Is he simply talking about forgetting the events of 800 years ago or what exactly?
Because it seems to me that history is not the problem. It's 2004 and partition exists, that's not history, that's the present day situation.

I'm sure Newt could clarify that for himself, but I'd say that the fact and corrollory of partition and not the endlessly contestable 800 years is precisely the ground on which, according to Newt's argument, the Republican 'battle' should take place.

And I thought that post-modernism was silenced with 9/11.

Two good essays on this.

Paradise and Power by Robert Kagan postulates the base of US power is military as opposed to Europe's essentially economic foundations. He believes this gives rise to separate sensiblilities in how they view the world. The eponymous roles are played by Europe as the lawful Paradise and the US as the force-driven Power .

And Cooper's The Breaking of Nations, which he cooked up from a stem essay in the Observer two years ago. It classifies the world into pre-modern, modern and post modern powers. The US slips into the modern category and Europe into post-modern world.

Interesting, thanks for the links Mick.

I scanned it a few times, but I can't find a specific mention of Europe in Newton Emerson's article.

Though surely there is zero chance of the unionist and nationalist identities being dissolved in a common European one. We should give that hope up completely.

Even a federal Europe would not achieve that. Because even the USSR did not succeed in eliminating national or religious identities.

Thanks for the Cooper link. Still more convinced by Kagan, though!

The theses interlock in certain places. Cooper requires a suspension of disbelief for any interplay across the borders of these imagined boundaries that perhaps makes it hard to sustain.

Because it seems to me that history is not the problem. It's 2004 and partition exists, that's not history, that's the present day situation.

If you completely dismiss the historical concept of Ireland as a single political entity, what's the reason for removing the border?

There's lots of reasons for removing the border, more than "the historical concept of Ireland as a single political entity"

Maca

It's worth kicking that out a bit further. Surely Ringo's question deserves the long version of that response?

Hi Maca,

"Is he simply talking about forgetting the events of 800 years ago or what exactly?"

You mean in the same way Nationalists conveniently ignore the 1200 years previous when the Gaels invaded Ireland?

This is exactly his point. The English conquered the Gaels who themselves had conquered the previous inhabitants. Who, incidentally, Ulster Prods can trace their ancestry to...

So yes, we should forget about the last 800 years. Or else at least not just cherry pick what era we remember.

CG
"You mean in the same way Nationalists conveniently ignore the 1200 years previous when the Gaels invaded Ireland?"

Did the Gaels invade? Or did they migrate? I'm not sure there's evidence of an invasion as such ;)

"So yes, we should forget about the last 800 years."

Well that's just what i'm asking of Newt.

"Who, incidentally, Ulster Prods can trace their ancestry to..."

I'd be VERY interested to hear more on this.

Mick,
i'm not sure if it does deserve the long version ;)
I think reasons have been stated here umpteen times. Billy Pilgrim, for example, has often posted very good reasons to end partition.

"History: let's just get over it?"

Newt's way of saying support the status quo (i.e. England's current occupation and control of Northern Ireland). But it's kind of hard to get over "it" (English occupation & rule in NI) when English soldiers are still sticking guns in our faces there while asking for your identification at surprize check points. Why not just tell the Iraqi's that they should just get over the Anglo-American occupation of their country because the invasion was last year for crying out loud...ancient history already! And while you're at it enough from the Palestinians about Israel and from the Greek Cypriots about Turkey. Just shaddup and get over it. Ever notice though how people like Newton Emerson never say to the invader or occupier: "Get the fuck out" or "Leave those people alone" or "Stop imperialism now"?

Newton Emerson expresses a lofty, admirable ideal. However, it is noticeable that the TV channels in the UK, incl. Sky, serve up a constant diet of triumphant English history. They are ever more popular if they are about the Tudors, World War 2, Churchill and co., and every other English triumph that you can think of. Yet, it is supposed to be the poor ignorant Irish person, Catholic or Protestant, who is 'obsessed' with history. The 'Tories' clamour ever louder for more 'British' history to be taught in the schools. But one must never highlight the Irish Great Famine (always call it the potato famine in UK history!The amount of ignorance about Ireland in Britain is incredible. It's still censored! For those who slate history (proper History) remember all of Christianity is based on history.

Dag

Don't forget the almost pathological obsession the English have with the nazi's. have you ever seen anything other than that topic on the History Channel?

WE WON THE WAR!! WE WON THE WAR!!

Well Colm we did win the war. Indeed Ireland shoukd have been reunited under the crown due to DeValeras treachery. The British missed shooting the traitor in 1916. DeValera and the rest of the Irish parliament should have all been at Nuremberg.They all shoud have been shot as traitors.

Ireland today would have been at peace. A united country under the crown.The Pope would not have got his blood stained on 26 of the thirty two counties.

God Save The Queen.

Ulsterman
You have a very ignorant view of history.

"Ireland today would have been at peace"

You can’t seriously believe this. You can’t seriously believe that the people of Ireland would accept British rule. They have never, will never accept foreign rule.

"The Pope would not have got his blood stained on 26 of the thirty two counties."

I personally wish to see a totally secular society when Ireland is reunited. But it is absurd to try and suggest that the majority of the people of Ireland aren’t Catholic. So either you are just a mad rambler Ulsterman or you have serious issues with reality.

Ulseterman -the Pope would be entitled to burn every heretical Ulster Protestant at the stake for their treason and treachery against the holy Bible. The hand of blood of the oppressor still lays heavily over one small insignifacnt part of ne Ireland. But the day will soon come when the green flag of all-Irleand and the true Catholic faith will reign over the 4 green fields.
Now, children, in our workshop today we explore how the other party feels when we talk to him/her in an ignorant, aggressive way.

Hi Maca,
“Did the Gaels invade? Or did they migrate? I'm not sure there's evidence of an invasion as such”
Dane’s cast, Black Pig’s dyke were built as defensive structures against the invaders. Ring forts were certainly an occupation structure. The word “Gael” originally meant invader in the welsh form, which is older than Irish (gaelic). There were numerous battles against the Gaels…
"Who, incidentally, Ulster Prods can trace their ancestry to...I'd be VERY interested to hear more on this.”
There are loads of sites and sources all about this. Just do a Google search including “+cruthin +dalriada”. Here’s a few links to get you started…
http://www.magma.ca/~mmackay/dalriada.html
http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire150.htm
http://www.lisburn.com/history/history_lisburn/settlement_of_ulster.htm
What you quickly realise is that the current popular view of Irish history is very simplistic. It’s much more complicated and lots of it, especially anything outside the last 800 years is hardly even discussed. For example, how many people do you ever hear mentioning the battle of Moira? What I think is hopeful tho’ is that you quickly realise that there’s a lot of commonality between all the people of this and these islands. For us to separate into 2 distinct tribes does our history/people a great disservice.

Sonny,

I have a vague recollection of Newt being at the anti-war rally outside the City Hall last year.

There is an argument that suggests that Irish people have been at their most radicalised when acting in spite of history: United Irishmen; early stages of the land reform; the hunger riots of the 1930s; and the early stages of the civil rights movement.

In each case the pressure to conform or act in the interests of historical faction interest broke down the initial radical cross community action. That is perhaps one reason why a large part of the electorate are cautious about breaking out of the modern political equivalent of these factions.

And there's another argument in favour of the Emerson line on history - in which he resists quoting that great Irish American entreprenuer and pragmatist, Henry Ford's view that "all history is bunk".

It is that once you elect for the ballot box route to power deliverables become much more important than inspiring historical narrative - although clearly the latter was crucial for various non-state and anti-state actors during the conflict.

Newt confronts us with a short and pithy choice. That's partly because it reflects the consequence of the choices made by the various parties to the Belfast Agreement. But also it's the necessary nature of rhetorical argument.

I doubt if he realistically expects history to go away. And indeed it shouldn't. But just try picking out the small but significant buildings from the 1916 Rising in Dublin these days and you have to strain to find the the commemorative brass plaques.

The population down there have embraced modernity and are slowly letting the past fade into the cityscape. African, Chinese and Islamic Irish shops line Moore Street, and draw in populations to whom the older liberation narratives have little real significance.

It's not a case of forgetting history (or language for that matter), but of starting from where you are rather than where you think should be. It means developing an analysis of what you think the problems are and offering the electorate a choice that addresses those primary ills.

For Republicans this, in part at least, means offering the electorate a viable unification package that addresses contemporary rather than historical problems. This is something that Jude Collins has been calling for a debate on for years.

Not trying to contest what you say because I haven't done much research on it but just a few thoughts:

"Dane’s cast, Black Pig’s dyke were built as defensive structures against the invaders."

...or defensive structures against other waring tribes perhaps?

"The word “Gael” originally meant invader in the welsh form, which is older than Irish (gaelic)"

I think "Gael" came from "Gaidheal" or the Old Irish word "Goidel".
According to one etymology reference "Gael was first used in Eng. exclusively of Scottish Highlanders"

Is Welsh older than Irish? It is generally accepted (as far as I know) that Q-Celtic (Gaelic) is older P-Celtic (Brythonic).
If IJP were here he could clarify.

"Ulster Prods can trace their ancestry to..."
"There are loads of sites ... “+cruthin +dalriada”"

I read recently that the Celtic ""invasion"" was actually very small. And if we are to believe the information which Davros posted recently then most of us are actually descended from the original inhabitants of the island.
Also my own line has come from the Dalriada, if I am to believe the genealogists.

"For us to separate into 2 distinct tribes does our history/people a great disservice."

Agreed.

Mick, good point and one of the few things I'd wholely agree with Jude Collins on having read his input to the Irish News over the last while.

Its time to move beyond the 'lets get the Brits out for 800 yrs of oppression' tired (and questionable as illustrated above) rhetoric to active promotion of the benefits of a United Ireland in a modern and current context -arguably the same should be said for Unionist promotion of continued presence in the UK?

It's not a case of forgetting history (or language for that matter), but of starting from where you are rather than where you think should be.

Absolutely spot on.

I'd say the point is that we should remember history, but that it is pointless building an entire political system based on biased views of history that happen to be favourable to our own tribe. Rather, we should base our politics on the here and now (including the reality of our collective heritage, both divided and shared).

However, as a UU voter, I'd have to point out that challenges Newton just like any of the rest of us.

It is generally accepted (as far as I know) that Q-Celtic (Gaelic) is older P-Celtic (Brythonic).

NO!!!

A classic example of nonsensical tribal history to support the nonsensical tribal 'we were here first' argument!

No form of language is any older than any other form. Irish, Welsh, English, Scots etc all derive from a single source, and are all therefore all as old as each other.

We have written texts in Irish (Q-Celtic) pre-dating any other Northwest European language, but that does NOT make it 'older'!

One of the best things about the GFA from a southern perspective was that it allowed to the population to detach itself from the "800 years of oppression" history.

Now the national aspiration is unity by consent, there's no more constitutional claim with all the "unfinished business" that it entails.

Unity by consent is something which can only happen in the future so there's no point looking to the past.

Developing an outward looking, successful and secular Irish state is now the best way to forward unity.
Blaming the British for anything won't bring us one step further.

IJP, that UUP voter thing reads first off like you're the voter in question. I take it that's not the case?

IJP
"A classic example of nonsensical tribal history to support the nonsensical tribal 'we were here first' argument!"

That's what I read on some mailing lists and on a number of websites.
But thanks for the clarification.

Any idea of the etymology for "Gael"? There are many conflicting sources.

Northern Ireland's nationalist and unionist historical narratives mean very little to Lithuanian and lusophone workers petrol bombed in their homes and attacked on NI streets, nor do they offer any solution to the problem.

Collective responsibility for the here and now still largely eludes both traditions.

I would tend to agree with the thrust of newtons article- in so far as the irish have examined history quite a lot but when it starts impede on the future development of the country (both north and south) then its time to start rethinking the use or benifit of such an activity! though its interesting to note that the pope made an apology only 3 years ago to the orthodox church in greece for the last of the crusades in 1204!!!! when constantinople was sacked by the roman and norman armies of the christian western europe!! Beat that for overdue apologys!

I have a vague recollection of Newt being at the anti-war rally outside the City Hall last year.

NEWT MUST HAVE FORGOT ALL ABOUT THAT.

There is an argument that suggests that Irish people have been at their most radicalised when acting in spite of history: United Irishmen; early stages of the land reform; the hunger riots of the 1930s; and the early stages of the civil rights movement.

IT'S A WEAK ARGUMENT. NO ONE ACTS IN SPITE OF HISTORY...AND POLITICS PAST OR PRESENT DOESN'T OCCUR IN A VACCUUM.

In each case the pressure to conform or act in the interests of historical faction interest broke down the initial radical cross community action.

"RADICAL" CROSS COMMUNITY ACTION? FOR ANY POLITICAL ANALYSIS OR ACTION TO BE RADICAL REQUIRES GETTING TO THE ROOT OF A PROBLEM...AND THE ROOT OF COLONIAL AND NEO-COLONIAL IRELAND HAS ALWAYS BEEN (NOW AND FOR THE LAST SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS) BEEN INTERFERENCE IN IT'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS FROM AN OVERWHELMING OUTSIDE FOREIGN POLITICAL MILITARY FORCE. ANY ANALYSIS THAT DEVIATES FROM THAT ROOT...IS A DENIAL OF REALITY.

That is perhaps one reason why a large part of the electorate are cautious about breaking out of the modern political equivalent of these factions.

RIGHT...CLINGING TO REALITY IS A SURVIVAL INSTINCT.

And there's another argument in favour of the Emerson line on history - in which he resists quoting that great Irish American entreprenuer and pragmatist, Henry Ford's view that "all history is bunk".

WHAT'S THE FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE REALLY BETWEEN WHAT FORD SAID AND WHAT NEWT SAID?

It is that once you elect for the ballot box route to power deliverables become much more important than inspiring historical narrative - although clearly the latter was crucial for various non-state and anti-state actors during the conflict.

THIS IS THE CURRENT PROVO-SINN FEIN LINE. POLITICAL SCIENTISTS CALL IT COOPTION.

Newt confronts us with a short and pithy choice. That's partly because it reflects the consequence of the choices made by the various parties to the Belfast Agreement. But also it's the necessary nature of rhetorical argument.

THERE WAS NOTHING RHETORICAL ABOUT NEWT'S CALL FOR SUPPORTING THE BRITISH NEO-COLONIAL STATUS QUO IN IRELAND. HIS SO CALLED SHORT & PITHY CHOICE REMINDS ME OF THE BUMPER STICKERS I SAW IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE VIETNAM WAR..."AMERICA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT." EACH IS A CALL TO THE STATUS QUO.

I doubt if he realistically expects history to go away.

HE EXPRESSLY EXPECTS IRISH PEOPLE TO STOP REFERENCING THEIR HISTORY OF BRITISH INTERFERENCE AND OPPRESSION WHEN DISCUSSING THEIR CURRENT SITUATION...APPARENTLY HIS THESIS IS THAT OUR MOPERY (AS BRIT TORIES SO UNELEGANTLY PUT IT) PREVENTS US FROM "ADVANCING" OR "GETTING OVER IT" (I.E. LEARNING HOW TO LOVE BRITISH INTERFERENCE IN IRISH AFFAIRS).

And indeed it shouldn't. But just try picking out the small but significant buildings from the 1916 Rising in Dublin these days and you have to strain to find the the commemorative brass plaques.

THE GPO IS STILL ON O'CONNELL STREET AND FULLY FUNCTIONING AS A GPO AND A COMMEMORATIVE MUSEUM. UP THE STREET FROM THERE IS THE COMMEMORATIVE GARDEN AND THROUGH OUT IRELAND ARE A NUMBER OF COMMEMORATIVE BRASS PLAQUES THAT YOU CANNOT MISS UNLESS YOU'RE BLIND (I.E. SEE ALL THE COMMEMORATIVES TO SEAN TREACY IN TIPPERARY TOWN).

The population down there have embraced modernity and are slowly letting the past fade into the cityscape.

DUBLIN, ESPECIALLY D4 SOUTH DUBLIN, HAS ALWAYS SUCCUMED MORE READILY TO BRITISH WORSHIP & RULE. "MODERNITY" BEING THEIR EUPEHMISM FOR THINGS COLOURED BRITISH (I.E. MANCHESTER UNITED).

African, Chinese and Islamic Irish shops line Moore Street, and draw in populations to whom the older liberation narratives have little real significance.

OLDER LIBERATION NARRATIVES? THE BRITS ARE STILL HERE. AND A LOT OF THESE MUSLIMS AND CHINESE YOU REFER TO ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM AND RULE IN IRELAND JUST AS THEY ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF THE HISTORY OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM AND RULE IN PLACES LIKE INDIA AND HONG KONG. AND I HAVE NEVER MET A CHINESE PERSON YET WHO DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE BRITISH OPIUM WARS.
JUST BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT SEE BRITISH RULE IN IRELAND AS THEIR PROBLEM...DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A PROBLEM FOR THE IRISH NONETHELESS.

It's not a case of forgetting history (or language for that matter), but of starting from where you are rather than where you think should be.

UNDERSTANDING WHERE YOU ARE MEANS UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU GOT THERE.

It means developing an analysis of what you think the problems are and offering the electorate a choice that addresses those primary ills.

THIS PRESUMES THAT ALL ALTERNATIVES ON OFFER WILL HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE BALLOT. AND THAT PEOPLE LIKE SAY RORY O'BRADY AND MARION PRICE WILL HAVE AS MANY INVITATIONS TO COME AND SPEAK ON SAY RTE AS MARY HARNEY OR EOGHAN HARRIS OR MICHAEL OR MOORE MCDOWELL...AND THAT ALL 32 COUNTY IRISH PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY BE PERMITTED TO VOTE IN A "BRITS OUT NOW" REFERENDUM.

For Republicans this, in part at least, means offering the electorate a viable unification package that addresses contemporary rather than historical problems.

RSF DOES THIS WITH THEIR EIRE NUA PROPOSAL. BUT GIVEN THE RIGGED GAME THAT COLONIAL NI AND NEO-COLONIAL ROI IS...

This is something that Jude Collins has been calling for a debate on for years.

I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH JUDE COLLINS, BUT WHAT I SEE FROM THIS KIND OF NEWT EMERSON THINKING IS A BLAME THE VICTIMS ANALYSIS THAT WILL NEVER GET US AROUND TO FACING AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT IS AS A SMALL DIVIDED COUNTRY THAT AILS US.

Thanks for that Sonny. This is Jude's website.

Can I just ask that you use italics or quote marks to signify quotes rather than blocks to signify your own comment?

Newt's right, it WOULD be great if we could put our history behind us and just get over the great cataclysms of our past. (I wrote about this over on ATW a couple of weeks back and, in great big caps I wrote `GET OVER IT' - and yet Newt doesn't even acknowledge me...)

But that's not by any means the end of the story. Forgetting history won't solve our problems as our problems are not purely historical. Partition is not history. The governance of part of Ireland by by institutions neither drawn from the people of Ireland nor motivated by the interests of the people of Ireland is not history. How they came to be in control might be a matter of historical note, but it's a note that still resonates today.

Sonny definitely hits on something though. Newt wrongly implies that the only reason one might oppose British rule in Ireland is an unhealthy obsession with the past. This clearly is nonsense - and might I add, the self-serving nonsense of one defending the status quo.

If everyone in Northern Ireland woke up tomorrow with all historical knowledge excised from our collective consciousness, the sheer incongruity of a divided Ireland and the northeast being dominated from Westminster would bring home once again, even to this most ahistorical society, the causes of all our problems.

In fact, if we all forgot about our history, one wonders would there be any support for the anachronism of union or the travesty of partition left? Our present arrangement certainly isn't one that makes any sense in the present or is likely to offer anything meaningful in the future. If we all forgot the happenings of c.1880-1922, let alone our more recent sectarian conflicts, surely we'd all wonder, ``how the hell did we end up with this ridiculous situation?''

You don't have to be obsessed with history to have views on British rule in Ireland. It's a living fact. Unify the country and end Westminster's sovereignty over Ireland tomorrow, and you'd find that the very next day every man, woman and child would be well and truly over our wretched history.

Until then though, it ain't just history.

Hi Sonny,
“COLONIAL NI”
This really fekking annoys me about Irish Nationalism. NI is a colony.
No it fekking isn’t.
Am I a colonist?
Well I happen to think that as an Ulster Prod I can trace my roots back to pre-Gaelic times in Ireland. Therefore, to me, the Gaels colonised my homeland. In the same way that you ask for a “Brits Out” referendum why shouldn’t I be allowed a “Gaels Out” referendum among the pre-Gaelic peoples of this land? Why to fek should BRITS get out of the BRITISH Isles anyhow?
Hi Billy,
“anachronism of union or the travesty of partition”
Surely it is as much of an anachronism to talk about the Union of Ireland as the Union of the British Isles. Or, the travesty of the partition of the British Isles as the partition of Ireland.
Persuade me. Don’t use emotive lingo.
Personally, I think we have a lot in common with the rest of the British Isles and I think it’s logical for us to have common government. We certainly have more in common throughout the isles than we do with Europe. Economically, I think we’d be mad to leave the 4th largest economy in the world to go it alone as a small island of the coast of Europe and would be completely at the mercy of the larger island with no say in laws that we affect us. BTW, I think the EU is going to fail within the next 50 years as countries only join for selfish reasons - no real European ideal. If that were to happen, I’d be a lot happier as part of the UK than part of a UI.

Congal Claen - I agree that the Ulster Scots have roots in Ulster, and that many different people have settled and intermarried in Ireland. There were Viking-Gaelic chieftains in Leinster. When are your people going to start intermarrying with the rest of the Irish? By the way, there are no British Isles- you use the term as if it is still a political union. The term is used by Unionists almost like a comfort blanket; it's never used in most of Ireland. The Republic's economy is no longer tied to the UK's. By the way, in the 60's/70's ireland was Britain's main export market.The break-up of the old UK (which lasted only a century and the British were as unhappy with it as most Irish)was/is painful because (and I agree with you here) it was like a family divorce. But I am afraid it was an abusive marriage. Have you studied what went on in ireland in the 1800's, apart from the Ulster perspective, that is?

Hi Dag,

"When are your people going to start intermarrying with the rest of the Irish?"

Well, the fact that Gerry Adams and John Hume are both Nationalist, yet come from "planter" stock, suggests this has already been going on for centuries. And also, Ken Magennis is Unionist, shows it goes both ways. Incidentally, my grandfather was an Ulster Catholic and my Grandmother an Ulster Prod (on my father's side). My Auntie also married a Southern Catholic. They both went to England to live (as colonists?) and have 2 ENGLISH sons. This is only going back 1 generation into my family. It just shows you how intermingled we are and is one of the reasons why I think it is ridiculous we separate into 2 tribes.

"By the way, there are no British Isles"

Sorry Dag, there is. Look at any map. These Isles have been known as the British Isles since the time of Ptolemy. I never said it was a political entity. It's a geographical one. In the same way Ireland is a geographical entity and not a political one.

"family divorce"
Could equally be applied to NI RoI.

"Have you studied what went on in ireland in the 1800's?"
Wrongs were carried out in every Nation. Example, During the 1800s slavery was still on the go in America. Things change slowly. Have you ever studied what went on in say England during the same time frame? Women, haven't had the vote until relatively recently. Should modern day women hate men because of it?

CC

``This really fekking annoys me about Irish Nationalism. NI is a colony. No it fekking isn’t.''

Hopefully we'll be able to drag up an old thread where this issue was discussed in great depth? The point made by several nationalist posters then was that NI, today, in the here and now, has all the hallmarks of a colonial dependency in every detail but name. I can easily understand why unionists hate the term but that does not make it any less accurate.

``Am I a colonist?''

Kinda depends on where you stand on the Union really.

``Well I happen to think that as an Ulster Prod I can trace my roots back to pre-Gaelic times in Ireland.''

It's good that you happen to think that, but can you prove it? Not saying you can't, but frankly it's not good enough to make this claim backed only with the fact that you ``happen to believe'' it.

“anachronism of union or the travesty of partition”

You're right about the emotive language I have used here. I apologise. It was at the very least unhelpful - though surely an Ulster protestant should appreciate such straight talking?

``Surely it is as much of an anachronism to talk about the Union of Ireland as the Union of the British Isles.''

Again there is a very in-depth discussion to be made here about the sheer workability of the two arrangements. Suffice to say I am utterly convinced that a single Irish state would be to the benefit of every person on this island. Look at the republic today - it's a partial example of what Irish self-determination looks like. It has had its problems, and no doubt further problems lie ahead, but it's better for those Irish people lucky enough to elect their own government than British rule ever was. Conversely, British governments with jurisdiction over Ireland - notwithstanding emotional complaints about it somehow being inherently unjust or wrong - have consistently shown over many centuries that they are simply a bad idea. They just don't work, either for Ireland or for Britain.

``the travesty of the partition of the British Isles as the partition of Ireland.''

It's called the Irish Sea. Yep, the Ice Age was a bitch, but what can you do? Geography may not be all, but it is important.

``I think we have a lot in common with the rest of the British Isles...''

Agreed.

``and I think it’s logical for us to have common government...''

There might be logic to the idea were it not for the fact that it has been tried and it has not been a happy experiment for anyone on these islands.

``We certainly have more in common throughout the isles than we do with Europe.''

Agreed.

``Economically, I think we’d be mad to leave the 4th largest economy in the world''

We are not in the fourth largest economy in the world. We are attached to it, like a patient to a drip. That does not mean it is, or has been good for us. In fact it has stunted our growth and destroyed the self-esteem we would need to turn NI into a functioning economy.

``to go it alone as a small island of the coast of Europe and would be completely at the mercy of the larger island with no say in laws that we affect us.''

This is like an argument from the first half of the last century.

``BTW, I think the EU is going to fail within the next 50 years as countries only join for selfish reasons - no real European ideal. If that were to happen, I’d be a lot happier as part of the UK than part of a UI.''

Even a rudimentary grasp of where Ireland is economically would disprove your theory, even if the EU does collapse.

There have also been previous threads on the colonial mentality of unionists and how NI's basket case economy feeds this dsetructive cycle. Ciaran Irvine is particularly strong on this issue. Perhaps it could be dragged up?

Nice try, Mick - but obviously I am referring to Newton, who has confessed to being a UU voter in the very same column in the past (I liked his reference to voting UU for the same reason he uses NIE, but that's another debate)!

Hi Billy,

"Kinda depends on where you stand on the Union really."

Don't think so Billy. NI is an integral part of the UK. The UK would be GB if NI wasn't a part of it. I take great offence at being called a colonist. It's like "settler" or "planter". Which I take to mean “outsider”. How would you like me to refer to you as an Iberian colonist/settler/planter?

"It has had its problems, and no doubt further problems lie ahead, but it's better for those Irish people lucky enough to elect their own government than British rule ever was."

Yeah that's right Billy. The Republic are going through a good patch at the minute. However, you don't have to back to far when it wasn't. In fact, for about 75% of the Republic's existence it was an economic wasteland. Who's to say it won't happen again. Playing the odds you'd have to say there's a good chance of it.
If British rule is so grim how come so many Irish people have left the hallowed turf for a life in the auld enemy's land. How come institutions like the British Celtic FC even exists? Surely it should be in the RoI?

"It's called the Irish Sea. Yep, the Ice Age was a bitch, but what can you do? Geography may not be all, but it is important."

Is it? Fek, does that mean a group of islands can't come together as one nation. Fek, better tell New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia, etc, etc, etc...
Incidentally, whenever the earth goes thro’ another cold patch Ireland will once again be joined with Wales, as oft before. Pedantic I know, but would your argument change then?

"Even a rudimentary grasp of where Ireland is economically would disprove your theory, even if the EU does collapse."
Assuming then that you do have this grasp then Billy, please enlighten me…
Personally, I think the Republic's position is fairly precarious. Fek all natural resources and dependent on an economy with easily transferable labour. Not to mention the house of cards stacking up with 40 year mortgages. Ours is bad enough, but the 40 year thing is really gonna fek things up. Let's see how well the Republic gets on when that comes crashing down.

"colonial mentality of unionists"

I'm sure you've grasped by now that I don't consider myself to be a colonist. I'm an Irish Brit with a lineage stretching much further back than some blow in from Iberia...

NI is a colony.
No it fekking isn’t.

To all intents and purposes it is. Consider:
- NI is run by colonial-style ministers parachuted in from London by a party which does not even allow us to become members;
- in return, NI has produced not a single Cabinet minister since it came into existence;
- how often do you see 'excluding NI' or 'UK mainland only' on ads?
- the NI economy is entirely dependent upon UK Treasury handouts.

So while I understand your irritance, if it barks like a colony...

Hi IJP,

"NI is run by colonial-style ministers parachuted in from London by a party which does not even allow us to become members"

The same could be said for any small region of the UK. We're only about 3% of the UK.
I think Labour has had to allow us to become members over threatened legal action. Although somewhat begrudgingly.
The conservatives always did. In fact it was the Conservative and Unionist party up until the AngloIrish agreement.

"in return, NI has produced not a single Cabinet minister since it came into existence"

Was Kate Hoey not a cabinet minister (sport)? I also thought Michael Ancram had a connection with here, although I may be wrong. If we actually elected some Conservative or Labour MP there'd be a better chance of some of them getting into the cabinet. It's our fault, not some GB conspiracy.

"how often do you see 'excluding NI' or 'UK mainland only' on ads?"
Loads, and it is fekking annoying.

"the NI economy is entirely dependent upon UK Treasury handouts."
True, but we weren't playing on a level playing field. That's exactly why terrorists chose economic targets. I for one won't be giving into them just so they'll stop fekking the country up. The RoI took about 60 years after the civil war to get going. We haven't even got a full peace yet. When we do, I wager the economy will take off.

CG:
"fekking": just curious, Northern Hiberno English or what? Never seen it spelled like that before.

The 'mainland' parties have given NI a wide berth since the state was formed in 1921, indeed the very fact of home rule should have been taken as a hint that Britain did not want to become embroiled in a region of the UK where voting had become split on communal lines. The Irish Question had seen the established parties of the Liberals and Tories disappear from the Irish political landscape, to be replaced by two communal blocks - unionist and nationalist - voting along sectarian lines. In other words, normal conventional politics along Westminster lines ceased to exist, and consequently British govt policy since partition has been to have as little to do with the place as humanly possible.

Regarding Glasgow Celtic: the real Celtic should have been Belfast Celtic. Shame that the good folk of windsor park put paid to that.

The republic's economy was shit for many years due to it being run by economic illiterates like Dev and because of it's dependance on Britain. Now, as part of the EU, the country is finding it's own way and is punching way above it's weight. Saying that the economy is going through a good patch is a huge understatement. ireland is the top destination for direct foreign investment in western europe now and some industries, notably software, computers and pharmaceuticals, have reached the critical mass needed to be sustained in the long term. the 200 odd jobs announced in cork today (by a section of kvaerner, the company involved with the loss of all those H&W jobs) are a classic example. they are high quality pharmaceutical engineering jobs of a type which would once have gone to SE england or the rheinland. us companies are locating their european headquarters in the south and the tax breaks on r&d (a masterstroke) are bringing in jobs of the highest quality.

meanwhile in belfast, telemarketing....................

you really shouldn't go on about that iberian stuff because it just makes you sound silly. the population genetics paper mentioned recently by davros came to the conclusion that there haven't been any significant migrations (other than the ones we know about historically, normans, vikings, the PLANTATION of ulster etc.) into ireland since about 9000 years ago or so. they aslo found that the genetic makeup of ireland was homogeneous indistinguishable from that of scotland. now if you can trace your ancestry back 10,000 years, i'm impressed.

`Congal Claen- thanks for your non aggressive response to my points. Intermarriage- I was only going by the American 50's book The Scotchirish' by james Leyburn, and 'Ulster Catholics' by Mariane (?) Elliot, who both mention the lack of solid evidence for much intermarrying. But they are both academics and so liable to be totally wrong. If you look at the list of famine dead at Grosse Isle in Canada, the names there include Trimble and other Scottish names. A Chinese name too, probably the ship's cook. There is mention of Protestants starving alongside Catholics in Westport, Mayo, which source I can direct you to. In Keating's controversial Famine Diary there is mention of a feud between 2 Sligo neighbours,a Catholic and an 'Orangeman', which continued across the Atlantic and was only settled between them on their deathbeds at Grosse Isle.
I object more to the term British Isles than I even do to partition. I thought Ierne, Hibernia were the two classical terms (also pillars of Hercules for ireland, with no word for the 2 islands. The Romans only settled in Britain. The Greeks couldn't have used the phrase British Isles, as British was a Roman word.
The reason British Isles is on the maps is because the English speaking world produced these maps initially.
Why is that Unionists (not your good self) always run down the republic? For as long as I remember they look for all the bad things; takes delight when things go wrong down there; rubbish all irish achievements and tre to deny any Irish identity or culture. This is really very hurtful; and I have never heard any orchestrated Irish campaign to rubbish British culture, or even deny the business and other achievements of Ulster. As for religion, most Catholics wouldn't dream of criticising the Protestant religion (seriously; in fact one can admit that most Protestants are decent people who take their religion seriously. As a youngster in the 50's and 60's I was plagued with missionaries from the north telling me how awful my religion was (on the street of Naas, and in )'Connell st. I couldn't see a Catholic getting away with that in Belfast. ps the Sally Army in Rathmines were good for getting coats.

Lets forget about the past, our history, and have a United Ireland seems to be the general message on this topic?

One Island TWO NATIONS, me thinks.

Start thinking more on the lines of an Independent Northern Ireland and you will be up to speed.

dave, quite why you'd want an independant state where the second largest party was sinn fein is beyond me. complete non-runner IMO. can't function particularly well with loads of handouts from britain si i can't see how it'll manage by itself.

You can't see WHY I would want an Independent Northern Ireland?

FREEDOM is that a good enough reason? Politically Westminster and Dublin would have no say in the affairs of an Independent State. Our (Protestant and Catholic) New Country would be under the protection of a UN Charter.

dream on dave, far too many people who live here won't ever identify with NI as a separate entity the way you do. won't ever happen and neither should it. NI was gerrymandered to include the largest amount of land that could be supported indefinately by the in-build, anti-democratic majority. it hasn't worked out exactly as planned and we will soon (within a couple of decades) be in a situation where the in-built majority could be overcome. why would the population that has had to live so long with a constitutional position they don't want put up with partition any longer if they (we) are in a position to end it.

I'm not convinced by your argument Fraggle. People here from both sides of the fence do regard themselves, to varying degrees, as 'different' from the rest of the Island.

IJP : Dr Brian Mawhinney was born in Belfast.

Davros - 'different from the rest of the island'. A bit like fish one one side of a bowl differing from those on the other side. However, as an 'outsider', a foreigner from the east side of Ireland, I would prefer to seen an agreed independent NI than a UK NI. Reminds me of republicans in the Republic who used to say (before the Troubles)they preferred to see a Stormont than a direct rule place; and wasn't it good to see Britain having to pay compensation to Ireland (in the form of subsidies) even if it only went to the Protestants.

that's probably true to a certain extent davros. somewhere like cork feels a little foreign to me because it's far away, the people speak funny and I've only been there once but it's not even close to the foreign-ness of england.

There is/has been a lot of thinking about allegiances Fraggle. I would read Dave as being
with the PUP in his allegiance.

Congal Claen

Was Kate Hoey not a cabinet minister (sport)?

Davros

Dr Brian Mawhinney was born in Belfast.

They were Cabinet ministers when they were representing constituencies in Great Britain. I think IJP's point was that no MP representing a Northern Ireland consituency has ever held cabinet office in the UK government since the establishment of Northern Ireland.

Gerry .. we don't regard a man born in Belfast representing an English Constituency as being any different to a man born in Belfast representing a constituency other than his birth constituency. All constituencies of the UK.

whoops- we don't regard a man born in Belfast representing an English Constituency as being any different to a man born in Belfast representing a Northern Ireland constituency other than his birth constituency. All constituencies of the UK.

davros, he points out that in order to become a minister, it has been necessary to be elected in a constituency other than those in northern ireland. no mp from northern ireland has been able to become a minister. the same is not true of any other uk region. i think you got his point but are picking at it.

Davros

Fair enough. However, it does demonstrates Northern Ireland's detatchment from the rest of the UK's political landscape if an NI-born politician has no chance of achieving cabinet office in the government of the UK unless he/she represents a constituency outside of NI.

It depends what he was implying Fraggle. As the big parties don't contest seats here , it's hardly surprising that Tony Blair doesn't have someone elected by the people of Fermanagh for example in his Cabinet. If the implication is that people born here are treated as second class citizens in the UK Political system, then I disagree. Whether we have elected any politicians suitable for or capable of running the Highest Offices in the UK is a different matter entirely.

I'm not sure about that Gerry. What chance has a capable SNP Or Plaid C' politician have of becoming
Chancellor of the Exchequer ? Our Local politics are to say the least specialised and demanding:) That's why so many well meaning politicians sent here have
struggled to find their feet.

Davros

It's not quite the same, though. There are lots of talented LibDem MPs over the years who might have been successful cabinet ministers, yet they could have if they wished, and just jumped ship to the Tories or Labour. An ambitious politician from Angelsey or Aberdeen has the opportunity to achieve cabinet status while representing their home constituency, but not from Armagh or Antrim.

I don't think it is enough to say "Well, the main UK parties don't contest seats here". People should be demanding that they do. Surely, if you are citizens and electors of the UK, you should have to opportunity to vote for a potential government party of the UK.

that's clever davros, using exemples of disunity in the union to demonstrate unity.

I thought it was rather neat myself Fraggle !

Gerry- the only elections that really matter IMO are those to Europe.

Davros

the only elections that really matter IMO are those to Europe

And your representatives in Strasbourg and Brussels are at the centre of things there too ;o)

now on that topic davros, you're a lot closer to the irish (as opposed to british) way of thinking. the uk as a hole is quite anti-european.

Hi Dag,

Sorry if I sounded a bit aggressive. My only excuse is that I was goaded into it by the "settler/planter/colonist" description of Unionists by certain posters. Again, sorry.

You mention that Unionists always run down the Republic. Personally, I quite like the Republic. For example, Dublin, architecturally is much nicer than Belfast. In fact when the British Empire was on the go Dublin was considered the 2nd city after London.

Hi Fraggle,

"you really shouldn't go on about that iberian stuff because it just makes you sound silly. the population genetics paper mentioned recently by davros came to the conclusion that there haven't been any significant migrations"

It may surprise you to know that this isn't the first paper to have been published on this subject and it depends what you're looking for as to what you discover. You may also have noted at the time that Davros mentioned that the paper tended to lend some support to the Cruthin ("myth" as Davros described it). As this is the basis of my arguments, how come I look "silly"?
BTW, are you going to stop with the Celtic Ireland stuff at the risk of sounding "silly"?

Hi Davros,

Would it be possible for you to supply a copy of or link to the paper? I've looked for it and couldn't find it. Only references to it...

Congal - do you mean the McEvoy paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics ? I have the Pdf file , it's about 400 K .

Congal, is your mailbox full ?

"now on that topic davros, you're a lot closer to the irish (as opposed to british) way of thinking. the uk as a hole is quite anti-european."

Also The Irish as opposed to the SF and DUP way of thinking Fraggle :) Another area where SF and The DUP share common ground. Europe is vitally important to the ROI. That's why I am dubious about the idea of any FF and SF alliance. The SDLP are the only mainstream party in the North that are pro-Europe, and that's a big part of my support for them at the ballot box.

Hi Davros,

Yip, that's the one. Could you just send it to congalclaen@hotmail.com

Many Thanks.

Am sending it again :)

Got this delivery Failure again Congal.

Action: Failed
Status: 5.1.1 (bad destination mailbox address)
Remote-MTA: dns; mx4.hotmail.com
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable

Congal, with all due respect to davros, I don't agree that the study adds any credance to the Cruthin myth. the study found that the migration from iberia which was suggested by their data took place many thousands of years ago. the study also found that the population in ireland was homogeneous across ireland and scotland. this puts paid to the cruthin myth. i doubt very much that this will be the last word the issue.

davros, agree with you about the sdlp on europe. I would, however, suggest that sinn fein voters aren't anti-european but just vote sinn fein regardless. this is speculation of course but my impression is that the catholic/nationalist population is more pro-europe than the protestant/unionist population.

Farggle - would it be fair to say, as I have read, that SF downplay their Euroscepticism in the ROI ?

Hi Davros,

Could I ask you to please send it again to my hotmail account? Apparently, my account needed reactivated.

Many Thanks

Hi Fraggle,

Bit strange then that the Iberian connection, which was the main thrust of Adamson's hypothesis, re-emerges in this study...
Of all the regions to pick, he picks the right one... I wonder what numbers he's doing on Saturday.

to be honest davros, I've not followed the sf euro campaigning in the roi. i do remember them spouting some nonsense about a nuclear free europe. i think that they need to go and rethink their whole euro policies.

Davros ... by any chance have you sent that info on to me also? You have sent me so much stuff I haven't gotten through them all yet ;))
If not could you send it please? My curiousity is roused.

No Probs Congal, will do

On it's way Maca :)

Thanks Dvaros, much appreciated!

...or even Davros ;)

Dvaros has a certain ring to it :)

Fraggle , it's an interesting comparison between SF on both sides of the Border. Up here it's the SDLP who are regarded as SF-Lite, yet the impression I get of SF in the ROI is that they are trying to breach the middle class Urbs by being SDLP-lite. Perky cute candidates with degrees and without a history that might scare the middle class voters.

'My only excuse is that I was goaded into it by the "settler/planter/colonist" description of Unionists by certain posters.'

Then you really are here on holiday?

Hi Davros,

Cheers for the doc - heavy going, but sure it'll give me something to do in work tomorrow.

Hi Millie,

"Then you really are here on holiday?"

If you read the doc talked about above could you then explain the 2nd last paragraph?

If you're talking about Newt, how can he ask for history to be put aside when there are over 3,000 loyal order parades in NI every year, commemorating anything and everything but the kitchen sink?

Don't have a clue what this Cruithin myth,Ibernia migration etc mean. Did you ever read about the Chinese seals that turned up in plough fields all over (except in the west) Ireland in 1800's? It's in Arthur C Clarkes Mysterious World. Might prove the Chinese were here first (not a quip).
The Nazis talked alot about migrations. In the 19th c certain English propagandists asserted the Celts never existed (so Welsh speaking natives on their own doorstep were probably just English who had forgotten how to speak properly).Then came in that strange term to explain the White Negroes who lived on the neighbouring island.As these people were too dumb to be 'Celts' or proper Europeans, they called them 'Milesians'- then you had grinning Milesians, cunning Milesians, savage Mileians etc.

Hi Millie,

No, I was talking about the Genetics article.

"3000 loyal order parades"

I think you mean parades in general. There are only a few Loyal order parades - Easter Monday (ABoD), Somme, 12th, 13th, ABoD, last Saturday in August plus Church Parades where there is usually just one band. The other parades are just annual band parades hosted by the local band as a competition/fundraiser - it's expensive to kit out a band. These annual band parades don't commemorate anything. They're just musical competitions. (In the same way that GAA matches are just sporting events)

Hi Dag,

Believe or not, and I'm serious here, on Sunday, needing some reading material for a trip to the bog, I picked up my copy of Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World - one of the 1st books I ever bought. I was reading about the Costa Rican giant balls (ooeer missus) and the Crystal Skulls. I must refresh my memory of the seals. Interesting that Ball Lightning is now accepted as fact.

The whole point of the Cruthin thing is that we're a lot more mixed up and interbred than some nationalists would have you think. (BTW, I mean nationalists in general, not specifically Irish Nationalism.) For us to separate into 2 tribes is ridiculous...

Congal Claen - my friend Way-Han Joong tells me he has his own personal seal. Anyway, it is a strange one that they would turn up in ploughed fields (of all places)in different parts of Ireland - even the Ulstermen were up to whatever queer tricks were going on!
Cruithin myth- I am not uninterested in the history of earlier peoples. It is a pity more has not been documented. In fact I read (and still have somewhere) a very interesting book(let) By (Dr) John Robb of Ballymena on this theme - Dal Riada and the pre 1600's links between Ulster and Scotland.In a sort of mystical sense, it is amazing how adjoining land masses seek out each other. eg. the western seaboard of Ireland and all those small ships going to America (including the legend of St Brendan ec). Dublin as the gateway to the wider world. SE Ireland (Wexford) and its Welsh & Flemish links (names & dialects). Cork and 'the end of the world'. In fact you can get traces of this in the accents - Dublin/Liverpool, Irish accent/American, Cork accent and West Wales (don't understand the last connection).

Hi Dag,

Even more amazing is the fact that genetics is now showing that Europeans first reached North America about 15,000 years ago. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml

Accepting that this is fact would then tend to suggest to me that this land has been settled time over number for much longer.

Hi Dag,

Sorry, that didn't quite work...

Even more amazing is the fact that genetics is now showing that Europeans first reached North America about 15,000 years ago. check this out

Accepting that this is fact would then tend to suggest to me that this land has been settled time over number for much longer.

Clovis/N America article '...the ability of people to embrace new places'. I like this comment. Instead of only looking at the facts of migration we should look at the spiritual need of humanity searching for a 'home'. The Amerindians/Aboriginals had a whole spiritual concept of their new homelands, regardless of their ancestry. Ulstermen who came from Scotland also - Ulster became their 'Tir na nOg', although some felt paradise might be further west in America. In other words, they 'left' Scotland. Then each people set up a new mythology for their homeland. I often wonder how the Celts came to have little gods for every idiosnycrasy of each part of the Irish environment - as if they had been there for 20,000 years. Perhaps they took on the legends/myths about sacred places etc from earlier people. Migration today is not like it was long ago. The lands have been settled and the myths set. Trimble in his biography says his people wants 'to be left alone'; i.e not patronised by RoI (the feeling is mutual). Yet Tom Paulin says in article on this web site that visiting Protestants see Donegal (mystical mists, faraway places etc) as a sort of 'dreamland'. I think this is basic to human nature. It says to me that Ulster people are still on a voyage. They are still looking back at receding Scotland and they are still not sure where they are going.

Interesting discussion, but i'd like to riase a question/point on this Cruithin back-forth migration idea. Assuming that indeed Fergus Mac Erc did indeed lead people of largly Cruithin stock across the channel to Earra Ghaidheal (and i've seen some discussion on whether this actually is correct or not), is it not debatable whether this population actually expanded into the scottish lowlands which provided the main of the scottish settlers involved in the plantation? i.e. it was said at the time that very few from the highlands were involved in the plantation, King James gave grants to Scots from ‘the inward parts of Scotland’ .

Thanks for any points raised

FAO Davros

"There is/has been a lot of thinking about allegiances Fraggle. I would read Dave as being
with the PUP in his allegiance.

Posted by: Davros at October 10, 2004 08:42 PM"

Wrong! DUP the party that will lead us into an Independent Sovereign State.

Thast's interesting Dave. Prior to this most of the fervent Cruthin/Independence people I have read/heard have been PUP. No offence meant.

No offence taken.

Sonny

Newt's way of saying support the status quo (i.e. England's current occupation and control of Northern Ireland).

England doesn't "occupy and control" Northern Ireland.

But it's kind of hard to get over "it" (English occupation & rule in NI) when English soldiers are still sticking guns in our faces there while asking for your identification at surprize check points.

I'll be generous and dismiss the bit about "sticking guns in our faces" as exaggeration. But what's the problem? Army checkpoints are a reassurance that the government is taking our security seriously. Are you happy with Scottish, Welsh or Irish soldiers "sticking guns in your face"?

Why not just tell the Iraqi's that they should just get over the Anglo-American occupation of their country because the invasion was last year for crying out loud...ancient history already! And while you're at it enough from the Palestinians about Israel and from the Greek Cypriots about Turkey. Just shaddup and get over it.

Invalid comparisons.

Ever notice though how people like Newton Emerson never say to the invader or occupier: "Get the fuck out" or "Leave those people alone" or "Stop imperialism now"?

Invader? Imperialism? What are you going on about?

You need to move on.

Billy Pilgrim

Forgetting history won't solve our problems as our problems are not purely historical. Partition is not history. The governance of part of Ireland by by institutions neither drawn from the people of Ireland nor motivated by the interests of the people of Ireland is not history. How they came to be in control might be a matter of historical note, but it's a note that still resonates today.

Only because people vote for the wrong parties. It would be easily resolved otherwise.

If everyone in Northern Ireland woke up tomorrow with all historical knowledge excised from our collective consciousness, the sheer incongruity of a divided Ireland and the northeast being dominated from Westminster would bring home once again, even to this most ahistorical society, the causes of all our problems.

But if they woke up with all historical knowledge excised they'd no longer be voting for the Provos, or the DUP for that matter. So we'd get a devolved parliament straight away, and the Westminster problem you refer to would no longer exist.

In fact, if we all forgot about our history, one wonders would there be any support for the anachronism of union or the travesty of partition left?

One also wonders would there be any support for the anochronism of nationalism or the travesty of physical force republicanism?

You don't have to be obsessed with history to have views on British rule in Ireland. It's a living fact. Unify the country and end Westminster's sovereignty over Ireland tomorrow, and you'd find that the very next day every man, woman and child would be well and truly over our wretched history.

That's the statement of a naive person.

A few posts back we talked about Dublin and Cork :)

Read this yesterday-

Fine for racism slur against garda

A MAN was fined €100 yesterday after he accused a Cork garda of being racist towards him - simply because he was from Dublin.

Judge Uinsinn MacGruairc fined Robert Madden (21) saying it was unacceptable to level such accusations against a garda trying to do his duty.

England doesn't "occupy and control" Northern Ireland.

YES,IT DOES MUCH LIKE IT OCCUPIES AND CONTROLS ANY OF IT'S COLONIES. AND IF YOU DON'T THINK SO THEN HOW WAS FRANCE'S OCCUPATION AND CONTROL OF ALGERIA SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT FROM ENGLAND'S OCCUPATION AND CONTROL OF IRELAND IN THE PAST AND NOW NORTHERN IRELAND? NOTE: YOU CAN ONLY SAY THAT THIS IS AN INVALID COMPARISON IF YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE NOTION THAT ENGLAND'S COLONIAL INVASIONS AND OCCUPATIONS (LIKE THE U.S.'s AND ISRAEL's) SHOULD BE HELD TO A DIFFERENT (DOUBLE) STANDARD.

I'll be generous and dismiss the bit about "sticking guns in our faces" as exaggeration.

THEN GO FUCK YOURSELF. I'M SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE.

But what's the problem? Army checkpoints are a reassurance that the government is taking our security seriously.

"REASSURANCE" IS YOUR EXAGGERATED EUPHEMISM FOR ENGLISH JURISDICTIONAL (READ COLONIAL) MAINTNANCE.

Are you happy with Scottish, Welsh or Irish soldiers "sticking guns in your face"?

NO MORE THAN JEWISH CONCENTRATION CAMP SURVIVORS WERE HAPPY WITH NAZI APPOINTED JEWISH CAPOS RUNNING THEIR BARRACKS. ALL HOUSE NEGROS ARE A MANIFESTATION OF FOREIGN OCCUPATION AND RULE. REFERENCE VICHY FRANCE OR THE ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH VIETNAM.

Invalid comparisons.

CLASSIC EXPRESSION OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD.

Invader? Imperialism? What are you going on about?

MORE CLASSIC EXPRESSIONS OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD.

You need to move on.

TRANSLATION: YOU WANT TO "MOVE ON" (AVOID ISSUES) BECAUSE THE TRUTH HURTS, I.E. SO CALLED BRIT BENEFICENCE WAS NO BETTER THAN ANY OTHER EUROPEAN COLONIAL POWER'S.

NOTE TO MICK: SORRY FOR THE CAPITALIZATION BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DISTINGUISH MY TYPE SETS HERE ANY DIFFERENTLY. I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTION AND INSTRUCTION.

Sonny

YES,IT DOES MUCH LIKE IT OCCUPIES AND CONTROLS ANY OF IT'S [sic] COLONIES.

It doesn't. First, England hasn't existed as a separate state for nearly 300 years. Second, the UK doesn't "occupy" its colonies. Its colonies are all lawful possessions. Third, the UK doesn't "control" NI in the same way as it "controls" its colonies.

AND IF YOU DON'T THINK SO THEN HOW WAS FRANCE'S OCCUPATION AND CONTROL OF ALGERIA SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT FROM ENGLAND'S OCCUPATION AND CONTROL OF IRELAND IN THE PAST AND NOW NORTHERN IRELAND?

There is no "occupation and control" so your question doesn't make sense in respect of the present. In respect of the past, what period are you referring to?

NOTE: YOU CAN ONLY SAY THAT THIS IS AN INVALID COMPARISON IF YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE NOTION THAT ENGLAND'S COLONIAL INVASIONS AND OCCUPATIONS (LIKE THE U.S.'s AND ISRAEL's) SHOULD BE HELD TO A DIFFERENT (DOUBLE) STANDARD.

I disagree. You can hold them to the same standard and they would still be invalid comparisons.

THEN GO FUCK YOURSELF. I'M SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE.

Personal abuse is against the rules of this site.

"REASSURANCE" IS YOUR EXAGGERATED EUPHEMISM FOR ENGLISH JURISDICTIONAL (READ COLONIAL) MAINTNANCE.

No, it was meant literally.

NO MORE THAN JEWISH CONCENTRATION CAMP SURVIVORS WERE HAPPY WITH NAZI APPOINTED JEWISH CAPOS RUNNING THEIR BARRACKS.

So the point about the soldiers being English was spurious?

ALL HOUSE NEGROS [sic] ARE A MANIFESTATION OF FOREIGN OCCUPATION AND RULE. REFERENCE VICHY FRANCE OR THE ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH VIETNAM.

You'll have to explain what a "house negro" is before I can respond to this point, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to Army checkpoints.

CLASSIC EXPRESSION OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD.

What double standard?

MORE CLASSIC EXPRESSIONS OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD.

Ditto.

TRANSLATION: YOU WANT TO "MOVE ON" (AVOID ISSUES) BECAUSE THE TRUTH HURTS, I.E. SO CALLED BRIT BENEFICENCE WAS NO BETTER THAN ANY OTHER EUROPEAN COLONIAL POWER'S.

Sorry? I meant that YOU should move on and stop wallowing in self-pity about events of 800 years ago. It's pointless and probably makes you quite bitter.

Sonny

I have just sent you an e-mail about how to use HTML in your posts. I discovered it a while ago and my life hasn't been the same since :o)

Sonny

It doesn't. First, England hasn't existed as a separate state for nearly 300 years.

[i]So who do you suppose wears the pants in that UK marriage of (ahem) equals? LMAO![/i]

Second, the UK doesn't "occupy" its colonies. Its colonies are all lawful possessions.

[i] This is priceless! So what are those damn Puerto Ricans complaining about anyway? The US doesn't occupy them...it just lawfully posesses them. Now there's some sugar that'll make the bitter pill go down...NOT! And you there, just ignore the American Army & Navy behind the curtain...will you please! No fair bringing that up as proof of colonialization. Damn bitter ingrates! Why won't they just shaddup and appreciate all that we've done for them. Didn't Custer die for our sins?[/i]

Third, the UK doesn't "control" NI in the same way as it "controls" its colonies.

[i]Right...the UK holds that trump card close to its chest. Reference Brit Rear Admiral GR Sloan's book: The History of Anglo-Irish Geo-Political Relations (1997).[/i]

There is no "occupation and control" so your question doesn't make sense in respect of the present.

[i] Course not...how could anyone compare French colonialism to British colonialism? Didn't the French at least feed their people? And isn't Ireland today finally past the halfway point from 1850 in gaining back its pre-Famine era population? And always remember, it's not a colony if the British colonizer says it's not a colony. After all, George Orwell wasn't British for nothing[/i]

In respect of the past, what period are you referring to?

[i]Why would you even think that matters? You sound like an obtuse Texan wondering why a lot of Hawaiians still want to be free of the US. It's about the Nation stoopid![/i]

I disagree. You can hold them to the same standard and they would still be invalid comparisons.

[i]Why? What are the subtantive differences (past and present) between British colonialism, French Colonialism, Israeli colonialism, American colonialism, Belgian colonialism, Portugese colonialism, Spanish colonialism,etc...?[/i]

Personal abuse is against the rules of this site.

[i]Well then, live and learn. This croppie won't lay down. You insult me...I insult you. See how it works?[/i]

No, it was meant literally.

[i]Then you're not dishonest...you're insane.[/i]

So the point about the soldiers being English was spurious?

[i]Absolutely not! T'was genuine lime-a-beans that stuck their armalites into my face asking (in pure East Anglian) for my identification in N.I. And as you might imagine...I consider them part of the problem...not part of the solution.[/i]

You'll have to explain what a "house negro" is before I can respond to this point, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to Army checkpoints.

[i]A "house negro" as opposed to a feild negro is a sell out race traitor working for the man. He is always defending and forever making excuses for the (white)man's rule. Reference "Malcom X's Speaks"("I'm a field negro")and "The Auto-biography of Malcom X". So if any Irish person (or fellow Celt) works for the (English)man to keep his fellow Celts in line (like some Jewish concentration camp barracks capo)then he or she can be called a "house negro".[/i]

What double standard?

[i]France has colonies but England merely has legal possessions. ROFDLMAO![/i]

Sorry? I meant that YOU should move on and stop wallowing in self-pity about events of 800 years ago. It's pointless and probably makes you quite bitter.

[i]Classic Tory condescension. We should all just stop complaining about the thing that wouldn't leave. Patronize this! [/i]

Compare and Contrast Algeria and NI -
Yes Sonny, let's have a look at Ireland's old ally, France .

How many Algerian MPs sat in the French Legislature ?

Lets look at the casualties of the 8 year War of Independence.

NI- 30 years, circa 3,000 dead.

Algeria - 8 years, circa 1,000,000 Algerian muslims dead in the cause of présence française.

That's approximately 3% of Algeria's population.

In NI terms that would have equated to approximately 45,000 dead in 8 years.

Ireland has been described ,by someone who accepts that Ireland WAS a colony , as a mid-latitude Colony of Settlement. Algeria was a Colony of Exploitation.

Hey Gerry,

I gave it a try as you suggested but it didn't work. Why?

So Davros, what we got here is a difference of degree not kind. Thanks for not breaking my other leg.

Sonny

Try using the "less than" and "greater than" brackets (SHIFT and the full-stop or comma keys) to enclose your HTML tags. HTML styling will show in your preview, so remember to preview before you post.

Sonny, I didn't concede that Ireland was a colony :)

Sonny, I didn't concede that Ireland was a colony :)

DAVROS,DENYING REALITY IS A SYMPTOM OF MENTAL ILLNESS. PSYCHIATRISTS HAVE PILLS FOR THAT.
NOW REPEAT AFTER ME: NORTHERN IRELAND IS A COLONY LIKE NORTHERN CYPRUS AND SOUTHERN IRELAND IS A NEO-COLONY LIKE EL SALVADOR. THIS IS CALLED REALITY THERAPY. :)

Does Northern Cyprus elect MPs that sit in the Turkish Parliament ?

Nope :)

There's a difference already. Took me 20 seconds to type out.

Davros, is Reunion any less a colony since it elects the french equivalent of mps?

this colony argument is silly because it depends on the exact defination of what a colony is.

here's a defination I found in the world book dictionary.

"a group of people who leave their own country and go to settle in another land, but who still remain citizens of their own country."

I don't know about Reunion Fraggle. Do they sit in the main French assembly ?

The colony argument may seem silly to you, but as the term has strongly pejorative overtones, it causes resentment. Sonny made a bald statement of fact equating NI with Northern Cyprus.
Easily disproved.
I could have added that the status of Northern Cyprus is strongly contested to the point of UN Security Council resolutions declaring it illegal - or pointed out that Northern Cyprus is a self-declared republic :)

I guess we could look at the various implications further but I cannot be bothered at present ;)

Sonny,

I guess Gerry will have sent you what I would have done. Trouble is if I put the code in as I should here, you'll just see the effect and not how to do it.

Suffice to say you begin the quotational text with an i enclosed by the 'less than' and 'more than' signs. The boxy brackets you've used work on some sites, but not this one. When you get to the end of the required passage end it with a /i enclosed in the same way.

It should work now. Use the preview button to make sure before posting. The convention has grown here to put the quotes in brackets rather than your own prose.

And go easy on the personal stuff. It has a tendency to escalate, and then your viewpoint doesn't get the hearing it deserves (when the discussion dissolves into verbal fisticuffs!)

Sonny

[i]So who do you suppose wears the pants in that UK marriage of (ahem) equals? LMAO![/i]

I don’t follow. Everyone in the UK has the vote on the same basis.

[i] This is priceless! So what are those damn Puerto Ricans complaining about anyway?

Puerto Rico is not a UK colony. It belongs to the US.

[i]Right...the UK holds that trump card close to its chest. Reference Brit Rear Admiral GR Sloan's book: The History of Anglo-Irish Geo-Political Relations (1997).[/i]

What trump card?

[i] Course not...how could anyone compare French colonialism to British colonialism?

The same way they would compare anything: look for the similarities and differences. What has this got to do with your claims of “occupation and control” in respect of NI?

Didn't the French at least feed their people? And isn't Ireland today finally past the halfway point from 1850 in gaining back its pre-Famine era population? And always remember, it's not a colony if the British colonizer says it's not a colony. After all, George Orwell wasn't British for nothing[/i]

The above seems to be entirely irrelevant to your claims of “occupation and control”.

In respect of the past, what period are you referring to?

[i]Why would you even think that matters?

Because you asked how France’s “occupation and control” of Algeria compared to England’s “occupation and control” of Ireland in the past. In answering the question, it would help if we knew what period you were referring to. Of course, the easy response would be to dismiss the question, since England never “occupied” Ireland in the legal sense.

[i]Why? What are the subtantive differences (past and present) between British colonialism, French Colonialism, Israeli colonialism, American colonialism, Belgian colonialism, Portugese colonialism, Spanish colonialism,etc...?[/i]

You’re changing the subject. You were comparing Army checkpoints in NI with Jewish concentration camp survivors and “Jewish capos running their barracks”, “house Negroes”, Vichy France and South Vietnam. These were invalid comparisons. If you want to explain how they are valid, you are free to do so.

[i]Well then, live and learn. This croppie won't lay down. You insult me...I insult you. See how it works?[/i]

But I didn’t insult you. And no-one’s asking you to “lay” down.

[i]Then you're not dishonest...you're insane.[/i]

I’m neither dishonest nor insane. Do you want to debate, or do you want to hurl insults? If the latter, I’ll happily disengage from the discussion.

[i]Absolutely not! T'was genuine lime-a-beans that stuck their armalites into my face asking (in pure East Anglian) for my identification in N.I. And as you might imagine...I consider them part of the problem...not part of the solution.[/i]

Then answer the question: Are you happy with Scottish, Welsh or Irish soldiers "sticking guns in your face"?

[i]A "house negro" as opposed to a feild negro is a sell out race traitor working for the man. He is always defending and forever making excuses for the (white)man's rule. Reference "Malcom X's Speaks"("I'm a field negro")and "The Auto-biography of Malcom X". So if any Irish person (or fellow Celt) works for the (English)man to keep his fellow Celts in line (like some Jewish concentration camp barracks capo)then he or she can be called a "house negro".[/i]

Not a very pleasant line of thought. Of what relevance is this to Army checkpoints?

[i]France has colonies but England merely has legal possessions. ROFDLMAO![/i]

France’s colonies – insofar as it has any – are all legal possessions. The UK’s colonies are all legal possessions. How is this a double standard?

[i]Classic Tory condescension. We should all just stop complaining about the thing that wouldn't leave. Patronize this! [/i]

I don’t see how expressing the view that one should stop wallowing in self-pity about events of 800 years ago is “classic Tory condescension”. I would say it was sound advice.

Does Northern Cyprus elect MPs that sit in the Turkish Parliament? Nope:)There's a difference already. Took me 20 seconds to type out.

That's a distinction without much of a difference. What few Northern Ireland MP's there are are small fish in a big pond and so easily marginalizd like the colonials that they are. Now does the following sound vaguely familiar?

"The TRNC is heavily dependent on Turkish military and economic support. It uses the Turkish Lira as its currency. All TRNC exports and imports are via Turkey, as are its communication links. International telephone calls are routed via a Turkish dialling code, +90 392, on the Internet TRNC is under the Turkish second-level domain .nc.tr, and mail must be addressed to 'Mersin 10, TURKEY' as the Universal Postal Union refuses to recognise the TRNC as a separate entity (mail sent to 'CYPRUS' will be returned to sender as 'undeliverable')."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus

Fraggle,

Try this:

col·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl-n)
n. pl. col·o·nies

A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
A territory thus settled.

A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

A group of people with the same interests or ethnic origin concentrated in a particular area: the American colony in Paris.

The area occupied by such a group.

Colonies The British colonies that became the original 13 states of the United States.

A group of people who have been institutionalized in a relatively remote area: an island penal colony.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English colonie, from Latin colnia, from colnus, settler, from colere, to cultivate. See kwel-1 in Indo-European Roots.]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=colony

Sorry Sonny. You equated N Cyprus with NI.

I don't know how old you are, But I'm old enough to remember a bloc of Unionist MPs holding the Balance of Power in Westminster - in a role not that dissimilar to that posited by Mitchel McLoughlin for SF in a Future Dail.

Be wary of Wikipedia. It's unreliable.

As for all exports having to go Via Turkey , are you thinking of the situation where Tobacco products had to be shipped to Eire Via England because of the Provo Hijackings ?

Now, where are the UN Resolutions ?

I don’t follow. Everyone in the UK has the vote on the same basis.,

Scoland & Wales are (given their much smaller populations) the junior partners in the UK partnership. They are, to borrow the analogy again, like barefoot & pregnant housewives forever dependent upon their husband (England) for their survival & sustinance. Where be the equality in that relationship? They should have filed for a divorce a long time ago. Read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, an Englishman.

Puerto Rico is not a UK colony. It belongs to the US.

Right...Puerto Rico is an American Colony like Northern Ireland is an English colony. Yet the British & American governments (and their defenders like you) cling to this fiction that they are not colonies but rather "...all lawful possessions" or "territories". Priceless euphemisms all!

What trump card?

There is no such thing as conscious ignorance. Now for the second time: reference Brit Rear Admiral GR Sloan's book: The History of Anglo-Irish Geo-Political Relations (1997). It's a wonderful window into the British secureaucratic mindset regarding British occupation and control of Northern Ireland as a necessary back door beach head to defend the mother land (Britania) from all potential foreignors Muslim, communist or otherwise. And mind you, your man Sloan thinks this is a good thing...for Britania...not Hibernia southern or otherwise.

The same way they would compare anything: look for the similarities and differences. What has this got to do with your claims of “occupation and control” in respect of NI?

English colonialism is substantively no different than French colonialism. Sure maybe the French killed more Algerians but that's only a detail of occupation and rule. And only someone who holds England to a double standard (i.e. English colonialism good so it's not really colonialism) will turn a big blind eye to the overwhelming similarities. But at the end of the day England's occupation and control of Northern Ireland is no different really than Turkey's occupation and control of Northern Cyprus.

The above seems to be entirely irrelevant to your claims of “occupation and control”.

This is the functional equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying lalalalalala in a high pitched squeaky voice. The English engineered famine in Ireland 1845-1850 was a manifestation of English occupation and rule. But you knew that...however in typically Orwellian style you'll just dodge and divert from even having to admit the obvious.

Because you asked how France’s “occupation and control” of Algeria compared to England’s “occupation and control” of Ireland in the past. In answering the question, it would help if we knew what period you were referring to.

How about 1918-1959? What were in your opinion the functional differences of French occupation and rule in Algeria and British occupation and rule in Ireland during this period? And if you have a hard time still choking down on the words occupation and rule...than just substitute the word "presence" for sake of this discussion.

Of course, the easy response would be to dismiss the question, since England never “occupied” Ireland in the legal sense.

Criminal trespass & burglary are never legal. Look, in order to have meaningful conversation it is necessary for words to have meaning. Now try these definitions:

oc·cu·py ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ky-p)
tr.v. oc·cu·pied, oc·cu·py·ing, oc·cu·pies
To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
To dwell or reside in.
To hold or fill (an office or position).
To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=occupied

Now what are the subtantive differences (past and present) between British colonialism, French Colonialism, Israeli colonialism, American colonialism, Belgian colonialism, Portugese colonialism, Spanish colonialism,etc...?

You’re changing the subject.

Nope...I'm still on target...but you keep avoiding it, i.e. English occupation and rule.

You were comparing Army checkpoints in NI with Jewish concentration camp survivors and “Jewish capos running their barracks”, “house Negroes”, Vichy France and South Vietnam. These were invalid comparisons. If you want to explain how they are valid, you are free to do so.

Nice try! British (read English) Army checkpoints in Northern Ireland are just a manifestation of English occupation and rule...but you prefer the euphemism "security assurance", remember? Makes about as much sense to me as saying the Brits are merely providing security assuarance to the people of Iraq...to which I and others say: Nope, you merely invaded and occupy them for your own purposeful ends. House negros and Jewish capos are just varients of the West Brit syndrome in neo-colonial Ireland and colonial Northern Ireland. Vichy France and South Vietnam like East Germany, Northern Ireland and Northern Cyprus, were similarly foreign military gerrymanders partitioned off for the benefit of the colonizer not the colonized. All valid comparisons all be they with some better or worse degrees of occupation and rule than others but occupied and ruled nonetheless. But you knew all that...so why do you insist on playing stupid?

But I didn’t insult you. And no-one’s asking you to “lay” down.

Ahh but you did...you pooh poohed my personal life experience when I recalled that some of your soldiers stuck their guns in my face in my country. In fact, you called it an exaggeration, i.e. "I'll be generous and dismiss the bit about "sticking guns in our faces" as exaggeration." That's your evil Brit way of calling me a liar. Now you either apologize or you go fuck yourself. Sorry, Mick but I've learned long ago...don't ever give a Tory an even break.

I’m neither dishonest nor insane. Do you want to debate, or do you want to hurl insults? If the latter, I’ll happily disengage from the discussion.

You display a classic Tory mindset here...you insult people (especially Irish people) and then claim you didn't but howl like a wounded dog when they insult you back... all a smokescreen really for not wanting to debate at all. But feel free to prove me wrong. I won't mind.

Then answer the question: Are you happy with Scottish, Welsh or Irish soldiers "sticking guns in your face"?

I did answer your question. I'm no more happy with your Scottish, Welsh or Irish soldiers in the Brit Army sticking guns in my face in my country any more than Jewish people were happy about Nazi appointed Jewish capos running their barracks or any more than Field Negros liked taking orders from House Negros. You don't get this analogy (or you don't want to get it) because it brings home to you some uncomfortable truths...like your country England is oft times run by some rather not so nice people who have historically and currently engaged in acts of imperial piracy sometimes called laughingly "British Gunboat Diplomacy". And if you don't think so then go visit among other places the British Museum in London. Ain't none of the stuff there English...but it is "lawfully" possessed by them. LMAO!

Not a very pleasant line of thought. Of what relevance is this to Army checkpoints?

No it's not ...but here we go again second verse same as the first: So if any Irish person (or fellow Celt) works for the (English)man to keep his fellow Celts in line (like some Jewish concentration camp barracks capo)then he or she can be called a "house negro", i.e. Irish soldier in British Army to keep the Irish in Ireland in line, two, three, four...

France’s colonies – insofar as it has any – are all legal possessions. The UK’s colonies are all legal possessions. How is this a double standard?

All colonies are the "legal" possession of the colonizer. So what? "Devil take the hindmost" is the battle cry of all Imperialism be it French, British, American, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish or Portugese.

I don’t see how expressing the view that one should stop wallowing in self-pity about events of 800 years ago is “classic Tory condescension”. I would say it was sound advice.

Of course you would. And there in lays a big part of our problem.

Sorry Sonny. You equated N Cyprus with NI.

That's right...they are both foreign backed and created military gerrymanders partitioned for the sake of the colonizer not the colonized.

I don't know how old you are, But I'm old enough to remember a bloc of Unionist MPs holding the Balance of Power in Westminster

Ahh, the good old days...ey? When Mutha had no problem being overt in her colonial relationship... letting her dogs run wild in NI as part of a legislative pork barrel. Now we have to live in more covert times....damn!

- in a role not that dissimilar to that posited by Mitchel McLoughlin for SF in a Future Dail.

Mitchel McLoughlin, for all his faults (and they are many) is talking about slouching toward Irish 32 County Unity sans England. That is, ending all colonial connections to England not cementing them. Liberation...not continued subjegation diluted or otherwise.

Be wary of Wikipedia. It's unreliable.

Ok.

As for all exports having to go Via Turkey , are you thinking of the situation where Tobacco products had to be shipped to Eire Via England because of the Provo Hijackings?

Ahh no...but I appreciate your attempt at humour here. I was thinking of total colonial dependency (Northern Cyprus) vs. near total colonial dependency (Northern Ireland).

Now, where are the UN Resolutions?

Since England (aka: the UK) has a veto on the UN Security Counsel...there wouldn't (and won't) be any UN Resolutions telling it what to do regarding getting out of N.I. But surely you knew that Davros.

Sonny, the "good old days" as you put it were AFTER Stormont was Prorogued :)

The Lib-Lab pact, Callaghan's Minority Government.

Your attempt to portray NI as an International Pariah akin to Northern Cyprus is untenable.

Sonny, the "good old days" as you put it were AFTER Stormont was Prorogued:)

After 1972 or 2003? Either or, it's all a varient of direct rule no matter how you look at it.

Your attempt to portray NI as an International Pariah akin to Northern Cyprus is untenable.

I'm just holding up a mirror. But if you don't like the Northern Cyprus analogy...try the Puerto Rican dress.

Just a word on the HTML Sonny. Try using italic (<i></i>) for quoting others, not for your own comments, it will be clearer that way.
Also FYI bold text is <b></b>

Sonny

Scoland & Wales are (given their much smaller populations) the junior partners in the UK partnership. They are, to borrow the analogy again, like barefoot & pregnant housewives forever dependent upon their husband (England) for their survival & sustinance. Where be the equality in that relationship? They should have filed for a divorce a long time ago. Read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, an Englishman.

This is mere assertion for which you have provided no reasoning or no evidence. Everyone in the UK has the vote on the same basis. Obviously those parts of the UK with larger populations have more representation. Just as Dublin has more representation than Leitrim in the Irish Republic.

Right...Puerto Rico is an American Colony like Northern Ireland is an English colony. Yet the British & American governments (and their defenders like you) cling to this fiction that they are not colonies but rather "...all lawful possessions" or "territories". Priceless euphemisms all!

NI is not an “English colony”, so this entire paragraph is based on a false premise.

There is no such thing as conscious ignorance.

Who said there was?

Now for the second time: reference Brit Rear Admiral GR Sloan's book: The History of Anglo-Irish Geo-Political Relations (1997). It's a wonderful window into the British secureaucratic mindset regarding British occupation and control of Northern Ireland as a necessary back door beach head to defend the mother land (Britania) from all potential foreignors Muslim, communist or otherwise. And mind you, your man Sloan thinks this is a good thing...for Britania...not Hibernia southern or otherwise.

Sounds like a load of tosh, given that the UK has an open border with the EU and relatively large scale immigration, neither of which are connected to NI’s membership of the UK. What point are you trying to make?

English colonialism is substantively no different than French colonialism.

Nobody claimed otherwise. What point are you trying to make? What has this got to do with your claims of “occupation and control” in respect of NI?

But at the end of the day England's occupation and control of Northern Ireland is no different really than Turkey's occupation and control of Northern Cyprus.

England doesn’t “occupy and control” NI, so the attempted comparison is based on a false premise.

This is the functional equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying lalalalalala in a high pitched squeaky voice. The English engineered famine in Ireland 1845-1850 was a manifestation of English occupation and rule. But you knew that...however in typically Orwellian style you'll just dodge and divert from even having to admit the obvious.

Right. So what point are you trying to make? What has the Famine got to do with your claims of “English occupation and control” of NI?

How about 1918-1959? What were in your opinion the functional differences of French occupation and rule in Algeria and British occupation and rule in Ireland during this period? And if you have a hard time still choking down on the words occupation and rule...than just substitute the word "presence" for sake of this discussion.

Well, for a start, from 1922, British “presence” in Northern Ireland was based on the consent of the people, which was not the case in Algeria!

Criminal trespass & burglary are never legal.

Did someone say they were?

Now what are the subtantive differences (past and present) between British colonialism, French Colonialism, Israeli colonialism, American colonialism, Belgian colonialism, Portugese colonialism, Spanish colonialism,etc...?

What point are you trying to make? No-one’s saying there are substantive differences. Stick to the subject: you were comparing Army checkpoints in NI with Jewish concentration camp survivors and “Jewish capos running their barracks”, “house Negroes”, Vichy France and South Vietnam. These were invalid comparisons.

Nope...I'm still on target...but you keep avoiding it, i.e. English occupation and rule.

What English occupation and rule?

Nice try! British (read English) Army checkpoints in Northern Ireland are just a manifestation of English occupation and rule...

No they’re not. There is no “English occupation and rule”. Army checkpoints in NI are security measures to protect society from terrorism.

but you prefer the euphemism "security assurance", remember?

I said Army checkpoints provide reassurance. That is fact. It is not a euphemism.

Makes about as much sense to me as saying the Brits are merely providing security assuarance to the people of Iraq...

Well you should give further thought to the comparison as the two situations are completely different.

House negros and Jewish capos are just varients of the West Brit syndrome in neo-colonial Ireland and colonial Northern Ireland. Vichy France and South Vietnam like East Germany, Northern Ireland and Northern Cyprus, were similarly foreign military gerrymanders partitioned off for the benefit of the colonizer not the colonized. All valid comparisons all be they with some better or worse degrees of occupation and rule than others but occupied and ruled nonetheless. But you knew all that...so why do you insist on playing stupid?

None of those is a valid comparison. NI’s membership of the UK has always been based on popular, democratically-expressed will and was and is entirely legitimate. The same cannot be said for the other examples, except perhaps Northern Cyprus, which enjoys the legitimacy of its people, but not the international community, which also makes it not quite a valid comparison, since, unlike Northern Cyprus, NI enjoys international recognition, including from the Irish Republic.

Ahh but you did...you pooh poohed my personal life experience when I recalled that some of your soldiers stuck their guns in my face in my country.

I suggested that you were exaggerating. How does that equate to asking you to “lay” down?

That's your evil Brit way of calling me a liar. Now you either apologize or you go fuck yourself. Sorry, Mick but I've learned long ago...don't ever give a Tory an even break.

You have already been advised that personal abuse is against the rules of this forum.

You display a classic Tory mindset here...you insult people (especially Irish people) and then claim you didn't but howl like a wounded dog when they insult you back... all a smokescreen really for not wanting to debate at all. But feel free to prove me wrong. I won't mind.

I didn’t howl like a wounded dog. I merely advised that personal abuse was against the rules of the forum. The fact remains that I am neither dishonest nor insane.

I did answer your question. I'm no more happy with your Scottish, Welsh or Irish soldiers in the Brit Army sticking guns in my face in my country any more than Jewish people were happy about Nazi appointed Jewish capos running their barracks or any more than Field Negros liked taking orders from House Negros.

So the fact that they were English soldiers was – despite your earlier denial – a red herring.

No it's not ...but here we go again second verse same as the first: So if any Irish person (or fellow Celt) works for the (English)man to keep his fellow Celts in line (like some Jewish concentration camp barracks capo)then he or she can be called a "house negro", i.e. Irish soldier in British Army to keep the Irish in Ireland in line, two, three, four...

This criticism seems to be based on the premise that (a) it is wrong for an Irish person or a “fellow Celt” to be employed by the British Army. My own view would be that there is nothing wrong with an Irish person, or anyone else, joining the British Army. Indeed, I welcome members of all ethnicities in the Army as I believe it should reflect the diversity of the UK; and (b) “the Irish in Ireland” should not be “kept in line” by the Army. My own view on this is that it would be preferable if it were not necessary for the Army to be deployed, but that it has been necessary due to the high level of terrorist operations in NI. This does not mean “keeping people in line” so much as protecting society from terrorism.

All colonies are the "legal" possession of the colonizer. So what?

So, if we are in agreement, what is your point?

Of course you would. And there in lays a big part of our problem.

I would say the big part of the problem is the tendency of too many people to wallow in self-pity about events of 800 years ago instead of dealing with present reality.

The " English engineered famine " ?

Nuff said :)

"Well, for a start, from 1922, British “presence” in Northern Ireland was based on the consent of the people,"
"NI’s membership of the UK has always been based on popular, democratically-expressed will"

Dang, if only I had the time. Maybe later.

"I would say the big part of the problem is the tendency of too many people to wallow in self-pity about events of 800 years ago instead of dealing with present reality."

Not only a total over simplification but also inaccurate and an indication of lack of understanding of the 'other' Irish mentality.

Mornin' Dav!!

Good Morning Maca ! I thought you would be keeping your head down after Utd's latest ;)

maca

Not only a total over simplification but also inaccurate and an indication of lack of understanding of the 'other' Irish mentality.

I accepts it's an over-simplification. But I stand by the view that people like Sonny who wallow in self-pity about an invasion that took place 800 years ago are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. They should move on.

I'm not even following the footie these days Dav. Anyway, just wait till Rooney starts knocking them in left, right & center ;)

WF: as you know to some the invasion didn't end 800 years ago.
p.s. i've also been on the wrong end of a rifle

maca

WF: as you know to some the invasion didn't end 800 years ago.

Maybe you need to move on, too?

p.s. i've also been on the wrong end of a rifle

The statement implied that it was normal for a soldier to stick a gun in one's face when asking for ID. That is not the case.

Hi Sonny,

I noticed you replied

“That's your evil Brit way of calling me a liar. Now you either apologize or you go fuck yourself”

in response to Willowfield suggesting that possibly you exaggerated your experience of army checkpoints. In WF’s defence you mentioned that you have had Armalites stuck in your face. As far as I know, the army were never issued with armalites. So therefore I think we can conclude that you did indeed exaggerate, as WF suggested. In your defence, perhaps you happened to come across an illegal Provo checkpoint as they were the main bearer of armalites. If so, I suggest you take it up with your local SF c/o…

You mention that in your opinion NI is a colony. NI is no more a colony than the RoI is a European colony - as the people of NI chose to form a union with GB in the same way the people of the RoI chose to form a union with the EU.

You also mention stuff about Irishmen or “fellow celts”. Have you read the recent McEvoy paper, that everyone on Slugger appears to have read, that suggests genetically, the Celts didn’t come to Ireland…

History is constructed and contested. People create a History that suits. Hence the Nationalists of the 19th Century constructed a History of Victimhood that has been embellished in order to add moral authority to their activities.
A good example is Sonny's version of History that The English "engineered the Famine" - implying that years before The events of the mid 19th Century decisions were taken to deliberately set up a social system in Ireland so that in future a Fungus might wipe out the staple crop of Irish Catholics and reduce a troublesome population.
This allows Republicans to evade full reponsibility for their crimes in the 20th Century.

WF
"Maybe you need to move on, too?"

Maybe you need to re-read my post. I said "to some"

"The statement implied that it was normal for a soldier to stick a gun in one's face when asking for ID. That is not the case."

Normal enough i'd say. I'd assume it is more common practice in nationalist areas anyway.

CG:
"As far as I know, the army were never issued with armalites. So therefore I think we can conclude that you did indeed exaggerate,"

1. The "armalite" is a common term for the M16.
2. The "armalite" was used by various units of the British Army for about 22 years until the SA80 was adopted in 1985.

"Have you read the recent McEvoy paper, that everyone on Slugger appears to have read, that suggests genetically, the Celts didn’t come to Ireland…"

"Suggests" is the word. Is it suddenly the bible?

p.s. whether or not it was an armalie, a SLR or a SA80 is really irrelevant. a rifle is a rifle.

maca

Maybe you need to re-read my post. I said "to some"

Then "some" need to move on, too.

Normal enough i'd say. I'd assume it is more common practice in nationalist areas anyway.

I wouldn't say. If it were normal for soldiers to stick guns in people's faces at checkpoints we'd never hear the end of it. Soldiers will be carrying guns, but they do not stick them in people's faces at checkpoints.

WF:

"Then "some" need to move on, too."
Everything is clear and beautiful in your world WF. You may not have noticed that things are not hunky dorey in Northern Ireland. Are the conditions there to allow people to just "move on"? Hopefully someday.

"Soldiers will be carrying guns, but they do not stick them in people's faces at checkpoints"

And you can be so sure how exactly??

maca

Everything is clear and beautiful in your world WF. You may not have noticed that things are not hunky dorey in Northern Ireland. Are the conditions there to allow people to just "move on"? Hopefully someday.

Sorry? You are referring to conditions today. The criticism is about people complaining about events of 800 years ago.

And you can be so sure how exactly??

First, it is not me who makes the accusation. It is up to those who make the accusation to demonstrate it, not me to disprove it.

Second, I can be sure for two reasons:

1. Personal experience.
2. If it were normal practice for soldiers to point guns in people's faces at checkpoints, there would be a litany of complaints about it, championed by PSF and others.

WF
"Sorry? You are referring to conditions today. The criticism is about people complaining about events of 800 years ago"

I already explained the relevance to today.

"I can be sure for two reasons:"

I see your two reasons and counter with three

1. Personal experience
2. Experience of others who have told me of their troubles
3. Much bigger things to complain about than a simple think like a rifle being stuck in your face

Hi Maca,

Firstly, previous to the introduction of the SA80 the army used rifles that were a licensed production by Enfield of the Belgian 7.62mm FN rifle, which became known as the SLR.

"whether or not it was an armalite, a SLR or a SA80 is really irrelevant"

It is relevent in the context that it shows Sonnie was wrong about certain facts regarding his description of encounters at checkpoints. Therefore, it is rational to infer that he may possibly have exaggerated a bit...

"'Suggests' is the word. Is it suddenly the bible?"

No. But, I would tend to give more credence to genetics than CeltoRomanticism regarding Ireland's "celtic" past...

Please don't use so-called genetic research as it stands today for any kind of argument. A man was arrested for burglary a few years ago, based on dna results. A zillion to one chance it wasn't him! The poor man was wheelchair bound, lived 200 miles away in the English midlands and had about 20 people to give him an alibi. 'Celts' never came to Ireland- the Englsih love coming up with lines about the Irish and Welsh not being celts. This, too, sounds like Nazi propaganda. It's a play on words. The Irish DO exist - too bad.

"Firstly, previous to the introduction of the SA80 the army used rifles that were a licensed production by Enfield of the Belgian 7.62mm FN rifle, which became known as the SLR."

I'm well samiliar with the SLR, or rather the Belgian produced FN FAL, have fired it umpteen times and I know the Brits used it for many years. Still, I have read accounts of British Army troops in the Falklands who faced Argentinians using FN's. The Brits in question were using M16's.

"It is relevent in the context that it shows Sonnie was wrong about certain facts regarding his description of encounters at checkpoints"

In my opinion it is completely irrelevant. It is the act of pointing A rifle at someone that is the issue, not what that particular rifle was.
Some people do not know weapons. Armalite, in this case, may simply have been the term which came to mind. By concentrating on the weapon you are trying to take away from the act in question. Which personally I think is very unfair. It's not pleasant to have a loaded weapon pointed at you.

Btw, here's a picture of Royal Marines you might find interesting.

Also- Dr Leakey in Kenya finds bits of skull bone in the desert. On this he bases a whole theory of mankind, God, the universe and everything (altered radically with the discovery of the next piece of skull bone).

Hi Dag,

"A man was arrested for burglary a few years ago, based on dna results. A zillion to one chance it wasn't him! "

Right there you have it - throw out all DNA research based on one case Dag heard about...

"the English love coming up with lines about the Irish and Welsh not being celts"

The document was a collaboration that included Trinity College Dublin. I suggest you read it...

"This, too, sounds like Nazi propaganda"

Irony enh? Who was it that sent condolences to the German people on the death of the Fuhrer?

"The Irish DO exist - too bad."

Who said they didn't? I consider myself to be one fo them. All I'm saying is that there is some research suggesting that Irish origins were non celtic. What's the problem with that? Incidentally, this isn't the first paper that suggests this...

Hi Maca,

"In my opinion it is completely irrelevant"

However, I don't. The reason being that I was stopped at loads of checkpoints and never ever had a gun pointed in my face. I believe WF was suggesting the same. Therefore, pointing out the obvious inaccuracy in Sonnie's description shows to people looking in on this site, with no experience of checkpoints themselves, that perhaps Sonnie's description was over colourful.

BTW, the photograph thro' up an error - host not found...

Congal Claen.

I'd have to say I'm with Sonny on this one - re. checkpoints. I'm sure everyone in NI has been stopped at a million checkpoints in their time, but I'd say that during the troubles checkpoints were more common in broadly nationalist areas - such as the area of Armagh city where I grew up - than in broadly unionist areas. (I'm assuming you come from a broadly unionist area.) I would also argue that the checkpoints were/are different in nature depending on where they were set up.

So when Sonny talks about having a gun pointed at his face, it's a story I can empathise with. It's not an exaggeration, though perhaps it is understandable that unionists might think it is. I suspect the soldiers might have been more circumspect when east of the Bann.

I have come to routine checkpoints, been asked for my driving licence, all the usual questions about where I'm coming from, where I'm going etc. Most of the time it's very straighforward and just takes a minute - in fact these days you tend to just get waved through almost automatically, which kinda makes you wonder what the point is... However there have been several incidents - enough that they couldn't be dismissed as isolated incidents - where all the while an automatic weapon has been pointed in my face. I have also been the passenger in vehicles where this was the case.

You can choose to believe that these things go on, or you can choose not to. You can take the ``our boys wouldn't do that, the whingers are only exaggerating'' line - but these things DO go on. Whether you accept others' reality is relevant only to yourself. No amount of naysaying can make it not so.

(I was in a car with my cousin and her husband about five years ago - I think it was 1998 or 99, when we came to a checkpoint near Coalisland in east Tyrone. Big provo country back in the day with a fair few dissidents around too, so it was hardly surprising to see a large military presence and checkpoints. Anyway when we came to the checkpoint we were told to get out of the car. For some reason this nervous teenage tommy from the north of England took a dislike to my cousin's husband - and lest there be any doubt among those of you who will be happy to assume the fenian had it coming, let me assure you there is more chance of Peter Robinson being in the Ra than anyone in that car signing up for a little green book. Anyway, this heavily-armed and violently afraid kid stuck the gun right up under his nose - and no, I have no idea what model it was, it was a big, black, scary automatic job - and told him that he had ``the face of a terrorist''. He asked if he had any children. He then told him to hold his hands in the air and say ``I swear on my children's lives that I am not a terrorist''.)

You can choose to believe me or not CC. But you'll forgive me if I treat your semantics and forensic discussion of weapon model with a certain amount of disdain.

Billy Pilgrim

I think we are all aware that soldiers sometimes used their weapons to intimidate people, particularly at the height of the Troubles.

But the objection to Sonny's post was that it implied it was normal to have a weapon stuck in one's face at a checkpoint. That is not so.

CG
"The reason being that I was stopped at loads of checkpoints and never ever had a gun pointed in my face. I believe WF was suggesting the same. Therefore, pointing out the obvious inaccuracy in Sonnie's description shows to people looking in on this site, with no experience of checkpoints themselves, that perhaps Sonnie's description was over colourful."

I understand what you are saying there but none of what you say demonstrates that it matters a toss what shape, size, colour or type the gun was.
Colourful or not, the type of rifle (not gun) is completely irrelevant.

p.s. CG. I just checked, the photo is working fine. On checked on 2 PC's.

WF

``But the objection to Sonny's post was that it implied it was normal to have a weapon stuck in one's face at a checkpoint. That is not so.''

In fairness WF, I'd seriously doubt there are many nationalists over 25 who don't have their own personal checkpoint stories. But my point is that such experiences were much more common in east Tyrone, south Derry, south Armagh etc than in north Down, east Antrim or east Belfast. Of course they were. So the fact that someone in north Down, east Antrim or east Belfast has never really had a bad experience with an army checkpoint does not disprove the claims of those in east Tyrone, south Derry and south Armagh.

OF COURSE the army were on their best behaviour when in unionist areas. OF COURSE they were on their worst behaviour when in nationalist areas.

As I said, you can choose to accept this point or not. But that's really only a matter for yourself.

This is mere assertion for which you have provided no reasoning or no evidence. Everyone in the UK has the vote on the same basis. Obviously those parts of the UK with larger populations have more representation. Just as Dublin has more representation than Leitrim in the Irish Republic.

Reasoning was by analogy. Evidence was of the population differences. More evidence: more English government money goes into the subjegated countries of Wales & Scotland than does Welsh or Scottish money comes into England. This suggest dependency. Leitrim is not a country...it's a county. Nice try.

NI is not an “English colony”.

Funny, George Bush says that Puerto Rico is not an American colony. But no one with any sense would believe him any more than they'd believe you.

Sounds like a load of tosh, given that the UK has an open border with the EU and relatively large scale immigration, neither of which are connected to NI’s membership of the UK. What point are you trying to make?

Brit Rear Admiral G.R. Sloan's whole point is that Northern Ireland is a vital back door defence for the Muthaland and as such it needs to be maintained for Mutha's geo-political purposes and will continue to be so maintained with "...a necessary dualism" (i.e. Mutha tells Irish Republicans it has no interest in N.I. while never mentioning the fact that its' Mutha's NATO beach head for which she'll never give up). Hence, British occupation and rule here which is also bound up with maintaining its trade and investment here.

Nobody claimed otherwise. What point are you trying to make? What has this got to do with your claims of “occupation and control” in respect of NI?

Hmmm...we may be getting somewhere since you can at least agree that French & British colonialism were substantively the same (i.e. invasions and occupations of weaker countries for the invader and occupiers' own ends). Now that you've come this far...let's see if you can go a step further. Turkey invades and occupies northern Cyprus creating a gerry mandered "Republic" for it's own ends based upon the consent of the governed they helped round up and place there. The US did something similar with South Vietnam among other places and Germany did same with Vichy France. Curiously, the so called International Community doesn't (on the whole) recognize these imperial fictions. Fine, but then why would they or you recognize N.I. but for a double standard?

England doesn’t “occupy and control” NI, so the attempted comparison is based on a false premise.

Why do you hold England to a different standard than Turkey? Would you agree that when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 it was an invasion and occupation despite the fact that the then government of Afganistan (which the USSR had helped set up) "invited" the USSR in? Note, that Ronald Reagan & Margaret Thatcher would agree that it was indeed an invasion. And you know...it was one of the few times they were both right. The USSR's so called Afganistanian "invitation" was just a pretext for a Russian invasion & occupation there. Funny though Reagan & Thatcher (among others) could never see the U.S.'s setting up of the government of South Vietnam to "invite" the Americans in as a similar kind of imperial invasion and occupation. This is what people like Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky call the double standard of power. And until you see it or at least admit you see it, you will forever be blind or worse.

Right. So what point are you trying to make? What has the Famine got to do with your claims of “English occupation and control” of NI?

English occupation an rule in Ireland is part of a long historical tradition of continued interference in Ireland that is with us still. I'll get over it when your present day English history ends here.

Well, for a start, from 1922, British “presence” in Northern Ireland was based on the consent of the people, which was not the case in Algeria!

Recall that British colonialism is subtantively the same as French colonialism...each occupies the weaker country for its own ends. How they differ in manner of occupation and rule is a detail that only a defender of occupation and rule would make a big deal of like some Northern Turk Cypriot or South Vietnamese lackey and thier foreign principals making a big deal about "majority" rule and manufactured consent in their foreign backed and established military gerrymanders.

What point are you trying to make? No-one’s saying there are substantive differences.

Right...you're just saying that N.I. isn't a Brit colony. It's the exception to the (colonial) rule. Therefore, it'll never be valid (in your blind eyes) to compare N.I. to Northern Cyprus or South Vietnam. LMAO! This is just your way of dodging and diverting from the obvious like a Pravda journalist.

Stick to the subject: you were comparing Army checkpoints in NI with Jewish concentration camp survivors and “Jewish capos running their barracks”, “house Negroes”, Vichy France and South Vietnam. These were invalid comparisons.

T'was you who tried to make a big deal that some of the soldiers in the Brit Army weren't English...as if some how that makes everything all right. Just you remember this: there were Germans in the Roman Army but that didn't stop Germanicus.

What English occupation and rule?

This says it all really.

No they’re not. There is no “English occupation and rule”. Army checkpoints in NI are security measures to protect society from terrorism.

That's what Ankara says too about its Turkish troops in the Northern Republic of Cyprus. Only fools believe it.

I said Army checkpoints provide reassurance. That is fact. It is not a euphemism.

The Turkish Government says the exact same thing too about it's Army checkpoints in Northern Cyprus...but of course that's not a valid comparison. FDROLMAO!

Well you should give further thought to the comparison as the two situations are completely different.

Right...a difference of degree not kind.

None of those is a valid comparison. NI’s membership of the UK has always been based on popular, democratically-expressed will and was and is entirely legitimate.

Lyndon Johnson & Richard Nixon said same about South Vietnam. Oh wait...that'd be another invalid comparison...just because both were partioned off and gerrymandered.

The same cannot be said for the other examples, except perhaps Northern Cyprus, which enjoys the legitimacy of its people,

All partioned off gerrymanders enjoy the legitimacy of its people...for what that's worth.

but not the international community,

And by "international community" you mean the US and the UK who hold themselves to a different standard of "Our partition and gerrymander good but their partition and gerrymander bad therefore their invalid comparisons. LMAO some more!

which also makes it not quite a valid comparison, since, unlike Northern Cyprus, NI enjoys international recognition,

Right...the UK & the US insist upon it.

including from the Irish Republic.

The advantages of having a client state regime.

I suggested that you were exaggerating. How does that equate to asking you to “lay” down?

Don't back peddle now because there was no implied hint or inference by you. You expressly said I was exaggerating: "I'll be generous and dismiss the bit about "sticking guns in our faces" as exaggeration." But caught in a lie...what do you do...you lie and spin some more. You're pathetic. Just always remember this: you insult me...I insult you...I won't lay down for you and take it...not one bit.

I did answer your question. I'm no more happy with your Scottish, Welsh or Irish soldiers in the Brit Army sticking guns in my face in my country any more than Jewish people were happy about Nazi appointed Jewish capos running their barracks or any more than Field Negros liked taking orders from House Negros.

So the fact that they were English soldiers was – despite your earlier denial – a red herring.

You're just a game player. Just note I don't write these replies for you. That said, they were (as I told you) English soldiers since they were in Brit uniforms standing next to Brit Army vehicles and had East Anglian accents. You said would I have felt any better if they were Scot, Welsh or Irish soldiers in Brit uniform since Scots, Welsh and Irish people are in the British Army as well as English people. And I told you know it wouldn't make a difference if it was a Jewish Capo carrying out German policies for the Germans than it would if it was the Germans themselves who carried out their own policies. So nice try at the reverse red herring trick. No wonder some Irish people get sick of you sorts and opt to just blow your asses up. There is no reasoably dealing with you all.

This criticism seems to be based on the premise that (a) it is wrong for an Irish person or a “fellow Celt” to be employed by the British Army. My own view would be that there is nothing wrong with an Irish person, or anyone else, joining the British Army. Indeed, I welcome members of all ethnicities in the Army as I believe it should reflect the diversity of the UK; and

Says Caesar of the Roman Army.

(b) “the Irish in Ireland” should not be “kept in line” by the Army. My own view on this is that it would be preferable if it were not necessary for the Army to be deployed, but that it has been necessary due to the high level of terrorist operations in NI. This does not mean “keeping people in line” so much as protecting society from terrorism.

This is right out of the Ankara Occupation and Rule book in Northern Cyprus. Robert McNamara couldn't have said it better.

I would say the big part of the problem is the tendency of too many people to wallow in self-pity about events of 800 years ago instead of dealing with present reality.

No, the big part of the problem is that England occupies and rules Northern Ireland much the same as Turkey occupies and rules Northern Cyprus and much the same as the US occupied and ruled South Vietnam. To say otherwise and blame the victims as you do speaks volumes about you. But tell you what...I'll stop wallowing in history and its related present day realities if you people will stop wallowing in my country.

Hi Maca/Billy/Sonny,

Just to be clear on the checkpoint thing. I DO believe the experiences you have all described. My only point is that I do no think these were the norm. Which is the impression I think you would have got from reading Sonny's original post. I'm from South Down - hardly a Unionist stronghold. Do you beleive me when I say that I was stopped at hundreds of checkpoints and never ever had a gun pointed at me?

Sonny,

To me one part of Ireland has decided to throw it's lot in with the rest of the UK. What's the difference between us and the RoI throwing their lot in with the EU? The way you seem to explain it is that these islands never ever had any population movements between them up until 800 years. Which is complete and utter old tosh.

On the subsidy point... The RoI take more out of Europe than they put in. So, are they a colony? No they're not.

You also keep mentioning North Cyprus. Do you happen to know who the "original" inhabitants of Cyprus were? Why do you consider Turks to have colonised Cyprus. Surely, the Greeks also colonised Cyprus... BTW, I don't know, I'd be interested tho' if you did.

CC

``To me one part of Ireland has decided to throw it's lot in with the rest of the UK. What's the difference between us and the RoI throwing their lot in with the EU?''

I understand your point, though I don't agree with it. (Especially that ``rest of the UK'' line, which implies some kind of innate oneness to what is in fact that most arbitrary and transient of things - a political construct.)

Let me see if I can explain to you the standpoint of an Irishman who is for Ireland.

The vast majority of Irish people are of the opinion that Ireland should be governed by Irish people elected to Irish institutions by the Irish people. It's a fair enough proposition.

A minority preferred to stay within the sphere of the UK. You describe it as `throwing in our lot with the rest of the UK'. Most Irish people however do not and cannot see it that way. There has never been a relationship between these islands that was based on anything other than the trope of English - or to some extent British - ascendancy. It doesn't make the English/British the ultimate baddies of republican mythology - it just means that `throwing in our lot' could be better described for Ireland as a bad marriage. Indeed an abusive one, but the most important factor is simply that Irish independence is better for the people of Ireland. That independence is not yet complete but if and when that completion occurs it will be better for we in the north too.

The trouble with the unionist preference for remaining within the British sphere is that the price has been to sever the country. Unionists will disagree of course, but I would argue that on every level except an emotional one, that was, and is too high a price to pay for the union. It would be too high a price even if the union was better for the Irish people than independence. Which it isn't.

That's just what I think.

Can you as a unionist accept the basic integrity of this position, even though you surely must disagree with it?

Do you think that in a thousand years you could you see your way clear to accepting that a genuinely unified and interdependent Ireland is an ideal that offers more than the union ever has, or ever could?

Sonny, you lose face if when faced with something problematic for your life view you start blaming the English. The main author of the paper concerned is as Irish as they come :)

"The vast majority of Irish people are of the opinion that Ireland should be governed by Irish people elected to Irish institutions by the Irish people. It's a fair enough proposition."

Billy that is true if one accepts that the geographics of being an Island implies that "Ireland" should be one single unit and if one decides to ignore demographics and history.

Hi Maca/Billy/Sonny,

Hi CC

Just to be clear on the checkpoint thing. I DO believe the experiences you have all described.
My only point is that I do no think these were the norm. Which is the impression I think you would have got from reading Sonny's original post. I'm from South Down - hardly a Unionist stronghold. Do you beleive me when I say that I was stopped at hundreds of checkpoints and never ever had a gun pointed at me?

I certainly don't disbelieve you and nor would I resort to saying you're exaggerating because I don't know that. But if a black man got pulled over 100 times in the States they'd say it's because he was driving while black. FYI - I was stopped driving alone on the road from Derry to Strabane in 2002 driving back to Dublin from holiday in Donegal. My car had Dublin plates...which may be a reason I was treated differently from all of your pull overs. This Brit Army pull over though(which but for the pointed rifles [armalites,M-16 or AR-15...their all the same]) looked and had the initial feel to it of a drunk driving check point. Everyone was getting stopped and checked. The Brit (English) Army Sergeant approached my right driver's window and asked in East Anglian English for my identification papers. Standing immediately behind him at an oblique right angle no more than 6 feet away was one Brit (not IRA) soldier with rifle pointed right at my head with his finger on the trigger. Another Brit soldier (could've been a Guerka...so what?) was standing off to my left front at about 10 paces with his rifle pointed right at my face with his finger on the trigger too. They checked each car before me and after me (from what I could see in my rear view mirror) the same way pointing their rifles at the drivers or occupants while asking for identification. I asked the English Army Sergeant if there was any problems...and he said this was just a routine roadside inspection and then motioned me on. Sure, he could have been lying but I drove a mile down the road and got petrol and talked to the clerk about my experience...and this kid said that it was standard operating procedure in these parts: "Nothin unusual about that...they happen all the time."

Sonny,To me one part of Ireland has decided to throw it's lot in with the rest of the UK.

Kind of like South Vietnam throwing it's lot in with SEATO and the Soviet client state regimes of East Germany and Afganistan throwing their lot in with the rest of the USSR. Look, partition and neo-colonial client state regimes aren't done for the benifit of the colonized or the partioned.

What's the difference between us and the RoI throwing their lot in with the EU?

The operative word here is joined as in volunteered. ROI joined the EEC in 1973 when it was still very much a free trade association of some Western European countries. The EU that the EEC managed to morph into did not divide and conquer Ireland in the process (yet). The fact is the US copied the British NI model in it's dividing and conquering of Vietnam wherein the Diems were no more politically independent than Stormont.

The way you seem to explain it is that these islands never ever had any population movements between them up until 800 years. Which is complete and utter old tosh.

"Population movements" (aka: pograms is some parts) is just another British euphemism for dividing and conquering. Would you have considered the Battle of Clontarf in 1014 just a population movement?

On the subsidy point... The RoI take more out of Europe than they put in. So, are they a colony? No they're not.

Some might argue that if they are utterly dependent on this EU subsidy like NI is on their UK subsidy...then ROI would qualify as an EU colony otherwise we're just a bunch of theives. Fact is that most of ROI's economic success story has more to do with pulling itself up with British & North American trade and investment than the EU which I have always thought was oversold in ROI. Afterall, didn't ROI join the EEC in 1973 but when did the ROI start taking off economically? 1995 or there abouts!

You also keep mentioning North Cyprus. Do you happen to know who the "original" inhabitants of Cyprus were?

And the relevance of this question is what? Once upon a time the Celts invaded the Milesians thereby justifying current Brit partition, occupation and rule here? Nice try. But do stay contemporary...after all there is such an Anglo-Saxon notion as statue of limitations

Why do you consider Turks to have colonised Cyprus.

Because they have...they've invaded and partitioned off Northern Cyprus following the Brit model almost to a tee. In fact, the Turks have also been insisting upon a Good Friday Agreement like accord whereby the island of Cyprus stays divided into two confederal units of association. But curiously, the EU & NATO (read the UK, the US, and yes curiously ROI) have insisted upon there being one united independent federal government of Cyprus or Cyprus Nua (as in RSF's Eire Nua proposal for Ireland). Now why do you suppose that what's good for the UK isn't going to be good enough for Turkey?

Surely, the Greeks also colonised Cyprus... BTW, I don't know, I'd be interested tho' if you did.

Then if so a pox on their house too. Cyprus for the Cypriots only Muslim or otherwise!

Congal Claen- I am not dumb as to suggest that people with views on dna & genetic research etc were nazis! I was pointing out the layperson's suspicion of the uses to which science is put.I never did hear an explanation how that man's DNA matched the Brighton burglar's.
I query debate over whether the Celts dominated genetically in Ireland. Their language & culture was dominant here until 1850. We all know that the Normans and some Old English took on Gaelic culture.
You indeed are more Irish than I am as I have lived abroad for much of my working life.
Finally, I'm sure you know the explanation of Dev's condolences. As a neutral country he saw it as hypocritical not to do his duty as head of state to another (dead) head of state. Otherwise he would be just siding with the victors in moral cowardice. It was only in that last phase of the war news of the mass extermination camps was coming out.

Sonny

This is mere assertion for which you have provided no reasoning or no evidence. Everyone in the UK has the vote on the same basis. Obviously those parts of the UK with larger populations have more representation. Just as Dublin has more representation than Leitrim in the Irish Republic.

Reasoning was by analogy.

You didn’t make an analogy.

Evidence was of the population differences.

No. That was what I pointed out.

More evidence: more English government money goes into the subjegated [sic] countries of Wales & Scotland than does Welsh or Scottish money comes into England. This suggest dependency.

That’s what’s union is all about. Public services provided on the basis of need throughout the kingdom. That’s how it should be.

Leitrim is not a country...it's a county. Nice try.

Doesn’t matter. The same principle applies. Representation is proportionate to population.

Funny, George Bush says that Puerto Rico is not an American colony. But no one with any sense would believe him any more than they'd believe you.

It’s not a case of believing. It’s fact: NI is not an English colony.

Brit Rear Admiral G.R. Sloan's whole point is that Northern Ireland is a vital back door defence for the Muthaland and as such it needs to be maintained for Mutha's geo-political purposes and will continue to be so maintained with "...a necessary dualism" (i.e. Mutha tells Irish Republicans it has no interest in N.I. while never mentioning the fact that its' Mutha's NATO beach head for which she'll never give up). Hence, British occupation and rule here which is also bound up with maintaining its trade and investment here.

A load of tosh.

Hmmm...we may be getting somewhere since you can at least agree that French & British colonialism were substantively the same (i.e. invasions and occupations of weaker countries for the invader and occupiers' own ends).

I never said otherwise. But you still haven’t explained what the similarity between French and British colonialism has got to do with your claims of “occupation and control”.

Turkey invades and occupies northern Cyprus creating a gerry mandered "Republic" for it's [sic] own ends based upon the consent of the governed they helped round up and place there. The US did something similar with South Vietnam among other places and Germany did same with Vichy France. Curiously, the so called International Community doesn't (on the whole) recognize these imperial fictions. Fine, but then why would they or you recognize N.I. but for a double standard?

Because the cases cited are not comparable with NI.

Why do you hold England to a different standard than Turkey?

I don’t, except insofar as England is not an independent state, whereas Turkey is.

Would you agree that when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 it was an invasion and occupation despite the fact that the then government of Afganistan (which the USSR had helped set up) "invited" the USSR in?

Yes.

English occupation an [sic] rule in Ireland is part of a long historical tradition of continued interference in Ireland that is with us still. I'll get over it when your present day English history ends here.

I asked you to explain what the Famine has got to do with your claims of “English occupation and control” of NI.

Recall that British colonialism is subtantively [sic] the same as French colonialism...each occupies the weaker country for its own ends. How they differ in manner of occupation and rule is a detail that only a defender of occupation and rule would make a big deal of like some Northern Turk Cypriot or South Vietnamese lackey and thier foreign principals making a big deal about "majority" rule and manufactured consent in their foreign backed and established military gerrymanders.

NI is not a colony. And the fact that its membership of the UK is based on popular consent is not mere detail but substance. So the comparison is entirely invalid.

Right...you're just saying that N.I. isn't a Brit colony. It's the exception to the (colonial) rule. Therefore, it'll never be valid (in your blind eyes) to compare N.I. to Northern Cyprus or South Vietnam. LMAO! This is just your way of dodging and diverting from the obvious like a Pravda journalist.

No. It’s merely statement of fact. You’re not comparing like with like.

T'was you who tried to make a big deal that some of the soldiers in the Brit Army weren't English...as if some how that makes everything all right.

I didn’t make a big deal. I was just demonstrating that the nationality of the soldiers was a red herring. No-one likes having a gun pointed in their face. The nationality of the soldier doing the pointing is of little relevance. Hence your point was of little relevance.

That's what Ankara says too about its Turkish troops in the Northern Republic of Cyprus. Only fools believe it.

I don’t think so, as I’m unaware of any terrorism in Northern Cyprus. The two situations are not comparable anyhow.

Right...a difference of degree not kind.

No. A difference of kind.

Lyndon Johnson & Richard Nixon said same about South Vietnam. Oh wait...that'd be another invalid comparison...just because both were partioned off and gerrymandered.

What Johnson and Nixon said about South Vietnam is irrelevant. The fact remains that NI’s membership of the UK has always been based on popular, democratically-expressed will and was and is entirely legitimate.

All partioned off gerrymanders enjoy the legitimacy of its people...for what that's worth.

East Germany didn’t. Vichy France didn’t.

And by "international community" you mean the US and the UK who hold themselves to a different standard of "Our partition and gerrymander good but their partition and gerrymander bad therefore their invalid comparisons. LMAO some more!

No. I mean the international community. No states recognize Northern Cyprus except Turkey.

Right...the UK & the US insist upon it.

Each state is free to give recognition. All do.

The advantages of having a client state regime.

The Irish republic is free to recognize whatever states it wishes to. Its recognition of NI is endorsed by its people.

Don't back peddle [sic] now because there was no implied hint or inference by you.

I’m not back-pedaling. I suggested exaggeration to start with and I re-stated exaggeration in my last post. That is consistent.

You expressly said I was exaggerating: "I'll be generous and dismiss the bit about "sticking guns in our faces" as exaggeration."

Exactly. So why are you claiming that I back-pedaled when I said you were exaggerating in my last post?

But caught in a lie...what do you do...you lie and spin some more.

I didn’t lie. But you seem to be lying now by accusing me of lying.

You're pathetic.

No. You’re accusing me of lying when I didn’t lie. That is pathetic.

Just always remember this: you insult me...I insult you...I won't lay down for you and take it...not one bit.

But I didn’t insult you. At least not intentionally. If I did, I have no qualms about apologizing.

I did answer your question. I'm no more happy with your Scottish, Welsh or Irish soldiers in the Brit Army sticking guns in my face in my country any more than Jewish people were happy about Nazi appointed Jewish capos running their barracks or any more than Field Negros liked taking orders from House Negros.

You're just a game player.

I’m not.

Just note I don't write these replies for you.

Why would I note that?

That said, they were (as I told you) English soldiers since they were in Brit uniforms standing next to Brit Army vehicles and had East Anglian accents. You said would I have felt any better if they were Scot, Welsh or Irish soldiers in Brit uniform since Scots, Welsh and Irish people are in the British Army as well as English people. And I told you know it wouldn't make a difference if it was a Jewish Capo carrying out German policies for the Germans than it would if it was the Germans themselves who carried out their own policies. So nice try at the reverse red herring trick. No wonder some Irish people get sick of you sorts and opt to just blow your asses up. There is no reasoably dealing with you all.

You’re just repeating yourself. But in doing so, you reinforce the point that the fact that they were English was a red herring.

This is right out of the Ankara Occupation and Rule book in Northern Cyprus. Robert McNamara couldn't have said it better.

It’s not. It’s a sincerely-held opinion, and quite a reasonable one: that it would be preferable if it were not necessary for the Army to be deployed, but that it has been necessary due to the high level of terrorist operations in NI.

No, the big part of the problem is that England occupies and rules Northern Ireland much the same as Turkey occupies and rules Northern Cyprus and much the same as the US occupied and ruled South Vietnam.

It’s not. “England” doesn’t “occupy and rule” NI. And NI is not comparable to Northern Cyprus or South Vietnam.

To say otherwise and blame the victims as you do speaks volumes about you.

Hardly, given that I didn’t “blame the victims”. You shouldn’t misrepresent people.

But tell you what...I'll stop wallowing in history and its related present day realities if you people will stop wallowing in my country.

I don’t wallow in your country, so that’s a deal.

Billy Pilgrim

There has never been a relationship between these islands that was based on anything other than the trope of English - or to some extent British - ascendancy.

There’s one now.

Sonny, you lose face if when faced with something problematic for your life view you start blaming the English.

Relax will you please! Trust me, I don't blame the Englsh when I don't win the lottery. Just when they partion off my country for themselves and stick guns in my face here. The only thing worse are the status quo wannabes and defenders who would deny this very present day imperialist reality with its long historial roots.

The main author of the paper concerned is as Irish as they come :)

That may explain his disgust with & diversion from my House Negro analogies.

That's your 'History' Sonny. It's why we need integrated education IMO.

Kind of like South Vietnam throwing it's lot in with SEATO and the Soviet client state regimes of East Germany and Afganistan throwing their lot in with the rest of the USSR.

Not really, since NI is a democracy and its people choose to be part of the UK.

Look, partition and neo-colonial client state regimes aren't done for the benifit of the colonized or the partioned.

Well, in the case of NI, it was done to realise popular will.

The operative word here is joined as in volunteered. ROI joined the EEC in 1973 when it was still very much a free trade association of some Western European countries. The EU that the EEC managed to morph into did not divide and conquer Ireland in the process (yet). The fact is the US copied the British NI model in it's [sic] dividing and conquering of Vietnam wherein the Diems were no more politically independent than Stormont.

The people of NI chose to remain part of the UK and continue to do so.

Because they have...they've invaded and partitioned off Northern Cyprus following the Brit model almost to a tee.

Turks were in Cyprus for centuries prior to 1974.

Relax will you please! Trust me, I don't blame the Englsh when I don't win the lottery. Just when they partion off my country for themselves and stick guns in my face here. The only thing worse are the status quo wannabes and defenders who would deny this very present day imperialist reality with its long historial roots.

Partition was a reflection of popular will: your fellow Irishmen are more to "blame" than the "English". You need a more sophisticated understanding of history, methinks.

If an Englishman sticks a gun in your face, then you are right to blame that Englishman. I would, too.

Ahh Willow me boy,

I knew you'd selectively issue avoid. Now try responding my whole point here rather than just responding selectively as you have. Recall I stated in part earlier:

"The USSR's so called Afganistanian "invitation" was just a pretext for a Russian invasion & occupation there. Funny though Reagan & Thatcher (among others) could never see the U.S.'s setting up of the government of South Vietnam to "invite" the Americans in as a similar kind of imperial invasion and occupation. This is what people like Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky call the double standard of power. And until you see it or at least admit you see it, you will forever be blind or worse."

Can you see it man? Can you see the light?

I already responded to that. See above.

Hi Billy,
“Can you as a unionist accept the basic integrity of this position, even though you surely must disagree with it? “
Yip, I can. To date, I think this is the most reasoned of all your posts, that I have read.
“The vast majority of Irish people are of the opinion that Ireland should be governed by Irish people elected to Irish institutions by the Irish people. It's a fair enough proposition.”
Indeed. However, surely the same thing could be said for a United British Isles – just substitute British for Irish and British Isles for Ireland.
“There has never been a relationship between these islands that was based on anything other than the trope of English”

On this point I don’t agree. Examples…
The Kingdom of Dalriada spanned the Irish Sea linking Antrim with Ayrshire.
You will also know that Scotland is called Scotland after the Scotti who moved from Ireland to Scotland.
If you look at the age and distribution of early megalithic structures these quite clearly show that Ireland was settled from the North ie from Scotland.
These all show that from the earliest of times Ireland had a strong relationship with Scotland.

“The trouble with the unionist preference for remaining within the British sphere is that the price has been to sever the country”

I could also argue that the Nationalist preference for Independence has severed the country.
“Do you think that in a thousand years you could you see your way clear to accepting that a genuinely unified and interdependent Ireland is an ideal that offers more than the union ever has, or ever could?”
Yip. At the minute tho’ it would be my preference to remain part of the UK. I genuinely feel British. BTW, I also feel Irish – I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. Similarly, do you reckon you would ever WANT to be part of a United British Isles?
1000 years is a long time. We are coming to the end of an interglacial period. As oft times before the earth will go into another cold period. Sea levels will fall and Ireland will once again be joined to the Britain – making these islands one island. Will your arguments change to reflect this? (assuming you’re cryogenically frozen to witness this)

Hi Sonny,
“The operative word here is joined as in volunteered “ (when the ROI joined the EEC in 1973)
Are you trying to suggest that NI remained part of the UK against the wishes of the people of NI? As far as I know, the people of NI weren’t volunteering for a UI…
“Would you have considered the Battle of Clontarf in 1014 just a population movement?”
I think this is the whole point of this thread – get over the history and move on. I could equally say do you think the rout of the pre Gaelic peoples of the North of Ireland after the Battle of Moira was just a population movement? Where would that get us? Nowhere…
“Cyprus for the Cypriots only Muslim or otherwise!”
But surely, one of the main reasons the Turks “invaded” was because the Greek Cypriots wanted unity with Greece. Therefore, it wasn’t Cyprus for the Cypriots (Muslim or otherwise). It was Cyprus for the Greeks.
So, are you actually on the side of the Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots on this one?

CG:
Taking every possible opportunity to argue with a unionist...

"We are coming to the end of an interglacial period. As oft times before the earth will go into another cold period. Sea levels will fall and Ireland will once again be joined to the Britain"

Actually what is likely to happen is that with the melting of the ice caps and rising waters many many coastal cities & towns will be destroyed. If the Greenland ice cap goes water will rise about 110m taking out many cities such as London or New York and indeed much more besides.
It gets worse, with ice cold water coming from the melting caps in the North it is likely the gulf stream will be severly weakened. This is going to have a diastrous effect on the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and therefore on the Global Thermohaline Circulation affecting weather patterns worldwide.
As for Ireland being joined with Britain ... both islands will become a lot smaller with rising waters and, well, eventually we'll all be under ice again.
I'm offering some good deals on wolly socks if there are any takers?

Hi Willowfield

``There is now.’’

I disagree. In fairness, if you and I had this conversation at any point in history, I would still make the same point, and so would you.

Hi CC

``…just substitute British for Irish and British Isles for Ireland.’’

I would argue that the entire substance of the argument of the oneness of Ireland and Britain is contained in the phrase ``British Isles’’ – a phrase which is, to say the least, hotly contested. The basic oneness and logic of the island of Ireland however requires no imperial-age epithet. So you could make the substitution you suggest, but there can be no suggestion that it’s an equal substitution. More like taking off Zinedine Zidane and putting on Carsten Jancker. (Okay, that was uncalled for.)

``Examples… Dalriada… Scotti… distribution of early megalithic structures… These all show that from the earliest of times Ireland had a strong relationship with Scotland.’’

Fair enough, but doesn’t it strike you as at all significant that you’re reaching back to pre-history for justification? Besides, no-one would dispute or deny the relationship between Ireland and Scotland. Most Irish people are well-disposed towards Scotland and feel a close affinity with that country. You should have seen Braveheart in a Dublin cinema! Thing is, that relationship will always be there. You see it now with Scottish first ministers and nationalist leaders developing links with the Republic and citing it as an example of what Scotland might achieve, either as a devolved entity or as an independent one. And of course the link between the people of the north and Scotland will never go away – which is to be celebrated.

None of which means that Ireland or any part of it is best served by being ruled from across the sea.

``I could also argue that the Nationalist preference for Independence has severed the country.’’

You could. This is a genuinely meaningful debate and seems to imply – forgive me if I misunderstand – that partition was a bad thing. If we can all agree on that then we can debate then the real issues of unity and independence versus union and partition could actually emerge and the sectarian polemicfest could be sidelined.

``At the minute tho’ it would be my preference to remain part of the UK. I genuinely feel British. BTW, I also feel Irish – I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.’’

Agreed, the two are not mutually exclusive. I believe it is Ireland’s destiny to have a relationship of unprecedented closeness with Britain, with a large British minority playing a key role in the life of the nation. But I also believe that sovereignty is something we need for our national self-development and for our national self-respect.

You say that at the moment you would prefer to remain in the UK. What factors might change your mind?

``do you reckon you would ever WANT to be part of a United British Isles?’’

Who knows? Historical precedent is not encouraging from an Irish perspective – not from a British perspective either I'd say. I think that Ireland – being so much smaller than Britain – would drown in a UK nouveau, as we did before. Having lived in London, Dublin and Belfast, it’s Dublin where I have found people at their most empowered. To my mind, that’s what’s important. That is what I want for the north, and I genuinely do not believe the UK can ever provide that. It never has before and I have no real reason to suspect that that will change. However I do strongly believe that a unified Irish state can and would. I hope you'll agree that that's a good reason to support a unified Irish state.

``Will your arguments change to reflect (the next ice age)?’’

I promise to review my opinions as soon as the glaciers clear.

Hi Pilgrim,

"Fair enough, but doesn’t it strike you as at all significant that you’re reaching back to pre-history for justification?"

Dalriada is of a similar timescale to 800 years ago - which is what this debate started on. My mentioning of prehistory was to show that the relationship was always there.

"None of which means that Ireland or any part of it is best served by being ruled from across the sea."

I don't see NI as being ruled from across the sea. I see the UK being ruled bt the people of the UK. As we're only 1.5 million people I wouldn't expect to have a massive say...

What are your views on the EU ruling Ireland from across the sea? Personally, I'm Eurosceptic. Strange that isn't it - in a way, it means I'm taking the "irish nationalist" view on a UI on the EU. It's a funny old world...

"My mentioning of prehistory was to show that the relationship was always there"

There was always some form of relationship but as Billy said we have no problems with the Scots. Many of us see them as our closest cousins.
Still, I wouldn't want to be ruled by the Scots.
Links or no links, British rule doesn't work for Ireland, that's the simple issue.

Hi CC

``I don't see NI as being ruled from across the sea. I see the UK being ruled but the people of the UK.’’

I can’t argue with your first point. It is simply a matter of fact that NI is ruled from beyond the sea. The Irish Sea in fact. It may be an annoyance, but it is a fact. Your saying that you don’t see it that way is no kind of answer. I'd suggest that it's the particular phrase you don't like - I can understand that. If I were a unionist I wouldn't like it either. However it is an accurate wording. It is irrelevant whether any of us like it or not, though I am encouraged by your discomfort with the phrase - it indicates a discomfort with the reality of the unionist position.

I presume what you mean is that you think it is a good idea that Ireland, or part of it, should be ruled from Britain. I disagree, but isn’t that basically the unionist position?

``As we're only 1.5 million people I wouldn't expect to have a massive say...’’

Question is, why don’t you have that expectation? You are entitled to expect just that. It goes back to the theme of empowerment I raised earlier. I’m an Irishman in Ireland and I DO expect to have a massive say in what is going on in Ireland. I am entitled. I deeply resent the fact that I do not have that say. Why don’t you? Why do you think it is a good idea to put your destiny so wholly in someone else’s hands?

(Which isn’t even to get into the fact that Britain’s disinterest in Ireland and Irish concerns is so manifest, or that we in fact have NO say in NI matters, let alone UK ones.)

You should spend some time in a country where people expect, and have a massive say in how their country is governed. You would see how this reality manifests itself in all aspects of the socio-economic and civic life of the country. You would see the galvanising, empowering, ennobling effect self-determination and self-reliance has on a society. Then return to Belfast and you’ll be struck by how the absence of self-determination and self-reliance has the opposite effect. Then read again your line about ``not expecting a massive say’’ – you will probably be ashamed, indeed sick to your stomach that you uttered such a lamentable sentiment.

What do you call a political philosophy that champions the surrender of one’s own destiny?

``What are your views on the EU ruling Ireland from across the sea?’’

If the time comes when Ireland has to decide as a nation whether to join a European state, well, at this stage I have an open mind on the issue. I suppose prevailing circumstances will decide it for me – I am very much Europhile but am not ideologically committed either for or against a political union at this stage.

But of course this is a mendacious little red herring. We are not comparing like with like. Surely you would concede the distinction between on one hand Ireland democratically deciding to accept an invitation to join an agreed union, and Ireland being forced into a union, the nature of which is out of its hands and which is characterised by Ireland’s diminution?

``Strange that isn't it - in a way, it means I'm taking the "irish nationalist" view on a UI on the EU. It's a funny old world...''

Sinn Fein would love you!

Hi Maca,

"Actually what is likely to happen is that...etc, etc…"

This is scare mongering Maca by our wooly jumpered enviroMENTAList friends - ye've gotta love them. But they're mad in the head.

When has what you described ever happened before? Answer - never. What I've described happens time and time again.

BTW, the ice sheet melting will only make a small difference to sea level. The main reason sea level goes up is because of the expansion of the sea as it’s temperature rises – not ice sheets melting…

If you believe in manmade global warming what drives it? (BTW, I don't - I think it's just arrogance of man to think he can affect the whole planet) Burning fossil fuels. But sure enviroMENTALists are always trying to scare us by saying fossil fuels are going to run out very soon. If so, what are we gonna burn to create more CO2? Therefore one scare story cancels out the other. Both scare stories can’t be true.

Do a search on Google using +myth +global +warming and ye’ll get loads of info on this…

Here’s an interesting article for starters…

I suspect, CG, that you'd get a wider range of opinions if you googled for +global +warming.

CG:

"When has what you described ever happened before? Answer - never. What I've described happens time and time again."

And when have humans ever affected the planet like we are currently doing? Answer - never.
We're in a new situation dude, you can't compare the current "man-made" process to previous natural processes.

"BTW, the ice sheet melting will only make a small difference to sea level. The main reason sea level goes up is because of the expansion of the sea as it’s temperature rises – not ice sheets melting…"

Every report i've read claims otherwise, the water will rise with the melting of the ice caps. And the planet is warming so the water will rise further. AFAIK.

Do a search on the number of hurricanes compared to years ago. They are growing in frequency and strength. Change is afoot.

"I think it's just arrogance of man to think he can affect the whole planet"

Really?
How many oil slicks or forests destroyed will it take for you to change your mind?

THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH!!!!!!

(btw this is a bit tongue in cheek as don't care a whole lot for the environ but these issues are real IMHO.)

Hi Billy,

"Question is, why don’t you have that expectation?"

Because NI is only about 3% of the population of the UK. That's democracy...

What say does the RoI have in the say of the running of the EU? Fek all - for the same reason. There is definite ranking in the EU - France and Germany first, then UK, Italy and Spain. The RoI simply don't count on matters of importance. If they did, how come the RoI held two referendums on the last EU constitutional change. Answer, because the first vote didn't give the "correct" answer, that your EU masters needed... How come there's gonna be a lot more majority voting? Because again, the small countries of Europe including the RoI don't matter.

So, I could say to you with respect to the EU and the RoI...
"What do you call a political philosophy that champions the surrender of one’s own destiny?"

Billy Pilgrim

I disagree.

Then you’ll have to explain how the relationship between Ireland and Great Britain today is based on “the trope of the English ascendancy”.

In fairness, if you and I had this conversation at any point in history, I would still make the same point, and so would you.

In fairness, I wouldn’t. For example, if we had this conversation in 1802, I would not say “there’s one now”. I might, however, make CG’s point about Dalriada and before.

The basic oneness and logic of the island of Ireland however requires no imperial-age epithet.

What does that mean?

None of which means that Ireland or any part of it is best served by being ruled from across the sea.

It’s not “ruled” from across the sea.

maca

Links or no links, British rule doesn't work for Ireland, that's the simple issue.

What are your criteria for this assessment?

I can’t argue with your first point. It is simply a matter of fact that NI is ruled from beyond the sea.

Funny. The last time I looked Stormont was on this side of the sea. What does it matter anyway?

You should spend some time in a country where people expect, and have a massive say in how their country is governed.

Have a “massive say”: what does that mean?

Hi Peteb,

"I suspect, CG, that you'd get a wider range of opinions if you googled for +global +warming."

True. I would imagine most people are well versed with the global warming thing. The media have went into a frenzy about it. Just like they always do - example the millenium bug. I thought the link would perhaps give alternative views...

Hi Maca,

What came first? The CO2 or the warming? The answer is important.

Personally, I believe the sun to be the main reason for flux. At the minute the sun is quite active.

"Every report i've read claims otherwise, the water will rise with the melting of the ice caps. And the planet is warming so the water will rise further. AFAIK."

Don't know where you're getting this, but the MAIN rise is to do with thermal expansion - not ice sheets melting...

"Do a search on the number of hurricanes compared to years ago. They are growing in frequency and strength. Change is afoot."

I've actually done this a few months ago...
From what I remember, the highest instance was during the 1890s and that recently there have been relatively few...

WF:
"Links or no links, British rule doesn't work for Ireland, that's the simple issue.
What are your criteria for this assessment?"

History.
The other comments were made by Billy not I, but the answers seem pretty obvious anyway.

CG:
"What came first? The CO2 or the warming? The answer is important.
Personally, I believe the sun to be the main reason for flux. At the minute the sun is quite active."

Obviously the sun plays it's part as the greenhouse effect is a very natural process of trapping the suns heat. But man-made processes are artifically increasing this effect.

"From what I remember, the highest instance was during the 1890s and that recently there have been relatively few..."

A recent docu on BBC showed a very clear and sizable increase in frequency over the last number of decades.

Hi Maca,

Here's the article I was talking about

maca

History. ... the answers seem pretty obvious anyway.

That's not a criterion for assessing that "British rule doesn't work for Ireland".

What are the criteria for this assessment? What are the measures of success or failure?

Willow, history has shown that British rule didn't work! Make your own assessment.

Thanks CG.

By the logic of some here, Should the Aran Islands not be freed from Imperial Irish Rule ?

If that's what they want Davros, although it would be hard to argue that they are better off independant ;))

maca

Willow, history has shown that British rule didn't work!

How? What are your measures of success? How do you know whether "rule" works or not? Has Southern Irish rule worked? What are your criteria for making these judgements?

Make your own assessment.

You're making the assertion. What is it based on? Why so coy about explaining your statements?

"Why so coy about explaining your statements?"
Time. No time and couldn't be arsed going down this road, sorry.

So your assessment is worthless. It's based on nothing other than prejudice or gut instinct?

Because i don't have time to discuss it it makes it worthless?? Whatever Willow!

in response to Willowfield suggesting that possibly you exaggerated your experience of army checkpoints. In WF’s defence you mentioned that you have had Armalites stuck in your face. As far as I know, the army were never issued with armalites. So therefore I think we can conclude that you did indeed exaggerate, as WF suggested.

Nice try...but I know what an Armalite/M16/AR15 looks like. See that contemporary photo of the British Marines firing M16/AR15's. And the rifles that those Brit soldiers pointed at me in 2002 were Armalites just like those. To be fair though...I don't know what a SABOL 80 looks like.

In your defence, perhaps you happened to come across an illegal Provo checkpoint as they were the main bearer of armalites. If so, I suggest you take it up with your local SF c/o.

Typical! Deny reality and blame the victim. I don't know any Provos who wear Brit Army uniforms, drive Brit Army vehicles and who speak English with an East Anglian accent.

You mention that in your opinion NI is a colony.

It is...like Gibralta. And it's not just my opinion. See definition of colony below:

col·o·ny
( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl-n)
n. pl. col·o·nies

A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
A territory thus settled.
A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

NI is no more a colony than the RoI is a European colony - as the people of NI chose to form a union with GB in the same way the people of the RoI chose to form a union with the EU.

This is laughable! You've neglected to mention that N.I. is a political gerrymander just like South Vietnam and Northern Cyprus. The EU never invaded, occupied or gerrymandered Ireland. Therefore you're claim (which is also your government's claim) that N.I. is the result of free choice is as dubious and dishonest as Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon were about South Vietnam being the result of the free choice of the South Vietnamese people. Besides, Britain, from Lloyd George to Tony Blair, have always taken the take-it-or-leave it approach or there's no Plan B approach in their dealings with Ireland. Britain has never permitted nor recognized an all Ireland plebicite saying Brits out now. Even the so called GFA is the result of adhesion bargaining.

You also mention stuff about Irishmen or “fellow celts”. Have you read the recent McEvoy paper, that everyone on Slugger appears to have read, that suggests genetically, the Celts didn’t come to Ireland…

No...but why would you even consider that relevant? Just because the Anglo-Saxons were from Germany and the Norman French were from France is no reason in my opinion for England to be dominated or controlled present day by Germany and France. Note, the operative words here are "present day". But tell you what I'm willing to do...next time France or Germany invades England and partitions off a part of it....don't call me.

You mention that in your opinion NI is a colony.

It is...like Gibralta.

How many MPs does Gibraltar send to Westminster ?

"But tell you what I'm willing to do...next time France or Germany invades England and partitions off a part of it....don't call me."

You sound like de Valera there ;)

Hi Sonny,

Hi CC

“The operative word here is joined as in volunteered “ (when the ROI joined the EEC in 1973). Are you trying to suggest that NI remained part of the UK against the wishes of the people of NI? As far as I know, the people of NI weren’t volunteering for a UI…

N.I. remained a part of the UK because that's what the English people ruling the UK wanted. The wishes of the gerrymandered majority of the people living in N.I. then and now was and is merely frosting on the British Imperial cake. Note, the gerrymandered majority of the people living in South Vietnam wanted to stay partitioned off too and no way would the US permit all of the people of Vietnam to vote on unity and Yanks out either.

“Would you have considered the Battle of Clontarf in 1014 just a population movement?” I think this is the whole point of this thread – get over the history and move on.

"Get over it" is the battle cry of the unapologetic imperialist. Like I said earlier, I'll get over it when present day England (Britain, UK, Albion, etc...) gets the hell out of all 32 counties of Ireland.

I could equally say do you think the rout of the pre Gaelic peoples of the North of Ireland after the Battle of Moira was just a population movement?

And no doubt you would. But newsflash CC: England still occupies and controls part of Ireland. And that ain't just history...it's current events.

“Cyprus for the Cypriots only Muslim or otherwise!” But surely, one of the main reasons the Turks “invaded” was because the Greek Cypriots wanted unity with Greece. Therefore, it wasn’t Cyprus for the Cypriots (Muslim or otherwise). It was Cyprus for the Greeks.
So, are you actually on the side of the Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots on this one?

I'm well aware of the reason Turkey gave for invading and occupying Northern Cyprus (i.e. fear of Greek annexation). But if you re-read what I said: "Cypus for Cypriots ONLY..." (emphasis added). So you should have been able to deduce that I'm against all forms of imperialism be they as in this case Greek or Turk.

How many MPs does Gibraltar send to Westminster ?

Less or more than the number of East Germans in the Supreme Soviet or Puerto Ricans in the US Congress or Judaens in the Roman Senate?

As NI sends MPs to Westminster by your defintion then NI isn't a colony. QED.

The USSR's so called Afganistanian "invitation" was just a pretext for a Russian invasion & occupation there. Funny though Reagan & Thatcher (among others) could never see the U.S.'s setting up of the government of South Vietnam to "invite" the Americans in as a similar kind of imperial invasion and occupation. This is what people like Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky call the double standard of power. And until you see it or at least admit you see it, you will forever be blind or worse."
Can you see it man? Can you see the light?

I already responded to that. See above.

Nice try Willow! You only responded to the above in part...you only agreed that the Soviet invasion of Afganistan in 1979 was an invasion despite their claims of being invited in by the client state regime they set up there to "invite" them in. We agree though on that much. Now try to go a step further (and I suspect you see where I'm going here hence your dodge): the Americans similary invaded Vietnam by setting up a client state regime there to "invite" them in. Agree or disagree? And why or why not?

Davros By the logic of some here, Should the Aran Islands not be freed from Imperial Irish Rule ?

maca "If that's what they want Davros,"

It could be argued that because they don't seem to want freedom shows how thoroughly oppressed they were by the Irish. ;)

As NI sends MPs to Westminster by your defintion then NI isn't a colony.

My definition of colony is an English language dictionary definition. See below again. Therefore, N.I. is a colony just like Gibralta, Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, South Vietnam, etc... MP's or no MP's.

n. pl. col·o·nies

A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
A territory thus settled.
A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

By the logic of some here, Should the Aran Islands not be freed from Imperial Irish Rule ?

No more than the Isle of Wight should be freed from English imperial rule. So much for your dubious logic.

Your rebuttal doesn't work Sonny :) I wasn't arguing on MY logic , hence

By the logic of some here,

One of the points commonly made is that because Ireland is an Island she is a sperate entity and should not be part of the UK. By the same logic then Aran shouldn't be part of an Irish entity.

MY stance is that as an Archipelago we are a geographical entity and that as we are thoroughly
interbred, it is entirely proper that we form a single unit.

but I'm delighted to see you acknowledge that the Logic used by those who argue that Ireland doesn't belong in the UK is Dubious ;)

Davros:
"It could be argued that because they don't seem to want freedom shows how thoroughly oppressed they were by the Irish."

On the other hand the only invasions of the island are by tourists and drunken students ;)

Sonny

Nice try Willow! You only responded to the above in part...you only agreed that the Soviet invasion of Afganistan in 1979 was an invasion despite their claims of being invited in by the client state regime they set up there to "invite" them in. We agree though on that much. Now try to go a step further (and I suspect you see where I'm going here hence your dodge): the Americans similary invaded Vietnam by setting up a client state regime there to "invite" them in. Agree or disagree? And why or why not?

I already agreed. So why do you keep repeating irrelevant statements about which we agree?

Hi Sonny,

Looking up the definition of colony I came across your definition HERE . On the same page there were several definitions.

This is one of them…

“a body of people who settle far from home but maintain ties with their homeland; inhabitants remain nationals of their home state but are not literally under the home state's system of government”

You will notice the use of “far from home”. As I’ve explained many times before on this thread the Kingdom of Dalriada spanned across the Irish Sea. Therefore, “Home” was both sides of the Irish sea. Therefore, in my view, my ancestors didn’t settle far from home. Incidentally, most Catholics in Belfast settled on the fringes of the city as a result of the Famine. Most came from Connaught. As Connaught is much further from Belfast than Ayrshire from Antrim, do you consider Catholics in Belfast to be “Colonists”? If not, why not?

The second part of the definition says…
“inhabitants remain nationals of their home state but are not literally under the home state's system of government”
As you know NI is literally under the “Home” state’s system of government.

Do you still consider me to be a colonist?

Your rebuttal doesn't work Sonny :) I wasn't arguing on MY logic , hence "By the logic of some here,"

But you were at least trying to be logical right?

One of the points commonly made is that because Ireland is an Island she is a sperate entity and should not be part of the UK. By the same logic then Aran shouldn't be part of an Irish entity.

And this is an example of you trying to be logical I suppose. The Aran Islands are as much a part of the Irish Nation as the Isle of Wight is a part of the English Nation. This is called reasoning by analogy. Try to keep up. Moreover, Ireland was a separate and complete island nation before the English arrived and was governed by them as a complete administrative unit until 1922 when they decided to partition it.

MY stance is that as an Archipelago we are a geographical entity and that as we are thoroughly
interbred, it is entirely proper that we form a single unit.

Actually, the English have more in common with the Germans and French...so why have they always fought them off? Even Hitler was perplexed seeing how he recognized the English as part of his Aryan race. Even the English Queen is German (real name Elizabeth Von Battenburg). And now with the Chunnel seems time for unification...NOT. Why? Because it's about the Nation stupid! What is it with you and yours that you can only recognize the English peoples' right to go it alone?

Hi Sonny,

"Irish Nation"

What does this encompass?
Does it include WF, Davros or myself?

Ireland was a separate and complete island nation before the English arrived

THAT takes the biscuit Sonny :)

It was a number of medieval kingdoms, viciously contested, NOT "one nation" - after all THAT is why the Cymru-Normans were INVITED.... come on Sonny. Put aside your Catechism Of Irish History ! The very concept of nationhood post-dates British Involvement in Ireland :)

"Irish Nation": What does this encompass?

All 32 counties sans England for starters.

Does it include WF, Davros or myself?

Maybe...1)If you were born there in any part of Ireland (any of the 32 counties), 2)If one of your parents or grandparents were born there, or 3) not being any of the above you (and others) nonetheless identify you as being Irish and you can trace your lineage to there AND you insist upon England (aka: the UK) vacating the presmises because you know you ain't British. That all said, however if you identify or want to identify yourself as being English or (ahem) British that's fine too since under the auspices of the European Union to which the UK and ROI are signatures you have the right as a Citizen of the EU to live anywhere you want within the EU. But what you don't or should not have a right to do is say go live in France or Ireland and then claim or demand English jurisdiction over any part of those places (outside a British Embassy compound). Why? Because it would be an insult to the French and Irish nations. The English wouldn't like it if that was done to them...so why the double standard? So why the questions about what constitutes an "Irish Nation"? Me thinks you'd never ask an Englishman or Frenchman or German such a question. Why? Because maybe you have contempt for things Irish due to your own self-loathing or worse? I get these kinds of questions from arrogant English & self-loathing Irish people who also make sport of Irish people learning the Irish language because what's the point after all...no one else speaks it. But these same people never have a problem with the Dutch speaking Dutch in the Netherlands or Estonians speaking Estonian in Estonia or Jews speaking Hebrew in Israel. Now why do you think that is? I suspect it just stems from disrespect for all things Irish so much so that you would wonder aloud about what an Irish Nation even is. See a doctor.

Ireland was a separate and complete island nation before the English arrived

Surely he can't be serious?

Hi Sonny,

So, on your basis of…

“Maybe...1)If you were born there in any part of Ireland (any of the 32 counties), 2)If one of your parents or grandparents were born there, or 3) not being any of the above you (and others) nonetheless identify you as being Irish and you can trace your lineage to there AND you insist upon England (aka: the UK) vacating the presmises because you know you ain't British.”

To be Irish, someone who was born on the Aran Islands – which isn’t any of the 32 counties - and whose parents/grandparents were also born on Aran can only crawl in via the backdoor through your third clause. Which means they have to be able to trace lineage back to Ireland AND and be a Brit hater (or ahem English hater) like yourself.

What complete and utter auld Ballix.

I just hope people from outside Ireland read your last post to show the sort of racism we have to put up with.

Maca, Pilgrim, etc whatabout some sensible Nationalist thoughts on this?

“But what you don't or should not have a right to do is say go live in France or Ireland and then claim or demand English jurisdiction over any part of those places”

As you know, many Ulster Prods don’t consider that they went anywhere – they claim a lineage back to the Pretani – the first people of the British Isles, which includes the island of Ireland, which is incidentally where the term British came from.

Also you didn’t answer any of my queries on your last nonsense post. So, I’ll repeat them so you can attempt to answer…

Looking up the definition of colony I came across your definition. On the same page there were several definitions.
This is one of them…

“a body of people who settle far from home but maintain ties with their homeland; inhabitants remain nationals of their home state but are not literally under the home state's system of government”

You will notice the use of “far from home”. As I’ve explained many times before on this thread the Kingdom of Dalriada spanned across the Irish Sea. Therefore, “Home” was both sides of the Irish sea. Therefore, in my view, my ancestors didn’t settle far from home. Incidentally, most Catholics in Belfast settled on the fringes of the city as a result of the Famine. Most came from Connaught. As Connaught is much further from Belfast than Ayrshire from Antrim, do you consider Catholics in Belfast to be “Colonists”? If not, why not?

The second part of the definition says…
“inhabitants remain nationals of their home state but are not literally under the home state's system of government”

As you know NI is literally under the “Home” state’s system of government.

Do you still consider me to be a colonist?

THAT takes the biscuit Sonny :) It was a number of medieval kingdoms, viciously contested, NOT "one nation" -

Then explain the following:

1) c1000 BC - the earliest versions of the Brehon Law become standardised across Ireland, leading to the most advanced ancient legal systems- and one of the earliest Legal Codes in human history

2) 8th-10th Centuries - the first "Golden Age" of Ireland when we, well, educated half of Europe, the benighted savages. (all praise to Ciaran Irvine for these two points among others).

after all THAT is why the Cymru-Normans were INVITED....

Invited? Oh yeah, like the Russians were invited into Afganistan in 1979 and like the Americans were invited into Vietnam in 1959. First you set yourselves up a treasonous client state regime or strawman willing to sell their country out...and then have them invite you in. Yeah, that's the ticket.

come on Sonny. Put aside your Catechism Of Irish History ! The very concept of nationhood post-dates British Involvement in Ireland :)

Wrong again! Reference the following article:
http://lark.phoblacht.net/remthefuture.html

CG "whatabout some sensible Nationalist thoughts on this?"

I'm NOT getting involved in this one!!
(p.s. i never label myself nationalist, even with a small 'n')

Hi Maca,

Fair enough - I understand.

But, can you feel my pain?

CG: The little "x" in the top right of your browser is a very effective pain killer. ;)

Hi Sonny,

"1) c1000 BC - the earliest versions of the Brehon Law become standardised across Ireland, leading to the most advanced ancient legal systems- and one of the earliest Legal Codes in human history
2) 8th-10th Centuries - the first "Golden Age" of Ireland when we, well, educated half of Europe, the benighted savages."

Neither of these suggest a Nation State.
Any answers to my earlier questions?

Hi Maca,

I'm afraid I might be an addict...

To be Irish, someone who was born on the Aran Islands – which isn’t any of the 32 counties - and whose parents/grandparents were also born on Aran can only crawl in via the backdoor through your third clause. Which means they have to be able to trace lineage back to Ireland AND and be a Brit hater (or ahem English hater) like yourself.

Classic reverse racism rant. Now what part of the Aran Islands (in Galway County by the by) being part of Ireland as much as the Isle of Wight being part of England don't you understand? Moreover, I hate the sin of English occupation and rule in Ireland...not the sinners. And I very much love the English Troops Out Movement and Ken Livingstone and other sensible English people like him who have the good sense and decency to recognize that England no more has a right to any part of Ireland as those Americans who recognized that the US had no right to any part of Vietnam.

As you know, many Ulster Prods don’t consider that they went anywhere – they claim a lineage back to the Pretani – the first people of the British Isles, which includes the island of Ireland, which is incidentally where the term British came from.

This is called believing your own bullshit. Most of Ulster-Scott Prods (99%) date their lineage to the Plantation because that's when England transferred them there displacing the native Irish who were living there. So speaking of utter bollix your (ahem) incidental statement about "... most Catholics in Belfast settled on the fringes of the city as a result of the Famine." is just that...damn lies and more damn lies. And you want to hear from "sensible" Irish Nationalist? Translation: people who buy your self-loathing bullshit.

I just hope people from outside Ireland read your last post to show the sort of racism we have to put up with.

You sound like a KKK man bitching about blacks finally getting enfranchised. And like the KKK man you just forget about all that very recent prior history of formal discrimination and disenfranchisement. How dare Irish people claim Ireland for the Irish...next the English will claim England for the English...oh wait...they already do that...damned racists. LMAO!

You will notice the use of “far from home”.

By your reasoning then England should get Normandy and Calais back...since they're not far from "home" either. And typical self-loathing Irishman...home for you is the Muthaland (England). See a doctor soon.

As you know NI is literally under the “Home”
state’s system of government.

Same as the 13 American colonies were.

Do you still consider me to be a colonist?

No...I consider you a self-loathing Irishman who'd rather be English. This is a manifestation of subjegation. Really, a good Psychiatrist could do a lot for your low self-esteem.

Neither of these suggest a Nation State.

Same laws...same shared period of enlightenment...same language...same culture (ways as a people of doing things together), etc... You know if it looks like a nation and talks like a nation...then it is a nation.

Surely he can't be serious?

Surely I am serious...and while we're at it, if Russia actually invaded Afganistan on the dubious pretext of getting an invitation, did the US also invade Vietnam on a similar dubious pretext of getting an invitation? If so why and if not why not? And don't say you aready answered this because you only answered part of it (the part regarding Russia and Afganistan).

Hi Sonny,

"in Galway County by the by"

The Aran Islands are "administratively" a part of Galway. "Geographically" they belong to Co. Clare. So, there's a little bit of confusion there. Hence, why it has been used to highlight the nonsense you're talking with regard to islands being separate entities (when it suits you).

"This is called believing your own bullshit"

Do you deny that the earliest people of the British Isles to whom a name can be given were the Pretani?

"damn lies and more damn lies"

I'm afraid you're wrong. Read the "Narrow Ground" by ATQ Stewart and you'll find the famine point is correct.

"How dare Irish people claim Ireland for the Irish...next the English will claim England for the English...oh wait...they already do that...damned racists. LMAO!"

Whatabout The British Isles for the British. Would that be racist? This is all semantics and nonsense...

"Same as the 13 American colonies were."

Again, No. The reason for the war of Independence was always the claim of no taxation without representation. ie they were not literally under the “Home” state’s system of government.

"I consider you a self-loathing Irishman who'd rather be English"

Are you saying I can't be Irish and British?

Sonny

My post of October 20, 2004 08:30 AM refers.

Sonny, Loathe though I am to Diss Ciarán Irvine, I writer for whom I have great respect :
The article is damned by

Within a few generations, as every schoolchild knows, the Normans had become “more Irish than the Irish” and had largely adopted the Gaelic system (with, naturally, a few modifications of their own in the areas they controlled).

every schoolchild might "know " that, but that is only because they have been taught part of the Nationalist mythology . Sorry.

Now, the facts are this - The idea of an Irish Nation is as modern as the Idea of a Spanish Nation and the Idea of a French Nation etc.

after all THAT is why the Cymru-Normans were INVITED....

Invited? Oh yeah, like the Russians were invited into Afganistan in 1979 and like the Americans were invited into Vietnam in 1959. First you set yourselves up a treasonous client state regime or strawman willing to sell their country out...and then have them invite you in. Yeah, that's the ticket.

I suggest you have a rest Sonny .

Is there ANY evidence that the Normans engineered
the rise to power of Diarmid the king of Leinster who invited them ????

The Aran Islands are "administratively" a part of Galway. "Geographically" they belong to Co. Clare. So, there's a little bit of confusion there. Hence, why it has been used to highlight the nonsense you're talking with regard to islands being separate entities (when it suits you).

So do you agree that the Aran Islands are a part of Ireland just as the Isle of Wight is a part of England? And speaking of nonsense, tell any Japanese, Australian, Cuban or New Zealander that their islands aren't separate entities. You wouldn't think of it...and there in lays the rub of your own arrogant self-loathing nonsense.

Do you deny that the earliest people of the British Isles to whom a name can be given were the Pretani?

The earliest people were called neo-lithic. But that doesn't mean England now gets to own Switzerland. Try being contemporary...England occupies and controls Northern Ireland because it can and wants to and not because you think you can claim distant lineage to the Pretani.

Whatabout The British Isles for the British. Would that be racist? This is all semantics and nonsense...

Yes...British Imperialism is racism. And it's not nonsense or semantics anymore than it is to say the Persian Gulf is really the Arabian Gulf in Saudi Arabia. Geographic names are often times just a function of conquest, i.e. reference the Sioux Battle of the Greasy Grass vs. the American Battle of the Little Big Horn...yet the Sioux won that battle but lost the war...hence the historical claim to the name. Moreover, t'was Rome that gave the Isle (singular) of Britania that name. Rome called Ireland Hibernia. And it was English Imperialism that simply spread itself out under the guise of "Great Britain" to distinguish themselves from "Little Britain" (Brittany) and to give colonial fools the feel good sense of limited (Roman like) entitlement.

Again, No. The reason for the war of Independence was always the claim of no taxation without representation. ie they were not literally under the “Home” state’s system of government.

A difference of degree not kind...they were controlled colonies all the same. Moreover, word to the wise...the American colonists didn't want taxation with representation either...just Brits out now.

Are you saying I can't be Irish and British?

Sure you can...like you could once be Chinese and British in Hong Kong...because London is (or was) able to permit this. My point is that your wanting to identify with the conqueror isn't so much a function of your free will as it is the Conqueror's.

Sonny, My post of October 20, 2004 08:30 AM refers.

Willow, you're still dodging. I'm well aware of your earlier post wherein you (and Reagan and Thatcher) only agree to Russians invading Afganistan in 1979 on the pretext of an invitation by the client state regime that they set up there...but you did not answer whether you agree or disagree with whether the US similarly invaded Vietnam. If your answer is yes, please explain why and if your answer is no then please explain why not...and don't refer me back to your half hearted earlier answer. Been there done that.,

The earliest people were called neo-lithic.

Eh ? That was a descriptive classification applied very recently.

every schoolchild might "know " that (the Normans became more Irish than the Irish themselves), but that is only because they have been taught part of the Nationalist mythology . Sorry.

So did the Normans set up their own partitioned off statelet in a part of Ireland that they ruled from not so far away Normandy?

Now, the facts are this - The idea of an Irish Nation is as modern as the Idea of a Spanish Nation and the Idea of a French Nation etc.

Or as modern as an English Nation...or as ancient as a Greek Nation or as a Persian Nation or as a Chinese Nation or Siamese (Thai) Nation or Egyptian Nation or Ethiopian Nation...what's your point? That Ireland isn't deserving of being it's own independent 32 county sovereign island nation sans England like Japan, Cuba, Austrailia or New Zealand are???

Yes Sonny ... the idea of an English Nation IS modern :) Glad to have helped !

The point is that Ireland's claim to form a sovereign and Independent nation is valid and contested. You do it NO favours basing your case on an invented and invalid history.

It's going to be hard work teaching you about the Normans if you cling to the myth of blond English speaking anglo-saxons invading Ireland and morphing into gaels :)

I suggest you have a rest Sonny.

Too hot in the kitchen for you Davros?

Is there ANY evidence that the Normans engineered
the rise to power of Diarmid the king of Leinster who invited them ????

As I recall, Diarmid was chased out of Ireland by Irish people for some reason, he then ended up in Norman England where he hooked up with that imperialist Norman pirate Strongbow to come back and re-conquer what Diarmid thought was rightfully his sharing the spoils and the rest as they say is grim history. Treasonous invitations like this are a common cause of one country invading the other though out history and to the present day. It's an unjustifiable political reality.

Yes Sonny ... the idea of an English Nation IS modern :) Glad to have helped! The point is that Ireland's claim to form a sovereign and Independent nation is valid and contested. You do it NO favours basing your case on an invented and invalid history.

The historical fact is Davros (whether you like it or not) is that Ireland as a nation is older than even the concept of England as a nation. The Irish language alone is older than English as are the Brehon Laws. And that's not invented history...but perhaps an eye irritant for some resident anglophiles on board here.

It's going to be hard work teaching you about the Normans if you cling to the myth of blond English speaking anglo-saxons invading Ireland and morphing into gaels :)

Errrr...the Anglo-Saxons didn't morph into Gaels...anymore than they did Indians (feather or dot).

Where did you get this version of History ?
The Bumper Book of Anglophobia ? ;)
Sorry, I shouldn't tease.

There are many versions- here's one. A lot seem to focus round Dermot losing his kingship over the Devorgilla incident - and one version is that He conned the Norman, Strongbow, into coming over by promising him his daughter Aoife - Strongbow didn't realise that this wouldn't guarantee him the succession under Irish custom.

Strongbow was Norman Welsh :) The norman Welsh didn't use English. Official business was in French until the 14th century.

China - one Nation ? Do you realise how many languages were spoken in China ?

The historical fact is Davros (whether you like it or not) is that Ireland as a nation is older than even the concept of England as a nation.

That you have to cling to such nonsense is sad.

There are many versions- here's one.

Thanks for providing that historical link, but like it (and I) said...the rest is grim history:

"So began the Norman invasion of Ireland. After advance contingents had landed in May 1169, Strongbow landed in August 1170, took Waterford, and married Aoife. Diarmaid captured Dublin later that year. He died at Ferns about 1171, the Four Masters say, 'without a will, without penance, without unction, as his evil deeds deserved.'
The Book of Leinster says that 'he died after the victory of unction and penance; thenceforward is the miserable reign of the Saxons, amen, amen.' Henry II, on his arrival in person at the close of 1171, received the submission of natives and invaders alike, the beginning of that subjection of Ireland to England that was the inevitable outcome of Diarmaid’s appeal to the English king."

China - one Nation ? Do you realise how many languages were spoken in China ?

And they're all dialects of the Chinese language. Good movie out now called "Hero" which deals with how China came to be united 2,200 years ago. China apparently means "our land" in Mandarin. BTW - do you realize how many languages are spoken today in England? So is it time to partition Northumberland off (again)?

That you have to cling to such nonsense is sad.

What's really sad is that there are a lot of Anglophiles just like you who really believe that Ireland some how owes its nationhood to the beneficense of England...because we're just incapable of having done it by ourselves alone. To believe otherwise would mean having to see through English mythological history...and then God forbid you may end up realizing that Churchill didn't win WWII after all. Nah...lot easier to believe Irish are just feckless.

What's really sad is that there are a lot of Anglophiles just like you who really believe that Ireland some how owes its nationhood to the beneficense of England...because we're just incapable of having done it by ourselves alone.

And where have I said that ? LOL

Re Chinese - I hate to tell you this but the various Chinese 'dialects' as you call them are mutually unintelligible :)

Re Chinese - I hate to tell you this but the various Chinese 'dialects' as you call them are mutually unintelligible :)

Posted by: Davros at October 20, 2004 08:04 PM

Not strictly true Davros.

Many of the "dialects" are just that. Mandarin itself is often a bridge between them. There are "dialects" that are mutually unintelligible also

...and there are languages which are closer than many Chinese dialects Swedish/Danish/Norwegian, Finnish/Estonian, Scottish Gaelic/Irish etc

This thread has really gone to shit lads, going round in circles.

Sonny

Willow, you're still dodging. I'm well aware of your earlier post wherein you (and Reagan and Thatcher) only agree to Russians invading Afganistan in 1979 on the pretext of an invitation by the client state regime that they set up there...but you did not answer whether you agree or disagree with whether the US similarly invaded Vietnam. If your answer is yes, please explain why and if your answer is no then please explain why not...and don't refer me back to your half hearted earlier answer. Been there done that.,

Look, why are you continually asking about Vietnam? As I understand it, the US was allied to South Vietnam and had troops stationed there. After the South Vietnamese government collapsed after a coup, the US invaded to prevent a North Vietnamese takeover.

None of this is of any relevance to your claims about "occupation and control" in NI.

Maca, it's important. Sonny in effect argued that China should have been considered one Nation because all it's people understood each other- they didn't.

at the heart of this is Sonny's mythological Ireland pre-1172 and it's use as justification for a trajectory of hatred towards people considered "aliens" to Ireland. There was no more a medieval Irish Nation than there was a medieval Italian Nation equating to Italy today. The concept of a sovereign Irish nation state is relatively modern and should be argued on it's merits, not on some ethnic, racist or ethnic fantasy dreamed up a few hundred years ago.

Whoops - ethnic, racist, cultural or linguistic fantasy :)

Hi Sonny,

“So do you agree that the Aran Islands are a part of Ireland just as the Isle of Wight is a part of England? “

Of course I do! The Aran Islands are administratively part of Galway and geographically part of Clare and Ireland. Similarly, NI is administratively part of the UK and geographically part of Ireland and the British Isles – just as the rest of Ireland is. Therefore, I can see why Nationalists can make arguments for a UI. However, I can also see why Unionists can make a case for a UK or indeed United British Isles. What I can’t understand is why you deny Unionists to have the right to do the very thing you do…

“And speaking of nonsense, tell any Japanese, Australian, Cuban or New Zealander that their islands aren't separate entities”

If you noticed earlier on in the thread in response to Billy I said…

“Fek, does that mean a group of islands can't come together as one nation. Fek, better tell New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia, etc, etc, etc...” at October 8, 2004 04:19 PM

Glad we agree…

“The earliest people were called neo-lithic”

This suggests to me that although you have a good grasp of history from 800 years ago on. You’re limited before this time. I suggest you study the subject more. Neolithic is a classification of peoples – not the name of a people. It means new stone age. There were actually Mesolithic peoples here previous to the Neolithic peoples. But again, that’s a classification… You might well find that in years to come we find that man has been here for far longer, we just don’t have the evidence yet. Afterall, there’s evidence that England has been inhabited for much longer.

“Moreover, t'was Rome that gave the Isle (singular) of Britania that name.” Incorrect

“Rome called Ireland Hibernia “ Correct

In the opening chapters of Ptolemy’s second book of the Geography, we find information appertaining to the British Isles: Chapter 1 is entitled Hibernia island of Britannia, and deals primarily with Ireland (Northern Ireland and Eire), including the islands of the Inner Hebrides, the Isle of Man, and curiously, Anglesey. Chapter 2 is entitled Albion island of Britannia, and deals with mainland Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), giving lists of the prominent coastal landmarks, river mouths and estuaries, as well as the names of the British tribes and their principal towns.
So you see, these islands (note plural) HAVE been known as the British Isles from the time of Ptolemy AND Britain DOES derive from the Pretani – the first people of these islands to whom a name can be given…

“My point is that your wanting to identify with the conqueror isn't so much a function of your free will as it is the Conqueror's.”

But, I suppose, your free will hasn’t been tainted by the Gaelic conquest?

What's really sad is that there are a lot of Anglophiles just like you who really believe that Ireland some how owes its nationhood to the beneficense of England...because we're just incapable of having done it by ourselves alone.

And where have I said that ? LOL

Come now Davros.. you clearly imply it when you suggest (as you expressly did below) that Ireland was not even a nation much less one prior to the advent of the English nation...which is like saying Egypt wasn't a nation until conquered by Rome and properly schooled in nationhood. Like you, some Romans believe this imperial horse shit too...but Egyptians and Irish just laugh at it.

The historical fact is Davros (whether you like it or not) is that Ireland as a nation is older than even the concept of England as a nation.

That you have to cling to such nonsense is sad.

Posted by: Davros at October 20, 2004 07:37 PM

Re Chinese - I hate to tell you this but the various Chinese 'dialects' as you call them are mutually unintelligible :)

The fact that they're mutually unintelligible doesn't make them any the less dialects or any the less Chinese. I once worked in a restaraunt with a Puerto Rican and a Peruvian. They spoke to each other in English because the Peruvian didn't understand the Puero Rican's Spanish.

Look, why are you continually asking about Vietnam? As I understand it, the US was allied to South Vietnam and had troops stationed there. After the South Vietnamese government collapsed after a coup, the US invaded to prevent a North Vietnamese takeover.

Gotcha! Just as the Soviets in 1979 set up a client state regime in Afghanistan to "invite" the Soviets in, the US created the gerrymandered partition of South Vietnam to "ally" itself with and get invited in to "protect" it from "North" Vietnamese "take over" (read colonial ouster and national unification). Likewise, England (aka: the UK, GB, Albion, Engleterre, etc.) created the gerrymandered partition of Northern Ireland to "ally" itself with for the purpose of staying in Ireland. The US used the Diem brothers to this imperial end (to divide and conquer Vietnam) just as England used Edward Carson (among others) to divide and conquer Ireland to "protect" "Northern" Ireland from "Southern" Ireland. The South Vietnamese government collapse that you refer to was President Kennedy's procured assassination of the Diem Brothers in 1963 when they proved to be too Nationally independent for American governmental purposes and so were replaced by the more colonial compliant President Thieu & Vice President Ky.

None of this is of any relevance to your claims about "occupation and control" in NI.

FDROLMAO! If you agree that the bad old Soviets were up to no imperial good in Afganistan (and they weren't)...then logic demands that you also agree that the Americans were similarly up to no imperial good in Vietnam (and they weren't)and the Brits (English) were up to no imperial good in Ireland (and they never have been). After all, what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. My bet is though that your adopted right wing Thatcherite ideology will prevent you from grasping (or admitting to) this elementary imperial logic. Like Thatcher you'd rather deny the obvious and go sup tea with Pinochet because he is (ahem) a mis-understood democrat.

My point is that your wanting to identify with the conqueror isn't so much a function of your free will as it is the Conqueror's.

But, I suppose, your free will hasn’t been tainted by the Gaelic conquest?

Gaelic conquest? That's rich Davros! And rhetorically speaking what language are we conversing in and why? You remind me of a lot of Southern American biggots who insist that slavary was a two way street...becase there were a statistically insignificant number of blacks who owned (black not white) slaves. Newsflash: England occupies and controls Ireland...Ireland doesn't occupy or control England...if it did then we'd be conversing in Irish not English. So much for your suggestion of a Gaelic conquest and your falacious (and covertly biggoted) suggestion of Irish-English imperial equivalency.

Sorry Davros...that last (prior) post of mine should be addressed to C.C. as in "That's rich CC".

if it did then we'd be conversing in Irish not English.

Flawed logic.

Sonny

Gotcha!

Gotcha? What on earthy are you on about?

Just as the Soviets in 1979 set up a client state regime in Afghanistan to "invite" the Soviets in, the US created the gerrymandered partition of South Vietnam to "ally" itself with and get invited in to "protect" it from "North" Vietnamese "take over" (read colonial ouster and national unification). Likewise, England (aka: the UK, GB, Albion, Engleterre, etc.) created the gerrymandered partition of Northern Ireland to "ally" itself with for the purpose of staying in Ireland.

It didn't.

FDROLMAO! If you agree that the bad old Soviets were up to no imperial good in Afganistan (and they weren't)...then logic demands that you also agree that the Americans were similarly up to no imperial good in Vietnam (and they weren't)and the Brits (English) were up to no imperial good in Ireland (and they never have been).

It doesn't. Because NI is not a valid comparison with either Afghanistan or South Vietnam. The analogy doesn't work.

You're off your rocker.

Hi Sonny,

“So much for your suggestion of a Gaelic conquest…”

So, I’m inferring you believe there never was a Gaelic conquest of these islands. Again, limiting your knowledge to the last 800 years has greatly affected your opinion. As one who professes their love of Ireland so strongly, and derides any Irishman who differs from that view, I suggest that you rectify this situation. Irish history is a lot more complicated than you suggest. Should you wish to enlighten yourself, ">here is a link that gives a brief introduction to Early Irish history . It is by no means exhaustive, but it would make a good start and obviously you should do a bit of research yourself as I wouldn’t want to give the impression that you only use material that I have vetted...

Hi Sonny,

Sorry about that, this fekkin hyperlink thing does my head in. The link should work now...

“So much for your suggestion of a Gaelic conquest…”

So, I’m inferring you believe there never was a Gaelic conquest of these islands. Again, limiting your knowledge to the last 800 years has greatly affected your opinion. As one who professes their love of Ireland so strongly, and derides any Irishman who differs from that view, I suggest that you rectify this situation. Irish history is a lot more complicated than you suggest. Should you wish to enlighten yourself, here is a link that gives a brief introduction to Early Irish history. It is by no means exhaustive, but it would make a good start and obviously you should do a bit of research yourself as I wouldn’t want to give the impression that you only use material that I have vetted...

Flawed logic.

Oh really? Then why don't you spell out some examples of this Gaelic Conquest and its present day neo-colonial manifestations in England?

Just as the Soviets in 1979 set up a client state regime in Afghanistan to "invite" the Soviets in, the US created the gerrymandered partition of South Vietnam to "ally" itself with and get invited in to "protect" it from "North" Vietnamese "take over" (read colonial ouster and national unification). Likewise, England (aka: the UK, GB, Albion, Engleterre, etc.) created the gerrymandered partition of Northern Ireland to "ally" itself with for the purpose of staying in Ireland.

It didn't.

That's right...deny the obvious. FDROLMAO! If you agree that the bad old Soviets were up to no imperial good in Afganistan (and they weren't)...then logic demands that you also agree that the Americans were similarly up to no imperial good in Vietnam (and they weren't)and the Brits (English) were up to no imperial good in Ireland (and they never have been).

It doesn't. Because NI is not a valid comparison with either Afghanistan or South Vietnam. The analogy doesn't work. You're off your rocker.

Classic right-wing wannabe ideological response...just stick your fingers in your ears and continue denying the obvious...which by the by is the first sign of being off your rocker. No chance of course that you can even explain why these imperial comparisons don't work. But hey Willow, just you remember this: what do they call an rich Irishman wearing a $1,000.00 suit? Paddy!

So, I’m inferring you believe there never was a Gaelic conquest of these islands.

And how is the Celtic immigration of 600 B.C. relevant to present day England's occupation and rule here? How does the fact that Pat may have robbed Paul 2,600 years ago justify George's present day robbing of Pat? I've seen some pretty lame defenses and apologetics for present day English imperialism and criminality...but this takes the cake.

Again, limiting your knowledge to the last 800 years has greatly affected your opinion.

Right, even Anglo-Saxons call it the statute of limitations.

As one who professes their love of Ireland so strongly, and derides any Irishman who differs from that view, I suggest that you rectify this situation.

No Patriot any where tolerates treason.

Irish history is a lot more complicated than you suggest.

You know CC, my suspicion here is that you mean well...but this is a classic form of apologia for English imperial rule here. After all, what country's history isn't complicated? And how is that any kind of defense for present day English imperialism here or any where?

Should you wish to enlighten yourself,
here is a link that gives a brief introduction to Early Irish history.

O.K., but second verse same as the first, how is this early Irish history you point out relevant to the defense of present day English imperialism here?

It is by no means exhaustive, but it would make a good start and obviously you should do a bit of research yourself as I wouldn’t want to give the impression that you only use material that I have vetted...

Don't you worry about that...but you know CC, t'is your job to enlighten me as it is mine to enlightnen you. So please explain how this ancient Irish history you refer to is all relevant to present day English rule here...and note...I had to pay for all my history lessons in the past...so I'm looking forward to your freebee here. So start shining boy!

...just stick your fingers in your ears and continue denying the obvious...

What exactly do you claim I am denying?

No chance of course that you can even explain why these imperial comparisons don't work.

That's easy: Northern Ireland is part of the UK based on popular consent and was established to accommodate the wishes of the people living there; South Vietnam was established as a result of Cold War hostilities and the US's paranoia about communism.

But hey Willow, just you remember this: what do they call an rich Irishman wearing a $1,000.00 suit? Paddy

Why would I want to remember that? Is it a joke, because I don't get it.

No chance of course that you can even explain why these imperial comparisons don't work.

That's easy: Northern Ireland is part of the UK based on popular consent and was established to accommodate the wishes of the people living there; South Vietnam was established as a result of Cold War hostilities and the US's paranoia about communism.

Nice try! But Northern Ireland is no more a part of the UK (i.e. England) than Northern Cyprus is a part of Turkey. Moreover, South Vietnam like Northern Ireland was a neo-colonial gerry mandered imperial construct that was also allegedly established to accomodate the wishes of the people living there (remember the US sponsored elections there then "proving" same?). The fact that their wishes and their Imperial Sponsor's wishes are the same are of course merely a coincidence...NOT. The imperial partition as gerrymander assures that result. And the Cold War was simply a cover story for the continued devil take the hindmost divide and conquer strategies of the US & the UK in the Far East (among other places). Reference the American conquest of Hawaii, Samoa and the Phillipenes and the UK's takeover of Burma, Singapore and Hong Kong...all colonial grabs prior to the advent of Sino-Soviet Communism.

But hey Willow, just you remember this: "What do they call a rich Irishman wearing a $1,000.00 suit?" Answer: "Paddy!"

Why would I want to remember that? Is it a joke, because I don't get it.

Yes Willow, it is a joke. A joke that I suspect you don't want to get. Try this version as told by Field Negros to House Negros: "What do they call a rich black man wearing a $1,000.00 suit?" Answer: "Nigger!"

Sonny: But Northern Ireland is no more a part of the UK (i.e. England) than Northern Cyprus is a part of Turkey.

Hilarious :) The GFA which is recognised around the world says otherwise :)

There is of course the equivalent Sonny -

Q: What do people like Sonny call all protestants behind their backs ?

A: Orange B*****Ds.

Sonny

Nice try! But Northern Ireland is no more a part of the UK (i.e. England) than Northern Cyprus is a part of Turkey.

Er, it is!! (Northern Cyprus isn't part of Turkey!)

Your analogy collapses at your first attempt to defend it! Hilarious!!

Yes Willow, it is a joke. A joke that I suspect you don't want to get. Try this version as told by Field Negros to House Negros: "What do they call a rich black man wearing a $1,000.00 suit?" Answer: "Nigger!"

Still don't get it.

CG re your "October 21, 2004 11:08 AM"

I don't think Ptolemy ever used the term "British Isles", it's just this specific term people have a problem with.

And I don't think people today are much concerned with how Claudius Ptolemaeus decided to name the islands. After all surely the accepted and legal term "British Islands" goes against what Ptolemy described in Chapter 1 & 2 of his second book? And let us not forget we don't use his other terms Hibernia, Ebudae Insulae, Albion, Monaoeda Insula etc etc ;)

Hi Sonny,
“And how is the Celtic immigration of 600 B.C. relevant to present day England's occupation and rule here?”

Because you’re complaining about one conquest, but not the one immediately preceding it. Which coincidentally just happens to have been by the “tribe” to which you pledge allegiance. Mere coincidence?

”How does the fact that Pat may have robbed Paul 2,600 years ago justify George's present day robbing of Pat?”

Because, to use your terms, you want George to give up his ill gotten gains back to Pat. But you don’t want Pat to do the same for Paul. I consider myself to have links to Paul’s tribe.

”You know CC, my suspicion here is that you mean well...but this is a classic form of apologia for English imperial rule here. After all, what country's history isn't complicated? And how is that any kind of defense for present day English imperialism here or any where?”

I’m not trying to defend English/British Imperialism. I don’t think many English people give a toss about NI. In fact, every survey on the subject shows most want rid of it.

On the relevance point…
The way I see Irish history being portrayed by nationalists is…

Ireland was a Nation state up until about 800 years ago.
The dreaded English invaded and ever since the “native” Irish have been trying to “free” the country.
Ulster Prods are considered colonists, settlers, planters or simply “outsiders”. Whilst they are tolerated, they should not be able to partition the island against the wishes of the “native” Irish, who were here first.
(I’d welcome any comments on whether my assumptions about this are correct or not.)

The way I see Irish history being portrayed by Ulster Prods is…

We’ve been here 400 years.
Being anywhere 400 years gives you a sense of belonging and birthright to that land.
Therefore, our vote counts as much as anyone else’s does on the island. If we decide to remain part of the UK our wishes should be respected.

However, by a quirk of history, these arguments can be turned on their heads…
Briefly, as a result of the Gaelic conquest of Ulster there were population movements from Ulster to Scotland, hence Dalriada, etc. When the Plantation of Ulster occurred, Ulster Prods could argue that they were returning to their “native” land, rather than invading an alien land.
Therefore, the arguments switch sides. As such, surely both sides, having claimed the others arguments for so long must recognise the validity of their claim. Ie. Nationalists should accept Ulster Prods wishes as the “natives” and Ulster Prods should accept Nationalists rights to live here as they’ve been here for hundreds of years…
Personally, I believe this gives hope for a resolution to the whole sorry story of the last few 100 years. (as we've been using the "other side's" arguments)

I know you will almost certainly not accept my simplification of the argument. But, what if I am right?

CG, so you have history protrayed by nationalists and by Ulster prods, which one is right? ;)

Ulster Prods.

Hi Maca,

“I don't think Ptolemy ever used the term "British Isles", it's just this specific term people have a problem with.”

Many times, I have heard the argument that I’m not British because I’m not from Britain or Great Britain. My point is that the term British derives from the Pretani. Which has applied to both Britain and Ireland since the time of Ptolemy. I therefore also consider people from the RoI, although they may not like it, to be British.

"CG, so you have history protrayed by nationalists and by Ulster prods, which one is right? ;)"

Now there's a question. I'd rather there was enough ambiguity that both "sides" could be happy with the "correct" version...

You forgot the smiley Willow, but it's ok, we all know you're taking the piss.

CG
"Many times, I have heard the argument that I’m not British because I’m not from Britain or Great Britain. My point is that the term British derives from the Pretani. Which has applied to both Britain and Ireland since the time of Ptolemy."

Yes we all know that. But surely you know that just the term "British Isles" is the offensive one.

"I therefore also consider people from the RoI, although they may not like it, to be British."

... and there you have the reason why we find the term "British Isles" so offensive.

Hi Maca,

'we find the term "British Isles" so offensive'

When I use the term British Isles I mean in a geographical sense. I'm not trying to suggest that the RoI should be under modern day British politiacl control.

BTW, Why do you find the term British so offensive?
Would that not be akin to Ulster Prods objecting to the term Irish Sea?

Hi Maca,

'we find the term "British Isles" so offensive'

When I use the term British Isles I mean in a geographical sense. I'm not trying to suggest that the RoI should be under modern day British political control.

BTW, Why do you find the term British so offensive?
Would that not be akin to Ulster Prods objecting to the term Irish Sea?

CG
"When I use the term British Isles I mean in a geographical sense."

It's not a term many of us recognise in any sense and it can rarely if ever be used in just a geographical sense. It is a loaded term.

"I'm not trying to suggest that the RoI should be under modern day British political control." ...
but yet you think we are all British.

"BTW, Why do you find the term British so offensive?" "British Isles" not "British"

"Would that not be akin to Ulster Prods objecting to the term Irish Sea?"

Not even close.

Hi Maca,

"It's not a term many of us recognise in any sense and it can rarely if ever be used in just a geographical sense. It is a loaded term."

Bar Irish Nationalists, I think you'll find most people refer to these islands as the British Isles.

"but yet you think we are all British"

In a geographical sense. The same way I'm Irish or European, but politically British.

"Not even close"

Don't see why? Goose, gander. You'll have to explain...

CG
"I think you'll find most people refer to these islands as the British Isles."

Most people? Most British people? Most Irish people?

"In a geographical sense. The same way I'm Irish or European, but politically British."

Nothing is so simple when it comes to British/Irish identity. There's no way you can convince us (or at least me) that I can be British in a purely geographical sense. It just doesn't work like that in real life.

"Don't see why? Goose, gander. You'll have to explain..."

If you were talking about those from the Isle of Man you may have a point, but Ulster Prods? No. Not at all the same.

Hi Maca,

"Most people? Most British people? Most Irish people?"

A. Most people.

"There's no way you can convince us (or at least me) that I can be British in a purely geographical sense."

Surely the same thing could be applied to the use of Irish...

"Not at all the same"

Still not getting this. These Islands are known as the British Isles. Part of the sea that separates them is known as the Irish Sea. Both are facts. Disputing it just shows paranoia.

As you rightly point out, so as not to confer Britishness in a political sense on RoI citizens the term British Islands has been used by the UK government since the Interpretation Act 1978 to collectively denote those lands within the British Isles which are inhabited by British citizens. Can you think of a similar Act used by the government of the RoI to differentiate non Irish citizens of the island of Ireland?

"A. Most people."

Most people which? It is Irish people (ROI) have the problem with the term so it's usage by "most people" in Asia or the American is irrelvant.

"Surely the same thing could be applied to the use of Irish..."
Sure. And I won't call U irish if you say you are not Irish.

"Still not getting this. These Islands are known as the British Isles. Part of the sea that separates them is known as the Irish Sea. Both are facts. Disputing it just shows paranoia."

There is no legal definition for British Isles. Fact.
I even say that the EU in one document advisadly gave a definition for the British Isles which did not include Ireland(ROI). Fact.

I'll make it simpler. You are saying that Ireland is in the British Isles and therefore we are Irish. Ulster Prods do not live in the Irish Sea so the comparison does not work. We do not say Ulster Prods are Irish because the sea is called Irish Sea.

"As you rightly point out, so as not to confer Britishness in a political sense on RoI citizens the term British Islands has been used by the UK government since the Interpretation Act 1978 to collectively denote those lands within the British Isles which are inhabited by British citizens."

So why not use British Islands?
Surely then use of the term British Isles is just meant to cause offense?

"Can you think of a similar Act used by the government of the RoI to differentiate non Irish citizens of the island of Ireland?"

How is this relevant to the usage of the term British Isles?

Hi Maca,
‘ "most people" in Asia or the American is irrelvant.’

I genuinely don’t think so. I think it shows over sensitivity on your part.

“There is no legal definition for British Isles. Fact.”

The earth goes round the sun. Fact. I can’t imagine this is a legal definition. But, it is a fact nonetheless.

“I'll make it simpler. You are saying that Ireland is in the British Isles and therefore we are Irish. Ulster Prods do not live in the Irish Sea so the comparison does not work. We do not say Ulster Prods are Irish because the sea is called Irish Sea.”

?????

“So why not use British Islands?”

Because there are times when people mean to refer to all lands in the islands. British Islands doesn’t include the Republic. Saying “British Isles” is handier than “United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland”.

“Surely then use of the term British Isles is just meant to cause offense?”

Only to over sensitive nationalists. It’s similar to saying “North America” instead of “United States and Canada”…

CG
"I genuinely don’t think so. I think it shows over sensitivity on your part"

Course it is. Most people are not aware at the offence caused. Over-sensitivity?? Sure!

"?????"
You're equating "British Isles" with "Irish Sea" as if both terms are simple geographic terms. They are not. "Irish Sea" does not impose nationality on anyone, "British Isles" does. Clearer now?

"Because there are times when people mean to refer to all lands in the islands. British Islands doesn’t include the Republic. Saying “British Isles” is handier than “United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland”"

British Islands & Ireland is not difficult to say. IONA is even easier. I would have though avoidng offence was worth a couple of extra words.

"It’s similar to saying “North America” instead of “United States and Canada”"
Do you think Canadians would take offence at being called American? The ones I know would take offence.

Hi Maca,

"as if both terms are simple geographic terms. They are not"

I respectfully differ.

'"Irish Sea" does not impose nationality on anyone, "British Isles" does. Clearer now?'

So, if someone describes me as Irish, they imposing nationality of the RoI on me against my will, to offend me. Come on Maca?

"I would have though avoidng offence was worth a couple of extra words."

Agreed. However, it would be easier to just let it go. Similar to the way I let it go when Nationalists refer to NI as the North of Ireland or Londonderry as Derry. Is it really worth the hassle? Whatabout we just agree to accept each others descriptions?

"The ones I know would take offence."

Would they be of quite a senstive nature by any chance?

"So, if someone describes me as Irish, they imposing nationality of the RoI on me against my will, to offend me. Come on Maca?"

You may not be too bothered but I do take offence to being called British.
You may think it is easy to "just let it go" but I don't.
That's the reality so I guess we just have to live with it.

Sonny: But Northern Ireland is no more a part of the UK (i.e. England) than Northern Cyprus is a part of Turkey.

Hilarious :) The GFA which is recognised around the world says otherwise :)

Around the world? Well, the US and UK are around the world alright and they do insist upon a double standard for their occupation and rule as opposed to other countries' occupation and rule.

There is of course the equivalent Sonny -

Q: What do people like Sonny call all protestants behind their backs ?

A: Orange B*****Ds.

Hardly. George Washington & Wolfe Tone among other anti-Brit imperialists were Protestant. But listen here Davros...if the shoe fits wear it.

Er, it is!! (Northern Cyprus isn't part of Turkey!)

Northern Cyprus is occupied and controlled by Turkey same as the US occupied and controlled South Vietnam same as England (aka the UK) occupies and controls Northern Ireland. But like all apologizers for Brit imperialism...you insist upon a double standard of our occupation and rule good but their occupation and rule bad.

Yes Willow, it is a joke. A joke that I suspect you don't want to get. Try this version as told by Field Negros to House Negros: "What do they call a rich black man wearing a $1,000.00 suit?" Answer: "Nigger!"

Still don't get it.

You mean you don't want to get it.

Sonny

Northern Cyprus is occupied and controlled by Turkey same as the US occupied and controlled South Vietnam same as England (aka the UK) occupies and controls Northern Ireland.

It's not. NI is part of the UK. Northern Cyprus is not part of Turkey, nor was South Vietnam part of the US.

But like all apologizers for Brit imperialism...you insist upon a double standard of our occupation and rule good but their occupation and rule bad.

First, I am not an "apologizer" for "Brit imperialism". Second, I do not insist on any double standard. My views are consistent.

You mean you don't want to get it.

No. I mean I don't get it. Please explain.

Congal Claen,

Your link to early Irish history which outlined the influx and movements of Celtic tribes in Ireland made for interesting reading. Unfortunately a lot of it whilst probably valid is hard to pin down because no valid historical sources exist.
However your argument that James I's plantation of Ulster simply returned the downtrodden P-Celtic Dalriadans to Ulster falls on it's backside because the vast majority of those who went over from Scotland were from the Borders area and would have had Germanic origins. James I didn't want anyone from Argyll or the Highlands next or near Ulster because of their already strong family links to that part of Ireland.
Anyway the name Argyll(Dalriada)comes from 'Ar Gael' which means coast of the Gael. It doesn't mean the coast of 'the sulking and disenfranchised P-Celts'. The Germanic influx into Ulster in James' reign only added to the already existent Germanic populations in Ireland which had come from the foundations of the Viking towns and the Norman conquest.
Also the choice of Ptolemy as to what to call the islands off the west coast of Europe and his definition of them should have little bearing today on the relationship between one of those islands (Ireland) which the Romans only visited once and the northern part of the other island (Scotland) which the Romans were unable to conquer. Whether he called them the Pretani or the islands of Beelzebub, it matters little. James I's choice of Great Britain and the subsequent use of the British Isle were political expedients in a different context and the use of the latter is in no way justified by Ptolemy's choice many centuries earlier.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/sa/resources/Belfast_Project/Sites_2004/USFO/pages/UlsterScotsHistoryCulture.html

http://www.geocities.com/~sconemac/celtic1.html

It's not. NI is part of the UK. Northern Cyprus is not part of Turkey, nor was South Vietnam part of the US.

NI is as much a part of the UK as Northern Cyprus is a part of Turkey. That is neither are. Rather both are just foreign controlled & partitioned gerrymanders of varying degrees...just like South Vietnam was a foreign controlled and partitioned gerrymander. Although England (aka the UK) permits token representatives from her NI colony...it is a partitioned off colony (foreign based dependency) nonetheless. After all, Belfast and Derry are not English names. And the only purpose for gerrymandering this (or any) partition as it is was to ensure a pro-Brit (or pro-Imperialist) result...same as with South Vietnam and Northern Cyprus. But apologist for Brit imperialism that you are...you're so blinded by this proto-Thatcherite Tory "our occupation and rule good but their occupation and rule bad" mindset that for you it isn't even occupation and rule.

First, I am not an "apologizer" for "Brit imperialism". Second, I do not insist on any double standard. My views are consistent.

One of the typical manifestations of subjegation is for the subjegated to delude themselves by total identification with their subjegator. And the only way for your views to be consistent...is to support (among other occupations and rules) Turkish occupation and rule in Northern Cyprus or at least be happy that the Turks might permit token representation there like the US does with Puerto Rico or the way the UK (aka Albion) does with NI.

No. I mean I don't get it. Please explain.

No matter how high you think you've climbed or think you can climb in Brit imperial society...you're still nothing but a second class colonial citizen.

Hi Sonny,
“And how is the Celtic immigration of 600 B.C. relevant to present day England's occupation and rule here?” Because you’re complaining about one conquest, but not the one immediately preceding it. Which coincidentally just happens to have been by the “tribe” to which you pledge allegiance. Mere coincidence?

Nice try...but ever hear of that Anglo-Saxon legal concept called the Statue of Limitations? The Brits are still here occupying and ruling?

”How does the fact that Pat may have robbed Paul 2,600 years ago justify George's present day robbing of Pat?” Because, to use your terms, you want George to give up his ill gotten gains back to Pat. But you don’t want Pat to do the same for Paul. I consider myself to have links to Paul’s tribe.

Again, reference Statue of Limitations and England's CURRENT occupation and rule. And please provide proof of your links to the P-Tani (?)...me thinks you'll be about as successful as trying to provide links to the Etruscans.

”You know CC, my suspicion here is that you mean well...but this is a classic form of apologia for English imperial rule here. After all, what country's history isn't complicated? And how is that any kind of defense for present day English imperialism here or any where?” I’m not trying to defend English/British Imperialism. I don’t think many English people give a toss about NI. In fact, every survey on the subject shows most want rid of it.

So much for British democracy.

On the relevance point…
The way I see Irish history being portrayed by nationalists is… Ireland was a Nation state up until about 800 years ago.

We never stopped being a Nation...we just became an occupied and controlled Nation state much like Russia occupying and controlling Lithuania, Lativa and Estonia.

The dreaded English invaded and ever since the “native” Irish have been trying to “free” the country.

You put quotes around the words native and free as if they're neither. And you claim you're not trying to support Brit/English imperialism. Typical Tory dishonesty and condescension, but praytell what part of this sentence of yours (sans quotes)don't you want to get and why?

Ulster Prods are considered colonists, settlers, planters or simply “outsiders”.

Largely because that is how a lot of them view themselves. Their professed identification is with the Mother country (the "mainland"). They have never gone native (like the Vikings and Normans) and don't want to. And if they could have their way all over again...it'd be back to croppie lay down in a heartbeat.

Whilst they are tolerated, they should not be able to partition the island against the wishes of the “native” Irish, who were here first.

No more than Russian Unionists born and raised and living in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia should have been able to partition or stratify those countries against the wishes of the native people there (see no quotes...no condescension).

(I’d welcome any comments on whether my assumptions about this are correct or not.)

Why do you put quotes around the word native and free when speaking of native Irish people wanting to be free of England's grip here? I notice for instance that you don't put quotes around the word Protestant or Prod as if the people you refer to are all presumptively genuine believers of a certain Christian faith.

The way I see Irish history being portrayed by Ulster Prods is…We’ve been here 400 years.

True and true.

Being anywhere 400 years gives you a sense of belonging and birthright to that land.

Fair enough.

Therefore, our vote counts as much as anyone else’s does on the island.

Given the British imposed gerrymander...their vote counts more...it's the tail wagging the dog just like in South Vietnam.

If we decide to remain part of the UK our wishes should be respected.

No more than the South Vietnamese vote should have been respected.

However, by a quirk of history, these arguments can be turned on their heads…
Briefly, as a result of the Gaelic conquest of Ulster there were population movements from Ulster to Scotland, hence Dalriada, etc. When the Plantation of Ulster occurred, Ulster Prods could argue that they were returning to their “native” land, rather than invading an alien land.
Therefore, the arguments switch sides. As such, surely both sides, having claimed the others arguments for so long must recognise the validity of their claim. Ie. Nationalists should accept Ulster Prods wishes as the “natives” and Ulster Prods should accept Nationalists rights to live here as they’ve been here for hundreds of years…
Personally, I believe this gives hope for a resolution to the whole sorry story of the last few 100 years. (as we've been using the "other side's" arguments)

What a lot of silly horse shit. See Jay Sus above.

I know you will almost certainly not accept my simplification of the argument. But, what if I am right?

Not to worry since I never lose sleep over such remote possiblities.

Bearing in mind that you are re-writing European History Sonny, can you produce any evidence that Ireland considered itself "A Nation" or a "Nation State" 1,000 years ago ? Accepted wisdom has the nation and nation state as we understand the term arising with the end of the medieval power structures of church and nobility and especially the turbulence of the 16th century that led onto the age of Enlightenment.

Sonny

NI is as much a part of the UK as Northern Cyprus is a part of Turkey. That is neither are.

No. NI is part of the UK.

Rather both are just foreign controlled & partitioned gerrymanders of varying degrees...

NI is not.

just like South Vietnam was a foreign controlled and partitioned gerrymander.

No, not like South Vietnam.

Although England (aka the UK) permits token representatives from her NI colony...

They're not token: they're elected by the people and represent their voters on the same basis as all other MPs, and their votes carry the same weight as any other MP's.

it is a partitioned off colony (foreign based dependency) nonetheless.

It's not.

After all, Belfast and Derry are not English names.

The existence of cities that bear non-English names is entirely irrelevant.

And the only purpose for gerrymandering this (or any) partition as it is was to ensure a pro-Brit (or pro-Imperialist) result...same as with South Vietnam and Northern Cyprus.

You've got it arse-about-face: partition was the result of a popular vote. The government actually wanted the whole of Ireland to be given home rule.

But apologist for Brit imperialism that you are...you're so blinded by this proto-Thatcherite Tory "our occupation and rule good but their occupation and rule bad" mindset that for you it isn't even occupation and rule.

(a) I'm not an apologist for "Brit imperialism"; (b) I have made no comments about the goodness or badness of any "occupation and rule".

One of the typical manifestations of subjegation is for the subjegated to delude themselves by total identification with their subjegator.

Maybe it is, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

And the only way for your views to be consistent...is to support (among other occupations and rules) Turkish occupation and rule in Northern Cyprus or at least be happy that the Turks might permit token representation there like the US does with Puerto Rico or the way the UK (aka Albion) does with NI.

That is not the only way for my views to be consistent. My views are consistent by applying the same principles, i.e. in this case, self-determination and democracy, to each situation.

No matter how high you think you've climbed or think you can climb in Brit imperial society...you're still nothing but a second class colonial citizen.

I haven't attempted, nor have I any interest in "climbing in Brit imperial society", whatever that is; neither am I a second class colonial citizen: so the "joke" is not relevant to me.

Partition was the result of a popular vote willofield? Are you serious?!! Ireland voted to be a free Republic. Britain ignored that wish. The fact was only two counites in Ireland were Unionist majorities, Antrim and Down. Why could the other four not join the Republic? You cannot just invent a state to suit certain people who did not accept the decision of the Nation!! This is THE fundamental legal reason why Nationalists view NI as an illegal state and Partition as an illegal act. No amount of posturing will change this fact.

HI jay sus,

First of all, thanks for the contribution to the debate – it’s most welcome.

“your argument that James I's plantation of Ulster simply returned the downtrodden P-Celtic Dalriadans to Ulster falls on it's backside”

In my defence, I was simplifying the whole thing for the benefit of Sonny. I have already said many times that Irish history is far from simple. Sonny appears to take the view that Ireland was a pure bred gaelic Nation from time immemorial. What I was trying to show to Sonny was that this land like every other land on the planet has been settled time over number and that there has always been links between northern Ireland and Scotland. From the article you link to…

“Cultural affinities between Ulster and the western coasts of Scotland probably extend back to at least 8000BC”

"The structural similarities and close geographical proximity of the Irish and Scottish monuments – separated only by the narrow North Channel – is an indication that the two areas may well have been in regular contact with each other"

“the new traditions "including the pottery styles, are shared between eastern and northern Ireland and southern Scotland, particularly the west coast, and clearly indicate a broad zone of contact and cultural interaction extending over a long period of time.”

“That the settlers on the two sides of the North Channel should have been in close contact with each other in the 5th and 6th centuries need occasion no surprise. A community of common cultural ideas can be traced back to the Neolithic period when the region was closely linked by a common burial ritual, and throughout the Iron Age and Roman period the archaeological record shows that there was constant contact.”

“the Scots retained a close relationship with their northern Irish forbears, and indeed much of their history as we know it comes from the Irish Annals…the importance of the sea in linking the communities was crucial”

These quotes suggest to me I am, in the main, correct.

“the vast majority of those who went over from Scotland were from the Borders area and would have had Germanic origins”

I don’t get this from the article. It says…

“The effect of the various Plantations was that Antrim and Down became largely dominated by a Scots-speaking, Presbyterian immigrant population, whilst the whole of Ulster received a significant number of immigrants, mostly Scots, but including a smaller number of English, most of whom were borderers. Many of the Scots were also borderers”

My reading of this is Antrim, Down – Scots. The rest, mostly Scots, many of who were Borderers, but mostly Scots. To me, in this context, ‘most’ means ‘majority’ and ‘many’ means ‘significant’ but not majority.

Then, from your article…

“It is a mistake to see Ulster-Scots culture as purely a result of the Plantation, however. As we have seen, this was only the latest of a series of population movements and cultural exchanges going back millenia.”

To sum up, I agree with practically everything in the article. I have a few issues with your interpretations tho’…

“Whether he called them the Pretani or the islands of Beelzebub, it matters little.”

I disagree. I think it shows that the term British has an ancient derivation and applied to both these islands. Therefore, when I call myself British, I expect nationalists to respect my identity and not come up with the “but you aren’t from Britain” rubbish. The fact that Ptolemy wasn’t from here I think actually strengthens my argument as you could call him independent.

Hi Sonny,
“What a lot of silly horse shit. See Jay Sus above.”
Another well thought out reply! And to think it was you who mentioned the Irish golden age of enlightenment when learning was embraced and Ireland shone as a beacon across Europe!
Did you even read the article that jay suggested? I suggest you do… Go on, enlighten yourself…

Hi Caoimhín,

"You cannot just invent a state to suit certain people who did not accept the decision of the Nation!!"

The Nation at the time was the UK. As far as I remember the Uk didn't vote on the issue. So, surely, the same could be said of the creation of the RoI?

CG, can I just pull you up on one point you made to jay sus?

"Therefore, when I call myself British, I expect nationalists to respect my identity and not come up with the “but you aren’t from Britain” rubbish"

This seems unfair to me. Not unfair to expect respect of your identity but unfair to expect that while at the same time telling us we are British even if we "may not like it".

Also, while i'm here, it may be pedantic but British Isles is only derived from what Ptolemy called the islands so in a way what he actually called them is sort of irrelevant.
What's more relevant is that when the terms were chosen by James 1 they were chosen to reflect the political situation, AFAIK. And that political situation is different today.

"Thus the usage of the name of the largest island in the archipelago, Britain as the name for the archipelago as a whole reflected not just the geography but the political relationships of the period, specifically the political, cultural and economic dominance of main island over the rest of the set."

Hi Maca,

'This seems unfair to me. Not unfair to expect respect of your identity but unfair to expect that while at the same time telling us we are British even if we "may not like it".'

What I was trying to do was show that when Ulster Prods claim they are British, that there is come basis to that claim. Sorry, if it came across that I was trying to impose Britishness on everyone in the Isles. It wasn't the intention...

Bearing in mind that you are re-writing European History Sonny, can you produce any evidence that Ireland considered itself "A Nation" or a "Nation State" 1,000 years ago ? Accepted wisdom has the nation and nation state as we understand the term arising with the end of the medieval power structures of church and nobility and especially the turbulence of the 16th century that led onto the age of Enlightenment.

http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsBritain/GaelsHighKings.htm

Moreover, check out the following definition of nation: \Na"tion\, n. [F. nation, L. natio nation, race, orig., a being born, fr. natus, p. p. of nasci, to be born, for gnatus, gnasci, from the same root as E. kin. [root]44. See Kin kindred, and cf. Cognate, Natal, Native.] 1. (Ethnol.) A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock.

So much for your "...accepted wisdom" which no doubt runs rampant in English boarding schools.

neither am I a second class colonial citizen: so the "joke" is not relevant to me.

So you're related to English Royalty? If so then you can just ignore among other things the following: "... And it was thereby further enacted, that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same: and in all and every such case and cases the people of these realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their allegiance..." (Act of Settlement 1701, still in force today.)

Congal Claen,

 

Nobody can seriously deny the strong links that exist and have existed between Ulster and Scotland and the great impact they have had on each other. I included that link to the QUB site because I believe that it gives a balanced view on the subject. The problem was your portrayal of the James I's plantation as a triumphant return of the displaced Dalriadan p-Celtic nation. This is not a simplified version, it’s historically wrong. Anyway were the Dalriadans really Cruithne or simply allied to them in Ireland? See the other link.

Regardless, in 1605 Montgomery and Hamilton took people from Aryshire and Galloway to Antrim and Down in a private adventure. However the majority was brought over as part of the official plantation and these people were brought over from the borders area.

 

"In 1603, King James VI, now in control of all the territory we currently call Scotland, became King of England as well, following the death of the childless Queen Elizabeth. His first project was ‘The Breaking of the Border’: the subjugation of the turbulent border clans who had effectively ruled the frontier regions of England and Scotland, which James wanted to change from an almost permanent battleground between the two kingdoms into "the Middle Shires’ of a new ‘Great Britain’."

 

"For James, the plantations seemed to kill three birds with one stone, pacifying the Gaelic natives of Ulster, making a region which had been reduced almost to desert by years of war economically productive, and removing a surplus population from Scotland, particularly rebellious borderers and ideologically dangerous Presbyterians. Of course, it did not work out exactly as planned."

 

"Scotland was only too willing to participate as a means to eradicate Scotland of the hordes of lowland Scots who comprised the lawless Border Riever clans. So in the early years of the Plantation, the majority of the settlers were mainly Lowland Scots and the landlords encouraged the Scots to bring as many horses and cattle as possible to the new colony, obtained by whatever means. Scotland found this a small price to pay to eliminate the larger problem."

 

 

"Many of those Scots living along the Scottish border who had previously terrorized the English were now forcibly repatriated throughout Ulster."

 

The borders area had nothing to do with Dalriada (Argyll) but had a strong Germanic influence and spoke a Germanic language Ulster-Scots.

Their language was Scots, a Germanic tongue that had a common origin with English in the Anglo-Saxon language of Britain centuries earlier.

 

James didn't think it wise to include the Highlanders.

 

"King James specifically excluded Highlander Scots from the colonization scheme; he believed that they would simply team up with the native Irish to cause discord and unrest."

 

"For James the conclusion of the Nine Years War came as a welcome addition to his new glories; it also presented him with a problem and an opportunity.  As a man and a king he was no more  sympathetic to Gaelic traditions and culture than his Tudor predecessors on the English throne.  While still King of Scots he had been preoccupied with the problems posed by his own  minorities in the Highlands and Islands, whom he once described as ‘utterly barbarous.’  In  the 1590s he had even sponsored a scheme of internal colonisation or plantation, handing over  the island of Lewis to a party of Lowland adventurers.  These men were to bring civilisation and commerce to the western Isles, in a project that allowed for the wholesale extermination of the local Gaelic clans. Faced with the widespread hostility of the Highland communities, the Lewis plantation was a costly failure: the idea, however, remained fixed in the royal mind."

 

"The intermarriage of the Irish with the Scots occurred more frequently before the  'Plantation' and was with the Highlanders and 'wild islanders'' ­a group of Scots who were [primarily] Catholics and were largely Celts ... The number of the early Highlanders who emigrated to Ireland was, however, relatively few and did not belong to the Ulster Scots of the Plantation."

 

With James I’s plantation Ulster became like the rest of Ireland, Celtic and Germanic. There were very few Q-Celts jumping out from behind ditches and squaring up to P-Celts and if that sort of thing did go on I wouldn't have condoned it.

 

As regards the Pretanic Isles, if this term had been in continuous use from the time of Ptolemy to the time of James I then I would lend it some credence but because it was revived as part of a political policy in a completely different context 1500 years later, it’s a weak link. Calling these Isles, the Pretanic isles 1850 years ago is a whole different ball game to calling them the British Isles today. We might well all be a bunch nitpicking Pretanics but we’re not all British. Obviously, you can call these islands what you want, I'm going to continue to call them the islands of Beelzebub.

 

"The second was to use the colonists as agents of regal power over the native inhabitants. In  that sense we can speak of a 'British' Empire taking shape in Ireland over a hundred years  before 'Britain' itself came into existence. There were English settlers as well. From 1607  James VI and I authorised Scottish and English colonists to settle in Ulster, the first  162,500 acres parcelled out being divided equally between both nationalities. These were  jointly referred to as 'British undertakers' or 'British tenants', the distinction being  between them and the native Irish, or indeed the Scottish Highlanders, who were categorised as  'Gaels'. It can be argued that Ulster was not only the first territory to be identified as  British, but the first place where the colonial inhabitants displayed a consciousness of being  so, certainly before Britain came into existence in 1707."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my defence, I was simplifying the whole thing for the benefit of Sonny.

So much for your nuanced understanding of Irish history.

I have already said many times that Irish history is far from simple.

So what? Aren't all nations' histories far from simple? And how does that justify current English occupation and rule here?

Sonny appears to take the view that Ireland was a pure bred gaelic Nation from time immemorial.

And where have I ever said that? Hyperbole will get you no where. Moreover, your weasle word "appears" is just your pathetic escape clause for distorting an opposing point of view that no doubt unsettles the compromises you've made with the English occupation. Shame on you Irishman.

What I was trying to show to Sonny was that this land like every other land on the planet has been settled time over number and that there has always been links between northern Ireland and Scotland.

And doesn't that justify current English occupation and screw rule? "Ah sure nuff it does Paddy!" said Father Malone, "Didn't the good Lord tell us to give to Caesar what is Caesar's?" "Right you are Fadder!" replied Paddy while rubbing his sore arse, "...after all I like my pipe too...but at least I take it out once in awhile."

Sonny - the website YOU chose destroys your argument :)

Ireland was never politically unified enough to translate its religious and cultural influence into political power.

Ta Very Much :)

"What a lot of silly horse shit. See Jay Sus above.” Another well thought out reply!

You're the one who likes simplification.

Sonny - the website YOU chose destroys your argument. "Ireland was never politically unified enough to translate its religious and cultural influence into political power." Ta Very Much.

There you go again Davros...cherry picking what you want to support your dubious anti-Irish point of view. Go back and read the definition of nation that I gave here and note that it does not include "political power". That said, the High Kings of Ireland were nominally in charge of what amounted to a confederation of different Irish tribes and kingdoms throughout the island of Ireland prior to the existance of Angleland or Angle-ish. And the fact that you don't like the thought of there even being such a thing as an Irish Nation isn't justification for current English occupation and rule here anymore than Italy or Germany should be permitted to partition off and occupy Switzerland because it's divided into different controlling Cantons that speak different languages even.

Sorry Sonny - that's nonsense. Nationhood implies commonality or homogeneity - a confederation of autonomous kings cannot be considered a Nation.

300 - suggestion to Mick - can you start a continuation thread as this takes ages to load ?

Hi Jay Sus,

“The problem was your portrayal of the James I's plantation as a triumphant return of the displaced Dalriadan p-Celtic nation”

This was not the impression I intended to convey. I intended to suggest that there has been contact between Ireland and Scotland from the earliest of times. Indeed, Ireland was colonised from Scotland – based on the distribution and age of megalithic structures throughout Ireland. When I mentioned Dalriada, I was using it to show that there was even a kingdom that straddled the Irish Sea. I wasn’t trying to suggest that the Plantation was made up exclusively of Dalriadans. I’m suggesting in a much broader way that there has been toing and froing between Scotland and Ireland for millenia, so much so, that we are basically the same people and therefore have an equal “claim” to live in either of the islands.

The problem with historical records is that we can argue completely different views from the same source document. The document you supplied suggests to me that the Plantation was majority Scots whereas you interpret it as majority Borderers. Science is a bit more conclusive. A recent genetic study, which I’ll send to you if you like, states…

“The multiple mtDNA links between Ireland and Britain, particularly Scotland, are especially striking. Archaelogical evidence supports contacts during prehistory, and early historical accounts describe the establishment of Irish colonies in Scotland from at least at least AD ~500. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the plantation of Ulster led to the arrival of substantial numbers of settlers moving in the opposite direction. However, the widespread distribution of these mtDNA haplotypes within Ireland suggests they may be largely the result of earlier contacts.”

So, genetically speaking, the Scots and the Irish are basically the same. Which is my point…

Congal

I thought it was that Scotland was basically settled by the Irish. The Irish were at one stage know as the Scotties, and Ireland was Scotyland. However then as alot of Irish people went over to Scotland to settle there, Scotland became known as full of Scottys and subsequently became known as Scottyland, then eventually Scotland.

Ireland invaded Scotland later. Fergus Mor set off from Carrickfergus (Rock of Fergus) for Scotland and conquered himself some land that became know as the Dalriadic Kingdom.

"So, genetically speaking, the Scots and the Irish are basically the same. Which is my point…"

well now, thats another issue. Every human in the world is genetically linked if you take that argument, after all, we all came from the same couple - adam and eve!

CC- according to article in today's Times, also carried Irish Independent, we are all the same, period. Race is bunkum according to an article in the prestigious Nature Genetics , which I shall try to track down.

Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin

Human genome study says race is meaningless notion

anybody wanting Times article e mail me at usual

Caoimhin

Partition was the result of a popular vote willofield? Are you serious?!!

Er, yes. Go and look at the election results from the time. The Ulster Unionists won a huge majority of votes in what became NI.

Ireland voted to be a free Republic.

Southern Ireland did.

Britain ignored that wish.

It set up the Irish Free State. Hardly counts as "ignoring"!

The fact was only two counites in Ireland were Unionist majorities, Antrim and Down.

That's not fact. Indeed, it's untrue.

Why could the other four not join the Republic?

For a start, two had unionist majorities. In respect of the other two, they had large unionist minorities. In my view, the border should have been drawn to best reflect people's expressed will: that would have involved splitting counties. No need to stick to county boundaries: stupid, in fact.

You cannot just invent a state to suit certain people who did not accept the decision of the Nation!!

Why not? If you can invent one to suit those who did accept "the decision of the Nation", why not invent one for those who didn't?

This is THE fundamental legal reason why Nationalists view NI as an illegal state and Partition as an illegal act. No amount of posturing will change this fact.

Sorry? I've missed this "fundamental legal reason". You haven't offered any "fundamental legal reason"! In law, NI is part of the UK and always has been!

Willowfield,
when did you recognise Dail Eireann as the legitimate parliament of the Republic of Ireland?

Which Dail was it? First, second.....

I've always recognized it as such.

It became the legitimate parliament [of the Free State] in 1922, and of the Republic in 1949.

Moreover, check out the following definition of
Sorry Sonny - that's nonsense. Nationhood implies commonality or homogeneity - a confederation of autonomous kings cannot be considered a Nation.

Oh really Davros? Tell it to the French-German-Speaking canton confederated Swiss and the French&Dutch speaking Belgians. And do you really think the US or Canada or Australia or England is homogeneous?

nation: \Na"tion\, n. [F. nation, L. natio nation, race, orig., a being born, fr. natus, p. p. of nasci, to be born, for gnatus, gnasci, from the same root as E. kin. [root]44. See Kin kindred, and cf. Cognate, Natal, Native.] 1. (Ethnol.) A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock.

Sonny - look more closely at your own definition :)
You are talking about ETHNIC nationalism !

xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

Congal,

Excuse the tardiness of my reply, snowed under.

"The document you supplied suggests to me that the Plantation was majority Scots whereas you interpret it as majority Borderers"

You might have to clarify what you mean by Scots since its use can be a bit confusing in a discussion like this.

Depending on whose reports you believe, the ratio of Scottish to English in the plantation was anything from 5:1 to 20:1. A lot of the English returned soon after coming over because of weather, insects and those nasty little wood-kernes so after a few years it might well have been nearer the second figure. Either way the official plantation was overwhelmingly Scottish but in saying that mostly Scottish from the Scottish borders because of James I's policy as stated above. Whilst not exclusively Germanic the Scottish Borders had a very strong Germanic element and so differed from Ulster, Argyll and parts of the highlands.

"So, genetically speaking, the Scots and the Irish are basically the same. Which is my point…"

On this point I tend to agree with you. Gather the clans together and we'll sack York. We haven't done that in a while.

"Science is a bit more conclusive."

Apart from pure mathematics, the sciences are as open 

to interpretation as history. There is a lot of contradiction between different studies.

"Argument rages in the academic world as to whether the Celts in Britain were mostly wiped out/pushed west as the lack of evidence for influence of the Celts on Anglo-Saxon society suggests, or whether the Anglo-Saxon migration consisted merely of the social elite and that the genocide was cultural rather than physical due to such relatively few numbers of Anglo-Saxons mixing with the far larger native population. Recent DNA studies have supported that Anglo-Saxon England evolved from the imposition of a new culture on the previously Celtic people of England. Interestingly too, contrary to popular ideas of 'Celtic Nationhood', DNA evidence in England shows greater representation of ancient British influence than in most of Scotland, which has more Scandinavian influence"

 

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Celt

which doesn't agree with this study

"The best explanation for our findings is that the Anglo-Saxon cultural transition in Central England coincided with a mass immigration from the continent"

 

http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1008

This statement is at odds with this Y chromosome versus mt DNA and X linked chromosome contrast study which states that there has been little genetic change in these islands since Paleolithic times apart from areas like Orkney.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=63400&messageid=1038379279&lp=1038379863

This in turn is at odds with this Y chromosome study which puts everybody genetically where we'd expect to find them historically and linguistically.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/bloodofthevikings/genetics_results_01.shtml

So while on the whole, I tend to agree with your point, we should be careful not to airbrush out the Germanic contribution to these islands in an attempt to satisfy an all-unifying genetic theory which while interesting is still in development.

On the other hand, there is greater genetic difference between a tall man and a short man than between a native Swede and a Zulu tribesman of equal height so I agree with Davros that we really are arguing over buttons.

Send me that study if you get the chance. I'd like to read it.

jay_sus00@yahoo.ie

Design: River Path Associates Comments: Big Blog Co Powered: Movable Type 3.15 Copyright © 2003 Sluggerotoole.com All rights reserved.