FrancieBrady wrote: » :D Oh dear me.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » See this is the sort of whataboutery from the bigoted narrowminded republican types who see only one view, Even in the sart of the war of Independence two Irishmen one from Cork and one from Mayo were shot dead for three poxy boxes of geligenite. (never used due to frost) One left five orphans was a native Irish speaker, which is more that can be said for so many plastic republicans. Who can barely speak English nevermind Irish. If people cannot find it in thier hearts to remember real Irishmen who did not live in colours or flags. But lived his culture, was respected in the community spoke fluent Irish as his native tongue. For a fella like that to be dismissed because he wore an RIC uniform does not make you nationalist, it just makes you a heartless brainwashed bigot. Those fellas O'Donnell and O'Connell from the RIC in 1919 were as much Irishmen as Robinson, Breen or Treacy et al. But it is much more palatable to term them RIC as Crown forces better narrative. Pathetic.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Ireland is more British or American than it is Irish.
Zebra3 wrote: » Also Poster 2: How dare you talk about the crimes of the RIC, my grandad was in the RIC. My nanny told me he was a lovely fella. Used to take his dog out for a walk.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's hilarious and pathetic. It goes something like this: Poster 1: The British army are complicit in the suppression of Irish people. Poster 2: No they weren't. *There follows multiple posts expounding the same theory. Poster 1: Posts evidence that the British Army were actually complicit. Poster 2: Well that was just a few rotten apples. *There follows multiple posts expounding the same theory. Rinse and repeat conversation for BA, - RIC - DMP - Black and Tans - UDR - RUC etc etc.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's hilarious and pathetic. It goes something like this: Poster 1: The British army are complicit in the suppression of Irish people. Poster 2: No they weren't. *There follows multiple posts expounding the same theory. Poster 1: Posts evidence that the British Army were actually complicit. Poster 2: Well that was just a few rotten apples. *There follows multiple posts expounding the same theory.
J Mysterio wrote: » Bolded above is the crux of the problem. All these elements are part of a greater RIC whole: what was a tool of the oppressive British aparatus in Ireland. Ultimately, the RIC imposed British rule here. A rule, which at various times through history banned our language, games, religion, culture, took our land and resources and planted beligerents here. The effects are of course still felt today (e.g. Irish is barely spoken, e.g. the island partioned). We should be continuing to celebrate the centenary of our winning independence from the British, not the tools of its oppression and control. We have not even yet reached the actual centenary of the creation of the Irish state (2022). Not yet a 100 years later we are a country which is now one of the most progressive in the world. At such a time as this, it's wholly inappropriate to deign to doff the cap to the institutional instrument of our former oppressors, or wrack ourselves with some sort of Stockholm Syndrome guilt or seek to somehow appease admirers of Britain. It should be acknowledged that as the British progressively lost control of this island due to their impositions and cruelty, so Irelands desire was time and again renewed to cast off the shackles and pursue self determination. This is a constant theme throughout our hundreds of years of shared history. This desire always resulted in an escalation and the British becoming increasingly nasty, and so did their tools of control, in this case the RIC. Accepting that at one point or another, there may have been a few RIC lads that may have been 'good' in their community or 'needed a job' or whatever, this 'commemoration' is of the RIC as a whole, in all its guises (and so including 'the Black and Tans' and the 'Auxillaries'). It's simply not appropriate for the Irish state to commemorate that. It is also not correct to simplify what is a long and complex history and then say 'this was your police force'. They can not simply be 'rehabilitated' in this way and history can not be scrubbed, sanatised or revised so trivially. It is complex and so needs to be addressed in a nuanced way, and with more consultation and forethought . My main issue is the tone of Varadkar in this: "it is regrettable" people do not agree. That to commemorate the RIC is 'mature' and so not to do so is of course 'immature'. That is a gross simplification, it's disrespectful to our history and a disservice to those who fought, died and suffered through British rule before eventually achieving a mostly independent Ireland. Before I am accused of bitterness or hate - I don't hate the British/ English and I am not bitter, but neither do I forget our difficult history. Let's worry about us and acknowledge how far we have come, Brexit Britain is certainly concentrating on itself.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Because a few people kept the weak flame of thier memory alive. Normally they are just referred to collectively as the forces of the Crown or British forces. Meanwhile the Republican fellas get thier songs. It was discouraged to remember anyone who fought in WWI or who was a member of the RIC/DMP. How many people on this thread can rattle of names of members of the RIC/DMP from the 20's v Irish volunteers. The Solohedbeg incident told me a lot anyway. It was condemned from all sides only Collins was delighted (according to Breen) because it was going to kick things off. By all accounts the RIC lads in were respected yet when you hear it mentioned most of the time they are glossed over from the Irish viewpoint. It is all Robinson, Treacy Breen etc. Plus that is the most famous ambush seen as the start of the whole war, other fellas from the RIC/DMP are even less likely to be remembered.
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » I'm no republican at all but the likes of dan breen did some serious dirty work for the country inflicting major damage on the British, and will probably never be mentioned by the mainstream parties. Should they be officially recognized?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » OK yeah that is a fair point maybe specfic a few fellas from the RIC specifically who were proven to be just doing thier duty and not blaguarding, mowing civilians out of it, or burning houses villages. I was looking up that FP Crozier commander of the Auxileries he hated the carry of the Black and Tans etc. When he retired the British establishment despised him because he told it as it was. They were not all murderous, ex-con loopers. There are bound to be plenty more accounts of others in the archives. I remember reading a book about the war of independence written in the 1930's/40's from the IRA point of view. To call it biased would an understatement. Irish people have being force fed enough of that guff, it is about time a more rounded history was told. So it can be remembered. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Civil War centenary arrives, will all the documents be released? Nowhere to hide there in the Brit v Ireland narrative.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » OK yeah that is a fair point maybe specfic a few fellas from the RIC specifically who were proven to be just doing thier duty and not blaguarding, mowing civilians out of it, or burning houses villages. I was looking up that FP Crozier commander of the Auxileries he hated the carry of the Black and Tans etc. When he retired the British establishment despised him because he told it as it was. They were not all murderous, ex-con loopers. There are bound to be plenty more accounts of others in the archives.
FrancieBrady wrote: » How do you know about them if they have been 'erased'. Over dramatisation perhaps? People have songs written about them because people want to/think it is worthwhile to, remember them typically. Does that tell you anything?
J Mysterio wrote: » . Accepting that at one point or another, there may have been a few RIC lads that may have been 'good' in their community or 'needed a job' or whatever, this 'commemoration' is of the RIC as a whole, in all its guises (and so including 'the Black and Tans' and the 'Auxillaries'). It's simply not appropriate for the Irish state to commemorate that. It is also not correct to simplify what is a long and complex history and then say 'this was your police force'. They can not simply be 'rehabilitated' in this way and history can not be scrubbed, sanatised or revised so trivially. It is complex and so needs to be addressed in a nuanced way, and with more consultation and forethought . My main issue is the tone of Varadkar in this: "it is regrettable" people do not agree. That to commemorate the RIC is 'mature' and so not to do so is of course 'immature'. That is a gross simplification, it's disrespectful to our history and a disservice to those who fought, died and suffered through British rule before eventually achieving a mostly independent Ireland.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Either you lot Hate the British/Unionists past & present, or you want to unite with them, which is it?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » A commemoration to me is an event where people are remembered there was no mention of 'honouring'. All the Republican side has famous stories and songs about them. Even Cathal Brugha who was supposed to be a very serious fella, and no craic. No mention in song about ordinary lads from the other side, during the War of Ind. they have been erased from history.
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » Mr Ferriter is essentially pointing out it's wrong to airbrush history but not necessary to hold a garden party for every aspect of it
is_that_so wrote: » He's "defending" himself. Some academics are very precise.
marieholmfan wrote: » They are remembered. The question is whether the state should 'honour' their memory.
Hamsterchops wrote: » You don't think they would dwell on what (might happen) at the commemoration on the 100th anniversary of the end of the RUC..... All the talk about a United Ireland, yet all the talk about how Horrible the British are/were. Either you lot Hate the British/Unionists past & present, or you want to unite with them, which is it?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » There are various distinctions though when people use the term black and tans they erroneously refer to all British forces as the Tans. I noticed Mary Lou made a point of calling it the Tan war. There was The British Army The RIC The DMP The Black and Tans (RIC reserve) - the catch all term that is used incorrectly. The Auxiliary Division of the RIC (ADRIC) - former British Army officers Within those there were various strains of individual from Criminals to Upright soldiers/police. They were also from around Ireland, England etc etc I don't buy into this one size fits all they were all murdering xyz.
is_that_so wrote: » No they didn't. They chose to act on the suggestion but apparently not in the way the expert group meant. There will be more of these contentious commemorations over the next few years as we head into the Civil war years.
is_that_so wrote: » It was a civil question and there's no handwaving at all as I have no issues with it. That second bit is disappointing so I'll leave you to your playground taunts. Have a nice day now!
Bridge93 wrote: » The Unionists couldnt give less of a fcuk whether an Irish police force from 100 years ago are commemorated or not.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/14ff3f6cb09641b8eb36e8fb7c3a4d14.svg)
