British monarch references painted over on street signs.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point is and always was, that people involved in wars and conflicts can be seen as having contributed to a lasting peace.

Things like the Enniskillen bombing was not a war or conflict though, it was a terrorist campaign, and was widely condemned as such by everyone from the White House to the Kremlin. There would have been peace if it were not for the "armed struggle"....do not forget Mr McGuinness rejected the peaceful methods of the civil rights movement and the SDLP.

What do you think that if anyones name should be on a street name plate, perhaps that young nurse who died in the Enniskillen bombing - the one who said " Daddy, I love you", as she lay dying under a pile of rubble - would be a better nomination that an IRA commander? Especially as the nomination has angered and disgusted relatives of IRA bombings like Enniskillen and Claudy?

KingBrian2

feargale wrote: »

Exactly. What did the Brits ever give us?

Nothing except the counties, the canals, the roads, the trains, a legal system, an educational system, Georgian architecture, a monetary system, a second language for Yeats, Joyce and Heaney, three codes of football, Cheddar cheese, stout, fish and chips, the concertina for Mrs. Crotty, Pugin churches, the RNLI, the Salvation Army for down 'n outs, Cadburys and Rowntrees chocolate, penicillin, marmalade and tea.

Absolutely bloody nothing else. Let's get rid of them all, I say.

Except it was Irish people who did a lot of that and they were labeled British because back then we sat in the Parliament in London.

Cortina_MK_IV

maryishere wrote: »

Things like the Enniskillen bombing was not a war or conflict though, it was a terrorist campaign, and was widely condemned as such by everyone from the White House to the Kremlin. There would have been peace if it were not for the "armed struggle"....do not forget Mr McGuinness rejected the peaceful methods of the civil rights movement and the SDLP.

<snip>

I think the parachute regiment rejected the civil rights movement a bit more forcefully.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

Things like the Enniskillen bombing was not a war or conflict though, it was a terrorist campaign, and was widely condemned as such by everyone from the White House to the Kremlin. There would have been peace if it were not for the "armed struggle"....do not forget Mr McGuinness rejected the peaceful methods of the civil rights movement and the SDLP.

What do you think that if anyones name should be on a street name plate, perhaps that young nurse who died in the Enniskillen bombing - the one who said " Daddy, I love you", as she lay dying under a pile of rubble - would be a better nomination that an IRA commander? Especially as the nomination has angered and disgusted relatives of IRA bombings like Enniskillen and Claudy?

The stories of wars and conflicts are the same on each side.

Again the point is, you can recognise that war/conflict can lead to greater goods and as predicted and naturally, this is what is happening here.
History will see the likes of McGuinness as a creator of a better future for 'all' the people.
Sometimes you have to tear down before you can build.

And that is better to commemorate than those who largely created their own monuments.

FrancieBrady

Cortina_MK_IV wrote: »

I think the parachute regiment rejected the civil rights movement a bit more forcefully.

The people affected by the less than benign presence of the BA are expected to sit back and be quiet when they are honoured or when their titular head is wined and dined here.
That's fine, I don't have a problem with the monarch being feted by the flagwavers here, or the historical stuff (I love all the stuff they left behind) but remember our own too.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

but remember our own too.

Would you include those (who you wish to "remember" ) who killed members of our own security forces - Gardai and army - too?

Cortina_MK_IV wrote: »

I think the parachute regiment rejected the civil rights movement a bit more forcefully.

And Enniskillen or Claudy was not justified by Bloody Sunday, any more than Bloody Sunday was justified by the dozens of soldiers and RUC murdered by Republicans in Derry in the days and months before Bloody Sunday.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again the point is, you can recognise that war/conflict can lead to greater goods .

So if someone keeps hitting you, and after a few decades they stop hitting you, you think that "leads to greater goods".

LordSutch

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

British monarch references painted over on street signs.

“The group are engaging in Civil Disobedience to remove Victoria’s name, stating that this is necessary in order to respect the memory of the millions who starved and were dispossessed under her reign,” Mr Ó Cadhla said.

The lads do seem a bit mad in fairness.

Garda Patrol/CCTV.

I presume if any of these people are caught on CCTV they will be prosecuted for vandalism?
If Victorian street signs, ancient grave stones, or any other ancient monuments are defaced, then surely the culprits will be fined or given a custodial sentence?

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

Would you include those (who you wish to "remember" ) who killed members of our own security forces - Gardai and army - too?



And Enniskillen or Claudy was not justified by Bloody Sunday, any more than Bloody Sunday was justified by the dozens of soldiers and RUC murdered by Republicans in Derry in the days and months before Bloody Sunday.




So if someone keeps hitting you, and after a few decades they stop hitting you, you think that "leads to greater goods".

I include all those who created a fair an equal society.

My family were victims of Irish security force violence and British security force violence.
They were victims of a war/conflict, just like all the others.

The people who deserve remembrance are those whose aim was peace and both sides had them but they also had those who didn't act in a way to create peace.

Those who want only the victims of one side to be remembered or the victims who only want one side punished, need to face the truth, they are not unique. It's a reality as brutal as the war/conflict itself, but reality nonetheless.

FrancieBrady

LordSutch wrote: »

Garda Patrol/CCTV.

I presume if any of these people are caught on CCTV they will be prosecuted for vandalism?
If Victorian street signs, ancient grave stones, or any other ancient monuments are defaced, then surely the culprits will be fined or given a custodial sentence?

It would knock it on the head very quick. These are just idiots, they'd be banging drums outside churches in another life. Zero tolerance would work pretty quick.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those who want only the victims of one side to be remembered or the victims who only want one side punished, need to face the truth, .

Innocent victims of loyalist murder gangs deserve remembrance just as much as for example victims of the Enniskillen or Claudy bombings. The paramilitaries / people who broke the law on both sides deserved to be punished. Many people were caught, tried and imprisoned on both sides,and rightfully so.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

Innocent victims of loyalist murder gangs deserve remembrance just as much as for example victims of the Enniskillen or Claudy bombings. The paramilitaries / people who broke the law on both sides deserved to be punished. Many people were caught, tried and imprisoned on both sides,and rightfully so.

We were all victims. People like you who cannot see were the ultimate responsibilities lie are victims just as much as the cherrypicked victims you exploit were.

The point again is, history will show who made the peace, and who deserves to be remembered and honored. And that should be people from both sides who travelled difficult roads.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People like you who cannot see were the ultimate responsibilities lie are victims just as much as the cherrypicked victims you exploit were.

Rubbish. The real victims were those who were shot, bombed, or otherwise injured, and their families. Other people suffered huge stress, lifestyle changes, had property destroyed, careers destroyed etc. Some people, on all sides, suffered greatly. No side is completely blameless. I did not cherrypick victims. You cannot say there was justification for the "armed struggle" after 1972 when the British govt invited the Republican movement to London for talks but the Republican movement said it would not abandon its offensive campaign of violence then until it got a "united Ireland".

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

Rubbish. The real victims were those who were shot, bombed, or otherwise injured, and their families. Other people suffered huge stress, lifestyle changes, had property destroyed, careers destroyed etc. Some people, on all sides, suffered greatly. No side is completely blameless. I did not cherrypick victims. You cannot say there was justification for the "armed struggle" after 1972 when the British govt invited the Republican movement to London for talks but the Republican movement said it would not abandon its offensive campaign of violence then until it got a "united Ireland".

The point I made is that you are being left behind. History will show who created the lasting peace.
You try to pretend to be unpartisan but you fail again and again. How many posters does it take to point that out to you?

riffmongous

feargale wrote: »

Exactly. What did the Brits ever give us?

Nothing except the counties, the canals, the roads, the trains, a legal system, an educational system, Georgian architecture, a monetary system, a second language for Yeats, Joyce and Heaney, three codes of football, Cheddar cheese, stout, fish and chips, the concertina for Mrs. Crotty, Pugin churches, the RNLI, the Salvation Army for down 'n outs, Cadburys and Rowntrees chocolate, penicillin, marmalade and tea.

Absolutely bloody nothing else. Let's get rid of them all, I say.

If you take out the things we already had, and the ones that would have developed naturally.. it's not much of a legacy for a few hundred years of rule is it.. even ignoring all the 'other stuff' they did

maryishere

riffmongous wrote: »

If you take out the things we already had, and the ones that would have developed naturally.. it's not much of a legacy for a few hundred years of rule is it.. even ignoring all the 'other stuff' they did

You are right, they should have built a few lighthouses, harbours, universities, that type of thing.
Oh, but they did do one thing. During the floods on the Shannon last year, one engineer said the last time the Shannon had been properly drained was when the British did it. So a bit of credit there.

riffmongous

maryishere wrote: »

You are right, they should have built a few lighthouses, harbours, universities, that type of thing.
Oh, but they did do one thing. During the floods on the Shannon last year, one engineer said the last time the Shannon had been properly drained was when the British did it. So a bit of credit there.

Ah now, the effectiveness of river dredging as a solution for flooding is a whole other discussion before giving anyone credit for it Let's give them the trams instead

Jawgap

feargale wrote: »

Exactly. What did the Brits ever give us?

Nothing except the counties, the canals, the roads, the trains, a legal system, an educational system, Georgian architecture, a monetary system, a second language for Yeats, Joyce and Heaney, three codes of football, Cheddar cheese, stout, fish and chips, the concertina for Mrs. Crotty, Pugin churches, the RNLI, the Salvation Army for down 'n outs, Cadburys and Rowntrees chocolate, penicillin, marmalade and tea.

Absolutely bloody nothing else. Let's get rid of them all, I say.

You forgot about the spuds

FrancieBrady

It should be pointed out before the love-in gets too over the top that the British didn't 'give' us this stuff out of some sort of benevolent disposition. They built all this stuff because they intended to stay, they didn't want to give it up.
The Empire was not benign, it was brutal when it needed to be and it's motives were selfish, the 'motherland' as Churchill cutely called it, always came first. It chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed.
History as we know shows that they got a rude awakening as Ireland (and we should be proud of this) woke all the colonies and showed the empire builders that it was over.
There is no reason or point in obliterating their influence but let's not be re-writing history either.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It should be pointed out before the love-in gets too over the top that the British didn't 'give' us this stuff out of some sort of benevolent disposition. They built all this stuff because they intended to stay, they didn't want to give it up.
The Empire was not benign, it was brutal when it needed to be and it's motives were selfish, the 'motherland' as Churchill cutely called it, always came first. It chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed.
History as we know shows that they got a rude awakening as Ireland (and we should be proud of this) woke all the colonies and showed the empire builders that it was over.
There is no reason or point in obliterating their influence but let's not be re-writing history either.

Yeah, and ripping it down, painting it over, abandoning it for abandonment's sake will achieve what?

Nobody's trying to re-write history except muppets who go around with zero understanding of it.

As far as I'm concerned, "fúck it, we paid for it, let's enjoy it" instead of the usual Sinn Fein-type republican nonsense that we should be self-flagellating ourselves for daring to exploit it.

Put it this way, I'm delighted we speak English......the crowd I work for (a British based firm) has a base in Dublin and on the back of Brexit we've seen inquiries for our services nearly triple because in about 2 to 3 years our office will be in the largest English speaking country in the EU, and of necessity our clients need what we do to be based in the EU.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, and ripping it down, painting it over, abandoning it for abandonment's sake will achieve what?

Nobody's trying to re-write history except muppets who go around with zero understanding of it.

As far as I'm concerned, "fúck it, we paid for it, let's enjoy it" instead of the usual Sinn Fein-type republican nonsense that we should be self-flagellating ourselves for daring to exploit it.

Put it this way, I'm delighted we speak English......the crowd I work for (a British based firm) has a base in Dublin and on the back of Brexit we've seen inquiries for our services nearly triple because in about 2 to 3 years our office will be in the largest English speaking country in the EU, and of necessity our clients need what we do to be based in the EU.

My views are clear on this, I agree with you on vandalising what was left.
I have no idea what Sinn Fein policy is on it but I doubt they are in favour of obliterating it either.

I accept that our language was victim to the forward march of the empire and that there is precious little we can do about that now.

Am I 'delighted' about that? No, I can't say I am because I think part of our culture went with it. We have to make the best of it though.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My views are clear on this, I agree with you on vandalising what was left.
I have no idea what Sinn Fein policy is on it but I doubt they are in favour of obliterating it either.

I accept that our language was victim to the forward march of the empire and that there is precious little we can do about that now.

Am I 'delighted' about that? No, I can't say I am because I think part of our culture went with it. We have to make the best of it though.

Yes, of course, I forgot, you're not a member.....

.....but it seems you're part of a movement who would drive the Republic by only looking in the rearview mirror.

Despite being relatively fluent in Irish, I don't worry too much about it's status - being a native English speaker let me travel the world and gives me a significant edge in the work I do. If it was my second language I'd be severely disadvantaged.

So away now and dance at the crossroads if you must (pretty rubbish day for it) but unfortunately I can't play out with you because I have an actual job to attend to.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, of course, I forgot, you're not a member.....

.....but it seems you're part of a movement who would drive the Republic by only looking in the rearview mirror.

Despite being relatively fluent in Irish, I don't worry too much about it's status - being a native English speaker let me travel the world and gives me a significant edge in the work I do. If it was my second language I'd be severely disadvantaged.

So away now and dance at the crossroads if you must (pretty rubbish day for it) but unfortunately I can't play out with you because I have an actual job to attend to.

Why are you doing this? Are you really so insecure?
I have been very clear what my attitude is to this activity, I have said that in another world these people would be banging drums outside churches. I think my attitude to it is pretty clear.

I have all my supplies bought in for the week already this morning and another hour or two will see all last weeks orders ready to be sent out.
I will be teaching from 4 as well.
I don't understand what your snide remark re: having an 'actual job' is about. You clearly see what you do as having more value than what others do because you persist in the snide remarks. Whatever rocks your boat I suppose.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It should be pointed out before the love-in gets too over the top that the British didn't 'give' us this stuff out of some sort of benevolent disposition. They built all this stuff because they intended to stay, they didn't want to give it up.

We were part of the UK , not unlike Sicily is part of Italy, the Canaries are part of Spain and the large island state of Tasmania is part of Australia. A third of the British administration in India was Irish. Get over it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed.

er, what resources are you talking about there Francie? There was always trade between the islands, much of it controlled by the Irish. Are you talking about the fish we "lost" when we joined the EEC / EU?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

History as we know shows that they got a rude awakening as Ireland (and we should be proud of this) woke all the colonies and showed the empire builders that it was over.

The US actually was the colony that rebelled first. We did not wake colonies like Australia, Canada, New Zealand...we went grovelling to them on our hands and knees for generations after 1916 looking for work, and those countries still have the Queen as head of state, and they actually officially helped the Allies in WW2, instead of sending condolences on the death of Hitler, and no we should not be proud of that.;) By the time of the 1916 rising, the days of empire building by the European powers was over anyway. Do not forget far more Irish people fought for these islands in WW1 (over 100,000 ) than fought in the 1916 rising. Those who fought in British uniforms fought for a variety of reasons eg some fought in British uniforms because Britain came to the rescue of little Catholic Belgium after it was invaded and raped by Germany.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

We were part of the UK , not unlike Sicily is part of Italy, the Canaries are part of Spain and the large island state of Tasmania is part of Australia. A third of the British administration in India was Irish. Get over it.

I am not at all sure what I need to 'get over'.

er, what resources are you talking about there Francie? There was always trade between the islands, much of it controlled by the Irish. Are you talking about the fish we "lost" when we joined the EEC / EU?

There was indeed trade, but are you revising the history of how Britain's colonies were plundered for the 'motherland'? Really?

The US actually was the colony that rebelled first. We did not wake colonies like Australia, Canada, New Zealand...we went grovelling to them on our hands and knees for generations after 1916 looking for work, and those countries still have the Queen as head of state, and they actually officially helped the Allies in WW2, instead of sending condolences on the death of Hitler, and no we should not be proud of that.;) By the time of the 1916 rising, the days of empire building by the European powers was over anyway. Do not forget far more Irish people fought for these islands in WW1 (over 100,000 ) than fought in the 1916 rising. Those who fought in British uniforms fought for a variety of reasons eg some fought in British uniforms because Britain came to the rescue of little Catholic Belgium after it was invaded and raped by Germany.

I will just leave two quotes here that underline the significance of what the Irish rebellion achieved/caused.

Edward Carson wrote:

"If you tell your Empire in India, in Egypt, and all over the world that you have not got the men, the money, the pluck, the inclination and the backing to restore order in a country within 20 miles of your own shore, you may as well begin to abandon the attempt to make British rule prevail throughout the Empire at all,"

David Lloyd George wrote:

“Suppose we gave it to them? It will lower the prestige and the dignity of this country and reduce British authority to a low point in Ireland itself. It will give the impression that we have lost grip, that the Empire has no further force and will have an effect on India and throughout Europe.”

It is quite clear what the concerns were and history shows what our rebels precipitated. As Declan Kiberd observed:
"Even though a rebellion in Dublin might seem relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, it would actually be the pin piercing the heart of the imperial giant."

Some choose to be eternally embarrassed about that others choose to be proud of it.

LordSutch

Francie uses the analogy re the Rising of "The pin that pierced the heart" of the imperial giant, but I would suggest an even better analogy might be related to a another organ within the same body! For if the heart of the giant was its heart, then surely Ireland was its liver, such was the closeness between these two islands.

FrancieBrady

LordSutch wrote: »

Francie uses the analogy re the Rising of "The pin that pierced the heart" of the imperial giant, but I would suggest an even better analogy might be related to a another organ within the same body! For if the heart of the giant was its heart, then surely Ireland was its liver, such was the closeness between these two islands.

Not sure you 'got' that analogy.

maryishere

You still have not answered the question Francie. You claimed in post no. 140 "the Empire" "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed"
I asked what resources are you talking about there Francie?

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have all my supplies bought in for the week already this morning and another hour or two will see all last weeks orders ready to be sent out.

Still have any t-shirts left Francie ( undeafeated army)?
:D:D
just a joke.

KingBrian2

maryishere wrote: »

You still have not answered the question Francie. You claimed in post no. 140 "the Empire" "chewed up Ireland's resources whenever they were needed"
I asked what resources are you talking about there Francie?

I can answer that one. Human resources and the forests were cleared to build the ships and launched the Royal Navy. Britain did commit wrongs against us and our refusal to sign up to their Imperial projects cost us a great deal of harm.