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…1516171921

Comments

  • #542
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    but what must be remembered is that Britain is still engaged in bullying and exploiting areas of the world where it is easy to do, at the expense of their own military cannon fodder.

    Debatable, off-topic and not relevant?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    When the rest of the world knew that empire building was a bad thing

    Who?

    You mean the US?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    they clung on until those societies disintegrated and they had to be forced to leave, leaving a mess behind them.

    Still unsure what this has to do with NI; but I would say that the degeneration of Rhodesia and South Africa, the civil war of India, etc. all happened as a result of independence, not the other way round. Of course, that ties in with the whole thing about nationalism that any sizeable group of people who are culturally separate from those around them will have to either get independence or be amalgamated. It's the whole reason why we have separate states.

    Actually, that's kind of an important point here. Previously you would have different states based on the balance of power (the Russian Empire would grow and shrink depending on its strength and military/economic successes). Today a state will loosely contain a particular 'people'.


  • #543
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Do you think the campaigns of ETA and the PKK are correct, and if so, why, and, if not, why not?

    In what context are you asking me say if they are correct or not? You didn't give a reason why such a campaign might have started in the first place, or is this an attempt to swing the thread back to fixate on the methods used to reverse empire building rather than on the reasons for doing it? ;).
    Er... yes it would!

    And the moral values of today came from where............


  • #544
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    OCorcrainn wrote: »
    Don't make me laugh, are you seriously equating a unitary state empire that subjugated and exploited hundreds of thousands of people, started countless, unneccessary wars (still at it) to an anarchistic group of pirates from over 1000 years ago?

    What is an empire?


  • #545
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    OCorcrainn wrote: »
    Don't make me laugh, are you seriously equating a unitary state empire that subjugated and exploited hundreds of thousands of people, started countless, unneccessary wars (still at it) to an anarchistic group of pirates from over 1000 years ago?

    Remind me again, where was the main slave trading hub in Europe in the 11th century?

    What nationality did the soldiers come from that put down the Sepoy rebellion?

    What 42 countries make up isaf?


  • #546
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    In what context are you asking me say if they are correct or not? You didn't give a reason why such a campaign might have started in the first place, or is this an attempt to swing the thread back to fixate on the methods used to reverse empire building rather than on the reasons for doing it? ;).

    For someone who says something as broad as "empire is always wrong" I'm surprised you need more context than the names of two organisations whose motives and means are about as well documented as you can get.

    So... do you think that they are right? Do you agree with their philosophies?


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭gallag


    OCorcrainn wrote: »
    Don't make me laugh, are you seriously equating a unitary state empire that subjugated and exploited hundreds of thousands of people, started countless, unneccessary wars (still at it) to an anarchistic group of pirates from over 1000 years ago?

    All I am saying is that if the anarchistic group of pirates had more success in the welsh raids they would have pushed on, you seem to believe the irish are a more civilised and moral people than the french, British, Spanish etc because they lacked the resources to build an empire.


  • #548
    OCorcrainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 428 ✭✭OCorcrainn


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    What is an empire?

    Google it or just stop being deliberately obtuse, it gets very repetitive.


  • #549
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    gallag wrote: »
    All I am saying is that if the anarchistic group of pirates had more success in the welsh raids they would have pushed on, you seem to believe the irish are a more civilised and moral people than the french, British, Spanish etc because they lacked the resources to build an empire.

    I don't think the Irish lacked the resources as such, it is just that they did it under the union flag rather than their own.


  • #550
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    motives

    Never wanting to consider why a uprising might be in anyway justifiable then?
    means

    So you are fixated on the methods to correct the supposed problem then, as opposed to the reasons why such campaigns start.


  • #551
    OCorcrainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 428 ✭✭OCorcrainn


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Remind me again, where was the main slave trading hub in Europe in the 11th century?

    I don't know please enlighten me oh wise one.
    What nationality did the soldiers come from that put down the Sepoy rebellion?


    The Sepoy Rebellion, didn't that happen 10 years after the British let over a million Irish people starve to death? I guess it was the British Army who put it down with some of the Anglo-Irish regiments within it perhaps? Because I don't think Ireland was a sovereign nation or had its own army because we were subjugated but please do correct me if I am mistaken.
    What 42 countries make up isaf?

    Are we talking about the United Nations now? You are a funny fellow.


    gallag wrote: »
    All I am saying is that if the anarchistic group of pirates had more success in the welsh raids they would have pushed on, you seem to believe the irish are a more civilised and moral people than the french, British, Spanish etc because they lacked the resources to build an empire.

    Funny you mention that, it is people like yourself and Fratton Fred who keep telling us that there never was an Irish nation or nationality until the Gaelic Revival and independence yet here you are telling us that Irish people were raiding, colonizing and pillaging people over 1000 years ago.


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    OCorcrainn wrote: »
    Google it or just stop being deliberately obtuse, it gets very repetitive.

    Look the word doesn't have any meaning here.

    The words country, state, empire, etc. have no clear definitions.

    We say that a country is an empire if it has an emperor. WTF is an emperor?
    No, seriously.

    At one stage it was a mark of honour for a country/kingdom/state to call itself an empire, so pretty much everybody with any power did exactly that. Even the bloody Holy Roman Empire called itself an empire (a notion that Napoleon famously laughed at).

    So what the hell is an empire?

    Is it something with overseas colonies? Nope. Is it... something with a monarch as head of state? Nope! Is it something with non-indigenous peoples? Nope!

    So why is France not an empire today?

    Because it says so.
    It switched from being a empire before the Franco-Prussian war into being a republic afterwards; even though all of its colonialism was done while it was a republic, and not an empire.

    Empire is a derogatory term today so no country wants to be called it.

    England called itself an empire when it was a small backwater country at the edge of Europe. The English king also called himself the king of France, even when he had no territory on mainland Europe.

    What's the difference between the Persian empire and Iran? Sorry, trick question.

    So saying that something was wrong because it was an empire is a vacuous argument. You can equally say that the Netherlands is wrong because it is a monarchy. Or you could call the United States today an empire if you like. Or not. Does Obama look like an emperor, do you think?


  • #553
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Never wanting to consider why a uprising might be in anyway justifiable then?

    So you are fixated on the methods to correct the supposed problem then, as opposed to the reasons why such campaigns start.

    Oh wait, so the ends determines the means in your eyes, then?

    No, personally I'd treat both motive and method. I am pretty sure I mentioned both there.... yup.

    Surprised that you couldn't give me an answer to the above... or does the fact that Turkey and Spain do not call themselves empires make the moralistic consideration too complicated, in your opinion?


  • #554
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    OCorcrainn wrote: »

    Funny you mention that, it is people like yourself and Fratton Fred who keep telling us that there never was an Irish nation or nationality until the Gaelic Revival and independence yet here you are telling us that Irish people were raiding, colonizing and pillaging people over 1000 years ago.

    Who says there was never am Irish nation or nationality?

    That raiding, raping and pillaging is how empires began. Raising a village and taking slaves is the epitome of subjugation is it not?

    Dublin was a major slave trading centre by the way,


  • #555
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Debatable, off-topic and not relevant?
    Respond and stop moderating.


    Who?

    You mean the US?

    The UN Committee on Decolonisation has been in existence for over 50 years. It still has 16 colonies on it's books, guess who is one of those still clinging on to it's colonies?


    Still unsure what this has to do with NI; but I would say that the degeneration of Rhodesia and South Africa, the civil war of India, etc. all happened as a result of independence, not the other way round. Of course, that ties in with the whole thing about nationalism that any sizeable group of people who are culturally separate from those around them will have to either get independence or be amalgamated. It's the whole reason why we have separate states.

    Actually, that's kind of an important point here. Previously you would have different states based on the balance of power (the Russian Empire would grow and shrink depending on its strength and military/economic successes). Today a state will loosely contain a particular 'people'.

    Because they left power vacumms, it was inevitable that those socieities would fracture and take a long time to recover. Are you saying that Britain had NO responsibility for what happened when they left?
    At least we have learned from their previous behaviour and the process will be done properly here, the British can't just walk away.


  • #556
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Oh wait, so the ends determines the means in your eyes, then?

    Lazy. That can be construed as an unwillingness to analyse individually every rebellion/uprising etc.
    No, personally I'd treat both motive and method. I am pretty sure I mentioned both there.... yup.

    Which could lead to the supposed moral equivalency of occupied and occupier as one of the possible end arguments?
    or does the fact that Turkey and Spain do not call themselves empires make the moralistic consideration too complicated, in your opinion?

    Simplistic. I've already said it doesn't matter what type state is at this. Nazi Germany didnt have an officially designated king or emperor from 1933 to 45 did it?


  • #557
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    You can make your view point in the context of todays moral values as they have evolved from the past on the concept of "right and "wrong". That would'nt be "in isolation".

    Take marienbad's view that:



    He's forcing you to apply the moral standpoint applicable at the time (say 1850) and if the moral standpoint on empire building said it was "right" at that time, that's the view he's saying you should accept.

    No I am not


  • #558
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    RandomName2 wrote: »

    So what the hell is an empire?

    A collection of nations under the control of a supreme authority.

    What's the difference between the Persian empire and Iran? Sorry, trick question.

    It's hardly a trick question, there's a pretty major difference.


  • #559
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Lazy. That can be construed as an unwillingness to analyse individually every rebellion/uprising etc.

    Bingo; only replace 'every' with 'any'.
    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Which could lead to the supposed moral equivalency of occupied and occupier as one of the possible end arguments?

    Hypothetically, I suppose so.

    I think Germany was occupied after the 2nd World War btw.

    Irrelevant? You betcha.
    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Simplistic. I've already said it doesn't matter what type state is at this. Nazi Germany didnt have an officially designated king or emperor from 1933 to 45 did it?

    Oh, no, you said specifically, exclusively, empire.

    And there, you select another state that called itself an empire. You could have chosen the USSR to illustrate your point, which at least didn't call itself an empire.
    karma_ wrote: »
    A collection of nations under the control of a supreme authority.

    And what is a nation?
    karma_ wrote: »
    It's hardly a trick question, there's a pretty major difference.

    The presence or absence of an ayatollah?


  • #560
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    RandomName2 wrote: »



    And what is a nation?

    I'm not getting drawn into your pedanticism, you may if you like swap out nation in my original post to say state/country/city/area as you prefer.

    The presence or absence of an ayatollah?

    No, there is a massive difference (which I'm not going to go into detail here about) between what was the ancient Persian empire and modern day Iran.


  • #561
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    marienbad wrote: »
    No I am not

    Then explain what you really mean, or as Happyman42 stated:
    Marienbad has tied themselves in an illogical knot

    Can you refute his accusation?

    Do you place your own actual personal opinion and interpretation of a particular event above your statement that:
    we must review the past from a moral standpoint , but the moral standpoint applicable at the time and not our moral standpoint

    ?

    Can you clear this up once and for all?
    Originally posted by RandomName2: Oh, no, you said specifically, exclusively, empire.

    And the importance of this bit of word play is?


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Then explain what you really mean, or as Happyman42 stated:



    Can you refute his accusation?

    Do you place own actual personal opinion and interpretation of a particular event above your statement that:



    ?

    Can you clear this up once and for all?

    I don't need to clear it up, everybody except you seems to understand my viewpoint.


  • #563
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    karma_ wrote: »
    I'm not getting drawn into your pedanticism, you may if you like swap out nation in my original post to say state/country/city/area as you prefer.

    Swap in any of those, and most places today are empires or controlled by such. You can even describe Ireland as an empire if you like. It would be rubbish, of course, but so is saying that an empire in the 20th century is the same as one in 2,000 BC, which is what some posters here were attempting to argue.

    Empire is bad. Anything anti-empire is good. Yet people can't actually say what an empire is.

    9/11 was good because it was anti-American imperialism. Etc, yawn
    karma_ wrote: »
    No, there is a massive difference (which I'm not going to go into detail here about) between what was the ancient Persian empire and modern day Iran.

    Of course you are right; but sure I didn't even say what period of the Persian empire I was talking about!

    I was trying to illustrate how binary pairings of "WELL THIS THING IS AN EMPIRE, AND THIS THING IS NOT AN EMPIRE" was ridiculous.


  • #564
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    And the importance of this bit of word play is?

    I'll assume at this point that you have forgotten or abandoned the thesis of your original argument.


  • #565
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    marienbad wrote: »
    I don't need to clear it up, everybody except you seems to understand my viewpoint.

    Don't forget Happyman42...........

    You wont clarify your position?


  • #566
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Don't forget Happyman42...........

    You wont clarify your position?

    I don't need to.If you don't understand it by now you never will, so what is the point


  • #567
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    I'll assume at this point that you have forgotten or abandoned the thesis of your original argument.

    If you don't understand the statement that it's not important about the type of state at it, but that it actually happened is the more important thing, then I can't help you honestly.


  • #568
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Swap in any of those, and most places today are empires or controlled by such. You can even describe Ireland as an empire if you like. It would be rubbish, of course, but so is saying that an empire in the 20th century is the same as one in 2,000 BC, which is what some posters here were attempting to argue.

    Empire is bad. Anything anti-empire is good. Yet people can't actually say what an empire is.

    9/11 was good because it was anti-American imperialism. Etc, yawn



    Of course you are right; but sure I didn't even say what period of the Persian empire I was talking about!

    I was trying to illustrate how binary pairings of "WELL THIS THING IS AN EMPIRE, AND THIS THING IS NOT AN EMPIRE" was ridiculous.

    Would you describe Ireland as being under the control of a supreme authority?


  • #569
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    So why is France not an empire today?

    Because it says so.

    France recently invaded assisted its former colony Mali in the name of 'security'. France's days of colonialism aren't quite over.


  • #570
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    marienbad wrote: »
    I don't need to.If you don't understand it by now you never will, so what is the point

    ?
    If you mean our pre-existing MORAL viewpoint , then the answer is no.

    You answered using the word "our". It's your (ie your personal) opinion that I'm seeking in reference to this:
    we must review the past from a moral standpoint , but the moral standpoint applicable at the time and not our moral standpoint

    Do you form your opinion going by what you stated here or do you subordinate such a process to your own personal pre-existing opinion whatever that may be?

    "Our" could refer to a modern consensus on a past event not involving you personally.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    karma_ wrote: »
    Would you describe Ireland as being under the control of a supreme authority?

    Of course. Michael D. Hggins is the supreme authority.

    A token figure you say, so not relevant?

    So in that case in 1910 Great Britain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, etc. mustn't have been empires in that case.


Advertisement