Stormont power sharing talks

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course you don't believe in a vibrant Irish language culture (which this act will promote) but it isn't about 'you'.
It is about the people who identify as Irish and who are electing again and again, in increasing numbers, a party that is seeking an act on their behalf.
A party that has already agreed this with the British government who have now suspended governing with another party who have sought to cherrypick only what is acceptable to their religiously fundamentalist and culturally bigoted code.

Some of the very behaviour that led to the conflict in the first place.

Correction, I don't believe in paying for a vibrant Irish language culture.

tomwaterford wrote: »

Sure we know you dislike Irish culture

Not at all, I love Irish culture - U2, Thin Lizzy, Christy Moore, Makem and Clancy, Stockton's Wing, Bagatelle, Hot House Flowers, Corrs, have seen most of them in concert. Big GAA fan, follow the Irish soccer, cricket and rugby teams, read Roddy Doyle and John Connolly among others.

You don't have to be a dyed in the wool RA supporter to love Irish culture. In fact, given the corrosive influence of the IRA on Irish culture, loving Irish culture is probably incompatible with having supported the IRA.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What you are asking Irish people to do is once again accept a dilution of their request.

It is a principle, 'that unionists dictate what they get' is what is at stake.

Everyone has to accept dilution of their requests - it is what compromise is all about.

The unionists request a wholly British state, that request is being diluted. The nationalists want a united Ireland, that request is being diluted. What is wrong with the dilution of requests?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because it has been invented/.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Irish

How many times to I have to point out that the Ulster Irish dialect died out in the 1970s and the Irish language being spoken in the North today is a purely invented importation of Irish from other parts of the island? Somehow this is not a problem for an Irish Language Act but it is for recognition of Ulster Scots.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all, I love Irish culture .

But you don't want to pay for the most significant parts of it. You don't 'love' Irish culture, you 'love consuming it' is what you should be saying.
There are many like you.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Everyone has to accept dilution of their requests - it is what compromise is all about.

The unionists request a wholly British state, that request is being diluted. The nationalists want a united Ireland, that request is being diluted. What is wrong with the dilution of requests?

Because there comes a point where if you dilute to much you end up with nothing.

Unionists never had a right to request a 'wholly' British state. It was an 'artificial' partitioning and their failed attempt to make it 'wholly' British that caused the conflict.
Nationalists have compromised on a UI.

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What you are asking Irish people to do is once again accept a dilution of their request.

It is a principle, 'that unionists dictate what they get' is what is at stake.

Unionism has invented the significance of Ulster Scots to give respectability to the cultural bigotry expressed by Ian Paisley in 2007.
Because they know that that position is untenable so have invented the notion that Ulster Scots is on a par.
It is no suprise that some here have swallowed that position as being credible.

You only need to open your eyes and see how Irish is disparaged at executive level and below to see the real Unionist attitude to it.

Dilutions of your request is basically how democracy works. When a party is in coalition they'll need to dilute their policies. Even when in over all control factions and stakeholders within and outside of the party will lead to dilution.

I'm aware of some unionist attitude to Irish or even anything Irish but surely a language act can protect Irish? I don't see how accepting U.S as on a par affects Irish. Let the baby have it's bottle. The smart play, the play to win over unionist to a UI is to be seen to be flexible and accepting. Not petty and sectarian.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you don't want to pay for the most significant parts of it. You don't 'love' Irish culture, you 'love consuming it' is what you should be saying.
There are many like you.

Hold on, who has said that the most significant part of Irish culture is the language? I would strongly disagree.

Sport and music are much more significant parts of Irish culture than the language, not just for their strength but also their distinctiveness. I would also think that the Irish generousity of spirit and the sense of humour are much more significant aspects of the Irish culture than the language.

Culture is a living organic thing, changing all the time.

Heritage is dead culture, the culture of the past. The language is a significant part of our heritage, but not of our culture.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Irish

How many times to I have to point out that the Ulster Irish dialect died out in the 1970s and the Irish language being spoken in the North today is a purely invented importation of Irish from other parts of the island? Somehow this is not a problem for an Irish Language Act but it is for recognition of Ulster Scots.

NOBODY is not recognising Ulster Scots. How many times does it have to be said.

Ulster Scots is not the issue.

An agreement has been made and it is being blocked (as well as other significant rights) by the DUP who have invented the notion that Ulster Scots is important to them.

So important that their leader forgot to mention it in his objections in 2007, preferring instead to engage in triumphalism and cultural bigotry.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

The unionists request a wholly British state

Britain lies to the east of Ireland. Unionists don't want a wholly British state, in fact they're doing thier best to run the northeast as some sort of fiefdom where they get to block equal marriage and language rights like people enjoy in Britain and Ireland.

Stormont is failing because the DUP are making the north ungovernable internally. It's gotten so bad now that people like me would rather have direct rule from Westminster than have to listen to utter bigots like Gregory Campbell use Stormont to mock people's culture and listen to Arlene Foster describe us as crocodiles.

Let SF, the SDLP, and Alliance go back to their local councils and work on ground while the British get thier **** together. We can wait.

blanch152

end of the road wrote: »

everything is wrong with it. it will never be truely like Finchley, the people there are not and never will be british. northern ireland is part of ireland, ruled by britain, but the people are irish. the british people don't recognise them as being british either.

It will never truly be like Dublin either, because it is different. Northern Ireland will only be whole when it incorporates aspects of both traditions, clearly there are many on both sides who are incapable of that.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

NOBODY is not recognising Ulster Scots. How many times does it have to be said.

Ulster Scots is not the issue.

An agreement has been made and it is being blocked (as well as other significant rights) by the DUP who have invented the notion that Ulster Scots is important to them.

So important that their leader forgot to mention it in his objections in 2007, preferring instead to engage in triumphalism and cultural bigotry.

What is wrong with parity of esteem between them? It is the ultimate in triumphalism and cultural bigotry to assert that our resurrected few words are a language while their resurrected few words are a dialect.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

Correction, I don't believe in paying for a vibrant Irish language culture.




Not at all, I love Irish culture - U2, Thin Lizzy, Christy Moore, Makem and Clancy, Stockton's Wing, Bagatelle, Hot House Flowers, Corrs, have seen most of them in concert. Big GAA fan, follow the Irish soccer, cricket and rugby teams, read Roddy Doyle and John Connolly among others.

You don't have to be a dyed in the wool RA supporter to love Irish culture. In fact, given the corrosive influence of the IRA on Irish culture, loving Irish culture is probably incompatible with having supported the IRA.

And yet you dislike/ignorant of the irish language (don't see ñeed for a act to protect it FFS,)one of the most fundamental parts of a culture anywhere


Reminds me of a sunday world,me fein mindset tbh

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

And yet you dislike/ignorant of the irish language (don't see for a act to protect it FFS,)one of the most fundamental parts of a culture anywhere


Reminds me of a sunday world,me fein mindset tbh

I speak better Irish than most, doesn't stop from thinking that it is a dead language and not a fundamental part of the modern Irish culture. As I have already said, the language is a significant part of our history and our heritage, but it has no significant role today, either North or South.


P.S. Adding a smilie to a glib insult doesn't make it any less of a glib insult.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

What is wrong with parity of esteem between them? It is the ultimate in triumphalism and cultural bigotry to assert that our resurrected few words are a language while their resurrected few words are a dialect.

Why prior to the peace process has Ulster Scots not appeared as a.language option on a census


Its the ultimate in unethical dishonesty to eqate the two,
It's only pushed as a means to devalue and take the piss outta the Irish language,by those opposed to Irish culture

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Hold on, who has said that the most significant part of Irish culture is the language? I would strongly disagree.

Sport and music are much more significant parts of Irish culture than the language, not just for their strength but also their distinctiveness. I would also think that the Irish generousity of spirit and the sense of humour are much more significant aspects of the Irish culture than the language.

Culture is a living organic thing, changing all the time.

Heritage is dead culture, the culture of the past. The language is a significant part of our heritage, but not of our culture.

It is not about what YOU want, or how you feel about Irish.

And you must be totally unaware of the surge in interest in the Irish language.
I don't think all those kids attending Gael Scoilenna would take kindly to being described as part of our heritage and not a living breathing part of our culture.

FrancieBrady

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Dilutions of your request is basically how democracy works. When a party is in coalition they'll need to dilute their policies. Even when in over all control factions and stakeholders within and outside of the party will lead to dilution.

I'm aware of some unionist attitude to Irish or even anything Irish but surely a language act can protect Irish? I don't see how accepting U.S as on a par affects Irish. Let the baby have it's bottle. The smart play, the play to win over unionist to a UI is to be seen to be flexible and accepting. Not petty and sectarian.

This has been agreed already.
It is about the continued blocking of rights by the DUP.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

I speak better Irish than most, doesn't stop from thinking that it is a dead language and not a fundamental part of the modern Irish culture. As I have already said, the language is a significant part of our history and our heritage, but it has no significant role today, either North or South.


P.S. Adding a smilie to a glib insult doesn't make it any less of a glib insult.

If the caps fits it's hardly a glib.insult

Hardly a dead language,when those claiming fluency increased,Iñ.the last ceñsus in the free state
When gaelscoils are booked out years in advance??,



It's a, stunning language,and no reason fluency of it shouldn't be encouraged,had great fun backpacking with other Irish and learning Spanish complemented via it



The view that it has no place is actually outdated nowadays,

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

Why prior to the peace process has Ulster Scots not appeared as a.language option on a census


Its the ultimate in unethical dishonesty to eqate the two,
It's only pushed as a means to devalue and take the piss outta the Irish language,by those opposed to Irish culture

Because the revival of Ulster Scots is some twenty years behind the revival of Irish. The only difference between them is that one revival of a dead language began before the other.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is not about what YOU want, or how you feel about Irish.

And you must be totally unaware of the surge in interest in the Irish language.
I don't think all those kids attending Gael Scoilenna would take kindly to being described as part of our heritage and not a living breathing part of our culture.

Of course they are part of our culture, just as other minority pursuits are part of our culture. What we are discussing is the significance of that part. I can assert fairly confidently that the Irish language forms a minor part of modern-day Irish culture, but occupies a significant part of Irish heritage. Pretty accurate representation of the facts.

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

If the caps fits it's hardly a glib.insult

Hardly a dead language,when those claiming fluency increased,Iñ.the last ceñsus in the free state
When gaelscoils are booked out years in advance??,



It's a, stunning language,and no reason fluency of it shouldn't be encouraged,had great fun backpacking with other Irish and learning Spanish complemented via it



The view that it has no place is actually outdated nowadays,

You keep missing the point of the word "significant". I didn't say the Irish language had no place, I said it have no significant place.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Because the revival of Ulster Scots is some twenty years behind the revival of Irish. The only difference between them is that one revival of a dead language began before the other.

Well then, there isn't parity.
Ulster Scots will need it's own dedicated resources and it's own act.
No objection to that here.

What I do object to, and the point you won't adress, and the reason the Stormont power sharing executive is suspended is the continual blocking of rights that every other party wants by misuse of petitions of concern and pure stubbornness. i.e. the Never Never Never culture that we have seen since the GFA.

A party pretending to be democrats. The DUP.

Time is up on the charade, and rightly so.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well then, there isn't parity.
Ulster Scots will need it's own dedicated resources and it's own act.
No objection to that here.

What I do object to, and the point you won't adress, and the reason the Stormont power sharing executive is suspended is the continual blocking of rights that every other party wants by misuse of petitions of concern and pure stubbornness. i.e. the Never Never Never culture that we have seen since the GFA.

A party pretending to be democrats. The DUP.

Time is up on the charade, and rightly so.

A Minority Languages Act doesn't have to give the same resources to each language, where did anyone say it had to? The issue is the mutual recognition of each culture under the same united umbrella rather than a partisan sectarian division of different Acts.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course they are part of our culture, just as other minority pursuits are part of our culture. What we are discussing is the significance of that part. I can assert fairly confidently that the Irish language forms a minor part of modern-day Irish culture, but occupies a significant part of Irish heritage. Pretty accurate representation of the facts.

It's a minor part of the culture to 'you'. And as I have said to you earlier, 'so what' if that is what you feel about it.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

Because the revival of Ulster Scots is some twenty years behind the revival of Irish. The only difference between them is that one revival of a dead language began before the other.

The census of 1911 iirc showed 1/3 Irish language speakers on shankil road Belfast
(Have fun finding any reference to Ulster Scots then)


The Ulster Scots is a part of English with funny spelling,and different words (like how we say say lack for girlfriend in Waterford)
Do you think we can start up a new language for Waterford??


The Irish language is a stand alone language....the fact you seem to wish to spend your day attempting to convince people there the same thing,while wailing against all the evidence that Irish is irrelevant to modern culture is baffling




Perhaps the only place where I've seen anything remotely approaching Ulster Scots in day to day use is 4chan..,,...but you've made strange allies there

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

You keep missing the point of the word "significant". I didn't say the Irish language had no place, I said it have no significant place.

So what's the harm in having an Irish language act so??


You seem dead against this earlier dispite claiming to like Irish culture....seems like you want to butter both sides of your toast?

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

A Minority Languages Act doesn't have to give the same resources to each language, where did anyone say it had to? The issue is the mutual recognition of each culture under the same united umbrella rather than a partisan sectarian division of different Acts.

So you want a act (which you don't want )....to slightly discrimate against one thing Vs another which you want to include both in the act????


That's like something a school child would dream up tbh

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A Minority Languages Act doesn't have to give the same resources to each language, where did anyone say it had to? The issue is the mutual recognition of each culture under the same united umbrella rather than a partisan sectarian division of different Acts.

Like the flying of both flags was a mutual recognition of both identities? How did that one go?
They (the DUP and it's rabble) wrecked the joint, is how it went.

The issue is not mutual recognition, it is the constant erection of roadblocks to rights already agreed to and rights available to every other citizen in the UK and Ireland.

There was no mention of Ulster Scots in 2007 by the party leader but plenty of 'partisan' triumphalism about Unionism and an attempt to describe this as being 'sponsored by SF' and to be defeated because of that.

Please stop with the disingenuous portrayal of this as being anything to do with the DUP seeking mutual recognition.

LeinsterDub

tomwaterford wrote: »

It's only pushed as a means to devalue and take the piss outta the Irish language,by those opposed to Irish culture

Irish ==Ulster Scots.


How have i devalued or took the piss out of Irish . Am i opposed to Irish culture now?

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

So you want a act (which you don't want )....to slightly discrimate against one thing Vs another which you want to include both in the act????


That's like something a school child would dream up tbh

Oh no, if it was left to me there would be no Act either North or South, but it is not left to me.

What I am saying looking in is that the only possible solution to the usual problem of two entrenched sectarian sides in the North squabbling over something that is rich in symbolism but poor in actual significance is an umbrella Minority Languages Act that deals with both resurrected languages/dialects.

Nothing inconsistent to my usual plague on both their houses.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

A Minority Languages Act doesn't have to give the same resources to each language, where did anyone say it had to? The issue is the mutual recognition of each culture under the same united umbrella rather than a partisan sectarian division of different Acts.

And there's the issue. Ulster Scots isn't an expression of culture. It's a rebuttal to Irtish culture.

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

And there's the issue. Ulster Scots isn't an expression of culture. It's a rebuttal to Irtish culture.

In exactly the same way, the revival of Irish in the North (of what was then a dead language with the Ulster dialect having died out) was a rebuttal of British culture.

It is terrible to see two sides expressing their culture in such negative terms.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh no, if it was left to me there would be no Act either North or South, but it is not left to me.

What I am saying looking in is that the only possible solution to the usual problem of two entrenched sectarian sides in the North squabbling over something that is rich in symbolism but poor in actual significance is an umbrella Minority Languages Act that deals with both resurrected languages/dialects.

Nothing inconsistent to my usual plague on both their houses.

Giving into unionist bigotry has never done this country any good. So a plague on unionist bigotry (religious and cultural) and supremacy ( religious and cultural) imo.

Just look at how normal things could be (e.g. this years marching) when you face it down.

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Irish ==Ulster Scots.


How have i devalued or took the piss out of Irish . Am i opposed to Irish culture now?

To paraphrase: Náisiún gan teanga, náisiún gan anam. How can you equate the significance of a language that represents a core element of cultural and national expression with a dialect? Especially in the context of centuries of cultural, national and religious oppression. Can you not see how that would matter to a community trying to reassert itself? Can you not see how demeaning it is to compare that community's language to a dialect? Should it be such a major problem for the other community to recognise the importance of that language in the spirit of reconciliation?

Chips Lovell

The tragedy of Northern Irish politics is that the two communities up there have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else, but are so consumed with mutual enmity that they're incapable of seeing this.

One of those commonalities is a shared obsession with defining yourself in negative terms (i.e. what you're not)..

FrancieBrady

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The tragedy of Northern Irish politics is that the two communities up there have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else, but are so consumed with mutual enmity that they're incapable of seeing this.

One of those commonalities is a shared obsession with defining yourself in negative terms (i.e. what you're not)..

None of the other parties that support an Irish Language Act (The SDLP, Alliance, SF) have a problem with recognising the place of Ulster Scots.

I would say that one of the continuing tragedies of Ireland as a whole is not recognising pure unadulterated bigotry and supremacy when it rears it's head.

Anyone could see the effort made by nationalists on this island to be inclusive around 1916, and commemorations of WW1 for instance.
What did we get from the the leader of the DUP = belligerence and intolerance.

QED for anyone who wants to see.

Professor Moriarty

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The tragedy of Northern Irish politics is that the two communities up there have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else, but are so consumed with mutual enmity that they're incapable of seeing this.

One of those commonalities is a shared obsession with defining yourself in negative terms (i.e. what you're not)..

Do you think that the preservation and promotion of Irish is intended to be negative?

blanch152

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Do you think that the preservation and promotion of Irish is intended to be negative?

Yes, Ulster Irish as a distinct dialect died out in the 1970s. So there is no preservation involved and the promotion is an expression of a denial of their British heritage.

The Irish Language Movement up north revived the language using mostly a Donegal dialect in an expression of non-Britishness, a negative origin for the move for an Irish Language Act today. All that is said by nationalists about Ulster-Scots today could equally have been said by unionists about the state of the Irish Language in the North during the 1970s.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

None of the other parties that support an Irish Language Act (The SDLP, Alliance, SF) have a problem with recognising the place of Ulster Scots.

I would say that one of the continuing tragedies of Ireland as a whole is not recognising pure unadulterated bigotry and supremacy when it rears it's head.

Anyone could see the effort made by nationalists on this island to be inclusive around 1916, and commemorations of WW1 for instance.
What did we get from the the leader of the DUP = belligerence and intolerance.

QED for anyone who wants to see.

I find it difficult to take this post seriously when the Sinn Fein shop is selling Provisional IRA badges.

What does need to be done, and we in the South are as guilty as anyone, is that we need to set a lead by embracing the British aspects of our heritage and culture and acknowledging the positive aspects of the British influence on us. After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be attempting to persuade people of the inclusive nature of a united Ireland.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, Ulster Irish as a distinct dialect died out in the 1970s. So there is no preservation involved and the promotion is an expression of a denial of their British heritage.

The Irish Language Movement up north revived the language using mostly a Donegal dialect in an expression of non-Britishness, a negative origin for the move for an Irish Language Act today. All that is said by nationalists about Ulster-Scots today could equally have been said by unionists about the state of the Irish Language in the North during the 1970s.

Could the Unionists have called Irish a dialect? Seriously?

Why should Nationalists not assert their Irish heritage? Do Unionists not assert their British heritage? Isn't that assertion an expression of non-Irishness?

Unionists have very visible ways of expressing their heritage. Much more so than Nationalists. Why would you deny Nationalists this relatively unobtrusive expression of identity?

Junkyard Tom

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

One of those commonalities is a shared obsession with defining yourself in negative terms (i.e. what you're not)..

That is the preserve of union/loyalists. 40% of people in the north describe themselves as 'British Only' despite not having lived in Britain for centuries, that is nothing more than asserting that you're not Irish.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I find it difficult to take this post seriously when the Sinn Fein shop is selling Provisional IRA badges.

What does need to be done, and we in the South are as guilty as anyone, is that we need to set a lead by embracing the British aspects of our heritage and culture and acknowledging the positive aspects of the British influence on us. After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be attempting to persuade people of the inclusive nature of a united Ireland.

Where you living on another planet during the 1916 and WW1 commemorations?

Seriously, there needs to be some realism here.

We do recognise the heritage left behind by the British and the good they did. But they have be called out for the bad stuff too.

And you are the one going on about 'parity of esteem' and 'inclusiveness' but you cannot yet handle or recognise the simple fact that SF have never seen anything wrong about the goals of the IRA. Nor their supporters.

Although I see you are no longer using the silly 'terrorist' tag so that maybe a start.

Chips Lovell

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That is the preserve of union/loyalists. 40% of people in the north describe themselves as 'British Only' despite not having lived in Britain for centuries, that is nothing more than asserting that you're not Irish.

Don't most people from the UK describe themselves as "British"? Was there even a box to tick that said "UnitedKingdomish"?

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

acknowledging the positive aspects of the British influence on us.

Which were?

Junkyard Tom

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Don't most people from the UK describe themselves as "British"?

I'm confident the vast majority of people who live in Wales would describe themselves as Welsh, the same for Scotland, but in Ireland (or NI as they'd call it) a large majority of Unionists describe themselves as 'British Only'. This is a rejection of identifying with the place they live and the Irish who live there.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Which were?

Am I allowed post a Monty Python clip in response?

Chips Lovell

blanch152 wrote: »

Am I allowed post a Monty Python clip in response?

No.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

I find it difficult to take this post seriously when the Sinn Fein shop is selling Provisional IRA badges.

What does need to be done, and we in the South are as guilty as anyone, is that we need to set a lead by embracing the British aspects of our heritage and culture and acknowledging the positive aspects of the British influence on us. After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be attempting to persuade people of the inclusive nature of a united Ireland.

Hers your problem
Your viewing since SF. Is promoting an Irish language act it's a bad thing??

No matter what nationalist party is pushing it dup/loyalists will oppose it


So your running to loyalists,a culture whose soul purpose is to degenerate Irish culture (making up a language to take the piss outta irish FFS)

The fact you feel safer with these as allies,while claiming to love Irish culture (but not wanting any language act for Irish in Ireland :rolleyes: )

Your are either A: so blinded by anti republican sentiment that your judgement is blinded to loyalists/Ulster Scots :rolleyes: culture (Google July 11 bonfire for example)


Or B....your not such the fan of Irish culture as you perceive yourself to be...perhaps explains your instranginence and wanting to run down and dismiss the Irish language at every available opportunities

FrancieBrady

Presumably we were going to get the 'What did the Romans Ever Do For Us' clip.

While it is great comedy it does rather ignore the fact that invaders do not do things in invaded territories for altruistic reasons.
Rather they build infrastructure and the economies in order to make it easier for them to exploit.

Michael Palin, (one of the MP sketch team) did a great hurt/quizzical look to the camera when he didn't hear what he wanted to hear about what Britain did for the Indian part of the empire on a travel programme a while ago.

The irony was fantastic.

Red_Wake

tomwaterford wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

I find it difficult to take this post seriously when the Sinn Fein shop is selling Provisional IRA badges.

What does need to be done, and we in the South are as guilty as anyone, is that we need to set a lead by embracing the British aspects of our heritage and culture and acknowledging the positive aspects of the British influence on us. After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be attempting to persuade people of the inclusive nature of a united Ireland.

Hers your problem
Your viewing since SF. Is promoting an Irish language act it's a bad thing??

No matter what nationalist party is pushing it dup/loyalists will oppose it


So your running to loyalists,a culture whose soul purpose is to degenerate Irish culture (making up a language to take the piss outta irish FFS)

The fact you feel safer with these as allies,while claiming to love Irish culture (but not wanting any language act for Irish in Ireland :rolleyes: )

Your are either A: so blinded by anti republican sentiment that your judgement is blinded to loyalists/Ulster Scots :rolleyes: culture (Google July 11 bonfire for example)


Or B....your not such the fan of Irish culture as you perceive yourself to be...perhaps explains your instranginence and wanting to run down and dismiss the Irish language at every available opportunities

Do you actually believe that Unionists make up their entire culture to denigrate, what you perceive, as Irish culture?

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

While it is great comedy it does rather ignore the fact that invaders do not do things in invaded territories for altruistic reasons. Rather they build infrastructure and the economies in order to make it easier for them to exploit.

Yes. I did a quick google on the matter and all I could find was this piece by historian Niall Ferguson which was written in 2003.

In fairness to him he's unequivocal about the misery British colonialism caused in Ireland (unlike many of our own journalists and politicians) but his attempt to 'balance the books' amounts to a rise in GDP after the famine (from former crushing poverty and mass starvation) and the benefits of Globalization in (then) modern Ireland, which he attributes to Britain.

Imagine that, a British Empire fetishist and celebrated British historian like Niall Ferguson struggles to find any evidence of the benefits of British colonialism in Ireland, who'd have thunk it?