Northern Ireland: a colonial conflict

gerardnfarrell

An intractable dispute on wikipedia over whether or not Northern Ireland should be included in a template list of British colonial campaigns. They are looking for outside input to resolve it. I can't post links but you will find it under the talk page of the template page for "British Colonial Campaigns" if anyone would like to contribute.

Charles Babbage

The definition of a colony is posted there, Northern Ireland meets this definition
perfectly.

A settlement in a new country; a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state; the community so formed, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors, as long as the connection with the parent state is kept up.’

jonniebgood1

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The definition of a colony is posted there, Northern Ireland meets this definition
perfectly.

A settlement in a new country; a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state; the community so formed, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors, as long as the connection with the parent state is kept up.’

It all depends on the definition used. For examle take this... "an area that is controlled by or belongs to a country and is usually far away from it" from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony

NI doesn't qualify if that is used as it isn't far away in anyones terms. Alternatively there are several definitions that do see it qualify. Is there any significance in which it is called?
I would have thought since the act of union that they were part of the uk as opposed to a colony.

Charles Babbage

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It all depends on the definition used. For examle take this... "an area that is controlled by or belongs to a country and is usually far away from it" from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony

NI doesn't qualify if that is used as it isn't far away in anyones terms. Alternatively there are several definitions that do see it qualify. Is there any significance in which it is called?
I would have thought since the act of union that they were part of the uk as opposed to a colony.

"Usually" means that it can sometimes be less far away presumably, and it is overseas. And as recent discussions on the 1916 centenary indicates the forms of union do not mean the actuality. Notwithstanding the union of Great Britain and Ireland the troops in 1916, or Derry in 1972, were clear that they were British and not Irish. NI has "British" subjects, ruled by the "British" government on behalf of colonists who think themselves "British", which is a classic colony.

jonniebgood1

Charles Babbage wrote: »

"Usually" means that it can sometimes be less far away presumably, and it is overseas. And as recent discussions on the 1916 centenary indicates the forms of union do not mean the actuality. Notwithstanding the union of Great Britain and Ireland the troops in 1916, or Derry in 1972, were clear that they were British and not Irish. NI has "British" subjects, ruled by the "British" government on behalf of colonists who think themselves "British", which is a classic colony.

What is the significance of accepting that ni is a colony?

KingBrian2

NI is a Unionist stronghold with very little dissent away from the very traditional hardline approach to outsiders. They are very clear of their ancient beliefs. For them Westminster is were the overlords are.

Manach

From a book I recently read "Elizabethan Ireland" by Morton would seem to suggest that it was early colonial endeavours during the 16th century (Laois Offaly and Munster) which acted as the earlier template for such colonies. Thus Ulster would have been a beta-version to those.

riffmongous

I am not convinced by the distance argument, Germans in the Baltic were originally described as colonists and Russians and Cossacks in the Caucasus are always referred to as colonists even up until the 1950s (The Lone Wolf and the Bear, Three Centuries of Chechen Defiance of Russian Rule)

jonniebgood1

I wouldn't be bothered by any of the definitions to be honest. The original plantations may have created a colony. However ni now has members of the uk parliament that influence realtime decisions. This suggests to me it is not a colony. Did for example a colony like India have such representation?

Manach

One could argue that there is not a one side fits all definition of colony. Thus if a sufficent number of people from the metropole gain enough power and retain links to the core, then the accretion into the body politic becomes a matter of time: eg in the case of numerous US states and the outward expanision of the Russian empire as it incorporated various outlying settlements from Peter the Great onward.

riffmongous

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be bothered by any of the definitions to be honest. The original plantations may have created a colony. However ni now has members of the uk parliament that influence realtime decisions. This suggests to me it is not a colony. Did for example a colony like India have such representation?

I don't know about India, my guess would be no, but I am pretty sure people in Algeria were represented in at least some aspects of French government, if you see the results of the election in the following link, there is a party from Algeria represented, the only such colonial group represented. And the Algerian War would certainly be described as a colonial action.

link

riffmongous

Manach wrote: »

One could argue that there is not a one side fits all definition of colony. Thus if a sufficent number of people from the metropole gain enough power and retain links to the core, then the accretion into the body politic becomes a matter of time: eg in the case of numerous US states and the outward expanision of the Russian empire as it incorporated various outlying settlements from Peter the Great onward.

Yes, at what point do the people stop being colonists? It certainly sounds strange to describe the Troubles as a colonial conflict alright, but sounding strange isn't really a good enough reason

Charles Babbage

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be bothered by any of the definitions to be honest. The original plantations may have created a colony. However ni now has members of the uk parliament that influence realtime decisions. This suggests to me it is not a colony. Did for example a colony like India have such representation?

The Act of Union was not designed to benefit Ireland, or give it more influence, rather it was designed to emasculate it. The nature of British rule remained much the same before and after.

riffmongous wrote: »

Yes, at what point do the people stop being colonists? It certainly sounds strange to describe the Troubles as a colonial conflict alright, but sounding strange isn't really a good enough reason

People stop being colonists when they throw their lot in with the place they are in rather than the mother ship. That certainly has not happened in NI.

Fratton Fred

Charles Babbage wrote: »

People stop being colonists when they throw their lot in with the place they are in rather than the mother ship. That certainly has not happened in NI.

Is a Spanish citizen, living in Barcelona a colonist if they are not a separatist?

Charles Babbage

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is a Spanish citizen, living in Barcelona a colonist if they are not a separatist?

If they've lived in Catalonia for hundreds of years, but would deny they are Catalan and wish to suppress Catalan culture and language, then quite possibly.

Fratton Fred

Charles Babbage wrote: »

If they've lived in Catalonia for hundreds of years, but would deny they are Catalan and wish to suppress Catalan culture and language, then quite possibly.

Very old colonists then.

BalcombeSt4

Yes, what Britain was involved was trying to surpress a centuries old colonial conflict & at the same time denying they were involved in one. A bit like Franco with Basque & Catalonia.

maryishere

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is a Spanish citizen, living in Barcelona a colonist if they are not a separatist?

Or indeed a Spanish citizen living in Tenerife, or Lanzarote, which are just off the coast of North Africa.
Or an American living thousands of miles away in Hawaii?

dpe

Charles Babbage wrote: »

People stop being colonists when they throw their lot in with the place they are in rather than the mother ship. That certainly has not happened in NI.

Do they? Where is that definition written down? Because it certainly doesn't apply to anywhere in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, or Asian Russia.

tac foley

maryishere wrote: »

Or indeed a Spanish citizen living in Tenerife, or Lanzarote, which are just off the coast of North Africa.
Or an American living thousands of miles away in Hawaii?

I'll be truthful here when I write that so far I have not heard of any dissident activities being undertaken by Hawaiians to persuade Washington to give them independence from the rest of the USA. That might be difficult, to say the least, since every Hawaiian citizen is already an American citizen, and the USA takes a very dim view of folks trying to force their choices on the US government by use of arms and explosives.

Do you know of any such movement in Hawaii?

tac

maryishere

tac foley wrote: »

I'll be truthful here when I write that so far I have not heard of any dissident activities being undertaken by Hawaiians to persuade Washington to give them independence from the rest of the USA. That might be difficult, to say the least, since every Hawaiian citizen is already an American citizen, and the USA takes a very dim view of folks trying to force their choices on the US government by use of arms and explosives.

Do you know of any such movement in Hawaii?

tac

No. Nor do I know of any such movement for independence in Sicily, the Canaries, Tasmania, Achill, the Shetland islands, South island New Zealand or any of the Japanese islands. Maybe we could send a few lads out to those places to educate them on the many glorious advantages of being independent? Why should Hawaii be exploited and under the boot of Uncle Sam? Hawaii for the Hawaiians. Yanks out peace in.

Victor

gerardnfarrell wrote: »

An intractable dispute on wikipedia over whether or not Northern Ireland should be included in a template list of British colonial campaigns. They are looking for outside input to resolve it. I can't post links but you will find it under the talk page of the template page for "British Colonial Campaigns" if anyone would like to contribute.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:British_colonial_campaigns

Seing as "Great Britain" didn't exist until 1707, it shouldn't really include events of the 17th century. While it does say "Colonial conflicts involving the English/British Empire", I think that's a fudge. Should it consider Scottish overseas possessions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_colonization_of_the_Americas and the seizing of the Orkneys and Shetlands from Denmark / Norway? Should it consider British royal possessions in Germany in the 18-19th centuries?

So, anything pre-1707 in Ireland shouldn't be included in a list of British Colonial Campaigns.

Post-1801, Ireland was part of the Union and Irish people had the same right to vote as British people, albeit that many people (in Britain and Ireland) initially didn't have the vote.

I don't see The Troubles as a colonial conflict. There may be scope to qualify it as a post-colonial conflict.

Abhoth

It's clearly an edge case for which the classification is sensitive to the definition used. A definition that included NI would probably logically also include several other wars that are not included on that page, including conflicts in Scotland and several additional conflicts in Ireland. As these additional wars are not classified as colonial in normal usage, it seems pragmatically correct to choose a definition that excludes the conflict in NI.

robp

tac foley wrote: »

I'll be truthful here when I write that so far I have not heard of any dissident activities being undertaken by Hawaiians to persuade Washington to give them independence from the rest of the USA. That might be difficult, to say the least, since every Hawaiian citizen is already an American citizen, and the USA takes a very dim view of folks trying to force their choices on the US government by use of arms and explosives.

Do you know of any such movement in Hawaii?

tac

There is a well known and serious Hawaiian Independence movement. Not violent but does it have to be.

Abhoth

As the question relates to Wikipedia, an issue arises as to whether classifying the conflict in NI as colonial would reflect a neutral point of view. There is a history of attempts to have NI's status defined as colonial, in part as a means to gain UN support for the separation of NI from Britain and its attachment to the Republic. See, for example: mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/1339-the-decolonization-of-northern-ireland.html. Given this, it is clear that including the NI conflict in a list of colonial conflicts would not represent a neutral point of view.

Arsemageddon

maryishere wrote: »

No. Nor do I know of any such movement for independence in Sicily, the Canaries, Tasmania, Achill, the Shetland islands, South island New Zealand or any of the Japanese islands. Maybe we could send a few lads out to those places to educate them on the many glorious advantages of being independent? Why should Hawaii be exploited and under the boot of Uncle Sam? Hawaii for the Hawaiians. Yanks out peace in.

You should do a little research before posting....

There is an independence movement for Ainu people on Hokkaido and for Okinawa to secede from Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryukyu_independence_movement

..same goes for the Canary Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Islands_Independence_Movement

same goes for Sicily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Independence_Movement

...There is a movement to give Shetland and the Orkneys quasi autonomy (along the lines of the Isle of Man). During the Scottish referendum there was talk of them seceding from an independent Scotland.

...the same goes for Tasmania back in the 1920s and 30s
http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/php/hb/secession.htm

......and then there is Hawaii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement

So, there you go now Mary.

As for the Wikipedia debate on Norn Iron, I agree with Victor i.e. it is a post colonial conflict.

tac foley

Thanks for that post A'geddon. One little point though. As far as I can determine, none of these organisations used bombs and wholesale murder to convince the rest of the population of the benefits of of independence.

tac

Arsemageddon

tac foley wrote: »

Thanks for that post A'geddon. One little point though. As far as I can determine, none of these organisations used bombs and wholesale murder to convince the rest of the population of the benefits of of independence.

tac

I've just wasted a good part of the afternoon looking up stuff about the separatist movement in the Canaries because I half remembered something about the Tenerife air disaster in 1977 being partly caused by a bomb scare. These lads were responsible... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Armadas_Guanches
There is a lot more information online in Spanish, but I didn't think there was much point in posting those links.

Sicilian separatism is unsurprisingly tied up with the Mafia and left-wing v right wing politics in the aftermath of WW2. There was a lot of violence on the island, but it's tricky trying to figure out who was doing what and why they were doing it. However, here's one pretty clear example of separatist violence perpetrated against civilians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portella_della_Ginestra_massacre

I'm not really trying to make any kind of point with all this, just satisfying my own curiosity.

By the by, on that programme about the Vikings last night on BBC they showed the Shetlanders all tooled up for Up-helley-aa. I'd love to see those lads fighting for independence using only traditional Norse weapons and tactics.

K-9

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It all depends on the definition used. For examle take this... "an area that is controlled by or belongs to a country and is usually far away from it" from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony

NI doesn't qualify if that is used as it isn't far away in anyones terms. Alternatively there are several definitions that do see it qualify. Is there any significance in which it is called?
I would have thought since the act of union that they were part of the uk as opposed to a colony.

I'd argue it is the exception to the rule, the Plantations would sway me to view it as a colony. Would be interesting to see how Scotland would view itself.

Victor

Arsemageddon wrote: »

..same goes for the Canary Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Islands_Independence_Movement

I used to live with two Canarians. They saw Canarian independence as a joke along the lines of Cork independence. I wonder how much of it was actually anti-Franco activity, as many socialists were deported to the Canaries after the civil war. Similar to Northern Ireland, the colonization was hundreds of years ago and "it is generally considered that the Guanches no longer exist as a distinct ethnicity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches

K-9 wrote: »

I'd argue it is the exception to the rule, the Plantations would sway me to view it as a colony.

At the time on the plantations, yes. But at the time, Britain wasn't a country.

Would be interesting to see how Scotland would view itself.

A 'not so' equal partner. While many Scots 'hate' the English, the queen is their queen.

riffmongous

Victor wrote: »

At the time on the plantations, yes. But at the time, Britain wasn't a country.

The initial colonisation of Algeria took place under the July Monarchy, while the Algerian war took place under the 5th Republic (iirc, French history doesn't interest me so much), perhaps a similar example of a discontinuity.

I'm not that convinced myself, but any argument should be consistent