While television here in New York has endless debates on Donald Trump and whether he gave women career opportunities or something rather more basic, I’ve been sent from different sources links to two articles, both dealing with events in the early twentieth century.
The first was an account headed ‘Black and Tans were not so bad says historian’. It’s a commentary on a book produced in 2011 (how come the five-year gap?) by Canadian historian David Leeson titled “The Black and Tans: British Police and Auxiliaries in the Irish War of Independence 1920-21’. The piece leans heavily on a review of the book in the Irish Times by Eunan O ‘Halpin.
Interesting claims:
- Many of the B and Ts were Irish-born, and regular British soldiers were “far more likely to commit atrocities’.
- Far from being the ‘sweepings of the British penal system’, almost none had criminal records.
- The B and Ts were matched with regular RIC men, ‘waiting for the IRA to attack’, while the Auxiliaries were tasked with taking the battle to the IRA. “This they did with a vengeance and it is abundandtly clear that they abused that power, even more than the Black and Tans did”.
I’m sure all Mr Leeson’s claims are historically accurate, but from the article I’ve read, the headline is a bit misleading. It doesn’t so much say the B and Ts were decent chaps: it says many were Irish and didn’t have criminal records, and that the Auxiliaries were worse than them. Personally, if someone was going to assault or kill me, I’d find it hard to use their birthplace as mitigating circumstances. In efforts to produce a refreshed version of history, we do well not to use historical sleight of hand to suggest that because Y did worse, X mustn’t be too bad. They were all bad.
The second article I received is by the indefatigable Patsy McGarry, who quotes a former Fianna Fail Attorney-General Paul Gallagher, who has declared that the Easter Rising ‘had no legitimacy whatsoever’. Wow. Well why didn’t you tell us earlier, Paul? Could have saved all that money spent on commemoration/celebration.
Mr Gallagher goes on to explain that the Rising’s leaders were “a self-absorbed group of brave idealists who had never represented anybody”, except for James Connolly, who served briefly on Dublin’s city council.
Got that? Only elected revolutionaries need apply. No good being brave if you can’t point to the size of your vote.
I think it’s a bit like people who object to trade unions but are happy to accept the increase in wages that the union may have negotiated. Maybe Patsy and Paul should make it clear that, on principle, they must renounce their Irish citizenship, since it sprang from the violent actions of men and women who hadn’t been elected. (OK, James, you get a pass on this one. Sort of.)
I’ll say one thing for the rewriters of the Easter Rising and subsequent events in this country: they have the persistence and tenacity of Border Terriers. (No, Virginia, those are not an Irish regiment. They are dogs.)
I’m currently doing A level history on the partition of Ireland and what we are taught is basically that the Easter rising was a total failure carried out by a tiny minority with little support from the Irish public.
The risings main significantice and impact was that it created a heavy handed reaction from the British and along with the impact of WW1 caused the decline of the IPP and Home rule and led to the rise of Sinn Feinn and physical force republics.
I am not a historian but I would not agree that the rising led to the rise of physical force republicanism. The denial of the democratic voice in 1918 I think did more to lead to the violence of first troubles and the war of independence but those who don’t see partition as the denial of democracy would prefer to point to the rising as the root cause of all violence against partition thereafter.
The right answer to me would be to read up sufficiently and make your own mind up while explaining sufficiently how you came to that conclusion.
Do you think it was the impact of WW1 in itself or the fact the IPP was openly encouraging young people to go to their deaths in WW1 while keeping out of it themselves caused their decline?
When James Connolly was receiving last rites, the priest asked him if he would like to pray for the men about to kill him. His response was yes, he would pray for all good men who would do their duty.
Not the words of an unreasonable man.
No your right Jessica, physical force Republicanism had been around long before 1916 with the United Irishmen and the Fenian movement. Pre Rising/WW1 though it was not a popular or well supported method.
Also yes the IPP and IVF’s support of the war and the conscription crisis caused a rise in Sinn Fein as they had always been anti war and as the war turned unpopular they benefitted from increased electoral support ending in there landslide in 1918 General election.
I guess the larger point I was trying to make is that some of these events such as the rising are turned into ‘legends’ and are given more significance than they actually had. If there had been no war and a rising had occurred in 1916, I don’t believe that Sinn Fein would have gained the electoral success and there wouldn’t have been a War of Independence. I guess though that’s kinda speculation as nobody knows what way history will go but that’s my best assumption.
We were also taught that Carson was not a supporter of partition or the setting up of a Unionist state in the north, but simply wanted to use Ulster resistance to Home Rule to stop it coming into the whole of Ireland. He considered the 1920 Goverment of Ireland act a failure to preserve a united Ireland under westminister rule and only settled for a 6 county state with a Belfast parliament as the best he could do.
Just goes to show how important it is to try and read the facts rather than believe the ‘myths’ that float around about events and people in history
“I guess the larger point I was trying to make is that some of these events such as the rising are turned into ‘legends’ and are given more significance than they actually had.”
The signatories will always be legends to me Scott.
Why do you think it was insignificant, I will tell you why I believe it has actually greater significance than the establishment will portray.
They would love to pull down the GPO and remove every trace of the rising.
Imagine the Irish people waving union flags in Dublin for royal visits and becoming right little loyal jackeen subjects.
Imagine the Irish mainstream political parties becoming more focussed on the relationship with London than the wellbeing of Irish citizens.
Not a million miles away from where we are today to be honest, they do say history repeats itself.
The key difference being our children are not being shipped off en masse to die at the whim of the British army.
It is up to you whether you think the rising was the right thing to do or not, but why do you think they did it and what do you think it was they wanted to achieve?
Michael Collins who won the war of independence if he failed in the peace talks, was furious about the choice of the GPO as HQ.
The significance and why his concerns were over ruled, was not for its strategic benefit, but because it was right in the centre of Dublin and could not be torn down meaning it would remain a permanent symbol of the desire for Irish freedom of British rule forever and a beacon for the Irish people in times of weakness.
Nationalists in the north are already forgotten, imagine the GPO was not there and the leaders of the GPO had not sacrificed themselves, do you believe that the current Dublin establishment would have celebrated the rising at all?
I have a copy of the 1966 half centenary papers that my mother bought at the time and gave to me. It has stories from word of mouth and includes rebels in the north saying they were given orders not to fight in Ulster but sent train fares to participate in the south.
The rising was not planned around a military victory, but to help ensure Ireland could never again forget why they wanted freedom in the first place.
Some say it was all staged, with acted public performances by Padraic Pearse in particular handing over a sword and using his words to more or less guarantee they would be executed by the British.
Referring to the gallant allies in Europe pretty much ensured they would be harshly treated.
They went to their deaths knowing they had to die. Padraic Pearse whistling casually on his way to be shot.
McDonagh the british claimed died like a prince.
James Connolly’s dying words were, we shall rise again.
It is up to you what you make of what they did and whether it was for their own selfish benefit or was a noble sacrifice to unite the Irish people towards achieving independence from England and to put all of the Irish people first.
In my opinion, Ireland has lost its way again just as it had in 1916 and just as they knew we would. But was James Connolly right, when he said we would rise again?
We will have to wait and see.
“They went to their deaths knowing they had to die. Padraic Pearse whistling casually on his way to be shot.”
Unfortunately their victims weren’t whistling casually and didn’t choose to die.
“Unfortunately their victims weren’t whistling casually and didn’t choose to die”.
No, the killed quite few British soldiers and did quite a bit of damage.
Not bad for a civilian army against an empire building army.
The indiscriminate pounding of the streets of Dublin by the British army was the most sickening part of the events.
I would expect no better from any English army though.
“No, the killed quite few British soldiers and did quite a bit of damage.”
They killed many more than soldiers and they had no right to kill anyone.
“The indiscriminate pounding of the streets of Dublin by the British army was the most sickening part of the events.”
Nobody’s defending that, though it wouldn’t have occurred if there had been no ‘rising’.
If you choose to lionise them Jessica that’s up to you.
They knew that they would not achieve military victory and were only looking for martyrdom. They had no support before or during the rising from the people of Ireland and only the reaction of the British and the impact of the war raised support for Sinn Fein.
Pearse was a religious zealot who was obsessed with the notion of “blood sacrifice”. He also showed little regard for the death of civilians during the Rising.
Connolly was Ireland’s version of Lenin. He was a Marxist who if he had his way would have turned Ireland into a Communist state.
Collins was without doubt a very capable man in running a effective guerilla war against the British, allow most of the deaths during the war of independence were RIC constables who were Irish and Catholic. He didn’t win the war of independence as you said, the war ended in a stalemate with Collins himself saying that the IRA couldn’t last 3 weeks longer. In fact during the treaty negotiations Collins was forced to compromise as Lloyd George threatened to resume the war that Collins knew he couldn’t win.
Murder is never legitimate in order to achieve civil rights. Gandhi didn’t murder in order to drive the British out of India and Martin Luther King didn’t murder to achieve black rights. Allow I am well aware that the likes of Pearse,Clarke,Connolly and Collins are small men compared to King or Gandhi.
“They knew that they would not achieve military victory and were only looking for martyrdom. They had no support before or during the rising from the people of Ireland and only the reaction of the British and the impact of the war raised support for Sinn Fein.”
Of course they had support, they had plenty of support.
They were an underground movement rising against an occupying force. What they were doing would be considered treason, you hardly expect them to go around canvassing so you can say there was support before or during the rising?
You may be only young, but show a bit of common sense, start thinking for yourself and stop listening to propaganda.
“He also showed little regard for the death of civilians during the Rising.”
Civilian deaths were at the hands of the British who deliberately bombed the crap out of civilian homes and streets to drive the rebels out. It worked and unconditional surrender was called early to stop the murder being carried out by the British. That is fact.
They did not make that clear at the centenary event when referring to the children who died.
“Murder is never legitimate in order to achieve civil rights. ”
Murder is never legitimate in any circumstance. I suppose you support just war theory also?
“Of course they had support, they had plenty of support.”
Really? How much support and what evidence do you have?
“They were an underground movement rising against an occupying force.”
They weren’t: There was no occupying force.
“What they were doing would be considered treason, you hardly expect them to go around canvassing so you can say there was support before or during the rising?”
If they were democrats they would have. SF did in 1918.
“Civilian deaths were at the hands of the British who deliberately bombed the crap out of civilian homes and streets to drive the rebels out. It worked and unconditional surrender was called early to stop the murder being carried out by the British. That is fact.”
The rebels also killed civilians and also knew their actions would provoke a conflict in which civilians would be killed. There would have been no bombardment if there’s been no rebellion.
“The rebels also killed civilians and also knew their actions would provoke a conflict in which civilians would be killed. There would have been no bombardment if there’s been no rebellion.”
And there would have been no rebellion had Britain implemented the democratic wishes of the majority for home rule in the decades prior to the rebellion.
The rebellion was a necessary response which I fully support.
“And there would have been no rebellion had Britain implemented the democratic wishes of the majority for home rule in the decades prior to the rebellion.”
Ironically they had passed the home rule act just two years earlier.
But what you say doesn’t justify the terrible violence of the rebellion.
That’s like saying 9/11 was justified because it wouldn’t have happened if the US hadn’t engaged in pernicious foreign policy for decades previously.
“The rebellion was a necessary response which I fully support”
It wasn’t necessary and you can’t support it because it involved killing and you believe killing is always unjustified.
“It wasn’t necessary and you can’t support it because it involved killing and you believe killing is always unjustified.”
I would never try to justify killing MT.
But I also believe that anyone sent to war would be very foolish not to kill and as efficiently as they can.
“I would never try to justify killing MT.”
But you do. You regularly try to justify Irish nationalist murders.
“But I also believe that anyone sent to war would be very foolish not to kill and as efficiently as they can.”
The rebels weren’t sent to war. They chose to start a deadly rebellion.
“But you do. You regularly try to justify Irish nationalist murders.”
I have ever tried to justify any murders MT.
If you mean I chose sides in the conflict, then yes I did. I fully supported the PIRA during the conflict and believe they should and will be commemorated for their sacrifices.
To me, I see this no different than your support for the British army whether here or in Iraq or anywhere else they have killed.
That does not mean you would take a specific incident where a human being was killed and support that killing in isolation or try to justify it.
There is no justification for any killing. It is a choice that has to be made and the consequences lived with.
It is insulting to then try to justify many of the consequences of war and conflict.
Did Iraq benefit from the UK going to war there, was that justified?
“But I also believe that anyone sent to war would be very foolish not to kill and as efficiently as they can.”
The rebels weren’t sent to war. They chose to start a deadly rebellion.
I agree.
They made a choice and decided to start a deadly rebellion which involved killing.
Again, I fully support this and would most definitely have been involved had I been around at the time.
I suppose there is a difference between justifying killing and accepting it has to happen to achieve a worthwhile cause.
Again, do you think Britain were right to go to war in Iraq, Falklands or any of the conflicts they have been involved in?
Were these not much more deadly affairs?
“I have ever tried to justify any murders MT.”
Yes you have.
“I fully supported the PIRA during the conflict and believe they should and will be commemorated for their sacrifices.”
There you go. One sentence after saying you’ve never tries to justify murder, you tries to justify murder. You’re a very confused person.
“There is no justification for any killing.”
But you’ve just said you “fully supported” the PIRA death squads. They killed nearly 2000 people.
“Did Iraq benefit from the UK going to war there, was that justified?”
No, of course not.
“They made a choice and decided to start a deadly rebellion which involved killing.
Again, I fully support this and would most definitely have been involved had I been around at the time.”
Here you go again with your confusion /hypocrisy.
“Again, do you think Britain were right to go to war in Iraq, Falklands or any of the conflicts they have been involved in?”
Obviously Iraq was wrong, but the liberation of the Falklands was a just war.
“I have ever tried to justify any murders MT.”
Yes you have.”
No more than you are justifying murder by saying the Falklands was a just war MT.
“No more than you are justifying murder by saying the Falklands was a just war MT.”
Eh? In don’t justify any murders, in the Falklands War or anywhere else. I’m not even aware of any murders during that war, but if there were I condemn them.
“Unfortunately their victims weren’t whistling casually and didn’t choose to die”
No one asked British soldiers to occupy Ireland MT, if you occupy another persons country then expect to meet resistance, that includes death.
Those civilians in Dublin who were bayonetted by British soldiers in Easter 1916 didn’t choose to die either. Those Indians who had their heads tied to the end of British cannons didn’t ask to die either. Those Kenyan men in the 1950’s who were raped, castrated and tortured by British troops didn’t ask for that to happen to them too.
If you want to read up on millions upon millions of innocent people who didn’t want to die but did because the British wanted an Empire then read Niall Fergusons book “Empire”. Even the failed state of Northern Ireland has a page or two in the book, where Ferguson described British policy in Ireland, specifically the Plantation of Ulster, as a “disaster”. Yup, we’re living with it till this very day.
“No one asked British soldiers to occupy Ireland MT, if you occupy another persons country then expect to meet resistance, that includes death.”
There were no British or any other soldiers occupying Ireland and the rebels didn’t kill only soldiers.
“Those civilians in Dublin who were bayonetted by British soldiers in Easter 1916 didn’t choose to die either.”
Nobody said they did.
“Those Indians who had their heads tied to the end of British cannons didn’t ask to die either. Those Kenyan men in the 1950’s who were raped, castrated and tortured by British troops didn’t ask for that to happen to them too.”
Are you justifying these attacks too?
“We were also taught that Carson was not a supporter of partition or the setting up of a Unionist state in the north, but simply wanted to use Ulster resistance to Home Rule to stop it coming into the whole of Ireland. He considered the 1920 Government of Ireland act a failure to preserve a united Ireland under Westminster rule and only settled for a 6 county state with a Belfast parliament as the best he could do. ”
What do you think he wanted scott, equality, democracy, a shared future?
In Ulster, protestants owned 100% of businesses and controlled the jobs, wealth distribution was such protestants had £40 to every £1 a catholic had,
No, they did not want partition, they wanted the continuation of all Ireland protestant supremacy and were as blatant about it as the KKK were to the blacks in America.
This attitude persists in lesser degrees to this day. Unionism has yet to even acknowledge its historic wrong doings.
As mike nesbitt said, irish unionism is on the wrong side of history.
“Just goes to show how important it is to try and read the facts rather than believe the ‘myths’ that float around about events and people in history”
Not only about history, we should look at all of the facts as best we can find them and make our own minds up about everything.
Carson wanted to stop a Dublin parliament to protect the Protestant minority in the south from the persecution that they received between 1916-1923 with the Protestant population of Ireland (south) falling from 10% to 7%
Carson also wanted to protect southern unionists from religious persecution of a Dublin parliament. The papal proclamation of Ne Temere raised these fears. There fears did have justification as the Republics constitution did give a special position for the Catholic Church
There was no Protestant supremacy as the majority of Irish MP’s were IPP who were in the process of winning home rule that Carson and the conservatives were trying to scupper.
“Carson wanted to stop a Dublin parliament to protect the Protestant minority in the south from the persecution that they received between 1916-1923 with the Protestant population of Ireland (south) falling from 10% to 7%”
Is that really what they are teaching in schools today Scott?
I thought that myth had been dispelled as not down to persecution but down to partition and the creation of a separate protestant state in the north which disenfranchised unionists in the free state.
Do tell me more about this persecution of the Protestant minority in the south though?
The only persecution I am aware off in the new catholic free state was primarily against catholic children and unmarried mothers.
I suppose you also believe the IRA and republicans started the conflict.
In 1965, the IRA were planning to disband and pursue a communist political ideology which the majority of nationalists would have despised, instead, Paisley and unionism spread the word that there was another rising on the way and between 1966 and 69 stirred up so much shit they single handedly started the troubles conflict.
A fact that at some point unionism will have no choice but to take responsibility for its actions or be doomed to fade into insignificance.
The best place for those bigoted traditions is in the dustbin of history.
The decline of unionism has already begun. we are on the sliding scale of insignificance.
Reconciliation and integration my ass. Build the peace walls higher and keep your hatred isolated until it can no longer do any harm.
Scott – it’s always wise to go to comtemporary sources to see how the Rising and the Rnglish reaction was viewed by Dubliners. here’s a synthesis of what Sylvia pankhurst said and what her roving reporter observed, with a link to the original Pankhurst papers
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/thoughts-on-easter-week-the-way-we-were/
As far as what Carson achieved, a comparison with a contemporary of his, whose path he crossed, is worth bearing in mind when assessing Carson’s legacy
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/edward-carson-1854-1935/
‘Pearse,Clarke,Connolly and Collins are small men compared to King or Gandhi’…..mmmmm I wonder why or indeed if that is true? Would it be future rulers want to indoctrinate the plebs into striving for their rights peacefully and thus protect their own skin?
The Rising leaders have been greatly underestimated. Their very audacity to take on the greatest empire in existence, on its very own doorstep, inspired other commonwealth countries to seek their independence. They gave courage and hope to other people under the jackboot of Great Britain. Btw some would argue Gandhi and King were elevated by their opponents as the acceptable face for those looking change. Others within those countries were quite willing to take up the gun to achieve their objectives. In fact India wasn’t entirely a peaceful transition for the British and one of the greatest black leaders Malcolm X was certainly no pacifist.
As for the suggestion that Pearse was some bloodthirsty zealot well I suspect one has been listening to Dudley Edwards and co too much. The terminology Pearse used at that time was the norm amongst a lot of prominent people. In fact the greatest betrayer of them all, Redmond regularly urged ‘blood sacrifice’ of his own people in the battlefields of Europe and yet he is elevated as a goog guy by British state apologists today. Go figure.
Also, the suggestion that ‘they knew’ the rising was going to be a failure is not true and again does them a disservice. They had banked that macneills countermand would be ignored. They probably hoped that macneill would quickly come round and even participate. Several thousands volunteers would have made life extremely difficult for the British around Dublin,Galway etc. And as with most things in life, others perhaps would have spontaneously joined the rising once it appeared as the populist thing to do. Don’t forget, there wasn’t a great pile of British troops in Ireland at the time(2000 I think I read somewhere) hence why they had to ship more into the country. The GPO was the hub of the capital at that time. It made perfect sense strategically to seize it as it was a vital building for communication far and wide.
Perhaps if things had went to plan, more people would’ve swelled the ranks of the volunteers thus more ports and buildings could’ve been seized and at the very least a longer war could’ve taken place? Alas it wasn’t to be and the Rising leaders hadn’t contemplated the bloodlust of the British as they set about to bomb and wreck the heart of Dublin.
At the end of the day, a small group of people wanted to empower their fellow countrymen and women. They wanted people to take up arms to achieve that empowerment. But unlike others e.gchurchill,Redmond etc, these leaders were leading from the front. They unlike the bloodthirsty Churchill and Redmond were willing to die themselves for rather than stand back and urge others to die instead which was and is the norm then and now from the great and the good. What better example is that for anyone in the present day looking to start a war I.e if you want war you may lead from the front? I think we can easily say there would be a lot less conflicts around the globe if that was the required norm.
If someone wants me or mine to go to war then at the very least I will expect that someone to be at the very front leading the way after all that’s what that they wanted. To me that’s honourable rather than that someone sending others to do the fighting for them as they step back and sip whiskey and suck on cigars. That’s true cowardice and bloodlust. Ironically apparently the British people admire those traits. Not only are the plebs taught that peaceful protest is the way to go(Gandhi and King) but also the people they must admire the most are those that send others to die(Churchill), so go figure.
So murder is justified to further a cause Wolfe Tone?
Scott, take a look at the world around you. The great and the good justify murder to further their own cause all of the time.
Sounds like a reasonable assessment.
Scott, the 1916 Easter Rising wasn’t about a military victory. How the hell could about 2,000 men/women take over Ireland and drive out the British? But yet this is how it is portrayed in the media, even though Patrick Pearse’s writings before the Rising makes clear that if the leaders of the rising weren’t, WERENT, executed by the British then it would be for nothing. This obviously applies that he knew it was doomed to failure and expected it to be and even WANTED it to be. Yes, the Leaders of the Rising certainly were eccentrics, they believed in a lot more than the average person of that era, that’s for sure but they were highly educated and intelligent people.
According to RTE broadcast commemorating the Rising back in March, the Leaders of the Rising didn’t even use the vast bulk of their forces, around 15,000 armed men weren’t used and played no part in the Rising. The Leaders of the Rising didn’t even bother to attack and hold Dublin Castle, even though it was lightly guarded and would’ve been a better HQ than the GPO, not to mention it was the source of British authority in Ireland, hence symbolic. Michael Collins even said choosing the GPO as their HQ was disastrous and he had pointed this out. The reality is Pearse wanted a grand building and stage for the Rising and the GPO provided this.
In terms of achieving the objectives set out by its Leaders, the Easter Rising was a success. It relit the fire of Irish Republicanism in Irish people and just 4 years later the British Empire was forced to its knees and called for a Truce, largely thanks to the expertise of Michael Collin’s. You have to remember that before 1916 Irish people were mostly SDLP types, sitting on their hands and accepting their lot. This changed after 1916.
I suspect the agenda from people who are determined to portray the Rising as a failure is to attack Republican morale. Don’t underestimate how important morale is. For example the British Government even lied when SAS soldiers were killed in shoot out’s with the IRA and portrayed the dead SAS as normal British soldiers. Why? because it was to combat the boost to Republican morale that the IRA killed Britain’s elite. It was the same with the Maze prison escape in the 1980’s, the British were dismayed not really due to the escape of Republican prisoners, most would be later recaptured, but the boost it would provide to their supporters. The Hunger strikes were exactly the same. Bobby Sands and the others knew it and fasted to death and in doing so defeated Thatchers criminalization policy and won over hundreds of thousands of Irish people.
Ryan
I agree with you that the leaders of the rising knew that it would end in failure and only wanted martyrdom.
They didn’t have 15000 troops at there disposal. The 15000 troops you are referring to are the volunteers led by Eoin MacNeill who were against the uprising.
The British response lit the fire of Irish repiblicism and without that response and the impact of the war there might never have been a war of independence
While Collins was undoubtably a capable man at running a guerilla campaign, the British were not on there knees at the time of the truce. Collins himself said that the IRA only had 3 weeks of fighting left in them before the truce. The British negotiated because there actions had turned British and world public opinion against them. Collins was forced to compromise because he knew Lloyd Georges threat to resume the war would lead to the defeat of the IRA.
As for all the other stuff about the hunger strikers and the SAS……. I think I will leave that can of worms unopened.lol. Thank you for the conversation.
“I agree with you that the leaders of the rising knew that it would end in failure and only wanted martyrdom.”
If they only wanted martyrdom, then why were they so interested in the wellbeing of the people?
Why put others first?
Why were they so respected by their followers?
No, their aspiration was the freedom of Ireland from British rule and for a new Ireland that would treat all of its people well.
It did not end in failure because they achieved what they set out to achieve.
“The British response lit the fire of Irish repiblicism and without that response and the impact of the war there might never have been a war of independence”
Hence the wording of the proclamation and the killing of british soldiers made certain that the british response would be harsh.
“While Collins was undoubtably a capable man at running a guerilla campaign, the British were not on there knees at the time of the truce. Collins himself said that the IRA only had 3 weeks of fighting left in them before the truce. The British negotiated because there actions had turned British and world public opinion against them. Collins was forced to compromise because he knew Lloyd Georges threat to resume the war would lead to the defeat of the IRA.”
The people of England were so sickened by the actions in their name, it was they who persuaded the government of the day to back out.
As for the defeat of the IRA
They cannot defeat the IRA any more than they can arrest PONeill.
The IRA will rise any time that physical force is required at that stage of the struggle to remove Britain out of Ireland.
So long as the Irish people hold freedom in such regard, the IRA will rise again.
No need to be patronising about my age Jessica.
You have present no facts to support your narrative of history.
I believe your narrative is false
Majority of deaths were caused by the Britisj due to there use of artillery. However the Rebels hands were no clean either.
Would anyone have been killed in Dublin at that time if there had not been a rising. Of course not.
The IRA did start the Irish war at Soloheadbeg by killing two RIC constables (both Irish and Catholic by the way). Historians agree that this was the beginning of the Anglo-Irish war.
Your whole the IRA will never be defeated and will rise again comment I don’t know what that’s got to do with the facts of the truce.
Facts
Collins said “we only have 3 weeks left”
Dublin IRA had been largely wiped out after the attack on the custom house.
6500 of 7500 IRA volunteers were in jail.
IRA volunteers fought for a Republic that they did not achieve.
A compromise was needed because the British hadn’t been defeated
The forces the IRA mainly killed were not British army, but were RIC constables as they were more isolated and easier to kill. These were generally there fellow Irishmen.
“You have present no facts to support your narrative of history.”
I don’t have a narrative of history scott, i read what facts I can find and then decide what my point of view will be. That is my opinion and you are perfectly entitled to disagree with it.
I am quite prepared to listen and compare your opinions and decide how they stack up against my own, but the problem is often down to our points of view over the national issue to be honest. That is the overarching issue.
“Majority of deaths were caused by the Britisj due to there use of artillery. However the Rebels hands were no clean either.
Would anyone have been killed in Dublin at that time if there had not been a rising. Of course not. ”
All of the deaths were down to weapons, I doubt the british would have used said artillery in London. They cared nothing for the innocent people including the 40 children that died.
“The IRA did start the Irish war at Soloheadbeg by killing two RIC constables (both Irish and Catholic by the way). Historians agree that this was the beginning of the Anglo-Irish war.”
I was actually referring to PIRA and the second troubles which started in 1968/69, I know we started the war of independence.
“Your whole the IRA will never be defeated and will rise again comment I don’t know what that’s got to do with the facts of the truce.”
Nothing at all to do with the truce other than you saying they would have been defeated otherwise.
You cannot defeat a determined population as many war monging nations have learned the hard way in their global conquests.
“All of the deaths were down to weapons, I doubt the british would have used said artillery in London. They cared nothing for the innocent people including the 40 children that died.”
And nor did the rebels care for the innocents they killed and who were slaughtered as a result of their actions.
“And nor did the rebels care for the innocents they killed and who were slaughtered as a result of their actions.”
If they didn’t care then why an unconditional surrender after only 6 days for that very reason, to stop the innocent deaths from indiscriminate artillery bombing?
“If they didn’t care then why an unconditional surrender after only 6 days for that very reason, to stop the innocent deaths from indiscriminate artillery bombing?”
If they did care, why did they start a rebellion that involved killing people?
“If they did care, why did they start a rebellion that involved killing people?”
I can only give my opinion based on my own feelings MT.
It would be for the same reason many loyalists joined paramilitaries and killed Catholics.
Once conflict starts, it takes on a life of its own with many events kick starting a rebirth and evolution of violent responses.
Young protestants who witnessed killings by the IRA or other republican groups knew only what they had witnessed. The fact other events had similar effect on those who did the killing doesn’t matter. The result was, they joined groups they felt would defend their communities and believed what they were doing was right.
Justification does not matter, you don’t go around canvassing to see if there was popular support once you have made that choice. It is the reality of human nature.
It is also a cycle, as the people they kill have the knock on effect on the other side. The only solution is not to allow violence to start in the first place.
Unionism has never made any effort to prevent this. Burning flags, having police baton people of their own streets so sectarian marches can go down, refusing to acknowledge the rights of Irish citizens in Ireland, ignoring the wishes of things important to nationalists such as the Irish language act, insulting our identity and our people I could go on.
It is very easy to start conflict, not so easy to stop it.
The question you need to ask, is what is unionism doing to make sure violence does not start once again?
Regardless of my criticism of Sinn Feins stance, I cannot say that they are not making an powerful effort to make sure violence does not start once again?
I suppose the question for nationalism more than Sinn Fein is why we are not rewarding that at the ballot box.
I suppose that is something we will have to consider among ourselves. Unionist intransigence would be my off the top of my head response but it would need more consideration and discussion.
I’ll admit I don’t know too much about the whole situation about the development of the Easter Rising (even though my great grandfather was in the thick of it, yes, I know, I’m a terrible grandson for not knowing lol) but I got my info from that 2 hour long RTE broadcast. But my point is how could the Easter Rising be a failure if it achieved exactly what its leaders wanted? If I planned to go down into Belfast City Centre and step in front of a bus and get killed and I did this, my plan would be a success. Yes it would be a very strange thing to do but it was still a success lol
As for Collin’s, it wasn’t me who said it brought the British Empire to its knees, that was British Historians who collectively voted Michael Collin’s as Britains 2nd most dangerous enemy and praised his military genius and guerrilla warfare, which inspired numerous peoples worldwide, including the founders of the current state of Israel. Collins beat George Washington and others in the rankings.
The British could’ve beat that current IRA under Collins but another one would’ve just sprung up again if the British didn’t call for a Truce. We seen it during the border campaign in the 1950’s. The PIRA definitely could’ve continued the troubles but even when it dedicated itself to peaceful politics, the current dissidents sprung into being.
There were a few SAS men killed by the IRA, the most notable being an SAS captain whose cousin was British Ambassador to the USA. IRA member Angelo Fusco, of Italian Heritage, shot him in the head. My point there was that the IRA claimed to kill more but the British Govt quickly denied this and said they weren’t average foot soldiers.
“But my point is how could the Easter Rising be a failure if it achieved exactly what its leaders wanted? If I planned to go down into Belfast City Centre and step in front of a bus and get killed and I did this, my plan would be a success. Yes it would be a very strange thing to do but it was still a success lol”
Ryan, I don’t think the aim was simply to die, though they accepted that their aims could not be achieved without it, hence the wording in the proclamation about gallant allies in Europe while England was at war with same.
Their aim was to reignite the passion of the Irish people for independence and to run their own affairs and it achieved this in spades.
The Irish people revert to a slumber and every now and then need a firecracker up their arses to see the job through.
Dublin presently need such a firecracker and are deep in slumber once again.
Are you in Hicksville? Just hop on the Long Island Rail Road.
Perish the thought Bg – I am the essence of urbanity…
Jude, I hope you passed a copy of both above items to our esteemed leader Arlene to take corrective action.
As you know, she is quite adamant (isn’t she always?) that she will allow no one to re-write history, so David Leeson and Patsy McGarry will be nervously awaiting a call of admonition from her.
The sooner the free state crawls back to mother england the better, pathetic doesn`t even begin to cover it. Maybe then we can have another rising and hold out for the whole country not a part of it!!
Mr Gallagher should go back to doing what he does best.Representing organizations such as NAMBA and Anglo Irish Bank.
“while the British police and Auxies were tasked w/ taking the battle….”
Since when did the British police have anything to do w/ 1916-1921?
A typo?
Point taken, Ivan. In my hurry/laziness I didn’t listen to the little voice that said in my head what you’ve said. This was what the article said: ‘”the [British police and] Auxiliaries were intended as an elite force tasked to take the battle to the IRA.” On reflection it makes no sense. Although neither does a lot of the article…http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/patrickroberts/black-and-tans-were-not-so-bad-says-new-book-savagery-in-irish-war-of-independence-on-all-sides-128656678-238100801.html
wouldnt surprise me they have another wall planned in glasnevin for the tans names to go on
“wouldnt surprise me they have another wall planned in glasnevin for the tans names to go on”
It isn’t hard to take down a wall billy, much harder to break down the mentality that would put it up in the first place.
So true Jessica, and that is the hardest part to accept
“Got that? Only elected revolutionaries need apply. No good being brave if you can’t point to the size of your vote.”
That is about the height of it. A revolution without the support of the people will fail.
Is bravery all that is required? Any fool can show bravery.
“A revolution without the support of the people will fail.”
If they achieved what they set out to, the rekindling of the desire for Irish freedom from foreign rule, how can you say they failed?
“Is bravery all that is required? Any fool can show bravery.”
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously with a statement like that?
The bravery of an educated and well off men to sacrifice their lives for the betterment of their countryfolk, asking only in return that they be remembered.
Sure, you can claim anyone who risks their lives for others is a fool, a fireman running into a burning building, those who ran up the twin towers when they were clearly coming down.
But those that mock and ridicule good people who gave up their lives for the betterment of others, are the scum of this earth.
“But those that mock and ridicule good people who gave up their lives for the betterment of others, are the scum of this earth.”
They didn’t just give up their own lives. They killed lots of other people too, with no justification. That’s very wrong.
jessica
Bravery is no guarantee of rightness.
All violent groups have brave individuals within them
Do you think courage automatically makes you right? How does that work?
“All violent groups have brave individuals within them
Do you think courage automatically makes you right? How does that work?”
Where did I say courage automatically makes you right?
I fully support their actions of the day. I fully believe they were right and their courage and passion for their nation inspires me.
There would not have been a commemoration at all if many others did not feel the same way.
“A revolution without the support of the people will fail”
Could you claim that bobby sands had the support of the people before he went on hunger strike?
Until an opportunity was presented for the people to show their support through elections, you would have been parroting thatcher that he was a criminal acting selfishly without the support of the people. That was proven wrong then but could not have been prior to the selfless act of self sacrifice.
Post easter rising, the people did show their support electorally by supporting Sinn Feins stance on independence. Again, you cannot have a revolution poll prior to the secret event.
You have the freedom to insult their memory gio, they would have it no other way, but why don’t you admit you have more in common with unionism that you do with nationalism?
“Until an opportunity was presented for the people to show their support through elections, you would have been parroting thatcher that he was a criminal acting selfishly without the support of the people. That was proven wrong then but could not have been prior to the selfless act of self sacrifice.”
It wasnt proven wrong and his act wasn’t selfless: it waa deaignes as an act of emotional blackmail to gain suport for a monstrous campaign ofmurder that caused terrible suffering on others..
“Post easter rising, the people did show their support electorally by supporting Sinn Feins stance on independence.”
You can’t achieve legitimacy retrospectively. That’s like dissidents today claiming legitimacy on the basis that at a future election they will achieve support.
.
“Again, you cannot have a revolution poll prior to the secret event.”
Of course you can. SF did it in 1918.
Actually Giordano I went to the irish government’s 1916 Exhibition in the museum in Dublin. One of the first exhibits was a large sort of poster showing how many organizations were involved in creating a “revolutionary” atmosphere in Dublin at the time – suffragettes, gaelic league, trades unions, irish citizens army, fianna (republican boy scouts), volunteers who had not gone to the front and the IRB. Not many “came out” during easter week but the exhibit showed there was support throughout various civic (though not revolutionary) organisations.
ben
Yes there were various groupings involved, but without going into the whole thing again we both know the numbers participating in the actual rising were small and mainly in Dublin.
I was making a simple point in reference to Jude’s comment about the bravery aspect, namely:
“No good being brave if you can’t point to the size of your vote.”
It seems to me that there are brave men in the dissident groups too so why do they need to point to any mandate? If they persevere perhaps events will eventually lead to popular support.
That is Jude’s logic at any rate.
“It seems to me that there are brave men in the dissident groups too so why do they need to point to any mandate? If they persevere perhaps events will eventually lead to popular support. That is Jude’s logic at any rate.”
I don’t support any action carried out by dissidents to date, but that doesn’t mean they wont in the future hit a nerve and do something that will strike a blow for independence that a majority of the people will get behind including myself.
It wont be killing prison officers however and I don’t see it happening to be honest, but you should not take it for granted that support for physical force will never return. That would be a mistake.
jessica
What do you mean return?
It was never present to any significant degree either at the time of the rising or during the PIRA campaign.
But why should dissidents care about a mandate any more than previous groups,as long as they are courageous and believe they are right that is all that matters. Apparently.
Gio, in your eyes it would’ve been far braver and honourable if Connolly and Clarke had agitated and sent others out to die for a cause they believed in? They should’ve sipped whiskey and duped others to do their bidding? That way they could’ve continued to sip whiskey and maybe send other poor creaturs out to die in future wars? It’s not you fault Gio, it’s the ‘murder machine’ you were taught that has you that way. You have my pity.
wolfie
Your pity is much appreciated thanks.
The rest of your post is just you guessing what I think, instead of replying to what I said.
The difference is the governments that send people to war have an electoral mandate. Not justifying WW1 but that’s a fact of all governments around the world
‘The difference is the governments that send people to war have an electoral mandate’……a mandate to wage war? A mandate to murder? Thats a good one. Maybe I missed something but for the life of me I have yet to see a govt run a campaign of ‘elect us we want to fight wars’. Me thinks the difference is govts around the world use various apparatus to convince their people that they are justified in waging war/murder.
Hitler had a mandate to ‘send people to war’ then? So it was wrong for the allies to wage war/murder against Germany then?
“a mandate to wage war? Thats a good one. Maybe I missed something but for the life of me I have yet to see a govt run a campaign of ‘elect us we want to fight wars’”
Back to school to learn about the concept of representative democracy.
“Hitler had a mandate to ‘send people to war’ then?”
Hitler was a dictator.
“So it was wrong for the allies to wage war/murder against Germany then?”
Why do you think it was wrong to go to war against Germany?
‘Back to school to learn about the concept of representative democracy .’
Will the school show me evidence that you have not, that people vote governments in to fight wars? Will they show me evidence that Blair for example stood on a manifesto of bombing Iraq into the Stone Age? Did the Iraqi people get a say in this democratic vote for war? Did the people voting for this war not take into account the innocent lives that would be taken?
Btw hitler was elected and then contrived a way to take ultimate control. Sounds familiar. For the life of me I can’t work out why Britain went to war with Germany, after all they certainly had the same views as the nazis. It wasn’t for the reasons they said anyway. Maybe it was jealousy?
To ask an occupied country to take a vote to eject the occupier is fairytale stuff indeed. Especially so when the occupier has form when it comes to issues such as that. Fact is the Easter rising leaders had support otherwise what came after would never have happened. Hence why the British have to tread carefully, even to this day, how they tackled the Irish. They know there may not be declared support for those who want to eject the occupier but they know the Irish still don’t take kindly to the occupier killing their fellow country people.
“Will the school show me evidence that you have not, that people vote governments in to fight wars? Will they show me evidence that Blair for example stood on a manifesto of bombing Iraq into the Stone Age? Did the Iraqi people get a say in this democratic vote for war? Did the people voting for this war not take into account the innocent lives that would be taken?”
Eh? You still don’t seem to understand the concept of representative democracy.
“To ask an occupied country to take a vote to eject the occupier is fairytale stuff indeed. Especially so when the occupier has form when it comes to issues such as that.”
Eh? Fairytale stuff to seek a mandate for independence? How come it happened in 1918, then?
“Fact is the Easter rising leaders had support otherwise what came after would never have happened.”
That’s not a fact. It’s your flawed opinion for who j there is no evidence.
“Hence why the British have to tread carefully, even to this day, how they tackled the Irish. They know there may not be declared support for those who want to eject the occupier but they know the Irish still don’t take kindly to the occupier killing their fellow country people.”
There is no “occupier”.
“Eh? You still don’t seem to understand the concept of representative democracy. ”
Representative democracy typically is grounded by the principals set out and agree upon by the people in a constitution. In the absence of a constitution that is representative of the people, representative democracy allows for abuse of authority such as the denial of an Irish language act.
“There is no “occupier”.
MT, 6 counties are controlled by London which is enforced through the backing of the British army and state forces.
Those of us who see partition as the denial of the majority peoples wishes in 1918 consider this part of Ireland be under British occupation.
A majority voted for independence and it was refused, instead the results broken down where the losing vote could then be viewed in isolation as a majority within those sub regions.
That is not democracy.
Now, you can continue the pantomime or accept that to nationalists, part of Ireland remains under British occupation which while legitimacy has been disputed it has also been agreed through the GFA to remain so until a majority wish otherwise.
This does not mean we are suddenly no longer under British occupation, only that said occupation has been accepted as the norm until the people decide otherwise. Britain have also agreed to end said occupation when this will is demonstrated.
If we are not occupied, how on earth did the territorial dispute arise in the first place?
.
“MT, 6 counties are controlled by London which is enforced through the backing of the British army and state forces.”
And 26 counties are “controlled” by Dublin which is enforced through the backing of the Southern Irish army and state forces. So by your logic, the 26 counties are also “occupoed”.
“Those of us who see partition as the denial of the majority peoples wishes in 1918 consider this part of Ireland be under British occupation.”
Well, you’re wrong, because it’s not.under “British occupation”, it’s part of the UK.
“A majority voted for independence and it was refused, instead the results broken down where the losing vote could then be viewed in isolation as a majority within those sub regions.”
That doesn’t appear to make sense.
“If we are not occupied, how on earth did the territorial dispute arise in the first place?”
What territorial dispute?
“What territorial dispute?”
You are frustrating MT, I don’t know why I keep trying.
The GFA was to resolve the territorial dispute through the changes to articles 2 and 3
Before 1999, Articles 2 and 3 made the claim that the whole island formed one “national territory”.
“The GFA was to resolve the territorial dispute through the changes to articles 2 and 3
Before 1999, Articles 2 and 3 made the claim that the whole island formed one “national territory”.
De facto there was no territorial dispute, as Southern Ireland recognised NI from the start, including through several previous agreements and treaties; and the purpose of the GFA wasn’t to amend Articles 2 and 3, though that was one of the provisions.
But to get back to your point: because Southern Ireland had a claim in its constitution doesn’t mean that NI was “occupied”!
“But to get back to your point: because Southern Ireland had a claim in its constitution doesn’t mean that NI was “occupied”!”
MT, if all of Ireland was not at one point occupied, then how was there ever a free state?
Northern Ireland is the part of Ireland that did not gain freedom, but remains occupied to this day.
The north was sacrificed so the south could be free of British rule, a fate our people in the north accepted willingly.
“MT, if all of Ireland was not at one point occupied, then how was there ever a free state?”
Eh? There was a free state because that’s what SF and the Government negotiated. What’s this got to do with claims of ‘occupation’?
“Northern Ireland is the part of Ireland that did not gain freedom, but remains occupied to this day.”
It doesn’t remain ‘occupied’ and it never was ‘occupied’. It’s part of the UK. And it did gain freedom: freedom to remain outside the Irish-nationalist state.
“The north was sacrificed so the south could be free of British rule, a fate our people in the north accepted willingly”
It wasn’t sacrificed: the people.living there chose not to be part of the Irish-nationalist state.
“Eh? There was a free state because that’s what SF and the Government negotiated. What’s this got to do with claims of ‘occupation’?”
Perhaps it was all in our imagination MT?
Too much Guinness gave us all the heeby jeebys.
“It doesn’t remain ‘occupied’ and it never was ‘occupied’. It’s part of the UK. And it did gain freedom: freedom to remain outside the Irish-nationalist state. ”
Your head certainly isn’t occupied MT.
“It wasn’t sacrificed: the people.living there chose not to be part of the Irish-nationalist state.”
Of course they did.
Now was that before the Irish-nationalist state existed or afterwards?
No wait,
In 1918, there was no Irish-nationalist state. There was only the country of Ireland, part of the UK since 1801, who had just democratically expressed their majority wish in self determination to be an independent nation.
But when is a minority not a minority?
When they are a bunch of unionist bigots brought up over generations to hate Catholics, who are prepared to use violence, threaten civil war and kill to get their way.
Of course, the opinion of the 30% of Catholics who were also “people. Living there” and who had chosen along with the rest of the country, didn’t matter.
“Perhaps it was all in our imagination MT?”
Perhaps what was all in a your imaginations?
“Of course they did.
Now was that before the Irish-nationalist state existed or afterwards?”
Before, obviously. It was clear for at least ten years before.
“No wait,
In 1918, there was no Irish-nationalist state. There was only the country of Ireland, part of the UK since 1801, who had just democratically expressed their majority wish in self determination to be an independent nation.”
There were plans for an Irish nationalist state. And in 1918 the unionist people democratically expressed their majority wish to remain in the UK and not be forces into such a state.
“But when is a minority not a minority?”
A minority in one context is often a majority in another.
“When they are a bunch of unionist bigots brought up over generations to hate Catholics, who are prepared to use violence, threaten civil war and kill to get their way.”
Or when they are a bunch of nationalist bigots brought up over generations to hate Protestants, who are prepared to (and actually did) use violence, threaten (and engage in) civil war and kill to get their way.
“Of course, the opinion of the 30% of Catholics who were also “people. Living there” and who had chosen along with the rest of the country, didn’t matter.”
Of course, the opinion of the 20% of Protestants who were also ‘people. Living there’ and who had chosen to remain with the rest of the country, didn’t matter.
“There were plans for an Irish nationalist state. And in 1918 the unionist people democratically expressed their majority wish to remain in the UK and not be forces into such a state.”
No they didn’t, unionism lost the election and chose to reject democracy.
“But when is a minority not a minority?”
A minority in one context is often a majority in another. ”
Hence democracy is the commonly accepted global solution, apparently it doesn’t apply to unionism unless they are the majority one way or another.
“Or when they are a bunch of nationalist bigots brought up over generations to hate Protestants, who are prepared to (and actually did) use violence, threaten (and engage in) civil war and kill to get their way.”
That only works when the opposite is true MT.
We were never brought up to hate protestants. In my opinion the best republicans were protestant, and in my opinion had the majority of the protestant people wanted unity, we would have had it long ago. Hence Paisleys determination to make a holy war in Ireland. How better to harden opinions and make unionism as determined as possible?
The conflict was started totally by unionism and for no other reason other than sectarian hatred MT.
That is factual history that unionism will never be able to rewrite.
“No they didn’t, unionism lost the election and chose to reject democracy.”
If unionism lost the election then so too did nationalism.
Unionists didn’t reject democracy, they embraced it. It was nationalists who rejected it.
“The conflict was started totally by unionism and for no other reason other than sectarian hatred MT.”
It wasn’t.
“That is factual history that unionism will never be able to rewrite.”
It’s not. It’s your (biased and ill-informed) opinion.
And MT if the unionists find themselves in the minority in the six county NI would you support a redrawing of the lines again to re establish a majority for them?
Say lop off three counties with a nationalist majority leaving a three county NI with a unionist majority?
And then what? Suppose the unionists become a minority in the new three county NI. Cut off another county leaving a two county NI?
The possibilities are endless. One day there might be the statelet of The Shankill.
“And then what? Suppose the unionists become a minority in the new three county NI. Cut off another county leaving a two county NI? The possibilities are endless. One day there might be the statelet of The Shankill.”
That is self determination, unionist style.
Or at least MT style
What a guy 😛
“And MT if the unionists find themselves in the minority in the six county NI would you support a redrawing of the lines again to re establish a majority for them?”
No. I support the GFA.
So Mr MT if there is a vote under the GFA to reunite the island is it your opinion that unionism will peacefully abide by the outcome? After all the DUP, the party which currently garners the most votes , was not a signatory to it although Mr Paisley did accept the co top spot. Would the DUPers reject the outcome on the basis that they didn’t sign up and perhaps foster violence in their opposition? After all Paisly did.
And what about the Ulster Covenant? Is it still deemed valid by unionism? Would gun running into Larne be on the agenda again as it was 100 years ago, which events in the opinion of most objective observers ( objective MT) gave birth to the physical violence of the era?
A member of the UDA told me in all seriousness a few years back that in the event of a vote for reunification that they would resort to violence. And we mustn’t forget that the loyalist paramilitary groups have never disbanded nor have they disarmed.
“A member of the UDA told me in all seriousness a few years back that in the event of a vote for reunification that they would resort to violence. And we mustn’t forget that the loyalist paramilitary groups have never disbanded nor have they disarmed.”
The very reason they haven’t decommissioned beachguy and why no unionist or brits are interested in pressing for it.
I have heard the same thing from many loyalists. When pressed, they then talk of a scorched earth policy to do as much damage and cause as much wreckage before leaving. Even if no one asked them to or wanted them to.
The reality though, is that on their own they will do nothing and are nothing.
However it has always been the leadership of unionism that has encouraged unionist militancy, that stoked their fires and led them to murder.
And why shouldn’t they, when they can get away with it?
Why should they acknowledge their role in starting the conflict?
They are Gods own chosen people, who can divide a country to give themselves power, misrule for 50 years, deliberately start a conflict paying thugs to kill and to threaten violence to stir up sectarian tensions, then when it gets out of hand, wash their hands off their dirty deeds and act like they are the victims and receive all of the sympathy from the southern jackeens.
Unionism sickens me, more today that it ever did.
Their blatant disregard for reconciliation shows that the same bigotry that was always at the core of their being has not gone away.
The unionists have developed a system of argument that goes in circles.
For example. The majority of the people in the north opted out of the south. But they fail to acknowledge that that majority was formed by carving out an area where the minority instantly became the majority. How clever of them.
And they fail to acknowledge how that new ” majority” got there in the first place.
And that Ulster was reduced to six from nine counties to assure that “majority”.
It hurts my brain to read these specious arguments.
To get a real understanding of unionist thinking read Susan Mc Kay’s book Northern Protestants which says it all. They simply don’t want a taig “around the place” laddies and lassies.
It’s better to spend your time on your stamp collection or out in the garden than to get exercised trying to debate this stuff with MT and his ilk.
And when the time comes that it looks like reunification will be occurring be prepared for the unionists to propose , again, that the statelet be reconfigured , again, from six to three counties. After all, the “majority ” there desire this. That’s how democracy works doesn’t it?
“The majority of the people in the north opted out of the south.”
It is just a creative way to say, we may have lost the election but we wont accept the outcome.
“It hurts my brain to read these specious arguments. ”
I am glad it isn’t just me. MT is certainly a unique individual.
.
“It is just a creative way to say, we may have lost the election but we wont accept the outcome.”
No different, then, to nationalists saying the same thing.
.
“No different, then, to nationalists saying the same thing.”
It wouldn’t be but, nationalists accepted the GFA even though it gave legitimacy to Britain being in Ireland, something that many consider an anathema.
The nationalist electorate went up, the unionist electorate went down, DUP won the election fair and square, Sinn Fein came runner up. Arlene has her coveted title of first minister, Are nationalists not accepting it?
The test will come when nationalists hold a majority and not before it.
The way unionism is ignoring the inevitable does not fare well in my opinion for a positive response once this scenario materialises. It will hit unionism like a ton of bricks and it is not as far away as some might think
“It wouldn’t be but, nationalists accepted the GFA even though it gave legitimacy to Britain being in Ireland, something that many consider an anathema.”
Eh? The GFA was 80 years later.
“The nationalist electorate went up, the unionist electorate went down, DUP won the election fair and square, Sinn Fein came runner up. Arlene has her coveted title of first minister, Are nationalists not accepting it?”
Why are you referring to events nearly 100 years after the subject of discussion?
“The majority of the people in the north opted out of the south. But they fail to acknowledge that that majority was formed by carving out an area where the minority instantly became the majority. How clever of them.”
How is that different from Irish nationalists doing the same?
“And they fail to acknowledge how that new ” majority” got there in the first place.”
They were born there.
“And that Ulster was reduced to six from nine counties to assure that “majority”.”
Nobody has failed to acknowledge that.
“It hurts my brain to read these specious arguments.”
There are no specious arguments.
“To get a real understanding of unionist thinking read Susan Mc Kay’s book Northern Protestants which says it all. They simply don’t want a taig “around the place” laddies and lassies.”
I think we need to introduce our own Godwin’s Law, invoked every time contributors fall back on Susan McKay.
“The majority of the people in the north opted out of the south. But they fail to acknowledge that that majority was formed by carving out an area where the minority instantly became the majority. How clever of them.”
“How is that different from Irish nationalists doing the same?”
Independence won the vote over the entire country, it didn’t need to carve out an area to turn a minority into a majority.
So long as you don’t want to see what is in front of your face MT, you wont allow yourself to see it.
“And they fail to acknowledge how that new ” majority” got there in the first place.”
They were born there.”
You miss the point once again, Refer to above first comment.
“And that Ulster was reduced to six from nine counties to assure that “majority”.”
Nobody has failed to acknowledge that. ”
Ulster wasn’t reduced at all, direct rule from London was reduced to 6 of Ulster’s counties dividing the province as well as the country to prolong a protestant majority.
“Independence won the vote over the entire country, it didn’t need to carve out an area to turn a minority into a majority.”
No it didn’t and yes it did.
“You miss the point once again”
I don’t.
“Ulster wasn’t reduced at all, direct rule from London was reduced to 6 of Ulster’s counties dividing the province as well as the country to prolong a protestant majority.”
And?
“Ulster wasn’t reduced at all, direct rule from London was reduced to 6 of Ulster’s counties dividing the province as well as the country to prolong a protestant majority.”
And?”
And MT, to the majority of the population of the modern world, that is not how democracy works.
The Tories won the UK election to govern all parts even Scotland where they got hardly any seats. That is how democracy works.
You cannot ignore the overall result in an area, focus in on a sub section within that area and say, hold on, that’s not what we wanted, we are going to do something else instead.
I know it doesn’t fit with your nice little imaginary theory that Northern Ireland was in integral part of the UK and everything was hunky dory until those mad Irish people just decided to go to war one day and out of the blue just went nuts.
“And MT, to the majority of the population of the modern world, that is not how democracy works.”
What is not how democracy works?
“The Tories won the UK election to govern all parts even Scotland where they got hardly any seats. That is how democracy works.”
In a parliamentary election, yes. Just as the Coalition won the election to govern all parts of the UK in 1918.
“You cannot ignore the overall result in an area, focus in on a sub section within that area and say, hold on, that’s not what we wanted, we are going to do something else instead.”
I’m guessing you’re confusing the normal function of parliamentary elections with that of exercises of self-determination. Otherwise you’d be arguing against Irish independence in 1918.
“In a parliamentary election, yes. Just as the Coalition won the election to govern all parts of the UK in 1918. ”
The UK is a union of nations MT. Ireland was one of those and was entitled to democratically choose to leave the UK which we did.
Britain should have accepted the democratic wishes of the Irish people
“The UK is a union of nations MT. Ireland was one of those and was entitled to democratically choose to leave the UK which we did.”
All peoples have the right to self-determination. And unionists had the same right to remain apart from an Irish nationalist state as nationalists did to leave the British state.
“Britain should have accepted the democratic wishes of the Irish people”
It did. That’s why nationalist Ireland got its own independent state and unionist Ireland got to be remain in the UK.
“All peoples have the right to self-determination. And unionists had the same right to remain apart from an Irish nationalist state as nationalists did to leave the British state.”
Unionists were no more entitled to have their own state within Ireland then as Muslims would be entitled to have their own state within England today.
“Unionists were no more entitled to have their own state within Ireland then as Muslims would be entitled to have their own state within England today.”
By that argument neither were nationalists entitled to have their own state within the British Isles.
“Unionists were no more entitled to have their own state within Ireland then as Muslims would be entitled to have their own state within England today.”
By that argument neither were nationalists entitled to have their own state within the British Isles.
So the Irish people should not be allowed to have an independent state within the island of Ireland, because it is part of the British isles and therefore would exclude the people in the other island who have a divine right to rule our land I take it.
Just when I thought you could not get any more hilarious MT. Now that is impressive.
Surely there is no way to top that one.
I think we have a winner, any takers?
“So the Irish people should not be allowed to have an independent state within the island of Ireland”
Of course they should, if that’s what they want. They already do.
“, because it is part of the British isles and therefore would exclude the people in the other island who have a divine right to rule our land I take it.”
Eh?
‘There is no “occupier”.’ Lol. You see MT that’s the problem right there-total denial. Ah well we should be grateful the ‘occupier’ built us lots of places where the paramilitary police force members can rest their heads when they arnt serving the community…….I am not happy with the railway system mind you; Hong Kong got a far better deal!
Btw indeed you are right the Irish people did vote in 1918 and overwhelming voted for independence parties which in reality shows that yes 1916 was an overwhelming success. Alas the democratic British decided to ignore this democratic vote anyway(that’s the ‘form’ I mentioned earlier). A small group of people can spur others on to do the right thing. I guess that’s why even in the present day the ‘occupier’ and its apologists still fear irish republicanism, hence the vitriol. For something that is constantly dismissed as irrelevant and ‘nobody is interested’etc etc, there sure is a lot of commentators who never shut up about it. You would think they would busy themselves with something more relevant? They shouldn’t fear it, they should embrace it. Take it into your bossom M.T and Gio.
” You see MT that’s the problem right there-total denial.”
It’s not a problem and there’s no denial, total or otherwise. It’s simply a matter of fact that there is no ‘occupier’. Northern Ireland is part of the UK.
Jude , there is a book titled” Blood for Blood; The Black and Tan War in Galway” by a William Henry.I suggest Mr Leeson read it. It describes a litany of atrocities done by the B and T in just one county; i.e. the murder of Father Griffin and the murder and defilement of the bodies of the Loughnane brothers are just two. The constant flow of Revisionism puts me a at a loss for words, it is unfathomable to me.
The Elephant in the Room here is Britain’s involvement in Ireland. What legitimacy did Britain have in Ireland? None. How many voted for Britain to be in Ireland? None. Indeed the only people who support Britain being in Ireland were specifically imported in the 17th century in order to hold down Ireland for a foreign country and still hold down a 5th of it today for that same foreign nation. Today we basically have around 15% of the population (and shrinking) of this island usurping the self determination of the Irish people. That’s a corruption of democracy and is intolerable.
I remember Willie Frazer’s mother, Margaret, boasting and gloating about the Black and Tan’s in Susan McKay’s “Northern Protestants”. She said the B&T’s told Protestants not to run when they deliberately jumped out at people at Checkpoints. The B&T’s did this so they could scare Catholics, who would obviously run and then they would be shot. Then the B&T’s had the excuse of saying they shot the Catholic dead because he/she ran away, he must’ve been an IRA man and had something to hide. Margaret Frazer then goes on to say her Father, who was in the B Specials, taught her and her siblings that “the only good Catholic is a dead Catholic”. Margaret is described by Susan as an “extremely bitter person”. Its not surprising that so many members of the Frazer family joined the UDR/B Specials and many of them, around 5 in total, ended up dead. Indeed there has been numerous allegations that Willie Frazers father, who the IRA killed, was part of the Glenanne gang. These allegations his son Willie refuses to address and even says the Glenanne gang “didn’t exist”….despite tons of documentary evidence and 120 innocent Catholics murdered….
When it comes to history I’m only interested in the facts. The Irish media aren’t interested in the facts but for a long time now have pursued a Pro-British agenda. You have to ask why they do this and who is telling them to…..but this is nothing knew. Indeed even the great Michael Collin’s faced similar behaviour from the Irish media and he resorted to trashing the printing press and putting a gun to the editors head….
“What legitimacy did Britain have in Ireland? None. How many voted for Britain to be in Ireland? None.”
Some would point to Westminster elections being votes for Britain to be in Ireland.
The greatest flaw in the GFA, is that it requires the Irish people in the north to show electoral support for British rule in Ireland before we can have a vote to remove it.
“What legitimacy did Britain have in Ireland? None.”
‘Britain’ wasn’t ‘in’ Ireland: Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, which was a legitimate state.
“How many voted for Britain to be in Ireland? None.’
If you mean how may votes for Ireland and Britain to remain part of the same stste: hundreds of thousands. It wasn’t until after 1916 that people started to vote for independence.
‘Indeed the only people who support Britain being in Ireland were specifically imported in the 17th century in order to hold down Ireland for a foreign country and still hold down a 5th of it today for that same foreign nation.’
There’s nobody alive today who was ‘imported’ in the 17th century, you fool. And most Protestants who came in the 17th century weren’t imported but moved freely themselves.
Britain wasn’t a foreign country/nation in the 17th century and isn’t today.
‘Today we basically have around 15% of the population (and shrinking) of this island usurping the self determination of the Irish people.’
No we don’t. The vast majority of the Irish people have their own state and the majority in NI the majority wish to remain part of the UK.
‘That’s a corruption of democracy and is intolerable.’
It’s not. On the contrary it’s a reflection of democracy.
‘When it comes to history I’m only interested in the facts.’
You could have fooled me, judging by the above. You come across as foolish, ignorant and very naive.
MT – Britain’ wasn’t ‘in’ Ireland: Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, which was a legitimate state.
I really do think you should look at a history book and see how the Act of Union was passed – and what came before it. And what England was engaged with on the continent at the time – and then decide if it was legitimate
“How many voted for Britain to be in Ireland? None.’
If you mean how may votes for Ireland and Britain to remain part of the same stste: hundreds of thousands. It wasn’t until after 1916 that people started to vote for independence.
It’s hardly surprising people didn’t start to vote for independence until after 1916. They couldn’t vote for anything beforehand. Most people didn’t have the right to vote until after WWI – the franchise was very limited to certain property owners until then and even afterwards only women over 30 years of age could vote.
“I really do think you should look at a history book and see how the Act of Union was passed – and what came before it. And what England was engaged with on the continent at the time – and then decide if it was legitimate.”
Why? I already know all that. It doesn’t mean the UK was an illegitimate state.
“It’s hardly surprising people didn’t start to vote for independence until after 1916. They couldn’t vote for anything beforehand.”
Eh? Of course they could.
“Most people didn’t have the right to vote until after WWI – the franchise was very limited to certain property owners until then and even afterwards only women over 30 years of age could vote.”
But there were many hundreds of thousands who could vote. And they didn’t vote for independence.
“Why? I already know all that. It doesn’t mean the UK was an illegitimate state.”
Just because the UK is a legitimate state, does not mean its rule over part of Ireland is legitimate. Only the Irish people can make it legitimate.
“Just because the UK is a legitimate state, does not mean its rule over part of Ireland is legitimate. Only the Irish people can make it legitimate.”
I fear you’ve missed the point.
Of course the mere fact that a state is legitimate doesn’t necessarily mean that its rule over somewhere else is legitimate. I never said nor implied that.
In the case of Ireland, however, it was legitimately governed first by England and then Great Britain until it was united into a single state in 1801. From that point it wasn’t “ruled” by the UK: it was part of the UK.
MT – I regret to say your arrogance seems to be based on a skewed interpretation of facts and figures.
Here’s what was really going on in franchise and the voting pattern in Ireland from the late 19th century onwards until 1918.
And before you start saying the pre- 1918 voters were voting for Home Rule, not Independence – might I remind you home rule was all Westminster was prepared to discuss, and that from 1886 onwards, the House of Lords blocked 3 Home Rule Bills that had been passed by the Commons.
After 1884 the franchise was extended to about 30% of the adult male population in ireland (compared to about 60% in England, where incomes were higher)
The 700,000 odd who had been able to vote in 19th century Ireland voted in the main for the Irish parliamentary party, whose aim was Home Rule.
By the late 1880s, the IPP consistently won up to 86 of Ireland’s 103 Commons seats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/profiles/po15.shtml
Pime Minister Gladstone himself told Queen Victoria his mission was “to pacify ireland”
Why would it have needed pacifying unless there were clear large-scale signs of dissatisfaction with British Rule, as reflected in the voting patterns of even a very restricted franchise?
In the December 1918 election , the vote was extended to almost all adult males over 21 and all women over 30 with some property restrictions.
In Ireland, this almost tripled the electorate from 700,000 to over 2,000,000
http://www.theirishstory.com/2013/04/08/democracy-in-ireland-a-short-history/#.Vz9h2vmLSUl
“MT – I regret to say your arrogance seems to be based on a skewed interpretation of facts and figures.”
I don’t have any arrogance and I don’t have any skewed interpretation of facts and figures.
“Here’s what was really going on in franchise and the voting pattern in Ireland from the late 19th century onwards until 1918.”
I already know.
“And before you start saying the pre- 1918 voters were voting for Home Rule, not Independence – might I remind you home rule was all Westminster was prepared to discuss, and that from 1886 onwards, the House of Lords blocked 3 Home Rule Bills that had been passed by the Commons.”
Westminster was still only prepared to discuss home rule in 1918 but that that didn’t stop republicans contesting elections.
“After 1884 the franchise was extended to about 30% of the adult male population in ireland (compared to about 60% in England, where incomes were higher)”
I know.
“The 700,000 odd who had been able to vote in 19th century Ireland voted in the main for the Irish parliamentary party, whose aim was Home Rule.”
I know. I already said that. I’m glad you’ve conceded it.
“By the late 1880s, the IPP consistently won up to 86 of Ireland’s 103 Commons seats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/profiles/po15.shtml”
I know. Yet you said people didn’t vote for anything. I’m glad you accept you were wrong.
“Pime Minister Gladstone himself told Queen Victoria his mission was “to pacify ireland”
Why would it have needed pacifying unless there were clear large-scale signs of dissatisfaction with British Rule, as reflected in the voting patterns of even a very restricted franchise?”
I’ve no idea. Who said it didn’t need pacifying?
“In the December 1918 election , the vote was extended to almost all adult males over 21 and all women over 30 with some property restrictions.
In Ireland, this almost tripled the electorate from 700,000 to 2,000,000.”
I know.
“Dublin presently need such a firecracker and are deep in slumber once again.”
Are you advocating another Rising here Jessica?
“Are you advocating another Rising here Jessica?”
If there was another rising, I would be there.
Guess that’s the difference between us then. You would use force/murder to achieve your political aims, I would use conservation and persuasion to try and convince people of mine.
“Guess that’s the difference between us then. You would use force/murder to achieve your political aims, I would use conservation and persuasion to try and convince people of mine.”
Its a pity unionism led by Ian Paisley didn’t do the same in the 1960s instead of starting a bloody conflict.
But there is a time for everything scott.
If there is going to be a fight, I have already chosen sides.
I agree with you with you about Paisley a man who did nothing to help this country.
” if there is going to be a fight, I have already chosen sides”
People with that mentally achieve nothing other than filling the graveyards
“I agree with you with you about Paisley a man who did nothing to help this country.”
I don’t know about that, in the early days yes he almost single handedly started the conflict, but I think he realised the error of his ways before he died. He certainly died a better man than he lived. There was no planned IRA resurgence in the 60s in fact they had barely 2 bullets to rub together, there is no animosity towards protestants or any religion from the nationalist community.
“People with that mentally achieve nothing other than filling the graveyards”
It was unionism that introduced the gun to Irish politics, it was unionism that started the recent conflict, it is unionism that is failing to honour its commitments in the GFA.
I assure you I have no desire to fill any graveyards scott and I have been very outspoken against republican militancy post gfa on this very site.
But there is no point lying to you, britain is not my country regardless of what technicalities you point out about taxes etc… which are beyond my control. Yes, I support peaceful means only, but when there is a nationalist majority in a few years time, should unionism once again revert to militancy and threats to once again subvert the will of the Irish people, there will be no further partition acceptable, talk of a three county NI for example.
My loyalty is to Ireland and that is all I am saying. I truly hope the circumstances for conflict never again arise and I don’t believe if we are foolish enough to allow it to get so bad again, there will never be another long war, it will be short and sharp.
But it would be unforgivable to allow this to happen.
You are the next generation scott, you tell me. When there is a vote for unity, will you accept the will of our people and work together to build a new Irish nation on this island?
” it is unionism that is failing to honour its commitments in the GFA.”
What commitments are these?
“I assure you I have no desire to fill any graveyards scott and I have been very outspoken against republican militancy post gfa on this very site.”
Why are you not outspoken against republican “militancy” pre GFA?
“Why are you not outspoken against republican “militancy” pre GFA?”
Because I fully supported it MT.
You need to remember, my decisions are based on my own life experiences.
I grew up in a republican area, I witnessed army shooting into our estate and the IRA shooting back.
I did not fear the IRA but I did fear the army and police. There was complete panic when the lines of armoured vehicles would pull up facing the estate.
I was just a kid playing when all of a sudden everything stopped, the bin lids would start and women would be out looking for their kids, I and another friend who didn’t live in the estate but on the other side of the road the army lined up on, so I was often trapped in a battle zone.
As I grew older, I left home young. I was a rocker so had many friends across the divide and was totally apolitical at that point despite my experiences with the rioting which became normal and not something I questioned.
My first experience of the wider world was in a mixed but mostly protestant estate where I lived for 6 months.
The biggest impact I suppose was the betrayal by protestants I considered friends at the time.
They set me up to be killed and it destroyed all trust I had in unionism.
I had a gun put to my head and the trigger pulled but it jammed and I was beaten with the gun until put on a bus by someone i knew who was ordering the gunman to stop.
Another occasion I was taken hostage from our flat at gun point with another person I lived with, it was a UDR man who lived in a block of flats facing ours.
They were drinking and held us at gunpoint for about 6 hours. No masks and I knew 3 of them from bus trips to the north west and I knew the name of the UDR man. Go figure. I believe it was to scare us into leaving the estate more than anything else but was a very surreal but intense experience.
After 6 months of continuous incidents I moved home to my parents and went to the IRA. I heard that they picked him up in a car at gun point and whatever they said, he left the country shortly after. I felt relief and appreciation that there was someone there to support us. After the betrayal, and I was totally ignorant at the time, but I read up on our history and could not believe unionists had the neck to think they were right. I became ultra republican for a time, my second home this time I stayed in my own community, was referred to for a time as Connolly house there was so much republican symbols and Irish flags. I was still in my early 20s at this point. I am much more grounded now and do have a few close protestant friends who I trust totally but am screwed up on the subject and trust very very few unionists if any at all really.
But the idea that the conflict was one sided and that republicans are only to blame, only reinforces my support for the PIRA and my admitted hatred of unionism.
That is the truth MT, and like it or not, I would rather be honest about it.
“Because I fully supported it MT.”
Why did you fully support the slaughter pre GFA but not after?
Scott
Sadly there are those who buy into the mythical nonsense about violence. They are in a very small minority and the overwhelming majority north and south are content to pursue their goals peacefully for now.
It is only keyboard warriors who get off on talk of dying for their country.
“It is only keyboard warriors who get off on talk of dying for their country.”
Don’t mock the keyboard warriors gio. 🙂
If we could only fight out all of our differences over the internet wouldn’t that be a good thing with only feelings to get hurt?
In my own opinion on that subject though, the majority of people who would die for their country or a cause they believe in, do so out of sheer desperation and because they have gone through life experiences which have impacted them and left them psychologically damaged and emotionally traumatised. They are often on medication and find it difficult to let go of the trauma and experience it every single day of their lives and are unable to control it. There are others who may have been brainwashed or indoctrinated by people who have done so deliberately.
In the majority of cases, it is not for some romantic notion or mythical nonsense about violence. There are those who have sacrificed their lives for other more noble reasons and could come under those categories, but those people are very few and far between.
Even if we wanted to, it is not every day we can create the circumstances to die for our country in a noble manner. The rising was a consequence of other actions such as the UVF forming in 1912, the militarisation of unionism and back room agreements on partition going on while sending our children to their deaths in WW1 and making secret deals to betray the reasons they die for Britain in that war.
Hundreds of thousands of people did not show up at the centenary celebrations in Dublin because they thought it was nonsense.
jessica
The trouble with people who are willing to die for their country is that all too often they are more willing to kill for it.
“The trouble with people who are willing to die for their country is that all too often they are more willing to kill for it.”
There are many things people will kill for gio, a country being only one.
Of all of the troubles Ireland has gone through, very little of it was caused by people willing to die for their country.
Perhaps the real trouble makers lie higher up the food chain dont you think?
“Sadly there are those who buy into the mythical nonsense about violence. They are in a very small minority and the overwhelming majority north and south are content to pursue their goals peacefully for now.
It is only keyboard warriors who get off on talk of dying for their country.”
I completely agree with you giordanobruno, also well said.
Jessica
I completely accept the democratic will of the people of Northern and Southern Ireland and if both countries vote for reunification I will accept that verdict although I am at the moment not in favour of it. I would also support no other means to maintain the union other than peaceful democratic ones.
I don’t agree with you that this is only a few years away or somehow inevitable and I would agrue that we are further away from Irish reunification today than ever. But that’s a whole other can of worms I guess.
Would you also accept the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland if they wish to remain apart?
“I completely accept the democratic will of the people of Northern and Southern Ireland and if both countries vote for reunification I will accept that verdict although I am at the moment not in favour of it. I would also support no other means to maintain the union other than peaceful democratic ones.”
Lets hope the majority of unionism feel the same way Scott. I fear should that day come, unionism will revert to form and do what they have always done.
“Would you also accept the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland if they wish to remain apart?”
We already have accepted this Scott.
If you mean will I put aside my desire for independence or stop seeking unification, then no.
This will continue forever until it is achieved.
You talk like unionists are one big stereotype that are just waiting to resort back to violence if a united Ireland get near.
Unionist come in all varieties. Hard line, Liberal, Socialist, Capitalist, young, old, straight, gay, conservative, Protestant, Catholic, atheists, rich, poor, etc basically every type of person in Northern Ireland could fall under the category of unionist and the same goes for nationalists.
I understand that you bad experiences but as you’ve got older do you not realise how ridiculous it is to tar a whole section of a community with one brush, I mean at least 50% of people are unionists.
“You talk like unionists are one big stereotype that are just waiting to resort back to violence if a united Ireland get near.”
Well lets see, home rule was getting close, the UVF were formed, start drilling and importing weapons and threatening civil war leading to the rising and first period of the troubles. Ireland is partitioned and a new unionist dominated province is created and allowed to abuse control over Catholics for 50 years.
Skip on to the 1960s, Ian Paisley wrongly predicts an IRA resurgence when they were about to disband, and stirs up unionism. The UUP and Paisley revive the UVF and rally the unionist people against peaceful civil rights marches. Paisley forms his own paramilitary groups, import weapons and together they start a bombing campaign which is blamed on the IRA and results in rioting and the British army being brought over in 1969. After Catholics being killed by police, army and loyalist gun attacks, martial law and CS gas fired into peoples homes, the PIRA are formed and the second period of the troubles begins.
Now post GFA, lets say a referendum for Irish unity was called as specified in the GFA, then yes, I am confident loyalist paramilitaries will once again raise their heads and should the vote be for unity, yes, I have no doubt whatsoever unionism will react violently.
The main difference this time, is the numbers don’t stack up for a prolonged conflict and I fully expect it to be short and bloody.
As for tarring a whole section of a community with one brush.
To me, an Irish unionist is someone who wants Ireland to be subject to the British crown and ruled from Westminster for the benefit of the British people.
Of course people with such views can come in all varieties, but I do not believe every person in the communities you refer to would actually vote for the union as defined above if there was an open debate considering all of our options.
Nor would they all consider themselves British if it weren’t for the persistence of sectarianism from the unionist parties, i.e.. vote to keep Sinn Fein out as first minister. Sinn Fein are ruled by the IRA. God knows what crap will come out next.
Unionism is the section of our community that refuses to embrace reconciliation wit the rest of this island and I assure you it is nowhere near 50% of the people here.
Stop trying Jessica. It’s like talking to the wall.
I find it difficult to find a coherent philosophy from the unionist community concerning why they are so fearful of a reunited Ireland in this day and age.
Any justified concerns from last century , in my humble opinion, no longer exist.
It’s a simple question of bigotry and sectarianism and keeping their position as top dog.
Eventually they will be in the minority and hopefully an informed debate can be conducted and a resolution reached for the benefit of all the children of the island, the unionists included.
“I find it difficult to find a coherent philosophy from the unionist community concerning why they are so fearful of a reunited Ireland in this day and age. Any justified concerns from last century , in my humble opinion, no longer exist. It’s a simple question of bigotry and sectarianism and keeping their position as top dog. Eventually they will be in the minority and hopefully an informed debate can be conducted and a resolution reached for the benefit of all the children of the island, the unionists included.”
I find it difficult to find a coherent philosophy from the nationalist community concerning why they are so fearful of the United Kingdom ithis day and age.
Any justified concerns from last century , in my humble opinion, no longer exist.
It’s a simple question of bigotry and sectarianism and trying to attain a position as top dog.
Eventually they will realise they are in the minority and hopefully an informed debate can be conducted and a resolution reached for the benefit of all the children of the island, the nationalists included.
“I find it difficult to find a coherent philosophy from the nationalist community concerning why they are so fearful of the United Kingdom ithis day and age.”
One of these days you will come up with something original all by yourself MT.
But to respond. I wouldn’t say we were afraid to live within the UK, since we have never really had a say in the matter anyway.
What I will say is now that we have tried it, got the t shirt and having witnessed the delights it has to offer, we just want the hell shot of it.
“It’s a simple question of bigotry and sectarianism and keeping their position as top dog.
Eventually they will be in the minority and hopefully an informed debate can be conducted and a resolution reached for the benefit of all the children of the island, the unionists included.”
Yep, that is the be all and end all of unionism, bigotry and sectarianism. And some say it has a place in a future Ireland. I disagree. It has no place today never mind in a united Ireland.
*sigh* your right about one thing Jessica, you truly are damaged goods.
“*sigh* your right about one thing Jessica, you truly are damaged goods.”
Oh and i’m not on my own unfortunately Scott.
I just pray young people like yourself and Ryan, and our future generations don’t end up the same way.
That would be unforgivable