RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

You are the one who ignores and isolates stuff, as you ignore the murders carried out by Republicans and defended the actions of the IRA up to the late nineties /gfa.
And the buildings the British built were mostly not great, but I fail to see what that has to do with it.

At least I am not indulging in an obscene body count game to try and vindicate the RIC/DMP and the Black and Tans.

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

As one poster stated if there was adequate R.I.C. uniforms available in 1920 we would never have heard the term Black and Tan. The R.I.C. actions in the War of Independence provided the local knowledge that Charlie and Bert from East London did not have.
FG made a complete mess of this and are treating the people as fools

As I said earlier, FG won't have the courage to go near this again so it might very well mean that the intended inclusion in this phase of the centenary events might never happen at all.

jimgoose

The Tetrarch wrote: »

I think he also wanted to solve our economic problems by printing more pound notes. My mother was in his constituency.

Wouldn't surprise me, that's the kind of blithering idiot he was. Cute hoor, though.

The Tetrarch

jimgoose wrote: »

Wouldn't surprise me, that's the kind of blithering idiot he was. Cute hoor, though.

May/may not be true:
He election canvassed on a bicycle with a sign "Here comes Oliver J" on the front and "There goes Oliver J" on the back.

jimgoose

The Tetrarch wrote: »

May/may not be true:
He election canvassed on a bicycle with a sign "Here comes Oliver J" on the front and "There goes Oliver J" on the back.

I believe John Flynn, FF TD for Kerry, gave him shot into the mouth in the Dáil bar in 1952. :pac:

FrancieBrady

jimgoose wrote: »

Cute hoor, though.

From his Wikipedia

. He has been described as "one of the cutest of cute hoors in the history of the Dáil"

KWAG2019

As the election is upon us don’t forget to greet the tanvassers from our superiors appropriately.

tipptom

fundi wrote: »

We learn a very one sided version of history in school, that's the problem. And why do you and so many others refer to someone as "Tan-agan"? Very childish.

That's BS based on more revisionist lies.

Was only given a brief outline on that the RIC were a police force in Ireland and manned mostly by Irishmen,that was it.

Absolutely nothing about them being crown force murderers,spies,looters,bullies or of their travails around Ireland on Tan trucks pointing out houses and people they wanted executed or burned out of their home.And that was just their career post 1916.

The next time some idiot says "but they were Irishmen to",i will scream.
Or….

"We shouldn't be selective about our history".
We are not, as we all know the facts of what the RIC were about and their actions against Irish people and it was never forgotten what they were,that was exactly the stone on where Flanagans political career perished.

Its been very well documented and discussed down the years,its just not the revisionist BS that Flannery and Bruton et al try to shove down Irish peoples neck.

"That we need to commemorate our enemies of the state to show Unionists that we are all inclusive"?

What a load of horse sh$t,any loyalist or unionist would laugh at that suggestion, and wouldn't expect it,nor would I expect any of them to commemorate the IRA to show how inclusive they are.
They are perfectly entitled to remember who they want as we are,and no one really cares.

Let Bruton and Flanagan remember them personally if they want at their own expense.Dont expect that to happen from two careerist expenses laden pigs in the trough.The state has always paid for their BS.

chrissb8

maccored wrote: »

The other way of looking at this is that many in the south look at the north and complain that the two opposing sides should get on well and be friends, now the 30 year (ish) conflict is over (which is probably isnt, but that's another discussion.)

Yet, here we are in the south with a 100 year hatred that's still raging.

I say that with slight tongue in cheek as it was a pretty stupid suggestion in the first place.

Fair enough. But I was talking to my Dad the other day and we were both in agreement 100 years ago was not that long.

My dad who was born in 1953 was able to hear stories from his Mom who's uncle had fought in the civil war. My nan passed in 2006. People act like it was that long ago.....it really wasn't. Infact there were still veterans alive up until the 60s.

James Brown

It's part of our heritage. To deny the truth is not acceptable. We don't hold anyone today to account for Oliver Cromwell but we aren't going to have a parade for him either.
Using 'immaturity' and 'reconciliation' as excuses to push the commemoration was a sneaky way of whitewashing history. That's what rubbed people wrong the most IMO.
The disbelief was another element. I get the impression the like of Flanagan and Varadkar would only love a K.B.E. though.

cameramonkey

chrissb8 wrote: »

Infact there were still veterans alive up until the 60s.

I met one in 2001 who had fought in the civil war and the tan war.

tipptom

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's part of our heritage. To deny the truth is not acceptable. We don't hold anyone today to account for Oliver Cromwell but we aren't going to have a parade for him either.
Using 'immaturity' and 'reconciliation' as excuses to push the commemoration was a sneaky way of whitewashing history. That's what rubbed people wrong the most IMO.
The disbelief was another element. I get the impression the like of Flanagan and Varadkar would only love a K.B.E. though.

This is the annoying part for me is the lie that Flanagan and Bruton keep running with that the RIC are airbrushed from history.

They certainly are not and especially in Tipperary where it would not be possible to speak of native peoples struggles pre 1915 and where ordinary men and women gave up their families,their jobs and the financial security for their families to fight for independence.

They were honourable men and women for whom a lot got no thanks for their sacrifices which are long forgotten and some never got back to their ordinary lives in Ireland while a lot of these RIC boys went on to join the AGS to further the security for their family's.
We must have been one of the most benevolent countries in the world towards our oppressors after fighting and gaining independence from them.

This will still be fresh in the upcoming election and FG will suffer from it because they have awoken younger people to what they really are and the comtempt to which they hold ordinary people,a party who view themselves as the ruling class of big landowners and bent businessmen.

corner of hells

chrissb8 wrote: »

Fair enough. But I was talking to my Dad the other day and we were both in agreement 100 years ago was not that long.

My dad who was born in 1953 was able to hear stories from his Mom who's uncle had fought in the civil war. My nan passed in 2006. People act like it was that long ago.....it really wasn't. Infact there were still veterans alive up until the 60s.

I'm pretty certain theres some Vikings living across from me.

CrankyHaus

tipptom wrote: »

We must have been one of the most benevolent countries in the world towards our oppressors after fighting and gaining independence from them.
.

This is rarely acknowledged. The nature of the Treaty as a stepping stone towards independence created a large amount of continuity between the Ireland of 1912 and of 1922. We also took measures to ensure that the Anglo Irish minority would not be disadvantaged (the senate, state subsidised protestant schooling). Finally land reform, the most contentious issue in many post colonial nations, had been given a legal framework of consensual resolution through the land acts so no violent land appropriations were necessary.

The result is that many of those who benefitted from British Rule stayed and continued to benefit. Many failed to appreciate their good fortune in comparison to their counterparts in most post-revolutionary societies and formed a vocal well connected lobby that criticises anything Irish and lauds our Imperial past.

On the whole I think this is a good and healthy thing and a necessary corrective to excessive nationalism. Just look at say Zimbabwe as a country that went so far the other way it's utterly shagged. However the sheer strangeness of this constant pro-empire, anti-Irish sentiment in high places, so unrepresentative of general Irish opinion, has to be understood in this context.

FrancieBrady

CrankyHaus wrote: »

This is rarely acknowledged. The nature of the Treaty as a stepping stone towards independence created a large amount of continuity between the Ireland of 1912 and of 1922. We also took measures to ensure that the Anglo Irish minority would not be disadvantaged (the senate, state subsidised protestant schooling). Finally land reform, the most contentious issue in many post colonial nations, had been given a legal framework of consensual resolution through the land acts so no violent land appropriations were necessary.

The result is that many of those who benefitted from British Rule stayed and continued to benefit. Many failed to appreciate their good fortune in comparison to their counterparts in most post-revolutionary societies and formed a vocal well connected lobby that criticises anything Irish and lauds our Imperial past.

On the whole I think this is a good and healthy thing and a necessary corrective to excessive nationalism. Just look at say Zimbabwe as a country that went so far the other way it's utterly shagged. However the sheer strangeness of this constant pro-empire, anti-Irish sentiment in high places, so unrepresentative of general Irish opinion, has to be understood in this context.

I would largely agree with you, but I would mention there is also an unhealthy inferiority complex raging among a dying breed too.
Another complication/oddity was the independence project wasn't completed and FF/FG lost interest in that and decided to divide the spoils they had got, more or less ignoring the plight of those in the north.

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would largely agree with you, but I would mention there is also an unhealthy inferiority complex raging among a dying breed too.
Another complication/oddity was the independence project wasn't completed and FF/FG lost interest in that and decided to divide the spoils they had got, more or less ignoring the plight of those in the north.

There was never going to be a satisfactory solution to the plight of those in the north - partition was going to be a problem, non-partition was going to be a problem.
The only all Ireland solution would have been home rule - problematic itself indeed also - but less traumatic, less violent, and in the end, a more long lasting satisfactory path for all round.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There was never going to be a satisfactory solution to the plight of those in the north - partition was going to be a problem, non-partition was going to be a problem.
The only all Ireland solution would have been home rule - problematic itself indeed also - but less traumatic, less violent, and in the end, a more long lasting satisfactory path for all round.

I disagree.
I agree the north was a problem but all partition achieved was to stall fixing the problem.
And the problem only started to resolve itself when Britain faced down the Unionists in the Anglo Irish Agreement and then tacitly withdrew in the GFA.

The saving grace for Unionists was that partition only caused lesser problems for Britain and huge ones here.

But Brexit has seen partition cause problems for us but massive problems for Britain. How that effects things going forward remains to be seen.

James Brown

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There was never going to be a satisfactory solution to the plight of those in the north - partition was going to be a problem, non-partition was going to be a problem.
The only all Ireland solution would have been home rule - problematic itself indeed also - but less traumatic, less violent, and in the end, a more long lasting satisfactory path for all round.

Nah that's not a solution it's a cop out.
Partition was another.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nah that's not a solution it's a cop out.
Partition was another.

It's the belligerent and bitter Brit-haters that do the most to prolong partition.

Given how costly unification would be, I think they're owned a great thanks.

trashcan

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There was never going to be a satisfactory solution to the plight of those in the north - partition was going to be a problem, non-partition was going to be a problem.
The only all Ireland solution would have been home rule - problematic itself indeed also - but less traumatic, less violent, and in the end, a more long lasting satisfactory path for all round.

The Home Rule option was effectively gone after 1916, and certainly after 1918. Unionism would not have accepted it anyway. Its an interesting historical "what if" to ponder what would have happened had Home Rule been implemented after 1912. Would it, as some would argue, have led to the possibility of eventual independence with no bloodshed ? In reality I don't think the British Government were ever going to face down the Unionists at that point in history. Their answer I fear was always going to be in the nature of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and partition.

Bishop of hope

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nah that's not a solution it's a cop out.
Partition was another.

Partition was a solution at the time, maybe the wrong one, but it wasn't a cop out, it was all we'd have gotten.
Our free state worked out reasonably well, but the nationalists North of the border suffered big time at the hands of racist bigoted unionists.
There's deep division up there still and unionists are starting to realise that queen and British Govt are no longer on their side.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's the belligerent and bitter Brit-haters that do the most to prolong partition.

Given how costly unification would be, I think they're owned a great thanks.

I've many brit relatives and friends. You need change your ideas on what folk who want a UI are about.
You sound a mite bitter yourself.

The dead on either side might disagree.

cameramonkey

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's the belligerent and bitter Brit-haters that do the most to prolong partition.

Given how costly unification would be, I think they're owned a great thanks.

I would say that if as you call them "the belligerent and bitter Brit-haters" were gone then the Unionist would still prolong partition, after all they were the ones who got it imposed on the island.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Partition was a solution at the time, maybe the wrong one, but it wasn't a cop out, it was all we'd have gotten.
Our free state worked out reasonably well, but the nationalists North of the border suffered big time at the hands of racist bigoted unionists.
There's deep division up there still and unionists are starting to realise that queen and British Govt are no longer on their side.

A cop out in relation to it being a solution. It was a stop gap.

hawley

If we were to offer to take Harry Sussex as our new king it might help heal wounds. The offer would be contingent to the unionists accepting a united Ireland. It would negate the need for a presidency, would give us closer ties with Britain and they would be ambassadors for our country.

Bishop of hope

Matt Barrett wrote: »

A cop out in relation to it being a solution. It was a stop gap.

I often wonder what would have happened if Collins hadn't died.
I honestly don't think he'd have let nationalist fester up there.
De Valera was a poor substitute imo.

J Mysterio

The Tetrarch wrote: »

May/may not be true:
He election canvassed on a bicycle with a sign "Here comes Oliver J" on the front and "There goes Oliver J" on the back.

My Dad told me that years ago. 'Here comes Oliver' on the front and 'There goes Flanagan' on the back. Funny tbf.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

A cop out in relation to it being a solution. It was a stop gap.

It was never mean't to be a final solution.
FF FG and the British lost interest and all turned a blind eye basically until it went up in flames.

lawred2

hawley wrote: »

If we were to offer to take Harry Sussex as our new king it might help heal wounds. The offer would be contingent to the unionists accepting a united Ireland. It would negate the need for a presidency, would give us closer ties with Britain and they would be ambassadors for our country.

?

J Mysterio

corner of hells wrote: »

I'm pretty certain theres some Vikings living across from me.

This is the worst as well. People taking the piss on the topic.