Today, the Ulster Unionists Party are the polite supremacist bigots. No longer do they scream “We don’t want a Fenian voice about the place!”; instead they whisper “Please be quiet, your rights are unimportant to our never-ending socio-economic aspirations.”
The UUP governed Northern Ireland from its inception in 1921 until the Stormont parliament was prorogued in 1972. Throughout that period the UUP proactively nurtured the sectarian-ridden society that continues to blight our lives.
Historian Eamon Phoenix examined the Northern Ireland state school system under the stewardship of the UUP and reported in the Irish News:
‘…Whatever distorted or anaemic story this Government-sponsored narrative of the six counties may tell, we must bear in mind that there was an official embargo on Irish history books in the schools.’
In her assessment of the formative years of the Northern Ireland state school system, academic Professor Pritchard opined:
‘The [Irish] language… was largely rejected in the education system as experienced by unionist children in Northern Ireland. It is argued that such an overwhelmingly anglocentric orientation, not just in language, but also in History and Geography… alienated unionists… from their birthright entitlement to access and enjoy their native Irish language, sports and culture.
No-matter what the silver-tongued leadership of the UUP might say here in 2017, the party’s founding supremacist and sectarian ethos remains intact:
- MLADoug Beattie tells citizens he knows to be Irish republicans “You’re British like me”. Is this not contrary to the ‘parity’ and ‘respect’ to be accorded to Irish nation(al) identity as per the GFA?
- MPDanny Kinaghan proudly stood beside a Unionist bonfire preparing to burn the Irish nation’s Tricolour flag referred to by another member as ‘the flag of a foreign hostile’ nation’. Was this not sectarian conduct equally contrary to the GFA?
- CouncillorCarol Black resigned as part of a mass internal revolt, accusing the UUP leader of ‘destroying the ethos of the party’ by announcing he might award a preference vote to a Nationalist who stood no chance of winning a seat.
- LeaderMike Nesbitt unapologetically opposes a Irish language protection Act and deploys the same ‘financial’ excuse belatedly conjured by DUP bigots.
Yesterday on BBC Talkback, the UUP’s leader Mike Nesbitt had a car crash pre-election interviewc in particular during his interactions with Callers George and Teresa:
The UPP leader revealed
- i) The party is unwilling to be bound by any agreements (SAA) entered into by the British and Irish governments and/or elected representatives of the Unionist and Nationalist communities.
- ii) The party were unable to deny British penal laws first politicised the Irish language by banning it. The UUP government further politicised it by excluding it from the NI state school curriculum.
iii) The party are supposedly unafraid of a border poll, yet they argue that they entered into a pact with the DUP to prevent SF securing a majority of MPs and thereby persuading the SOS to call a border poll.
The nature of the violent and sectarian state the UUP presided over for 50 odd years is well documented. However – in contrast to the media relentlessly hounding republicans to confront their past, to date the party has not felt obliged to face responsibility for the horrors of the UUP’s past.
Then MN has signed his political death warrant?
“MN has signed his political death warrant”
How will that effect collum Dominic?
If you vote collum you get mike, if you vote mike you get collum.
If mike signs a death warrant does collum get one too?
It means we’re fucked
Don’t forget that for most of those early years the sham state and parliament was attended by the Nationalist/SDLP in their grim defence of wild birds. They gave a veneer of respectability to this bastard state by attending Stormont and all its functions,accepting awards from the German Queen etc. So when complaining about the bigoted, discriminatory,anti Irishness of the Ulster Unionist party, don’t forget their Uncle Toms.
I wonder what you would have done fiosrach if you lived in that generation that had partition forced upon them,with civil war in the south and pogroms in the north. People do what they always do: Their best. Did the provos do us any favours when things came to a head in 1969. We were wofully ignorant and uninformed. It wasn’t the best that came to the fore but the worst. The best did their best as they usually do and still do to this day.
You really mean,Dominic,that those in a position to better themselves did so. As they usually do.
I give up.
Jessica, sometime that you have a spare half hour, this may interest you. On http://www.historyireland.com if you search “The Boundary Commission Debacle 1925” you will get your eyes opened.
That’s a harrowing read ,fiosrach…
We were sold by the Free State establishment for a mess of potage. The staters actually accepted and bargained over partition and threw us to the wolves.
Fiosrach I don’t know if you have children or not but do you really want them to carry the weight of history on their backs. This came down on our generation like a ton of bricks ruining many lives. It lives on and this very day 22 February 2017 a policeman could have been killed, his family hurled into a world of pain and anguish.
It does indeed, there are families who’s loved ones were killed by the state, where evidence has been found proving state collusion and more, yet the evidence is being denied to their legal teams.
Britain is about to allow a hard border be imposed in Ireland with no real consideration or concern of the consequences in any part of Ireland.
The fight for freedom has to end now, with this generation and not be passed on to any others.
Until Ireland is free of british rule, it will never be at peace.
The relationship between Ireland and britain is going to go down the tubes. They will soon be demanding financial penalties for both Scotland and Ireland should we vote to leave the UK .
Ireland needs to focus on the EU and come down firmly on the EUs side post brexit. Britain is not our friend, it clearly remains our enemy to this day.
We can only do what we can do and at the moment that’s power sharing. Brexit is out of our hands and we are depending on the good offices of others and the hard work of individuals such as Colum Eastwood. If this election doesn’t prove a watershed then we are doomed to the divisive politics of the DUP. Those who were involved in the conflict have a duty of care to those who suffered as a result of their actions. Are such people capable of doing the right thing?
So in light of of .
…”The [Irish] language… was largely rejected in the education system as experienced by unionist children in Northern Ireland. It is argued that such an overwhelmingly anglocentric orientation, not just in language, but also in History and Geography… alienated unionists… from their birthright entitlement to access and enjoy their native Irish language, sports and culture.”…
…..could the Government be retrospectively chatged with a form of child -abuse?
Thanks fiosrach, I had a quick read but would like to have a better look at the site
I have a feeling things are going to get bad between us again and brexit is going to get very messy.
Goes to show, we need to support the EU and turn our backs on Britain completely. They are an untrustable and despicable race
Absolutely they did Dominic.
I witnessed first hand the people crying out for support when the RUC and Army raided and we were very glad of the PIRA at the time. If it had not been for the PIRA we would have been defeated.
Britain started the conflict and could have ended it 1975 but they through Nairac had other ideas and ruined many lives over their war games and militancy.
At least half of the deaths in the troubles link back to the british state and collusion both direct and through agents, especially in the 70s.
We still have unfinished business but we can complete the job without the same suffering of our people. They will not hide behind national security much longer, their grip of the cover up is slipping.
”
At least half of the deaths in the troubles link back to the british state and collusion both direct and through agents, especially in the 70s.
”
Big statement any evidence to back that up?
There is lots of evidence to back that up Scott.
Most of it locked away under national security.
What do you think the veto is about, but the legal pressure and expertise is wrangling it loose?
The truth will come out, you can be certain of that.
So that’s a no then.
“The UUP governed Northern Ireland from its inception in 1921 until the Stormont parliament was prorogued in 1972. Throughout that period the UUP proactively nurtured the sectarian-ridden society that continues to blight our lives.”
Irish nationalists governed Southern Ireland from its inception in 1922 until the present. For most of that period they proactively nurtured a sectarian and anti-British society.
“Historian Eamon Phoenix examined the Northern Ireland state school system under the stewardship of the UUP and reported in the Irish News: ‘…Whatever distorted or anaemic story this Government-sponsored narrative of the six counties may tell, we must bear in mind that there was an official embargo on Irish history books in the schools.’”
Gaelic, spoken only by Catholics, was made compulsory in schools and for entry to the civil service, police and other public jobs. Biased history books were commissioned and a negative view of Britain taught in schools. Gaelic sports were promoted and other sports shunned and sidelined.
“MPDanny Kinaghan proudly stood beside a Unionist bonfire preparing to burn the Irish nation’s Tricolour flag referred to by another member as ‘the flag of a foreign hostile’ nation’. Was this not sectarian conduct equally contrary to the GFA?”
PSF MPs and MLAs proudly attend terror rallied and events glorifying sectarian terrorists.Is this not sectarian conduct equally contrary to the GFA?
“CouncillorCarol Black resigned as part of a mass internal revolt, accusing the UUP leader of ‘destroying the ethos of the party’ by announcing he might award a preference vote to a Nationalist who stood no chance of winning a seat.”
PSF MLAs rounded on Colum Eastwood and the SDLP for attending the UUP conference and forming a warm relationship with unionists.
You wont be able to say that forever is the thing Scott.
Unionism is on a countdown to extinction
MT, you are obviously a person of intelligence and hold your opinions close to your heart but you need to get out more…..broaden your horizons…..speak to strangers …..you know the sort …..your fellow Irishmen and women….you’ll be amazed how receptive they can and will be..!!
Today, the Ulster Unionists Party are the polite supremacist bigots. No longer do they scream “We don’t want a Fenian voice about the place!”; instead they whisper “Please be quiet, your rights are unimportant to our never-ending socio-economic aspirations.”
This is the same UUP whose leader advised choosing SDLP over DUP? If it is then the above statement is patently false.
“The UUP governed Northern Ireland from its inception in 1921 until the Stormont parliament was prorogued in 1972. Throughout that period the UUP proactively nurtured the sectarian-ridden society that continues to blight our lives.”
I see.
Calling SF out on their past is wrong but calling the UUP out on theirs is right?
“Historian Eamon Phoenix examined the Northern Ireland state school system under the stewardship of the UUP and reported in the Irish News:
‘…Whatever distorted or anaemic story this Government-sponsored narrative of the six counties may tell, we must bear in mind that there was an official embargo on Irish history books in the schools.’
In her assessment of the formative years of the Northern Ireland state school system, academic Professor Pritchard opined:
‘The [Irish] language… was largely rejected in the education system as experienced by unionist children in Northern Ireland. It is argued that such an overwhelmingly anglocentric orientation, not just in language, but also in History and Geography… alienated unionists… from their birthright entitlement to access and enjoy their native Irish language, sports and culture.”
That’ll be before myself and tens of thousands of others were born eh?
The past again?
“No-matter what the silver-tongued leadership of the UUP might say here in 2017, the party’s founding supremacist and sectarian ethos remains intact:”
I’m sure this statement will be shored up with cold logic, no bias whatsoever and a keen objective eye. Let’s see;
1. “MLADoug Beattie tells citizens he knows to be Irish republicans “You’re British like me”. Is this not contrary to the ‘parity’ and ‘respect’ to be accorded to Irish nation(al) identity as per the GFA?”
Same Doug Beattie also regards himself as IRISH too. An Irish unionist. So he clearly chooses both.
I’d love to know the context of this statement as I have little faith that I’m getting the full story given this particular commentator’s track record for bias and distortion.
2. “MPDanny Kinaghan proudly stood beside a Unionist bonfire preparing to burn the Irish nation’s Tricolour flag referred to by another member as ‘the flag of a foreign hostile’ nation’. Was this not sectarian conduct equally contrary to the GFA?”
1/ Kinahan did not stand proudly, if anything he looked uncomfortable.
It was a stupid thing to do but then I’m not a unionist politician trying to walk the tightrope. As it was not him that made the ‘foreign nation’ comment we can see that this is not an objective criticism
3. “CouncillorCarol Black resigned as part of a mass internal revolt, accusing the UUP leader of ‘destroying the ethos of the party’ by announcing he might award a preference vote to a Nationalist who stood no chance of winning a seat.”
You need to make your mind up here; you accuse them of being the same old party yet cite an example of change as evidence that they haven’t changed. The ‘mass revolt’ itself is a sign of a new direction.
4. “LeaderMike Nesbitt unapologetically opposes a Irish language protection Act and deploys the same ‘financial’ excuse belatedly conjured by DUP bigots.”
That is incorrect. Either you didn’t actually listen to him or you’re twistin’ (again).
He said he ‘doesn’t support one. That is NOT the same as ‘unapologetically opposed to’.
e.g. it could be said:
I ‘support’ Partick Thistle.
I do NOT support St Mirren. I am NOT however ‘opposed’ to St Mirren.
I AM opposed to the Old Firm and would love to see both teams bought by a billionaire, merged, given and embarrassing new name and both their stadia pulled down and the earth salted.
“Yesterday on BBC Talkback, the UUP’s leader Mike Nesbitt had a car crash pre-election interviewc in particular during his interactions with Callers George and Teresa:
“The UPP leader revealed
1. i) The party is unwilling to be bound by any agreements (SAA) entered into by the British and Irish governments and/or elected representatives of the Unionist and Nationalist communities.”
I’ll take your word for it.
2. “ii) The party were unable to deny British penal laws first politicised the Irish language by banning it.”
3. Well he should be able to deny it as the Penal laws didn’t apply to language.
There was no ‘ban’ on the Irish language.
There is a laughable effort by MOPE’s to misinterpret the legal ascension of English as the sole legal language as a ‘ban’.
These laws were enacted in In England, Scotland and Wales. The ‘targets’ of this modernisation were Latin and French.
Gaelic speakers were provided with interpreters, this is documented and substantiated. Granted, the interpreters weren’t always up to scratch but this is a far cry from the ‘banning’ myth.
Seaan Ui Neill (a Gaelic enthusiast and modern day Jacobite) spelt this out calmly, thoroughly and objectively.
. “The UUP government further politicised it by excluding it from the NI state school curriculum.”
Yeah, that probably didn’t help. Did they ban it in Catholic schools out of interest? That would have been the sectarian thing to do surely?
“iii) The party are supposedly unafraid of a border poll, yet they argue that they entered into a pact with the DUP to prevent SF securing a majority of MPs and thereby persuading the SOS to call a border poll.”
Fair enough, you caught them out there.
“The nature of the violent and sectarian state the UUP presided over for 50 odd years is well documented.”
And back to the past and one’s own principles…
“However – in contrast to the media relentlessly hounding republicans to confront their past, to date the party has not felt obliged to face responsibility for the horrors of the UUP’s past.”
Indeed, a valid point, let us choose one of the two principles and take it from there; recant for the past and expect the others to do the same or draw a line under it.
I feel people like the writer of this post will not like a version of the past that is a two-way street.
Am Ghobsmacht
Oh dear Boy.
Please drop the surprised Virgin attitute to Unionist “kultur”
The Sick Conties is the place where they renames a boat to erase Gaelic
And Crow bared up Manhole Covers ..Likewise.
Pray tell how did the UUP vote on these matters???
And also Where do the UUp actually support Gaelic.you know.. by actuallyUsing it????
Really your “babe in the Woods “routine might fill the aisles on Slugger Mac Fool.
But you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Unionists cannot help themselves.
New Manhole covers but the same sewarge underneath.
If you think any of what I say is incorrect then go ahead and highlight it.
“Calling SF out on their past is wrong but calling the UUP out on theirs is right?”
Sinn Fein have acknowledged their past and for 10 years have been trying to build bridges, neither the british state or any unionist party have reciprocated, acknowledged their role in how we got here and are still abusing the control they have whether it be veto on national security or the petition of concern.
They are still abusing power and are unlikely to change until they own up to their past.
The side that did the most to start the conflict have yet to acknowledge they did so.
Republicanism has been given, and still is given intense scrutiny from the media and all political opponents, especially in the south.
Unionism has not been put under any such scrutiny and much more needs to be done to address the denial from the british state of its management of loyalist paramilitaries and it is absolutely essential that it releases all known to exist evidence to the legal teams of families who’s loved ones were murdered by the state that are requesting them and being treated abysmally.
“In her assessment of the formative years of the Northern Ireland state school system, academic Professor Pritchard opined:
‘The [Irish] language… was largely rejected in the education system as experienced by unionist children in Northern Ireland. It is argued that such an overwhelmingly anglocentric orientation, not just in language, but also in History and Geography… alienated unionists… from their birthright entitlement to access and enjoy their native Irish language, sports and culture. That’ll be before myself and tens of thousands of others were born eh?
The past again?”
No AG, not the past, education determines the future.
The neglect of Irish language and Irish history in schools helps feed the alienation felt by in particular but not limited to the unionist community, and will make the majority of Catholics including myself reject integrated education which is needed.
More importantly, this failure to educate feeds the sectarian fear drive society we live in and which is used by unionism in particular to maintain this sectarian division in Ireland.
It people do not want anything Irish about them and a british only society, they should leave Ireland and go and live in Britain.
Not because they are not welcome, but because they will never integrate in a positive functional capacity to society within Ireland.
“MLADoug Beattie tells citizens he knows to be Irish republicans “You’re British like me”. Is this not contrary to the ‘parity’ and ‘respect’ to be accorded to Irish nation(al) identity as per the GFA? Same Doug Beattie also regards himself as IRISH too. An Irish unionist. So he clearly chooses both.
I’d love to know the context of this statement as I have little faith that I’m getting the full story given this particular commentator’s track record for bias and distortion.”
We are all Irish because we were born and raised on the island of Ireland.
You can claim otherwise, but not even the english would believe or even understand it.
I am NOT british, nor to I accept ANY legitimacy for britain to rule in Ireland.
I can accept unionists are entitled to be british, that it is their preferred identity and who they look to for leadership, but if you support parity and respect them you must also accept my entitlement to reject the british identity and that the Irish tri colour is my flag and that I see Dublin as the government my loyalty is directed to.
Unionism are failing to accept the rights of nationalism to our identity.
“MPDanny Kinaghan proudly stood beside a Unionist bonfire preparing to burn the Irish nation’s Tricolour flag referred to by another member as ‘the flag of a foreign hostile’ nation’. Was this not sectarian conduct equally contrary to the GFA? Kinahan did not stand proudly, if anything he looked uncomfortable. It was a stupid thing to do but then I’m not a unionist politician trying to walk the tightrope. As it was not him that made the ‘foreign nation’ comment we can see that this is not an objective criticism”
You are defending the indefensible once again AG.
Say more about you than Danny
“CouncillorCarol Black resigned as part of a mass internal revolt, accusing the UUP leader of ‘destroying the ethos of the party’ by announcing he might award a preference vote to a Nationalist who stood no chance of winning a seat.” You need to make your mind up here; you accuse them of being the same old party yet cite an example of change as evidence that they haven’t changed. The ‘mass revolt’ itself is a sign of a new direction.”
It is actually as you well know an attempt to prevent any change of direction.
Unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry and I do not believe it will ever manage to be anything different.
Your efforts to defend blatant bigotry which the actions of Carol Black were, does more to reinforce that view.
“formative years of the Northern Ireland state school system, academic Professor Pritchard opined: ‘The [Irish] language… was largely rejected in the education system as experienced by unionist children in Northern Ireland. It is argued that such an overwhelmingly anglocentric orientation, not just in language, but also in History and Geography… alienated unionists… from their birthright entitlement to access and enjoy their native Irish language, sports and culture. That’ll be before myself and tens of thousands of others were born eh?”
Whoever Professor Pritchard is, he or she isn’t very reasonable or well-informed if she (a) expects unionists to embrace anti-unionist GAA, and (b) believes that Gaelic football is any more ‘native’ than rugby or association football
“The neglect of Irish language and Irish history in schools helps feed the alienation felt by in particular but not limited to the unionist community, and will make the majority of Catholics including myself reject integrated education which is needed.”
There is no neglect of Irish history in schools. A common curriculum is followed. Gaelic isn’t neglected in. Integrated schools. So why do you reject it?
“More importantly, this failure to educate feeds the sectarian fear drive society we live in and which is used by unionism in particular to maintain this sectarian division in Ireland.”
It is sectarian apartheid in schools, promoted and defended by nationalists, that feeds sectarian fear.
“LeaderMike Nesbitt unapologetically opposes a Irish language protection Act and deploys the same ‘financial’ excuse belatedly conjured by DUP bigots.” That is incorrect. Either you didn’t actually listen to him or you’re twistin’ (again). He said he ‘doesn’t support one. That is NOT the same as ‘unapologetically opposed to’.”
You are incorrect AG.
He did publically say he was opposed to an Irish language act, he also said he would be supportive of promoting it and respecting it.
The reason an Act is needed is because unionism has proven itself to be untrustable in keeping its word.
Nationalists simply don’t believe a word any unionist says and we don’t trust you and for good reason.
While I get the good intentions and positivity in Mikes words, they are aimed at preventing the same promotion and respect given legislative support.
The only reason I can see for not having an Act is to make it easier to scrap it later when it is less controversial over the scrapping of Liofa finding which was blatant sectarian discrimination.
“The nature of the violent and sectarian state the UUP presided over for 50 odd years is well documented.”
And back to the past and one’s own principles…”
You miss the point. Unionism aided by the british state caused the conflict and played a far greater role than has been acknowledged.
How can we have a shared future while this truth is denied and not accepted by one section of the community.
Let me answer, there will be no shared future until this is officially acknowledged and there is an end to the veto on truth by the british state over its management of paramilitaries.
It will not go away until this happens. How can it ever?
jessica February 23, 2017 at 7:58 am #
“
“In her assessment of the formative years of the Northern Ireland state school system, academic Professor Pritchard opined:
‘The [Irish] language… was largely rejected in the education system as experienced by unionist children in Northern Ireland. It is argued that such an overwhelmingly anglocentric orientation, not just in language, but also in History and Geography… alienated unionists… from their birthright entitlement to access and enjoy their native Irish language, sports and culture. That’ll be before myself and tens of thousands of others were born eh?
The past again?”
No AG, not the past, education determines the future.
The neglect of Irish language and Irish history in schools helps feed the alienation felt by in particular but not limited to the unionist community, and will make the majority of Catholics including myself reject integrated education which is needed.
More importantly, this failure to educate feeds the sectarian fear drive society we live in and which is used by unionism in particular to maintain this sectarian division in Ireland.
It people do not want anything Irish about them and a british only society, they should leave Ireland and go and live in Britain.
Not because they are not welcome, but because they will never integrate in a positive functional capacity to society within Ireland.
“
No Jessica, his argument was quite clearly a criticism of the PAST in support of a present criticism of the UUP.
As a side, there is an ever increasing use and up-take of Gaelic in State grammar and integrated schools.
3.
jessica February 23, 2017 at 8:09 am #
““MLADoug Beattie tells citizens he knows to be Irish republicans “You’re British like me”. Is this not contrary to the ‘parity’ and ‘respect’ to be accorded to Irish nation(al) identity as per the GFA? Same Doug Beattie also regards himself as IRISH too. An Irish unionist. So he clearly chooses both.
I’d love to know the context of this statement as I have little faith that I’m getting the full story given this particular commentator’s track record for bias and distortion.”
We are all Irish because we were born and raised on the island of Ireland.
You can claim otherwise, but not even the english would believe or even understand it.”
I don’t claim otherwise, never have done
“I am NOT british, nor to I accept ANY legitimacy for britain to rule in Ireland.”
Your choice. I care not. Irrelevant to my point.
“I can accept unionists are entitled to be british, that it is their preferred identity and who they look to for leadership, but if you support parity and respect them you must also accept my entitlement to reject the british identity and that the Irish tri colour is my flag and that I see Dublin as the government my loyalty is directed to.”
“Unionism are failing to accept the rights of nationalism to our identity.”
A topic change. Again.
REPLY
4.
jessica February 23, 2017 at 8:11 am #
“
“MPDanny Kinaghan proudly stood beside a Unionist bonfire preparing to burn the Irish nation’s Tricolour flag referred to by another member as ‘the flag of a foreign hostile’ nation’. Was this not sectarian conduct equally contrary to the GFA? Kinahan did not stand proudly, if anything he looked uncomfortable. It was a stupid thing to do but then I’m not a unionist politician trying to walk the tightrope. As it was not him that made the ‘foreign nation’ comment we can see that this is not an objective criticism”
You are defending the indefensible once again AG.
Say more about you than Danny”
I did not defend him.
In fact I criticised the move as STUPID.
I took issue with the word ‘proudly’.
If I am incorrect in this then please explain why.
If I am not incorrect then please admit so.
Don’t imagine things or extrapolate or come to a logical appraisal: Did he stand proudly or simply stand?
REPLY
5.
jessica February 23, 2017 at 8:14 am #
““CouncillorCarol Black resigned as part of a mass internal revolt, accusing the UUP leader of ‘destroying the ethos of the party’ by announcing he might award a preference vote to a Nationalist who stood no chance of winning a seat.” You need to make your mind up here; you accuse them of being the same old party yet cite an example of change as evidence that they haven’t changed. The ‘mass revolt’ itself is a sign of a new direction.”
It is actually as you well know an attempt to prevent any change of direction.
Unionism is a sliding scale of bigotry and I do not believe it will ever manage to be anything different.
Your efforts to defend blatant bigotry which the actions of Carol Black were, does more to reinforce that view.
“
Jessica
In all sincerity can I ask you to please read my posts and not pre-suppose things.
I did NOT defend her actions.
Mike did a decent thing, she like an idiot ‘led a revolt’; to me that indicates a change of direction (that SHE opposes).
Jesus Christ this is unbelievable….
REPLY
6.
7.
jessica February 23, 2017 at 8:31 am #
““LeaderMike Nesbitt unapologetically opposes a Irish language protection Act and deploys the same ‘financial’ excuse belatedly conjured by DUP bigots.” That is incorrect. Either you didn’t actually listen to him or you’re twistin’ (again). He said he ‘doesn’t support one. That is NOT the same as ‘unapologetically opposed to’.”
You are incorrect AG.
He did publically say he was opposed to an Irish language act, he also said he would be supportive of promoting it and respecting it.
The reason an Act is needed is because unionism has proven itself to be untrustable in keeping its word.
Nationalists simply don’t believe a word any unionist says and we don’t trust you and for good reason.
While I get the good intentions and positivity in Mikes words, they are aimed at preventing the same promotion and respect given legislative support.
The only reason I can see for not having an Act is to make it easier to scrap it later when it is less controversial over the scrapping of Liofa finding which was blatant sectarian discrimination.”
Let’s assume then that he did make other statements about it and that I read the wrong one.
Could you please post a link to where he said he OPPOSED it and I’ll concede I was wrong.
REPLY
8.
jessica February 23, 2017 at 8:37 am #
““The nature of the violent and sectarian state the UUP presided over for 50 odd years is well documented.”
And back to the past and one’s own principles…”
You miss the point. Unionism aided by the british state caused the conflict and played a far greater role than has been acknowledged.
How can we have a shared future while this truth is denied and not accepted by one section of the community.
Let me answer, there will be no shared future until this is officially acknowledged and there is an end to the veto on truth by the british state over its management of paramilitaries.
It will not go away until this happens. How can it ever?”
No, you miss the point.
Ruarai’s post is about the current behaviour of the UUP. Yet a fair whack of this post is dedicated to stuff that happened before I was born.
If he’s correct then he can point to failings NOW without harking back to the past.
Jessica
Mike queried the need for an Act, which is a fair position. You are unable to explain what an Act would do, for example.
Actually hands up; near the bottom of this thing the UUP say they would oppose an ILA: https://uup.org/assets/images/featured/Ulster%20Unionist%20Party%20Consultation%20Response%20to%20the%20Strategy%20for%20Protecting%20and%20Enhancing%20the%20Development%20of%20the%20Irish%20Language.pdf
I don’t know how old it is but it’s pretty clear.
As for Mike ‘unapologetically opposing it in public’, I’ll have a look.
Jessica
Mike queried the need for an Act, which is a fair position. You are unable to explain what an Act would do, for example.
=======================================
Explains…Eh?
So the Unionists explained Stormont as a Protestant State for a protestant people.
So once they explained it then,…that’s okay then.
Croppies lie down and all that.
It would put the responsibility for ensuring the language survives and thrives into the heart of government.
Without that commitment in legislation, in light of the recent behaviour and the actions of unionism over the past 10 years, your words are meaningless and nothing else would be acceptable to restore power sharing.
Not only an Irish language act, but all of the commitments which have been reneged on including legacy and an end to the cover up over national security.
An Irish language act is inevitable, it will not be sufficient though. Removing the veto on security is equally as important.
You emphasis on the Irish language act is to maximise the concession unionism will have no option but to make and delay any movement on truth and legacy.
“There is no neglect of Irish history in schools. A common curriculum is followed. ”
My son knew at 8 years old who the british PM was before and after WW1 and thought that the germans were baddies when in fact in Ireland it is the british who are the baddies.
He has learned nothing about Irish history whatsoever and knows he is Irish and not british only because of the education he receives at home.
We are learning Irish slowly together but again, nothing in a catholic primary school on Irish language which does not begin until secondary school as it did with myself.
It has to begin younger and led through curriculum not home schooled as I have to work long hours on top and it is a struggle.
You are not keeping my taxes to impose a one sided british state. Eventually I will refuse to pay them any longer
He did it on television AG
Though it is hardly surprising that he would do anything other than support the party policy which you posted confirming their formal opposition to an Irish language act
The thing is, after how unionism has behaved over the last 10 years, how can your leadership be trusted to keep their word on anything never mind something they have been so blatantly opposed to.
Unionism has made the need for an Irish language act more essential than ever before.
You are your own worst enemy
“It would put the responsibility for ensuring the language survives and thrives into the heart of government.”
How would it do this? Seems very vague.
“My son knew at 8 years old who the british PM was before and after WW1 and thought that the germans were baddies when in fact in Ireland it is the british who are the baddies.”
You’re expecting children at 8 to be taught that the British are ‘baddies’? Overt racism in our schools?
Your dubious anecdote doesn’t alter the reality that Irish history isn’t neglected in schools as you claimed.
“He has learned nothing about Irish history whatsoever and knows he is Irish and not british only because of the education he receives at home.
We are learning Irish slowly together but again, nothing in a catholic primary school on Irish language which does not begin until secondary school as it did with myself.”
The Irish history part of the curriculum is taught in secondary school, Jessica, not primary school.
“It has to begin younger and led through curriculum not home schooled as I have to work long hours on top and it is a struggle.”
It doesn’t have to begin younger. That is a choice that you want. Why not send your children to a Gaelic school if it’s that important to you?
“You are not keeping my taxes to impose a one sided british state. Eventually I will refuse to pay them any longer”
I don’t have access to your taxes nor do I have the power to.impose a ‘one sided British state’ (whatever that means), even if I wanted to.
In Scotland and Wales there is no public opposition to the native languages except maybe from the monoglot English and the ex pats who have moved from England for whatever reason. They see it as their duty to ensure that the rest of the world should speak English as that is what the master race speaks. But both Scotland and Wales have a Language Act. I wonder could TV Mike explain why they need one?
“I am NOT british, nor to I accept ANY legitimacy for britain to rule in Ireland.”
Your choice. I care not. Irrelevant to my point.”
That is good, but do you support Doug Beattie telling citizens he knows to be Irish republicans “You’re British like me” when we reject this outright?
I would consider myself of my children being called british to be an offensive insult.
================
“I did not defend him. ”
Yes you did, you said it was stupid but then excused it as “a unionist politician trying to walk the tightrope”
================
“Mike did a decent thing, she like an idiot ‘led a revolt’; to me that indicates a change of direction (that SHE opposes). ”
That is your point of view which I accept, I see things differently, can you not accept that?
We do not see the same thing from the same point of view because we have had completely different life experiences.
Yours may have resulted in anti Irish, mine has most definitely resulted in anti british.
We have to accept one another as we are and there is no need to blaspheme.
================
“Could you please post a link to where he said he OPPOSED it and I’ll concede I was wrong.”
I heard him say it on TV.
If you accept it is his parties position to oppose it, why do you find it difficult to accept the leader of the same party would say as much on TV?
================
“If he’s correct then he can point to failings NOW without harking back to the past.”
Britain is in the NOW, covering up so much about its past activities here and is still NOW maintaining that people from my community were terrorists.
When Theresa May called us terrorists recently on TV from westminster, how can you expect this not to have an impact on me NOW while I witnessed much of their activities first hand and I know beyond any doubt that their state was up to their necks in managing loyalist murder gangs?
Jessica
WRT Kinnehan. You have done your favourite thing of taking a side note of a point and concentrating on it so as to depict and unfair and dark picture.
So let’s break this down reasonably and logically:
I took exception to Ruarai’s use of ‘proudly’.
So I explained that he did NOT stand proudly.
This was the core point of my rebuttal, it was the one that demanded attention and disection.
You ignored it and instead concentrated on the context which I provided (context is nearly always somehow missing from Ruarai’s posts).
He does this out of bias to depict an unfair sketch. I am now of the opinion that you do so similarly with your concentrating on the auxillary points as opposed to the primary points.
So, do you agree with Ruarai that Kinehan stood ‘proudly’ or more in line with the context that I provided?
——————-
As for Beattie; if you are so offended at being called British then fair ebough, people (especially a politician) should acknowledge that.
—
WRT to my interpretation of Mike’s new direction. You claim it is an opinion when it is demonstrably fact. If it wasn’t a fact then they’re wouldn’t have been such a hullaballoo regarding it, would there?
I do not have an anti-Irish opinion. I am as Irish as you.
—
I conceeded your point about what Mike said, that’s why I posted the link (and said ‘hands up’).
——-
Again, you bring up the wrong doings of the British army to get you out of a tight spot.
I am sympathetic to your traumas but you have again side stepped my point. E.g. Ruaraidh talks about Stormont misrule to attack the MODERN UUP, I highight that this is wrong and your rebuttal to me is the activities of the British army in the (mainly) post Stormont era.
So Ruarai talks about an era to attack the modern day UUP and to swipe down my rebuttal you use the attitude of the modern day British government regarding a different era to Ruarai’s.
That’s confusing, convolluted and not helpful to discussion.
It’s like you don’t think about what you’re writing and forget about what the point of the discussion is? Is this a fair appraisal?
Same as every other language act MT
The detail will be up to who is in power, but decisions made will be influenced by the act not directed by it
Such acts would be vague, it is more an underlying principal which cannot be simply dropped at the whim of politicians
Many laws operate this way
“That is good, but do you support Doug Beattie telling citizens he knows to be Irish republicans “You’re British like me” when we reject this outright?
I would consider myself of my children being called british to be an offensive insult.”
But you and your children are British citizens. That is simply a statement of fact. I presume Doug was using the term in this straightforward factual way.
“When Theresa May called us terrorists recently on TV from westminster”
Who did Theresa May call terrorists?
“Same as every other language act MT”
What is the same as every other language? Most languages don’t have any Act passed to protect them. And those that do have very different provisions.
“The detail will be up to who is in power, but decisions made will be influenced by the act not directed by it.”
So you’re expecting people to support an Act the contents of which are a mystery? Isn’t that a bit strange? Only a fool would give support to something he doesn’t know about.
“Such acts would be vague, it is more an underlying principal which cannot be simply dropped at the whim of politicians”
Why would such acts be vague?
“Many laws operate this way”
Really? Give some examples of Acts that are vague.
No MT. The idea is to have the position of the Irish language discussed in open forum. Then when all points of view are heard, a decision will be made on how best to proceed. Maybe no Act will be necessary but judging from the atmosphere when it is raised here, I personally think it would be vital. After all, it is an indigenous language of this kingdom and like the other UK home countries it should be looked after. I think that with very little effort, the British could depoliticise the language. The German Queen tried. And I am not a British citizen because I do not wish to avail of British citizenship. I am an Irish citizen with my Irish passport and my EU membership. I have a language and a culture which I will gladly share with anyone.
“No MT. The idea is to have the position of the Irish language discussed in open forum. Then when all points of view are heard, a decision will be made on how best to proceed.”
Really? Why do PSF keep talking about an Act, then?
“Maybe no Act will be necessary but judging from the atmosphere when it is raised here, I personally think it would be vital. After all, it is an indigenous language of this kingdom and like the other UK home countries it should be looked after. I think that with very little effort, the British could depoliticise the language.”
Why do you personally think an Act would be vital? What would it do?
“The German Queen tried.”
Germany has been a republic for nearly a century.
“And I am not a British citizen because I do not wish to avail of British citizenship.”
British citizenship is not a choice. If you were born in the UK to at least one UK citizen parent then you are a British citizen.
British citizenship is a choice. British subject is what was forced on people here of Irish nationalist persuasion. Your British citizenship can be removed at the whim of the English government. My Irish citizenship can’t. The ‘Windsor’ family are German in the same way as you are British – even if you weren’t born in Britain and have lived in Ireland since history started. An Irish Language act is important because many long years of experience have shown us that the British colony here cannot be trusted to act fairly regarding the native, indigenous language here. The PSF are merely acting as a conduit for the wish of the nationalist electorate when they press for an Act. The Gaeilge community have to use whatever means are available to gain their rights.
“British citizenship is a choice.”
It’s not. Everyone born in the UK to one UK citizen parent is a UK citizen. It’s not a matter of choosing to be one.
“British subject is what was forced on people here of Irish nationalist persuasion.”
Make your mind up. You just said it was a choice.
“Your British citizenship can be removed at the whim of the English government. My Irish citizenship can’t.”
Explain.
“The ‘Windsor’ family are German in the same way as you are British – even if you weren’t born in Britain and have lived in Ireland since history started.”
That makes no sense. The Windsor family isn’t German.
“An Irish Language act is important because many long years of experience have shown us that the British colony here cannot be trusted to act fairly regarding the native, indigenous language here. The PSF are merely acting as a conduit for the wish of the nationalist electorate when they press for an Act. The Gaeilge community have to use whatever means are available to gain their rights.”
What would the Act do? What rights? Why does nobody know?
Ireland needs to leave the UK for good
Perhaps when it starts costing jobs we can start discuss our departure
No Jessica. Our fellow British say they will eat grass before they will go under the grey skies of an Irish republic.
MT,put your glasses on. Can you not see the difference between subject and citizen. Under the GFA I don’t have to be British if I don’t wish to. Agree? Look what happened to three quarters of the world who used to be British until their Britishness was removed. If the English government decide that you have to be born in Britain to have British citizenship- at a future time – then you are lost. I say this ,knowing that you have an Irish passport, and are riding two horses. An Act must be fair. It should not put compulsion on private citizens only on shared public bodies and community facilities. Myths tend to circulate about everybody having to learn Irish to get a job or postmen not being able to find addresses or motorists being confused about stop signs but smart people like you know this will not happen. Ever been to France or Spain or even Wales?
“MT,put your glasses on. Can you not see the difference between subject and citizen.”
The distinction is irrelevant, since we are citizens not subjects.
“Under the GFA I don’t have to be British if I don’t wish to. Agree?”
You can identify however you want and were able to do so before the GFA. But that doesn’t mean you cease to be a UK citizen.
“Look what happened to three quarters of the world who used to be British until their Britishness was removed. If the English government decide that you have to be born in Britain to have British citizenship- at a future time – then you are lost.”
And how is that any different to anyone else? The Southern Irish government could decide that you have to be born in Southern Ireland to be an ROI citizen. Both scenarios are far-fetched.
“I say this ,knowing that you have an Irish passport, and are riding two horses.”
Eh? How do you ‘know’ that I have a Southern passport? How would it be relevant if I did? (I don’t, incidentally.)
“An Act must be fair. It should not put compulsion on private citizens only on shared public bodies and community facilities. Myths tend to circulate about everybody having to learn Irish to get a job or postmen not being able to find addresses or motorists being confused about stop signs but smart people like you know this will not happen. Ever been to France or Spain or even Wales?”
You still haven’t explained what an Act would do?.Why not?
It would show people that there is another language here apart from English. That half the population are not English. That this half wants and demands recognition of their Irishness. It’s not too much to ask especially when we pay taxes,rates etc. The only change you would see is bilingual signage and bilingual ‘rites of passage’ documents. Find out what the Scottish and Welsh acts do. How can I tell you what an act will do that hasn’t yet been passed. But it will be change and we all know change is dangerous. Next a border poll and then into the black hole of an Irish republic. Wooooooooo
“The only change you would see is bilingual signage and bilingual ‘rites of passage’ documents.”
At last. Somebody preparedto say what an Act would do. You’re saying there would be bilingual signage? Wouldn’t his be every road sign and every street sign? How.do you know this would be in such an Act?
What are rites of passage documents?
“Find out what the Scottish and Welsh acts do.”
I already know what they do.
“How can I tell you what an act will do that hasn’t yet been passed.”
Because you’re advocating one and saying there should be one. So you must have an idea of what one should or would do. Otherwise on what basis would you be supporting it?
Rites of passage are birth marriage death rates driving licence etc. What I would like to see in an Acht and what is feasible are two different things. I might want Irish speakers to pay lower income tax or non Irish speakers to go to the back of a bus. I have no idea what would be in an Acht. It would have to be discussed and wrangled over and costed like any other act not yet on the statute book. Are you opposed to a basic act? Where is your red line? Would it annoy you to see bilingual road signs (not street signs)? Would it annoy you to hear bilingual ads on tv or hear children talking?
Hey Mt
Has it occured to you that they may need an Irish Act
Because under the Sinkhole unionist Gerrymandered state
The fascists Made any Birthcert filled out in Gaelic and changed it into English?
Did you recall that?
If not ,why not?
And what is your opinion of the people who did that?
Are they “nice” people or Sectarian Scumbags.
You have relied on people’s patience on here.
I expect full and frank answers from you to the above.
T/Y
The British queen is only a Windsor by deed poll. It suited them in 1918 to change from Saxe Coburg Gothe, as they feared the British people turning against them. Mountbatten did the same, from his native Battenburg and sure Prince Albert could barely speak English when he arrived.
Do you then accept Dr Valera as an American and not an Irishman?
Following the logic you have applied that would be the natural conclusion.
Éamon de Valera moved to Ireland from America when he was 2, had an Irish mother and was not only an Irish citizen his whole life but fought for Irish freedom from tyranny and even became president of Ireland.
In what way was he not an Irishman?
By Freddie’s logic of foreign heritage.
The queen was born to British parents, in Britain.
Dr Valera was born to one Irish parent abroad.
If the Queen is German then Dev is defintely not Irish.
Or, we could accept that the queen is British and Dev is Irish.
I don’t think anyone was saying the royal family are not british, I thought they were making the point that they changed their name to hide the german part of their identity which is a fair point
Why else would they have changed it?
Of course the queen is british
Fiosrach referred to HM as ‘the German queen’. I think it’s what started this digression.
“Rites of passage are birth marriage death rates driving licence etc. What I would like to see in an Acht and what is feasible are two different things. I might want Irish speakers to pay lower income tax or non Irish speakers to go to the back of a bus. I have no idea what would be in an Acht. It would have to be discussed and wrangled over and costed like any other act not yet on the statute boo”
How bizarre that there is a poltical argument over an abstract piece of legislation the content of which nobody knows. Madness.
“Are you opposed to a basic act? Where is your red line? Would it annoy you to see bilingual road signs (not street signs)? Would it annoy you to hear bilingual ads on tv or hear children talking?”
I’m not opposed to the principle of legislation.
I am opposed to british legislation in Ireland period.
“The British queen is only a Windsor by deed poll.”
This is untrue. She has been a Windsor since birth.
“It suited them in 1918 to change from Saxe Coburg Gothe, as they feared the British people turning against them.”
The name was changed in 1916 not 1918.
Having a parent with a German name doesn’t make you German.
“Mountbatten did the same, from his native Battenburg and sure Prince Albert could barely speak English when he arrived.”
And? How does that make the Queen German?
Methinks you are racist.
“At last. Somebody prepared to say what an Act would do. You’re saying there would be bilingual signage? Wouldn’t his be every road sign and every street sign? How.do you know this would be in such an Act?”
I don’t think it should be.
All the act needs to say is that Irish is the native indigenous language and put on an equal par to English if not made primary.
It should recognise that the language and culture are not only part of the social fabric of our society, but part of the local heritage which attracts a large and growing tourist market.
This should be visible throughout Ireland and appealing to tourists as well as having our local signs in Irish. To protect the language we would need to have more finding for gaeltacht areas as this is the best way to learn and encourage the language.
“All the act needs to say is that Irish is the native indigenous language and put on an equal par to English if not made primary.”
What would ‘equal par’ mean in practice?
“It should recognise that the language and culture are not only part of the social fabric of our society, but part of the local heritage which attracts a large and growing tourist market.”
How would it do this?
Have you evidence that the Gaelic language attracts a large and growing tourist market?
“This should be visible throughout Ireland and appealing to tourists as well as having our local signs in Irish. To protect the language we would need to have more finding for gaeltacht areas as this is the best way to learn and encourage the language.”
Hold on, you just said all the act needs to say is that Irish is the native indigenous language and put on an equal par to English if not made primary. Now you’re saying it should say more than this and require signage in Gaelic? Would this be all signage? How much would this cost?
What would the funding for the Gaeltacht areas be used for?
I don’t think it’s racist to point out that the British Royal family changed their identity from German to English for political expediency.
“I don’t think it’s racist to point out that the British Royal family changed their identity from German to English for political expediency.”
Well, if they had changed their identity it wouldn’t have been racist to say so, obviously. But they didn’t change their identity, only the name, and nobody said it was racist to point this out.
What is racist, however, is to deny someone’s national identity based on the ancestry of one or two ancestors from several generations previous.
They feared being identified as German and therefore changed their name to alter that indentity.
“He does this out of bias to depict an unfair sketch.”
First of all AG, I think this is unfair comment.
You are claiming Ruaidri is behaving with bias for claiming Danny Kinaghan was behaving with pride when he stood for a photo at the unionist bonfire.
How do you know Ruaidri’s intentions any better than Ruaidri knows Danny’s?
What I think you are failing or are refusing to accept, is that we are not all processing our opinions on such actions from the same view point.
When you make a statement like this also…
“It’s like you don’t think about what you’re writing and forget about what the point of the discussion is? Is this a fair appraisal?”
If anything, I overthink and no, it is not a fair appraisal in the slightest.
I do understand the point you want the discussion to be about, and if everyone held the same viewpoint, we could all debate with everyone sitting nodding in agreement all the time.
But the reality is, we have experienced life in this part of the world completely differently and when we debate, we need to accept each other will see things from different perspectives.
I accept that you have positive feelings towards policing and being british and have a loyalty to the union.
On the other hand, I have been abused by police and army, had to run a gauntlet to avoid being attacked coming home from school each day, seen my friends battened off a road over orange marches by a so called police force, had to endure blatant sectarian discrimination in the workplace for many years which was not masked or hidden in any way but totally in your face and with no legal recourse as the law was at one on the side of bigotry.
I could go on, but the point I am making, I am not comfortable with british rule because it was abused, I do not trust the police or the british state because of how they treat my community, I grew up seeing the republic of Ireland as being the Ireland I belong to, the Irish tri colour is the flag of my country, the Irish people are my people, unionists as being british separatists who wanted rid of us so they could rule this place as they see fit. Who have a police force and army on their side and willing to kill us to help their war against the IRA.
In my view, I would say Ruaidri is right, and Danny was proud to stand in front of the bonfire and I have no problem with that.
Bonfires are part of loyalist culture and unionists have grown up with the burning of the Irish flag for decades. I expect it didn’t cost Danny a second thought that there were flags on the bonfire. I think when the feedback from the photo came in, was the first he even thought about it and thankfully he was able to acknowledge that it would not have looked favourably to everyone and I think his apology was genuine.
“I do not have an anti-Irish opinion. I am as Irish as you.”
I would always put what is best for Ireland above what is best for the UK.
Would you?
“Again, you bring up the wrong doings of the British army to get you out of a tight spot.”
I didn’t know I was in a tight spot and I did not bring this up to get out of one.
The past actions of unionism will have to be acknowledged sooner or later. It will never go away until this happens.
Likewise, the british state will have to acknowledge the true extent of its activities here.
If you think I am only bringing this up to get out of something you are mistaken.
Many people of my generation witnessed first hand the true nature of the british forces and I am certain that the truth will come out.
I have no doubt they will push through an amnesty for state forces before they are forced to hand over evidence so while they may never face justice, the truth will be known sooner or later.
Perhaps only then will you truly understand things from our point of view AG.
That is why it is so important this has to happen.
I know Ruaidri’s intentions as he is perhaps the most biased Irish nationalist commentator I have ever come across, were he unionist I’d write him off as a ‘flegger’.
I’ve only had brief dealings with Mr Kinahan and found him to be very cordial and decent in his dealings and I shore that up with people I know who know him personally and confirm my beliefs in the man.
Ergo, do I take Ruaidri’s biased, ill-informed stance on the matter or extrapolate on what I know?
I go for what I know and add a spot of nuance to explain how he (Kinahan) came to be where he was.
If you wish to continually go for the lowest common denominator then so be it.
WRT to your over thinking; my point is that we’ll start talking about something, I’ll ask you a question and then you’ll answer with a completely different topic. You just did it again by saying that I just want people to sit around and nod in agreement. Irrelevant as it is incorrect.
No offence Jessica but we’re ALL aware that you’ve had a hard time of it. It doesn’t need to be aired every time you don’t like what some-one has written.
And you seemingly don’t read my comments – e.g. I object to Carol Black and you accused me of defending her.
Would I always put Ireland above the UK? Probably not. But as that is obviously and demonstrably no way a foundation for one’s identity then it’s a moot point. And you said I was Irish anyway so I’m hardly ‘anti-self’ am I?
I understand the nationalist view point quite well, my exchanges with most nationalists are quite civil affairs. In fact, I’d say the re-unification argument is the stronger of the two arguments (indeed, I’m of the opinion that partition and even the Act of Union was a mistake), but then I read on here…
It’s only when I come onto this site and see the unvarnished extremism (e.g. planters and natives, in the 21st century – such guff!), the willingness to wipe away anything that doesn’t suit the hard nationalist agendum and the undertones of revenge that I retreat back into the unionist fold.
People make the mistake of my disagreeing with strong nationalist viewpoints as intolerance or ignorance.
I understand that you don’t like the British army but I don’t agree with demolishing every army memorial on the island. That’s neither ignorant nor intolerant.
I understand that nationalists have been short-changed over the decades/centuries, but I’m not going to dress in sack cloth and ashes for it. That’s neither ignorant nor intolerant.
“Fiosrach referred to HM as ‘the German queen’. I think it’s what started this digression.”
There seems to be a sense of shame in the german roots of the british royal family and his comments appear to be poking a stick into this sore spot.
Would that be correct?
I don’t believe anyone actually said the queen wasn’t british though and personally I don’t think anyone could be deemed more british than the queen.
I guess dev could equally be linked to Irish, Spanish and American ancestry but it doesn’t mean he wasn’t Irish.
There however would be no sense of shame in devs Spanish or American ancestry whereas there appears to be an issue with acknowledging the german heritage of the royal family.
Why is that?
It also goes back to the different points of view I talked about.
I would have the same shame of being referred to as british as some appear to have with the queen being referred to as german.
I don’t think we are that different, more that we see things from different points of view as I say, based on our life experiences.
He called her ‘the German queen’. Not the queen of German heritage.
I’ve never met anyone who has issues acknowledging the royal heritage. The various backgrounds of the totals gets constant reference.
Blackadder goes forth for example. The myriad of references to Prince Michael and the Czar? Greek prince Philip?
People just get annoyed at petty jibes like Fiosrach’s. It’s unnecessary and he’d spit feathers if Irish figures were regarded by their British ancestry.
The royal family changed their name 100 years ago. The only people who care are seemingly Irish nationalists. Why is that?
If people were so ashamed of it then there wouldn’t be so many street names called Coburg or Hannover in the UK. But yet they are in abundance. As they are in other parts of the commonwealth.
Why are people obsessed with pedigree in political discussions. Is it because of the tendency to chase any stick that’s thrown for us, a futile exercise surely; what about Sir Roger Casement? Woooo Woooo here boy here boy go fetch
It’s also racist to deny someone’s nationality because three of their great grandparents were immigrants.
Yet again racism is revealed as part of the world view of extreme Irish nationalists.
“If you think any of what I say is incorrect then go ahead and highlight it.”
OK
“This is the same UUP whose leader advised choosing SDLP over DUP? ”
This is false, he did not advise anyone on how they should vote.
He was trying to persuade nationalists who would vote SDLP to transfer UUP over the pact with SDLP and was caught on the hoof and when asked what he would do, he could not get out of it and made the claim he would transfer SDLP.
He also made it clear he would NOT advise anyone else to do so and indeed the fall out began in his party over his gaff.
“Calling SF out on their past is wrong but calling the UUP out on theirs is right?”
This is also wrong.
Sinn Fein have been scrutinised and even faced heavy media bias over there past not all of it even true.
Calling nationalism and republicans on their past while covering up british state murders and collusion and ignoring the past and present failures of unionism is very wrong and damaging relations.
“I feel people like the writer of this post will not like a version of the past that is a two-way street.”
This is also wrong. Nationalists would dearly love a version of the past that is a two-way street.
Perhaps then we would not be called terrorists and be looked down upon as ungrateful dirt in the crocodile classes that should be happy with out lot.
“OK
“This is the same UUP whose leader advised choosing SDLP over DUP? ”
This is false, he did not advise anyone on how they should vote.
He was trying to persuade nationalists who would vote SDLP to transfer UUP over the pact with SDLP and was caught on the hoof and when asked what he would do, he could not get out of it and made the claim he would transfer SDLP.
He also made it clear he would NOT advise anyone else to do so and indeed the fall out began in his party over his gaff.”
Semantics, ‘advise’ may not have been the correct word, the point is it was a good thing to say and he stands by it.
“This is also wrong.
Sinn Fein have been scrutinised and even faced heavy media bias over there past not all of it even true”
And when they are called on it they whinge about it, claim media bias, scream about how unfair it is and talk as everyone is out to get them.
“This is also wrong. Nationalists would dearly love a version of the past that is a two-way street.”
That’s for him to say, not you.
*Context
““I feel people like the WRITER of this post will not like a version of the past that is a two-way street.”
This is also wrong. Nationalists would dearly love a version of the past that is a two-way street.
Perhaps then we would not be called terrorists and be looked down upon as ungrateful dirt in the crocodile classes that should be happy with out lot.”
That’s for him to say, not you. You see, my point was about him, you made it about something else. Again.
I wouldn’t dream of asking anyone to dress in sack cloth and ashes AG.
You are mistaking me for a particular brand of unionist perhaps.
I do expect some form of acknowledgement from a future leadership of unionism over their part in the imposition of partition and in starting the conflict known as the troubles in 1968 or 69 depending on opinion and far greater scrutiny in general.
British army war memorials will only remain in Ireland if the Irish people are comfortable with them being here and it is time unionists started getting used to that type of thinking.
If the british state held up their hands, said we were fully engaged in the conflict (as we know they were) and did not have suitable controls in place to manage the security forces back in the 70s which resulted in a period of wreckless behaviour within the armed forces which added to and prolonged the conflict.
We also know that Nairac deliberately thwarted the peace talks in 75 and was behind the reavey and kingsmill attacks to break the ceasefires then to bring the sas into the conflict. The UVF even claimed they refused to carry out the next step of that planned series of actions which was to murder a whole classroom full of kids in south Armagh which they feared would bring us to all out civil war.
All of this evidence, all names such as the RUC who engaged with those responsible for Loughinisland which are being withheld and all available documentation should be released to the legal teams of at the very least the innocent civilians murdered by the state, whether it be the FRU, MRF or loyalist paramilitaries managed by them and who they directed to kill innocent catholics as a strategy.
If Britain is not prepared to do this, then they damn well better stop calling us the terrorists and terrorist supporters.
They are the ones still actively covering up terrorist actions in 2017
If Britain did do this and we could put the past behind us, then my preference would be for a stronger relationship with britain and most people would have little interest in the war memorials.
But if unionism keeps using bigotry and biased views of the past to hold back the change which is coming anyway and which is unstoppable, then the relationship between these islands will go through the gutter into the sewer and it wont just be the war memorials which go. Every street sign and relic of british rule will be seen as distasteful by many and I don’t think the north will be a comfortable place for unionists in the future,