convert to Catholicism, and that has nothing to do with the Catholic-Protestant situation in Ireland, but more to do with the inherently corrupt and fallacious man-made teachings contained within Roman Catholic doctrine eg. "the sale of indulgences" ...etc.
To think that the Pope and the Roman Catholic hierarchy told Priests that Catholic parishioners should pay money to the RC church (in order to make it rich!) in exchange for the forgiveness of sins was an act of absolute ludicrousness, and meant that Martin Luther, the reformation and Protestantism was inevitable. Also, what psychological, emotional and sexual abuse Catholic Priests (and nuns!) have inflicted upon Catholic children and vulnerable young women over years puts Roman Catholicism outside the boundaries of good taste, respectability and social acceptability for many people.
A secular society where the Roman Catholic church is demoted and no longer has the universal power it once wielded over the Irish Catholic people is an Ireland I can be proud to belong to. Same goes for Protestantism. In fact, in a reunified Socialist oriented Ireland, religion by its very nature should be taken down several pegs to the very bottom of the status hierarchy, and made to take a seat at the very back of the auditorium. The magic sky-God which pious, sanctimonious, megalomaniacs and predatory, sexual sociopaths have used as cover to perpetrate the most heinous widespread abuse on the Catholic vulnerable has no place in my concept of a future united Ireland.Rationally speaking, the Irish people couldn't be expected not to resist having their lands confiscated, and their way of life, laws, and religion completely overturned. Equally rationally speaking, it was unrealistic, at a time when warmongering was normal behaviour, and people were usually rewarded with land grants for loyalty to the victor - not to expect the planters to accept the lands they were granted.
I've always argued that if Ireland had of been the larger and more dominant colonial country, and had invaded England and taken swathes of land under 'plantations', the indigenous English people would have sooner or later rebelled in a similar fashion to the Irish. I have never been a fan of British empire or imperialism, as colonisation is not only in my view unethical, historically it has always led to rebellion, war and death, and in the case of Ireland with the transplantation of large numbers of Scots and English into the north-eastern corner; ethnic divisions which have lasted for centuries and continue to endure to this day.At the end of the day, people generally don't look a gift horse in the mouth - and, especially if they're living in poverty to begin with, rarely see beyond the potential benefit to their family, and generally don't stop to think about the moral issues of displacing the original owners - or, for that matter, what the potential dangers of accepting such an offer might be....
So, you end up with two large groups of people, who might otherwise have a great deal in common, who are implacably set against one another - and all because of the actions of a small group of influential people - who managed to avoid personal danger, and gain a great deal more financially than the people they manipulated into doing their dirty work for them.... and those who gained the most ended up walking away smelling of roses, and being respected - revered even - while those who lost, and suffered, the most, are still at loggerheads with one another, and too busy hating each other to stand back, view the situation dispassionately, and lay the blame where it really lies...
Well put. The British colonial capitalist and landlord classes exploited Ireland for all it was worth, and the loyalist Scottish and English Protestant farmers and peasantry who came across under the plantations were used by the British government and the capitalist class in an attempt to tame Ireland by numbers and make it a less rebellious colony, but what actually happened was disastrous for the British settlers.
No people like to think of themselves as mere 'plants' and the 'manipulated", or more accurately, 'deceived', but that is essentially what happened; the Scottish and English colonial settlers came across under the false pretence of "a better life in Ireland", and consequently many of their lives were extinguished.Move on a couple of hundred years, and the atrocities committed aginst one side or the other are remembered, and used as justification for the wrongs committed by one's own family, or the wrongs get swept under the carpet - and both sides are convinced that they are the only victims, and they other side are evil baxtards - and here we are.
The truth is, both sides are victims - but they're both victims of the British Government and Monarchy, more than they are of one another.
I think we're both victims of the British government and monarchy and eachother. The British and Unionist establishment shall never view history from this perspective though, with the British government preferring to look upon Ireland as a case of a colony which has been slowly evolving towards full independence, and the Unionists refusing to regard themselves as victims of the British establishment, but very much victims of Irish Republicanism.
Fact is, the English view Ulster's Protestants as troublesome delinquent cousins they'd prefer to have no familial association with, yet Ulster's Protestants continue to view Britain with great affection and patriotic loyalty, and therein lies the irony and the real cruelty; Loyalism is an anachronism and has gone well past its use by date.Ah, I could tell you stories.....:p
You're related to Wolfe Tone, Bobby Sands, Gerry Adams and a few others within "the movement". *nudge-nudge-wink-wink* Am I right?I like the addition of that last name.:D I must "google" him sometime.:P
You'd better not (long criminal record and a long story). Some regard him as a traitor, a Lundy and a sell-out. He understands and loves them as foolish fellow Ulstermen, and regardless.It is to the immense credit of those brave men and women that they had the intelligence, morals, courage, and humanity to see beyond their own section of society - and act according to their conscience. It has to have been incredibly difficult for them, and their contribution to the cause of Irish unity should be emphasised more, imo.
I enjoyed reading this, and thank you.Strangely enough, I'm inclined to think you're right - and that says a great deal, since I have a healthy distrust of politicians in general.
Me too. Selfish, egotistical, megalomaniacs obsessed with money, power and status, most of them. As they say "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".Well mine probably thinks I'm worse, because I've listened to more than that - and I've rejected some because I think they'd probably make you wince - and definitely offend some Unionist readers.
There's one in particular that appeals to my sense of humour, but it would almost certainly offend Junder, and probably some Irish army members as well, so I'll resist posting it, even in a tongue in cheek manner...
Ah go on, go on, go on, go on ....0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »I've been called worse.
, and shall address these points below.
OK, you've sufficiently demonstrated the fact that you and indeed others have considerable difficulty with an amendment to the current Irish constitution to provide for British governmental diplomatic Intervention in the hypothetical case of either subterranean state orchestrated or accumulative individual cases of discrimination and persecution of the Unionist-Protestant ethnic minority within a reunified 32 county Republic, and that you believe that the national security of the new Republic shall be put at risk by any such constitutional amendments.
Might I therefore suggest that any draft reunification agreement/document that is drawn up after a referendum north and south of the border, where majorities in both jurisdictions have voted in favour of Irish reunification, contains at least some form of provision for the British government to diplomatically address the Irish government on behalf of potential Unionist concerns and grievances, and that by building upon (there is room for improvement) what is already contained within the Irish constitution in relation to human rights and 'equality before the law', and what is already contained within the Belfast Agreement (GFA) in relation to British-Irish relations and human rights:
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/synopsis.html
..both the Irish and British governments, in tandem with the Unionist and Nationalist parties, proceed with measures to draft a final reunification agreement/document, the contents of which shall achieve support and consensus right across the broad political spectrum, and thus enable the Unionist people to consent to the initiation of measures towards reunification and British troop withdrawal, in full confidence that their ethnic minority status in the new Republic shall not engender vulnerability to the experience of discrimination, persecution, marginalisation and/or alienation, and in the event that such phenomena should occur, that the British and Irish governments shall co-operate and work together to rectify the problems, and in the case of Irish governmental reluctance or refusal to co-operate, the British government shall then have recourse to an "intervention" in the form of an urgent and priority official state meeting between both British and Irish secretaries of state for foreign affairs, and attempt to resolve the situation between themselves, before any recourse to the commission for human rights and consequent application to the European court of human rights is contemplated?
These arbitrary suggestions are those of a layman having a bit of craic playing the politic on the internet you must understand, and any final reunification agreement/document shall no doubt have to be revised, edited, re-edited and re-modified countless times and have to go through similar negotiative rigours to those which led to and produced the Good Friday Agreement. The final post referendum reunification agreement shall have to be one which both Nationalists and Unionists can wholeheartedly agree to and proceed with in confidence.
Apologies for taking a while to reply to this been one of those weeks I wasnt being intentionally difficult asking you to outline exactly what you had in mind for any potential constitutional interventionist amendments but I do appreciate you making an effort and taking the time to do so.
Ive made the point before though its worth making again that Britain and Ireland have friendly co-operative relations and have done for many years.
Britain whilst being our neighbour & friend is also our competitor, they are a seperate entity and nation and this will not change should the island become unified at some point in the future. What you have outlined in the above, its possible to be interpreted as follows in laymam terms...
"Britain has an issue with Ireland. Ireland doesnt believe there is an issue. That doesnt matter because Britain believes there is and has an Irish constitutional right to take the Irish government to task over it"
Its illogical to believe a nation would enshrine such a right in their nations constitution and give a competitor a right like that. We are a small nation our international posture is one of soft power it isnt possible for it to be anything else. Which means we need to be smart. Amending our constitution giving the bigger island & competitor beside us a right to intervention no matter what that might mean would be hairbrainingly fooking stupid. Im not directing that at you Bertie it would be from our point of view a very stupid thing too do. Ive read the GFA, that document whilst some of it may and will be applicable in the case of a united Ireland some of it wont. The GFA is not a template for the complex set of circumstances that will arise when one nation cedes territory to another should it happen. Different ball game altogether. Infact the GFA has fundamentally and permanently altered forever Irish-British relations if anything in my opinion our mentality/policy should be more protectionist in its outlook than it already is.
As you know yourself there is already in place an Irish - British council. The agreement is there.
article 2 -
" the council shall be constituted and shall operate in accordance with the provisions of the multi party agreement "
http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/treaties/docs/200026.pdf
The British already have recourse not to intervention but to diplomatic address which is what youve been asking for. And if they really required an urgent meeting all it would take is a phone call Im sure we would answer and grant them an audience once they werent being silly. But we wont be amending our constitution giving them a right to diplomatically "address" usForgot to mention: free orange juice for all Protestant children in schools, and simultaneously; a dedicated body set up to monitor the dangerous proliferation of Irish people with orange hair, and regardless of religion, professed nationality, or political affiliation. It's the sensible way forward.
That is slightly outrageous to be quite frank with you to insinuate that a) we would do such a thing and b) even contemplate, want to take part in or be capable of something like that. Infact I find that a bit offensive. That sort of thinking, in my opinion, is ignorance on behalf of unionists who subscribe to that mindset. History is important but when do we stop going round in circles and look to the future?? when is that going to happen? threads like this are a good thing and put peoples mind toward the future whatever that future might be. Cant keep looking back you cant get over anything if you continually look backward to move forward.1641, 32 years after the plantation of Ulster began, an estimated 12-15000 British colonial settlers (mostly Protestant and most likely an underestimate) were butchered by disgruntled indigenous Irishmen whilst Catholic Priests wandered around waving banners with "Murder Without Sin" in the air to encourage the slaughter. Even in the 1798 rebellion, many Catholics turned on Protestants and subjected them to the pike (and not the fishy kind). Successive Irish rebellions have subjected many thousands of British (English and Scottish) settlers to death. In light of the fact that the most recent Irish uprising was a sustained 30 year PIRA campaign which cost the lives of more than 3000 people (admittedly, not all of them murdered by Irish Republicans), it might be fair to say that although we now, or at least should, be living in an enlightened age of civility, where that level of inhumanity and brutality should never again rear its ugly head, Unionist's collective memory and concerns are born out of precedent and bitter historical experience, and are definitely not unreasonable and/or irrational. The fact is, the indigenous Irish are not the only people to have suffered tyranny, oppression and unfair treatment (in the form of brutal and barbaric murder) in Ireland. Our history is soaked in blood, and the British too have had to fight for their survival on this island; hence unapologetic Orangeism (the Orange Institution was originally created from the Peep O' Day Boys, and as a Protestant defence organisation against Irish attacks) and the annual Orange parades phenomenon, which should be afforded some respect by Irish Republicans.
Protestand , Cathloic and dissenter live in peace down here in the South and have done for a long time. I accept what you are saying but you need to look at it from my point of view and indeed people who live in the south through no fault of our own we just happended to be born in the south. We dont hate each other down here or have all the isssues that people have up north. Im left scratching my head a bit thinking that unionists believe well some of them that us in the south are gona hunt them down and bbq them if the island is reunified. I can understand where it comes from but that doesnt make it logical or palatable. Just have to keep talking then talk some more I supposeAgreed. We can't expect ourselves to move out of an 800 (not 30) year period of ethnic conflict and because of the GFA unrealistically think that wounds are going to heal overnight, and that division, suspicion and distrust are suddenly going to evaporate.
I support a united Ireland as I have been capable of surveying Irish history from an objective and impartial perspective, as difficult as that has been, and have concluded that the "Irish problem" has only been categorised as such by the British, who created it, and in that respect has in fact been a British problem. No-one can reverse time and prevent or undo historical events, all we can do is work with what we have chronologically inherited, and having learned from the past seek never to permit a repeat of history in a finally free and independent 32 county Irish Republic, where hopefully "Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter" can live in peace and harmony. 0 -
I have quite eclectic music tastes and appreciate good music and can tell the difference between a song that's a parady and one that's genuinely offensive
I didn't say it wasn't offensive. I said I thought the parody was funny, because the picture painted is completely different to the image people have of soldiers in general.
I also said I believed you'd find it offensive - and having gone back and listened to it again, and paying more attention to the lyrics - I haven't changed that opinion. If anything, more attention to the lyrics has reinforced my opinion. If you're that interested, go to youtube, and search for Irish rebel songs. That's what I did.
Having said that - I'm rather disappointed that, out of all the thoughts that I've posted over the last number of days, the only thing you've responded to is an off-the cuff, tongue in cheek comment about a song.Bertie Woot wrote: »I have no desire to engage in a numbers game. Let's allow historical facts to speak for themselves:
"1641 is regarded to some extent as a pre-emptive strike by ‘Catholic’ Ireland in an endeavour to overthrow the Protestant regime in Ireland. However, while there is considerable justification in affording importance to such short term factors, long-standing grievances associated with the Ulster Plantation remain a primary factor too. It is this smouldering resentment which contributed to the viciousness of the attacks on the Protestant settlers and the large numbers of fatalities involved.
The sheer volume of deaths associated with the 1641 rebellion is a contentious issue, not least because the number of Protestant fatalities was soon inflated to several hundreds of thousands by contemporary and subsequent Protestant writers. Modern research calculates the actual number of deaths to be 12,000 out of a total Protestant population in Ulster at the time of 40,000, a massacre by any scale even if some thousands of these occurred as a result of military combat rather than the slaughter of the defenceless."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/plantation/planters/es10.shtml...
I've no desire to engage in a numbers game either, which is why I didn't post any numbers.
It is interesting, however, that there is a notable difference in what you've posted, from a British source, and what is taught for Junior Cert history in Ireland.
Here, the number slaughtered is given as 4,000 Protestants slaughtered in Ulster in 1641, while reports sent to England reputedly stated that 100,000 had been slaughtered.
It is also worth noting that Irish history teaches that terrible atrocities were committed by both sides.
Source: Uncovering History, by Sean Delap, and Brian McCormick.
Sorry I can't post a link, it's one of the kids schoolbooks, and I've no intention of infringing copyright. Boards.ie rules don't allow it, anyway.Bertie Woot wrote: »Tis true, that Henry was a Catholic and when the Pope didn't allow him to divorce Catherine of Aragon, Henry declared himself the new supreme head of a new church of England and became a Protestant. This had the effect of convincing his people to become Protestants too.
I'm going to level with you here, and you probably won't like it. Although I was born into the Protestant (Presbyterian) fold and have for most of my adult life considered myself a non-religious person and an Agnostic, if I ever did decide to get all religious in old age, I would sooner practice the religion I was born into than convert to Catholicism, and that has nothing to do with the Catholic-Protestant situation in Ireland, but more to do with the inherently corrupt and fallacious man-made teachings contained within Roman Catholic doctrine eg. "the sale of indulgences" ...etc.
To think that the Pope and the Roman Catholic hierarchy told Priests that Catholic parishioners should pay money to the RC church (in order to make it rich!) in exchange for the forgiveness of sins was an act of absolute ludicrousness, and meant that Martin Luther, the reformation and Protestantism was inevitable. Also, what psychological, emotional and sexual abuse Catholic Priests (and nuns!) have inflicted upon Catholic children and vulnerable young women over years puts Roman Catholicism outside the boundaries of good taste, respectability and social acceptability for many people.
I actually genuinely and sincerely could not care less what Religion a person is born into, or chooses to die as - or whether they choose to die believing in no religion whatsoever.
As far as I'm concerned, freedom of religion is a right. Full stop.
You might even be surprised to find that I agree entirely with your opinion on simony - and even more surprised to find that simony is, and was, against the teachings of the Catholic church. Hence, Martin Luther was actually morally right to protest at that, and the other abuses - and well within the teachings of his then Catholic religion in doing so...
You may also be surprised to find that ordinary decent Catholics are every bit as repulsed as you are by the abuses perpetrated by some Priests and Nuns.
However, to say that the abuses carried out by some members of the Church renders the Church, as in it's teachings, and the members who try their best to live by those teachings "puts Roman Catholicism outside the boundaries of good taste, respectability and social acceptability" - is, quite frankly, indicative of someone who is not familiar with the teaching actually contained in the Religion, and who is quite willing to attribute the (admittedly horrendous) abuses committed by some members, to all of the people who practice that religion.
Now that's Religious intolerance of the kind that has caused endless heartbreak in NI for too many generations....Bertie Woot wrote: »A secular society where the Roman Catholic church is demoted and no longer has the universal power it once wielded over the Irish Catholic people is an Ireland I can be proud to belong to. Same goes for Protestantism. In fact, in a reunified Socialist oriented Ireland, religion by its very nature should be taken down several pegs to the very bottom of the status hierarchy, and made to take a seat at the very back of the auditorium. The magic sky-God which pious, sanctimonious, megalomaniacs and predatory, sexual sociopaths have used as cover to perpetrate the most heinous widespread abuse on the Catholic vulnerable has no place in my concept of a future united Ireland.
The only place for predatory, sexual sociopaths is jail - for life!
Having said that - you make the same mistake most non-Catholic/Athiest/Agnostics make if you assume the Church hierarchy is the Church.
The Church is it's people, and it's teachings - and, together with the Protestant Church, a.n other religion, or none - it has every right to play a part in a United Ireland that is free, and respects the Culture and Religion of all it's citizens....Bertie Woot wrote: »I've always argued that if Ireland had of been the larger and more dominant colonial country, and had invaded England and taken swathes of land under 'plantations', the indigenous English people would have sooner or later rebelled in a similar fashion to the Irish. I have never been a fan of British empire or imperialism, as colonisation is not only in my view unethical, historically it has always led to rebellion, war and death, and in the case of Ireland with the transplantation of large numbers of Scots and English into the north-eastern corner; ethnic divisions which have lasted for centuries and continue to endure to this day.
Probably.Bertie Woot wrote: »Well put. The British colonial capitalist and landlord classes exploited Ireland for all it was worth, and the loyalist Scottish and English Protestant farmers and peasantry who came across under the plantations were used by the British government and the capitalist class in an attempt to tame Ireland by numbers and make it a less rebellious colony, but what actually happened was disastrous for the British settlers.
No people like to think of themselves as mere 'plants' and the 'manipulated", or more accurately, 'deceived', but that is essentially what happened; the Scottish and English colonial settlers came across under the false pretence of "a better life in Ireland", and consequently many of their lives were extinguished.
All true. The tragedy is that history/legend continues to portray Colonisation and Imperialism as "glorious" - and there is no rational, questioning voice screaming back "Er, hang on a minute... what about morals?Bertie Woot wrote: »"I think we're both victims of the British government and monarchy and eachother. The British and Unionist establishment shall never view history from this perspective though, with the British government preferring to look upon Ireland as a case of a colony which has been slowly evolving towards full independence, and the Unionists refusing to regard themselves as victims of the British establishment, but very much victims of Irish Republicanism.
You're right. In blaming the British hierarchy, I was laying most responsibility where it belonged, imo - at the door of those who instigated the plantations, for their own personal gain, and had no interest in the well-being of either people, other than as a means to achieving their own selfish ends. ie. The leaders.
That doesn't of course, absolve people of personal responsibility for their actions - nor was I suggesting any such thing. I was just trying to look at the situation from both perspectives, and trying to understand the mindset that permitted such atrocities in the first place, by people who undoubtedly considered themselves to be "fine, upstanding citizens" - on both sides.Bertie Woot wrote: »Fact is, the English view Ulster's Protestants as troublesome delinquent cousins they'd prefer to have no familial association with, yet Ulster's Protestants continue to view Britain with great affection and patriotic loyalty, and therein lies the irony and the real cruelty; Loyalism is an anachronism and has gone well past its use by date.
True.Bertie Woot wrote: »You're related to Wolfe Tone, Bobby Sands, Gerry Adams and a few others within "the movement". *nudge-nudge-wink-wink* Am I right?
No. No member of my family, as far as I am aware, has had anything to do with "the movement" in that sense.
Now, if you want to go back to the O'Donnell clan (and my name isn't O'Donnell, btw) - then, yes, they were my ancestors, and we were involved in resisting later attempts to conquer Donegal up to our rebellious necks.:D And with some success, too!
We were also prominent in resisting the eviction of local landowners by certain absentee landlords, who never bothered to visit their estates, or check whether their tenants could afford the "rent" (on their own land, mind you) that were demanded, raised whenever the landlord had some new project in mind, - and, often, cruelly enforced.
If you want to understand the logic behind that, take a look at Ballyconnell House in that book I recommended, and compare it to the miserable huts the original landowners were consigned to...
As an aside, we also had a network of tunnels - and they were used to hide Protestants as well as Catholics.
Most of the Protestants who were hidden supported the cause of Irish freedom, but there was at least one who was wrongly accused of something, and he was hidden until the situation was resolved. I'm sort of proud of that, tbh.:oBertie Woot wrote: »You'd better not (long criminal record and a long story). Some regard him as a traitor, a Lundy and a sell-out. He understands and loves them as foolish fellow Ulstermen, and regardless.
Fair enough.Bertie Woot wrote: »I enjoyed reading this, and thank you.
You're more than welcome. I believe in telling the truth, and I admire courage, and true, moral leadership.
Those guys (and gals) - had it in spades.Bertie Woot wrote: »Me too. Selfish, egotistical, megalomaniacs obsessed with money, power and status, most of them. As they say "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Funny how much someone reared in the Unionist Community, and a cranky old Nationalist have in common when they decide to speak civilly to each other, isn't it?:P
I think there are a lot more like us, who just keep their heads down. (Not a majority, yet, mind you!)
If not, I sincerely hope there will be in the future.
With, or without, a UI - the hatred and bigotry - and blatant refusal to see the full picture, needs to change. For everyones sake.Bertie Woot wrote: »Ah go on, go on, go on, go on ....
No chance. The parts I find funny would be ignored, and the rest would be seized on, not necessarily by you, but possibly by an unknown reader, who would draw all manner of assumptions about me from it.
Now I've no problem with being called out on what I say, or believe - but I'm darned if I'm going to waste time or energy fending off untrue allegations.... or, worse, being quoted as believing something, without my knowledge, or the ability to correct what's said.
That's a no-win situation for me, so , I'm not going down that road, "Father Ted" pleas, or no.:D0 -
Advertisement
-
Apologies for taking a while to reply to this been one of those weeks I wasnt being intentionally difficult asking you to outline exactly what you had in mind for any potential constitutional interventionist amendments but I do appreciate you making an effort and taking the time to do so.
No problem.Ive made the point before though its worth making again that Britain and Ireland have friendly co-operative relations and have done for many years.
Britain whilst being our neighbour & friend is also our competitor, they are a seperate entity and nation and this will not change should the island become unified at some point in the future. What you have outlined in the above, its possible to be interpreted as follows in laymam terms...
"Britain has an issue with Ireland. Ireland doesnt believe there is an issue. That doesnt matter because Britain believes there is and has an Irish constitutional right to take the Irish government to task over it"
Its illogical to believe a nation would enshrine such a right in their nations constitution and give a competitor a right like that. We are a small nation our international posture is one of soft power it isnt possible for it to be anything else. Which means we need to be smart. Amending our constitution giving the bigger island & competitor beside us a right to intervention no matter what that might mean would be hairbrainingly fooking stupid. Im not directing that at you Bertie it would be from our point of view a very stupid thing too do.
You are, you are directing that at me, and because I am British-Irish ie. Irish of British ancestry, you think that my inherent 'Irishness' makes me stupid by default. Honestly, this outdated and offensive national stereotype being perpetuated by the Irish themselves has got to stop!
I thought I'd moved beyond the constitutional issue in my last post, and by recognising that you and indeed others have exceptional difficulty with a constitutional amendment to provide for British "intervention"; protesting that this shall make Ireland vulnerable by compromising national security.
I therefore went on to suggest that some form of provision for the British government to "intervene" by diplomatically addressing the Irish government on behalf of potential Unionist concerns be contained within any reunification agreement, and by building upon what is already contained within the Irish constitution and the GFA.
Britain, or more accurately, Northern Irish people who regard themselves as "British" shall have no issue with a reunified Ireland or its government if they do not experience any form of persecution or discrimination because of their professed nationality, and their civil, religious and cultural liberties are protected. If the Unionist people believe that there is an issue, then a reunification agreement which shall contain a provision within it for Unionists to have their grievances addressed to the Irish government by the British secretary of state for foreign affairs can be utilised, and this mechanism consequently poses no threat to the Irish constitution or indeed Irish national security. But (there's always a but!), I do feel that some pertinent Irish constitutional update, reform or a complete overhaul of the Irish constitution should at least be on the table for consideration and debate between all of the relevant parties, along with a new national flag and a new national anthem.Ive read the GFA, that document whilst some of it may and will be applicable in the case of a united Ireland some of it wont. The GFA is not a template for the complex set of circumstances that will arise when one nation cedes territory to another should it happen. Different ball game altogether. Infact the GFA has fundamentally and permanently altered forever Irish-British relations if anything in my opinion our mentality/policy should be more protectionist in its outlook than it already is.
As you know yourself there is already in place an Irish - British council. The agreement is there.
article 2 -
" the council shall be constituted and shall operate in accordance with the provisions of the multi party agreement "
http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/treaties/docs/200026.pdf
The British already have recourse not to intervention but to diplomatic address which is what youve been asking for. And if they really required an urgent meeting all it would take is a phone call Im sure we would answer and grant them an audience once they werent being silly. But we wont be amending our constitution giving them a right to diplomatically "address" us
Again, I remind you that I've already addressed this issue by acknowledging your concerns, and by suggesting that any post referendum reunification agreement contains provision for a diplomatic address by the British secretary of state for foreign affairs. But I also believe that the Irish constitution shall or at least should undergo at least some degree of modernisation with reunification, and that Strand 3 of the GFA pertaining to British-Irish Relations can in fact act as a template to be built upon.That is slightly outrageous to be quite frank with you to insinuate that a) we would do such a thing and b) even contemplate, want to take part in or be capable of something like that. Infact I find that a bit offensive. That sort of thinking, in my opinion, is ignorance on behalf of unionists who subscribe to that mindset. History is important but when do we stop going round in circles and look to the future?? when is that going to happen? threads like this are a good thing and put peoples mind toward the future whatever that future might be. Cant keep looking back you cant get over anything if you continually look backward to move forward.
Well, it must be said, pikes and pitchforks aren't as readily available in 2013 as they were in 1641, and that's probably got something to do with evolution in farming practices. In light of the late 20th century PIRA onslaught which my generation was coerced to live through in Northern Ireland, I find your protestations of "offence" quite risible. I know from personal experience what Republicans are capable of, and through the experience of discrimination in employment how a deep well of resentment still resides within many within Nationalism to this day. That's something that many Catholic Nationalists need to overcome. and by realising that there are Protestants who are also Nationalists and who share their aspiration.Protestand , Cathloic and dissenter live in peace down here in the South and have done for a long time. I accept what you are saying but you need to look at it from my point of view and indeed people who live in the south through no fault of our own we just happended to be born in the south. We dont hate each other down here or have all the isssues that people have up north. Im left scratching my head a bit thinking that unionists believe well some of them that us in the south are gona hunt them down and bbq them if the island is reunified. I can understand where it comes from but that doesnt make it logical or palatable. Just have to keep talking then talk some more I suppose
Northern Ireland is a different milieu you must understand. We have been a distinctly sectarian society, deeply divided, at war, and the political violence which we have lived through as children, teenagers and young adults has left us with memories. Of course we need to move forward, but we must never forget the past, and the valuable lessons to be learned from it.
And the fact that you mentioned barbecuing Protestants post reunification has imbued me with some concern. I know your strategy: gently lure the Pods into a UI with smiley emoticons, then serve them up to Catholic children in McDonalds in sesame seed buns!
:eek::eek::eek:
I'll reply to your post in the morning, Noreen. After I've had my Presbyterian beauty sleep .....been gardening my Orange lilies all day .... bit knackered.0 -
-
-
Bertie Woot wrote: »You are, you are directing that at me, and because I am British-Irish ie. Irish of British ancestry, you think that my inherent 'Irishness' makes me stupid by default. Honestly, this outdated and offensive national stereotype being perpetuated by the Irish themselves has got to stop!
Ok genuinely Bertie I wasnt directing anything toward you hand on my heart I wasnt. I never suggested you were stupid infact if you read back over some of my previous posts I think I told you I thought you were intelligent
Ive been following this thread since you started it and its quite obvious you are anything but stupid.
Any reunification agreement will need to be constitutionally ratified in full be it within the current re-worked Irish constitution or a completely re-written constitution. Either way it will be in the constitution. This fact seems to be going over your head. It doesnt matter what the provision is nor what it contains if a provision like the one you believe should be written and ends up in our constitution Britain will have an Irish constitutional right to intervene in our affairs. I really cant explain that in any simpler terms to you Ive gone out of my way to try explain the possibilities of such a provision Im not trying to be difficult or drag the issue out. Try sit down with an Irish negotiating team and put what you are suggesting to me to them. They would smile at you and ask you are you being serious. And that would be then end of it.:)I thought I'd moved beyond the constitutional issue in my last post, and by recognising that you and indeed others have exceptional difficulty with a constitutional amendment to provide for British "intervention"; protesting that this shall make Ireland vulnerable by compromising national security.
I therefore went on to suggest that some form of provision for the British government to "intervene" by diplomatically addressing the Irish government on behalf of potential Unionist concerns be contained within any reunification agreement, and by building upon what is already contained within the Irish constitution and the GFA.
The flag and anthem would be two things that most certainly would change. I know people are attached to them but both would need to be inclusive of everyone so changing them would be fair enough no problems there. The provision and constitutional amendments you would be looking for Ive already explained why I would oppose them, steadfastly. Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this for the time being?Britain, or more accurately, Northern Irish people who regard themselves as "British" shall have no issue with a reunified Ireland or its government if they do not experience any form of persecution or discrimination because of their professed nationality, and their civil, religious and cultural liberties are protected. If the Unionist people believe that there is an issue, then a reunification agreement which shall contain a provision within it for Unionists to have their grievances addressed to the Irish government by the British secretary of state for foreign affairs can be utilised, and this mechanism consequently poses no threat to the Irish constitution or indeed Irish national security. But (there's always a but!), I do feel that some pertinent Irish constitutional update, reform or a complete overhaul of the Irish constitution should at least be on the table for consideration and debate between all of the relevant parties, along with a new national flag and a new national anthem. unless you have something else you want to add and talk about.
Strand 3 can be looked at for sure.Again, I remind you that I've already addressed this issue by acknowledging your concerns, and by suggesting that any post referendum reunification agreement contains provision for a diplomatic address by the British secretary of state for foreign affairs. But I also believe that the Irish constitution shall or at least should undergo at least some degree of modernisation with reunification, and that Strand 3 of the GFA pertaining to British-Irish Relations can in fact act as a template to be built upon.
But you dont know me. And you dont know my family or my friends. And judging by your fears and expressions of those fears in words its apparent that you dont know our people in the south either. It wasnt my attention to rise you but fearing mass persectuion from the savage southerners to me is a lil offensive but dont take it personally its just how I feel.Well, it must be said, pikes and pitchforks aren't as readily available in 2013 as they were in 1641, and that's probably got something to do with evolution in farming practices. In light of the late 20th century PIRA onslaught which my generation was coerced to live through in Northern Ireland, I find your protestations of "offence" quite risible. I know from personal experience what Republicans are capable of, and through the experience of discrimination in employment how a deep well of resentment still resides within many within Nationalism to this day. That's something that many Catholic Nationalists need to overcome. and by realising that there are Protestants who are also Nationalists and who share their aspiration.
I agree with you we must never forget the past but we cant always look back to it when trying to move forward thats a cycle in the north its a circle. I can understand the different milieu you ask of me so I should be able to ask the same of you then right?? about the south that is.Northern Ireland is a different milieu you must understand. We have been a distinctly sectarian society, deeply divided, at war, and the political violence which we have lived through as children, teenagers and young adults has left us with memories. Of course we need to move forward, but we must never forget the past, and the valuable lessons to be learned from it.And the fact that you mentioned barbecuing Protestants post reunification has imbued me with some concern. I know your strategy: gently lure the Pods into a UI with smiley emoticons, then serve them up to Catholic children in McDonalds in sesame seed buns!
I dont have a strategy other than wanting to see my nations interests maintained protected and if possible increased, still trying to figure you out though youre an interesting one:D. The way you make it sound is that there is potential for this mass which hunt against the unionists which to me and people down here is ludicrous. Back in the day the burned them witches I had a bbq this evening had bbq on my mind:) 0 -
Ok genuinely Bertie I wasnt directing anything toward you hand on my heart I wasnt. I never suggested you were stupid infact if you read back over some of my previous posts I think I told you I thought you were intelligent Ive been following this thread since you started it and its quite obvious you are anything but stupid.
Oh Lord. I was pulling yer pisser, mate, and having a laugh. I really should use more smiley emoticons as opposed to winks.Any reunification agreement will need to be constitutionally ratified in full be it within the current re-worked Irish constitution or a completely re-written constitution. Either way it will be in the constitution. This fact seems to be going over your head. It doesnt matter what the provision is nor what it contains if a provision like the one you believe should be written and ends up in our constitution Britain will have an Irish constitutional right to intervene in our affairs. I really cant explain that in any simpler terms to you Ive gone out of my way to try explain the possibilities of such a provision Im not trying to be difficult or drag the issue out. Try sit down with an Irish negotiating team and put what you are suggesting to me to them. They would smile at you and ask you are you being serious. And that would be then end of it.:)
And it seems to have "gone over your head" that I've already reiterated twice that I thought I had moved beyond the constitutional issue by acknowledging the fact that you seem to have immense difficulty with any provision for a British diplomatic intervention, even in the form of an address, written into the Irish constitution, and that therefore this provision for British diplomatic intervention would be solely contained within a reunification agreement, and that this mechanism would consequently pose no threat to the current Irish constitution or Ireland's national security. In other words, "the understanding" shall be contained within a reunification agreement ratified by referendum, and not necessarily have to be subsumed into the Irish constitution. But I shall insist that pertinent modernisation, reformation, or the concept of a completely new Irish constitution be put on the table for serious consideration and negotiation.The flag and anthem would be two things that most certainly would change. I know people are attached to them but both would need to be inclusive of everyone so changing them would be fair enough no problems there. The provision and constitutional amendments you would be looking for Ive already explained why I would oppose them, steadfastly. Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this for the time being? unless you have something else you want to add and talk about.
I hope I've made myself clear or clearer above. I'd like to talk about my unremitting urge to place both of my next-door neighbours in a bath of sulphuric acid, but feel this is neither the time nor place.
To the moderators: this was a joke, albeit a dark and distasteful one. Remember humour?Strand 3 can be looked at for sure.
Great. One step closer to a re-colonisation of the 26. < This was another joke!!!But you dont know me. And you dont know my family or my friends. And judging by your fears and expressions of those fears in words its apparent that you dont know our people in the south either. It wasnt my attention to rise you but fearing mass persectuion from the savage southerners to me is a lil offensive but dont take it personally its just how I feel.
I don't know "your people" in the South at all, and having spent my entire life on this island, that's what bugs me. I grew up in a staunch Unionist community in Belfast during the troubles, and consequently possess much of the attitudes and mindset of my generation. That's not going to disappear overnight. The first time I drove into the ROI alone was just last year, and I felt very nervous and apprehensive indeed, as we were inadvertently taught to look upon the ROI as a foreign country and "enemy territory" ie. a sanctuary for the Provisional IRA.
I believe in the peaceful reunification of Ireland with all my heart, but my head was programmed within a Northern Irish Unionist-Protestant environment at a time of bitter conflict, and that may take some time to overcome. For example, although I believe in peaceful Irish reunification and consider myself a Nationalist, when I'm out driving and see the Irish tricolour flying from a lamppost or encounter an IRA memorial, I get nervous and panicky, and even though I want what they want, but not in the way they have attempted (but failed) to achieve it.I agree with you we must never forget the past but we cant always look back to it when trying to move forward thats a cycle in the north its a circle. I can understand the different milieu you ask of me so I should be able to ask the same of you then right?? about the south that is.
Yes, of course. Like I've already stated, the ROI has been a foreign country to me and my generation, and that is something which I have been desperately attempting to overcome, and by taking trips across the border into the ROI. The ROI has always been looked upon as "the other place", and I have seen much more of England and Scotland than I have of the island on which I was born, which I think is quite ridiculous. The Irish geographical border was etched into young Northern Protestant minds and deep into our psychology. It has not just been a physical manifestation of partition, but has represented the historical division between "us" and "them", and with all of the peace (dividing) walls in Belfast, I want to see it taken down, as whilst that border and partition are in place, there shall always be an "us" and "them" on this island. After more than 800 years of gratuitously turbulent history, I just want there to be an "us", and at permanent peace with one and other. I want to call all of Ireland my home, and view all of the people of Ireland, regardless of religion or political creed, my fellow countrymen. I dont have a strategy other than wanting to see my nations interests maintained protected and if possible increased, still trying to figure you out though youre an interesting one:D. The way you make it sound is that there is potential for this mass which hunt against the unionists which to me and people down here is ludicrous. Back in the day the burned them witches I had a bbq this evening had bbq on my mind:)
You had "barbecue" on your mind because you're hungry for Protestant blood and want to barbecue all the wee Protestants once you get them into a united Ireland! < Look, big grin. Joke!!
I'm becoming quite the comedian on this site ...0 -
Bertie Woot wrote: »Oh Lord. I was pulling yer pisser, mate, and having a laugh. I really should use more smiley emoticons as opposed to winks.
And it seems to have "gone over your head" that I've already reiterated twice that I thought I had moved beyond the constitutional issue by acknowledging the fact that you seem to have immense difficulty with any provision for a British diplomatic intervention, even in the form of an address, written into the Irish constitution, and that therefore this provision for British diplomatic intervention would be solely contained within a reunification agreement, and that this mechanism would consequently pose no threat to the current Irish constitution or Ireland's national security. In other words, "the understanding" shall be contained within a reunification agreement ratified by referendum, and not necessarily have to be subsumed into the Irish constitution. But I shall insist that pertinent modernisation, reformation, or the concept of a completely new Irish constitution be put on the table for serious consideration and negotiation.
I hope I've made myself clear or clearer above. I'd like to talk about my unremitting urge to place both of my next-door neighbours in a bath of sulphuric acid, but feel this is neither the time nor place.
To the moderators: this was a joke, albeit a dark and distasteful one. Remember humour?
Great. One step closer to a re-colonisation of the 26. < This was another joke!!!
I don't know "your people" in the South at all, and having spent my entire life on this island, that's what bugs me. I grew up in a staunch Unionist community in Belfast during the troubles, and consequently possess much of the attitudes and mindset of my generation. That's not going to disappear overnight. The first time I drove into the ROI alone was just last year, and I felt very nervous and apprehensive indeed, as we were inadvertently taught to look upon the ROI as a foreign country and "enemy territory" ie. a sanctuary for the Provisional IRA.
I believe in the peaceful reunification of Ireland with all my heart, but my head was programmed within a Northern Irish Unionist-Protestant environment at a time of bitter conflict, and that may take some time to overcome. For example, although I believe in peaceful Irish reunification and consider myself a Nationalist, when I'm out driving and see the Irish tricolour flying from a lamppost or encounter an IRA memorial, I get nervous and panicky, and even though I want what they want, but not in the way they have attempted (but failed) to achieve it.
Yes, of course. Like I've already stated, the ROI has been a foreign country to me and my generation, and that is something which I have been desperately attempting to overcome, and by taking trips across the border into the ROI. The ROI has always been looked upon as "the other place", and I have seen much more of England and Scotland than I have of the island on which I was born, which I think is quite ridiculous. The Irish geographical border was etched into young Northern Protestant minds and deep into our psychology. It has not just been a physical manifestation of partition, but has represented the historical division between "us" and "them", and with all of the peace (dividing) walls in Belfast, I want to see it taken down, as whilst that border and partition are in place, there shall always be an "us" and "them" on this island. After more than 800 years of gratuitously turbulent history, I just want there to be an "us", and at permanent peace with one and other. I want to call all of Ireland my home, and view all of the people of Ireland, regardless of religion or political creed, my fellow countrymen.
You had "barbecue" on your mind because you're hungry for Protestant blood and want to barbecue all the wee Protestants once you get them into a united Ireland! < Look, big grin. Joke!!
I'm becoming quite the comedian on this site ...
I am frankly astounded that somebody claiming to a Irish nationslist only went over the border alone for the first time a year ago. And even then felt nervous and panicky. No need to reiterate my beliefs in sure, but I have lost count of the times I have been in the republic and in no way felt nervous or panicky. Sure I view it as a foreign country, but not a hostile one. Once drove a Vespa up the Antrim coast and across into the republic at magilligan, camping were ever me and my ( catholic ) friend could find a camping place. Great time and enjoyed the hospitality of the people of donegal and one fella from Andy town who let us stay on his land out side a wee village in Donegal when we couldn't find a camping place. Served us some very nice venison sausages and took us to a local bar with lots of fantastic civil era photos0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement