Lamh Foistenach Abu!
Posted on 06/15/2010 1:39:06 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
Arrogant of you. What about Scotland?
You forgot the Manx. :)
What principle? The Brits recognized Irish independence. Is that not a principle? How then could they keep a major Irish population ON THE ISLE OF IRELAND from being part of that nation on their own island?
Because a majority of the people on that part of Ireland did not WANT to be part of that nation. Violently did not. You might equally say that the British recognised American independence but then kept a major part of the population ON THE CONTINENT OF AMERICA from being part of that nation (Canada). The principle is called "self-determination".
No. The Normans were merely first. The English (English and Scots really) came in the 16th and 17th centuries and brutalized the Irish.
But it was the Normans who got the "English" involved in Ireland in the first place. There would have been no Pale to maintain and defend in the 16th and 17th centuries if the Normans hadnt gotten us involved. Prior to that, it was the Irish who attacked mainland Britain. Irish raids on the west coast were a major nuisance for five centuries or more.
BTW a very large number of "nationalist" Irish skipped over the border and waved Tricolors when WW2 broke out, claiming they were citizens of the Republic and hence not liable for military service. They and their descendents were subsequently all too ready to come back and be British so they could claim generous UK welfare benefits (while at the same time pushing for a United Ireland). Its no wonder the demographics are working for them.
Not at first, but yes, eventually the communists infiltrated the organisation and took it over.
Yes, driving the protestants out of Ireland helps as well. Tens of thousands fled the violence.
Gentlemen. England has, at one time or another, been short of stability, cash, technology, ideas and military might. But the one thihg we are NEVER short of is enemies :)
You wrote:
“Because a majority of the people on that part of Ireland did not WANT to be part of that nation. Violently did not.”
And yet soon they will. The majority is now changing - in fact some people believe it already has. So, will the UK give up Northern Ireland to Ireland when Northern Ireland is majority Irish?
“You might equally say that the British recognised American independence but then kept a major part of the population ON THE CONTINENT OF AMERICA from being part of that nation (Canada). The principle is called “self-determination”.”
Incorrect. The principle is called violent revolution. The Americans won it and the British lost it. We even chased the pro-British Tories out off their own property at times to make sure we won and didn’t have later problems. So, if the Irish use that principle - violent revolution - then it’s okay, right? Oh, wait...
“But it was the Normans who got the “English” involved in Ireland in the first place. There would have been no Pale to maintain and defend in the 16th and 17th centuries if the Normans hadnt gotten us involved.”
Us? There ain’t no “us” in this between you and me. And you were still wrong. The “pale” was not in the north.
“Prior to that, it was the Irish who attacked mainland Britain. Irish raids on the west coast were a major nuisance for five centuries or more.”
And teh Anglo-Saxons were raiders themselves.
Lamh Foistenach Abu!
The protestants want it both ways. Aggressors and victims. If they fled violence it was violence perpetrated by their own people.
The Catholics in the Republic have never treated the protestants with the same kind of brutality that the Brits/protestants in the north treated Catholics.
Incorrect. The principle is called violent revolution. The Americans won it and the British lost it.
Nicely deflected. The issue was about the continuing existence of Canada.
We even chased the pro-British Tories out off their own property at times to make sure we won and didn’t have later problems.,p> Yeah, I know. So much for "freedom" and "liberty". Yes you can have it, as long as you agree with us. Otherwise we tar and feather you, deny you your right to vote, and subject you to punitive taxation. And it did cause you future problems when you attempted to conquer Canada in 1812. Curiously the locals didn't care to share your "freedom".
So, if the Irish use that principle - violent revolution - then it’s okay, right? Oh, wait...
But they DID use that principle, didnt they?
Us? There ain’t no “us” in this between you and me. And you were still wrong. The “pale” was not in the north.,p> Again, wonderfully deflected. By "us" I meant me, my compatriots and my ancestors. Im sure it doesnt mean you. As for the Pale, I'm aware it was not in the north. That is immaterial to the argument. The point is that the Norman invasion of Ireland, which set up the Pale (basically east central ireland), got England involved in the island's affairs.
And teh Anglo-Saxons were raiders themselves.
But not of Ireland.
You wrote:
“YES. Quite emphatically yes. Britain retains Northern Ireland solely because the majority there wish it.”
Then the American Revolution was wrong since it did not necessarily have the support of a majority of Americans. If some colonies were more supportive than others, should they have remained part of Britain? And, you’re still missing the obvious point - MOST of Ireland wanted independence from the UK. To say that a few counties - only 6 - had more bigots and therefore the whole native population of those counties would have to give up their rights to foreign invaders and occupiers is ridiculous.
“When that no longer becomes the case, when they wish to be part of a United Ireland, then they can do so. What, you think we want to hold onto NI for any other reason? Its of no strategic importance, its certainly of no economic importance.”
actually at the time it was both or economic and military value. The port was extremely useful throughout the Second World War, for instance. But the simple fact is that there is a chance that Scotland and Wales might want the British out soon too. Will the British leave?
“Nicely deflected. The issue was about the continuing existence of Canada.”
The issue is Northern Ireland.
“Yeah, I know. So much for “freedom” and “liberty”.”
Freedom and liberty were maintained - for those who believed in it. Those who sided with the oppressive British were forced out. Side with repressive scum and that’s what happens.
“Yes you can have it, as long as you agree with us. Otherwise we tar and feather you, deny you your right to vote, and subject you to punitive taxation.”
Amen. Those opposed to freedom should be sent to live with the oppressors they support. And that is still better than how the English treated Scots, Welsh and the Irish.
“And it did cause you future problems when you attempted to conquer Canada in 1812.”
We never really tried. I know Canadians love to think that, but we made a rather half hearted attempt at attacking the British there. If we really wanted to take Canada, we would have done it. There was nothing stopping us in 1814-1815, for instancem when Britain had their hands full with Napoleon. We spread clear across the continent. If we wanted Canada, we would have taken it.
“Curiously the locals didn’t care to share your “freedom”.”
People reject freedom all the time. I would not be surprised that the French - who grew up in a repressive society - would reject a free society. And I am not surprised that the descendents of Tories - who sided with oppressors - would reject freedom.
“But they DID use that principle, didnt they?”
And that got them 26 counties. Six to go I guess.
” Again, wonderfully deflected.”
No deflection. Your vague writing is your problem, not my deflection.
“By “us” I meant me, my compatriots and my ancestors. Im sure it doesnt mean you. As for the Pale, I’m aware it was not in the north. That is immaterial to the argument.”
Nope. Since the argument is NORTHERN Ireland it is material where the pale was.
“The point is that the Norman invasion of Ireland, which set up the Pale (basically east central ireland), got England involved in the island’s affairs.”
England had already been involed in Ireland’s affairs.
“But not of Ireland.”
According to you they didn’t have to be.
The Catholics in the Republic may never have treated the protestants with brutality, but then they don't need to do they? Protestants are such a small minority there, and anyway, the nationalists won.
I deny the implication that its the Brits/protestants who commit all the brutality. I know a lot of people from Northern Ireland and a lot of people who have been there. I can state quite categorically that the two sides are as bad as each other. I also know a lot of British soldiers who served there during "the troubles", as it was known, and I can assure you they were completely unbiased - catholic/nationalist or protestant/unionist, the British army hated the lot of them!
The British army quickly waded into "the troubles" on the side of the unionists. Military intelligence and supplies were given to the protestants to be used against the Catholics.
As for your assertion that the Catholics in the Republic only treated the protestants there with decency because they were a small minority. Nonsense. Catholics in the Republic treated the protestants fairly because they saw them as human beings. Quite different than the British viewed the Irish.
Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been having a new stove fitted so that I can boil Irish Catholics - eating them raw is too much for my deformed British teeth these days.
The key to understanding Ireland is that the two sides are utterly opposed and have an extremist, fundamentalist mentality that means they are convinced that they are in the right. It therefore follows that anyone who is not 100% behind them is utterly wrong, and probably evil, twisted, tyrannical and so on. Your contention that "the British army quickly waded into "the troubles" on the side of the unionists" is typical of this kind of mindset. Some individual soldiers probably did (mostly through contacts with the heavily protestant local militia regiment, the UDR). In fact the British army was first deployed to PROTECT the nationalists from unionist agression. Catholics were handing them cups of tea in the streets. And then, naturally enough, when they started violence of their own against Unionists, the army moved to stop them too, and this was interpreted as "turning against them".
And I dont believe my assertion was that Catholics in the Republic only treated protestants with decency because they were a minority. My contention is that very small minorities are not seen as a threat, and therefore are ignored. Kind of like Mexicans in sw USA fifty years back. Or Muslims in Europe twenty years back. I never said anything about "decency".
You are either willfully ignorant or deliberately obtuse. Supposedly the British Army was brought in to protect the Catholics from the protestant paramilitaries, yet they immediately sided with the unionists and provided them with military weapons and intelligence services. The whole British military sided with the unionists thugs and that was the plan from the beginning.
And I dont believe my assertion was that Catholics in the Republic only treated protestants with decency because they were a minority. My contention is that very small minorities are not seen as a threat, and therefore are ignored.
Your justification is pointless. The protestants in the Republic were treated with decency while the Catholics in the north have always been treated poorly by the British and that is because of how they viewed each other.
The British have always had a superiority complex. Funny coming from a country that practically invented flamboyant homosexuality so much so that it is referred to as the English Disease.
If you think higher rates of "birth control" explains how the Protestant population of vast tracts of Ireland declined from 30%, to 0-5%, in the decades after the Republic was established, I've some exciting investment opportunities for you.
That figure (post 18) is over 160 years.
Yet you are unwilling to examine how large numbers of protestants came to Ireland, to rob the inhabitants of their land and enslave them.
Get the idea? You can't keep fighting these battles all the time. No modern day Briton is responsible for the plantation in Ireland, or for the Drogheda massacre. And yet, I have to put up with all this BS. I don't curse all Irishmen because the IRA blew up my town's shopping centre because I know that's unfair. So let the past and its arguments go.
If you're going to believe that the British Government had a deliberate policy like that then this discussion is pointless. There is nothing I can say that will change your mind. All I will say is that when I postulated to an ex-soldier friend of mine that the British Army would be more sympathetic to the Unionists, he said that the Unionists did go through phases when they were very pro-army, but then something would happen, the army would arrest some protestant paramilitaries or something, and it would be back to being insulted and having things thrown at them. He then said something very profound that I have always remembered. "They're not what I would call loyalists". Now that came from a guy who was a True Brit, a Colonel of twenty years service.
As for this nonsense about "superiority complex" - I dont know what you mean by that. You mean being patriotic? Being proud of your own culture and nation? Isn't that a good thing? Anyway, its better than the martyr complex so often exhibited by our Celtic neighbours - "Self love is not so vile a sin as self-loathing" (Shakespeare)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.