nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Plantation of Ulster stamp

Sherifu

www.irishtimes.com wrote:

Madam, – I am disappointed to learn in the latest issue of An Post’s philatelist magazine, The Collector, that a stamp will be issued on September 4th to commemorate the Plantation of Ulster.

I am dismayed that An Post would consider an event where England colonised this country as being worthy of a commemorative stamp. This event directly contributed to the partition of Ulster from the rest of the Republic that exists today. It is akin to South Africa’s ANC party releasing a commemorative stamp welcoming the colonisation of English and Dutch settlers which ultimately led to the apartheid system that existed there. Shame on those who came up with this idea. – Yours, etc,

JOHN WATERS,

Moyvoon,

Oughterard,

Co Galway.

Link

Can't see the harm in this really. Anyone feel as strongly as this guy about it?

Find more posts tagged with

ira

mods

look at me

north

west brits

planters

sensitive

planters peanuts

irah

continuity ah

spud stealing backstards

braveheart and the lads

potato man

historical ignorance

dey tuk err lands

with jews u loose

i lick up to loyalists!

ignoring history

british stamps

blithering yeoman irish

plantation = plant nation

large scale gardening

brest wits

dey tuk oeur stamps

land grab

Quick Links

Comments

philologos

tomED wrote: »

Yet you think bombing people to death is worse than people being killed for standing up for their rights. Fair enough... I don't agree.

Both sets of deaths are abhorrent. The intention of those involved differs significantly.

tomED wrote: »

And the bad thing about a stamp is that it's not enough to tell all sides of the story.

A commemorative stamp isn't meant to inform everyone about history. It is expected that it will promote people learning more about the Plantations.

tomED wrote: »

I don't know why I have to state this again - but so be it.
I've been constantly asking for people to recognise what happened in the past. If people rememebered the true attrocity of what happened, maybe they would be so happy about it being commemorated. Too many people just don't care.

No, you've been asking people to recognise what happened in the past in the same way you do. We are all critically thinking creatures who are able to analyse historical events for ourselves surely?

tomED wrote: »

No the signs are there only to point you to where it is - a road sign isn't for any other reason - surely you were aware of this??

Think about it. Why would people point to where a battle happened if it wasn't to provoke a memory, or to commemorate said battle?

tomED wrote: »

But I agree that there is a difference between remembering and glorifying. And that is the point. It all comes down to what this stamp will actually commemorate - if it is taking sides in any fashion, it will only leave one side of the divide offended.

If and only if, that depends on whether or not you think a stamp can draw attention to the plantations without undue bias to one side. I think it can, clearly you don't think this is possible.

tomED wrote: »

All the events in the past have led us to where we are today - as much as you'd like to be ignorant about it. They've all made a difference in how things are handled.

I've been educated in Irish history like everyone else. I'm quite aware of what happened. The Irish Civil War, was quite honestly fruitless.

tomED wrote: »

Em no - their initial intention may not have been to take lives, but when they held up their weapons to kill someone - that was intentional. There's absolutely no excuse for it as much as you'd like one.

I am not trying to raise an excuse, but to claim that the planters are in any way out of line for merely arriving in Ireland is a bit off.

tomED

Jakkass wrote: »

Both sets of deaths are abhorrent. The intention of those involved differs significantly.

Jakkass wrote: »

I am not trying to raise an excuse, but to claim that the planters are in any way out of line for merely arriving in Ireland is a bit off.

Oh my god.... You sure you don't wear union jack underpants?

The simple fact is they murdered people for their own benefit. Oh and they didn't merely "arrive" in Ireland - if that was all it was, we would never have witnessed what we have in our history.

Jakkass wrote: »

A commemorative stamp isn't meant to inform everyone about history. It is expected that it will promote people learning more about the Plantations.

So why commemorate then???????????????

Why don't we just have a stamp with a link to Wikipedia or something

....

Jakkass wrote: »

No, you've been asking people to recognise what happened in the past in the same way you do. We are all critically thinking creatures who are able to analyse historical events for ourselves surely?

Em no - I'm asking people not to forget what happened in the past and remember that this wasn't all rosey dosey...

Jakkass wrote: »

Think about it. Why would people point to where a battle happened if it wasn't to provoke a memory, or to commemorate said battle?

Or ffs - this is getting even more ridiculous by the minute. It's there to tell people that are interested in it, where it is. Directional road signs are to tell us how to get there... nothing else

So you're saying the signs to Auschwitz are in some way commemorative... ffs give us a break.

I hope you don't have a driving license. God knows what you think speed limit signs are there for.

Jakkass wrote: »

If and only if, that depends on whether or not you think a stamp can draw attention to the plantations without undue bias to one side. I think it can, clearly you don't think this is possible.

I do think it can - but I can't comment on whether it has or not without seeing it. It could easily commemorate those that died in the plantation by depicting the pain in the faces of those that suffered during that period.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've been educated in Irish history like everyone else. I'm quite aware of what happened. The Irish Civil War, was quite honestly fruitless.

I'm not getting into details of the Irish Civil War, because I certainly don't think it was fruitless and we could spend days debating those points. However, your opinion is that it made no difference, I disagree with you completely on that front and I'm sure a lot of others would too.

philologos

tomED wrote: »

Oh my god.... You sure you don't wear union jack underpants?

Migration between nations happened throughout histories in a number of different places. It isn't the migration that I have a problem with. I would have a problem with the deaths and the human rights abuses, but one has to realise that modern Britain is rather different to the England of the 16th century.

tomED wrote: »

The simple fact is they murdered people for their own benefit. Oh and they didn't merely "arrive" in Ireland - if that was all it was, we would never have witnessed what we have in our history.

Is that factual? I thought it was because of Gaelic raids after being evicted from their lands? You're painting a very one sided view of this, and as we all know conflicts are rarely one sided. I don't think they should have been evicted, but I also don't think we need to be so petty about having a stamp to point out what happened.

tomED wrote: »

So why commemorate then???????????????

I think you'd find a stamp is quite a small size to include an entire history of the Plantations on it. One can only find an image or a picture that would draw attention to what happened. Perhaps of the old city of Derry or something along those lines.

tomED wrote: »

Why don't we just have a stamp with a link to Wikipedia or something ....

The Plantations are notable in Ireland's history. That would seem a good reason to me.

tomED wrote: »

Em no - I'm asking people not to forget what happened in the past and remember that this wasn't all rosey dosey...

Of course it wasn't, but it wasn't all 100% bad either.

tomED wrote: »

So you're saying the signs to Auschwitz are in some way commemorative... ffs give us a break.

They are. Those signs are there so that people will remember that a despicable atrocity happened in Auschwitz, likewise the site of the Battle of the Boyne is there to point out that an important battle took place there, pretty much the same reason why there are signs like that all over the country about battles that took place.

Let's define commemorative:
an object (such as a coin or postage stamp) made to mark an event or honor a person.

These signs also are there to mark and event. Therefore they are commemorative.

tomED wrote: »

I do think it can - but I can't comment on whether it has or not without seeing it. It could easily commemorate those that died in the plantation by depicting the pain in the faces of those that suffered during that period.

That's why I'm saying wait and see. Do you not think An Post understand that this is a sensitive issue?

tomED wrote: »

I'm not getting into details of the Irish Civil War, because I certainly don't think it was fruitless and we could spend days debating those points. However, your opinion is that it made no difference, I disagree with you completely on that front and I'm sure a lot of others would too.

What did it bring about? The Irish Free State served as a stepping stone to the Republic as was predicted. People fought amongst themselves, spilled unnecessary blood for absolutely nothing.

tomED

Jakkass wrote: »

I would have a problem with the deaths and the human rights abuses

And that's exactly what I have a problem with. I don't think we should commemorate it just as "The Plantation of Ulster".

Jakkass wrote: »

Is that factual? I thought it was because of Gaelic raids after being evicted from their lands? You're painting a very one sided view of this, and as we all know conflicts are rarely one sided. I don't think they should have been evicted, but I also don't think we need to be so petty about having a stamp to point out what happened.

If my opinion is one -sided so is yours. You can't for some reason see that people were murdered and abused.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think you'd find a stamp is quite a small size to include an entire history of the Plantations on it. One can only find an image or a picture that would draw attention to what happened. Perhaps of the old city of Derry or something along those lines.

As I said in a previous post, I would prefer to see them do it like the Royal Mails Battle of Hastings series of stamps.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Plantations are notable in Ireland's history. That would seem a good reason to me.

As is Hitler - but we won't get a stamp with his head on it.

Jakkass wrote: »

They are. Those signs are there so that people will remember that a despicable atrocity happened in Auschwitz, likewise the site of the Battle of the Boyne is there to point out that an important battle took place there, pretty much the same reason why there are signs like that all over the country about battles that took place.

I don't know why I'm addressing this again - but there is absolutely no other reason for the road signs other than to direct people end of....

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's define commemorative:
an object (such as a coin or postage stamp) made to mark an event or honor a person.

These signs also are there to mark and event. Therefore they are commemorative.

Eh sorry I certainly don't think I need to be told what the definition of commermorative is...

But here - here's the definition of Road Sign, you seem to need it :

Traffic signs or road signs are signs erected at the side of roads to provide information to road users. ...

Jakkass wrote: »

That's why I'm saying wait and see. Do you not think An Post understand that this is a sensitive issue?

I hope they do - but I wouldn't be surprised if they were just doing this as a pathetic attempt to get publicity.

Jakkass wrote: »

What did it bring about? The Irish Free State served as a stepping stone to the Republic as was predicted. People fought amongst themselves, spilled unnecessary blood for absolutely nothing.

Now it not the time to discuss this - I have differening views on this. But maybe we sit over a pint some day and have a proper debate as this thread is not about The Irish Civil War.

philologos

tomED wrote: »

If my opinion is one -sided so is yours. You can't for some reason see that people were murdered and abused.

I have quite clearly said that murder and abuse resulted from the Plantation. What you are asking me to do is go further than that though, you are asking me to condemn the very existence of settlers in Ireland. I don't really think I can. I mean people migrate to new places a lot of the time.

tomED wrote: »

As I said in a previous post, I would prefer to see them do it like the Royal Mails Battle of Hastings series of stamps.

How do you mean?

tomED wrote: »

I don't know why I'm addressing this again - but there is absolutely no other reason for the road signs other than to direct people end of....

I disagree with you. Those signs have a purpose, to point out that a battle happened there. That by definition is commemorative.

tomED wrote: »

Eh sorry I certainly don't think I need to be told what the definition of commermorative is...

You do if you cannot see that the signs serve a commemorative purpose.

tomED wrote: »

I hope they do - but I wouldn't be surprised if they were just doing this as a pathetic attempt to get publicity.

I don't see what is so controversial about stamps about a historical event that took place in Ireland.

tomED wrote: »

Now it not the time to discuss this - I have differening views on this. But maybe we sit over a pint some day and have a proper debate as this thread is not about The Irish Civil War.

Your claim that all Irish militant action has progressed towards peace is absurd.

prinz

tomED wrote: »

There's already plans for a commerative statue - but again, it will focus on those that have been affected and not the perpetrators.

A stamp commemmorating the Plantation could do likewise

tomED wrote: »

The famine stamps remembered those that died.

A a stamp commemorating the Plantation of Ulster likewise, again what's the difference, er none. I could look at a Famine stamp and think 'yep that was a terrible thing'.... I could look at a Plantation stamp and think 'yep that was a terrible thing', do you think a Famine Stamp is glorifying those responsible or absolving them from what they did, no it commemmorates an event in Irish history.

tomED wrote: »

Yet you think bombing people to death is worse than people being killed for standing up for their rights. Fair enough... I don't agree..

Killing people for nothing....killing people for something.... end of the day it's still killing people.

tomED wrote: »

Ludicrous.... Germany will never release a stamp in that vein...

Virtually every village, town and city in Germany has something to remember the war and the Nazi state. To some they're a commemoration of the victims, to others it's a place of worship for Nazi sympathisers. All dependant on what you want to see really.

tomED wrote: »

But I agree that there is a difference between remembering and glorifying. And that is the point. It all comes down to what this stamp will actually commemorate - if it is taking sides in any fashion, it will only leave one side of the divide offended....

See above. One thing can be viewed by different sides as "glorifying" different things.

Rebelheart

buckieburd wrote: »

Jesus, unemployment has hit 12%, there a **** loads of toxic debt floating around, we are all being taxed to the hilt, and people are moaning about a stamp?!?

This is hilarious. A quick perusal of your posting history finds you "moaning about" hub caps potentially flying off cars into you, Irish names like Aoife and Orla and even cross dressers, among many other issues which are clearly related to the "loads of toxic debt floating around".

Nice one.

Rebelheart

Jakkass wrote: »

You're being a bit disingenuous with my post. I accept it as factual that there were human rights abuses involved. However, I don't view it as something black or white, that there were all negatives and no positives. I don't think that's a realistic way to look at it.

Clearly there were positives and negatives; otherwise the British wouldn't have moved here. Ergo, the pertinent question is: who received the positives, and who received the negatives.

The Plantation was a wholly negative and destructive event for Irish civilisation, and in the short to medium term even the so-called "deserving Irish" realised this, with Cathaoir Ó Dochartaigh rising as early as 1608 and Féilim Ó Néill and Conn Mag Uidhir as late as 1641.

philologos

Rebelheart wrote: »

The Plantation was a wholly negative and destructive event for Irish civilisation, and in the short to medium term even the so-called "deserving Irish" realised this, with Cathaoir Ó Dochartaigh rising as early as 1608 and Féilim Ó Néill and Conn Mag Uidhir as late as 1641.

Was it really wholly destructive in summation?

The benefits of the English language, the introduction of different religious views, and the increased construction of towns and settlements for people to live in in comparison to former life in crannógs are all benefits of the Plantations in Ireland.

Undoubtedly there were, and probably still are some negatives that remain with us from it including the destruction of the Irish language, marginalisation of Roman Catholics, and so on.

hopalong85

Jakkass you mention that modern Britain is different to 16th century Britain. What exactly do you mean by that statement? Surely you don't mean that Britain hasn't been responsible for atrocities since the 16th century?

gurramok

Jakkass wrote: »

Was it really wholly destructive in summation?

The benefits of the English language, the introduction of different religious views, and the increased construction of towns and settlements for people to live in in comparison to former life in crannógs are all benefits of the Plantations in Ireland.

Undoubtedly there were, and probably still are some negatives that remain with us from it including the destruction of the Irish language, marginalisation of Roman Catholics, and so on.

The native Irish lived in towns pre-plantation as well as in huts, not all only just in huts you know

philologos

hopalong85 wrote: »

Jakkass you mention that modern Britain is different to 16th century Britain. What exactly do you mean by that statement? Surely you don't mean that Britain hasn't been responsible for atrocities since the 16th century?

Of course I don't mean that. I mean that Britain in it's current form is a lot different from the England of the 16th century. A country that we are generally on good terms with, and a country that is generally on the right path in terms of civil liberties.

gurramok wrote: »

The native Irish lived in towns pre-plantation as well as in huts, not all only just in huts you know

Of course there were cities like Dublin, Galway and the like, but I had thought that the Plantations had at least increased the rate of urbanisation in Ireland. Many new towns such as Donegal town, Youghal and other towns were plantation towns. Perhaps I am wrong, and I will concede so if I am wrong.

Rebelheart

Jakkass wrote: »

Was it really wholly destructive in summation?

The benefits of the English language, the introduction of different religious views, and the increased construction of towns and settlements for people to live in in comparison to former life in crannógs are all benefits of the Plantations in Ireland.

This is really a thinly veiled version of something that Edmund Spenser might have come out with: English and English ways equate with civility and progressiveness, and Irishness with backwardness. Your idea presupposes that Ireland would be worse off if we did not abandon Irish for English, or indeed that a plantation was necessary in order for Irish people to speak English as well as Irish, which is clearly an unsustainable notion given the millions of people across Europe who manage to speak English as well as their own language without the need for colonial occupation. What's your evidence for your idea?

Jakkass wrote: »

Undoubtedly there were, and probably still are some negatives that remain with us from it including the destruction of the Irish language, marginalisation of Roman Catholics, and so on.

"Probably still are some negatives"? You seem to be quite the master at understatement. Would some of those "probable" negatives include continuing British rule in part of the country, or most Irish people having abandoned the Irish language when peoples across the world can manage bilingualism and even multilingualism?

In the real story that emerged out of the plantation, toleration, pluralism, acceptance and cultural diversity were undermined by British colonialism in Ireland. Religious intolerance increased, not decreased, simply because religion was the weapon of political and economic conquest. British rule politicised religious belief in Ireland.

To contend otherwise is ahistorical and disingenuous.

philologos

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is really a thinly veiled version of something that Edmund Spenser might have come out with: English and English ways equate with civility and progressiveness, and Irishness with backwardness. Your idea presupposes that Ireland would be worse off if we did not abandon Irish for English, or indeed that a plantation was necessary in order for Irish people to speak English as well as Irish, which is clearly an unsustainable notion given the millions of people across Europe who manage to speak English as well as their own language without the need for colonial occupation. What's your evidence for your idea?

You do realise, I listed both benefits and drawbacks. I didn't just post about "English ways" being superior to Irish ones. That's utterly disingenuous.

I think the introduction of English as our mother tongue is more effective than learning it as a second language. It's easier to learn for a start, and it's a useful world language.

I think one would have to back up how many "million" speak English as effectively as a native speaker would, and one would have to ignore the fact that many people have difficulties learning English.

Rebelheart wrote: »

"Probably still are some negatives"? You seem to be quite the master at understatement. Would some of those "probable" negatives include continuing British rule in part of the country, or most Irish people having abandoned the Irish language when peoples across the world can manage bilingualism and even multilingualism?

I don't consider Northern Ireland as being that much of a negative. Northern Ireland thankfully has improved a lot over the last few years, no doubt there tensions still but they have lessened and it isn't as if the Unionists are the sole individuals behind these tensions. The level of civil liberties have vastly improved since the 1960's and 70's. Now it is down to democratic will to see if Northern Ireland will join the Republic or not but that's another discussion.

Rebelheart wrote: »

In the real story that emerged out of the plantation, toleration, pluralism, acceptance and cultural diversity were undermined by British colonialism in Ireland. Religious intolerance increased, not decreased, simply because religion was the weapon of political and economic conquest. British rule politicised religious belief in Ireland.

Religious intolerance was the result of both sides of the divide. No doubt if one religion was the sole authority over the country tensions could have easily cropped up if any religion was imported from overseas.

I agree with you on politicisation and cultural diversity.

tomED

Jakkass wrote: »

What you are asking me to do is go further than that though, you are asking me to condemn the very existence of settlers in Ireland. I don't really think I can. I mean people migrate to new places a lot of the time.

Please show me where I've asked you to do this. I never once asked you to condemn the existence of the settlers.

You felt that bombing and murdering people through plantation were not just as henious as each other.

Jakkass wrote: »

How do you mean?

Go do a bit of research... Google is your friend...

I've mentioned it in a few replies, maybe if you were not ignorant towards my comments you might actually understand the rest of my points.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you. Those signs have a purpose, to point out that a battle happened there. That by definition is commemorative.

You can disagree all you like - you're wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

You do if you cannot see that the signs serve a commemorative purpose.

I've given you the definition of what a road sign is - please don't insult my intelligence.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see what is so controversial about stamps about a historical event that took place in Ireland.

As I've said now on numerous occassions - I don't either - as long as it's commemorated in the right fashion.

Jakkass wrote: »

Your claim that all Irish militant action has progressed towards peace is absurd.

Yet again twisting what I've said. You really need to take time to read peoples arguments - otherwise we're just going to bash our heads together forever.

For the sake of making it clear once and for all... I've stated that ALL events have shaped the landscape of the society we live in today, regardless of whether or not it was good or bad. The fact is that we should commermorate our fallen hereos rather than the people who inflicted pain on many lives.

prinz wrote: »

A stamp commemmorating the Plantation could do likewise

This post was in reply to someone elses point that we should commemorate the victims of residential abuse. I just pointed out that there was a status in planning.

And you're backing up what I'm saying. The stamp for the Plantation of Ulster could do exactly the same - and that is all I want. As I've stated in numerous posts now, if they focus on those that were mistreated, I would be in favour of the stamp. Or a collection like the Royal Mails for the Battle of Hastings, that tell the story and don't just glorify once aspect of it - which is what one stamp could possibly be perceived as. We don't yet have a stamp - so we'll have to wait and see.

prinz wrote: »

A a stamp commemorating the Plantation of Ulster likewise, again what's the difference, er none. I could look at a Famine stamp and think 'yep that was a terrible thing'.... I could look at a Plantation stamp and think 'yep that was a terrible thing'.

Emmm and if you'd read my posts - you will see that's what I've been hoping that An Post will do.

prinz wrote: »

Killing people for nothing....killing people for something.... end of the day it's still killing people.

Agreed. But Jackass can't see this.

prinz wrote: »

Virtually every village, town and city in Germany has something to remember the war and the Nazi state. To some they're a commemoration of the victims, to others it's a place of worship for Nazi sympathisers. All dependant on what you want to see really.

Again, they commemorate the fallen ones - not those that inflicted torture and pain on so many. I'd love to see your examples of how people commemorate Nazi Germany...

prinz wrote: »

See above. One thing can be viewed by different sides as "glorifying" different things.

Not if done properly...

philologos

tomED wrote: »

Please show me where I've asked you to do this. I never once asked you to condemn the existence of the settlers.

You felt that bombing and murdering people through plantation were not just as henious as each other.

No, both sets of killing are just as wrong. I've said that on this thread, but you are asking me to say the entire Ulster Plantation was negative in every respect because people were killed. The death was outright wrong, but to say that the Ulster Plantation was 100% wrong isn't the most objective assessment of the issue. It changed Irish history, we can be certain about that much.

tomED wrote: »

Go do a bit of research... Google is your friend...

I realise I could, but I thought if you were going to bring it up, it'd be apt if you could explain a bit more in your own words.

tomED wrote: »

You can disagree all you like - you're wrong.

What am I meant to say to that? If I am wrong, make your case. What purpose do you think those signs are there for. I.E Why would motorists want to see the site of the Battle of the Boyne? To remember the historical event that took place there? If so, it's there for a commemorative purpose. If you can't understand that much I'm going to have to leave it there.

tomED wrote: »

I've given you the definition of what a road sign is - please don't insult my intelligence.

Do you not think it is royally ironic that you should post this. I'm not asking about what a road sign is, I'm asking about the purpose of these particular roadsigns to the site of the Battle of the Boyne, or the Battle of Clontibret and other notable wars?

tomED wrote: »

As I've said now on numerous occassions - I don't either - as long as it's commemorated in the right fashion.

The only solution to that is wait until September 4th and see for yourself instead of going on about how offensive it is.

tomED wrote: »

Yet again twisting what I've said. You really need to take time to read peoples arguments - otherwise we're just going to bash our heads together forever.

Let me quote you:

If we look at history and how our nation was shaped, we could easily remember the attrocities caused by the IRA and see how some things changed for the better.

tomED wrote: »

For the sake of making it clear once and for all... I've stated that ALL events have shaped the landscape of the society we live in today, regardless of whether or not it was good or bad. The fact is that we should commermorate our fallen hereos rather than the people who inflicted pain on many lives.

Who are our fallen heroes?

tomED wrote: »

This post was in reply to someone elses point that we should commemorate the victims of residential abuse. I just pointed out that there was a status in planning.

People have suggested putting up a monument to commemorate this already, so that we wouldn't forget the abuse of the Church. I think it was Ruari Quinn of the Labour party. I'll look this up and cite it if necessary.

tomED wrote: »

And you're backing up what I'm saying. The stamp for the Plantation of Ulster could do exactly the same - and that is all I want. As I've stated in numerous posts now, if they focus on those that were mistreated, I would be in favour of the stamp. Or a collection like the Royal Mails for the Battle of Hastings, that tell the story and don't just glorify once aspect of it - which is what one stamp could possibly be perceived as. We don't yet have a stamp - so we'll have to wait and see.

As I've said, you'll have to wait until September 4th like the rest of us.

tomED wrote: »

Agreed. But Jackass can't see this.

Yes, I can. See the first paragraph of this post.

tomED

Jakkass wrote: »

No, both sets of killing are just as wrong. I've said that on this thread, but you are asking me to say the entire Ulster Plantation was negative in every respect because people were killed. The death was outright wrong, but to say that the Ulster Plantation was 100% wrong isn't the most objective assessment of the issue. It changed Irish history, we can be certain about that much.

Firstly, again, please show me where I have asked you to say this.
You have stated on numerous occassions that you don't feel bombing was as bad as the plantation. Both took innocent lives - but you can't see that. You are happy to overlook the fact that people were killed for someone elses gain.

Jakkass wrote: »

I realise I could, but I thought if you were going to bring it up, it'd be apt if you could explain a bit more in your own words.

I didn't bring it up - maybe you should read the posts.

Jakkass wrote: »

What am I meant to say to that? If I am wrong, make your case. What purpose do you think those signs are there for. I.E Why would motorists want to see the site of the Battle of the Boyne? To remember the historical event that took place there? If so, it's there for a commemorative purpose. If you can't understand that much I'm going to have to leave it there.

The road signs are there to direct people - end of. They are in no way meant as a commemorative symbol. The area they direct you to are the areas for commemoration. Get off your high horse and realise you are wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you not think it is royally ironic that you should post this. I'm not asking about what a road sign is, I'm asking about the purpose of these particular roadsigns to the site of the Battle of the Boyne, or the Battle of Clontibret and other notable wars?

And yet again you harp on about this... The only purpose of these road signs are to direct you to the location of commemoration. Stop being so ridiculous.

Jakkass wrote: »

The only solution to that is wait until September 4th and see for yourself instead of going on about how offensive it is.

I agree that we must wait and see before I can tell you how offended I am by it. However, at the moment it looks like it will just commemorate the "plantation of ulster" is some sort of glorifying way - which would offend me.

Jakkass wrote: »

Who are our fallen heroes?

I've no idea who yours are - it's probably the men and women who died fighting for the queen.

My fallen heroes are those who were murdered and raped by the injustice forced upon them during the plantation.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I can. See the first paragraph of this post.

Em no you can't because if you look over your posts - you contradict yourself.

tomED

Oh and I imagine this thread is getting extremely boring for other people at this stage..... probably time to call in a mod!

Beanstalk

I'm enjoying your debate actually, you're all being very polite, even if a tiny bit frustrated. Here's my spanner in the works....I think we all need to take a stamp in the right direction....:pac:

philologos

tomED wrote: »

The road signs are there to direct people - end of. They are in no way meant as a commemorative symbol. The area they direct you to are the areas for commemoration. Get off your high horse and realise you are wrong.

Think about this:
Why would a motorist on the M1 be interested in the sign of the Battle of the Boyne, or go to visit the site? What purpose would it serve?

tomED wrote: »

And yet again you harp on about this... The only purpose of these road signs are to direct you to the location of commemoration. Stop being so ridiculous.

It isn't ridiculous in the slightest. If the signs aren't there to encourage remembrance I don't know why the Government wasted money putting them up.

tomED wrote: »

I agree that we must wait and see before I can tell you how offended I am by it. However, at the moment it looks like it will just commemorate the "plantation of ulster" is some sort of glorifying way - which would offend me.

Why do you expect that?

tomED wrote: »

I've no idea who yours are - it's probably the men and women who died fighting for the queen.

My fallen heroes are those who were murdered and raped by the injustice forced upon them during the plantation.

I asked you who your heroes were. I don't personally consider anyone on either side of this conflict to be my among personal heroes. I personally don't have national feelings towards Britain either. I'm not a nationalistic person, I like Ireland don't get me wrong, but I don't feel the need to be offended at a postal stamp recollecting a national event that changed this country.

tomED

Beanstalk wrote: »

I'm enjoying your debate actually, you're all being very polite, even if a tiny bit frustrated. Here's my spanner in the works....I think we all need to take a stamp in the right direction....:pac:

Hahaha

And I think "tiny" bit is an understatement - lol!

buckieburd

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is hilarious. A quick perusal of your posting history finds you "moaning about" hub caps potentially flying off cars into you, Irish names like Aoife and Orla and even cross dressers, among many other issues which are clearly related to the "loads of toxic debt floating around".

Nice one.

LOL! Quiet day in work? Wasn't moaning about any of those things! STALKER ( :

tomED

Jakkass wrote: »

Think about this:
Why would a motorist on the M1 be interested in the sign of the Battle of the Boyne, or go to visit the site? What purpose would it serve?

It isn't ridiculous in the slightest. If the signs aren't there to encourage remembrance I don't know why the Government wasted money putting them up.

And hence the reason for my frustration... I'm seriously starting to think you're extracting the urine...

A motorist on the M1 would be interested in a road sign directing him to the battle of the boyne because that his planned destination. Unfortunately, most of us don't have a brain with an inbuilt GPS system, so we rely on road signs to direct us to our desired destination.

I don't think we need to discuss our government and how happy they are to waste money. In this case I don't think it was a waste of money, the road signs serve a purpose to direct tourists to one of our many historical attractions that they come to our country to see every year. Aswell as of course our own local visitors.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why do you expect that?

At the moment I expect that because of the fact that they have only stated that they are commemorating the plantation of ulster. They did not say in any statement that they are doing this to remember the fallen ones.

I'm happy to admit that this is an assumption I've made based on the little information available.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not a nationalistic person, I like Ireland don't get me wrong, but I don't feel the need to be offended at a postal stamp recollecting a national event that changed this country.

I think the very fact that you are not nationalistic is one of the key reasons why you don't get why people can be offended by this.

But that shows your ignorance towards people that are offended by it. You don't hold their nationalistic values to any esteem - therefore you are happy to write off their disgust with your ignorant opinion.

Since you happily display that you are a christian, I'm sure you were happy to hear that the government quitely pushed through the new blasphemy law?

Now in Ireland, you can be punished for uttering or making a publication that is blasphemous. You only have to ask yourself why was this law brough in. The obvious reason was so as not to offend people of different religions.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't at all agree with the law - but if the government are outlawing people for being blasphemous - surely they should also prevent people being offended in other ways.

Again let me stress - I don't agree that that is the way we should be. But we should most certainly be able to live in a state that has a blanaced view on all this. Taking sides is not something that helps.

_blank_

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is hilarious. A quick perusal of your posting history finds you "moaning about" hub caps potentially flying off cars into you, Irish names like Aoife and Orla and even cross dressers, among many other issues which are clearly related to the "loads of toxic debt floating around".

Nice one.

Small bit stalkerish mate

philologos

tomED wrote: »

I don't think we need to discuss our government and how happy they are to waste money. In this case I don't think it was a waste of money, the road signs serve a purpose to direct tourists to one of our many historical attractions that they come to our country to see every year. Aswell as of course our own local visitors.

Read the bold again. That's what I'm getting at. The signs are there to point out a historical event and thus remember what happened. I thought that would have been straight forward enough.

tomED wrote: »

At the moment I expect that because of the fact that they have only stated that they are commemorating the plantation of ulster. They did not say in any statement that they are doing this to remember the fallen ones.

Just drawing attention is enough. Let the people decide for themselves what they want to make of it. The best we can do is merely inform, the thinking has to happen for people themselves.

tomED wrote: »

I think the very fact that you are not nationalistic is one of the key reasons why you don't get why people can be offended by this.

It's whether or not the offence is warranted, that is the question we need to deal with. A stamp that remembers history, offensive? How?

tomED wrote: »

But that shows your ignorance towards people that are offended by it. You don't hold their nationalistic values to any esteem - therefore you are happy to write off their disgust with your ignorant opinion.

You really need to stop abusing the word "ignorant". This assumes that I am uneducated about the Plantations. I know what the issues are, I just happen to interpret that part of history as not being exclusively bad. That isn't ignorance, it's mere disagreement.

tomED wrote: »

Since you happily display that you are a christian, I'm sure you were happy to hear that the government quitely pushed through the new blasphemy law?

All of the main Christian churches, Catholic, Church of Ireland and Presbyterian expressed disagreement at the blasphemy law. I personally disagree with it because I would want disagreement about Christianity to be out in the open so that people could challenge misconception openly. I value free speech.

tomED wrote: »

Now in Ireland, you can be punished for uttering or making a publication that is blasphemous. You only have to ask yourself why was this law brough in. The obvious reason was so as not to offend people of different religions.

See my view above.

tomED wrote: »

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't at all agree with the law - but if the government are outlawing people for being blasphemous - surely they should also prevent people being offended in other ways.

See my view above.

tomED wrote: »

Again let me stress - I don't agree that that is the way we should be. But we should most certainly be able to live in a state that has a blanaced view on all this. Taking sides is not something that helps.

Nothing about this stamp is taking sides. It's quite possible to do this without taking sides at all.

tomED

Jakkass wrote: »

Read the bold again. That's what I'm getting at. The signs are there to point out a historical event and thus remember what happened. I thought that would have been straight forward enough.

How you can keep trying to defend your point is beyond me. This was not the point you were getting at - you were trying to say that a road sign is in some way a commemorative symbol - which it's most definitely not. I think it's time for you to start reading over your own posts too.

Jakkass wrote: »

Just drawing attention is enough. Let the people decide for themselves what they want to make of it. The best we can do is merely inform, the thinking has to happen for people themselves.

I don't think it is enough. I've used examples why in previous posts.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's whether or not the offence is warranted, that is the question we need to deal with. A stamp that remembers history, offensive? How?

Firstly, when you are as ignorant as you are towards why it could be classed as being offensive - you will never be able to understand why it is. And to just class it as a stamp that remembers history (which it's not) is complete ignorance towards the suffering felt by those during the plantation.

Jakkass wrote: »

You really need to stop abusing the word "ignorant". This assumes that I am uneducated about the Plantations. I know what the issues are, I just happen to interpret that part of history as not being exclusively bad. That isn't ignorance, it's mere disagreement.

As long as you remain ignorant to opinions of others, I will continue to use it.
You don't interpret it as being bad because you are ignorant towards the suffering felt by those involved. I, on the otherhand am not ignorant to the fact that some people did well, some people were treated wrongly. That is why I feel it is a sensitive issue that should be handled with respect for those that were most badly affected by it.

Jakkass wrote: »

All of the main Christian churches, Catholic, Church of Ireland and Presbyterian expressed disagreement at the blasphemy law. I personally disagree with it because I would want disagreement about Christianity to be out in the open so that people could challenge misconception openly. I value free speech.

Good. At least we can agree on something.

Jakkass wrote: »

Nothing about this stamp is taking sides.

How do you know? As I've said previously all we have to go on at the moment is that it is a stamp commemorating "the plantation of ulster". Not a stamp "commermorating those that died during the plantation of ulster".

Jakkass wrote: »

It's quite possible to do this without taking sides at all.

That's been discussed to death at this stage.....