If Northern Ireland between 1921 and 1967..

dd972

was administered differently, no gerrymandering and less sectarianism would there have been no need for a NICRA or the mayhem that followed? I know there's the view that it was a 'Protestant state for a Protestant people' so maybe that was the way it was always going to end up.

The IRA as it was, post the 50's border campaign was a practically defunct organisation.

Menas

No.

iDave

I think a lot of the problems of the 70s 80 and 90s could of been averted if the PUL majority hadn't created a de facto apartheid state post partition. Its not inconceivable the nationalist population could of been assimilated. Unfortunately they weren't given the opportunity. Of course there would of been flag wavers regardless but if power sharing and all the other equalities that nationalist have slowly gained since the GFA had been there from day one I don't think the Troubles would of been as bad.

Karl Stein

It's highly probable. Remember the vast majority of Catholics were primarily concerned with attaining equal political and civil rights.

Aspirations for a UI were secondary and may have found itself expressed in ordinary parties like the Scottish SNP and Welsh Plaid Cymru if Unionists/Loyalists hadn't started the beating and killing.

Iwasfrozen

There would have always been violence. Unfortunately 1916 set a precedent for modern nationalist violence. Thanks a lot Pearse...

wendell borton

Interesting quote by Capt. Terence O'Neil on the subject :

In an interview with the Belfast Telegraph published on 10 May 1969 he stated: "It is frightfully hard to explain to Protestants that if you give Roman Catholics a good job and a good house they will live like Protestants because they will see neighbours with cars and television sets; they will refuse to have eighteen children. But if a Roman Catholic is jobless, and lives in the most ghastly hovel he will rear eighteen children on National Assistance. If you treat Roman Catholics with due consideration and kindness they will live like Protestants in spite of the authoritative nature of their Church..."

I am pie

If housing and employment had been freely available it is hard to imagine the conditions for conflict in the 60s to exist. Electoral equality would also have been required.

To a large extent these conditions existed long into the 80s and 90s, an unspoken part of the deal is that investment into working class areas was required, jobs were required and housing development was required. Those are the societal benefits, real or perceived, for the peace agreement. The actual real achievements are debatable but now a power sharing elite is in place and they aren't getting off the gravy train.

The most interesting part of the scenario is what the effects of electoral equalirty would have been. I would interested to see the results of an equitable divided NI electoral map. Would the NW of the country, including Derry, have been sustainable with a 30 year nationalist majority?

Quite likely Sinn Fein would be nowhere on a national scale, the SDLP would have led the nationalist vote and the outcome of their representation is a difficult question to answer. How far would they have got? Probably far enough to stop violence in the 60s/70s, but not far enough long term? Hard to say.

Another unpredictable factor is the reaction of loyalists to catholic/nationalist gain. Hard to imagine sitting back and saying "sure, that's democracy for ya"

Somehow we might well have arrived at an impasse, provoked by loyalist reaction to nationalist gains or by a nationalist movement frustrated at intransigence on the part of the british govt.

I am pie

ps...PUL isn't a term used in serious discussion. It's up there with "pan nationalist front" in terms of intellectual validity.

Carry on with it if thats how you like to identify yourself.

Skylinehead

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There would have always been violence. Unfortunately 1916 set a precedent for modern nationalist violence. Thanks a lot Pearse...

I'm sorry? There was no nationalist violence until the Loyalist violence started. 1916 had no more to do with it than the Crimean War.

iDave

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'm sorry? There was no nationalist violence until the Loyalist violence started. 1916 had no more to do with it than the Crimean War.

He also conveniently forgets the UVF armed themselves before the Volunteers. Of course there were plenty of examples of precedents of British violence so perhaps its no surprise it happened in that order.

wendell borton

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There would have always been violence. Unfortunately 1916 set a precedent for modern nationalist violence. Thanks a lot Pearse...

The general public in 1916 had little appreciation for the rising until after the British responded with brutality likewise the IRA was dead as an force in NI until the brutal crackdown on people only looking for their rights.

Iwasfrozen

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'm sorry? There was no nationalist violence until the Loyalist violence started. 1916 had no more to do with it than the Crimean War.

That's simply not true. 1916 laid the base for modern armed nationalism. The IRA
of the later border campaign and provos saw themselves as the direct inheritors of Pearse's legacy.

iDave wrote: »

He also conveniently forgets the UVF armed themselves before the Volunteers. Of course there were plenty of examples of precedents of British violence so perhaps its no surprise it happened in that order.

They armed themselves to prevent a united Ireland but by the time of partition they had already achieved their goal.

iDave

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There would have always been violence. Unfortunately 1916 set a precedent for modern nationalist violence. Thanks a lot Pearse...

This is the sort of demonization of nationalists/catholics/Irish etc along with a state bias against that ethnic group in NI that created the conditions for civil war (watered down as Troubles).
Good to see your moving on though :rolleyes:

Skylinehead

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's simply not true. 1916 laid the base for modern armed nationalism. The IRA
of the later border campaign and provos saw themselves as the direct inheritors of Pearse's legacy.


They armed themselves to prevent a united Ireland but by the time of partition they had already achieved their goal.

The Provos didn't even exist until after Loyalist violence had started. It was a response to that violence, not some makey-uppy "1916 legacy".

Iwasfrozen

wendell borton wrote: »

The general public in 1916 had little appreciation for the rising until after the British responded with brutality likewise the IRA was dead as an force in NI until the brutal crackdown on people only looking for their rights.

Unfortunately once the precedence for violence is set it will never be truly dead for as long as the group in question maintains its cultural distinctiveness. Just read the text from the proclamation:

"In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the last three hundred years they have asserted it to arms. "

This is a clear attempt to legitimize violence by putting it into historical context. Further it's an appeal to future generations to take up arms should the rising's leaders prove unsuccessful.

Another example is Pearse's famous "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace." With such a violent philosophy and background I'm surprised nationalists managed to stay peaceful for so long.

Iwasfrozen

Skylinehead wrote: »

The Provos didn't even exist until after Loyalist violence had started. It was a response to that violence, not some makey-uppy "1916 legacy".

Except it wasn't. The provos didn't form in a vacuum. Nationalists in Northern Ireland inherited the violent philosophy developed in the south. The leaders of 1916 are by their own admission the fathers of modern violent republicanism.

Skylinehead

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except it wasn't. The provos didn't form in a vacuum. Nationalists in Northern Ireland inherited the violent philosophy developed in the south. The leaders of 1916 are by their own admission the fathers of modern violent republicanism.

No, they didn't form in a vacuum. They formed as a result of Unionist violence. They inherited the violent philosophy from......unionist violence.

Iwasfrozen

Skylinehead wrote: »

No, they didn't form in a vacuum. They formed as a result of Unionist violence. They inherited the violent philosophy from......unionist violence.

I don't understand why you have such a problem admitting the leaders of 1916 inherited the legacy of violent nationalism and passed it onto future generations. They admit as much in their proclamation.

Thousands of nationalists in Northern Ireland grew up with the words "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" Now do you really expect me to believe nationalist philosophy and history or violence/legacy of armed insurrection against the British had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the border campaign or provisional IRA?

An Coilean

Skylinehead wrote: »

No, they didn't form in a vacuum. They formed as a result of Unionist violence. They inherited the violent philosophy from......unionist violence.

Well to be fair, it was from the IRB, who arguably were inspired by the American and French revolutions.
The Unionists did inspire and promote the setrting up of the Irish volunteers in reaction to the UVF, but it would be silly to think that the UVF was the starting point for violence on the Island.

Skylinehead

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't understand why you have such a problem admitting the leaders of 1916 inherited the legacy of violent nationalism and passed it onto future generations. They admit as much in their proclamation.

Thousands of nationalists in Northern Ireland grew up with the words "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" Now do you really expect me to believe nationalist philosophy and history or violence/legacy of armed insurrection against the British had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the border campaign or provisional IRA?

It may have been a (really minor) factor, but I don't know why you have such a problem admitting that it was unionist violence and repression against nationalist communities that was by far the main drive behind IRA violence.

.jacksparrow.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't understand why you have such a problem admitting the leaders of 1916 inherited the legacy of violent nationalism and passed it onto future generations. They admit as much in their proclamation.

Thousands of nationalists in Northern Ireland grew up with the words "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" Now do you really expect me to believe nationalist philosophy and history or violence/legacy of armed insurrection against the British had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the border campaign or provisional IRA?

Have you an opinion on unionist violence and why it started and why it's continuing to this day?

wendell borton

Newton put it best when he said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Iwasfrozen

Skylinehead wrote: »

It may have been a (really minor) factor, but I don't know why you have such a problem admitting that it was unionist violence and repression against nationalist communities that was by far the main drive behind IRA violence.

Because it wasn't. The IRA existed long before partition. They were inspired by the leaders of 1916, who were inspired by the IRB, who were inspired by the United Irishmen, who were inspired by the French and take your pick of Irish rebellions...

My point is the leaders of 1916 brought that philosophy into the modern period and set a precedent for violence that exists to this day. Thanks a lot fellas.

Iwasfrozen

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Have you an opinion on unionist violence and why it started and why it's continuing to this day?

They were threatened. Still are. They have a siege mentality that harks back to the Williamite war. They believe their people and culture are in danger of cultural assimilation by the Southern Irish and they're right.

ardmacha

Sectarianism was the purpose of Northern Ireland's existence, so it is kind of pointless wondering if it could not have been sectarian.

.jacksparrow.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They were threatened. Still are. They have a siege mentality that harks back to the Williamite war. They believe their people and culture are in danger of cultural assimilation by the Southern Irish and they're right.

So is this a good enough reason for violence?

I suppose that Martin Luther mural with the quote about the oppressed rising up rings true with them.

Irony isn't even close enough.

Skylinehead

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because it wasn't.

Oh it must have been a massive coincidence that the 50 year dormant IRA suddenly became violent again after Unionist violence started. Silly me.

Iwasfrozen

Skylinehead wrote: »

Oh it must have been a massive coincidence that the 50 year dormant IRA suddenly became violent again after Unionist violence started. Silly me.

Loyalist discrimination was the catalyst but the framework was already there, provided by the unsagaciously venerated leaders of 1916.

On 2nd read where are you getting 50 years from?

Skylinehead

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Loyalist discrimination was the catalyst but the framework was already there, provided by the unsagaciously venerated leaders of 1916.

I think you're looking far more into this than actually went on. There was no real ideological aims at the very beginning, it started as a response to the Loyalist violence that was already ongoing. Their primary aim wasn't to get a UI, but to get equal rights for Catholics.

On 2nd read where are you getting 50 years from?

Maybe 40. Point was, they weren't hugely active over that time.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because it wasn't. The IRA existed long before partition. They were inspired by the leaders of 1916, who were inspired by the IRB, who were inspired by the United Irishmen, who were inspired by the French and take your pick of Irish rebellions...

My point is the leaders of 1916 brought that philosophy into the modern period and set a precedent for violence that exists to this day. Thanks a lot fellas.

So what?
Violence has existed since we crawled out of the primeval swamp, every species uses it, the Irish have, the British have, the Americans have etc etc etc. What is your point only to deflect again from the main debate?

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Loyalist discrimination was the catalyst but the framework was already there, provided by the unsagaciously venerated leaders of 1916.

On 2nd read where are you getting 50 years from?

Still as unbiased as ever I see

Iwasfrozen

Skylinehead wrote: »

Maybe 40. Point was, they weren't hugely active over that time.

40? The civil war ended in 23 and the border campaign started in the mid 50's.

Skylinehead wrote: »

I think you're looking far more into this than actually went on. There was no real ideological aims at the very beginning, it started as a response to the Loyalist violence that was already ongoing. Their primary aim wasn't to get a UI, but to get equal rights for Catholics.

The ideological aims were always there. They northern IRA named themselves after the southern insurgents and adopted their name, insignia and emblems. They seen themselves as the inheritors of the leaders of 1916 and those who went before them carrying on violent nationalism onto the next stage.

Happyman42 wrote: »

So what?
Violence has existed since we crawled out of the primeval swamp, every species uses it, the Irish have, the British have, the Americans have etc etc etc. What is your point only to deflect again from the main debate?

My "aim" is to admonish those who carry on the mantle.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

My "aim" is to admonish those who carry on the mantle.

I think even those in the primeval swamp know exactly what your 'aim' is. :rolleyes:

karma_

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think even those in the primeval swamp know exactly what your 'aim' is. :rolleyes:

ssshhh I got a good laugh at that!!!

Femme_Fatale

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They were threatened. Still are. They have a siege mentality that harks back to the Williamite war. They believe their people and culture are in danger of cultural assimilation by the Southern Irish and they're right.

It's like you're almost justifying loyalist violence. Well you were bound to eventually I suppose. Weird, weird stuff for an Irish person, whom they can have hatred for.

Iwasfrozen

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's like you're almost justifying loyalist violence. Well you were bound to eventually I suppose. Weird, weird stuff for an Irish person, whom they can have hatred for.

I condemn all paramilitary violence. The other poster asked me a question and I answered him, simple as that. Hatred is born of violence. Northern Ireland will stabilise and the bigots on both sides will eventually die off.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I condemn all paramilitary violence. The other poster asked me a question and I answered him, simple as that. Hatred is born of violence. Northern Ireland will stabilise and the bigots on both sides will eventually die off.

Would now be a good time to discuss your admiration for the Ulster Covenant?

onemorechance

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I condemn all paramilitary violence. The other poster asked me a question and I answered him, simple as that. Hatred is born of violence. Northern Ireland will stabilise and the bigots on both three sides will eventually die off.

Don't forget Britain

walrusgumble

dd972 wrote: »

was administered differently, no gerrymandering and less sectarianism would there have been no need for a NICRA or the mayhem that followed? I know there's the view that it was a 'Protestant state for a Protestant people' so maybe that was the way it was always going to end up.

The IRA as it was, post the 50's border campaign was a practically defunct organisation.

If that happened, and Catholics - Nationalists were given a fair deal, then the IRA would never have succeeded in their rise of popularity.

Should be remembered, the likes of Ian Paisely helped the rise of the IRA and the IRA helped the rise of Ian Paisely

Alas, the Protestants who were members of the Orange Order were incapable of ever being able non sectarian as their whole purpose was sectarian and paranoia. But, things might have not out of hand if things were different.

walrusgumble

Skylinehead wrote: »

No, they didn't form in a vacuum. They formed as a result of Unionist violence. They inherited the violent philosophy from......unionist violence.

Bear in mind too, that the men of 1916 (well bar IRB men like Clarke who was always out to attack the British) formed as a result of the formation of the UVF, a group willing to stand in the way and claim that they would use violence to get rid of Home Rule for the whole island, despite a majority being in favour.

Surely, never in the history of both Ireland and Britain has a minority held such power and sway over the majority of the people

.jacksparrow.

Interesting programme tonight about a secret British unit who fired on and killed innocent nationalists.

http://www.thejournal.ie/panorama-british-secret-force-ira-1174843-Nov2013/

Captain Farrell

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Interesting programme tonight about a secret British unit who fired on and killed innocent nationalists terrorists.

http://www.thejournal.ie/panorama-british-secret-force-ira-1174843-Nov2013/

There, that's better.

.jacksparrow.

Captain Farrell wrote: »

There, that's better.

Em are you serious?


Did you miss this bit?

Although the soldiers believe they saved many lives, Panorama says it has uncovered evidence that reveals some members operated outside the law, “firing on and killing unarmed civilians”.

It's all over the news now, see this is the type of stuff that always tries to get swept under the carpet.

Well sorry to disappoint you but you won't be doing it here.

Nodin

Captain Farrell wrote: »

There, that's better.

"Panorama says it has uncovered evidence that reveals some members operated outside the law, “firing on and killing unarmed civilians”.
http://www.thejournal.ie/panorama-british-secret-force-ira-1174843-Nov2013/

No, it isn't.

Captain Farrell

Nodin wrote: »

"Panorama says it has uncovered evidence that reveals some members operated outside the law, “firing on and killing unarmed civilians”.
http://www.thejournal.ie/panorama-british-secret-force-ira-1174843-Nov2013/

No, it isn't.

"We didn't go around town blasting, shooting all over the place like you see on the TV, we were going down there and finding, looking for our targets, finding them and taking them down," he said.

"We may not have seen a weapon, but there more than likely would have been weapons there in a vigilante patrol."

Panorama has identified 10 unarmed civilians shot, according to witnesses, by the MRF:

Brothers John and Gerry Conway, on the way to their fruit stall in Belfast city centre on 15 April 1972
Aiden McAloon and Eugene Devlin, in a taxi taking them home from a disco on 12 May 1972
Joe Smith, Hugh Kenny, Patrick Murray and Tommy Shaw, on Glen Road on 22 June 1972
Daniel Rooney and Brendan Brennan, on the Falls Road on 27 September 1972

"civilians" means non-military personnel, which includes IRA scum.

.jacksparrow.

Captain Farrell wrote: »

"civilians" means non-military personnel, which includes IRA scum.

Ah yes so all civilians were ira scum.

Baffling.

Captain Farrell

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Ah yes so all civilians were ira scum.

Baffling.

Indeed it is. Almost as shameful as Enniskillen, Birmingham, Guildford, Warrington, Brighton, Omagh.

If it was ok for the IRA to break a few eggs to make an omelette....

iDave

Captain Farrell wrote: »

Indeed it is. Almost as shameful as Enniskillen, Birmingham, Guildford, Warrington, Brighton, Omagh.

If it was ok for the IRA to break a few eggs to make an omelette....

whos saying it was ok?

Nodin

Captain Farrell wrote: »

"civilians" means non-military personnel, which includes IRA scum.

Civillians means civillians.

.jacksparrow.

Captain Farrell wrote: »

Indeed it is. Almost as shameful as Enniskillen, Birmingham, Guildford, Warrington, Brighton, Omagh.

If it was ok for the IRA to break a few eggs to make an omelette....

You should be condemning both acts from both sides.

Instead youre glorifying the act of murder from one side.

Charming.

Femme_Fatale

Captain Farrell wrote: »

"civilians" means non-military personnel, which includes IRA scum.

But... the focus is on civilians, the non violent innocent ones.

Captain Farrell wrote: »

If it was ok for the IRA to break a few eggs to make an omelette....

Wtf?

If you're from a loyalist background, that's enough explanation, but if you're an Irish person... when did this sh1t of Irish people virtually defending loyalist paramilitarism/crookedness within the security forces (when they could have been on the receiving end of it themselves if they lived in the North) become fashionable?
I mean, you can condemn provo violence and intimidation without stooping to that level. Loyalists won't thank you for it like.