RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

gormdubhgorm

fly_agaric wrote: »

Well in a sense I think you have to do that to construct a state. I'd say many other countries have a lot bigger warts in their past that they tend to airbrush over when it comes to their official ceremonies & commemorations.

As I said above, having the state "commemorate" the RIC in some kind of official event with all their big-wigs in solemn attendence seems to me to directly question whether the state is legitimate at all.

It implies (to me?) the war of independence was a mistake really.

There's some hypocrisy in the whole thing too. The 2 main policial parties spring from (and often venerate) those who took up arms against the RIC, destroyed the organisation and murdered many its members.



I think that's a <bit> harsh now to be honest. Also did you mean "before 1922" there?
Not sure I understand the argument otherwise.

Yeah I did mean before 1922 better fix it.

In answer to your question on ligitmacy I think it just rememebers those from the RIC/DMP as a part of Irish history.
Many were Irishmen born and bred most just wanting to earn a living.
There were some good men in the RIC/DMP who get viewed by people with the same lens.
I think it is not harm to broaden the viewpoint a bit and say we can accept that happened and here we are now.

Plumbthedepths

Zebra3 wrote: »

The RIC supporters want to talk about the numbers killed?

Britain committed genocide in Ireland.

It won't go well for youse, lads.

The lad with the most posts whinging about people unwilling to agree to a state comemoration supports a party founded by a fascist who mirrored the trappings of Mussolini's crew.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

fundl. gormdubh, our resident partitionists and a few others here (Leo and Charlie included) denigrate the country when they don't get their way. Who does that remind you of?

*Cough Sammy?
*cough Arlene?
*cough Jeffrey?

etc etc etc. It's the default position of a certain mindset.

Oh I am not a partionist. By you calling me that refers to the hypocrisy of it.

Anyone who agrees with the RIC/DMP commemoration is a West Brit partitionist.
But the reality is those in Stormont aid partition those in the Dail aid partition.

Many in the Republic of Ireland are grand calling any version of the IRA 'freedom fighters' until 1922 then the narrative has to change sharpish.
There needs to be distance created and nuances discussed words such as 'mandate' etc. Suddenly words change from 'ambushes' to 'atrocities' etc

No nuances are permitted to be discussed when it comes to the RIC/DMP because doesn't everyone need a common enemy - those evil Brits :rolleyes:

Even those like the Kent/Ceannt family no nuanced can be discussed.
The lines cannot be blurred the sense of Irish Republicanism pride must be maintained (prior to 22 only of course)

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, denigrating somebody for having an interest in the world around them is 'isolationist'.
Thinking that your cultural identity is going to be diluted by outside influence is also fearful and smacks of xenophobia to be honest.



I don't have one narrow viewpoint. I keep telling you that I have no problem with appropriate remembrance. I didn't object to the place given to these groups by the Expert Group...NOBODY did.

As I said before I have no problem with outside culture as long as it is not to the detriment of Irish culture. You are trying to pigeonhole me.

Yes you do have a narrow viewpoint that much is clear in your posts you only want a remembrance which equates to what you think is appropriate.
Also Flanagan is not obliged to follow what the 'expert' group advised as Ferriter said who was on the group.
You want a a sort of 'remembrance' light a kinda sorta maybe job.

gormdubhgorm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The lad with the most posts whinging about people unwilling to agree to a state comemoration supports a party founded by a fascist who mirrored the trappings of Mussolini's crew.

If this refers to me as I have said I never voted FG. Also it interesting that you refer to the fascist origins of some from FG on the one hand.
Yet ignore how Cumann na nGaedheal were formed from the pro-treaty side with a mandate from the people.
And how the future leader of the ROI costs thousands of lives (needlessly) before he did u-turn mentally and created his own party FF a few years later.

Plus O'Duffy is one those who fought and lead the IRA the RIC/DMP.
Yet you are willing to separate Duffy from the heroic republicanism when it suits.
But cannot see any difference between those in the RIC/DMP they are all the one to you.
Nice manipulation of history in your head there.

gormdubhgorm

Zebra3 wrote: »

The RIC supporters want to talk about the numbers killed?

Britain committed genocide in Ireland.

It won't go well for youse, lads.

So that includes Irish people who were with the British forces to you?
You will be in a state of mental turmoil when the Civil War gets discussed in a few years time.

fly_agaric

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yeah I did mean before 1922 better fix it.

In answer to your question on ligitmacy I think it just rememebers those from the RIC/DMP as a part of Irish history.
Many were Irishmen born and bred most just wanting to earn a living.
There were some good men in the RIC/DMP who get viewed by people with the same lens.
I think it is not harm to broaden the viewpoint a bit and say we can accept that happened and here we are now.

I'd agree with that but just don't think a state commemoration (what I have in my head for that would be the events for 1916 rising, the 1st Dail etc) was the way to go here (because of the deep contradiction I mentioned).

I think that pre/post independence division when it comes to the justification of Republican violence is part of the founding ideology of this state (hypocritical or not!). The 2 big parties both believe that the violence during the war of independence was necessary & condemn the Republican violence post treaty (FG anyway!).

Plumbthedepths

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If this refers to me as I have said I never voted FG. Also it interesting that you refer to the fascist origins of some from FG on the one hand.
Yet ignore how Cumann na nGaedheal were formed from the pro-treaty side with a mandate from the people.
And how the future leader of the ROI costs thousands of lives (needlessly) before he did u-turn mentally and created his own party FF a few years later.

Of course it refers to you , you have also said you will be voting for FG in the next election in an earlier post ( unless you have edited that post)and have defended FGs attempt to comemorate the RIC/DMP/ Black and Tans ad naesum.
Eoin Duffy was one of the three founders of FG, he was a fascist no amount of whataboutery on your behalf will change that aspect. As I said you are willing to give your support to a party whose founder had an issue with democracy.
You also seem to have an issue with the wishes of the majority as your incessant whinging on this thread demonstrates.

gormdubhgorm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Of course it refers to you , you have also said you will be voting for FG in the next election in an earlier post ( unless you have edited that post)and have defended FGs attempt to comemorate the RIC/DMP/ Black and Tans ad naesum.
Eoin Duffy was one of the three founders of FG, he was a fascist no amount of whataboutery on your behalf will change that aspect. As I said you are willing to give your support to a party whose founder had an issue with democracy.
You also seem to have an issue with the wishes of the majority as your incessant whinging on this thread demonstrates.

Oh I will be voting FG in the next election it is posters like you that have driven me to it.

As for Eoin O'Duffy he is one those who fought and lead the IRA against the RIC/DMP. The very RIC/DMP you seem to have a vitriolic hatred for.
Yet you are willing to separate Duffy from the heroic republicanism when it suits.
But you cannot see any difference between those in the RIC/DMP they are all the one to you.
Nice manipulation of history in your head there.
Create nuance where it suits and refuse to see any elsewhere.

Maybe the problem is you were not made aware of these nuances in the RIC/DMP and only are aware of Duffy because of his high profile in Irish history?

horsebox1977

fundi wrote: »

She does not commemorate the UVF or other paramilitaries, afaik. As she herself , as a child, was attacked by the IRA I understand she is very against paramilitaries - even though you are not.

Arlene would meet and get direction from the UDA. Although this is not something they will be vocal about.

There are various photos of her and Dee Stitt whose the OC of the South Antrim UDA.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As I said before I have no problem with outside culture as long as it is not to the detriment of Irish culture. You are trying to pigeonhole me.

Yes you do have a narrow viewpoint that much is clear in your posts you only want a remembrance which equates to what you think is appropriate.
Also Flanagan is not obliged to follow what the 'expert' group advised as Ferriter said who was on the group.
You want a a sort of 'remembrance' light a kinda sorta maybe job.

So, I will rephrase the question you have fastidiously avoided all the way through this thread.

Have those writers who have conceived and written in English done so to the 'detriment' of Irish culture?

You won't answer this question I presume for a reason.

I have stated again and again and again, that I have no probem with 'appropriate' commemoration. Yours and Charlie's. problem is, you want to set what 'appropriate' is.

Plumbthedepths

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Oh I will be voting FG in the next election it is posters like you that have driven me to it.

As for Eoin O'Duffy he is one those who fought and lead the IRA the RIC/DMP.
Yet you are willing to separate Duffy from the heroic republicanism when it suits.
But you cannot see any difference between those in the RIC/DMP they are all the one to you.
Nice manipulation of history in your head there.
Create nuance where it suits and refuse to see any elsewhere.

Maybe the problem is you were not made aware of these nuances in the RIC/DMP and only are aware of Duffy because of his high profile in Irish history?

I've driven you to do something you were already going to do.lol. Soz but I think you're lying.
Duffy doesn't have that high a profile at all, even FG doesn't celebrate his memory, strange that considering he was a founding father. Instead they laud an individual who was a member of Sinn Fein.
As I said you have alot in common with Duffy, democracy clearly is an issue for you. The plebs won't do what you want accept the state on their behalf celebrating the memory of the RIC/DMP/Black and Tans

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, I will rephrase the question you have fastidiously avoided all the way through this thread.

Have those writers who have conceived and written in English done so to the 'detriment' of Irish culture?

You won't answer this question I presume for a reason.

I have stated again and again and again, that I have no probem with 'appropriate' commemoration. Yours and Charlie's. problem is, you want to set what 'appropriate' is.

Is that not exactly what you are doing deciding what is appropriate that is very subjective. The experts group view is also subjective.

Charlie Flanagan's and Leo's view is also subjective but the crucial difference is Charlie Flanagan and Leo have the mandate to make the decision.

This no different than the mandate SF have to abstain from westminster.
Or SF's mandate after 1918
Or CnG mandate after the Civil War

On top of this FG do not only have the mandate, but they are the governing party of the state. They are entitled to do what they see fit as the government of the state.

As for culture I do feel that Irish writers who have written in English have lost something of Irish culture. There are many turns of phrases that you do not get in English, but get in Irish. Writers can try and ape Irish in English through turn of phrase / hiberno-english and so on.
But it is not the same it becomes a different form of expression.
Much like African Americans uses of Ebonics, or Jamaican's use of Patois, it becomes something else - an off shoot from the real thing.
Cultural in a different manner but not the real thing, something has been lost along the way.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But you cannot see any difference between those in the RIC/DMP they are all the one to you.

We CAN see that there were some in the RIC/DMP that were good people and police. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY nobody objected to them being included in this phase of the commemorations.

Fann Linn

Gene Kerrigan put it succinctly in today's SIndo.
'Have your commemoration but don't ask me to pay for it.'

gormdubhgorm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I've driven you to do something you were already going to do.lol. Soz but I think you're lying.
Duffy doesn't have that high a profile at all, even FG doesn't celebrate his memory, strange that considering he was a founding father. Instead they laud an individual who was a member of Sinn Fein.
As I said you have alot in common with Duffy, democracy clearly is an issue for you. The plebs won't do what you want accept the state on their behalf celebrating the memory of the RIC/DMP/Black and Tans

Ah come on anyone who has ever studied history even at leaving level knows about O'Duffy. The blue shirts is a well known pejorative which you and many others have used. Including myself in the past.

But it is refreshing that you can see some nuance in the history of the republican side. You are willing not to look at all of them as heroes. As I assume you consider O'Duffy to be sullied in your eyes?

The next thing you have to do is look at the British side of things, and see can you be as good as finding nuance there. Were they all evil colonial oppressors that is up for you to find out. Things might surprise you if you open your eyes a bit to a broader perspective.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Is that not exactly what you are doing deciding what is appropriate that is very subjective. The experts group view is also subjective.

Charlie Flanagan's and Leo's view is also subjective but the crucial difference is Charlie Flanagan and Leo have the mandate to make the decision.
This no different than the mandate SF have to abstain from westminster.
Or SF's mandate after 1918
Or CnG mandate after the Civil War
On top of this FG do not only have the mandate, but they are the governing party of the state. They are entitled to do what they see fit as the government of the state.

I'll knock that bull**** on the head straight away and refer you to Varadkar apology for getting it wrong and lamenting that it was a solo run by the Dept Of Justice that caused the problem. 'More consultation and caution' going forward he said, and 'listening to the experts'.

As for culture I do feel that Irish writers who have written in English have lost something of Irish culture. There are many turns of phrases that you do not get in English, but get in Irish. Writers can try and ape Irish in English through turn of phrase / hiberno-english and so on.
But it is not the same it becomes a different form of expression.
Much like African Americans uses of Ebonics, or Jamaican's use of Patois, it becomes something else - an off shoot from the real thing.
Cultural in a different manner but not the real thing, something has been lost along the way.

Is this 'something' nebulous? Define it, educate us, using any novel you wish.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We CAN see that there were some in the RIC/DMP that were good people and police. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY nobody objected to them being included in this phase of the commemorations.

That is what you say. But I think that is a smokescreen many are using.
Just the gut feeling I am getting by some of the comments and reactions.

Naggdefy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

In 1833 the Presbyterians in Uslter in thier assembly termed the Irish language as 'our sweet mother tongue.'
So it can unite they lost it because English was viewed as the language of modernity.

It was not your skin it was your grand uncles - bout time you moved on from that bitterness even Collin Parry met Martin Mc and became a peace advocate.

It is these 'gestures and niceties' as you put it that unite a people.
If Article 2 and 3 was not removed from the Irish constitution there would never have been a GFA.

Thankfully there are many who are more broad minded and who's who identity is not based on events of the past.

I hope Flanagan gets the RIC/DMP just rebrand it for the narrowminded bigots (at a later date) and it will be grand.

The queen managed to be at the garden of REMEMBRANCE laying a wreath.
Yet you want no commemoration/remembrance as your family history and family has indoctrinated you.
You have to take the blinkers off sometime.

There is no point in further engagement with you I have made my points.
I suggest you think about thinks rationally and be less emotive about the issue.

I'm well aware of Presbyterian and Protestant history on the island of Ireland.

You, like Mr. Flanagan, think you can tell the people of the Republic what they should be thinking in your cosy little dream world. You can't dictate to people what they should think ala Varadkar and Flanagan.

Enough of your virtue signalling nonsense and over bearing superiority attitude regarding the Irish language.

Naggdefy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is what you say. But I think that is a smokescreen many are using.
Just the gut feeling I am getting by some of the comments and reactions.

Many had ample opportunity and warning to leave the force but choose to carry on working for the British Crown when it became obvious it was dangerous.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is what you say. But I think that is a smokescreen many are using.
Just the gut feeling I am getting by some of the comments and reactions.

Well that, as they say, is your problem.
Perhaps gormdubh should be looking for nuance?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll knock that bull**** on the head straight away and refer you to Varadkar apology for getting it wrong and lamenting that it was a solo run by the Dept Of Justice that caused the problem. 'More consultation and caution' going forward he said, and 'listening to the experts'.

Is this 'something' nebulous? Define it, educate us, using any novel you wish.

That is only Leo playing the political game.
Trying to be as good as Bertie, Adams etc.

Look at Roddy Doyle's trilogy full of hiberno-English and Dublin slang.
An echo of the Irish language in parts.
The use of 'me' instead of 'mo'.
In fact teachers of English as a foreign language use Roddy Doyle's books to teach Hiberno-English.

The left over of Irish language structure in Irish people's use of English etc.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38997656.pdf

That is all it has become a left over - hence my mention of Jamaican Patois etc.

This are much more important issues to rectify from an Irishness standpoint rather than expressing Irishness through a narrow political narrative that this thread was started on.

I do be doing me best to explain me point.
But apparently I am a Black and Tan apologist, or worse at West Brit.

Jackman25

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The whole of Irish history is contradictory but many chose to ignore those contractions and put the pieces of the jigsaw together any auld way to suit the politics they live in at the time.

FG deserve kudos for at least trying to change the old narrative, it has at least made people think. It has made me think I just never realised what mealy mouthed, brainwashed, hypocritical, bigoted nation we have become.
It was all just bubbling under the surface the people of ROI are no bettter than the hardcore Unionists. A mindest set in stone.
I would go further the people of the ROI are worse because they only praise republicanism before 1922. A 'qualified' sort of Republicanism when it suits.

Mealy-mouthed - That was Leo and Charlies rolling back. It was the essence of mealy-mouthedness. Leo now going further to heap the blame on Charlie.

Brain-washed - How exactly and by whom?

Hypocritical - How exactly?

Bigoted - Explain that one please, can't see where that comes in to the equation?

I see you will be voting for FG next election. It is certainly your natural home with the arrogant, smug, superior and downright nasty post above. Amazing how rattled you are by it all. Maybe organize your own commemoration of the RIC if you are that upset by the absence of one.

Plumbthedepths

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is only Leo playing the political game.
Trying to be as good as Bertie, Adams etc.

Look at Roddy Doyle's trilogy full of hiberno-English and Dublin slang.
An echo of the Irish language in parts.
The use of 'me' intead of 'mo'.
In fact teachers of english as a foreign language use Roddy Doyle's books to teach Hiberno-English.

The left over of Irish language structure in Irish people's use of English etc.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38997656.pdf

That is all it has become a left over hence my mention of Jamaican Patois etc.

This are much more important issues to rectify from an Irishness standpoint rather than expressing Irishness through a narrow political narrative that this thread was started on.

I do be doing me best to explain me point.
But apparently I am a Black and Tan apologist, or worse at West Brit.

Personally I think you are acting as a 'Rodeo Clown'.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is only Leo playing the political game.
Trying to be as good as Bertie, Adams etc.

Look at Roddy Doyle's trilogy full of hiberno-English and Dublin slang.
An echo of the Irish language in parts.
The use of 'me' intead of 'mo'.
In fact teachers of english as a foreign language use Roddy Doyle's books to teach Hiberno-English.

The left over of Irish language structure in Irish people's use of English etc.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38997656.pdf

That is all it has become a left over hence my mention of Jamaican Patois etc.

This are much more important issues to rectify from an Irishness standpoint rather than expressing Irishness through a narrow political narrative that this thread was started on.

I do be doing me best to explain me point.
But apparently I am a Black and Tan apologist, or worse at West Brit.

The absurdity of your position is this.

No people deserve to have their language supressed by law and by acton.
The British did successfully here what they did elsewhere, they quashed the speaking of the native tongue as a tool of oppression.

You wish to denigrate the Irish for failing to revive the language as the main spoken language of the nation (failing completely to understand what that involves as a task) but on the other hand you want to give formal state commemoration to the organisations that facilitated the destruction of that language.
Who exactly do you think carried out the suppression of the Irish language? The boy scouts? :rolleyes:

gormdubhgorm

Jackman25 wrote: »

Mealy-mouthed - That was Leo and Charlies rolling back. It was the essence of mealy-mouthedness. Leo now going further to heap the blame on Charlie.

Brain-washed - How exactly and by whom?

By the way the narrative was told about Irish republicanism v the British

Republican Irish = glorious freedom fighters pre-1922
British = evil

Hypocritical - How exactly?

Post 1922 -

Republicans viewed as terrorists in the ROI

Bigoted - Explain that one please, can't see where that comes in to the equation?

Referring to the RIC/DMP British as the 'Tans' and even referring to the British as the Tans. No nuance. No realization of the practicalities of the time and so on.

I see you will be voting for FG next election. It is certainly your natural home with the arrogant, smug, superior and downright nasty post above. Amazing how rattled you are by it all. Maybe organize your own commemoration of the RIC if you are that upset by the absence of one.

It is the hypocrisy that annoys me - I can see through the guff over this faux outrage.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

but on the other hand you want to give formal state commemoration to the organisations that facilitated the destruction of that language.
Who exactly do you think carried out the suppression of the Irish language? The boy scouts? :rolleyes:

It is not absurd at all - I will say again Constable James McDonnell of the RIC killed 21 January 1919 Solohedbeg aged 50 years old. From Mayo fluent Irish speaker.

He was outnumbered 8-2 - was a widower and left six children behind.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is not absurd at all I will say again Constable James McDonnell of the RIC killed 21 January 1921 Solohedbeg. From Mayo fluent Irish speaker.

And working for an organisation tasked and ordered to brutally suppress our independence and liberty. That is a fact, no matter how you wish to spin it.


You need to get over the fact that revolutions and rebellions are won and lost.

The RIC/DMP were on the losing side of history. Simple as. We can regret the fate of individuals but I don't regret for one second the end of the RIC/DMP.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And working for an organisation tasked and ordered to brutally suppressed our independence and liberty. That is a fact, no matter how you wish to spin it.

Not true many in RIC were Irish at one time or another, and would have wanted home rule.
Eamonn Ceannt's father James Kent was an officer in the RIC and a nationalist.

You need to 'get over the fact' that revolutions and rebellions are won and lost.

The RIC/DMP were on the losing side of history. Simple as. We can regret the fate of individuals but I don't regret for one second the end of the RIC/DMP.

Well you need to get over the fact that history is far more nuanced, than the black and white you pretend it to be.

There are others who believe that the rebellion is not even finished like Saoradh and the Real IRA. I suppose you will tell them to get over themselves as well?


Just because the RIC/DMP were on the losing side of history (from a Republican point of view) does not mean that history has to be spun in only one certain narrative. History is complex and should be treated as such.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Not true many in RIC were Irish at one time or another, and would have wanted home rule.
Eamonn Ceannt's father James Kent was an officer in the RIC and a nationalist.

And was working for an organisation tasked and ordered to brutally suppress our independence and liberty. That is a fact, no matter how you wish to spin it, I don't really care whether he wanted a communist state, dressed as leprechaun or ate spuds skin and all. There have always been Irish willing to join the BA regardless of what that army could stand over in Ireland. They have to answer to themselves for that and I am certainly not going to aid in their redemption. I can regret their mistakes and deaths though.

Well you need to get over the fact that history is far more nuanced, than the black and white you pretend it to be.

There are others who believe that the rebellion is not even finished like Saoradh and the Real IRA. I suppose you will tell them to get over themselves as well?

I frequently criticise them (Saoradh etc) since we got rid of our constitutional claim to NI by consensus.

Just because the RIC/DMP were on the losing side of history (from a Republican point of view) does not mean that history has to be spun in only one certain narrative. History is complex and should be treated as such.

Show us who in Ireland is 'spinning' a history of the RIC/DMP that is wrong?

Those asking us to ignore blatant and incontrovertible facts maybe?