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

joe40

landofthetree wrote: »

The French were absolutely barbaric when it came to colonial rule:

Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Algerians, out of a total of 3 million, were killed within the first three decades of the conquest as a result of war, massacres, disease and famine. French losses from 1830–51 were 3,336 killed in action and 92,329 dead in the hospital.


Also in 60s they massacred Algerians in Paris and the police wouldn't even release the death to their relatives.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

Absolutely French were brutal. All the European imperial countries took hardship to the countries they invaded.

The effects are still been felt today.

I hold no animosity to modern day British people but also feel no need to be grateful for anything.
I'm glad we're emerging as a self confident country.

Tell me how

o1s1n wrote: »

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.

That's pretty much a given for any construction outside of maybe stone but even that doesn't look the same without it being treated.

This is part of what is expected with monuments, that they reflect their time but I do agree that they should not immediately strike you as looking grubby or poorly maintained.

The railway was not built for your benefit, it was built to get the army to anywhere in the country from Dublin in a few hours. It was built to opress.

The brits, as bad as any empire

Between 12 and 29 million Indians died of starvation while it was under the control of the British Empire, as millions of tons of wheat were exported to Britain as famine raged in India.

In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal.

Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.

whisky_galore

Bowie wrote: »

TBF any plaque with Haughey or Dev on it turns my stomach.

Many of these statues are put up by the business community patting themselves on the back or people made them money. Then you have to consider a general public who didn't even have a vote, were likely not consulted on this kind of thing either.

Are the public consulted on every arty farty sculpture installed now?

Pkiernan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not at all mate

I just dont belive anything british is worthy of rememberence nor monuments here

We should take advantage of latest wave of monument removal to remove more of their ignorant stautues etc here,we left.them too much say here post independance


We see the scum of england so called upper class come here every year to participate in hunts,offer nothing to the country,and wreak all around them, (just carrying on their history tbh,they've made a balls of everywhere they went,idk why anyone would want to remember em)

Your hatred only hurts yourself.

whisky_galore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The railway was not built for your benefit, it was built to get the army to anywhere in the country from Dublin in a few hours. It was built to opress.

Never mind the millions of tons of goods and passengers carried. How many times was it used to oppress? You could argue the roads were built to oppress you as well, the Tans used the roads a lot. Maybe we should destroy those too?

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Never mind the millions of tons of goods and passengers carried. How many times was it used to oppress? You could argue the roads were built to oppress you as well, the Tans used the roads a lot. Maybe we should destroy those too?

Why are you living here? This isn’t your empire any more.

whisky_galore

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Why are you living here? This isn’t your empire any more.

Wtf are you on about?

landofthetree

Deleted User wrote: »

The brits, as bad as any empire

Between 12 and 29 million Indians died of starvation while it was under the control of the British Empire, as millions of tons of wheat were exported to Britain as famine raged in India.

In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal.

Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.

The USSR were by far the worse.

100mil+ dead.

Del.Monte

Deleted User wrote: »

Mate,they are still hanging onto.part of our country



They have made a complete balls of everywhere they have gone,look at iraq,libya for 21st century examples.....they took over india in 1700s,when it was one of richest countries in world,by time they left in 1947,life expectancy was 27......as.they've run out of countries to rob,their country has crumbled and fallen into horrendous levels of social disorder,

I find it hard to take anyone giving out about the "wicked Brits" seriously when they start a sentence with that most British colloquialism 'mate' or have you just watched too many British soaps?

Pkiernan

Del.Monte wrote: »

I find it hard to take anyone giving out about the "wicked Brits" seriously when they start a sentence with that most British colloquialism 'mate' or have you just watched too many British soaps?

Innit guvnor

Del.Monte

Del.Monte wrote: »

I find it hard to take anyone giving out about the "wicked Brits" seriously when they start a sentence with that most British colloquialism 'mate' or have you just watched too many British soaps?

Use whatever you need to disengage and try whitewash what those people have done and been upto here and about the planet



West brits are the best.fun,doomed to forever admire the english,but never be treated as equals by them

Pkiernan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Use whatever you need to disengage and try whitewash what those people have done and been upto here and about the planet



West brits are the best.fun,doomed to forever admire the english,but never be treated as equals by them

Yawn.

As if the Irish wouldn't have done the same if they'd had the moxy.

Look at early Irish history, you'll see that the Irish tried to invade Wales (and failed) long before England put manners on them.

Del.Monte

Mate, the lockdown seems to be really getting to you. You should try relaxing in front of your TV with a pint of Bass and watch your favourite English soccer team.

PS I will agree with you about the lot of the poor West Brits - we have no home - unaccepted on both islands.

Pkiernan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Gas craic all right.....imagine up nonsemse to critise our own country



How many people have died worldwide in wars or famines caused by the irish??

Quite why people think the british are something to admire and venerate in statues given what they been upto is beyond me.....

How many are dead from their blaggarding in the middle east,this century alone......a horrible war-mongoring shower of people the world has ever seen


Have the british,done 1 single positive thing in last 5 years for the world?

Only because the Irish couldn't.

https://www.libraryireland.com/SocialHistoryAncientIreland/I-III-2.php


Not because they're in some way better.

Look how you treat your own Travellers.

Sean.3516

riffmongous wrote: »

Was Britain defeating Napoleon good for Ireland? Would we have had the Famine under French rule I wonder

Did the French at the time have some remedy for airborne blight?

Sean.3516

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s equally the height of obliviousness to history to argue that people shouldn’t be bothered by having a constant reminder of the shìtty things the British Government at the time were responsible for inflicting upon Irish society.

What specific monuments remind you of the ****ty things Britain did to Ireland?

I don’t have that issue with Nelson’s Pillar or the Duke of Wellington’s monument. I mean there’s a reason we don’t have a monument to Oliver Cromwell anywhere and it’s the exact reason you lay out in your post.

Sean.3516

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Napoleon has gotten caught up in the British military jingoism and people seem to equate him to the likes of Hitler.

It'd take quite a compelling argument to convince me that we'd have been worse off had Napoleon won.

Well he was a dictator who attempted to take control of Europe driven by the dangerous and crappy ideology of the French Revolution. An ideological precursor to both Marxism and Nazism. He committed several atrocities most notably in the Italian campaign. He’s certainly no Hitler (because no one is except Hitler) but he’s certainly comparable. And yes I like the metric system and legal reform too.

I‘d say it’s probably a good thing that he didn’t succeed.

Sean.3516

endacl wrote: »

1. Nelson’s pillar in Dublin wasn’t put up by the British. It was Dublin corporation that erected it.

I didn’t say it was put up by the British, I said that we inherited it from British rule. Although you could certainly say the British put it up considering the Dublin Corporation erected it in 1809 when Ireland was a part of Britain.

Sean.3516

buried wrote: »

Probably because when the came over here in the 16th Century they blew up plenty of things themselves. Look at what the thugs did to some if not all of the most beautiful stone abbeys in Ireland at the time, fantastic stone buildings such as the Abbey in Claregalway, ransacked, looted and burnt. Irish monuments got thrashed here first by them, so don't be selective in your History.

I’m not being selective with history. That’s why I want these monuments to stay up. The fact that they destroyed some of our monuments isn’t really a good reason to destroy theirs.

Sean.3516

TheBoyConor wrote: »

[*]St patrick came then in 432 to convert us and get rid of all the snakes (of course, snakes is a metaphor for protestants, who he foresaw)

Well snakes were a metaphor for paganism, not Protestantism.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

[*]Then the Queen decided to steal the 7 counties of ulster

Britain had a king at that time not a queen.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Tl;dr, everything that ever went wrong is because of the Brits and everything that went right was down to the men of 1916 and all the patriots who have died before in the Irish wars.

Literally the most ideologically simplistic view on history ever. Good history should be anti-ideology because ideologies have blind spots and forces you to ignore context when it doesn’t affirm the ideology.

Sean.3516

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Why from an Irish perspective do you regard these as 'good'? Oh and i think you'll find the Brits had more than just a bit of help in those victories

Because whether something is “good” or “bad” should not be dependent on my perspective. Everything I regard as good would still be good even if I wasn’t an Irish person and likewise with things I regard as bad.

The defeat of Napoleon was a good thing and likewise with the defeat of Germany in WWI.

As regards the British having help, in the Battle of Trafalgar (which is what Nelson’s Pillar commemorated) Britain was alone and outnumbered. With World War One, Britain though not sufficient was essential to winning that war.

One eyed Jack

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What specific monuments remind you of the ****ty things Britain did to Ireland?

I don’t have that issue with Nelson’s Pillar or the Duke of Wellington’s monument. I mean there’s a reason we don’t have a monument to Oliver Cromwell anywhere and it’s the exact reason you lay out in your post.

Well, Nelsons Pillar would... but it’s not there any more.

BOOM :pac:

Sean.3516

Rubberchikken wrote: »

The British empire brought prosperity to many parts of the world.
It allowed people who would still be living under bushes a chance of an education and work.

Their might came in handy at times of war.
Their influence is still felt today in many corners of the globe.

Yes mistakes were made but you can't make an omelette without breaking the eggs.

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.

I generally agree with all of this except for the “you can’t make an omelette without breaking the eggs” remark. The good parts of the British Empire do not excuse or justify the parts that were bad. This was word for word the excuse used by the Soviets to justify the mass murder of communism.

In any case it was definitely a good thing that the British Empire spread Western civilisation to other parts of the globe. Things like democracy and individual rights would not have reached these places if they were left to their own devices. People who say that’s wrong generally don’t understand that certain things were unique to the Wesf (democracy, individual rights) while other things were the lot of every society in human history (slavery, oppression of minorities) and the abolition of these things only occurs in a particular context of moral enlightenment that was unique to the West at the time.

SmartinMartin

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well snakes were a metaphor for paganism, not Protestantism.



Britain had a king at that time not a queen.




Literally the most ideologically simplistic view on history ever. Good history should be anti-ideology because ideologies have blind spots and force you to ignore context when it doesn’t affirm the ideology.

Whoosh

Sean.3516

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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

Actually we weren’t “occupied” by Britain at that time. An occupation is when one country has military control over a (separate nation).

We were a politically integrated part of that nation of Great Britain since the Act of Union was passed in 1801. That’s an objective fact.

Did the Nazis give Poles representation in the Reichstag when they controlled Poland? Or the Israelis with Arabs living in the West Bank? We literally had seats in Westminster. That’s not how an occupation works.

Sean.3516

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.

We were a part of Britain from 1801 to 1920. That’s an objective fact.

How did they steal counties that didn’t exist when the British took these areas over? The concept of a county didn’t exist in Ireland before the plantations.

riffmongous

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Did the French at the time have some remedy for airborne blight?

I guess every other country must have had a remedy since only in Ireland and Scotland did it lead to such massive amounts of death and misery eh?

WesternZulu

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Actually we weren’t “occupied” by Britain at that time. An occupation is when one country has military control over a (separate nation).

We were a politically integrated part of that nation of Great Britain since the Act of Union was passed in 1801. That’s an objective fact.

Did the Nazis give Poles representation in the Reichstag when they controlled Poland? Or the Israelis with Arabs living in the West Bank? We literally had seats in Westminster. That’s not how an occupation works.

We were a colony as in people were planted here from Britain.
Also Britain had control of our exports like other colonies in the British empire.

We were not really an equal or valued part of the UK in any sense even if we had representation. That representation didn't go very far anyway. When Sinn Fein won elections in 1918 on the manifesto of Home Rule the peoples will was undemocratically ignored.