Why do people love hating on monuments we inherited from British rule.

buried

The spire is cool. Has a round tower vibe to it. The light at the top is very cool at night.

dd973

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It really is the height of bitterness that many don't want to recognise the good Britain Russia did in defeating Germany in WWII in which Irishman serving were given no recognition until recently.

Now corrected OP. :pac:

o1s1n

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I like the spire. I don't think every monument has to be to something. I like that it just is.

Much better than Smurfit's vanity paddling pool that preceded it.

I used to like it, but lately I find it's starting to look incredibly dated.

The whole chrome thing is very turn of the millennium. Everything around that time was silver/chrome (electronics, cars, buildings, bridges etc)

Actually I find a lot of things from that era around the city are starting to look dated too like the millennium walkway and the boardwalk. I wonder how they'll all fare long term.

TheBoyConor

One of the reasons that everything stated to be done silver, not specifically referring to the the spire, but all street furniture and railings etc was that stainless steel is maintenance free and never rusts or needs painting, and the local authorities hate anything that requires maintenance - they want to install and walk away. And stainless steel is more pleasing and less industrial looking than galvanised steel.

ILoveYourVibes

Sean.3516 wrote: »

As we were part of Britain at the time, why can't we share in that pride?

Nope we were occupied by Britain at the time. Sorry.

TheBoyConor

We were never "part of britain". We are Ireland.

I feel you are deliberately trying to inflame people with those sort of statements.

For over 8000 years, the British army have oppressed the Irish people. They continue to do so to this day in the stolen 7 counties.

The UK is no longer in the European Union, therefore it is now more of a foreign country than ever before and their foreign occupying forces and institutions have no business on this Emerald Isle.

theological

TheBoyConor wrote: »

We were never "part of britain". We are Ireland.

I feel you are deliberately trying to inflame people with those sort of statements.

For over 8000 years, the British army have oppressed the Irish people. They continue to do so to this day in the stolen 7 counties.

The UK is no longer in the European Union, therefore it is now more of a foreign country than ever before and their foreign occupying forces and institutions have no business on this Emerald Isle.

800 years isn't true. If you're saying that the English conquest of Ireland began with the Normans that is. The Normans had conquered England in 1066. The previous people the Anglo-Saxons were defeated by them. The Normans were invaders of both Britain and Ireland by that definition.

I agree that the British did a lot of terrible things in Ireland, I'm just not convinced of the hypothesis of posters that suggest that the British only did terrible things in Ireland, or that there were no possible benefits even if secondary from British rule.

A balanced consideration of these things would probably lead to a maturing of our considerations of the past.

silverharp

They could do with sanding off the names on Traitor's Gate at Stephen's Green, replace with Irish troops that served in the Congo or more specifically the Siege of Jadotville? The Boer war is nothing to be proud of, lots of atrocities committed

ILoveYourVibes

theological wrote: »

800 years isn't true. If you're saying that the English conquest of Ireland began with the Normans that is. The Normans had conquered England in 1066. The previous people the Anglo-Saxons were defeated by them. The Normans were invaders of both Britain and Ireland by that definition.

I agree that the British did a lot of terrible things in Ireland, I'm just not convinced of the hypothesis of posters that suggest that the British only did terrible things in Ireland, or that there were no possible benefits even if secondary from British rule.

A balanced consideration of these things would probably lead to a maturing of our considerations of the past.

Please stop being a colonial apologist. Please stop trolling.

The Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland took place in stages during the late 12th century.

theological

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Please stop being a colonial apologist. Please stop trolling.

The Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland took place in stages during the late 12th century.

It isn't "trolling" to point out that Britain was also invaded by the Normans in 1066. Pointing out that Norman French doesn't necessarily equal English is also helpful.

Now, did the Norman French blend into what came to be known as English? Sure, but given that they ousted the Anglo-Saxons and didn't speak English, it is debatable as to how much they can be referred to as English in respect to the time period. That's why English contains so many French borrow words. However, The Norman French also blended into what came to be known as Irish. That's why a lot of people still have Norman derived surnames in Ireland.

This is why the Normans were referred to as being more Irish than the Irish themselves. They were good at assimilating into pre-existing cultures.

I'm not sure why a nuanced consideration of history produces such an aggressive response. We should be willing to constantly re-evaluate the past and consider our attitudes towards it.

screamer

I don’t agree with vandalism, but you should try reading the history of occupation in Ireland by the British empire and their forces. The atrocities committed are unbelievable, they were a cruel, smothering force who brutalised the Irish people. Forget the famine go further back and read of the stuff they did they were just awful b@stards. Now, if we can put that all behind us and move on, the BLM movement have no excuse.

screamer

silverharp wrote: »

They could do with sanding off the names on Traitor's Gate at Stephen's Green, replace with Irish troops that served in the Congo or more specifically the Siege of Jadotville? The Boer war is nothing to be proud of, lots of atrocities committed

Indeed the war where the British invented concentration camps for the Boer farmers and their families, awful stuff.

ILoveYourVibes

theological wrote: »

It isn't "trolling" to point out that Britain was also invaded by the Normans in 1066. .

We were invaded by Anglo Normans. There is a diff between anglo norman and norman. You do realize that right?

Anglo Normans , Normans and Anglo Saxons are all diff.

We were invaded by Anglo Normans not Normans. They had a diff language etc. By 1150 anglo normans were speaking English not French.

And yes there were Normans in Ireland. The normans SETTLED in ireland. And became norman Irish. They spoke French. There were some squirmishes but they became norman irish.

It was the anglo normans who invaded and started colonization.

endacl

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I like the spire. I don't think every monument has to be to something. I like that it just is.

It is about something. A massive big needle in the heartland of Dublin’s north inner city heroin hub. Could it be any more ‘about something’.

:pac:

theological

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

We were invaded by Anglo Normans. There is a diff between anglo norman and norman. You do realize that right?

Anglo Normans , Normans and Anglo Saxons are all diff.

We were invaded by Anglo Normans not Normans.

Anglo-Normans simply refers to Normans who were based in England. Ultimately the English were also invaded by the Normans at Hastings and then onwards from there. The Anglo-Saxons (the then English) were defeated by them.

This is not unimportant information. They had been ruling England for only 100 years before then. Considering the Anglo-Saxons already had a united English kingdom before the Normans invaded it is questionable as to how much the Normans were "English" by this stage.

A more accurate comment would be that both Ireland and England were conquered by the Norman French. The Irish invasion happened a hundred years after the English one. The Norman French became a significant part of the fabric of both nations.

I know that isn't convenient for making the 800 years argument, but it is important to handle history accurately.

ILoveYourVibes

theological wrote: »

Anglo-Normans simply refers to Normans who were based in England. Ultimately the English were also invaded by the Normans at Hastings and then onwards from there. The Anglo-Saxons (the then English) were defeated by them.

.

What NO ...they had a different language for one.

Its now agreed they adopted english as their spoken language much earlier than previously thought. About 1150s.There is a court record of a knight unable to speak Norman/French at all soon after that date. Indicating even the ruling class couldn't speak french.

The normans did invade england you are correct ....but the anglo normans ..are this NEW blended culture of anglo saxon and norman...they didn't speak french...they spoke English. But were somewhat a ruling class.

The normans spoke french ..not english.

Also the normans never IMPOSED their culture on the Saxons ..for example there was no attempt to make them speak french. It wasn't politicized.

Anglo Normans spoke another language ..that would become middle english.

Anglo Normans and Normans even have two separate Wiki pages.

Junkyard Tom

Rubberchikken wrote: »

The British empire brought prosperity to many parts of the world.

Lol. This is so utterly clueless. The British Empire extracted prosperity. You think the British sent money from Britain to the colonies to develop them?

It allowed people who would still be living under bushes a chance of an education and work.

This is the mark of a colonised mind.

Their might came in handy at times of war.

Yeah like the opium wars?

Their influence is still felt today in many corners of the globe.

Like Yemen, where children are starving to death in the 21st Century.

Africa as a continent seems incapable of digging itself out of the mire and achieving something. Left alone it would have disappeared to nothing at this stage.

Those blacks, eh? They needed colonising I tells ya.

TheBoyConor

What? Since when are we letting accurate historical facts get in the way of rabid republican anglophobia? Everybody knows that the Brits are the inflictors of 8000 years of oppression and the deliberately plotted the great potato famine of 1916 and that the Queen personally stole the 7 counties of Ulster and that Mick Collins singlehandedly won the war of independence by boxing her into the jaw.

theological

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

What NO ...they had a different language for one.

Its now agreed they adopted english as their spoken language much earlier than previously thought. About 1150s.There is a court record of a knight unable to speak Norman/French at all soon after that date. Indicating even the ruling class couldn't speak french.

The normans did invade england you are correct ....but the anglo normans ..are this NEW blended culture of anglo saxon and norman...they didn't speak french...they spoke English. But were somewhat a ruling class.

The normans spoke french ..not english.

Also the normans never IMPOSED their culture on the Saxons ..for example there was no attempt to make them speak french. It wasn't politicized.

So the ruling Norman class took over England, and then after 100 years took over Ireland.

I still think it is disingenuous to say that the Normans are equal with English at this point in history.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

What? Since when are we letting accurate historical facts get in the way of rabid republican anglophobia? Everybody knows that the Brits are the inflictors of 8000 years of oppression and the deliberately plotted the great potato famine of 1916 and that the Queen personally stole the 7 counties of Ulster and that Mick Collins singlehandedly won the war of independence by boxing her into the jaw.

8000! Janey mac that's a bit of an overstatement.

However, building up an accurate portrayal of history is useful. Acknowledging that Ireland has a history that isn't just about republicanism is also helpful.

Some people just hold these things up as unquestionable sacred cows.

Sean.3516

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What will all of the vandalising of monuments taking place at home and abroad, I thought back to 1966 when IRA terrorists blew up Nelson's Pillar. One of the nicest and most meaningful monuments in Dublin. Why didn't we just rebuild it? Why did we instead erect that steel monstrosity known as "The Spire"? That atrocious looking piece of postmodern junk?

I have to say I've never understood the antagonism some people have to monuments in Ireland that happen to be the vestiges of British rule. Whatever you think about the way Britain governed Ireland, what's wrong exactly with commemorating certain things like Nelson's victory over Napoleon's navy and the Duke of Wellington (who was from Ireland). Glad the republicans didn't blow up the Duke of Wellington monument in Phoenix Park, nicest monument in Ireland and it's not particularly close.

It really is the height of bitterness that many don't want to recognise the good Britain did in defeating Napoleon and defeating Germany in WWI in which Irishman serving were given no recognition until recently. As we were part of Britain at the time, why can't we share in that pride?

The British did as much wrong around the world as the Germans did in WW2. Any reference to them here should be completely wiped, there’s still too many left.

joseywhales

TheBoyConor wrote: »

What? Since when are we letting accurate historical facts get in the way of rabid republican anglophobia? Everybody knows that the Brits are the inflictors of 8000 years of oppression and the deliberately plotted the great potato famine of 1916 and that the Queen personally stole the 7 counties of Ulster and that Mick Collins singlehandedly won the war of independence by boxing her into the jaw.

I mean as funny and all as that is, we probably shouldn't forget all the raping pitch capping and various torture and penal laws, the last thing we want is to end up in the same situation in 200 years.

ILoveYourVibes

theological wrote: »

So the ruling Norman class took over England, and then after 100 years took over Ireland.

I still think it is disingenuous to say that the Normans are equal with English at this point in history.

STOP saying Normans.

Anglo Normans.

They spoke a totally diff language. their knights couldn't even speak french!

They were mainly anglo saxons with some norman influence. The populations had intermarried.

By the time they came to Ireland ..'NORMANS' identified as English and had fully assimilated into english culture. .

I mean the fact that Richard De Clare was then called STRONG BOW ..in English should tell you something.


In fact they were called in Ireland ..and their descendants were called 'Old English' should tell you more.

They themselves used the epithet "Englishmen born in Ireland"

theological

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

STOP saying Normans.

Anglo Normans.

They spoke a totally diff language. their knights couldn't even speak french!

They were mainly anglo saxons with some norman influence. The populations had intermarried.

By the time they came to Ireland ..'NORMANS' identified as English and had fully assimilated into english culture. .

I'm enjoying the reaction, but there's no denying that the Normans had supremacy over England from 1066. They were the drivers as to what happened there. The King was Norman French, the key commanders in the invasion of Ireland were also Norman French.

It's fine if you want to rebrand the Normans as English, but that's not the case. Is it true that some Anglo-Saxons may have been involved in Norman society? Sure. But only as the servants of the Normans rather than the masters. The same is true for the Irish once the Normans invaded.

Your argument isn't strong enough. The Normans had only been in England for 100 years before invading Ireland.

joseywhales

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

STOP saying Normans.

Anglo Normans.

They spoke a totally diff language. their knights couldn't even speak french!

They were mainly anglo saxons with some norman influence. The populations had intermarried.

By the time they came to Ireland ..'NORMANS' identified as English and had fully assimilated into english culture. .

I am not to worried about the Norman invasions either way, I thought they integrated, even spoke Irish eventually, I think the plantations are the real start of the problems.

fly_agaric

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The normans did invade england you are correct ....but the anglo normans ..are this NEW blended culture of anglo saxon and norman...they didn't speak french...they spoke English. But were somewhat a ruling class.

Yes a bit of weird/reaching argument given how testy people will get about labelling of immigrants' descendants as not being "from" x place...

They were Englands'/Wales' nobility at time of their incursions.

IMO there's arguments the "800 years of English/British oppression" thing is a shibboleth for reasons other than Anglo-Normans "really" being French.

ILoveYourVibes

fly_agaric wrote: »

Yes a bit of weird/reaching argument given how testy people will get about labelling of immigrants' descendants as not being "from" x place...

They were Englands'/Wales' nobility at time of their incursions.
IMO there's arguments the "800 years of English/British oppression" thing is a shibboleth for reasons other than Anglo-Normans "really" being French.

Exactly! Exactly!

They didn't speak even french!

They spoke English. And they called themselves English!

Feisar

If you ever start thinking it wasn't the tans, quickly remind yourself. It was the tans.

BattleCorp

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Lol. This is so utterly clueless. The British Empire extracted prosperity. You think the British sent money from Britain to the colonies to develop them?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the British put in pretty good infrastructure like railways etc. that would have helped colonies to prosper? Yes, that infrastructure was used to extract as much as possible from the colony but now that the Brits are gone, that infrastructure can be of benefit to the ex-colony.

theological

joseywhales wrote: »

I am not to worried about the Norman invasions either way, I thought they integrated, even spoke Irish eventually, I think the plantations are the real start of the problems.

Yes, but the past is a key part of shaping the present and the future. A sizeable amount of my own genetics come back to people who arrived from England and Scotland. I also have a sizeable segment of Irish ancestry. Should one bemoan ones origins just because ones ancestors may have been subjects in a regime that did lots of terrible things?

Or is it better simply to acknowledge the past and see how it has impacted the present. I'm more in this camp.

I think a lot of Irish history is focussed purely on republican history rather than taking a more holistic view, and I think a lot of it is about bemoaning the past. I'm not sure how healthy that is particularly when it can inform unhelpful attitudes towards British people today.

It's helpful also to question some of the unquestionable sacred cows that people have erected such as the legitimacy of the 1916 rising given that most people were opposed to it initially.

It's definitely something worth talking about, along with the idea of whether or not we're willing to examine negative things about our own past.

joseywhales

BattleCorp wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the British put in pretty good infrastructure like railways etc. that would have helped colonies to prosper? Yes, that infrastructure was used to extract as much as possible from the colony but now that the Brits are gone, that infrastructure can be of benefit to the ex-colony.

I extracted your blood , now you have a free iv drip!