whisky_galore wrote: » Timings to suit the unemployed and unemployable.
jmcc wrote: » The whole move from Home Rule to Independence must have been missing from the John Bruton colouring book of history for little neo-Unionists (complete with red, white and blue edible crayons).
jmcc wrote: » Are you intellectually challenged are just trolling? That was not Britain's "name".
markodaly wrote: » Again, this was a recommendation by an all-party committee, SF included. People seem to be forgetting this crucial bit of information.
Bambi wrote: » First Dáíl Eireann baby, massive popular mandate for independence. RIC went the other way, became the terrorists.
mariaalice wrote: It would be intersting to see what soemone one like Dermot Ferriter has to say on the matter.
markodaly wrote: » It was an Irish Parliament. Anyway, what were they?
Tzardine wrote: » Do you have any more info on this? Who is organising it?
marieholmfan wrote: » The vast majority of voters for the Irish house of commons weren't Irish.
Nift wrote: » 50 per cent plus 1, how do you think thats going to work out then?
Nift wrote: » 50 per cent plus 1, how do you think thats going to work out then? The word mature is in regards to realizing that history is complex, and that another civil war would follow, or the lesser evil of an independent Northern Ireland would happen if people like yourself had their way. Sure they should all feck off back to britain after re-unification. Is that your viewpoint, or a like it or lump it one? Thats great for a progressive society.
Sean.3516 wrote: » 100% catholic boy from the Republic of Ireland here.
And wasn’t trolling. Just pointing out some facts that don’t quite align with the “Ooh Aah, Up the Ra” mythology.
jmcc wrote: » Rubbish! 50% + 1. That's what it takes. Mature? Traitorous, pondscum intellected FG politicians always used that excuse when they try to downgrade Irish history. A bunch of middle class Germans who had to change their German name to "Windsor" because their government got into a little bit of World War with their inbred moron of a cousin. Would those be the 1916 celebrations where the morons in FG/Labour got some equally dimwitted f*cktards to produce a video about 1916 that had the Queen of England, Sir Bob Geldorf, that gobsh!te Bono but none of the 1916 leaders or the fact that there had been an Easter Rising? One couldn't trust FG/Labour to boil water without burning it. Regards...jmcc
FrancieBrady wrote: » Moderate Unionists wouldn't expect us to commemorate this, as middle class Catholics (why are you being sectarian here???) would not expect Unionists to commemorate the IRA or the 1916 leaders. Our reaction to this is for all to see. As someone who is skeptical of a UI in the first place because of stupid hangups, we have about what uniform their great grandfather wore and so on, I am delighted. Kiss that UI goodbye before we even started. Leo thought he could bludgeon this through and point out the detractors as the 'ooh ah up the RA' brigade as some are doing here. Massive fail again Leo.
FrancieBrady wrote: » They recommended that 'consideration be given'. They DIDN'T - knowing the sensitivities - recommend that it should be done.
markodaly wrote: » 100% it is the people that will decide this, especially moderate Unionists and middle-class Catholics. If we in the South cannot get over something that happened 100 years ago, then forget ever winning over that group to the idea of a UI. What is happening now, is pure opportunism by some mayors and councils. Remember, it was an all-party committee that backed this recommendation, now many of them are running scared in an election year. So much for mature debate.
markodaly wrote: » They did actually. From Wiki
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » That is a biased view of history though. Being fully serious, it's indeed true that the winners write the history, but that becomes dangerous if they start truly believing that it is an unbiased truth. The RIC were the state. The IRA and revolutionaries of 1916 and after were the murderous, terrorist, outlaws. This is indisputable. From a revisionist particular viewpoint its suits to see the reverse. But it does not mean its is the only viewpoint, or even, that its the most accurate reading of the events.
TwoMonthsOff wrote: » There is a protest planned for the morning of the 17th, 11am at Dublin Castle. Most normal people will be working I'd imagine.
[Deleted User] wrote: » One quick point about the petition link: change.org and the likes are pretty much useless. You might as well be asking people to thank a Facebook post as sign something on change. There's an actual Oireachtas petition site that can be used where the people with any power are obliged to act when it receives a certain number of signatories. Much better to use them for anything Ireland-related. I know it isn't yourself who set this up, most likely, but just so everyone knows.
jmcc wrote: » The Irish people had no vote on the Union that created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Whereas the first attempt had been defeated in the Irish House of Commons by 109 votes against to 104 for, the second vote in 1800 produced a result of 158 to 115.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Somebody looking for 'mature' reactions comes out with 'oh yeah boy do we hate the English'. Who 'hates' the English? I hate some of the things the English did and continue to do. I don't hate 'the English' though. Can you stop with the trite generalisations and we might be able to have a 'mature' conversation. And who the F**k is planning to 'celebrate' the Civil War or ANY war for that matter?
Sean.3516 wrote: » I didn’t say that Ireland was never occupied by Great Britain. Obviously it was at some point. But by the time 1914-1919 this occupation didn’t exist anymore and Ireland was integrated into Great Britain as part of that nation state.
Britain’s official name was “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.”
ReginaldSmythV wrote: » Have you a link? I’ll book it off if it’s happening and I’d urge anyone else to do the same if they can.
is_that_so wrote: » OK, you really need to sort out your pronouns here! Why would any government turn down a considered and informed recommendation by a non-partisan expert group?
jmcc wrote: » You are not exactly a stable genius yourself. And the Loyalist troll gave himself away with the "Fenian" reference. Regards...jmcc
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Exactly the knuckledraggers want to rewrite history. The RIC were Irish too. Plus if the OP is so pro Ireland and anti anything English why is this thread not in Teach na nGealt forum? It is instead being discussed in the language of their former colonial masters. With no shame Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam What is the excuse now nearly 100 years after the Free State? Nearly 80 years after the ROI act. The truth is many like the OP even though they consider themselves Irish republicans do not understand history, do not speak thier own language regularly, nor make the effort. They are a watery mythical type of Irishness who pretend not to be interested in anything British, but are consumed by it's popular culture. Plus on top of that they have a limited knowledge/narrowminded viewpoint of history. The two RIC killed in Solohedbeg 21 January 1919 for example Should they and many like them be just forgotten or a footnote in most versions of Irish history? Constable Patrick O’Connell was 30 years old, he was from Coachford in Co Cork and was going to get married. James McDonnell was a constable as well, a native Irish speaker. McDonnell was from Belmullet in Co Mayo. In his case it was particularly sad as McDonnell was a 56-year-old widower and the father of seven children. Plus as Varakdar said we used to have the same craic about Irish people who fought for the British army in WWI they were written out of history for decades. That is not history that is a selective history, a selective memory. Many fought there because they needed the money, some fought because they believed it would get Home Rule and followed Redmond's call. So Irish fellas doing thier job earning money for thier families to keep themselves alive like James McDonnell are just erased from history because it does not suit a narrow republican narrative. In my view McDonnell in particular was more of an Irishman than many of those who claim to be Irish today. They deserve at least to be remembered.
W.T. Cosgrove wrote: this is a big question of Remembrance and Honour to the dead and it must always be a matter of interest to the head of the Government to see that a project so dear to a big section of the citizens should be a success"
