Zebra3 wrote: » Let's do a timeline. 1100s First English forces occupy parts of Ireland. What follows for centuries in England is a period of supremacist anti-Irish propaganda labelling Irish people as savages, uncivilised and animals.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Mistreatment 70 years prior. I see, so the War of Independence was a response to the Famine. And the Easter Rising was a response to Cromwell I assume?
markodaly wrote: » We rarely get told what pre 1916 Ireland was like for the ordinary person. Not every Irish person was a rebel or republican, in fact the vast majority werent but did want to more self determination ala Home Rule.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » The irony is there is a fear in Ireland today of humanising those from the 'Crown forces', many of whom were born and bred in Ireland. It is much easier to hate someone if they are not given a character or a face. It is important for some Irish people that the British are always seem as 'other' not of us. They cannot be seen like any normal individual in those circumstances they were in. Some one's hardworking brother, father, husband, uncle, nephew etc.
Zebra3 wrote: » So if one group of people deems another group lazy they can then claim their land and ethnically cleanse them?
Matt Barrett wrote: » It's pretty straightforward. The RIC were a mechanism for the British to maintain rule. The idea that we should be commemorating the very people who often through murder actively tried to stop Irish independence is farcical. The civil war is a different story. Both sides were Irish and both had to come together afterwards. That's a good reason for giving respect to both sides. We come from both sides.
markodaly wrote: » 100%. Very easy to hate the RIC when you equate them to the SS or their ilk. Much harder to dehumanise them when the reality is that they were Catholic mainly from country farms, from all around the country. We need less myths tbh. But alas we are not ready for it yet.
markodaly wrote: » Your first one is wrong. The Normans were invited by Irish chiefdom Diarmait Mac Murchada.
Secondly, they were not English, they were French speaking Normans. The Normans were as much foreign to Ireland as they were in Britain. They only really offically began to speak English in 1362.https://www.theclassroom.com/language-did-normans-speak-22107.html This is why the 800 years of oppression is the greatest Irish myth and lie.
markodaly wrote: » 100%. Very easy to hate the RIC when you equate them to the SS or their ilk. Much harder to dehumanise them when the reality is that they were Catholic mainly from country farms, from all around the country.
lmimmfn wrote: » I'm absolutely shocked, where and when did you go to school?
feargale wrote: » Some people across the water are still moaning about Ireland's WWII neutrality. That's 75 years ago.
Charles Babbage wrote: » It wasn't his business to invite them and his doing so doesn't justify them coming.
Everyone knows they spoke French. They came from England, their exact ethnic makeup doesn't change the oppression, which is now 850 years.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The civil war is a different story. Both sides were Irish and both had to come together afterwards. That's a good reason for giving respect to both sides. We come from both sides.
Billcarson wrote: » The actions the British took was out of frustration because the IRA were not fighting a conventional war. Appalling rapisels by the black and tans etc which disgusted even the British Army. The British Army wanted nothing to do with the black and tans such was their behaviour.
markodaly wrote: » In 1916 and before there was little appittide for Irish Republicanism and violent overthrow of the British in the masses. The rising change attitudes to a degree but there was still a large cohort who would have sat on the fence. In other words there was, even in 1918 a difference of opinion of how best to get self determination. People point to the 1918 election, yet forget that it was a FPTP system, which killed the IPP and Home Rule. The IPP got 25.3% of the vote, yet only 5% of the seats. About 500,000 voted for Sinn Fien, and about 250,000 voted for the IPP. There was still a large minority who supported Home Rule and even those who voted for Sinn Fien would have been skeptical of the type of violence be required and advocated in order the achive that Republic. It is a hell of a lot more nuanced than saying every single person in Ireland was a raving Republican.
feargale wrote: » The Sinn Fein party contested its first election, the 1908 North Leitrim by-election, where it secured 27% of the vote. The only other contestant, the Irish Parliamentary Party, took the seat with 73%. Thereafter, both support for and membership of Sinn Fein fell. At the 1910 Ard Fheis the attendance was poor, and there was difficulty finding members willing to take seats on the executive. See Wikipedia.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » The reaction kind of shocked me to be honest. It just shows how deep seated a narrative of history has set in people's minds.
lmimmfn wrote: » Not sure where you're getting your info from( and lack thereof) but a good start would be some 19th century Gaeilge poetry, you know, what we had to hide because our language was illegal.
markodaly wrote: » Having an Irish poerty book was never illegal in Ireland. There were various laws enacted to stop offical documents and court records being in Irish and Irish being spoken in certain settings and jurisdications, but there was never an outright on the Irish written word. Again, one takes a half truth and creates a myth from it. Par of the course.
lmimmfn wrote: » So your comment of common Irish opinion prior to 1916 predates my response by a full 8 years, are you guys for real? seriously?
lmimmfn wrote: » Lol, you're having a laugh surely? I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone with such a shocking lack of knowledge of Irish history so you too are on the ignore list
Deleted User wrote: » Rubbish. Rules for war are encouraged by the side with the most firepower. Which is why the Irish fought a guerrilla war. Any fighting done by conventional means would have brought a swift end to the rebellion, as had happened so many times before. The British Empire was still one of the worlds major empires at the time of the Rebellion.
Deleted User wrote: » As for those opposing the US, their conventional armies were crushed by a vastly superior and technologically advanced enemy. Obeying conventional rules simply makes them a target considering the wide range of weapons in the US arsenal. It makes no logical sense to follow such conventions since they had no input in creating them in the first place.
Deleted User wrote: » Anyway, the US has flouted the essence of the Geneva convention using word games and playing semantics to excuse their barbaric torture of anyone even remotely suspected of opposing their invasion.
Deleted User wrote: » It's worth remembering that the invasion of Iraq was founded on a lie told to everyone. Hardly reason to trust the US to abide by any other pesky rules they find inconvenient. Especially since they just use private contractors to do the dirty work for them.
Deleted User wrote: » There is plenty wrong with what the US is doing. The ends do not justify the means (and I'm highly dubious about the ends here). Honestly, Bush should be strung up for war crimes along with all those who supported and encouraged this action that plunged the whole region into chaos. So, no, I don't buy into your logic, even slightly.
Deleted User wrote: » It was a rebellion. Rebellions of that time and previously were always put down using the harshest of tactics. The Republicans knew what would happen, and counted on it as a way of generating more recruits for the cause. Had the rebellion failed, they'd have further material for the next one. It's not as if Ireland had a scarcity of rebellions over the previous three hundred years.
Deleted User wrote: » The problem is that people are assigning relatively modern thinking to a far different time. It wasn't long previously that Churchill approved the use of chemical weapons on his enemies. He could have done the same in Ireland and few (both in the UK or abroad) would have objected.
Deleted User wrote: » Indeed they are. But they only stand out for the people who are being oppressed. To the ruling people, it's just another incident in a long line of similar operations. Look to India, or any of their other colonies, and you'll find a long list of atrocities designed to shock the local population into compliance through fear.
Deleted User wrote: » It's not unreasonable..
Deleted User wrote: » It's just unrealistic considering the history of Empires.
Deleted User wrote: » Hindsight is just wonderful, isn't it? The Irish use of guerrilla warfare was done in a vacuum. There wasn't the internet. There wasn't a helpful Amazon to send you books on whatever topic you wanted. Libraries and bookstores were heavily censored. They made it up as they went along, learning what worked and discarding what didn't. Advice came from third/fourth/fifth hand sources who heard something about other rebellions, or soldiers who had faced similar tactics while serving with British forces.
Deleted User wrote: » There was no rule book because there were no rules. They were rebelling against a legitimate monarch. Their actions were illegal unless they were victorious.
Deleted User wrote: » Or not. Or we could simply put all behind us as history and move on with our lives. Nobody here was alive back then. They're latching on to other peoples pain, and hatred of being oppressed. I don't like Republicans in the Republic, because they're harping on about oppression that they've never felt for themselves. They'll keep the hatred burning bright and seek to drag everyone in there with them, because misery loves company. I have no issue with a remembrance for the RIC or other Irish who served. However, honestly, I wish they would just put all this **** in a history bin, and let the rest of us move on. Ireland doesn't need any of this crap being stirred up. It serves no useful purpose.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I see a few of the regulars are taking their huff over losing this one out on the Irish in general. It's not hard to stir the nest. Flanagan and Varadkar immediately did the same.
corner of hells wrote: » Hopefully none of that ol' triumphialism is going on , Frank.
Bambi wrote: » And The others who decry any glimpse of national sentiment as barstoolism while themselves becoming all dewy eyed for the days of Union when patriotic "ballsy" RIC men bravely turfed peasants out of their homes If they where alive back then they would probably be the informer type scum.
McMurphy wrote: » The Indos front page has almost entirely been dedicated to attacking the black and tan wankfest the blueshirts had planned. Seriously though, how could FG be so goddam arrogant/ignorant right in the mouth of an election?
