|
Post by Jim on Apr 15, 2008 17:05:39 GMT
I don't think using a plan for the future from a song title is very realistic and I can't think of Republicans that sing that song when thinking about their ideal future. Ireland was considered a nation (i.e one entity) within the UK when the "kingdoms" where made into "provinces" and divided by a county by county basis. Its a system that was kept after the south split from the UK and I see nothing wrong with it. What it was cosidered (by some) and what it was are two totally different things. And this thread was a historical one, so it was not looking to the future, it was looking back. The only thing that united the Irish was a common enemy, the British. Now I don't think todays republicans care one iota about Ireland, if you could just get those who see themselves as British off it, it could be as many countries as you like. They are still fighting a war that started centuries ago, it is a hatred for all things British that drives them, not a love for Ireland. Then you clearly don't understand Republicans. I've personally no hatred for Britain, I live here now, I'm knowlegable about my culture and am open about who I am so nothing I think is based on hatred for Britain. I could equally say loyalism is not about loyaity to Britain but to "Ulster" and based on an irrational fear and hatred of any other part of Ireland, there is indeed evidence to back that up but its hardly a correct analysis in the end, it doesnt completely add up and the movement and people is just too big to wind it up to that conclusion. Likewise for Republicanism I would say.
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 15, 2008 17:50:41 GMT
What it was cosidered (by some) and what it was are two totally different things. And this thread was a historical one, so it was not looking to the future, it was looking back. The only thing that united the Irish was a common enemy, the British. Now I don't think todays republicans care one iota about Ireland, if you could just get those who see themselves as British off it, it could be as many countries as you like. They are still fighting a war that started centuries ago, it is a hatred for all things British that drives them, not a love for Ireland. Then you clearly don't understand Republicans. I've personally no hatred for Britain, I live here now, I'm knowlegable about my culture and am open about who I am so nothing I think is based on hatred for Britain. I could equally say loyalism is not about loyaity to Britain but to "Ulster" and based on an irrational fear and hatred of any other part of Ireland, there is indeed evidence to back that up but its hardly a correct analysis in the end, it doesnt completely add up and the movement and people is just too big to wind it up to that conclusion. Likewise for Republicanism I would say. No I don't understand republicans at all you are right, and I don't think I ever will. Killing Irish people in the name of Ireland I will never understand. I think you will find that loyalists don't give two fiddlers about any other part of the island of Ireland. Since partition there has been no great movement aimed at ridding the island of those from the republic. Any loyalist I know is of the exact opposite view you expressed. They couldn't care less what happens in the republic, and they don't want anything to do with it. The fear they have, and it's not irrational, is off those within the borders of Northern Ireland who are prepared to do just about anything to rid this island of those who see themselves as British. I wouldn't try to argue that point because the previous 40 years of history are all the proof I need. I lived through it I didn't read some biased history book to get my information. No one here that I know of wants the republic. And you are right we are more Northern Irish than british, but so to are the scots more scots, and the welsh more welsh, and even the English more English, but they are all British. You could go on to break that down to Geordie, scoucers, brummies etc. etc but that would be ridiculous just as your whole argument is.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 15, 2008 18:51:49 GMT
My point with loyalists is some may feel more of an attatchment to ulster than to britain yet others will not, thats the idea I got from the books I read on loyalism, thats how they were portrayed, I said nothing about the republic.
None of what you said has anything to do with my post, you're going on a rant.
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 15, 2008 20:34:49 GMT
My point with loyalists is some may feel more of an attatchment to ulster than to britain yet others will not, thats the idea I got from the books I read on loyalism, thats how they were portrayed, I said nothing about the republic. None of what you said has anything to do with my post, you're going on a rant. You said and I quote "and based on an irrational fear and hatred of any other part of Ireland, there is indeed evidence to back that up", when referring to loyalists. And I answered it. You also said I didn't understand republicans and all I did was confirm that. I also pointed out that loyalists were not so strange because they behaved just like the other citezens of the UK, and gave examples. So how is it just a rant?
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 15, 2008 21:30:18 GMT
Good to see the republican lies about a nation once again are being proved here. Any republican that I have met has always used this arguement and wanting Ireland to be united the way it was. Obviously that never was and hopefully these historians will get all this into the school history topics.
Eoin MacNeill[co-founder of the Gaelic League,and one-time Professor of Early Irish History] firmly believed that the Cruithin and the Picts were of the same Pretanic stock. Cardinal Tomas O'Fiaich, aprops of the coming of the Celts to Ireland wrote, 'With their arrival a new era had begun in Ireland. The Picts in Ulster and other PRE-CELTIC peoples were overthrown.
I must admit I smiled from ear to ear telling a few today that it took the hated Brits to unite Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 16, 2008 11:31:00 GMT
Good to see the republican lies about a nation once again are being proved here. where have any of us said that Ireland was a Nation State? If you read ALL of our posts you will see that Ireland was united under the old feudal system, as well as having the same language, customs and following the same laws and Irelands development into a nation state was interupted by invasion. You are repeating what You think Republicans think of history. Not what we actually know! ehhh it's there. It;s been said already!! yeah we'll they were wrong according to what we know. I must admit I smiled from ear to ear telling a few today that it took the hated Brits to unite Ireland. but it didn't! We were under British occupation when the Nation State emerged! but we were .............. ahhh I've already said it anyhoooooooo WASP, seeing as you're in a good mood can you tell me how Ulster was always seperate and different?[/quote][/b][/i] Setanta everytime somone tries to do this we are told it's garbage because it's not something you learned in school.
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 16, 2008 11:48:35 GMT
No, I have disagreed with the first post because it's not based on anything substantial, just his opinion. Was there different, laws, customs, language, traditions, culture? and I'd never say garbage. I'm Irish. We say RUBBISH!! It's not something substantial to you becuse you prefer not to believe it. Yes as they do, even today, and have always done. All parts of Ireland have differences in the things you mention and have always done. Anyway the things you are talking about do not make a soverign state. The French and Belgians share all of the above, but try telling a Belgian he's french.
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 16, 2008 12:58:04 GMT
Here, you lay it out and I'll give it a fair go. You try telling a Belgian from Flanders that. Yeah that's a bit like trying to tell someone from the Falls he/she is British.
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 16, 2008 14:20:39 GMT
No, I have disagreed with the first post because it's not based on anything substantial, just his opinion. Was there different, laws, customs, language, traditions, culture? and I'd never say garbage. I'm Irish. We say RUBBISH!! It's not something substantial to you becuse you prefer not to believe it. Yes as they do, even today, and have always done. All parts of Ireland have differences in the things you mention and have always done. Anyway the things you are talking about do not make a soverign state. The French and Belgians share all of the above, but try telling a Belgian he's french. Bilk, What's to believe there? His word? There are no facts there to believe. The author: Paul Blanshard A descendant of three generations of Protestant clergymen, Blanshard was trained in both theology and law, and was a member of the New York bar.
His most famous writing was a series of articles attacking the Roman Catholic Church in America as a dangerous, powerful and undemocratic institution.Straight away we see that this guy has a motive for saying what he does. So if you class any Irish historian as a biased source, then you would have to class this chap into the same category. This extract is probably from his book "the Irish and Catholic Power". It would seem that for this book, he came to Ireland back during Dev's time in charge. He went north and south. So you have to ask yourself where he got the above information from, and given his anti-Catholic nature, what information he was going to dismiss without a second thought. I conclude that this guy is printing second hand information that he got from his Unionist friends back in the day. This information is not based on any kind of social or historical studies of the Ireland around the time quoted in the piece. I challenge any Unionist to find any information that helps this theory, other than a big ditch and the fact Ulster had a king (Like all the other kingdoms of Ireland!). *Ulster had the same religion as the rest of the island - prove other wise *Ulster spoke the same language as the rest of the island - prove other wise *Ulster had the same customs as the rest of the island - prove other wise *Ulster had the same traditions as the rest of the island - prove other wise *Ulster had the same code of laws as the rest of the island - prove other wise If you can't even come close to any of these, you are wasting your time.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 16, 2008 16:06:47 GMT
My point with loyalists is some may feel more of an attatchment to ulster than to britain yet others will not, thats the idea I got from the books I read on loyalism, thats how they were portrayed, I said nothing about the republic. None of what you said has anything to do with my post, you're going on a rant. You said and I quote "and based on an irrational fear and hatred of any other part of Ireland, there is indeed evidence to back that up", when referring to loyalists. And I answered it. You also said I didn't understand republicans and all I did was confirm that. I also pointed out that loyalists were not so strange because they behaved just like the other citezens of the UK, and gave examples. So how is it just a rant? Aye, you did answer, then you started ranting. Are we going to keep this to a more historical argument or what mate? We know what happened during the troubles, it wasnt the intent of my post. Fears of the rest of Ireland is a modern thing. so Blik, you use pretty much the same argument that people in Cornwall use, they we are are from a different stock and not the same as the rest of the island, are the people in Cornwall who consider themselves Cornish nationalists correct also? Are they more than just a county of England? Afterall you are implying that Ulster is and was a different country from Ireland under the assumption that the other 3 (4 at one point!) provinces where somehow united against the brave Ulster hordes or something along those lines, its certainly part of loyalist propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 16, 2008 16:31:39 GMT
Look I don't need to prove anything here, nationalists on here quote Irish historians all day long and I never ask them to prove anything. I am merely pointing out there are historians who disagree with their view of history. But when I do I'm hit with "Ah but he/she is "decended from three generations of protestan unionists". Why should their opinion be scorned because of their roots. I don't scorn Irish writers because of their roots. This is typical republican speak, only the Irish tell the truth. Everybody else is a liar and is making it all up. I refuse to discuss this with anyone with that mindset.
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 16, 2008 16:37:44 GMT
It's not something substantial to you becuse you prefer not to believe it. Yes as they do, even today, and have always done. All parts of Ireland have differences in the things you mention and have always done. Anyway the things you are talking about do not make a soverign state. The French and Belgians share all of the above, but try telling a Belgian he's french. Bilk, What's to believe there? His word? There are no facts there to believe. The author: Paul Blanshard A descendant of three generations of Protestant clergymen, Blanshard was trained in both theology and law, and was a member of the New York bar.
His most famous writing was a series of articles attacking the Roman Catholic Church in America as a dangerous, powerful and undemocratic institution.Straight away we see that this guy has a motive for saying what he does. So if you class any Irish historian as a biased source, then you would have to class this chap into the same category. This extract is probably from his book "the Irish and Catholic Power". It would seem that for this book, he came to Ireland back during Dev's time in charge. He went north and south. So you have to ask yourself where he got the above information from, and given his anti-Catholic nature, what information he was going to dismiss without a second thought. I conclude that this guy is printing second hand information that he got from his Unionist friends back in the day. This information is not based on any kind of social or historical studies of the Ireland around the time quoted in the piece. I challenge any Unionist to find any information that helps this theory, other than a big ditch and the fact Ulster had a king (Like all the other kingdoms of Ireland!). *Ulster had the same religion as the rest of the island - prove other wise *Ulster spoke the same language as the rest of the island - prove other wise *Ulster had the same customs as the rest of the island - prove other wise *Ulster had the same traditions as the rest of the island - prove other wise *Ulster had the same code of laws as the rest of the island - prove other wise If you can't even come close to any of these, you are wasting your time. Since none of todays historians were around in the period we are discussing, they are all quoting secon hand information, and that includes those who agree with you. No I can't prove what I'm saying any more than you can. And none of the things you have set out above make a country.
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 16, 2008 17:15:40 GMT
*Ulster had the same religion as the rest of the island
*Ulster spoke the same language as the rest of the island
*Ulster had the same customs as the rest of the island
*Ulster had the same traditions as the rest of the island
*Ulster had the same code of laws as the rest of the island
These points are all proven through archaeology, genetics and custom. To suggest that one half of my family were separated in any way from the rest of the island is ridiculous and has never been proved.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 16, 2008 17:31:11 GMT
Look I don't need to prove anything here, nationalists on here quote Irish historians all day long and I never ask them to prove anything. I am merely pointing out there are historians who disagree with their view of history. But when I do I'm hit with "Ah but he/she is "decended from three generations of protestan unionists". Why should their opinion be scorned because of their roots. I don't scorn Irish writers because of their roots. This is typical republican speak, only the Irish tell the truth. Everybody else is a liar and is making it all up. I refuse to discuss this with anyone with that mindset. I've said nowt about historians I don't think, I just asked you a question. Do you think Cornish nationalists are right since they put up pretty much the same argument as you do? The rest of England seem to think theyre a laughing matter when they bang on about the cornish nation.
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 16, 2008 17:40:57 GMT
I wasn't talking about you jim, this is what I was talking about.
"A descendant of three generations of Protestant clergymen, Blanshard was trained in both theology and law, and was a member of the New York bar."
He's an American, but he doesn't see himself as Irish American, so that makes him a liar.
|
|