Hate the English??

Fratton Fred

Can we just confirm that this about the English, not Britain right?

ejmaztec

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Can we just confirm that this about the English, not Britain right?

It could go either way, and probably has done.

furiousox

And the "we" is? I'm not in the habit of abandoning people to save my own skin. To revise everything and write at least 700,000 Irish people - arguably the most Irish of us all in historical terms (but shhhh) - out of Ireland and Irishness in the process of saving my own skin is unconscionable.

Good for you

Work away, though.

Thanks, l will

Rebelheart

chopperbyrne wrote: »

occupation

oc⋅cu⋅pa⋅tion [ok-yuh-pey-shuhn]

1. a person's usual or principal work or business, esp. as a means of earning a living; vocation: Her occupation was dentistry.
2. any activity in which a person is engaged.
3. possession, settlement, or use of land or property.
4. the act of occupying.
5. the state of being occupied.
6. the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory.
7. the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Danish resistance during the German occupation.
8. tenure or the holding of an office or official function: during his occupation of the vice presidency.


So you're saying that English are controlling Northern Ireland by military force?

Of course not: there were only 50,000 armed members of the British crown in the Six Counties - 1 armed servant of that crown for every 14 Irish nationalists, as David Miller noted in Rethinking Northern Ireland. Or as Noam Chomsky put it in an interview in June 1993 following a visit to Ireland, prior to the Stevens Inquiry and other reports from the United Nations, Helsinki Watch and Amnesty confirming collusion:

"The country is under military occupation. There's no secret about that. There are armored personnel carriers going through the streets, armed blockades right in the middle of Belfast center, etc. There is plenty of killing by paramilitaries on both sides. There is open debate about the extent to which or if the British forces are connected to the loyalists, the mainly Protestant paramilitary, and there is probably some connection, but nobody knows how much. In the Catholic community, listening to the stories was very much like walking around the West Bank a couple of years ago, the same kinds of humiliation and beating and torture. There aren't a lot of ways to have your boot on someone's neck. It always turns out about the same."

http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rab/rab-5.html

As a cultural and political project, British foreign policy is shaped by some of the most exceptional chancers this planet has ever witnessed. Going into all sorts of lands and communities century after century and claiming to the world that they are "helping" the natives is, understandably, believed by British people who need their nationalist myths of superiority. What's your excuse?

mike65

Rebelheart wrote: »

You're very quick there, Mike. It took you how many years of US multinationals to discover that all on your own?

When the US military evicts my family, beats the living sh!te of my family and keeps us faoi chois for centuries, rams their language, laws and customs down our throat, excludes us from all power in our own country for centuries, and imposes a sectarian herrenvolk régime from the United States upon us, you will have an analogy.

In the meantime, kindly desist from talking sh!te. Thank you.

:rolleyes:

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Can we just confirm that this about the English, not Britain right?

Em, there is a difference? Oh FrattonFred! - wasn't it you who claimed, in all seriousness and true to the central myth which is necessary for British nationalism to continue, that the Scots and Welsh were not conquered by the English?


You wouldn't happen to be British, by any chance?

"Briitshness" is an invention of the 17th century which is designed to make the conquered Scottish and Welsh offer themselves for England's wars. The British state is merely the English state extended.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Em, there is a difference? Oh FrattonFred! - wasn't it you who claimed, in all seriousness and true to the central myth which is necessary for British nationalism to continue, that the Scots and Welsh were not conquered by the English?


You wouldn't happen to be British, by any chance?

"Briitshness" is an invention of the 17th century which is designed to make the conquered Scottish and Welsh offer themselves for England's wars. The British state is merely the English state extended.

No, I'm English. England did not conquer Scotland and to an extent, Wales (they started it).

It was a Scottish king who claimed the English crown and the union came about after the Scottish government went bust.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, I'm English. England did not conquer Scotland and to an extent, Wales (they started it).

It was a Scottish king who claimed the English crown and the union came about after the Scottish government went bust.

Please, Fratton Fred. You demean yourself by falling hook, line and sinker for the myth that your "British" society was not created out of England's military power. I have heard so many nationally-minded British people trot this "consensual unity" line ad nauseam and in the process wilfully writing all the wars and anti-English alliances out of the picture for the sake of the common good, as "common good" is now defined.

furiousox

...there were only 50,000 armed members of the British crown in the Six Counties.....

....or as Noam Chomsky put it in an interview in June 1993.......

l'd wager there are a lot less than 50,000 troops stationed in the North in 2009, and no, before you start, that doesn't make it "ok" but it is progress.

mike65

The Scots, like the Irish wouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans without the English "influence", as it was Scotland flourished as part of the UK.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, I'm English. England did not conquer Scotland and to an extent, Wales (they started it).

It was a Scottish king who claimed the English crown and the union came about after the Scottish government went bust.

To take an example of the "consensual unity" myth which is still at the heart of British nationalism today, would that "Scottish king" have been the son of an Englishman named Henry Stuart, first duke of Albany?

Indeed, I believe that is precisely who this "Scottish king" was. But shhhh he was Scottish, he was Scottish, he was Scottish.

Rebelheart

furiousox wrote: »

l'd wager there are a lot less than 50,000 troops stationed in the North in 2009, and no, before you start, that doesn't make it "ok" but it is progress.

Yes, there are of course a lot less now. But to say that the British presence does not depend on military power and an occupation of the nationalist community is silly. In 1972, when IRA membership rocketed following Bloody Sunday and that state's presence in Ireland was threatened, there was no less than 50,000 armed British personnel defending the British presence. In 1993 and 1998 there were 34,000 armed personnel defending that same state, a presence which included widespread and internationally attested to military occupation of nationalist communities across the northeast of Ireland.

Some people, it seems, would like to sanitise what British rule rests upon and dress it up as something other than a military occupation. The British would have nothing here without their military superiority/ greater capacity to inflict violence. This should be obvious.

ejmaztec

Rebelheart wrote: »

To take an example of the "consensual unity" myth which is still at the heart of British nationalism today, would that "Scottish king" have been the son of an Englishman named Henry Stuart, first duke of Albany?

Indeed, I believe that is precisely who this "Scottish king" was. But shhhh he was Scottish, he was Scottish, he was Scottish.

Yes he was, and so was his mother, what's the problem?

Johnnie Walker is Scottish! but it is now in me!

Slanté

Thornography

The English are grand... when in England.

mike65

I like your sig.

PirateShampoo

Ive a question if Rebelheart has this much of a problem with any other nation and its citizens would he still be aloud to post here?

mike65

Don't see why not. So long as he dosn't indulge in hate speech or incitement to violence.

Acacia

This thread still going?

No, I do not hate the English.

ch750536

furiousox wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone has seen lron Maiden live anytime they played in lreland?

They usually wave the old union jack around quite a bit on stage.

Did they produce it in Dublin or Belfast and if they did what was the crowds reaction?

Genuine question, not trying to stir anything up one way or the other.

Just curious is all.....

Iron Maiden didn't do half the **** the HM Forces did & kids aren't encouraged to play with them either.

ch750536

Deleted User wrote: »

What flag do you expect the Royal Marines to use, the flag of Mongolia for example. :rolleyes:

Reminds me of

The problem with boards is that there are people just bending over to be nice.

What would you say if the yanks tried to sell 'GI Joe' to the Iraqis? Bear in mind the yanks were freeing not invading.

How about a nice Serbian uniformed toy to sell to the Croats?

ch750536

chopperbyrne wrote: »

HM Royal Marines are not occupying part of our country either.

Said subjugation ended almost a century ago. Should we all hate every German because of World War II?

Do Jews hate Germans?
Do Poles hate Russians?

ch750536

ch750536 wrote: »

Do Jews hate Germans?
Do Poles hate Russians?

Have you asked them? you may be disappointed by the response!

ch750536

Most poles I know hate russians.

Most Jews I know don't hate germans, but wouldn't cross the road to help one.

ch750536

ch750536 wrote: »

Most poles I know hate russians.

Most Jews I know don't hate germans, but wouldn't cross the road to help one.

I know several Jews, but I have never discussed WWII and the Germans with them so I don't know how they feel, it never came up in general conversation.

I also know some Poles but I have never discussed WWII and the Russians with them so I don't know how they feel, it never came up in general conversation.

You must have some very interesting discussions with people!

ch750536

Beer helps.

Thats a general comment btw.

furiousox

Rebelheart wrote: »

Yes, there are of course a lot less now. But to say that the British presence does not depend on military power and an occupation of the nationalist community is silly. In 1972, when IRA membership rocketed following Bloody Sunday and that state's presence in Ireland was threatened, there was no less than 50,000 armed British personnel defending the British presence. In 1993 and 1998 there were 34,000 armed personnel defending that same state, a presence which included widespread and internationally attested to military occupation of nationalist communities across the northeast of Ireland.

Some people, it seems, would like to sanitise what British rule rests upon and dress it up as something other than a military occupation. The British would have nothing here without their military superiority/ greater capacity to inflict violence. This should be obvious.

Where did l say that "the British presence depends on military power"?

And where exactly did l "sanitise what British rule rests upon and dress it up as something other than a military occupation"

Don't twist my words to suit your argument.

All l did was state a modern numerical figure, a statistic.

You keep pulling up stats and arguments from the last century and beyond!

The only implication l would take from having less troops in Northern lreland is that there is less terrorist activity there nowadays (progress)

Like it or not, British rule "rests upon" the wishes of the majority of the population in the north.

When the majority (in the north) decide its time for them to go they will go.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

To take an example of the "consensual unity" myth which is still at the heart of British nationalism today, would that "Scottish king" have been the son of an Englishman named Henry Stuart, first duke of Albany?

Indeed, I believe that is precisely who this "Scottish king" was. But shhhh he was Scottish, he was Scottish, he was Scottish.

Well lets take a look shall we.

Hi name was James VI of Scotland, but also became James I of England. He was born in Edinburgh Castle to his mother, Mary Queen of Scots (There might be a clue in his name) and his Father, Henry Stuart, was born in Leeds whilst his father, Matthew stuart, the 4th Earl of Lennox (Leader of the catholic nobility in Scotland) was in exile there. Matthew Stuart incidentally also had a claim to the throne of Scotland.

So yeah, all in all, I would say that James Charles Stuart was actually a full blown, kilt wearing, haggis chomping Scotsman.

furiousox

ch750536 wrote: »

Iron Maiden didn't do half the **** the HM Forces did & kids aren't encouraged to play with them either.

".....didn't do half the **** HM forces did"

Wow, what did they (maiden) do exactly??

Happy Monday

ch750536 wrote: »

Its the HM & union flags I have an issue with.

Bet you wouldn't have any issue with an Arsenal shirt in Elverys.
Although there is a strong historic connection between this and the British Army.