Yellow_Fern wrote: » That is a fairly disingenuous comment.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What's dis-ingenuous about it? The conversation about how we remember is going to have to be had if FF FG are genuine about this Unity Unit they have set up. Arlene Foster has not been one bit slow about responding to the all the talk of 'inclusion' and 'sensitivity' that the Unit has used so far. Which to me is absolutely fine. As I said the conversation has to be had ahead of any UI poll or even if things remain the same. But it has to be a conversation everyone is involved in and where everyone has an input. You cannot have a situation where Unionists can object and get a judgmental response from the CC or a FG government can go on basically try a solo run on commemorations they consider warranted or justified. That is the politics of exclusion as practiced by Unionists that resulted in the conflict/war all over again.
McMurphy wrote: » What is disingenuous about it
blanch152 wrote: » Because the commemoration was of the founding of the RIC and the DMP and had nothing to do with the Black and Tans.
The ‘Black and Tans’ was a name applied to new recruits to the RIC in 1920 and 1921.
By late 1919 the RIC were intimidated and boycotted causing many officers to resign and few recruits to join. The London government would not openly acknowledge a “war” in Ireland. In January 1920 they began recruiting an auxiliary police force in Britain made up of ex-soldiers to support policing in Ireland. Officially called the “RIC Reserve,” their black tunics and kakhi trousers earned them their name after a pack of foxhounds in Co Limerick.
The first recruits arrived in Ireland in February 1920. As the British economy went into recession, the number of recruits increased. A temporary shortage of RIC uniforms saw the issue of khaki military trousers (which fittingly belied a semi-military role) and dark green tunics. This mixture of kit gave rise to the Black and Tans sobriquet.
smurgen wrote: » Same members and the auxillary forces were part of the RIC. Celebrating terrorists in this way is beyond dispicable but hardly unsurprising when you listen to some of the rhetoric out of FG. Siding with the oppressors. It's all about power really. There was plenty of french collaborated with the Nazi's when they rolled into town.
McMurphy wrote: » Yeah, because it hasn't been demonstrated on this very site countless times how they were one and the same. Tell me blanch, why did the state commemoration get "deferred" ?
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Commemorating volunteers doesn't mean one is endorsing atrocities that they they commited. Commemoration isn't celebration.
blanch152 wrote: » Except they weren't, both in structure and in recruitment, they were very different. The Black and Tans were imported, the RIC came from ordinary local Irish people. Structurally, they were distinct.
Bobtheman wrote: » I used to support FG -up to 2011. I stopped supporting them because they failed to do anything radical in health or housing. Yes I know cut backs had to happen 2011-4 but nothing was done to help the lives of ordinary people. Medical and legal costs were mentioned by the trokia but no reform occurred. Interesting to note that Frank clarke mentioned reforming legal costs when he took office and then simply did nothing. But on and on he goes about seamus wolfe who the avg punter trying to pay legal bills won't give a flying **** about. FG still don't get it about housing. Yes there has been some notable initiatives but they are still behind on targets
McMurphy wrote: » You're sure about that? Someone better get on to the Oxford Dictionary and tell them to change their definition so. It was a ludicrous suggestion, imagine the Poles suggesting holding an official state commemoration for the Nazis FFS.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Words have multiple and overlapping meanings. Who would say that 'mark' and 'celebrate' are synonyms? When the US commemorates Pearl Harbour, it is not celebrating it. When Jews commemorate the Holocaust they are not celebrating it.
McMurphy wrote: » I have given my own personal reasons for refusing to donate to it in the future Bishop, I made no mention of dismantling it or otherwise. Leo sounded as surprised that Regina Doherty was on the board as many other people did. Someone maybe sent him a WhatsApp about it, and he deleted it could be used as a plausible excuse now I suppose. I will bet good money (donated to a good cause) that she is not doing it for free. Anyone want to take me up?
JohnnyFlash wrote: » I’ll take you up on that, Murphy. I’ve no idea to be honest.
McMurphy wrote: » You think I'm going to argue over what you say a word means, and what the actual dictionary definition of it is? Cmon - get real.
blanch152 wrote: » https://wikidiff.com/commemorate/celebrate#:~:text=As%20verbs%20the%20difference%20between,honour%20in%20a%20solemn%20manner. Grand so, let's look at the difference between the two. Commemorate is honouring the memory of something. Celebrate includes an element of joy, appreciation and to extol the memory of something. To give an example: The government was planning to commemorate the founding of the RIC and the DMP in a dignfied and appropriate manner. Brian Stanley set out to celebrate the memory of Warrenpoint with his tweet.
Bowie wrote: » How would such a contentious event be "dignfied and appropriate"? Who was it for and why? Are you suggesting Flanagan et. al. wanted to celebrate the RIC/Tans in the same manner Stanley did that IRA operation or was it to lament that we had such troubles because of the RIC/Tans as Stanley did regarding the BA? Or is it just the usual turn criticism of FG to SF with little connection?
blanch152 wrote: » You couldn't make it up. I use a dictionary to explain the difference between "commemorate" and "celebrate", using the solemn one - commemorate - appropriately to describe what the government were planning to do, and you come back with the joyous one - celebrate - asking me about it. I never said anyone wanted to celebrate the RIC. By the way I have explained several times how the RIC are separate to the Black and Tans.
Bowie wrote: » You answered no questions. I'm asking you. Taking that people see the RIC/Tans as one in the same whether you like it or not, how do you see such a 'commemoration' taking place, solemn and respectful of what, being the heavies for the crown? What do you think it was for and who was it for?
blanch152 wrote: » I disagree with the bit in bold. I had a relative in the RIC, not in the Black and Tans, ended up in the gardai. For people like him.
Bowie wrote: » They have their services and commemorations. Nobody asked Flanagan to hold a state one. This was his solo run. For what? Thanks for defending the Crown and arresting people/murdering people on the crowns behalf? Be an odd one. Maybe have one for the setting up of the Garda, I could see, pointless IMO, but not as contentious.
RandomViewer wrote: » Would Flanagan be wanting some sort of honour, KBE,OBE something like that, hoping DUP would throw him on the New Year honours list, get a wee visit to the palace, could take Johnny English along as he gets all excited around the Windsors
smurgen wrote: » Funny that Varadkar's social media posts have many loyalist/unionist post on them now. It seems like they're somewhat of a fan. Alot of them based in the UK like this one. I suppose you do enough Trumpian rhetoric you'll pick up gutter support eventually.https://twitter.com/slay4ever007/status/1336207541257326593?s=19
blanch152 wrote: » As this is the FG thread, will comment on the FG aspect of the tweet you raise. 300 new jobs, more good news for Ireland. Whatever Twitter trolls say in response to that on Twitter is not of interest.
