I have been trying to figure out why self-proclaimed moderate unionists get so upset when I claim that unionism in Ireland has bigotry at its core
It seems for some at least to be more about the use of a catch-all term, ‘sliding scale of bigotry’, which they feel unfairly encompasses them.
Apparently, there are unionists who are quite happy to tolerate the bigotry and hatred espoused by the political leadership of unionism, even acknowledging their behaviour is bigoted but still proclaiming to be part of the same family of unionism.
Some more intelligent commenters even try to suggest that unionism has many groupings and that the bigoted actions of some are part of another grouping and should not tarnish the others.
Well, I’m sorry but that is just bollox.
As with any group of people, yes there are a wide range of opinions as people are individuals.
Unionism in Britain is the support of the union of Great Britain which consists of England, Scotland and Wales.
Unionism in Ireland, is the support of the union of Great Britain and Ireland or Northern Ireland or at some point in the future 1 or 2 counties of Ireland.
When I refer to Unionism, I refer to those who support the inclusion of Ireland in that union as it was never democratic, has always been bigoted and discriminatory and is also a hindrance to the development of our country and the prosperity of our people as a whole.
The majority of the British people, i.e., England, Scotland and Wales would accept that Ireland would be better off united. I now work with them on a daily basis and I know the vast majority hold no animosity towards Ireland, if anything I have noticed there is an affection towards us. The smarter opinion would be that Ireland should be united first and then have a stronger relationship with Britain, the best of both worlds and I would agree.
So what is the problem you might ask?
How many of them I wonder would be surprised to learn that the actual issue is not with Republicans refusing to contemplate such a thing, but that the representatives of unionism are incapable of even discussing anything other than Northern Ireland within the UK or the UK as a whole. Even the thought of the 26 counties being associated with their vision of the UK stirs them into a frenzy.
Well, I am telling you now that this is bigotry.
Having lived all my life here and now approaching the big 50, I am under no illusion that unionism in Ireland, the one I grew up with, is rotten to the core, hence my assertion that the whole ethos of that unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry.
For those who feel offended that this is a wide brush stroke that unfairly tarnishes them, let me be as unambiguous as I can be.
There are two communities here, one of which wants to be reunited with the rest of our country. The Good Friday Agreement legitimises that aspiration and it must be respected by the political leadership of unionism, and that means not only talking about it but helping make sure the transition works for everybody.
Now if unionism chooses to object and oppose this to the bitter end regardless of the damage it causes along the way as some suggest, then that is indeed their choice, but the fact remains it is a bigoted choice.
Post-Brexit, the border issue has raised many concerns among businesses and the majority of our people.
It is very clear that unionist politicians who are paid out of the public purse to lead all of our people are not putting the people first, but the principle that only solutions which satisfy unionist aspirations are even considered. That is not only putting unionism first but is treating nationalism as second rate with our aspirations holding little value, and it is not only bigoted but they should be removed from office over it.
So at lower end of this sliding scale of bigotry we have moderate unionists, the silent unheard majority they would tell us, voting for parties who they acknowledge are bigoted but don’t want it mentioned, the old nudge nudge, wink wink disassociation.
But this example they are giving also follows to the upper scale, where the same policy is towards unionist paramilitaries, where we will hear the same old condemnation not in our name nudge nudge wink wink.
This is not acceptable
Jessica i hate to say this but you are completely obsessed by this topic and it worries me if you have children that you may be feeding them this bile.
Ha! The bile has been fed to the children of unionists for centuries. Bit ironic don’t you think Robert?
truth is never Bile but the exposition of hate as preached by the orange order the uup and the dup
“When I refer to Unionism, I refer to those who support the inclusion of Ireland in that union as it was never democratic, has always been bigoted and discriminatory and is also a hindrance to the development of our country and the prosperity of our people as a whole.”
When you refer to nationalism, do you refer to those who would support the inclusion of NI in an all-Ireland state as it would not be democratic, has always been bigoted and discriminatory and also a hindrance to the development of our country and the prosperity of our people as a whole?
“How many of them I wonder would be surprised to learn that the actual issue is not with Republicans refusing to contemplate such a thing, but that the representatives of unionism are incapable of even discussing anything other than Northern Ireland within the UK or the UK as a whole. Even the thought of the 26 counties being associated with their vision of the UK stirs them into a frenzy.”
How many would be surprised to learn thst nationalists refuse to contemplate the integration of NI or all of Ireland into the UK or even of discussing anything other than a united Ireland. Even the thought of GB being associated with their vision of a united Ireland stirs them into a frenzy.
“Having lived all my life here and now approaching the big 50, I am under no illusion that unionism in Ireland, the one I grew up with, is rotten to the core, hence my assertion that the whole ethos of that unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry.”
By your own logic nationalism must also be rotten to the code and its whole ethos a sliding scale of bigotry.
“There are two communities here, one of which wants to be reunited with the rest of our country. The Good Friday Agreement legitimises that aspiration and it must be respected by the political leadership of unionism, and that means not only talking about it but helping make sure the transition works for everybody.”
One community wants to remain politically separate from the rest of Ireland forever. The GFA legitimises that aspiration and it must be respected by the political leadership of nationalism, and thst means not only talking about it buy helping to make sure permanent membership of the UK works for everybody.
“Now if unionism chooses to object and oppose this to the bitter end regardless of the damage it causes along the way as some suggest, then that is indeed their choice, but the fact remains it is a bigoted choice.”
And similarly by your own logic nationalists’ choice to object and oppose permanent union with GB is a bigoted choice.
*sigh*
Once More unto the Breach I suppose.
“As with any group of people, yes there are a wide range of opinions as people are individuals”
You’ve never spoken a truer word Jessica.
“Unionism in Britain is the support of the union of Great Britain which consists of England, Scotland and Wales.”
No Unionism in Britain can also include keeping NI in the UK.
“Unionism in Ireland, is the support of the union of Great Britain and Ireland or Northern Ireland or at some point in the future 1 or 2 counties of Ireland.”
Yes this is correct although probably mainly NI.
“When I refer to Unionism, I refer to those who support the inclusion of Ireland in that union as it was never democratic, has always been bigoted and discriminatory and is also a hindrance to the development of our country and the prosperity of our people as a whole”
Well presently (like it or not) political Unionism has a clear democratic mandate with a clear result from the Stormont election.
“The majority of the British people, i.e., England, Scotland and Wales would accept that Ireland would be better off united. I now work with them on a daily basis and I know the vast majority hold no animosity towards Ireland, if anything I have noticed there is an affection towards us. The smarter opinion would be that Ireland should be united first and then have a stronger relationship with Britain, the best of both worlds and I would agree.”
How can you possibly know what the majority of people in GB want in regard to Irish reunification. This is your assumption and far from a fact.
“How many of them I wonder would be surprised to learn that the actual issue is not with Republicans refusing to contemplate such a thing, but that the representatives of unionism are incapable of even discussing anything other than Northern Ireland within the UK or the UK as a whole. Even the thought of the 26 counties being associated with their vision of the UK stirs them into a frenzy”
Some Unionsts would be stirred to a frenzy, others while opposing it would not fear a United Ireland. Remember Jessica we are not the Borg collective we don’t operate with one mind.
“Having lived all my life here and now approaching the big 50, I am under no illusion that unionism in Ireland, the one I grew up with, is rotten to the core, hence my assertion that the whole ethos of that unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry.”
This is the root of your problems I believe. Polarised by conflict you choose to view the political view of Unionism as universally evil.
“There are two communities here, one of which wants to be reunited with the rest of our country. The Good Friday Agreement legitimises that aspiration and it must be respected by the political leadership of unionism, and that means not only talking about it but helping make sure the transition works for everybody.”
It also provides the mechanism of a border poll to achieve that aspiration. Some Unionists might not respect that aspiration, but many do including myself. But why should there be discussion of a transition when there hasn’t even been a poll to decide if it’s going to happen.
“Now if unionism chooses to object and oppose this to the bitter end regardless of the damage it causes along the way as some suggest, then that is indeed their choice, but the fact remains it is a bigoted choice”
Differing political views doesn’t make people bigoted. I support the EU, you don’t. Doesn’t make you a bigot.
“It is very clear that unionist politicians who are paid out of the public purse to lead all of our people are not putting the people first, but the principle that only solutions which satisfy unionist aspirations are even considered. That is not only putting unionism first but is treating nationalism as second rate with our aspirations holding little value, and it is not only bigoted but they should be removed from office over it.”
I don’t always agree with actions of politicians but we periodically get a chance to remove them, it’s called an election. Like them or not (and I don’t) they’ve got a democratic mandate.
“So at lower end of this sliding scale of bigotry we have moderate unionists, the silent unheard majority they would tell us, voting for parties who they acknowledge are bigoted but don’t want it mentioned, the old nudge nudge, wink wink disassociation”
No wink wink nudge nudge about it. If I don’t vote for them they don’t represent me.
“Well presently (like it or not) political Unionism has a clear democratic mandate with a clear result from the Stormont election.”
Stormont operates on a power sharing basis, both communities have a clear democratic mandate, unionism has failed to live up to the obligations that entails, Stormont should be closed, it is a farce.
“This is the root of your problems I believe. Polarised by conflict you choose to view the political view of Unionism as universally evil.”
I cant argue against that I suppose. I have a very low opinion of unionism.
“It also provides the mechanism of a border poll to achieve that aspiration. Some Unionists might not respect that aspiration, but many do including myself. But why should there be discussion of a transition when there hasn’t even been a poll to decide if it’s going to happen.”
I don’t expect talks to start with a discussion about the transition, the talks would be first of all to establish what the best course of action is.
But listen, don’t worry about it.
I think you have made it quite clear talking without preconditions and redlines is a non starter for not only unionism the monster but just about every unionist.
“Differing political views doesn’t make people bigoted. I support the EU, you don’t. Doesn’t make you a bigot.”
Differing political views are a good thing Scott.
Refusing to sit down and talk about what is best for the people you represent because it may compromise the views you hold on to is indeed bigotry though.
“I don’t always agree with actions of politicians but we periodically get a chance to remove them, it’s called an election. Like them or not (and I don’t) they’ve got a democratic mandate.”
That is true Scott.
I don’t think the problem here is the system. It is the fact that sectarian behaviour and bigotry is what works within unionism (in Ireland not in Britain), it is a vote getter.
Even the BBC didn’t want the DUP or pro Irish union parties involved in the televised brexit debate.
Unionism in Ireland is obviously an embarrassment to them across the water.
Britain doesn’t want unionism, the republic doesn’t want it, why do we have to put with it?
I think I would honestly prefer direct rule from London than to have to tolerate any more of Stormont.
“No wink wink nudge nudge about it. If I don’t vote for them they don’t represent me.”
Unfortunately that is not how democracy works Scott.
It is the party that the majority vote for that are given the responsibility to make the decisions which impact on us all.
Ian Paisley had no problem claiming that the DUP would provide political cover for loyalist paramilitaries, even abusing parliamentary privilege to provide that cover. But im sure the majority of unionists who vote for them aren’t aware off that, nudge nudge wink wink
“Stormont operates on a power sharing basis, both communities have a clear democratic mandate, unionism has failed to live up to the obligations that entails, Stormont should be closed, it is a farce.”
What obligations are these?
“What obligations are these?”
To represent both communities equally.
“To represent both communities equally.”
Where is this stipulated? I suspect you’re making it up.
Nobody fulfils that alleged obligation.
Well. I would say Sinn Fein are acting in the best interests of both communities equally.
Perhaps they should start to ask themselves why?
“Well. I would say Sinn Fein are acting in the best interests of both communities equally.”
Maybe you would, but few would agree with you.
Now perhaps you could answer the question : where is the obligation to represent both communities equally stipulated?
‘Maybe you would [say SF are acting in the best interests of both communities equally], but few would agree with you.’ Where’s your evidence for this statement, MT? It seems odd, given the tens if not hundreds of thousands who vote SF…
” Where’s your evidence for this statement, MT? It seems odd, given the tens if not hundreds of thousands who vote SF…”
It doesn’t follow that voting for SF means one believes SF represents both communities equally. I rather suspect people vote for them because they believe they best represent the nationalist community specifically.
And that would square with the fundamental republican tenet of replacing the name of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter with the common name of Irishman (and woman, presumably)?
“And that would square with the fundamental republican tenet of replacing the name of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter with the common name of Irishman (and woman, presumably)?”
I the same way, presumably, that joining or supporting the Orange Order squares with religious and civil liberties for all.
Does that mean the OO DOESN’T seek religious and civil liberties for all? (Thinks: I thought we were talking about republicanism. Must have nodded off…)
“Does that mean the OO DOESN’T seek religious and civil liberties for all? (Thinks: I thought we were talking about republicanism. Must have nodded off…)”
It means well-worn tenets aren’t necessarily often observed by their adherents, or aren’t often the main motivating factor in attracting support.
I find it hard to believe that anyone joining the orange order would not be aware of its sectarian nature given they are the focus of sectarian tensions every single year here.
Their intransigence is exemplary and must surely make them the number 1 role model for any right wing fascist, racist or bigoted grouping anywhere in the world.
Thankfully its control over unionism is waning just as unionisms control over this part of Ireland is waning which can only be a good thing for equality and fairness for future generations..
“I find it hard to believe that anyone joining the orange order would not be aware of its sectarian nature given they are the focus of sectarian tensions every single year here.”
And similarly In find it hard to believe that anyone voting for PSF would not be aware that they seek to represent nationalists..
There is nothing provisional about Sinn Fein MT
The point you are missing, they do not claim to represent ONLY nationalists and more importantly, unlike ALL of the unionist parties, they DO make decisions on the best interests of ALL of our people, no matter what their views are.
“I don’t expect talks to start with a discussion about the transition, the talks would be first of all to establish what the best course of action is.
But listen, don’t worry about it.”
What talks? Course of action for what purpose?
“Refusing to sit down and talk about what is best for the people you represent because it may compromise the views you hold on to is indeed bigotry though.”
So nationalists are bigots since they refuse to sit down and talk about permanent union with GB?
“Ian Paisley had no problem claiming that the DUP would provide political cover for loyalist paramilitaries”
When was this?
“, even abusing parliamentary privilege to provide that cover.”
When was this?
“Refusing to sit down and talk about what is best for the people you represent because it may compromise the views you hold on to is indeed bigotry though.”
So nationalists are bigots since they refuse to sit down and talk about permanent union with GB?
“Ian Paisley had no problem claiming that the DUP would provide political cover for loyalist paramilitaries”
When was this?”
Ian Paisley coined the phrase when speaking to young to young loyalists, ‘I will give you political cover’ around the time he was involved in bringing in weapons and wearing paramilitary headdress
“, even abusing parliamentary privilege to provide that cover.”
When was this?”
One example would be the reavey killings by the glenanne gang
“In 1999, Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Ian Paisley stated in the House of Commons that Eugene Reavey “set up the Kingsmill massacre”. In 2010, a report by the police Historical Enquiries Team cleared Eugene of any involvement. The Reavey family sought an apology, but Paisley refused to retract the allegation and died in 2014″
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reavey_and_O%27Dowd_killings
“Ian Paisley coined the phrase when speaking to young to young loyalists, ‘I will give you political cover’ around the time he was involved in bringing in weapons and wearing paramilitary headdresses”
He did? Have you a source?
“One example would be the reavey killings by the glenanne gang “In 1999, Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Ian Paisley stated in the House of Commons that Eugene Reavey “set up the Kingsmill massacre”. In 2010, a report by the police Historical Enquiries Team cleared Eugene of any involvement. The Reavey family sought an apology, but Paisley refused to retract the allegation and died in 2014″https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reavey_and_O%27Dowd_killings”
Not sure how that is “political cover” but Paisley didn’t represent unionism.
Reply Comments
“Not sure how that is “political cover” but Paisley didn’t represent unionism. ”
He didn’t, really? We must have just imagined it all.
“He didn’t, really
Correct.
“We must have just imagined it all.”
You’re the only person I know who thought he did, but yes you must have imagined it.
PS. Interesting how you object to this alleged “political cover” for terror, yet you supported actual terror.
oops, didnt reply properly
“What talks? Course of action for what purpose? ”
I assure you MT, politicians in normal, sensible countries regularly meet representatives of other nations for trade negotiations, to discuss how we can better do business with one another, any assistance we can offer one another on the worlds stage, how they can improve things for the electorate that give them their jobs.
Then again, Northern Ireland has never been a country. Unionism doesn’t want it to be a country, unionism is perfectly happy living off the scraps from England’s table.
Unionism has no plan to improve our lot and is more interested in flags, marching and bonfires.
Don’t worry, I am starting to realise, it is pointless and futile to even try to talk to political unionism.
“I assure you MT, politicians in normal, sensible countries regularly meet representatives of other nations for trade negotiations, to discuss how we can better do business with one another, any assistance we can offer one another on the worlds stage, how they can improve things for the electorate that give them their jobs.”
That’s great, but what talks are you talking about?
jessica
“I assure you MT, politicians in normal, sensible countries regularly meet representatives of other nations for trade negotiations, to discuss how we can better do business with one another”.
They are called the North/South bodies.
The North/South bodies are toothless and very limited in what they can achieve.
The forum was recommended to offer a more direct focus on issues directly resulting from brexit
Honestly gio. you are hard core unionist. I suspect you have a more dubious agenda as someone purporting to be a republican on this site.
“The North/South bodies are toothless and very limited in what they can achieve.”
Those are the bodies agreed by the parties after talks. Why do you think having more talks would result in different bodies?
“The forum was recommended to offer a more direct focus on issues directly resulting from brexit.”
Foreign affairs and the EU are matters reserved for the UK government. Again that is what the parties agreed after talks.
They are out outworking’s of a peace accord from almost 20 years ago that was to mark the start of the peace process not the end of it.
Reconciliation has been stalled for years, there is dissent in the ranks of loyalism and dissident republicans are still looming over my community and need to go, Brexit has made the border an issue once again that according to John Major could risk peace, MI5 are still active and up to god knows what and also need to go.
Time has passed and another generation may want more, I know I do.
“They are out outworking’s of a peace accord from almost 20 years ago that was to mark the start of the peace process not the end of it.”
Eh? The peace process began years before the GFA, which wasn’t a ‘peace accord’, but a political agreement. The GFA represents the political settlement thst resulted from all-party talks and was endorsed by a referendum. All the parties in the Assembly support it (including the DUP, though they won’t admit it).
So why would anyone want to have more talks to agree what has already been agreed? You’re talking complete nonsense.
“Time has passed and another generation may want more, I know I do.”
Where’s the evidence for this? People.vote in overwhelming numbers for pro-GFA parties. I’m not aware of a new generation that wants a new agreement. And even if there were it’s up to that generation to persuade the other generations of the need for one.
jessica you said that our politicians should be sitting down together to see how to do business together.
When I point out the existence of the North/South bodies you shift the goalposts (as you like to do).
And your continued claims that I am a Unionist are just unpleasant manplaying as you are basically calling me a liar.
I don’t know how you get away with it.
Is there a difference between ‘you are basically calling me a liar’ and ‘you are calling me a liar’ gio? If there is then maybe that’s ‘how you get away with it’. But if you believe someone has engaged in gratuitous insult, as I’ve said before, draw my attention to it and I’ll take it down if necessary.
No I didn’t
I said they should be doing what is in the best interests of the people, all of the people and it they aren’t able to do that then Stormont should close and end the farce, not encourage it.
We are a post conflict society and we cannot afford such irresponsibility from our political representatives.
As for you not being a unionist, im sorry, but judging by your comments here, I simply don’t believe you.
Jude
It’s not that hard to find the insults. Just choose a few of jessica’s posts at random and I’m sure something willpresent itself.
Here is an example:
“Anyone including yourself who supports this refusal to even talk about these clear issues in a divided society is clearly bigoted”
Making assumptions about people and then calling them bigots is poor debating.
But leave it up if you want,it’s your blog.
Maybe ask jessica to stop calling everyone that disagrees with her a bigot though.
It is an ugly accusation to throw around.
Just a suggestion.
Fair enough, gio, I’ll do that thing. Although she seems to be arguing that all unionists are bigots (sliding scale etc) which is different, I think, from simple name-calling. But I’ll ask Jessica to now clarify. JESSICA – OI! I’d like you to produce a concise, clear argument for suggesting that all unionists are bigots. On the face of it, it does look like blanket-name-calling. Let’s hear from you, J.
I have clarified many times Jude, that I am not saying any individual whatsoever or all unionists or even any group of unionists are bigots.
Ryan summed up what I was trying to say spot on, so there is a bit of hearing what they want or expect to hear and not what I am actually saying so I will try again.
First of all, I have no problem with unionism in Britain.
Britain is another island entirely and is a democratic union of nations through agreement and that is perfectly reasonable.
They are lovely people, I enjoy working with them now, and I even said I find there to be more positive feelings even an affinity towards Ireland from them.
The union between Britain and Ireland however was not democratic and neither was partition which allowed a more sinister brand of unionism steeped in bigotry with an antiquated mentality to control its own part of Ireland in which it has discriminated and abused control right to the present day.
It is my opinion that this brand of unionism remains rotten to the core. It is based on the supremacy of one section of our people over the other, much like apartheid in South Africa where the wishes of a majority of a nations people are overruled by a minority.
As in south Africa, when control is maintained in this way, it results in sectarian bigotry and racism which is difficult to rectify and requires positive and brave leadership to reconcile.
I believe Sinn Fein are providing such positive leadership in this regard whereas the leadership of unionism have no interest in reconciliation.
I don’t believe this is down to nationalists and republicans being better or more tolerant people.
I believe it is down to the bigotry inherent within unionism.
It is bigotry which has come from decades of looking down their noses at poor catholic Ireland, of seeing us as drunken bums, of being second rate which has been passed on from generation to generation. Unionism has not educated its people that it has ever done any wrong. Many still do not accept there was any discrimination against Catholics and the pogroms never happened. They don’t believe that unionism started the conflict because they are deliberately fed lies and propaganda from political unionism or the intelligence agencies.
This brand of unionism is soiled beyond repair and is no more than a sliding of bigotry. At one end, there are the willie frazers who espouse blind hatred.
On the other end, you have the more intelligent unionists who know bigotry is wrong but are only too happy to tolerate it should it be in their interests.
In my opinion, the only way to wipe the slate clean and start over is for the representatives of unionism to acknowledge the role unionism played in starting the troubles and to help ensure violence does not return.
Nothing more than loyalists and republicans have already done. Not sackcloth and ashes and not even an apology. Just an acknowledgement that will tell the young unionist population that the conflict was not started by the IRA, that both communities have done wrong and our best future is through reconciliation so together we can build a more prosperous and trouble free future.
That is not saying all unionists are bigots, that is saying unionism is founded on blatant acts of bigotry and violence which it has yet to acknowledge.
If you want to call yourself a unionist, these are facts you are going to have to learn to live with.
Thank you, jessica. I think that’s a position you’re entitled to hold and I accept that you’re not saying that all unionists are bigoted. As it happens, I have a similar view of the Orange Order. I do not believe all or even most Orangemen are anti-Catholic, but the Order in its origins, history and ordinances is clearly anti-Catholic…But I diverge. My thanks again. I’d like if people who disagree with you would argue their case in similar fashion, rather than paste and quote you and add ‘No they’re not’ or other unadorned comments. I’m impressed by the intelligence of the great majority of people commenting on this site, and that includes those I’d completely disagree with. I believe all voices deserve to be heard, but they should be voices that are presenting a case, not abusing opponents.
They have a lot in common Jude.
If you choose to join the orange order then it is your own responsibility to make sure you are happy that the organisation has adequately addressed those anti-Catholic origins, history and ordinances is it not?
Likewise, if someone chooses to come on this blog site knowing there are many who have experienced unionist injustice first hand, and proclaim they are happily unionist. They should not be surprised that someone points out the fact that unionism has not yet acknowledged its own anti-Catholic stance which started the conflict in the first place and remains today as intransigent as it ever has been.
Honestly Jessica I truly don’t mean to be rude, but your all over the place here. I thought it was just me not getting it but many others seem confused on what exactly your getting at.
I think we have pinned it down that you think that the DUP are bigoted because they won’t have talks with the southern goverment.
You seem to accept that Unionist politicians doesn’t have to sit down and have talks on reunification since their hasn’t even been a border poll on it. Is this correct? I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
What are the talks you would like to see happen that aren’t happening? Is it just discussions around BREXIT or do you want just general talks about north/south cooperation?
There are a lot of opinions and counter opinions flying about, I don’t believe I have changed mine from the start.
I believe unionism is rotten to the core. That is the Irish version, the one that introduced the gun into Irish politics through Carson, the one who introduced and encouraged paramilitarism in Ireland, the one who threatened civil war to overturn the democratic will of the Irish people to have independence from Britain.
The same unionism that discriminated for 50 years, that objected to Catholics seeking civil rights, and I am aware many were appalled at the actions of the few, but as I say, they tolerated it, they allowed it to continue, they showed no solidarity, they I can only assumed secretly while deploring what was happening wished we would stay over the border and leave unionism to rule its roost.
The same unionism that paid loyalists to murder in 1966 according to gusty spence the UUP did, the same unionism who encouraged the UVF to attack nationalist estates, the same unionism that burned thousands of catholic families out of their homes, the same unionism that pushed the British army into confrontation with Catholics and who started the conflict.
The same unionism that has yet to acknowledge it has done any wrong.
The same unionism that today is trying to distance itself from those actions so they don’t have to accept any blame or guilt, the same unionism that is sickening my stomach on this site with its blatant intolerance for its refusal to take any responsibility for actions carried out in the exact same name of unionism.
The same unionism that remains as intolerant as it ever has been, that refuses to even pretend to understand the need to talk to achieve reconciliation.
The same unionism that does not even comprehend the meaning of reconciliation.
The same old bigoted unionism as intolerant and obstructive as ever. As incapable of change today as it ever has been.
Ok I got it now Jessica.
You have pure hatred towards Unionism.
Doesn’t that universal hatred extend to everyone who calls themselves a Unionist?
I don’t know Scott, do you believe you can hate a sin but not the sinner?
I don’t feel any hatred towards you, yet you claim to be unionist and even state you are against talks with nationalism to reach compromise and agreement in a shared space.
Basically what I am hearing from you is, we have the place the way we want it, your opinions are not welcome and we will oppose any changes to suit your needs to the bitter end.
I suppose it would be quite easy to get sucked into hatred when you hear this in such vociferousness as so called moderate unionists have published on this site.
I have been there though. I hated the English so much when I was young.
I am older now and have lost that animosity through maturity and through talking with them through work.
I now think overall they are lovely people though I don’t want to be ruled by them and consider myself their equal in every way. I suppose I just don’t want to hate any more.
But if I hadn’t talked to them I would probably not have lost that hate.
And you wonder why I want unionism to talk?
Sorry I made a typo
That should have said
“Does that universal hatred extend to everyone who calls themselves a Unionist?”
“Does that universal hatred extend to everyone who calls themselves a Unionist?””
I hate unionism. I hate the fact I don’t have a country I feel part off.
I hate the fact I am a hard worked who wants to contribute to Ireland, who wants my country to thrive, who wants my people to have a nation we can all be proud off.
I hate the fact that one section of our people on this island are blocking this from being achieved.
I hate the fact there is a border in my country that fosters division and breeds fear and intolerance.
I hate the fact that a foreign nation who has no right to be here has allowed violence and militancy be used to impose control in our land.
I hate the fact that we are considered second rate Irish to those in the south and also second rate British or simply paddies to those across the water.
I hate the fact the political leadership representing my community reach out and make sincere efforts at reconciliation, only to have it thrown back in their faces along with snide remarks and insults.
I hate the fact that your moderate and intelligent unionists such as yourself, still see no value in talking to people from my community and attempting to reach accommodation through compromise and agreement rather than simply rejecting talk in case it gives the wrong outcome for you.
That is what I hate Scott. I hate the sin, not the sinner
Just to clarify I personally am not against talks with anybody about anything.
Some may be against talks, but as I have continually said there’s no universal Unionist opinion on this or any other subject other than the constitutional question.
Once again, well said, Scott…
Well said indeed Scott.
It is also unfair that both governments have stepped back so far to allow this level of political disengagement to go unchallenged.
It would be nice to have something positive to talk about for a change
unionist politicians who are paid out of the public purse to lead all of our people…..
lead who,they dont lead me or the thousands of none voters neither does sf,sdlp.uup,ect.better sticking to the facts.unionists arnt going to talk about a united ireland while they have the numbers,and with the number of mla seats being reduced they will have the numbers for yrs.all courtesy of the gfa.
We can talk all day about bigotry but it might be better to look at an example or two of it and just focus on it for a moment . Take an episode of bigotry and see who’s mouth or actions the bigotry originated in.That would be the way to go, before we begin talking about just who is more bigoted than another …that would make a bit of sense …right? Just a simple easily understood study …eh?
In the past five years where have the most startlingly asinine and bigoted stories originated? If you want to focus on individuals …let’s do so .That should be easy enough .The major stories of bigoted-related behaviour that appeared on the media are as follows …..and in no specific order.
1. The diatribe by the Christian pastor about Muslims in his sermon.
2. The statement by our First Minister that he would not trust Muslims except maybe to go to the shops for him….(Bear in mind …that’s the First Minister , eh….not the Deputy First Minister ?…a lovely example in the art of community relations there!).What party and what community does he represent?That’s right it’s the largest unionist bloc called the DUP.
3.There ‘s the disparaging of the Irish language by Gregory Campbell….a regular feature in his “Bernard Manning” act for all you culture-vultures with long memories.What party does he hail from and who supports him? That’s right it’s the biggest unionist voting bloc….the DUP again. are you beginning to see a trend develop here?
4.There’s the “Gay Cake” row which still runs on.What community are the bakers from and why exactly can they not simply provide the same service to everyone regardless of their own personal proclivities. it’s perfectly legal to be gay , after all and a business can’t discriminate who it will serve.No-one is asking them to be gay too…or black or green or whatever! What’s that all about ? Nobody asked them to sleep with them either ..or live with them…What’s all that nonsense about and why are they wasting everyone’s time with this foolishness?..Who supports that stand and disses an entire sexual group? Just let me think for a moment….that’s right …it’s another strike for unionism.!!
Now ask yourself which communityall these particular newshungry hounds came from and ask yourself is their behaviour not in some way bigoted/racist/ homophobic or whatever adjective you want use.There’s not much “live -and -let- live ” there in that attitude … is there?
Some of these are high profile politicians who, in any other context ,would be booted out and not still have a job… if they were in the UK for example their ministries and shops would be closed down .They actually know what bigotry is in the UK , strangely enough,even though they have bigots there too…. but we’ve developed it to a new high -ideal.
Now ask yourself …what way do they all vote?That’s right …for right-wing unionist parties.
Ask yourself which party they might hail from and which community …and where they draw their supporter from .If they are bigots…and it’s looking that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ….that it probably is a duck , it’s also reasonable to assume that the people who support them and the party they represent might just have a problem with bigotry too.
If I have left any other of these luminaries out of the list , feel free to fill in the blanks .If there are some on the Nationalist side of the Great Divide, feel free to add them too. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot is a bigot…no matter where it comes from.
Do you vote for any bigots? Ask yourself .Do you hand them the levers of power with your vote?I think it’s about time we had a roll call of bigots and bigotry to refer to on a permanent basis. Maybe Jude could have a special “Bigot” page which we could update regularly and have a prize-winning “Bigot Of The Month ” award, which could be rolled out.That way it’ll all be fair and square .It’ll not matter whether or not it’s Nationalist or Unionist bigotry .
Now going on past form ….you betting men and women out there …who do you think will win this prestigious award and certificate in future days….judging by the news stories and behaviour in the past? Just asking…..
paddy
Which party do you feel is entirely free of bigots?
I am often at a loss regarding who to vote for here so that would be a big help.
Thanks in anticipation.
“I am often at a loss regarding who to vote for here so that would be a big help.”
I think the SUP would suit you right down to the ground gio.
oops DUP
jessica
Are you answering my question to paddy? You think the DUP are free of bigots?
Surprising.
Not quite gio, I was saying that I thought they would suit you right down to the ground
Well, gio. iwould say that there are bigots in every party ,but nowhere are they more obvious and nowhere have they made more headlines than than with leading members of the DUP..When their top politician betrays an entire community might be a place to start.I am asking for other examples to giv ethe thing some balance so let’s not leave it all up to me .This is a conversation, after all. Look back over these past few years and ask yourselfwho has made the news with bigoted,misogynistic, racist, homophobic utterances.I’m a fair man and I’ll not be shocked in the least.Some things are simple facts of history or reportage.I could add Arlene foster’s comments about nationalists not being trusted.That’s a fairly recent one .Now simply tell me who this lady represents. I know a bigot or a racist or a homophobe when I see one. I would never ask one of them to represent my interests in any sphere …on a matter of principle. so who do these people represent in such resounding numbers?
Now if the SDLP or Sinn Fein or Alliance came out with similar statements they would be equally abhorrent to me …but have they? If they have i’d want to know…so let’s have it.
Are you taking the broad brush stroke approach to a whole community now to Harry.
Painting a whole community on the actions of one political party, one pastor and one bakery?
So by your theory since the Catholic Church covered up child abuse, anyone who continues to go to mass and contribute to that church mustn’t have a problem with child abuse?
This is of course ridiculous, just as assuming everyone who is a Unionist is bigoted.
The DUP received 200,000 votes at the last assembly election. If you assume that the 41% of the NI population are Unionists (it’s a crude measure I admit) then that means 738,000 people are Unionists. That means that the DUP receive just under 30% of the Unionist vote.
This is the main reason why have object to the actions of the DUP be portioned out to me and every other Unionist 70% of us don’t even vote for them.
Scott, it is a fact that the majority of unionist voters are from the middle class.
The largest section of non voting unionists are from the working class areas who are the group that the flag burners and protesters come from.
Also why are you blaming everything on the DUP? It was the UUPs James Molyneax who said the IRA ending violence was the worst thing ever happened for unionism.
Was it not Mike Nesbitt who had the flyers attacking the Alliance party over the flying of the union flag which led to attacks on party members and constituency offices.
Makes a mockery of your statistics does it not?
It is not any one party, it is unionism in general that is the problem.
Really is it a fact that most Unionist voters are middle class. How could you possibly know that.
Well the combined DUP and UUP vote is around 290,000 out of roughly 738,000 so even the combined vote of the two largest Unionist political parties don’t even represent 40% of Unionists I.e not the majority.
Doesn’t suit your hatred Jessica, but there are many good people who are Unionists.
I have never said otherwise Scott.
As I say, it is not the people who are bigoted but unionism in Ireland, how it was achieved and how it is maintained that is bigoted.
Well Scott, you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think that I should show support in the Catholic Church’s child -abuse.As an atheist , myself I have my own feelings and thoughts about huge controlling complexes such as the Catholic Church. Churches are mostly benign and behind the theatricality and mystery , they attempt to do good deeds and can be a social glue in many circumstances.There is power in something like that and power will always be abused, by someone , at some point .Religion and politics are controlling mechanisms and that is well known so every person has a choice to make.Do I think that those that continue to contribute to that process by supporting it without sanction or thought is wrong .Yes I do… .is my answer.There are consequences in every action and there are consequences in giving anyone power over an individual .There are some bad clerics in every religion and there are some bad politicians within every party..but what do you say when the very leaders of a party blatently evoke racism in the full light of day? What did Hitler do and say when it concerned Jews? What does Trump say about Mexicans ?What did Peter Robinson say about Muslims? Somewhere you have to draw a line in the sand and think for yourself. Do I want these kinds of people speaking for me? I’ll leave it to each individual to decide that one and judge each by their actions and words. i haven’t heard the Pope abusing anyone yet but he seems to be a sensitive man.
I personally don’t think that everyone who attends Mass also supports child -abuse or that everyone who votes for the DUP is a bigoted racist… but many must be or then again they might not think too deeply about anything …or they might even be bloody stupid! Who knows? You can only think for yourself. They’re listening to and hearing the same things that I am hearing and they are still supporting it all by their words and deeds. I don’t believe in god , for example ,so it means little to me , personally, but every religion and every religious building on the planet that has been built to worship this entity, which I don’t believe actually exists, has been built by people and their money, who do believe. I would imagine that to have that kind of belief system involves making many compromises of logic so it’s probable that many are prepared to do just that.
I can understand the problems a non-religious/loyalist unionist might have when it come to having a thoughtful “political” unionist viewpoint rather than a “tribal” unionist viewpoint to vote for . The people he has to choose from and the political pool he can draw from ,are limited . Religion and politics are all mixed together here so a non-religious person has little choice too. …and many are also able to manipulate rational and irrational fears. I would say that it’s only Alliance as a unionist party ( that is…a party that is desireous of having an economic union continued with the current UK, until such time as it it would be salient to change tack at some future time and possibly make another political and economic union with , for example, the Republic of Ireland or maybe Scotland)…Alliance has fairly clean hands in that respect, because both the UUP and the DUP have both played the fear card throughout the years ,rather than any economic or rational political vision for a stabl e future. I’ve seen how they have manipulated people throughout this past fifty years…bringing them out onto the streetsand washing their hands when it all goes wrong…. and I’ve read how they done that in the years previous.
So ….we all have choices .Sometimes they are made because of changing circumstances. For example , many nationalists were prepared to vote for a Socialist and Democratic Labour Party(SDLP) for many years from the early 1970’s, because they saw themselves as Social Democrats…. and then they decided that becoming republicans and voting for an eventual republican ideal and changed their minds and alliances to Sinn Fein …but only when the IRA’s war with Britain had verifiably ended and the fighting had finally stopped.. Nationalists basically thought that Britain had ignored unionist hegemony in Northern Ireland for too many years and by doing so, had thrown them to the wolves .That was why they wanted independence from britain.That gained Sinn Fein some support .
Now , the way i see it is that republicanism should not simply be some political format supported by only a Catholic/Nationalism clan.It is and should be bigger than that. Unfortunately in Ireland it is portrayed as a form of Catholicism or Gaelicism which it really shouldn’t be.It is really a legitimate aspiration open to anyone .
Not everyone writing here is necessarily just a republican or a unionist. There are some who want to hear cogent and logical discussions about what the very best political path would be ….without the religion..without the bigotry….without the racism ….without the homophobia…
The best political path, in my opinion can only come out of sensible discussions by mature politicians who are committed to delivering the very best for the people they represent, which should include all of our people not only the community their membership came from.
If Stormont cannot work in an inclusive manner, then it should be closed down. It would not be tolerated in Britain, it would not be tolerated in the Irish Republic, why is it good enough for us to have to endure?
When our Taoiseach says we are not ready, he really means unionism is not ready.
I don’t always agree with Sinn Fein, I thought they were too soft on unionism, but now I see that their determination to be civil and tolerant towards the childish bigotry exuded from political unionism will stand by them.
If unionism is too immature to engage in grown up dialog then all island talks should continue without them.
They should not be allowed to hold us back over their intransigence.
As I’ve pointed out Harry the DUP only receive around 30% of the votes of the total Unionist population. This why I have a problem with the actions of that political party being somehow portioned out to me or the 70% who vote for someone else or don’t vote at all.
I don’t really accept that showing your support for a political party means that all actions by that party are portioned out to there voters universally. Bigoted or homophobic actions by the DUP doesn’t mean that all DUP voters are universally bigoted/homophobic, just as SF voters don’t universally support the use of violence in the past.
Political parties don’t normally receive votes based on single issues. Normally it’s a complicated cocktail of policies. A DUP voter may not like there stance on gay marriage, but after weighing the policies up vote for them due to there policies on education, health etc etc. Some may even support them due to there support of the Union, despite despising there stance on LGBT issues, if a individual feels that is the most important thing to them. I would imagine there are also SF/SDLP voters who are also ardent Catholics who disagree with the parties pro gay marriage stance yet vote SF/SDLP because they like there Socialist policies or there nationalism, or perhaps libertarian capitalist may vote for SF because they want a united Ireland despite SF being a Socialist party. Casting that vote for SF doesn’t make that person a Socialist.
I also look forward to the day when the discussion around the constitutional question can be one based purely around it being a political point of view. The example to us would be the discussion around Scottish independence, which while certainly passionate has proved perfectly civil.
“I also look forward to the day when the discussion around the constitutional question can be one based purely around it being a political point of view. The example to us would be the discussion around Scottish independence, which while certainly passionate has proved perfectly civil.”
And what exactly is it that is preventing our politicians from having a civil discussion around the constitutional question similar to the discussion around Scottish independence do you think Scott?
The opinion that talking about it might make it happen and we don’t want it so we wont talk about it is immature but it the position unionism in Ireland is taking, there was no such problem in Scotland.
Well as I said I personally don’t have a problem. If you want to know why the DUP/UUP won’t hold those talks you’d have to ask them I can’t speak for them.
My best guess however is that there won’t be serious talks around a United Ireland until there is a border poll. Serious talks about both Scottish independence and BREXIT didn’t start until the vote was called. Nothing focuses attention like a referendum.
The reason why we struggle in day to day society to match the civility of the Scottish referendum is really just down to are history. We have a long, complicated history were terrible things were done by all sides and people were killed and maimed in huge numbers in the name of a UI or the Union. This has left a large section of are people polarised one way or the other and makes civil discussion difficult. It opens old wounds I guess.
This doesn’t mean we should stop talking as dialogue and understanding another’s point of view is important even if you don’t accept there view.
This is why it’s also important to be careful with the language we use, Jessica.
Perhaps it’s only a matter of time though, as the younger generation who have never known violence grow older, then maybe the heat will go out of the debate on both sides and we can achieve that civility
I agree completely Scott.
How important must it be then that those who are meant to be leading Stormont don’t claim to have to hold their noses when dealing with their partners in government or to mock the Irish language and have no issues with public displays of bigotry?
I think it is reasonable to judge unionism as a whole on the actions of its elected representatives. Especially when the same attributes have been prevalent for 100 years.
“How important must it be then that those who are meant to be leading Stormont don’t claim to have to hold their noses when dealing with their partners in government or to mock the Irish language and have no issues with public displays of bigotry?”
Totally agree
“I think it is reasonable to judge unionism as a whole on the actions of its elected representatives. Especially when the same attributes have been prevalent for 100 years.”
This is were we differ. But we’ve done that dance already so I think I’ll just leave it at that. No point repeating the same arguments.
That should be “They’d done that ” rather than… “they done that”….silly typo again…
paddykool
Don’t you see; I mean really…
Drawing on the examples you give to try to confirm that Unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry is to do nothing other than fall foul of the same naive and disrespectful stereotyping of an entire community as you assume of the above.
But it’s OK – I defend your right to do so. I defend the right of any who wish to, to accuse me and my entire community of bigotry; I defend the right of others to offend me (not that I’m offended) and in the same way I defend the right of Irish Folk Bands to sings songs which tell British soldiers where to go and how to get here. I believe in freedom of speech.
And for the record, all of the examples you cite were wrong – so you’ll have to find me guilty of something else – although as I am someone who believes in original sin that shouldn’t be too difficult.
Peter, unionism being a sliding scale of bigotry was my opinion, not Harrys.
And it is directed at the overall concept of the union in Ireland, how it was achieved and how it is maintained. I have already explained it is not a direct judgement against individuals or a whole community.
But there has been no consent asked for or given for this union, and therefore to refuse to discuss it in case it goes against YOUR views only. Well, that is what I think is bigotry and goes against the principal of consent in my opinion also.
Stormont elections are not an approval for the union, as I and many others will not be voting for Stormont again but I am against this undemocratic union more now than ever.
Everything that Harry has said is true. If that is uncomfortable reading for you then perhaps you should consider why that is.
“But there has been no consent asked for or given for this union”
Yes there has.
“Stormont elections are not an approval for the union”
Yes they are.
Jessica
“unionism being a sliding scale of bigotry was my opinion, not Harrys.”
Yes, I know.
“And it is directed at the overall concept of the union in Ireland”
And if that’s the case you have a bit of untangling to do in your myriad comments. And, again, if so, then you still have to answer the question why one political view is required to deny itself in the investigation of another.
“I have already explained it is not a direct judgement against individuals or a whole community.”
Then perhaps you need a different word – bigotry tends to the personal.
“But there has been no consent asked for or given for this union”
I seem to recall an all island referendum not so many years ago – one of the first, if not the first since the 1918 general election.
“Stormont elections are not an approval for the union”
Who ever said they were?
“Everything that Harry has said is true.”
I haven’t denied that. (Although it tends to contradict your assertion that this bigotry business “is not a direct judgement against individuals or a whole community.”
His comment sort of looks like that – and you think them true.)
“If that is uncomfortable reading for you then perhaps you should consider why that is.”
Given that I agreed with him it is unlikely I would be uncomfortable.
The point I made was an entirely different one – it remains valid.
I only mentioned one political view, unionism.
The Good Friday Agreement recognises two traditional communities here, unionist or British and nationalist or Irish.
I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with you being a unionist, but to date, the unionist leadership have not acknowledged wrongs done it its name and are too often guilty of immaturity and displaying blatant bigotry. Even the stance of refusing to engage in dialog to prevent the risk of change without even knowing whether we would all be better off for that change is simply bigotry.
I am sorry that you find the truth hurtful, but it is equally hurtful to come out and state that you oppose talks about the best future for all of us if it includes the very option that I think would be best for all of us, unification. You are denying the exploration of my preference to guarantee your preference is the only show in town.
How do you think that makes me feel?
Until this is addressed properly through mature dialog, we will simply continue to hurt one another.
“I only mentioned one political view, unionism.”
Indeed – and on many, many occasions also referred to individuals and used personal pronouns such as ‘you’ i.e ‘me’.
You’re thinking of people, Jessica.
“I am sorry that you find the truth hurtful”
You know, I’m not really into relative truth; I really do think there is an objective truth somewhere, and I have never, ever denied that Unionism shares in the guilt, but I’m certainly hearing a lot of *your* truth.
“You are denying the exploration of my preference to guarantee your preference is the only show in town.”
Well, it’s called politics. As I said people may not like it but there is no requirement for Unionists to discuss a United Ireland.
And I presume that if there is a United Ireland, and you know I think there will be, there will be no great rush to discuss how Ireland might help Unionists achieve their preference by rejoining the UK…
I could ask, and how would that make me feel… but I won’t.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe we could keep on discussing this. When it’s a UK we could talk about becoming a United Ireland, and then when there is a United Ireland we could talk about rejoining the UK?!
“Until this is addressed properly through mature dialog, we will simply continue to hurt one another.”
Indeed. And there was me thinking the Belfast Agreement was an agreement, with a referendum across the whole island, and power-sharing.
But maybe I was wrong.
“I have never, ever denied that Unionism shares in the guilt, but I’m certainly hearing a lot of *your* truth.”
You do realise the only way to draw a line under this, is for a representative of unionism to acknowledge it.
James Molyneax once said unionism cannot wash its hands off its past. I disagree.
It cannot wash its hands off its past by denying it, by saying it was others who may have been unionist but didn’t represent my unionism, by refusing to engage in dialog or make any effort at reconciliation.
It can only wash it hands by acknowledging it and by trying to make a better future for all of our people.
I guarantee that is all it would take and the vast majority in my community would reciprocate positively.
“As I said people may not like it but there is no requirement for Unionists to discuss a United Ireland.”
But the use of bigotry and intransigence will only delay the inevitable, not prevent it and by the time the inevitable happens, you will have frustrated and pissed off the new majority of people in the north and the vast majority on this island.
“And I presume that if there is a United Ireland, and you know I think there will be, there will be no great rush to discuss how Ireland might help Unionists achieve their preference by re-joining the UK…”
No part of Ireland would settle for the current UK. The only way this could happen would be a new agreement between all parts of these islands and the only way that could happen is through dialog. I have already made a contribution article on this blog suggesting such an option so I am hardly opposed to discussing it.
As with any suggestions, it will be up to the people to decide what they like best so there is not any one person here on this site who can rule anything out. I am sure Cameron didn’t expect to lose the brexit vote just to prove the point.
Everything is possible, which is why I keep saying there should be no preconditions and nothing excluded from the table.
“Indeed. And there was me thinking the Belfast Agreement was an agreement, with a referendum across the whole island, and power-sharing.
But maybe I was wrong.”
The Good Friday Agreement was an agreement to allow the conflict to end.
It specifies that only peaceful methods should be used to pursue our aspirations for uniting Ireland and provides safety mechanisms to prevent unionism from abusing power and being discriminatory as it has always done. Just as it has abused the veto of concern, some things don’t change.
Hang on PF ……”to try to confirm thta unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry…” those are Jessica’s words ,remember. They are her’s alone . They are the words used in the general discussion, I’ll grant you, but I never said them. Jessica is well able to speak her own mind.
I am not trying to prove that statement at at all.I’m simply laying out the “facts”….the news items as I saw them coming through the ether and experienced them. If you can imagine someone who has a fairly open- mind and who will give any man or woman the benefit of the doubt ,until they put their size ten foot in their mouth …that person might be me….no matter the political persuasion or otherwise. I believe we are all capable of fallibility.It’s just thta our politicians like to put it on display.
Now , for example i could speculate that various broadcasters had made those things up for some agenda of their own or could even have faked them if you were a conspiracy theorist…I suppose they might have, but then they could make everything up about every news item , too, couldn’t they?The fact is that those things “happened” in the real world and were reported and discussed in the media and anyone with a radio, TV, computer or newspaper, who keeps up with the “fantasy” of our lives , had access to the very same stuff.Now how each individual goes about interpreting what we loosely call “reality” is up to each one of us, but there are a loose set of social laws which gives us some idea as to the difference between reality and say…insanity .We sort of know what each of those states looks and feels like so we agree thta certain things are real and some are not.It makes life just that little bit easier..
As I said above I didn’t accuse an entire community of bigotry.Sometimes I even wonder if a term like “community” has any real meaning, if we consider ourselves individuals at all in this modern world. The facts are that we can only really register the lie of the land and the way individuals think by considering the voting record….always bearing in mind that it is flawed because half of the people don’t vote at all, so we don’t know what they think or want anyway and they might even flip-flop from one day to the next.
Now when you say something like..
.” And for the record, all of the examples you cite were wrong – so you’ll have to find me guilty of something else – although as I am someone who believes in original sin that shouldn’t be too difficult.”..
..you can’t simply leave a nebulous statement like that hanging in the air without explaining and qualifying exactly what you mean by those words. In the abstract they actually don’t mean anything at all so I don’t know what it is you are trying to say.”The example you cite were “wrong” ….”tells the reader nothing…Explain why they are wrong in the context and maybe we’ll have an idea as to why you think they were wrong. Something like your phrase …”as I am someone who believes in original sin that shouldn’t be too difficult.”..actually doesn’t make any sense to me either…unless you happen to be a mind-reader…which I’m afraid, I’m not.What does that mean , exactly?
Paddykool
I’m not much past the fist paragraph… so time to stop, breath, and read on.
I’ll be back in a minute. Live reactions as we go.
“those are Jessica’s words ,remember. They are her’s alone”
Yes, I know.
” They are the words used in the general discussion, I’ll grant you,”
I know.
“but I never said them”
I know. (struggling to see the point, here, Paddykool. – but I’ll read on)
“I am not trying to prove that statement at at all.”
I didn’t use the word prove – I said “confirm” – there is a difference: similar, but to a lesser degree.
“I’m simply laying out the “facts””
Yes, the stories you cited are facts, I’ve already acknowledged that.
“the news items as I saw them coming through the ether and experienced them.”
Interestingly there have been other news stories since.
“Now , for example i could speculate that various broadcasters had made those things up for some agenda …”
Irrelevant – and obviously not true.
“The fact is that those things “happened” in the real world”
I know.
“As I said above I didn’t accuse an entire community of bigotry”
And this is where it gets interesting. Because all the examples you chose, and as Scott has pointed out you could have chosen others, were from the broadly Protestant / Unionist community.
Why choose those examples on a thread were “sliding sales of Unionist bigotry” is being discussed?
And why then ask “There’s not much “live -and -let- live ” there in that attitude … is there?”
And why ask, “Ask yourself which party they might hail from and which community …and where they draw their supporter from .If they are bigots…and it’s looking that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ….that it probably is a duck , it’s also reasonable to assume that the people who support them and the party they represent might just have a problem with bigotry too.”
And why slip in a reference to Nationalists only at the end, with no examples of bigotry from that community?
If I’d wanted to imply something that’s exactly what I would have done. But you weren’t implying anything, so that’s OK – but why join this particular discussion? I’m not sure.
But maybe you were being more direct than implication:
“Just let me think for a moment….that’s right …it’s another strike for unionism.!!”
That would be Unionism. That would be an accusation against Unionism on a thread in which Unionists are being accused of being on a sliding scale of bigotry.
I’m confused, Paddykool.
“As I said above I didn’t accuse an entire community of bigotry. Sometimes I even wonder if a term like “community” has any real meaning”
Which is odd given that you said, “Now ask yourself which community…” That sure looks like the word has some meaning there.
Then to this:
“you can’t simply leave a nebulous statement like that hanging in the air without explaining and qualifying exactly what you mean by those words.”
It’s not nebulous at all. It means that I, quite simply, think that all the examples you gave in reference to things said and done by people supposedly associated with the Unionist community are wrong.
In other words I would not have done any of those things and do not support those who do, doing them.
As for the original sin comment, that was just straightforward sarcasm – I should apologise for it.
Let’s put it like this. Let’s assume that I don’t give a rat’s arse where bigotry comes from… Give me …say four examples besides those I mentioned that have appeared in the media. in the past four years.Wee will take it from there.Okay?
paddykool
I’m not much into whataboutery – and have posted none on this website – and I’m not about too start now.
But I will say this: in response to your request, I spent about 5 mins on the websites of two Irish newspapers – one North, one South.
5 mins – 4 stories, which could easily be made to fit the terms of bigotry as given in the comments section of this website.
But none of that is the point.
For the past week, Unionists visiting this website have been subject to a series of comments which boil down to, “Ah ya will ya will ya will, ya will admit you’re a bigot.
And you wonder why people get defensive?
But you’ll get no whataboutery from me.
Sorry, I’m not calling anyone a bigot.
In relation to PF…
“It’s not nebulous at all. It means that I, quite simply, think that all the examples you gave in reference to things said and done by people supposedly associated with the Unionist community are wrong.
In other words I would not have done any of those things and do not support those who do, doing them.”…
I have to say that you are deluded if you imagine that those incidents that I mentioned are not seen to be associated with the unionist community, because anyone looking at those incidents right across the world are of the opinion that it can be seen in no other way.Do you really believe that Peter Robinson was not seen as a unionist when he said those words about the Muslim community? Do you really believe that someone associated with something like the Orange Order is not seen as a unionist? Are there any Orangemen in the SDLP or in Sinn Fein?Do you really believe that when Gregory Campbell stands up and makes a fool of himself with some asinine jokey reference to the culture of millions of Irish people across Ireland that he has not been voted into that position by unionists and is representing them?
I’m not saying that you ,personally would ever do or think such boorish things at all, PF. I’m simply pointing out that it is people of a unionist persuasion …and in some cases the very leaders of unionist parties, who at times refer to their followers as the PUL(Protestant Unionist Loyalist) community ,who have literally done these things.
I don’t think that is really in dispute and I can understand why you might not want to be associated with them. While it is possible that they ,personally, are simple bigots , in plain sight ,and do not wish that those who vote for them to be similarly bigoted is something of a stretch for me. For example …if Donald Trump was standing for election , i’d know immediately that the man is wrong and I wouldn’t support him in any way.But do you really think that followers of such people, don’t also share their views? I wouldn’t support them.That’s the same position i would have myself.
Why …I ask myself do some politicians constantly say and do these things.?I’m still asking for other examples of bigotry , racism and homophobia that you can personally remember from the recent media….just as an exercise to see where this stuff comes from.If it comes from anywhere else i’d still have the very same opinion. if there are bigoted Nationalist , Jewish, Muslim , politicians out there , i’d be of the same opinion. Show them up for what they are .Simple bigots. Take another look and ask yourself who do these people represent . I understand they do not represent you personally …but who or where do their votes originate?As far as I can see, for example, it is the DUP who represents the largest voting bloc and that voting bloc is drawn from a specific political sphere whose desire is for them to lead and represent them .They obviously hold the same viewpoints as those that represent them otherwise they would not vote them into power.
Another nice example for you Harry.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/bigot-launches-disgusting-attack-bloody-8598604#LbK3XBpwS7derxU7.97
PF …I’m not much interested about what you call “whataboutery” myself.Like I said,I’m not one for assisting in re-fighting a war either , anyway.I simply look at humanity with a jaundiced eye. It’s not about me or you scoring points off each other. I couldn’t care less about that.What I do care about is living in a sane and moral society where my life isn’t guided by fools and cretins.I don’t personally care whether or not they are “orange” cretins or “green” ones. I’d prefer that they were all rooted out before we proceed any further and that is what is needed here and now . There’s no point someone pretending to me that they are a moral and upstanding person when their very words and deeds tell me otherwise.That is why I ask the questions I ask. I have a very clear mind on this and their choice of politics will not excuse them .
PS ..PF…
I’d almost forgotten.Now that we’ve cleared up the idea that bigotry can appear in any sphere and come in any colour… and that neither of us is a fan of “whataboutery”…and that if bigots exist they should be discussed and talked about no matter where they should appear, my curious mind would still would enjoy reading about those other examples in the stories you mentioned.thus…
“But I will say this: in response to your request, I spent about 5 mins on the websites of two Irish newspapers – one North, one South.
5 mins – 4 stories, which could easily be made to fit the terms of bigotry as given in the comments section of this website.
But none of that is the point.”….
Now I wouldn’t insist that you regurgitated them word for word but the links to a few of them would be a great start, please and we can possibly carry on our conversation with more clarity.
paddykool
You have made a few replies now and I’ll try to may my way through what I think are the most relevant parts. But please bear in mind that my main concern, at least at the moment, on this website is to counter the lazy and blanket allegation that unionism/Unionists are bigots.
“I have to say that you are deluded if you imagine that those incidents that I mentioned are not seen to be associated with the unionist community…”
Of course they are “seem to be associated with the unionist community” – but with *seem to be* being an important part of this conversation, and the reason I used the words, “supposedly associated with the Unionist community”
Now, why do this? Well, two of the examples you gave were directly related to Unionist politicians, but the other two were related to what we might call Protestant Christians.
Now, Protestant Christians might well be “seen to be associated with the unionist community”, but not necessarily so – and this demonstrates part of the problem of this conversation in that the comments lack nuance and sufficient understanding of my (the Protestant and Unionist) community/s.
Unfortunately this also serves to further highlight the stereotypical nature of the allegations.
Protestant Christians may well vote unionist, but some don’t, indeed some of Protestant Christianity tends to an a-political stance, and neither of the Christian denominations associated with the examples mentioned above have any link with any political party.
We just can’t go around making these lazy assumptions.
So, no, I’m not deluded – I know exactly what I’m talking about when I talk about the breadth of my religious and political community/s.
And it is therefore not true when you say, “I’m simply pointing out that it is people of a unionist persuasion… who have literally done these things.”
So, yes, it is in dispute. I am disputing the accuracy of your attribution of these disputes to Unionism.
What we can say with accuracy, is that two of the examples relate to people associated with Unionism, while two relate to people associated with Protestant Christianity.
Furthermore, while I would have baked the cake, for example, that does not necessarily mean that the people who did not are guilty of bigotry. (But that is another debate). And we must also bear in mind that the pastor in question was cleared in court.
With regard to the media then, and some recent stories, those may well have been the most prominent in your mind, but I maintain that had you wished to bring some balance to this debate you might have looked a little further, and it would have led to less confusion.
As to the stories you request – and I must very strongly insist that you do not interpret these as a form of whataboutery – those I found relate to:
This week’s story about certain Catholics being considered traitors.
To Unionist symbols being burnt on a Republican bonfire.
To the current problems at Maynooth
And to an increase in racist incidents in Ireland.
The first two from The Newsletter, the last two reports in The Irish Times.
In conclusion, I really do think that we would all benefit from a greater understanding of one another and will immediately say that I do not have full understanding of the issues in the news reports I have given – they are there for conversational purposes only. If I am wrong, please fell free to put me right.
“Furthermore, while I would have baked the cake, for example, that does not necessarily mean that the people who did not are guilty of bigotry”
Excuse me??
For a business to refuse to serve an individual because their legitimate life choices go against the business owners religious views is absolutely bigotry, no question about it. Bigotry may not be a legal crime but it is nothing to be proud off or to defend either.
“So, yes, it is in dispute. I am disputing the accuracy of your attribution of these disputes to Unionism.”
Really, than can you answer a few questions for honestly for me Peter and I would do the same in return?
Who introduced the gun into Irish politics?
Who was the first paramilitary group in Ireland?
Who committed mutiny and risked civil war to defy home rule for Ireland?
What actions led to the start of the conflict in 1968 or 1969
Now that we have peace and power sharing:
Do you think Sinn Fein are making a genuine effort at reconciliation?
Do you think the DUP or UUP are making a genuine effort at reconciliation?
Since power sharing in Stormont began, have you ever seen Sinn Fein stand with any of the dissident republican paramilitaries over a controversy or dispute?
Since power sharing in Stormont began, have you ever seen the DUP or UUP stand with loyalist paramilitaries over a controversy or dispute?
Have Sinn Fein made a satisfactory effort at moving their community away from violence and in support of peace and reconciliation?
Have the DUP or UUP made a satisfactory effort at moving their community away from violence and in support of peace and reconciliation?
That’s much better PF.It’s a great response , clearly laying out your viewpoints and is much better than the lazy cut-and-paste slanging matches and bland non-sequiturs that many others consider to be a conversation.
Given, that across the land political parties draw their support from the available populace…and given that there is a tendency for both the media and probably outsiders too to lump us all together as two loosely warring groups, that might be where some of our own perceptions and misinterpretations are built.It’s only by discussing them outside of the sloganising that we can begin to understand the subtleties and realise that we are all individuals and not really just a herd of creatures with a single viewpoint.
I think everything you have said about protestant/unionists can equally be compared with catholic /nationalists…in that there can be loose associations between the religious(cultural?) and the political.Most Christian clergymen …for example ,are of the “love- thy- neighbour” persuasion right across the board but there are also some who are very politically motivated too.Then again many readers of the BIble cleave to a pre-Christian ethos and would rather cite the Old Testament version of “an eye-for -an -eye” rather than the later “Jesus” version of “turn -the -other-cheek” and “do-unto-others-as you-would -have-done- to-yourself”.It could be debated that they some of them are not actually “Christian” at all, but actually … “pre-Christian”, in their even more ancient thinking .Like I say elsewhere , that confusion causes those of a religious persuasion some very acute problems at times when dealing with the issues of the “real” world.I do not have those confusions as I don’t believe any of is relevant to my reality .As I’v e said before, religion should really be a private pleasure…something to be quietly indulged inside the privacy of the individual’s brain .
I’ll agree that for example those who baked the”gay” cake may have been guilty of nothing more than social-foolishness and may, in all innocence , have had no real idea of the ramifications that denying a customer a service because of the promotion of his or her sexual proclivity, might pile down on their heads.I’m sure, had they thought about it at all, they might have saved themselves the following years of grief and simply baked the damned cake and took the money.Who needs that hassle , eh? Life can be tough enough without making it tougher.
That baker might simply have failed to keep up with a fast, socially-changing world and the law of the land that protects all of the citizenry, equally and without favour .It may simply be that the bakers were not quite up to speed with the nature of a public business and were not acting in a bigoted way at all….just in a foolish way.Remember that their actions could as easily have been applied to any social grouping or religion. What if they had denied a black person or a buddhist their service because they didn’t agree with their religion, race or politics?What would be the reasonable social and civic response? Someone in public business has to understand these things as much as they have to understand health and safety regulations.Of course there is also the argument as to how far “free-speech” can go before you are required to promote” hate -speech” ,as well, but I don’t think that argument applies on this occasion. Common -sense should have ruled. I , personally think that it didn’t and in doing so will provide a nice little earner for a lot of lawyers.
The bakery was not a specific “religious ” bakery , because many of the staff had no notion of their employer’s persuasion until this incident occurred ,but after it , both religion and politics raised their heads.What you have to ask yourself then is who came out in support of their political/religious stance…..Which political groupings? That brings political intent into the equation…and only then. The DUP immediately decided that they wanted to change the law and bring in a “conscience clause” to sidestep the current law that pertains in the rest of the UK.I don’t know whether or not those politicians were “bigoted” against gays per- se, but they do have some form in other areas, so conclusions will be drawn. Maybe the solution was for the bakers to inform the public of their limitations before the customer enters the business at all.My solution would be to sub-let the particular service to someone else without the same inhibitions.
Those example you mentioned re bigotry in the press :
“This week’s story about certain Catholics being considered traitors.
To Unionist symbols being burnt on a Republican bonfire.
To the current problems at Maynooth
And to an increase in racist incidents in Ireland.”
….are more examples of bigotry ,I think and should equally be condemned. Like I said , each souce of bigotry needs to be studied dispassionately and condemned. There are plenty of nationalist bigots around too ,as there are plenty of nationalist racists. There are also racists of every colour. I think it is right to mention specifically ,if this comes from the leaders of political parties though. They are in positions of power after all.
I’m not sure that” bigotry” comes into the Maynooth situation.Wasn’t that about abuse more than anything else? That’s more to do with the corruption that power and privilege can sometimes bring. That kind of abuse can always rear its head in religious cults and enclosed communities. I don’t think it’s “bigotry” though.
The piece that Jessica linked to also seems like abject bigotry to me .You can read it here…
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/bigot-launches-disgusting-attack-bloody-8598604#Z580S2lXxfWP6DEr.97
it doesn’t make for pleasant reading but it surely seems like he fits the description. He could well be our posterboy for “First Bigot Of The Month” in our proposed new series. He certainly seems to tick all the boxes, don’t you think?
Jessica
I see you are setting the terms of the discussion again!
But I’ll start here:
“Who introduced the gun into Irish politics?”
Are you thinking of any gun in particular, or should we go back to the pike, or perhaps the axe and flint blade of Neolithic man?
Who was the first paramilitary group in Ireland?
No idea. Maybe it was the Protestant Peep o’Day Boys or the Catholic Defenders.
Maybe Queen Medb had something to do with it when she went after that brown bull.
You see, Jessica, when people ask loaded questions… I don’t expect my answers to be accepted.
Jessica
On the other matter of the cake.
““Furthermore, while I would have baked the cake, for example, that does not necessarily mean that the people who did not are guilty of bigotry”
Excuse me??
For a business to refuse to serve an individual because their legitimate life choices go against the business owners religious views is absolutely bigotry, no question about it. Bigotry may not be a legal crime but it is nothing to be proud off or to defend either.”
You, as well as I, will know that this is still a matter awaiting judgment; but on the broader point, yes, it is possible to disagree with, and even refuse to do something and not be a bigot.
Do try to see beyond our modern malaise of having to agree with, and even affirm every thing and every one in order to be acceptable to society. We are a poorer nation for being unable to state our case, act according to our conscience and robustly disagree with others without having to pretend we agree with everything.
This case has be discussed ad nauseam and I have already given my views about what I would have done, but I’ll leave the last word to a Gay Rights campaigner:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion
“You, as well as I, will know that this is still a matter awaiting judgment; but on the broader point, yes, it is possible to disagree with, and even refuse to do something and not be a bigot.”
This was a specific case, where a business offering a service to the public, refused that service to an individual on the basis of their legitimate life choices.
That is bordering on a business saying we are not serving blacks or not serving Irish.
I don’t need a judgement to know that is bigotry, it was disgraceful behaviour and I would not buy anything off that business ever over it.
In fact it puts me off shopping in Tesco’s seeing their products on the shelf.
You are entitled to your views Peter, but perhaps you should consider whether you are a little too tolerant of bigotry
I haven’t set any terms Peter and they weren’t loaded questions, if you are going to call yourself a unionist then these are facts you are going to have to acknowledge. Facts don’t stop being facts by ignoring them.
The Peep o’Day Boys later orange boys which are the origins of the orange order were never a paramilitary group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Carson
On Sunday 28 September 1912 ‘Ulster Day’, he was the first signatory on the Ulster Covenant, which bound 447,197 signatories[19] to resist Home Rule with the threat that they would use “all means necessary” after Carson had established the Ulster Volunteers, the first loyalist paramilitary group. From it the Ulster Volunteer Force was formed in January 1913 to undergo military training and purchase arms. In Parliament Carson rejected any olive branch for compromise demanding Ulster ‘be given a resolution rather than a stay of execution.'[21] The UVF received a large arms cache from Germany on the night of 24 April 1914
“The Peep o’Day Boys later orange boys which are the origins of the orange order were never a paramilitary group.”
Define paramilitary group and explain why the Peep o’ Day Boys weren’t such a group.
Also explain why the Fenians, which existed before the UVF, weren’t such a group.
The peep oday boys were citizens who worked by day and at night raided catholic homes taking it upon themselves to enforce penal laws where catholics were not entitled to have firearms. They were basically vigilante thugs and not in any way organised into a military structure.
The Fenians or IRB I suppose would qualify. It looks like I have that one wrong MT.
My apologies for the error.
“The Fenians or IRB I suppose would qualify. It looks like I have that one wrong MT.My apologies for the error.”
I’m glad your have acknowledged at least one of your errors.
Jessica
This all depends on the use of your term paramilitary.
I see no reason why opposing agrarian forces (Peep o’Day Boys and Defenders) should not be called paramilitary forces.
But the point I was making was a wider one, Ireland, like much of the rest of Europe (we’ll stick with Europe) has been a boiling cauldron of warfare for centuries and any attempt to pinpoint any one event or group as the genesis of all our ills is futile.
And to be honest, if you don’t mind my saying, why don’t you try something by Jonathan Bardon or Sean Connolly rather than Wikipedia?
I think you are right Peter, I have got that one wrong.
Not sure why I thought that or why it want pointed out to me sooner. Not the first time and probably not the last. 🙂
apologies for the mistake
Jessica
You could always shop somewhere else if you didn’t want to be too tolerant of bigotry.
But maybe it’s just easier to write about your indignance.
“You could always shop somewhere else if you didn’t want to be too tolerant of bigotry.”
I would certainly shop somewhere else but I would also challenge them rather than tolerate bigotry.
It would be like seeing a shop with a sign saying no blacks, no Irish and doing nothing but moving on to another shop. That is not where we should be in the 21st century Peter.
And, as I said, the matter is still waiting judgement, and one of the points in question is the cake rather than the person. Something noted in the linked article I gave.
Jessica, apology appreciated. All in all I think we can all learn from each other, but stepping outside each of our backgrounds is difficult for all of us. And remember, I’ve never said that Unionism is guiltless.
First of all, that is actually a good idea Harry.
Secondly, how sad is it, that we line in a society, where that is actually a good idea?
Thirdly, can you believe the vociferousness of the reaction from our so called moderate unionist lite to even entertain the thought of talking about all options to make our lot better if there is the remotest chance, unification might be mentioned?
It is as if they know in their hearts we would be better off with unification than division, but are prepared to make us all suffer over the intolerance of unionism.
I see you are now being attacked over daring to question the integrity of unionism, and you have never been anything other than the voice of reason even showing my own bigotry at times.
It is enough to make someone despair.
“I see you are now being attacked over daring to question the integrity of unionism”
That’s patent nonsense.
If nothing else, the lines I quoted below demonstrate that.
And the restraint with which the Unionist contributors here have responded to catch all condemnations of bigotry, and their continued willingness to participate in conversation demonstrate it.
Put any other human descriptor instead of Unionist into the phrase – Unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry – (not to mention your other description of us on another thread) and see how happy people are with it then.
Not much, I’d imagine.
But, yes, let’s keep talking – whatever you think of us – I’ve no problem with that.
Peter, the sliding scale of bigotry means simply that the bottom line, the line which cannot be crossed, the be all and end all of unionism is in itself bigoted.
You have confirmed it yourselves.
You don’t want any talks at political level to discuss openly, without any pre-conditions whatsoever, ALL of the options, a closer union with Britain, whatever benefits you think more subjectiveness to the crown will bring into it ?!?!?, complete independence, out of the UK and closer into the EU or something else entirely.
But I want more. I am not content with the scraps handed down from England or tl make do with what suits them best. I want to be part of a prosperous and thriving Irish nation. I believe whole heartedly that through unification we can achieve so much more.
But because unionism does not want to leave its own little bubble, our political leaders hands are tied and the rest of us will just have to suck it up.
Yes, poor unionists, having to suffer the insolence of someone pointing out how their self serving stance is impacting on others.
Why dont I go away and flog myself for having dared to bring it up.
So, we have to accept your suggestion for discussions otherwise we’re bigots?
Funnily enough, my view is that the Belfast Agreement has weakened the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.
I think the Belfast Agreement has made a United Ireland more likely.
The Belfast Agreement has opened up the possibly of an Irish referendum on the Unity question – repeatedly, until the vote is for unity and then it stops.
The British Government (my own) has declared no interest in Northern Ireland.
The Belfast Agreement resulted in cross border bodies which, by definition, accepts an all island agenda.
Devolved government weakens the Union – why else would the SNP be so in favour of it?
So yeh, I apologise for my self-serving stance, and for wanting to drag my heels, and for wanting to postpone the inevitable, and for being a Unionist – and if all that makes me a bigot… well, so be it.
But I’d urge patience, Jessica, patience – we’re on a one way street, and it doesn’t stop in London.
So don’t flog yourself, prepare yourself for Irish Unity – the Union was lost years ago.
Well Jessica …sometimes i think that much is lost in translation…. or sometimes I think that lines are cherry-picked out of context…sometimes what gets me is the laziness of the “cut- copy-and-paste” approach where there is actually no real response at all…just a blank statement without detail, which is supposed to pass for reasoned fact.There are a few like that out there and we all know them.They don’t read here to debate ; they read to attack a perceived idea without actually listening or being prepared to accept a historical truth.As the saying goes ..”Some people cannot handle the truth”…thatis something I’ve always found to be true in my life.
Take this timeline of “the Troubles” ,for example…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process .
Here is something that most sane people could possible recognise as a reality and refer to or argue about. It sketches out the historical story I know , having lived through it all. Why would anyone have a problem reading through that and possibly using it as a starting point to go into the record in greater detail/ Don’t ask me why, but some of our readers appear to believe it happened in some other way or in some other world ….like an alternative universe in a comic -book.
I’m beginning to think that the problem here is the way you have constructed your argument (although as you point out yourself it is an assertion rather than an argument); anyway, to the key paragraph:
“There are two communities here, one of which wants to be reunited with the rest of our country. The Good Friday Agreement legitimises that aspiration and it must be respected by the political leadership of unionism, and *that means not only talking about it but helping make sure the transition works* for everybody.” (emphasis added)
Jessica
There is no necessary requirement for an aspiration which has been legitimised by the Belfast Agreement to be furthered towards a reality by Unionism.
A United Ireland is a legitimate aspiration, and one I respect, but I am not required to hasten it.
If you understand that one key difference we will have made progress on this issue.
Don’t we realise, folks, that it is the Unionists here who are trying to steer the conversation away from blanket accusations of bigotry against whomever.
Odd, isn’t it, for those who come from a community so bigoted?
So in the same vein I’ll finish this comment with some reflection about our community by one from our community: some Unionist self-reflection – here goes:
W.R Rodgers (Presbyterian Minister and Poet)
from Epilogue
An angular people, brusque and Protestant,
For whom the word is still a fighting word,
Who bristle into reticence at the sound
Of the round gift of the gab in Southern mouths.
Mine were not born with silver spoons in gob,
Nor would they thank you for the gift of tongues;
The dry riposte, the bitter repartee’s
The Northman’s bite and portion, his deep sup
Is silence…
Now, folks, time to raise the game with this self-reflection malarky – we know all about ourselves, so over to you.
I think BT summed it up nicely
It is good to talk!
PF you might enjoy this.
I found it a while ago and it’s from an old New York Times article from the early 1900’s I think.
It’s called The characteristics of a Ulsterman
http://article.archive.nytimes.com/1876/08/27/80344553.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJBTN455PTTBQQNRQ&Expires=1470732821&Signature=%2FL%2F2bNBDVo4zNUM5NwaKC6Zqecg%3D
It’s a PDF file so you’ll need a PDF file to load it.
While I don’t really buy that there’s such a thing as national characteristics, there certainly is a portion of truth in it and is a bit of fun if nothing else.
Hope the link loads ok.
Thank you, Scott, a very interesting read. As you say, a portion of truth, and a bit of fun. I can certainly see a bit of me in it!
Yes a lot of truth in that article!
I’m afraid it will not loadfor me Scott…pity
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZT18761229.2.40
Try that one Harry. I think the other one expired
If you put in “characteristics of the Ulsterman” into google it should be the first site at the top of the page. It’s from a archived NY Times article from 1876.
I got it Scott.It was very entertaining . I wrote something similar about a month back…on the nature how mythology might develop…..http://www.judecollins.com/2016/07/hibernia-mythos-origins-racism-blackcurrant-jam/
No takers for self-reflection on their own community, then?
No, No, It’s themuns, they started it.
“So in summary, I get to decide what a unionist is and ergo I get to decide who is a bigot, and if you don’t like that, well, you’re a bigot”
Right. Gotcha.
Why let evidence get in the way?
“So in summary, I get to decide what a unionist is and ergo I get to decide who is a bigot, and if you don’t like that, well, you’re a bigot”
No AG. now you are just being facetious.
Whether you like it or now, Unionism in Ireland has brought the gun into Irish politics, it has mutinied against England to show its resolve to maintain undemocratic control, it has discriminated against my people, it has been responsible for some of the most extreme expressions of bigotry in the history of this planet by using physical force against a peaceful campaign for civil rights, it has started a bloody conflict in Ireland and attempted to blame others while accepting zero fault.
To this day, not one single representative of unionism has acknowledged its role in starting the conflict.
While this remains the case, DONT YOU DARE come on this site and protest about people who have suffered at the hands of unionism, from pointing out the insolence and intransigence still evident within unionism today.
DONT YOU DARE
“While this remains the case, DONT YOU DARE come on this site and protest about people who have suffered at the hands of unionism, from pointing out the insolence and intransigence still evident within unionism today.
DONT YOU DARE
”
I won’t dare at all because that’s not what I’ve done.
I’ve simply called you to account for your blanket branding and as usual you just reel off your list of hurt.
It’s understandable but it’s not valid to the point you’re trying to make.
You made a mistake in your lazy blanket branding and just like the unionist politicians that you are angry with you are acting just like them.
Just saying, wood-trees-scenario.
“Whether you like it or now, Unionism in Ireland has brought the gun into Irish politics, it has mutinied against England to show its resolve to maintain undemocratic control, it has discriminated against my people, it has been responsible for some of the most extreme expressions of bigotry in the history of this planet by using physical force against a peaceful campaign for civil rights, it has started a bloody conflict in Ireland and attempted to blame others while accepting zero fault.
To this day, not one single representative of unionism has acknowledged its role in starting the conflict.
”
I never said it didn’t so I don’t know why you keep repeating it in such a fashion that hints that I did.
“How many of them I wonder would be surprised to learn that the actual issue is not with Republicans refusing to contemplate such a thing, but that the representatives of unionism are incapable of even discussing anything other than Northern Ireland within the UK or the UK as a whole. Even the thought of the 26 counties being associated with their vision of the UK stirs them into a frenzy.”
So now we’ve moved from ‘unionism’ to ‘leaders of unionism’.
Jessica
According to your logic, republicanism is about murder, semtex and bombs?
(Obviously it isn’t, it’s a fine and valid ideology that’s been tarnished but if I use your logic of association then I easily arrive at said conclusion. Your rules, not mine).
In summary of these 2 articles by Jessica:
https://thunderf00tdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/rasist.jpg
The flaw by those who think shouting “bigot” is a winning argument us that it assumes that tolerance is only a virtue. For a civilisation to thrive there are certain things that should be tolerated and certain things which should not. As Aristotle said “Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying civilisation”
Talking about the extermination of one’s own homeland is not going to be tolerated by any noble individual who cares about the wellbeing of his own people.
Shouting bigot us not an argument Paul.
Pointing out bigotry where it exists is not a bad thing and unionism has it in abundance and all to often behaves in ways which should not have to be tolerated by anyone.
As for the extermination of one’s own homeland. No one is going to exterminate any part of Ireland.
That was the sort of paranoid thinking that caused unionism to start the conflict in the first place. Once again you prove my point that the poor leadership of unionism is not only failing to make any effort at reconciliation but feeding such nonsense that you have just come out with.
It is my opinion that this is no accident either.