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.