The Irish and British in Ireland

[Thermo]

I have read a few posts that indirectly address the Irish/British conflict in Ireland so I had to throw in my two cents.

I feel for the people of Ireland and when I say people of Ireland I mean the Irish Catholics who had there land taken away not the British interlopers. My mother's family feld to the United States to escape persecution by the English. The English deserve everything they got for stealing that land.

Keep in mind you are only hearing one side of the story, because the Irish side of the story is supressed and news and media is censored and slanted in favor of the English.

As if stealing land wasn't enough, the British feel they have to parade through Irish territory every season to rub our noses in it.
http://www.flashpoints.info/countries-conflicts/Northern_Ireland-web/n-ireland_parades_main.html

[Geoff]

Congratulations on your balanced view of such a complicated history. I suppose you have the same view of Native Americans? That you should give them back everything they lost 500 years ago and that who lives where 'now' is irrelevant?

-Geoff

[Serotonin]

Oooh, bristly.
My stance is the same as the Middle East, they're just as bad as each other and neither deserves rights to the land. Terra Nullius....

[Geoff]

Oooh, bristly.
My stance is the same as the Middle East, they're just as bad as each other and neither deserves rights to the land. Terra Nullius....

Exactly! and the regular people who already live there? Mediate a solution that means the fewest people are uprooted. I am not sure that the people born there 'deserve everything they get' is my approach.

-Geoff

[coffeezombie]

Oooh, bristly.
My stance is the same as the Middle East, they're just as bad as each other and neither deserves rights to the land. Terra Nullius....

That one is a very touchy subject, as who had that land *originally* is a major point of contention. On the other hand, American Indians, Australian Aborigines and the Irish deserve much more of their land back. Alas, we cannot go back in time and fully erase the sins of our ancestors.

[Geoff]

That one is a very touchy subject, as who had that land *originally* is a major point of contention. On the other hand, American Indians, Australian Aborigines and the Irish deserve much more of their land back. Alas, we cannot go back in time and fully erase the sins of our ancestors.

80% of Ireland is an independent country in the hands of the Irish. The remainder is a mixture of British Protestants, British Catholics, Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics, some or many of whom do not who or what they want. All parties are trying their best to find a sensible way to have this run and owned by a sensible all party Government. Got to be better than going back to terrorism on all sides?

-Geoff

[Serotonin]

The NZers have done quite well with the Maoris, so has Canada with the Native Indians.
Native Title has been an issue in Australia for more than ten years now, and it's not going to go away soon.

The two conflicting arguments:
1) The natives were there first, so it's their land

2) The natives did not know how to use the land profitably, so they forfeited their right to it and colonisation was justified.

Both have merit, I was once a strong proponent of 1, but now I'm not so sure.

[Geoff]

The difficulty must be knowing how much you need/want to interfere in their lives. They dont have (on the whole) the same cultural acceptance (or need) of property ownership and exploitation. Does it matter if they dont exploit the land? No! Does it matter if they are not really sure how to cope in a modern world? Yes - if the world can not be kept from them.
At least they are full citizens now! Even if some do not accept it.

Clearly a world apart from such situations where cultures are very similar (Ireland v Northern Ireland)

-Geoff

[coffeezombie]

2) The natives did not know how to use the land profitably, so they forfeited their right to it and colonisation was justified.


Didn't know how to use it based upon western cultural standards? That's a pretty poor argument, if you ask me.

[Thermo]

Congratulations on your balanced view of such a complicated history. I suppose you have the same view of Native Americans? That you should give them back everything they lost 500 years ago and that who lives where 'now' is irrelevant?

-Geoff
Ironically, you are oversimplifying and making assumptions about what I said.

Did I say they should give the land back? I just said that I empathize with the IRA point of view. I will say one thing, the childish "we won" marches through southern Ireland should stop immediately. There is also the slanted media only showing the English as an innocent victim and none of the ways the British subjugate and kill the Irish. How many Irish have the British killed and raped since they came to Ireland?

As far as the Native American Indians, if they rose up and started killing Americans, I could understand why they would do that and wouldn't blame them. Would that stop me from fighting to defend my house? No, but I could understand why they did it.

[Serotonin]

Didn't know how to use it based upon western cultural standards? That's a pretty poor argument, if you ask me.

So I thought until recently. The difference between Aboriginal and British land use was so vast though that the British couldn't even fathom how the Aborigines used the land. They simply declared it Terra Nullius and started ploughing away....
Soon enough they had built enough infrastructure to want to protect. Clashes with Aboriginal tribes were fairly frequent, but the damage had already been done.

It's difficult. It just seems a tragedy of happenstance rather than one of knowledgeable dispossession.

[Geoff]

Ironically, you are oversimplifying and making assumptions about what I said.

Did I say they should give the land back? I just said that I empathize with the IRA point of view. I will say one thing, the childish "we won" marches through southern Ireland should stop immediately. There is also the slanted media only showing the English as an innocent victim and none of the ways the British subjugate and kill the Irish. How many Irish have the British killed and raped since they came to Ireland?

As far as the Native American Indians, if they rose up and started killing Americans, I could understand why they would do that and wouldn't blame them. Would that stop me from fighting to defend my house? No, but I could understand why they did it.

Well, you would be surprised how balanced the media here is in the UK about all of this. Do you see a problem with the US media here? I would have expected a slant towards the Irish if anything?

Of course I am simplifying - but really what is the difference - the British came to Ireland before the US. Is it really relevant today - sure it is a factor. But we arent raping and killing the Irish today! I dont expect anyone to forgive just because of time.. but really.. people are trying to sort the situation in Northern Ireland - and most of the country is already free and a good friend to Britain - we get on well. Dublin is the number one destination for a weekend away for the Brits, and when I go there I find I get on well on both sides UK v Irish.

Edit : if Native Americans kill European descended settlers tomorrow do you consider that right or wrong? It is no different to Irish terrorists killing British descended settlers in Northern Ireland. I think it very wrong, although I understand the history. And I also deplore the Loyalist marches and terrorism equally. So it isnt pro-British. It is pro-peace. I would be perfectly happy with Northern Ireland being united with Ireland, it is just the difficulty for the freeborn people living there of how best to achieve a sensible solution.
-Geoff

[Thermo]

It just seems a tragedy of happenstance rather than one of knowledgeable dispossession.
Does that make you feel better about it?

[crule81]

With land changing hands politically and ethnically so frequently in history, it becomes silly to claim one area inalienably belongs to one group.

[Geoff]

Does that make you feel better about it?

It doesnt make me feel better about it. But what can you do about something hundreds of years ago. Would you dismantle all of the US and return all of the land to the Native American tribes? Surely that would be the fair solution?

-Geoff

[Thermo]

Well, you would be surprised how balanced the media here is in the UK about all of this. Do you see a problem with the US media here? I would have expected a slant towards the Irish if anything?
The US media is incredibly stanted toward the British. I would go so far as to say its taboo to make a pro-IRA/Irish position and that was before the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism made it impossible to really show the Irish/IRA view in America. They just get lumped in with the Taliban.

As for the UK media being unbiased, I would highly doubt it, but it is possible. I will tell you what. You post pro-IRA articles written by credible papers in the UK. I will post ten pro-British articles for each of yours and we will see who can post more. What do you say to that? I seriously doubt you can find even one.



Of course I am simplifying - but really what is the difference - the British came to Ireland before the US. Is it really relevant today - sure it is a factor. But we arent raping and killing the Irish today!
1.) How many Irish are in your jails?
2.) If you stop killing and raping, does that excuse the fact it was done?



I dont expect anyone to forgive just because of time.. but really.. people are trying to sort the situation in Northern Ireland - and most of the country is already free and a good friend to Britain - we get on well. Dublin is the number one destination for a weekend away for the Brits, and when I go there I find I get on well on both sides UK v Irish.
Maybe some Irish forgave. I can't comment on that, because my time in the UK was limited and I have never been to Ireland.

Geoff, can you see my point? Can you understand why they are pissed off?

[Thermo]

It doesnt make me feel better about it. But what can you do about something hundreds of years ago. Would you dismantle all of the US and return all of the land to the Native American tribes? Surely that would be the fair solution?
I agree there is no easy answer, but I think it is fair to understand the point of view of these people.

[Geoff]

The US media is incredibly stanted toward the British. I would go so far as to say its taboo to make a pro-IRA/Irish position and that was before the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism made it impossible to really show the Irish/IRA view in America. They just get lumped in with the Taliban.

As for the UK media being unbiased, I would highly doubt it, but it is possible. I will tell you what. You post pro-IRA articles written by credible papers in the UK. I will post ten pro-British articles for each of yours and we will see who can post more. What do you say to that? I seriously doubt you can find even one.



1.) How many Irish are in your jails?

-Many were freed as a result of the attempts to solve the situation in Northern Ireland. Even convicted and openly admitted murderers. It's a start, right?

2.) If you stop killing and raping, does that excuse the fact it was done?

-No. If the Irish terrorists kill and rape (terrorism is present on both sides), does that excuse the fact either?
It isnt that black and white.

Maybe some Irish forgave. I can't comment on that, because my time in the UK was limited and I have never been to Ireland.

Geoff, can you see my point? Can you understand why they are pissed off?

-Oh yes, pissed off for sure. But does that make it right to say the British 'deserve everything they get? Would not sensible devolution in an armed conflict free way (which is what most sides seem to want now) the best way to solve this?



Well here is probably the most recent relevant reporting on the bbc website.

Tell me, does it strike you as balanced or not? Not Pro Ira, not Pro Britain - but balanced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/northern_ireland/4415617.stm

-Geoff

[Shai Gar]

The two conflicting arguments:
1) The natives were there first, so it's their land

2) The natives did not know how to use the land profitably, so they forfeited their right to it and colonisation was justified.

Both have merit, I was once a strong proponent of 1, but now I'm not so sure.
yeah, i wont be going home to ireland any time soon just because the idiots who claim native title in cities and in the middle of parks want it. they claim that 26 of jan is INVASION DAY, well invasions are acts of war, we obviously won so we get the land.

but with the irish thing i dont propose that anyone actually leave ireland, just that the english reliquish control over to the irish

[Thermo]

Well here is probably the most recent relevant reporting on the bbc website.

Tell me, does it strike you as balanced or not? Not Pro Ira, not Pro Britain - but balanced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/northern_ireland/4415617.stm

I have an obvious bias, but I believe it is a Pro-British article. I will list a few reasons I believe that to back my point up logically.

1.) The article only references IRA violence and says nothing about what I would assume would be the British backlash.
2.) It takes an overview of the conflict and doesn't acknowledge the marches into Catholic Territory.
3.) It implies Sinn Fienn is ineffectual.
4.) It looks like it only takes the excerpt of Mr. Adam's speech that is flattering to the British.
5.) It points out that Adams was snubbed by the Americans without explaining why, implying that it was because of the IRA and not referencing the tie in to the American terrorist issues.

In short, this article is whole negative about the Irish and glosses over the issues of the British.

[Shai Gar]

oh and thermo, i grew up in a VERY irish community out west, totally PRO-RIRA. nothing has been forgiven, and if it werent for america being such a cunt around the world i might actually give my opinion on that.

it isnt favourable to the poms

[Geoff]

I have an obvious bias, but I believe it is a Pro-British article. I will list a few reasons I believe that to back my point up logically.

1.) The article only references IRA violence and says nothing about what I would assume would be the British backlash.
2.) It takes an overview of the conflict and doesn't acknowledge the marches into Catholic Territory.
3.) It implies Sinn Fienn is ineffectual.
4.) It looks like it only takes the excerpt of Mr. Adam's speech that is flattering to the British.
5.) It points out that Adams was snubbed by the Americans without explaining why, implying that it was because of the IRA and not referencing the tie in to the American terrorist issues.

In short, this article is whole negative about the Irish and glosses over the issues of the British.


Are you sure your bias is not affecting your reading of this reporting?

It is reporting the views verbatim of all major parties. It shows the British govt as accepting it as significant. It quotes words from Sinn Fein which a pro British report would surely censor. How are his quotes only the pro British ones...

"For over 30 years, the IRA showed that the British government could not rule Ireland on its own terms. You asserted the legitimacy of the right of the people of this island to freedom and independence.

"Many of your comrades made the ultimate sacrifice. Your determination, selflessness and courage have brought that freedom struggle forward towards its attainment.

How is that pro British reporting of his words?

-Geoff

[Shai Gar]

the one good thing i can say for the english soldiers serving in northern ireland now is that they are, or try to be, thourough going professionals who try to stay out of politics and they are much more peaceful with the native populace than the american soldiers in THEIR occupied nations

[kuranes]

I remember hearing that the American Indians were going to start opening up private banks on their sovereign territory, which would be able to operate like Swiss banks, beyond the scrutiny of the various state and federal oversight groups in the USA. Of course the IRS didn't approve of it, but last I heard they were still battling over what to do.
K

[Thermo]

Are you sure your bias is not affecting your reading of this reporting?

It is reporting the views verbatim of all major parties. It shows the British govt as accepting it as significant. It quotes words from Sinn Fein which a pro British report would surely censor. How are his quotes only the pro British ones...

"For over 30 years, the IRA showed that the British government could not rule Ireland on its own terms. You asserted the legitimacy of the right of the people of this island to freedom and independence.

"Many of your comrades made the ultimate sacrifice. Your determination, selflessness and courage have brought that freedom struggle forward towards its attainment.

How is that pro British reporting of his words?

-Geoff
I outlined my reasons for believing it is pro-British, because I am aware of my strong bias. You have a legitimate argument for the quote so I will give you that. What about the rest?

[crule81]

the one good thing i can say for the english soldiers serving in northern ireland now is that they are, or try to be, thourough going professionals who try to stay out of politics and they are much more peaceful with the native populace than the american soldiers in THEIR occupied nations

Why don't we give the British Troops the Baghdad/Sunni sector instead of the Shi'ite sector and see how long the Brits can be peaceful.

[Geoff]

I outlined my reasons for believing it is pro-British, because I am aware of my strong bias. You have a legitimate argument for the quote so I will give you that. What about the rest?

Well,for example you said it didnt reference the reason why Adams was snubbed.. the article says "Sinn Fein has been under pressure and was recently snubbed in the US over claims of IRA criminality.". It does therefore give a reference (there are links over to the right).

You also asked why it didnt talk about Loyalist marches in catholic areas. What relevance are they to reporting Adams report to his own terrorist arm? There is a link over to the right to the whole Northern Ireland issue.

Perhaps you should take a look through http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/default.stm

It really is rather good.

For example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/themes/marching_parades.stm contains a balanced view (I would say) of why there are marches and that it does indeed cause problems!

Read through a few of the links from this page. it doesnt seem to blame any one side, despite I think your intention to read it as such!

-Geoff

[Geoff]

Why don't we give the British Troops the Baghdad/Sunni sector instead of the Shi'ite sector and see how long the Brits can be peaceful.

Ah, glad of the help in Iraq are you? I suppose we could just all go home (I'm for that).

Did not the reposting of the Black Watch (Scottish regiment) to Baghdad not get any press in the US? It was bad PR here for the British and seen as pandering to Bush just before the election. So yes, they have been in Baghdad.

-Geoff

[Shai Gar]

you give the english control of baghdad and i can guarentee you peace with the natives inside of 3 months, unless the US does something to intervene.

remember the reason they are fighting is that you are there, if the middle east had invaded your county you would probably be making bombs and reloading your rifle right now

[crule81]

you give the english control of baghdad and i can guarentee you peace with the natives inside of 3 months, unless the US does something to intervene.

Sounds like a plan.


remember the reason they are fighting is that you are there, if the middle east had invaded your county you would probably be making bombs and reloading your rifle right now

Isn't that the same reason they would fight the British?

In any event, your last statements fails because if the domestic government of the US resembled that of Sadam Hussein, I, along with many other Americans, would welcome almost any kind of invasion to free us from that tyranny.

[Shai Gar]

no because the british would bend to public opinion and leave

[Shai Gar]

In any event, your last statements fails because if the domestic government of the US resembled that of Sadam Hussein, I, along with many other Americans, would welcome almost any kind of invasion to free us from that tyranny.
i think you fail to understand that less people died under saddam than bush.

you mightn't fight, but i would

[crule81]

the one good thing i can say for the english soldiers serving in northern ireland now is that they are, or try to be, thourough going professionals who try to stay out of politics and they are much more peaceful with the native populace than the american soldiers in THEIR occupied nations

This was the original statement with which I took issue. Stating that the British would leave right away does nothing to demonstrate that they are "more peaceful with the native populace" when they occupy foreign nations.

[Shai Gar]

i am not going to back up my statements, what i will do is recommend that you read third party accounts of US soldiers behaviour in occupied nations, and read about UK soldiers in occupied nations.

(just to clarify, i am not talking about the black and tans, or the redcoats)

[ohnoaninfp]

Are ProCatholic parades allowed in Protestant sectors, or do the British stop them?

[Geoff]

It seems there is a difference in approach. The British seem to take a more open stance. That is both good and bad. But, for example, they dont wear helmets whenever possible. They are often found playing football with the kids and all that. They take casualties as a result but in the bigger picture, maybe less?
My understanding is that they are often used in UN situation because of Northern Ireland experience to diffuse 'local' problems with these tactics.
Each force has its own strength, the US one is in technology and strategic planning.

-Geoff

[crule81]

i think you fail to understand that less people died under saddam than bush.

Do you have any facts to support that? When you add up the Iraqis that the Ba'ath regime killed directly and purposefully, along with those who died in the Iran-Iraq War and the first Gulf War, I fail to see how more Iraqis have died since 2003 than during Saddam's rule.

[Shai Gar]

FRIENDLY FIRE, FRIENDLY FIRE.

well at least we know americas weakpoints, an inability to know their allies from the ragheads

[Shai Gar]

it is much simpler to deal on a day to day basis

[Geoff]

Are ProCatholic parades allowed in Protestant sectors, or do the British stop them?

Good question! My understanding is that the paradescomission is an independent body that vets and allows/disallows parades. It is meant to be independent but I dont have much knowledge of how unbiased it is in reality.
I dont *think* the catholic areas have the same tradition, so maybe not something they seek to do? Not sure.
-Geoff

[crule81]

i am not going to back up my statements, what i will do is recommend that you read third party accounts of US soldiers behaviour in occupied nations, and read about UK soldiers in occupied nations.

(just to clarify, i am not talking about the black and tans, or the redcoats)

When since Britain evacuated their colonies, other than this war, have the British been an occupying force rather than peacekeepers? My understanding of their role in Northern Ireland since the partition, from my own studies and this thread, is that they acted as peacekeepers and not necessarily fighting the IRA.

My point is that one cannot compare the occupations of the British in the Shi'ite areas and the Americans in the Sunni areas. How much trouble have the Americans had with the Kurds in the North? The Shi'ites, like the Kurds, bore much of the brunt of the Ba'athist regime and many, if not most, have no reason to fight the occupying forces. It is simply no coincidence that the Sunnis, a minority who were given all of the benefits under Saddam are the most upset to see him go and have created chaos to derail any elected government in which they would be a minority.

[Geoff]

When since Britain evacuated their colonies, other than this war, have the British been an occupying force rather than peacekeepers? My understanding of their role in Northern Ireland since the partition, from my own studies and this thread, is that they acted as peacekeepers and not necessarily fighting the IRA.

My point is that one cannot compare the occupations of the British in the Shi'ite areas and the Americans in the Sunni areas. How much trouble have the Americans had with the Kurds in the North? The Shi'ites, like the Kurds, bore much of the brunt of the Ba'athist regime and many, if not most, have no reason to fight the occupying forces. It is simply no coincidence that the Sunnis, a minority who were given all of the benefits under Saddam are the most upset to see him go and have created chaos to derail any elected government in which they would be a minority.

You certainly have a good point. However the experiences in Northern Ireland have clearly trained an element of the British Army in a very sensitive area - urban crowd control, armed paramilitaries etc, that other armies like to make use of (and did in Serbia, Iraq, Timor etc)

--Geoff

[ohnoaninfp]

Good question! My understanding is that the paradescomission is an independent body that vets and allows/disallows parades. It is meant to be independent but I dont have much knowledge of how unbiased it is in reality.
I dont *think* the catholic areas have the same tradition, so maybe not something they seek to do? Not sure.
-Geoff

The British probably keep them from having parades so the Protestants won't get pissed.

[Geoff]

The British probably keep them from having parades so the Protestants won't get pissed.

Well that was probably once the case. Now I think the British Govt are heartily sick of being stuck in the middle of a catholic/protestant argument. I suspect that the sooner devolution happens the easier it'll be. I doubt there is a campaign at a high level to prevent it, although no doubt there are people on the ground on both sides who would merrily interfere.

-Geoff

[Thermo]

Good question! My understanding is that the paradescomission is an independent body that vets and allows/disallows parades. It is meant to be independent but I dont have much knowledge of how unbiased it is in reality.
I dont *think* the catholic areas have the same tradition, so maybe not something they seek to do? Not sure.
-Geoff
It would be suicide for the Irish Catholics to attempt to have a parade in protestant territory. First of all, they probably wouldn't be allowed. Second of all, If they did get in the police and military would break it up. Third, why would you want to have a parade for the sole purpose of antagonizing someone?

Here is a good account of some of the horrors imposed on the Irish people by the British. http://www.inac.org/irishhistory/

[Thermo]

Are you sure your bias is not affecting your reading of this reporting?
Of course, there is some bias to my position, but you are biased as well.



It is reporting the views verbatim of all major parties.
I disagree. The article repeatedly references the IRA robbing a bank and killing someone and goes so far as to mention the guy by name. Does it mention what the british do to the Irish? No. Does the article explain why the Irish are fighting in the first place? No. Unbiased means it shows both sides, this just shows one side with some minor concessions.

When I challenged you to find an article I said a blatantly pro-irish written by the british media. This doesn't qualify and I doubt you can find one.

[ohnoaninfp]

Well that was probably once the case. Now I think the British Govt are heartily sick of being stuck in the middle of a catholic/protestant argument. I suspect that the sooner devolution happens the easier it'll be. I doubt there is a campaign at a high level to prevent it, although no doubt there are people on the ground on both sides who would merrily interfere.

-Geoff

No offense, but it was England's fucking fault that the Catholics and Protestants are killing each other. The English took over Ireland and kicked the Catholics off their land, stripped them off their rights, and tried to annilate them. The Prostestants were given the land that had originally belonged to the Catholics and helped with the persecution of the Catholics. :rant:

[Boneca]

No offense, but it was England's fucking fault that the Catholics and Protestants are killing each other. The English took over Ireland and kicked the Catholics off their land, stripped them off their rights, and tried to annilate them. The Prostestants were given the land that had originally belonged to the Catholics and helped with the persecution of the Catholics. :rant:Yes, you're right. But the protestants that live in Northern Ireland today were born there. You can't punish them for what happened in the past.
And it isn't really about Catholicism vs. Protestantism at all. Down in the south of Ireland, catholics and protestants live peacefully side by side (at least as far as I have seen).
To me it seems that the conflict of Northern Ireland is more along the lines of "they killed my father, so I have to kill one of them"...an endless loop of revenge. And that is not an easy thing to get out of.

[Claverhouse]

No offense, but it was England's fucking fault that the Catholics and Protestants are killing each other. The English took over Ireland and kicked the Catholics off their land, stripped them off their rights, and tried to annilate them. The Prostestants were given the land that had originally belonged to the Catholics and helped with the persecution of the Catholics. :rant:
Almost, but not quite --- although something like this would have happened anyway, it has in most parts of the world: why not Ireland ?

And they were only given land up in the north.

The Irish were usually killing each other before the English came, and Ireland was never united except under England. They then continued to kill each other doing the work for the English as often as not. As far as relative rights go, the English took over the Lordship of Ireland under John I, 800 years ago, which is rather longer than the present Americans have been in the American continent ( including the Irish-Americans ); Henry VIII ( who died a catholic, despite breaking away from the Roman church ) became King of all Ireland, nearly 500 years ago, which is longer ditto; the plantations of Prot Scots took place 400 years ago, which means they are now Irish, not Scots or English, and have more right to be in Ulster than most Americans, ditto...

Some catholics and some protestants fought for the Stuarts; and others of both sects fought against them --- I don't see why I should care a hang for any of the latter, whatever happened ( happens ) to them.

Demographically, catholics will soon outnumber the Irish prots in Ulster, anyway, so time will take care of things and the prots will either stay as a minority or leave. As to marching; the situation in Belfast has always meant strict demarcation lines between catholic/prot areas. You would be foolish to sing 'The Sash My Father Wore' in the Falls Road; and equally stupid to sing 'The Soldier's Song' down in the Shankill. Pro-IRA marches happen in the catholic areas: the Orange Order ( never found out what happened to the Purple Order ) continued their provocative marches of long-standing through catholic areas to establish the fact that they held the upper hand. These have been banned of recent years.

People take sides based on to which tribe they were born: if an Irish baby was adopted by an Ulster family and brought up as a protestant, he would be as likely to join the UDA or the UDF as not, if adopted by a catholic family, he would be just as likely to admire the IRA or INLA: or vice versa.


As to more recent American relations... despite the fact that it was not in the least their business, any more than that they should intervene when Greeks kill Turks and vice versa in Cyprus or in wars, American presidents and administrations have sucked up to their unbalanced Irish constituencies by trying to 'help' find a solution to the NI troubles. Usually this meant allowing the IRA to gain money and bombs etc. from the runners in America: and ( courtesy of the CIA ) attempting to bring forth a United Ireland solution, with the Brits getting out and Ulster joining the Irish Republic. This continued up to and including Reagan, the American press being ( as rabidly enthusiastic for people's choice anywhere in the world except America as it historically was ) pro-IRA. Under Clinton there was much more waffle, but the enthusiasm for the IRA cooled, since it was now clear they were mainly psychos ( as were the prot gangs ); under Bush II there is still less liking for them because they are the terrorist's terrorists. The present exclusion has been caused by the fact that Sinn Fein/IRA murdered a catholic, Robert McCartney, of republican extraction, in a bar with prominent IRA men and women present who refused to testify to the stabbing. When the family made rather more of a fuss than is usual there, Mr. Adams engaged in a dialogue which was at times threatening, and the IRA handsomely made a public offer to execute the murderers they had sent. Even Little Georgie has some standards, so he snubbed Mr. Adams.


The whole purpose of fighting for a free united Ireland has ended in the Irish Republic, a social-democratic parliamentary democracy in nowise different to any other western state, nor different from what they would have got anyway. Except that they can call their leader the Tea-Shock instead of Prime Minister.


English/Irish myself ( plus Scots/Welsh ). Fuck'em all.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Serotonin]

i think you fail to understand that less people died under saddam than bush.


Absolute crap and you know it. Not to say that either Saddam or Bush is particularly pleasant, but you are full of shit Shai.

Deaths under Saddam: At least 600,000
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Death under Bush: Around 18,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[Lee]

English/Irish myself . Fuck'em all.Ditto :cool:

edit: except ohnoaninfp of course.. :wub:

[Shai Gar]

bush hasnt been there very long dipshit.

if you equal the things off it is easier to read

[Serotonin]

bush hasnt been there very long dipshit.

if you equal the things off it is easier to read

Oh you mean you're extrapolating? Mmm people will really take you seriously on that one.

[MacGuffin]

Absolute crap and you know it. Not to say that either Saddam or Bush is particularly pleasant, but you are full of shit Shai.

Deaths under Saddam: At least 600,000
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Death under Bush: Around 18,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Dammit, since when do we let facts get in the way of anti-American rants on the internet?

[Lee]

With land changing hands politically and ethnically so frequently in history, it becomes silly to claim one area inalienably belongs to one group.Exactly!

Why don't we give the British Troops the Baghdad/Sunni sector instead of the Shi'ite sector and see how long the Brits can be peaceful.Again, Exactly!

There is not a great deal of real difference between the British and American troops, however it would suites the purposes of those who wish to derail the current administrations plans for Iraq to exaggerate differences in order to drive a wedge between allies.

Isn't that the same reason they would fight the British?

In any event, your last statements fails because if the domestic government of the US resembled that of Sadam Hussein, I, along with many other Americans, would welcome almost any kind of invasion to free us from that tyranny.Also true, I know I would welcome almost any invasion force if I lived under a Saddam like tyranny.


Absolute crap and you know it. Not to say that either Saddam or Bush is particularly pleasant, but you are full of shit Shai.

Deaths under Saddam: At least 600,000
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_...ssein42503.html (http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html)

Death under Bush: Around 18,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
George Bush is nowhere near as bad as Saddam in almost any capacity,I am sick of people making that comparison, imagine for one second what the world would be like if Saddam was president of America !?! exactly!

[misutii]

really, nationalistic pride just seems stupid these days. It's this same pride that is the biggest problem in Northern Ireland right now, and I understand that the populace is largely ignorant just like the populace in any other country but it doesn't give the right to blame people that live in Britain NOW for problems. Sure 'if we could go back in time' so much things could be changed but the Brits were acting like any other nation would have acted, morality is utterly relative to the time period, unfortunately only time can heal the irish situation and ignorant passion can only make it worse

yes history is 'unfair' but if history was 'fair' instead we'd probably all be living in overcrowded mud hut cities

[Claverhouse]

Even that extremely partial and not particularly reliable page estimating 600,000 for Saddam has 500,000 of those dying 'in his needless war with Iran'.

a/ The USA supported this war, since they hated revolutionary Iran which had triumphed over and humiliated America.

b/ Saddam was only partly needful for responsibility for this war, which can be shared between Iraq and Iran, and may have taken place even had he died before it started.

c/ The Iraqi dead in that war can no more be placed to his credit than the soviet dead in WWII to that of Stalin. Many, most perhaps, wanted to fight the enemy and for their own nation to triumph.

That leaves 100,000 ( a lovely round figure ) over a quarter of a century. Other sources have had the same number of civilian Iraqis dead since the Americans launched their present War of Aggression.

I have noticed that almost no-one has even glanced at my Blumrich animations...
:whistle:


Claverhouse :ph34r:


BTW, with reference to the grand old lies, it is extremely unlikely that he gassed anyone, not even the Kurds. See the estimable Jude Wanniski's examinations on the internet. But at least this accusation was in the finest traditional manner; possibly it's very nearly mandatory to invent this stuff against whomever one decides to war against.

[crule81]

Other sources have had the same number of civilian Iraqis dead since the Americans launched their present War of Aggression.

But how many of those civilians were killed by US, British, Iraqi Police, etc. forces and how many were killed by the Iraqi Army in the conventional phase and the insurgents in the present phase?

[Thermo]

I just want to make one more point about this. Both sides are at fault. The Irish should have tried hard to have a non-violent movement like Martin Luther King, Junior or Gandhi. However the British created the situation, exacerbate it with marches and brutal tactics in Ireland.

[Claverhouse]

But how many of those civilians were killed by US, British, Iraqi Police, etc. forces and how many were killed by the Iraqi Army in the conventional phase and the insurgents in the present phase?
Absolutely no idea. But they would still be alive if lil' Georgie hadn't had a hard-on for the chap who humiliated Daddy.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


WMD, that's the reason they declared war. Perhaps China can invade America unless it dismantles all it's WMD.

[crule81]

But they would still be alive if lil' Georgie hadn't had a hard-on for the chap who humiliated Daddy.


If you adopt that reasoning, then you have to add the 500,000 back on to Saddam's total for the Iran-Iraq war which he did start.

[Claverhouse]

I just want to make one more point about this. Both sides are at fault. The Irish should have tried hard to have a non-violent movement like Martin Luther King, Junior or Gandhi. However the British created the situation, exacerbate it with marches and brutal tactics in Ireland.
The British are not marching in NI: the Ulster prots are, who call themselves loyalists --- wanting to remain part of the United Kingdom, whether the UK wants them or not --- and have themselves been in Ireland in the 6 counties for over 300 years.

And if the Southern Irish had not used violence they would not have secured independence for the 26 counties they currently rule.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

If you adopt that reasoning, then you have to add the 500,000 back on to Saddam's total for the Iran-Iraq war which he did start. Not really. The Iraq-Iran war was between neighbours ( who many generally be assumed will fight each other throughout history: even England and France have fought occasionally ): the USA-Iraq war II was fought from a nation which had no domestic dispute with the other country which is ( I'm guessing ) about 5000 miles away, without any provocation that endangered the aggressor-nation. I've already said why a leader cannot be saddled with the deaths in a war above, and I do not blame Bush personally ( as you do Saddam ) for the deaths accrued: but he was responsible for starting it.

Mr. Daniel Pipes has a sympathetic look at the origins of the Iraq-Iran war here (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/164): (1983)*

Still, at least the Iranians have finally won: Iraq will probably break up and the Shi'ite portion join with Iran making it stronger and more powerful, thanks to this last war.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


*
But why did the Iraqis attack? What goals prompted President Saddam Husayn's regime to confront Iran and provoke a large-scale war? What made it worth risking oil facilities, wide international disapproval, loss of revenues, and domestic unrest? Assuming Saddam Husayn is not one to act rashly or foolishly - even critics acknowledge his pragmatism - one must conclude that he had serious reasons for making war in September 1980.
Today's regimes also share much. Both are republics that obtained power through the spectacular repudiation of monarchs: a bloody coup d'êtat on 14 July 1958 ended the Hashemite dynasty in Iraq, and Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1978-79 toppled the Pahlavi shahs. Reacting against the pro-Western bent of these monarchs, the republican regimes are nonaligned with a distinct anti-U.S. character. Iraq entered the 1980s without having reinstated the diplomatic relations with the United States it had broken on 7 June 1967, in the midst of the Six Day War. Iran under the mullahs compensated for the shah's close times with Washington by blaming the United States for every ill it experienced "from assassination and ethnic unrest to traffic jams [and] drug addiction." The seizure of U.S. diplomats as hostages led to an extraordinary burst of rancor against the United States and a nearly complete rupture in relations.
Once the fighting started though, the theme of pan-Arabism versus pan-Islamism emerged repeatedly. The Iraqi government stressed the nationalistic purpose of the war: patriotic songs on television, a stress on ethnic rivalry with the Iranians, and repeated references to the seventh-century Battle of Qadisiya (when Arabians beat Iranians). In contrast, the Iranian government ignored nationalism; calling its army "the soldiers of Islam," it referred to the Iraqi army as the "forces of blasphemy." Actually, it's a rather extended article, concentrating enormously on the possibly fascinating, but mind-numbing, history of the Shatt al-'Arab River... I shall quote no more

[Thermo]

The British are not marching in NI: the Ulster prots are, who call themselves loyalists --- wanting to remain part of the United Kingdom, whether the UK wants them or not --- and have themselves been in Ireland in the 6 counties for over 300 years.
Whether they are there five minutes or four thousand years, they are British squating on Irish territory.


And if the Southern Irish had not used violence they would not have secured independence for the 26 counties they currently rule.
Peaceful resistance has worked in the past. I gave two examples - the Martin Luther King Junior movement in the US for black rights and the Gandhi movement in India. Violence is the easier path and I don't blame them for taking it. The use of violence does place some blame on them, IMHO. I respect non-violence more.

[Geoff]

Whether they are there five minutes or four thousand years, they are British squating on Irish territory.


Peaceful resistance has worked in the past. I gave two examples - the Martin Luther King Junior movement in the US for black rights and the Gandhi movement in India. Violence is the easier path and I don't blame them for taking it. The use of violence does place some blame on them, IMHO. I respect non-violence more.

We are all squatters on someone's territory. If British control of Ireland has been for longer than the US... does it make it better or worse than US control of Native Indian land? I would say it is the same.. and that if people are born somewhere that gives them a right to reside.

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

Like those drunken Micks would have done anything constructive anyway.

[Geoff]

way to go with the love and understanding ;)

[MacGuffin]

Don't get me started on the Scots.

[Claverhouse]

Whether they are there five minutes or four thousand years, they are British squating on Irish territory.
So you support the removal of non-American-Indians from the North American continent ? How quickly ?

And they are not British they were Scots 4-300 years ago. Descended from the Scotti, who came over to Scotland from Ireland. The Irish came from Scotland originally.

Most Irish people today have a great percentage of English/Welsh blood anyway, we're all cousins and all very mixed. Nearly all Irish leaders after Sarsfield were mostly directly of English heritage: except Dev, who was Spanish/American.



Peaceful resistance has worked in the past. I gave two examples - the Martin Luther King Junior movement in the US for black rights and the Gandhi movement in India. Violence is the easier path and I don't blame them for taking it. The use of violence does place some blame on them, IMHO. I respect non-violence more. The British would have left India anyway, thanks to the pressures from home to dissolve the British Empire. Fortunately however, Ghandi's non-violence eased the passage and meant that immediately they had independence they could all start killing each other rather than British soldiers ( who were knackered after fighting WWII and scarcely wanted to die in India ) About a quarter to a half a million people died in the Partition when the Brits were gone. Violence does have results. And results that certain people desire from the start.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[crule81]

Not really. The Iraq-Iran war was between neighbours ( who many generally be assumed will fight each other throughout history: even England and France have fought occasionally ): the USA-Iraq war II was fought from a nation which had no domestic dispute with the other country which is ( I'm guessing ) about 5000 miles away, without any provocation that endangered the aggressor-nation. I've already said why a leader cannot be saddled with the deaths in a war above, and I do not blame Bush personally ( as you do Saddam ) for the deaths accrued: but he was responsible for starting it.


I guess that I have misread your posts because I am confused. I believe this debate began when Shai Gar said that "less people died under saddam than bush." I responded by adding up all of the Iraqis that that Saddam's regime killed directly plus all of the people who died in wars that Saddam started (Iran-Iraq, First Gulf War) and comparing that to all of the Iraqis who died from the current war, started by Bush.

Since, in your post above, you state that one cannot personally blame Bush for Iraqi deaths in the current war and one cannot personally blame Saddam for deaths in the Iran-Iraq or First Gulf War, then the number Saddam killed is about 100,000 and Bush's number is 0. If one does blame both personally for their respective wars, then Saddam's number is 600,000 and Bush's number is 100,000.

This is a purely logical debate and means nothing when all is said and done. In the end, this really doesn't matter because if there were no Saddam, there would be 700,000 Iraqis who would not have perished.

[Geoff]

It would seem a little harsh to blame Bush for the fact that Saddam gassed all those Kurds...

-Geoff

[Claverhouse]

It would seem a little harsh to blame Bush for the fact that Saddam gassed all those Kurds...

-Geoff
What gassing (http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html) of which Kurds (http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?ArticleID=1942) ?

And gassings or no, the silver-tongued old salesman was still hawking America's wares on behalf of Bush II in old Baghdad: 'Anthrax, who'll buy my lovely Anthrax ?'


Washington Post: U.S had Key Role in Iraq Build-Up (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true).


A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Thermo]

Like those drunken Micks would have done anything constructive anyway.
haha

[Thermo]

We are all squatters on someone's territory. If British control of Ireland has been for longer than the US... does it make it better or worse than US control of Native Indian land? I would say it is the same.. and that if people are born somewhere that gives them a right to reside.
Like I said from the beginning, the US isn't right either. Furthermore, the fact that everyone else is doing it, doesn't excuse the British from doing it.

[Thermo]

So you support the removal of non-American-Indians from the North American continent ? How quickly ?

And they are not British they were Scots 4-300 years ago. Descended from the Scotti, who came over to Scotland from Ireland. The Irish came from Scotland originally.

Most Irish people today have a great percentage of English/Welsh blood anyway, we're all cousins and all very mixed. Nearly all Irish leaders after Sarsfield were mostly directly of English heritage: except Dev, who was Spanish/American.
I didn't say the issue was simple and like I have said before, just because other people do it doesn't make it right.




The British would have left India anyway, thanks to the pressures from home to dissolve the British Empire. Fortunately however, Ghandi's non-violence eased the passage and meant that immediately they had independence they could all start killing each other rather than British soldiers ( who were knackered after fighting WWII and scarcely wanted to die in India ) About a quarter to a half a million people died in the Partition when the Brits were gone. Violence does have results. And results that certain people desire from the start.
Are you condoning the White mans burden? It sure sounds like it.

[ohnoaninfp]

Like those drunken Micks would have done anything constructive anyway.
Fuck you
* Throws empty whiskey bottle a Macguffin

[MacGuffin]

Fuck you
* Throws empty whiskey bottle a Macguffin
Mac: heyyyy, there was still some left!

Ohno: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo..........

[Claverhouse]

Are you condoning the White mans burden? It sure sounds like it. Nooo. Why should you think that ? I think the West should have kept the hell away from the less developed world --- certainly until they could control their insensate greed; and also because of what Spengler called the treason: giving the other less developed parts of the world one's own technology which they could then use to overcome the west.

The British in India has it's own interest but as far as I can see, after looting the Indians blind under John Company, until the British Government took it over instead of a private corporation, the Brits only did two good things for the natives: a/ built railways b/ by imposing a single government over all the sub-continent stopped them killing each other for a century or so.

The fact is that the muslims and the hindus don't even love each other now, and would be still killing each other, probably over Kashmir, were it not for the fact that both sides have nuclear bombs.

My point was that Ghandi's non-violence didn't actually determine the British to leave. Most of them wanted out anyway.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Geoff]

Like I said from the beginning, the US isn't right either. Furthermore, the fact that everyone else is doing it, doesn't excuse the British from doing it.

Ah, but the difference is that the British and Irish are working to put a power sharing government in place, with all leading parties (including those connected with terrorism on both sides!). So a wrong is trying to be put right.

What is the US doing about squatting on Indian land?

-Geoff

[Thermo]

Ah, but the difference is that the British and Irish are working to put a power sharing government in place, with all leading parties (including those connected with terrorism on both sides!). So a wrong is trying to be put right.
Here is a very simple direct question. Were the British wrong to take the Irish land and attempt to commit genocide against the Irish people?

[Claverhouse]

Here is a very simple direct question. Were the British wrong to take the Irish land and attempt to commit genocide against the Irish people? You don't seem able to get a handle on it.

The English ( & actually it was the Anglo-Normans rather --- not the British --- ) invaded 800 years ago. You can say various decisions and events in mediaeval or ancient history were bad, but it is scarcely valid to blame a whole people for events over a 1000 years span. Were the Normans right to take the Saxon land ? Were the Saxons right to take the British land ? People take lands, get over it.

The people you persist in calling the British are the Ulster prots. They have been there for over 300 years: you expect them just to go away ? You may not like them but 300 years ownership is as good a claim to land as any other. They - Are - Not - BRITISH in the sense that they have just come over from Scotland or Wales and taken the Irish land. They are Irish people who wish to remain under the government of the United Kingdom, rather than join with the Irish Republic. Which is their call, not anyone else's.

The English/British never genocided the Irish. Not in mediaeval times, not under that republican scum Cromwell ( who butchered many in and after battle and transported them either to Connaught or abroad --- the latter of which the pitiful little proto-fascist was doing to plenty of Englishmen, either Royalists or thieves: but he did not attempt extermination. ). The Irish Famine was not caused by English malevolence --- even the usurpress Victoria gave lots of money to help --- but exacerbated by the application of Liberal Free-Trade Anti-Government Economics which creed helped kill people then as it does today.

For more recent rights and wrongs, you may like to consider the Greek-Turkish War of 1920 and the flight of the Greeks or the Expulsion of the Germanics from Eastern Europe after the war when millions died on the way. Not that people care much. Bad Germans.

These things happened in the last century, not 800 years ago, rather more relevant to today.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[ohnoaninfp]

Who's blaming Bush for Saddam's actions? WTF is wrong with people. First you say that he is killing people by trying to remove Saddam from power and putting in a democracy, then you say it is his fault that the Kurds were being persecuted. Make up your damn mind!

[Thermo]

You don't seem able to get a handle on it.
I will ask you an even simpler question. Are the British/Irish Prots at fault at all in this conflict?




The English ( & actually it was the Anglo-Normans rather --- not the British --- ) invaded 800 years ago. You can say various decisions and events in mediaeval or ancient history were bad, but it is scarcely valid to blame a whole people for events over a 1000 years span. Were the Normans right to take the Saxon land ? Were the Saxons right to take the British land ? People take lands, get over it.
The people you persist in calling the British are the Ulster prots. They have been there for over 300 years: you expect them just to go away ? You may not like them but 300 years ownership is as good a claim to land as any other. They - Are - Not - BRITISH in the sense that they have just come over from Scotland or Wales and taken the Irish land. They are Irish people who wish to remain under the government of the United Kingdom, rather than join with the Irish Republic. Which is their call, not anyone else's.[/QUOTE]
You are missing the point. The British/prots are as wrong or more wrong than the Irish in this conflict. That doesn't mean they should move or the Irish have to "deal with it." I don't really know what the solution is.



The English/British never genocided the Irish. Not in mediaeval times, not under that republican scum Cromwell ( who butchered many in and after battle and transported them either to Connaught or abroad --- the latter of which the pitiful little proto-fascist was doing to plenty of Englishmen, either Royalists or thieves: but he did not attempt extermination. ). The Irish Famine was not caused by English malevolence --- even the usurpress Victoria gave lots of money to help --- but exacerbated by the application of Liberal Free-Trade Anti-Government Economics which creed helped kill people then as it does today.
They took there land, slaughtered them and tried to starve them out. You have pretty high standards for genocide.



For more recent rights and wrongs, you may like to consider the Greek-Turkish War of 1920 and the flight of the Greeks or the Expulsion of the Germanics from Eastern Europe after the war when millions died on the way. Not that people care much. Bad Germans.

These things happened in the last century, not 800 years ago, rather more relevant to today.
This is a fallacy. Just because bad things or worse things happen somewhere else doesn't absolve the British of there actions. According to your logic, I could come to your house beat you up and steal your house and land, because Hitler was worse?

[Lee]

Thermo,

More right, less right... ??? by who's standards?

[Claverhouse]

I will ask you an even simpler question. Are the British/Irish Prots at fault at all in this conflict?
The British Authorities were, in the past; and the present Irish Ulster Prots are presently to a large extent. The extreme prots ( and the standard issue Ulster prot culture is pretty awful --- they were the 'Scots-Irish' of an earlier America and fought heavily for the patriots in the AWI, and were prominent amongst the signers ) are very nasty people indeed. As is that portion of the Catholic and nationalist community who support Sinn Fein/IRA, INLA etc. and the 'Real IRA' who bombed Omagh a few years back. At present since Lady Thatcher the British Government's only desire has been to keep the peace during as fast a transition of the Province over to the Irish Republic as possible --- they are not presently at fault, unless you blame them for trying to betray the Ulster Prots ( who want to stay in the United Kingdom and not be handed over to the Republic ).



You are missing the point. The British/prots are as wrong or more wrong than the Irish in this conflict. That doesn't mean they should move or the Irish have to "deal with it." I don't really know what the solution is.
Which Irish ? The Irish Republic of the 26 Counties who have never fought the British or the Ulster Irish Prots and are not involved in the Troubles as principals --- The nationalist 'Catholic' Irish who want to force the joining of the 6 Counties into the rest of Ireland against the wishes of the present majority in the 6 Counties ( and not greatly to the desire of a large number of citizens of the Irish Republic: who don't really want a new big minority of troublesome Prots, and who distrust the fascist aspirations of the IRA --- that is the main lot the 'Provisional IRA', the old 'Official IRA' was communist inspired, which didn't stop them working well with the nazis during the war ).

There's no reason why there should be a solution. Some things have no solution.


They took there land, slaughtered them and tried to starve them out. You have pretty high standards for genocide.
They took land in the 17th century: they only killed them thereafter during rebellions: they did not try to starve them out --- they kept them very poor and did many bad things, but they did not create the Famine. Free-Market Liberalism ensured that it turned into a disaster, but even those people did not want it to turn out like that. And during the whole of the 19th century from the Napoleonic Wars right through those same 1840s ( the 'Hungry Forties' ) up to 1898 the English poor often starved to death. From a marxist point of view, it wasn't national oppression that starved the Irish, it was the fact that the richer classes exploited all the poor regardless of nationality.



This is a fallacy. Just because bad things or worse things happen somewhere else doesn't absolve the British of there actions. According to your logic, I could come to your house beat you up and steal your house and land, because Hitler was worse?
No. The quoted instances are more recent. I feel rather more concerned about things that happened recently, than oppressions of my ancestors 300 years ago. For one thing the people responsible are no longer here: so it's not the present British government ( no matter how loathesome and disgusting it may be in other directions ) nor the present British people, whomever they may be, who are responsible for the past.

And as for your misguided example ( for why should you single out the British in a world of bad things ? ) that is exactly what the Israelis do in Palestine, killing, extorting and blowing up houses with people inside merely because 'Hitler tried to kill us: so lay off criticising'.

And further, since the holocaust has become the central belief in modern life, according to some angry jewish critics replacing traditional jewish/christian religion; I would point out that it also has it's redemptive side: everyone can be absolved merely by condemning nazism as the worst of evils. Therefore since WWII, any atrocity or aggression by either the soviets or the Americans has been justified by referring to the massive efforts of either in getting rid of nazism. 'We were right then, so we are right forever'. So up to a point, your analogy works. But universally: not in this particular instance.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ And I'm not that interested in the Northern Irish problem, anymore than most people in Britain or Ireland --- so long as they're not bombing us we don't think about it most of the time. Only in the Province must they worry. ]

[mancroft]

Everybody should move back to where their families came from originally... say 500 years ago.

That would solve a lot of problems.

:whistle:

[zhang_bob]

Everybody should move back to where their families came from originally... say 500 years ago.

That would solve a lot of problems.

:whistle:
Then I would have to live in about 6 or 7 countries simultaneously.

[LongSilence]

That would be interesting... It might actually result in members of royal families owning less land than their subjects that can claim to be related to a good number of ancestors.

On another note, why this thread and why now?

[Dom]

They took there land, slaughtered them and tried to starve them out. You have pretty high standards for genocide.


This is inaccurate Social Memory and not History.

[mancroft]

This is inaccurate Social Memory and not History.

Agreed.

[MasterMerk]

This is inaccurate Social Memory and not History.

Isn't everything?

[wildcat]

I have read a few posts that indirectly address the Irish/British conflict in Ireland so I had to throw in my two cents.

I feel for the people of Ireland and when I say people of Ireland I mean the Irish Catholics who had there land taken away not the British interlopers. My mother's family feld to the United States to escape persecution by the English. The English deserve everything they got for stealing that land.

Keep in mind you are only hearing one side of the story, because the Irish side of the story is supressed and news and media is censored and slanted in favor of the English.

As if stealing land wasn't enough, the British feel they have to parade through Irish territory every season to rub our noses in it.
http://www.flashpoints.info/countries-conflicts/Northern_Ireland-web/n-ireland_parades_main.html
Genetically, the Irish are more British than the English.
The English are predominantly Anglo Saxon.
Immediately prior to the Bronze age the Celts occupied the British Isles. They were not British either.

The English have no part in the Irish question.

[Dom]

Isn't everything?

Sadly an awful lot is.....

The effort to try to change it to make it less inaccurate is huge....

An example, everyone in my office thinks the English used to burn witches at the stake....

This is inaccurate... the punishment for witch craft was to be hanged and your body burnt afterward...

Women who commited treason were burned at the stake....
Men and Women who had commited Heresy were burned at the stake....

But not for witchcraft (excluding the occasional lynching)

They did burn them on the main land continenet and in Scotland but not England. Try to explain this took about 3 hrs!! And a lot of internet articles before people very grudengly started to agree....

Social Memory is annoying!

[LongSilence]

I think that people confuse the martyrdoms of Catholics and Protestants with the old witch executions. Actually I understand that there might have been 2 witches burnt at the stake properly during England's history. Anyway, the trial of witches was hardly a common practice. I think some authorities put the number at 500 or something like that. And you never know, in all probability some of them might actually have believed in their practice of witchcraft and mixed a few potions and made a few spells in their time.

Its funny how time sensationalises things. By the way, I'm not trying to defend the killings of suspected witches, just suggest that people like radical feminists might do better not citing it as an example of widespread institution barbaric social oppression of individual women.

[Dom]

I think that people confuse the martyrdoms of Catholics and Protestants with the old witch executions. Actually I understand that there might have been 2 witches burnt at the stake properly during England's history. Anyway, the trial of witches was hardly a common practice. I think some authorities put the number at 500 or something like that. And you never know, in all probability some of them might actually have believed in their practice of witchcraft and mixed a few potions and made a few spells in their time.

Its funny how time sensationalises things. By the way, I'm not trying to defend the killings of suspected witches, just suggest that people like radical feminists might do better not citing it as an example of widespread institution barbaric social oppression of individual women.

Indeed, Personally I think the whole feminism thing hilarious, I'm sorry love but I'm not going to feel guilty about something I have never ever done and certainly not merely because I have a penis!

[Claverhouse]

Actually, in the Great Witch Hunt and beyond men and children were targeted nearly as much as women. The drivel about misogyny is mainly from 20th century preoccupations whilst filtering the past.

This is a good web-page that destroys a number of the myths...

http://www.tangledmoon.org/witchhunt.htm

And from there:


Overall, approximately 75% -80% of the accused were women. However this percentage varied dramatically. In several of the Scandinavian countries, equal numbers of men and women were accused. In Iceland over 90% of the accused were men. Central Europe killed the most witches, and it killed many more women than men -- this is why the overall percentages are so badly skewed.

Proponents of the misogyny theory generally ignore these variations. Many simply do not discuss male witches. One of the most egregious examples comes from Anne Llewellyn Barstow's Witchcraze. Barstow says that Iceland did not have a "real" witch hunt. Now, Iceland killed more witches than Ireland, Russia, and Portugal combined. Barstow claims that all these countries had "real" hunts, and offers no explanation of what made Iceland's deaths "unreal". The only thing that I can see is that almost all Icelandic witches were men, and Barstow's theory cannot handle that.

Given the sexism of the times, it's not difficult to find shockingly misogynist witch trials. But misogyny does not explain the trial patterns we see. The beginning and end of the persecution don't correlate to any notable shifts in women's rights. Trials clustered around borders -- are borders more misogynist than interior regions? Ireland killed four witches, Scotland a couple thousand -- are the Scots that much more sexist? Barstow admits that Russia was every bit as misogynist as Germany, yet it killed only ten witches. Her theory can't explain why, and so she simply insists that there were probably lots of other Russian witches killed and they were probably mostly women. We've just lost all the evidence that would support her theory.


My highlighting because it's so funny.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

EDIT: This is funny too:


In the 1970's, when feminist and Neo-Pagan authors turned their attention to the witch trials, the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) was the only manual readily available in translation. Authors naively assumed that the book painted an accurate picture of how the Inquisition tried witches. Heinrich Kramer, the text's demented author, was held up as a typical inquisitor. His rather stunning sexual preoccupations were presented as the Church's "official" position on witchcraft.

[omnirook]

I live in the United States; I was born in the United States. My whole country was stolen, piece by piece, and nobody then gave a damn who got robbed, raped, and/or killed in the process. Such was the case for most of the world throughout most of human history: VENI VIDI VICI.

My paternal ancestors came from Italy: am I supposed to feel shame that the Romans conquered most of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa? I don't. Not at all. The Romans gave far more to the world than they ever took from it, including the very alphabet that I am using to type in this post ... My maternal ancestors were English. An Englishman who is ashamed of his country's history is among what I most despise in this world. Who in history has a greater cultural claim than the English? Not the Greeks, not even the Romans.

To point a finger at the English and make them out to be monsters is ridiculous. Who are the English, after all? Celts-Romans-Celts-Germans-Vikings (Germans)-French (Romans/Celts/Germans/Vikings). One invasion after another for thousands of years. England was raided and raped and pillaged and burned out and mass-murdered for centuries. What, no tears for those who suffered and died? Of course not. Study the history between England and Ireland, and one soon sees that the raiding, raping, pillaging, and killing was done on both sides - down to the time when Elizabeth I offered her troops land in Ireland because she could not pay them in cash: put an end to the raiding parties that are decimating Wales and Cornwall! Every chance the Irish got, they tossed in w/anybody against the English, raised troops, forked over cash, supplied food - so why should the English have no complaints about the Irish - especially when they fought tooth and nail to put a Catholic back on the English throne? Yes - the Irish have been abused, but they have not been innocent in all of this. And, sorry, as an American, I cannot possibly plump for anyone being made to "go home" after 500 years - not when that would mean that nearly everyone in the United States would have to pack up and leave. And go where? The Anglo-Irish of Northern Ireland have the "right" to be there - sorry - and they also have the "right" to remain British. Let the Catholics in Northern Ireland either accept that they are British or let them move to Ireland, where they can be Irish. It's not so bad to be British. Liverpool is loaded w/Irish ethnics who have done quite well. Hell, I just got home from England, and I heard plenty of Irish accents in the pubs - and the owners of those accents seemed happy enough. "Northern Ireland? I don't give a rat's, man, not a stinking rat's. Fuck that! They should kill each other and be done w/it" - friendly Irishman in the Brains Pub near Slough.

[wildcat]

I live in the United States; I was born in the United States. My whole country was stolen, piece by piece, and nobody then gave a damn who got robbed, raped, and/or killed in the process. Such was the case for most of the world throughout most of human history: VENI VIDI VICI.

My paternal ancestors came from Italy: am I supposed to feel shame that the Romans conquered most of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa? I don't. Not at all. The Romans gave far more to the world than they ever took from it, including the very alphabet that I am using to type in this post ... My maternal ancestors were English. An Englishman who is ashamed of his country's history is among what I most despise in this world. Who in history has a greater cultural claim than the English? Not the Greeks, not even the Romans.

To point a finger at the English and make them out to be monsters is ridiculous. Who are the English, after all? Celts-Romans-Celts-Germans-Vikings (Germans)-French (Romans/Celts/Germans/Vikings). One invasion after another for thousands of years. England was raided and raped and pillaged and burned out and mass-murdered for centuries. What, no tears for those who suffered and died? Of course not. Study the history between England and Ireland, and one soon sees that the raiding, raping, pillaging, and killing was done on both sides - down to the time when Elizabeth I offered her troops land in Ireland because she could not pay them in cash: put an end to the raiding parties that are decimating Wales and Cornwall! Every chance the Irish got, they tossed in w/anybody against the English, raised troops, forked over cash, supplied food - so why should the English have no complaints about the Irish - especially when they fought tooth and nail to put a Catholic back on the English throne? Yes - the Irish have been abused, but they have not been innocent in all of this. And, sorry, as an American, I cannot possibly plump for anyone being made to "go home" after 500 years - not when that would mean that nearly everyone in the United States would have to pack up and leave. And go where? The Anglo-Irish of Northern Ireland have the "right" to be there - sorry - and they also have the "right" to remain British. Let the Catholics in Northern Ireland either accept that they are British or let them move to Ireland, where they can be Irish. It's not so bad to be British. Liverpool is loaded w/Irish ethnics who have done quite well. Hell, I just got home from England, and I heard plenty of Irish accents in the pubs - and the owners of those accents seemed happy enough. "Northern Ireland? I don't give a rat's, man, not a stinking rat's. Fuck that! They should kill each other and be done w/it" - friendly Irishman in the Brains Pub near Slough.
An interesting and uncommon post.
You are of Italian descent. The Italians were a heterogenic bunch of a conquered people, subdued by the Latins.
The Latins were conquerers not because they were Indo European peasants and sheep herders. The Etruscans made them.
The Romans did not invent the Roman Alphabet, it was adapted with little change from the Etruscan model.

The people of Northern and Southern Ireland do not differ either in descent or culture.
The national myth does breed undue pride and idle vanity and hence it is but the perpetrator of a conflict which never made any sense at all.

Edit: There is no such thing as a Celtic heritage. :reading:

[Heleuiski]

I live in the United States; I was born in the United States. My whole country was stolen, piece by piece, and nobody then gave a damn who got robbed, raped, and/or killed in the process. Such was the case for most of the world throughout most of human history: VENI VIDI VICI.

My paternal ancestors came from Italy: am I supposed to feel shame that the Romans conquered most of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa? I don't. Not at all. The Romans gave far more to the world than they ever took from it, including the very alphabet that I am using to type in this post ... My maternal ancestors were English. An Englishman who is ashamed of his country's history is among what I most despise in this world. Who in history has a greater cultural claim than the English? Not the Greeks, not even the Romans.

To point a finger at the English and make them out to be monsters is ridiculous. Who are the English, after all? Celts-Romans-Celts-Germans-Vikings (Germans)-French (Romans/Celts/Germans/Vikings). One invasion after another for thousands of years. England was raided and raped and pillaged and burned out and mass-murdered for centuries. What, no tears for those who suffered and died? Of course not. Study the history between England and Ireland, and one soon sees that the raiding, raping, pillaging, and killing was done on both sides - down to the time when Elizabeth I offered her troops land in Ireland because she could not pay them in cash: put an end to the raiding parties that are decimating Wales and Cornwall! Every chance the Irish got, they tossed in w/anybody against the English, raised troops, forked over cash, supplied food - so why should the English have no complaints about the Irish - especially when they fought tooth and nail to put a Catholic back on the English throne? Yes - the Irish have been abused, but they have not been innocent in all of this. And, sorry, as an American, I cannot possibly plump for anyone being made to "go home" after 500 years - not when that would mean that nearly everyone in the United States would have to pack up and leave. And go where? The Anglo-Irish of Northern Ireland have the "right" to be there - sorry - and they also have the "right" to remain British. Let the Catholics in Northern Ireland either accept that they are British or let them move to Ireland, where they can be Irish. It's not so bad to be British. Liverpool is loaded w/Irish ethnics who have done quite well. Hell, I just got home from England, and I heard plenty of Irish accents in the pubs - and the owners of those accents seemed happy enough. "Northern Ireland? I don't give a rat's, man, not a stinking rat's. Fuck that! They should kill each other and be done w/it" - friendly Irishman in the Brains Pub near Slough.

How refreshingly different.. someone with an informed opinion.

[wildcat]

How refreshingly different.. someone with an informed opinion.
Refrehingly different ... someone with an opinion formed in the process of conditioning.

[omnirook]

An interesting and uncommon post.
You are of Italian descent. The Italians were a heterogenic bunch of a conquered people, subdued by the Latins.
The Latins were conquerers not because they were Indo European peasants and sheep herders. The Etruscans made them.
The Romans did not invent the Roman Alphabet, it was adapted with little change from the Etruscan model.

The people of Northern and Southern Ireland do not differ either in descent or culture.
The national myth does breed undue pride and idle vanity and hence it is but the perpetrator of a conflict which never made any sense at all.

Edit: There is no such thing as a Celtic heritage. :reading:

So? Who, including the Etruscans, was ever indigenous to Italy? - Nobody.

So? The Roman alphabet was derived from the Etruscan alphabet - which was derived from the Greek alphabet - which was derived from the Phoenecian alphabet - which was derived from the Hebrew alphabet - which was derived from the Caanite alphabet ... What's your point? We are using the ROMAN version of the alphabet. The Etruscan version appears in about 1200 inscriptions - that nobody can understand - wow! What an influence!

The Romans like the Japanese did not have innovation as their genius - so? They took from all sources and made something better and more enduring. That was their genius. The Greeks may have been great innovators - but they could not stop fighting amongst themselves long enough to make any of it last. The only reason that the world has enjoyed the "Greek Way?" The Romans.

Italy was invaded? So? The Italians are an ethnic polyglot? So? Who has not been invaded? Who is not an ethnic polyglot? In the end, the world will no longer be comprised of nation states. Ethnicities will disappear. Perhaps even races. So? The sooner, the better.

[omnirook]

The national myth does breed undue pride and idle vanity and hence it is but the perpetrator of a conflict which never made any sense at all.

Edit: There is no such thing as a Celtic heritage. :reading:
Oh - and who are you to say that the arguments of the past were nonsensical? Were you there? Were you in the room when Henry II decided that he needed to invade Ireland to protect his Welsh holdings, which the Irish were raiding w/o mercy? Should a Medieval king have made his strategic decisions based on YOUR "enlightented" 21st Century hindsight? Given that Wales, all of England, and 1/2 of France depended on Henry's ability to provide security, what would you have done in his place? Would you have sat there and wrung your hands, worried that a "wrong" might be done when the soldiers got into a blood fury in the midst of battle? You can't judge history by today's standards - especially since we are doing the same shit, done up in a new type of drag. Do you really think that anybody gives a fuck about "collateral damage" when it comes to people in a war? No, no one does. It's about making sure that the corporations that have invested in the infrastructure on both sides of the battlefield have their losses limited. The ideal would be being able to wipe out the population w/o damaging the inventory of material.

[Heleuiski]

Refrehingly different ... someone with an opinion formed in the process of conditioning.

Conditioning? How so?

[wildcat]

Conditioning? How so?
The people of Ireland should forget the illusion that they are "British" or "Celtic" and just be Irish. This is what I meant.

[omnirook]

The people of Ireland should forget the illusion that they are "British" or "Celtic" and just be Irish. This is what I meant.
Gaelic is a Celtic language; Gaelic is the native language of the people who settled in Ireland - and Britain - in pre-historic times. W/o doubt, the people of Ireland are descended from the Celts who filled Europe prior to the arrival of the Greeks, the Etruscans, the Latins (closely related to the Celts), the Germans, and the Slavs - in that order.

The Celts were the first white people to arrive in Europe from Asia. They were a numerous and mighty people. Thousands of years later, and there are still impressive pockets of their descendants all over Europe. The Irish are among them (though, yes, there has been mixing - especially w/the Germans (Danes, Swedes, etc). The Welsh are also Celtic, as are the Scots (moreso in the Lowlands than in the Highlands, where there has been a greater influx of Germans (Danes). The Cornish, the Manx, and the Breton of France are also Celts. There are Celtic descendants in the Middle East, too. Pharoah Rameses II certainly had some Celt blood, as his mummy shows clearly that His Majesty had red hair - a strong trait of Celts. The Mittanni were probably a Celtic people, and the pharoahs of the 19th Dynasty allied w/them against another Indo-European people, the Hittites. Rameses' mom was probably a Mittanni princess.

If it weren't for the Celts of Ireland during the Dark Ages, we would have even less of the Greek and Roman legacy to enjoy. Why should anyone who has a right to deem himself Celtic be loathe to do so? The Celts have played a grand role in history. An Irishman who is not at least conversational in Gaelic should be ashamed of himself!

[wildcat]

Gaelic is a Celtic language; Gaelic is the native language of the people who settled in Ireland - and Britain - in pre-historic times. W/o doubt, the people of Ireland are descended from the Celts who filled Europe prior to the arrival of the Greeks, the Etruscans, the Latins (closely related to the Celts), the Germans, and the Slavs - in that order.

The Celts were the first white people to arrive in Europe from Asia. They were a numerous and mighty people. Thousands of years later, and there are still impressive pockets of their descendants all over Europe. The Irish are among them (though, yes, there has been mixing - especially w/the Germans (Danes, Swedes, etc). The Welsh are also Celtic, as are the Scots (moreso in the Lowlands than in the Highlands, where there has been a greater influx of Germans (Danes). The Cornish, the Manx, and the Breton of France are also Celts. There are Celtic descendants in the Middle East, too. Pharoah Rameses II certainly had some Celt blood, as his mummy shows clearly that His Majesty had red hair - a strong trait of Celts. The Mittanni were probably a Celtic people, and the pharoahs of the 19th Dynasty allied w/them against another Indo-European people, the Hittites. Rameses' mom was probably a Mittanni princess.

If it weren't for the Celts of Ireland during the Dark Ages, we would have even less of the Greek and Roman legacy to enjoy. Why should anyone who has a right to deem himself Celtic be loathe to do so? The Celts have played a grand role in history. An Irishman who is not at least conversational in Gaelic should be ashamed of himself!
Celtic is a group of the late (or the distinct) IE languages.

Language is not a genetic variant.
Language is learned after birth.
It is not inherently to be found.

Throughout history, there have been the conqueror peoples and the subject (conquered) peoples.

Languages are created and molded by politics and war, not by genetics.

The Irish did not speak a Celtic language before the tin trade began. Hence the Copper age (to say nothing of the Stone Age) in Ireland could not have known the Celts.

Celtic is a late Indoeuropean variant. During the Ice Age most of the European languages were lost. The people found refuge in Iberia, in the Balkans and in the Ukraine.
If the process of migration and refuge gave birth to IE, it has to be the one of the Ukranian variant.

Italo-Celtic never existed. I may be wrong. I see both of them but retained some of the original features of the original IE. The features the other languages had lost.

The general rule is that the archaic features of a language group remain intact in the periphery.
In the Celtic we see the exact opposite order. Hence my view.
I may be wrong of course.

[omnirook]

Well, at any rate, the Celts were in Europe and occupied most of it by time literate peoples began to make note of Europe.

The Romans certainly considered the Celts (Gauls) related to each other, speaking very similar languages, having very nearly the same customs.

In their literature, the Romans placed the peoples that they found to the north of them into one or the other of 2 categories: Gauls or Germans. Caesar noted that the Belgae seemed a mix of the 2, the remnants of Celtic and German tribes having grouped together for mutual defense.

Yes, some Celts were pushed to the fringes; many, though, settled, became Romanized, eventually came to consider themselves "Roman."

There is a great deal of genetic research going on just now. What it will tell us remains to be seen. However, having several times seen genetic research confirm the broad outlines of the theories put forward by archeologists and historians, I am fairly certain that any revisions to the picture that has already been painted will not be particularly revolutionary.

No, a particular language is not genetic. However, people born in this or that place are unquestionably likely to learn and speak whatever language is commonly spoken where they are born. This is called a "cultural" and specifically a "linguistic" heritage, as opposed to a genetic one - arguably more important than the genetic heritage.