RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

The Rape of Lucretia

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Prehaps you will take the time to answer this question Gorm.

A: The 1916 rebels sparked off a ripple of years of violence that had many victims, and pushed many unfortunate people to do things they should not have done, and regretted doing, making them victims as much as those who suffered the violence. We should not be discriminating in the victims of that violent time that we mark or not, but be embracing of all the victims as we, or some of us at least, gain a fuller perspective of those people and their time.

weldoninhio

Billcarson wrote: »

A sly way of trying to put the Irish down. Britain went to war in 1914 for the freedom of small nations, when the germans invaded Belgium. After the war they would have been seen as hypocrites in the eyes if the world if they had sent in the might of the British army. So the sly way was to send the tans and auxiliaries to help the RIC to take on the IRA.

Correct, and if he sent the actual army it would have been legitimately called a war. So Mary Lou is correct to call it a Tan War.

gormdubhgorm

Billcarson wrote: »

A sly way of trying to put the Irish down. Britain went to war in 1914 for the freedom of small nations, when the germans invaded Belgium. After the war they would have been seen as hypocrites in the eyes if the world if they had sent in the might of the British army. So the sly way was to send the tans and auxiliaries to help the RIC to take on the IRA.

Yeah it could not be called a war.

The same craic was done in India the British call it the 'Indian Mutiny' 1857.
The Indians call it thier first war of independence.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

A: The 1916 rebels sparked off a ripple of years of violence that had many victims, and pushed many unfortunate people to do things they should not have done, and regretted doing, making them victims as much as those who suffered the violence. We should not be discriminating in the victims of that violent time that we mark or not, but be embracing of all the victims as we, or some of us at least, gain a fuller perspective of those people and their time.

The 'process' didn't 'start' with 1916.What a ridiculous and stupid reading of history.

For goodness sake give it a rest, you are a disgrace.

Billcarson

weldoninhio wrote: »

Correct, and if he sent the actual army it would have been legitimately called a war. So Mary Lou is correct to call it a Tan War.

Even the British army that was in Ireland at the time, as of course there was some soldiers here was appalled by the actions of the tans etc and distanced themselves from them.

corner of hells

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'process' didn't 'start' with 1916.What a ridiculous and stupid reading of history.

For goodness sake give it a rest, you are a disgrace.

Jaysus Frank , will you relax.
You'll give yourself an ulcer.

gormdubhgorm

weldoninhio wrote: »

Correct, and if he sent the actual army it would have been legitimately called a war. So Mary Lou is correct to call it a Tan War.

Not really no because that only refereed to one component of the British forces.

During the WOI the term Black and Tans was used to refer to the whole of the British forces colloquially even though this was not strictly correct.

It suits Mary Lou to call it the Tan War much less nuanced but conjures up images of atrocities etc etc. Mary Lou is no eejit in fairness great for the soundbites.

Fann Linn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Not really no because that only refereed to one component of the British forces.

During the WOI the term Black and Tans was used to refer to the whole of the British forces colloquially even though this was not strictly correct.

It suits Mary Lou to call it the Tan War much less nuanced but conjures up images of atrocities etc etc. Mary Lou is no eejit in fairness great for the soundbites.

The atrocities were real.

FrancieBrady

corner of hells wrote: »

Jaysus Frank , will you relax.
You'll give yourself an ulcer.

I am thoroughly enjoying this expose of FG style cultural arrogance CoH...don't be worrying about me.

Plumbthedepths

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Because Irish history is not simple. Times changed very quickly. 1916 then bang off things went after the executions

In America they had a racist white supremacist who was seen as great in Woodrow Wilson.
Plus America has whitewashed a lot of thier history when it comes to coups and so on. American people are told that the USA is great constantly and Iran bad etc.
But the USA caused the coup in 53. Yanks rarely mention that.

Much like Irish people are told only one type of Irishman during the WOI the heroic republican. People are told there was only one type fighting for Brits in the WOI murderers. No real discussion of the make up of British forces, and who fought for them.
Barely any mention of any IRA atrocities during the WOI when Irish people discuss the WOI.
It was vicious in reality and far from glorious and simplistic.

I know the victor's write history but it is time we moved away from the narrow story telling.

I feel it is important the old stereotypes are broken down.

Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask .So once again can you explain why we should have a state comemoration of an organisation that engaged in the suppression and murder of civilians on behalf of a occupying colonial power?

gormdubhgorm

Fann Linn wrote: »

The atrocities were real.

I never said they were not. There were ones on all sides.

But I have never seen a film set in the war of independence where an ordinary Paddy puts on his RIC uniform eats his few spuds - kisses his wife and kids goodbye - and gets head blown off by the end of the film. Or people being murdered just because they were protestant in the early 20's.
Etc

When a lot of people think of bloody Sunday 1920 they think tanks went on the CP pitch! That is thier limit because they know nothing else.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I never said they were not. There were ones on all sides.

But I have never seen a film set in the war of independence where an ordinary Paddy puts on his RIC uniform eats his few spuds - kisses his wife and kids goodbye - and gets head blown off by the end of the film. Or people being murdered just because they were protestant in the early 20's.
Etc

When a lot of people think of bloody Sunday 1920 they think tanks went on the CP pitch! That is thier limit because they know nothing else.

WTF???? :D:D

gormdubhgorm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask .So once again can you explain why we should have a state comemoration of an organisation that engaged in the suppression and murder of civilians on behalf of a occupying colonial power?

I did answer it because that occupying power included ordinary Irish people who just happened to have a career in the RIC. Then historical events subsequently have painted them all as evil oppressors. Which is ridiculous.

Even the top fella FP Crozier (in charge of the auxies ADRIC) seemed like a decent auld skin - an honourable solider.

jmcc

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

When a lot of people think of bloody Sunday 1920 they think tanks went on the CP pitch! That is thier limit because they know nothing else.

So now you claim to know what people are thinking? Who are you, Eoghan Harris?

Regards...jmcc

Plumbthedepths

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I did answer it because that occupying power included ordinary Irish people who just happened to have a career in the RIC. Then historical events subsequently have painted them all as evil oppressors. Which is ridiculous.

Even the top fella FP Crozier seemed like a decent auld skin - an honourable solider.

You didn't answer, third time trying why should the state officially comemorate an organisation that murdered and brutalized members of the population. I can't find any other country that has comemorated a similar organisation involved in enforcing colonial rule. Maybe you can.

James Brown

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Because Irish history is not simple. Times changed very quickly. 1916 then bang off things went after the executions

In America they had a racist white supremacist who was seen as great in Woodrow Wilson.
Plus America has whitewashed a lot of thier history when it comes to coups and so on. American people are told that the USA is great constantly and Iran bad etc.
But the USA caused the coup in 53. Yanks rarely mention that.

Much like Irish people are told only one type of Irishman during the WOI the heroic republican. People are told there was only one type fighting for Brits in the WOI murderers. No real discussion of the make up of British forces, and who fought for them.
Barely any mention of any IRA atrocities during the WOI when Irish people discuss the WOI.
It was vicious in reality and far from glorious and simplistic.

I know the victor's write history but it is time we moved away from the narrow story telling.

I feel it is important the old stereotypes are broken down.

One is political views the other is a foreign power and its representatives both foreign and domestic willing to murder to keep Ireland under that occupation.
Going in circles here. Are you just trolling at this stage?

Plumbthedepths

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you just trolling at this stage?

So you're wondering too?

jmcc

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Even the top fella FP Crozier (in charge of the auxies) seemed like a decent auld skin - an honourable solider.

Maybe to you but had those terrorist acts been committed today, he would have been tried as a war criminal for the terrorist acts his fellow terrorists committed against civilians. His "pacifism" was nothing more than an attempt by a guilty terrorist to try rewriting his own history so that he wouldn't be considered as abject scum in "polite society" for having lost a war.

Regards...jmcc

FrancieBrady

jmcc wrote: »

So now you claim to know what people are thinking? Who are you, Eoghan Harris?

Regards...jmcc

The Scots think their army lifted their kilts and mooned at the English too, I believe.

jmcc

Matt Barrett wrote: »

One is political views the other is a foreign power and its representatives both foreign and domestic willing to murder to keep Ireland under that occupation.
Going in circles here. Are you just trolling at this stage?

Think he's stuck on the spin cycle.

Regards...jmcc

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

WTF???? :D:D

How often do you hear the Dunmanway killings mentioned in constrast to Bloody Sunday 1920?

How often do you hear the age and name of the fella Kevin Barry shot?

How often do you hear the names of the RIC lads shot in Solohedbeg?

In contrast how often do you hear of Pearce Connolly et al?

It is all one sided.

James Brown

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I never said they were not. There were ones on all sides.

But I have never seen a film set in the war of independence where an ordinary Paddy puts on his RIC uniform eats his few spuds - kisses his wife and kids goodbye - and gets head blown off by the end of the film. Or people being murdered just because they were protestant in the early 20's.
Etc

When a lot of people think of bloody Sunday 1920 they think tanks went on the CP pitch! That is thier limit because they know nothing else.

We are not looking to reconcile with the british as I believe that has been done for many years.
FG are talking about commemorating a specific group from a period in history.
The tans arent the unionists or even the british. They are a historic entity that nobody will claim to honour except Flanagan and Varadkar of course.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again for the umpteenth time...we have accepted the history of the RIC/DMP, they were to be appropriately recognised in this phase of the centenary programme.

That is semantics it would have been half @rsed chicken out affair.
Flanagan had the bravery to at least try and do it right.

James Brown

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is semantics it would have been half @rsed chicken out affair.
Flanagan had the bravery to at least try and do it right.

Ignorant and revisionist more like.
Either way the country has spoken..

weldoninhio

Matt Barrett wrote: »

One is political views the other is a foreign power and its representatives both foreign and domestic willing to murder to keep Ireland under that occupation.
Going in circles here. Are you just trolling at this stage?

At this stage??

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

How often do you hear the Dunmanway killings mentioned in constrast to Bloody Sunday 1920?

How often do you hear the age and name of the fella Kevin Barry shot?

How often do you hear the names of the RIC lads shot in Solohedbeg?

In contrast how often do you hear of Pearce Connolly et al?

It is all one sided.

I hear of all these incidents when I read properly researched histories or listen to balanced debate.

You seem to NOT want to hear what the RIC/DMP Irish or not did and to valiantly ignore the fact the Black and Tans were a part of that.

How dare you criticise the knowledge of others.

marieholmfan

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

How often do you hear the Dunmanway killings mentioned in constrast to Bloody Sunday 1920?

How often do you hear the age and name of the fella Kevin Barry shot?

How often do you hear the names of the RIC lads shot in Solohedbeg?

In contrast how often do you hear of Pearce Connolly et al?

It is all one sided.

Yeah - we valorise our patriot dead. Not RIC eviction trash or DMP lockout trash.

Plumbthedepths

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is semantics it would have been half @rsed chicken out affair.
Flanagan had the bravery to at least try and do it right.

Flanagan is a f**king Muppet, who did he consult. There was nothing right about what he attempted.

weldoninhio

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We are not looking to reconcile with the british as I believe that has been done for many years.
FG are talking about commemorating a specific group from a period in history.
The tans arent the unionists or even the british. They are a historic entity that nobody will claim to honour except Flanagan and Varadkar of course.

Even the Brits turned down the chance to commemorate the RIC and the Tans. Did no one tell them they were pushing a UI further away??

James Brown

weldoninhio wrote: »

At this stage??

Yeah. Made the mistake of giving folk the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. The true apologists went home hours ago.