The glorious 12th

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

The British Empire came from the British Isles. Ireland was very much part of the British Isles, no question about that.

The Italian Empire came from Italy and Sicily, nobody called it the Italian and Sicilian Empire.

Can you show us your research janfebmar that the name the British and Irish Empire was not used because it was 'a bit of a mouthful'?

janfebmar

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn’t know he was tbh. As you say, there may be a superiority complex at work here. ‘Empire nostalgia’ maybe? A common affliction over there since 2016. That so many Britons have an utterly immature relationship with Europe is causing them difficulties on so many fronts the poor wee things......

If anyone has the "superiority complex", the evidence points to you, 10-pdr.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Until 1919, the, 'voice's of the people was the voice of the oppressor, Blanch. Thus it ever was and all that, such is the way with colonialism. I'd imagine the majority were more concerned with putting food on the table than who ruled over what, but your point that, 'Ireland was Britain, Britain was Ireland', as far as the average family pushed, 'to Hell or Connaught' certainly doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

I'm aware this is all widly off topic, but at least it's interesting to me, and mostly seems less aggressive.

You can’t have an interesting discussion like that on here, it quickly gets subsumed in the personal insults and whataboutery.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you show us your research janfebmar that the name the British and Irish Empire was not used because it was 'a bit of a mouthful'?

I would hazard a guess that the main reason it was not used was because the British Empire came from the British Isles. Ireland was very much part of the British Isles, no question about that. Hence the "British Empire" came from the British Isles.

The Italian Empire came from Italy and Sicily, nobody called it the Italian and Sicilian Empire.

mattser

Dear, dear, what has become of the moderator who said everyone should be nice to each other?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that the main reason it was not used was because the British Empire came from the British Isles. Ireland was very much part of the British Isles, no question about that. Hence the "British Empire" came from the British Isles.

The Italian Empire came from Italy and Sicily, nobody called it the Italian and Sicilian Empire.

So nothing to back up either your 'bit of a mouthful' comment and nothing to show that it was EVER called the British and Irish Empire.

Very good...another few thousands of pixels wasted in yet another of your wishful thinking roundabouts.

When the 'people' the real people of Ireland got control we turned our backs emphatically on the Empire and those who involved us in it.
You really need to get over that 100 years later.

Fionn1952

Deleted User wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

No, Rob is English, it's a mixture of denial and a superiority complex.

Didn’t know he was tbh. As you say, there may be a superiority complex at work here. ‘Empire nostalgia’ maybe? A common affliction over there since 2016. That so many Britons have an utterly immature relationship with Europe is causing them difficulties on so many fronts the poor wee things......

Ah in all seriousness, Rob isn't the worst in the world. My teasing aside, Rob generally comes across relatively well meaning, albeit easily swayed on his weighting of certain....questionable posters opinions. I certainly wouldn't lump him into that group.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Until 1919, the, 'voice's of the people was the voice of the oppressor, Blanch. Thus it ever was and all that, such is the way with colonialism. I'd imagine the majority were more concerned with putting food on the table than who ruled over what, but your point that, 'Ireland was Britain, Britain was Ireland', as far as the average family pushed, 'to Hell or Connaught' certainly doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

I'm aware this is all widly off topic, but at least it's interesting to me, and mostly seems less aggressive.

You can’t have an interesting discussion like that on here, it quickly gets subsumed in the personal insults and whataboutery.

True, but at least it COULD'VE been an interesting one, Blanch! It's a step forwards!

Fionn1952

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Ah in all seriousness, Rob isn't the worst in the world. My teasing aside, Rob generally comes across relatively well meaning, albeit easily swayed on his weighting of certain....questionable posters opinions. I certainly wouldn't lump him into that group.

Fair enough. Dont know the poster at all tbh. Just dont know why a person would attempt to apply a ‘4 country’ construct to what was an utterly centralised apparatus so typical of the time. Such a term is more associated with the British state of today IMO, with the various devolved assemblies emerging as a result of federalist/separatist desires.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You can’t have an interesting discussion like that on here, it quickly gets subsumed in the personal insults and whataboutery.

And up onto the high moral ground goes the poster who came onto the thread to ask 'whatabout Sean Russell', who had been discussed and finished with pages ago. :rolleyes:

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

nothing to show that it was EVER called the British and Irish Empire.

.

I never said it was called the British and Irish Empire...just as well, it hardly rolls off the tongue, does it? As I said, I would hazard a guess that the main reason it was not used was because the British Empire came from the British Isles. Ireland was very much part of the British Isles, no question about that. Hence the "British Empire" came from the British Isles.

droidman123

The british empire wasnt called "the british and irish empire" because it was too much of a mouthful?? I think we have a winner for the most ludicrous post ever in the history of the internet.my mind is well and truly boggled

janfebmar

droidman123 wrote: »

The british empire wasnt called "the british and irish empire" because it was..

The British Empire was from the British Isles. The British isles included Ireland and all the other islands.
In another piece of information not relevant, did you know 30% of Wellingtons army at Waterloo was Irish? The British army then was from the British Isles. And no, brains, it was not called the British and Irish army, it was called the British army.

droidman123

janfebmar wrote: »

The British Empire was from the British Isles. The British isles included Ireland and all the other islands.
In another piece of information not relevant, did you know 30% of Wellingtons army at Waterloo was Irish? The British army then was from the British Isles. And no, brains, it was not called the British and Irish army, it was called the British army.

Now i am even more baffled

droidman123

By jans "logic" when the germans invaded poland they were effectivly part of germany,so those dasterdly poles were just as much to blame for what happened in ww2 as the germans were

FrancieBrady

droidman123 wrote: »

The british empire wasnt called "the british and irish empire" because it was too much of a mouthful?? I think we have a winner for the most ludicrous post ever in the history of the internet.my mind is well and truly boggled

Nah...the US airman dropping their poo poo's was my favourite one.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

People like Kitchener and The Duke of Wellington-English/(not)Irish/anglo irish people but definitely NOT Irish,now the latest-the countries of the 19th century UK did`nt exist and were merely entities on a map-you could`nt make it up unless you were a script writer for fawlty towers or some other hilarious comedy of that ilk.

You are obsessing with the absolute trivial. These people no matter where they were born, were loyal to, and served the British government in London. To say ‘Ireland’ played a part in the policies of the British Empire, because these people were merely born here is just odd, or maybe you have Stockholm Syndrome?

No, Rob is English, it's a mixture of denial and a superiority complex.

How DARE you!!!

RobMc59

Deleted User wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

No, Rob is English, it's a mixture of denial and a superiority complex.

Didn’t know he was tbh. As you say, there may be a superiority complex at work here. ‘Empire nostalgia’ maybe? A common affliction over there since 2016. That so many Britons have an utterly immature relationship with Europe is causing them difficulties on so many fronts the poor wee things......

The only country that harps on about Empire is Ireland(which is strange as Ireland was a willing participant).India,Bangladesh(formerly bengal region)Kenya and South Africa are all in the Commonwealth which rather blows the 'those horrible British'theories out of the water,as with republican opinion of Churchill,the opinion of the long gone British Empire is out of step with reality and has resulted in Ireland 'cutting of its nose to spite its face' over the commonwealth.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

The only country that harps on about Empire is Ireland.

:D:D

You need to get out a tad more there Rob.

Like janfebmar, living in that bubble cannot be good for one.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

No, Rob is English, it's a mixture of denial and a superiority complex.

Didn’t know he was tbh. As you say, there may be a superiority complex at work here. ‘Empire nostalgia’ maybe? A common affliction over there since 2016. That so many Britons have an utterly immature relationship with Europe is causing them difficulties on so many fronts the poor wee things......

The only country that harps on about Empire is Ireland(which is strange as Ireland was a willing participant).India,Bangladesh(formerly bengal region)Kenya and South Africa are all in the Commonwealth which rather blows the 'those horrible British'theories out of the water,as with republican opinion of Churchill,the opinion of the long gone British Empire is out of step with reality and has resulted in Ireland 'cutting of its nose to spite its face' over the commonwealth.

I'm not even touching the, 'willing members' lark again, Rob - I've said my piece on it, and it's pretty obvious that the Irish were not willing members, but a colonised people. Your examples of, 'Irish' voices of power earlier exemplifies this perfectly.

What I wanted to address....how is not being part of the commonwealth cutting off our nose to spite our face? What tangible benefits would the commonwealth actually offer to Ireland? What are we missing out on by not being part of it? Ireland is doing just fine without it!

I've no personal interest in the commonwealth, as my post would make quite clear. I find the whole thing pretty pointless, though it's an area I'd be perfectly happy to compromise on in the event of Irish unification, should it help our Unionist neighbours feel more comfortable and accepted.

Regarding wider opinions of the British Empire.....I suggest you have a look at some media from outside Britain, put down the BBC specials on Churchill, and have a look at wider global opinions of the man. There is a huge spectrum of opinions on Churchill, from a hero during WWII, to a tyrant during the Bengal famine. The truth is obviously somewhere in the middle, but he certainly doesn't have the universal acclaim he does in Britain throughout many parts of the commonwealth.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

No, Rob is English, it's a mixture of denial and a superiority complex.

Didn’t know he was tbh. As you say, there may be a superiority complex at work here. ‘Empire nostalgia’ maybe? A common affliction over there since 2016. That so many Britons have an utterly immature relationship with Europe is causing them difficulties on so many fronts the poor wee things......

The only country that harps on about Empire is Ireland(which is strange as Ireland was a willing participant).India,Bangladesh(formerly bengal region)Kenya and South Africa are all in the Commonwealth which rather blows the 'those horrible British'theories out of the water,as with republican opinion of Churchill,the opinion of the long gone British Empire is out of step with reality and has resulted in Ireland 'cutting of its nose to spite its face' over the commonwealth.

I'm not even touching the, 'willing members' lark again, Rob - I've said my piece on it, and it's pretty obvious that the Irish were not willing members, but a colonised people. Your examples of, 'Irish' voices of power earlier exemplifies this perfectly.

What I wanted to address....how is not being part of the commonwealth cutting off our nose to spite our face? What tangible benefits would the commonwealth actually offer to Ireland? What are we missing out on by not being part of it? Ireland is doing just fine without it!

I've no personal interest in the commonwealth, as my post would make quite clear. I find the whole thing pretty pointless, though it's an area I'd be perfectly happy to compromise on in the event of Irish unification, should it help our Unionist neighbours feel more comfortable and accepted.

Regarding wider opinions of the British Empire.....I suggest you have a look at some media from outside Britain, put down the BBC specials on Churchill, and have a look at wider global opinions of the man. There is a huge spectrum of opinions on Churchill, from a hero during WWII, to a tyrant during the Bengal famine. The truth is obviously somewhere in the middle, but he certainly doesn't have the universal acclaim he does in Britain throughout many parts of the commonwealth.

The examples of commonwealth members I gave were carefully chosen-they all allegedly have a problem with the UK,the fact they are in the commonwealth undermines the theories popular with republicans about Britain,the discussion about Churchill has been flogged to death although I have provided links showing he is generally regarded as a hero worldwide. I believe all these facts combined show the republican perception of the UK is wrong.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

The only country that harps on about Empire is Ireland.

:D:D

You need to get out a tad more there Rob.

Like janfebmar, living in that bubble cannot be good for one.

Ireland tomorrow for my family and I francie:)

janfebmar

droidman123 wrote: »

By jans "logic" when the germans invaded poland they were effectivly part of germany,so those dasterdly poles were just as much to blame for what happened in ww2 as the germans were

Rubbish, I never mentioned anything about the Germans invading Poland. Stop the personal attacks / diversion.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

The examples of commonwealth members I gave were carefully chosen-they all allegedly have a problem with the UK,the fact they are in the commonwealth undermines the theories popular with republicans about Britain,the discussion about Churchill has been flogged to death although I have provided links showing he is generally regarded as a hero worldwide. I believe all these facts combined show the republican perception of the UK is wrong.

Rob mate, seriously, you need to get out more, or even read your own media. The 'Commonwealth Game' is up, those pesky natives are on to you.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/17/commonwealth-british-empire-britain-black-brown-people

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very good...another few thousands of pixels wasted in yet another of your wishful thinking roundabouts.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And up onto the high moral ground goes the poster who came onto the thread to ask 'whatabout Sean Russell', who had been discussed and finished with pages ago. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D:D

You need to get out a tad more there Rob.

Like janfebmar, living in that bubble cannot be good for one.

Yes indeed.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes indeed.

Blanch you're ignoring my question. Were the Irish considered as equals in the British Empire?

Dytalus

RobMc59 wrote: »

The only country that harps on about Empire is Ireland(which is strange as Ireland was a willing participant).

That the governing parties (and the transplanted colonists, and the few native irish given positions of power to keep them onside) of Ireland supported the Empire is not the same as saying the Irish were willing participants. By the same logic, India was a willing participant in the Empire.

Or the Belgian Congo was a willing member of the Belgian Empire. Or [insert colonised nation here] was a willing participant in [insert invading empire here]. The whole point of colonisation (where natives existed, rather than empty patches of land) was to usurp control of the region from the natives (or exterminate them, if one was feeling particularly cruel at the time), so of course the colonies would go along with the Empire. Ireland had the dubious 'privilege' of being a home nation by virtue of its extensive plantations of British colonists, by the subjugation of the local population (or their exile to the considerably lower quality land in Connaught - Cromwell's "To Hell or to Connaught!") and that the British were well in control of it long before they began their imperial expansion.

Do not mistake that to mean the Irish people supported the Empire, anymore than the Native Americans or native Indians did (or the Congolese supported Belgium, for that matter).

For the record, I on the whole view the Empire the way the Indians tend to (based on this article). I don't particularly care. It would be nice for Britain to own up to and apologise for the atrocities it committed...but most nations don't. Pretty much uniquely Germany does.

An understandable, if disappointing, fact of the world.

Most of my current distaste for Britain is directed almost entirely at its government, for its patronising (and at times outright insulting) treatment and view of Ireland and the (implied, if not overt) view that we're being a bit uppity for acting in our own interests in the wake of Brexit. Likewise, even that distaste for their political class has only blossomed post-Brexit (I'd kept my 'anti-Britishness' to cheering against them in Rugby, football, and Cricket...because it amuses me and as an Irish/Aussie I have other allegiances. Your cyclists in the olympics though...gosh they're some stunning athletes.). Sometimes I see some anti-Irish comment online, on Reddit or in news articles, or on Polls and Twitter feeds, and I let my anger towards Parliament lash out at the British public. It's not fair to do, and I'm ashamed when it happens, because I know that the average British person is well meaning - I lived in England, twice, and have pretty fond memories of both times. Ignorant of Ireland (in the genuine ignorant type way, not the bigoted type way) and our history and current relations they may be, but I chalk that up to a failing of education and their media and not maliciousness.

And WRT the Commonwealth.... I'd say most nations (and certainly their governments, if not their people) realise it's not fair to blame the current British government and people for the actions of their fathers (much like it's not fair to blame modern Germany for the Holocaust). As a result, joining the Commonwealth shouldn't be seen as a 'betrayal' of their independence fighters or anything like that. Modern Britain is not the Empire. That's not to say the lack of apologies or concessions or what-have-you isn't immune to criticism. I also criticise the Japanese for their whitewashing of their war crimes during WW2, even if I don't hold them actually responsible. You won't see me demanding the EU dismantle the FTA with Japan they negotiated.

Personally...'meh'. I don't particularly want to join because...what's the point? But like Fionn1952 I'm not exactly against it if it became an issue with unionists in a hypothetical UI. I'd probably even vote for it if there was a referendum, or if it was a UI requirement. I'd wager we're only not a member because when it came about there was no real momentum to join - we had a rather stupid 'we stand alone!' economic policy for quite a long time. I just don't see the point in doing it now.

Although seeing Ireland in the Commonwealth Games could be kinda neat.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes indeed.

I'm not the one jumping up and down huffing because the conversation goes in a direction I don't want it to go.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not the one jumping up and down huffing because the conversation goes in a direction I don't want it to go.

Of course you aren't. :D:D:D:D:D

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very good...another few thousands of pixels wasted in yet another of your wishful thinking roundabouts.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And up onto the high moral ground goes the poster who came onto the thread to ask 'whatabout Sean Russell', who had been discussed and finished with pages ago. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D:D

You need to get out a tad more there Rob.

Like janfebmar, living in that bubble cannot be good for one.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course you aren't. :D:D:D:D:D

Did you notice I said my piece on all of those subjects and which one poster in particular responded by just repeating their spurious remark?

Of course you didn't...you just go straight to huff and finger pointing.

Classic 'impartial' blanch.