RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

More deliciousness.

You mean the British, who sued for peace with the Irish Volunteers, would have beaten the Ulster volunteers...

Do square that circle for me Francie.








Yes, I am sure they would be easily beaten in 1918 or onwards. :P Given that many of them were ex British Army personal, battle-hardened from years of war, nevermind better armed than the Irish volunteers of the time.

You are proving my point. The Free State Army or the British Army would not have beaten the Ulster Volunteers.
[/QUOTE]
That is at best a guess. And a matter of opinion. Just like the reaction Charlie Flanagan provoked, I think had the Ulster Volunteers acted militarily they would have stirred a hornets nest that would have overwhelmed them.
We will never know of course.

So with that in mind, how does one avoid partition?

You don't put it on the table?

You certainly don't put it on the table if you have no confidence in it as a solution and think of it as only a temporary solution.(which is what the British did at the time)
You don't allow it to pertain and you certainly do not allow the artificial majority it created to change the system of voting 'laid down by you' to gain full control and subordination of the minority group.

The FACT of history is the British never really figured out how to deal with belligerent Unionism until the Anglo Irish Agreement. The fact also is, they have been more or less a pushover since, they have not been able to block, impede or bully for long, since.

jmcc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Gestapo and SS were entirely German.

As WW2 increasingly turned against the Nazis, the SS recruited forces from countries they had occupied. So the RIC-SS equivalency is present. There was even a height requirement for the RIC that had to be relaxed for the Black and Tans and Auxillaries. That is another historical reality that might upset some of the neo-Unionist arguments on the thread.

Regards...jmcc

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Again, you proved it for me.

Irish leaders have failed its people, so why do people automatically assume that if we have Irish leaders in an independent 19th-century state that the state of affairs would have been vastly better?

Blind hope?

Nobody has 'automatically assumed anything'.


Irish leaders have 'sometime' failed their people. But, the fact you are missing and have no value on, is that self determination is always better than being colonised and exploited for the betterment of a foreign power. We have built a forward looking country that has it's problems and will always have them, but it is our success and for us alone to decide how it is run.

Too many Irish people (yourself included) use prosperity as a metric of success.'It's all about the economy, stupid'
That is what enables them to take employ in the likes of the RIC/DMP. or to the serve in an army and ignore the fact it is brutally killing your innocent fellow countrymen and women etc.

markodaly

That is at best a guess. And a matter of opinion.

So you cant square that circle. Fine.

I think had the Ulster Volunteers acted militarily they would have stirred a hornets nest that would have overwhelmed them.

Who would have overwhelmed them?

You don't put it on the table?

Who, the British?

facehugger99

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Out of interest I searched the thread to see who mentioned '800 years' most frequently and guess what two geniuses came in in positions one and two?

:rolleyes:

We'll just pick put Francie's dog-whistles shall we?

I got bored after the first page of search results.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My issue with the RIC/DMP/AUX's/Black and Tans was that they were agents of an oppressive invader.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

the Irish people will NOT formally commemorate/honour those who were agents in our oppression

FrancieBrady wrote: »

so as they could gerrymander and oppress

FrancieBrady wrote: »

the forces of oppression,

FrancieBrady wrote: »

many Irish facilitated British oppression here.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody has 'automatically assumed anything'.

Good, so you concede that for the average Irish person or Gael, life would have remained pretty much the same.

Too many Irish people (yourself included) use prosperity as a metric of success.'It's all about the economy, stupid'

As opposed to what? Piety and glorious poverty, while dancing at the crossroads?
Our decades of economic mismanagement deserves to be called out.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

We'll just pick put Francie's dog-whistles shall we?

I got bored after the first page of search results.

The RIC/DMP were an oppressive force, in the period we are discussing.

Are you trying to rewrite history completely? Is this the project.

I haven't mentioned anything about pre-1900 AFAIR never mind '800 years' on this thread.

Again with the somebody else's opinion are 'dogwhistles'. That is just a censorship attempt FH, the same as telling lies about what has been said is.

jmcc

markodaly wrote: »

You mean the British, who sued for peace with the Irish Volunteers, would have beaten the Ulster volunteers...

The perils of having a neo-Unionist Brutonesque "education" on Irish history? The Irish Volunteers had men who fought in WW1. Many of the Unionist Volunteers who went to fight in WW1 never came back. The British callously used Irish troops like cannon fodder but to them, Irish troops were just Irish and not quite "British". Many Irish Volunteers went straight into the IRA and had battle experience. This is what caused problems for the British because the IRA was not starting from scratch with no military experience.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

markodaly wrote: »

Our decades of economic mismanagement deserves to be called out.

Whereas the centuries of plunder and the use of Irish food resources and people to fuel the expansion of the British empire does not? Your knowledge of History suggests that you are a teenager more interested in a kind of neo-Unionist exhibitionism that allows you to be "different" despite the facts and History being against you.

Regards...jmcc

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Good, so you concede that for the average Irish person or Gael, life would have remained pretty much the same.

Pretty much the same as what?

As opposed to what? Piety and glorious poverty, while dancing at the crossroads?
Our decades of economic mismanagement deserves to be called out.

And the centuries of wilful mismanagement that result in massive poverty and famine doesn't?


As opposed to 'the self respect of self determination'. I seen a clip of an interview with Sean Lemass on RTE last night (the Showband program Ardal O'Hanlon did) and he was saying 'That they thought that freedom would bring a healthier economy automatically, but they were completely wrong'.

Nobody denies the new state struggled, but I for one am proud of where we are today. It is in many instance, far far from perfect, but it is uncountable times better to being a part of monarchy or a colony.

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The RIC/DMP were an oppressive force, in the period we are discussing.

Are you trying to rewrite history completely? Is this the project.

I haven't mentioned anything about pre-1900 AFAIR never mind '800 years' on this thread.

.

There is no disputing Republicans , both the old IRA and the pira who you also condoned, murdered far more people in the period you discuss ie after 1900 than the RIC. In that period Republicans even killed far more Irish people than the RIC did. So who was the oppressor? Who was the agitator in the conflict?

fundi

jmcc wrote: »

The British callously used Irish troops like cannon fodder but to them,

Not true. We were all part of the UK in WW1. Even in WW2, not one of the 100,000 Irish people who volunteered to serve in British forces or help the war effort said they were treated unfairly because they were Irish.

FrancieBrady

jmcc wrote: »

The perils of having a neo-Unionist Brutoneque "education" on Irish history? The Irish Volunteers had men who fought in WW1. Many of the Unionist Volunteers who went to fight in WW1 never came back. The British callously used Irish troops like cannon fodder but to them, Irish troops were just Irish and not quite "British". Many Irish Volunteers went straight into the IRA and had battle experience. This is what caused problems for the British because the IRA was not starting from scratch with no military experience.

Regards...jmcc

The British actually recognised the danger of what you say, they deliberately made sure that Irish regiments had an English Officer class,(The 16th) so to deprive the Catholic class of officer training that could be turned against them.
Redmond, attempting to have an Irish Brigade established' actually told the irish Volunteers that it would ensure a fully trained and armed Irish Army returned to fight the Ulster Volunteers resistance to Home Rule.

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British actually recognised the danger of what you say, they deliberately made sure that Irish regiments had an English Officer class

There were Irish Officers in the British army. Same as there were Welsh and Cornish and Scottish ones.

Edgware

marieholmfan wrote: »

Edgware you should avoid any interpretation of history until you learn a bit about the Ulster Workers Council.

I know a damm sight more than you about what went on in the Six Counties including the U.W.C. the Glennane Gang and Billy Wrights outfit

marieholmfan

facehugger99 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

We'll just pick put Francie's dog-whistles shall we?

I got bored after the first page of search results.

The RIC were an oppressive force.

That's not a dogwhistle.

Facehugger99 you clearly don't understand the meaning of the term dogwhistle.

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

There were Irish Officers in the British army. Same as there were Welsh and Cornish and Scottish ones.

Where did I say there weren't?

What I actually said:

they deliberately made sure that Irish regiments had an English Officer class,(The 16th) so to deprive the Catholic class of officer training that could be turned against them.

After WW1 Irish forces were dispersed into other battalions precisely because the british were nervous of organised groups returning to Ireland. They were well aware, is the point.
The Ulster Divisions were treated differently.

Zebra3

fundi wrote: »

Not true. We were all part of the UK in WW1. Even in WW2, not one of the 100,000 Irish people who volunteered to serve in British forces or help the war effort said they were treated unfairly because they were Irish.

Very difficult to interview the dead.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again with the somebody else's opinion are 'dogwhistles'. That is just a censorship attempt FH, the same as telling lies about what has been said is.

Says the lad with 27,000 posts - the vast majority of which are the same tired, bitter, anti-British nonsense.

Perhaps you should self-censor yourself?

Can't be healthy sitting on Boards all day, pressing refresh and posting the same old thing ad nauseam.

There can be no moves toward unification until the older and bitter generations have shuffled off-stage in my view - this thread is a salient illustration of that.

Plumbthedepths

facehugger99 wrote: »

Says the lad with 27,000 posts - the vast majority of which are the same tired bitter, anti-British nonsense.

Perhaps you should self-censor yourself?

Can't be healthy sitting on Boards all day, pressing refresh and posting the same old thing ad nauseam.

I don't always agree with the poster you are attacking but surely its better to address his comments as opposed to making it personal. One can only assume you have gone for attack the poster because you aren't able to argue the comment. Just my view.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Pretty much the same as what?

As what went on in Irish history as we know it

As opposed to 'the self respect of self determination'. I seen a clip of an interview with Sean Lemass on RTE last night (the Showband program Ardal O'Hanlon did) and he was saying 'That they thought that freedom would bring a healthier economy automatically, but they were completely wrong'.

Indeed. Nationalism tends to be like that.
Look at Brexit. Its always someone else fault especially dem foreigners

facehugger99

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I don't always agree with the poster you are attacking but surely its better to address his comments as opposed to making it personal. One can only assume you have gone for attack the poster because you aren't able to argue the comment. Just my view.

Be more subtle with the backseat modding and attempts at carding would be my advice to you.

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did I say there weren't?

What I actually said:



After WW1 Irish forces were dispersed into other battalions precisely because the british were nervous of organised groups returning to Ireland. They were well aware, is the point.
.

Wrong again. The Irish battalions you talk of were not disbanded until June 1922. Long after WW1.

Plumbthedepths

facehugger99 wrote: »

Be more subtle with the backseat modding and attempts at carding would be my advice to you.

It's not an attempt at modding at all. It just makes no sense to attack a poster. If you have no counter argument fair enough but a personal attack is petty.
Feel free to report if you feel it's back seat modding.
Thanks for the advice I however suggest you keep it to yourself though.

fundi

Zebra3 wrote: »

Very difficult to interview the dead.

Not all of those 100,000 are dead yet. And of those who did survive the war, I do not recall any of them ever saying they were treated unfairly by the British, or that they were "cannon fodder."

walshb

r3nu4l wrote: »

This, a thousand times! A true Republican wants a United Ireland, not a 'win'. The only way to successfully achieve that is to ensure all citizens of the country feel welcome and a part of that country. That means commemorating and celebrating all parts of our history, together.

We have far too many pseudo-Republicans in this country who hate 'the prods' and 'the Brits'

Spot on....

So many uneducated 'RA' heads and wannabe 'RA' heads spouting the same tired and stale anti Brit propaganda. Most have no clue whatsoever.

True decent republican people don't hate Britain. They simply want Ireland United.

We cannot constantly be referencing the past, and decades ago. We need to build, unite, include, reach out. It's the only way forward for all.

There always seems to be this rush to want to be seen as more Irish than the next person..

A heads up! Being anti English and British so that you come across so Irish and Republican makes you less Irish! It makes you a sad hateful pr1ck!

Plumbthedepths

fundi wrote: »

Not all of those 100,000 are dead yet. And of those who did survive the war, I do not recall any of them ever saying they were treated unfairly by the British, or that they were "cannon fodder."

Were the survivors asked about there experience,?are the interviews either in written format or voice recorded available?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

As what went on in Irish history as we know it

Pretty staggering claim. But not really surprising if you regret independence.

Indeed. Nationalism tends to be like that.
Look at Brexit. Its always someone else fault especially dem foreigners

Eh...I think Lemass was taking the blame on himself and the first leaders of the state there.

'That they thought that freedom would bring a healthier economy automatically, but they were completely wrong'.

It is a self realisation which he acted on too, being widely recognised as pivotal in evolving the state we know now. A confident, modern member of the EU.
Not perfect by any means but experiencing problems everybody else has.

CrankyHaus

markodaly wrote: »

Indeed. Nationalism tends to be like that.
Look at Brexit. Its always someone else fault especially dem foreigners

That's a false comparison. Under British rule Ireland was an underdeveloped agrarian backwater that lagged far behind the other parts of the UK which industrialised. For a long time after 1922 we retained the economic framework which kept us in this position. For instance our currency was tied to Sterling until 1978.

Despite this the Irish State made efforts to pursue its own economic course which took a long time to bear fruit but very much did so in the last few decades. Just look at how we have outstripped the other parts of the UK which were far more developed than us in 1922 : Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales.

Find me any example of a small country occupied by a superpower neighbour for centuries that has managed to break free of its economic subjugation within mere decades of its political independence.

Sephiroth_dude

facehugger99 wrote: »

Says the lad with 27,000 posts - the vast majority of which are the same tired, bitter, anti-British nonsense.

Perhaps you should self-censor yourself?

Can't be healthy sitting on Boards all day, pressing refresh and posting the same old thing ad nauseam.

There can be no moves toward unification until the older and bitter generations have shuffled off-stage in my view - this thread is a salient illustration of that.

Mod

Cop yourself on, if you can't post civilly don't post at all.