How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

downcow

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Saw Biden today talking about what ‘the Brits’ did to his ancestors, the arc of history is long! Can imagine Dodds and Sammy Wilson fit to burst with rage when they heard the comment!

You mean this guy?
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2803475273234855&id=100007172282430

downcow

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Wonder do the unionists mind at all that the Brits were following policies that saw people starving to death during the 19th Century? Or do they realise that the plantation of Ulster was an awful thing? Or the shooting of people on Bloody Sunday was ano outrage? Most nationalists despise most of what the RA did from the 70s onwards, do the unionists mind in the least? They really don’t seem to.

Do you feel most nationalists dispise the ira who done these things?

Sunny Disposition

downcow wrote: »

Do you feel most nationalists dispise the ira who done these things?

I do think that, it was certainly the case when I lived in an IRA heartland in 1972. Liked it when they killed loyalists, not anyone else.

Rodin

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Not sure he did, he said his great grandfather got on a coffin shop in the Irish Sea, didn’t say it crossed the Irish Sea, just that was where his ancestor boarded. Anyway, we’’d have forgiven him the mistake if he’d made it!

Given his family are from Mayo I doubt they headed to Dublin to get on a boat.

Sunny Disposition

One of the great grandfathers was from Louth. No idea where he left from though. No idea where the one from Mayo departed either. Great to have someone with his historical perspective in that office.

RobMc59

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I do think that, it was certainly the case when I lived in an IRA heartland in 1972. Liked it when they killed loyalists, not anyone else.

Not sure I understand the last sentence of this post?

Sunny Disposition

RobMc59 wrote: »

Not sure I understand the last sentence of this post?

People generally approved when a Loyalist was killed, but not anyone else. Tbf I’d imagine the Protestant side was the same, pleased when IRA men were killed, but not civilians.

Tokyo

Mod: downcow, FrancieBrady - you're both taking pedantry with each other's posts to an extreme. Put each other on ignore in tis thread or risk being removed from it completely.

downcow

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I do think that, it was certainly the case when I lived in an IRA heartland in 1972. Liked it when they killed loyalists, not anyone else.

...and would that include disposing the likes of bobby sands?
You see that’s one of the points that the unionist community were shocked, and still are, that ordinary nationalists can revere people who were involved in the murder of innocent members of our community?

downcow

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

People generally approved when a Loyalist was killed, but not anyone else. Tbf I’d imagine the Protestant side was the same, pleased when IRA men were killed, but not civilians.

Can I assume you mean loyalist terrorists? As opposed to loyalists

I can’t comment on ‘Catholics’ but certainly ‘protestants’ did/do not think as one homogeneous group - there would be a full range of views when a republican terrorist got killed from celebration to dismay

JimmyVik

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

People generally approved when a Loyalist was killed, but not anyone else. Tbf I’d imagine the Protestant side was the same, pleased when IRA men were killed, but not civilians.

I remember when I was at school, on the morning after a bomb people would say, We got 11 yesterday, ha ha.
I had relatives from the North who would be in our house and not even notice the news when it was on and people were killed up the North. They used to call "UTV Live", "UTV Dead".
People get desensitized to this stuff.

FrancieBrady

JimmyVik wrote: »

People get desensitized to this stuff.

Sadly true. There is too much taunting that goes on still around deaths. That's where in a normal society you would expect public representatives to be calling this behaviour out.
Annual 'taunt fests' need to stop, and we need to hear democrats loudly calling them out.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

Can I assume you mean loyalist terrorists? As opposed to loyalists

I can’t comment on ‘Catholics’ but certainly ‘protestants’ did/do not think as one homogeneous group - there would be a full range of views when a republican terrorist got killed from celebration to dismay

Yeah catholic’s all think as one... you should know that downcow my goodness...

downcow

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah catholic’s all think as one... you should know that downcow my goodness...

Session 2. Read my post in context. I was responding to a poster who was suggesting that Protestants all think the same on an issue.
I don’t think I need to say that I realise all communities are diverse.

downcow

This is an interesting piece https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/still-reeling-from-boris-johnsons-betrayal-dup-founding-member-says-hes-questioning-the-union-3176182

Sunny Disposition

downcow wrote: »

Can I assume you mean loyalist terrorists? As opposed to loyalists

I can’t comment on ‘Catholics’ but certainly ‘protestants’ did/do not think as one homogeneous group - there would be a full range of views when a republican terrorist got killed from celebration to dismay

Yes, terrorists. Back in the day there wouldn't have been any sympathy if someone in the UDA got killed around where I was living, these guys were only a few streets away and frequently came over to shoot people who had no involvement at all. But most people did not agree with the IRA campaign.

What I was questioning originally Downcow, do most (not all, but most) Protestants accept that the Plantation of Ulster was terribly wrong, that the treatment of Catholics post partition was also terribly wrong as was Bloody Sunday? No doubt the vast majority of Catholics think that things like the Enniskillen bombing and La Mon were atrocities.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

This is an interesting piece https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/still-reeling-from-boris-johnsons-betrayal-dup-founding-member-says-hes-questioning-the-union-3176182

Colour me surprised, Downcow.....I agree with you.

There's only so much insight to be taken from the opinion of one person, but it hits on exactly what I've asked you (perhaps less eloquently) several times; how many times do NI Unionists have to be screwed before they start questioning exactly what they're loyal to and why.

Perhaps if someone like Wallace Thompson is making great strides towards getting past his fear and concerns about being part of a United Ireland, perhaps the concerns of a self-professed moderate like yourself are overblown too.

Like Wallace Thompson, I'm sure you'll still vote for the Union if a border poll was called, but maybe if it doesn't go your way it would be worth reevaluating your, 'can't guarantee you would remain peaceful' outlook.

Sunny Disposition

downcow wrote: »

This is an interesting piece https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/still-reeling-from-boris-johnsons-betrayal-dup-founding-member-says-hes-questioning-the-union-3176182

He says he's worried about his Orange heritage and identity in a UI, realistically it's much more at risk in a future NI state in which Protestants are not a majority.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Colour me surprised, Downcow.....I agree with you.

There's only so much insight to be taken from the opinion of one person, but it hits on exactly what I've asked you (perhaps less eloquently) several times; how many times do NI Unionists have to be screwed before they start questioning exactly what they're loyal to and why.

Perhaps if someone like Wallace Thompson is making great strides towards getting past his fear and concerns about being part of a United Ireland, perhaps the concerns of a self-professed moderate like yourself are overblown too.

Like Wallace Thompson, I'm sure you'll still vote for the Union if a border poll was called, but maybe if it doesn't go your way it would be worth reevaluating your, 'can't guarantee you would remain peaceful' outlook.

Wallace has a wee ways to go in his 'understanding'.
He bemoans the fact that 'too many nationalist politicians and commentators seem either unable or unwilling to understand the Ulster Protestant mindset. It is often portrayed by them as triumphalist and sectarian whereas it is based on genuinely held and legitimate principles.'

When your experience is of a 'triumphalist and sectarian mindset' again and again as you strive for equality and parity of esteem, it is entirely legitimate to portray it as that.

It 'would help' if Unionism recognised that. But I welcome his leadership here and he seems to be willing to engage in a conversation about a United Ireland, the political representatives of Unionism need to overcome their fear of that, as well. Hiding behind Gregory Campbell style bluster won't make it go away.

Sunny Disposition

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wallace has a wee ways to go in his 'understanding'.
He bemoans the fact that 'too many nationalist politicians and commentators seem either unable or unwilling to understand the Ulster Protestant mindset. It is often portrayed by them as triumphalist and sectarian whereas it is based on genuinely held and legitimate principles.'

When your experience is of a 'triumphalist and sectarian mindset' again and again as you strive for equality and parity of esteem, it is entirely legitimate to portray it as that.

It 'would help' if Unionism recognised that. But I welcome his leadership here and he seems to be willing to engage in a conversation about a United Ireland, the political representatives of Unionism need to overcome their fear of that, as well. Hiding behind Gregory Campbell style bluster won't make it go away.

I do think he makes interesting points. No doubt a lot of the times unionism has reacted angrily to things has been out of a fear of its own destruction. That was really evident around Belfast in 1985 and it seems to be happening again now to some extent. I haven't been in the North for months due to Covid, I'd wonder if average unionists are very perplexed with the NI protocol, or have they moved on from the kind of stuff that happened after the Anglo Irish agreement. I well remember when Paisley spoke against it in Belfast, us Catholics were shown our place then, we were persona non grata for sure.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Colour me surprised, Downcow.....I agree with you.

There's only so much insight to be taken from the opinion of one person, but it hits on exactly what I've asked you (perhaps less eloquently) several times; how many times do NI Unionists have to be screwed before they start questioning exactly what they're loyal to and why.

Perhaps if someone like Wallace Thompson is making great strides towards getting past his fear and concerns about being part of a United Ireland, perhaps the concerns of a self-professed moderate like yourself are overblown too.

Like Wallace Thompson, I'm sure you'll still vote for the Union if a border poll was called, but maybe if it doesn't go your way it would be worth reevaluating your, 'can't guarantee you would remain peaceful' outlook.

Fionn. I read you post in a very positive and was thinking how I would respond honestly. They I came to your jibe about a comment I made months ago, was clumsy, which I have agreed could have been clearer and have clarified. and which many keep repeating on here.
Anyhow that’s your issue and not mine.

As for being screwed over by the U.K.
the question comes from a lack of understanding of what the U.K. is. I am the U.K. so it’s I bit like asking someone in Dublin are they not fed up being screwed over by Ireland

downcow

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Yes, terrorists. Back in the day there wouldn't have been any sympathy if someone in the UDA got killed around where I was living, these guys were only a few streets away and frequently came over to shoot people who had no involvement at all. But most people did not agree with the IRA campaign.

What I was questioning originally Downcow, do most (not all, but most) Protestants accept that the Plantation of Ulster was terribly wrong, that the treatment of Catholics post partition was also terribly wrong as was Bloody Sunday? No doubt the vast majority of Catholics think that things like the Enniskillen bombing and La Mon were atrocities.

I agree with what you are saying. Most prods I know (and myself - I’ve moved on somewhat since then)were happy when ira terrorists were killed. Tbh we could not contain our pleasure when they started killing themselves.
You said most nationalists despised the ira. I was asking did that include eg the hunger strikers ie did they despise Bobby sands. I’m genuinely interested in what you think on this.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Fionn. I read you post in a very positive and was thinking how I would respond honestly. They I came to your jibe about a comment I made months ago, was clumsy, which I have agreed could have been clearer and have clarified. and which many keep repeating on here.
Anyhow that’s your issue and not mine.

As for being screwed over by the U.K.
the question comes from a lack of understanding of what the U.K. is. I am the U.K. so it’s I bit like asking someone in Dublin are they not fed up being screwed over by Ireland

It wasn't a jibe, Downcow. I made sure to use your precise choice of language to avoid insinuation that you were suggesting violence. You clarified what you meant, I have accepted that clarification but you stood by your clarified meaning, so I don't think it is unfair or a jibe to reference it in any way. It is a fair bit more convenient when we both know what I'm talking about than typing out, 'engage in civil disobedience, political abstention, protest and other non specified methods of expressing your dislike without engaging with the newly formed Unified Irish state'.

When asking the question about getting screwed, I have never said, 'by the UK', I've always specified the British government, and indeed regularly said particularly Tory governments. Plenty of people in Ireland would have no qualms saying they're fed up being screwed by FF/FG governments (I'd be critical of overcentralisation in Dublin for example), but I can't think of many examples akin to how British governments (particularly Tory governments) have treated NI as a whole.

Sunny Disposition

downcow wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying. Most prods I know (and myself - I’ve moved on somewhat since then)were happy when ira terrorists were killed. Tbh we could not contain our pleasure when they started killing themselves.
You said most nationalists despised the ira. I was asking did that include eg the hunger strikers ie did they despise Bobby sands. I’m genuinely interested in what you think on this.

No, clearly they didn't. Most didn't know him of course, and there was more tolerance of the low level guys, especially ones you didn't know personally. It was felt that the anger was understandable but it didn't justify what was happening. The likes of Sands would have been seen as misguided, and somewhat unfortunate to be put in the spot that history had put him, plus it was felt that he was a political prisoner and it was churlish not to treat him as such. It was a huge boost for the IRA at the time, it kept them going when they would have kept losing support. It was a brilliant devised hunger strike, made the Brits look cruel and made a martyr out of someone who would have not been widely respected otherwise
I wouldn't blame anyone who was happy when paramilitaries were killed tbh, people were petrified of what they were doing and a lot of innocent people were killed by them. Can't blame anyone who doesn't forgive or who was appalled at the reinvention of the likes of McGuinness.
But again, can many from the Unionist position see that Catholics have been treated disgracefully? The plantation was an atrocity, disgraceful historical crime. So was the treatment of Catholics for decades after partition, can your tradition see why NI exploded in the way it did? I wouldn't know enough unionists to get a real feel for this, and I'm obviously a bit slow to get into it, but my sense is a lot do get the nationalist grievances.

Hamsterchops

Who is driving all this "United Ireland" chat anyway?

Are the people of Northern Ireland chomping at the bit to become part of this Republic? or is the UI agenda being pushed and orchestrated by Dublin?

Why he the urge to extract them and their problems from London, only to have their complicated dysfunctionality integrated into this Republic!

Is that what we really want?

RobMc59

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Who is driving all this "United Ireland" chat anyway?

Are the people of Northern Ireland chomping at the bit to become part of this Republic? or is the UI agenda being pushed and orchestrated by Dublin?

Why he the urge to extract them and their problems from London, only to have their complicated dysfunctionality integrated into this Republic!

Is that what we really want?

Steady on Hamster,you'll rouse the ire of our resident disgruntled republicans asking pertinent,reasonable questions like that!

downcow

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

No, clearly they didn't. Most didn't know him of course, and there was more tolerance of the low level guys, especially ones you didn't know personally. It was felt that the anger was understandable but it didn't justify what was happening. The likes of Sands would have been seen as misguided, and somewhat unfortunate to be put in the spot that history had put him, plus it was felt that he was a political prisoner and it was churlish not to treat him as such. It was a huge boost for the IRA at the time, it kept them going when they would have kept losing support. It was a brilliant devised hunger strike, made the Brits look cruel and made a martyr out of someone who would have not been widely respected otherwise
I wouldn't blame anyone who was happy when paramilitaries were killed tbh, people were petrified of what they were doing and a lot of innocent people were killed by them. Can't blame anyone who doesn't forgive or who was appalled at the reinvention of the likes of McGuinness.
But again, can many from the Unionist position see that Catholics have been treated disgracefully? The plantation was an atrocity, disgraceful historical crime. So was the treatment of Catholics for decades after partition, can your tradition see why NI exploded in the way it did? I wouldn't know enough unionists to get a real feel for this, and I'm obviously a bit slow to get into it, but my sense is a lot do get the nationalist grievances.

I appreciate the honesty in your post.
As for the issues you raise. I see the plantation as something long back in history. Who are you going to blame? Those living in Dublin now whose ancestors benifited? Do you blame my people? - some of whom arrived during the plantation and most who did not arrive during the plantation. Presbyterians were treated worse than Catholics by the Anglican rulers at times - we have let it go. We don’t blame our Anglican neighbours. I honestly think it’s nuts to refer to the plantation as a factor today. It was a long time before land was taken off native Americans, auusies, etc, etc. I think it’s this old victim mentality. If it’s not the plantation then it’s the famine. Many of your people benefited from both.

Bloody Sunday is over-egged. It was very unfortunate but it certainly wasn’t any worse (and I would suggest not as bad as) la mon etc. These were protesters and there was a riot taking place. The people in la mon were having dinner and were burned to death simply because they were Protestant .

Many Catholics were treated badly after partition and it was blatant sectarianism and to be condemned. But you are missing the context. They were seen by those running the country as out to wreck the country (no excuse) but a reality.
I do get fed up with nonsense like Catholics didn’t have the vote etc - just lies.

These issues were all complex but I am accepting us brits got it very wrong a lot of the time I am sorry for that. But I have to stomach the constant innocence being portrayed by many on this forum of the Irish. You Irish have discriminated against us brits in a major way also but seem in denial. No acceptance by many of the vicious sectarian campaigns of the ira. No responsibility taken for 70% of the Protestant population having to get out of ROI, nor the mass movement of people in ni eg 90%+ of the Protestant population of derry have to set up new communities on the waterside and those that are left living in a fortress. No acceptance of the sectarianism of the ira cleansing entire towns of Protestants eg my home town
Etc etc

Fionn1952

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Who is driving all this "United Ireland" chat anyway?

Are the people of Northern Ireland chomping at the bit to become part of this Republic? or is the UI agenda being pushed and orchestrated by Dublin?

Why he the urge to extract them and their problems from London, only to have their complicated dysfunctionality integrated into this Republic!

Is that what we really want?

Some people in the North, some in Ireland with varying degrees of drive from all out 'we should do it right now and to hell with even considering the consequences' to, 'ah I suppose I'd like to see it some day'.

I'd imagine the unmitigated disaster that has been Brexit is responsible for it becoming more urgent and topically discussed for many, but trying to simplify a conversation that is being had across all strata of society North and South down to a question like, 'who's driving it'....that's pretty inane.

Strong proponents of Unification on both sides of the border would tend to argue that the complicated dysfunctionality you pointed out exists in the North as a symptom caused by partition itself, and as such won't be resolved until partition ends, at which point normalisation can begin. If (and I'm aware it is a disputable if) one subscribes to that belief, then the natural argument would be that the sooner we remove the cause, the sooner normalisation can start to occur, and the longer we avoid that, the longer we continue to have that dysfunction on our doorstep, and that introduces instability to us.

Is that what we really want? I suppose we'll find out if and when a border poll comes.

ulster

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Who is driving all this "United Ireland" chat anyway?

Are the people of Northern Ireland chomping at the bit to become part of this Republic? or is the UI agenda being pushed and orchestrated by Dublin?

Why he the urge to extract them and their problems from London, only to have their complicated dysfunctionality integrated into this Republic!

Is that what we really want?

The media apparently. I don't think FFG is interested in a UI.

Fr D Maugire

downcow wrote: »

I appreciate the honesty in your post.
As for the issues you raise. I see the plantation as something long back in history. Who are you going to blame? Those living in Dublin now whose ancestors benifited? Do you blame my people? - some of whom arrived during the plantation and most who did not arrive during the plantation. Presbyterians were treated worse than Catholics by the Anglican rulers at times - we have let it go. We don’t blame our Anglican neighbours. I honestly think it’s nuts to refer to the plantation as a factor today. It was a long time before land was taken off native Americans, auusies, etc, etc. I think it’s this old victim mentality. If it’s not the plantation then it’s the famine. Many of your people benefited from both.

Bloody Sunday is over-egged. It was very unfortunate but it certainly wasn’t any worse (and I would suggest not as bad as) la mon etc. These were protesters and there was a riot taking place. The people in la mon were having dinner and were burned to death simply because they were Protestant .

Many Catholics were treated badly after partition and it was blatant sectarianism and to be condemned. But you are missing the context. They were seen by those running the country as out to wreck the country (no excuse) but a reality.
I do get fed up with nonsense like Catholics didn’t have the vote etc - just lies.

These issues were all complex but I am accepting us brits got it very wrong a lot of the time I am sorry for that. But I have to stomach the constant innocence being portrayed by many on this forum of the Irish. You Irish have discriminated against us brits in a major way also but seem in denial. No acceptance by many of the vicious sectarian campaigns of the ira. No responsibility taken for 70% of the Protestant population having to get out of ROI, nor the mass movement of people in ni eg 90%+ of the Protestant population of derry have to set up new communities on the waterside and those that are left living in a fortress. No acceptance of the sectarianism of the ira cleansing entire towns of Protestants eg my home town
Etc etc

How is it that the plantation was a long time ago(course of the 17th Century), but two of the key events in the so called Unionist Culture also happened in the same 17th Century, Siege of Derry and 12th July yet they are still commemorated every year. Surely if the plantation is ancient history, s o should those two events.

I would also like an explanation on how Presbyterians were treated worse than Catholics during the penal laws. I am not doubting they were persecuted, they were which is why so many went to the US, just how where they treated worse than Catholics. In most historical accounts, the Presbyterians were collateral damage in the effort to persecute the majority religion in Ireland.

Which leads on to the next questions, after being treated so badly by the Anglican church that led to the first Republicans in Ireland, led by mostly Northen Presbyterians. How on earth did they flip so quickly to support the very people who had made life so hard for them during the 18th century. Henry Cooke who was the de facto leader of the Presbyterian Church at the start of the 19th century was strongly opposed to the lifting of the penal rules on Catholics. The Penal laws had been lifted on Presbyterians long before Catholics. Let's not miss that Cooke was also totally opposed to the idea of any mixed education.

How did Presbyterians go from supporting the idea of creating a Republic at the end of the 18th century to being completely opposed to the idea of even Home Rule less that a century later. What happened during that period that was so influential?

Sorry, but everything that happened during the troubles can be traced back to what went before.