Sound of Silence wrote: » The colonisation did not fulfil the objectives set out by both the Scottish and English settlers. It did, however, lay the boundaries for the divisions which still remain evident to this day in their many different guises.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland
doolox wrote: » Our republic has failed in several substantial ways. Socially in enslaving unmarried mothers in the Irish Gulags of the Magdelen Laundries which went on for several decades and ruined the lives of many women.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » The fact is Ireland wasn't colonised though. We were one kingdom in three of the United Kingdom and the second largest of it's constituent countries.
philologos wrote: » My position doesn't require me to believe that Britain is perfect. The reason the poppy is even worn is because of John McCraes poem written in 1915. You know that as well as I do. I don't commemorate the Easter rising of 1916 so I don't see why I would buy a lily. I don't remember telling you that I didn't though. The red poppy is fine. It gets the point across..
Nodin wrote: » ...ahahaha. Yeah. That plantation thing, the disenfrachisement and penal laws...bit of a laugh.
karma_ wrote: » There are people knocking about today who are older than the Irish state itself, you would expect a new state to have many problems in its infancy, Ireland will get there, and faster than most nations.
seanhalpin wrote: » .................. You cannot retrospectively apply modern standards to the actions taken by the Government 100 - 150 odd years ago. Something which is a favourite pastime of the 800 years brigade. ...........
seanhalpin wrote: » I must interject here. Contrary to popular delusion (thanks to deValera-ite propaganda) Ireland was not a colony by any stretch. It was part and parcel of the home nations with representation in parliament INCLUDING catholics from 1829 onwards. It was not some far flung colony in Africa or the Far East. We were an integral part of the UK.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » I'm not defending everything the British did, those actions are indefensible. But again mistreating your own citizens doesn't make them colonies. If we did the same to the Blasket Isles It wouldn't make them colonies.
Jimoslimos wrote: » A kingdom now, fancy that. Now forgive me but my history is a little shaky, remind me who the last Irish king (or queen was). Funny for such an integral part that the UK didn't collapse in on itself when a rather large part of Ireland left, or that it would in the (unlikely) event of Scotland voting for full independence. Now if England decided to go it alone... The concept of a 'United Kingdom' can exist without any one of the constituent nations except England.
Jimoslimos wrote: » A kingdom now, fancy that. Now forgive me but my history is a little shaky, remind me who the last Irish king (or queen was).
Nodin wrote: » ....we weren't "British". We were - for centuries - subjugated in the same manner as the Africans. Fortunately for us, being white skinned and a relxation of the regime meant there was better chances of advancement, whereas most of the Africans were kept under the boot almost until they gained independence
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Population movement does not a colony make. The British had many overseas territories but Ireland was never one of them. We were one nation, divided into four constitute countries. If Ireland was connected to Britain by land you wouldn't say we were a colony.
seanhalpin wrote: » There is also an arguement I've heard (and have to agree with) that if the UK had maintained its African colonys, they would be an awful lot better off for it. Think about it: before the white man arrived the natives lived a very primitive subsistence lifestyle. In some areas you could go so far as to say that they lived as animals..
seanhalpin wrote: » When the British came, they brought buildings, roads, railways, employment and much other civil infractructure to what was up to then a totally undeveloped continent...
seanhalpin wrote: » Interesting how the only country to be an economic success was South Africa. I'll leave it up to the readers to figure why that was the case as i'd be accused of something if I gave the reason.
Nodin wrote: » No, you couldn't, actually. ...for their own benefit and needs, anything of good to the natives being largely co-incidental. "accussed"? O no, you'd be guilty of it.
Sound of Silence wrote: » I assume you're making up your own qualifications. The point in bold is also quite confused. Wales is not a country, but a Principality which at one point had borders that eclipsed both Wales and Scotland. Neither Scotland or England even existed as tangible Nations until around the 10th Century, and often found themselves to be continually at War. Am I to believe that during this entire time we were all simply oblivious to our Natural form as a single homogeneous Nation, where Colonisation escapes definition and is simply considered "Population Movement"? Next you will be claiming that Jamestown was a result of the natural movement of Anglo-Saxons across the Atlantic, rather than a concerted effort to establish a new English dominion. The aim of Plantation in Ireland was to Anglicise and pacify the local population by essentially removing them from the equation. It often involved the forceful confiscation of land and the removal of the local population to make way for English and Scottish settlers. It's effectively the framework of every Colony imaginable.
Sound of Silence wrote: » I'll be honest here and say that I have no idea what qualifies as anti-Irish any more. The lines between legitimate criticism and blind hatred have become so blurred that it's pretty pointless in calling it out. The topic itself evokes some kind of weird and twisted version of Poe's laws, where the lines between and parody and reality are pretty non-existent. This might not be the case for everyone. I've spoken to a well known Unionist poster on this site who claims that being Anti-British essentially boils down to being "overly critical" of the UK. What ultimately matters is respecting the views of individuals, as long as their capable of providing a reasonable arguement.
Sound of Silence wrote: » And whilst I've continued to address the inherent flaws in the British Military, you will notice that not once have I urged you or anyone else here to wear an Easter Lilly. Clearly that's what differentiates us two. I happen to understand that the Easter Lilly can often be an inherently political or emotionally charged symbol, even when some of it's advocates claim otherwise; and for that reason I will never wear it, nor shall I ever condescend to someone who refuses to honour the memory of "our Nation's martyrs".
Sound of Silence wrote: » What's interesting is that throughout your argument you've continually urged me to ignore the less admirable actions of the British Military in favour of it's seemingly more apparent triumphs. Has the irony of this evaded you completely? Forgive me, but I will continue to explain to you that the British Armed Forces have written their own history in Northern Ireland, quite often in blood, but most often in it's quite favourable approach to collusion.
Sound of Silence wrote: » Whilst I can no doubt look admirably at the actions of service people both here in Ireland and in Britain during the First and Second World Wars, I simply can't ignore the conflict in Northern Ireland at a whim, especially when it's had such a profound and lasting impact on my Community.
Sound of Silence wrote: » I've already addressed this point in a response to LordSutch.
Sound of Silence wrote: » I've already discussed the topic of Irish ethnicity with you before. I had even posted a link to one of my previous comments.
Sound of Silence wrote: » When the Nationalist community is continually urged to ignore frankly huge swathes of Irish history in favour of a few select instances of British generosity, then it's going to be pretty difficult to begin reconciling our differences. The microcosm of Anglo-Irish relations which is the Stormont electorate will give you an idea of how painful and slow this dialogue continues to be.
Sound of Silence wrote: » When people ask us, in the interest of a faux progressive attitude, to simply treat the whole topic with a nonchalant approach, I can't help but feel that the lives of all those lost during the Troubles are pretty much cheapened and forgotten. What has been learned? We've only managed to come this far by actually addressing issues, rather than ignoring them.
GRMA wrote: » Utter rubiush.
GRMA wrote: » The Poppy is used by the British establishment as a powerful propaganda tool for "our brave lads" in Iraq or whatever imperialist jaunt they are off on. Its nothig less than a recruitment drive and an attempt to link the superheroes who are off murdering in the middle east, who murdered in Ireland, kenya etc by linking them and portraying them as the same as the people who fought in WW1 and WW2.
GRMA wrote: » If you really wanted to remember the "futility of war" you wouldnt wear a British Nationalist symbol like the poppy, which glorifies the British army but would instead wear something like the White Poppy.
GRMA wrote: » Another thing, it takes an extraordinary amount of double think for people to refuse to wear Lilies because they have been "tainted" yet would wear poppies - if one is tainted the other surely is, or does the British army's hi-jinks in Kenya, Afghanistan, The North etc etc etc not matter?
Iwasfrozen wrote: » I think you're getting mixed up on your dates, the days of the plantation were in the 16th and 17th centuries. Long before the concept of the nation state. And yes the aim of the plantation was quite obviously to neutralise Ireland for the benefit of stability to the realm. Again you look at this from the point of view of the 21st century were one nation committed cultural genocide on the other but in a feudal system there aren't nations only Kings and Chieftains and if the local Chieftains aren't loyal to the Crown then their lands are systematically confiscated and given to more loyal subjects. This may seem cruel but the aim is to prevent future war (if it's carried out right and not botched like this one was).
seanhalpin wrote: » Well I'd rather be guilty of it than be a proclamation-thumping deValera-ite.
seanhalpin wrote: » I think many people would agree that Ireland as a whole, NI included, has gone backwards in many respects since the 26 county state was established.
karma_ wrote: » Even accounting for After Hours standards, this is sublimely insane.
seanhalpin wrote: » I don't mean in absolute terms, but relative to our peers. Perhaps lagged behind would be a better term.
karma_ wrote: » Go on then, explain to us all how the state has regressed.
Aodh Rua wrote: » Yet in May 1613 the British colonial community gerrymandered the entire Irish parliament, through creating new boroughs with British Protestant "majorities", and thus took control of the parliament of an entire country where they were by no means a majority, or even a numerically strong minority. Why would they care enough about doing such a thing if "elections weren't the norm in those days"? Elections were very normal in those days. They were so important that the franchise was severely restricted and 1613 witnessed a British Protestant overthrow of the democratic parliamentary system in Ireland as it then existed.
seanhalpin wrote: » There is also an arguement I've heard (and have to agree with) that if the UK had maintained its African colonys, they would be an awful lot better off for it. Think about it: before the white man arrived the natives lived a very primitive subsistence lifestyle. In some areas you could go so far as to say that they lived as animals. When the British came, they brought buildings, roads, railways, employment and much other civil infractructure to what was up to then a totally undeveloped continent.
seanhalpin wrote: » Steadily decreasing population for most of 20th century si the biggest one. Almost unique amogst western countries that we couldn't even sustain a population. 1930s = doom gloom depression, poverty emigration, TB 1950s = unemployment, poverty, TB, power tripping Catholic Church 1960s = not too bad economically, still socially backward due to suffocating influence of RCC 1980s = unemployment, poverty, emigration 2000-2010 = unemployment, emigration, hoplessness Our general civil infrastructure has lagged decades beind Britain. They got motorways in the 60s, we only got to that level a few years ago. Britain still has a functioning rail network, ours is dismantled and not really of any use any more as there is noone there to use it. Our public "healthcare" is a total farce. Regressive policies of forcing every child to learn what is in effect an alien language. The catholic church still has a strangle hold on irish mentality. A totally degenerated society in general.
philologos wrote: » I'm curious as to why you keep bringing up Unionism in this discussion, particularly when you respond to my posts.
Not at all. I've acknowledged that they've done things that were wrong. Most people on thread were doing that already. I'm interested in balance, fair and critical assessment of all sides.It's by and large done, and much of it was instigated by the INLA / IRA / RIRA or whatever else they've branded themselves as. Looking at both sides and giving fair consideration is appropriate.
I don't claim and I haven't that British history is all rosy. Read my posts rather than what you want my posts to say.
I'm not going to trawl through posts to do so, but I wear it as an remembrance of past conflict, and the futility of war, not to "glorify Britain". Why did you do that again? I'm as Irish as you are.
I don't know why you keep bringing up "the nationalist" community. I support the 26 county republic.
Why? The red poppy is sufficient. It does what I need it to. I'm not so foaming at the mouth against the British army to do anything else. I don't wear it to glorify the British army, but to remember. That's all.
I don't wear a lily because I don't see why the Easter Rising was such a great thing. It brought destruction to a city which largely didn't want it. If people think the Easter Rising is great, and so on, good on them. I don't share that view.
