Welcoming the others

[Jim]

Nov 6, 2009 16:26:01 GMT sandyrowglenman said:

Oh I don't know. Hell of a lot of people visit Ireland for the Guiness....

Well why not. Its possibly the most famous alcoholic drink on the planet!

[Wasp]

Who mentioned SFs aspirations?

I did.

SFs brand of Irishness is not the only brand of Irishness, its not even remotely close.

I agree Jim, but sf/ira hijacked many things and in turn projected them as representing their brand of irishness which represents republican terror. Take the tri-colour, I wouldnt even notice it in the republic and if I did it wouldnt affect me in the slightest, but in N.I it represents the ira. Sf endorsed the terror campaign against my community and the UK so hell would freeze over before I would agree to any of their requests without protest until they acknowledge the real truth of what happened here and truly acknowledge the wrongs that they played a very big part in. That is the difference and that is why IMHO the dupers make the stand they make along most if not all things.

The DUP have done all they can to hold any progress for the Irish language in its tracks and we have ministers that refuse to show their faces (as part of their job) at Gaelic games,

Concerning the gaa they are 110% correct, it is a sectarian sport which frelly allows the promotion and commemoration of terrorists and their actions against the people of N.I and the rest of the UK.

In general, the DUP have no love for anything remotely considered Irish. They're reactionary to it. FFS I remember listening to someone in the DUP complaining that UTV show GAA highlights and that it wasnt British so had no place on TV. That lot havent a bloody clue.

The gaa should not be shown anywhere as a sport while they are riddled with the tradition of republican terrorists.

It will for a few years, yes, but eventually it wont be. Lets be honest, the Conservatives WILL be the next UK Government, and it'll probably mean more seats in the assembly for the UUP branch of the Conservatives, with big time funding going into them. They'll probably even overtake the DUP. That means a single or similar policy on the public sector from both Westminster and Stormont. Conservative politicians do not like public sectors, they'll be doing away with the vast majority of it in favour of privatisation.

There will be cut backs and I support cut backs to an extent, but there are areas in the public sector that couldnt be touched as they are under manned as it is, others there certainly will be cuts but I dont think to the same extent you are protraying.

Right, Wasp, I've been living in Manchester for a few years now, I travel a LOT around England, my brother is up in Newcastle, I've mates in (and from) London, Birmingham, Leicester, Leeds, and I go to Glasgow every now and again for the football. I also travel quite a bit around England watching City play away when the money allows. London has been consistently more expensive than ANYWHERE in England outside its surrounding counties. The only place that is similar to London is Edinbugh.

Jim I have travelled England all my life and I am telling you now one of the cheapest places for travel, eating out, drinking, clothes (especially brand names) is London. Of course there are expensive places but you can have a real good night out in London's west end with plenty to eat and drink for cheaper or as cheap as most UK towns or cities. The only place that comes close is Birmingham.

The only cheap thing about London is the transport, and only if you live fairly close to London city itself, meaning the tube. You can travel up Europes busiest bus route, the backbone of Manchester, for 80p. In London the same distance would be at least £3 if you didnt take the tube.

It certainly isnt the cheapest thing in London. Clothes in Next in Oxford street are generally cheaper than there other stores elsewhere in the UK, French Connection is the same and there are loads of other shops that have real bargains. Tkae shoes and boots, first of all many designs you will only find in a few other places and those that you can buy elsewhere are roughly 30 to 60% dearer elsewhere. London can afford to have many things much cheaper because of the large volume of tourists that go through it day in day out.

As for as living over there, I pay £220 a month for a room in a 4 bedroom house. In London I'd be looking at nearly £350!

Property is definately more expensive, but places to stay are as cheap or cheaper than many other places. I have several relations who live in London and the house prices are crazy, but saying that when house prices peaked here many places here had similar prices to parts of London.

I was planning on moving to London eventually until the rent put me off. When you get a student loan and grant, you're given an extra £4000 or something if you go to university in London just to cope with the extra expenses.

It wouldnt surprize me at all Jim.

HistoryIreland isnt the gospel mate, I dont trust any source other than CAIN actually. I use HistoryIreland a lot and I can point out plenty of articles that I dont think are up to scratch, and are mildly sensationalist.

And someone could easily say the same about CAIN etc.

Ireland as a country has a violent and sad history if you include the north. The Republic had a civil war due to the arrangements of the treaty, has England not had civil wars? Has England not had race riots, strikers rioting during the 80s? Ireland hasnt had much of a violent history other than what happened in the north.

When was Englands civil wars?? During the troubles outside of Lebanon particularly in the 80's Ireland had the biggest concentration of terrorists and the various governemnts helped the terrorists due to the sheer scale of there unhelpfulness and refusal on real co-operation. Jim how many live in Ireland and how many live in England, does Ireland have the same amout of immigrants etc as England?

You said it had a sad history; history and culture reflect each other. You cant have culture without history, and you cant have history without culture.

Jim can you not seperate both concerning individual things? I disagree with what you said, for example what on earth has say English history centuries ago concerning naval battles got to do culturally with the premier league and football in England??

You know what I'm on about! We've already established you do not consider yourself Irish, its a bit more important than having a niece who does Irish dancing and listening to IRish music; that alone does not define Irishness imo, thats like saying Morris dancing defines what it is to be English.

I was not defining irishness, is irish dancing part of irish culture or not??

What are you misunderstood about?

Almost everything. ;D ;D

I didnt back any points, I pointed it out that its an unfair argument. Have I dismissed Londons importance or prestige? No, I've maybe discussed it a bit but I know full well how important London is. Its unfair to try and compare that to a city that was for centuries under the rule of London, and only been standing on its own feet for a couple of generations.

For goodness sake Jim it was you who compared the prices of Dublin and London and I challenged it, apart from that we have been talking about what I see in irish history etc and British history. I named Windosr which is not in London and I was saying some of the things that I find absolutley magnifficent about British history and where I could not say anything remotel similar concerning Irish history and culture.

I will try to explain further, a holiday to me is not a holiday unless you go to wherever your going by boat or plane, so if I had a holiday in Ireland then to me it would be a break, not a holiday. Saying that if I went to Scotland for my holidays then it wouldnt be the same as my normal holiday because I didnt travel to England as well. Does this mean I hate Scotland the way it is suggested at times that I hate Ireland?? Scotland is a beautiful place which is rich in history but it doesnt stand up to my feelings for England. I love Blackpool, Southport, Birmingham, Torbay, the Camber/Rye/Hastings area, I like Coventry, Manchester, Edinburgh, Highlands, Liverpool, Dumfries, Exeter, Southend, M.Boro but none of them comes that colse to the way I feel about London and its many places of interest. Dublin has really cleaned itself up but I prefer Sligo and Ireland has lovely scenery etc but I cannot name anything similar in ireland nevermind Dublin compared to England. See my point now??

You certainly make yourself out to be a bit anti-Dublin.

See answer above.

Maybe its just the unionist mentality that anything south of Armagh is alien.

Maybe its the art of getting offended that republicans have where any dislike or even just saying something like I dont see anything special about there is deemed to be anti-irish. This is a joke and is really laughable when opinions on a place is blamed on someone being a Unionist rather than personal feelings. Are you going to accuse me of the same concerning Scotland or say Southend the way you have accused me about Dublin?? Of course your not because those palces arent irish so you cant use me being a Unionist against me for not having a big liking for the places, yet you use it against me when it concerns Irlend. Unfair.

To be honest, I feel little affinity with London at all, they feel foreign to me, yet thats not the case in the Northern cities of England. Way too arrogant for my liking

And you are entitled to that opinion. Of a matter of interest how often have you been down to London and stayed there?

[leeside]

Nov 5, 2009 17:28:49 GMT Wasp said:

Nov 5, 2009 0:27:37 GMT leeside said:

Where do you get this shit from? He burned the union jack outside Trinity on VE day in response to loyalist Trinity students burning the Tri-Colour. Nothing to do with 'his disgust at the liberation of Europe'. You're so melodramatic its ridiculous.

Accuse me of what you want but I got it from this guy;

My great-great-grandfather was a Home Rule MP and Free State Senator. My great-grandfather was a Home Rule MP and Free State TD. My grandfather took part in an armed insurrection against the state in 1916. RIC Special Branch had a long file on him. My other grandfather took part in the allied capture of Iraq in 1917, and was then a colonial administrator in Iraq, probably in Hilla province. My granduncle was the first Prime Minister of Ireland in 1922. His son became Prime Minister of Ireland in 1973.

Hardly a loyalist now is he??

You claim that he burnt the flag because he was disgusted at the liberation of europe. Thats nonsense. It was in response to loyalist TCD students burning/dis-respecting the Irish Flag. Then you copy and paste a family tree of Mark humphreys whom I never claimed was a loyalist??!! What was the point of that and how the hell does that back up your claim?

By the way, Europe wasnt fully liberated till the fall of the Berlin wall over forty years after the end of WW2.

[Wasp]

You claim that he burnt the flag because he was disgusted at the liberation of europe. Thats nonsense. It was in response to loyalist TCD students burning/dis-respecting the Irish Flag.

I didnt claim anything. Foolish thing to do on such a day dont you think?

Then you copy and paste a family tree of Mark humphreys whom I never claimed was a loyalist??!! What was the point of that and how the hell does that back up your claim?

You said 'Where do you get this shit from?...............You're so melodramatic its ridiculous.' and I posted about the guy who said it and the place I got it from.

Now anychance of you addressing the rest of my posts where I replied in full to you instead of just the posts that annoy you.

[leeside]

Nov 9, 2009 18:17:09 GMT Wasp said:

You claim that he burnt the flag because he was disgusted at the liberation of europe. Thats nonsense. It was in response to loyalist TCD students burning/dis-respecting the Irish Flag.

I didnt claim anything. Foolish thing to do on such a day dont you think?

Then you copy and paste a family tree of Mark humphreys whom I never claimed was a loyalist??!! What was the point of that and how the hell does that back up your claim?

You said 'Where do you get this shit from?...............You're so melodramatic its ridiculous.' and I posted about the guy who said it and the place I got it from.

Now anychance of you addressing the rest of my posts where I replied in full to you instead of just the posts that annoy you.

You said it matter of factly. Could you link where you got it from please? Just curious.

WASP, i dont seem to have as much time as you in addressing all your claims. As regards irelands neutrality in WW2... I fully believe it was the right decision. I am no lover of Dev but what i do admire is his refusal to be bullied by Churchill.

[Wasp]

You said it matter of factly. Could you link where you got it from please? Just curious.

I said what I read, here is the line and it is just over halfway down the page;

Ireland's 2nd-worst ever leader, Charles Haughey, burnt a Union Jack on VE-Day in 1945 to show his disgust at the liberation of Europe.

markhumphrys.com/christianity.ww2.html#ireland

[Republic]

WASP, That ww2 site is a heavily biased source, it is poor history at best.

I will reply to the thread later, have been away for a while.

[Wasp]

Republic I also quoted from HistoryIreland which was a lengthy detailed account.

[Republic]

Nov 6, 2009 0:23:55 GMT Wasp said:

I dont want you taking it out of context, I do not see any real extent of a rich and vibrant history, nor do I see anyhwere that tens of thousand of people flock to each year to visit in comparison to Buckingham Palace, Windsor, Houses of Parliment, Downing St etc etc. When I think of the much loved aspects of British culture, way of life, history etc etc I cannot see anything that comes close in Ireland.

Take the premier league and some of the biggest clubs and biggest support in the world which is the envy of most if not all other nations, take the rich and colourful history of the Royal family, take the many many famous landmarks, take the long and rich history of Britains armed forces, take the long and rich history of Westminster etc etc, there are at least over 15 million visitors to London eachyear alone and I just do not see anything remotely similar with as much worldwide attraction in Ireland. Can you?

It is true that Ireland does not have architecture to rival that of Britains. It is equally true that Ireland never had an opportunity to develop its own style of architecture (in historical terms).

The much loved way of life in Britain is similar to Ireland. Culturally, there are more similarities than differences between the two countries.
Also, Irish history is possibly more popular than British history, as it is easier to romanticise a rebellious struggle than an imperial conquest.

It is true that Ireland has a long history of bloodshed, but the same is true of Britiain (even more so when you consider the way the empire operated), and of most countries in the world.

To say that Ireland has a tragic history on one hand, while saying that Britains is glorious, does not stack up. Especially when a lot of Irelands tragedy was ''caused'' by Britains glory.

Having a royal family does not make Britain better, it just makes it different. There are many around the world who would argue that a republic is better than a monarchy of any sort, but that is another discussion entirely.

Also, when people go to Buckingham Palace, they are looking at the historical home of Irelands Kings and Queens too.

The long and rich history of Britains armed forces is a really strange point IMO. Like most armies, their history is bloody and brutal. I do not think having an empire is something to be proud of, but again, it doesn't make either of us better, just different.

Ireland also has a rich and vibrant history. Irish mythology is second only to Greek mythology. The language is one of the oldest in Europe. It was europes centre of learning in the dark ages. Irelands writers have made significant contributions to English literature, Joyce, Beckett, Yeats, Wilde, etc. Irelands people have an impact around the world, most notably in America (including the Scotch-Irish). Irish soldiers made up a HUGE proportion of Britains imperial armies.

I could go on, but my point is that the history of places is different, and vibrant in unique ways.

Reagrding your points about WW2;
I don't want to get into a history debate but I would encourage you to put yourself in the shoes of an Irish man in 1939, just 17 years after the Black and Tans left Ireland. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the conflict, you can surely understand how the common man must have felt at the thought of having to team up with people who had previously made their lives hell.

I'll give you an example, imagine that 17 years after the last Provo bomb, the IRA needed your help? I don't think you would be likely to help them

Of course it is easy to say now that Ireland should have fought in ww2, but if you put yourself in their shoes, you can at least see the logic of their position. Suporting Naziism had nothing to do with it, and it only derails the argument.

E.g., I don't agree with the UVF of 1912, but I can at least put myself in their shoes and understand their fears, and why they acted the way they did. You should do the same.

Btw, about the premier league, there is only one club from the PL that is loved all over the world. Manchester United

[Wasp]

It is true that Ireland does not have architecture to rival that of Britains. It is equally true that Ireland never had an opportunity to develop its own style of architecture (in historical terms).

How did it not have the opportunity? Did the British not give the latest on things like building designs, construction etc just as they were also given these qualities by others over the centuries?

The much loved way of life in Britain is similar to Ireland. Culturally, there are more similarities than differences between the two countries.

I wouldnt disagree that there is much in common, would it be fair to say many of these shared similarities cane from British influence?

Also, Irish history is possibly more popular than British history, as it is easier to romanticise a rebellious struggle than an imperial conquest.

What I was getting at was the vast amount of history that the British has compared to irish histroy.

It is true that Ireland has a long history of bloodshed, but the same is true of Britiain (even more so when you consider the way the empire operated), and of most countries in the world.

Of course the same is true of Britain but Britain also has an abundance of history that we should feel proud of.

To say that Ireland has a tragic history on one hand, while saying that Britains is glorious, does not stack up. Especially when a lot of Irelands tragedy was ''caused'' by Britains glory.

Oh blame the Brits for much of Irelands ills. Please note concerning British history I did point out that it was not all good or glorious. Republic no offence meant here but is this an Irish thing where parts of posts are purposely left out in order to back a debate/arguement?? This happens all the time with anything irish and it is something I cannot understand. For example I wrote 'I am very proud of the empire, I am very proud of its history while at the sametime wish some of that history never happened' and 'Jim if you go back over the centuries you will know many powerful countries acted in ways at times that would shock us all now and Britain was no different' and 'I am very proud of the Empire, its history and its glory but of course especially witht he world being what it was in those days there is much of history that is shocking, depressing and disappointing' etc etc, yet this has been ignored by yourself, I really dont understand it when this happens, why ignore these points, take snippets in order to take a post out of context. I never said what you accused me of.

Having a royal family does not make Britain better, it just makes it different. There are many around the world who would argue that a republic is better than a monarchy of any sort, but that is another discussion entirely.

No it does, Royalty is a major tourist attraction and it is something British people should be proud of especially with its long and rich history. Ever been to Buckingham Palace or Windsor?? Go there anyday of the week and you will see what I mean.

Also, when people go to Buckingham Palace, they are looking at the historical home of Irelands Kings and Queens too.

I am glad you added the word too there, the thousands who line the streets for a glimpse of Her Majesty are there to do exactly that. The Queen mother was probably my favourite Royal.

The long and rich history of Britains armed forces is a really strange point IMO. Like most armies, their history is bloody and brutal. I do not think having an empire is something to be proud of, but again, it doesn't make either of us better, just different.

Well I do think its something to be proud of and considering the standard that the British army was through the years, the battles they were involved in etc then that is something that makes me feel very proud and gives it the long and rich history. But of course there are plenty of downsides to any army and any battles.

Ireland also has a rich and vibrant history. Irish mythology is second only to Greek mythology.

Oh I know about those wee people that are meant to be running about and the lumps of wood that people are flocking to. ;D ;D

The language is one of the oldest in Europe. It was europes centre of learning in the dark ages.

I didnt know that about it being Europes learning centre.

Irelands writers have made significant contributions to English literature, Joyce, Beckett, Yeats, Wilde, etc. Irelands people have an impact around the world, most notably in America (including the Scotch-Irish). Irish soldiers made up a HUGE proportion of Britains imperial armies.

I did say about the writers and I have said many times about Irish people who fought for Britians armies.

I could go on, but my point is that the history of places is different, and vibrant in unique ways.

I never said it was not vibrant or anything like it, in general I find much of Ireland's history boring, that is outside world famous events such as the battle of the Boyne etc. Usually when I hear of Irish history it is about the big bad Brits, the big bad Prods/Unionists and how the British made the poor Irish starve while fattening up their own children.

Reagrding your points about WW2;
I don't want to get into a history debate but I would encourage you to put yourself in the shoes of an Irish man in 1939, just 17 years after the Black and Tans left Ireland. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the conflict, you can surely understand how the common man must have felt at the thought of having to team up with people who had previously made their lives hell.

Regardless of who was right and who was wrong I understand that point, but on something as massive as WW2 then I think the need to keep grievances going after almost 20 years should disappear and it didnt stop the many thousands who did join and fight.

I'll give you an example, imagine that 17 years after the last Provo bomb, the IRA needed your help? I don't think you would be likely to help them

Bad example, as I am always told here the ira are a private army and not a state force so they cant be compared, well that is unless it suits some on here to compare them. If after say the irish governments shame on extradition refusal over things like a full stop being missing, providing a terrorist haven for those attacking the UK, making speeches in America bleating on about the Brits while not mentioning republican terrorism etc etc and 17 years on they needed the UK to help them defeat the nazis which I am sure you will agree made events here seem like nothing then I would expect the UK to join other nations to fight, not act like cowards with a chip on their shoulders.

Of course it is easy to say now that Ireland should have fought in ww2, but if you put yourself in their shoes, you can at least see the logic of their position. Suporting Naziism had nothing to do with it, and it only derails the argument.

I think much of my posts shows where and when say the ira supported the nazis, where the Irish governement has only a few plaques for the thousands of Irishmen who died fighting the nazis yet they have a big statue of a nazi collaborator in their capitol. Speaks volumes IMHO.

E.g., I don't agree with the UVF of 1912, but I can at least put myself in their shoes and understand their fears, and why they acted the way they did. You should do the same.

See my answers above.

Btw, about the premier league, there is only one club from the PL that is loved all over the world. Manchester United

Dont make me sick. ;D

[Republic]

Nov 10, 2009 23:24:15 GMT Wasp said:

[

How did it not have the opportunity? Did the British not give the latest on things like building designs, construction etc just as they were also given these qualities by others over the centuries?

You misunderstood me. I meant that had Ireland been an independent country (which may have been impossible anyway, due to Europes imperial powers), an alternative style of Irish arcitecture may have developed.

I wouldnt disagree that there is much in common, would it be fair to say many of these shared similarities cane from British influence?

I would say they came from an intermingling of the two peoples, I don't think its a case of one culture unduly influencing the other.

What I was getting at was the vast amount of history that the British has compared to irish histroy.

I'm not entirely sure by what you mean here?

Of course the same is true of Britain but Britain also has an abundance of history that we should feel proud of.

I agree, ww2 being the prime example.

Oh blame the Brits for much of Irelands ills.

Come on WASP, if you think that is my angle, then you haven't been reading my posts the last few years.

Please note concerning British history I did point out that it was not all good or glorious. Republic no offence meant here but is this an Irish thing where parts of posts are purposely left out in order to back a debate/arguement?? This happens all the time with anything irish and it is something I cannot understand. For example I wrote 'I am very proud of the empire, I am very proud of its history while at the sametime wish some of that history never happened' and 'Jim if you go back over the centuries you will know many powerful countries acted in ways at times that would shock us all now and Britain was no different' and 'I am very proud of the Empire, its history and its glory but of course especially witht he world being what it was in those days there is much of history that is shocking, depressing and disappointing' etc etc, yet this has been ignored by yourself, I really dont understand it when this happens, why ignore these points, take snippets in order to take a post out of context. I never said what you accused me of.

I did not read the whole thread. I skimmed through it, as it was quite lengthy and difficult to get through. I obviously missed your points above. It was an oversight, and it honestly wasn't my intention to misrepresent you.

There is no need to say its an Irish thing, thats not a particularly nice remark IMO.

No it does, Royalty is a major tourist attraction and it is something British people should be proud of especially with its long and rich history. Ever been to Buckingham Palace or Windsor?? Go there anyday of the week and you will see what I mean.

I didn't say you shouldn't be proud of it. But having a royal family does not neccessarily make Britain a better country than others without a royal family. I am not criticising the royals at all.

I have never been to see Buckingham, but i am thinking of sending my parents to London for a break after xmas. I am sure they will go there, enjoy it, and manage to return without feeling like we are inferior because we haven't got a royal family.

I am glad you added the word too there, the thousands who line the streets for a glimpse of Her Majesty are there to do exactly that. The Queen mother was probably my favourite Royal.

Again, I have missed the significance of the word 'too'?

Well I do think its something to be proud of and considering the standard that the British army was through the years, the battles they were involved in etc then that is something that makes me feel very proud and gives it the long and rich history. But of course there are plenty of downsides to any army and any battles.

Thats fine, you are entitled to hold that view. I do not see colonial armies as anything glamorous.
I'm not saying the BA are the worst thing ever, or anything like it. They have had some admirable achievements over the years, but also some questionable ones.
I don't believe I am anti-Brit for saying that.

Oh I know about those wee people that are meant to be running about and the lumps of wood that people are flocking to. ;D ;D

Again, I'm lost??

I didnt know that about it being Europes learning centre.

OK, fair enough.

www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493

I did say about the writers and I have said many times about Irish people who fought for Britians armies.

I never said it was not vibrant or anything like it, in general I find much of Ireland's history boring, that is outside world famous events such as the battle of the Boyne etc. Usually when I hear of Irish history it is about the big bad Brits, the big bad Prods/Unionists and how the British made the poor Irish starve while fattening up their own children.

Much of history is boring, and I say that as a history-lover!

I cannot help the way you learn about Irish history, generally unionist/nationalist websites are poor places to learn, they are too heavily biased and people abuse conclusions to justify their own beliefs. That is why you hear cliches, you are looking in the wrong places.

I think you may find it more interesting if you were to read about it in your own time. There are some good general books on Irish history, that are relatively balanced and appeal to the general reader.

Regardless of who was right and who was wrong I understand that point, but on something as massive as WW2 then I think the need to keep grievances going after almost 20 years should disappear and it didnt stop the many thousands who did join and fight.

But it was more than a grievance, these men fought against each other. Its really not as simple as you make it.

Bad example, as I am always told here the ira are a private army and not a state force so they cant be compared, well that is unless it suits some on here to compare them.

ok, forget the example, my main point still remains without the example.

If after say the irish governments shame on extradition refusal over things like a full stop being missing, providing a terrorist haven for those attacking the UK, making speeches in America bleating on about the Brits while not mentioning republican terrorism etc etc and 17 years on they needed the UK to help them defeat the nazis which I am sure you will agree made events here seem like nothing then I would expect the UK to join other nations to fight, not act like cowards with a chip on their shoulders.

It was not about being cowards, you are literally butchering history here WASP.

I agree Ireland should have fought, but the reason for not doing so was not cowardice.

I think much of my posts shows where and when say the ira supported the nazis, where the Irish governement has only a few plaques for the thousands of Irishmen who died fighting the nazis yet they have a big statue of a nazi collaborator in their capitol. Speaks volumes IMHO.

The govt didn't put the statue there, no right-thinking person defends it.
It really is crrazy to think that the Irish gvt were Nazi supporters, it doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

[Wasp]

You misunderstood me. I meant that had Ireland been an independent country (which may have been impossible anyway, due to Europes imperial powers), an alternative style of Irish arcitecture may have developed.

No probs, it very well may have developed.

I would say they came from an intermingling of the two peoples, I don't think its a case of one culture unduly influencing the other.

That is true but I would say obviously because of the sheer size, population etc Britain had much more influence. But in relaity does it really matter who influenced who?

I'm not entirely sure by what you mean here?

Ok look at Britians role throughout the world over the centuries both the good and the bad, look at its vast empire that it once had etc etc. Thats what I was meaning.

I agree, ww2 being the prime example.

Wahey agreement

Come on WASP, if you think that is my angle, then you haven't been reading my posts the last few years.

No I dont think that but that is how your post came across.

I did not read the whole thread. I skimmed through it, as it was quite lengthy and difficult to get through. I obviously missed your points above. It was an oversight, and it honestly wasn't my intention to misrepresent you.

Again no problem, easily done.

There is no need to say its an Irish thing, thats not a particularly nice remark IMO.

What I meant was not to genralize irish people, I am of course talkingmainly about those on forums and forums was the examples I gave.

I didn't say you shouldn't be proud of it. But having a royal family does not neccessarily make Britain a better country than others without a royal family. I am not criticising the royals at all.

I know your not, but I beleive having a Royal family adds to the richness and depth of a countrys history and no one can deny the British Royal family is not very much part of this.

I have never been to see Buckingham, but i am thinking of sending my parents to London for a break after xmas. I am sure they will go there, enjoy it, and manage to return without feeling like we are inferior because we haven't got a royal family.

They will love it, and why the inferior comment?

Thats fine, you are entitled to hold that view. I do not see colonial armies as anything glamorous.
I'm not saying the BA are the worst thing ever, or anything like it. They have had some admirable achievements over the years, but also some questionable ones.

I think I more or less said that in my reply.


I don't believe I am anti-Brit for saying that.

Again, I'm lost??

It was a joke mate, when you said about irish mythology I said that about those we green leps with a pot of gold and that piece of wood that people believe is a shrine etc. Only a joke.

Much of history is boring, and I say that as a history-lover!

I ahve a history o level in social and economic history. ;D

I cannot help the way you learn about Irish history, generally unionist/nationalist websites are poor places to learn, they are too heavily biased and people abuse conclusions to justify their own beliefs. That is why you hear cliches, you are looking in the wrong places.

Err why are you accusing me of learning history on those sites??

I think you may find it more interesting if you were to read about it in your own time. There are some good general books on Irish history, that are relatively balanced and appeal to the general reader.

You have missed my points, let me try and explain again from a different angle. My main interest in history is the troubles and bothsides/both countires that were involved/affected by the troubles and there attempts at dealing with the troubles. My only other interests in irish history would be when someone say on here claims this or that and I would check up on it and at times gained an interest in the subject. BUT most of what I am interested in concerning irish history is sad and tragic, and when talking of hisroryand comparing British and irish history then much of my cooments concerns Ireland since partition as a nation rather than an island, which in fairness makes this aspect of history a recent and young one. Apart from that I have as much interest in other aspects of irish history as I have in French history, those who claim to be irish or are irish feel about irish history the way I feel about English/British history but I do not feel the same because I am not Irish just in the sameway I am not French.

But it was more than a grievance, these men fought against each other. Its really not as simple as you make it.

And what of the 70,000 odd Irishmen that did fight alongside there old enemy??

It was not about being cowards, you are literally butchering history here WASP.

Dev acted as a coward, nothing has ever been shown to me to think different.

I agree Ireland should have fought, but the reason for not doing so was not cowardice.

Cowardice was not the only reason, anti-British sentiments was a reason along with other reasons but the end result was the same and that was general cowardice.

The govt didn't put the statue there, no right-thinking person defends it.
It really is crrazy to think that the Irish gvt were Nazi supporters, it doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

Hang on did I say they were absolute nazi supporters?? Why does the governemnt allow it in the capitol in such a well known place?? Why were irishmen returning home from fighting shunned by the irish gov.?? Why is it that irish families/relatives of the fallen felt that they could not talk about there bravery or commemorate it?? When did the irish gov. first hold a commemoration parade for the irish fallen of WW2? Why is there only a few plaques honouring over 10,000 Irish dead yet a staute allowed in the capitol of Ireland of a nazi collaborator?

[Republic]

Nov 11, 2009 15:15:16 GMT Wasp said:

That is true but I would say obviously because of the sheer size, population etc Britain had much more influence. But in relaity does it really matter who influenced who?

Britain and Ireland did not have a huge difference in population until relatively recently. In the 19th century it was 13 million to 8 million at one point. Post-famine, the situation changed. And no, it doesn't matter who influenced who In any case, the two cultures are so closely related it would be an almost impossible task trying to say which is which.

Ok look at Britians role throughout the world over the centuries both the good and the bad, look at its vast empire that it once had etc etc. Thats what I was meaning.

ok thanks for the clarification.

I know your not, but I beleive having a Royal family adds to the richness and depth of a countrys history and no one can deny the British Royal family is not very much part of this.

Ok, I don't disagree.

They will love it, and why the inferior comment?

It wasn't a serious comment

It was a joke mate, when you said about irish mythology I said that about those we green leps with a pot of gold and that piece of wood that people believe is a shrine etc. Only a joke.

ok, went right over my head.

I ahve a history o level in social and economic history. ;D



Err why are you accusing me of learning history on those sites??

I didn't mean it as an accusation, its just that when we discuss history (not just you), we never talk about books really! We usually talk about interpretations of history.

You have missed my points, let me try and explain again from a different angle. My main interest in history is the troubles and bothsides/both countires that were involved/affected by the troubles and there attempts at dealing with the troubles. My only other interests in irish history would be when someone say on here claims this or that and I would check up on it and at times gained an interest in the subject. BUT most of what I am interested in concerning irish history is sad and tragic, and when talking of hisroryand comparing British and irish history then much of my cooments concerns Ireland since partition as a nation rather than an island, which in fairness makes this aspect of history a recent and young one. Apart from that I have as much interest in other aspects of irish history as I have in French history, those who claim to be irish or are irish feel about irish history the way I feel about English/British history but I do not feel the same because I am not Irish just in the sameway I am not French.

OK, a few points

1) The history of the troubles is incomplete, and will remain so for quite some time.
2) On that basis, it is difficult to have historical discussions, as we are talking politics more than history.
3) As we are talking politics, it is difficult to have unbiased discussions. Many (not just you) present historical evidence in order to prove your beliefs, rather than looking at all the evidence and then coming to a conclusion, as a historian would do.

And what of the 70,000 odd Irishmen that did fight alongside there old enemy??

I think they did an admirable thing. Its possible to understand both sides of it.

Dev acted as a coward, nothing has ever been shown to me to think different.

re ww2, I think it was a brave stance to defy Britain and Churchill especially. It wasn't a decision I agree with, but there is understandable logic behind it.

Cowardice was not the only reason, anti-British sentiments was a reason along with other reasons but the end result was the same and that was general cowardice.

The result was neutrality, not cowardice?

Hang on did I say they were absolute nazi supporters?? Why does the governemnt allow it in the capitol in such a well known place??

I don't know anything about it, I presume its a privately funded statue, therefore the govt cant do anything as we live in a free country. I certainly don't want any freedoms removed, even if it is so ridiculous as to have a Sean Russell statue there. Allowing it there is nothing to do with supporting the nazi party though. FF aren't that bad.

Why were irishmen returning home from fighting shunned by the irish gov.?? Why is it that irish families/relatives of the fallen felt that they could not talk about there bravery or commemorate it??

anti-british sentiment.

When did the irish gov. first hold a commemoration parade for the irish fallen of WW2?

haven't a clue, Ireland was neutral so I can't imagine the state really doing much.

Why is there only a few plaques honouring over 10,000 Irish dead yet a staute allowed in the capitol of Ireland of a nazi collaborator?

[/quote]

Dunno. Not being smart.


To get this thread back on track, what can/could you do to make nationalists feel more welcome in NI?
same Q for our nationalists!

[Wasp]

I didn't mean it as an accusation, its just that when we discuss history (not just you), we never talk about books really! We usually talk about interpretations of history.

When I read anything that catches my interest I normall check it elsewhere no matter what site I first read it on, it could be any history site, the BBC, a loyalists site or this site.

OK, a few points

1) The history of the troubles is incomplete, and will remain so for quite some time.
2) On that basis, it is difficult to have historical discussions, as we are talking politics more than history.
3) As we are talking politics, it is difficult to have unbiased discussions. Many (not just you) present historical evidence in order to prove your beliefs, rather than looking at all the evidence and then coming to a conclusion, as a historian would do.

I can understand that but surely someones politics and history surrounding those politics go hand in hand.

re ww2, I think it was a brave stance to defy Britain and Churchill especially. It wasn't a decision I agree with, but there is understandable logic behind it.

Sorry I disagree with the logic part. Is it true that the irish went to the British seeking assistance if the nazis were to invade/attack? Why send condolonces on the death of hitler? Why allow ireland to provide safe havens and protect nazis? Why only in recent years acknowledge those brave irishmen who fought and died during WW2 Etc etc etc???

The result was neutrality, not cowardice?

No IMHO it was mainly cowardice and that old chip firmly cemented on many irish shoulders concerning the British.

I don't know anything about it, I presume its a privately funded statue, therefore the govt cant do anything as we live in a free country. I certainly don't want any freedoms removed, even if it is so ridiculous as to have a Sean Russell statue there. Allowing it there is nothing to do with supporting the nazi party though. FF aren't that bad.

Yet only a few plaques honouring those who helped make sure you now live in a free country.

anti-british sentiment.

Just shows the sad bigoted nature then of those that treated them this way.

[Republic]

Nov 12, 2009 16:38:59 GMT Wasp said:

I can understand that but surely someones politics and history surrounding those politics go hand in hand.

Yes but if you are going to approach it with an aim of reaching a preconceived conclusion, then it is not true analsyis.

Sorry I disagree with the logic part.

Why?

Is it true that the irish went to the British seeking assistance if the nazis were to invade/attack?

I'm not entirely sure. What I do know is that any German invasion would have been quickly followed by a British invasion. It was agreed that Britain would not invade until Dev made a formal request. It was done to allow Dev to save face. You can bet your bottom dollar that if the request was not forthcoming, Chruchill would have invaded anyway

Why send condolonces on the death of hitler?

It was to maintain the image of neutrality. This is basic stuff.

Why allow ireland to provide safe havens and protect nazis?

Ireland also provided more help to the allies. You can't just acknowledge one, and not the other.

Why only in recent years acknowledge those brave irishmen who fought and died during WW2 Etc etc etc???

Because the state was officially neutral.

No IMHO it was mainly cowardice and that old chip firmly cemented on many irish shoulders concerning the British.

Your opinion is not backed up by solid historical evidence though. Its an opinion not based on real historical research.

There was indeed a chip, and it should be quite obvious where it came from (the small matter of a war about 17 years previous).

Just shows the sad bigoted nature then of those that treated them this way.

Hold on WASP, can you not see why some people would have felt a grudge towards Britain? After having been at war with them? You can't see the reason for it?
There was considerable anti-Irish sentiment from Britain, but I can understand completely why they felt that way, even though I don't agree with it. Why can't you do the same?

And please, I am still interested in hearing how you would make nationalists feel more welcome in NI? It is the subject of the thread after all!