Would a Republican drown?

Hank_Jones · 06-08-2010 07:50PM

I'm not a republican, so I wouldn't really know.

Personally I would probably be glad to be saved by anyone, many aren't that lucky.

Dionysus · 06-08-2010 08:42PM

Winty wrote: »

My question for today is,
If found in trouble off the Irish Coast would a Republican refuse help from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution as it’s a wing of the imperial oppressor.

Many on boards don’t like the anglicising of Irish culture via television, sport and high street shops, does this include the RNLI. Should they be replaced with just NLI and drop the “Royal”.

I have nothing but respect for the brave men and woman who volunteer to help others. They are heroes and the RNLI name has a long and proud history.

I've a slightly different take on this: what is it with British state-making/myth making/nationalism that they must put the word 'royal' in the name of organisations which should be apolitical? What is it in that culture which dictates that organisations must propagate a royalist cult in every area of society? It's all rather crass and uber nationalistic.

Please explain.

The RNLI was only founded in 1824, which is not exactly a "long" history. You seem very keen to propagate this cult. The RNLI also depends on public donations from Irish citizens to continue its work so your 'pride' is more accurately viewed as conceit on this issue.

Lastly, are you really implying that Irish people would not be able to save Irish people without having an organisation with the adjective 'royal' in the title?

Your post is obtuse, even for a British nationalist in After Hours posting his turgid embittered political trite under the guise of "humour".

InTheTrees · 06-08-2010 08:52PM

Dionysus wrote: »

I've a slightly different take on this: what is it with British state-making/myth making/nationalism that they must put the word 'royal' in the name of organisations which should be apolitical? What is it in that culture which dictates that organisations must propagate a royalist cult in every area of society? It's all rather crass and uber nationalistic.

Please explain.

Basically, yes, they are crass and uber nationalistic.

And they do love their royalty, it gives a feeling of longevity and tradition (and its not considered "political").

Mike 1972 · 06-08-2010 09:02PM

Dionysus wrote: »

I've a slightly different take on this: what is it with British state-making/myth making/nationalism that they must put the word 'royal' in the name of organisations which should be apolitical? What is it in that culture which dictates that organisations must propagate a royalist cult in every area of society? It's all rather crass and uber nationalistic..

Yes they have a secret committee dedicated to thinking up names that will annoy you the most :rolleyes:

Jesus, Muhammad and Elvis :rolleyes:

Dionysus · 06-08-2010 09:16PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Yes they have a secret committee dedicated to thinking up names that will annoy you the most :rolleyes:

Jesus, Muhammad and Elvis :rolleyes:

Very mature response - not. It is, however, strange that you appear to have little problem with this ubiquitous display of British nationalism/royalism but are among the first to criticise any display of Irish nationalism. Is that because you support the former, or is there a more ethical justification for your double standards?

Mike 1972 · 06-08-2010 09:21PM

Go away I dont have time to come out and play with you today :rolleyes:

Dionysus · 06-08-2010 09:25PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Go away I dont have time to come out and play with you today :rolleyes:

That was so, like, witty, like. Are you Owen's daddy?

Winty · 06-08-2010 09:27PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Yes they have a secret committee dedicated to thinking up names that will annoy you the most :rolleyes:

Jesus, Muhammad and Elvis :rolleyes:

Cheers Mike, glad to see some people see the humour intended

Winty · 06-08-2010 09:30PM

Dionysus wrote: »

Your post is obtuse, even for a British nationalist in After Hours posting his turgid embittered political trite under the guise of "humour".

You cant see the Joke can you?

InTheTrees · 06-08-2010 09:33PM

Dionysus wrote: »

Very mature response - not. It is, however, strange that you appear to have little problem with this ubiquitous display of British nationalism/royalism

I thought it was funny.

Would you rather they used "British" in their names? I supose most countries use the country name in their national organisations. Is that bad? I dunno.

Taking it one step further is it nationalistic to use the country name ever?

oppenheimer1 · 06-08-2010 09:35PM

Dionysus wrote: »

I've a slightly different take on this: what is it with British state-making/myth making/nationalism that they must put the word 'royal' in the name of organisations which should be apolitical? What is it in that culture which dictates that organisations must propagate a royalist cult in every area of society? It's all rather crass and uber nationalistic.

Please explain.

The RNLI was only founded in 1824, which is not exactly a "long" history. You seem very keen to propagate this cult. The RNLI also depends on public donations from Irish citizens to continue its work so your 'pride' is more accurately viewed as conceit on this issue.

Lastly, are you really implying that Irish people would not be able to save Irish people without having an organisation with the adjective 'royal' in the title?

Your post is obtuse, even for a British nationalist in After Hours posting his turgid embittered political trite under the guise of "humour".

The victorians believed especially in tradition and institutions founded at the time often tried to draw on history for legitimacy. Although founded in 1824 they only adopted their current name in the 1850's

losthorizon · 06-08-2010 09:39PM

Err the RNLI wasnt formed in the UK.

Dionysus · 06-08-2010 09:40PM

Winty wrote: »

You cant see the Joke can you?

InTheTrees wrote: »

I thought it was funny.

It wasn't really; somebody made this "joke" in a letter to The Irish Times about ten years ago, the implication being that the Irish couldn't save themselves unless they had an organisation with the adjective 'royal' in it. It was dim then, now it just adds unoriginality to the initial attribute.

JuliusCaesar · 06-08-2010 09:41PM

Winty wrote: »

We have some great Republicans on boards that offer alot to the debate and have changed my thinking on some topics.

This must be a first for AH!

Ireland covers 43 lifeboat stations throughout Northern Ireland and the Republic, including inland stations at Enniskillen and Lough Derg. The fundraising regional office, based in Swords, covers fundraising activities for the whole of Ireland

There are quite a few all-Ireland organisations, but I think the RNLI is unique among organisations here. Just as well they exist. They are a charity in the UK too.:rolleyes:

InTheTrees · 06-08-2010 09:43PM

losthorizon wrote: »

Err the RNLI wasnt formed in the UK.

Fascinating. Isle of Man is practically ireland.

I think its actually more interesting that they use the word "national" in the name considering they cover the republic as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_National_Lifeboat_Institution

Winty · 06-08-2010 09:45PM

Dionysus wrote: »

It wasn't really; somebody made this "joke" in a letter to The Irish Times about ten years ago, the implication being that the Irish couldn't save themselves unless they had an organisation with the adjective 'royal' in it.

You know Dionysus sometimes your just no Craic at all.

Mike 1972 · 06-08-2010 09:46PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think its actually more interesting that they use the word "national" in the name considering they cover the republic as well.

Might have something to do with the fact that they were formed in 1824 ?

Oh no thats just silly isint it............

Dionysus · 06-08-2010 09:47PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

I thought it was funny.

Would you rather they used "British" in their names? I supose most countries use the country name in their national organisations. Is that bad? I dunno.

Taking it one step further is it nationalistic to use the country name ever?

What's wrong with NLI if it's a British organisation? The RDS is a case in point - it was initially named the Dublin Society and only afterwards renamed to include the word 'royal' as part of the same British royalist cult which had Irish streets and towns renamed, and statues erected. Not very enlightened of our supposedly apolitical, post-nationalist neighbours.

InTheTrees · 06-08-2010 09:48PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Might have something to do with the fact that they were formed in 1824 ?

Oh no thats just silly isint it............

Well duh!

I'm man enough to admit to being an idiot at times...

Kasabian · 06-08-2010 09:49PM

Republicans and Loyalists couldn't possibly drown , sh!t floats.

InTheTrees · 06-08-2010 09:50PM

Dionysus wrote: »

What's wrong with NLI if it's a British organisation? The RDS is a case in point - it was initially named the Dublin Society and only afterwards renamed to include the word 'royal' as part of the same British royalist cult which had Irish streets and towns renamed, and statues erected. Not very enlightened of our supposedly apolitical, post-nationalist neighbours.

Its used to be called "National Institution for the Preservation of Life from Shipwreck"

The NIFTPOLFS

hmmm.

Mike 1972 · 06-08-2010 10:01PM

Dionysus wrote: »

What's wrong with NLI if it's a British organisation? The RDS is a case in point - it was initially named the Dublin Society and only afterwards renamed to include the word 'royal' as part of the same British royalist cult which had Irish streets and towns renamed, and statues erected. Not very enlightened of our supposedly apolitical, post-nationalist neighbours.

I love this thread.

It started out as a joke about the possibility that there might Republicans who would be so dogmatic and pedantic as to take issue with an organisation called the RNLI

and lo and behold..............

losthorizon · 06-08-2010 11:52PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I love this thread.

It started out as a joke about the possibility that there might Republicans who would be so dogmatic and pedantic as to take issue with an organisation called the RNLI

and lo and behold..............

Brian Boru must be turning in his grave

Dazd_N_Confusd · 07-08-2010 01:02AM

Would a You drown?

What the hell does that mean?!

fonecrusher1 · 07-08-2010 01:07AM

Its a grade A sh!te thread.

Anyone want to talk about cheese? Whats your favourite? Currently my fave is the simple red cheddar. Its addictive.

CantGetNoSleep · 07-08-2010 01:08AM

He would probably take the lift then try sue them like those dirty Jehovahs that received the life saving blood transfusion

Liam Byrne · 07-08-2010 01:13AM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Although If they were true Republicans they would never holiday In Spain, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden.......

......Columbia......

falan · 07-08-2010 01:30AM

Let me get this straight! There are 5 people here who would rather drown than be rescued by an organisation with the word 'royal' in it????Or have i read the poll wrong???:rolleyes::rolleyes:

...What sad pathetic people they are.

Dazd_N_Confusd · 07-08-2010 01:41AM

falan wrote: »

Let me get this straight! There are 5 people here who would rather drown than be rescued by an organisation with the word 'royal' in it????Or have i read the poll wrong???:rolleyes::rolleyes:...What sad pathetic people they are.

Consider those answers equivalent to 'Atari Jaguar'.

Mike 1972 · 07-08-2010 10:09AM

falan wrote: »

Let me get this straight! There are 5 people here who would rather drown than be rescued by an organisation with the word 'royal' in it????Or have i read the poll wrong???:rolleyes::rolleyes:...What sad pathetic people they are.

What if they were diagnosed with a deadly but curable illness and the lifesaving treatment was only available at the Royal hospital ?

Would a Republican drown?

Comments