Would you wear an Easter Lily?

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

Why are unionists relevant to your point?

It's easy to say that they acheived nothing because they actually didn't.

Because the Unionists were and still are those who resolutely oppose a united Ireland ruled by the Irish themselves.

Surely it´s easy to say that they achieved nothing and so the Unionists achieved nothing on their own because without being backed up by the British government, they probably had lost their cause.

My point in all that is, that whatever "cause" is used to justify violence it applies for both sides of a conflict even then when rational thinking people like you and myself are going to state that it achieved nothing but death. At least I put more weight into account on the different times in which these events took place.

philologos

Thomas_I wrote: »

Because the Unionists were and still are those who resolutely oppose a united Ireland ruled by the Irish themselves.

Surely it´s easy to say that they achieved nothing and so the Unionists achieved nothing on their own because without being backed up by the British government, they probably had lost their cause.

My point in all that is, that whatever "cause" is used to justify violence it applies for both sides of a conflict even then when rational thinking people like you and myself are going to state that it achieved nothing but death. At least I put more weight into account on the different times in which these events took place.

It did acheive nothing but death. By the by I think partition is and was the only reasonable solution.
My point is that the violence acheived nothing and the diplomacy acheived everything that Ireland has at present. Violence did nothing bar hinder process.

Thomas_I

Hidalgo wrote: »

I didn't realise it had gone that far along the legislation path. I still think that pass or fail, it would have caused violence from the 'losing' side

It still hasn´t got the Royal assent to come into power at that time. Otherwise to pospone it wouldn´t make any sense at all, because other British Dominions already had their home rule bills and they joined Britain in the war. It´s another question whether Ireland had done so as well, but that´s a "what if" question.

LordSutch

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The poppy does not represent Irish soldiers. No Irish soldiers fought in WW1.

Well thats a new angle on history :cool:

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It may represent Irish people duped into fighting for the British Army. They are British soldiers.

Duped you say, like duped into fighting for their own army. The British army was/still is made up of Scottish regiments, Irish regiments,
Welsh regiments, English regiments. Approx 200 thousand Irish men from North & South went off to fight in the Great War (1914-18).

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I do not find the lily's connections with the IRA to be negative in the least. Of course it has a special link to Easter 1916
but it represents all Ireland's patriot dead and I am quite happy to honour them.

But what in your constitutes "all Irelands patriot dead"? I'd love to hear your personal thoughts on that one CrookedJack.

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

It did acheive nothing but death. By the by I think partition is and was the only reasonable solution.
My point is that the violence acheived nothing and the diplomacy acheived everything that Ireland has at present. Violence did nothing bar hinder process.

I think different, because there also had been (theoretically) the option to Westminster to drop the whole of the Unionists in Ulster altogether and "get rid of the Irish question" once and for all. I regard this as an reasonable solution as well and who knows, maybe the better one in hindsight.

From my experiences in dealing with Irish history and politics related to that, as well as to the Anglo-Irish-Relationship, I can only say that this is the most complex matter in which one can´t speak in general terms unless he´s prepared to be caught up on one side. I´m trying to keep a balance in this and I admit that this is a tricky undertaking, for I won´t be caught up on one side. There´s plenty right and wrong on both sides, may it be the Irish, the Unionists, the British in general or the English in particular (and I consider myself as an Anglophile person).

Crooked Jack

Hidalgo wrote: »

They were still Irish soldiers, many fighting under the banner of irish regiments. Going buy that logic, if someone moves from Ireland to England for employment, do they automatically become British

Now dont be silly, if you want to have a proper discussion we can but dont be coming out with this nonsense. If someone joins the British Army they become a British soldier. If a Spanish guy joins the British Army he is still a Spanish person but he is very much a British soldier. You'd hardly argue that he's a spanish soldier.

Hidalgo wrote: »

Pray tell who 'duped' them into fighting for the British Army???
Kitchener or Llyod George I suppose was it??

Well I was specifically thinking of the National Volunteers, so Redmond in that case, but people joined for all sorts of reasons, many of them financial. In terms of the National Volunteers though there is no question they were duped with the promise of home rule.
[/QUOTE]

LordSutch wrote: »

Well thats a new angle on history :cool:
Duped you say, like duped into fighting for their own army. The British army was/still is made up of Scottish regiments, Irish regiments,
Welsh regiments, English regiments. Approx 200 thousand Irish men from North & South went off to fight in the Great War (1914-18).

Their own army. Ha. Good one. The British Army serves Britain's interests and nobody else's, regardless of how many regiments they manage to fill of other people willing to kill and die for Westminster.

LordSutch wrote: »

But what in your constitutes "all Irelands patriot dead"? I'd love to hear your personal thoughts on that one CrookedJack.

That's just going to start a whole new argument and drag the thread further off topic. Suffice to say I regard Ireland's patriot dead to be all those who died in the course of seeking a better future for Ireland and its people.

Happyman42

philologos wrote: »

It did acheive nothing but death. By the by I think partition is and was the only reasonable solution.
My point is that the violence acheived nothing and the diplomacy acheived everything that Ireland has at present. Violence did nothing bar hinder process.

An awful lot of people died and savage violence tore Europe apart because Britian stood up to the Germans, why didn't they just let them invade and take power and depend on 'diplomacy' to achieve a withdrawal?. A lot less people would have died, after all. Well?

philologos

Happyman42 wrote: »

An awful lot of people died and savage violence tore Europe apart because Britian stood up to the Germans, why didn't they just let them invade and take power and depend on 'diplomacy' to achieve a withdrawal?. A lot less people would have died, after all. Well?

How does this address the point that Irish republican violence acheived anything?

When you establish how this is relevant then I'll answer the question.

Happyman42

philologos wrote: »

How does this address the point that Irish republican violence
acheived anything?

When you establish how this is relevant then I'll answer the question.

It's relevant because you can't cherrypick who you allow to use violence to achieve an aim. Violence happens because diplomats fail, witness 'Peace in Our Time' and Neville.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

An awful lot of people died and savage violence tore Europe apart because Britian stood up to the Germans, why didn't they just let them invade and take power and depend on 'diplomacy' to achieve a withdrawal?. A lot less people would have died, after all. Well?

Why did the Irish let the English invade Ireland and take power and depend on their rule for "700 years" to achieve independence after a series of uprisings through the centuries? A lot less people would have died, after all. Well?

May I ask you where you´ve your history class left, btw ?

Crooked Jack

philologos wrote: »

How does this address the point that Irish republican violence acheived anything?

When you establish how this is relevant then I'll answer the question.

EVADE! EVADE! EVADE!

Thomas_I wrote: »

Why did the Irish let the English invade Ireland and take power and depend on their rule for "700 years" to achieve independence after a series of uprisings through the centuries? A lot less people would have died, after all. Well?

May I ask you where you´ve your history class left, btw ?

What?

Fratton Fred

Hidalgo wrote: »

Nobody has justified Warrington in this thread have they?

That was a despicable and cowardly act of terrorism. Noone is saying its ok

Glorifying the PIRA effectively justifies it, does it not?

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Why did the Irish let the English invade Ireland and take power and depend on their rule for "700 years" to achieve independence after a series of uprisings through the centuries? A lot less people would have died, after all. Well?

If you work that out then you'll see my point.

May I ask you where you´ve your history class left, btw ?

I'm reading this thread to them, they now have a great understanding of viewing history in it's proper context and will never judge using hinsight on the moral heights. They're off for custard creams and tae for half an hour.

LordSutch

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Would you wear an Easter Lily?

Poll Option #1 = Yes, I believe it is important to remember our dead.

But that is such a loaded option, like who are 'Our dead' ???

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you work that out then you'll see my point.



I'm reading this thread to them, they now have a great understanding of viewing history in it's proper context and will never judge using hinsight on the moral heights. They're off for custard creams and tae for half an hour.

If you're teaching them history then it is no wonder the average view of Irish history is so full of myth, propaganda and half truths.

philologos

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's relevant because you can't cherrypick who you allow to use violence to achieve an aim. Violence happens because diplomats fail, witness 'Peace in Our Time' and Neville.

There's the other possibility.

Both are different. Namely there was an outcome in WW2 (although it is regrettable that it ever came to pass). There was absolutely no outcome from Irish republican violence. The outcome was acheived in parliament.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you're teaching them history then it is no wonder the average view of Irish history is so full of myth, propaganda and half truths.

Custard Cream Fred?

Happyman42

philologos wrote: »

Both are different.

Not from an Irish Republican's viewpoint.
Which is what you have to accept to avoid your interpretaion of history being of the higher moral ground variety, and out of context. Which is an interpretation that is both useless and redundant and actually militates against a solution.

philologos

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not from an Irish Republican's viewpoint.
Which is what you have to accept to avoid your interpretaion of history being of the higher moral ground variety, and out of context. Which is an interpretation that is both useless and redundant and actually militates against a solution.

Great. I'm not a republican so naturally I think your logic is a miss.

Maybe if you explain exactly what Irish republican violence acheived I might be convinced because now I see nothing.

All I see that was valuable was thrashing it out in parliament.

Capt'n Midnight

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Note: The money does not go into 'prisoner funds' or Sinn Féin's pockets, it goes towards preserving graves and memorials for those who died.

The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Hidalgo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Now dont be silly, if you want to have a proper discussion we can but dont be coming out with this nonsense. If someone joins the British Army they become a British soldier. If a Spanish guy joins the British Army he is still a Spanish person but he is very much a British soldier. You'd hardly argue that he's a spanish soldier.



Well I was specifically thinking of the National Volunteers, so Redmond in that case, but people joined for all sorts of reasons, many of them financial. In terms of the National Volunteers though there is no question they were duped with the promise of home rule.

That's just going to start a whole new argument and drag the thread further off topic. Suffice to say I regard Ireland's patriot dead to be all those who died in the course of seeking a better future for Ireland and its people.[/QUOTE]

Duped implies tricked or conned. There was a genuine belief that if Irish men fought in the Great War, it would assist the Home Rule call after the war's end.
Therefore they were Ireland's patriot dead as they 'died in the course of seeking a better future for Ireland and its people'

Hidalgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Glorifying the PIRA effectively justifies it, does it not?

In the same manner as those like Churchill glorified the empire, therefore justifying all the atrocities carried out in the name of the king/queen

Hunterbiker

No he didn't. He was one of the strongest critics of the shootings at Amritsar in India

Hidalgo

Hunterbiker wrote: »

No he didn't. He was one of the strongest critics of the shootings at Amritsar in India

Yet he was a staunch defender of the empire, the empire committed gross atrocities. (this is going way off topic)

Crooked Jack

Hidalgo wrote: »

Duped implies tricked or conned.

"Go to war for us and we'll give you home rule."
They went to war. They were rewarded with the black and tans.
Duped. Tricked. Conned.

Hidalgo wrote: »

There was a genuine belief that if Irish men fought in the Great War, it would assist the Home Rule call after the war's end.
Therefore they were Ireland's patriot dead as they 'died in the course of seeking a better future for Ireland and its people'

Feel free to honour them when you wear your lily.

TheLastMohican

I am going to withdraw from this debate. If Fratton Fred is representative of contemporary British thinking, it shows that they have not learned much from their enslavement, subjugation, rape, pillage and murder of peoples in their own land.
If empire building was right then, how come they are not doing it now?
Why have Britain fought so many wars?

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_I
Why did the Irish let the English invade Ireland and take power and depend on their rule for "700 years" to achieve independence after a series of uprisings through the centuries? A lot less people would have died, after all. Well?

May I ask you where you´ve your history class left, btw ?


What?

What´s that question for anyway? You know yourself that one of the reasons the Irish were colonized was their "dis-unity" against a common enemy / invader. My remark was more ironically intended but still, it´s like a red thread in Irish history that most of the uprisings failed because of Irishmen changing sides and became informers to the English / British. That´s why Collins set up the Squad to "eleminate" these informers and others working for the British in Ireland. He has learned more than this lesson from history and for he was consequent enough, he succeeded.

The British were successful because they were "united" among themselves and by their policy of "divide and rule" they secured their power, even with the support of Irishmen serving them in the Army, the Navy and the Administration.

Hunterbiker

People seem to be getting confused about what the Empire was. Ireland wasn't a piece of it it was the centre of it along with the rest of the UK.

All this talk of blood on their hands Brits seems to ignore the face that ALL peoples of The UK went to all parts of the Globe and did The Empire's work. The instigator of The Amritsar killings was born to an 'Irish 'Father' he was born in India and part educated In Cork.

Just saying...

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

their policy of "divide and rule" they secured their power,

Part of which was to get the peoples they suppressed to wear the poppy and be afraid to speak truthfully about what they where at around the world.

Thomas_I

TheLastMohican wrote: »

... Why have Britain fought so many wars?

For the common good, prosperity, wealth, glory, trade, power, spreading the English language and culture and bringing democracy and justice to the(ir) world. Someone talked about "the Empire of good intentions".

I leave it to the reader whether he/she thinks that this applies for Ireland as then part of the Empires Motherland Britain as well.