Protestors disrupting World War 1 commemoration at Glasnevin

Strazdas

The Highwayman wrote: »

Some may see all of the men who fought for the empire as traitors. May were treated as such on returning from Flanders.

I cannot see how they could be seen as traitors to Ireland. They went off to continental Europe to fight against Germany and their allies. What's bizarre about calling them traitors is that 90% of the Irish Volunteers enlisted in the British Army, in other words these were men who had already identified themselves as Irish nationalists and in favour of Irish independence before they went off to war.

LorMal

tomwaterford wrote: »

Some people would want to think long and hard about bending over backwards to call them Irish war dead....as what many appear to forget in there eagerness to be almost anti republican is that many of the Irish (not all) who died in WW1 would spit on the very notion of being called Irish

What an odious post. Bigoted and ignorant. Have you any evidence at all that even one Irish soldier in WW1 'spit on the very notion of being called Irish'

Shame on you.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

But what does that really mean ? Would you accept that by accommodating one violent faction you alienate another ?

And what of the violent factions themselves , how democratic can they really be ?

Yes, you could alienate but it doesn't have to be that way.
What is distinct here is a fundemental dishonesty about the situation we find ourselves in post the GFA, where a significant majority want to bury their heads in the sand and play deferential good neighbours. The major source of conflict, however has not been sorted, only kicked into touch.

As to 'can violent factions be democratic', history around the world shows us that they can. Here, for instance, SF has absorbed the members of the IRA into a democratic political party very effectively.

Happyman42

LorMal wrote: »

What an odious post. Bigoted and ignorant. Have you any evidence at all that even one Irish soldier in WW1 'spit on the very notion of being called Irish'

Shame on you.

They were probably of the same mindset as those who spat on the Irish rebels for daring to upset the English.

This is the dishonesty now going on about WW1. The fact is that there where plenty who saw these men (or some of them) as traitors. And that viewpoint has every bit as much right to be remembered if we are going to remember properly and honestly.
Just as those who died where whitewashed out of history (wrongly) there is now an attempt to whitewash sizable objection to what they where doing, out of the story too.

LorMal

Happyman42 wrote: »

They were probably of the same mindset as those who spat on the Irish rebels for daring to upset the English.

This is the dishonesty now going on about WW1. The fact is that there where plenty who saw these men (or some of them) as traitors. And that viewpoint has every bit as much right to be remembered if we are going to remember properly and honestly.
Just as those who died where whitewashed out of history (wrongly) there is now an attempt to whitewash sizable objection to what they where doing, out of the story too.

Again, any evidence that 'plenty..saw these men as traitors?'. Perhaps some bigots?
Why does this 'viewpoint' have 'every right to be remembered'? Does eugenics have 'every right to be remembered' (plenty of Nazis swore by it)

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, you could alienate but it doesn't have to be that way.
What is distinct here is a fundemental dishonesty about the situation we find ourselves in post the GFA, where a significant majority want to bury their heads in the sand and play deferential good neighbours. The major source of conflict, however has not been sorted, only kicked into touch.

As to 'can violent factions be democratic', history around the world shows us that they can. Here, for instance, SF has absorbed the members of the IRA into a democratic political party very effectively.

Have you anything to support the assertion that the majority are burying their heads in the sand ? Just saying it continuously doesn't make it so .
Sometimes any dispute resolution resembles one of those Venn diagrams
whereby we get to the greatest taken up with what the most numbers can live with, and what is left at the edges is those fringes that cannot be accommodated without losing more support that you might bring in.

Surely you are incorrect on the democratic nature of violent factions ? They can become democratic exactly as you illustrate with SF. But not before they are willing to accept democratic outcomes that they disagree with.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

The various answers to that are always going to be a problem. You either put up with it, 'acceptable levels' or you continue to do everything you can to solve it.

So would you advocate flying the union flag every day at Belfast city hall to solve loyalist violence?

end of the road

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They'll never be happy. They want a UI but thats not going to happen anytime soon so they are going to be sat outside the process while the rest of us move on.

There shouldn't be anyone bending over backwards to accomodate a small minority (no matter how important and relevant you try to make them seem). They're the ones that need to be flexible. In any case there will always be people unhappy no matter what happens.

Also how is welcoming the queen and treating the UK's head of state with the same respect they showed ours deference. I call that hospitality and diplomacy because as much as you and the dissidents may not like it we need friendly relations between Ireland and the UK if anything is going to be achieved.

thats what the prime minister is for. the queen is an illegitimate head of state as she isn't elected by the people

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

thats what the prime minister is for. the queen is an illegitimate head of state as she isn't elected by the people

In your opinion.

end of the road

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In your opinion.

only heads who are elected by the people are legitimate

pablomakaveli

end of the road wrote: »

only heads who are elected by the people are legitimate

Again in your opinion. She is accepted as the head of state by the British people.

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

only heads who are elected by the people are legitimate

Says who?

HerrScheisse

The "Celtic Curse". Irish people have never been able to agree on anything. As it always was, as it always will be.

PropJoe10

Irish people will always find some way of embarassing themselves unnecessarily. This was just another example of that. The Republican movement really should try and pick its battles more carefully.

LordSutch

Happyman42 wrote: »

They were probably of the same mindset as those who spat on the Irish rebels for daring to upset the English.

Dubliners spat on the rebels for daring to upset the English you say :cool:

Remember that at the time of the rising, more than 250.000 Irish men were wearing British uniforms and off fighting the Germans on the continent. Fighting & dying in the trenches for King & country/wages/work/adventure/home rule etc, hence the disgust & upset by so many Irish people when a bunch of home grown rebels brings death & destruction back home to Dublin. I suspect that Dubliners were more than a little upset by that!

No doubt the 'English' politicians were also upset at the very thought of some irish rebels stabbing the war effort in the back, but the people of Dublin/Ireland were the ones who were really upset and disgusted by the rebels attack . . .

99% of "The English" probably never heard of the rising, never mind being upset (as you say) by it.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Have you anything to support the assertion that the majority are burying their heads in the sand ? Just saying it continuously doesn't make it so .
Sometimes any dispute resolution resembles one of those Venn diagrams
whereby we get to the greatest taken up with what the most numbers can live with, and what is left at the edges is those fringes that cannot be accommodated without losing more support that you might bring in.

Surely you are incorrect on the democratic nature of violent factions ? They can become democratic exactly as you illustrate with SF. But not before they are willing to accept democratic outcomes that they disagree with.

You have the leader of a significant all-Ireland party pointing out difficulties in the process, you can see with your own eyes that what he has said is happening in reality and STILL you think there are no problems, nothing significant to be addressed? That would be fairly classical burying of the head.

There is still a huge republican support in this country, do you think that all of them will sit back and tolerate stagnation? What will happen and is happening is that the fringes will grow and sooner or later will no longer be the 'fringes'.
Anybody with an ounce of understanding of how far Adams and McG have brought their particular branch of republicanism knows that it is all dependent on progress. That the movement they represent could very easily fracture.
If that degeneration of commitment to the GFA continues to happen, you can waffle all you want about high notions of democracy all you want, but we will all have to live with the consequences of that. Just as we had to live and die with the consequences of governmental irresponsibility before.


*and please, before the hysterical start pounding their keyboards, that is not a threat, it is just my reading of the situation.

Happyman42

LorMal wrote: »

Again, any evidence that 'plenty..saw these men as traitors?'. Perhaps some bigots?
Why does this 'viewpoint' have 'every right to be remembered'? Does eugenics have 'every right to be remembered' (plenty of Nazis swore by it)

Have you read any histories that aren't from the 'glorious sacrifice' point of view?

There is a very real and understandable reason why these men and what they did, was forgotten and hidden. Many people disagreed, many people where genuinely ashamed of them, some within their own families even. For complex reasons.
There are still huge amounts of people who find dying for the sustenance and maintenance of monarchy and privilege systems as wasteful, stupid and anti-republican.
I can remember these people, understand their sacrifices, mourn their loss, but I don't have to agree with their motives or the motives of those who sent them. Just as I can respect the memory of the ordinary men and women on the other side of the trenches.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have the leader of a significant all-Ireland party pointing out difficulties in the process, you can see with your own eyes that what he has said is happening in reality and STILL you think there are no problems, nothing significant to be addressed? That would be fairly classical burying of the head.

There is still a huge republican support in this country, do you think that all of them will sit back and tolerate stagnation? What will happen and is happening is that the fringes will grow and sooner or later will no longer be the 'fringes'.
Anybody with an ounce of understanding of how far Adams and McG have brought their particular branch of republicanism knows that it is all dependent on progress. That the movement they represent could very easily fracture.
If that degeneration of commitment to the GFA continues to happen, you can waffle all you want about high notions of democracy all you want, but we will all have to live with the consequences of that. Just as we had to live and die with the consequences of governmental irresponsibility before.


*and please, before the hysterical start pounding their keyboards, that is not a threat, it is just my reading of the situation.

You keep repeating this , Adams represents one major point of view . It is not the only view, possibly not even the majority view. I don't know where you get the notion that I think there are no problems , of course there are. Because the solutions you prefer are not used you assume that is burying heads in sand !

The implication of what you are saying is that the only way is the Adams way. And whether you like it or not, mean it or not that has implications of 'or else'

There will always be fringes that cannot be accommodated and sooner or later they will have to be faced down . Would you accept that ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

You keep repeating this , Adams represents one major point of view . It is not the only view, possibly not even the majority view. I don't know where you get the notion that I think there are no problems , of course there are. Because the solutions you prefer are not used you assume that is burying heads in sand !

The implication of what you are saying is that the only way is the Adams way. And whether you like it or not, mean it or not that has implications of 'or else'

There will always be fringes that cannot be accommodated and sooner or later they will have to be faced down . Would you accept that ?

So, 'there are problems' but we are not going to do anything but ignore them. You couldn't get a clearer example of what I am talking about.
I did not say 'The only way is Adams way', you asked for examples of the GFA been in crisis or stagnation mode and you got them, have a look at loyalist protests, dissident protests and activity, continued British and Loyalist refusal to deal with the past and Irish government behaving as if the job has been done.

Some people believe (me included) that the 'fringes' have the potential to undo all the hard and good work that has been done on all sides.

LorMal

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have you read any histories that aren't from the 'glorious sacrifice' point of view?

There is a very real and understandable reason why these men and what they did, was forgotten and hidden. Many people disagreed, many people where genuinely ashamed of them, some within their own families even. For complex reasons.
There are still huge amounts of people who find dying for the sustenance and maintenance of monarchy and privilege systems as wasteful, stupid and anti-republican.
I can remember these people, understand their sacrifices, mourn their loss, but I don't have to agree with their motives or the motives of those who sent them. Just as I can respect the memory of the ordinary men and women on the other side of the trenches.

What was the reason? That the Shinners who stayed at home eventually got into power in the Republic and wrote them out of history.

Happyman42

LorMal wrote: »

What was the reason? That the Shinners who stayed at home eventually got into power in the Republic and wrote them out of history.

Can't avoid showing a bit of bitter bias can we? :rolleyes:

To many people fighting for a system of privilege and monarchy was AND STILL IS anathema. It goes against the whole notion of 'republic'. At that time that monarchy had a very recent history of abuses and crimes committed against the Irish people which fed into the disgust and shame that Irish men would take up arms for them.
Fawn and defer to them if you wish, this is and will remain a republic.

LorMal

Happyman42 wrote: »

Can't avoid showing a bit of bitter bias can we? :rolleyes:

To many people fighting for a system of privilege and monarchy was AND STILL IS anathema. It goes against the whole notion of 'republic'. At that time that monarchy had a very recent history of abuses and crimes committed against the Irish people which fed into the disgust and shame that Irish men would take up arms for them.
Fawn and defer to them if you wish, this is and will remain a republic.

Huh? Who fought for a system of privilege and monarchy?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, 'there are problems' but we are not going to do anything but ignore them. You couldn't get a clearer example of what I am talking about.
I did not say 'The only way is Adams way', you asked for examples of the GFA been in crisis or stagnation mode and you got them, have a look at loyalist protests, dissident protests and activity, continued British and Loyalist refusal to deal with the past and Irish government behaving as if the job has been done.

Some people believe (me included) that the 'fringes' have the potential to undo all the hard and good work that has been done on all sides.

No I don't believe 'the fringes' can undo the work so far, too much has been gained and too far travelled for that to happen.

No one is ignoring any problems , but some issues are simply intractable and you have to accept that. And no one believes the job is done.

You are just giving the men with the guns more credence because they have guns. Some of us have a problem with that.

Let me give you an example - they is a strong anti-EU strain in the Irish electorate, if they took up arms to pursue an Irish withdrawal , should we negotiate or face them down ?

Happyman42

LorMal wrote: »

Huh? Who fought for a system of privilege and monarchy?

Redmond knew very well what the fight was about...saving the 'Empire'

Let us Irishmen of all politics and all creeds put aside these differences which have been dividing us in the past, and unite to perform a common duty which we owe to our common country, namely of defending Ireland as an autonomous nation within the Empire, and to take our stand by the side of self-governing Canada, by the side of self-governing Australia, by the side of self-governing New Zealand, by the side of self-governing Africa [sic] and to recognise that we, like them, are at least an autonomous portion of this empire, and that this empire belongs to us, as it does to them.

what makes you think that other Irish men and women didn't know what it was really all about?

WW1 was a supreme waste of life and a slaughter, we should remember these men and women with respect and pity and regret for a lost generation. We should never glorify any aspect of it, motives or actions.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

No I don't believe 'the fringes' can undo the work so far, too much has been gained and too far travelled for that to happen.

No one is ignoring any problems , but some issues are simply intractable and you have to accept that. And no one believes the job is done.

You are just giving the men with the guns more credence because they have guns. Some of us have a problem with that.

No I am not, I am living in the real world, the world affected tragically by the last outbreak of this cyclical conflict.
You either put up with protests like these or you do something. Very simple really. Moral grandstanding didn't save one life last time around.

Let me give you an example - they is a strong anti-EU strain in the Irish electorate, if they took up arms to pursue an Irish withdrawal , should we negotiate or face them down ?

As we know very well from history all around the world, today's 'terrorist' is tomorrow's statesman. That is the reality, not a moral cuckoo land. As a government you either deal with it or put up with it. The choice is as stark as that. The British knew that as far back as the early 70's but of course, publicly pretended otherwise.
I'm amazed that there are citizens (particularly Irish citiizens) that buy the high moral ground guff they still talk in public.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

WW1 was a supreme waste of life and a slaughter, we should remember these men and women with respect and pity and regret for a lost generation. We should never glorify any aspect of it, motives or actions.

No one has ever tried to glorify WWI, but you have bent over backwards to defend people who are trying to prevent that lost generation being remembered.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No one has ever tried to glorify WWI, but you have bent over backwards to defend people who are trying to prevent that lost generation being remembered.

You show me where I or anyone else have tried to 'prevent' these people being remembered Fred.

I, like many others, object to a direct descendant of the monarchy that caused the slaughter and a figurehead and member of an army, still bullying it's way around the world, being here to remember our dead.
I think it is an insult to the memory of these people quite frankly. That 'monarchy' should be hanging it's head in shame and silence at this time.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

You show me where I have tried to 'prevent' these people being remembered Fred.

I, like many others, object to a direct descendant of the monarchy that caused the slaughter and a figurehead and member of an army, still bullying it's way around the world, being here to remember our dead.
I think it is an insult to the memory of these people quite frankly. That 'monarchy' should be hanging it's head in shame and silence at this time.

And there's the problem. Just like the troglodytes who were interrupting the president, you have this narrow minded made up view of the world that just wants to live in the past, wallowing in self pity.

You talk about progress, but people like you are the single biggest barrier to progress, because you don't want it.

You just want to be angry and outraged.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And there's the problem. Just like the troglodytes who were interrupting the president, you have this narrow minded made up view of the world that just wants to live in the past, wallowing in self pity.

You talk about progress, but people like you are the single biggest barrier to progress, because you don't want it.

You just want to be angry and outraged.

Talk to the victims of continued British aggression and bullying about how far they think your benign, benevolent monarchy have 'progressed' Fred.

If we have any real respect for those who died in the folly of WW1 we owe those victims our support.
And yes, I am angry about continued British aggression and any semblance of support for it coming from official Ireland. I make absolutely no apology for that.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

No I am not, I am living in the real world, the world affected tragically by the last outbreak of this cyclical conflict.
You either put up with protests like these or you do something. Very simple really. Moral grandstanding didn't save one life last time around.



As we know very well from history all around the world, today's 'terrorist' is tomorrow's statesman. That is the reality, not a moral cuckoo land. As a government you either deal with it or put up with it. The choice is as stark as that. The British knew that as far back as the early 70's but of course, publicly pretended otherwise.
I'm amazed that there are citizens (particularly Irish citiizens) that buy the high moral ground guff they still talk in public.

No Happyman yours is not the real world , you have a extraordinarily selective reading of history - the reality is that in a democratic society when a tiny minority decides that their voice is more important than all the rest combined they must be faced down unless you want continuous and utter chaos,

Otherwise where would we be ? giving concessions to the drug gangs in Limerick and Dublin and Timothy Macveighs of this world ?

I have absolutely no doubts that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness could do a hell of a lot more to rein in the discontent on the nationalist side . I understand why they choose not to do so .