Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

on the river

Conchur wrote: »

Yes, you did.

Of course people in the south have "more to worry about in their lives" - it goes without saying that everyone prioritises the security of their family, their home and their local community above all else. I'm a nationalist in the north, but I don't sit around all day dreaming about a united Ireland and wondering what it would be like if we were a part of the Republic. I get the impression that many in the south think that is all we do and, to be frank, it doesn't get more ignorant than that.

That doesn't mean that people on both sides of the border cannot have aspirations. I would still like to see both parts of this island united under a single, independent jurisdiction, but I don't lose sleep over it. Still, you seem to be implying that the desires and pressing concerns of the people of Northern Ireland are inane in comparison to those of the people of the Republic, which is arrant rubbish.

Saying that you do not care about people in the North is dispiriting. The Irish nation, as it is described in Bunreacht na hÉireann, constitutes all thirty-two counties (or the island of Ireland). You are effectively saying that you do not care about a significant portion of the people that make up your nation. I am not particularly concerned about matters which affect Dublin or Cork, but I still care about the people that live there, and was deeply saddened to learn of the damage the floods had caused in the Rebel County earlier in the week.

I believe you described the idea of the Irish nation as being "romantic" - this is practically tautological, as nations are, by definition, romantic constructs. If you are arguing against the existence of the nation altogether, then have that conversation in a separate thread.

we agree great yet you should leave 'flasher' alone he is unexperienced for this debate

on the river

ok posters i think the moderator is right . we should stop with the personal jibes.

i think leave all that their and proceed with debate without personal remarks

AGREED?

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, because you've demonstrated that you can arbitrary ignore chunks of history in one case and not in another as it pleases you.

TBH, if your tactic is to ignore the various points I made, even in my previous post, and effectively put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly, so be it. I'm to old to pointlessly argue with someone like that.

Where did I say that it is pointless and has no purpose whatsoever?

Why do you feel that the size of NI is related to it's economic viability? Who other than you has made that point?

Very simply NI is presently unlikely to be economically viable because it spends way more than it earns; approximately double, every year, a loss which is presently being covered by the British exchequer. This is simply a level of expenditure it cannot afford.

Of course, it could reform itself and balance it's payments, but politically I don't think this is viable at present.

Whats points have I ignored?? I've answered your questions as to why I believe "Northern Irish" is not a proper identity. On that note all you seem to do is question my points instead of making points of your own as to why "Northern Irish" is a legitimate identity, maybe you can't come up with any?

And don't be backtracking now, you can't say that identities are imaginary and then claim that you weren't insinuating their worthlessness. If you make a bold statement like that with wide-reaching ramifications the least you can do is stand by it..

And you've answered your own question on the Norths viability as an independent state, balance the bloody payments!! Political viability has nothing to do with it, you claimed it was not economically viable and you've just disproved that claim yourself! No work from myself even required :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Whats points have I ignored?? I've answered your questions as to why I believe "Northern Irish" is not a proper identity.

You ignored the point that you've ignored the history of NI when it suited you, especially when it turns out that it's the same length (actually one year longer) than that of the USA. And how in this vain, have repeatedly cherry picked standards of 'identity' that make little sense and when questioned have failed to defend.

I even asked that between NI's 90 years and the Thirteen Colonies' 160 years of existence (prior to their revolution) - presuming that we accept the ridiculous thesis that the ethnic identity of the people in NI only began at partition, because they didn't exist prior to that - where would you suggest that NI would have been around long enough? 100 years? 120? 150?

Those points.

On that note all you seem to do is question my points instead of making points of your own as to why "Northern Irish" is a legitimate identity, maybe you can't come up with any?

I already pointed out one; the region has a history as long as that of colonial America. But despite the fact that this would have given it plenty of time to develop its own demographics, unique ethnic mixture, and so on, you prefer to ignore it and only start the clock at partition - because naturally the people there didn't actually exists prior to that.

That kind of selective criteria of yours does not bare much weight of examination, unfortunately.

Now, I'm not going to turn around and suggest that they should be a sovereign nation - personally I think that it would end up a clusterfsck, as things stand - but if you really think they have no distinct identity, then by that logic they must be homogeneous to, I presume, us down south.

And if there's one thing I doubt even you can argue with a straight face is that the two populations are homogeneous.

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

You ignored the point that you've ignored the history of NI when it suited you, especially when it turns out that it's the same length (actually one year longer) than that of the USA. And how in this vain, have repeatedly cherry picked standards of 'identity' that make little sense and when questioned have failed to defend.

I even asked that between NI's 90 years and the Thirteen Colonies' 160 years of existence (prior to their revolution) - presuming that we accept the ridiculous thesis that the ethnic identity of the people in NI only began at partition, because they didn't exist prior to that - where would you suggest that NI would have been around long enough? 100 years? 120? 150?

Those points.

I already pointed out one; the region has a history as long as that of colonial America. But despite the fact that this would have given it plenty of time to develop its own demographics, unique ethnic mixture, and so on, you prefer to ignore it and only start the clock at partition - because naturally the people there didn't actually exists prior to that.

That kind of selective criteria of yours does not bare much weight of examination, unfortunately.

Now, I'm not going to turn around and suggest that they should be a sovereign nation - personally I think that it would end up a clusterfsck, as things stand - but if you really think they have no distinct identity, then by that logic they must be homogeneous to, I presume, us down south.

And if there's one thing I doubt even you can argue with a straight face is that the two populations are homogeneous.

The people who lives in ulster have a range of backgrounds celtic scots welsh and english just like in sourthern ireland.

Alot of people in ulster see themselves as english as well as irish. even alot of people see themselves as european as a well as irish. background dosent matter . if you promote irish hertigage gaelic or ulster scots you are a irish person.

if you support Ireland in any political or economic agenda you are irish.

Ireland is part of a global community where many races has intergreated into each country. I accept some irish are different in ancestery yet what brings them together is the common good of there country.

Wolfe tone believed in civil and relgious liberties for all . I think that is a ireland we should all try to achieve .

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

The people who lives in ulster have a range of backgrounds celtic scots welsh and english just like in sourthern ireland.

Alot of people in ulster see themselves as english as well as irish. even alot of people see themselves as european as a well as irish. background dosent matter . if you promote irish hertigage gaelic or ulster scots you are a irish person.

By that logic then promoting European heritiage, be it German or Italian or Irish, means you're a European person. Does that mean that we should unify Europe into one nation?

Wolfe tone believed in civil and relgious liberties for all . I think that is a ireland we should all try to achieve .

Unfortunately, I get the impression that Wolfe Tone's principle contribution to modern nationalism is the band.

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

By that logic then promoting European heritiage, be it German or Italian or Irish, means you're a European person. Does that mean that we should unify Europe into one nation?

Unfortunately, I get the impression that Wolfe Tone's principle contribution to modern nationalism is the band.

I dont want to start another heated argument so the european unity you are
going off topic.

ireland is already an european member.

My opinion. peace should be at the centre and all of us should accept eachother no matter what background .

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

I dont want to start another heated argument so the european unity you are
going off topic.

It's not off topic; I've countering your argument by pointing out that your logic is flawed. Stop trying to change the subject, just because your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

ireland is already an european member.

So what? That's got nothing to do with what I said.

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not off topic; I've countering your argument by pointing out that your logic is flawed. Stop trying to change the subject, just because your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

So what? That's got nothing to do with what I said.

Please respect my opinion thank you .

Corinithian i thought we were on the same lines after reading your post to dr adams.

The bare facts are ireland is a republic . northern ireland is part of britian .

I know its hard but thats the way it is.

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

Please respect my opinion thank you .

No. We should respect one's right to have and potentially to express an opinion, but no one is entitled to have that opinion respected. Or should we respect opinions that call for the extermination of ethnic groups? Or other forms of violence?

Not that I was disrespecting your opinion, I was questioning it. That is the purpose of these fora, after all; not as your personal soapbox where you can say what you like and when opt thy lips, let no dog bark.

Corinithian i thought we were on the same lines after reading your post to dr adams.

Honestly, that might be the case. Or partially the case. I can only judge on the basis of what you post, not what you meant to post, and what you posted didn't make much sense.

The bare facts are ireland is a republic . northern ireland is part of britian .

I'm aware of that, but that's not what you said - if it was, it certainly wasn't clear.

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. We should respect one's right to have and potentially to express an opinion, but no one is entitled to have that opinion respected. Or should we respect opinions that call for the extermination of ethnic groups? Or other forms of violence?

Not that I was disrespecting your opinion, I was questioning it. That is the purpose of these fora, after all; not as your personal soapbox where you can say what you like and when opt thy lips, let no dog bark.

Honestly, that might be the case. Or partially the case. I can only judge on the basis of what you post, not what you meant to post, and what you posted didn't make much sense.

I'm aware of that, but that's not what you said - if it was, it certainly wasn't clear.

Its great to see we have finally found common ground. I noticed you like to question other posters opinion but never outline your own opinion especially to me .

Please outline your stance on the topic .

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

Its great to see we have finally found common ground. I noticed you like to question other posters opinion but never outline your own opinion especially to me .

Please outline your stance on the topic .

Sure, once you respond to any points I've already made. You don't want to be accused of purposely avoiding them, do you?

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure, once you respond to any points I've already made. You don't want to be accused of purposely avoiding them, do you?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=87696417#post87696417

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=87696417#post87696417

Yes, I can see you're in breach of a few of the charter rules; specifically with regard to proffering opinions and demanding that they be accepted without question.

I'm more than happy to share my views, but given I've questioned yours already, I think it only fair that you respond before I do so. Don't you, or are your views beyond question?

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

You ignored the point that you've ignored the history of NI when it suited you, especially when it turns out that it's the same length (actually one year longer) than that of the USA. And how in this vain, have repeatedly cherry picked standards of 'identity' that make little sense and when questioned have failed to defend.

I even asked that between NI's 90 years and the Thirteen Colonies' 160 years of existence (prior to their revolution) - presuming that we accept the ridiculous thesis that the ethnic identity of the people in NI only began at partition, because they didn't exist prior to that - where would you suggest that NI would have been around long enough? 100 years? 120? 150?

Those points.

I already pointed out one; the region has a history as long as that of colonial America. But despite the fact that this would have given it plenty of time to develop its own demographics, unique ethnic mixture, and so on, you prefer to ignore it and only start the clock at partition - because naturally the people there didn't actually exists prior to that.

That kind of selective criteria of yours does not bare much weight of examination, unfortunately.

Now, I'm not going to turn around and suggest that they should be a sovereign nation - personally I think that it would end up a clusterfsck, as things stand - but if you really think they have no distinct identity, then by that logic they must be homogeneous to, I presume, us down south.

And if there's one thing I doubt even you can argue with a straight face is that the two populations are homogeneous.

Americans have been referring to themselves as Americans for at least 250 years and in some cases even more, people have been identifying as "Northern Irish" for about 20 years at a maximum. And don't forget the Native American history I mentioned, we wouldn't want you to be "cherry picking" the information that suits you now, would we?

Now as for your assertion that the "Northern Irish" identity has existed as long as the American one, well that's just a pure falsification. Prior to partition ALL Ulster Protestants referred to themselves in one of four ways, Irish, British, British-Irish, or, less commonly, Ulster folk. Even after partition they continued to do so for 60-70 years. It was only really in the wake of the GFA that this wishy-washy, "one size fit's all", Northern Irish identity emerged. "Northern Irishness" has no history, it has no distinctiveness, it has nothing more than a few do-gooders guilt tripping people into accepting it. Now I'm no fan of the way in which the America's were colonised, and "American" is really pushing it in terms of what I would consider to be a proper identity, but it sure as hell ticks a lot more boxes than "Northern Irish" does.

Final point, why on earth are you bringing "ethnic identity" and "ethnic mixture" into this, neither American or "Northern Irish" are ethnic groups?? Are you aware of what an ethnic group is? Irish or Japanese is an ethnic group, "Northern Irish" is most definitely not. In order for it to be an ethnic group all it's people's would have to be the progeny of the same ancestors, this is blatantly not the case, the people who identify as "Northern Irish" are for the most part, either ethnically Irish, ethnically Scottish and a very few might me a mixture of these two. In order for "Northern Irish" to be a distinct ethnic group, all of it's identifiers would have to be the product of this "Irish-Lowland Scot" mix, which obviously isn't the case.

Karl Stein

The Corinthian wrote: »

if you really think they have no distinct identity, then by that logic they must be homogeneous to, I presume, us down south.

It's not clear what you're saying above. Could you clarify what you mean by 'they'. It appears you've attributed a 'hive mind' to those north of the political boundary.

And if there's one thing I doubt even you can argue with a straight face is that the two populations are homogeneous.

What two populations? Could you clarify if you mean the two populations in the north or the two populations on either side of the political boundary (leaving aside the reductive binary tranches of populations you've conjured).

Dr.Tank Adams

Charles Rocher wrote: »

It's not clear what you're saying above. Could you clarify what you mean by 'they'. It appears you've attributed a 'hive mind' to those north of the political boundary.



What two populations? Could you clarify if you mean the two populations in the north or the two populations on either side of the political boundary (leaving aside the reductive binary tranches of populations you've conjured).

I wasn't quite sure what he was trying to say there either. If he is suggesting that Irish people in the north aren't ethnically identical to Irish people in the south well then that is absolutely laughable. I think he may mean Ulster-Scots are ethnically different to Irish people, in which case I agree with him and have never attempted to make out that Ulster-Scots were the same as Irish. The problem for him though is that Ulster-Scots is not the same as "Northern Irish" and not all people that identify as "Northern Irish" are ethnically Ulster-Scots. So therefore you can't really use Ulster-Scots to justify "Northern Irish" being an ethnicity or identity.

Karl Stein

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

I wasn't quite sure what he was trying to say there either.

It appears he was creating differing species of humans based on a political boundary which is bizarre if that was the intention.

If he is suggesting that Irish people in the north aren't ethnically identical to Irish people in the south well then that is absolutely laughable.

Generally there'd be nothing in the way of ethno-cultural difference between people who consider themselves Irish in the counties on both sides of the border, certainly, no more than people on the border of Kerry/Cork would.

The problem for him though is that Ulster-Scots is not the same as "Northern Irish" and not all people that identify as "Northern Irish" are ethnically Ulster-Scots.

Northern Irish is a bit of a confusing term because people could be using it in as geographic descriptor (are people from Donegal Northern Irish?.. northern Irish, maybe?) but they could also be using it as a way of delineating their political allegiance. Could a person who considers himself Irish be politically Northern Irish i.e. being content with the status quo?

One thing is for sure - these identities cannot be reduced to ridiculous two piece 'jigsaws'.

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Americans have been referring to themselves as Americans for at least 250 years and in some cases even more

Only because of the creation / invention of the United States of America. Prior to that the colonials would have referred to themselves as English or British. The term American was an almost purely geographical term.

people have been identifying as "Northern Irish" for about 20 years at a maximum.

I'll take your word for it, nonetheless you do accept that it has hosted a separate ethnic group and culture for a lot longer, regardles of what they called themselves?

And don't forget the Native American history I mentioned, we wouldn't want you to be "cherry picking" the information that suits you now, would we?

Sure, but realistically Native Americans were American in the same way that we are European; they tended to be grouped in regional tribal nationalities, rather than a single pan-American one. Anyhow, what relevance has that to anything I've suggested, beyond your need to use the expression 'cherry-pick' back at me?

Now as for your assertion that the "Northern Irish" identity has existed as long as the American one, well that's just a pure falsification.

I didn't assert that. I asserted that for you to claim that Northern Ireland has not a national identity because of a lack of history is disingenuous as the modern, post-plantation, history of NI is as long and indeed slightly longer than British-American colonial history.

Are you aware of what an ethnic group is? Irish or Japanese is an ethnic group, "Northern Irish" is most definitely not. In order for it to be an ethnic group all it's people's would have to be the progeny of the same ancestors, this is blatantly not the case, the people who identify as "Northern Irish" are for the most part, either ethnically Irish, ethnically Scottish and a very few might me a mixture of these two. In order for "Northern Irish" to be a distinct ethnic group, all of it's identifiers would have to be the product of this "Irish-Lowland Scot" mix, which obviously isn't the case.

I think you don't know what an ethnic group is and are confusing it with a racial group. Ethnicity is far more complex and ancestry comprises only part of it. You might want to look it up.

Charles Rocher wrote: »

It's not clear what you're saying above. Could you clarify what you mean by 'they'. It appears you've attributed a 'hive mind' to those north of the political boundary.

I would think it perfectly clear; 'they' signifies 'not us'; the population of NI rather than the population of the Republic. Whether that NI population is composed of one or multiple heterogeneous groups is another matter, although I would contend that if the latter they have more in common with each other than any of them have with the population south of the border - the main point is that the two populations are not homogeneous - something I've pointed out numerous times in previous posts, also explaining why (which no one seemed to want to try to challenge, I may add).

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only because of the creation / invention of the United States of America. Prior to that the colonials would have referred to themselves as English or British. The term American was an almost purely geographical term.

I'll take your word for it, nonetheless you do accept that it has hosted a separate ethnic group and culture for a lot longer, regardles of what they called themselves?

Sure, but realistically Native Americans were American in the same way that we are European; they tended to be grouped in regional tribal nationalities, rather than a single pan-American one. Anyhow, what relevance has that to anything I've suggested, beyond your need to use the expression 'cherry-pick' back at me?

I didn't assert that. I asserted that for you to claim that Northern Ireland has not a national identity because of a lack of history is disingenuous as the modern, post-plantation, history of NI is as long and indeed slightly longer than British-American colonial history.

I think you don't know what an ethnic group is and are confusing it with a racial group. Ethnicity is far more complex and ancestry comprises only part of it. You might want to look it up.

I would think it perfectly clear; 'they' signifies 'not us'; the population of NI rather than the population of the Republic. Whether that NI population is composed of one or multiple heterogeneous groups is another matter, although I would contend that if the latter they have more in common with each other than any of them have with the population south of the border - the main point is that the two populations are not homogeneous - something I've pointed out numerous times in previous posts, also explaining why (which no one seemed to want to try to challenge, I may add).

Ethnicity is primarily based on a shared genetic history, there is no widespread shared genetic history known as "Northern Irish".

And don't be so facetious, you were trying to suggest that the Irish people in the North are ethnically different than Irish people just across the border, say Donegal or Monaghan, which is the biggest load of cr*p I've ever heard.

As for suggesting that Ulster-Scots and Irish people in the north have more in common than Irish in the north and Irish in the south....are you out of your mind? Irish people are and always have been remarkably similar no matter where you go in the country, a line in the map drawn 90 years ago by British bureaucrats doesn't magically change that. Irish and Ulster-Scots on the other hand have engaged in relatively little interchange over the 400 years they've lived next to each other. Irish and Ulster Scots may not be homogenous, but Irish people north and south sure as hell are.

ancapailldorcha

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

And don't be so facetious, you were trying to suggest that the Irish people in the North are ethnically different than Irish people just across the border, say Donegal or Monaghan, which is the biggest load of cr*p I've ever heard.

Tell me, would be as condescending to someone who suggested that being from Liverpool is considered as being an ethnic group. They have their own recognised language and are treated as so by many in the UK. I'd definitely consider someone from Northern Ireland to be at least culturally different from my self. A lot of Northern Irish have a strong sense of cultural identity.

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Ethnicity is primarily based on a shared genetic history, there is no widespread shared genetic history known as "Northern Irish".

Firstly, ethnicity is not primarily based on a shared genetic history, and if anything the concept differentiated itself from race in the past precisely for this reason. You don't seem to understand the term, as I've already pointed out. Read up on the subject, please.

Secondly, I never suggested that the 'Northern Irish' are a homogeneous group in themselves, only that they, ironically, are more so than to southern Irish as a whole.

And don't be so facetious, you were trying to suggest that the Irish people in the North are ethnically different than Irish people just across the border, say Donegal or Monaghan, which is the biggest load of cr*p I've ever heard.

Yes they are ethnically different to southern Irish. As for "just across the border", I address this for you much earlier in the thread when I cited simelar scenarios in continental Europe. Everywhere in the World has a blurring close to the border with a neighbour - but to cite that as proof of commonality in the general populations, is a pretty piss-poor argument, given how clearly false it is.

As for suggesting that Ulster-Scots and Irish people in the north have more in common than Irish in the north and Irish in the south....are you out of your mind?

Answer logically and not with a tantrum please. This is the second time in this thread that your rebuttal has been a churlish "you're insane" attack. Does you no favours.

Irish and Ulster Scots may not be homogenous, but Irish people north and south sure as hell are.

I think you're talking about fantasy Island, rather than Ireland, there.

For several generations we have lived under different jurisdictions, with different economies, currencies, educational systems, political systems and parties, social structures and even religious and ethnic mixtures - all before we consider the two divergent histories, between World War II and the Troubles.

We're simelar, certainly, but to think that North and South "sure as Hell are" homogeneous is just complete denial. If we are homogeneous, then we are homogeneous with the English or Scots too, as how we differ with them is comparable.

That's not a reason to argue that North and South should not be united into a single nation, of course. There are plenty of ethnically heterogeneous nations out there (e.g. Switzerland), however to try to claim that we are homogeneous ignores the reality of this difference.

timthumbni

I don't think that referring to yourself as Northern Irish is "wishy-washy" at all.

Its simply a term that according to the recent census quite a few residents of Northern Ireland identify themselves with (As many as identified themselves as being Irish which is really the interesting point)

If more people identify themselves as Northern Irish then more power to them. I would assume that a lot of those who call themselves Northern Irish are simply extending the name of the county ie Northern Ireland (or area of the uk before anyone starts arguing) in which they live. It doesn't mean that these people could/would not be unionist or nationalist as well.

I like the term and have used it long before the GFA. If it's good enough for wee golfer rory then it's good enough for me.

The Corinthian

timthumbni wrote: »

Its simply a term that according to the recent census quite a few residents of Northern Ireland identify themselves with (As many as identified themselves as being Irish which is really the interesting point)

I suspect that this is why, especially in nationalist circles, the concept of a Northern Irish identity is treated with such hostility. Let's call a spade a spade; the days of a 'British' Northern Ireland are probably numbered. Changing demographics and politics are such that the only reason that it will likely (or de facto now does) retain any support is purely for economic ones.

In the orthodox model, Northern Ireland has two choices; essentially London or Dublin - part of the UK or the Republic. So following from the above, that means an inevitable (albeit slow) move to the latter. From the nationalist 'united Ireland' viewpoint, time is on their side; all they need do now is wait.

Introduce a third option, especially one that appears to have appeal and support, and this inevitable victory is suddenly put in danger. Understandably if you're a nationalist, you're probably going to be pretty hostile to any such alternative that threatens what will otherwise be a slam dunk victory, even if that victory will still take decades to achieve.

Of course, let me add a few caveats this by saying that as a political alternative, I don't believe it presently has sufficient support and would not be economically viable. And while I do believe there is sufficient argument for a NI 'national identity', I've not argued that a NI 'national identity' exists, or could exist, I've only argued that no rational reason has yet been give for dismissing the possibility. All we've heard in that department has been ridiculously easy to refute.

Either way, we're not going to see NI's future sealed for a long time, including the unification option. It unification could be achieved relatively quickly, I doubt that the reaction to a sovereign NI here would be so hostile.

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

Firstly, ethnicity is not primarily based on a shared genetic history, and if anything the concept differentiated itself from race in the past precisely for this reason. You don't seem to understand the term, as I've already pointed out. Read up on the subject, please.

Secondly, I never suggested that the 'Northern Irish' are a homogeneous group in themselves, only that they, ironically, are more so than to southern Irish as a whole.

Yes they are ethnically different to southern Irish. As for "just across the border", I address this for you much earlier in the thread when I cited simelar scenarios in continental Europe. Everywhere in the World has a blurring close to the border with a neighbour - but to cite that as proof of commonality in the general populations, is a pretty piss-poor argument, given how clearly false it is.

Answer logically and not with a tantrum please. This is the second time in this thread that your rebuttal has been a churlish "you're insane" attack. Does you no favours.

I think you're talking about fantasy Island, rather than Ireland, there.

For several generations we have lived under different jurisdictions, with different economies, currencies, educational systems, political systems and parties, social structures and even religious and ethnic mixtures - all before we consider the two divergent histories, between World War II and the Troubles.

We're simelar, certainly, but to think that North and South "sure as Hell are" homogeneous is just complete denial. If we are homogeneous, then we are homogeneous with the English or Scots too, as how we differ with them is comparable.

That's not a reason to argue that North and South should not be united into a single nation, of course. There are plenty of ethnically heterogeneous nations out there (e.g. Switzerland), however to try to claim that we are homogeneous ignores the reality of this difference.

So you genuinely believe that Irish people in the north, people of Gaelic Irish descent that consider themselves Irish, are both genetically and culturally distinct from Gaelic Irish people in the south. I didn't actually call you insane as you claim I did in my last post, but I'm beginning to think I should have..

And Jesus Christ, you are completely pulling this argument in the wrong direction, where have I ever said that Ireland was ethnically homogenous, I have said on numerous occasions that Ulster-Scots, or people of British descent are not the same as Irish people. I have not once mentioned Irish unity, but leave it to a Unionist to drag it in some how as if the whole discussion is one big Nationalist plot aimed at bringing about the downfall of the northern state.... Are you guys always this paranoid?

As I have said umpteen times, I recognise the British identity in the north, I recognise the Irish identity in the north, I'd probably even accept an Ulster-Scots identity, but I categorically reject the legitimacy of a "Northern Irish" identity, and no matter how much you try to divert the focus to supposed massive Irish ethnic heterogeneity, or united Ireland aspirations, it isn't going to change the fact that thus far no-one has been able to offer any sort of convincing evidence as to why "Northern Irish" should be considered a distinct national identity, let alone an "ethnicity".

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

So you genuinely believe that Irish people in the north, people of Gaelic Irish descent that consider themselves Irish, are both genetically and culturally distinct from Gaelic Irish people in the south.

So how have "people of Gaelic Irish descent that consider themselves Irish" managed not to be culturally distinct? So far, you are effectively relying upon racialist arguments alone to claim commonality between north and south of the border (which doesn't solve the problem of those who are not genetically 'Gaelic Irish people' in NI) and last time I checked people's cultures are not passed on in genetic memory.

Maybe you should be posting on Stormfront rather than here? You don't really have much more than a racial argument going on from what I can see.

I didn't actually call you insane as you claim I did in my last post, but I'm beginning to think I should have.

Another ad hominem. Until you can grow up a little, this is where I stop reading your nonsense.

timthumbni

The Corinthian wrote: »

I suspect that this is why, especially in nationalist circles, the concept of a Northern Irish identity is treated with such hostility. Let's call a spade a spade; the days of a 'British' Northern Ireland are probably numbered. Changing demographics and politics are such that the only reason that it will likely (or de facto now does) retain any support is purely for economic ones.

In the orthodox model, Northern Ireland has two choices; essentially London or Dublin - part of the UK or the Republic. So following from the above, that means an inevitable (albeit slow) move to the latter. From the nationalist 'united Ireland' viewpoint, time is on their side; all they need do now is wait.

Introduce a third option, especially one that appears to have appeal and support, and this inevitable victory is suddenly put in danger. Understandably if you're a nationalist, you're probably going to be pretty hostile to any such alternative that threatens what will otherwise be a slam dunk victory, even if that victory will still take decades to achieve.

Of course, let me add a few caveats this by saying that as a political alternative, I don't believe it presently has sufficient support and would not be economically viable. And while I do believe there is sufficient argument for a NI 'national identity', I've not argued that a NI 'national identity' exists, or could exist, I've only argued that no rational reason has yet been give for dismissing the possibility. All we've heard in that department has been ridiculously easy to refute.

Either way, we're not going to see NI's future sealed for a long time, including the unification option. It unification could be achieved relatively quickly, I doubt that the reaction to a sovereign NI here would be so hostile.

I agree that a lot of nationalists and in particular SF are hostile about the term Northern Irish. I certainly wouldn't expect to see anyone who is a Sinn feiner referring themselves as being Northern Irish but some opinion polls in the last while have even suggested that a number of Sinn Fein voters wouldn't even vote for a united ireland. It's a strange world indeed.

The only thing I know is that all of the Jedi (per the census) are staunch unionists. Since light sabers were banned in this galaxy " a long time ago" they have been searching for a replacement and have now found it in the form of orange order ceremonial swords. The Jedi have since formed their own lodge. Even yoda is in it. (Though he doesn't walk much anymore so he travels in the car behind the band)

The Corinthian

timthumbni wrote: »

The only thing I know is that all of the Jedi (per the census) are staunch unionists. Since light sabers were banned in this galaxy " a long time ago" they have been searching for a replacement and have now found it in the form of orange order ceremonial swords. The Jedi have since formed their own lodge. Even yoda is in it. (Though he doesn't walk much anymore so he travels in the car behind the band)

Excuse my ignorance, but what are you talking about?

on the river

The Corinthian wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but what are you talking about?

i am talking about how each county should be allowed to vote and voice their opinion.

futhermore we all should all support the northern ireland assembly and allow it it to function

I am talking our country EIRE the land of the courageous and helpful people.

timthumbni

The Corinthian wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but what are you talking about?

In the census there was always a number of people of when asked identity (or maybe it was religion) who would put down Jedi. (As in Star Wars Jedi knight)
:-)

I think it was quite a big number in the general uk census. And why not I suppose. I would have as much belief in a religion from a movie as I would in the recognised world religions.