Northernisation: the erosion of democracy and the need for repartition.

bonkey

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever. It's not as if the existence of the the IRA should change whether someone believes islands should be single political units.

I have never once heard any republican or IRA apologist suggest that each island on the planet shoudl form a single, discrete political unit.

I have heard plenty suggest that Ireland should be united. Not because it was historically united before it was ruled by a foreign power (because it wasn't), but rather because its a single island.

So the question is perfectly sensible...why is this argument applicable to Ireland, but not applied to islands in general?

Why should Ireland be united because its an island if the same logic doesn't apply to islands in general (which it clearly doesn't...especially if you dispense with the distinction between landmasses and islands).

The only possible answer I can come up with is that it shouldn't - that simply being an island is insufficient as the logical basis for the unification conclusion to be logical.

I suspect, however, that once starts looking at things logically, there isn't a single compelling reason why Ireland should be united. All of the reasons are emotional to one extent or another, and will involve using arguments that will never be generalisable.

jc

oscarBravo

...and that's why they always run away or change the subject when confronted with simple logic.

Flex

I have heard plenty suggest that Ireland should be united. Not because it was historically united before it was ruled by a foreign power (because it wasn't), but rather because its a single island.

1002ad-1014ad it was a united kingdom.Also, the Irish parliament, in 1781, won the right to legislate entirely for themselves without Britain.The expression at the time was "Ireland is no longer a wretched colony, she is a nation".

Why should Ireland be united because its an island if the same logic doesn't apply to Ireland, but not applied to islands in general?

It was diveded by an alien government and didnt recieve approval from a single Irish representative.In the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 we were offered a boundary commission.Britains job was to appoint a neutral chairman, however it appointed a biased chairman.The Irish delegation consented to partition because of the fact we were going to get a fair boundary commission; but we didnt.If 2 companies sign a contract and 1 of the companies fails to live up to its obligations under the terms of the contract, it generally means the other company is not obliged to fulfil its obligations.Britain failed to appoint a neutral chairman, thus they didnt live up to their obligation with reference to partition so why should we?

The only possible answer I can come up with is that it shouldn't - that simply being an island is insufficient as the logical basis for the unification conclusion to be logical.

Alright then, we should therefore get areas of Britain, the USA, Australia and other areas with Irish communities since the only logical reason for where borders are placed is to encompass racial groups.

I suspect, however, that once starts looking at things logically, there isn't a single compelling reason why Ireland should be united. All of the reasons are emotional to one extent or another, and will involve using arguments that will never be generalisable.

So we should accept Ireland being divided because the descendants of planters are here?Doesnt sound very fair, more or less like saying if one country can successfully displace a people from an area they can keep their land and home.Suppose yous all think the Palestinians are irrational and evil since they seek a homeland.According to the logic of the posters here the Palestinians dont have a right to seek the restoration of Palestine because it was a colony rather than a nation and thus was nothing but a "vacant lot".

Flex

true wrote:

Because people from Britain do not have a political party with an armed wing that has had a history of murder, mayhem , bombing, extortion and robbery when it does not get its way.

The UUP were the first party in Irish history to enlist their own private political party.One could argue they set the precedence for modern day Sinn Fein/IRA.

Flex

oscarBravo wrote:

Again and again this sort of rhetoric is trotted out, but nobody will answer me this simple question: why? What is it about this island of all islands that causes people to become so attached to the idea that it must be a single political unit?

Because Im an IRISHMAN, not a "Southern Irish"man.Why should we not be attached to the idea of it being a single unit.If islands dont have the right to be united because their islands then fine.Ill accept Britain having part of Ireland with British communities when Ireland is granted sovereignty over areas of Britain with Irish communities.Sounds fair.

Why do people become "attached" to their loved ones?

Not really, no. Unless you're seriously old, all your life you've lived in a 26-county republic. Nobody took anything away from you. What's with the obsession with getting it back?

I regard all of Ireland as my homeland.Thsts why I usually say Im Irish/use the name IRELAND to name my nation etc.

Says who?

Me, and alot more people too, whether ya like it or not.

Flex

oscarBravo wrote:

...and that's why they always run away or change the subject when confronted with simple logic.

Most people arnt robots/Vulcans/automatons who can live life and make decisions based solely on logic.Emotions/feelings/senses play an important part of some peoples lives.I dont "run" from people.

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

1002ad-1014ad it was a united kingdom.

From 1301 to 1918, the Ottomans had a pretty impressive empire. Would you be supportive of a campaign to reinstate it?

Flex wrote:

Also, the Irish parliament, in 1781, won the right to legislate entirely for themselves without Britain.The expression at the time was "Ireland is no longer a wretched colony, she is a nation".

...with allegiance to the crown. Do you long for a return to those heady days?

Flex wrote:

Alright then, we should therefore get areas of Britain, the USA, Australia and other areas with Irish communities since the only logical reason for where borders are placed is to encompass racial groups.

Who said that?

Flex wrote:

So we should accept Ireland being divided because the descendants of planters are here?Doesnt sound very fair, more or less like saying if one country can successfully displace a people from an area they can keep their land and home.

I'm not picking up a coherent argument from any of this. It seems that you're hung up on a united Ireland because it had some form of political unity at certain periods of history, and because there were invasions and plantations.

Not following the logic. Sorry.

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

Because Im an IRISHMAN, not a "Southern Irish"man.

Me too. I don't need water all around my country to give me a sense of national identity.

Flex wrote:

Why should we not be attached to the idea of it being a single unit.

You can be attached to anything you want. Doesn't make you right.

Flex wrote:

If islands dont have the right to be united because their islands then fine.Ill accept Britain having part of Ireland with British communities when Ireland is granted sovereignty over areas of Britain with Irish communities.Sounds fair.

You're demonstrating a total inability to make sense. There's a little wiggle room between "all islands must be united political units" and "no island can be a united political unit". Think about it.

Flex wrote:

Why do people become "attached" to their loved ones?

You tell me, and then explain how it has any bearing on the subject at hand.

Flex wrote:

I regard all of Ireland as my homeland.Thsts why I usually say Im Irish/use the name IRELAND to name my nation etc.

Yeah, I got that. I'm trying to establish why that is.

Flex wrote:

Me, and alot more people too, whether ya like it or not.

How many people have to say "the sky is green" before it becomes true?

bonkey

Flex wrote:

1002ad-1014ad it was a united kingdom.

And it became so by the choice of each of the peoples' of the previously ununited kingdom?

Or is it ok to be conquered by someone who lives on the same island as you, but not one who lives on another?

Also, the Irish parliament, in 1781, won the right to legislate entirely for themselves without Britain.

I always find it astounding how the convenient decisions of the British government are acceptable, but everything else should be ignored because they had no right to impose rule on us in the first place.

If 2 companies sign a contract and 1 of the companies fails to live up to its obligations under the terms of the contract, it generally means the other company is not obliged to fulfil its obligations.

At which point the contract becomes null and void, and the previous state of affairs re-instates itself.

I don't hear anyone arguing that all of Ireland should be returned to a state of being under British Rule, though.

Alright then, we should therefore get areas of Britain, the USA, Australia and other areas with Irish communities since the only logical reason for where borders are placed is to encompass racial groups.

Because there are only two possible lines of reasoning one can take?

So we should accept Ireland being divided because the descendants of planters are here?

And what of the descendants of those who lived in an undivided nation prior to 1002? Why don't they have a right to go back to a differently-divided nation?

Ultimately, we're all descendants of people who "blew in" here. All you're doing is drawing a line at a place convenient to your argument. Born here from people who moved over after X == no right. Born here from people who moved over here before X == no right. Born here from people who fit the argument I support == right.

What makes your lines the right lines?

Doesnt sound very fair, more or less like saying if one country can successfully displace a people from an area they can keep their land and home.

Whats that you were saying about a united Ireland coming about in 1002? Was that fair? One kingdom doing exactly what you describe to the others?

So, so far, all I can see is that you've argued that the unification of Ireland occurred twice, but that neither ruler responsible for the act was right in seizing power in the land in the first place. Given that one of them was wrong to retain control of the island, surely the other also must have been.

Like I said...its logically flawed. The only thing supporting it is that you've conveniently chosen which lines constitute the "right" rulers being in power, and which lines constitute the "wrong" ones. You haven't explained why those lines are the correct ones to have drawn.

Personally, I think a Protestant who;'s family has lived here for centuries has more of a case for an amicable settlement then the notion of a 12-year unification of Ireland which you happen to decide was fine as a form of conquering and which occurred over a millenia ago says that they haven't.

Every other argument you've given is already undermined by the fact that you are simply choosing to accept english decisions when convenient, and otherwise decide that they didn't have the right to make the decision in the first place.

Suppose yous all think the Palestinians are irrational and evil since they seek a homeland.

No.

I think the Palestinians who believe the Israeli's have no right to also have a homeland are wrong, and the typical argument supporting their position is equally flawed.

Further, I haven't suggested anyone is evil, so spare us the hyperbole and drama.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

Wanting to unite the partitioned part of Ireland with the one that got independence is a valid political policy and goal. Are the above people suggesting it is not?

bonkey

Flex wrote:

Because Im an IRISHMAN, not a "Southern Irish"man.Why should we not be attached to the idea of it being a single unit.

Why should be be fixated on the notion that our nationality is dicatated by our defined borders?

When Ireland was not an independant nation of its own, and people were born there....were they not also Irish?

If so, then surely the political borders are a seperate issue to our cultural nationality?

If not, does that not mean that all of us are descended from non-Irish (all those generations born in the absence of an Irish nation) , and therefore have no more rights then the "descendants of planters" you seem to think should have none?

Incidentally, what of Republicans desscended from planters? Or Unionists born of Celtic descent? Or Republicans or Unionists who ahve both planters and Celtic descent? Do their voices count?

What of the fact that the Celts aren't indigenous to Ireland in the first place? Does that not undermine things further?

Its all just lines in the sand. (No offence, Sand)

jc

Flex

Alright theres plenty of posts so Im not gonna go through each qouting individually since the argument will be the same for each.Havnt got much time at the moment either so bear with me.

You seem to imply that my philosophy is "Once theres a UI,drive the Unionists into the water".Bull****.My greatgrandparents were Presbyterian republicans on one side and Catholic republicans on the other so religion has never been an issue with me.The reason I dont regard the Unionists as "native" (I cant think of a better way to phrase right now but dont jump to conclusions) is because the vast majority of them regard themselves as Scottish(because their ancestors were from there).I know theyve been here for centuries and IMHO have as much of aright to call themselves Irish as anyone else, but THEY CHOOSE NOT TO BE IRISH.

My points about the Irish kingdom of 1002 to 1014 and the parliament of the Kingdom of Ireland was merely to point out that Ireland has been a united political entity and had an all island government.So spare me the "hyperbole and drama" about X== and so on.

My argument about Irish in Britain being permitted to live under the republics government is perfectly valid.Ireland was just as much a single political entity and had as much structural union as Britain.Thus, if Ireland could be partitioned to allow people from the island of Britain to maintain a "link" with that island, then people from the other island of the UK could be afforded a similar right.Whats wrong with that?

Its great the way you took that comment about the Palestinians out of context by the way.

Oh yeah, my point about people being attached to their loved ones was an example of attachment which isnt easily explainable, but (for most) natural, instinctual and so on.Thats like ones attachment to ones country.

My argument about the boundary commission is also valid.Our delegation consented to partition because we were supposed to get a fair boundary commission; but Britain failed to provide.They didnt live up to their obligation then why should we be honour bound to accept partition.

Yes the Gaels werent the first people in Ireland, but they were the first to settle island wide with a common language, religion, culture, literature and the fact they drove the Norse armies from Ireland would imply that by the 10th century they regarded this island to be theirs, and also that the remaining Norse people became assimilated into Irish society would also add to this.

You can talk down to me all ya like eith your condescending attitude, but I believe in what I say.I want a UI, I regard all of Ireland as my homeland, I think partition is unjust and unfair.Doesnt make me right, but it doesnt make me wrong.

unme

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Wanting to unite the partitioned part of Ireland with the one that got independence is a valid political policy and goal. Are the above people suggesting it is not?

Yes, definitely a "valid political policy and goal" in my opinion. It's not worth one murder though.

(Murder = murder, as defined by the state, not paramilitaries)

true

Flex wrote:

The UUP were the first party in Irish history to enlist their own private political party..

private political party? At least they were a political party. The alternative is worse.

Flex wrote:

One could argue they set the precedence for modern day Sinn Fein/IRA.

The IRA was not a political party. There was no great precedence in Ireland for blowing up men, women and children, and shooting people in the back, and extortion and robbery and intimidation on an unprecedented scale.

Roisin Dubh

IMO two of the most important tenets of the ideology are democracy and self-determination. Wherever a collection of people share a distinct identity and inhabit a particular space they should have the right to draw a boundary around themselves and acquire statehood. This has occurred right across Europe and many parts of the world and could still go further. Why should Ireland be any different?

Although I agree that most Unionists (98% I have heard) don't consider themselves Irish, and consider themselves British, otherwise they are very confused about what they are otherwise e.g. people in Scotland are Scottish, people in Wales are Welsh, what are people in NI besides British? Hence, I feel that apart from the sense of Britishness, there is little real basis for arguing that Unionists are some kind of national minority with a sustained history of being politically separated from the rest of Ireland, and hence with the right to a permanently separate state from the rest of Ireland.

I agree with you MT that we should not punish the modern-day descendents o f the Planters. However, in the same way as Blair apologised to make amends for the past actions of the British state at the time of the Famine, creating a UI - or helping to create the circumstances where it can eventually happen - can be seen as a way of making amends for the past actions of James I, Charles I, and Cromwell.

Germany's frontiers were changed about WW2 as punishment for their barbaric destruction and occupation of neighbouring countries. So a precedent exists internationally for redrawing borders as recompense for injustices.

true

Flex wrote:

You seem to imply that my philosophy is "Once theres a UI,drive the Unionists into the water".Bull****.

The Northern Protestants / Unionists ask "What happened to the protestant population in the Rep. of Ireland the last time ? " (the British govt withdrew). I think they have reasonable grounds for their political stance if they so desire. That is democracy.

Flex wrote:

My greatgrandparents were Presbyterian republicans on one side and Catholic republicans on the other so religion has never been an issue with me.

What has this to do with anything?

Flex wrote:

The reason I dont regard the Unionists as "native" (I cant think of a better way to phrase right now but dont jump to conclusions) is because the vast majority of them regard themselves as Scottish(because their ancestors were from there).I know theyve been here for centuries and IMHO have as much of aright to call themselves Irish as anyone else, but THEY CHOOSE NOT TO BE IRISH.

"THEY CHOOSE NOT TO BE IRISH" Correct. They are Northern Irish. They , in general, are proud of the Royal Irish Regiment, The RUC, they support the Irish rugby team. They see no difficulty to being Northern Irish and part of the UK , as their is being Scottish and part of the UK. A Sicilian is Sicilian but also Italian.

Flex wrote:

My points about the Irish kingdom of 1002 to 1014 and the parliament of the Kingdom of Ireland was merely to point out that Ireland has been a united political entity and had an all island government.So spare me the "hyperbole and drama" about X== and so on.

I doubt if Ireland was part of a "very united political entity" in 1002. I would say most of our ancestors, from the aran islands to the other corners of Ireland, were more worried about surviving cold and hunger than "political entities". They certainly did not vote for one anyway.

Flex wrote:

My argument about the boundary commission is also valid.Our delegation consented to partition because we were supposed to get a fair boundary commission; but Britain failed to provide.They didnt live up to their obligation then why should we be honour bound to accept partition.

You argue that the person appointed was not neutral, but someone can always claim that whoever was appointed was not neutral. They lived up to their obligation more honourably than the Rafia who resorted to violence in an effort to destabilise N. I.

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Although I agree that most Unionists (98% I have heard) don't consider themselves Irish, and consider themselves British, otherwise they are very confused about what they are otherwise e.g. people in Scotland are Scottish, people in Wales are Welsh, what are people in NI besides British? Hence, I feel that apart from the sense of Britishness, there is little real basis for arguing that Unionists are some kind of national minority with a sustained history of being politically separated from the rest of Ireland, and hence with the right to a permanently separate state from the rest of Ireland.

They consider themselves part of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ", as their passports says. "British" for short. And proud of it.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I agree with you MT that we should not punish the modern-day descendents o f the Planters.

How awfully nice of you. They are not all "modern- day descendents of the Planters". Besides, have they not suffered enough already ?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

However, in the same way as Blair apologised to make amends for the past actions of the British state at the time of the Famine, creating a UI - or helping to create the circumstances where it can eventually happen - can be seen as a way of making amends for the past actions of James I, Charles I, and Cromwell.

Cromwell and his army killed many thousands of Englishmen in the English civil war, in places like Yorkshire. Do you want Yorkshire repartitioned over some war many centuries ago ? You cannot blame or praise present generations for the mistakes or actions of previous generations hundreds of years ago.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Germany's frontiers were changed about WW2 as punishment for their barbaric destruction and occupation of neighbouring countries. So a precedent exists internationally for redrawing borders as recompense for injustices.

You cannot compare Nazi Germany with this island. Germanys borders were not "redrawn as punishment" for their WW2 actions. On the contrary, Germany was helped after WW2 by its former enemies in the form of the Marshall plan etc. And what big injustices were done to Ireland ? The Brits provided employment , canals, railways, harbours, bridges, legal and university systems infrastructure, etc, all cutting edge technology at the time. There was widespread famine elsewhere in Europe in the 1840's, and Britain imported some food in to Ireland when the potato crop here failed. It was not all negative. The rest of the world was not a rosy place compared to nowadays hundreds of years ago.

Roisin Dubh

They consider themselves part of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ", as their passports says. "British" for short. And proud of it.

All sides in a conflict or political disagreement are probably proud of their position/identity. In fact too much pride on a both sides - especially the Unionists who treated Catholics like second-class citizens during the Old Stormont 1920-72 (gerrymandered constituencies, US Deep South style methods of disenfranchisement and discrimination). Excess pride in the form of chauvinism kept the problems in NI from being resolved. The British state lowered itself to the methods of terrorism on Bloody Sunday and in collusion with Loyalist terrorists to murder Catholics including Pat Finucane, and they trained Loyalist terror groups. Pride is part of the problem up there.

Cromwell and his army killed many thousands of Englishmen in the English civil war, in places like Yorkshire. Do you want Yorkshire repartitioned over some war many centuries ago ? You cannot blame or praise present generations for the mistakes or actions of previous generations hundreds of years ago.

The difference is that deaths in the English Civil War in England, Scotland and Wales were nearly always soldiers whereas in Ireland, Cromwell singled out civilians for execution. Also, the people of Yorkshire do not want a separate state. Remember the recent referendum on a separate regional assembly being defeated? Yorkshire people consider themselves part of the English nation. Being from the island of Britain, they all consider themselves British, except maybe immigrants.

Cromwell was choosing to massacre entire towns in Ireland because of their religion and Irishness. He boasted that he killed everyone in Drogheda except 30 people, out of a population then of thousands. A great man you probably think!

You cannot compare Nazi Germany with this island. Germanys borders were not "redrawn as punishment" for their WW2 actions. On the contrary, Germany was helped after WW2 by its former enemies in the form of the Marshall plan etc. And what big injustices were done to Ireland ? The Brits provided employment , canals, railways, harbours, bridges, legal and university systems infrastructure, etc, all cutting edge technology at the time. There was widespread famine elsewhere in Europe in the 1840's, and Britain imported some food in to Ireland when the potato crop here failed. It was not all negative. The rest of the world was not a rosy place compared to nowadays hundreds of years ago.

Wrong. Germany lost East Prussia to Poland and the Soviet Union after WW2 (German Konegsburg became present-day Kaliningrad). And actually the Government of Lord John Russell stubbornly refused to send food to Ireland. His solution was to send starving men, women and children to the workhouse. Kind of like sending the inmates of Auschwitz to a workhouse.

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

All sides in a conflict or political disagreement are probably proud of their position/identity. In fact too much pride on a both sides - especially the Unionists who treated Catholics ..

and off black Roisin goes on a long paragraph of "especiallythe Unionists " / always blame others like Brits and Unionists etc. The point is Roisin, you were confused who Unionists were / what they are : I replied "They consider themselves part of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ", as their passports says. "British" for short. And proud of it."

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The difference is that deaths in the English Civil War in England, Scotland and Wales were nearly always soldiers whereas in Ireland, Cromwell singled out civilians for execution. Also, the people of Yorkshire do not want a separate state. Remember the recent referendum on a separate regional assembly being defeated? Yorkshire people consider themselves part of the English nation. Being from the island of Britain, they all consider themselves British, except maybe immigrants.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Cromwell was choosing to massacre entire towns in Ireland because of their religion and Irishness. He boasted that he killed everyone in Drogheda except 30 people, out of a population then of thousands. A great man you probably think!
.

My point was , and I quote " You cannot blame or praise present generations for the mistakes or actions of previous generations hundreds of years ago."
If you insist on singling out Cromwell, you must remember he killed English people as well , inc civilians who fought in their civil war. And I never said he was a great man. Your claim of thousands of deaths in Drogheda is debatable.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Actually the Government of Lord John Russell stubbornly refused to send food to Ireland. His solution was to send starving men, women and children to the workhouse. Kind of like sending the inmates of Auschwitz to a workhouse.

Ship loads of food relief did come in to Ireland. The small ports on the west coast were actually quite busy then. Some landlords mortgaged their properties in order to feed people. Your comparison to Auschwitz is not a good analogy, as there is no comparison between the Irish potato famine ( or the famine in Europe in those years either ) and the deliberate imprisonment and extermination of Jews, homosexuals, political prisoners, handicapped people etc. At least the British done something to help defeat the regime that created Auschwitz. Their leader did not sympathise and sign a book of condolence on the death of Hitler, something no other leader in the world did, not even Franco.

Roisin Dubh

Originally posted by TrueShip loads of food relief did come in to Ireland. The small ports on the west coast were actually quite busy then.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2807/irishfamine.html

Throughout the famine, food was being exported that could have kept people alive. Landlords continued to make cash through the export of foodstuff such as grain, as well as wool and flax. While thousands were dying of hunger Irish grain was being exported to England. An average of two million quarters of wheat was annually shipped out of Ireland, an amount that could have sufficiently fed the whole population. During the famine years, Irish agriculture continued to yield profit for Irish landlords and English merchants (Costigan, 1969). Shiploads of Indian corn were imported to Ireland from America. A ship with relief corn from America sailing into an Irish harbor would meet several ships with Irish foodstuff sailing out. More corn was sent out in a month than came in, in a year.

The British should and could have stopped exports of food from Ireland. The most insane thing of all during a famine in a country ruled by a government is for that government and British businesses to be out to make a buck on the back of over 1 million deaths. Shame on them!

Irish people lived in what would nowadays be considered absolute poverty on a Third World scale, thanks to centuries of British economic discrimination including the Penal Laws which denied them property and inheritance rights, and required the subdivision of land between Catholic children while handing all the Catholic parent's land to an individual Protestant child with the Catholic children getting NOTHING. Also, the destruction of native Irish industries like the Cork linen industry was typical of the British intention to keep Catholics in absolute poverty so that they could not afford food other than potatoes. These British policies of economic oppression created the Irish overdependence on the potato. There was certainly NO shortage of food grown in Ireland that could have fed the people. The problem was A:The people could not afford it and B:The landlords were too busy exporting it.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2807/irishfamine.html

Cottages were crumbling in ruins and abandoned by their tenants who had emigrated. Before famine struck, nearly half of all rural families lived in windowless, one room, mud cabins. Many landlords were harsh. Some landlords were nearly as impoverished as their tenants, but it is not recorded that any landlords died of starvation. Irish landlords were much like "slave holders with white slaves." (Taylor, 1962, p. 174). Unable to pay rent to the landlord, thousands of starving peasants were thrown out. Thousands more were threatened to be thrown out of their home to perish on the roadside. A few landlords were even shot.

Originally posted by TrueYour comparison to Auschwitz is not a good analogy, as there is no comparison between the Irish potato famine ( or the famine in Europe in those years either ) and the deliberate imprisonment and extermination of Jews, homosexuals, political prisoners, handicapped people etc. At least the British done something to help defeat the regime that created Auschwitz. Their leader did not sympathise and sign a book of condolence on the death of Hitler, something no other leader in the world did, not even Franco.

As far as I am concerned, the British created the circumstances in which potato blight in Ireland led to famine. It did not lead to famine in most of the rest of Europe in countries where it happened ,e.g. Britain. It was the Irish people's overdependence on the potato that caused 1 million to die and 4 million to leave Ireland. Britain created the poverty that bred the overdependence, and exaserbated matters by its stubborn refusal until the end to repeal the Corn Laws that introduced tariffs on non-UK imports of foodstuffs since the Napoleonic wars.

The British actually used the security forces to stop the Irish getting food. They stole our food for themselves while we starved. I fail to understand your fawning admiration for British rule in Irish history. The right to life comes well before infrastructural things in my priority list.

The right of the rich few to sell food to the highest bidder came before the majority needs for food for survival, and the right to collect rent came before the right to housing. British government supported that by the Coercion Act enabling it to declare martial law and a curfew. Soldiers and constabulary were used to protect food for exporting from the starving. The British blamed Ireland for continuing to plant the potato after the first time the blight appeared. At the height of the famine the full system of English poor laws were extended to Ireland. There was food available to save the Irish people from starvation, but it was denied them. Ireland was at this time part of the United Kingdom, the wealthiest country in the world. The British government had insisted on undertaking responsibility for Ireland, but when crisis arose they ran away from it. The British were handling human beings as ciphers on a bit of paper. They looked up the answers in economic textbooks without ever setting eyes on the living skeletons of the Irish people. They excused the Irish for being hit by the blight once, but they condemned them for persisting in planting the potatoes after the blight appeared again. Most of all the British government feared that the entire social structure would topple down if men and women were once given food they could not pay for. It was easy for the British to believe the blight was the fault of the Irish because blight occurred in England too, but it was not nearly as severe. The first step they took to relieve the situation was to send over a shipload of scientists to study the cause of the potato failure. Money could not be used for seeding the lands, reclaiming the millions of acres of bog, or building railways because that would be giving the Irish farmer an unfair advantage over the English (MacManus, 1944).

Yes, De Valera most certainly should not have issued condolences to Hitler. But that is a separate issue.

Roisin Dubh

In support of my claims regarding the British Government putting starving people to work, here is the following:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2807/irishfamine.html

Many months passed in the beginning of the famine and many thousands died before the government would admit the necessity of direst financial help. When help was given it was free soup kitchens and public works that were designated to be useless so that they would not interfere with private enterprise. By 1847 half the population was being fed at public expense. (Beckett, 1966). With the exception of a few notable cases, the rich felt their only obligation was to make a donation to charity. After, they were free to party and hunt as they had always done. The government pushed much of the responsibility to feed the poor on the shoulders of charities. Religious groups and charities throughout Ireland set up soup kitchens. In some places soup was so watery that doctors would advise people not to eat it. Relief operations made very little impression on starvation, contributed to the spread of disease, and enriched many engaged in trading. The British set up emergency food deposits in 1846, but forbade them to be opened while food could still be obtained from private dealers (Gibbon, 1975). The British spent seven million pounds in direct relief, eight million in the purchase of maize from America, and private charity raised another million pounds. By the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1847, no peasant with a holding of one-quarter an acre or more was eligible for relief. This resulted in tens of thousands of farmers parting with their land.

Hundreds of thousands of men worked construction roads in places there was no need for them (Costigan, 1969). Impoverished peasants were asked to build roads that went from nowhere to nowhere for such low wages that they could hardly buy enough food to live on. Public works were not available for many people. In May of 1846, 400,000 people applied for 13,000 jobs. They were building roads where nobody ever traveled, starting anywhere and ending nowhere. Bridges were built where no rivers flowed and piers were built where no ships' sails were ever seen. Some of them can still be found today (MacManus, 1944). In March of 1847 the public works were abandoned.

And:

In January 1847 Russell's administration modified its non-interventionist policy and made money available on loan for relief, and soup kitchens were established. The potato crop did not fail in 1847, but the yield was low. Then, as hundreds of thousands of starving people poured into the towns and cities for relief, epidemics of typhoid fever, cholera, and dysentery broke out, and claimed more lives than starvation itself.

In September 1847 Russell's government ended what little relief it had made available and demanded that the Poor Law rate be collected before any further money be made available by the Treasury. The collection of these rates in a period of considerable hardship was accompanied by widespread unrest and violence. Some 16,000 extra troops were sent to Ireland and troubled parts of the country were put under martial law.

Just goes to show what skinflints the British Government of the day were! How any Irish person could want to be ruled over by that criminal system is beyond me!

Flex

private political party? At least they were a political party. The alternative is worse.

Private political party?AwwDamn!!! Typo..meant private political army.

Flex

The Northern Protestants / Unionists ask "What happened to the protestant population in the Rep. of Ireland the last time ? " (the British govt withdrew). I think they have reasonable grounds for their political stance if they so desire. That is democracy.

Intermarriage also played a major part on that and at that time(and right up to the 1960's)thousands upon thousands of Catholics also left the IFS.

What has this to do with anything?

Just pointing it out in case someone wanted to make some accusations about my motives,etc..Interesting point to be made for my Presbyterian ancestory, they moved into the Free State about 4 years after partition and got a rather good civil service job and lived enjoyable lives in the south, despite being Protestants.While in the north, my ggf was imprisoned on a ship called the Argenta in Belfast Lough from 1921 to 1924(which wasnt pleasant),if I recall correctly, and his father was murdered (by fellow Protestants) because he was a republican.Sounds like ruthless treatment of Protestants.

"THEY CHOOSE NOT TO BE IRISH" Correct. They are Northern Irish. They , in general, are proud of the Royal Irish Regiment, The RUC, they support the Irish rugby team. They see no difficulty to being Northern Irish and part of the UK , as their is being Scottish and part of the UK. A Sicilian is Sicilian but also Italian.

Most dont regard themselves as "Northern Irish" either.The closest that the vast majority will come to expressing an iota of Irish-ness is as "Ulster-Scots".Unionists I know also regard the Ulster rugby team as their "national team" and the Ireland team as "foreign".

I doubt if Ireland was part of a "very united political entity" in 1002. I would say most of our ancestors, from the aran islands to the other corners of Ireland, were more worried about surviving cold and hunger than "political entities". They certainly did not vote for one anyway.

Why is everyone so hung up on this point.I already stated that "i was merely pointing out....".Besides the UK of GB&Ire wasnt much of a united political entity from the PoV that most of the people of Ireland consistently opposed Irelands incorporation into it, one way or another.

You argue that the person appointed was not neutral, but someone can always claim that whoever was appointed was not neutral. They lived up to their obligation more honourably than the Rafia who resorted to violence in an effort to destabilise N. I.

Lord Justice Feetham wasnt neutral.A chairman had originally been picked, an American lawyer, but by the time the commission was finally established a new the Conservatives were in power.Bonar-Law was PM of the UK in 1923 I think(only a decade earlier he had spouted out that he could imagine no lenght of resistance Ulster could take that he would not be able to support them, and the "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" slogan) and his successor was a man named Stanley Baldwin, another glorious conservative.



On a seperate note true, I would like to apologise for my previous post were I blatently insulted you personally.I was however quite insulted by your accussation that I read An Phoblacht (aka Sinn Fein/IRAs newspaper)at the time.

Willing to forget about it?

bonkey

Flex wrote:

My points about the Irish kingdom of 1002 to 1014 and the parliament of the Kingdom of Ireland was merely to point out that Ireland has been a united political entity and had an all island government.

For 12 years. 1000 years ago.

And this is more historicaly significant than the fact that families wh believe other than you have lived here for hundreds of years in the meantime.

And not only that, but those 12 years are also more historically significant than the hundreds of years which came before them when Ireland was not united???

So spare me the "hyperbole and drama" about X== and so on.

I set out to show your argument was illogical. I've made my case as to why its illogical.

If all you can retort is "spare me the logic", then sure thing pal.....I'll spare you from it. You're only proving my original assertion that you can't logically defend your position.

My argument about Irish in Britain being permitted to live under the republics government is perfectly valid.

You've already clarified that you're not interested in the logic of things, so I'll spare you further explanation.

Its great the way you took that comment about the Palestinians out of context by the way.

You asked a question, and I answered it as clearly and succinctly as I could. If I am taking it out of context, then its because I clearly haven't seen the context correctly...so perhaps you'd clarify it for me....

I thought you were defending the reasoning for your stance and I was challenging it as being illogical. When you made a guess (asked as a question) about how I viewed the Palestinian cause, I pointed out that your guess was - in my case at least - incorrect. Exactly what context did I miss?

My argument about the boundary commission is also valid.

Only - by your own logic - if you support a return to the condition we were in before the deal was broken......but I haven't heard you once suggesting we should return to a colonial status.

So while your point about "we got shafted" may be valid, your conclusion of "therefore we can do what we want as we are not bound by the treaty" is most certainly not logical.

Yes the Gaels werent the first people in Ireland,

So they were blow-ins, just like those planters who shouldn't have any say.

but they were the first to settle island wide with a common language, religion, culture, literature

Really? You do know that the most recent DNA-based evidence indicates that it is more likely that the Celts integrated into an existant culture when they came here, and that what we consider "Irish" culture is the resultant hybrid culture?

and the fact they drove the Norse armies from Ireland would imply that by the 10th century they regarded this island to be theirs,

and also that the remaining Norse people became assimilated into Irish society would also add to this.[/quote]
So the Celts who moved here, took over, settled, consdiered the land theirs and integrated their culture in the existant one....they are Irish.
The Norse who moved here, took over in parts, settled, considered the land theirs and integrated their culture into the existant one.....they too are Irish.
The English/Scottish who moved here, took over parts, settled, considered the land theirs and integrated their culture....they are planters' descendants and its unfair that they be taken into consideration.

Curioser and curioser, said Alice.

You can talk down to me all ya like eith your condescending attitude,

Call it condescending all you like. I said up front your argument was illogical and you were the one who rose to that challenge. Now all you're doing (that I can see) is exactly what others predicted - looking for a way out having failed to rise to the challenge.

but I believe in what I say.

I've no doubt you do, and I've no issue with that. I never even suggested you shouldn't believe it.

There are people who believe the earth is flat. I believe their logic is also flawed, but - as with you - I respect that they are entitled to their beliefs. Its when they try arguing that their beliefs are correct and logically defensible that I will take up the challenge....just like I did with you.

I want a UI, I regard all of Ireland as my homeland, I think partition is unjust and unfair.Doesnt make me right, but it doesnt make me wrong.

I think any solution which takes the stance that a solution to the disenfranchisement of one group (currently the Northern Republicans) is, in fact, to disenfranchise a seperate group instead (the Northern Unionists) is wrong....but thats my belief.

I agree that we don't have an ideal solution, but I will never agree that a *fairer* or *better* solution is simply to change which group we decide to disenfranchise because it fits our wants better.

jc

Roisin Dubh

So they were blow-ins, just like those planters who shouldn't have any say.

The planters marked themselves out as different from the previous waves of migrants in that they did not assimilate.

Flex

bonkey wrote:

For 12 years. 1000 years ago.

And this is more historicaly significant than the fact that families wh believe other than you have lived here for hundreds of years in the meantime.

And not only that, but those 12 years are also more historically significant than the hundreds of years which came before them when Ireland was not united???

Good God, there must be alot of anti-Brain Boru sentiment or something.I already stated I was merely pointing out a fact and everybodys jumping on it to tear it to shreds.I know theyve been here for hundreds of years, but one can easily say to that, that the Gaels have been here for thousands of years.So much for "squatters rights".....

I set out to show your argument was illogical. I've made my case as to why its illogical.

Your argument seems to be "theres Britons there so we have no right to that land".Theres also Irish there(therell be more Irish in a few generations), and theres Irish communities in Britain, yet we dont have a right to that land over there.

You've already clarified that you're not interested in the logic of things, so I'll spare you further explanation

Nice side step.

So while your point about "we got shafted" may be valid, your conclusion of "therefore we can do what we want as we are not bound by the treaty" is most certainly not logical.

Once again Ill point this out.We consent to partition in exchange for being offered a boundary commission.Britains duty is to appoint a "neutral" chairman, but it appoints a biased one.If they didnt fulfil there obligation with reference to partition why are we honor bound to accept our duty of accepting it.I dont think I ever typed "We can do whatever we want", I said we should not be obliged or honor bound.

So they were blow-ins, just like those planters who shouldn't have any say.

When did I say they should have no say or rights?

Really? You do know that the most recent DNA-based evidence indicates that it is more likely that the Celts integrated into an existant culture when they came here, and that what we consider "Irish" culture is the resultant hybrid culture?

"If the British settlers dont have the right to own part of Ireland, then neither do the Gaels or Nomads who came here during the stone age and then the ice age and so on."By the time of the plantations this island was settled by a people with a common language, religion, culture, laws, mythology, literature and clear sense of Ireland being their native land.They were not drifters or nomads wandering from shore to shore, Ireland was inhabited by the Gaels(hybrids and whatever) and was not a vacant rock in the north Atlantic.

and also that the remaining Norse people became assimilated into Irish society would also add to this.

I think the expression was "....as Irish as the Irish themselves".If your going to judge a countrys right to nationhood based on racial purity

The Norse who moved here, took over in parts, settled, considered the land theirs and integrated their culture into the existant one.....they too are Irish

".....as Irish as the Irish themselves"(they spoke Gaelic and lived by gaelic customs).

The English/Scottish who moved here, took over parts, settled, considered the land theirs and integrated their culture....they are planters' descendants and its unfair that they be taken into consideration.

Curioser and curioser, said Alice.

They refuse to assimilate into Irish society and cherish their Britishness.I have no problem with that, however , I dont see why they should have their own nation for it.Are Irish in England not (generally)very proud of their Irish ancestory?Yet they can cherish it in a manner which respects the integrity of those areas.Once again, this land was inhabited by people who.........
Also, the plantations were not natural emigration, they were a means of pressing British influence and power in Ireland, and what happened to the Irish who were unfortunate enough to live in the areas marked out for plantation when these planters arrived?(yeahyeahyeahyeah, I know its past etc.,just pointing it out since ya seem to be very concerned about peoples rights)

Curioser and curioser, said Alice.

Now all you're doing (that I can see) is exactly what others predicted - looking for a way out having failed to rise to the challenge.

Looking for a way out?Not a chance.Failed to rise to the challenge?Ha.

There are people who believe the earth is flat. I believe their logic is also flawed, but - as with you - I respect that they are entitled to their beliefs.

Are you comparing the aspiration for a UI to being as illogical as people who believe the earth is flat?

I think any solution which takes the stance that a solution to the disenfranchisement of one group (currently the Northern Republicans) is, in fact, to disenfranchise a seperate group instead (the Northern Unionists) is wrong....but thats my belief.

I agree that we don't have an ideal solution, but I will never agree that a *fairer* or *better* solution is simply to change which group we decide to disenfranchise because it fits our wants better.

To disenfranchise a group ( as far as I recall) means to remove their right to vote?I dont think I ever implied to do this, merely to unite the island.Your seem so far more worried about "disenfranchising" the unionists whom would regard you(I presume your Irish living in Biel) as a "foreigner", yet you dont seem to stand up for nationalists who cherish the same nationality as you.I dont think anyone ever implied they dont have the right to live here, merely that they shouldnt have a statelet cut out for them.

As I already said, not everyone can live life and make decisions based solely on whats logical.People have emotions, feelings, senses of...If people could accept homelands being divided as easily as you then Basques/Checyans/Quebecqois and many others would have a homeland.But people have emotional attachments to their homeland and logic (for most people) takes a back seat to these senses of attachment, like attachment to a loved one.

The small area the Israelis are so "graciously" returning to the Palestinians has been settled by Jewish people in areas.Thus that land is Israeli territory,no?

MT

but one can easily say to that, that the Gaels have been here for thousands of years.

One can, buts what’s the relevance. In most recent centuries in the area we’re discussing – the north east – there have been a people who consider themselves to be culturally separate from the rest of the island. Indeed, some of these people are the descendants of Gaels but that doesn’t stop them from considering themselves different from the other Gaelic descendants to the south.

Anyway, blood lines aren’t the be all and end all when determining a nationality or the boundaries of a nation. If that were the case Canada and US would long ago have become one nation.

Your point seems to rely heavily here on the argument that the Gaels got here before the planters therefore their national aspirations should take precedence. Regardless of the fact that there’s no reason why all Gaels should feel obliged to maintain one common nation – or the more tangential point about whether Gaels really still exist – can’t you see that’s a travesty of an argument. Going by your logic there’d be a hierarchy of political rights based upon the length of your lineage.

Again, returning to your theme of a homogenous Gaelic island that should never have been divided - this presents other illogical outworkings. Why should those of a common racial ancestry – though I would dispute even this – have to remain together as one nation? Most Australians and New Zealanders originated from these islands, so should those two countries be forced together? The same could be said over the foundation of a separate Canada and USA. Should Germany again annex Austria or even the German speaking part of Switzerland? So even if the planters had never arrived could the Gaels of the north never have justifiably broken away from the rest of the island on a claim that they had developed a separate identity and outlook? And if so why should later arrivals be denied such a right?

true

Flex wrote:

They refuse to assimilate into Irish society and cherish their Britishness.I have no problem with that, however , I dont see why they should have their own nation for it.

The people of Northern Ireland are their society, by definition. Do "Irish" people assimilate to Native American society when they go to America ?
The Ulster Protestants have been here and created society as we know it long before white man conquered the Native Americans and decimated their culture.

In fact typical Irish Catholic people the world over are known as the type of immigrant to least assililate in to foreign cultures, like it or not. They go to Irish pubs, organise paddies day parades, send people home to the Rose of Tralee competition, found organisations like Noraid, gather in ghettos like Cricklewood, etc etc. Six or Seven US presidents were of Ulster Protestant background : did you ever hear them bragging about that ? No, Ulster Prods assimilate. How could they assimiliate further in to Irish society? Judging by the surnames of many in Sinn Fein, it would appear that some of their ancestors had assimiliated from the other communities tradition. What about assimilation the other way ? I think you are a bit inconsistent, Flex a chara.

MT

By the time of the plantations this island was settled by a people with a common language, religion, culture, laws, mythology, literature and clear sense of Ireland being their native land.They were not drifters or nomads wandering from shore to shore, Ireland was inhabited by the Gaels(hybrids and whatever) and was not a vacant rock in the north Atlantic.

I can’t speak for others, but it’s not my view that the Gaels were drifters or wanderers. Whether they formed a single united nation is another matter. And as for when the planters arrived I don’t think anyone’s claiming this island was vacant. But again what has any of this got to do with the desire for autonomy from the rest of the island by those in the north east in the 21st and much of the previous century?

I may be wrong but I think you’re falling into the trap of assuming that an argument for unionist/ulster prod self-determination aids a justification for the plantations. It doesn’t. Although occurring in a very different moral climate I still believe the plantations were a colonial outrage. But that was then: this is now. I would say just the same thing regarding the legitimacy of the United States. The settlement and expulsion/extermination of the Indians was a travesty. But modern day Americans should not be denied their statehood due to the actions of their ancestors. A sustained support for the continued existence of the US does not impute clemency to the original settlers for their crimes. The same goes for the founders of modern day Australia.

MT

Flex wrote:

Are you comparing the aspiration for a UI to being as illogical as people who believe the earth is flat?

It is illogical to claim the aspiration for a united Ireland as a republican ideal. Republicanism involves the principles of self-determination and democracy. UI would involve the imposition of a state upon a region and its people who wish to remain separate from it. This amounts to imperialism and a denial of their democratic wishes. No different from the English invasion and subjugation of Wales, Ireland and Scotland.

If on the other hand you disavow republicanism and admit your desire for geographic imperialism then your support for a UI becomes entirely rational. Still won’t change my strong opposition to the idea just as I would have attacked Cromwell’s imperialism had I been alive in his day.