RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

Nift

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

You forgot - Charles William St John Burgess

ah yeah Cathal Brugha, theres so many. I was reading a history of Georgian Dublin recently. It makes a very good point about the mixed heritage in Dublin. the 18th century was a boom time for Dublin, so guess what happened. Many lords, lady's and yes dockers, workers, laborers came here from Wales and Britain. You can see it in the names of inner city Dublin today. The idea that there is many true 100 per cent Irish people or true gaels etc is a fallacy. For me the RIC issue is a small snap shot around all these complex identities and shared histories.

Commemorate them or not, lets not pretend there is not a huge issue coming down the tracks the day a border poll is announced. Imo it won't happen any time soon for these very reasons despite what Francis saids. He and the intelligent Republicans may accept change/compromise, but a quick glance here or on any forum will show you the "great unwashed" wouldn't give an inch.

The Rape of Lucretia

J Mysterio wrote: »

The lack of basic knowledge of Irish history people have demonstrated in this thread is mind blowing.

History has no relevance to those with an ideology in place of reason. Rather, it can be a threat to the ideology.

golfball37

Hamsterchops wrote: »

New National Anthem
New all inclusive flag.
Re joining the Commonwealth.
Non mandatory Irish in school..

Would Republicans countenance all of these?

I would absolutely, the language one would be the most difficult for me however and I would like it kept/recognised in some form

Bobtheman

Let's face facts . Most RIC or DMP were not involved in political oppression. Most Irish people did not want independence until after 1916.
I have no issues with the commentation so long as it's made clear the duties they are commentating.

Hamsterchops

Waiting for an answer to #623 ChikiChiki.

marieholmfan

Bobtheman wrote: »

Let's face facts . Most RIC or DMP were not involved in political oppression. Most Irish people did not want independence until after 1916.
I have no issues with the commentation so long as it's made clear the duties they are commentating.

But most RIC were involved in evictions and in the maintenance of the Cromwellian order.

Nift

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unionists will be joining a 'united' country. How many countries have two separate police forces?

You keep talking about what 'we' have to do to make a success of the will of the majority, what do you feel Unionists should do/compromise on?

A truth commission as you say. I'd imagine a few. barcelona, parts of Italy, i'm sure there is others.

Unionists would need to accept the same; a shared culture. I would propose, joint capitals in Dublin and Belfast, federalised police, a new anthem, flag, a truth commission, maybe a federal provincial system.

I'm not saying they or we have to do anything. I'm saying nothing will happen because of all these issues. I'd actually bet everything i have on it.

Put yourself in the orangeman shoes. His whole culture dies the day a United Ireland is announced. Now no matter how joyous to some that is, to them its the death of their identity. In my mind, there is a certainty many hardliners would take up a gun. I mean again, online/barstool chatter response would be **** em..they deserve it. But its a simplistic view. As unpalatable as it is to many, these unionists, many who consider themselves Irish, have been connected to Ireland since the 16th century.

I don't know the will of the majority might sound democratic to you, but it comes with alot of heartache and yes bloodshed. Nearly guaranteed.

To keep it on topic this RIC is an obvious carrot to Unionists, and a red rag to the rent a mob who think they're Republican. It seems an own goal, but its been flagged a while. The civil war centenrary will be another minefield.

The Rape of Lucretia

JupiterKid wrote: »

...

...but this "commemoration" is simply is a step too far and the Govt will pay the price for this

Only a step too far for those who are a step behind.

marieholmfan

The below is unnecessary - post Brexit 50% +1 is inevitable.

Nift wrote: »

A truth commission as you say. I'd imagine a few. barcelona, parts of Italy, i'm sure there is others.

Unionists would need to accept the same; a shared culture. I would propose, joint capitals in Dublin and Belfast, federalised police, a new anthem, flag, a truth commission, maybe a federal provincial system.

I'm not saying they or we have to do anything. I'm saying nothing will happen because of all these issues. I'd actually bet everything i have on it.

Put yourself in the orangeman shoes. His whole culture dies the day a United Ireland is announced. Now no matter how joyous to some that is, to them its the death of their identity. In my mind, there is a certainty many hardliners would take up a gun.

I don't know the will of the majority might sound democratic to you, but it comes with alot of heartache and yes bloodshed. Nearly guaranteed.

Scoundrel

Hamsterchops wrote: »

New National Anthem
New all inclusive flag.
Re joining the Commonwealth.
Non mandatory Irish in school..

Would Republicans countenance all of these?

What would the point of being an independent country be if we were to rejoin the commonwealth?? Ludicrous stuff.

Sir Oxman

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here is where it is said.

'Consideration should be given...'

There is NO recommendation to proceed with a commemoration, only that it should be considered.


https://www.decadeofcentenaries.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/Guidance2018/Guidance2018/index.html

that's the Expert Group, yer man is constantly talking about the All-Party committee (to cover FG's stupidity) of which it is very much not clear what they said on this particular matter.
I've seen bits of tweets asking why the govt didn't listen to or consult the All-Party ctte but can't find anything substantial.


This piece from a UCD professor asks:
https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/royal-irish-constabulary-4955317-Jan2020/


"The government must bear some responsibility for this, both in its un-nuanced communications and the fact that the All-Party Consultation Group on Commemorations does not seem to have been consulted on this particular event. Is this a solo run by the minister and the Historical and Reconciliation Police Society (HARP)?"

Nift

marieholmfan wrote: »

The below is unnecessary - post Brexit 50% +1 is inevitable.

Sure and good luck with that.

It's not.

Would be great if life was so simple. Brexit is a prime example of how complicated the democratic process can be.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who said that?

What will not be 'conducive to a reconciliation of traditions' (is suppression and brutality a 'tradition' now?) is a dishonest pretending that we wish to commemorate what these forces did in any official way.

Nobody is whitewashing them out of history, if there were good men and women members, let them be honoured/celebrated. But do not ask that they be celebrated as organisations, that is asking people to lie, to appease unionism in the hope they will accept the wishes of a majority, when they have already agreed when signing up to the GFA to accept the democratic wish of all the people.

Nobody is asking Arlene or unionists to lie to us about how they feel about the British Army for instance.

If you really want to be finicky about it you could put the prefix old before RIC if it would be more palatable for you. But whether we like it or not the Unionists have thier own culture and tradition. Irishmen fought against Irishmen during the war of Independence and the Civil War.
Many are forgotten would you have known the names of the Irish Volunteers in Solohedbeg - I bet you could rattle off a few without looking it up?


Would you have known anything about the Irish RIC men in Solohedbeg off the top of your head? I doubt it.
No matter how you look at it is a Republican airbrushing of history.

It is as bad as the way the British airbrush thier colonial past. We should not airbrush Irish men out of history as they do not conform today's politics for Republicans.

Appeasement of the Unionists is the way forward the likes of Collins knew it, the likes of De Valera and McGuinness grew into the idea. If that does not happen a UI will remain just a pipedream regardless of any numbers on a page.

Nift

Scoundrel wrote: »

What would the point of being an independent country be if we were to rejoin the commonwealth?? Ludicrous stuff.

So ludicrous that Sinn Fein have even mentioned it.

What's ludicrous is thinking that a United Ireland will be easily done and the same. Ireland would be utterly changed. As gormdubhgorm alluded, the most intelligent leader we have had, Collins, knew it to be the case and the rash blinkered ****ers killed him for it.

Hamsterchops

Scoundrel wrote: »

What would the point of being an independent country be if we were to rejoin the commonwealth?? Ludicrous stuff.

To put it another way, can you imagine Northern Ireland leaving the Commonwealth?

saabsaab

buried wrote: »

Yeah I know exactly what you are saying, they were caught up supporting a regime that deemed it acceptable to shoot multiple rounds of machine gun fire into a crowd of innocent people. That is the actual reality and the actual history. Just because you don't want to acknowledge it, well, that's on you.

I don't think you or many others here understand, you raise a terrible incident that can't be defended and then blacken the name of all the RIC. It is a fact that tens of thousands of today's Irish people are descendants of RIC DMP men myself included and I am not ashamed of him, especially as he died in WWI saving a comrade. Are you asking all these to be ashamed of their kin?

gormdubhgorm

marieholmfan wrote: »

The below is unnecessary - post Brexit 50% +1 is inevitable.

Nift wrote: »

Sure and good luck with that.

It's not.

Would be great if life was so simple. Brexit is a prime example of how complicated the democratic process can be.

A Unionist fella (Pastor Jack McKee Shankhill Road - good singer he is too!) mentioned what would happen if there was a UI way back in 1993.

@12:20 (with intro)

@13:30

"The Loyalists will become the terrorists in a United Ireland situation, Dublin will getting the bombs. Catholic people in the South of Ireland will be getting murdered"

--

Commemorations/Memorials like Varadkar's idea will try and ease the Unionists into the idea of a UI. It clearly is not as simple as a border poll as SF claim.

Sir Oxman

The Expert Group recommended a commemoration for all who died in the WoI for July 2021.

Why is this extra commemoration (state held) going ahead on the 17th?
It looks to me this is Flanagan in particular appeasing the lobby group HARP.

Sean.3516

Zebra3 wrote: »

Britain promised European jews Palestinian land. Something they had no right to do.

The idea that Britain stumped for the Jews and sold out the Arabs is pure revisionist history. Again the Jews started migrating there BEFORE the British took over the mandate. The British Mandate heavily favoured the Arabs due to oil interests. The Mufti of Jerusalem incited pogroms against the Jewish population and the Brits let them at it. Their original two-state solution involved giving the vast majority of land to the Arabs. Way more than the UN gave them in 1947.

Worth noting that when the Jews started buying land there was no nation state in Palestine, it was an Ottoman imperial province. There was never a nation state in Palestine that wasn’t Jewish. The Arabs never attempted to form a state there even though they were entitled to under the British plan and the UN plan.

Zebra3 wrote: »

The fact that jews bought some land in Palestine is irrelevant. If enough Poles buy land in Ireland, are they entitled to their own state here?

No they wouldn’t be entitled to form a state because they bought land for the simple reason that at a sovereign state already exists here.

No state had existed in Palestine, the proposed two-state solution was the first attempt at forming one since the Romans kicked the Jews out.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Irish people fought and died in WWI in large numbers for something that was already due to them. Wow.

Due to them in what way?

marieholmfan

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Due to them in what way?

Weird that someone should be both pro RIC and pro Israel in this country - both non normative opinions.


I suspect that we are simply dealing with a tedious contrarian autodidact.

Hamsterchops

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

A Unionist fella (Pastor Jack McKee Shankhill Road - good singer he is too!) mentioned what would happen if there was a UI way back in 1993.]

"The Loyalists will become the terrorists in a United Ireland situation, Dublin will getting the bombs. Catholic people in the South of Ireland will be getting murdered"

... but that was said in the context of the time (1983). Hopefully "an agreed" Ireland would be a peaceful and economically viable country.

marieholmfan

Significant violence is inevitable and we need to begin preparing for that event.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

... but that was said in the context of the time (1983). Hopefully "an agreed" Ireland would be a peaceful and economically viable country.


@13:30

"The Loyalists will become the terrorists in a United Ireland situation, Dublin will getting the bombs. Catholic people in the South of Ireland will be getting murdered"

--

Commemorations/Memorials like Varadkar's idea will try and ease the Unionists into the idea of a UI. It clearly is not as simple as a border poll as SF claim.

[/QUOTE]

banie01

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The idea that Britain stumped for the Jews and sold out the Arabs is pure revisionist history. Again the Jews started migrating there BEFORE the British took over the mandate.

Long before the Mandate was established the British Government voiced support for the formation of a Jewish state.
The Balfour declaration was the policy announcement that led to a rapid and near immediate growth in the number of Jewish migrants to Palestine.

FrancieBrady

Nift wrote: »

A truth commission as you say. I'd imagine a few. barcelona, parts of Italy, i'm sure there is others.

Unionists would need to accept the same; a shared culture. I would propose, joint capitals in Dublin and Belfast, federalised police, a new anthem, flag, a truth commission, maybe a federal provincial system.

I'm not saying they or we have to do anything. I'm saying nothing will happen because of all these issues. I'd actually bet everything i have on it.

Put yourself in the orangeman shoes. His whole culture dies the day a United Ireland is announced. Now no matter how joyous to some that is, to them its the death of their identity. In my mind, there is a certainty many hardliners would take up a gun. I mean again, online/barstool chatter response would be **** em..they deserve it. But its a simplistic view. As unpalatable as it is to many, these unionists, many who consider themselves Irish, have been connected to Ireland since the 16th century.

I don't know the will of the majority might sound democratic to you, but it comes with alot of heartache and yes bloodshed. Nearly guaranteed.

The Unionists who matter here, the democratic moderate ones have agreed already to what happens when a majority vote for a UI.
What consideration have you given to those who have wanted a UI for 100 years?
Why would ask them to ignore a majority vote?

We all have to work at a UI, which will mean compromises, it should never mean appeasement for the sake of it or to kick a specific issue down a road. That is what leads to outbreaks of violence.

To keep it on topic this RIC is an obvious carrot to Unionists, and a red rag to the rent a mob who think they're Republican. It seems an own goal, but its been flagged a while. The civil war centenrary will be another minefield.

What you are seeing is an honest distaste for what is proposed. There are memes doing the rounds of the queen commemorating the IRA, they are funny because it would be inconceivable that she would do that and not even expected.

Ian Paisley accepted in his later life that unionists abused their supremacy, I doubt there is a real Unionist that would expect the Irish to honour the forces of the crown either. FG are making fools of us again. Cue: John Bruton crying as he welcomes the queen.

Jimmy Garlic

saabsaab wrote: »

I don't think you or many others here understand, you raise a terrible incident that can't be defended and then blacken the name of all the RIC. It is a fact that tens of thousands of today's Irish people are descendants of RIC DMP men myself included and I am not ashamed of him, especially as he died in WWI saving a comrade. Are you asking all these to be ashamed of their kin?

The RIC were a private police force of the landed gentry. Dispicable individuals who threw people out on the road for money.

I doubt many French people would be commemorating and honouring the Milice.

Iscreamkone

I'll be commemorating Tom Barry and his flying column on 28/11/2020.
They gave the Tans one deserved hammering out in Kilmichael.
For me, this was the victory that ultimately won the War of Independence.

If someone wants to commemorate the RIC, Tans etc... that's their business, just don't expect my approval.

Billcarson

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Only a step too far for those who are a step behind.

Let's not kiss their arses too much though,even they might find it embarrassing.

buried

saabsaab wrote: »

I don't think you or many others here understand, you raise a terrible incident that can't be defended and then blacken the name of all the RIC. It is a fact that tens of thousands of today's Irish people are descendants of RIC DMP men myself included and I am not ashamed of him, especially as he died in WWI saving a comrade. Are you asking all these to be ashamed of their kin?

I'm not asking anything from you. I don't need to, I'm giving you facts on a murderous atrocity carried out by the RIC. The organisation of the RIC. What in it is wrong or incorrect about it? Once again I don't care what your relative did or didn't do. That is immaterial to the current situation where the self loathing current government have somehow deemed it acceptable to commemorate the organisation of the RIC that carried out this, and other atrocities. Your relative doesn't come into it for me. And it shouldn't for you. Remember your relative however you want to but I'll be f**ked if I agree to the ruling government I and many others handsomely pay for to commemorate organisations such as the RIC who were responsible for atrocities carried out in Croke Park in 1920, Dublin in 1913 or anywhere else throughout the island in the 100 years prior to that when innocent people were burned out of their homes and left to die in ditches in the thousands.
Some of those innocent people turfed out their own homes were my relatives. So what you think about that? But in fairness, I don't expect you to care and I don't want you to either.

FrancieBrady

marieholmfan wrote: »

Significant violence is inevitable and we need to begin preparing for that event.

[/QUOTE]

And significant violence has been threatened if there is a border in the Irish Sea.

Various factions of Unionism has being trying to hold these islands to ransom in various ways back as far as the early 1900's. They have been losing steadily and their numbers (belligerents) having also being steadily falling from Carson to Jamie Bryson.

Sean.3516

Zebra3 wrote: »

Misbehaviour?

Burning down cities?

Raping women?

Murdering people by exploding grenades in their mouths?

Helping to evict starving people?

Torture?

That's what decent people refer to as crimes.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

We’re arguing past each other when we resort to indignation.

I didn’t use the word misbehaviour specifically to downplay things the RIC did. I’ve never denied that they’ve done the things you listed.

Maybe focus on the point I was actually making which is that Ireland was not under a military occupation. I’m going by the actual definition of what a military occupation is as opposed to the hyperbolic, broad and emotionally charged definition that people on here are using.

People are conveniently ignoring the fact that words have definitions.

A military occupation is “effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over a territory, which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity.”

NOT UNDER THE FORMAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THAT ENTITY. Ireland was under the formal sovereignty of that entity since the Act of Union in 1801. Therefore we were not living under an occupation.

Now this by itself doesn’t mean that there weren’t legitimate reasons for a rebellion. But being “under occupation” isn’t one of them.