If Northern Ireland between 1921 and 1967..

dd972 · 20-11-2013 05:48PM #1

was administered differently, no gerrymandering and less sectarianism would there have been no need for a NICRA or the mayhem that followed? I know there's the view that it was a 'Protestant state for a Protestant people' so maybe that was the way it was always going to end up.

The IRA as it was, post the 50's border campaign was a practically defunct organisation.

Menas · 20-11-2013 05:49PM

No.

iDave · 20-11-2013 05:52PM

I think a lot of the problems of the 70s 80 and 90s could of been averted if the PUL majority hadn't created a de facto apartheid state post partition. Its not inconceivable the nationalist population could of been assimilated. Unfortunately they weren't given the opportunity. Of course there would of been flag wavers regardless but if power sharing and all the other equalities that nationalist have slowly gained since the GFA had been there from day one I don't think the Troubles would of been as bad.

Karl Stein · 20-11-2013 06:03PM

It's highly probable. Remember the vast majority of Catholics were primarily concerned with attaining equal political and civil rights.

Aspirations for a UI were secondary and may have found itself expressed in ordinary parties like the Scottish SNP and Welsh Plaid Cymru if Unionists/Loyalists hadn't started the beating and killing.

Iwasfrozen · 20-11-2013 06:04PM

There would have always been violence. Unfortunately 1916 set a precedent for modern nationalist violence. Thanks a lot Pearse...

wendell borton · 20-11-2013 06:05PM

Interesting quote by Capt. Terence O'Neil on the subject :

In an interview with the Belfast Telegraph published on 10 May 1969 he stated: "It is frightfully hard to explain to Protestants that if you give Roman Catholics a good job and a good house they will live like Protestants because they will see neighbours with cars and television sets; they will refuse to have eighteen children. But if a Roman Catholic is jobless, and lives in the most ghastly hovel he will rear eighteen children on National Assistance. If you treat Roman Catholics with due consideration and kindness they will live like Protestants in spite of the authoritative nature of their Church..."

I am pie · 20-11-2013 06:07PM

If housing and employment had been freely available it is hard to imagine the conditions for conflict in the 60s to exist. Electoral equality would also have been required.

To a large extent these conditions existed long into the 80s and 90s, an unspoken part of the deal is that investment into working class areas was required, jobs were required and housing development was required. Those are the societal benefits, real or perceived, for the peace agreement. The actual real achievements are debatable but now a power sharing elite is in place and they aren't getting off the gravy train.

The most interesting part of the scenario is what the effects of electoral equalirty would have been. I would interested to see the results of an equitable divided NI electoral map. Would the NW of the country, including Derry, have been sustainable with a 30 year nationalist majority?

Quite likely Sinn Fein would be nowhere on a national scale, the SDLP would have led the nationalist vote and the outcome of their representation is a difficult question to answer. How far would they have got? Probably far enough to stop violence in the 60s/70s, but not far enough long term? Hard to say.

Another unpredictable factor is the reaction of loyalists to catholic/nationalist gain. Hard to imagine sitting back and saying "sure, that's democracy for ya"

Somehow we might well have arrived at an impasse, provoked by loyalist reaction to nationalist gains or by a nationalist movement frustrated at intransigence on the part of the british govt.

I am pie · 20-11-2013 06:09PM

ps...PUL isn't a term used in serious discussion. It's up there with "pan nationalist front" in terms of intellectual validity.

Carry on with it if thats how you like to identify yourself.

Skylinehead · 20-11-2013 06:13PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There would have always been violence. Unfortunately 1916 set a precedent for modern nationalist violence. Thanks a lot Pearse...

I'm sorry? There was no nationalist violence until the Loyalist violence started. 1916 had no more to do with it than the Crimean War.

iDave · 20-11-2013 06:17PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'm sorry? There was no nationalist violence until the Loyalist violence started. 1916 had no more to do with it than the Crimean War.

He also conveniently forgets the UVF armed themselves before the Volunteers. Of course there were plenty of examples of precedents of British violence so perhaps its no surprise it happened in that order.

wendell borton · 20-11-2013 06:18PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There would have always been violence. Unfortunately 1916 set a precedent for modern nationalist violence. Thanks a lot Pearse...

The general public in 1916 had little appreciation for the rising until after the British responded with brutality likewise the IRA was dead as an force in NI until the brutal crackdown on people only looking for their rights.

Iwasfrozen · 20-11-2013 06:21PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'm sorry? There was no nationalist violence until the Loyalist violence started. 1916 had no more to do with it than the Crimean War.

That's simply not true. 1916 laid the base for modern armed nationalism. The IRA
of the later border campaign and provos saw themselves as the direct inheritors of Pearse's legacy.

iDave wrote: »

He also conveniently forgets the UVF armed themselves before the Volunteers. Of course there were plenty of examples of precedents of British violence so perhaps its no surprise it happened in that order.

They armed themselves to prevent a united Ireland but by the time of partition they had already achieved their goal.

iDave · 20-11-2013 06:23PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There would have always been violence. Unfortunately 1916 set a precedent for modern nationalist violence. Thanks a lot Pearse...

This is the sort of demonization of nationalists/catholics/Irish etc along with a state bias against that ethnic group in NI that created the conditions for civil war (watered down as Troubles).
Good to see your moving on though :rolleyes:

Skylinehead · 20-11-2013 06:25PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's simply not true. 1916 laid the base for modern armed nationalism. The IRA
of the later border campaign and provos saw themselves as the direct inheritors of Pearse's legacy.

They armed themselves to prevent a united Ireland but by the time of partition they had already achieved their goal.

The Provos didn't even exist until after Loyalist violence had started. It was a response to that violence, not some makey-uppy "1916 legacy".

Iwasfrozen · 20-11-2013 06:31PM

wendell borton wrote: »

The general public in 1916 had little appreciation for the rising until after the British responded with brutality likewise the IRA was dead as an force in NI until the brutal crackdown on people only looking for their rights.

Unfortunately once the precedence for violence is set it will never be truly dead for as long as the group in question maintains its cultural distinctiveness. Just read the text from the proclamation:

"In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the last three hundred years they have asserted it to arms. "

This is a clear attempt to legitimize violence by putting it into historical context. Further it's an appeal to future generations to take up arms should the rising's leaders prove unsuccessful.

Another example is Pearse's famous "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace." With such a violent philosophy and background I'm surprised nationalists managed to stay peaceful for so long.

Iwasfrozen · 20-11-2013 06:33PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

The Provos didn't even exist until after Loyalist violence had started. It was a response to that violence, not some makey-uppy "1916 legacy".

Except it wasn't. The provos didn't form in a vacuum. Nationalists in Northern Ireland inherited the violent philosophy developed in the south. The leaders of 1916 are by their own admission the fathers of modern violent republicanism.

Skylinehead · 20-11-2013 06:35PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except it wasn't. The provos didn't form in a vacuum. Nationalists in Northern Ireland inherited the violent philosophy developed in the south. The leaders of 1916 are by their own admission the fathers of modern violent republicanism.

No, they didn't form in a vacuum. They formed as a result of Unionist violence. They inherited the violent philosophy from......unionist violence.

Iwasfrozen · 20-11-2013 06:39PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

No, they didn't form in a vacuum. They formed as a result of Unionist violence. They inherited the violent philosophy from......unionist violence.

I don't understand why you have such a problem admitting the leaders of 1916 inherited the legacy of violent nationalism and passed it onto future generations. They admit as much in their proclamation.

Thousands of nationalists in Northern Ireland grew up with the words "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" Now do you really expect me to believe nationalist philosophy and history or violence/legacy of armed insurrection against the British had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the border campaign or provisional IRA?

An Coilean · 20-11-2013 06:41PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

No, they didn't form in a vacuum. They formed as a result of Unionist violence. They inherited the violent philosophy from......unionist violence.

Well to be fair, it was from the IRB, who arguably were inspired by the American and French revolutions.
The Unionists did inspire and promote the setrting up of the Irish volunteers in reaction to the UVF, but it would be silly to think that the UVF was the starting point for violence on the Island.

Skylinehead · 20-11-2013 06:46PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't understand why you have such a problem admitting the leaders of 1916 inherited the legacy of violent nationalism and passed it onto future generations. They admit as much in their proclamation.

Thousands of nationalists in Northern Ireland grew up with the words "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" Now do you really expect me to believe nationalist philosophy and history or violence/legacy of armed insurrection against the British had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the border campaign or provisional IRA?

It may have been a (really minor) factor, but I don't know why you have such a problem admitting that it was unionist violence and repression against nationalist communities that was by far the main drive behind IRA violence.

.jacksparrow. · 20-11-2013 06:46PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't understand why you have such a problem admitting the leaders of 1916 inherited the legacy of violent nationalism and passed it onto future generations. They admit as much in their proclamation.

Thousands of nationalists in Northern Ireland grew up with the words "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" Now do you really expect me to believe nationalist philosophy and history or violence/legacy of armed insurrection against the British had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the border campaign or provisional IRA?

Have you an opinion on unionist violence and why it started and why it's continuing to this day?

wendell borton · 20-11-2013 06:48PM

Newton put it best when he said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Iwasfrozen · 20-11-2013 06:51PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

It may have been a (really minor) factor, but I don't know why you have such a problem admitting that it was unionist violence and repression against nationalist communities that was by far the main drive behind IRA violence.

Because it wasn't. The IRA existed long before partition. They were inspired by the leaders of 1916, who were inspired by the IRB, who were inspired by the United Irishmen, who were inspired by the French and take your pick of Irish rebellions...

My point is the leaders of 1916 brought that philosophy into the modern period and set a precedent for violence that exists to this day. Thanks a lot fellas.

Iwasfrozen · 20-11-2013 06:53PM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Have you an opinion on unionist violence and why it started and why it's continuing to this day?

They were threatened. Still are. They have a siege mentality that harks back to the Williamite war. They believe their people and culture are in danger of cultural assimilation by the Southern Irish and they're right.

ardmacha · 20-11-2013 06:54PM

Sectarianism was the purpose of Northern Ireland's existence, so it is kind of pointless wondering if it could not have been sectarian.

.jacksparrow. · 20-11-2013 06:54PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They were threatened. Still are. They have a siege mentality that harks back to the Williamite war. They believe their people and culture are in danger of cultural assimilation by the Southern Irish and they're right.

So is this a good enough reason for violence?

I suppose that Martin Luther mural with the quote about the oppressed rising up rings true with them.

Irony isn't even close enough.

Skylinehead · 20-11-2013 06:55PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because it wasn't.

Oh it must have been a massive coincidence that the 50 year dormant IRA suddenly became violent again after Unionist violence started. Silly me.

Iwasfrozen · 20-11-2013 07:00PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

Oh it must have been a massive coincidence that the 50 year dormant IRA suddenly became violent again after Unionist violence started. Silly me.

Loyalist discrimination was the catalyst but the framework was already there, provided by the unsagaciously venerated leaders of 1916.

On 2nd read where are you getting 50 years from?

Skylinehead · 20-11-2013 07:07PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Loyalist discrimination was the catalyst but the framework was already there, provided by the unsagaciously venerated leaders of 1916.

I think you're looking far more into this than actually went on. There was no real ideological aims at the very beginning, it started as a response to the Loyalist violence that was already ongoing. Their primary aim wasn't to get a UI, but to get equal rights for Catholics.

On 2nd read where are you getting 50 years from?

Maybe 40. Point was, they weren't hugely active over that time.

Happyman42 · 20-11-2013 07:17PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because it wasn't. The IRA existed long before partition. They were inspired by the leaders of 1916, who were inspired by the IRB, who were inspired by the United Irishmen, who were inspired by the French and take your pick of Irish rebellions...

My point is the leaders of 1916 brought that philosophy into the modern period and set a precedent for violence that exists to this day. Thanks a lot fellas.

So what?
Violence has existed since we crawled out of the primeval swamp, every species uses it, the Irish have, the British have, the Americans have etc etc etc. What is your point only to deflect again from the main debate?

karma_ · 20-11-2013 07:17PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Loyalist discrimination was the catalyst but the framework was already there, provided by the unsagaciously venerated leaders of 1916.

On 2nd read where are you getting 50 years from?

Still as unbiased as ever I see

If Northern Ireland between 1921 and 1967..

Comments