Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Tim Pat Coogan on Ulster unionists
Options
Comments
-
Better to judge the man on what he has done rather than some distinct definition or interpretation of a title.
I would say that there are many who have earned the title historian (by historical studies and qualification in the field) who write inferior work to others who gain unqualified education. In terms of reading history I would prefer a well sourced book than a book by someone entitled historian.0 -
any idiot can write a book about the Famine, conclude that it was genocide and sell lots of copies.
There are sufficient numbers of people who are convinced it was genocide, they are looking to prove their own views.
It would be interesting to see a proper historian examine his theories.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »any idiot can write a book about the Famine, conclude that it was genocide and sell lots of copies.
There are sufficient numbers of people who are convinced it was genocide, they are looking to prove their own views.
It would be interesting to see a proper historian examine his theories.
These theories are not new and have been examined many times particularly around the 150th anniversary of the famine.
I have already referenced above 'The great famine: Irelands agony' by Ciaran O Murchadha which goes into detailed examination of how the famine was treated by the British ruling governments of the time. The author is a lecturer in NUI Galways history department so you should find his work interesting Fred. Its an excellent book with constant references to records of the time both in a local sense and political records. He also makes many references to the many other books on the famine giving reasons for and against many of the arguments previously made.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Famine-Irelands-Agony-1845-1852/dp/1847252176/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355254344&sr=1-10 -
Coogan is a reporter by training and an editor by profession. He makes his living by writing (very well it has to be said) about history and generating controversy - imo, he is the Eamon Dunphy / George Hook of history writing.
He is knowledgeable but he knows what sells books and builds his profile. I find his books are definitely worth a read as long as you accept he's writing from a particular angle.
Contrast him with someone like Diarmaid Ferriter - his books are much heavier going but more interesting in their analysis. He is Conor O'Shea to Coogan's George Hook!
I haven´t read any book by Diarmaid Ferriter yet. I know him just from some TV documentaries about the Easter Rising 1916 and a couple of other documentaries dealing with Irish history in the 20th Century.
It´s a good point you´ve made in your comparision between Coogan and Ferriter re analysis and their different stile in writing. Aside from historical facts, in writing history books there is as well some room for interpretation by the author when it comes to analyse some events and their effect on developments of current and following circumstances.
It´s also a matter of how one defines the meaning of being an Historian. IMO one doesn´t have to get an academic degree to be an Historian, but one should know what he´s writing about and this demands studies in historical matters as well.
Resently I searched for Ferriters book "Judging Dev" and when I found a page on the internet listing the titles of the chapters in that book I rather thought that this book might be writtten in a rather - as you said - heavier style of writing.
Besides some books by Coogan, I´ve read some by T. Ryle Dwyer. He´s also a historian and journalist. http://www.mercierpress.ie/tryledwyer/0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »any idiot can write a book about the Famine, conclude that it was genocide and sell lots of copies.
There are sufficient numbers of people who are convinced it was genocide, they are looking to prove their own views.
It would be interesting to see a proper historian examine his theories.
There is an organisation in the United States, which I will not name as I do not want to promote them (if you don't know and are interested, you can PM me).
They have been pushing the 'Famine was genocide' notion for years. They also claim five million people died ('murdered' is the word they use), and that more people died in the Famine than the World War II Holocaust.
I haven't read Coogan's book, though I am very interested to do so. I may pick it up to read over Christmas. But being on the same side as groups like the aforementioned one does no one's argument any favours.
This group also claim that
(1) Children of Protestants born in Northern Ireland are automatically 'British', while children of Catholics are automatically 'Irish', without any room for distinction or nuance.
(2) The Omagh bomb was planted by M15 and the RUC.
(3) Gerry Adams and the Provisional IRA are sell-outs, and the 'Real' IRA are the only group that should be referred to as the IRA.
Bear in mind, their Chairman was born in American, and has spent most of his life there.0 -
Advertisement
-
MakeEmLaugh wrote: »What are people's thoughts on Tim Pat Coogan as an historian? While I certainly admire his prolificacy, and find him a thoroughly entertaining orator, his obvious bias regarding Ulster unionism can rear its head in petty, vindictive ways.
Take, for instance, the prologue to his epic tome The IRA, in which he writes:
"The average Englishman wants nothing to do with 'Ulster' as they mistakenly call the Six Counties."
I find this passage both spiteful and unintentionally funny. 'Ulster' may not be the official name for Northern Ireland, but it certainly has more validity than 'the Six Counties'. BBC Radio Ulster, the University of Ulster, the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Orchestra just four examples of its official use.
If we cannot use 'Ulster' to refer to a state which does covers most, but not all, of Ulster, why do we use 'Ireland' to refer to a state that comprises most, but not all, of Ireland?
Coogan goes on to describe Terence O'Neill in his book, laughably, as 'the Six County Prime Minister'. Would Coogan object to the terms Ulstermen and Ulsterwomen, preferring the term 'Six Countian'?
Both Coogan and John Laird of the Ulster Unionist Party appeared on The Late Late Show in 3 March 2006 to discuss the commemoration of the 1916 Rising. Whenever Laird made reference to 'Ulster-Scots' at any point in the discussion, Coogan would make it a point to then refer to them as 'Scotch-Irish'. When Laird made reference to the 'million unionists in the North of Ireland', Coogan interrupted by saying '850,000', to a rapturous applause from the studio audience.
Everything he said here is factual. You're annoyed because a historian (or historical writer as somebody pointed out) is concerned with the facts. Lord help us.0 -
MakeEmLaugh wrote: »What I found amusing is that Coogan professes to be an historian, dispelling popularly held misconceptions about Northern Ireland. The fact is, the term 'the Six Counties' (deliberate capitalisation by Coogan, as well) has absolutely no more validity than 'Ulster'.
In fact, you'll find Ulster has a great deal more validity. The Ulster Unionist Party, the University of Ulster, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Museum, BBC Radio Ulster. What are the institutions within Northern Ireland which use the term 'Six Counties'? Where are the official census forms which offer 'Six Countian' as demonym alongside 'Ulsterman' and 'Ulsterwoman'?
Had Coogan written, "'Ulster' as they mistakenly call Northern Ireland", that would have been a perfectly accurate statement.
But to refer to Northern Ireland patronisingly as 'the Six Counties' is laughably biased, as is the reference to Terence O'Neill as 'the Six County Prime Minister'.
Six counties is far more accurate a description than either Ulster or northern Ireland, regardless of how many organisations mistakenly use it. A popular misconception is still a misconception. I'd say your annoyance over this just comes more from the fact that it's a term republicans and nationalists use, which really says more about you than TPC0 -
MakeEmLaugh wrote: »There is an organisation in the United States, which I will not name as I do not want to promote them (if you don't know and are interested, you can PM me).
They have been pushing the 'Famine was genocide' notion for years. They also claim five million people died ('murdered' is the word they use), and that more people died in the Famine than the World War II Holocaust.
I haven't read Coogan's book, though I am very interested to do so. I may pick it up to read over Christmas. But being on the same side as groups like the aforementioned one does no one's argument any favours.
This group also claim that
(1) Children of Protestants born in Northern Ireland are automatically 'British', while children of Catholics are automatically 'Irish', without any room for distinction or nuance.
(2) The Omagh bomb was planted by M15 and the RUC.
(3) Gerry Adams and the Provisional IRA are sell-outs, and the 'Real' IRA are the only group that should be referred to as the IRA.
Bear in mind, their Chairman was born in American, and has spent most of his life there.
If you´re going to take all that as serious, than it´s your choice. I wouldn´t take it that way because some Americans have a very special view on history and these are sometimes very strange.0 -
MakeEmLaugh wrote: »I regard Coogan as an historian, but he is far from an objective historian. Take this other passage from The IRA:
"The 1916 Rebellion by the Irish Volunteers was in fact an armed gesture by a body which came into being only in reply to an earlier gesture by the Protestants of Northern Ireland - the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force to frustrate the British Liberal government's plans to introduce Home Rule to all Ireland. Had the Protestants of the North not acted thus Home Rule would have been passed, and it is difficult to see what force would have have existed to stage the 1916. It seems certain however that there would have been no Irish Republican Army; no IRA (emphasis mine)."
If you're writing an 864 page tome to the IRA, why make such a broad generalisation? The IRA were not Home Rulers; they were separatists. So, too, were their precursors in the Irish Republican Brotherhood.
Coogan is an intelligent man, he knows this, so why else would he make such a sweeping statement, except to demonise those nasty Ulster Protestants, and lay the blame for all that has happened in the last hundred years at their door!
Again, this seems a perfectly logical conclusion to make based on the period leading up to the rising0 -
Being a historian is a bit like being a Catholic - there are some immersed in the dogma of the whole thing and others who are inclined to engage in the equivalent of showing up just for funerals and weddings and even then, they leave at communion.
I like TPC's books and I think as long as you appreciate that he has a certain perspective on matters they're even more enjoyable.
I think the subtitle to his current book is revealing "England's Role in Ireland's Greatest Tragedy" - why single out "England" when England was only part of the UK and a contributor to the Parliament and Government whose decisions exacerbated (if not caused) the Famine. England was not the state, it was - and is - a glorified region of a sate.
Of course, a more accurate subtitling probably wouldn't be as eyecatching.0 -
Advertisement
-
MakeEmLaugh wrote: »I could quote another Irish historian on Ulster unionists. Why don't I see if you agree or disagree with the following statements?
'When my father said that “the Orangemen brought the gun back into Irish politics,” he was omitting the nationalist contribution. It was the nationalist insistence on including the Orangemen in a united Ireland against their known and fervently declared wishes that made the Orangemen “bring back the gun.”
Agree or disagree?
Quote:
'I don't think it ever occurred to any nationalist that the determination of a million Ulster Protestants to stay in the United Kingdom represented any kind of moral force whatever'.
Agree or disagree?
This is just ridiculous. You start a thread alleging bias on the part of TPC then when that doesn't go your way you start dragging other historians into a completely different argument.
As for the quotes themselves they portray a warped sense of morality and democracy. The first for example needs a lot more context than just those few lines. Since he says United Ireland I'll take it this is post partition. It's well documented that the northern statelet was a sectarian cesspit at the time and a cold house for nationalists yet this quote seems to be indicating the opposite, that nationalists were forcing poor oppressed orangemen into an UI. The writer then seems to use nationalists having their own opinion on the constitutional question as justification for orangemen resorting to violence ie - if nationalists werent nationalists we wouldnt have to kill them. This quote is extremely disturbing.
The second one is a little more tempered but still daft. Firstly, as TPC pointed out himself, it's not a million. Secondly, certainly 850,000 unionists represent a moral force but it is still a minority moral force compared to what the people of Ireland desired (again this quote needs more context.)
This is a perverse view of democracy. Does the determination of six million Irish nationalists for a free Ireland not represent any kind of moral force?0 -
Being a historian is a bit like being a Catholic - there are some immersed in the dogma of the whole thing and others who are inclined to engage in the equivalent of showing up just for funerals and weddings and even when they do they leave at communion.
I like TPC's books and I think as long as you appreciate that he has a certain perspective on matters they're even more enjoyable.
I think the subtitle to his current book is revealing "England's Role in Ireland's Greatest Tragedy" - why single out "England" when England was only part of the UK and a contributor to the Parliament and Government whose decisions exacerbated (if not caused) the Famine. England was not the state, it was - and is - a glorified region of a sate.
Of course, a more accurate subtitling probably wouldn't be as eyecatching.
Have you read the book yet? Perhaps he explains it.0 -
Being a historian is a bit like being a Catholic - there are some immersed in the dogma of the whole thing and others who are inclined to engage in the equivalent of showing up just for funerals and weddings and even then, they leave at communion.
I like TPC's books and I think as long as you appreciate that he has a certain perspective on matters they're even more enjoyable.
I think the subtitle to his current book is revealing "England's Role in Ireland's Greatest Tragedy" - why single out "England" when England was only part of the UK and a contributor to the Parliament and Government whose decisions exacerbated (if not caused) the Famine. England was not the state, it was - and is - a glorified region of a sate.
Of course, a more accurate subtitling probably wouldn't be as eyecatching.
England was and is the leading Nation within the UK. It created and dominated the UK and therefore it´s right to single it out as such. There hasn´t been the slightest attempt neither by the Scottish, Welsh nor Irish to have a United Kingdom. If they were to choose their own way, neither of the aforesaid had joined any union with England. They came on different ways into that union. The Welsh absorbed within the English Kingdom by the Tudors, Ireland conquered by them and Scotland joined just because they were financially ruined. Without the English, there hadn´t been a British Empire as well.
I see no glorification in this, rather referring to facts.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Have you read the book yet? Perhaps he explains it.
Not yet - I'm anticipating someone buying it for me for Christmas....:)England was and is the leading Nation within the UK. It created and dominated the UK and therefore it´s right to single it out as such. There hasn´t been the slightest attempt neither by the Scottish, Welsh nor Irish to have a United Kingdom. If they were to choose their own way, neither of the aforesaid had joined any union with England. They came on different ways into that union. The Welsh absorbed within the English Kingdom by the Tudors, Ireland conquered by them and Scotland joined just because they were financially ruined. Without the English, there hadn´t been a British Empire as well.
I see no glorification in this, rather referring to facts.
that's the equivalent of holding the state of New York responsible for actions of the US Government or Bavaria responsible for German atrocities committed during WWII - England is not a sovereign state, has no executive government and is incapable of playing a role as a state actor.
I'd argue the use of the word is pejorative and included as device to sell books and calculated to appeal to a certain constituency.0 -
Not yet - I'm anticipating someone buying it for me for Christmas....:)
that's the equivalent of holding the state of New York responsible for actions of the US Government or Bavaria responsible for German atrocities committed during WWII - England is not a sovereign state, has no executive government and is incapable of playing a role as a state actor.
I'd argue the use of the word is pejorative and included as device to sell books and calculated to appeal to a certain constituency.
It is not, because what you´re referring to is the meaning of England as an state on constitutional basics. England is the leading centre of the UK and to demand that it had to be an sovereign state with executive government and capability to act as a state would mean that the UK has a federal system which she hasn´t (constitutionally) or that England wouldn´t be part of the UK at all. I was referring to the historical development of the UK and where the power was concentrated not on constitutional matters. In your example, every part of an political unity shares the glory and responsibility of the state. So it´d be with NY within the USA and Bavaria within Germany.0 -
It is not, because what you´re referring to is the meaning of England as an state on constitutional basics. England is the leading centre of the UK and to demand that it had to be an sovereign state with executive government and capability to act as a state would mean that the UK has a federal system which she hasn´t (constitutionally) or that England wouldn´t be part of the UK at all. I was referring to the historical development of the UK and where the power was concentrated not on constitutional matters. In your example, every part of an political unity shares the glory and responsibility of the state. So it´d be with NY within the USA and Bavaria within Germany.
Irish republicanism has always centred on the English. The Celtic nations apparently can do no wrong. Hence the reason why it was acceptable to murder English children but not Scottish and Welsh ones.
Of course, the truth is vastly different to this. The Scots were a driving force behind colonialism, which is why you will find so many Scottish name places abroad. The Scots also played a significant role in Ireland as well, the name "Ulster Scot" may have slipped your attention, but of course, the biggest enemy was theat nasty Englishmand David Lloyd George, who lead the British negotiating team. (Maybe that's why Churchill gets all the blame for the negotiations, being an English hero would make him an obvious choice).
The good thing about blaming the English, rather than "Da Brits" is that you can maybe flog a few copies to the Scots, Welsh and British Irish as well.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Irish republicanism has always centred on the English. The Celtic nations apparently can do no wrong. Hence the reason why it was acceptable to murder English children but not Scottish and Welsh ones.
Of course, the truth is vastly different to this. The Scots were a driving force behind colonialism, which is why you will find so many Scottish name places abroad. The Scots also played a significant role in Ireland as well, the name "Ulster Scot" may have slipped your attention, but of course, the biggest enemy was theat nasty Englishmand David Lloyd George, who lead the British negotiating team. (Maybe that's why Churchill gets all the blame for the negotiations, being an English hero would make him an obvious choice).
The good thing about blaming the English, rather than "Da Brits" is that you can maybe flog a few copies to the Scots, Welsh and British Irish as well.
Have ANY of the people on here making these sort of assumptions and ludicrous statements actually read the book because until you do your opinion on what he means by "English" is devoid of any merit.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Irish republicanism has always centred on the English. The Celtic nations apparently can do no wrong. Hence the reason why it was acceptable to murder English children but not Scottish and Welsh ones.
Of course, the truth is vastly different to this. The Scots were a driving force behind colonialism, which is why you will find so many Scottish name places abroad. The Scots also played a significant role in Ireland as well, the name "Ulster Scot" may have slipped your attention, but of course, the biggest enemy was theat nasty Englishmand David Lloyd George, who lead the British negotiating team. (Maybe that's why Churchill gets all the blame for the negotiations, being an English hero would make him an obvious choice).
The good thing about blaming the English, rather than "Da Brits" is that you can maybe flog a few copies to the Scots, Welsh and British Irish as well.
I´m aware of the existence of the "Ulster-Scots" although I know just a little about them. It hasn´t slipped my attention but I´ve had no reason to mention them in the context of my reply.
Lloyd George wasn´t an Englishman, he was Welsh and although he´s been depicted as an arguable politician, I´ve got the impression that without the Unionist Leader Craig, things had could be solved for Ireland in a more moderate way. Winston Churchill had to abide by the policy of the government he was in, but it is clear that his main interest was to keep the British Empire.
I know that the Scottish played their part in the building of the British Empire, but I´m conviced that they hadn´t been able to achieve it as it was in its largest extend without their union with England. As for the Welsh, they seem to have stayed all the times in he shadow of the English, as if Wales had always been an English province. That´s the perception I´ve got from the history of Britain.
No, I neither put the blame on Lloyd George nor on Winston Churchill, because the die-hard in these negotiations was the "Ulsterman" Craig. He even didn´t take part in the negotiations by personal appearance. He was merely coresponding with Lloyd George via dispatches. Therefore he was the one with the utterly refusal to reach an solution for the whole of Ireland. The "Ulster-Regime" was the compromise to achieve the Anglo-Irish-Treaty.
When it comes to the mistreatment of the Irish by the English, I prefer to refer by "the English" to the "English aristocracy". Another matter are the "Anglo-Irish", sometimes described as being worst than the English themselves.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Have ANY of the people on here making these sort of assumptions and ludicrous statements actually read the book because until you do your opinion on what he means by "English" is devoid of any merit.
I don´t think that this discussion about the "English" makes it necessary to read the book by TPC in the first place to keep the debate running. It has become more generalised already.
Maybe next year I´d consider to buy that book and read it, but I´m still occupied with reading TPC´s biography about Michael Collins.0 -
I don´t think that this discussion about the "English" makes it necessary to read the book by TPC in the first place to keep the debate running. It has become more generalised already.
Maybe next year I´d consider to buy that book and read it, but I´m still occupied with reading TPC´s biography about Michael Collins.
I was just pointing out that this may very well be something he addresses in the book.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think I was fairly up front about not reading it.
My point was that "England" in the context of the subtitle to the book looks like it was intended to be pejorative; put there to sell books. In the context of state sovereignty England is a non-entity.
I'd willingly concede that TPC probably had absolutely nothing to do with picking the title.0 -
I think I was fairly up front about not reading it.
My point was that "England" in the context of the subtitle to the book looks like it was intended to be pejorative; put there to sell books. In the context of state sovereignty England is a non-entity.
I'd willingly concede that TPC probably had absolutely nothing to do with picking the title.
I probably won´t read it either because that is not among the topics of my interests and although there are some Irish historians who claim that Britain had could do more during the famine than it actually did, there isn´t any proof about an direct involment or even conspiracy in this by the British. The potatoe-rott occured a short time earlier in Germany and spread through to the continent Westwards and also reached Britain. Others say that what caused the potatoe-rott in Ireland came and started in the West of Ireland brought by the wind and weather.
If you say that "in the context of state sovereignity England is a non-entity", what is Scotland and Wales without their Parliament / Assembly? I´m neither Anti-English nor Anti-British, but I´m also not Anti-Irish, so I rather take your line more as being pejorative than the subtitle of the book by TPC.
I don´t know whether it was TPC´s intention to pick up "England" as an angle to get his book sold, but you could ask him about that on his own website if you like. That website has a blog also.
http://www.timpatcoogan.com/0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Six counties is far more accurate a description than either Ulster or northern Ireland, regardless of how many organisations mistakenly use it.
How is 'Six Counties' (capitalised by Coogan as if it were an official title, and not just a geographical reference) more accurate than 'Northern Ireland'? There is no such thing as a 'Six County Prime Minister'.Crooked Jack wrote: »I'd say your annoyance over this just comes more from the fact that it's a term republicans and nationalists use, which really says more about you than TPC
I admit, I am not a 'nationalist' or 'republican', nor am I a 'unionist' or 'loyalist'. I would class myself first and foremost as a democrat.Crooked Jack wrote: »Certainly 850,000 unionists represent a moral force but it is still a minority moral force compared to what the people of Ireland desired (again this quote needs more context.)
This is a perverse view of democracy. Does the determination of six million Irish nationalists for a free Ireland not represent any kind of moral force?
The determination of six million Irish nationalists for a free Ireland? Well, if there were any evidence that this existed I'd take it more seriously.
You do know a majority of the votes cast in the 1918 election were for political parties whose policy it was to remain within the United Kingdom? If you are interested here are the figures.
PARTIES IN FAVOUR OF REMAINING IN UNITED KINDGOM
Irish Unionist - 257,314 votes (25.3%)
Irish Parliamentary - 220,837 votes (21.7%)
Labour Unionists - 30,304 votes (3%)
Labour - 12,164 votes (1.2%)
Independent Unionist - 9,531 votes (0.9%)
Independent Nationalist - 8,183 (0.8%)
TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF VOTES - 53.1%
PARTIES IN FAVOUR OF SEPARATION FROM UNITED KINGDOM
Sinn Féin - 476,087 votes (46.9%)
TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF VOTES - 46.9%
If the proposition for immediate separation from the United Kingdom in 1918 was to be assessed as a constitutional referendum, then it was defeated.0 -
MakeEmLaugh wrote: »...
I admit, I am not a 'nationalist' or 'republican', nor am I a 'unionist' or 'loyalist'. I would class myself first and foremost as a democrat.
...
Me too.0 -
It's not more accurate, but it's a helpful term. When somebody insists of calling it "the six counties", with or without capitalisation, you know not only what place they are referring to, but you are also told the political position of the person making the reference.MakeEmLaugh wrote: »How is 'Six Counties' (capitalised by Coogan as if it were an official title, and not just a geographical reference) more accurate than 'Northern Ireland'?...0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »It's not more accurate, but it's a helpful term. When somebody insists of calling it "the six counties", with or without capitalisation, you know not only what place they are referring to, but you are also told the political position of the person making the reference.
In this regard, I think one should be bear in mind to which generation one belongs and how his own family was involved in Irelands history during the past century when using these terms. Some opinions are changing by generations, or is it the case that "to be a Republican" means less or even nothing to the younger Irish generation than it meant to their parents and grand-parents? I think it probably is, at least in the RoI.0 -
MakeEmLaugh wrote: »How is 'Six Counties' (capitalised by Coogan as if it were an official title, and not just a geographical reference) more accurate than 'Northern Ireland'? There is no such thing as a 'Six County Prime Minister'.
the term Six Counties is at least mathematically correct based on geography/history. As TPC and others use it as the name of an area it would be correct to use capital letters. It matters not about being an official or unofficial term. In a similar fashion, The Dail was originally an unofficial body but it was correct to use capital letters when referring to it. Ditto, on forums it's not uncommon to find made up names being used to refer to an individual; it would be correct English to use capital letters when using the user id of those individuals.
The term Northern Ireland is merely a made up temporary term in use until the unification of the 32 counties. It will disappear into the history books, in the same way the term "Prime Minister of Northern Ireland" has disappeared.0 -
johnny_doyle wrote: »the term Six Counties is at least mathematically correct based on geography/history. As TPC and others use it as the name of an area it would be correct to use capital letters. It matters not about being an official or unofficial term. In a similar fashion, The Dail was originally an unofficial body but it was correct to use capital letters when referring to it. Ditto, on forums it's not uncommon to find made up names being used to refer to an individual; it would be correct English to use capital letters when using the user id of those individuals.
The term Northern Ireland is merely a made up temporary term in use until the unification of the 32 counties. It will disappear into the history books, in the same way the term "Prime Minister of Northern Ireland" has disappeared.
There is another distinction for NI used by Republicans as they refer to it as "the North of Ireland". This applies to the meaning re the 32 counties, as you said in your last paragraph. To me the term Northern Ireland is just a political and therefore also more administrative term for that part of the UK. It is more precisely then to use "Ulster" instead, like the Unionists do.0 -
I don´t think that this discussion about the "English" makes it necessary to read the book by TPC in the first place to keep the debate running. It has become more generalised already.
Maybe next year I´d consider to buy that book and read it, but I´m still occupied with reading TPC´s biography about Michael Collins.
I'll wait until I find it remaindered. Mind you, his 'Irish Civil War', co-written with George Morrison, is to be recommended, if only for the fact that it's one of the few books about the ICW that does not have 'left-handed' Lee-Enfield rifles in the illustrations.
As for his version of the life of Michael Collins, I prefer 'Michael Collins - a life' by James McKay.
tac0 -
Advertisement
-
johnny_doyle wrote: »...The term Northern Ireland is merely a made up temporary term in use until the unification of the 32 counties. It will disappear into the history books, in the same way the term "Prime Minister of Northern Ireland" has disappeared.
...and this will take place.......when?
I thought that the government of the RoI had given up their constitutional claim to the return of the six counties to the republic, the so-called 26+6 = 1 deal.
tac0
Advertisement