You wrote:
“Rationally that all sounds very reasonable and logical.
What a pity that people don’t work that way.”
They will. No one would have much of a choice to do otherwise.
“Ireland after the immediate setting up of the Irish Free State was anything but a happy and economically secure place.”
True. And that’s irrelevant.
“Admittedly there was a major worldwide economic downturn at the time but Ireland certainly suffered more than most.”
It did. The British engineered Ireland that way. The British deliberately kept most of Ireland pastoral so it would not directly compete with Britain in the industrial realm.
“Anecdotal evidence is the main driving force for all political opinion in NI.”
Ireland will be reunited in any case.
“No the best thing would be for them to stop thinking like that. Reuniting Ireland (or any other political solution to any problem anywhere) isn’t going to stop any violence if the fundamental mindset of agrievement is still present. Do you suppose that if a Palestinian state was ever set up that all violence against Israel would cease?”
Yes - if Israel ceased to exist. And, likewise, if all the Palestinians ceased to exist then Israel could count on no more violence from Palestinians. Now, how likely are those possibilities? Not very likely either way. In Ireland, however, the British occupation was the problem. Once Ireland was free there was no more violence between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. The civil war only occured because many Irish felt betrayed by other Irish. If the Bristish had freed ALL OF IRELAND, the whole island, no violence would have happened at all most likely. No civil war, no violence between Catholics and Protestants.
“Go ahead and dismiss my “passionately held viewpoints”. I wouldn’t worry about it in the least.”
That’s an excellent view to have.
“YES”
The civil war in the South was not nearly as bad as centuries of British oppression.
” Oh, of course...any British ownership counts, irrespective of what the actual consequences were”
It doesn’t matter if Britain lost ownership of anything in a nation it oppressed during its occupation. Protestant ownership of many key businesses continued, however, unabated. Notice, the Irish had no problem with that. The irish were much more open and generous to Protestants in the South, then Protestants have been to Catholics in the North.
“Quite a lot of things actually. Systematic extermination and/or forced movement of large numbers of natives, a blatant land-grab against Canada; retention of Negro slavery (which the British outlawed several decades before the US did), a major civil war, and on an on.”
Nope. None of that was related to the British occupation. Problems with Indians already existed before the British left and continued. So that is simply inapplicable. Land grab against Canada - sorry, but that is not “worse” than the British occupation except perhaps for the Canadians and they are not in America so that too is inapplicable. Slavery in British America was started and allowed by the British and it was in part the ideals supported by the American Revolutionaries which would ultimately lead to the abolitionist movement.
“You can tell me that a united Irish Republic will be a better place, but dont ever suggest its all going to be perfect, because it certainly wont be.”
I didn’t. I simply told the truth. It won’t be perfect, but it will be better than what exists now.
“What???? I’m sorry but none of that is true. It just simply isnt.”
Yeah, actually it is. Only a few thousand people have been killed by all sides and all groups in the last 40 years. The “war” in Northern Ireland is puny compared to many other such fights. Perhaps 100 times more people are dying in the drug war in northern Mexico nowadays. The fact that 82 police men were injured - BUT APPARENTLY NONE WERE KILLED - shows this is a puny, little, low-level “war”.
“Check the thread title out for goodness sake. No im sorry, if you really and honestly believe that to be true there is no further point to this discussion.”
Use whatever excuse you want to get away from dealing with the truth. Just remember, 82 injured and apparently 0 killed. Puny, little “war”.
3000 died in the Irish Troubles (1969-1997). Hardly puny.
Plenty of police were killed. Dont know where you get that idea from.
Well the nationalist Irish didnt think that. They decided to take on the world's biggest empire for their "freedom". There was no logic in that. So what makes you think other people won't do it? You underestimate the passion of the other side.
True. And that’s irrelevant.
Not if it shows that Ireland would have been better off if it had stayed in the Union it isn't.
It did. The British engineered Ireland that way. The British deliberately kept most of Ireland pastoral so it would not directly compete with Britain in the industrial realm.
Nonsense. No government at the time had that much control over economic development.
Ireland will be reunited in any case.
Only if enough of the "right" anecdotes gain credence
Yes - if Israel ceased to exist. And, likewise, if all the Palestinians ceased to exist then Israel could count on no more violence from Palestinians. Now, how likely are those possibilities? Not very likely either way.
True. And how likely is it that all the unionists are going to cease to exist?
In Ireland, however, the British occupation was the problem.
The palestinians would say the israeli occupation was the problem, so your analogy is utterly meaningless.
Once Ireland was free there was no more violence between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland.
Sure...because most of the Protestants were in Ulster. There's been plenty of violence there, or do you accept that it isn't "part of Ireland"?
The civil war only occured because many Irish felt betrayed by other Irish.
In other words, the victory wasnt Total enough. See earlier point.
If the Bristish had freed ALL OF IRELAND, the whole island, no violence would have happened at all most likely. No civil war, no violence between Catholics and Protestants.
You're dreaming. Look up "Ulster declaration". If the British had granted Home rule in 1914 (as they would have been forced to do if WW1 hadn't supervened) there would have been a full scale civil war. It would have washed It doesn’t matter if Britain lost ownership of anything in a nation it oppressed during its occupation. Protestant ownership of many key businesses continued, however, unabated. Notice, the Irish had no problem with that. The irish were much more open and generous to Protestants in the South, then Protestants have been to Catholics in the North.
How perfect they are.
Nope. None of that was related to the British occupation.
Hardly surprising. It relates to the American occupation.
Problems with Indians already existed before the British left and continued. So that is simply inapplicable.
The British were better friends to the natives than the US ever was. Witness Canada.
Land grab against Canada - sorry, but that is not “worse” than the British occupation except perhaps for the Canadians and they are not in America so that too is inapplicable.,p> We were talking about what the US did, not neccesarily what happened in the US itself.
Slavery in British America was started and allowed by the British and it was in part the ideals supported by the American Revolutionaries which would ultimately lead to the abolitionist movement.
But was ended in the British empire much earlier without the ideals supported by the revolutionaries
I didn’t. I simply told the truth. It won’t be perfect, but it will be better than what exists now.
That depends if the Irish Nationalists are better, more humane, less vengeful and more accomodating people. In other words, if they are better. Which you have gone to some length to argue that they are.
Yeah, actually it is. Only a few thousand people have been killed by all sides and all groups in the last 40 years. The “war” in Northern Ireland is puny compared to many other such fights. Perhaps 100 times more people are dying in the drug war in northern Mexico nowadays.
I'm sure that's of enormous comfort to the families of the dead. I'm also equally sure that a lot of folk have left rather than face all that.
The fact that 82 police men were injured - BUT APPARENTLY NONE WERE KILLED - shows this is a puny, little, low-level “war”.
I wasn't referring specifically to this one incident.
While the Protestants can easily burn down Irish Catholic homes and attack Catholic school girls with impunity, Catholics really aren’t attacking the Protestants in any significant way.“Check the thread title out for goodness sake. No im sorry, if you really and honestly believe that to be true there is no further point to this discussion.” Use whatever excuse you want to get away from dealing with the truth. Just remember, 82 injured and apparently 0 killed. Puny, little “war”.
Sorry, it is you who are using excuses. The issue at the point of discussion is not this particular incident...that is minor enough. The issue is that you specifically said quote "While the Protestants can easily burn down Irish Catholic homes and attack Catholic school girls with impunity, Catholics really aren’t attacking the Protestants in any significant way.“ And I'm sorry, that is just simply untrue. How can you say that this is a "puny" war that has cost only a few thousand lives on all sides, and then deny that the god-fearing Catholics arent doing their share of it? Particularly as the IRA started all the bombing in "the troubles" back in the seventies in the first place!
It's an obtuse argument.