nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why do Irish people hate being Irish?

chair28

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Backwards Man

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

Ice Maiden

chair28 wrote: »

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

Few names for it. Blowing up a shopping centre, blowing up pubs, blowing up a memorial service - killing innocent civilians.

chair28

catbear wrote: »

Being proud of an accident of birth never made sense to me but I am extremely glad we don't have the luggage that former empires like the UK and France have to deal with.

An accident of birth? the idea of freedom has been around since we were first colonised

The Backwards Man

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Well I would not use the term "west Brit" (cannot stand it) but I know what is meant by it sometimes. As outlined in my first post to this thread.

"Shinnerbot" about people who are not IRA supporters but who just have a nuanced view about the full picture of the Northern Ireland conflict is knuckledraggy too.

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.:)

MarkAnthony

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?

Junkyard Tom

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Fitzgerald and Hume

Fitzgerald and Hume?

Reynolds and Hume. FG sneered at Reynolds for engaging in the Hume-Adams talks that ultimately led to the peace process and GFA (spurred on by a few bombs being set of in financial districts in Britain and them threatening Paisley that they'd 'pull the plug')

[Deleted User]

We became the degraded and feeble imitators of our tyrants. English fashions, English material tastes and customs were introduced by the landlord class or adopted by them, and by a natural process they came to be associated in the minds of our people with gentility. The outward sign of a rise in the social scale became the extent to which distinguished us as Irish and the success with which we imitated the enemy who despised us. - Michael Collins

Sums it up really.

nocoverart

refusetolose wrote: »

I don't,

I'm from Cork though...

You Cork people are so obsessed about were ye are from. You should all get a "I'm from from Cork bhoy" tattoo on your foreheads, or better still... shove a cork up your anuses so it changes the range of that stupid accent.

Nice scenery there though TBF.

Ice Maiden

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

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Few names for it. Blowing up a shopping centre, blowing up pubs, blowing up a memorial service - killing innocent civilians.

and shooting innocent men,women and children at civil rights movements etc wasnt war either. Face it, it was a war and a bloody horrible one at that.....

Ice Maiden

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

MarkAnthony wrote: »

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

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?

Explain on the some of them comment?
It was a tit for tat word. Civilians on both sides got hurt. generally what happens during wars

Day Lewin

I don't hate being Irish: in fact I love it.

All wars are horrible and all peoples do it. Any history book, of anywhere. Lighten up!

MarkAnthony

chair28 wrote: »

Explain on the some of them comment?
It was a tit for tat word. Civilians on both sides got hurt. generally what happens during wars

What was the strategic value of doing it. Don't dodge the question. You either don't know or don't want to admit what the answer is. Which is it?

rsh118

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.

The Backwards Man

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Fitzgerald and Hume?

Reynolds and Hume. FG sneered at Reynolds for engaging in the Hume-Adams talks that ultimately led to the peace process and GFA (spurred on by a few bombs being set of in financial districts in Britain and them threatening Paisley that they'd 'pull the plug')

Fitzgerald got the ball rolling, give him his dues, and I mentioned him because his Da was in the GPO.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

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??

chair28

MarkAnthony wrote: »

What was the strategic value of doing it. Don't dodge the question. You either don't know or don't want to admit what the answer is. Which is it?

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

gormdubhgorm

franklyon wrote: »

The men of 1916 didn't plant bombs under cars, didn't kidnap and murder old women

They didn't but 1916 was vicious stuff, the war of independence was vicious, the civil war had famillies fighting against each other.

To say there was no atrocities/civilian casualties committed in 1916 is a bit naive to be fair.
They were just of a different type to the ones you list above.
It was not all just singing a few songs and wrapping the green flag around them...

Eramen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You don't see the French or the Americans being ashamed of themselves because of 'physical force republicanism'. This is just so silly.

If not republicanism, we would have rallied under another 'cause' to gain our independence.. and in fact we did multiple times, Jacobinism, Catholicism, Gaelic Monarchy, Cultural Revivalism etc.

If you think this is about a certain political ideology you're missing the point entirely. It's about the self-determination of our own distinct people!

MarkAnthony

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?

davycc

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I've never seen any references to bombs. Obviously the Brits shelled later.

the rebels of 1916 at first built there own bombs/grenades/mines which where used almost perfectly in the successful battle of ashbourne. that blueprint was copied for the flying columns in the war of independence

rsh118

Eramen wrote: »

You don't see the French or the Americans being ashamed of themselves because of 'physical force republicanism'. This is just so silly.

If not republicanism, we would have rallied under another 'cause' to gain our independence.. and in fact we did multiple times, Jacobinism, Catholicism, Gaelic Monarchy etc.

Theirs is far enough back in the veils of history so that the brute nastiness can be easily forgotten, whereas some of us have grand parents who were involved.

The French definitely feel some horror towards parts of the revolution though, I.e. the terror etc.

Spot on about Americans though. 1776 is long enough ago to invent a good fairy tale to cover up the genuine nastiness of war though.

chair28

MarkAnthony wrote: »

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.

So why did the paratroopers open fire on a civil rights march?
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 British army were terrorists and many of them cowards......

Why was the IRA set up again up the North..... was protection

IrishTrajan

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.

diomed

Ice Maiden wrote: »

What is a west Brit and why are you "proud" of being one?

In Republican speak it means, as far as I know, someone born in Ireland (the republic, or as they would say, the 26 counties).

Ice Maiden

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.

MarkAnthony

chair28 wrote: »

So why did the paratroopers open fire on a civil rights march?
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 British army were terrorists and many of them cowards......

Why was the IRA set up again up the North..... was protection

I've never once suggested that the British did not engage in terrorist tactics or that they weren't terrorists. Are you now willing to make the same admission about the IRA?

IrishTrajan

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?

IrishTrajan

Ice Maiden wrote: »

I don't think people should feel proud to be Irish

Why not?

Ice Maiden wrote: »

or should support hardline republicanism (Christ no)

Agreed.

Ice Maiden wrote: »

and I love so much about England and English culture.

I quite like the English too. I just wouldn't trust them with the cookie jar

Ice Maiden wrote: »

There are things about this country I do not like too. But being ashamed and feeling inferior (yet superior to your fellow countrypeople) - very silly.

Absolutely.