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.
You wrote:
“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.”
Sure there is: they won didn’t they? The British Empire has been beaten by rebels several times. The Irish had every reasonable expectation of one day winning they just didn’t expect it to come so soon.
“So what makes you think other people won’t do it? You underestimate the passion of the other side.”
Nope. I just properly estimate the foes here. Who would support the unionists in their war against Britain and Ireland? No one. Seriously, who would do it? Britain? Oh, wait, they would be fighting Britain so the only possible ally would actually be their enemy. Didn’t that even occur to you? The simple fact is that they have few weapons, little money and little training. Against two armies, with no support from anyone in the world, they would be done in rather quickly.
“Not if it shows that Ireland would have been better off if it had stayed in the Union it isn’t.”
But it wouldn’t have been - because it would not have been free. It would still be under the heel of the British. Now it is free and prosperous.
“Nonsense. No government at the time had that much control over economic development.”
False. You seem to forget that Britain had enough control over the American colonies to impose economic controls over it. They largely failed, but only because of the great distance. Ireland was a different matter. It was just next door.
Have you never heard of Prime Minister William Pitt’s policy as introduced into Parliament in May of 1785? Ireland was not allowed to trade with other countries if that trade conflicted with Britain’s own trading company. Pitt also destroyed Ireland’s budding manufacturing companies by helping to dump cheaper British goods there. The Irish merchant shippers were wiped out by the competition underwritten by Pitt’s administration. Is all of this news to you? Did you know that by the 1820s about a quarter of Ireland’s land was not used for any kind of productive work at all but instead was used merely for land speculation? Thus, no new farms, or manufacturing, would develop. The rest of the land in use was used almost solely to produce potatos or grains or horses or cattle or sheep. Most of that was exported by companies ultimately owned by or linked to London based merchants.
I guess you never heard of the report in mid 19th century from a British crown commission lead by the economist Nassau Senior? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_William_Senior
Senior figured out that there were more than 2 million unemplyed adults in Ireland. That means more adults were out of work than actually working.
Add to all of this that millions and millions of pounds went to England addresses (i.e. absentee landlords) as rental fees rather than staying in Ireland to actually be used in Ireland’s economy and you can see why the place was so terribly impoverished!
There were fewer than 40 hospitals serving a nation of 8,000,000 people. Think about that for a moment. The economy was so bad that there were fewer than 40 hospitals for a nation of 8,000,000 people. Can you imagine that?
You might want to look at Appendix 1.2, “De-Industrialisation by Region” in Ireland before and after the famine: explorations in economic history, 1800-1925 by Cormac Ó Gráda to get some idea of how complete the process was. It was British governmental policy.
“Only if enough of the “right” anecdotes gain credence.”
Nope.
“True. And how likely is it that all the unionists are going to cease to exist?”
Very likely. Remember, they will have to choose. If they choose to stay, they cease to be unionists. If they leave, they cease to be a problem. If they fight, they die and cease to be a problem.
“The palestinians would say the israeli occupation was the problem, so your analogy is utterly meaningless.”
Incorrect. The Irish do not care if the Protestants stay. The Palestinians want all the Israelis dead. There is an enormous difference there. Remember, the South has Protestant residents and citizens and there is no violence at all.
“Sure...because most of the Protestants were in Ulster.”
Most, but not all. My point still stands. There was no violence.
“There’s been plenty of violence there, or do you accept that it isn’t “part of Ireland”?”
There has been NO VIOLENCE AGAINST PROTESTANTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. It does not surprise me that there has been violence in the British controlled area against both Catholics and Protestants.
“In other words, the victory wasnt Total enough. See earlier point.”
If it were total, then it would be total. “wasnt Total enough” is like “a little bit pregnant.”
“You’re dreaming.”
Nope. There certainly would have been no Irish civil war, for instance.
” 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.”
First of all, do you mean the Ulster Covenant? There are two Ulster Declarations. One was just in 1993. The other was a version of the Ulster Covenant - but was signed by WOMEN only. Also, the Ulster Covenant was in 1912 if I recall correctly, not 1914. And anyway, it’s irrelevant. I said, “If the British had freed ALL OF IRELAND,”. Notice how there was no unionist civil war when Britain pulled out of 26 counties? There wouldn’t have been when Britain pulled out of all 32 either. And if there were it would be two nations - Ireland and Britain - which would have put down the unionists. It might have been the best thing that could have happened. The trouble makers would have been killed or imprisoned. Britain and Ireland would have fought for a common purpose. And Ireland would have been free and united and there would be ZERO violence over the last 90 years. Honestly, I don’t think 80,000 unionists were interested in taking on the British army.
“How perfect they are.”
Perfect, no. But they were certainly better than the unionists of the British.
“The British were better friends to the natives than the US ever was. Witness Canada.”
They may very well have been.
“We were talking about what the US did, not neccesarily what happened in the US itself.”
Nope. I wrote: “What happened that was “worse” when the British left America? Oh, right. Nothing.” Clearly, I meant what happend IN AMERICA. Not in India, or China or Canada for that matter.
“But was ended in the British empire much earlier without the ideals supported by the revolutionaries”
The revolutionaries themselves might not have had much influence but there was a shared body of ideals. The Quakers were active abolitionists on both sides of the Atlantic for instance. If you read John Oldfield’s Popular Politics and British Anti-Slavery: The Mobilisation of Public Opinion against the Slave Trade, you’ll see that the British were keen to use some of the same organizing and pamphleting techniques used by American and French revolutionaries.
“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.”
No, actually I don’t think it much matters whether they are better or not. The counties will fall under the control of Dublin - not any nationalist group.
“I’m sure that’s of enormous comfort to the families of the dead.”
I’m sure it isn’t. The simple fact is that this is a small war. Puny, in fact. That is just a fact.
“I wasn’t referring specifically to this one incident.”
I was. Go back and read what I wrote.
“Sorry, it is you who are using excuses.”
I made no excuse at all - while you made one to leave the thread. Don’t be dishonest.
“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.”
No, actually it is true. Where are the bombings NOW? Where are the assassinations NOW? There really are no SIGNIFICANT attacks against Protestants.
“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?”
1) I do not assume that the Irish groups attacking anyone are “god-fearing Catholics”. Most are admitted marxists. I have no idea if any of them really believe in God let alone fear Him.
2) I never denied that the Irish have killed people.
3) I just deny that this war is anything other than puny. The political issues might be huge, but the “war” is puny. There were never more than a few or several hundred terrorists on the Irish side at any one time since 1969. Only three thousand people have been killed in 40 years. On 911 3,000 were killed in the span of about three hours. Those terrorist attacks precipitated the invasion and occupation of two entire countries on the other side of the world. If that doesn’t put into perspective the puny size of the Northern Ireland “war” nothing will.
“Particularly as the IRA started all the bombing in “the troubles” back in the seventies in the first place!”
They did - after Bloody Sunday. If the British had left in 1920 or 1922, none of that would have happened. There would be no grieving families in Ireland or Britain today.
“It’s an obtuse argument.”
Not mine. And you’re not making an argument at all.