Poppy

Thomas_IV

end of the road wrote: »

has nothing to do with this thread. + the post responded to the part of the quoted post which stated that such acts carried out by what the poster considers to be "terrorists" shouldn't be remembered, when of course they should given innocent people died in the particular event mentioned within the post quoted.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and vice versa but in the end of the day, killing innocent people for whatever reason is just plain wrong.

Both sides of the Troubles would agree on that, but it all stops when it comes to their own 'fallen freedom fighters' or 'patriots'.

Now, with a reckless and stubborn DUP having their hands indirectly on the levers of power in Westminster to blackmail the UK govt in order to get a hard Brexit, fears that the old days might return are growing. This party is just another example for people who have learned nothing from the past, but still hang on to the illusion that in the old days it was better for them. But it wasn't really.

SF appears to be deathening silent on that matter, or maybe I haven't observed their political actions in recent times. Bombing NI into a UI didn't work, waiting to get NI into a UI by the selfinflicted ruin of the UK by the very 'more British than the British themselves' party seems to pay off in time. Maybe this calculation works, if only there won't be a Troubles 2.0 to go through.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

it isn't the event being remembered, it is the person who carried it out. At his graveside maintained by the National Graves Association, the recipient of money from the sales of Easter Lillies.

It has nothing to do with this thread, but it has everything to do with highlighting the Republican hypocrisy.

You can not defend commemorating one and criticise the other.

What part of 'we need a symbol to remember 'all' who died?

People have the right to remember their own separately.

Hypocrisy says the poster who wants to only remember and support one army.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What part of 'we need a symbol to remember 'all' who died?

People have the right to remember their own separately.

Hypocrisy says the poster who wants to only remember and support one army.

Well what other symbol would you suggest? The white poppy, Leo's poppy-shamrock, or something else?

The red poppy is most frequently associated with remembrance. Weirdly enough it's now even used in Ukraine in relation to WW2

end of the road

Thomas_IV wrote: »

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and vice versa but in the end of the day, killing innocent people for whatever reason is just plain wrong.

i agree and to be fair, that is something i have always been clear on. there was never any justification, or need for either side to target civilians.

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Both sides of the Troubles would agree on that, but it all stops when it comes to their own 'fallen freedom fighters' or 'patriots'.

Now, with a reckless and stubborn DUP having their hands indirectly on the levers of power in Westminster to blackmail the UK govt in order to get a hard Brexit, fears that the old days might return are growing. This party is just another example for people who have learned nothing from the past, but still hang on to the illusion that in the old days it was better for them. But it wasn't really.

SF appears to be deathening silent on that matter, or maybe I haven't observed their political actions in recent times. Bombing NI into a UI didn't work, waiting to get NI into a UI by the selfinflicted ruin of the UK by the very 'more British than the British themselves' party seems to pay off in time. Maybe this calculation works, if only there won't be a Troubles 2.0 to go through.

i can't see there being anything on the same scale as the troubles again. no support from the wider community now for violence, no supports in terms of weaponry and all else, etc . there probably will be violent clashes but they would likely be stamped out quite quickly by the police.
sf waiting for britain to self-destruct, to then get NI into a UI is a good shout actually and it makes quite a lot of sense for them to say nothing and wait for that to happen. time will tell whether it works or not.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What part of 'we need a symbol to remember 'all' who died?

I am happy to agree with that.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People have the right to remember their own separately.

Unless they're British, obviously :rolleyes:

republicans showed the world exactly what they thought of remembrance in 1987.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hypocrisy says the poster who wants to only remember and support one army.

and when, pray tell, have I said that?

Thomas_IV

end of the road wrote: »

i agree and to be fair, that is something i have always been clear on. there was never any justification, or need for either side to target civilians.



i can't see there being anything on the same scale as the troubles again. no support from the wider community now for violence, no supports in terms of weaponry and all else, etc . there probably will be violent clashes but they would likely be stamped out quite quickly by the police.
sf waiting for britain to self-destruct, to then get NI into a UI is a good shout actually and it makes quite a lot of sense for them to say nothing and wait for that to happen. time will tell whether it works or not.

Let's hope that you're right.

Spook_ie

citytillidie wrote: »

1st use of British Isles was 1577, i say Ireland existed long before then

Actually the terms Great Britain and Little Britain ( guess where little Britain is today ) was first noted in 147/148 AD

The classical writer Claudius Ptolemy, referred to the larger island as great Britain (megale Bretannia) and to Ireland as little Britain (mikra Brettania) in his work, Almagest (147–148 AD).

Who would ever think that there'd be a TV comedy named after Ireland.

Thomas_IV

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Well, that is the way you see it and the angle from which you look at it. That isn't mine and, for what ever reason, plenty of Irishmen joined that Army in both world wars. But well, I don't have the Irish view on that matter, as mine is very different from that without embracing any sort of imperialism, as in fact it was one Empire fighting an even more aggressive imperialism in both world wars.

When you say that remembrance in Ireland should criticise what happened in Ireland to have any value, you surely should bear in mind the responsibility of Irishmen in supporting and serving the growing of this former Empire. But that is a matter on which many - Irish Republicans in particular - get rather upset about cos they do have a problem with recognising the role and the part they had in building up the BE. Aside from the BE subject, there is still the contribution of Irish people in colonising the USA and in building up this modern state which has been built on the land grabbing and murdering of the native American Indians.

World history and the interwoven connections of people are too complex as to have a simple answer on what went down in the past. To be honest in all this, one really has to look at both sides of the coin and talk about all of it.

In Ireland, through the centuries, the Irish were the victims of their colonial masters. In the colonies, some (I avoid to say 'all' or even 'many') Irish were the active part in oppressing other native folk. That means, either way, they have always been part of one system or the other.

Not in the name of Ireland though, but rather as representatives of the British government & state so it's an individual responsibility for those Irish involved plus the collective responsibility is still Britains.

Thomas_IV

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually the terms Great Britain and Little Britain ( guess where little Britain is today ) was first noted in 147/148 AD

The classical writer Claudius Ptolemy, referred to the larger island as great Britain (megale Bretannia) and to Ireland as little Britain (mikra Brettania) in his work, Almagest (147–148 AD).

Who would ever think that there'd be a TV comedy named after Ireland.

When it comes to the ancient writers and philosophers, except Marc Aurel, I always wonder whether they have seen the lands and met the people themselves they described in their works. That means whether there was real interaction or just observation from the distance and taking up the stories told to them by those who were in real contact with the native tribes.

Spook_ie

murpho999 wrote: »

Yes, but then they are not strangers. Nobody is toasting the Queen or people who are not there.

Really strange comparison you're making.

Not really, I've been to weddings where I've not known the bride and groom, in fact we had distant relatives at our wedding that toasted us, some only invited because of the " You have to invite cousin such n such "

So yeah strangers do toast strangers.

You never clinked a glass and said cheers, never been to a funeral and toasted the dead or toasted absent friends?

Thomas_IV

Deleted User wrote: »

Not in the name of Ireland though, but rather as representatives of the British government & state so it's an individual responsibility for those Irish involved plus the collective responsibility is still Britains.

So, the Act of Union of 1801 counts for nothing (?).

Spook_ie

Thomas_IV wrote: »

When it comes to the ancient writers and philosophers, except Marc Aurel, I always wonder whether they have seen the lands and met the people themselves they described in their works. That means whether there was real interaction or just observation from the distance and taking up the stories told to them by those who were in real contact with the native tribes.

Would it matter when people are writing a name by which an island or race are known if they'd met them. I could use the term American or Native American to differentiate between them without having met either.

Thomas_IV

Thomas_IV wrote: »

So, the Act of Union of 1801 counts for nothing (?).

Whats the relevance? Irish people participated as colonisers on behalf of the British state. I thought that would be pretty clear. As is the fact that the ultimate responsibility for thair actions lies at the door of said state.

Thomas_IV

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would it matter when people are writing a name by which an island or race are known if they'd met them. I could use the term American or Native American to differentiate between them without having met either.

It matters as the (some) names of countries and that of people deriving from that we still use today were given to them by the ancient Romans. What I tried to point out is that in some cases, the names given to that by the natives themselves were either lost or just 'transformed'. This goes further in regards of what is left of the history of their culture on which Archealogists are still searching today for.

But we can just leave it at that.

citytillidie

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're fast to correct others, but need recourse to history books yourself. Or even just google. A decent enough dictionary would even suffice .

Ahh more personal attacks shows you are resorted to the lowest form of bullying on the Internet.

Did I say I believed Ireland only existed after 1921? That would be a no, I believe my post said "I gave up when according to those in here Ireland did not exist until 1921."

Where in that do you see I believe that?

Thomas_IV

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats the relevance? Irish people participated as colonisers on behalf of the British state. I thought that would be pretty clear. As is the fact that the ultimate responsibility for thair actions lies at the door of said state.

That sounds like an easy way to escape and shift every aspect in which colonialism overseas was merely a matter of the BE. That might be so in regards of Canada, Australia and NZ, India and some African countries as well.

Not so in the USA for after they achieved Independence, it marked the 'formal end' of the 'first British Empire'. That is how some, but not too less, historians refer to that as the larger expansion of the what they call the 'second British Empire' took place right after the Act of Union 1801 for which the whole 19th Century was that of the rise of the BE to reach its territorial peak after WWI.

You can say that a many Irish were driven to emigrate to the USA due to the Famine of the 1840s. What choices did they have, if not privileged and rich with relatives already over there to make the settling in of the new ones easier in compare to the poor who either fled or were driven off the land in Ireland.

There isn't just British Imperialism, there always has been an American Imperialism as well, driven and built up by the white settlers and by the help of all the others who came to the USA from every corner of the world. I refer in that case to the Irish immigrants to the USA who were no longer subjects to the BE but became American citizens in quite a short time.

What else was the land grabbing and murder of the native Indians in American than another sort of Imperialism. Who is bashing the Americans today for that? Who is complaining that Irish people like any other from other European countries who emigrated to the USA have a fair share in the responsibility of a genocide that took place within a period of a couple of centuries since the first settlers landed on the East Coast of the later USA in the 17th Century? No one, but merely a few. I am not complaining, I am just pointing out that history has more but just one face, more than just one narrative and therefore is different as much as it appears from the angle one looks at it and what ones own ancestral background is.

As it happens with Americans and their sense of ancestral heritage, they see themselves not just as US Citizens, but they refer to their ethnical roots to that country which fits them best and they like most.

Don't get me wrong, I was merely pointing out the varieties in history and the differences. Where there was no Irish State, there is no responsibility for such a state, there is just some 'responsibility' or if you like 'awareness' for the people of the nation that built the State.

During the 'second BE', Ireland as a whole was an integral part of the UK, like it or not, even in the light that it wasn't actually treated like such but more as the colony 'in the backyard' of Britain. Therefore, there was no such 'acting' on behalf of the British, cos this Island of Ireland was a part of the whole state and therefore couldn't act on behalf of it, cos for that, Ireland must had been an Independent country either aiding Britain or being an ally of it. This was but not the case.

In fact, Ireland gained her full Independence on 18th April 1949 when the Republic of Ireland came into effect constitutionally and leaving the CoN. Until 1922, it was still part of the UK, from 1922 to 1937 a Free State constitutionally bound to Britain and just from 1937 to 1949 a semi-independent country but not in full. From 1949 onwards, there were no constitutional bounds to Britain anymore. The years from 1937 to 1949 were the transition period towards full independence.

Well, I might have gone beyond the topic of this thread, but remembrance is now more inclusive than it has ever been before. Maybe something worth to think about, if you like.

Thomas_IV

citytillidie wrote: »

Ahh more personal attacks shows you are resorted to the lowest form of bullying on the Internet.

Did I say I believed Ireland only existed after 1921? That would be a no, I believe my post said "I gave up when according to those in here Ireland did not exist until 1921."

Where in that do you see I believe that?

Well, that makes sense to me too.

Thomas_IV

Thomas_IV wrote: »

That sounds like an easy way to escape and shift every aspect in which colonialism overseas was merely a matter of the BE. That might be so in regards of Canada, Australia and NZ, India and some African countries as well.

Not so in the USA for after they achieved Independence, it marked the 'formal end' of the 'first British Empire'. That is how some, but not too less, historians refer to that as the larger expansion of the what they call the 'second British Empire' took place right after the Act of Union 1801 for which the whole 19th Century was that of the rise of the BE to reach its territorial peak after WWI.

You can say that a many Irish were driven to emigrate to the USA due to the Famine of the 1840s. What choices did they have, if not privileged and rich with relatives already over there to make the settling in of the new ones easier in compare to the poor who either fled or were driven off the land in Ireland.

There isn't just British Imperialism, there always has been an American Imperialism as well, driven and built up by the white settlers and by the help of all the others who came to the USA from every corner of the world. I refer in that case to the Irish immigrants to the USA who were no longer subjects to the BE but became American citizens in quite a short time.

What else was the land grabbing and murder of the native Indians in American than another sort of Imperialism. Who is bashing the Americans today for that? Who is complaining that Irish people like any other from other European countries who emigrated to the USA have a fair share in the responsibility of a genocide that took place within a period of a couple of centuries since the first settlers landed on the East Coast of the later USA in the 17th Century? No one, but merely a few. I am not complaining, I am just pointing out that history has more but just one face, more than just one narrative and therefore is different as much as it appears from the angle one looks at it and what ones own ancestral background is.

As it happens with Americans and their sense of ancestral heritage, they see themselves not just as US Citizens, but they refer to their ethnical roots to that country which fits them best and they like most.

Don't get me wrong, I was merely pointing out the varieties in history and the differences. Where there was no Irish State, there is no responsibility for such a state, there is just some 'responsibility' or if you like 'awareness' for the people of the nation that built the State.

During the 'second BE', Ireland as a whole was an integral part of the UK, like it or not, even in the light that it wasn't actually treated like such but more as the colony 'in the backyard' of Britain. Therefore, there was no such 'acting' on behalf of the British, cos this Island of Ireland was a part of the whole state and therefore couldn't act on behalf of it, cos for that, Ireland must had been an Independent country either aiding Britain or being an ally of it. This was but not the case.

In fact, Ireland gained her full Independence on 18th April 1949 when the Republic of Ireland came into effect constitutionally and leaving the CoN. Until 1922, it was still part of the UK, from 1922 to 1937 a Free State constitutionally bound to Britain and just from 1937 to 1949 a semi-independent country but not in full. From 1949 onwards, there were no constitutional bounds to Britain anymore. The years from 1937 to 1949 were the transition period towards full independence.

Well, I might have gone beyond the topic of this thread, but remembrance is now more inclusive than it has ever been before. Maybe something worth to think about, if you like.

But the overall responsibility does lie with the BE surely? It's their policy. I'd be a critic of such a policy and those who participated, Irish people included. Ditto with the USA and their treatment of Native Americans. Irish people who took part in those activities are to be condemned, but the overall responsibility still lies with the US government since they planned and carried out the policy.

RandomName2

citytillidie wrote: »

Ahh more personal attacks shows you are resorted to the lowest form of bullying on the Internet.

What's the highest form of bullying?

I'm also just being honest. Leave aside, for a moment, that certain terms act as republican dog whistles, your use of them has been quite inaccurate.

citytillidie wrote: »

Did I say I believed Ireland only existed after 1921? That would be a no, I believe my post said "I gave up when according to those in here Ireland did not exist until 1921."

Where in that do you see I believe that?

So you think the country 'Ireland' existed before 1921? Or are you talking about the landmass? It felt very much like you were directing that remark in my direction, but for once you din't quote anyone, so your actual position, and the person(s) you were criticizing, are both unclear.

Your argument that the British Isles is a something something term because the island of Ireland existed before the 16th century is poorly thought out, a bit illogical, and fairly wide of the mark. You also don't seem to understand the act of union.

Now this would be fine if it wasn't for the soapboxing.

It's not as this information isn't freely available.

end of the road

RandomName2 wrote: »

What's the highest form of bullying?

I'm also just being honest. Leave aside, for a moment, that certain terms act as republican dog whistles, your use of them has been quite inaccurate.



So you think the country 'Ireland' existed before 1921? Or are you talking about the landmass? It felt very much like you were directing that remark in my direction, but for once you din't quote anyone, so your actual position, and the person(s) you were criticizing, are both unclear.

Your argument that the British Isles is a something something term because the island of Ireland existed before the 16th century is poorly thought out, a bit illogical, and fairly wide of the mark. You also don't seem to understand the act of union.

Now this would be fine if it wasn't for the soapboxing.

It's not as this information isn't freely available.

the act of union was invalid and illegitimate so means nothing really.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

the act of union was invalid and illegitimate so means nothing really.

You are arguing against facts and not for the first time. You declaring something invalid and illegitimate does not make it so.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You are arguing against facts and not for the first time. You declaring something invalid and illegitimate does not make it so.

an act that forces countries to be part of a union with another country that those countries do not want to be in a union with is most certainly invalid and illegitimate.

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

What's the highest form of bullying?

I'm also just being honest. Leave aside, for a moment, that certain terms act as republican dog whistles, your use of them has been quite inaccurate.



So you think the country 'Ireland' existed before 1921? Or are you talking about the landmass? It felt very much like you were directing that remark in my direction, but for once you din't quote anyone, so your actual position, and the person(s) you were criticizing, are both unclear.

Your argument that the British Isles is a something something term because the island of Ireland existed before the 16th century is poorly thought out, a bit illogical, and fairly wide of the mark. You also don't seem to understand the act of union.

Now this would be fine if it wasn't for the soapboxing.

It's not as this information isn't freely available.

And you don't seem to understand that history is a subjective interpretation. Its pretty much understood in Irish history that large sections of Irish Nationalist opinion rejected the act of Union as merely another subjugative act of a foreign power. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that this view of Irish history is legitimate it seems to me that you are basically showing an intolerance of an alternative opinion.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

an act that forces countries to be part of a union with another country that those countries do not want to be in a union with is most certainly invalid and illegitimate.

and yet we were part of that union. funny that.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and yet we were part of that union. funny that.

yes, that doesn't make it legitimate or valid. we were part of it by force

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

history is a subjective interpretation.

Nuff said. :eek:

end of the road wrote: »

yes, that doesn't make it legitimate or valid. we were part of it by force

Ha. So nothing before the 19th century was legitimate in any country in your view? You'll be hard pressed to find any democracy before that period, any government that was an accurate representation of its people, any regime which was not dominated by an elite to the exclusion of all others.

Even the notion of national determination is a modern construct, the very idea of nationalism itself is a post-enlightenment thing. History has been lords against lords, kings against kings, emperors against emperors. None of it was legitimate by today's standards.

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

Nuff said. :eek:

That includes your historical observations too btw, in case you think it didn’t.

Ha. So nothing before the 19th century was legitimate in any country in your view? You'll be hard pressed to find any democracy before that period, any government that was an accurate representation of its people, any regime which was not dominated by an elite to the exclusion of all others.

Even the notion of national determination is a modern construct, the very idea of nationalism itself is a post-enlightenment thing. History has been lords against lords, kings against kings, emperors against emperors. None of it was legitimate by today's standards.

Ah yes the classic “hey look over there” distractive comment. Anything but how groups on the receiving end were treated sh*ttily by the colonisation process.

Spook_ie

Wonder if we can keep a poppy thread running until next November, save restarting it?

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

I am happy to agree with that.



Unless they're British, obviously :rolleyes:

republicans showed the world exactly what they thought of remembrance in 1987.

No, not unless they are British at all.
I have no objection to respectful rememberance, remember me saying that umpteen times?
It is poppy fascism and the support the poppy gives to the past and current actions and objectives of the British army that I and others will always have a problem with.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, not unless they are British at all.
I have no objection to respectful rememberance, remember me saying that umpteen times?
It is poppy fascism and the support the poppy gives to the past and current actions and objectives of the British army that I and others will always have a problem with.

A flower supports British army objectives?

What they wave it at the Russians do they?