Posted on 06/15/2010 1:39:06 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
Have the Irish ever attempted genocide of the Brits? No. Have the Brits every attempted genocide of the Irish? NO - except in the fertile mind of the wazoo.
Have the Irish ever tried to starve the nation of Britain out of existence? No. Have the British ever tried to starve the land (not nation) of Ireland out of existence? No actually.
Have the Irish ever forced the British out their homeland and sent them to barren lands half-way around the world? No. Have the British ever forced the Irish out of their homeland and sent them to barren lands half-way around the world? No.
Have the Irish ever invaded and colonized the nation of Britain? No. Err actually...YES....they have.
Yes. Like Canada did.
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.
No I think it is you who are missing the obvious point. You say that because only six counties didn't want independence from Britain, they shouldn't be able to overide the wishes of the majority of Ireland who did. But by the same token, I could say the wishes of the minority of people in Ireland for independence should not overide the wishes of the majority of Britons (because Irish people were Britons at the time) that there should be a union. This is the classical dilemma for democratic societies. If you have a system whereby majority rules, how do you prevent the deeply held beliefs of minorities from being completely trampled on? Partitioning Ireland was hardly an ideal solution, but the alternative would have been full scale civil war. The Unionists were not bluffing in 1914. The British government had all but passed the Home Rule bill, in which case they would have had to enforce it, and in that case, the Unionists WOULD have fought it.
actually at the time it was both or economic and military value. The port was extremely useful throughout the Second World War, for instance.
True enough. But it isn't now.
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?
British or English? Well, there is a chance that the Scots and the Welsh will embrace the extreme racism of the Irish, in which case the English might very well agree to disolve the union. I personally believe that would be unwise, because A) I think the Union is of benefit to all concerned and B) history indicates the island isn't big enough for more than one government.
The issue is Northern Ireland.
Not at that particular point it wasn't.
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.
So in other words, your "freedom" consists in being allowed to agree with one interpretation of what "freedom" is?
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.
I think I would prefer to be opposed to that kind of "freedom".
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.
LOL...that is complete and utter BS. I'm sorry it just is. Made a rather half-hearted attempt? That's an excuse to cover up the embarrassing truth that you got your asses whooped.
And I am not surprised that the descendents of Tories - who sided with oppressors - would reject freedom.
They rejected YOUR interpretation of freedom - and as it was presented at the point of a gun, why wouldnt they?
“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.
When? And how?
Thank you. I try! :)
I'm sure that you are too obtuse to see the utter hypocrisy in that statement.
You wrote:
“Yes. Like Canada did.”
Canada was not one of the colonies in question. Try again.
“No I think it is you who are missing the obvious point. You say that because only six counties didn’t want independence from Britain, they shouldn’t be able to overide the wishes of the majority of Ireland who did. But by the same token, I could say the wishes of the minority of people in Ireland for independence should not overide the wishes of the majority of Britons (because Irish people were Britons at the time) that there should be a union.”
And you’re wrong. The Irish were the native people and never aked to be Brtish subjects. They were an enslaved population with the language banned, their religion proscribed, the property and all their rights stolen. Some of these oppressions eased considerably in the 19th century, but that does not change the fact that the Brits were foeign oppressors oppressing a native people. They were not the same people, did not share a common heritage.
“This is the classical dilemma for democratic societies. If you have a system whereby majority rules, how do you prevent the deeply held beliefs of minorities from being completely trampled on?”
The Irish were NOT a minority but the majority in Ireland.
“Partitioning Ireland was hardly an ideal solution, but the alternative would have been full scale civil war.”
No it would not. 1) There was already a civil war in Ireland over the partitioning so saying it was done to avoid civil war is just stupid. 2) Those who wanted to leave could.
“The Unionists were not bluffing in 1914. The British government had all but passed the Home Rule bill, in which case they would have had to enforce it, and in that case, the Unionists WOULD have fought it.”
And the problem would have been what? Oppressors putting down their own trained servant oppressors? at if Britain put down the Unionists after a unionist uprising? So what? How would that be a bad thing? Oppressive scum killing oppressive scum. The world would have been a better place - at least for the Irish.
“True enough. But it isn’t now.”
Irrelevant.
“British or English? Well, there is a chance that the Scots and the Welsh will embrace the extreme racism of the Irish, in which case the English might very well agree to disolve the union.”
There’s no racism involved. All the people involved are caucasion. They are all white peoples. It is literally impossible for a white Irishmen to be racist against a white English man.
“I personally believe that would be unwise, because A) I think the Union is of benefit to all concerned and B) history indicates the island isn’t big enough for more than one government.”
The island is plenty big enough. The problem, historically, has been English greed and desire for domination.
“So in other words, your “freedom” consists in being allowed to agree with one interpretation of what “freedom” is?”
The Irish BEFORE ousting the Brits were not free. They were afterward.
“I think I would prefer to be opposed to that kind of “freedom”.”
One day you might have a Muslim or Asian oppressor who can teach you otherwise.
“LOL...that is complete and utter BS. I’m sorry it just is. Made a rather half-hearted attempt? That’s an excuse to cover up the embarrassing truth that you got your asses whooped.”
No, actually it is the truth. Where was the conquest of Canada in 1840? 1860? 1890? 1920? 1950? Was there really anything stopping us from conquering Canada in those years other than our own affairs and decisions? No. We could do it tomrrow if we wanted, but we’re just not interested. If we were interested in conquering Canada, it would have happened sometime over the last 200 years. The simple fact is we have not been interested in doing it. If Canada splits up - a possibility - then we might have to do something.
“They rejected YOUR interpretation of freedom - and as it was presented at the point of a gun, why wouldnt they?”
Because by doing so they betrayed higher ideals and their neighbors for foreign crown of oppressors.
“When? And how?”
If you don’t know, I suggest you read some history. You must have libraries even in Canada. :)
[....snip....]
>>>>> "There's no racism involved. All the people involved are caucasion. They are all white peoples. It is literally impossible for a white Irishmen to be racist against a white English man." <<<<<
All these people may be caucasian, but it was my understanding that an one time the English considered the Irish to not only be non-white, but to actually verge on being non-human, and felt justified in shipping hundreds of thousands of them to the Caribbean as slave labor on sugar plantations.
This sort of thing is so quintessentially 60’s liberal. Long after an event, whose consequences cannot be changed (and which are probably smaller than claimed), people who had nothing to do with its cause “apologize” to people who were not affected by it.
In some cases, the “apology” when made official by government, includes stealing money from other people (taxes), to make payments part of the “apology”.
The intended effect is to curry favor and to buy continued political loyalty.
This is what happens when the welfare state grows to the point where there are no entitlements left to give, without looking utterly absurd, or when cover is needed in making payoffs to specific groups.
It’s a wealth transfer and political bribe, pure and simple.
I find that today it is easy to understand all actions of government if you look at them entirely in terms of government revenue and wealth transfer to political favorites, or taxation to punish political enemies.
The extreme racism of the IRISH???????
What are you smoking?
Incidentally, do you have any idea where the Scoti came from, and what the word Scoti means???? Evidently you lack access to history books.
One story was made up by the Brits over the last few hundred years based on incomplete archaeological work and ancient records left in various places in the UK. The other story was derived from far more ancient documents left in various places in NW Spain.
Subsequently it's been found that the contemporary records in Eastern France pretty much support the Spanish stories, and they've in fact been substantiated to a great degree by recent archaeological finds.
Doesn't mean any of these stories are correct of course. However, here's what I've picked up ~ mostly from the Spanish (Galician) sources.
Stage One ~ the coming of Scota to Galicia (in NW Spain). There's a well traveled route first carved out by the Phoenicians who discovered tin in what is now Cornwall. They sailed out the Mediterranean, through straights of Gibraltar, to the NW past Ireland and then came back in to Cornwall.
Then one day there was a rebellion on the Danube where the German tributary tribes overthrew their masters who spoke Gaelic. There are actually later Greek records that reflect this event ~ but that's about it.
We do know from archaeological study that the Gaelic speaking people took to their ships, sailed into the Black Sea and from there began a couple of centuries of commercial transport hither and yon throughout the Mediterranean. Finally, for a variety of unknown and unknowable reasons they sailed to the ancient Phoenician lighthouse on the shore of NW Spain. There they weighed anchor and set up a state.
They appear to have used Greek as a written language however ~ some linguistic analysts have argued that ancient Gaelic and ancient Greek were essentially the same language except for the internal timing and a number of dipthongs. There's not much on that, but a much more recent computer analysis indicated there's a remarkably similar substrate in both ~ not at all apparent in modern languages derived from either.
By 700 BC these Gaelic speakers had carved out a serious place for themselves in an area otherwise overrun by far more primitive Basque speakers.
The chief goddess of the Gaelic speakers was Scota ~ hence the source of the later term Scoti. They were led by Mil (another name for "man"), and were called the Milesians. He had sons, among them Ir (used later for Ireland).
Up until quite recently the Brits derided the Galatian stories as total vomit and hogwash. Then DNA research discovered that the modern Irish population was, for all practical purposes, IDENTICAL to the modern Basque population!
The Gaelic speakers from Galatia then took their servants with them across the Bay of Biscay to Ireland and took over imposing both their language(s) and their genes on the inhabitants.
Apparantly the natives were none too numerous because their genes don't show up at all in Ireland.
The territory became known as Scotia. Later on when the Scoti moved to Scotland, Scotia became known as Ireland.
All of this was presaged by the tradition from Galacia ~ in Spain.
The French tradition appears to derive more from the ancient Spanish sources than does the current British tradition, but it, too, was brought from Ireland to Britain to Brittany to Beaujolais/Morgon, et al.
Which could, in part, explain why the British traditions became so thin and differed so much from the Spanish and French versions of the Great Trek from the Danube!
A thought for the thoughtful. The volcanos in Iceland are powerful. They also can emit vast quantities of flourine ~ which in gaseous form is exceedingly deadly. We always presume that when someone does a study on ancient Britains that those folks survived down to the present day and are mixed in somehow.
Look at the Annals of the Kings of Brittain ~ the land is destroyed, the people are dead, and all in a day. Arthur's knights ride hither and yon to find rescue for the land.
That happened at about the time Mt. Hekla blew its stack and contributed mightily to the destruction of Western and Northern European as well as Chinese civilization. This is what we call the start of the Dark Ages. When the Britons a couple of centuries later (700s) arrived in Brittany they found a land without people or animals!
Think of what a big Heklaian explosion would entail and what all those fluorides could have done to everything ~ and now, what about pre 700 BC? Did it happen before?
The Scandinavian peninsula appears to have been similarly affected with elimination of the Sa'ami along a line from roughly midway North up Norway down to SW modern Finland. Everybody to the SW of the line is pretty much Indo-European. Until modern times everybody to the NE of the line is pretty much Sa'ami.
That's not a cultural differentiation ~ not across that kind of landscape. Something killed a lot of people quite suddenly.
The coming of the Scoti with their "servants" from the adjacent Basque kingdoms created the Irish, and then the Scots, and probably the Welsh and Britons!
o.m.g.
That is simply fascinating! Do you get all these facts from online sources & perhaps unpublished dissertations -- or are there any decent books about the above???
Also, there's one thing that confuses me. . . . in the very recent past . . . were not the Basque considered to be a unique, one-of-a-kind population??? Similar to how the Sa'ami are indigenous European, but unique to themselves, with perhaps some connection to the Berbers of North Africa?
I had NO idea that the Basques and the Irish are identical. That's just amazing.
Thanks!
Now the bombings will begin again, only this time they will not be at empty restaurants after hours on Picadilly. They will happen during rush hour.And who will help this revenge cycle? Jihadists have long had the connection to the Northern Ireland Independence movement.Cameron is a fool.
Shane HEGARTY, author of:
The Irish (and Other Foreigners): Amazon.co.uk: Shane Hegarty: Books
Maybe we should start a movement among the descendants of the American Scotch Irish to declare the Basque regin of France/Spain to be the 51st state of America!
LOL
Fascinating about the Milesians, I'd never heard of them, but several Irish friends most certainly are totally familiar with all the facts in your fascinating posting.
I was under the impression that the Basques were a completely separate race and no one was quite sure where they all came from...
I dont smoke. Im an Englishman who has spent time in Ireland. So I can testify to the racism, having been the subject of it.
Yes I have a very good idea. Scoti is a latin word to describe raiders, from Ireland, who attacked the west coast of mainland Britain over a period of several centuries, prior to, during and after the period of Roman control. At first they were raiding, stealing sheep, cattle and people (the most famous being St Patrick himself). Later they set up colonies/permanent settlement in what is now west Cumbria, northern and southern Wales, the northern part of the Cornwall peninsula, and (especially) west Scotland, from which they eventually subsumed the existing Celtic culture of northern Britain (pictish) around about 900AD, which led to Scotland being called Scotland, as opposed to Pictavia. They used the term Gaels themselves, from which we get the word and concept of Gaelic, but its just a different name for the same thing.
No I don't lack access to or knowledge of the history of my own country.
I define racism as a negative reaction, comment or action to a member of another race that is based solely on their being a member of that race, as opposed to some accurate, verifiable fact. Thus, if an Irishman doesn't like English cooking because he objects to vegetables being boiled until they are solid, that is not racism - that is personal preference based on a fact that the English only stop cooking potatoes when they hang a white flag out. If on the other hand, an Englishman doesn't like Irish cooling because its Irish, that's racist.
All these people may be caucasian, but it was my understanding that an one time the English considered the Irish to not only be non-white, but to actually verge on being non-human, and felt justified in shipping hundreds of thousands of them to the Caribbean as slave labor on sugar plantations.
They never considered them to be non-white - there was talk of "Black Irish", but that's not related to skin color. I dont know about being non-human, they certainly considered them to be savages at some times in history, much in the same way that Americans considered Iroquois, sioux and apache to be savages at certain times in their history.
Lots of people, of all nationalities, were shipped out to the Caribbean, Australia, America and New Zealand. People were singled out because they were poor, not because they were Irish.
I have no further interest in this discussion.
Good bye.
But Canada COULD have been one of the colonies in question. I mean, the same situation existed there as in the thirteen colonies to the south. So it is relevant.
And you’re wrong. The Irish were the native people and never aked to be Brtish subjects. They were an enslaved population with the language banned, their religion proscribed, the property and all their rights stolen. Some of these oppressions eased considerably in the 19th century, but that does not change the fact that the Brits were foeign oppressors oppressing a native people. They were not the same people, did not share a common heritage.
The desire for independence didnt gain momentum until the second half of the eighteenth century. Most Irishmen were ok with the union before then.
The Irish were NOT a minority but the majority in Ireland.
And this invalidates the principle in what way? What about those people who did not want to be in a united Ireland, those who were in the minority? What about them? You may find it bizarre that they shouldn't want to be independent. Personally I find it odd myself, but they did want to be part of the Union. What about them? Your answer seems to be "Tough. If you don't like it, move". Are you able to see what accepting that kind of principle as standard might lead to? Supposing in twenty years time California has an election and votes to make Spanish the de facto language of the State, and use of English is illegal, punishable by a fine or imprisonment. Presumably you would be OK with that. After all, the majority in twenty years will be of latino descent, and they voted for it. Those caucasion americans who dont like it can just move, racist oppressors that they are.
No it would not. 1) There was already a civil war in Ireland over the partitioning so saying it was done to avoid civil war is just stupid. 2) Those who wanted to leave could.
Yes it would have. And yes it was done to avoid civil strife. I'm not talking demonstrations, riots in the street or a few bombs being let off now and again. I'm talking full-scale, unrestricted north-vs-south-Union-vs-Confederacy type civil war. Its not stupid. It really would have come down to that. The point about those who wanted to leave could is - what if they don't want to? Why should they anyway? They consider it their home just as much as anyone else.
And the problem would have been what? Oppressors putting down their own trained servant oppressors? at if Britain put down the Unionists after a unionist uprising? So what? How would that be a bad thing? Oppressive scum killing oppressive scum. The world would have been a better place - at least for the Irish.
That works if you think the British are "oppressive scum". And that the unionists are "trained servant opppressors". (in which case, why would the British be prepared to move against them). And that the deaths of thousands is OK for the greater good. I think that is the most horrific thing I have ever read on these boards. I was going to be sarcastic, but I think I will have to report it.
How can you say the economic and strategic situation of Northern Ireland is irrelevant? If an argument for Britain retaining Northern Ireland is based on the supposed strategic and economic situation in the province, and it is generally agreed that those conditions are now effectively null and void, how can it be irrelevent?
There’s no racism involved. All the people involved are caucasion. They are all white peoples. It is literally impossible for a white Irishmen to be racist against a white English man.
Oh come on! Are you honestly positing that racism is solely a matter of skin color?
The island is plenty big enough. The problem, historically, has been English greed and desire for domination.
I'm so glad that wasn't a racist reason given. When there were many governments on mainland Britain, there were many wars. I live on the borders. I dont want to see that again.
The Irish BEFORE ousting the Brits were not free. They were afterward.
That's not relevant to this particular point. Answer the question. Is your "freedom” simply having the right to agree on one particular interpretation of what “freedom” is? Because if so, it's no freedom at all. The most important "freedom" is the right to dissent.
No, actually it is the truth. Where was the conquest of Canada in 1840? 1860? 1890? 1920? 1950? Was there really anything stopping us from conquering Canada in those years other than our own affairs and decisions? No. We could do it tomrrow if we wanted, but we’re just not interested. If we were interested in conquering Canada, it would have happened sometime over the last 200 years. The simple fact is we have not been interested in doing it.
You're not interested in doing it now, agreed. But in 1812 you invaded Canada, and the intention was to occupy it. Your intention was to "liberate" it, and the invasion was repelled. Its a matter of historical fact. The Americans (or rather a bunch of Fenian Americans) tried again in 1865, and the invasion was repelled again. That is a matter of historical fact. Presumably you didnt do it at other times because fighting sioux and apache was easier.
Because by doing so they betrayed higher ideals and their neighbors for foreign crown of oppressors.
These were the neighbors who were invading them, burning their farms, confiscating their property, occupying their homes? What higher ideals were those? Sounds to me that the citizens had a choice between an "oppressive" crown and a "higher ideal" republic and chose the first.
If you don’t know, I suggest you read some history.
In other words, you don't know either. Which is hardly surprising, as it doesn't exist. There was no English involvement in Ireland prior to the Norman invasion. Were you hoping that making sarcastic comments about my alleged lack of knowledge would stop me calling you on it?
You wrote:
“But Canada COULD have been one of the colonies in question. I mean, the same situation existed there as in the thirteen colonies to the south. So it is relevant.”
It was not the same situation. You apparently have no idea of what you’re talking about
“The desire for independence didnt gain momentum until the second half of the eighteenth century. Most Irishmen were ok with the union before then.”
There was always a struggle for Irish rights. Apparently you’ve never heard of the 17th century struggle in Ireland. Cromwell and Drogheda ring a bell?
“And this invalidates the principle in what way? What about those people who did not want to be in a united Ireland, those who were in the minority? What about them?”
What about them? They were oppressors.
“You may find it bizarre that they shouldn’t want to be independent. Personally I find it odd myself, but they did want to be part of the Union. What about them?”
Again, what about them? They were oppressors.
“Your answer seems to be “Tough. If you don’t like it, move”.”
Which is a perfectly valid answer.
“Are you able to see what accepting that kind of principle as standard might lead to? Supposing in twenty years time California has an election and votes to make Spanish the de facto language of the State, and use of English is illegal, punishable by a fine or imprisonment. Presumably you would be OK with that.”
Calfornia is part of the US. No one - of any ethnic group - is oppressed in California. Your analogy is a false one.
“After all, the majority in twenty years will be of latino descent, and they voted for it. Those caucasion americans who dont like it can just move, racist oppressors that they are.”
Except they aren’t racist oppressors - and yes, they an move if they don’t like legitimate demographic change in California.
“Yes it would have. And yes it was done to avoid civil strife. I’m not talking demonstrations, riots in the street or a few bombs being let off now and again. I’m talking full-scale, unrestricted north-vs-south-Union-vs-Confederacy type civil war. Its not stupid.”
Yeah, it’s stupid. Whatever civil war resulted would have been over in days or weeks and Ireland and the UK would both have been at peace. I would not cry if oppressors died.
“It really would have come down to that. The point about those who wanted to leave could is - what if they don’t want to? Why should they anyway? They consider it their home just as much as anyone else.”
Then they should deal with it. They have several choices: live with it and make the best, die fighting a stupid doomed war, or leave.
“That works if you think the British are “oppressive scum”.”
In Ireland they were.
” And that the unionists are “trained servant opppressors”.”
They were - and some still are.
“(in which case, why would the British be prepared to move against them).”
It’s your civil war scenario. Make up your mind.
“And that the deaths of thousands is OK for the greater good. I think that is the most horrific thing I have ever read on these boards. I was going to be sarcastic, but I think I will have to report it.”
Fighting to end oppression is not horrific. You just mocked every Canadian who died in WWII. How’s that feel to side with the scum of the earth? I ask because I’ve never done it.
H”ow can you say the economic and strategic situation of Northern Ireland is irrelevant?”
I didn’t say it was. I said your point was.
“If an argument for Britain retaining Northern Ireland is based on the supposed strategic and economic situation in the province, and it is generally agreed that those conditions are now effectively null and void, how can it be irrelevent?”
Britain make no such argument and really never has. Thus, it is irrelevant.
“Oh come on! Are you honestly positing that racism is solely a matter of skin color?”
Among white people it most certainly is. All the peoples involved were the same race: Irish, Scots, English, Welsh.
“That’s not relevant to this particular point.”
Irish freedom and British oppression are relevant always in a discussion about Irish freedom and British oppression.
“Answer the question. Is your “freedom” simply having the right to agree on one particular interpretation of what “freedom” is? Because if so, it’s no freedom at all. The most important “freedom” is the right to dissent.”
That is not the most important freedom. When you figure out the mos important freedom we might talk about it.
“You’re not interested in doing it now, agreed. But in 1812 you invaded Canada, and the intention was to occupy it.”
You really aren’t good at this whole debate thing are you? 1812 was 198 years ago. My point still stands: if the USA ever really wanted it we would have taken it.
“Your intention was to “liberate” it, and the invasion was repelled. Its a matter of historical fact. The Americans (or rather a bunch of Fenian Americans) tried again in 1865, and the invasion was repelled again. That is a matter of historical fact. Presumably you didnt do it at other times because fighting sioux and apache was easier.”
Acually fighting the Indians was probably more taxing than fighting Canadians. The Indians were warlike and had a long military history. The Canadians? Not so much.
“These were the neighbors who were invading them, burning their farms, confiscating their property, occupying their homes?”
As they had done to Americans just a few years before. Paybacks are a bitch aren’t they?
“What higher ideals were those? Sounds to me that the citizens had a choice between an “oppressive” crown and a “higher ideal” republic and chose the first.”
Their loss. And Ireland’s gain.
“In other words, you don’t know either.”
Oh, here we go. You’re about to embarrass yourself. I can see it coming from a mile away.
“Which is hardly surprising, as it doesn’t exist. There was no English involvement in Ireland prior to the Norman invasion.”
And there it is. In other words you know nothing about the whole raiding/slaving culture of the isles and you’ve never read about such things as Diarmait offering refuge for Harold and Leofwine Godwinson, right? Yeah, that’s not surprising.
“Were you hoping that making sarcastic comments about my alleged lack of knowledge would stop me calling you on it?”
No, what I expect is that I will make remarks about your sciolism and be proved correct time after time like I was just a second ago.
Yes I've heard of it. But that wasn't solely about Irish rights. That was part of a wider struggle involving all the countries of the British Isles.
“And this invalidates the principle in what way? What about those people who did not want to be in a united Ireland, those who were in the minority? What about them?” What about them? They were oppressors. “You may find it bizarre that they shouldn’t want to be independent. Personally I find it odd myself, but they did want to be part of the Union. What about them?” Again, what about them? They were oppressors. “Your answer seems to be “Tough. If you don’t like it, move”.” Which is a perfectly valid answer.
So let me see if I've got this straight. The protestant unionists, because they are all (apparently) "racist oppressors" and completely under the thumb of the British (also racist oppressors) and therefore have (and in fact deserve) no rights, no consideration and no voice? The catholic nationalist majority, because they are a majority, can pass any laws, make any decisions they desire, with total impunity and no moral comeback? Is that exactly what you are saying? I dont want to misrepresent you here.
Among white people it most certainly is. All the peoples involved were the same race: Irish, Scots, English, Welsh.
Well, they are not. But assuming that they are, then what right do Irishmen have to be an independent nation? After all, if we are all the same then surely we should all be united into one big happy family.
Of course they are different races. Its nonsense to suggest otherwise.
That is not the most important freedom. When you figure out the mos important freedom we might talk about it.
Is the question too difficult or uncomfortable for you? You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid answering it.
You really aren’t good at this whole debate thing are you? 1812 was 198 years ago. My point still stands: if the USA ever really wanted it we would have taken it.
And drogheda was nearly four hundred years ago, and the easter uprising is nearly a century old. Why are you still fighting the battles of old now?
As they had done to Americans just a few years before. Paybacks are a bitch aren’t they?
Sure are. The payback was the whitehouse getting the torch.
Their loss. And Ireland’s gain.
Not really. At least their farms weren't getting burned down in the name of "liberty".
And there it is. In other words you know nothing about the whole raiding/slaving culture of the isles and you’ve never read about such things as Diarmait offering refuge for Harold and Leofwine Godwinson, right? Yeah, that’s not surprising.
There's no need to be insulting. I know about the raiding/slaving culture practiced by the Irish on all and sundry (St Patrick being the most famous victim). Right little lot of oppressors (oh sorry, no its only British and their lackeys who oppress. Sorry). But I've never heard of Anglo-saxons raiding Ireland. Vikings yes. But not English.
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.