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
Opinions on Irish identity
Options
Comments
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »I disagree on that and it would be going off topic to go into why.
I would ask the OP how they view it. Who do they believe is holding up the normalisation of society and to show examples of them doing it, of course.
They never said anyone was holding up the normalisation of society, they just said they felt Northern Irish, why do you feel the need to deconstruct that?0 -
Because he hates the state, pretty simple really. It's 100 year anniversary is coming soon.FrancieBrady wrote: »I disagree on that and it would be going off topic to go into why.
I would ask the OP how they view it. Who do they believe is holding up the normalisation of society and to show examples of them doing it, of course.
They never said anyone was holding up the normalisation of society, they just said they felt Northern Irish, why do you feel the need to deconstruct that?0 -
The highlighted word is interesting, "was" created. All of that is in the past to the new young generation. The founding of Northern Ireland is nearly gone from living memory, it is already practically gone. The turmoil of the 1970s is history to anyone under 40.
It is only a matter of time before Northern Ireland is normalised within the current constitutional structure.
When the problems of society are directly related to the creation of that society you will never solve them without addressing the original problem.
I know it is convenient for some to selectively forget but that is the core problem here. Northern Ireland was never stable and never will be, because it was unnaturally partitioned from the rest of the island and created a sectarian bigoted ruling class.
To identify as 'Northern Irish' in an effort to forget this is foolhardy.0 -
-
A Little Pony wrote: »Because he hates the state, pretty simple really. It's 100 year anniversary is coming soon.
It's not a state, it's not a country, it's not a nation, it has no flag and it has no anthem. Unionists messed that up in the late 1960's and the British put an end to unionist misrule in the early 70's.
So we've had 50 years of sectarian misrule by unionists, 30 years of conflict, and 20 years of foot-dragging by unionists culminating with the current situation where the DUP have made the north ungovernable.
One wonders what there'll be to commemorate at the 100 year anniversary..0 -
Advertisement
-
Part of the United Kingdom recognized as such from the United Nations. Just deal with it. I don't know why Irish nationalists get upset about a reality which stares at them in the face every time they go to the checkout at Tesco.Junkyard Tom wrote: »A Little Pony wrote: »Because he hates the state, pretty simple really. It's 100 year anniversary is coming soon.
It's not a state, it's not a country, it's not a nation, it has no flag and it has no anthem. Unionists messed that up in the late 1960's and the British put an end to unionist misrule in the early 70's.
So we've had 50 years of sectarian rule, 30 years of conflict, and 20 years of foot-dragging by unionists culminating with the current situation where the DUP have made the north ungovernable.
One wonders what there'll be to commemorate at the 100 year anniversary..0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »When the problems of society are directly related to the creation of that society you will never solve them without addressing the original problem.
Time moves on, who cares for example about the problems of the Romans or the Vikings? Ultimately their societies moved on.FrancieBrady wrote: »I know it is convenient for some to selectively forget but that is the core problem here. Northern Ireland was never stable and never will be, because it was unnaturally partitioned from the rest of the island and created a sectarian bigoted ruling class.
And the problem of the "sectarian bigoted ruling class" has been solved, thanks to the GFA. Northern Ireland is now stable, unfortunately, some will not accept this and still use sectarian divisive language when describing the other side.
As for the unnatural partition - this country was only ever ruled as an island when the British held dominion over it.FrancieBrady wrote: »
To identify as 'Northern Irish' in an effort to forget this is foolhardy.
Not at all, going back to the time of Brian Boru, there were many nationalities or tribes coexisting on this island. We can do so agaon.0 -
The 'Northern Irish' identity has emerged (I doubt if it is in any way a significant emergence) because northern Ireland is essentially in a limbo state since the GFA.
This limbo state has been exaggerated by continued Never Never politics engaged in by those still unaccepting of the removal of their bigoted sectarian unionist supremacy control and veto.0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »It's not a state, it's not a country, it's not a nation, it has no flag and it has no anthem. Unionists messed that up in the late 1960's and the British put an end to unionist misrule in the early 70's.
So we've had 50 years of sectarian misrule by unionists, 30 years of conflict, and 20 years of foot-dragging by unionists culminating with the current situation where the DUP have made the north ungovernable.
One wonders what there'll be to commemorate at the 100 year anniversary..
And all this because an OP asked what it meant to be Northern Irish.Good on you, sounds like you're leaving all that sectarian muck behind you.
Prepare for abuse from both sides of the sectarian divide though. If you're not with them, you're against them!
I think Red Wake got it right.0 -
Time moves on, who cares for example about the problems of the Romans or the Vikings? Ultimately their societies moved on.
And the problem of the "sectarian bigoted ruling class" has been solved, thanks to the GFA. Northern Ireland is now stable, unfortunately, some will not accept this and still use sectarian divisive language when describing the other side.
As for the unnatural partition - this country was only ever ruled as an island when the British held dominion over it.
Not at all, going back to the time of Brian Boru, there were many nationalities or tribes coexisting on this island. We can do so agaon.
The first part of your post admonishes for mentioning the past and the last part references the past to support your position.
Handy.0 -
Advertisement
-
But would you be happy if it didn't and somehow managed to work?FrancieBrady wrote: »A northern Ireland identity is all well and good but politically not to mention economically, a Northern Ireland state would implode.0 -
But would you be happy if it didn't and somehow managed to work?
I don't covet the north if that is what you mean.
I recognise that the partitioning was unnatural and has had tragic consequences.
If an independent state worked and the entire people were happy so too would I.
But it sadly won't for the reasons outlined and therefore I think identifying as 'Northern Irish' is a bit of a confused cop out.
Especially if doing that is coupled with not voting and refusing to try to change things.0 -
A Little Pony wrote: »Part of the United Kingdom recognized as such from the United Nations. Just deal with it.
Currently under UK jurisdiction subject to change in the GFA. The British have agreed that the future of the north is a matter for the people of Ireland alone without external impediment (i.e. the British Government).
The British agreed in the early 1990's they have no selfish or strategic interest in the north. Articles 2 and 3 remain codified in the Irish constitution. HM Treasury apparently despises the costs of the north. Unionism is now a diminishing minority that will be unable to hold back the tide that will wash away that stubborn orange hue.
Unionists need to come to terms with that.0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »Currently under UK jurisdiction subject to change in the GFA. The British have agreed that the future of the north is a matter for the people of Ireland alone without external impediment (i.e. the British Government).
The British agreed in the early 1990's they have no selfish or strategic interest in the north. Articles 2 and 3 remain codified in the Irish constitution. HM Treasury apparently despises the costs of the north. Unionism is now a diminishing minority that will be unable to hold back the tide that will wash away that stubborn orange hue.
Unionists need to come to terms with that.
That is some revisionist history.
The British have an unselfish interest in the North, borne of their desire to keep the UK intact - see recent comments by PM May for confirmation.
Articles 2 and 3 are gone, there is no longer a territorial claim on the North.
The North of Ireland has full say in its future, if that is independence or continuation of the union with the UK, so be it.
The tide of nationalism is a false dawn that will never bring peace, were it ever to happen which is very very unlikely, given so many Catholic Northerners no longer see a united Ireland as a priority.
Yes, there are some old men involved in the GFA who saw it your way, but the writing was on the wall even then.0 -
That is some revisionist history.
The British have an unselfish interest in the North, borne of their desire to keep the UK intact - see recent comments by PM May for confirmation.
Articles 2 and 3 are gone, there is no longer a territorial claim on the North.
The North of Ireland has full say in its future, if that is independence or continuation of the union with the UK, so be it.
The tide of nationalism is a false dawn that will never bring peace, were it ever to happen which is very very unlikely, given so many Catholic Northerners no longer see a united Ireland as a priority.
Yes, there are some old men involved in the GFA who saw it your way, but the writing was on the wall even then.
It clearly doesn't have a say in its future, it has to do what the rest of the UK decides, regardless of what they want. IE Brexit.
However, the rest of Ireland and the EU may be able to save them from that. Ironically, because the solution will appeal to a selfish Britain. They will be wanting a deal.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »
It clearly doesn't have a say in its future, it has to do what the rest of the UK decides, regardless of what they want. IE Brexit.
However, the rest of Ireland and the EU may be able to save them from that. Ironically, because the solution will appeal to a selfish Britain. They will be wanting a deal.
Well, it has to do what the rest of the UK does, so long as the majority of Northern Ireland doesn't want to join the South or become independent.
If the North wants to stay in the EU, then it should rejoin the South. Such a referendum will not go according to SF's wishes.0 -
Well, it has to do what the rest of the UK does, so long as the majority of Northern Ireland doesn't want to join the South or become independent.
If the North wants to stay in the EU, then it should rejoin the South. Such a referendum will not go according to SF's wishes.
It won't just be the wish of SF, FG and FF will want unity because they don't want a border and northern Ireland outside the EU is disaster for everyone, including those who identify as 'Northern Irish'.
That is also the thinking in the rest of the EU and I suspect Britain has no real issues with it bar a government staying in power for what is increasingly looking like a short time.
Crossroads approaching.0 -
That is some revisionist history.
It's factual.The British have an unselfish interest in the North
So they were lying when they said:
On this basis, [the PM] reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland.
cain.ulst.ac.uk
If anything they have an interest in getting the hell out of Ireland where they've expended so much blood and treasure.borne of their desire to keep the UK intact
They want to keep the countries in Britain intact.see recent comments by PM May for confirmation.
She's playing to the Scots and pandering to the DUP. The DUP will return to being considered insignificant nut-cases shortly. She has no credibility.Articles 2 and 3 are gone, there is no longer a territorial claim on the North.
The claim remains codified in the constitution.
Article 3
It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of IrelandThe North of Ireland has full say in its future, if that is independence or continuation of the union with the UK, so be it.
Independence? Where are you getting that from? It's a binary choice - UK jurisdiction or unification.The tide of nationalism is a false dawn that will never bring peace, were it ever to happen which is very very unlikely, given so many Catholic Northerners no longer see a united Ireland as a priority.
Oh I'm quite aware that people were happy with the status quo. That looks set to change seismically. I heard a young Unionist on Radio Ulster saying that a UI is no longer the bogeyman it was for people like him, they look south and see an outward looking, progressive modern state.
When a referendum does return a pro-UI vote I suspect it will have the support of a considerable percentage of young liberal unionists (if they'd stop leaving the place).Yes, there are some old men involved in the GFA who saw it your way, but the writing was on the wall even then.
The GFA is not a thing to be viewed a certain way - it is what it is - an internationally recognised binding agreement. That you can't bear the idea that it might bring about unification only shows that your DUP- echoing views are fading into obscurity.0 -
The assumption being made, wrongly, imo is that it is only republican/catholic/nationalist backgrounds who are opting to identify as 'Northern Irish'.
I think Junkyard Tom is right, there will also be young people from a unionist background who just won't be influenced by the archaic bowler hatted 'we want to ape the English middle classes' tradition too.
That is where the uniform of the bowler hat, suit, gloves and sash comes from - a desire to be seen as the typical English middle class shop-owner etc.
Except for a tiny belligerent minority, that insecurity about identity no longer exists among unionists.
It is no accident that the Orange Order is in decline as a result.
Unionist farmers will be looking south very soon too if they are not already. Anecdotally I know that there is feverish buying of land parcels here as northern farmers try to ensure some connection to the systems that kept them in business. The 'land' will come before unionism if I know anything of their natures.
A huge shift underway in identities? Interesting times.0 -
Northern Ireland is not an integral part of the UK. If Stormont fails what you effectively have is joint authority all but in name.
This is even conceded by Unionists.0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »...I think identifying as 'Northern Irish' is a bit of a confused cop out.
So, you're with us or you're agin us?
What ever happened to self-determination?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »So, you're with us or you're agin us?
What ever happened to self-determination?
I have said I have no problem with it. The OP asked for opinions on it and MY opinion of it, in the absence of an explanation of what it is, is that it is confused.
If you were not confused about your identity, why would you need to come on an internet forum looking for opinions on it?0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »When the problems of society are directly related to the creation of that society you will never solve them without addressing the original problem.
Time moves on, who cares for example about the problems of the Romans or the Vikings? Ultimately their societies moved on.FrancieBrady wrote: »I know it is convenient for some to selectively forget but that is the core problem here. Northern Ireland was never stable and never will be, because it was unnaturally partitioned from the rest of the island and created a sectarian bigoted ruling class.
And the problem of the "sectarian bigoted ruling class" has been solved, thanks to the GFA. Northern Ireland is now stable, unfortunately, some will not accept this and still use sectarian divisive language when describing the other side.
As for the unnatural partition - this country was only ever ruled as an island when the British held dominion over it.FrancieBrady wrote: »
To identify as 'Northern Irish' in an effort to forget this is foolhardy.
Not at all, going back to the time of Brian Boru, there were many nationalities or tribes coexisting on this island. We can do so agaon.
Most sensible and rational points in your post. I´m in agreement with most of them. The points you´re making are exactly the ones those clinging on to the old nationalist narrative on NI don´t like to read. Moving on from the past is the key towards a UI and I regard this rather recently (to speak in terms of a couple of years) developing Northern-Irish identiy as the path that can lead to it.
What I have observed from many Irish posters on various MBs is that those from the Republic very rarely if on any occasion at all, refer to one of the Provinces, they have their county where they either come from or reside in references. It´s just the Unionists who call themselves "Ulsterman", neglecting the fact that a couple of counties of that Province are in the Republic. A change in using terms can lead to a change in the perception of ones identiy and this recent development means to me that by using "Northern-Irish" to describe ones identiy for being fom NI is a means to move on from the past and it bears a more inclusive meaning, in contrast to what was and is still there from the past. The term bears some reference to NI but it could as well be used from someone who is from Co. Donegal.
This thread shows just once again that topics like this one always lead to some hair-splitting over names or Terms and become a subject of the usual argumentations between the nationalists and the unionists. It shows also that some people can´t help themselves and always go into the same circles time and again and they spend more time arguing with one another over Terms and meanings instead to listen to one another and find common ground on which to build a better future for both parts of the divide that will lead to a UI which is more desired by Republicans and Nationalists than by their counter parts, but the point is, that the first can´t have their UI without the consent of the others. This is a simple fact one shouldn´t ignore and while we are at it, the Taoiseach has just said the same recently:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-wants-a-united-ireland-through-consensus-not-border-poll-36238375.html
No doubt, he´s right because a border poll that bears a result of the tiny majority of 50+% without the consent of even more than just those 50+% has no prospect of a peaceful and prosperous future.
I think that whatever good comes up to bring about progress and is good enough to bring people to leave the past behind is to be welcomed for the sake of all. Maybe when the majority of the people in NI moves on the old bickering between SF and the DUP becomes more and more meaningless and as a result of that, they both will have to think again, more so when they have to watch losing more votes because they might become outdated and no more trustworthy by the electorate that they could shape the future while always sticking to the past. This could break this circle of permanent reiterations on both sides.
A new party that is inclusive and acceptable for both communities in NI would be a serious challenge to SF and the DUP but having no illusions, both parties would be keen to see to it that such a new party won´t get much support and votes from the electorate in NI. The most recent example for that was the short living history of the N21 Party. The founders of that party came from a Unionist background but contrary to the old dinosaurs in the DUP, those people founded the party on the outset to be inclusive and work for a better future for all the people in NI. I think that the reason for why this N21 Party failed are well known to everyone who observed this short period in NI politics and the big ones certainly played their parts in it to bring them down, but not just that, the leadership of them was falling out with each and one another and a chance to bring about a change in the party political environment in NI was given away.
Just some short reference to the upcoming years of centenary events. In 2021 it is not just the year in which the Satelet of NI came formally and effectively into being, it is also the year in which the Anglo-Irish-Treaty was signed and when Michael Collins described that treaty as the stepping stone towards Irish freedom, the diehard Republicans rejected the whole treaty for the reason of the partition this treate beared with it. Time and history have proved him right and without that treaty, one could assume that this present Republic of Ireland might not exist as it stands today.
I see any improvements in NI that can bridge the divide and lead to reconcilliation between the two communities as a stepping stone towards a UI. Such a UI is meant to be for the people and this means for all the people on the Island of Ireland and therefore, one has to win the hearts and minds of all of them and assure them that everyone is equal in all ways of life.
SF might bring about the 50+% in a border poll when they think that the time is right and Unionist voters become more a minority. They would win such a border poll, but they´d also have to wait for the answer from the electorate of the people in the Republic and from what I have observed, their is no such overwhelming consent for a UI among the people in the Republic as SF likes to believe. A consent by a majority of the electorate in the Republic is probably just then granted when they are convinced that a UI won´t lead to any trouble for them. Therefore, one has to put consent for that by as much people as possible from both parts of the border first.
If one doesn´t believe me that by the time NI helds a border poll, either at the same time or very shortly afterwards the electorate in the Republic is to be called to vote in a Referendum on a UI, any doubter should just bother himself to look it up in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland where it is clearly stated. That part is what many SFers often like to omit. The whole procedure for a UI in NI and in the Republic are the result of the GFA and that is the basis on which a UI can be achieved.
There is no realistic way that by a 50+% border poll a UI could be declared onesided by SF in NI. The result could trigger a Referendum in the Republic for a UI, but unless SF is in the Republic´s govt, the Irish govt would first scrutinise whether the result of such a border poll carries enough consent by the people of NI. A result of 50+1% would certainly be too tiny of a majority.
I won´t dragg this post further to talk about the negotiations for bringing a UI formally into being in which the UK, along with the Irish govt and that of NI, would have their say. One could only hope that such negotiations would be more swift and rational than what we see today between the UK and the EU.
To hold a border poll or referendum is rather easy in contrast to settle the matters that concerns a unification of two different judicial countries, because it´s this where it will get very tricky and complicated.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »oscarBravo wrote: »So, you're with us or you're agin us?
What ever happened to self-determination?
I have said I have no problem with it. The OP asked for opinions on it and MY opinion of it, in the absence of an explanation of what it is, is that it is confused.
If you were not confused about your identity, why would you need to come on an internet forum looking for opinions on it?
IMO, it´s got nothing to do with confusion, none at all. It´s more the way out of the old circles of divisive thinking and it appears that you probably refuse to realise that. But alas, we both have perceived the content of the OP in a different way.
To ask about the opinions of others is not always a meaning for or of confusion, it can as well bear the meaning of spreading an idea and check on others whether it can be brought on or not. But well, that´s just my interpretation and you might have another. Maybe the OP himself could give some statement regarding his intention to start this thread in the first place.0 -
Most sensible and rational points in your post. I´m in agreement with most of them. The points you´re making are exactly the ones those clinging on to the old nationalist narrative on NI don´t like to read. Moving on from the past is the key towards a UI and I regard this rather recently (to speak in terms of a couple of years) developing Northern-Irish identiy as the path that can lead to it.
What I have observed from many Irish posters on various MBs is that those from the Republic very rarely if on any occasion at all, refer to one of the Provinces, they have their county where they either come from or reside in references. It´s just the Unionists who call themselves "Ulsterman", neglecting the fact that a couple of counties of that Province are in the Republic. A change in using terms can lead to a change in the perception of ones identiy and this recent development means to me that by using "Northern-Irish" to describe ones identiy for being fom NI is a means to move on from the past and it bears a more inclusive meaning, in contrast to what was and is still there from the past. The term bears some reference to NI but it could as well be used from someone who is from Co. Donegal.
This thread shows just once again that topics like this one always lead to some hair-splitting over names or Terms and become a subject of the usual argumentations between the nationalists and the unionists. It shows also that some people can´t help themselves and always go into the same circles time and again and they spend more time arguing with one another over Terms and meanings instead to listen to one another and find common ground on which to build a better future for both parts of the divide that will lead to a UI which is more desired by Republicans and Nationalists than by their counter parts, but the point is, that the first can´t have their UI without the consent of the others. This is a simple fact one shouldn´t ignore and while we are at it, the Taoiseach has just said the same recently:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-wants-a-united-ireland-through-consensus-not-border-poll-36238375.html
No doubt, he´s right because a border poll that bears a result of the tiny majority of 50+% without the consent of even more than just those 50+% has no prospect of a peaceful and prosperous future.
I think that whatever good comes up to bring about progress and is good enough to bring people to leave the past behind is to be welcomed for the sake of all. Maybe when the majority of the people in NI moves on the old bickering between SF and the DUP becomes more and more meaningless and as a result of that, they both will have to think again, more so when they have to watch losing more votes because they might become outdated and no more trustworthy by the electorate that they could shape the future while always sticking to the past. This could break this circle of permanent reiterations on both sides.
A new party that is inclusive and acceptable for both communities in NI would be a serious challenge to SF and the DUP but having no illusions, both parties would be keen to see to it that such a new party won´t get much support and votes from the electorate in NI. The most recent example for that was the short living history of the N21 Party. The founders of that party came from a Unionist background but contrary to the old dinosaurs in the DUP, those people founded the party on the outset to be inclusive and work for a better future for all the people in NI. I think that the reason for why this N21 Party failed are well known to everyone who observed this short period in NI politics and the big ones certainly played their parts in it to bring them down, but not just that, the leadership of them was falling out with each and one another and a chance to bring about a change in the party political environment in NI was given away.
Just some short reference to the upcoming years of centenary events. In 2021 it is not just the year in which the Satelet of NI came formally and effectively into being, it is also the year in which the Anglo-Irish-Treaty was signed and when Michael Collins described that treaty as the stepping stone towards Irish freedom, the diehard Republicans rejected the whole treaty for the reason of the partition this treate beared with it. Time and history have proved him right and without that treaty, one could assume that this present Republic of Ireland might not exist as it stands today.
I see any improvements in NI that can bridge the divide and lead to reconcilliation between the two communities as a stepping stone towards a UI. Such a UI is meant to be for the people and this means for all the people on the Island of Ireland and therefore, one has to win the hearts and minds of all of them and assure them that everyone is equal in all ways of life.
SF might bring about the 50+% in a border poll when they think that the time is right and Unionist voters become more a minority. They would win such a border poll, but they´d also have to wait for the answer from the electorate of the people in the Republic and from what I have observed, their is no such overwhelming consent for a UI among the people in the Republic as SF likes to believe. A consent by a majority of the electorate in the Republic is probably just then granted when they are convinced that a UI won´t lead to any trouble for them. Therefore, one has to put consent for that by as much people as possible from both parts of the border first.
If one doesn´t believe me that by the time NI helds a border poll, either at the same time or very shortly afterwards the electorate in the Republic is to be called to vote in a Referendum on a UI, any doubter should just bother himself to look it up in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland where it is clearly stated. That part is what many SFers often like to omit. The whole procedure for a UI in NI and in the Republic are the result of the GFA and that is the basis on which a UI can be achieved.
There is no realistic way that by a 50+% border poll a UI could be declared onesided by SF in NI. The result could trigger a Referendum in the Republic for a UI, but unless SF is in the Republic´s govt, the Irish govt would first scrutinise whether the result of such a border poll carries enough consent by the people of NI. A result of 50+1% would certainly be too tiny of a majority.
I won´t dragg this post further to talk about the negotiations for bringing a UI formally into being in which the UK, along with the Irish govt and that of NI, would have their say. One could only hope that such negotiations would be more swift and rational than what we see today between the UK and the EU.
To hold a border poll or referendum is rather easy in contrast to settle the matters that concerns a unification of two different judicial countries, because it´s this where it will get very tricky and complicated.
With regards to counties I think that is primarily down to sport and particularly the gaa as a reason why most people define themselves from a county. Look how hard it is when trying to change county boundaries in limerick/Clare or kilkenny/waterford.0 -
OP it's becoming more common for people to feel Northern Irish rather than Irish or British. I grew up in the Bogside in the 80's/90's and would definitely see myself as Northern Irish. I hold an Irish passport and live in Dublin now but I have many friends from all sorts of backgrounds in the North.
A lot of them may identify as Irish or British but they also agree that they are Northern Irish too. There's a shared identity regardless of your background and as others have said, it has been a shared experience.
Amongst my generation there's mixed feelings about the idea of a united Ireland and in some cases those from a unionist background are in favour and vice versa for the nationalists.
Some of my mates have younger siblings in their late teens and early 20's and it's much more common to see them reject the traditional idealologies and see themselves as separate from Irish or British.
This can only be a good thing as there will be more unity in the population and hopefully in a political sense they would be looking for policies that affect their lives and not based on the old "themuns and us" drivel that's been going on for decades.0 -
IMO, it´s got nothing to do with confusion, none at all. It´s more the way out of the old circles of divisive thinking and it appears that you probably refuse to realise that. But alas, we both have perceived the content of the OP in a different way.
To ask about the opinions of others is not always a meaning for or of confusion, it can as well bear the meaning of spreading an idea and check on others whether it can be brought on or not. But well, that´s just my interpretation and you might have another. Maybe the OP himself could give some statement regarding his intention to start this thread in the first place.
The OP mentions that he/she is 'struggling' with his/her identity.
Not all politics in the north are divisive or along sectarian lines. That is just lazy thinking.
It is quite possible to be progressive and non sectarian in how you conduct yourself politically.
But I agree, somebody needs to explain if this is a cultural or political identity or both, because even of the OP is not confused, I am, as to what exactly saying you are 'Northern Irish' means.
I see no culture or political party that is distinctly 'Northern Irish'. I would like somebody to explain what it is.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »IMO, it´s got nothing to do with confusion, none at all. It´s more the way out of the old circles of divisive thinking and it appears that you probably refuse to realise that. But alas, we both have perceived the content of the OP in a different way.
To ask about the opinions of others is not always a meaning for or of confusion, it can as well bear the meaning of spreading an idea and check on others whether it can be brought on or not. But well, that´s just my interpretation and you might have another. Maybe the OP himself could give some statement regarding his intention to start this thread in the first place.
The OP mentions that he/she is 'struggling' with his/her identity.
Not all politics in the north are divisive or along sectarian lines. That is just lazy thinking.
It is quite possible to be progressive and non sectarian in how you conduct yourself politically.
But I agree, somebody needs to explain if this is a cultural or political identity or both, because even of the OP is not confused, I am, as to what exactly saying you are 'Northern Irish' means.
I see no culture or political party that is distinctly 'Northern Irish'. I would like somebody to explain what it is.
Well, there´s plenty of room for any sort of assumption what the OP really means by "struggling with his identity" and I´m not the one answering that. I would presume that it´s got something to do with his environment and how the people react on his chosen Northern-Irish idenity. That´s how I interprete this.
As for "lazy thinking", I strongly disagree with you in regards of what I have witnessed in plenty "debates" which were more often the usual tit-for-tat running around in circles between the old divide. It´s this what makes politics in NI that complicated and frankly, what bares the way towards a real democracy with majority rule. The blame of being sectarian is always laid to the Unionists and SF has a good hand to propagate it for the DUPers deliver plenty of reasons for that. No doubt.
"I see no culture or political party that is distinctly 'Northern Irish'".
In that case you´ve apparently missed this story of the NI21 Party. The very name of that party was "Northern-Ireland 21" which means politics for Northern Ireland for the 21st Century.
Here´s some short wiki article about them and when I looked at it just now, I realised how short their time really was, in compare to the other parties in NI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NI21
Just one Quote fom this article in regards of a northern-irish identity:It presented itself as a "cross-community party" and promoted a Northern Irish national identity for the 21st century.
Politically the party is probably regarded as a failure, but in the light of the OP and others you adopted this identity, it seems that there is something left of it others are following now.0 -
Well, there´s plenty of room for any sort of assumption what the OP really means by "struggling with his identity" and I´m not the one answering that. I would presume that it´s got something to do with his environment and how the people react on his chosen Northern- idenity. That´s how I interprete this.
As for "lazy thinking", I strongly disagree with you in regards of what I have witnessed in plenty "debates" which were more often the usual tit-for-tat running around in circles between the old divide. It´s this what makes politics in NI that complicated and frankly, what bares the way towards a real democracy with majority rule. The blame of being sectarian is always laid to the Unionists and SF has a good hand to propagate it for the DUPers deliver plenty of reasons for that. No doubt.
"I see no culture or political party that is distinctly 'Northern '".
In that case you´ve apparently missed this story of the NI21 Party. The very name of that party was "Northern- 21" which means politics for Northern for the 21st Century.
Here´s some short wiki article about them and when I looked at it just now, I realised how short their time really was, in compare to the other parties in NI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NI21
Just one Quote fom this article in regards of a northern- identity:
Politically the party is probably regarded as a failure, but in the light of the OP and others you adopted this identity, it seems that there is something left of it others are following now.
It is lazy thinking, how often have you heard it said that politics in Britain or Ireland falls down along similar fault lines? Tory-Lab, or civil war politics here?
Of course politics is going to reflect the deep divisions in northern society, there has been a 40 year conflict and there is an ongoing peace process (or supposed to be).
Whether you are Northern Irish or Martian those divisions will surface until society is normalised.
A 'cross community' party is not an explanation of what a 'Northern Irish' identity is.
What is distinctive about being 'Northern Irish' as opposed to being a part of the Irish or British identity?
Choosing it as an identity as a reaction to what you perceive to be there is not enough for me to give much credence to it tbh.0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »Well, there´s plenty of room for any sort of assumption what the OP really means by "struggling with his identity" and I´m not the one answering that. I would presume that it´s got something to do with his environment and how the people react on his chosen Northern- idenity. That´s how I interprete this.
As for "lazy thinking", I strongly disagree with you in regards of what I have witnessed in plenty "debates" which were more often the usual tit-for-tat running around in circles between the old divide. It´s this what makes politics in NI that complicated and frankly, what bares the way towards a real democracy with majority rule. The blame of being sectarian is always laid to the Unionists and SF has a good hand to propagate it for the DUPers deliver plenty of reasons for that. No doubt.
"I see no culture or political party that is distinctly 'Northern '".
In that case you´ve apparently missed this story of the NI21 Party. The very name of that party was "Northern- 21" which means politics for Northern for the 21st Century.
Here´s some short wiki article about them and when I looked at it just now, I realised how short their time really was, in compare to the other parties in NI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NI21
Just one Quote fom this article in regards of a northern- identity:
Politically the party is probably regarded as a failure, but in the light of the OP and others you adopted this identity, it seems that there is something left of it others are following now.
It is lazy thinking, how often have you heard it said that politics in Britain or Ireland falls down along similar fault lines? Tory-Lab, or civil war politics here?
Of course politics is going to reflect the deep divisions in northern society, there has been a 40 year conflict and there is an ongoing peace process (or supposed to be).
Whether you are Northern Irish or Martian those divisions will surface until society is normalised.
A 'cross community' party is not an explanation of what a 'Northern Irish' identity is.
What is distinctive about being 'Northern Irish' as opposed to being a part of the Irish or British identity?
Choosing it as an identity as a reaction to what you perceive to be there is not enough for me to give much credence to it tbh.
I´d answer your question in that way that it might or even has become as a means to express ones utter rejection and refusal of either being a Shinner or a Unionist and thus placing oneself outside of the "traditional" side picking.
In spite of avoiding getting personal with you, it really appears that you refuse to think outside of the box and take a different angle to look at a subject with an open mind. It is quite this attitude to refuse to consider new developments and answer them by taking into account what reasons might behind it and what drives it.
I know that you´re a SF supporter and that´s your given right to be, such as it is for any Unionist to be what he is. What is inbetween all this is that neither SF nor any Unionist Party will ever achieve it to bridge this gap within the society of NI because each one of them is too eager to keep the status quo working for the sake of keeping their votes and the power they have upon their communities. It appears that a new development has started that comes from the centre of the society itself and has reached a cross community level on which the people decide for themselves what identity they think is more suitable to them and don´t listen to the old leaders any more. I call that a very positive and progressive development because the old leaders have failed to bring the people together because they´ve always put their party interests first.
It could become much possible that this future UI will emerge from the centre of the people and that without the usual claptrap from the old political parties. Well, if that happens, I would call it the best way chosen by the people themselves. I can´t imagine any better way than this.0
Advertisement