Why do Irish people hate being Irish?

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Most people who are called west Brits admit to preferring we stayed with the union.

Enough of these generalised ad hominems btw.

Is that right?

I see people that were instrumental in the forming of the peace process, such as Fitzgerald and Hume, being denigrated as west brits here all the time. Those are two people I would call good republicans. As I say, if anyone thinks that makes me less Irish than an ooh aahh up the Ra yahoo then they can go fcuk themselves

chair28 wrote: »

So the People of 1916 were terrorists??????

Some of them - you might want to go and read a few history books. One on punctuation might be an idea too.

chair28 wrote: »

Of course it was a war.....what else war it?

A terrorist action. Wars have rules, even the largest and most well organised army can descend into terrorist tactics, at which point they become terrorists.

What in your opinion was the strategic point of blowing up people in an Industrial town in the North of England when they were out doing some weekend shopping?

The Backwards Man wrote: »

It always astounds me how full a picture people down south have of the picture in Northern Ireland when those of us that live here still struggle to peer through the blur.:)

It astounds me how some people in the south just cling to one aspect rather than looking at the fuller picture, which would surely be the more logical position when you are standing outside.

chair28 wrote: »

An accident of birth?

They mean we are just born where we are born by chance, so what is there to be proud of - I do not agree with them though; it is more complex than that, as it is not a case of just being born here, we are shaped after we are born.

chair28 wrote: »

and shooting innocent men,women and children at civil rights movements etc wasnt war either.

Of course. Horrible violent acts too, for which innocent people did not deserve to die in retaliation.

chair28 wrote: »

What bomb are you referring to? I would imagine it was in retaliation for something the British army did previously. it was a clear warning and a show of muscle. Bringing the war over to England would cause outrage over there and they might get what they wanted faster

So, put another way, it was to inspire fear?

That's terrorism chap, dress it up in any way you want, accuse both sides of being as bad as one another but you can't dodge the IRA were terrorists and many of them cowards.

Are you trying to limit this discussion to independence?

chair28 wrote: »

I was just reading other threads about Easter Lilies and the amount of people who just want nothing more to put us down and keep us down. There is a massive bang of anti Irishness from that thread and others.
Why do Irish people feel ashamed of being irish?
Why are Irish people ashamed of the past?
Why do they think its cool to be so anti Irish?
Why do people call members of any of the IRAs (past or present) terrorists when they are all fighting for the same goal?
Why are people against wearing an Easter lily and automatically think its a Ra thing?

Seems pathetic and very weird to be honest. Every other country is proud of their freedom, Eg America, are all the men who fought for their freedom terrorists also?

Pretty F*cked up to be honest

I love being Irish.

As for the IRA part, the present IRA are scum. Covering up pedophilia by Liam Adams, selling drugs to kids, running protection rackets against business owners... Doesn't really smack of nationalism and selflessness now, does it? They're nothing more than jumped up little cúnts.

I do however understand why the PIRA came about and while they did some very unsavoury things, I feel it was somewhat necessary.

rsh118 wrote: »

Historically speaking it's the physical force republicanism which accelerated independence. Any supposition about a more peaceful transition is still guesswork, whatever bills had passed the commons.

That doesn't mean we can't wish it had been peaceful? It's no betrayal of your country to wish that we could have been separated without loss of life because that's a noble goal, whatever way you paint it.

Remember the men and women who strove to set us free, from every tradition, yes. But that does not release them from modern critques of what happened. History changes as we change, and to re-analyse it makes no one a traitor.

This is a great post. All I ever see in relation to 1916 from critics is "Rurrrrrrr, they were all terrorists" - zero constructive commentary. I actually am critical of the violence of 1916. I know things were not straightforward but I am just not able to support something when innocents are caught in the crossfire. However I am certainly not "ashamed" of it either (was born several decades too late for that) and while I do not think it should be glorified, I do think it should be commemorated. Like it or not, it had a huge part to play in our history, but you are right - if only could have been more peaceful, and there is nothing wrong with re-assessing it in a nuanced fashion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Jesus, not this again??

Save me the bother: have we established the stupidity of asking why Irish people hate being Irish before actually finding out if Irish people DO hate being Irish??

Examples all over the place here, yes. You do not seem to care that much (although you are making sure that that is known ) so you probably cannot really see the examples. But any threads about 1916 reveal them quite easily.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

If it wasn't for physical force 'republicanism' there'd be a lot less victims of terrorism on this island too. I think you're forgetting that to be honest.

That's very doubtful.

100,000 Unionists promised to resist Home Rule by any means necessary. 200,000 Nationalists promised to enforce it.

You really think there wouldn't have been conflict one way or another?