Yet another Unionist numskull.

SirHenryGrattan

Here is the latest from someone called Eric Waugh writing in the BT.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eric-waugh/how-those-who-donrsquot-learn-from-history-are-doomed-to-repeat-it-14230564.html

His thesis is that Irish independence movements have a love affair with the gun. Well, is that surprising? O'Connell tried and got nowhere, Parnell tried and got nowhere, Redmond tried, was offered partition and said no. The post 1918 election Dail was told to get lost. John Hume pissed in the wind for years.

It took 114 years to get a flawed Home Rule bill on the statute book. It took 30 years to get power sharing implemented in NI. People get tired of hearing no and they won't wait forever. That's the lesson from history.

GuanYin

Hold on, are you actually justifying terrorism and the murder of innocents?

P. Breathnach

GuanYin wrote: »

Hold on, are you actually justifying terrorism and the murder of innocents?

Don't give yourself a prize for spotting that one: it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

GuanYin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Don't give yourself a prize for spotting that one: it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

Well I'd like the OP to clarify his point, I'm not entirely sure what it is.

kujosHeist

I think the point mrgrattan was tryin to make, although i could be wrong, is that after the best part of 1000 years, sometimes violence has to be resorted to in response to violence, and thats not me supporting terrorism or bombing innocents before anyeone trys to put words in my mouth

SirHenryGrattan

GuanYin wrote: »

Hold on, are you actually justifying terrorism and the murder of innocents?

So all independence or political movements are simply conduits for terrorism. Is that your point? If so then maybe we should start pulling down all those statues of Cromwell.

Erin Go Brath

The Belfast Telegraph is a unionist leaning paper from what i've heard from people, although i can't say i've ever read it personally. The Irish Independence movements love affair with the gun. He sounds like another who harbours under the illusion that Irish independence would have been granted in time by our ever so benevolent former masters. :P Not a chance! The only way to gain freedom was to meet British savagery by a savagery of our own. I'm not trying to glorify violence btw, i just think realism needs to enter the equation at some stage. Whilst i'm against armed insurrection as a rule, it was a necessary evil in the struggle for independence.

Sleipnir

GuanYin wrote: »

Hold on, are you actually justifying terrorism and the murder of innocents?

It's not terrorism, it's "Regime Change". Get with the times man.

Lemming

Funny thing that. India was handed independence ... whadyaknow .... they didn't need to use violence to get their way. The writer has a point about our history (and I am depressed to call it "our" since it is collectively the history of this island)

gurramok

Funny thing that Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Algeria, Israel, Most Latin Amerrican countries, a good number of African countries, Vietnam, Cambodia, Manchuria, alot of occupied countries in WWII etc were handed independence ... whadyaknow .... they had to use violence to get their way for their people's.

Suppose the war between India and Pakistan over an imaginary line composed by Britain which was drawn between their countries in forgotten, only a few million died.

LordSutch

Just imagine if the UFF or some other group of misfits planted a 500lb Bomb in a shopping centre this Saturday as a Start to a new Loyalist armed campaign, & as a warning to CIRA and the nationalist community in the North that NI was not to be shaken free of the Union!

Imagine the dead bodies, the grieving people left behind, the body parts strewn all over the streets after the impact > would we be appalled? would the Bomb achieve its goal? and would we call it a "Terrorist Attack"? or just accept it as part of the counter movement on this island? (civilians are coleteral damage y'know), and accept that this is what needs to happen from time to time in order to make a point, to acheive ones political aims, and on this hypothetical occassion, to send a message to all, that we (UFF) are (keeping NI in the Union) .............

I agree with the letter in the Belfast telegraph, I think physical force Republicanism has been a curse on this island for far too long. I can only surmise that Home Rule would have taken place after the Great War, and if it had, we could have had a very 'productive' & trouble free 90 years to grow and flourish into a normal society, where physical force was not embraced & excused 'by some' as necessecary from time to time :mad:

I thought the letter in the Telegraph was quite thought provoking & informative, so I dunno why Sir Henry calls the author a 'Numbskull'.

jimmmy

Camelot wrote: »

Just imagine if the UFF or some other group of misfits planted a 500lb Bomb in a shopping centre this Saturday as a Start to a new armed campaign, & as a warning to CIRA and the nationalist community in the North that NI was not to be shaken free of the Union!

Imagine the dead bodies, the grieving people left behind, the body parts strewn all over the streets after the impact > would we be appalled? would the Bomb achieve its goal? and would we call it a "Terrorist Attack"? or just accept it as part of the counter movement on this island? (civilians are coleteral damage y'know), and accept that this is what needs to happen from time to time in order to make a point, to acheive ones political aims, and on this hypothetical occassion, sending a message that we (UFF) are (keeping NI in the Union) .............

I agree with the letter in the Belfast telegraph, I think physical force Republicanism has been a curse on this island for far too long..

Lets hope the other side does not retaliate. Of course physical force Republicanism has been a curse on this island. It has divided people, caused untold misery and suffering, and other countries have got independence ( for better or worse ...eg look at Africa ) without it.
Imagine if the boot had been on the other foot.

Camelot wrote: »

I dunno why Sir Henry calls the author a 'Numbskull'.

Its because the OP, "Sir Henry" , disagreed with him.

BTE72

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The Belfast Telegraph is a unionist leaning paper from what i've heard from people, although i can't say i've ever read it personally. The Irish Independence movements love affair with the gun. He sounds like another who harbours under the illusion that Irish independence would have been granted in time by our ever so benevolent former masters. :P Not a chance! The only way to gain freedom was to meet British savagery by a savagery of our own. I'm not trying to glorify violence btw, i just think realism needs to enter the equation at some stage. Whilst i'm against armed insurrection as a rule, it was a necessary evil in the struggle for independence.

Perhaps you should read the Belfast Telegraph before commenting on the paper.
Is this guys comments enough for your blood to boil? Don't forget how many innocents were slain by this necessary evil? What about the pizza delivery boy/ british army collaberator who was gunned down in the struggle for the very freedom we have.
Is it possible that this unionist may be referring to recent events?

Exile 1798

Camelot wrote: »

I agree with the letter in the Belfast telegraph, I think physical force Republicanism has been a curse on this island for far too long. I can only surmise that Home Rule would have taken place after the Great War, and if it had, we could have had a very 'productive' & trouble free 90 years to grow and flourish into a normal society, where physical force was not embraced & excused 'by some' as necessecary from time to time :mad:

I challenged this assertion of yours that Ireland was a peaceful and harmonious island but for Republicanism. You didn't have anything to respond with then, perhaps you'd care to do so now.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Ireland was not some sort of peaceful and harmonious country before The Rising. Not only where the scars already present at the turn of the 20th centenary but people still had memories of their infliction. The bitterness and division was there, it was not created by James Conolly or Patrick Pearse.

The Cromwellian wars, the Act of Union, the Penal Laws, the Protestant Ascendency, the attempt the destroy the Irish language, The Plantation, the Famine, rebellion after rebellion drowned by atrocity after atrocity.

Surely you must know of these things?

How can you say we cut out the Unionists? Didn't the Unionists oppose any measure of Home Rule? Didn't they call it Rome Rule? Didn't they threaten Civil War if this popular and moderate aim of Irish Nationalism was met?

Isnt it true that by 1921, after ruling the country for 400 years the Unionist minority where incapable of securing even one whole Irish Province for themselves? Don’t you think that might have been the time for them to compromise, for them to acquiesce to the wishes of the majority of the county? Instead they forced partition, not just of the Nation but of Ulster. Such was their contempt and sheer hatred of their fellow countrymen.

Is anyone else sick of the upside-down version of Irish history we are asked to swallow?

oscarBravo

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I challenged this assertion of yours that Ireland was a peaceful and harmonious island but for Republicanism.

I see no such assertion. What's with the straw man?

djpbarry

Lemming wrote: »

Funny thing that. India was handed independence ... whadyaknow .... they didn't need to use violence to get their way.

Ah yes, but as was pointed out on another thread, India is really far away. You see, the level of influence of the British Empire in the early 20th century obeyed Pearse's Law:

B = I / D^2

where B was the level of influence held by the British in a particular state, D was the distance from said state to Britain and I was the number of Irish people per head of population in said state. For values of B greater than P (Pearse's constant), independence could not possibly have been peacefully attained.

jimmmy

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah yes, but as was pointed out on another thread, India is really far away.

One quarter of the administration in India was Irish. India still got independence, the number of Irish who ruled it had nothing to do with it. In that era, practically every European country ( Spain, Belgium, France, Holland etc ) had colonies, and if Ireland had been stong enough we would have had one of our own too. Other places got independence from the UK without undue bloodshed too eg Barbados, Malta etc

Exile 1798

More basic errors about Irish history.

The British claim was that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Rather different to India.

Also, India was not "handed independence" They struggled and many thousands died for it. Very disrespectful to them to state that it was merely “handed” to them.

Exile 1798

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah yes, but as was pointed out on another thread, India is really far away. You see, the level of influence of the British Empire in the early 20th century obeyed Pearse's Law:

B = I / D^2

where B was the level of influence held by the British in a particular state, D was the distance from said state to Britain and I was the number of Irish people per head of population in said state. For values of B greater than P (Pearse's constant), independence could not possibly have been peacefully attained.

Yet I note that when the great difference's between Ireland and India where enumerated in that other thread you didn't, or couldn't challenge any of them.

djpbarry

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Yet I note that when the great difference's between Ireland and India where enumerated in that other thread you didn't, or couldn't challenge any of them.

If I recall correctly, the "great differences" that were mentioned were (a) the vast distance between India and Britain and (b) the large population in India. You're right; I can't challenge either of those incontrovertible facts. You'll note however that not once did I claim that the situation in India post-WWII was exactly the same as that in Ireland at the time of the Rising.

Exile 1798

djpbarry wrote: »

If I recall correctly, the "great differences" that were mentioned were (a) the vast distance between India and Britain and (b) the large population in India. You're right; I can't challenge either of those incontrovertible facts. You'll note however that not once did I claim that the situation in India post-WWII was exactly the same as that in Ireland at the time of the Rising.

Also the sheer size of the country.

Fair enough if you haven’t claimed that Ireland and India where in the same position.

As I recall the discussion came up when a number of people lazily dismissed The Rising because "Gandhi did it with non-violence."

Deedsie

Exile 1798 wrote: »

More basic errors about Irish history.

The British claim was that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Rather different to India.

Also, India was not "handed independence" They struggled and many thousands died for it. Very disrespectful to them to state that it was merely “handed” to them.

It may have been the British claim that Ireland was part of the UK.

If we all Claim the North is part of the Republic, it doesnt just make it so.

We were forced into it as a colony, not equal members.

oscarBravo

Exile 1798 wrote: »

As I recall the discussion came up when a number of people lazily dismissed The Rising because "Gandhi did it with non-violence."

Speaking for myself, my objection to the Rising is that I have a problem with the idea of killing people to further a political agenda.

That Ghandi achieved Indian independence with non-violence is simply a counter to the idea that it couldn't have been achieved any other way.

Apropos, how many people were killed in the Canadian and Australian wars of independence?

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apropos, how many people were killed in the Canadian and Australian wars of independence?

Why should people loyal to the British Queen be killed by that very queen for asking to have a parliament of their own?

Fyi, the British queen is still head of state of those countries, different situations to us.

silverharp

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apropos, how many people were killed in the Canadian and Australian wars of independence?

very different , they were planted, where the majority looked at Britain as some kind of Motherland.

There probably were better ways of going about this but hey the Irish approach wasnt so unique

Exile 1798

Again Oscar, I don't believe this is comparing like with like and is rather a lazy argument to make.

A better comparison of the relationship between Ireland and Britain would be that of Algeria and France. The French colonized Algeria and claimed it as theirs: "Algeria Francais."

This necessitated a notoriously bloody war for independence. Not a war that I'd blame the Algerians for, though perhaps you would?

T runner

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Here is the latest from someone called Eric Waugh writing in the BT.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eric-waugh/how-those-who-donrsquot-learn-from-history-are-doomed-to-repeat-it-14230564.html

His thesis is that Irish independence movements have a love affair with the gun. Well, is that surprising? O'Connell tried and got nowhere, Parnell tried and got nowhere, Redmond tried, was offered partition and said no. The post 1918 election Dail was told to get lost. John Hume pissed in the wind for years.

It took 114 years to get a flawed Home Rule bill on the statute book. It took 30 years to get power sharing implemented in NI. People get tired of hearing no and they won't wait forever. That's the lesson from history.

This is indeed an unhelpful and prejudiced article. The comments from the majority of posters from both sides of the community after the article seem to concur. His implication (folklore he calls it) that Gerry Adams father lit bombfires on Divis to attract the Luftwaffe during WW2 shows him for the historian he is.

He also fails to point out that the British used O'Connells peaceful methods against him by threatening violence if he didnt cancel a mass meeting which broke his power after he cancelled it. He seems to blame this on the Young Irelanders and the Fenians.

He also compares a few kids throwing stones in Lurgan to the Civil unrest of 1969.

The articles only purpose can be to make Unionsists fearful of an exageratedly widespread dangerous situation arising from the dissident republicans actions. This type of tactic is used to try and polarise unionism reminiscent of tried and tester tactics used in the last 30 years of the 20th century.

jimmmy

Exile 1798 wrote: »

A better comparison of the relationship between Ireland and Britain would be that of Algeria and France.

Why not Italy and Sicily ? Why not call for Sicilian independence ?
In 1910 / 1915 we had world class infrastructure, railways, canals, universities , architecture, harbours ( the airports of their time ) and some services were more efficient than they are now !

LordSutch

Exile 1798 wrote: »

A better comparison of the relationship between Ireland and Britain would be that of Algeria and France. The French colonized Algeria and claimed it as theirs: "Algeria Francais."

Algeria is in Africa, its a thousand miles away from France, it had nothing to do with France pre French colonisation, Malta is another example of a Colony, it too is a thousand miles away from Britain, it had no links whatsoever with Britain pre colonisation, then there is the relationship between (Britain/Ireland) & Australia which is also a very 'Colonial relationship' 3000+ miles away.

Ireland on the other hand is just (24 miles from Britain) we share the same gene pools, same cultures, shared history from the dawn of time (due to proximity) so in my book, Ireland just cannot be described as being 'colonized' in the true sense of the Word . . .

Maybe Gozo is a Maltese Colony?

jimmmy

Camelot wrote: »

Maybe Gozo is a Maltese Colony?

lol c'mon Exile 1798, why not be consistent and argue for independence for Gozo ? If the G.R.A. ( Gozo Republican Army ) fought for independence from their imperial masters Malta after 800 years of oppression, will you support them ?

I agree "Ireland on the other hand is just (24 miles from Britain) we share the same gene pools, same cultures, shared history from the dawn of time (due to proximity) so in my book, Ireland just cannot be described as a Colony in the true sence of the Word . . ."

philologos

I thought his article was very good, explaining how moderates such as Parnell, Redmond and O'Connell and such a legacy eventually became smothered by militant Republicans.

oscarBravo

Thread closed, because (a) the title was needlessly provocative, and (b) it's rehashing old ground that's already being thoroughly covered in other threads.