Will there ever be a Bobby Sands Street in the country?

Shutuplaura · 07-01-2007 7:02pm #1

Not sur eif this really belongs here in history/heritage but given the political hue of most other posts here why not?

There are plenty of Pearse Streets in the country, Collins has his own Avenue, and there is a Sean Treacy Terrace/Road in Carrick on Suir. IRA figures from the 1940's are commemorated - The GAA club in Tralee and Sean Russells Statue in Fairview etc. So in time what is the likelyhood of or there ever being some sort of Bobby Sands housing estate, street or school. (Terrance MacSwiney has at least a school named after him in Cork).

Also, would it be any different?

Erin Go Brath · 07-01-2007 7:12pm

I think in years to come, Bobby Sands will have something named after him, be it a street, train station, school etc, or maybe a statue. History will show him as self-sacrificing martyr, up there with the 1916 leaders in terms of historical hero figures. I certainly think he deserves the recognition anyway!

walrusgumble · 07-01-2007 7:24pm

there probably will, isn't there a couple of wall murals dedicted to him in the north. ye are all aware that when he died he got media coverage from all over the world, many countries had a minutes silence etc, there was no one bar maggie calling him this or that.

i remember during the summer in gerry adam's area in antrim, they produced a green gaa jersey (o'neills) with his face faded into it, was for the 25th anniversary of hunger strike

one question though, do you think fianna fail or any other party in this side of the boarder would be keen on the idea, as the situationis right now? would it be tolerated in the north?

vesp · 08-01-2007 1:16am

Short answer : no.

Aedh Baclamh · 08-01-2007 2:24am

There will be one, and Vesp will have a house on it.

PHB · 08-01-2007 2:37am

Sands is more controversial a figure than Collins or Dev were to each respective side, so I doubt it.

Red Hand · 08-01-2007 3:17am

Probably not. Sands was a British citizan and how many British citizans of this centuary get streets named after them in the Republic?

Northen Ireland is part of Britain.:)

08-01-2007 6:57am

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Northen Ireland is part of Britain.:)

Not that one again,

Britain consists of England & Wales
Great Britain consists of England, Wales & Scotland
The united Kingdom is "A united Kingdom of Great Britain & Norther Ireland"

InFront · 08-01-2007 8:20am

If you really want to get pedantic, that poster used the adjective "British" arguably to define just that. "British" is a valid term to descrive him as much as the "British" passport he was entitled to hold as a Northerner.
Either way, he was a citizen of the United Kingdom, and so did he die.

The thought of commemorating him in a positive light, he who was a member of the PIRA, is absolutely crazy, I really don't think it will happen in the foreseeable future, nor should it.
For once I am with Margaret Thatcher. She pointed out that those of the organization for whom he committed suicide, had not afforded such degree of choice to its many victims.

Commemorating suicide terrorists anyone?

Erin Go Brath · 08-01-2007 9:05am

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Probably not. Sands was a British citizan and how many British citizans of this centuary get streets named after them in the Republic?

Northen Ireland is part of Britain.:)

During the '81 hunger strikes Maggie Thatcher ignored the plight of the strikers. She said that Bobby Sands was "not one of us" ie considered himself Irish and not British, and so had no time for him. Pretty callous really since Britain had juristiction over the 6 counties, and therefore is supposed to take care of ALL ITS CITIZENS.

Bobby Sands was certainly Irish and not British just because he came from one of the six counties under British rule, theres two traditions there you know!!!!

Hagar · 08-01-2007 9:11am

Is the term "British Citizen" correct? I thought the term "citizen" was associated with a republic and the term "subject" the correct term associated with monarchy. Would "British Subject" not be the correct term?

Hagar · 08-01-2007 9:33am

From Wiki:-

In Tehran, Iran revolutionaries sympathizing with Sands renamed the street on which the British embassy was located on from Winston Churchill street to Bobby Sands street. The name remains despite pressure from the British foreign secretary to change it.

Apparently the Embassy gives its address as an adjoining street. You couldn't make that up.:D

Red Hand · 08-01-2007 12:05pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

During the '81 hunger strikes Maggie Thatcher ignored the plight of the strikers. She said that Bobby Sands was "not one of us" ie considered himself Irish and not British, and so had no time for him. Pretty callous really since Britain had juristiction over the 6 counties, and therefore is supposed to take care of ALL ITS CITIZENS.

Bobby Sands was certainly Irish and not British just because he came from one of the six counties under British rule, theres two traditions there you know!!!!

Whether or not you think he was Irish depends on your point of view. In my view, yes he was Irish, but also British. In a Noman's land if you will.

(Hagar, yes the term is subject, I guess.

)

Personally, I do not think that anybody in Northen Ireland should be commerated in the same way that citizans of the Republic are. Was Sands subject (sorry!) to our tax regime? Probably not.

Your argument that Thatcher didn't consider him British does not necessarily mean that he was de facto, "Irish" (as in a citizan of this Republic).

I for one do not celebrate any actions that the people involved in "the struggle" participated in.

Red Hand · 08-01-2007 12:07pm

InFront wrote:

If you really want to get pedantic, that poster used the adjective "British" arguably to define just that. "British" is a valid term to descrive him as much as the "British" passport he was entitled to hold as a Northerner.
Either way, he was a citizen of the United Kingdom, and so did he die.

The thought of commemorating him in a positive light, he who was a member of the PIRA, is absolutely crazy, I really don't think it will happen in the foreseeable future, nor should it.
For once I am with Margaret Thatcher. She pointed out that those of the organization for whom he committed suicide, had not afforded such degree of choice to its many victims.

Commemorating suicide terrorists anyone?

Agree totally. Not to mention that the PIRA and it's Rebublican and Loyalist brothers are up to their eyeballs in criminality.

So much for their tarnished "cause".:)

csk · 08-01-2007 5:00pm

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

how many British citizans of this centuary get streets named after them in the Republic?

Well Pearse has a street named after him, Collins has an avenue, Connolly has a train Station (come to think of it aren't all of the main stations in the country named after those executed in 1916), Mc Swiney has a school, Cathal Brugha has a street...

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Whether or not you think he was Irish depends on your point of view. In my view, yes he was Irish, but also British. In a Noman's land if you will.

That's an awful specious way of looking at things isn't it?

Of course he was Irish, he was born on this island!
Even the most staunch of Unionists do not have a problem with this concept and will when it suits them point it out gleefully.

AFAIK those born in the north are just as entitled to citizenship of Ireland as those of say, Cork. It's just that those in the north get the special privilege of also being subjects of her Britannic Majesty.

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Personally, I do not think that anybody in Northen Ireland should be commerated in the same way that citizans of the Republic are.

Who are these "citizens" of the "Republic" that are commemorated and how are they different to Sands?

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Was Sands subject (sorry!) to our tax regime? Probably not.

U2 are no longer subject to our tax regime. Are they now a Dutch Band?

Personally I think if you define "country" as the whole island then it's inevitable that there will be something named after Bobby Sands. He is held in high regards by modern day Republicans and will likely recieve some kind of honour even if it is only in his home town. Although this probably won't happen for the foreseeable future and until a more politically amenable climate arises.

walrusgumble · 08-01-2007 10:31pm

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Probably not. Sands was a British citizan and how many British citizans of this centuary get streets named after them in the Republic?

Northen Ireland is part of Britain.:)

bunreacht na heireann once claimed legal claim over the whole of ireland, i am sure you are well aware of this and i am sure you understand what implications the good friday agreement had on the admendments of artiles 2 and 3 in 1998ish.

however at all times, people born in northern ireland had the choice to claim as either irish or british citizens. they can have both passports, due to membership of eu prob may opt for just the one thou.considering what he stood for that comment is a tad bit insentive and a wee bit ignorant imo. not assuming i knew him or his family or anything but i doubt he held a british passport when he was alive.

jesus if you are a sports fan or a soccer fan in particular, i doubt you have much sympathy for the catholic or nationalist members of the northern ireland team. anyone remember that crazy rule fifa wanted to impose on the ifa, ensure ALL players have british passports,(for administrative reasons). neil lennon, who played for his community (as he says) had an irish passport, joked, well that the comeback definitely off then.

i dont know whether the struggle of the last 40 years should really be celebtated, considering its not really a long time ago and emotions etc would be high, the events of 80 - 90 years ago still dominates our landscape. i aint really to keen on a few members even being allowed to have their names even mentioned near people of 1916-1923 (at this point i am not refering to sands, i was not born in 1981 so i shouldnt comment on what i think becasue i dont really know the whole story, alot of history has yet to deal with these years) some members must be rembered for robbing banks/post offices here in this side of the country, and at least 3 members of the gardai have been killed by their actions

Hagar · 08-01-2007 10:41pm

walrusgumble wrote:

i am sure you are well aware of this and i am sure you understand what implications the good friday agreement had on the admendments of artiles 2 and 3 in 1998ish.

Weren't the dropping of those two articles part of a quid-pro-quo in the GFA? I can only presume if the other side doesn't deliver what they promised the deal is off and the articles become re-instated into Bunract na hEireann. Does that sound right?

Capt'n Midnight · 08-01-2007 11:24pm

Hagar wrote:

From Wiki:-

Apparently the Embassy gives its address as an adjoining street. You couldn't make that up.:D

http://dublin.rusembassy.org

Russian Embassy
in Dublin, Ireland

Address: 184-186, Orwell Road, Rathgar, Dublin 14, Ireland
Phone: +353 1 492-3525, 492-2048
Telex: (500) 33622 URSS EI

walrusgumble · 08-01-2007 11:38pm

Hagar wrote:

Weren't the dropping of those two articles part of a quid-pro-quo in the GFA? I can only presume if the other side doesn't deliver what they promised the deal is off and the articles become re-instated into Bunract na hEireann. Does that sound right?

ooh crap i didnt phrase that well. old art 2 and 3 referred to the whole country, referred citizen was someone born in whole of island (as in automatically, try ignore immigration issue/irish born child of non eu citizen for this issue). yes your right this was dropped.

it now goes along the lines of it being every persons, who born on the island of ireland, entilement to be part of the nation (ie gives person in north the option to be irish citizen and/or british citizen. new art 3 acknowledges ni and states ni shall remain the way it is until a majority of people in ni vote otherwise (obviously not in those words, i know yourself just check out the old and new art 2 and 3 for yourself, and see comparison)

Hagar · 09-01-2007 8:14am

Fratton Fred wrote:

I would like it if they named a urinal after him, so I can piss on him whenever I get the urge.

vesp wrote:

The only good thing that can be said about him was that he was a good slimmer.

Even for you two these are a new low.
I don't even know why you bother posting here, all you ever do is snipe at other peoples posts if there seems to any Irish Nationalist aspect to it of any sort. I would really love to know what part of our Hitory & Heritage actually interests you. What positive threads have you pair even started?

Erin Go Brath · 09-01-2007 9:43am

Fratton Fred wrote:

I would like it if they named a urinal after him, so I can piss on him whenever I get the urge.

You are showing yourself to be a true bigot Fratton Fred! Whatever side of the political divide your on, a man who selflessly gave his life for a cause he believed in deserves to be respected.

People are too quick to judge these guys as terrorists. The reality is that internment without trial was one of Britains policies in NI at the time. Just one in a long history of policies designed to f**k us Irish over.

A Dub in Glasgo · 09-01-2007 10:11am

Fratton Fred wrote:

I would like it if they named a urinal after him, so I can piss on him whenever I get the urge.

Surely you have your own toilet named after him so you can piss and **** on him to your hearts content? or is your post just a juevenile one so that you can 'prove' to people how good you are?

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2007 10:14am

Erin Go Brath wrote:

You are showing yourself to be a true bigot Fratton Fred! Whatever side of the political divide your on, a man who selflessly gave his life for a cause he believed in deserves to be respected.

People are too quick to judge these guys as terrorists. The reality is that internment without trial was one of Britains policies in NI at the time. Just one in a long history of policies designed to f**k us Irish over.

because I don't like the guy I'm a bigot??

I'm entitled to me opinion as much as anyone. I have not insulted you, so why insult me?

or is it you that's the bigot?

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2007 10:28am

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Surely you have your own toilet named after him so you can piss and **** on him to your hearts content? or is your post just a juevenile one so that you can 'prove' to people how good you are?

I wouldn't waste my money on one.

and before you all get all excited, I would say the same thing about Billy Wright.

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2007 10:33am

Hagar wrote:

Even for you two these are a new low.
I don't even know why you bother posting here, all you ever do is snipe at other peoples posts if there seems to any Irish Nationalist aspect to it of any sort. I would really love to know what part of our History & Heritage actually interests you. What positive threads have you pair even started?

if you go to profiles, you will see all threads started by me, if you are interested

the part of the Irish history and heritage that interests me, is the bit where the facts are laid out, not some romantic notion about Irish Martyrs.

If you can tell me how Irish people have benefited from Bobby Sands starving himself to death, then I am interested.

Erin Go Brath · 09-01-2007 11:07am

Fratton Fred wrote:

because I don't like the guy I'm a bigot??

I'm entitled to me opinion as much as anyone. I have not insulted you, so why insult me?

or is it you that's the bigot?

Theres a difference between not liking someone, and directing vitriolic abuse towards them! Theres a number of historical people, past and present that I'm not fond of either, but I'm not going to lower myself by typing the hateful abuse, that you seem happy to type.

So to answer your question, yes you certainly are a bigot if thats the type of opinion you hold. Unless you retract your remarks about Bobby Sands, I will still consider you to be bigoted!!!!!

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2007 11:42am

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Theres a difference between not liking someone, and directing vitriolic abuse towards them! Theres a number of historical people, past and present that I'm not fond of either, but I'm not going to lower myself by typing the hateful abuse, that you seem happy to type.

So to answer your question, yes you certainly are a bigot if thats the type of opinion you hold. Unless you retract your remarks about Bobby Sands, I will still consider you to be bigoted!!!!!

hateful abuse? me?

I get this a lot. Because I am English and I do not blindly believe that everything British is wrong and everything carried out by the PIRA etc is in the name of freedom and therefore acceptable, I am considered right wing, a bigot etc. (I'm probably more left wing to be honest)

I love this country, it’s a great place to live (Even with the rip off prices for so many things) and I am really impressed with the way the Irish people have risen to the challenge of the massive changes in the last 10 years.

I work alongside some great people who are dedicated to bringing to Ireland the best services they can and make this country a real economic force. Then I drive down the N11 through Glen of the Downs and I see a big sign saying “Free the Columbian three” or “Remember Bobby Sands” or, the current one I think is “Stop Harassment of Republicans”. When I see that, I can’t help feeling that despite a lot of people trying drag this country into the 21st century, there are still a vast amount of people in this country living in a time past.

Digging up and re-burying some bloke hung for murder in Manchester 120 years ago, or naming a street after a guy who starved himself to death so he didn’t have to wear a Prison uniform is not romantic, all it does is show that a lot of people still have a chip on their shoulder and the politicians know how to buy votes cheaply.

Now, explain to me what Bobby Sands did that makes him worthy of a street name? he was an active member of a terrorist organisation who got caught. Because he was not entitled to political prisoner status, he decided to starve himself to death. What did he expect to achieve? Did he really think Margaret Thatcher was going to change policy just for him? I applaud his dedication, but dedication to pointless over blown gestures are another.

He needlessly threw his life away and suddenly he is the new Che Guevara?

Erin Go Brath · 09-01-2007 12:16pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

hateful abuse? me?

I get this a lot.

This is hardly surprising, with posts like your previous one.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Now, explain to me what Bobby Sands did that makes him worthy of a street name?

Bobby Sands gave up his life as a sacrifice to highlight the injustices perpetrated by a British government who treated his people (Catholics) as second class citizens in the six county statelet. It's much wider than the prison clothes uniform issue that you talk about.

Fratton Fred wrote:

He needlessly threw his life away and suddenly he is the new Che Guevara?

The muriels on the walls in West Belfast, and the writings on walls and bridges around the country show how much esteem he is held in. Bobby showed courage, integrity and honour in his actions, and was prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, his life.

Hagar · 09-01-2007 2:15pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

the part of the Irish history and heritage that interests me, is the bit where the facts are laid out, not some romantic notion about Irish Martyrs.

If you can tell me how Irish people have benefited from Bobby Sands starving himself to death, then I am interested.

So just because a young man grows up in a harsh sectarian environment, gets involved in an organization that kills people based on their religious/political beliefs, then gets caught driving a car bomb into his "enemies" neighbourhood and ends up being detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure and is now dead , you think he should not be remembered for whatever good he did, or tried to do for his community.

You think it is fitting that you name a urinal after him. Is that right? Do you really think that?

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2007 2:32pm

Hagar wrote:

So just because a young man grows up in a harsh sectarian environment, gets involved in an organization that kills people based on their religious/political beliefs, then gets caught driving a car bomb into his "enemies" neighbourhood and ends up being detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure and is now dead , you think he should not be remembered for whatever good he did, or tried to do for his community.

You think it is fitting that you name a urinal after him. Is that right? Do you really think that?

in my opinion, I think it is as right to name a urinal after him, as I do a street.

take that as a step down if you wish, but my opinion of the man has not changed.

Hagar · 09-01-2007 2:40pm

Well you better rethink the name of your urinal for my last post was the profile of the recently deceased, and much repected on all sides, DUP Politician David Ervine who died yesterday may he Rest In Peace.

You Sir, would want to spend some more time learning a little bit about about this country.

Forget about our History & Heritage it's way beyond you.
Start off small, try this week's newspapers.
Come back when you know more than Imperialist bigotry.

That is all.

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2007 2:50pm

Hagar wrote:

Well you better rethink the name of your urinal for my last post was the profile of the recently deceased, and much repected on all sides, DUP Politician David Ervine who died yesterday may he Rest In Peace.

You Sir, would want to spend some more time learning a little bit about about this country.

Forget about our History & Heritage it's way beyond you.
Start off small, try this week's newspapers.
Come back when you know more than Imperialist bigotry.

That is all.

very clever. You set me up and I fell for it.

I take it you will starting the David Ervine (RIP) Street campaign then?

csk · 09-01-2007 2:51pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

hateful abuse?

Yes that's what your crass, puerile comments amounted to.
Is there any need for that kind of invective?

If you disagree with his politics, with his actions fair enough but to come out with what appears to be simplistic, ignorant bigotry is really not needed.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I get this a lot. Because I am English and I do not blindly believe that everything British is wrong and everything carried out by the PIRA etc is in the name of freedom and therefore acceptable, I am considered right wing, a bigot etc. (I'm probably more left wing to be honest)

*adopts Ali G voice* its coz i iz black, innit? :rolleyes:
Come on grow up.

No one knows your background or your politics, all there is to go on is your comments.

Comments that would not look out of place coming from a foaming at the mouth Unionist, in fact that is a bit of an insult to most Unionists who appear to be trying to move on from such puerile positions.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I love this country, it’s a great place to live

So too would Bobby Sands, yet he was never extended such a privilege.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I work alongside some great people who are dedicated to bringing to Ireland the best services they can and make this country a real economic force. Then I drive down the N11 through Glen of the Downs and I see a big sign saying “Free the Columbian three” or “Remember Bobby Sands” or, the current one I think is “Stop Harassment of Republicans”. When I see that, I can’t help feeling that despite a lot of people trying drag this country into the 21st century, there are still a vast amount of people in this country living in a time past.

So let me get this straight, because you have to suffer the violation of your sensibilities that seeing a few banners amounts to, that gives you the justification to come out with your unwarranted hate filled spiel?

If such frivolous violations were all Bobby Sands had to suffer, do you think he would have been in the position he ended up in?

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2007 3:25pm

csk wrote:

Yes that's what your crass, puerile comments amounted to.
Is there any need for that kind of invective?

If you disagree with his politics, with his actions fair enough but to come out with what appears to be simplistic, ignorant bigotry is really not needed.

*adopts Ali G voice* its coz i iz black, innit? :rolleyes:
Come on grow up.

No one knows your background or your politics, all there is to go on is your comments.

Comments that would not look out of place coming from a foaming at the mouth Unionist, in fact that is a bit of an insult to most Unionists who appear to be trying to move on from such puerile positions.

So too would Bobby Sands, yet he was never extended such a privilege.

So let me get this straight, because you have to suffer the violation of your sensibilities that seeing a few banners amounts to, that gives you the justification to come out with your unwarranted hate filled spiel?

If such frivolous violations were all Bobby Sands had to suffer, do you think he would have been in the position he ended up in?

I made an over the top post about a very controversial figure (and received a bollocking from a mod btw) and suddenly it's getting personal.

I'm not talking about a stupid banner, that does not bother me. It's the message that banners like that give out about this country.

it's the past, it's gone, it's done.

now, point out some of my other "Imperialistic Bigotted posts" please.

csk · 09-01-2007 4:06pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

I made an over the top post about a very controversial figure (and received a bollocking from a mod btw) and suddenly it's getting personal.

I'm not talking about a stupid banner, that does not bother me. It's the message that banners like that give out about this country.

it's the past, it's gone, it's done.

now, point out some of my other "Imperialistic Bigotted posts" please.

Before I started that reply, the last post I had seen was #31.
I'm not trying to make it personal, as I said all I can go on is your comments.

Yes I know it wasn't about the banners pre se but rather your intrepretation of them, which is probably something I wouldn't agree with anyway but that's a different story.

I didn't make the "Imperialistic Bigot" comment and I am in no way saying you are such a thing. My only truck was with your comments and that's what I directed my post at.

Aedh Baclamh · 09-01-2007 5:16pm

Haha, Hagar's post is just wonderful.

Hagar · 09-01-2007 7:08pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

I made an over the top post about a very controversial figure (and received a bollocking from a mod btw) and suddenly it's getting personal.

I suspect that the reason for the bollicking was me reporting you post. Yet you come back and repeat what you said again. Why did you do that? Have you no respect for the mod concerned or your fellow posters? I suppose someone could take a show of discourtesy such as that as personal.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I'm not talking about a stupid banner, that does not bother me. It's the message that banners like that give out about this country.

A mural isn't a banner. It's a painting in this case which covers the whole gable end of a house. Given the amount of graffitti on walls in such areas the fact that it not defaced is indicative of the respect the local people have for the man and his sacrifice. The support is a good message. Would you have the Unionists paint over their murals of King William? Or is it just Nationalist murals that you don't like?

Fratton Fred wrote:

it's the past, it's gone, it's done.

How can you reconcile your claim that your are intested in the History & Heritage of Ireland and make a statement that dismisses all history & heritage as being past and gone. I don't believe you have any such interest at all. I think you are here for a bit of shít stirring and Paddy-bashing.

Fratton Fred wrote:

now, point out some of my other "Imperialistic Bigotted posts" please.

The search function is limited so I'll just ask you to re-read this thread from an Irishman's viewpoint, no necessarily a rabid Republican, just an Irishman.*

Fred, you were 12 years old when Bobby Sands died. Where did you get you knowledge of the man and the events of the time? British newspapers? With the comprehension of a 12 yr old? For the record I was 25 and working in Belfast at the time so I can claim to have an adult recollection of events.

You are only in the country since last September and you come on here beating your drum in both the Politics and the History & Heritage forums. I'd advise you to ask more questions and read more before you make a fool of yourself, again.

Nothing personal. I don't even know you.

* Naturally this includes Mná na hÉireann

InFront · 09-01-2007 7:50pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Whatever side of the political divide your on, a man who selflessly gave his life for a cause he believed in deserves to be respected.

Oh really? Mohammad Sadique Khan? Shehzad Tanwe'er?
I don't have any respect for them. I wouldn't have respect for him if they blew themselves up in a train with 100 people or one with nobody in it, they were a terrorist.

Bobby Sands was a terrorist. He was a Provo. I for one have absolutely no respect for him as a human being.

Hagar
Fred, you were 12 years old when Bobby Sands died. Where did you get you knowledge of the man and the events of the time? British newspapers? With the comprehension of a 12 yr old? For the record I was 25 and working in Belfast at the time so I can claim to have an adult recollection of events.

Those of us who were not born when Bobby Sands died can and often do have a very deep understanding of the political era.
I for one place far more weight in a library full of books on certain elements of my own heritage and history, than any relatives who have knowledge of it like your firsthand knowledge of the Ulster troubles. Your opinion is too subjective on its own.
And I consider it highly arrogant to offer the appropriately veiled suggestion that you know more because you were an adult there. Often the adults who "were there" in the political events that shaped our collective history as a civilisation were the really clueless ones.

InFront · 09-01-2007 7:54pm

Hagar wrote:

You are only in the country since last September and you come on here beating your drum in both the Politics and the History & Heritage forums.

Same goes for this. Residency is not a pre-requisite to having knowledge of history or political matters. You can be sure that people posting in threads about Iraqi politics know more about it than many Iraqis do. Being "Irish" does not mean you know your own history.

Owen · 09-01-2007 8:05pm

To be honest, I hope it never happens. I had the misfortune of gigging in the same venue as The Wolfetones, and got to view their act during my half time break. They were playing some moany trad song, when suddenly the lyric mentioned Bobby Sands, and all the degenerate Celtic wearing scumbags stood up, slurred out the words 'Bobby Sands' inbetween spilling pints and screaming 'f*ck the brits' ... and unfortunately, strong as Bobby's sacrifice was, this is the exact type of crap that keeps the anti-british sentiments alive, and these are (For the majority) the type of people it appeals to.

Hagar · 09-01-2007 8:30pm

InFront wrote:

Those of us who were not born when Bobby Sands died can and often do have a very deep understanding of the political era.
I for one place far more weight in a library full of books on certain elements of my own heritage and history, than any relatives who have knowledge of it like your firsthand knowledge of the Ulster troubles. Your opinion is too subjective on its own.
And I consider it highly arrogant to offer the appropriately veiled suggestion that you know more because you were an adult there. Often the adults who "were there" in the political events that shaped our collective history as a civilisation were the really clueless ones.

There is no arrogance involved. I was there, I saw things that were reported as minor incidents on the BBC News the next morning when in fact they were very serious indeed if you were near them. The British people heard what their Government wanted them to as did the Irish people. The history books you're talking about are the official line. They are fine as far as they go but never forget that the winner writes the history books. They will contain a version of the events, just one version mind, not necessarily the whole truth. I didn't shape any history I was just lucky enough to live through a small part of it and come out the other side. That does not give any more importance to what I saw but it doesn't diminish it either.

Have a good look at today's newspaper. Is it 100% accurate do you think? Does it tell the whole story? Well that's tomorrow's history book right in front of you.

Hagar · 09-01-2007 8:37pm

InFront wrote:

Same goes for this. Residency is not a pre-requisite to having knowledge of history or political matters.

I'm questioning wherether the poster had any knowledge or interest in Irish History or Heritage before last September. In fact I'm questioning his current knowledge sice he didn't even know today that Bobby Sands was locked up for possession of firearms not driving a car bomb.

InFront wrote:

You can be sure that people posting in threads about Iraqi politics know more about it than many Iraqis do.

How could you possibly know that. Seriously.

InFront wrote:

Being "Irish" does not mean you know your own history.

Nor does it mean I don't.

csk · 09-01-2007 8:43pm

ned78 wrote:

To be honest, I hope it never happens. I had the misfortune of gigging in the same venue as The Wolfetones, and got to view their act during my half time break. They were playing some moany trad song, when suddenly the lyric mentioned Bobby Sands, and all the degenerate Celtic wearing scumbags stood up, slurred out the words 'Bobby Sands' inbetween spilling pints and screaming 'f*ck the brits' ... and unfortunately, strong as Bobby's sacrifice was, this is the exact type of crap that keeps the anti-british sentiments alive, and these are (For the majority) the type of people it appeals to.

That's a very gross generalisation (some might say stupid stereotyping).

Most people involved in the Republican Movement that I have met are about as far away from this stereotype as you could get. In fact most would condemn those "degenerate Celtic wearing scumbags" in much the same way as you, if maybe not the same terms.

I really doubt that some p!ssed louts singing along to the WolfeTones is what keeps the "anti-British sentiment" alive.

I think partition and the treatment of the nationalist community in the north are far more pertinent reasons it stays alive than some silly "rebel" band.

vesp · 09-01-2007 9:12pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

You are showing yourself to be a true bigot Fratton Fred! .

No he is not. In all fairness, Fratton Fred comes across as much less of a bigot than many a republican on this website. Fratton Fred just gave his opinion on what he thought of a convicted terrorist....who was a member of a terrorist organisation who have killed people on both sides of the border and elsewhere.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Whatever side of the political divide your on, a man who selflessly gave his life for a cause he believed in deserves to be respected. .

Why respect someone who "gave his life for a cause" ? What good did giving his life do ? It done more damage than good and cost many other lives.
If you think everyone who "gave his life for a cause" should be respected, why do you not respect the 9/11 bombers for example ?

Erin Go Brath wrote:

People are too quick to judge these guys as terrorists. .

If you think the PIRA were not terrorists then you agree with the murder s of Garda McCabe and other people killed in the 26 counties by the PIRA ? You agree with Enniskillen , Le Mon, Bloody Friday, Guildford bombings etc etc ? You do not think the "guys" who done those atrocities are terrorists ?

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The reality is that internment without trial was one of Britains policies in NI at the time. .

WRONG. Just like many a statement made by republicans on this board, that is factually wrong. Internment was not practiced in the early eighties.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Just one in a long history of policies designed to f**k us Irish over.

lol. Many an Irish person would disagree with you....and not just non-catholics. Do not forget 25% of the Roman Catholic population of N. Ireland wish to remain part of the UK.

Before people start calling me a bigot and the moderator bans me , let me pointy out I condemn the terrorism committed by loyalists just as much as the terrorism committed by republicans.

Hagar · 09-01-2007 9:45pm

vesp wrote:

WRONG. Just like many a statement made by republicans on this board, that is factually wrong. Internment was not practiced in the early eighties.

Friday 5 December 1975
End of Internment
The last 46 people who had been interned without trial were released. The end of Internment was announced by Merlyn Rees, then Secretary of Sate for Northern Ireland, who said that those found guilty of crimes would be brought before the courts. [During the period of Internment, 9 August 1971 to 5 December 1975, 1,981 people were detained; 1,874 were Catholic / Republican, while 107 were Protestant / Loyalist.]

Your are correct. However the fact that this poster is open to correction on this particular post does not automatically make every other statement made by other persons with similar views incorrect. Does it?

Indeed internment did not not continue into the 80's. Interesting to note the breakdown on the internment figures don't you think? Were the "Nationalists" really 18 times more "criminal" than the "Unionists"?

vesp wrote:

lol. Many an Irish person would disagree with you....and not just non-catholics. Do not forget 25% of the Roman Catholic population of N. Ireland wish to remain part of the UK.

I'm sure you can back this assertion up? I would also be interested to know how many non-Roman Catholics would not like to be part of the UK. Or are you making assumptions along sectarian lines?

vesp wrote:

Before people start calling me a bigot and the moderator bans me , let me pointy out I condemn the terrorism committed by loyalists just as much as the terrorism committed by republicans.

Nice sidestep, have you any medals for Irish dancing?:D

InFront · 09-01-2007 9:53pm

Hagar wrote:

The British people heard what their Government wanted them to as did the Irish people.

Do you want to give us any examples? Because if it appeared as a minor section on the news, whilst it may have appeared important to you, it may actually have been overall quite a minor event. You need to accept that you have a bias.

The history books you're talking about are the official line. They are fine as far as they go but never forget that the winner writes the history books.

No they don't. Historians write the history books.

In terms of Bobby Sands, the British government, its institutions were the winner. But so was democracy. Personally I don't see Sands as a loser only in light of losing his fight with the British Government, but in light of his failings as a human being who was a member of the Provisional IRA and killed himself for terrorism. If he had won and was alive today, I would still have no respect for him.

Have a good look at today's newspaper. Is it 100% accurate do you think? Does it tell the whole story? Well that's tomorrow's history book right in front of you.

No, it's not. It is tomorrow's most immediate raw history, but you seem to be completely unaware of how history changes and what adds to it. Public opinion, years of debate, precedents and historical ramifications, social change: these all inform historians how to write history. It's not a case of the Queen of England standing over Geraldine Kennedy with a revolver.

Fratton Fred · 09-01-2007 10:20pm

Hagar wrote:

I suspect that the reason for the bollicking was me reporting you post. Yet you come back and repeat what you said again. Why did you do that? Have you no respect for the mod concerned or your fellow posters? I suppose someone could take a show of discourtesy such as that as personal.

if you were not in such a rush to capitalise on your deliberately misleading post, then you would have read my reply properly.

I said "in my opinion, I think it is as right to name a urinal after him, as I do a street."

Clearly I do not think it right to name a street after him, therefore I do not think it right to name a urinal. That applies to Mr Sands as well as Mr Ervine.

That is why I described it as a climb down.

Hagar wrote:

A mural isn't a banner. It's a painting in this case which covers the whole gable end of a house. Given the amount of graffitti on walls in such areas the fact that it not defaced is indicative of the respect the local people have for the man and his sacrifice. The support is a good message. Would you have the Unionists paint over their murals of King William? Or is it just Nationalist murals that you don't like?

you really aren't reading what I write are you?

Hagar wrote:

How can you reconcile your claim that your are intested in the History & Heritage of Ireland and make a statement that dismisses all history & heritage as being past and gone. I don't believe you have any such interest at all. I think you are here for a bit of shít stirring and Paddy-bashing.

you really aren't reading what I write are you? Why would I be in for a bit of Paddy bashing? don't judge me by your own **** the Brits standards. Thankfully my Irish partner, and my numerous Irish friends and relatives do not have the same opinion.

Hagar wrote:

The search function is limited so I'll just ask you to re-read this thread from an Irishman's viewpoint, no necessarily a rabid Republican, just an Irishman.*

oh, I thought you were an expert on all my posts, which is why you are qualified to make such defamatory and patronising comments about me.

Hagar wrote:

Fred, you were 12 years old when Bobby Sands died. Where did you get you knowledge of the man and the events of the time? British newspapers? With the comprehension of a 12 yr old? For the record I was 25 and working in Belfast at the time so I can claim to have an adult recollection of events.

I was only 12, but I remember it well because my best friends father was serving in Ireland at the time with the Royal Hampshires, but I accept that his opinion would have been bias.

However my colleague of several years who grew up in West Belfast gave me her opinion, oh and she is catholic by the way.

Hagar wrote:

You are only in the country since last September and you come on here beating your drum in both the Politics and the History & Heritage forums. I'd advise you to ask more questions and read more before you make a fool of yourself, again.

Nothing personal. I don't even know you.

you are unable to quote any posts but you are able to make statements like that? is that acceptable?

I do think it is personal, oh and I respect my fellow posters, I suggest you do the same.

Hagar · 09-01-2007 10:21pm

InFront wrote:

Do you want to give us any examples? Because if it appeared as a minor section on the news, whilst it may have appeared important to you, it may actually have been overall quite a minor event.

I have seen full on engagement with British Troops. A strategically planned ambush involving as 2 units attacking a post just two doors from where I stayed and a third laying ambush with a 50 caliber to a helicopter which came in to re-inforce the post. The helicopter f'ed off and left the post to it's fate. It took a hammering before the units pulled out about 15 mins later. It was reported next day as " a British Army post came under fire in the Windsor Avenue area but there were no casualties". The ambulances came and went for over an hour. I freely admit to being scared witless at first, But when I realised what was happening I was able to watch witha strange clinical detachment. Funny how things like that are in real life.

I could tell you another really good story but that is all you get for now.

InFront wrote:

You need to accept that you have a bias.

Why do you think I'm biased? Is it because I don't agree with you? Is everyone who doesn't agree with you biased?

InFront wrote:

No they don't. Historians write the history books.

Naieve.

InFront wrote:

In terms of Bobby Sands, the British government, its institutions were the winner. But so was democracy. Personally I don't see Sands as a loser only in light of losing his fight with the British Government, but in light of his failings as a human being who was a member of the Provisional IRA and killed himself for terrorism. If he had won and was alive today, I would still have no respect for him.

He was a democratically elected Member of the British Parliment so I suppose democracy won in that he was chosen by the people to represent their viewpoints.

InFront wrote:

No, it's not. It is tomorrow's most immediate raw history, but you seem to be completely unaware of how history changes and what adds to it. Public opinion, years of debate, precedents and historical ramifications, social change: these all inform historians how to write history. It's not a case of the Queen of England standing over Geraldine Kennedy with a revolver.

History is what happened, actually happened, not what spin is later put on it, nobody needs to be informed how to write it. Just write down what happened.

/edited to add missing quote tags.

walrusgumble · 09-01-2007 11:52pm

Those of us who were not born when Bobby Sands died can and often do have a very deep understanding of the political era.
I for one place far more weight in a library full of books on certain elements of my own heritage and history, than any relatives who have knowledge of it like your firsthand knowledge of the Ulster troubles. Your opinion is too subjective on its own.
And I consider it highly arrogant to offer the appropriately veiled suggestion that you know more because you were an adult there. Often the adults who "were there" in the political events that shaped our collective history as a civilisation were the really clueless ones.[/QUOTE]

ah sod this, dont care if i get banned. i have read several several threads of yours and have opinion that you have just come out of uni or college(so have i ) but HOW THE HELL YOU COME UP WITH CRAP LIKE THAT.

the man you are referring to lived in belfast, workded in belfast and prob soicalised in belfast. he would have a fairly good idea what went on, witnessed beatings, may have become numb to sectarian rants or heared about them from both sides, may have know someone in jail whether or not they were guilty . ok he might have put it in a nicer way, but you tend to let everyone know bout your opinion too and imply ur books are the be all end all. people who lived in the north dont have to be acedmics or fancy writers to have had a decent understanding of what was going on then. look at the politics thread, events of today, i am sure one may find some comments mental and subjective, prob no differece back then either. it has often been commented on and in my experience, people from the nationalist from the six counties and boundary co in the rep, sometimes have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to us (not all and its not a hostile one) when we down here who may have not experienced what happened up there come out with stuff they really shouldnt have said due to their ill informed knowledge or attitude. i wonder a majority of us in the south know what went on in the streets, alleys and fields of belfast and co during the 90's up there., bar the news, because it often resembled a no go area. how many have ever bothered to go up there (i am referring to people who haven't, i am sure some people here have).

in front, if someone gave you the choice of 1000 of books on say a museum/a festival or the choice to go there, which would you take in order to educate yourself?

again maybe put in a better way, he referred to adult understanding, as in he was one, and an adult understanding of what went on those days would maybe more understanding or accurate or bleak/ok than say a child (eg 8 yr old) may for example think things are like its like cow boy and indians. did anyone really know and understand and become cyncial of the big bad world at 8 - 12 years? children may have been too innocent to understand why things happen. do many parents go to their 12 year for a shoulder to cry on when they have marriage, debt probs or work related stress or tell them who they pulled last nite?

some of these authors and some mind, i prob gone through some of them too, were witnesses and people in army/police giving their account. (you know yourself alot of different stories, and you get to see the bigger picture which i would agree with u, and one needs to see both sides of the fence to understand the situation)

but, surely you are intelligent enough to realise sometimes historians book can have a wee bit of subjective views too. how many times have you been frustrated by going through one or two books on a part of history and then turn to another just to tell you "ah sorry there reader but what you learned previously is not completley true, in the opinion of the author, and here is the evidence and my 2 cents on the matter" try not to be too naive,

vesp · 10-01-2007 1:21am

Hagar wrote:

I have seen full on engagement with British Troops. A strategically planned ambush involving as 2 units attacking a post just two doors from where I stayed and a third laying ambush with a 50 caliber to a helicopter which came in to re-inforce the post. The helicopter f'ed off and left the post to it's fate. It took a hammering before the units pulled out about 15 mins later. It was reported next day as " a British Army post came under fire in the Windsor Avenue area but there were no casualties". The ambulances came and went for over an hour. I freely admit to being scared witless at first, But when I realised what was happening I was able to watch witha strange clinical detachment. Funny how things like that are in real life.

lol. great story. Sure it was not 45 or 50 minutes instead of 15 ? :rolleyes: Windsor avenue is such an isolated spot of bandit country ( lol ) I am not surprised "The helicopter f'ed off and left the post to it's fate.":rolleyes: Yet there were no casulties. The PIRA seem to have been more successful at inflicting casulties when dressing up in civilian clothes and putting bombs in civilian areas eg Le Mons Restaurant, Enniskillen, Warrington, Birmingham, Belfast city centre etc etc.....or when ganging up and shooting some part time or retired protestant in the back on a lonely border farm. Or when shooting a pregnant policewoman and bragging about getting two for the price of one.

Hagar wrote:

I could tell you another really good story but that is all you get for now.

ah g'wan, g'wan, g'wan. ye will, ye will, ye will.

boneless · 10-01-2007 2:17am

If you had read the post properly you would have seen that there were no reports of casualties, not that there were no casualties. Don't forget that the media were not always informed in the Northern conflict and where also, in some cases, heavily biased to the establishment.

How many Paras were killed at Warrenpoint? 18 fatalities were admitted but a friend of mine who was in Daisy Hill hospital at the time overheard a nurse saying that 32 had lost thier lives in the atrocity.

The first casualty of a war is the truth.