Loyalist groups to march in Dublin

senordingdong · 12-01-2006 11:45PM

LovelyHurling wrote:

Nobody wants to insult anybody here, mud slinging matches are pointless and I dont question your allegience to Mary McAleese same as you shouldnt question my familiy's allegiences, be they to The Queen or to a big statue in our back garden named Bob.

Unionism doesn't involve turning your back on your identity, it is the same kind of nationalism that republicans are and can be proud of.

I'm not insulting, if anything I'm asking for someone to explain it to me.
And why shouldn't I question a unionist loyalty to the the the queen or the UK, how else am I going to understand it? And as we all know, it's a lack of understanding that would casue conflict.

The unionism we know today seems to have alot to do with turning your back on your identity. The nationalism that republicans are proud of is devotion to their own country, not someone elses.

murphaph · 12-01-2006 11:55PM

senordingdong wrote:

The unionism we know today seems to have alot to do with turning your back on your identity. The nationalism that republicans are proud of is devotion to their own country, not someone elses.

Their country is Ireland, the Unionist's country is the United Kingdom. They both inhabit that place in their own respective minds so a Unionist is not turning his back on his identity if he associates with the United Kingdom.

LovelyHurling · 13-01-2006 12:00AM

senordingdong wrote:

The unionism we know today seems to have alot to do with turning your back on your identity. The nationalism that republicans are proud of is devotion to their own country, not someone elses.

But dont you see that republicans in Ulster are devoted to the culture of Ireland and thats not the country they pay their taxes to, get their health dervices from, schools, etc. On paper at least, Unionists are just maintaining loyalties to the country to whom we pay taxes, who builds our schools, pays for our health service and runs the administrative machinery of our local councils. Unionists maintain loyalties to the country we derived from, and republicans are loyal of the country that they derived from. Rightly so.

Both groups can be equally devoted to their heritage, and why not, every republican should be as proud of his history as I am of mine tbh. Parts of both pasts are grim, but then who in the world isnt ashamed of some parts of their history?

senordingdong · 13-01-2006 12:01AM

murphaph wrote:

Their country is Ireland, the Unionist's country is the United Kingdom.

Yeah I'm pretty sure Ireland is not in the United Kingdom.

LovelYHurling wrote:

But dont you see that republicans in Ulster are devoted to the culture of Ireland and thats not the country they pay their taxes to, get their health dervices from, schools, etc.

You have pretty much summed up my grievance.
The land of Ireland for the people of Ireland etc...

Sand · 13-01-2006 12:21AM

Yeah I'm pretty sure Ireland is not in the United Kingdom.

Its not, but Northern Ireland is. You might wish it wasnt, you might believe it shouldnt be. But the reality is that it is. And as for understanding Hurlings position, why hes turning his back on his identity as you put it - have you even seriously considered there might be more than a cookie cutter gaelic speaking catholic church attending wolfe tone listening version of an Irish identity? Even an Irish identity compatible with UK?

Or do you feel that Unionists are simply misguided, and will someday "wake up" and realise they were actually republicans all along? I mean youre acting completely mystified as to why they might be Unionist in the first place, so the points out large cultural differences between the North and the Republic to begin with.

Regarding this march, to begin with I assumed it was a publicity coup and theyd pull out in the face of Garda advice, to "demonstrate" how a United Ireland would treat them. But the day is getting closer and theyre still planning it seems. Who knows, theyd be very foolish not to expect the local scumbags to be out doing their bit for "Oirishness"

LovelyHurling · 13-01-2006 12:27AM

senordingdong wrote:

The land of Ireland for the people of Ireland etc

Great, I think we're agreed on that much tbh:D Although I suspect we mean it in different ways.

Anyway in fairness I have to say, modern NI doesnt sit comfortably with either the South of Ireland or the rest of Britain. How can it when not much below half of it its population wants something else? Going back to the theme of good friday, a united ireland and a united 'united kingdom' are two very old, obscure and redundant phrases. Hopefully thats an idea both traditional unionists and republican nationalists can agree on.

senordingdong · 13-01-2006 12:45AM

Sand wrote:

more than a cookie cutter gaelic speaking catholic church attending wolfe tone listening version of an Irish identity? Even an Irish identity compatible with UK?

Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say here. Could you re-phrase it please?

Freelancer · 13-01-2006 12:47AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Grammatically, this statement is appalling. Would you mind clarifying please?

Oh bless here we go again. The suggestion of yours is that Ireland has always been united because we are geographically connected, I merely pointed out that Europe has been always been one land mass but we've always accepted national borders. So your suggestion that Ireland was always united and was split is bascially incorrect. Just because we've been one landmass doesn't mean we're one nation.

Um, what's your point?

Why on earth did you raise the Lords-lieutenant in the first place? What does that have do with anything?

Savman · 13-01-2006 12:49AM

Didn't bother reading 17 pages :eek: but this fantastic march idea ranks up there with the port tunnel and the spire :rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy · 13-01-2006 12:53AM

Freelancer wrote:

The suggestion of yours is that Ireland has always been united because we are geographically connected, I merely pointed out that Europe has been always been one land mass but we've always accepted national borders.

That wasn't my suggestion and by the way we're not geographically connected as you seem to think, we are an island! Also, Europe isn't a land mass. Ireland is part of Europe and it's an island!

Freelancer wrote:

So your suggestion that Ireland was always united and was split is bascially incorrect.

It's not.

Freelancer wrote:

Just because we've been one landmass doesn't mean we're one nation.

I never claimed that in the first place.

Freelancer wrote:

Why on earth did you raise the Lords-lieutenant in the first place? What does that have do with anything?

Because my dear man, it proves that Ireland has always been viewed by the BRITISH as a separate entity. Some are of the view that being part of the UK meant we were exactly the same as England, Scotland and Wales. That is not the case.

Sand · 13-01-2006 01:01AM

Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say here. Could you re-phrase it please?

My point is that republican United Irelanders assume that there is no great difference between anyone who can be broadly described as Irish - from the same basic geographic area. They feel there is only one version of Irishness. Their version, which has its roots in a Wolfe Tones view of Ireland.

This is a problem when theyre saying Unionists are Irish, but they are completely mystified that Unionists arent their version of Irishness. Maybe they arent turning their back on *their* (what you mean here is *your*) identity - maybe they have a different idea of what Irishness is and its compatible with the UK?

Lets face it, inside this generation there are going to be significant numbers of first generation Irish who have no cultural attachment to a United Ireland. The definition of what it is to be Irish is far broader than United Ireland types would admit, and its only going to get broader.

Atrocity · 13-01-2006 01:14AM

United Ireland yes please! But by complete agreement, which is not likely in my lifetime

Freelancer · 13-01-2006 01:16AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

That wasn't my suggestion

Then please, calrify what you meant by this.

Um, the island has always been a single entity until December 1920 when the British partitioned it. It may have never been an independent united single entity, but it has always been a single entity

What exactly to you mean by entity? Specifically, what do you mean by "entity" what do you mean by it? Land? Nation? Culture?

and by the way we're not geographically connected as you seem to think, we are an island! Also, Europe isn't a land mass. Ireland is part of Europe and it's an island!

Thats profoundly oversimplisitic. We choose to consider ourselves part of europe, by the rational I suspect you're using, Italy could rightly claim it's borders stretch as far as Normanday, because at one point the Roman empire stretched that far.

It's not.

Wow what a brilliant and well elaborated argument. Gosh I'm convinced. Your eloquence of a response saying "nu uh" has slain me. To use your logic, Morocco owns claim to half of spain, Britain to a chunk of france, Budapest is Mongolian, Istanbul is owned by the Italians. Because at all times (in centuries more recent that the united Ireland, they've controlled these territories.

I never claimed that in the first place.

Really then pray tell what is your argument for a united Ireland, and what is your definition of a entity?

Because my dear man, it proves that Ireland has always been viewed by the BRITISH as a separate entity. Some are of the view that being part of the UK meant we were exactly the same as England, Scotland and Wales. That is not the case.

Well by that rational neither scotland Ireland or Wales had a Maharajas, then they we clearly held differently to Indian. The british empire used different tactics to control different parts of its empire, to suggest that Ireland having a Lord lieutenant, makes it special, ignores off the top of my head how the british controlled salt in Indian, knowing how salt was critical for the economy they controlled it. To get the Country by the balls.

For example it they didn't introduce the kind of anti catholic legislation because, duh, they indians werent catholic. They used a tactic in ireland like the anti catholic laws or the LL to maintain power there, and the salt laws and Maharajs to maintain power in india. The suggestion that the british having one special role in ireland, clearly proving our difference, when they adapted the kind of rules, that'd work in whichever part of their empire, makes your point moot.

You'll try and paint the above as irrelevant, however you brought into this debate the LL as prove of our difference, I'm using the above to demostrate how the english used a variety of tactics (whatever worked) to maintain power and to draw inference on the existance of the LL is proof we were seen as different is once again naive history on your part and I can only hope and pray whatever you're being taught in UCD History is not your specialist subeject.

LovelyHurling · 13-01-2006 01:28AM

Landlords? Normandy? Lads what the hell are you on about!!! I read that twice and Im lost... if you want to get rid of the visitors come marching day just read MNG's and that last post ,I reckon!:D

Mr.Nice Guy · 13-01-2006 02:00AM

Freelancer wrote:

What exactly to you mean by entity? Specifically, what do you mean by "entity" what do you mean by it? Land? Nation? Culture?

I meant as a separate cultural and national entity. I thought that was obvious.

Freelancer wrote:

Thats profoundly oversimplisitic. We choose to consider ourselves part of europe, by the rational I suspect you're using, Italy could rightly claim it's borders stretch as far as Normanday, because at one point the Roman empire stretched that far.

Um, it IS profoundly simplistic. What continent are we from? Europe. That's not up for debate, that's a fact.

Freelancer wrote:

Wow what a brilliant and well elaborated argument. Gosh I'm convinced.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You got it wrong and I was pointing that out to you. OK?

Freelancer wrote:

Your eloquence of a response saying "nu uh" has slain me.

Sorry about that.

Freelancer wrote:

To use your logic, Morocco owns claim to half of spain, Britain to a chunk of france, Budapest is Mongolian, Istanbul is owned by the Italians. Because at all times (in centuries more recent that the united Ireland, they've controlled these territories.

Eh?

Freelancer wrote:

Well by that rational neither scotland Ireland or Wales had a Maharajas, then they we clearly held differently to Indian.

Huh? I'm sorry but this is another grammatically flawed sentence. What are you trying to say?

Freelancer wrote:

The british empire used different tactics to control different parts of its empire, to suggest that Ireland having a Lord lieutenant, makes it special, ignores off the top of my head how the british controlled salt in Indian, knowing how salt was critical for the economy they controlled it. To get the Country by the balls.

Um, India wasn't supposed to be part of its country, genius. We were, by virtue of being part of the UK. That's the point. When we were supposed to be one country, we were still treated differently.:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

For example it they didn't introduce the kind of anti catholic legislation because, duh, they indians werent catholic. They used a tactic in ireland like the anti catholic laws or the LL to maintain power there, and the salt laws and Maharajs to maintain power in india. The suggestion that the british having one special role in ireland, clearly proving our difference, when they adapted the kind of rules, that'd work in whichever part of their empire, makes your point moot.

No, the fact that Ireland was part of the UK makes this long statement a moot point...

Freelancer wrote:

You'll try and paint the above as irrelevant, however you brought into this debate the LL as prove of our difference,

And you brought in India to the debate which was a different country entirely and so makes no sense. Nice try though.

Freelancer wrote:

I can only hope and pray whatever you're being taught in UCD History is not your specialist subeject.

LOL. I can only hope and pray that English is not yours because the grammar on display in some of your posts here is nothing short of atrocious.:)

Freelancer · 13-01-2006 02:38AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I meant as a separate cultural and national entity. I thought that was obvious.

Not at all, I mean since the time of Queen Elizabeth we've had loyal crown subjects in the north who view themselves as british. You are over simplifying the issue.

Um, it IS profoundly simplistic. What continent are we from? Europe. That's not up for debate, that's a fact.

Feeling like I'm going to need crayons soon. Yes but who defined europe as europe, who decided portugal starts here and spain here, or france and germany? Europe is a landmass seperated into different countrys announcing ireland should be one country because it is one landmass, is what?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You got it wrong and I was pointing that out to you. OK?

Patronising, childish, and funny cause your next response is...

Sorry about that.

An admission how inane your rebuttal was.

Eh?

Hmmmm about to get out the finger puppets....Hang is your point that Ireland was once a united "entity" or not? Cause that'll redefine my answer. And if you define entity other than a bunch of people in the 6 century AD That'd help.

Huh? I'm sorry but this is another grammatically flawed sentence. What are you trying to say?

Diddums need a pie chart. Britain has used a variety of tactics to suppress n control countries. In Indian it was the Maharajas in Ireland the LL.

Um, India wasn't supposed to be part of its country, genius. We were, by virtue of being part of the UK. That's the point. When we were supposed to be one country, we were still treated differently.:rolleyes:

Okay "genius" explain to me how england ruled the whole of its empire how was ireland different than wales, or australia or Indian. We were subjects like the rest of the them.

No, the fact that Ireland was part of the UK makes this long statement a moot point...

And the uk was part of the empire......deary deary me....

And you brought in India to the debate which was a different country entirely and so makes no sense. Nice try though.

No you brought Scotland and Wales into it, In drew in a comparsion between another country fighting for independence the same time we were. Suggesting I brought it irrelevent fact when you inanely brought in the LL, is just that divine double standard we've grown to expect from you.

I was just drawing a parrallel between another country under british rule struggling for independence, you claim we were special, how are we different from Indian. The british claimed ownership of both.

LOL. I can only hope and pray that English is not yours because the grammar on display in some of your posts here is nothing short of atrocious.:)

Obnoxious rude and abusive. Good job you're not insulting me then we'd know you were "losing the argument" :rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy · 13-01-2006 02:51AM

Freelancer wrote:

Not at all, I mean since the time of Queen Elizabeth we've had loyal crown subjects in the north who view themselves as culturally british. You are over simplifying the issue.

We've had loyal crown subjects in the south who felt culturally British too. Moot point.

Freelancer wrote:

Yes but who defined europe as europe, who decided portugal starts here and spain here, or france and germany?

Um, society maybe? Are you seriously arguing that Ireland is not a part of Europe? Dear oh dear...

Freelancer wrote:

Patronising and childish funny cause your next response is...

LOL. More bad grammar. Now it's 'childish funny'.

Freelancer wrote:

An admission how inane your rebuttal was.

Nah it was actually sarcasm but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't get that.

Freelancer wrote:

Hmmmm about to get out the finger puppets

Do they help you understand the issues?

Freelancer wrote:

Hang is your point that Ireland was once a united "entity" or not?

Jesus wept. You actually don't understand what you're talking about, do you?

Freelancer wrote:

Britain has used a variety of tactics to suppress n control countries.

Red herring.

Freelancer wrote:

Okay "genius" explain to me how england ruled the whole of its empire how was ireland different than wales, or australia or Indian. We were subjects like the rest of the them.

FFS we were part of the UK and they weren't that's how!:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

And the uk was part of the empire

The UK was in charge of the Empire! WE WERE PART OF THE UK. Is it that hard to understand?

Freelancer wrote:

you claim we were special, how are we different from Indian.

Was India part of the UK? Well?

Freelancer wrote:

The british claimed ownership of both.

The British didn't 'claim ownership' of Ireland from 1800. From 1800, Ireland was technically meant to be part of the UK which is why Irish MPs went to Westminster.

Freelancer wrote:

Obnoxious rude and abusive. Good job you're not insulting me then we'd know you were "losing the argument" :rolleyes:

(sigh)

I think you have a petty vendetta against me over this thread judging by your earlier comments. You're clearly struggling...

Freelancer · 13-01-2006 03:00AM

Oh look a variety of inane responses and veiled insults, Mr Nice Guy if you want to define what you mean by Ireland as an entity instead of grappling with petty semantics knock yourself out

I submit that your argument is that national unity as an entity as occured previously therefore the natural state of this isle is united, if this is not your argument please elaborate instead of diving into a web of tangled semantics where you pick at minor points sneer at the language of others and abjectly fail to honestly and forthrightly put forward your position. You "sir" are a moral coward, and I defy you to clearly (and I don't care if you claim to have done so previously) define what you feel Ireland is an entity. With your obfuscation of your position theres little point debating further.

Mr.Nice Guy · 13-01-2006 03:35AM

Freelancer wrote:

Mr Nice Guy if you want to define what you mean by Ireland as an entity instead of grappling with petty semantics knock yourself out

I have defined it.

Freelancer wrote:

I submit that your argument is that national unity as an entity as occured previously therefore the natural state of this isle is united, if this is not your argument please elaborate

My argument has been that Ireland has been a united national and cultural entity even when it has been part of the UK, which is why the British treated it as distinct when it was part of the State.

You would do well to stick to the argument at hand and stop veering away from it in order to make your snide remarks at me.

Don't get your knickers in a twist when the gaping holes of your position are made known.

Try and cut out the ad hominem attacks if you can. Cheers.

Dave! · 13-01-2006 09:11AM

Freelancer wrote:

Why on earth did you raise the Lords-lieutenant in the first place? What does that have do with anything?

Because it's a term he heard in a lecture and so is regurgitating and pretending he knows what he's talking about.

This is getting embaressing, let's just get back onto the march... Any further news on it?

p.s., this post is most likely grammatically flawed -- please do not disregard it for this reason alone!

jaqian · 13-01-2006 09:50AM

ballooba wrote:

It would be a dangerous excercise but I wonder if I could get some of my urine into a few water ballons. Purely in the interests of science.

I'm not particularly republican but this is a bit much.

I see bigotry and intolerence isn't dead in modern ireland

Dave! · 13-01-2006 10:19AM

^
There's nothing bigoted about it -- the march is clearly an antagonistic nose-thumbing at Republicans, and it shouldn't be allowed to go ahead.

I think the example of the KKK marching through Harlem was given earlier.

I'm all for free speech and all that, but the march will result in violence, so from that perspective it should be stopped.

LovelyHurling · 13-01-2006 10:35AM

DaveMcG wrote:

^
the march is clearly an antagonistic nose-thumbing at Republicans, and it shouldn't be allowed to go ahead.

I think the example of the KKK marching through Harlem was given earlier.

Dave if they wanted to cause trouble why do you think they decided to wear lillies instead of the sash? Because they want to make their point in as sharp a way as possible but without causing offence to Dubliners. There will be victims of the troubles ie surviving families marching as well. This march isnt the same thing as your average Garvaghy Road situation.

Again, theyre going down 1)to protest at SFIRA involvement in the Dail which occured largely unquestioned here for years. Now that the Irish govt has such an influence in the north its only fair, they feel, that this fact be recognized.

2)Theyre also marching (I think this is why most people want to march actually) to highlight cultural differences between the North and South, hoping it will hinder the current prospect of a United Ireland gaining momentum in the Dublin and gaining plausability in London. i.e. most Northerners are Unionists, etc.

There may be some other reasons why people want to go to Dublin, like I said it's going to be a very broad spectrum of people. I only went through this thread fully last night, and was very surprised at the comments of some, talking about firing urine balloons and stones at the marchers, and referring to Unionists as the KKK or Nazis. I think those are very offensive words to be throwing around about your average run of the mill Unionist workingman and victims of the troubles, who will be your two main categories of people arriving come marching day.

jaqian · 13-01-2006 10:46AM

So throwing pi$$ed filled balloons isn't intolerant???

If ppl don't like it ignore it but IMO I think the Orange parade could evolve into a proper cultural event without politics f**king it up. I know why it was founded but that’s history, I think to modern unionists/Orangemen it’s an expression of their cultural identity. Don't forget that in the North they are an increasing minority and therefore suffer from the siege mentality and a bit of paranoia fuelled by thugs like Ian Paisley & the UVF etc who have their own agendas. The only way we'll ever have peace on this Island is with respect for each other’s cultures & traditions. I always thought that we were more open-minded and tolerant down here but I see from this thread that we are just bigoted, racist and intolerant as our counterparts in the North.

Btw the march/parade will ONLY result in violence if assh0les like those who’ve posted above show up with their pi$$ed filled balloons and antagonistic attitudes.

Hobbes · 13-01-2006 10:47AM

LovelyHurling wrote:

Dave if they wanted to cause trouble why do you think they decided to wear lillies instead of the sash?.

From what I have read around in relation to this march the majority are doing it to cause trouble and actually want trouble.

Also KKK and orange order have parallels (or do they allow Catholics to join now?) Trying to tie sectarians to "unionists" is silly but doesn't mean that the majority wanting to march are doing it for noble reasons.

victims of the troubles? So they are letting republicans march side by side then?! I'd agree to that.

jaqian · 13-01-2006 10:49AM

Anyone got a date for this march? Its sometime in Feb isn't it?

whiskeyman · 13-01-2006 10:50AM

Saw this idea from another forum...
Basically, everyone should come into town dressed as apples, and gather and the opposite end of O'Connell St, in waiting....
Hardcore......

Lux23 · 13-01-2006 11:12AM

They are marching to remember victims of IRA violence which I have no problem with. But some may be looking to cause, best thing is to ignore the bores.

mise_me_fein_V2 · 13-01-2006 11:25AM

I don't see why they have to do it in Dublin.

Anyway, there will be a united Ireland and it will be a good thing.

All this bullsh!t about what does it mean to be Irish and people born here don't care about a nation of 32 counties. The fact is the majority of people would like to see a united Ireland.

I think unionist will have to see that they too are Irish.
I mean if your born in any part of Ireland you are Irish.

I don't mind the march if it's for IRA victims, the IRA seem to have turned into a pack of scumbags in the last few years anyway.

I'm not gonna preach to people who have lost loved ones for no reason.

Just hope no loyalists provoke coz there'd be an awful riot.

The Real B-man · 13-01-2006 12:23PM

I Predict a Riot!

Loyalist groups to march in Dublin

Comments