After Hours, one and only Queen thread

lugha wrote: »

Moral of the story: Trying to establish some sort of stock definition of what makes an Irish person is plainly daft.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Because it isnt a "new England called Ireland". Thats the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

Unless Ireland becomes some kind of hollywood celtic theme park then we may as well stay under the control of Westminster?

phasers wrote: »

What is the Blanket? you can't just end a story like that!


Edit: Thank you Wolfe Tone

Dionysus wrote: »

Google is your friend

phasers wrote: »

You were telling a story about it! It even included the line ""The blanket" - how many people reading this even know what that was?" You could have easily explained it, no need to get sarky.

hondasam wrote: »

I think the OP left it out deliberately to get this reaction.

and to tell us how to use google

Dionysus wrote: »

Because I'm telling a story does not mean google has ceased to exist.

hondasam wrote: »

you could have said that in one sentence without writing a bull**** story in order to get a reaction.

hondasam wrote: »

@dionysus maybe read the first post on this thread.

Dionysus wrote: »

In fairness, being "the most stupid thing you've ever heard" does not negate its truth, although it indicates that it's more convenient for you to dress up the British culture of Ireland as "Irish", while rejecting actual Irish-Ireland (to quote D.P. Moran) culture. There's a massive hypocrisy there, even allowing for the reasonable point that identity and culture are not synonymous.

Why not be under the control of Westminster? We'd have greater economies of scale, cheaper medicine and cheaper everything in fact. What is Irish independence about if not about providing a government for a society which is distinct? Without distinctiveness we might as well be part of another state, as much as this point will annoy certain people.

Dionysus wrote: »

No two societies are "identical in every way". I'm sure if you did an examination of regions within England (or any other EU country), you'd find that regions are not "identical in every way". Now, stop trying to build strawmen arguments which have no basis in the current discussion.

Dionysus wrote: »

This, of course, is avoiding answer the question: without cultural distinctiveness, what justifies the existence of a sovereign Irish state, never mind an all-Ireland state? Every state in the history of the world has depended upon creating and promoting distinctiveness. What makes the Irish distinct from the British?

Why should Ireland be independent from the British state when some of the proponents of Irish independence here seem to have so much hostility for Irish culture and follow many aspects of British (i.e. English) culture religiously?

They do not, it should be noted, have an eclectic approach to both cultures, in case anybody is under the illusion that they do.

What's this "struggle" for Irish independence all about? Jobs for the boys? Getting their preferred crowd of crooks into political power to do precisely what another government would do? No "political" death is worth that.

Dionysus wrote: »

Er, no. A basic introduction to ultramontane Roman Catholicism under Cullen, colonialism of Irish religious beliefs by any definition, in nineteenth-century Ireland could have told him that. If anything, Roman Catholicism has much more in common with British conservatism and imperialism than it ever had with the dispossessed masses which made up the native Irish.