Posted on 07/13/2010 10:24:53 AM PDT by Stayfrosty
BELFAST, Northern Ireland (AP) — Northern Ireland leaders condemned Irish nationalist rioters Tuesday who wounded 82 police officers during two nights of street clashes sparked by the province's annual parades by the British Protestant majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
When you put your dollars into that collection box did you fool yourself it was all for food and “medical supplies”?
Its sad isn’t it? “we have not forgotten”. And they never, ever shall. So the problem will go on and on.
Tragically, I suspect that wouldn’t help. My take on it would be that if the marches were cancelled, and the retaliation ended, the two sides would come up with some other way of “needling” each other. It’s sad, but I’m afraid it really is like that over there.
I believe Queen Victoria donated a very large amount of her own money to alleviate the disaster too, but like all of these efforts, it was too little and certainly way too late. Admittedly, the scale of the catastrophe would have been too much for any government of the time to handle, especially given the poor road net in essentially rural Ireland, but things had been allowed to get to that state, and I’m afraid the responsiblity for that lies with the government in London.
People are just fighting their corner thats all.
Oh I would agree with you. The reason that “we have a perfect right to march on a public highway, and we are following a traditional route that wasn’t a Republican area when the marches were first started” is a total excuse, deliberately designed to provoke a reaction.
No that is true, there wouldn’t. The more I think on it, the more I am convinced by your argument. The English should have simply exterminated all of the Irish during the rennaissance and there wouldn’t be any problem there now.
You wrote:
“No that is true, there wouldn’t. The more I think on it, the more I am convinced by your argument. The English should have simply exterminated all of the Irish during the rennaissance and there wouldn’t be any problem there now.”
I think they made a half-hearted attempt in the 19th century. It was well known that many English felt that way - hence Swift’s A Modest Proposal long before that.
Are you retarded? Seriously. You don’t even realize you’re being made fun of.
“Come to think of it
I can’t think of a brave and robust and developed Roman
Catholic dominated country can you?”
25% of Americans are catholic. Doe that count? Spain? Italy? France? Not to mention South America? I’ll bet you don’t know that the Vatican itself is a sovereign nation? I’ll also even bet you have no idea what that even means?
I’m done exchanging posts with you. When you find yourself NOT stuck on stupid, feel free to reply.
Sorry, Vanders but thats utter bollocks and you know it. And from you, I am shocked.
The Irish Famine killed both Catholic and Protestant in large numbers, although the myths have ignored the latter. As it dosent fit the myth of deliberate genocide of the Irish to be killing your ‘own’ (Protestant) people.
Look Vlad, a nation and a people are the sum of all of their experiences and all of their history. I concede that some events are more important than others, but you can't just pick and choose which ones you consider to be relevant and which ones are not. The transplantation didn't happen in isolation.
Yet the wrongs committed then are still played out today.
Only because neither side will them go! I don't have a downer on the Normans for invading and enslaving Britain 800-1000 years back. I don't hate the Tunisians because they carried off loads of Britons in slave raids in the 15th century. I have no wish to retaliate against the Spanish because their inquisition terrorised our sailors and they tried to invade us. I don't despise the Dutch because we spent most of the seventeenth century fighting and slagging each other off in the world's press. I have issues with the French and the Germans at times today, but not because of the Napoleonic wars or WW1 or even WW2. You can't hold grudges forever. The point still stands. No Ulster protestant of today is in any responsible for their ancestors being transported to Ireland 400 years ago, no more than any anglo-american of today is responsible for their ancestors landing on Plymouth Rock, or any african american of today should be able to claim special favors for his ancestors being carted across the atlantic 300 years back.
We should use the same rule as the British occupiers did: we listen to the majority. The majority will soon be made up of those who want to be part of Ireland. It may very well be inevitable. Thus, if the Brits thought their occupation of Northern Ireland was a just act because a majority wanted to maintain the union and continue to oppress Catholics, logically that would mean Northern Ireland must go into Irish hands when the new majority says they do not want union.
I agree absolutely. Although I dont like the term "British occupiers" and I deny "continue to oppress Catholics". Thats just a selective appreciation of the facts.
Understand I'm not condoning the IRA (or even worse the INLA - they really were psychopaths). I'm slagging Al Qaeda off.
You wrote:
“The Irish Famine killed both Catholic and Protestant in large numbers, although the myths have ignored the latter.”
There were, in fact, comparatively few of the latter.
“As it dosent fit the myth of deliberate genocide of the Irish to be killing your ‘own’ (Protestant) people.”
http://homepage.eircom.net/~archaeology/two/famine.htm
You wrote:
“Look Vlad, a nation and a people are the sum of all of their experiences and all of their history. I concede that some events are more important than others, but you can’t just pick and choose which ones you consider to be relevant and which ones are not. The transplantation didn’t happen in isolation.”
No, it did not. But it is irrefutable that THE CENTRAL EVENT THAT LED TO EVERYTHING ELSE was the occupation of Northern Ireland by foreigners in the 17th and 18th centuries. (In 1600 they owned 10% of the land of Ireland. In 1778, they own 95%.) If it had not happened, there would be no “troubles” in Northern Ireland. No Protestant invaders would mean no Catholic reaction. Get it?
“Only because neither side will them go!”
It’s hard to let go of what seems to still being played out in front of you.
“I don’t hate the Tunisians because they carried off loads of Britons in slave raids in the 15th century.”
Gee, and how often did those Tunisian raiders attack Britain itself?
“I have no wish to retaliate against the Spanish because their inquisition terrorised our sailors and they tried to invade us.”
If English sailors were terrorized by the Spanish Inquisition, then it is doubtful the English would ever have taken to the sea in the first place. Spanish trials of non-spaniards were few and far between to say the least. Most English stories about the abuse of English sailors were invented propaganda. Anyone who has ever studied this topic knows it to be the case. http://www.jstor.org/pss/563285
If you read Henry Arthur Francis Kamen’s book, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, you would discover that after 1576, Spanish law saw English sailors as subject to the inquisition ONLY IF THEY DID SOMETHING WRONG AFTER ARRIVING IN SPAINISH PORTS.
But why let reality get in the way of some good anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish propaganda, right?
“I don’t despise the Dutch because we spent most of the seventeenth century fighting and slagging each other off in the world’s press.”
Who cares who you do or do not despise? What would it matter anyway?
“I have issues with the French and the Germans at times today, but not because of the Napoleonic wars or WW1 or even WW2. You can’t hold grudges forever.”
I have no idea of why you are prattling on uselessly like this.
“The point still stands.”
There’s a point to your post?
“No Ulster protestant of today is in any responsible for their ancestors being transported to Ireland 400 years ago, no more than any anglo-american of today is responsible for their ancestors landing on Plymouth Rock, or any african american of today should be able to claim special favors for his ancestors being carted across the atlantic 300 years back.”
And who here is saying they are responsible for things that happened centuries ago? Certainly not me. I have no idea why you are going on and on rejecting something that no one is suggesting to you (or at least I am not).
“I agree absolutely. Although I dont like the term “British occupiers” and I deny “continue to oppress Catholics”. Thats just a selective appreciation of the facts.”
No, it is irrefutably true. The British are considered occupiers by a majority of teh Irish in Northern Ireland. Thus, it is only a matter of time before that view is held by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
Care to look up St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre?
or Spanish Inquisition? I didn’t think so.
That is the core of Papism. You disagree with
me and you die by burning at the stake.
Not very Christian according to The Book.
Shamrock jihad= can’t defeat the enemy (Protestants)
in a war but they sure could make it rough on
a bus full of women and children. B’bye now.
Oh dear.
‘UNTIL very recently, scholars have neglected the Great Famines impact on the northern Irish province of Ulster and especially its impact on Ulsters Protestant inhabitants. This neglect stemmed in part from historians reading of published census and other data indicating that the Norths general experience of excess mortality and emigration in 1845-52 was indeed less catastrophic than that of southern and western Ireland. Thus, whereas between 1841 and 1851 the populations of Munster and Connacht declined by 22.5 and 28.8 percent, respectively, that of Ulster fell “only” 19.8 percent. (2) To be sure, Joel Mokyr and other scholars have noted that several counties in south or “outer” Ulster—Monaghan, for example, and especially Cavan—witnessed high rates of famine mortality, but this is commonly understood by reference to the fact that their populations were composed predominantly of Catholic petty farmers and cottiers. (3) By contrast, conventional wisdom holds that Northeast Ulster or, even more broadly, the six counties that later became Northern Ireland—and particularly their Protestant inhabitants—escaped the famine with comparatively minimal damage, whether measured in excess mortality or in abnormally heavy out-migration. To explain this apparent phenomenon, historians often have cited socio-economic and cultural factors relatively unique to Northeast Ulster, such as industrialization and urbanization, the prevalence of tenant right and comparatively congenial landlord-tenant relations, and, among the rural populace, a greater variety of income sources and less dietary dependence on potatoes than prevailed in Munster and Connacht. (4)
However, some scholars may inadvertently have repeated contemporary claims by Irish unionists, who argued that “Ulster”—i.e., its Protestant inhabitants—eluded the famine because of the provinces superior “character” for industry, virtue, and loyalty.
But in reality, many Protestant as well as Catholic Ulstermen and -women suffered grievously.
Between 1841 and 1851 Ulsters population fell by nearly one-fifth—significantly more than the 15.3 percent decline that occurred in heavily Catholic Leinster. During the same period the number of inhabitants of the future Northern Ireland fell 14.7 percent (or 13 percent if Belfasts burgeoning population is included), and in the four northeastern counties that in 1861 had Protestant majorities (Antrim, Armagh, Down, and Londonderry), the comparable decline was 12.1 percent (or, including Belfast, nearly 10 percent). (5) Of course, it is likely that northeastern Catholics suffered more severely than did Protestants, and it is probable that population losses in the region, particularly among Protestants, were primarily due to out-migration rather than to the effects of starvation and disease. (6) However, as David Miller has argued, in the prefamine decades the contraction of rural weaving and spinning had created in Ulster an impoverished Protestant underclass whose members vulnerability to the crisis of 1845-52 can be compared with that of Catholic cottiers and laborers in the South and West. Furthermore, Miller points out, some poor Protestants in Northeast Ulster did perish of malnutrition or “famine fever,” even in areas adjacent to thriving industrial centers. And Mokyrs estimated excess-mortality rates for heavily Protestant County Antrim, as well as for the roughly half-Protestant counties of Armagh, Fermanagh, and Tyrone (all four in the future Northern Ireland), exceed those in most parts of Leinster. (7)’
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKX/is_2001_Spring-Summer/ai_80532346/
Oh dear,
You own source:
(5) Of course, it is likely that northeastern Catholics suffered more severely than did Protestants, and it is probable that population losses in the region, particularly among Protestants, were primarily due to out-migration rather than to the effects of starvation and disease. (6)
And...
Furthermore, Miller points out, some poor Protestants in Northeast Ulster did perish of malnutrition or “famine fever,” even in areas adjacent to thriving industrial centers.
some. just “Some”.
• Patrick Doherty, 31. The father of six was shot from behind as he attempted to crawl to safety.
• Gerald Donaghey, 17. Controversy has surrounded the question of whether the IRA youth member was armed with nail bombs when shot in the abdomen. Four were found in his pockets after his death, but witnesses who tended to him said they had found nothing suspicious on his person, prompting claims the bombs had been planted.
• John "Jackie" Duddy, 17. The first to be killed. He was running away when he was shot in the chest. Lord Saville said he probably had a stone in his hand at the time.
• Hugh Gilmour, 17. The talented footballer was hit with a single shot as he ran away. The solider who fired at him – Private U – claimed he had aimed at a man with a handgun. But a photo showed no evidence of a weapon.
• Michael Kelly, 17. Shot once in the abdomen by a soldier 80 yards away.
• Michael McDaid, 20. The barman died instantly after being shot in the face.
• Kevin McElhinney, 17. Shot from behind.
• Bernard McGuigan, 41. The father of six was going to the aid of Patrick Doherty, waving a white handkerchief, when he was shot in the head with a single round. Witnesses claimed he was unarmed.
• Gerard McKinney, 35. The father of eight was running close behind Gerald Donaghey when the bullet that killed them both hit him first.
• William "Willie" McKinney, 27 (not related to Gerard). The keen amateur film-maker recorded scenes from the march with his hand-held cine camera before the shooting started. The camera was found in his jacket pocket as he lay dying after being shot in the back in Glenfada Park.
• William Nash, 19. The dockworker was hit by a single bullet to the chest.
• James Wray, 22. Engaged to be married, the civil rights activist was shot twice in the back. The second shot was fired as he lay mortally wounded.
• John Young, 17. The menswear shop clerk was killed instantly with a single shot to the head at the rubble barricade.
• John Johnston, 59. The draper was shot twice by soldiers positioned inside a derelict building in William Street. He died four months later in hospital.
No Para casualties. Civilians shot in the back and killed waving a white flag. Firefight? Hardly. Massacre is the correct term.
And don’t forget that the recent official “report will forever be marred by the refusal of the soldiers involved to give evidence, the refusal of the Army to release thousands of photographs taken by army photographers who were ordered to give ‘maximum coverage’ that day.”
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/bloody-sunday/
Who knows how damning to the British army those photos are?
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.