Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

1…1011131516…21

Comments

  • #362
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    marienbad wrote: »
    No Mr Cumulonimbus. your final statement re projecting forward in time is hard to comprehend. You are treating history as static. How far back do you actually want to go ?

    Going by what you are saying the jews are entitled to Palestine , The native americans to America and the aborigines to Australia and New Zealand and Ulster Unionists should just pack up a f%&k off home ( where ever that is ) ?

    Don't know from this whether you think the process itself (colonisation) is right/wrong, legal/illegal.
    Originally posted by Randomname2:annexation

    Thanks. A word I'd genuinely forgotten about, but useful nonetheless! Can you decouple it from the concept of colonisation though? Don't think you can.
    Ireland invaded Ireland several times and subjected Ireland to the rule of Ireland. There wasn't even a notion of 'Ireland' until the eighteenth century at all. During the Reformation there was a notion of Catholicsm vs Protestantism

    Ireland v Ireland? Exclusive of external interference? Don't follow you here.

    Even accepting as you do that Ireland may have emerged as a country in the 18th century, by that time it was under the control of another country. Religion was a key sign of loyalty to a state in the era you describe and after. It contributed alot to the strained relations between the 2 islands. (Penal Laws etc.)
    The Normans at least made a proper invasion of the island of Ireland

    But didn't complete it. The view exists that it disrupted the gradual amalgamation of the various Celtic kingdoms on the island into a single entity under a central leadership.
    Depends on the ramifications of political failure, both local and long term. Depends on what sort of occupier you are talking about: are they like the United States with Puerto Rico or more like Nazi Germany with Lithuania? Depends on what sort of force you are talking about, at whom it would be aimed, and what likelihood it would have of success. It would also depend on whether there was a general consensus whether this was the right thing to do, among the people who have been occupied.

    Nazi Germany with Poland would be an even more clearcut example to use I'd say.


  • #363
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Nazi Germany with Poland would be an even more clearcut example to use I'd say.
    So Ireland's relationship with Britain in 1916 was directly comparable to Poland's with Germany in 1940?

    Wow.


  • #364
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Nodin wrote: »
    .....well everything works out when you cherry pick your examples.



    It has not even been a hundred years, which itself is a relatively short span of time.

    But I am not cherrypicking my examples, I am using those countries that were in a similar position to us in 1916 and are most closely related by race religion and ethnicity !

    In the modern era 100 years is a very long time . Enough time for the rest of Europe to recover from two world wars and still end up far more prosperous more secular and more equitable than we are.


  • #365
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So Ireland's relationship with Britain in 1916 was directly comparable to Poland's with Germany in 1940?

    Wow.

    RandonName2 responded to the question that you wouldn't answer. It was a response to one of the analogies he provided. Are you having a go now then?

    Also you wouldn't answer that question on the grounds that it was hypothetical. You do realise that the counterfactual speculation you are engaging in is also a form of hypothetical reasoning.


  • #366
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So Timothy McVeigh shouldn't have been convicted, because he could justify his actions within his own moral framework?
    marienbad wrote: »
    But I am not cherrypicking my examples, I am using those countries that were in a similar position to us in 1916 and are most closely related by race religion and ethnicity !

    In the modern era 100 years is a very long time . Enough time for the rest of Europe to recover from two world wars and still end up far more prosperous more secular and more equitable than we are.

    You are using every other country but the pertinent one. The men/women of 1916 did not have the advantage of foresight, all they had to go on was the past. And that told them that the only way to be rid of Britain was to revolt and attempt an overthrow.
    Why you need to know anything other than that defeats me.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Mr Cumulonimbus

    Asking if colonisation is right/wrong/legal/illegal and throw in moral/immoral for good measure - is a meaningless question .

    Is it wrong today in the 21st century ? yes, I would say it is wrong today.

    But it is meaningless to project that back in time. You could just as easily ask was monarchy wrong , or feudalism , or not having one man one vote.

    We can say it is wrong today because we have progressed through all those previous phases to get where we are .

    Are you saying that it is wrong at all times and in all places ?


  • #368
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The men/women of 1916 did not have the advantage of foresight, all they had to go on was the past. And that told them that the only way to be rid of Britain was to revolt and attempt an overthrow.

    What part of the past told them that, pray tell. :D

    ...

    ...

    You aren't seriously referring to the war of the three kingdoms are you?


  • #369
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You are using every other country but the pertinent one. The men/women of 1916 did not have the advantage of foresight, all they had to go on was the past. And that told them that the only way to be rid of Britain was to revolt and attempt an overthrow.
    Why you need to know anything other than that defeats me.

    How do you mean they did not have the advantage of foresight ? You are not seriously contending that they embarked on their course without some idea of their goals ?

    As for the only way to get rid of Britain being physical force - history elsewhere has disproved that in the examples I have given .

    And as an aside, imho, the primary objective of any revolutionary movement is to improve the lot of the people they believe they represent and on that measure, it could be argued, ours was a signal failure.


  • #370
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    What part of the past told them that, pray tell. :D

    ...

    ...

    You aren't seriously referring to the war of the three kingdoms are you?

    I have no idea what Pearse or Dev's etc thought processes where, nor do I care all that much, all I need to know is that nobody of intellect embarks on a mission like they did without serious thought and without having come to the conclusion (whatever you or I think of merits of that conclusion) that it was the only way.
    The only other conclusion I could draw is that there is an innate Irish trait for bloodlust for the sake of bloodlust.
    marienbad wrote: »
    How do you mean they did not have the advantage of foresight ? You are not seriously contending that they embarked on their course without some idea of their goals ?
    Of course they would have thought of the consequences while weighing up their options. But not with knowledge of what we know now, which you don't seem to be able to separate out of your thought processes.
    As for the only way to get rid of Britain being physical force - history elsewhere has disproved that in the examples I have given .
    They believed it was the only way, that is all we need to know, frankly.
    And as an aside, imho, the primary objective of any revolutionary movement is to improve the lot of the people they believe they represent and on that measure, it could be argued, ours was a signal failure.
    Yes it could but it could also be argued the other way.


  • #371
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    marienbad wrote: »
    is a meaningless question......

    Is it wrong today in the 21st century ? yes, I would say it is wrong today.

    But you answered it anyway with the above, at least in the context of today.
    We can say it is wrong today because we have progressed through all those previous phases to get where we are

    Many down the ages thought it wrong then too and this contributed to the situation we have arrived at today.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Also you wouldn't answer that question on the grounds that it was hypothetical.
    Of course it was hypothetical. You asked me to answer a question based on the premise that there was no prospect of peace. You declined to commit yourself to the assertion that there was no prospect of peace in 1916; therefore the question was inherently hypothetical.

    The logic I'm applying is really very simple: either there was a future prospect of achieving independence by peaceful means in 1916, or there wasn't. If there was no such prospect, that's a belief that in the absence of the 1916 rising, there is no conceivable outcome other than that we would still be a part of the United Kingdom, which strikes me as risible.

    If there was a prospect of achieving independence without going to war, then the justification for starting a war is the belief that it wouldn't have been achieved in a satisfactory timeframe. That requires that you define the calculus of how many deaths a given delay in achieving independence is worth, as well as explaining how you arrive at the respective timeframes for peaceful versus violent means.

    Perhaps you could explain which of these positions you subscribe to, and if the latter, explain the calculus for me. While you're at it, you might answer my (distinctly non-hypothetical) question as to whether the occupation of Chile by anyone other than Mapuche is illegal; if you could explain what law was broken by the British presence in Ireland, that would be good too.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The men/women of 1916 did not have the advantage of foresight, all they had to go on was the past. And that told them that the only way to be rid of Britain was to revolt and attempt an overthrow.
    Can you explain which past experiences had demonstrated the success of violence in removing Britain from Ireland?

    Also, care to explain why your rejection of objective morality doesn't apply to Tim McVeigh?


  • #373
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    marienbad wrote: »
    But I am not cherrypicking my examples, I am using those countries that were in a similar position to us in 1916 and are most closely related by race religion and ethnicity ! .

    ...cherry picking.
    marienbad wrote: »
    In the modern era 100 years is a very long time . Enough time for the rest of Europe to recover from two world wars and still end up far more prosperous more secular and more equitable than we are.


    You'll find that various parts of Europe were on that road long before the country became independent. As regards being "equitable", the British lagged behind many states on that score.


  • #374
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Even accepting as you do that Ireland may have emerged as a country in the 18th century, by that time it was under the control of another country. Religion was a key sign of loyalty to a state in the era you describe and after. It contributed alot to the strained relations between the 2 islands. (Penal Laws etc.)

    More the case that the lack of royal authority contributed to strained relations. Counter-intuitive, I know.

    Henry VIII could one day say "We are no longer Catholic, from this day we will be Protestant" and KAZAM, England was Protestant. Okay, it was a little bit more complicated than that, but such an edict had no such bearing on Ireland. Indeed, the English settlers in Ireland were very distressed by this abandonment of Catholicism and spent the next hundred years angsting over their competing loyalties to Crown and Pope... until Cromwell came along and crushed them.

    Ireland's appreciation of religion filtered down from England; so while most of the British Isles were Tridentine Catholic, most of Ireland was pre-Tridentine Catholic. Tellingly, the only real Protestants in Ireland were settlers during the Reformation. Ironically it was the much more radical Protestantism of Scotland which helped increase tensions leading to the civil war; and of course as Ulster was the most planted province, so there was a particular Scottish Presbyterian flavour to such colonies. It was a shame as this really created a clear divide between native and foreigner; which is ultimately why we have Northern Ireland today I suppose.

    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    But didn't complete it. The view exists that it disrupted the gradual amalgamation of the various Celtic kingdoms on the island into a single entity under a central leadership.

    Possible I suppose, but unlikely.

    In the British Isles Alfred the Great had been the single best candidate for a king strong enough and competent enough to create some sort of unified province. Some people tout Brian Boru as the great opportunity that Ireland missed, but quite frankly there isn't enough fact to go on to suppose a single celtic king of all Ireland was an achievable objective of the time.

    No, weirdly enough, the Norman conquest was probably Ireland's best bet for political unity; but such unity was ultimately not achieved until well into the sixteenth century, by which time it was far too late for any sort of homogeneous whole to be achieved.


  • #375
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I have no idea what Pearse or Dev's etc thought processes where, nor do I care all that much, all I need to know is that nobody of intellect embarks on a mission like they did without serious thought and without having come to the conclusion (whatever you or I think of merits of that conclusion) that it was the only way.
    The only other conclusion I could draw is that there is an innate Irish trait for bloodlust for the sake of bloodlust.
    That's arguing from your conclusion, as well as an appeal to authority (worse still, an authority being rejected by those you're arguing with).

    You're saying that people you admire decided something was right, therefore it couldn't possibly have been wrong. Can you see how utterly unconvincing an argument that is to someone who doesn't admire those people?
    They believed it was the only way, that is all we need to know, frankly.
    That's a flat-out rejection of rational analysis: you are claiming that starting a war was justified for no other reason than that the people who started the war thought it was the right thing to do. By that analysis, the invasion of Iraq was justified.


  • #376
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ... That's a flat-out rejection of rational analysis: you are claiming that starting a war was justified for no other reason than that the people who started the war thought it was the right thing to do. By that analysis, the invasion of Iraq was justified.

    I'm open to correction, but I'm reasonably sure that crown forces were in situ in the country during the rising.....


  • #377
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I have no idea what Pearse or Dev's etc thought processes where, nor do I care all that much, all I need to know is that nobody of intellect embarks on a mission like they did without serious thought and without having come to the conclusion (whatever you or I think of merits of that conclusion) that it was the only way.
    The only other conclusion I could draw is that there is an innate Irish trait for bloodlust for the sake of bloodlust.

    You don't say?

    Pearse: "We must accustom ourselves to the thought of arms, to the use of arms. We may make mistakes in the beginning and shoot the wrong people, but bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing, and a nation which regards it as the final horror has lost its manhood."

    We know their dream; enough
    To know they dreamed and are dead.
    And what if excess of love
    Bewildered them till they died?


  • #378
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'm open to correction, but I'm reasonably sure that crown forces were in situ in the country during the rising.....
    Yes. The army of the United Kingdom was in the United Kingdom. Film at 11.


  • #379
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Can you explain which past experiences had demonstrated the success of violence in removing Britain from Ireland?
    As the saying goes, they didn't come up the canal in a bubble, they grew up and became involved in a revolution, most recently they had watched the signing of the Ulster Covenant and witnessed the formation and activities of the Bitish armed and backed UVF. They where witnessing their positions weakening.
    Pearse wrote:
    Life springs from death; and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations. The Defenders of this Realm have worked well in secret and in the open. They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half. They think that they have foreseen everything, think that they have provided against everything; but, the fools, the fools, the fools! — They have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace.
    Also, care to explain why your rejection of objective morality doesn't apply to Tim McVeigh?
    If I could see a possible relevance to the discussion I might have something to say, but I can't. Are we going to go on a trawl of world events?


    edit: That's deadly...'Originally posted by Pearse' :)


  • #380
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Of course it was hypothetical.

    Go on oscar have a go...... Others have. What are you afraid of?
    there is no conceivable outcome other than that we would still be a part of the United Kingdom, which strikes me as risible.

    Have I said that? I wouldn't argue against that premise in total isolation.
    if you could explain what law was broken by the British presence in Ireland, that would be good too.

    I'm extending the concept of it being wrong to one of illegality at that time (1921 and back) by interpreting today's body of law in the area (Rome Statutes etc). Dont forget you agreed with me here that one could argue from first principles that the colonisation of countries by other countries is wrong.

    And even if no law was in place at the time to cover such an eventuality I would still argue it was wrong. Would you? You've argued in the past on the basis of morality that its wrong to kill people. Would you still argue that its wrong to kill people on morality alone if no law existed that decreed that killing people was wrong?


  • #381
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    If I could see a possible relevance to the discussion I might have something to say, but I can't.
    You're saying that the only thing that mattered in 1916 is that the instigators of the violence felt that the violence was justified - no further justification is needed.

    Do you apply the same reasoning to McVeigh's actions? If not, why not? Isn't that precisely what I was accused of earlier: double standards?


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...cherry picking.




    You'll find that various parts of Europe were on that road long before the country became independent. As regards being "equitable", the British lagged behind many states on that score.

    Chery picking ? not really . But if you like give some examples of your own to refute my point.

    And Ireland and the UK were also on that road before independence , land reform , old age pension, etc . But even after two world wars we have fallen far behind Europe in prosperity secularity and equitability.
    .


  • #383
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    But you answered it anyway with the above, at least in the context of today.



    Many down the ages thought it wrong then too and this contributed to the situation we have arrived at today.


    What are you saying here ? are you saying that all invasion was wrong or what ?


  • #384
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're saying that the only thing that mattered in 1916 is that the instigators of the violence felt that the violence was justified - no further justification is needed.

    You are attempting to apply your own moral imperatives to people who had entirely different ones. That is pointless and a waste of pixels because the real world doesn't work like that.
    Do you apply the same reasoning to McVeigh's actions? If not, why not?
    No I don't, everything that crosses my desk (so to speak) is given it's own separate consideration based on the circumstances. That is why I reject the relevance of McVeigh and what he did to this discussion.


  • #385
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    marienbad wrote: »
    What are you saying here ? are you saying that all invasion was wrong or what ?

    Colonisation of countries by others.


  • #386
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Go on oscar have a go...... Others have. What are you afraid of?
    Why? Did it suddenly stop being a hypothetical question and develop some relevance to the discussion?
    Have I said that? I wouldn't argue against that premise in total isolation.
    I don't know what you mean by this, and I'm not sure why you took that one partial sentence out of the context of the whole argument.
    I'm extending the concept of it being wrong to one of illegality at that time (1921 and back) by interpreting today's body of law in the area (Rome Statutes etc). Dont forget you agreed with me here that one could argue from first principles that the colonisation of countries by other countries is wrong.

    If no law is in place to cover such an eventuality will you refuse to argue on the basis of right and wrong alone? You've argued in the past on the basis of morality that its wrong to kill people. Would you still argue that its wrong to kill people on morality alone if no law existed that decreed that killing people was wrong?
    Of course. I'm happy to operate on the basis of morality, if it means you'll stop making the rather daft argument that the British presence in Ireland was illegal.

    So let's talk about whether it was morally wrong for Ireland to be a part of the United Kingdom in 1916. Your argument seems to be that because Ireland had been invaded and settled in the past, it was morally wrong for Ireland to be ruled by the invaders. So, is it morally wrong for Australia to be ruled by anyone other than Aborigines, or Chile by non-Mapuches?


  • #387
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Colonisation of countries by others.

    Why is everyone so cryptic in their answers ? We are just having a discussion.

    Do you mean in the 21st century ? If so I agree with you.

    Do you mean for all time ? if so it is an utterly meaningless statement.


  • #388
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You are attempting to apply your own moral imperatives to people who had entirely different ones. That is pointless and a waste of pixels because the real world doesn't work like that.
    So we shouldn't apply our own moral imperatives to George W Bush or Tony Blair, because the real world doesn't work like that? We should cheerfully accept that they operate according to a different moral compass, and therefore what they decide to do is acceptable?
    No I don't, everything that crosses my desk (so to speak) is given it's own separate consideration based on the circumstances. That is why I reject the relevance of McVeigh and what he did to this discussion.
    Those are precisely the double standards I was accused of earlier.


  • #389
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why? Did it suddenly stop being a hypothetical question and develop some relevance to the discussion?

    Sigh........
    rather daft argument

    High quality rebuttal there.
    Your argument seems to be that because Ireland had been invaded and settled in the past, it was morally wrong for Ireland to be ruled by the invaders.

    And your argument against is?


  • #390
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    No, weirdly enough, the Norman conquest was probably Ireland's best bet for political unity; but such unity was ultimately not achieved until well into the sixteenth century, by which time it was far too late for any sort of homogeneous whole to be achieved.

    True enough in that context. As I said previously, the Norman conquest of Ireland was not completed. If it had been completed to the same extent as in England the unfolding history of the 2 islands could have been alot similar.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So we shouldn't apply our own moral imperatives to George W Bush or Tony Blair, because the real world doesn't work like that? We should cheerfully accept that they operate according to a different moral compass, and therefore what they decide to do is acceptable? Those are precisely the double standards I was accused of earlier.
    They do operate according to different moral compasses, (ask any of the mothers and children bombed into the 'acceptance of their gifts') despite what I think of them morally.


Advertisement