The glorious 12th

janfebmar

Deleted User wrote: »

There's 'blindness' here alright, but it revolves around your obsession with Russell even though you know he was a nobody and his collaboration with Nazi Germany was nothing compared to the British ...

Russell a nobody? Then why did Republican build a statue to him in Dublin? And Francie and all the other extremist Republicans defend his collaboration with the Nazis so much?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Russell a nobody? Then why did Republican build a statue to him in Dublin? And Francie and all the other extremist Republicans defend his collaboration with the Nazis so much?

You were doing so well finally recognising the difference between a state honouring somebody and a grouping within the state honouring somebody, then you told yet another lie about me 'defending' him.
You people are just toxic to any reasonable debate.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

History unfortunately doesn't support the oft expressed theory that the British were the good ones of this period. What they did, or failed to do had far ...

100,000 or so good Irish people who volunteered and helped the British war effort in this period (Ww2) would probably disagree with you there. Britain and her Empire stood against the Nazis in 1939 / 1940, and most people are glad at least somebody stood up against Nazi Germany then. Your warped view of history says more about you and An Phoblocht you than anything else.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were doing so well finally recognising the difference between a state honouring somebody and a grouping within the state honouring somebody, then you told yet another lie about me 'defending' him.
You people are just toxic to any reasonable debate.

You have deflected again and not answered the question. If he was a nobody why build a statue of him, and honour and defend him?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You have deflected again and not answered the question. If he was a nobody why build a statue of him, and honour and defend him?

I would assume that unlike you Republicans haven't focused on one aspect of his life and honour his lifetime contribution. I see from his biog that he joined the Irish Volunteers in 1913.

Just a wild fecking guess. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

100,000 or so good Irish people who volunteered and helped the British war effort in this period (Ww2) would probably disagree with you there. Britain and her Empire stood against the Nazis in 1939 / 1940, and most people are glad at least somebody stood up against Nazi Germany then. Your warped view of history says more about you and An Phoblocht you than anything else.

My view is 'warped' because I take into account all the facts?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would assume that unlike you Republicans haven't focused on one aspect of his life and honour his lifetime contribution.

Build a statue to honour his lifetime contribution. Sure why do the Germans not built a statue to Hitler, the leader of the regime to which Russell was trying to collaborate . Sure Hitler was not all bad either no more than Russell. Germans should not focus on one part of Hitlets life but instead honour his lifetime contribution. Hitler was great at solving unemployment and lifting morale in Germany in the thirties.

Russell however is best known for his involvement with the Nazis in WW2. One of your comrades claimed he was a nobody. Would you agree he was a nobody? I
f he was a nobody why would the Germans entertain him on one of their valuable submarines during wartime?
If the Nazis had invaded Ireland as Russell and the Republicans wished, what would you have thought of Nazi plans to "deal with" the problem of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped etc, the same as in all the other neutral countries they invaded?

You have plans to resettle the likes of Arlene in the event of a United Ireland. Were such plans used, do you think, during WW2?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Build a statue to honour his lifetime contribution. Sure why do the Germans not built a statue to Hitler, the leader of the regime to which Russell was trying to collaborate . Sure Hitler was not all bad either no more than Russell. Germans should not focus on one part of Hitlets life but instead honour his lifetime contribution. Hitler was great at solving unemployment and lifting morale in Germany in the thirties.

Theycan't put a statue up to Hitler because it is illegal in Germany> And again, it wasn't 'Ireland' who erected the Russell one.

Russell however is best known for his involvement with the Nazis in WW2. One of your comrades claimed he was a nobody. Would you agree he was a nobody? I
f he was a nobody why would the Germans entertain him on one of their valuable submarines during wartime?

In the context of a world war he was a 'nobody', yes. To the organisation he ran and was a senior member of for many years, clearly he wasn't.

If the Nazis had invaded Ireland as Russell and the Republicans wished, what would you have thought of Nazis plans to "deal with" the problem of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped etc, the same as in all the other neutral countries they invaded?

Like I am to our previous invaders...I would have been against it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were doing so well finally recognising the difference between a state honouring somebody and a grouping within the state honouring somebody, then you told yet another lie about me 'defending' him.
You people are just toxic to any reasonable debate.

Saying that he was only misguided is defending him, when it is clear from the historical record that his knowledge of what was going on, and his dedication to the German cause was much more than that.

You may not be engaged in a full defence of the man, but you are partially defending him. Do you agree with me that his statue should be taken down and destroyed? If you don't, you are defending him.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Saying that he was only misguided is defending him, when it is clear from the historical record that his knowledge of what was going on, and his dedication to the German cause was much more than that.

You may not be engaged in a full defence of the man, but you are partially defending him. Do you agree with me that his statue should be taken down and destroyed? If you don't, you are defending him.

I am on record stating I would take all contentious statues down. Would you agree?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am on record stating I would take all contentious statues down. Would you agree?

Hmmmm, if I said I didn't like the new statues of Luke Kelly, would you take them down?

Your proposal sounds like one of your usual tit-for-tit, eye-for-an-eye ideas whereby if we take down one statue that lot don't like, we take down one we don't like. Of course, in the meantime, you would probably want us to put up statues to heroes of Irish unity like Gerry Adams and Bobby Sands. Not going there with you, Francie.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Hmmmm, if I said I didn't like the new statues of Luke Kelly, would you take them down?

Your proposal sounds like one of your usual tit-for-tit, eye-for-an-eye ideas whereby if we take down one statue that lot don't like, we take down one we don't like. Of course, in the meantime, you would probably want us to put up statues to heroes of Irish unity like Gerry Adams and Bobby Sands. Not going there with you, Francie.

Is Luke Kelly justifiably contentious? would be my answer.

I am consistent on flags, statues and political baiting and taunting from any side, it is wrong and should not happen. Are you, is the question?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is Luke Kelly justifiably contentious? would be my answer.

I am consistent on flags, statues and political baiting and taunting from any side, it is wrong and should not happen. Are you, is the question?

Sean Russell is justifiably contentious.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/jewish-group-says-beheaded-nazi-statue-should-be-left-as-symbol-of-irish-shame-26003822.html

So can you agree that it should be removed? Or will you do the usual and point to some other statue that should equally be removed in another disingenuous attempt at whataboutery?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Sean Russell is justifiably contentious.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/jewish-group-says-beheaded-nazi-statue-should-be-left-as-symbol-of-irish-shame-26003822.html

So can you agree that it should be removed? Or will you do the usual and point to some other statue that should equally be removed in another disingenuous attempt at whataboutery?

Why just Russell...there are many contentious statues. I would get rid of them all.
What would you propose...just take down the ones you find contentious?
Are you sure you understand democracy there?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why just Russell...there are many contentious statues. I would get rid of them all.
What would you propose...just take down the ones you find contentious?
Are you sure you understand democracy there?

Bingo, full house of whataboutery.

Hey, the Russell one is contentious with the Jewish community, not just the unionsts and "partitionists". Why don't we start with a universally unpopular one like that?

Unless of course, you believe the man should be celebrated?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Bingo, full house of whataboutery.

Hey, the Russell one is contentious with the Jewish community, not just the unionsts and "partitionists". Why don't we start with a universally unpopular one like that?

Unless of course, you believe the man should be celebrated?

Here you go constructing yet another lie.

I believe all contentious statues should be taken down, full stop, no if's or buts, or 'let's begin with this one', dodging.

So far, all we can deduce is that you believe only the ones you find contentious should be taken down?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here you go constructing yet another lie.

I believe all contentious statues should be taken down, full stop, no if's or buts, or 'let's begin with this one', dodging.

So far, all we can deduce is that you believe only the ones you find contentious should be taken down?

Nope, without an agreed definition of contentious, we will find spurious republican arguments sprouting up all the time, just as we see on these threads.

So let's make it easy, start with the most contentious one - Russell - and work from there. If you agree that it should be taken down, we can then move on to the next one - your nomination. If you don't agree that it should be taken down, and engage in more waffle about all statues, then we can see you for what you are.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, without an agreed definition of contentious, we will find spurious republican arguments sprouting up all the time, just as we see on these threads.

So let's make it easy, start with the most contentious one - Russell - and work from there. If you agree that it should be taken down, we can then move on to the next one - your nomination. If you don't agree that it should be taken down, and engage in more waffle about all statues, then we can see you for what you are.

Ah so you get to decide?

That'll go well.

Personally in the interests of democracy and fairness, I would agree what 'contentious criteria' a statue would have to meet first and then take all of them down that meet that criteria.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah so you get to decide?

That'll go well.

Personally in the interests of democracy and fairness, I would agree what 'contentious criteria' a statue would have to meet first and then take all of them down that meet that criteria.

Why don't we take a limited approach and remove the statues that are offensive to groups other than Republicans and Unionists?

Sean Russell's statue offends the Jewish community.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Why don't we take a limited approach and remove the statues that are offensive to groups other than Republicans and Unionists?

Sean Russell's statue offends the Jewish community.

TBH I think your difficulty with this issue illuminates why the anti-UI/partitionist position has not found a political home or voice. It is fundamentally an undemocratic hypocritical position that no serious politician would touch.

You also don't understand what 'normalising society' means. You can only do that if regulations on flags and parades and memorials etc are applied to all evenly. And you cannot do that by saying...this one offends me, let's get rid of this republican one first.

_blaaz

blanch152 wrote: »

Why don't we take a limited approach and remove the statues that are offensive to groups other than Republicans and Unionists?

Sean Russell's statue offends the Jewish community.

Luke kellys statue offends the musical community who have good taste


Hilarious little strawman your building here

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

TBH I think your difficulty with this issue illuminates why the anti-UI/partitionist position has not found a political home or voice. It is fundamentally an undemocratic hypocritical position that no serious politician would touch.

You also don't understand what 'normalising society' means. You can only do that if regulations on flags and parades and memorials etc are applied to all evenly. And you cannot do that by saying...this one offends me, let's get rid of this republican one first.

_blaaz wrote: »

Luke kellys statue offends the musical community who have good taste


Hilarious little strawman your building here

Comparing the musical taste offence caused by a Luke Kelly statue to the offence caused to the Jewish community by the Sean Russell statue says it all about the Republican attitude to building community relations and the disdain that they hold other cultures.

Sean Russell's statue is offensive to everyone except die-hard republicans. Even Francie would admit that the man was wrong - misguided was the word he used.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Comparing the musical taste offence caused by a Luke Kelly statue to the offence caused to the Jewish community by the Sean Russell statue says it all about the Republican attitude to building community relations and the disdain that they hold other cultures.

Sean Russell's statue is offensive to everyone except die-hard republicans. Even Francie would admit that the man was wrong - misguided was the word he used.

I do think he was wrong. But is the statue celebrating that?.

TBH, statues are static, passive things. You have to engage and decide to be offended or outraged by them.

You say the Jewish Community are offended or outraged about the Russell one and it should be taken down for that reason alone.
You would therefore be in favour of taking down the statue of Oliver St John Gogarty and Jim Larkin who were anti-Semites, particularly Gogarty.

If you take down Carson, would you then be in favour of taking down Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Fein?
Move across the water, should Churchill statuery come down because one is offended by his racism and actions in Africa and elsewhere?

It is a complex issue and isn't going to be sorted out by, 'take that republican one that offends me down and then we will talk about the rest'.

Finding a way that ALL can honour their dead respectfully would be a safer course to chart imo. And to do that, requires making balanced and fair compromises.
The bigger imperative is to stop people using symbols and the dead to taunt and enflame at physical flashpoints and annual ones, like the 12th and the anniversary of Internment.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I do think he was wrong. But is the statue celebrating that?.

TBH, statues are static, passive things. You have to engage and decide to be offended or outraged by them.

You say the Jewish Community are offended or outraged about the Russell one and it should be taken down for that reason alone.
You would therefore be in favour of taking down the statue of Oliver St John Gogarty and Jim Larkin who were anti-Semites, particularly Gogarty.

If you take down Carson, would you then be in favour of taking down Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Fein?
Move across the water, should Churchill statuery come down because one is offended by his racism and actions in Africa and elsewhere?

It is a complex issue and isn't going to be sorted out by, 'take that republican one that offends me down and then we will talk about the rest'.

Finding a way that ALL can honour their dead respectfully would be a safer course to chart imo. And to do that, requires making balanced and fair compromises.
The bigger imperative is to stop people using symbols and the dead to taunt and enflame at physical flashpoints and annual ones, like the 12th and the anniversary of Internment.

Ultimate whataboutery as you remain unable to deal with any single issue in isolation from others.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Ultimate whataboutery as you remain unable to deal with any single issue in isolation from others.

The issue is 'contentious statues', not your knee jerk reaction to all things republican blanch.

If you cannot see your blatant hypocritical stance here then that is your problem.

Republican objections are

blanch152 wrote:

spurious

while yours are valid. QED.

FrancieBrady

I said earlier I would post a link to how republican murals changed after the GFA.

This is it. I attended an illustrated lecture given by this guy a while back.

https://www.forwallswithtongues.org.uk/artists/northern-ireland-an-essay-by-professor-bill-rolston/

Republican muralists played a key role in calming nerves and persuading people to go along with these momentous changes, politically educating the grassroots about the compromises needed in a peace process. One technique was to remind people that the goals were still the same: equality in the North, and ultimately a united country. There was no sudden change of iconography: no butterflies, rainbows, sunrises, children holding hands or other superficial symbols of peace. Instead, some murals acted as a call to the state to deliver on the promises of the Agreement.

In addition, old symbols could take on new roles. For example, the continued painting of the image of Bobby Sands was not to indicate stasis or even worse, a pining for the reassurances of binary conflict. Rather, it was a form of reassurance and persuasion (see figure 5). The message in effect was this: you stuck by Bobby Sands during the hunger strike; you supported the liberation struggle of which he was part; now we have moved into a new phase where we are prioritising different means to the same end of liberation; peace is not a sell-out but a new opportunity; join us.
Republican muralists took a decision no longer to paint hooded men or guns. There were two exceptions: first, historical murals, for example, depicting fighters in the Easter Rising in 1916; and second, memorial murals, often site-specific, portraying dead comrades from the recent conflict. In both cases the guns depicted were not contemporary, were not for current use. Republicans could make this major step because of the range of other themes on which they could paint–Irish history and mythology, local current affairs and commemorations, as well as international struggles

Loyalist muralists were in a more difficult position. Their ability to match the range of republican themes was severely limited. Their grasp of history was less firm, and they had limited scope to draw on mythology. Furthermore, loyalist muralists could not easily depict international comparisons. The only contemporary parallel referenced in loyalist murals is to Israel. For some there is a genuine sense of connection, but for others simply a retort to the republicans’ identification with Palestine.

Given the fixation on military imagery, taking the guns out of loyalist murals is highly problematic. The fear is that it would leave almost nothing else to be painted. The message to loyalist commanders to take the guns out of the murals was in essence a demand to return mural painting to the wider unionist community where the hopes and fears of the whole community could be expressed rather than simply the propaganda needs of the armed minority.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said earlier I would post a link to how republican murals changed after the GFA.

This is it. I attended an illustrated lecture given by this guy a while back.

https://www.forwallswithtongues.org.uk/artists/northern-ireland-an-essay-by-professor-bill-rolston/

Murals are one of the key sectarian tools in Northern Ireland.

They are used by both sides to define their territories and to keep "the others" out. That is not to the benefit of society and only encourages segregation and tribalism.

Every single one of them should be whitewashed.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I do think he was wrong. But is the statue celebrating that?.

TBH, statues are static, passive things. You have to engage and decide to be offended or outraged by them.

You say the Jewish Community are offended or outraged about the Russell one and it should be taken down for that reason alone.
You would therefore be in favour of taking down the statue of Oliver St John Gogarty and Jim Larkin who were anti-Semites, particularly Gogarty.

If you take down Carson, would you then be in favour of taking down Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Fein?
Move across the water, should Churchill statuery come down because one is offended by his racism and actions in Africa and elsewhere?

It is a complex issue and isn't going to be sorted out by, 'take that republican one that offends me down and then we will talk about the rest'.

Finding a way that ALL can honour their dead respectfully would be a safer course to chart imo. And to do that, requires making balanced and fair compromises.
The bigger imperative is to stop people using symbols and the dead to taunt and enflame at physical flashpoints and annual ones, like the 12th and the anniversary of Internment.

Ultimate whataboutery as you remain unable to deal with any single issue in isolation from others.

Posted this already but got an error message, so if I end up double posted, apologies!

Anyway, onto the point - Blanch, you're posting about Republican statues in a thread about the 12th of July.....you've barely discussed anything except what's wrong with Republicanism, on a thread about the 12th of July. A bit hypocritical to start throwing down accusations of whataboutery, no?

_blaaz

blanch152 wrote: »

Comparing the musical taste offence caused by a Luke Kelly statue to the offence caused to the Jewish community by the Sean Russell statue says it all about the Republican attitude to building community relations and the disdain that they hold other cultures.

Sean Russell's statue is offensive to everyone except die-hard republicans. Even Francie would admit that the man was wrong - misguided was the word he used.

Where has the jewish community spoken out aginest sean russel statue??

Biggest dissidents i know are half jewish

_blaaz

blanch152 wrote: »

Murals are one of the key sectarian tools in Northern Ireland.

They are used by both sides to define their territories and to keep "the others" out. That is not to the benefit of society and only encourages segregation and tribalism.

Every single one of them should be whitewashed.

You cant whitewash history though?

I think murals are great (even many loyalist ones are dark humour,that i do like)


Even the waterford walls festival are a shout out to the future of murals......nothing quite as depressing as the corporate PC culture rammed down everyones throat and attempts to erode dark humour are wrong imo