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

Tribal bigotry is not a response to IRA violence -- it was there before

PatsytheNazi

Interesting article by Kevin Myers of all people where he denounces unionism in no uncertain terms. Could Myarse of all people be turning into a nationalist ?

" Paradoxically, the rabble-rousing leaders of these drunken louts have usually been teetotal clergymen, such as Roaring Hanna and Ian Paisley. The compulsory Sunday closing of pubs was once a primary element of their identity -- provided that their own drinking clubs were allowed to remain open. Logic is never the strong point of any strongly held tribal identity, but particularly so for these people, who have remained locked in a historical enigma wherein they are 'British', though living in Ireland, and generally lawless though they 'loyally' support the Crown, and sober in their general political aspiration, though usually enough drunk at the time. "
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-tribal-bigotry-is-not-a-response-to-ira-violence-it-was-there-before-2803409.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PatsytheNazi

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Ulster conflict goes beyond what the whole island wants. Always has.

Drunken Rangers supporters and BNP voters hardly count as sooner or later they have to sober up.

KeithAFC

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Drunken Rangers supporters and BNP voters hardly count as sooner or later they have to sober up.

Im talking about thousands of Protestants who don't want it. That is the key point. It dates back way before the 20s or 60s.

PatsytheNazi

KeithAFC wrote: »

Im talking about thousands of Protestants who don't want it. That is the key point. It dates back way before the 20s or 60s.

Didn't those in the six occupied counties drop their brethern in the rest of the country without a thought ?

philologos

theboss80 wrote: »

You see the problem with that is there was no such thing as "the six counties" as we know them now when that vote took place. It was a 32 county vote in 1918.

A majority of people there didn't want it though. That's why Ireland was partitioned, just as Kosovo split from Serbia and just as Montenegro cast a vote in 2006 to split from Serbia. Indeed, the same is going to be true for Southern Sudan due to a referendum.

KeithAFC

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Didn't those in the six occupied counties drop their brethern in the rest of the country without a thought ?

Some people didn't want that but that is what happened. But Protestants moved to Northern Ireland from all over. People just seem to think it happened over night.

PatsytheNazi

philologos wrote: »

A majority of people there didn't want it though. That's why Ireland was partitioned, just as Kosovo split from Serbia and just as Montenegro cast a vote in 2006 to split from Serbia. Indeed, the same is going to be true for Southern Sudan due to a referendum.

Since when is 18% a majority of the people of Ireland. The 26 and 6 county states came into existance becasue of the denial of democracy, not the application of it.

getz

philologos wrote: »

A majority of people there didn't want it though. That's why Ireland was partitioned, just as Kosovo split from Serbia and just as Montenegro cast a vote in 2006 to split from Serbia. Indeed, the same is going to be true for Southern Sudan due to a referendum.

you have to in this day and age,believe in self determination,thats the corner of the EU and the UNs belief , i had a letter from the chairman of the EUs labour party during the time tony blair was talking to spain about gibraltar [my wifes birthplace,]in it he said,gibraltar belongs to its people ,not britain or spain,so its up to its people what they want,thats the way it is and thats the way it always should be,northern ireland is in the same position,its up to its people ,not the UK or ireland

theboss80

The majority of people there were ancestors of the plantation who were put there by James 1 when he confiscated the land and kicked out the Irish to be replaced by the Scottish and English planters.

I don't think it's hard to understand these people wanted to keep their cultural identity by remaining in Union with Britain but that still does not take away from the argument that the Irish people of 32 counties voted overwhelmingly for a republican party to be in Government who then proclaimed an Independent Ireland. This is clearly the reason it got up the nose of Westminster so much that they enforced a partition in the country and decided to keep he counties where Republicanism wasn't strong due to the plantations.

I cannot comment on the Baltic conflict as I do not know much about it.

who the fug

getz wrote: »

history records that ,churchill offered and de valera rejected.no but but buts

History records that Churchill said he was in a position to ask the commons to hand over the six counties, if Dev came in.

getz

who the fug wrote: »

History records that Churchill said he was in a position to ask the commons to hand over the six counties, if Dev came in.

and dev said no

who the fug

getz wrote: »

and dev said no

Well wouldn't you ?

Pdfile

who the fug wrote: »

Well wouldn't you ?

nope, id mobilize my groups into london and take england, london first then progressively out.

How would they like them apples ? not alot i guess cause english people are fatties.

getz

who the fug wrote: »

Well wouldn't you ?

TBH yes,but he put his country and its independance at risk,both america and britain had then plans drawn up to invade ireland,but the intriguing thing is,if had said ok to it,would we now be having all these troubles in the north.

who the fug

getz wrote: »

TBH yes,but he put his country and its independance at risk,both america and britain had then plans drawn up to invade ireland,but the intriguing thing is,if had said ok to it,would we now be having all these troubles in the north.

Balance that with the problems Dev would have had selling it to the population of Ireland in 1940.

PatsytheNazi

who the fug wrote: »

History records that Churchill said he was in a position to ask the commons to hand over the six counties, if Dev came in.

History records that Churchill said they'd never surrender Singapore - and look what happened there !!!!

getz

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

History records that Churchill said they'd never surrender Singapore - and look what happened there !!!!

and dev felt sorry for the death of a man that used genocide on his people,get a life,

PatsytheNazi

getz wrote: »

and dev felt sorry for the death of a man that used genocide on his people,get a life,

No, he was only observing diplomatic protocol as a neutral country on the death of a head of sate ( admittingly he should have left it out but that was the Long Hoor for you !!! )

philologos

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Since when is 18% a majority of the people of Ireland. The 26 and 6 county states came into existance becasue of the denial of democracy, not the application of it.

The Montenegrin population decided to split from Serbia. At 600,000 it is a tiny % of the Serbian population. Yet it was deemed that Montenegro should be able to pull out. The Kosovan population at 2 million was also a minority of the Serbian population yet they deemed it necessary to pull out and many countries have given it their recognition including our own.

Can I apply this logic to Ireland in the 1920's? Although Northern Ireland constituted a minority of Ireland's population the British Government deemed it reasonable to respect the wishes of that 18% decided to keep them in union with Britain.

This is common practice in the world. I'm abstracting from the fact that I'm Irish and I'm aiming to look at this objectively. In comparison to other international situations your argument is woeful.

PatsytheNazi

philologos wrote: »

Can I apply this logic to Ireland in the 1920's? Although Northern Ireland constituted a minority of Ireland's population the British Government deemed it reasonable to respect the wishes of that 18% decided to keep them in union with Britain.

And of course so do you

philologos

Can you address my non-Irish examples please? Kosovo, Montenegro and Southern Sudan? All illegitimate states?

getz

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

No, he was only observing diplomatic protocol as a neutral country on the death of a head of sate ( admittingly he should have left it out but that was the Long Hoor for you !!! )

ireland was the only country that sent that message,by that time the world knew of hitlers atrocities

philologos

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Well your getting very much off topic but Kosovo and Montenegro - don't know very little about them. Are they islands that were treated as a single entity but then forcibally partitioned and now we're been told by an individual that it was democratic and for the greater good as just 18% of the population wanted it ?

Kosovo and Montenegro are great examples of this. A minority of the population of Serbia wanted to be separate. Therefore they split.

Likewise Northern Ireland is a minority of the population of Ireland, but they wanted to remain separate. Therefore they were separated from the Republic in the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

Serbia was treated as a single entity. In fact Yugoslavia was a single entity and then it gradually split.

East Timor became the first nation to seek its own independence from Indonesia in 2002. I suspect the Indonesian people weren't the most pleased at this development, but nonetheless the population of East Timor wanted to be independent therefore they were.

More recently Southern Sudan voted to leave Sudan. They are a minority of the Sudanese population but yet they will split. Southern Sudan is expected to become an independent nation on the 9th of July.

If I apply your logic to Ireland, the majority of the United Kingdom opposed Ireland parting from the Union. Therefore it shouldn't have been allowed right? :pac:

You're clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the facts. Objectively partitioning in this manner happens very frequently.

You are very clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the facts. The point is that we all draw lines as to when it is acceptable for countries to split. You are drawing the line at the whole of Ireland. Others don't because they recognise that if there is a significant minority they shouldn't be coerced into being a part of a State they don't want to be a part of.

R P McMurphy

philologos wrote: »

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Well your getting very much off topic but Kosovo and Montenegro - don't know very little about them. Are they islands that were treated as a single entity but then forcibally partitioned and now we're been told by an individual that it was democratic and for the greater good as just 18% of the population wanted it ?

Kosovo and Montenegro are great examples of this. A minority of the population of Serbia wanted to be separate. Therefore they split.

Likewise Northern Ireland is a minority of the population of Ireland, but they wanted to remain separate. Therefore they were separated from the Republic in the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

Serbia was treated as a single entity. In fact Yugoslavia was a single entity and then it gradually split.

East Timor became the first nation to seek its own independence from Indonesia in 2002. I suspect the Indonesian people weren't the most pleased at this development, but nonetheless the population of East Timor wanted to be independent therefore they were.

More recently Southern Sudan voted to leave Sudan. They are a minority of the Sudanese population but yet they will split. Southern Sudan is expected to become an independent nation on the 9th of July.

If I apply your logic to Ireland, the majority of the United Kingdom opposed Ireland parting from the Union. Therefore it shouldn't have been allowed right? :pac:

You're clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the facts. Objectively partitioning in this manner happens very frequently.

You are very clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the facts. The point is that we all draw lines as to when it is acceptable for countries to split. You are drawing the line at the whole of Ireland. Others don't because they recognise that if there is a significant minority they shouldn't be coerced into being a part of a State they don't want to be a part of.

So if the people of fermanagh, derry and tyrone expressed a wish to leave the union and join the republic do you think that they should be facilitated

philologos

R P McMurphy wrote: »

So if the people of fermanagh, derry and tyrone expressed a wish to leave the union and join the republic do you think that they should be facilitated

If they did it should be considered. Although lines do have to be drawn as to what is a significant portion of a population. There are always going to be minorities within nations too. It's a bit of a tightrope but for PatsytheNazi to complain about this is nonsense given how widespread it is even in the 21st century.

jon1010

philologos wrote: »

Kosovo and Montenegro are great examples of this. A minority of the population of Serbia wanted to be separate. Therefore they split.

Likewise Northern Ireland is a minority of the population of Ireland, but they wanted to remain separate. Therefore they were separated from the Republic in the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

Serbia was treated as a single entity. In fact Yugoslavia was a single entity and then it gradually split.

East Timor became the first nation to seek its own independence from Indonesia in 2002. I suspect the Indonesian people weren't the most pleased at this development, but nonetheless the population of East Timor wanted to be independent therefore they were.

More recently Southern Sudan voted to leave Sudan. They are a minority of the Sudanese population but yet they will split. Southern Sudan is expected to become an independent nation on the 9th of July.

If I apply your logic to Ireland, the majority of the United Kingdom opposed Ireland parting from the Union. Therefore it shouldn't have been allowed right? :pac:

You're clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the facts. Objectively partitioning in this manner happens very frequently.

You are very clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the facts. The point is that we all draw lines as to when it is acceptable for countries to split. You are drawing the line at the whole of Ireland. Others don't because they recognise that if there is a significant minority they shouldn't be coerced into being a part of a State they don't want to be a part of.

This is a prime example of bastardised logic! The situation in Ireland is completely different to those in your examples.
Ireland as a sovereign nation was invaded by the British, The current Unionist/Loyalist population in the 6 counties are the descendants of those invaders.
Also I doubt very much at the time of the time of partition that the voices of the suppressed nationalist/catholic population would have been taking into consideration.

philologos

jon1010 wrote: »

This is a prime example of bastardised logic! The situation in Ireland is completely different to those in your examples.
Ireland as a sovereign nation was invaded by the British, The current Unionist/Loyalist population in the 6 counties are the descendants of those invaders.
Also I doubt very much at the time of the time of partition that the voices of the suppressed nationalist/catholic population would have been taking into consideration.

How is it different?

By the by many Serbs in Kosovo would argue that ethnic Albanians migrated and settled in Kosovo which was formerly a majority Serb region. They actually might be right, but in 2011 there is a majority ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo as a result that justified the declaration of independence that occurred there in 2009. That's perfectly analagous to Northern Ireland.

Republicans would argue and would be right to say that Ulster was originally ethnically Irish along with much of the rest of Britain. Scots migrated and settled in that region and in Laois-Offaly and Munster with lesser success. In 2011 however a majority of people support the union with the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland as they did in 1920. As such this justifies Northern Ireland remaining separate from the Republic.

If you want to look at East Timor, Montenegro and Southern Sudan they are very similar.

Let the personal emotions go and you'll see that this logic is bang on. The unionist population are the descendants of colonisers exactly in the same way that the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo are invaders / colonisers.

By the by the majority of Roman Catholics in a recent survey in Northern Ireland support the union. Things are changing in Northern Ireland and we need to respect that. We need to get over petty nonsense and respect the democratic will of Northern Ireland.

Where To

jon1010 wrote: »

Ireland as a sovereign nation was invaded by the British

When did this happen?

who the fug

where do i go from here wrote: »

When did this happen?

2100 hours tonight.;)

KeithAFC

philologos wrote: »

Kosovo and Montenegro are great examples of this. A minority of the population of Serbia wanted to be separate. Therefore they split.

Likewise Northern Ireland is a minority of the population of Ireland, but they wanted to remain separate. Therefore they were separated from the Republic in the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

Serbia was treated as a single entity. In fact Yugoslavia was a single entity and then it gradually split.

East Timor became the first nation to seek its own independence from Indonesia in 2002. I suspect the Indonesian people weren't the most pleased at this development, but nonetheless the population of East Timor wanted to be independent therefore they were.

More recently Southern Sudan voted to leave Sudan. They are a minority of the Sudanese population but yet they will split. Southern Sudan is expected to become an independent nation on the 9th of July.

If I apply your logic to Ireland, the majority of the United Kingdom opposed Ireland parting from the Union. Therefore it shouldn't have been allowed right? :pac:

You're clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the facts. Objectively partitioning in this manner happens very frequently.

You are very clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the facts. The point is that we all draw lines as to when it is acceptable for countries to split. You are drawing the line at the whole of Ireland. Others don't because they recognise that if there is a significant minority they shouldn't be coerced into being a part of a State they don't want to be a part of.

Very good post philologos and sums it up pretty well. I don't see the problem with it.

Show Time

getz wrote: »

and dev felt sorry for the death of a man that used genocide on his people,get a life,

Dev walked a diplomatic tightrope during WWII and did a pretty good job keeping the ship steady.