The immediate occasion of this blog is an exchange (civilized, yes, Virginia) with Gio yesterday; the issue more generally is one that I find myself thinking about more and more. It is: are radio phone-ins, TV studio debates and blog-sites areas for the exchange of views and developed thought about topics, or bear-pits which are at their most successful when filled with yells and dull thuds? In other words, can a column or an argument advanced over the airwaves change minds?
More and more I’m coming to think they cannot. I’ve been running this blogsite for around eight years now, with daily blogs written by me and others (by the way – could I appeal again to regular commenters to accept my invitation to develop their thinking in the form of a guest blog?). In all that time I don’t believe anyone has said “Mmm – I hadn’t thought about that. Good point”. On the contrary – the reaction invariably is to attack the last speaker or to say “That’s just what i think too”. People have a position and reading the blogs here or listening to Nolan or TalkBack appear to make no difference.
Why do they read or listen, then? I think I find the answer over fifty years ago. When I was interned in St Columb’s in Derry as a boarder, we had to struggle with many facets of life, with boredom a major one. So when a couple of boys began to beat each other up, the cry would sound “Fight! Fight!” and we’d swarm to wherever the bust-up was, so we could watch and enjoy. I think it’s the same here – we enjoy a good argument, but we pride ourselves that the argument hasn’t changed our thinking in any way.
That seems to me a pity. I think interest in public affairs and politics are vital in a proper democracy. Everyone should be interested in what’s happening at government and international level. But if we come to each event with no intention of budging an inch in our thinking, mightn’t we be as well employed going to the circus or the movies, or playing the latest computer game?*
Discuss.
And (ideally) make positive suggestions for improvement.
- A final point I forgot to make. Please do not come on the comment section and mock/condemn the fact that I haven’t responded to this or that comment. I went to the bother of organising this blogsite, of feeding it daily with my own blogs and those of others (courageous and literate enough to write them), vet and then put up comments from a wide range of people. Anyone who then comes on to comment critically that I haven’t responded to some point they or another poster has put up is being short-sighted to the point of arrogance. As I said to gio, I think – I really feel I’ve done enough most days; if I occasionally find time or inclination to add thoughts on your comments, that’s a bonus/the extra mile in my book. So in future, please let me decide whether I come onto the comment section or not. There is a limit.
These are gios words.
“Once again it is not that I support Unionism’s reluctance to talk about a United Ireland I just don’t see why they would ever want to as they see their (and our) best interests as remaining in the UK.”
To political unionism, our opinion doesn’t matter apparently.
A blog on its own will not make any difference, but it is a means of getting thoughts and opinions out there. Perhaps something positive will get noticed and someone who can make a difference will pick up on it and run with it.
Or alternatively, if someone who can make a difference was contributing to the blog and prepared to participate and listen to opinions then that would also be positive and would encourage other people with different points of view to do so also.
Unfortunately I don’t think our politicians are up to the task of dealing directly with the public.
Both Declan Kearney and Seanna Walsh posted blogs which I thought was great but neither responded to questions or engaged with us.
It seems our opinion doesn’t matter to them either.
If you are expecting us to change this part of the world when those we pay well to do so cant be bothered you expect too much.
Then take comrade magee who complained there was no roadmap for uniting Ireland, I did my best to produce one possible roadmap and he didn’t even bother to comment on it.
Perhaps you pessimism is catching, I am starting to wonder what the point is also.
“Then take comrade magee who complained there was no roadmap for uniting Ireland, I did my best to produce one possible roadmap and he didn’t even bother to comment on it.”
I didn’t ask you to produce one – but appreciate the time you’ve probably put into this – my main gripe was not with you, it was with Seanna Walsh and those in the political mainstream who have failed to put together a vision and roadmap, yet they claim a United Ireland is fundamental to their ideals and principles – why have they failed in this endeavour? Being honest, Jessica I haven’t even had the time to read it, or any blogs this week, being so busy returning to work and a 3 year old starting nursery. I will read it and comment in due course – and look forward to doing so.
When I get the time, I really enjoy the blogs and conversations that flow from them – i value the learning and education that goes on here and the different perspectives on a variety of topics – don’t be too despondent, Jude. I feel you do a great job in your writings and give a platform to the views and opinions of a range of different perspectives. Keep it going – just wish i had more time to read and write on this blog.
Well said ComradeMagee.
Thank you for your response comrade, I understand completely.
I also agree with you on both Seanna Walsh and the political movement which are failing to communicate.
I don’t know why they even bothered with their blog posts if they have no interest in anyone’s response or opinions.
The reason I believe is their strategy is based around Sinn Fein being in control in Dublin and winning the next general election in the republic so Mary Lou can become Taoiseach and for Dublin to take over the leadership of Sinn Fein. They don’t really want to say or do too much until that event happens. I suppose it is a juggling act from their point of view trying to please such differing opinions over the whole of our country. It is certainly the north that is losing out in the mean time.
They truly are a part of the political establishment now, and I do wish them well in that regard. Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have done more damage to Ireland than Britain ever did, the task or repairing the north south relationships as well as the debt they have left the country with is all simply down to the economic growth outgrowing their competence.
Good luck with the 3 year old and hopefully we will hear from you when things settle.
A proper democracy, now there is a novel idea. Perhaps in a proper democracy radio phone-ins, TV studio debates and blog-sites and NAMA would be surplus to requirements. In a proper democracy, a sovereign government would not need to bail out banks as citizens and transnational companies would pay the appropriate rates of income tax and services would be adequately funded from the cradle to the grave. A proper democracy, food for thought.
Changes of opinion and reasoned arguments are for a settled stable situation. This does not pertain in the six north eastern counties. Neither side can admit that the other side may have a point. To do this is to cease being a nationalist with the potent folk memory of wrongdoing,land grabbing etc. Fence sitting is an option for some people, also known as being a citizen of the world or a pacifist or a just too intelligent to be bothered with these childish parochial games. Likewise a unionist cannot change their fundamental beliefs otherwise they would not be unionist. The fact that nobody won the last unpleasantness and all sides feel they wuz robbed doesn’t help. The colonial power is holding the ring. Not to be evenhanded and fair but to prevent one side having a clear victory. If I was a unionist, no gesture by republicans would make me change my stance on the british connection and I would wonder why they lower themselves. I do recognize that it is for other audiences that they want to appear liberal and forgiving but a rump of colonists will not change. Either they should be ignored or neutralized because they won’t change. Why should they?
” If I was a unionist, no gesture by republicans would make me change my stance on the british connection and I would wonder why they lower themselves”
You make a few fair points there fiosrach. But Unionism ignores the fact that they are stuck with close to a million Nationalists. Indeed soon enough Unionism will be in a minority. Of course there is the religious element to Unionism too, their own particular brand of Protestantism, which often transforms into Anti-Catholicism. Already Catholics are a majority in Schools, University, etc and just this year it was revealed we’re the slight but growing majority in the full time workforce. SF/SDLP reach out to Unionists/Protestants for a number of reasons, two of them is to show they want to progress and to expose political Unionisms hostility to progress (remember UUP Leader James Molyneaux’s statement on the 1994 IRA ceasefire?….)
So, taking these facts on board, is it really republicans that need to be making gestures? Unionism seems to think that the UK is “safe” with the growing power and influence of Nationalism. Even David Trimble seen the change in demographics coming and snatched at the GFA because, according to Bill Clinton, he “feared Unionism becoming an irrelevant minority”.
Just as the DUP supporting Brexit was described as the “DUP signing their own death warrant”, Unionists giving Catholics the cold shoulder (or even worse, being Anti-Catholic) is signing NI’s death warrant. I personally don’t think Unionist politicians can stomach reaching out the hand of friendship to Catholics, the sectarianism runs just too deep in many of them…..
Ryan
The total vote for Nationalist parties in the last election was less than 300,000.
Where are you producing these other 700,000 nationalists from?
Were you not the man who claimed to be interested in facts?
I would say that the catholic population in the 6 counties would currently sit at around the 825,000 mark and protestants around 860,000.
Election apathy is definitely much higher among Catholics here, but if there is not already a catholic majority before the 2021 census then it will be very close with a very high percentage of protestants in other over 65 age group which means the future change in demographic is going to be much much steeper than it was over the last 10 years.
And the vast majority of Catholics are nationalist or at least not opposed to the unification of Ireland. Why would they be?
The point Ryan is making is very valid as you well know.
Denying these facts or keeping it under the radar is a very dangerous game to be playing.
jessica
He may have a valid point but exaggeration does not help it.
If someone blithely talks about a million nationalists which we know to be untrue, why should I believe him about anything else.
On a wider point we need to start thinking beyond Protestant and Catholic and whether Jesus really turns into a biscuit or not during communion, if we are ever going to move on.
Jude
I am slightly regretting my remark about Jesus above and I apologise if anyone was offended.
I find it hard to resist (though I am trying) having a go at some aspects of faith such as this, but it was not really appropriate or necessary in this case.
You can remove it if you like.
“The total vote for Nationalist parties in the last election was less than 300,000”
Gio, that was just those who voted…..are u seriously trying to say there’s only 300,000 Nationalists/Catholics here??…..it was a low nationalist turnout at the Assembly election but yet that still secured around 40% of the vote, I cant remember the exact figure.
50% of all people here don’t even vote, that’s both Unionists and Nationalists….not to mention about 20-30% of the Nationalist population aren’t even eligible to vote yet…..
“Were you not the man who claimed to be interested in facts?”
I am indeed.
“50% of all people here don’t even vote”
but over 65% of those that do are on the protestant side of those statistics
Ryan
I agree.A lot of people don’t vote. A lot of the people you are counting are children.
You are assuming they will all be Nationalist.
Many young people are growing up with a wider world view, and do not put so much importance on nationalism/unionism.
To assume 1 million nationalists is not factual.
“Either they should be ignored or neutralized” Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, eat your hearts out, there’s a new despot in town.
This new UI utopia sounds glorious. Can’t understand why Unionists are so dead against it, especially if fiosrach is running the show.
“This new UI utopia sounds glorious. Can’t understand why Unionists are so dead against it, especially if fiosrach is running the show”
I’m sure it will still be better than the utopia Unionists have built in the North of Ireland Kop…..how has that worked out?…..
“If I was a unionist, no gesture by republicans would make me change my stance on the british connection and I would wonder why they lower themselves. I do recognize that it is for other audiences that they want to appear liberal and forgiving but a rump of colonists will not change. Either they should be ignored or neutralized because they won’t change. Why should they?”
Interesting comment.
Quite right too, why ought we change?
But this:
“Either they should be ignored or neutralised…”
Whatever, I wonder, does that mean?
“Whatever, I wonder, does that mean?”
I’m sure he’s not taking tips from the UDA 1993 Plan of Genocide that was backed by the largest Unionist party, the DUP, PF……
Your a wise old owl Jude. I mean wiser beyond your years.
Be we awl fulla thenks ‘n that Jewd gi’s us lave tae gi’ oot what wir lukoot be tae be, nae matter the much it differ frae he’s ain, ae lang ‘z yiz jest be tae keep yir blatherin’ clane ‘n dacent ‘n not to be gi’in oot ’bout crathurs the way that yiz be tae cuttin thae snotther aff o’ thim or cuttin’ thim tae the bone, hi. Anither Bletherer oor grawnd wee Wan Belangin’ in the Bletherin’ Shap , N Mc C throws he’s ee o’er awl what them that it’s oot be to be puttin’ in, and roots oot awl the cutty whae disnae be the wan lukoot whae he’s sel’ be tae be in houlin’ tight tae in he’s heed. TRANSLATION.Let us be grateful that Jude alliws us to express freely our opinions within the constraints only of common decency and civilised discourse free from hurtful abusive comments.N well known Blogger, Our “great wee MLA” N-l-o- M-C-u-l-n- vets all contributions and expunges all that do not conform to his own ideological template.
That a dyslexic keyboard your using there ?
Not at all, moser, Brian’s spelling of the dialect known as Ulster-Scots is perfectly accurate (or should that be acceptable?). I’m never sure because some of it is dependent on vowel shiftage – e.g. ‘Shap’, ‘awl’, ‘oot’,’tae’.
The thing that confuses me though, is that there was no great rush to set up an agency for Unionist Mid-Ulster-English speakers, but I suppose that’s what happens when your fellow Ulstermen scrabble around to invent an official culture to compete with the Gaelic League, albeit 100 or so years late.
Just more confused now PF.
That’s not a dyslexic keyboard – that’s just a warning of the Scots you’ll have to understand if NI decides to go along with Scotland in their bid for independence!
Lol Sherdy.
nah – it’s Oolster Scats –
what nobody iver whisht the weans te tak or reite if they wisht te git a guid jab an git oan in life
there’s money in that oul dialec!
Well…Jude …It’s Saturday morning and it ‘s hosing down rain outside so what else to do but engage with the keypad once again. One thing that strikes me is that people really do enjoy a bun-fight above all else…the sport of competitiveness..the parry of the retort.Just like those starlings outside on my bird-table giving uproar over a piece of stale pound-cake ,at this very moment.
You’ve doubtless noticed yourself that if I post a well-thought out book-review of an outsider’s take that touches on many aspects of our local society, I get no response at all ,….nada….but if I deliberately set out a good old pipe-clearing rant about some aspect of local absurdity , the callers come knocking in profusion … adding their tuppence-worth. If I should argue that various religions have a very rational origin story based on tribal folklore and misunderstanding of the works of the universe, i’ll be attacked for attacking “faith” or biblical “truth”.Well …of course , that’s what logic does , isn’t it?Faith is an accepted “reality” that assumes no argument whatsoever. The fact is that our local society has at its hoary heart the very schisms that old and ancient religions have brought to us. Instead of questioning the very source of the troubles we now find ourselves in and the differences those interpretations of various beliefs and their outcomes have finally wrought right across our society….everyone cleaves to their own ancestral story given to them with their mother’s milk …and then at segregated schools …and possibly in their varied churches too.
What we really need is a more questioning and questing mindset that allows everyone to rationally weigh up an argument for it fundamental worth and not because you might agree or disagree with it. Somehow we have to leave the cant and the hate behind and go out there “On the Road” and learn to think afresh and see how the world and people really understand reality. Many have no notion . It’s worth remembering that many do not understand how the simplest mechanics of everyday life operate, never mind the complex political mind . They just flip that switch and accept that the act will make something work.Now that’s what I’d call “faith” in the unknown. Inanother century it might be magic or a supernatural occurence. They don’t ask themselves how it works. it’s the same thing with our past or a possible future in Norneverland .Sometimes there seems to be no real knowledge that a chain of very logical events got us to this point. It’s not rocket-science either.It happened one step at a time and it isn’t really that hard to understand .
“It happened one step at a time and it isn’t really that hard to understand .”
Nothing ever happens one step at a time Harry, because no one likes change or the unknown. It is events that trigger change that makes things happen.
The 1916 rising, the civil rights campaign, the battle of the bogside, bloody Sunday, the hunger strikes, booby sands being elected, the good Friday agreement, brexit and now we are once again in a political vacuum (this time between the people and the parties) with the majority of people despondent and filled with political apathy, what will the next event to effect change be?
Will it be a border poll and democracy based or will we allow the intransigence to raise tensions once again and harden divisions especially north south as the wedge is being driven deeper along multiple division lines at the moment.
No, nothing ever happens step by step, not in business, certainly not in running a country.
Well …that still like a series of steps to me , Jessica, although i was thinking of a broader canvas when I wrote it .I was thinking in terms of centuries or eons of time and how one thing leads to another which is a line we can follow .Nothing happens in a vacuum so we reach the situation we now find ourselves in through a chain of events leading up to it . You might start at the beginnings of Christendom(or even how we got to that point).. when the Christian world ‘s sense of itself as a geopolitical power saw itself aligned against the pagan world and also the Muslim world …which eventually leads us to the current business with ISIS. …Or you could start even later with the schism in the Christian church when our neighbours in the guise of King Henry V111 decided to break away from the known Christian power-base of Rome and set himself up as an English “Pope/King” in his own right. Much of what happened across Europe and especially in Ireland stems from that specific event. Then you can ask yourself why Henry did that and what drove him.That’s been fairly well documented.
As for us wallowing in a political deadpool at present…It is a little quiet right now and there’s a certain balance of power but none of us know exactly how our future will pan out or how quickly change might come , but when you look back at even the changes since the 1950’s, you can see that it is technology that has swung the greatest changes and movement for human beings.It is technology that has altered everything that we do now.Those were incremental steps.
To pick up on Gio’s comment quoted by Jessica, the following exchange also took place in that discussion:
““If a Christian expressed no wish to discuss the possibility of becoming a Muslim would that make her a bigot?”
No, because it would not effect any one else but themselves.
What you are describing is allowing one section of a community to have a veto over even talking about or treating with respect the aspirations of another section and that is bigotry.”
Let’s follow that line of thinking, but with a few more questions for clarification first.
If a Christian spent their Saturday afternoon distributing small items of literature which communicated the idea that Jesus is the only way to know God, would that make her a bigot?
If a member of the SNP expressed no wish to discuss the *benefits* of a UK, would that make him a bigot?
If a member of the GAA ignored the possibility that naming pitches after IRA volunteers causes offence, would that make her a bigot?
If an Irish Republican expressed no desire for a 2nd or 3rd Border Poll to reassess the wishes of the Irish people following Irish Unification, would he be a bigot?
Each of these examples, whether at personal, local or national level affect us.
I have never called any individual a bigot and would purposely prefer to avoid commenting on individual actins in such a way.
When we are talking about a nation and acts which impact on every single person on this island, it can hardly be compared to a Christian spreading the good work.
At least not in my eyes.
Northern Ireland was going against democracy and that has to be addressed. Ignoring it will not make the problem go away im afraid Peter. And these childish attempts to deflect it will not make any difference either.
Jessica
“I have never called any individual a bigot and would purposely prefer to avoid commenting on individual actins in such a way.”
I suppose that’s true enough, the bigots you usually refer to are vague collective nouns, which is why I replied in the same manner.
“When we are talking about a nation and acts which impact on every single person on this island, it can hardly be compared to a Christian spreading the good work.”
Well, a couple of things, the ‘good work’ tends to be quite influential, and if, like me, you have followed any of the Secular/Atheist/Religion debate you will know that some are quite concerned to refer to Christians as intolerant and to keep that message out of the public square. So the question is a good one, and stands. (Have you been to Mass, yet, by the way?)
“And these childish attempts to deflect it will not make any difference either.”
The examples I gave are far from childish and relate specifically to the context of your reply to Gio.
In all, it raises the question of the premise in most of your contributions, which is that Partition/Unionism is to blame for everything. I mean, your can have that premise alright, but it is open to challenge, as it the way you choose to apply it.
As I have said before Unionists, or whoever: Scots Nats, Christians, Republicans (all vague collective nouns), are not required to work towards the professed goals of anyone else.
And lack of cooperation by any given identity group towards the aims of another does not equate to bigotry.
In terms of the debate you simply can’t assume the preeminence of your position by repeating a flawed premise.
On the other point of Partition being imposed: Partition was agreed, the Treaty was agreed, two Parliaments were agreed; maybe not agreed as you would have liked or by the notion of referendum, but the bottom line is that a United British Ireland was, first, under the threat of war, and then Partitioned, and Partition was discussed and agreed.
I meant the good word, but have been making lots of typos recently, will try and do better.
I work on computers so am usually taking tie out from something to reply and sometimes it gets rushed.
Sorry though, still don’t have time for mass Peter thought duly noted.
I am a Christian though and respect those that do. I just don’t feel anything in mass and actually don’t have the greatest respect for some churches including the catholic church.
Regardless how I come across on this site, I would go out of my way to help others irrespective of their religious or political views, race or background.
I have protestants in my family and good protestant friends who while not exactly unionist do have the British connection and I get it from our talks and we have to respect that just as they respect my views tough I know they consider mine to be more profoundly held shall we say. 🙂
“As I have said before Unionists, or whoever: Scots Nats, Christians, Republicans (all vague collective nouns), are not required to work towards the professed goals of anyone else.”
I disagree.
Christians in particular as required to work towards the professed goals of Christ.
I have constantly said I want an agreed Ireland, nothing more. Thee is no guarantee my own preferences will be the outcome.
In return for a fair referendum with both states honestly engaged with the best interests of our people at heart, I would happily accept the result should stand for a minimum of 50 years.
Unionism doesn’t want democracy here, they want a predetermined outcome.
I want the people to have a democratic choice, to be treated with respect and in light of the sheer volumes of money being squandered by both states to have a more prosperous future than we have currently. There is such potential here if we work together in an agreed future.
If you cannot agree to this, you can hardly profess to be Christian.
“And lack of cooperation by any given identity group towards the aims of another does not equate to bigotry.”
Except that is not the case and not the basis of my assertion.
What we have is the refusal to accept equality for one section of our community for sectarian reasons based on not only identity but refusal to accept being ruled by another nation.
And that is bigotry Peter, Why are there so many bigoted acts demonstrated by people going right to the first minister considering her partners in government no more than rogues and renegades. Do I really need to mention Gregory Campbell who is still a prominent member of the party?
Bigotry is accepted in Northern Ireland as the norm and it isn’t the done thing to point it out.
“the Treaty was agreed”
The treaty was not agreed, it was the best that England would have accepted and it resulted in a civil war and led to a territorial dispute which remained until articles 2 and 3 dropped the territorial claim as part of the good Friday agreement.
Northern Ireland was born out of misery and death and not democracy.
It is a sick state and our people have suffered enough over it.
It is time for an agreed future together.
Jessica
I’d like to pick up on the religious aspect of this.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that Christians are required to work towards a particular political outcome. I don’t think that is the case.
In fact I’d put it as strongly as this, as much as I am a Unionist, my Christianity comes first. My faith takes first place: before the United Kingdom, before Unionism, before Ireland, before any kind of nationalism. If asked to choose between the two, nation comes second.
The goals of Christ are an Ireland and Great Britain subject to Him, and that’s why worship (including Mass) are of preeminent importance. (Although that is not to say that our churches should be automatically respected – the churches Protestant and Catholic are full of sins.)
Peter, the only particular outcome I have asked for is a democratic attempt at reaching political agreement between the nations of these islands which will guarantee peace and prosperity for all of our people. I accept democracy and have not asked for any guarantees and said that nothing should be off the table so to say I am asking for any particular outcome from anybody is fallacy.
My preference is for a united country, as a single economy on this island makes economic sense, and England would recommend that (they have done already) if it weren’t for the political unrest it would result in, so they are waiting for demographic change to dump us.
The problem with the 50% + 1 option, is it will lead to another outbreak of violence initiated by loyalists.
I know MT seems oblivious to it, but the divisions between us run deeper today than they did 10 years ago and it is only going to get worse.
It is my opinion that England have already accepted this is going to happen and they are preparing for it so they can quash it quickly and use it to force change and bring people over to Britain. Time will take care of the rest.
In my eyes the only Christian solution is to come together and seek a agreed future acceptable to all Christian people and not go down this route.
Do you really think unionist politicians behaving like bigots, encouraging intransigence while their numbers are about to go into rapid nosedive due to the high numbers that are in older age groups is going to work out well for anyone?
Tell me honestly how you think that is going to play out.
Jessica
Here’s what I honestly think.
I’ve spent significant time and effort (and gained a degree of knowledge and enjoyment) posting open and flexible comments about Ireland, a United Ireland, Unionism, Republicanism and various possibilities. And I have sought to do so with respect, even if there have been times I have failed.
But every time I read the word ‘unionist’ I also read the word ‘bigot’.
You know, I get it.
I get that many who post here think my community are bigots.
I get it loud and clear.
But the endless accusation of bigotry is tiresome and, frankly, lacks creativity; and so I’ve decided that I’m no longer prepared to respond to comments which stereotype anyone, or any community, as bigots.
You may think what you wish, and Jude may write what he wishes, but if you wish to continue the conversation, then leave out the bigotry.
It wasn’t actually the message I was trying to get across and I don’t think everyone from your community are bigots.
It is the ideology that supports dividing a country so that one community, in this case unionists who have always been a minority in Ireland should be entitled to their own sub division of counties to maintain an overall majority to rule with which they have not only in the past abused to the point of killing and starting a conflict, but that even today refuse to acknowledge that such partition was wrong, that dividing a country to conquer it is only going to introduce a culture of sectarianism and bigotry and will deny all of our people on the whole of this island from having the best future together. That is what I am saying is bigotry and that is the ideology of unionism. I do not believe everyone from your community is opposed to a shared future but political unionism refuses to engage or to encourage such pluralism or liberalism which in turn is leaving many sections of its own community in the same degree of poverty as it is west of the bann or in west Belfast.
Many in your community I believe are beginning to realise that such unionism is really elitism and that an agreed Ireland is the only way forward.
Dublin has done more to turn nationalists away from a united Ireland in spite of the intransigence of unionism.
But we should acknowledge Scott and your genuine engagement here Peter, and for that reason I will try to keep the language more respectful as you say.
Thank you, Jessica.
I’ll try to respond to the question you asked later, when I have more time.
Jessica
“Tell me honestly how you think that is going to play out.”
First of all I don’t really buy the ‘Unionists always started it’ line.
I’m not saying Unionists never started anything, but I am saying that nearly everyone on this island started something at some point.
I also understand that you do not (perhaps cannot) accept that Partition was at least one possible solution. It may not have been perfect, but Ireland and the world of the early 20thC was a very different place, and there was violence and the threat of it all round, and had been for years. Partition may have looked like a solution and was ratified by Treaty and was therefore justifiable.
Beyond that, and to bring things up to date, I tend to the opinion that Northern Ireland (as a State), although not as an identity within Ireland, is on borrowed time – I do not think the Union is safe – but this much you know.
What I would like to see (remember I’m a Unionist) is the Ulster Unionist Party developing links with RoI politicians (FG would seem like a good place to start) with a view to strengthening its influence on an island wide basis and making an argument for RoI to rejoin the Commonwealth, for RoI to develop links with London, for Dail members to have speaking rights in Westminster on matters of Irish interest, for NI MPs to have speaking rights in the Dail, and for Irish/British harmonisation on matters relating to the economy, education, security, health, tourism etc. all working towards a Council of the Isles and subsequently to a New UK.
But I don’t think any of that is going to happen!
Instead, what I think will happen is that Unionists will continue to put all their eggs in a basket called Stormont (the DUP were always little Northern Irelanders), will continue to think of the Protestant working class communities as ‘voting fodder’, will protest as London forges closer North South (but not East West) relations and will make a bad deal at the last minute when they should have know that the game was already up.
And then, because all this will happen due to a democratic vote, Unionism will have nowhere to go.
There will be a United Ireland one day (perhaps not in my lifetime) and it will not be the kind of United Ireland I prefer. But it is one I will accept.
None of this is worth another death.
If the UUP don’t ally with Fine Gael on an all island basis, I believe they will be finished politically. As will the SDLP but I doubt any major party would partner with them whereas I could see Fine Gael working with one of the unionist parties.
It is my own opinion that Mike Nesbitt will be the first unionist leader to acknowledge unionisms part in the late 60s and that will be the end of it.
It may happen in coordination with British state acknowledgement of the true part it played also to take the heat out of it and help draw a line under legacy issues which need to be resolved before Ireland can be reunited anyway.
My point is we cannot go on demonising one another while the main drivers of the conflict are covered up or swept under the carpet.
Also, I never said unionism started everything. I said it started the troubles conflict which it did.
After the conflict started, there were tit for tat acts for decades which were each the start of another group of people getting involved. I understand completely why a young loyalist would take up arms after seeing an attack on his community from republicans. Such is the way of conflict. To demonise working class people on either side for what unionist politicians started is not a narrative I can swallow though.
Frederick Knott, Esteemed Blogmeister, is one of the most celebrated Broadway dramatists of the last century, not.
Which is odd, rather.
Considering one of his two big Broadway hits went on to be fillumed not once, but twice as hugely successful movies. One will return to the Not at all Famous Frederick Knott in a moment.
Not, of course, is the crucial three-letter word here, EB. Consider the following:
As one who has been exposed on a daily basis to the peculiar planetary view of The Unionist Times and its Broadcasting Wing, RTE, for more decades than one cares (or is able) to remember, one might automatically assume that one by this stage was an eminently civilized die hard, Orange haired, simpering shoneen who favours Rainbow shaded underwear with one’s thespian nose stuck in the theatrical trough of the Abbey even while one continues to observe , with tongue a-loll, the august Sons of Ulster Marching and Septembering towards the Somme.
Not, alas, that way at all, at all.
In fact the more one exposes oneself to TU-TU- TUTsie’ tut-tut-ing the more vicarious and visceral one’s loathing of same becomes: in a phrase, dial M for Masochism.
One of the few words of Leprechaun to infiltrate itself into the hubristic lexicon of Hiberno-English is M for Meas. Meas, pronounced ‘mass’ means ‘respect’. One hears it in such homely phrases, as:
-My maiden aunt Gertie has great meas on her pet male gerbil Bertie who has been her sole and loyal companion for more years than even she cares to recall.
By the same token, The Perkin has great meas on his masochism. Indeed, one might aver that he even has great critical meas itself on his masochism. That’s why he would as much dream of missing his daily dose of The Unionist Times as he would his morning bowl of muesli.
Psychologists or even forensic psychiatrists theyselves might consider this idiosyncrasy as a part of some sort of Compensatory Syndrome. Just as one cannot, perforce, keep an eye on a vital procedure such as one’s Enema, one may feel obliged, by way of redressing the undress, as it were , to keep one’s eye on one’s, erm, Enemy.
Cut to Tu-tu TUTsie and her somewhat less than endearing Tut-tut-ing.
Why is this ? One suspects that one’s political views are formed just as soon as one’s bones are set completely : political views which are in part inherited / disinherited and in part personally arrived at.
Nonetheless, man cannot live by Deadheads alone and so, just as it is (almost) as vital to have one’s predges for, more or less, confirmed as it is ditto to have one’s predges against, less or more, one was blessed to stumble accidentally upon Esteemed Blogmeister’s Esteemed Blog in recent times.
Welcome, Equilibrium, to one’s world. Better latte than Norneverland. not.
But, not to keep Frederick Knott (see above ) waiting any longer: he sprang to mind during a week when the Adam’s Apple of the Free Southern Stateen has been convulsed with the throat catcher du jour in its own soi-disant Garden of E-commerce..
Frederick Knott’s bigger of his two Broadway Hits in the 1950s was, curiously enough:
-Dial M for Murder.
Which went on to be fillumed twice; it is the second movie version (not the Hitchcock one of 1954 but the one remade as A Perfect Murder of 1998, directed by Andrew Davies who was also responsible for the superb fillum of The Fugitive ) which concerns one here, because it includes a line which might well have summed up the Free Southern Stateen’s official stance.
This is the same Stateen whose response has been growing curiouser and curiouser as its central shriek all week has concerned our own very S-word (gulp):
– Sovereignty.
(The Queen of Tarts is ordering more apples from the orchard of Erin’s green land – The Glenanne Farmoury )
The line in question occurs in one of the later scenes as the chill-a-min fillum climbs towards a climax. As the Michael Douglas character (the actor who inherited his da Kirk’s cleft chin, only in the son’s case it is to be found between his mesmerisingly menacing eyes) is walking briskly across Washington Square, with a camouflaged swag-bag in his hand.
He is smartly togged out in a classy, nine hundred dollar Noonan-cut suit, on his way to pay off the balance of the dosh he had promised to dish out to the dude he had hired to ice his wife.
Suddenly, he is approached from the rear by the designer scruffily dressed Viggo Mortessen character who supplicates in his ear:
-Got my four hundred thousand dollars to spare, boss ?
Recognising who the supplicant is, without hesitation the man in the classy, nine-hundred dollar Noonan-cut suit and before one could whisper S for Sovereignty , the Michael Douglas character has handed over the swag-bag to the character dressed down, a la Tim ‘Slab’ Cook.
Sound vaguely familiar ?
To conclude: Michael Noonan, the Nanki Poo of Poolitics south of the Black Sow’s Dyke is, ah, a proud Limerick man, as he’ll be the first ta tell ya.
Oddly enough (1), the same county has a Newcastle West to balance off its hamlet of Oola (meaning Apples in the Leprechaun).
The English have a phrase to define superfluity – now, how does it go ? – ah, yes, :
-Bringing coals to Newcastle.
Oddly enough (2), the Leprechaun version of said phrases is (gulp):
-Ag caitheamh ull san ullghort / Throwing apples into the orchard.
YET ANOTHER LIMERICK, MICHAEL
Michael Noonan has a voice, low and soft
Waffle is what he ‘s been known to woft
We grapple with the chapel
Now we’ll grapple for APPLE
Forget bout APPLE, sor, Dial M for Microsoft.
Erm, not.
I think it’s how people approach debate that’s the problem.
People seem to think that debates are some kind of battle with the objective to “win” the argument for your own point of view. Little thought is given for the opposite contributors motivations or viewpoint, so long as you can land the knock out point/comment people don’t seem open to trying to learn through debate.
Perhaps there needs to be a change in mindset amongst contributors. Rather than coming here for debate, maybe people should call it a conversation. Rather than coming on here for a verbal wrestling match, perhaps we should try and approach it as a learning experience where we can hear alternative ideas articulated differently and topics can be worked through with a view learn rather than just political point scoring.
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/11/02/the-power-of-conversation-a-lesson-from-cs-lewis-and-jrr-tolkien/
Here is a article from one of my favourite blogs that describes (probably better than me) how debate should be conducted.
I think that a alternative viewpoint should also be presented more in the articles posted to and shouldn’t be left to commenters only. Been following your blog for a while now Jude, and I hope you’ll forgive me for saying but the articles are exclusively from a Nationalist/Republican viewpoint. Perhaps articles from the Unionist community give balance and perspective and help dispel stereotypes used on here. I’ve thought about sending you a piece myself but don’t feel I’m qualified enough.
People should also mind the language and there sweeping generalisations.
Jessica has called me (in a roundabout way) a bigot a few times for simply being a Unionist. On a recent post the word Planters was used to describe Unionists/Protestants and fiorasch above calls us “colonialists”. Thinly veiled abuse and hateful in my book, and certainly does nothing to raise the tone of debate.
I have never called you a bigot in any way Scott.
I said unionism was a sliding scale of bigotry and I thoroughly explained my reasons for having that opinion.
My reasons are sound and I see no reason to change them so you can feel better about calling yourself a unionist.
But that is still not the same as calling any individual a bigot which I would not do.
So much for the art of conversation Scott. Doesn’t work so well when the topic goes into touchy territory, better to adopt the unionist line and avoid the accusations and instead berate the messenger.
Sorry Jessica I never really bought your argument that you weren’t calling me and every other Unionist a bigot when you used the Unionism is a sliding of bigotry line.
It was a thinly veiled way of calling me and every other Unionist a bigot in my humble opinion. Don’t worry about it though your entitled to your opinion just as I am.
I am not worried about it at all Scott.
There is ample evidence that unionism is steeped in bigotry, I did not make it up.
If you intend to declare yourself a unionist, is important that you acknowledge this and until your representatives do acknowledge unionisms role in starting the troubles, I will continue to point it out until they do.
“People seem to think that debates are some kind of battle with the objective to “win” the argument for your own point of view. Little thought is given for the opposite contributors motivations or viewpoint, so long as you can land the knock out point/comment people don’t seem open to trying to learn through debate”
Very true Scott.
“Been following your blog for a while now Jude, and I hope you’ll forgive me for saying but the articles are exclusively from a Nationalist/Republican viewpoint.”
Of course they are Scott, Jude is a Nationalist the last time I looked, his articles aren’t exactly meant to be neutral. If I went on to Nelson McCauslands blog (I think I’d be kicked off quicker than the Pope would be kicked out of an Orange Hall) I’d obviously expect articles from a Unionist view point because Nelson is a Unionist…..
“On a recent post the word Planters was used to describe Unionists/Protestants and fiorasch above calls us “colonialists”. Thinly veiled abuse and hateful in my book, and certainly does nothing to raise the tone of debate”
But that’s because the majority of Unionists DO descend from Planters/Colonialists Scott. Its simply Historical fact. There is literally thousands of parades a year celebrating this fact. Its no secret. White people in South Africa aren’t native Africans, they descend from Colonialists. A minority of Whites in America descend from Colonialists too (Irish Catholics, Italians, Germans, etc were immigrants, not planters) the only true Americans are the Native Americans. The same goes for most Unionists in the North of Ireland, they descend from the Planters landed here during the Plantation of Ulster, there is even land still in possession of prominent Unionists today whose ancestors stole it. Its all fact. I’m not saying that to insult, I’m simply stating the truth. Unionists today are doing what the Plantation was all about: keeping a foothold in Ireland for Britain, a foreign power. There’s no doubt about that. British Historian Niall Ferguson in his book “Empire” talks about this and describes it as “an absolute disaster still felt to this day”.
Well Ryan if the objective is to learn and understand then the opposite viewpoint is very important to hear..
I dont know if the majority of Unionists are descended from planters, but the term isnt used as a factual way to describe people for historical reasons it’s used as a insult.
Colonialists are also used to try and make Unionists feel alien in are own land. It’s all nonsense of course, we are as native to Ireland as anyone else.
I agree, Scott. Unionists are every bit as Irish as any nationalist/republican. With the exception of Sammy Wilson, of course, who says there’s not a drop of Irish blood in his veins.
What do you think of Scott’s point on the use of the term planter?
I don’t agree.
There are members of my own family who’s roots go back to Scotland.
I would not dream of calling them planters.
Within the context of a certain discussion where the term would be on topic, perhaps it could be mentioned without causing any offense, but to out of the blue just start calling them planters I imagine could be considered hurtful. Not necessarily through their being historic inaccuracies though I would not know where to start in verifying who is descended from the plantation and who is not. But because it indicates difference, them and us, which is the very root of sectarianism here.
Sometimes it feels as though those who know most about history, have learned the least from it.
I accept that there is a section of society here that I would refer to as British separatists. They want part of Ireland to be anti Irish, a little separate colony where they can rule the roost. They have already started considering the repartition lines, these people are not only foreign to me, but alien.
I would still not say they are planters because it would be insulting to those who came to Ireland during the plantation and who learned the language, assimilated the culture and fitted in.
Then there are Irish unionists, these are people who feel more comfortable under British rule as they look to England for protection. People who saw bombs blowing their people to pieces in a chip shop on the shankill road and while they would like to embrace their Irishness, find it hard to trust nationalism as our communities have been polarised over decades of conflict.
I don’t really even consider these people to be unionists, but Irish people who want to remain in the UK or maintain a link to Britain for reasons outlined above which I fully understand and respect. I don’t see how you can justify calling these people planters or how we can be confident it is even historically accurate.
Then there are people both protestant and catholic who would prefer the link to England for financial reasons, they may have good jobs and travel to Britain regularly, the union is good for their bank balance. Does that make them planters?
All I can say is I go along with my gut instinct, and to call anyone a planter in 2016 just feels wrong to me.
I agree with Scott, I would feel I was being derogatory and inciting difference, and even if that is not what is intended by those who would use the term, I can see how Scott and others would feel this way.
You say this blog site never changes anyone’s opinion Jude.
Well, we may just have to ask ourselves, is it any wonder?
“Well Ryan if the objective is to learn and understand then the opposite viewpoint is very important to hear.”
Yes it is Scott,
We need to not only hear, but to listen and try to understand one another.
The majority of us don’t give a shit about history, to me calling someone a planter is saying they are from foreign bloodstock and not welcome. It is therefore a bigoted and sectarian remark.
This is indeed your land every bit as much as anyone elses here.
Thank you Jessica that’s exactly how I feel about the term planter.
“This is indeed your land every bit as much as anyone elses here”
I’m not referring just to Unionists Jessica but to Colonialism worldwide but if Land is stolen in the 1600’s or whenever, how does that Land belong to everyone? including those who stole it? Explain to me your argument. Well I know already that you don’t have an argument because your just taking the stance your taking because its politically convenient but I’m interested.
If I stole your house Jessica and keep it from you for 100 years….does that mean that House is mine now?….and at which point exactly does it become mine and why?
Of course what is done is done, I’m not saying Unionists should all move back to Scotland but they should at least acknowledge the evils their ancestors committed, which indeed included vast theft of land and resources that resulted in thousands of Irish people dying, which was the intention. Those people were just as human as we are today, just because the year had different numbers than today doesn’t make a difference.
I’m talking principles. Saying nice and rosy things to Unionists isn’t going to change them, we have seen that repeatedly over the past 2 decades. Indeed, the irony is its Unionism that is often quick to tell Catholics to f**k off down south and there’s not many Unionists apologizing for it…..so by all means, tickle Scots tummy but it wont change attitudes, I assure you, it reinforces a supremacist attitude in many Unionists (not necessarily talking about Scott, btw)….
I believe The island of Ireland belongs to the Irish people.
That does not mean we own it to do with what we wish. It means we are responsible for its wellbeing.
Ownership in terms of owning a property is completely different. You don’t have to be Irish to own land or property in Ireland and it does not necessarily make you responsible for any part of Ireland other than that property which you own.
I assure you Ryan, I say very little to purely appease unionism. My focus is however more on going forward or at least the here and now, not so much on the past which I have limited understanding off.
I recall very well being told Ireland was a foreign land and to go live there, even by a teacher in a school in Portadown believe it or not. The Catholics left the room and walked out but no apology was received and nothing done about it. That is the way things were back then. Their way or the highway.
I just don’t see how Scott is any less Irish than I am.
Perhaps you could explain to us your argument that he is less Irish.
What you need to understand Ryan, is Britain has already given up ownership of every part of Ireland.
My problem is, Southern Ireland gave up ownership of the 6 counties.
The Good Friday Agreement has created a no mans land where England will carry out the administrative duties until such time as the people choose to reunite with the rest of our country, in which case Southern Ireland has agreed to take on the administrative duties and England has no interest in contesting it.
It allows both states to put us to the back of their minds and get on with real business, a situation I find humiliating and deplorable.
To talk about colonialism and ignore the current reality, to me suggests you don’t fully understand what is going on in the here and now.
I don’t care what happened hundreds of years ago and most people don’t either.
I do expect unionism to acknowledge their actions between 1966 to 1969 as it directly relates to the current northern Ireland state which still exists.
I do not expect anyone to explain the actions of their ancestors and it is ridiculous to even suggest it
Well after 400 years Ryan to somehow insinuate that we don’t belong or don’t have ownership of a place seems a touch crazy to me.
If we apply your logic across the world a lot of people wouldn’t belong.
The Hungarian people are descendants of the Magyar tribes from the Crimea.
White Europeans colonised America around the same time as the Plantation of Ulster.
There are 10’s of millions of people in South America of Hispanic and African origin.
I could go on and on but I’m sure you get my point, that by your logic these places don’t “belong” to these people because they originally came from somewhere.
How long do people of Scottish/English/Hugonot descent have to be here before they belong Ryan? Or will the land ever belong to us in your opinion?
It’s also a myth that this place was purely Irish until the arrival of the Normans. I recommend you watch William Crawleys show called Imagining Ulster.
He explains that since prehistoric times people have been moving between the North East of Ireland and Scotland in particular. In fact the Scottish are descended from a Irish Tribe from Ulster (the Scots) who invaded Scotland and took over from the Picts.
“That seems to me a pity. I think interest in public affairs and politics are vital in a proper democracy”
But that’s the point Jude, we’re not a proper democracy, we’re not even a normal society. I know me and thousands of others have said that many times before but people need to remember that and take it on board. The NI state isn’t called a “failure” and a “sectarian state” for nothing, it is literally a failure and a sectarian state. Don’t be surprised when people in such a society see debating as a bear pit of verbal bashing instead of reasoned discussion. There’s a reason why the Nolan TV show is the “biggest show in the country”, it doesn’t get viewers because people want to broaden their minds, they get viewers because people love to see Unionist politician pitted against Nationalist politician and who can get the biggest cheer/clap from the studio audience or who can win an argument over the other.
As Gerry Adams himself said: “We don’t have peace, we have an absence of violence”.
I remember me and Jessica agreeing that violence will break out again in the future and it will be from Loyalists (just like before). I still believe that. The Good Friday Agreement is just like the Treaty of Versailles ending WW1. It was said that after it was signed a French General turned to a German General and said “See you in 20 years”. He believed the Treaty was a temporary peace and he was correct. I see the GFA in the same way. Instead of people killing each other today or committing sectarian attacks, people use heated arguments/insults to channel their suspicion and hatred of the other community. Take a look at Facebook today and see the comments from Loyalists about Catholic children getting compensation due to the Holycross dispute, the hatred for CHILDREN is there for all to see.
The only reason the UVF/UDA signed up to the GFA (in theory, anyway) is because they are being paid off. “Grug”, the man who tried to kill Gerry Adams, said he only voted Yes for the GFA because “I wanted my mates out of prison but I knew when I left the booth I did the wrong thing and sold Ulster out”. I read last Sunday that the British Government is putting aside £50 million for “community projects” in Loyalist areas and the likes of UDA Commander Jackie McDonald is making sure Loyalists toe the line so they get this money. That is what is stopping violence, money, nothing else. Not a change in attitude. Not a desire for peace. Of course if some Loyalists step out of line (like John Boreland last month) they get killed. But what will happen when this money stops flowing?…..
Should we have reasonable and respectful debates based on facts? Yes of course. But in order for that to happen you need reasonable, respectful people, who want to hear facts. I’m not insulting him but does the like of MT fit the description of someone who is reasonable, respectful and wants to hear the facts? You cant reason with the unreasonable. Just look at what happened when Jude was on Radio this week and spoke about the sectarianism in the IFA. He was verbally bashed and insulted, not reasoned with. People who I never seen commenting on this blog before came on simply to insult Jude. Don’t expect such people to open their minds, their minds are copper fastened and have been since they were knee high.
If both Unionists and Nationalists want to have a reasoned debate, where ideas are exchanged and genuinely considered, then we need to change our mind sets and mentality. In a way we have to stop being Unionist/Nationalist to the core and become a blank canvass. That’s an option for every individual. As far as I can see, very few have taken this “Blank Canvass” stance. Small minded loyalty to community comes first before the facts…..
“comments from Loyalists about Catholic children getting compensation due to the Holycross dispute, the hatred for CHILDREN is there for all to see”.
hatred of ,and attacks on, Catholic children have long been one of the hallmarks of Orangeism/Loyalism in northern ireland. Do not be surprised by it. it is well documented in historical records
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/hallmarks-of-orange-loyalism-then-1795-and-now-then-2013/
With regards to the holy cross children in particular as the latest manifestation of that hatred – and perhaps the only one to be broadcast worldwide – has anyone any idea of the bad effects it had on those kids (than aged 4-11). Nightmares, bedwetting, hair falling out, teeth grinding, are probably the most minor.
The very young probably didn’t really understand what was going on…But they certainly felt the antagonism and hatred. The older children understood the “protest” was a personal attack, and saw first-hand all this hatred and venom and animosity which they didn’t know was there before, as their parents and community had no doubt tried to protect them from it. They probably found it very hard to deal with as they grew up.
Those children are now of voting/marrying age. How do you think they will vote? Will they support the Union? What will they tell their kids?
“With regards to the holy cross children in particular as the latest manifestation of that hatred – and perhaps the only one to be broadcast worldwide – has anyone any idea of the bad effects it had on those kids (than aged 4-11). Nightmares, bedwetting, hair falling out, teeth grinding, are probably the most minor”
Very true Ben. Indeed many of the mothers reported that their kids developed behaviour problems after the protests, problems that persisted for many years. Problems such as mood swings, lack of appetite, reclusiveness, depression, anxiety, etc A lot of the kids were even on medication and had to go and get psychological help too.
It was the same for the residents of Gravaghy Road during Drumcree protests, which were a lot worse than Holycross. The Orange Order and UVF even wanted to besiege Gravaghy Road and “starve the residents into submission”. Of course Unionist politicians were fully behind the protest at Drumcree, despite it causing the murders of many Catholic civilians (including 3 kids) and numerous Catholic Chapels being burnt to the ground. Tony Blair even visited the ruins of many of the Chapels. According to Susan McKay, the Orange Order were handing out leaflets at Drumcree quoting the Bible and justifying the arson attacks from Unionists on Catholic Chapels.
“Those children are now of voting/marrying age. How do you think they will vote? Will they support the Union? What will they tell their kids?”
Its the same for all Catholic children, not just those at Holycross. I was the same age as many of those kids at Holycross when the protests were going on and I was very angry at it, seeing the footage on TV at the time. Did it effect me? Of course, its not nice seeing your community being attacked and oppressed, especially CHILDREN. Not for as long as I live will I ever support the Union. Its been a social and economic disaster for this country.
You could have gone on and stated Ryan that the IRA setting of bombs on the Shankill road and killing people might have had more effect on the innocent victims children rather than what happened at Holycross who after all didnt lose anything but gained a fairly generous compo.
It was the same for the residents of Gravaghy Road during Drumcree protests, which were a lot worse than Holycross. The Orange Order and UVF even wanted to besiege Gravaghy Road and “starve the residents into submission”. Of course Unionist politicians were fully behind the protest at Drumcree, despite it causing the murders of many Catholic civilians (including 3 kids) and numerous Catholic Chapels being burnt to the ground. Tony Blair even visited the ruins of many of the Chapels. According to Susan McKay, the Orange Order were handing out leaflets at Drumcree quoting the Bible and justifying the arson attacks from Unionists on Catholic Chapels.
The IRA had no issue with attacking Protestants going to and from churches and Catholics coming from an to Mass when they were targeting their victims but of course you are to young to remember Ryan perhaps you should read another book perhaps J Bardon History of Ulster?
“The IRA had no issue with attacking Protestants going to and from churches and Catholics coming from an to Mass ”
When did the IRA attack people going to or from mass Robert?
“You could have gone on and stated Ryan that the IRA setting of bombs on the Shankill road and killing people might have had more effect on the innocent victims children rather than what happened at Holycross who after all didnt lose anything but gained a fairly generous compo”
I could also have gone on and said the PIRA would never have existed Robert if it wasn’t for the actions of Unionism because that was the source that caused the Troubles in the first place. Of course you conveniently leave out the fact the Shankill Road was a notorious hideout for the Shankill Butchers and many of its bars were used by the UVF to plan sectarian murders, which the UVF/UDA admitted themselves. I wonder what effect that had on the Catholic community. Indeed just this weekend the annual Brian Robinson UVF parade was held on the Shankill Road, who was Brian Robinson again? a charity worker?…..a fairly generous compo? how would you know, no amount of money has been disclosed?…..yes, I’m sure walking past baying mobs of Unionists screaming sectarian abuse was like a fun walk for the children of Holycross, Robert.
Leave out the “whattabouttery” Robert, we can all resort to that but it just gets boring.
“The IRA had no issue with attacking Protestants going to and from churches and Catholics coming from an to Mass when they were targeting their victims but of course you are to young to remember Ryan perhaps you should read another book perhaps J Bardon History of Ulster”
I cant remember the IRA ever doing what mobs of Unionists done at Holycross or Drumcree Robert but its interesting that you needed to cast up a paramilitary group in your effort to find a (very poor) comparison. I don’t remember mobs of Nationalists/Catholics ever protesting for weeks/months/years at Protestant Churches or at Protestant Primary Schools….or demanding that Nationalist parades should march through Protestant neighbourhoods….funny that, isn’t it?…..
No, I’ll stick to Susans book, thanks Robert. Its a very accurate and truthful, you see…..something you don’t like, judging by your comments……
I remember the Holy Cross protests well, i also RTE talk show presenters trying to blame the children’s parents. Absolutely shameful!
We in the north are a very politicised people, there is no way around that simple fact. Of course, a lot of people have left behind their Nationalism/Unionism/ Catholicism/ Protestantism, but those people tend not to search out political blogs, even fantastic ones like yours Jude, (grovel, grovel…) No amount of persuasion will ever make me a Unionist, not even the British monarchy reverting back to the Catholic faith, mind you, there are quite a few Unionists who would seriously consider becoming revolutionaries if that were to happen. So that leads me to the conclusion, unionism is religion based while nationalism is democracy based, ie, regardless of which church the English King or Queen go to, I do not want them lording over me.
Scott, I do not think that you can find fault with my terminology. England declared war on Ireland. England won. England planted a colony. The planters descendants are still here, in posession of that same land and still profess undying love to Mother England. Planters,colonists, natives. Call a spade a spade. My point is that no matter how skilful your argument you will never convince your opponent. You seem to be reasonable. Hope you infect some of your fellows.
fiosrach
Talk of planter and colonist is designed to be provocative and bears no resemblance to the respectful dialogue Jude is advocating
How many generations must pass before descendants of colonists are not referred to as colonists?
How much intermingling do you think has gone on?
Are you confident that racial purity has been maintained and you can still tell who is colonist and who is indigenous?
Is it not a Flann O’Brien case of bicycle molecules mingling with human molecules till no-one can say where one ends and the other begins?
I find the term “Northern Ireland” offensive and provocative. Likewise the mainland , crown buildings etc etc. Do you thinl am I too sensitive?
fiosrach
Presumably you wouldn’t much like someone calling you Northern Irish then?
Planter is a pointless derogatory term and has no place in grown up debate.
Do you want to talk to people or just wind them up?
Jude, today’s blog has prompted quite a few contributors to give their ideas, or to lecture the rest of us in the proper way to conduct a debate.
But if you go down the road of having strict rules I fear the liveliness of the badinage will be seriously diluted – the only rules should restrict abuse or abusive language.
But I detect that you feel somewhat depressed, and am reminded of Colm (I think) Sands’ song ‘We all need a hug in the morning’. Maybe you’ve been somewhat deprived in that department lately.
Could we organise a virtual group hug for you on some agreed day at an agreed time?
Otherwise, if you are actively looking for sympathy, a friend of mine is keen on reminding anyone within earshot, ‘you’ll find it in the dictionary between sh1te and syphilis’!
Dr C, I shall (probably) expand on this later but, in short, when Iain McUnionist or Sean McNationalist are proven to be wrong they simply throw a hissy fit, change the topic or engage in whataboutery.
I know this because I’ve had many many unionists and nationalists on the ropes through the application of logic.
I’m not smart, I don’t have great insights, I just simply apply logic and both sides go ape when I give them the treatment, those who go all emotional and ignore my points are a particularly welcomed scalp.
So, in short, of you publish an unwelcome truth (my hobby) it’ll be ignored accordingly.
The truth is, both nationalists and unionists harm their own causes with their emotional strategies but neither side will admit it.
Such is the way of things.
I imagine there will be some emotional rhetoric following shortly to prove my point…
“I know this because I’ve had many many unionists and nationalists on the ropes through the application of logic.
I’m not smart, I don’t have great insights, I just simply apply logic and both sides go ape when I give them the treatment, those who go all emotional and ignore my points are a particularly welcomed scalp.”
You certainly have a high opinion of yourself AG. I would say are an intelligent person but no more than most people on this site. You have a strong unionist agenda and are far from the lundy you claim to be considered. You have the foresight to know the inevitability that intransigence will fail and attempt to portray unionism in a moderate light which can be easier said than done at times, as well as promotion of british culture in Ireland which is fair enough.
What you fail to understand, that those people who throw hissy fits and get emotional are not bad people. Usually they are passionate about their country and are frustrated because their country has been less than deserving of their loyalty and I refer to both Dublin and London here.
The only solution must be one where the people feel a welcome part of their country once more and that will not happen until we force the two states to discuss it with us.
Perhaps your cup is too full to accept this but after your expressed pleasure over peoples pain which you consider to be scalps, I really don’t care.
What would be great is an official blog where all political parties have an account and commenters are all vetted by their electoral identity card number as well as a valid email. This would mean all comments would be listed under our names along with the photo on the electoral card which would help with the conversation which is what I think you are getting at Jude.
Only registered political parties in Ireland or the UK would have the option to post articles knowing that it is only registered voters they will be conversing with and no anonymous agitators. It would encourage more people to register to vote and give the people who are interested the opportunity to have their voices heard which may encourage more people to actually vote.
It would also keep things official as Daithi McKay has highlighted the problem of giving individuals too much rope, they all to often hang themselves with it.
This way the parties would have no choice but to discuss the issues that are important to the public.
Criticising people for not voting is stupid while parties are allowed to ignore what the people want and do their own thing on their own terms. Doorstep trekking at election time when unionism has made the election a sectarian head count to bolster their vote has worked in their favour while they were the majority which is now past tense.
It will also ensure nationalist voters are in the highest voter apathy group and avoid voting altogether but even with that and allowing for the Catholics who would vote for unionist parties, I expect the next election will see a sea change in the results.
To elaborate on my remarks about the smallish rump of diehards who would never never never countenance an eventual re-united sovereign Ireland and would fight to the last drop of somebody else’s blood to oppose it. Ignore them as long as they are causing no trouble. They might come round or just wither away or even go away. If they rise up in rebellion again against a legitimate government it will be up to that government to contain them. Simples?
Surely the obvious solution is to get rid of all the “planters” and create a homogeneous Catholic, Nationalist Ireland in which everything will be sweetness and light. Some have already been absorbed, witness all those Andersons, Adamses, Morrisons, etc in the ranks of Sinn Fein, the rest can be driven out, killed, or taking a more civilised tack, bribed to leave. The problem might be to decide who is a planter and who isn’t, bearing in mind that most planters will have an O’Neill, Murphy, Boyle, McCrory, etc, lurking embarrassingly in their ancestry. But obviously all that that stuff about cherishing all the children of the nation equally, as well as the orange third of the tricolour would have to be abandoned.
Well there wouldn’t be much cherishing if what your somewhat excited imagination envisages,Willie D. I think you’d find that Anderson, Adams, Morrison,etc would be happy to acknowledge that they come from planter stock. I know I am…
If we go back far enough, Jude , we’re all immigrants into Ireland over thousands of years .Even within this past few hundred years. I know that one of my bloodlines runs from hugenot stock on one of my grandmother’s side…and before that …..who knows?
I could also have gone on and said the PIRA would never have existed Robert if it wasn’t for the actions of Unionism because that was the source that caused the Troubles in the first place. Of course you conveniently leave out the fact the Shankill Road was a notorious hideout for the Shankill Butchers and many of its bars were used by the UVF to plan sectarian murders, which the UVF/UDA admitted themselves. I wonder what effect that had on the Catholic community. Indeed just this weekend the annual Brian Robinson UVF parade was held on the Shankill Road, who was Brian Robinson again? a charity worker?…..a fairly generous compo? how would you know, no amount of money has been disclosed?…..yes, I’m sure walking past baying mobs of Unionists screaming sectarian abuse was like a fun walk for the children of Holycross, Robert.
Obviously you know nothing about the IRA`s campaign in the 50`s then Ryan hardly surprising i suppose. So the Shankill deserved what it got because there were loyalist bars were Loyalist violence was planned that being the case using your logic every part of Republican West Belfast was fair game then. As for the children if they parents had been proper parents they would never have exposed their kids to it however its fair to say most were not and continue to be incapable of being proper parents.