|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
it's full of stars
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Nice post. Maybe ideology was the wrong word to use. I've worked and holidayed with ex and serving British squaddies in Great Britain and the Queen's name was invoked a fair number of times on nights out, so perhaps nationalism again. Maybe I was the catalyst for that, being from Northern Ireland. Maybe no one joined the British Army because they loved their country, they all signed up for the trendy togs and the opportunity to learn a trade.
I can't agree that the IRA achieved nothing. If nothing else they gained a republic. Maybe in Northern Ireland things would have been better if people had doffed their caps and paid respect to their masters. But, I think you are putting the cart before the horse in this case;
| Quote: |
| The protestant community would been forced to 'behave themselves' long ago by other means, and civil rights would have evolved naturally through lawful methods. Yes, the Catholic community were faced with great oppression and injustice, and the RUC and the British Army behaved disgracefully. But Catholics in Ulster were not in the hopeless position of other societies, like say the Palestinians, and The Troubles blighted the life of far too many Catholics for far too long to make any of it worthwhile. |
The protestant community had no one telling them to behave, for all intents and purposes they were the military, police, and government in Northern Ireland. The civil rights movement began in the mid 60s and achieved some early legislative reforms but the pace of change was slow due to Loyalist lethargy and unwillingness to change. The IRA reformed in 1969, years after the start of the civil rights movement and as a direct result of attacks on the catholic community. Are you saying that people should have put up with being stoned, shot, killed, burnt out of their homes, in the hopes that TV crews around the world would flock to Ireland, broadcast the images and shame the British governement into...equality? Haha, when was the last time anyone shamed a government, the British government, into doing something?
| Quote: |
| The kind of discrimation meted out against Catholics just could not have been sustained into the eighties and particularly the nineties. Not in today's world. Eventually public pressure would have put an end to it. Not just the Irish public. |
So they should have just waited. Of course. If I'm ever in a situation were people are being burnt out of their homes, I'll recommend patience.
| Quote: |
| But Catholics in Ulster were not in the hopeless position of other societies, like say the Palestinians... |
True, we weren't walled into our own country unable to leave and starving, but that doesn't excuse the conditions of life of people in Northern Ireland. The palestinians are following a cycle very similar to Ireland. Except they are at an earlier point in their problems, decades behind perhaps. The Irish problem is in its death throes. I don't know nearly enough about the Palestinian problem to compare the two situations, so would prefer not to get sidetracked.
| Quote: |
| ...and The Troubles blighted the life of far too many Catholics for far too long to make any of it worthwhile. |
'Worthwhile', well maybe you have a point. I come from Northern Ireland and I know that people are divided about this. I think we will have to agree to disagree, Big Bird. Self-respect is always worthwhile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| it's full of stars wrote: |
Nice post. Maybe ideology was the wrong word to use. I've worked and holidayed with ex and serving British squaddies in Great Britain and the Queen's name was invoked a fair number of times on nights out, so perhaps nationalism again. Maybe I was the catalyst for that, being from Northern Ireland. Maybe no one joined the British Army because they loved their country, they all signed up for the trendy togs and the opportunity to learn a trade.
I can't agree that the IRA achieved nothing. If nothing else they gained a republic. Maybe in Northern Ireland things would have been better if people had doffed their caps and paid respect to their masters. But, I think you are putting the cart before the horse in this case; |
I was limiting my discussion to he Troubles, not referring to earlier times. That's a totally different story. No, I don't believe they should have doffed their caps and eaten crap. Not at all. But I believe they became much worse off during the Troubles than they would have been otherwise, and I believe they would have achieved civil rights a lot earlier if they had doggedly pursued other means.
And I suspect the Army lads were putting it on for your benefit. You don't often hear teh English harping on about the Queen. That's not to say nationalism isn't alive and well in England. And in which ever country I see it practised it always looks stupid. Perhaps I have lived and travelled in too many countries around the world to have any more patience for it.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The protestant community would been forced to 'behave themselves' long ago by other means, and civil rights would have evolved naturally through lawful methods. Yes, the Catholic community were faced with great oppression and injustice, and the RUC and the British Army behaved disgracefully. But Catholics in Ulster were not in the hopeless position of other societies, like say the Palestinians, and The Troubles blighted the life of far too many Catholics for far too long to make any of it worthwhile. |
The protestant community had no one telling them to behave, for all intents and purposes they were the military, police, and government in Northern Ireland. The civil rights movement began in the mid 60s and achieved some early legislative reforms but the pace of change was slow due to Loyalist lethargy and unwillingness to change. The IRA reformed in 1969, years after the start of the civil rights movement and as a direct result of attacks on the catholic community. Are you saying that people should have put up with being stoned, shot, killed, burnt out of their homes, in the hopes that TV crews around the world would flock to Ireland, broadcast the images and shame the British governement into...equality? Haha, when was the last time anyone shamed a government, the British government, into doing something? |
The civil rights began in the mid 60s, and wow, hadn't achieved their goals by 1969. Why is that surprising? You think anyone's struggle for rights produces tangible results in just a few short years? We women have been oppressed by you men for millenia. What if the Provisional Feminist Army had started shooting men as they came out the gents loo, or blowing up football clubs? There were much better ways to achieve our goals. Sure, it's not quite the same thing, but there are parallels. Do you think American blacks would have been better off if they'd adopted the methods of the KKK? I seriously doubt it. Yes, the Catholic community faced an enormous challenge, the proddies held all the cards, but I think the Catholics would have got where they are today much sooner by patiently and doggedly employing non-violent methods. And if they could have alerted the mainstream public in the UK to their plight, I believe they would have had the support of the majority of the British behind them. Even today most English folk are totally ignorant of the protestant treatment of catholics in NI. And, as many Northern Irish protestants have learnt to their surprise after living in England, the English don't feel a natural affinity for them over the Catholics. To most English, the Caths and the Proddies from Northern Ireland are a much of a muchness.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The kind of discrimination meted out against Catholics just could not have been sustained into the eighties and particularly the nineties. Not in today's world. Eventually public pressure would have put an end to it. Not just the Irish public. |
So they should have just waited. Of course. If I'm ever in a situation were people are being burnt out of their homes, I'll recommend patience. |
And during the armed struggle were they any better off? Or were many more Catholic lives snuffed out than would have occurred otherwise? The 'eighties and the nineties' weren't actually that far away from the early seventies (when the Troubles began to really kick off). And the armed struggle just deepened and entrenched hatred and mistrust. And at the end of it all, Catholics and Protestants still had to live down the street from each other (with or without a great bloody wall). Easier to live with your neighbour when you don't have a the memory of his uncle killing your father. Better not to make those memories in the first place.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| ...and The Troubles blighted the life of far too many Catholics for far too long to make any of it worthwhile. |
'Worthwhile', well maybe you have a point. I come from Northern Ireland and I know that people are divided about this. I think we will have to agree to disagree, Big Bird. Self-respect is always worthwhile. |
[/quote]
I've had interesting discussions with people from Northern Ireland from both sides of the divide. I actually knew a group of about 10 or so, in the late 90s who used to meet at my local who were mixed (Catholic and Protestant) and they said when they lived in Belfast they were staunch repiblicans/loyalists, but after a few years in London they found they left that mindset behind and came to find the whole bloody thing absolute madness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
it's full of stars
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I've had interesting discussions with people from Northern Ireland from both sides of the divide. I actually knew a group of about 10 or so, in the late 90s who used to meet at my local who were mixed (Catholic and Protestant) and they said when they lived in Belfast they were staunch repiblicans/loyalists, but after a few years in London they found they left that mindset behind and came to find the whole bloody thing absolute madness. |
I have found this to be the case for me also. Distance adds some perspective. And thinking whether or not Republicans would be in the same place quicker, without using violence, well that depended on all stakeholders agreeing to discuss things in a reasoned inclusive manner. Peaceful solutions and urbane sitdown meetings are possible with hindsight, and for the smaller players-when they have some degree of leverage. They were simply ignored and repressed until some people took matters into their own hands.
You can talk until you are blue in the face. The truth is that in the 60s and 70s, the Northern Irish catholic was still being repressed, to a degree that was completely unacceptable, in his/her own country. If the government didn't understand that (unbelieveable), or didn't want to move quickly enough to remedy that (probable), then direct action and violence is one method available to emphasise the problem and the need for a speedy solution. You cannot tell me that Ireland had lacked political movements up until that point, and that the British government had simply lacked awareness of the situation.
| Quote: |
| after a few years in London they found they left that mindset behind and came to find the whole bloody thing absolute madness. |
Finding the whole bloody thing madness is a statement of fact, not a solution.
| Quote: |
| What if the Provisional Feminist Army had started shooting men as they came out the gents loo, or blowing up football clubs? |
If you as a woman, want to compare your own problem/situation to that of Ireland, go ahead. Maybe the world would be a better place if the occasional woman stabbed her abusive husband to death, hardly any worse. As it is, your slow but steady progress over thousands of years is not one that any reasonable person would take. If you now want to make it laughable by talking about the Women's Liberation Army... I don't find abuse of women to be a laughing matter, the fact of that matter is that 1000s of women have died at the hands of lovers, partners, friends and family. If they had fought back more effectively, then many of them would still be alive, no?
| Quote: |
| Even today most English folk are totally ignorant of the protestant treatment of catholics in NI. |
I think this is the crux of the argument. Ignorance. The world would undoubtedly be a better place for all people if there was no violence. But there is. And when people are oppressed they will seek to resist. Drinking tea & writing letters to the Guardian does very little to change peoples' situations. You can have your feminist pace of change, glacial until the 20th century, other people like to see change within their own life times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| it's full of stars wrote: |
| You can talk until you are blue in the face. The truth is that in the 60s and 70s, the Northern Irish catholic was still being repressed, to a degree that was completely unacceptable, in his/her own country. If the government didn't understand that (unbelieveable), or didn't want to move quickly enough to remedy that (probable), then direct action and violence is one method available to emphasise the problem and the need for a speedy solution. You cannot tell me that Ireland had lacked political movements up until that point, and that the British government had simply lacked awareness of the situation. |
What are you talking about? I never said anything about the British government being ignorant of the situation. I was talking about the general public. Public opinion can greatly influence a government's actions. Yes, the Irish Catholics had to deal with a lot of shit in the 60s and 70s, but no, I don't believe the violent methods of the Provos helped the situation one bit, and in fact did more to stall progress than assist it. They did about as much to help the Catholic community as the f**ked up UDA and UVF did to help the Protestant community. Yeah, I had more sympathy for Catholic paramilitaries than I did loyalist paramilitaries, but in the end I think they were all useless w@nkers holding the wider community back.
| Starful wrote: |
| Quote: |
| What if the Provisional Feminist Army had started shooting men as they came out the gents loo, or blowing up football clubs? |
If you as a woman, want to compare your own problem/situation to that of Ireland, go ahead. Maybe the world would be a better place if the occasional woman stabbed her abusive husband to death, hardly any worse. As it is, your slow but steady progress over thousands of years is not one that any reasonable person would take. If you now want to make it laughable by talking about the Women's Liberation Army... I don't find abuse of women to be a laughing matter, the fact of that matter is that 1000s of women have died at the hands of lovers, partners, friends and family. If they had fought back more effectively, then many of them would still be alive, no?
|
If women had fought back too visibly, I suspect there would have been a harsher backlash against women. Women could not have won a physical battle against men. Anyway, the idea of it seems bloody silly, given that we love our fathers and sons and brothers and the men we take as mates. But women have killed abusive men over the centuries. When autopsies became in the norm in the UK, sales of arsenic rapidly declined. Abused wives had been slowly killing their abusers by adding it to their meals. Also, it not practical for women to fight back in the accepted way. Most women kill their husbands in their sleep, or in a manner that requires premeditation. Until very recently, the law had been far more sympathetic to wife killers (who could claim to have killed in the heat of the moment) than husband slayers.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Even today most English folk are totally ignorant of the protestant treatment of catholics in NI. |
I think this is the crux of the argument. Ignorance. The world would undoubtedly be a better place for all people if there was no violence. But there is. And when people are oppressed they will seek to resist. Drinking tea & writing letters to the Guardian does very little to change peoples' situations. You can have your feminist pace of change, glacial until the 20th century, other people like to see change within their own life times. |
[/quote]
The status of women wasn't so bad in our corner of the world, until the Romans brought their brand of misogyny to our isles. Then when the Germanic tribes invaded, their women were held in far better regard than those of Latinate Europe. But then along came another wave of Christianity and that (and the way it was practised then) did a lot to harm the rights of women. But in the past couple of hundred years we've come a long way, through peaceful means. I don't believe violence would have been a practical solution, and would most likely have done great harm to women's progress. We've still got some way to go, but that needs to be acheived through reason and persuasion.
You don't think that newspapers have much influence? Tell that to Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful men in the modern world. A man greatly feared by politicians. Yep, the pen is mightier than the sword. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
it's full of stars
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Big Bird, it's very possible that the scene in Northern Ireland would be very different if the IRA hadn't reformed to defend their community, from the peace loving loyalist paramilitaries who only wanted to beat fenians, burn down homes and intimidate hatemongering Catholics out of their violent civil rights marches. Those evil fenians, wanting the vote. Next thing you know they'll want jobs, and then probably a day off and a lunch break too.
If the Loyalists hadn't been paranoid about sharing power with their counterparts, if the O'Neill government had allowed progress on the civil rights question, if the police force hadn't stood by as unionists attacked the marches (aided by off-duty police), if the Northern Ireland government hadn't tried to censor legitimate opposition political groups, if they hadn't condoned police baton charges on young students-radicalizing them, if Westminster had been more effective in pressuring Stormont into making changes�if, if, if. It�s easy to cherry pick a certain time and say, from this point forward, nothing about the past shall be relevant. In this case you chose the moment when the PIRA decided to reform, as if they acted in a political and social vacuum. But answer me this, why did they come forward, to attack the police and blow up bombs in England? No, to stop Protestants from murder, intimidation and burning homes.
1968
| Quote: |
FIRST BLOOD IS SHED
October 5 in Derry witnessed the first bloodshed in the present violence in Northern Ireland. The blood was that of many of the 2,000 marchers who defied Craig's ban. It was spilled by RUC batons and among those injured was Gerry Fitt. Three other Westminster MPs, Russel Kerr, Ann Kerr and John Ryan witnessed the events. They saw the police baton the leading marchers in Duke Street and they saw that as the marchers turned to go back down the street they were ambushed by another company of police. Although only 2,000 people were present, the film of the brutality taken by an RTE cameraman flashed around the living rooms of Northern Ireland and the political upheaval feared by Unionists for fifty years had begun.
Prior to the Derry march the civil rights campaign had attracted the support only of the politically conscious. It was not a mass movement in the sense that it attracted massive support. Its non-violent methods and its refusal to equate civil rights with Irish nationalism made it virtually an unknown quantity in politics. But Bill Craig's police force stamped the authenticity of NICRA as a broad movement on the heads of the people in Duke Street and on the hearts of the television public. The Government's political justification for the Duke Street police ambush was that NICRA was a subversive organization intent on destroying the state.
It was the traditional Unionist response to any attempt at democratic progress but with NICRA's demands sticking rigidly to a policy of political reform and ignoring completely the issue of the state's existence, the Stormont Government had made its first wrong move in retaining power in nearly 50 years. Nothing would ever be the same again. Almost 90 people were treated in hospital for injuries sustained at the hands of the police and the first minor riots in Derry began over the week-end. In the political field events moved fast. |
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/nicra/nicra782.htm
| Quote: |
Sunday 20 April 1969
Loyalist Bombs
There was an explosion at Silent Valley reservoir in County Down cutting off water supplies to Belfast. There was a second explosion at an electricity pylon at Kilmore, County Armagh. [It was later established that the bombs were planted by Loyalists who were members of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV). Following these, and earlier attacks on other installations, British troops were assigned to guard key utilities across the region. See 30 March 1969.]
Thursday 24 April 1969
Loyalist Bomb
There was an explosion at a water pipeline between Lough Neagh and Belfast. [It was later established that the bomb was planted by Loyalists who were members of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV). See 30 March 1969.]
Saturday 26 April 1969
Loyalist Bomb
There was another explosion at a water pipeline carrying supplies to Belfast. [It was later established that the bomb was planted by Loyalists who were members of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV). Much of Belfast was without water following the latest explosion. See 30 March 1969.]
Monday 14 July 1969
First Death of the Conflict
Francis McCloskey (aged 67), a Catholic civilian, died one day after being hit on the head with a baton by an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) during street disturbances in Dungiven, County Derry. [In some accounts of 'the Troubles' this is recorded as the first death.]
Thursday 17 July 1969
Devenny Died
Samuel Devenny (42) died as a result of injuries he received when he was severely beaten by Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers using batons. The attack took place in Devenny's home in William Street, Bogside, Derry, on 19 April 1969. [In some accounts of 'the Troubles' this is recorded as the first death.]
Saturday 11 October 1969
First RUC Officer Killed
Victor Arbuckle (aged 29), a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), was shot dead by Loyalists during street disturbances on the Shankill Road in Belfast. [Arbuckle was the first member of the RUC to be killed in 'the Troubles'.] Two Protestant civilians were shot dead by the British Army during rioting.
Sunday 28 December 1969
Split in the IRA
There was a split in the Irish Republican Army (IRA). [The breakaway group became known as the Provisional IRA and the remaining group became known as the Official IRA. The split in the IRA became public knowledge on 11 January 1970.]
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch69.htm |
You can see from this timeline, that the first bombs, were protestant, the first killings were done by the police, the first policeman was killed by the loyalists and not the IRA. Who is responsible for creating the troubles?
If the Stormont government had allowed the citizens of Northern Ireland the civil rights they wanted, then they would have pre-empted the reformation of the IRA, but no. They feared the emergence of a politically conscious, active catholic community that would chip away at the edifice of Unionist supremacy. So they offered nothing, hampered all attempts at peaceful progress, because they feared the reaction of the protestant community. They manufactured a situation, a bottleneck where only violence could come out of and that violence at first was not Republican, it was delivered by the state. Loyalist intransigence and political cowardice made a peaceful situation into something it didn�t have to become. When that happened, then the attacks on catholic homes started. And if you couldn�t trust the police to protect you, then you defended yourself.
The British government, Stormont, the RUC, and loyalist paramilitaries made it possible for the IRA to come back. And all this time what was the peace loving and ever so powerful British media doing? I have to laugh sometimes at the situation, with all the trouble that Ireland and Northern Ireland caused Britain over the years, has it been worth it? How many British soldiers actually died over the centuries? And it looks like they have been trying to offload the north for decades now.
Now then, are you going to lecture me anymore about the bad men that ruined the good times everybody was having in Northern Ireland? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't got time to give you any long lectures. But you were the one who started lecturing me, don't forget.
And you are not telling me anything that I haven't read, or heard from my dad a thousand times. I am well aware that it was (elements of) the Protestant community that first resorted to violence in the 60s, and I consider loyalist terrorism to have ultimately ignited the Troubles. But, I still don't think the provos really helped the cause of the Catholics. In a parallel universe somewhere, the Catholics of Ulster achieved their goals a lot earlier, through political means.
Yeah, I agree that the British Army, the loyalist terrorists (it always annoyed me that groups like the UVF were called paramilitaries, while the IRA were labelled terrorists) and the RUC were largely responsible for creating Catholic terrorism. I have much sympathy for the Catholic cause, and very little for that of the Protestants, but in turn the IRA's violence energised their violent Protestant counterparts, and just fed into a spiral of violence that went nowhere, and took NI backwards. You've got it in your head that I am just blaming the IRA (maybe that's an indication of a victim mentality?). Actually you are wrong about who I blame. The proddies started this and history will not look kindly on them. But I disagree with you that the provos and their military bollocks were responsible for making things better.
The British media were sh!t. [Kind of like they were when Blair wanted to take us into Iraq. Only The Guardian and the Independent were worth reading during that period.] But with the IRA were blowing up British lads, so what did you expect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
it's full of stars
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Very well, we can agree to disagree. I had a longer post prepared but lost it. I appreciate you bringing up the topic and showing interest, and my apologies for lecturing you. All the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You never did get into a discussion about the original post, though.
Still at war ... dissidents revive grim memories of the Troubles
| Quote: |
Behind the spot where a Continuity IRA sniper shot dead a police officer in Northern Ireland on Monday night, there are two painted messages that give some indication of deepening divisions within Irish republicanism.
A mural on the right-hand side of a house on the Drumbeg housing estate in Craigavon commemorates 13 Provisional IRA men and women from North Armagh killed during the Troubles alongside two local Sinn F�in activists.
The mural is peeling and fading - symbolic, perhaps, of how the mainstream republican movement has put "armed struggle" in the past. To the left, however, a fresher message is bellicose and defiant: "CIRA - still at war". Beside the words are two stencilled outlines of a masked gunman brandishing an assault rifle.
A situation that was complex after the murder of two soldiers last weekend - claimed by the Real IRA - became more so when Continuity IRA boasted it was responsible for the shooting of PC Stephen Carroll. But the claim also underlined that the dissidents are not all fighting under the same flag. Security sources said yesterday that the murder of the police officer was comparable to CIRA playing "catch-up" with the Real IRA.
They fear that an onus has now been placed on the third dissident republican faction, the Tyrone/Fermanagh-based �glaigh na h�ireann, to emulate the others in a grim game of one-upmanship. |
Violence and killing has started up again. How do you feel about these dissident groups? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry to intrude on what has become a private dialogue here but I must say that the British euphemism "The Troubles" is amusing, in a pathetic sort of way.
It reminds me of an older edition of Lonely Planet's Beijing Guide where some half-wit Brit traveler described the Old Summer Palace grounds, burned and pillaged by Anglo-French forces, as an "occurrence" where the British Army "had a go at it."
And I just love that patronizing Anglo tone: just forget the past, get along, and grow up. Well, Birdie, we can't all be as statesmanly and staid as the Brits now, can we?
The Irish were victims of a well-documented genocide and the northern part of their country was stolen from them.
While I don't condone the recent violence I can certainly understand the lingering bitterness.
elsewhere:
| Quote: |
| My 'eagle eye' was busy reading up stuff for an assignment due on Monday. |
Ah, yes, ever the martyr. If it's not the kids, it's those nagging assignments. You've got an excuse for every occasion, don't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
it's full of stars
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
You never did get into a discussion about the original post, though...
...Violence and killing has started up again. How do you feel about these dissident groups? |
I'm not sure how I feel about them. I need to read some more about this situation and get a variety of viewpoints. How do you feel about it?
| Quote: |
Quote:
My 'eagle eye' was busy reading up stuff for an assignment due on Monday.
Ah, yes, ever the martyr. If it's not the kids, it's those nagging assignments. You've got an excuse for every occasion, don't you? |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
------
Last edited by Big_Bird on Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:46 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| it's full of stars wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
You never did get into a discussion about the original post, though...
...Violence and killing has started up again. How do you feel about these dissident groups? |
I'm not sure how I feel about them. I need to read some more about this situation and get a variety of viewpoints. How do you feel about it? |
I think you know how I feel about it.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Quote:
My 'eagle eye' was busy reading up stuff for an assignment due on Monday.
Ah, yes, ever the martyr. If it's not the kids, it's those nagging assignments. You've got an excuse for every occasion, don't you? |
|
Go back and read JMO's response to your previous nonsense. This thread was supposed to be about events currently unfolding, not an attempt to educate the whole ESL expat community on the history of Ireland since Cromwell. Those of us interested in this conflict will most likely have a good grounding in Britain's historical involvement in Irish affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
Sorry to intrude on what has become a private dialogue here but I must say that the British euphemism "The Troubles" is amusing, in a pathetic sort of way.
|
Save your sneering for the Irish then. As far as I am aware, this term is mostly used by the Irish, and I had always assumed it was coined in Ireland, though IFOS may correct me if I'm wrong. It's a term that's been around for a few centuries, though nowadays it is generally understood to mean the period between the late 60s and the 90s.
| Quote: |
It reminds me of an older edition of Lonely Planet's Beijing Guide where some half-wit Brit traveler described the Old Summer Palace grounds, burned and pillaged by Anglo-French forces, as an "occurrence" where the British Army "had a go at it." |
It sounds to me (from this and many other of your posts) that you have quite a chip on your shoulder about the Brits. Quite silly at your age.
| Quote: |
| And I just love that patronizing Anglo tone: just forget the past, get along, and grow up. Well, Birdie, we can't all be as statesmanly and staid as the Brits now, can we? |
No, you've made your own inferences. You are a very subjective reader, bringing your own silly prejudices to just about everything. I've noticed that quite a lot. And you pigeon hole people as 'British' or 'leftie' or whathaveyou, and assign a whole load of beliefs and attitudes to them on that basis - beliefs and attitudes they often do not possess.
No, I don't believe the Irish should just 'forget their past' but I don't think it's useful or healthy to dwell on it as much as (some of them) do, and let it impinge on their outlook in the 21st century. Clinging tightly to past injustices down the generations doesn't do a lot to right the wrongs of the past. And it gets even sillier when some silly yank starts mouthing off at you in a bar, because he hears your English accent and he believes himself to be Irish. I just love the bit when I introduce myself by my last name, and they realise what a utter wanker they have been - especially when their claim to being Irish comes from an ancestor generations back, and I am eligible to claim an Irish passport and they are not - hehe. I also knew an Aussie who indulged in his imagined victimhood due to his Irish heritage, until later to his deep embarrassment he eventually discovered he was actually descended from Irish Protestants! Hahaha, the delicious irony!
[BTW, when I talk of clinging to past injustices, I am talking about the wider situation and context which you have insisted on bringing up, not very recent injustices (in historical terms) that Irish Catholics have suffered at the hands of Irish Protestants, before and during 'The Troubles.']
| Quote: |
| The Irish were victims of a well-documented genocide and the northern part of their country was stolen from them. |
Yes, some of my family died in the famine - other relatives fled the famine. In the 19th century one branch of our family lost the deeds to a sizeable estate. My dad has discussed the discrimation his family faced in the past. Some family members are still bitter about it (but how does their bitterness benefit them?). And some of my Irish relatives felt so desperate they even went on to be yanks like you (god forbid!). But, if I could go into the past would I choose the life of my Irish ancestors or my English ancestors? - (forgetting that I also have non-English and non-Irish heritage for a moment). I don't envy my English ancestors either, who lived pityful lives down mines or in the sweatshops of the Industrial revolution. Both had a shitty deal. One can blame a whole other nationality, while another can only blame the fatcats who got rich off their poverty-blighted lives of drudgery and hard labour.
But your country was stolen from Native Americans, in what was an even more horrible genocide. And then your economy was partly built on the backs of hapless African slaves. Not sure that I would choose being a native American over being an Irish Catholic, oh Stevie Boy. People of your nationality are not really in any position to lecture anyone on these issues, unless of course they are black or native Indian. So try not to get too self righteous, old boy. 
| Quote: |
| While I don't condone the recent violence I can certainly understand the lingering bitterness. |
Yes indeed. Where do we differ on that? I've already said I have sympathy with the IRA's cause. But not their methods. Or did you read that bit with your "I've got such a grudge against Brits I can hardly think straight" lenses on that that part was much too blurry for your poor eyes, dear?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| My 'eagle eye' was busy reading up stuff for an assignment due on Monday. |
Ah, yes, ever the martyr. If it's not the kids, it's those nagging assignments. You've got an excuse for every occasion, don't you? |
Because I get absolutely annoyed with twits (usually childless and with the kind of free time in one day I couldn't even dream of in a whole week) harping on as if I should treat this message board as some kind of serious duty. And to those who do this (you included) "Please get a life."
Last edited by Big_Bird on Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
it's full of stars
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Go back and read JMO's response to your previous nonsense. |
I read his post and replied to it. He didn't reply. Maybe he thought I was being sarcastic, but look at my response again. What I said has also been said by the CIRA and other republicans. They consider McGuiness and Adams to have sold out to the British government. They, Sinn Fein, have called the CIRA traitors, while they have their snouts firmly dug into the British trough. What was the point of Sinn Feinn and the PIRA? A united Ireland. That seems to be off the menu now, correct?
What do I feel? No idea yet. What do you think, apart from me being a wanker (that's true by the way)? You say I should know by now, but I want you to tell me. Lay it out for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| it's full of stars wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Go back and read JMO's response to your previous nonsense. |
I read his post and replied to it. He didn't reply. Maybe he thought I was being sarcastic, but look at my response again. What I said has also been said by the CIRA and other republicans. They consider McGuiness and Adams to have sold out to the British government. They, Sinn Fein, have called the CIRA traitors, while they have their snouts firmly dug into the British trough. What was the point of Sinn Feinn and the PIRA? A united Ireland. That seems to be off the menu now, correct?
What do I feel? No idea yet. What do you think, apart from me being a wanker (that's true by the way)? You say I should know by now, but I want you to tell me. Lay it out for me. |
Whether we like it or not, Irish Protestants are there to stay. They have as much right to be there as white yanks or white aussies have to be in their new respective lands. In fact, you could argue that they are practically your brethren since the Ulster Scots who mostly settled Ulster were in fact themselves mostly descended from Irish who had once left Ireland - centuries before - to settle in Scotland, and then returned to settle in Ulster in the 17th Century (an interesting fact I learnt when I studied linguistics believe it or not -migration is such a complicated thing, is it not?) And we can cry about gerrymandering all we like, the fact is that the 6 counties are considered part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, as Protestants form a sizeable portion of Ulster's population they therefore (according to international principles) have a say in what happens. Their wishes can not be ignored, just as American Indians have no right to ignore the wishes of whities and other new Americans, Irish Catholics in Ulster wishing to live in a democracy have to consult the wishes of Irish Protestants.
But there are two things that are quite in your favour: where once they were a clear majority, the balance is tipping as Protestants are now being outbred by Catholics. That means more voting power for Catholics. Secondly, being a Protestant does not necessarily make one a unionist. In fact there already are Protestant republicans, and have been all along. Why not work on increasing this demographic? Catholics need to persuade them that a united Ireland would include and welcome and benefit them. Catholics need to demonstrate that Protestants have nothing to fear from a transition of being a majority population in Ulster, to becoming a minority population in a united Ireland. Can Catholics convince the Protestants that they would not be discriminated against in a new united Ireland? You need to start treating them as fellow Irish, and not as foreign invaders (they've been there - what? - 400 years now?). Do you think the CIRA and RIRA will persuade Protestants of the benefits of a United Ireland by shooting them up and blowing up their cars?
As long as Catholics are enjoying a life free from discrimination and oppression, I believe they have no moral right to use violent methods. Let it happen by democratic means. It may take generations, but if it's worth doing, it's worth waiting for. But it's not worth dying for. My dad passionately believed in a united Ireland, but he didn't believe it was worth one drop of innocent blood. I think I agree with Dad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
