 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
So the problem is that you got a bunch of people who are protestant and dont want to unite with the rest of Ireland who is catholic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Before Ireland got independent (when was that aprox?) she was a part of the UK?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
So why was Scotland pacified and Ireland was not? Religion I gather.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I see. Thanks. When was the Act of Union?
What is the population fo Northern Ireland? and the % of catholics?
and I stop.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Wait, and what was Ireland before 1800? Its status I mean.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
our_man
|
 |
Glasgow, Scotland
Oct 2000
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
My understanding is there was quite a bit of oppression of the Protestants in the South after independence. |
Not a lot. There were some pogroms against Protestant landlords in Cork, but I think Ireland was a beacon of tolerance compared to other countries that have had an oppressive minority lose power. Remember, the 1st president of Ireland was Protestant(Douglas Hyde, founder of the Gaelic League). Our history books glorified Irish Protestant revolutionaries, such as Wolfe Tone, even back then. This was at a time when the B specials were running around as loyalist death squads up North.
For people like Cockney out there who believe that the 6 counties should remain part of the UK, read up on the joke that was the Boundary Commission of 1926, and especially the biased role Justice Feetham (who was meant to be non-partisan) played in making sure that heavily Catholic areas were awarded to the NI apartheid state. Protestants/Unionists were only in the majority in 4 counties. Let's face it, if the Unionists/British government hadn't been so greedy back then, they would be ruling over a much reduced area, but with a largely homogenous population of Protestants. The argument though is such a smaller area would have been economically unviable in the long run. So I don't think I'll object too much if reunification occurs, and they're a few die-hard Unionists a bit put out by the change in borders. I'm not for or against unification myself, but it the majority of the population of NI wants to leave the UK and join us, it's OK. That's democracy, hopefully we're going to see a lot more of it in the North now.
On an interesting note: since the declaration of the cease fire the IRA has been well-behaved, yet those crazy gun-toting Unionist paramilitaries are still playing 'soldier'. When are they going to start to put a bit more pressure on the UVF/LVF? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SaxonKing
|
|
quote:
Why, praytell, was the Unionist population bigotted against Catholics for the 50 years before the start of the Troubles? The Catholics had good cause for greivance at the start of the Troubles; perhaps if the Unionist regime hadn't tried to be the Western Hemisphere's South Africa the IRA would never have enjoyed the popular support they did that allowed the Troubles to occur. The victims before the Troubles were Catholic; it was sad that the only way certain members in this community could act was to try and share some of the suffering with the Unionist population instead of protesting democratically. Although this was pretty hard in a system gerrymandered to ensure Unionist supremacy. |
I'm not talking about fifty years ago I'm talking about the present, a different generation to that of 50 years ago.
Also the comparism you make with South Africa is not very accurate, the Unionists were the majority in the province and in the counties, pre the troubles the relationship between the Catholics and the Protestants in NI was relatively cordial and NI had the lowest murder and crime rate within the United kingdom. Hardly a hell hole for Catholics.
Now I agree the discrimation against Catholics then was wrong and should not have happened, I think we can all agree that grave mistakes were made by the Unionists and the British government.
But to call all Unionists bigots when most of them never had a hand in the discrimination of Catholics, who have been bombed for years upon years by the very people that they are supposed to be negotiating with and living alongside is ignorant, ridiculous and insulting.
It is understandable and right that the Unionist community is suspiscious of the the people that have been terrorising them especially when other "ceasefire" and negotiations have invariably ended with innocent Unionists being killed by Republicans.
Unionists want peace and powersharing with Catholics but they do not want to share power with terrorist and murderers which is hardly an extreme position.
quote:
They're mindless bigots on both sides of the divide still, although no-one is as 'in your face' about it as the Rev. Ian Paisley, even though he's calmed down somewhat since he once declared the Pope to be the Antichrist in the EU parliament. |
Two of the leading members of SF are on the IRA council for gods sake! I would say being a terrorist is more "in your face" than being an outspoken politician.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SaxonKing
|
|
quote:
I'll tell you what - listen to Paisley talk and compare him to Adams and tell me what impression you get. Adams talks in moderate terms - he does not use fiery rhetoric and chooses his words carefully. He is always quick to deny that he was in a terrorist organisation. Paisley if fire and brimstone. You can't possibly compare between the two. |
I agree, Paisley is a far better speaker than Adams. And I'm also glad you agree with me that you cant compare a terrorist and a politician.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by our_man
No, I didn't mean that. My comment was addressed to SaxonKing's. He (you might have noticed) also made a sweeping generalization on Republicans. I guess I know what side of the fence you sit on then?  |
the side that pays more attention to poly regulars than to DL's
Im not on the Unionist side. I see it as tragedy on both sides, with roots going back to 1500 or earlier. Given that England historically lived without a standing army, and used its navy and the channel as its principle defense, England was inevitably going to want to insure that Ireland from by used as a stepping stone by a continental power. And given the cultural, and later religious differences, its hardly surprising that it ran Ireland through religious and ethnic bigotry (there were Irish Catholics who served in the armies of Spain and France, which did fairly nasty things, you know?) I can see arguments both ways on partition, and certainly can admire the democratic state that was built in the south, and share the view that unification is probably inevitable eventually, without lacking some degree of sympathy for the Ulster Protestants, most of whom are Presbyterians who were excluded from power prior to 1800 alongside Irish Catholics, and who had deep roots in Ulster, yet did not want to join the Irish Republic.
You raise good points about the period between 1920 and 1969, about which i know little. I am inspired to get a book from the library and learn more.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SaxonKing
|
|
quote:
Look, you obviously haven't read the whole sordid history of NI, so I'll give you a break. Why don't you go away and read a few history books, and then come back and we'll converse. The fact that you think that things in NI weren't too bad for Catholics before the Troubles began says enough. |
I know far more about Northern Ireland than I have ever wished to know, it came in handy when I was getting shot at by the IRA to know, that according to Peter Hain, they were just peace loving loving people reacting to centuries of English oppression.
I'm not pretending that it was 'nice and rosy' for Catholics pre the troubles but you compared the situation in Northern Ireland to that of South Africa which is not accurate at all. Like I said, Protestants were the majority and therefore democratically entitled to hold power in NI. It was also a peaceful province with the two communities living side by side relatively well. The Irish were in no way treated the same way as the South African blacks.
Like I said I'm not saying that there was not gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries to ensure Protestant domination of certain areas but the situation was along way off that of the Aparthied system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by our_man
Fair enough; I misjudged you. 
Yes, there were substantial Irishmen serving in Irish brigades in continental Europe, where they were feared for their fighting prowess. I am not familiar of the nasty things that they did in the service of these countries however - our history seem to have omitted that. 
Could you give me some examples, or suggest some further reading for me?
I don't want to get into too much detail but the Irish presence in Europe was once more as a result of British (sorry, English) policy in Ireland once more. Suggested reading: anything on the Flight of the Earls.
Getting a bit OT, but the Irish National Museum had a fasincating display on the 'Wild Geese' a few years ago. I can't remember the full details, but it was the charge of an Irish member of the Austrian army that captured the standard of the Turks in the 1st Siege of Vienna and helped rout them? So maybe we should thank the British that we're all not praying to Mecca now because the expelled the Irish nobles.  |
im not aware of anything off the top of my head that Irish exiles specifically did - what i said was that they were part of continental catholic armies, and those armies and the govts they were associated with did nasty things. The French govt, for example, massacred Protestants after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, which occured not long before the battle of the Boyne, and was in the minds of Protestants in England during the "Glorious" revolution. Similarly the Spanish state oppressed Protestants and Jews ( i would add muslims, but i dont suppose they were welcome in England at that period) The Spanish armies in the Netherlands were notorious for atrocities, and they included Irishmen, IIUC.
All of which, at some point has to moved past. ALONG with moving past, say, Cromwell and Wexford. again, im agnostic, at this point, as to what justification the loyalists had in 1912, say. But calling every loyalist a bigot as aggie did (and that was what SK was responding to) doesnt seem very helpful. But what else to expect from our local troll?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-08-2005 19:41
|