Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Remembrance Sunday and no Poppy thread?

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    theological wrote: »
    A lot of the "oppressors" for good or for ill are our ancestors.

    That oppressors is wrapped in sneer quotes encapsulates the unwillingness to accept the misery colonialism inflicted on the larger population up to and including mass starvation. This, by extension, seeks to delegitimize resistance and rebellion against the colonists and their proxies.

    Far too many progenitors of the former colonists display little remorse for what their ancestors did, on the contrary, they are proud of their history.

    This will never be acceptable to the vast majority of Irish people, get used to it.


  • Options
    #93
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    That oppressors is wrapped in sneer quotes encapsulates the unwillingness to accept the misery colonialism inflicted on the larger population up to and including mass starvation. This, by extension, seeks to delegitimize resistance and rebellion against the colonists and their proxies.

    Far too many progenitors of the former colonists display little remorse for what their ancestors did, on the contrary, they are proud of their history.

    This will never be acceptable to the vast majority of Irish people, get used to it.

    I think my point was that actually a lot of us are for good or for ill, a mix of these people genetically. It is true that many of these people did terrible things, but I don't think asking people to continually bemoan their ancestry is a reasonable way forward in 2020.

    Edit: Acknowledging the complexity of the past is better than framing things entirely in black or white terms when the history itself isn't black or white.


  • Options
    #94
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,713 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    My understanding is that it was a Home Rule thing. Home Rule was officially passed by the House of Commons in 1912 but the House of Lords rejected it. The latter had had their powers clipped so that they could only delay legislation by two years but then of course the First World War had broken out.

    Many Irish felt that if they fought for the UK and the Empire it would assist in the granting of Home Rule and John Redmond, leader of the Home Rule party supported this line of thinking as I recall.
    The Curragh Mutiny had already shown Redmond's thinking to be a busted flush, but he still encouraged people to throw themselves into the meat grinder knowing it wouldn't even achieve a blood sacrifice.. an absolute waste of life


  • Options
    #95
    saabsaab
    Registered Users Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    A terrible waste of lives. What would have happened if they just refused to fight?


  • Options
    #96
    Hamsterchops
    Registered Users Posts: 3,156 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    saabsaab wrote: »
    A terrible waste of lives. What would have happened if they just refused to fight?

    Good question, and seeing as there was no conscription here then they really didn't have to go to the trenches, but this was Ireland & Britain fighting the Hun, so we all fought together as a group of islands, England, Scotland, Ireland & Wales United in one cause against one enemy.

    Remember the war started in 1914 . . . .

    For King and country, for Ireland, for adventure, to put food on the table, to gain Ireland's independence through Home Rule, to fight and to make sure this was the war to end all wars .....

    Many reasons why so many Irish men went to fight in WWI.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,080 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    46 Long wrote: »
    They didn't have a choice. The Soviet Union used conscription right up until it's dissolution.


    So it would be ok if they were volunteers?


  • Options
    #98
    Granadino
    Registered Users Posts: 729 ✭✭✭Granadino


    Surgeon in the Kaisers Army worth a read


  • Options
    #99
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,222 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    theological wrote: »
    This is why I usually dislike conversations about Irish history. We've decided that the only Irish history that is worth remembering is Irish republican history rather than the entirety of Irish history, including perspectives we may disagree with.

    This!

    There are some here who reject our complicated history in favour of the good vs bad narrative portrayed by some of our Irish Republican cousins.

    I also think it is getting rather tiresome at this stage. The War of Independence happened 100 years ago and there is no one alive today who participated in it.

    Most people don't care about Nationalism.


  • Options
    #100
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,355 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Just watched a great programme on the BBC tonight about the taking of Berlin.

    To see such destruction, loss of life and hopeless people was just sad.
    Its nothing to be rejoice about.


  • Options
    #101
    saabsaab
    Registered Users Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Ah but most people do. Just see what reaction you'd get if it was proposed to rejoin the UK.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    LEST WE FORGET


    Ejzvme8XsAIX8xe?format=jpg&name=medium

    EmFMGxjWoAEemA7?format=jpg&name=medium

    EmTjUv1XEAAcaGT?format=jpg&name=medium


  • Options
    #103
    Fuascailteoir
    Registered Users Posts: 610 ✭✭✭Fuascailteoir


    markodaly wrote: »
    This!

    There are some here who reject our complicated history in favour of the good vs bad narrative portrayed by some of our Irish Republican cousins.

    I also think it is getting rather tiresome at this stage. The War of Independence happened 100 years ago and there is no one alive today who participated in it.

    Most people don't care about Nationalism.

    Yeah the commemoration of the RIC went off splendidly. Nobody batted an eyelid


  • Options
    #104
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,051 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Perfidious Albion springs to mind.

    Your comment suggests that the British did not fulfill their part of the deal yet you continue to describe those who were duped into serving on that basis as traitors. Very unfair imo.


  • Options
    #105
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,170 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Should have called it Victory Gin and had done with it.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #106
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    coolbeans wrote: »
    Your comment suggests that the British did not fulfill their part of the deal yet you continue to describe those who were duped into serving on that basis as traitors. Very unfair imo.

    Perfidious Albion dates back to the 13th century. It was not a recent thing in WW1. Quislings are still quislings. You don't fight on behalf of your oppressor. Ever.


  • Options
    #107
    dd973
    Registered Users Posts: 625 ✭✭✭dd973


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Only if you are Irish, Nematja Matic hasn't worn one for years and gets no abuse. Uppitty Paddy's though, grrrrrr.

    Half the McClean baiters don't even know where Serbia is, that's why.

    If it wasn't for the Russians they'd be Nazi slave labour. WW2 triumphalism is a massive Brit Establishment con job for the credulous.


  • Options
    #108
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Perfidious Albion dates back to the 13th century. It was not a recent thing in WW1. Quislings are still quislings. You don't fight on behalf of your oppressor. Ever.
    theological wrote: »
    A lot of the "oppressors" for good or for ill are our ancestors. That is true during several rounds of conquest.

    This raises an interesting question about what does it mean to be Irish? If I have Norman or Huguenot ancestry are we excluded? If we don't have a Catholic background are we excluded? What if God forbid some of my ancestry comes from those who came from Scotland or from England during the plantations?

    What is your definition of Irish?

    Could you answer some of the more interesting, and complex questions I put to you in this post?


  • Options
    #109
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    theological wrote: »
    Could you answer some of the more interesting, and complex questions I put to you in this post?

    I don't have a definition of being Irish. Being a quisling doesn't make you any less Irish. It's just a measure of their morals that they would fight on behalf of their own oppressor. I'll also answer whatever comments I choose. It's a discussion board, not a Q&A.


  • Options
    #110
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    I don't have a definition of being Irish. Being a quisling doesn't make you any less Irish. It's just a measure of their morals that they would fight on behalf of their own oppressor. I'll also answer whatever comments I choose. It's a discussion board, not a Q&A.

    I was just wondering if you'd be able to discuss the more nuanced topics rather than the ones where you can bark out tropes.


  • Options
    #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dd973 wrote: »
    Half the McClean baiters don't even know where Serbia is, that's why.

    If it wasn't for the Russians they'd be Nazi slave labour. WW2 triumphalism is a massive Brit Establishment con job for the credulous.

    Probably has a lot to do with Matic not deliberately baiting people as well


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,051 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Perfidious Albion dates back to the 13th century. It was not a recent thing in WW1. Quislings are still quislings. You don't fight on behalf of your oppressor. Ever.


    It's all very clearcut with you isn't it? TBH I find this idea of a person presumably living in the Republic of Ireland complaining about being oppressed quite amusing and rather pathetic. You clearly see yourself and the rest of us as victims above all and this really has blinded you. To call men who went to fight for the Crown in WW1 as traitors under the promise of Home Rule is another level of crazy. To just dismiss them like that is so sad and ignorant. I wonder would you call them quislings when The Green Fields of France is being played or would u tell all and sundry that Willy McBride was a traitor...


  • Options
    #113
    joseywhales
    Registered Users Posts: 4,033 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    What do the Germans do to mark such occassion's? We can do that as an alternative, I'm sure some Irish died on the other side. although I suspect the Germans probably just repress more guilt and silently repent, now that is something I can get behind as an irishman.


  • Options
    #114
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,051 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    theological wrote: »
    Could you answer some of the more interesting, and complex questions I put to you in this post?
    He don't do complex. Brits out, end of. Anyone who fought in WW1 is a traitor regardless of John Redmond and you know, recorded history.


  • Options
    #115
    THE_SHEEP
    Registered Users Posts: 231 ✭✭THE_SHEEP


    saabsaab wrote: »
    What part of Dublin can these be seen?


    Not Dublin , it's actually El Paso ( aka Dundalk ) !!


  • Options
    #116
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    My understanding is that it was a Home Rule thing. Home Rule was officially passed by the House of Commons in 1912 but the House of Lords rejected it. The latter had had their powers clipped so that they could only delay legislation by two years but then of course the First World War had broken out.

    Many Irish felt that if they fought for the UK and the Empire it would assist in the granting of Home Rule and John Redmond, leader of the Home Rule party supported this line of thinking as I recall.

    That's true enough.
    Trouble was, the Unionists joined up en masse for exactly the same reason, (36th Ulster Division) meaning that at the end of the war, the British would have had contradictory and competing "debts of honour" to realise to each general viewpoint, so there would have been no great change in the overall balance of demands.

    In such cases, the ruling power tends to take the point of view most favourable to itself.

    If you want to see how "debts of honour" were repaid elsewhere then cast your mind to the Punjab in April 1919, just a few months after the war ended. The Punjab is the centre of the Sikh community, an ethnic group with a long history of service in the Armies of the Empire. They had contributed mightily to the war effort. A perfunctory search on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website reveals that 15,645 people with the name Singh (a name taken by all adult male Sikhs) died in the Indian army during World War One, the majority of them fighting against the Ottomans in the Middle East and Gallipoli.

    The Punjab's capital Amritsar was a hotbed of nationalist (ie Home Rule) agitation at the end of the war, and for the same reason you suggested: they had paid their dues, served the Mother Country, and were now entitled to Home Rule. Disturbances in that city led to the notorious massacre on April 13th 1919 when an army unit under General Dyer opened fire on a crowd in an enclosed space from which they could not escape, killing several hundred people.

    The Deputy Governor of the Punjab, one Michael Francis O'Dwyer, a good Clongowes boy, sent Dyer a message approving of his action.


  • Options
    #117
    Fuascailteoir
    Registered Users Posts: 610 ✭✭✭Fuascailteoir


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    That's true enough.
    Trouble was, the Unionists joined up en masse for exactly the same reason, (36th Ulster Division) meaning that at the end of the war, the British would have had contradictory and competing "debts of honour" to realise to each general viewpoint, so there would have been no great change in the overall balance of demands.

    In such cases, the ruling power tends to take the point of view most favourable to itself.

    If you want to see how "debts of honour" were repaid elsewhere then cast your mind to the Punjab in April 1919, just a few months after the war ended. The Punjab is the centre of the Sikh community, an ethnic group with a long history of service in the Armies of the Empire. They had contributed mightily to the war effort. A perfunctory search on the Commonwealth war graces commission website reveals that 15,645 people with the name Singh (a name taken by all adult male Sikhs) died in the Indian army during World War One, the majority of them fighting against the Ottomans in the Middle East and Gallipoli.

    The Punjab's capital Amritsar was a hotbed of nationalist (ie Home Rule) agitation at the end of the war, and for the same reason you suggested: they had paid their dues, served the Mother Country, and were now entitled to Home Rule. Disturbances in that city led to the notorious massacre on April 13th 1919 when an army unit under General Dyer opened fire on a crowd in an enclosed space from which they could not escape, killing several hundred people.

    The Deputy Governor of the Punjab, one Michael Francis O'Dwyer, a good Clongowes boy, sent Dyer a message approving of his action.

    There is an excellent book detailing retribution against O'Dwyer for his approval called the patient assassin.


  • Options
    #118
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    coolbeans wrote: »
    It's all very clearcut with you isn't it? TBH I find this idea of a person presumably living in the Republic of Ireland complaining about being oppressed quite amusing and rather pathetic. You clearly see yourself and the rest of us as victims above all and this really has blinded you. To call men who went to fight for the Crown in WW1 as traitors under the promise of Home Rule is another level of crazy. To just dismiss them like that is so sad and ignorant. I wonder would you call them quislings when The Green Fields of France is being played or would u tell all and sundry that Willy McBride was a traitor...

    Willy (sic) McBride didn't exist. As writer of the song said, "Bogle himself has stated that he had no particular soldier in mind in choosing the name "Willie McBride"; "McBride" was simply a convenient rhyme for "grave side".

    Bogle himself was Scottish, and there is no mention of the imaginary soldiers nationality in the song.

    I don't think imaginary people can be quislings or traitors.


  • Options
    #119
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 25,305 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    I thought we stopped because the giant poppy mascot won remembrance Day and it was finished now


  • Options
    #120
    saabsaab
    Registered Users Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Willy (sic) McBride didn't exist. As writer of the song said, "Bogle himself has stated that he had no particular soldier in mind in choosing the name "Willie McBride"; "McBride" was simply a convenient rhyme for "grave side".

    Bogle himself was Scottish, and there is no mention of the imaginary soldiers nationality in the song.

    I don't think imaginary people can be quislings or traitors.


    By your definition Tom Barry the most successful IRA commander in the war of independence would be a quisling and traitor! You must know that you were overstating the case somewhat at least?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,051 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Willy (sic) McBride didn't exist. As writer of the song said, "Bogle himself has stated that he had no particular soldier in mind in choosing the name "Willie McBride"; "McBride" was simply a convenient rhyme for "grave side".

    Bogle himself was Scottish, and there is no mention of the imaginary soldiers nationality in the song.

    I don't think imaginary people can be quislings or traitors.

    Sidestepping the point and not so skillfully I see.


Advertisement