Opinions on Irish identity

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

You keep demanding an answer to this question, but your consistent answer to the same question is a united Ireland. In other words, you want to heal the divisions by having your side "win".

In other words, as I've said before, "let's compromise and do it my way".

Objectively, can you really argue that promoting one side in a conflict is a better approach to conflict resolution than promoting neither?

Profoundly wrong assessment of my politics tbh.

The divisions have to be healed whether there is a UI or not.
There is the small matter of the 'principle of consent' which i, for one signed up to.

blackwhite

murphaph wrote: »

The more people that adopt this identity the better NI becomes. You keep asking what people like the OP are "doing" to change things in NI. Just being who they are and not a sectarian asshole is making the world a better place.

Funny how Francie (not for the first time either) chooses to ignore the obvious answer to his “question” because it doesn’t suit his politics.

Anything that isn’t “pure” republicanism must be discredited, honest discussion be damned.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Profoundly wrong assessment of my politics tbh.

The divisions have to be healed whether there is a UI or not.

Oh please. You've repeatedly said that the single fundamental cause of the conflict in Northern Ireland is partition, and that the conflict will never be solved as long as partition continues.

So, either you'd be happy for the Republic to rejoin the UK, or my point stands.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh please. You've repeatedly said that the single fundamental cause of the conflict in Northern Ireland is partition, and that the conflict will never be solved as long as partition continues.

So, either you'd be happy for the Republic to rejoin the UK, or my point stands.

Yes I do believe that, based on the 'principle of consent'.

If consent is given, how would that be 'one side winning'?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes I do believe that, based on the 'principle of consent'.

If consent is given, how would that be 'one side winning'?

If consent was given for permanent partition, would you be happy with that?

cameramonkey

blackwhite wrote: »

Funny how Francie (not for the first time either) chooses to ignore the obvious answer to his “question” because it doesn’t suit his politics.

Anything that isn’t “pure” republicanism must be discredited, honest discussion be damned.

What is the obvious answer to the question?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

If consent was given for permanent partition, would you be happy with that?

I am not sure you understand what it means to say 'I believe in the 'principle of consent'.
I would not be happy but I would have to accept that outcome.

It is interesting though that people who signed up to the principle of consent are now starting to introduce the provision that the consent has to be a certain percentage above 51%.

Pity that wasn't applied to the Brexit ref. A la carte referendums it seems. But that is for another thread.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not sure you understand what it means to say 'I believe in the 'principle of consent'.
I would not be happy but I would have to accept that outcome.

So it's not true to say that partition is the core reason for conflict and that conflict is inevitable as long as partition continues?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

So it's not true to say that partition is the core reason for conflict and that conflict is inevitable as long as partition continues?

I am not sure what you mean, nor am I sure about the relevance of this, the thread is about the OPs identity. It isn't about me.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not sure you understand what it means to say 'I believe in the 'principle of consent'.
I would not be happy but I would have to accept that outcome.

It is interesting though that people who signed up to the principle of consent are now starting to introduce the provision that the consent has to be a certain percentage above 51%.

Pity that wasn't applied to the Brexit ref. A la carte referendums it seems. But that is for another thread.

Common bloody sense says the status quo is better than the agro that would go along with a forced UI that barely got over the line at the polls.

Anyway I have faith that the southern electorate wouldn't opt for such a thing without there being wide scale support for it in NI which can only come about through the establishment of a solid NI identity.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Common bloody sense says the status quo is better than the agro that would go along with a forced UI that barely got over the line at the polls.

Anyway I have faith that the southern electorate wouldn't opt for such a thing without there being wide scale support for it in NI which can only come about through the establishment of a solid NI identity.

But if this thread shows anything, it is anything but a 'solid' identity. It doesn't even have a voice and it has disparate shades.
Unfortunately the problems in northern Ireland will not be solved by vague Facebook meme type wishful thinking, about peace and brother!y love.
That is my honest opinion.

Junkyard Tom

Ulsterman96 wrote: »

what is exactly wrong with this picture?

That big huge flag that Loyalists like to mark their territory with.

Ulsterman96

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ulsterman96 wrote: »

what is exactly wrong with this picture?

That big huge flag that Loyalists like to mark their territory with.

could the same not be said about that big tricolour that the republicans like to mark their territory with?

FrancieBrady

Ulsterman96 wrote: »

could the same not be said about that big tricolour that the republicans like to mark their territory with?

Something not right here.
Why would you, with your Northern Irish identity, not just condemn this display. What's with the 'look at themuns' defence?

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

Common bloody sense says the status quo is better than the agro that would go along with a forced UI that barely got over the line at the polls.

Not respecting a majority vote would most certainly be a recipe for conflict.

Anyway I have faith that the southern electorate wouldn't opt for such a thing without there being wide scale support for it in NI which can only come about through the establishment of a solid NI identity.

I think people's faith in the northern Irish identity (whatever the hell it is) is misplaced and people more educated than me on the subject might say the same.

Figure 4 shows the party preferences of people who identify themselves as Northern Irish. It is clear that the vast majority of both Catholics and Protestants who identify this way still prefer to vote for nationalist and unionist parties, and almost no one crosses the aisle into the other camp.



thedetail.tv

I'm going to make a prediction here. In less than 20 years the north will have the highest concentration of Irish speakers in Ireland partly because of the actions of DUP politicians like Gregory Campbell and Paul Girvan.

Also the DUP's pushing for Brexit coupled with their unbridled hibernophobia has caused people to abandon the centre-ground of the SDLP and to a lesser extent the UUP.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Not respecting a majority vote would most certainly be a recipe for conflict.



I think people's faith in the northern Irish identity (whatever the hell it is) is misplaced and people more educated than me on the subject might say the same.

Figure 4 shows the party preferences of people who identify themselves as Northern Irish. It is clear that the vast majority of both Catholics and Protestants who identify this way still prefer to vote for nationalist and unionist parties, and almost no one crosses the aisle into the other camp.



thedetail.tv

I'm going to make a prediction here. In less than 20 years the north will have the highest concentration of Irish speakers in Ireland partly because of the actions of DUP politicians like Gregory Campbell and Paul Girvan.

Also the DUP's pushing for Brexit coupled with their unbridled hibernophobia has caused people to abandon the centre-ground of the SDLP and to a lesser extent the UUP.

So, if the graph is correct can anyone explain how this new identity is going to achieve anything?
They are clearly endorsing the status quo depending on their secondary identities.
Secondary identities, it has been claimed here, that have been dispensed with.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Something not right here.
Why would you, with your Northern Irish identity, not just condemn this display. What's with the 'look at themuns' defence?

At least make a token effort to be objective. Someone who identifies with one tradition accused "themuns" of "marking their territory". When it was pointed out that both traditions have a habit of marking territory, you immediately jump in with this response.

Over and over and over again: you're with us or you're agin us.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Not respecting a majority vote would most certainly be a recipe for conflict.

[...]

Also the DUP's pushing for Brexit...

...is arguably respecting a majority vote.

This, presumably, is where you argue that a majority in Northern Ireland didn't vote for Brexit. But presumably you agree with the Tory policy of driving off the Brexit cliff? It is "respecting a majority vote", after all.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Secondary identities, it has been claimed here, that have been dispensed with.

I think their secondary identities are, in fact, their primary identities. Also, the way the DUP and UUP are behaving, coupled with Brexit, will make people from Nationalist/Catholic backgrounds less likely to self-identify as 'northern Irish' unless it's simply a geographic identifier rather than some sort of hybrid identity.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

At least make a token effort to be objective. Someone who identifies with one tradition accused "themuns" of "marking their territory". When it was pointed out that both traditions have a habit of marking territory, you immediately jump in with this response.

Over and over and over again: you're with us or you're agin us.

You are not answering the question here. The poster who made lengthy posts about the problems in northern Ireland chose to engage in a bit of themuns whataboutery. No change there then.
Explains the graph quite well imo, nothing has changed, would you not have to agree?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, if the graph is correct can anyone explain how this new identity is going to achieve anything?

What's with the demand that how someone self-identifies "achieve anything"?

The entire thrust of your carping questions on this thread has been that people justify their identity to you. It's like asking someone who identifies as transgender what they hope to achieve by it, with the subtext that if they can't justify their sexual identity to the satisfaction of a cisgender person, they really ought to cop themselves on and re-think their identity.

That's not how identity works. Nobody's demanding that you justify your self-identity as an Irish nationalist, and to the extent that anyone has asked you even to define it, you've waved the question aside.

Nobody owes you an explanation for how they identify, and nobody needs to justify their identity by explaining what it will achieve. Hell, you could argue that part of what has Northern Ireland in the hideous mess it's in is the idea that your identity is defined by the political situation you want to impose on others.

oscarBravo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think their secondary identities are, in fact, their primary identities.

I think it's breathtakingly arrogant to make pronouncements on how other people self-identify.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are not answering the question here. The poster who made lengthy posts about the problems in northern Ireland chose to engage in a bit of themuns whataboutery.

The poster responded to a claim of "marking territory", which I've already pointed out, and which you chose to ignore.

As always, when arguing with nationalists, I find myself wanting to go argue with young-Earth creationists instead. They're not quite as entrenched in their views.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's with the demand that how someone self-identifies "achieve anything"?

The entire thrust of your carping questions on this thread has been that people justify their identity to you. It's like asking someone who identifies as transgender what they hope to achieve by it, with the subtext that if they can't justify their sexual identity to the satisfaction of a cisgender person, they really ought to cop themselves on and re-think their identity.

That's not how identity works. Nobody's demanding that you justify your self-identity as an Irish nationalist, and to the extent that anyone has asked you even to define it, you've waved the question aside.

Nobody owes you an explanation for how they identify, and nobody needs to justify their identity by explaining what it will achieve. Hell, you could argue that part of what has Northern Ireland in the hideous mess it's in is the idea that your identity is defined by the political situation you want to impose on others.

The poster asked for feedback and opinion on his identity. He is getting it.
Why are you getting so upset about it?
Whenever he doesn't want anymore opinions/discussion all he needs to say is stop.
Personally I have found the discussion (minus the attacks for having an opinion) enlightening.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think it's breathtakingly arrogant to make pronouncements on how other people self-identify.

The poster responded to a claim of "marking territory", which I've already pointed out, and which you chose to ignore.

As always, when arguing with nationalists, I find myself wanting to go argue with young-Earth creationists instead. They're not quite as entrenched in their views.

The poster earlier asked what was wrong with the picture and went on to partly excuse what was going on.
Odd, having outlined what a Northern Irish identity abhors, is the point I was making.
Quite willing to hear what his reasoning is.

Ulsterman96

FrancieBrady wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

At least make a token effort to be objective. Someone who identifies with one tradition accused "themuns" of "marking their territory". When it was pointed out that both traditions have a habit of marking territory, you immediately jump in with this response.

Over and over and over again: you're with us or you're agin us.

You are not answering the question here. The poster who made lengthy posts about the problems in northern Ireland chose to engage in a bit of themuns whataboutery. No change there then.
Explains the graph quite well imo, nothing has changed, would you not have to agree?

In response to this idiotic assumption I am one side now that I stated the similarities, I did state the similarities, I see the similarities everyday, history shows me the similarities, just because I pointed out that republicans also wave their own flags just like loyalists, I am therefore backwards for making an observation on similarities that anyone could spot and express. so please explain to me, how you plan on making me seem backwards for expressing something that can be seen any stand at any international football team?

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

...is arguably respecting a majority vote. This, presumably, is where you argue that a majority in Northern Ireland didn't vote for Brexit.

Here are my thoughts on the Brexit vote. A UI vote would be a lot less complicated.

But presumably you agree with the Tory policy of driving off the Brexit cliff? It is "respecting a majority vote", after all.

If the Tories had put forward a plan to jump off the cliff, with all the 'WFT are you nutters proposing' that would have gone with it, and a majority had voted for it? 'Work away' I'd say. There was no plan. Leave the EU had different meaning for different groups.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

FrancieBrady

Ulsterman96 wrote: »

In response to this idiotic assumption I am one side now that I stated the similarities, I did state the similarities, I see the similarities everyday, history shows me the similarities, just because I pointed out that republicans also wave their own flags just like loyalists, I am therefore backwards for making an observation on similarities that anyone could spot and express. so please explain to me, how you plan on making me seem backwards for expressing something that can be seen any stand at any international football team?

I never claimed you were backwards.
I just thought a Northern Irish identity would not engage in whataboutery and just condemn/criticise the behaviour in the pic.
I agree that there is too much territory marking on both sides, and a lot has been achieved on that since the GFA in normalising flag flying and provocative displays.

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think it's breathtakingly arrogant to make pronouncements on how other people self-identify.

Well I'm basing it on the article I linked to rather than deciding for others substantively. I've always defended people's right to self-identify as they please even when I do think it's a bit unusual.

As always, when arguing with nationalists, I find myself wanting to go argue with young-Earth creationists instead. They're not quite as entrenched in their views.

There you go with the 'them nationalists'. I consider myself a Irish civic nationalist and thoroughly despise ethnic nationalism - you might want to brush up on your understanding of the differences.

oscarBravo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Leave the EU had different meaning for different groups.

But you agree that, come what may, the UK must leave the EU? One way or another, by whatever means turn out to be necessary, tallyho and damn the consequences?

Because, whatever "leaving the EU" meant to different groups, you'll agree that a majority voted to leave the EU, and the majority vote must be respected?

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agree that there is too much territory marking on both sides, and a lot has been achieved on that since the GFA in normalising flag flying and provocative displays.

I've written before that flying flags on public property should require planning permission in the north to stop both sides from territory marking. I guess that makes me Northern Irish.

oscarBravo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Well I'm basing it on the article I linked to rather than deciding for other substantively. I've always defended people's right to self-identify as they please even when I do think it's a bit unusual.

Sorry, no. You don't get to claim you defend people's right to self-identify while announcing your opinion that, in fact, they identify differently to what they say themselves.

There you go with the 'them nationalists'. I consider myself a Irish civic nationalist and thoroughly despise ethnic nationalism - you might want to brush up on your understanding of the differences.

We're not talking about ethnic nationalists, I don't know where that's coming from. I'm talking about people who self-identify as Irish nationalists, in the sense of "not Unionists", and who insist that other people's identities be definable in the sense of "not <insert out-group here>".

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

But you agree that, come what may, the UK must leave the EU?

In one form or another yes because I think not leaving would destabilise the UK.

One way or another, by whatever means turn out to be necessary, tallyho and damn the consequences?

No. I'd like to read the terms and conditions before signing up to whatever exit strategy was being proposed.

Because, whatever "leaving the EU" meant to different groups, you'll agree that a majority voted to leave the EU, and the majority vote must be respected?

Yes.

Now, can you stop shining that lamp in my eyes and untie my wrists?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, no. You don't get to claim you defend people's right to self-identify while announcing your opinion that, in fact, they identify differently to what they say themselves. .

Funny that. I'm told on here all the time what I am, despite telling people I'm not. And I didn't ask for opinion/feedback on it either.
Never had anyone come to my defence on it.

Ulsterman96

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agree that there is too much territory marking on both sides, and a lot has been achieved on that since the GFA in normalising flag flying and provocative displays.

I've written before that flying flags on public property should require planning permission in the north to stop both sides from territory making. I guess that makes me Northern Irish.

I agree with this, planning permission would be great

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, no. You don't get to claim you defend people's right to self-identify while announcing your opinion that, in fact, they identify differently to what they say themselves.

Listen, if a person wants to self-identify as a Klingon then I would say leave them alone, I might think it's a bit silly but that doesn't mean I believe they should forced to stop doing it. That's the difference between opinion and behaviour.

I'm talking about people who self-identify as Irish nationalists, in the sense of "not Unionists" and who insist that other people's identities be definable in the sense of "not <insert out-group here>".

Are you saying that I'm insisting people who identify as Northern Irish are... not.. what?

Junkyard Tom

Ulsterman96 wrote: »

I agree with this, planning permission would be great

Enforcing it would be difficult but achievable. Flag/territory marking on public property would have to be faced down by underpinning its policing with 'Broken Windows' theory.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Enforcing it would be difficult but achievable. Flag/eterritory marking on public property would have to be faced down by underpinning its policing with 'Broken Windows' theory.

It fairly clear that the policy of 'facing down' works. If you consider for instance the flag or parades issue. More and more now accept that marching were it is not acceptable or wanted, by both sides, is no longer acceptable.
The flag issue is over too and normalised.
It was difficult, contentious and divisive but I believe society is more normal and better as result. But only because people stood up and were counted.
Things are changing because people are changing them, people who are not content to accept the status quo.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The flag issue is over too and normalised.

Not yet. It was a bit depressing that those families had to move out of a mixed housing scheme and it was precipitated by inaction following flag-flying in that estate.

The territory-marking issue needs to be tackled with resolve by communities backed up with action by the authorities. A northern Irish solution to a northern Irish problem? Look at me lads! I'm northern Irish!

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Not yet. It was a bit depressing that those families had to move out of a mixed housing scheme and it was precipitated by inaction following flag-flying in that estate.

The territory-marking issue needs to be tackled with resolve by communities backed up with action by the authorities. A northern Irish solution to a northern Irish problem? Look at me lads! I'm northern Irish!

I was referring to 'the fleg' issue and agree on provocative general flying of flags and burning of effigies etc.
It will happen I believe, we have come a long long way.
The nothing changes story is also a lazy cliché.

Ulsterman96

There seems to be some heat on this threat and it has gotten of topic at the minute so Im going to give my last post for a while in my own opinion, yous can agree, yous can disagree, we all have that right as humans and I will respect whatever response this may get but here is MY final remarks:  


Ireland: a beautiful island that some can only dream of living here. Ireland, an island shared for the mean time with two countries (yes before anyone states it, Northern Ireland technically isn't a country), one country created from independence, and one country from that independence, we could point fingers on who's to blame for partition, but why waste time it happened, these are the facts, Northern Ireland and Ireland. We have to deal with that, many of people have many of reasons of dealing with it. me, well I wasn't asked to be born in Belfast, I wasn't asked to be born into mixed background, but I was asked to take a side, I was asked am I catholic or am I a protestant, I was asked what side do I support. I was not asked who's my favourite Irish poet, I was not asked who is my favourite British rock band, I was not asked these innocent questions, I was always asked questions that have been posed to young people for generations, who's side are you on? Well, I am on no side, I can be proud of my unusual situation even if it means having to stand up against two types of bigots, I will stand up against it, proud knowing that I share in both Irish and British history, proud to not support hatred, proud that I only judge based on individuals. I do not support the burning of flags or the forcing of other people out of their homes, I do not believe in the murder of innocent people, I do not believe in the discrimination of people because of where they were born or what they were born as or became. You’s can argue Northern Irish is a silly identity, its not to be taken serious or whatever, but to me and others, even on this thread, two people coming together under one shared identity that accepts peoples rights to be British or Irish or both, has more chance of doing good than bad. And so I leave this thankful of the eye opening, and great feedback I have received, I am proud of Ireland, and I am optimistic for its future, even if it is still divided, even if there is still a border, and hatred and old wounds, my love for Ireland is undying, but I love not as only an Ulsterman or an Irish man, but as a Northern Irish man, and I consider myself lucky and proud to have been born here. 

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But if this thread shows anything, it is anything but a 'solid' identity. It doesn't even have a voice and it has disparate shades.
Unfortunately the problems in northern Ireland will not be solved by vague Facebook meme type wishful thinking, about peace and brother!y love.
That is my honest opinion.

It doesn't need a voice. It just needs to be itself. The sectarian voices to the left and right of it in the DUP and SF will grow ever quieter so long as this silent NI cohort grows. Don't you see that? It's about the two sides becoming one.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

It doesn't need a voice. It just needs to be itself. The sectarian voices to the left and right of it in the DUP and SF will grow ever quieter so long as this silent NI cohort grows. Don't you see that? It's about the two sides becoming one.

What?

If Junkyard Tom's graph shows us anything it is that this Northern Irish identity is not 'one'.
With the possible earnest exception of the OP, it is clearly made up of two sides and rather than changing things they are underwriting the status quo.

I fully accept the existence of this identity, but unless you can show research data to the contrary this IS NOT about the sides becoming one. There is a reason the identity came across as 'confusing'. It is merely the same two sides, with a different name voting for the same sides.
And that is how it will be until those divisions are healed by those who want to heal them standing up and being counted.

It is not the identity itself that is bogus, it is the claims made on here for it that are bogus.

murphaph

God you can almost fear the terror of the idea that the terms nationalist and unionist might lose some significance to a common identity that just wants to live in peace with his neighbours.

There's more than one way Francie. You're a firm believer that there has to be some act of reconciliation but the OP's way can lead to the same result, but not necessarily a united Ireland.

Maybe you genuinely don't see that if more and more of the population are neutral on the constitutional position of NI and could be persuaded to vote for a UI or a continuation of the union with GB (but not out of tribal reasons!!) that a more peaceful situation evolves.

Edit: do you accept that progress can be made with NI remaining in the UK and that a UI is not inevitable?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

God you can almost fear the terror of the idea that the terms nationalist and unionist might lose some significance to a common identity that just wants to live in peace with his neighbours.

There's more than one way Francie. You're a firm believer that there has to be some act of reconciliation but the OP's way can lead to the same result, but not necessarily a united Ireland.

Maybe you genuinely don't see that if more and more of the population are neutral on the constitutional position of NI and could be persuaded to vote for a UI or a continuation of the union with GB (but not out of tribal reasons!!) that a more peaceful situation evolves.

Murphaph, do you have any research that shows this is the case?
This identity is clearly 'two sides' and is voting along traditional lines because society is still divided.
It is as the article suggests a flag of convenience, for two very different reasons.

There have been many false dawns and I suggest this is another one. And there are those who are latching onto it and making claims for it that are familiarly agenda driven.

I am a realist, there is much work to be done, as there always was.

I didn't see your edit

murphaph wrote:

Edit: do you accept that progress can be made with NI remaining in the UK and that a UI is not inevitable?

until after and lest I be accused of avoiding:

I have said again and again that I believe in the 'principle of consent'.

Whether there is a UI or not, the divisions have to be addressed. I want to keep working at equalising society and normalising it.
I firmly believe (and it is a personal opinion) that a UI will be a sensible, pragmatic and inevitable result of that. If you believe differently you are entitled to that view.

blackwhite

cameramonkey wrote: »

What is the obvious answer to the question?

The one I quoted. If the population of non-bigots who refuse to engage in the “us-or-them” BS that so many on here seem to see as the only options, then eventually the population of hate-mongers on each side will diminish to the point of being an irrelevancy

But those on here who define themselves along the sectarian lines don’t want a population who can work with both sides - they would prefer the “us or them hatred” to continue interminably before they’d accept a solution that wasn’t a 100% victory for their side.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

The one I quoted. If the population of non-bigots who refuse to engage in the “us-or-them” BS that so many on here seem to see as the only options, then eventually the population of hate-mongers on each side will diminish to the point of being an irrelevancy

But those on here who define themselves along the sectarian lines don’t want a population who can work with both sides - they would prefer the “us or them hatred” to continue interminably before they’d accept a solution that wasn’t a 100% victory for their side.

Can you show any data that suggests that this new identity is moving away from 'sides'?

Who on here is defining themselves 'along sectarian' lines?

The shocking fact for you is that we are where we are, precisely because both sides have agreed a way.
There has been compromise.
There needs to be more.

murphaph

Surely the greatest act of compromise imaginable would be for both sides to move to a common identity.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Surely the greatest act of compromise imaginable would be for both sides to move to a common identity.

That will happen naturally when society is equal and normal.

Is it?
No it isn't. It quite clearly isn't.

Edit: There is an inherent danger in promoting false dawns, and that is people get lazy. We see it here on the thread, they believe that some movement has begun and therefore stop trying to change things believing that they will somehow change on their own. As the data shows plainly, that is not happening.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Surely the greatest act of compromise imaginable would be for both sides to move to a common identity.

The most obvious symbols of Northern Ireland is the football team and the symbols of those are not shared identity symbols (old Stormont Gov. flag and GSTQ). When you see that changing to neutral symbols, you know something is happening on a shared identity.

Ulsterman96

look to get peace and unity, you've first to make peace, and then comes the unity. If me identifying as Northern Irish and not hating anyone based on their background contributes only a little of that peace making, I am glad, if someone of only Irish identity, does not hate anyone of the British identity just because they identify as British, then I am glad they contribute to peace, If someone of only British identity, does not hate anyone of the Irish identity just because they identity as Irish, then I am glad they contribute to peace. I am aware that you don't need a third alternative identity such as Northern Irish to make peace, some of my closest friends are purely Irish, and purely British, and we get along great. There is signs of hatred, and signs of bigotry, lined in both sides of each community in Belfast, anti this, anti that, no side is more or less, every side has two different types of people, those who hate, and those love, those who reject, and those who accept, those who care only about their own, and those who care about everyone. Irelands problems can not be solved with violence, many can agree on that, to me only Irelands problems can be solved through the healing of old wounds, and the acceptance of both sides, and the acceptance of peoples rights to be who they want to be. I can only talk for Northern Ireland when I say there is much greater problems at hand in these six counties, we shouldn't be focused on keeping it green or keeping it orange, we should be focusing on keeping people alive, keeping people from being discriminated, keeping people from being attacked, keeping people from having to sleep on the streets, we shouldn't be concerning ourselves over century old narratives of us v them. What comes in the future, I do not know, will I and many others be accepted peacefully by those of the 26 counties, I do not know, but in the mean time, Im going to keep on doing what I am doing, and not contributing to hatred or sectarianism, but contributing to prosperity, and peace.

blanch152

One thing is certain from reading this thread, and that is that the Northern Irish identity is certainly going to be met with outright hostility from republicanism, particularly extreme republicanism.

Junkyard Tom's chart is also interesting, though not in the way he thinks. In the article that he gets it from, it is stated that "Northern Irish identifiers are more likely to vote for the centre ground parties such as the Alliance than their Irish and British counterparts, and they are also more likely to consider themselves to be neither unionist nor nationalist. The difference is statistically significant but very small." What this tells us is that there is a political opportunity available in the middle ground of Northern Irish politics, a party that is neutral on the constitutional issue but focussed on domestic political issues. While the Alliance Party is appealing to some of this constituency, it isn't making the best of it. Perhaps a party that concentrated initially on council elections could make headway.

It is also somewhat ironic that both Junkyard Tom and FrancieBrady are repeatedly referring back to this graph, but completely ignoring the key conclusion of the article which is:

"Whatever the validity of any of these claims, and in spite of having no clear unique culture, flag, passport, anthem, language, shared history, currency, traditions of state, or any of the other usual trappings of national belonging, the Northern Irish identity is not going away anytime soon, and political representatives could do well to move to acknowledge this new and highly unlikely constituency."

Thanks again to Ulsterman for starting this thread which has probably been the only thread on Northern Irish politics on this forum in the last decade which has actually offered some optimism for the future in the form of his story and of others like him. Long may it continue.