Are beacons the answer?
Advertise
-
Books
-
Hearing the Other Voice from the Grave: Why Should we Listen to David Ervine’s Stories?
Ed Moloney’s Voices from the Grave: Two Men’s War in Ireland has received considerable attention in the press and in the public realm since its publication earlier this year. Although the book relates the experiences of the Provisional IRA’s Brendan Hughes and the PUP/UVF’s David Ervine, much of the discussion has focused on Hughes’ stories [...] read our review » -
…if University education were universally available and availed of, the country would collapse in one generation
The words of Brian O’Nolan, variously Brian Ó Nualláin, Myles na gCopaleen, Myles na Gopaleen and, of course, Flann O’Brien. That O’Nolan was referencing his own dissolute student days at UCD only mildly distracts from the prophetic undertone of his words: I paid no attention whatsoever to books or study and regarded lectures as a [...] read our review »
-
John Laird for Christmas?
John Laird (Lord Laird of Artigarvan) is unionism’s jester. His memoir A Struggle To Be Heard ” by a True Ulster Liberal” (from Slugger’s shop on Amazon here) might serve more as a heavy stocking filler than anybody’s idea of a main present. In it he wears the masks of comedy and tragedy to turn the [...] read our review »
-
TAFKABO: “I’m sure there’s absolutely no conncetion bewteen the wording and peoples inter^retation of events.”
Hey, you were the one who refused to coutenance it even happened until multiple sources were cited. Likewise, whether it was burned or not is not germane — the fact that it was made and put up at all speaks volumes about segments of the community at large, just as you like to point out that the vandalism of OO Lodge Halls has something to say about folks.
TAFKABO: “Look, if the condemnations isn’t good enough for you, then stop gurning when it doesn’t happen, and complaining when it does. ”
Ok… its “spides will be spides” for the forseeable future. Thanks for the clarification.
Uh, didn’t the report say that it was widely condemned on both sides of the divide?
Wasn’t one DUP person named?
I didn’t see the DI article (I read the other sources quoted here, which don’t mention the DUP). My mistake. Nicholl’s comments amount to the kind of response that we need to see more of.
But I still say that you have to twist arms before you get unionists to come out and knock this stuff. It took a little while to convince you that loyalists were even capable of it, and that it wasn’t merely the work of chuckies spreading black PR.
What anti social hate fest is that?
11th July bonfires. Unionists should be providing leadership that moves the community away from damaging property and the environment, and provides an environment within which paramilitaries take centre stage and spread their message of hate.
I wasn’t referring to the 12th, and I’m glad that the 12th has gone peacefully. If all 12ths were like the one we’ve so far had today (fingers crossed) there’d be light at the end of the tunnel.
What exactly should they be doing?
Concrete examples would be so much more helpful that platiudes here.
Discouraging the bonfires and trying to suggest alternative ways to celebrate the event that don’t attract environmental damage, damage to public or private property, and which don’t attract paramilitaries. The chuckies have shown that this how this can be done in the way that they did away with the internment bonfires.
This is in unionism’s own interests. The 11th stuff sends out the wrong message. When this stuff is showing up in the papers, as we saw today, the union is getting damaged.
Who is we exactly?
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. All power to the Soviets!
I’m assuming it’s people who have never in any way been associated with vandalism destruction or paramilitarism, right?
I’m disappointed that instead of addressing the substance of my argument you are instead trying to undermine it by desperately scrabbling to find holes in my credibility. You won’t find any, none since my departure from international socialism in 1953 anyway. Seriously, since it’s important for you to suss me out, I’m a centre-left woolly liberal type with no support for either nationalism or unionism. I don’t really care all that much whether the union continues or not, I’m both British and Irish as well as Georgian. I’m more concerned with trying to ensure a stable and peaceful future above all else, and I see the problem in this place as being primarily characterised by our political leadership’s failure to confront paramilitarism. The chuckies are making a stab at it (though it could be better), but the unionist politicians are doing bugger all except flirting with hardmen and throwing up silly roadblocks (sometimes quite literally, when they don’t get their way).
I wouldn’t like [union Jack flag burning], but I would defend your right to do it.
The right to do so is undisputed. Technically, even the Mickeybo comments on the flag are a matter of free speech. The trouble is the message it sends. Frankly, some aspects of the 11th July bonfire business border on the kind of behaviour we have seen from the BNP. When the BNP is up to it’s old tricks across the water, all the other politicians get together and come down on them like so many tonnes of bricks. Here, the politicians are largely silent, except when prompted.
You can’t solve every argument by recourse to your rights, whether those are the right to burn a flag, make a statement, or march down a road.
I better clarify the sentence below, since I more recently seemed to contradict it :
The stark truth is that unionist representatives are not doing enough to distance themselves from this antisocial hate-fest. It is their job to ensure that the 12th is represented in a positive light. It is their job to ensure that the 12th celebrations are not hijacked by the hoods. They’re failing miserably.
My general point is that unionism needs to do more to distance itself from the bad sides of the whole event (including the bonfires on the 11th) and try to improve the image of the good sides (people out for a bit of a march and a day in the sun).
As a religious festival, the 12th is of no interest to me, and I see it as essentially redundant. At the same time it is a basic right for people to practice and celebrate it that cannot be denied. As long as I’m not seeing negative things reported on the news (as was the case today), I wish the people celebrating it all the best.
I see that you survived tea with Beria, Great Leader.
well as Georgian
That wouldn’t be the Georgia where you could be married three times and still have the same in-laws, would it?
“can we expect further initiatives aimed at removing the sectarian toxins from this annual event? ”
I find this a very curious question. There are plans to make the day and surrounding events better ie Orangefest, bonfre initiatives
However any moves and public agency support to bring about change has republicans queuing up to condemn the idea or to cancel everything at the first attempt if a 100% success is not achieved are republicans.
Nationalists condemn things and ask them to be change. Some change begins to happen and nationalists condemn that too. As Monty Python claimed Jesus said “There’s no pleasing some people”.
Also on the issue of sectarian toxins while we do what we have to do in our community a suggestion for republicans, some turning every member of the OO into bogeymen, at the least don’t attack parades (longer term try to tolerate them) and don’t burn down/vandalise Orange Halls.
Unless the orange order break the link with loyalist paramilitarism, it is unlikely that contentious parades will become less troublesome in the coming years
‘Belfast City Council is pioneering a plan that could lead to the ‘traditional’ 11th Night bonfires being replaced with large beacons.’
I presume the success of this venture will depend on how well they burn.
“I find this a very curious question. There are plans to make the day and surrounding events better ie Orangefest, bonfre initiatives”
Could yopu expalin to me how “OrangeFest” has helped. Everything is still shut. The few people I saw while I was out were completely pissed and covered in Union / NI Flags. I was rightly or wrongly, bricking it for the entire hlaf I had to go the shops. How has anything been down to make this more welcoming to me?
Sticking feathers in your ass does not make you a chicken.
“However any moves and public agency support to bring about change has republicans queuing up to condemn the idea or to cancel everything at the first attempt if a 100% success is not achieved are republicans.”
The problem I, and I assume most Republicans, have is that it appears to be nothing more than dressing the thing up rather than deep change. Look at the scrumtiny and the hoops that the St Patrick’s Day Parade has had to jump through. Compare the ride that the Twelfth gets, and you have the basis of a lot of scepticism.
“Nationalists condemn things and ask them to be change. Some change begins to happen and nationalists condemn that too. As Monty Python claimed Jesus said “There’s no pleasing some people”.”
Where is the change? I’m honestly not seeing it.
“Also on the issue of sectarian toxins while we do what we have to do in our community a suggestion for republicans, some turning every member of the OO into bogeymen, at the least don’t attack parades (longer term try to tolerate them) and don’t burn down/vandalise Orange Halls. ”
And now on to whataboutery. Attacks on parades and OO Halls are wrong. In terms of toleration, the OO will continue to be demonised while it remains Aggressive, Indimating and anti-Catholic. I see no reason why those things should be acceptred.
This crap about ‘OrangeFest’ is laughable and any attempted comparisons with St Patrick’s Day are not logical.
St Patrick’s Day is open to anyone – I’ve worked in many different countries and celebrated it with people of all creeds and cultures.
How can this be compared to a celebration by an Organisation whose entire “raison d’etre” is anti-Catholicism? Let’s face it – for years there have been flag burning and UVF/UDA attendance at many of these bonfires – no condemnation from the OO or unionist politicians – and there wasn’t a lot said by the OO etc about the sickening Michael McIlveen flag either.
I totally condemn those who are involved in arson attacks on Orange Halls/ arches etc. These attacks are roundly condemned by all nationalist politicians – including Sinn Fein. The difference is these attacks can be generally counted on the fingers of 1 hand in any given year. Unfortunately, rabid anti-Catholicism is the NORM at almost all bonfires. Anyone who was born and grew up in NI knows that is the case.
The pretence from defenders of the OO that this behaviour is only evident at 1 or 2 bonfires in working class areas is f***ing pathetic.
I have spent the last few years living in England and it’s odd that people who look at the situation with “fresh eyes” can see it for what it is. The English people I know think that the OO parades are an anachronism in the 21st century (but highly amusing – especially the annual Drumcree farce).
However, they can also see the OO for what it is, an anti-Catholic organisation akin to the KKK or BNP. They can see that, as these odious organisations aren’t allowed to parade though predominantly black or Asian neighbourhoods purely to provoke people, that the OO shouldn’t be allowed to provoke Catholic people either.
There is no way that the OO can be made acceptable to Catholic people any more than the KKK will ever be acceptable to black people.
They can parade all they want in areas where they are welcome but should stay away from areas where they are not.
There is no way that the OO can be made acceptable to Catholic people any more than the KKK will ever be acceptable to black people.
You’re wrong.
Rossknowlagh shows quite clearly that you are wrong.
It can be done.
Tafkabo,
Don’t mistake toleration for acceptance. They’re still a***holes but in Rossknowlagh they’re not frightening a***holes.
I support the Orangies right to march, not their right to terrorise and provoke other people. How many times does it have to be pointed out that ‘rights’ bring responsibilities? They aren’t welcome in certain areas and shouldn’t go there.
And I interpret that last post to mean that I wouldn’t be welcome in a united irelan, all and sundry will gurn and complain that I’m not being fair.
Lib2016
Out of interest, what do you see as the main differences between tolerating and cherishing equally?
Would I be cherished or tolerated in a united Ireland?
“Would I be cherished or tolerated in a united Ireland?”
That depends largely on how you behave. If you sort out the negative aspects then you’ll be cherished. Don’t and you’ll be tolerated. And if it is really bad, it won’t be tolerated.
I cherished my children equally. That didn’t mean that they weren’t naughty children now and then.
That depends largely on how you behave. If you sort out the negative aspects then you’ll be cherished.
Who determines what the so called negative aspects are?
From my perspective, seeing the demonisation of all aspects of Unionism, it seems clear it would be a case of do what you’re told and we’ll leave you alone.Keep your head down and don’t remind us that you exist.Don’t dare act as if you are free to decide what your own cluture is
Now.
Having just told me what you have just told me, can you understand why there is no fucking way I would be interested in a United Ireland under those conditions?
TAFKABO: “what you’re told and we’ll leave you alone.Keep your head down and don’t remind us that you exist.Don’t dare act as if you are free to decide what your own cluture is.”
Is this not the line that the United Kingdom force-fed Ireland prior to the Anglo-Irish War and the establishment of a Free State? Seems to me that when the shoe is on the other foot, so are the complaints.
But then, that has always been the Ulster-Scots fear — The British would abandon them, the shoe would end up on the other foot and they would find themselves the ones feeling the pinch.
Tafkabo,
You are a unionist which means that you oppose a United Ireland. No-one doubts that for a moment.
The question is which way the rest of the NI population votes.
BTW Why do unionists not accept the clear statements in the GFA that everybody accepts their right to be British? We know that unionists aren’t going to change their identity – the idea is absurd.
Dread.
I fail to see the point you are making here.
Are you saying that there will come a time when the Unionists of the day will have to pay pennace for the percieved sins of Unionists past?
I thank you for your honesty, though I don’t think you’re going to like being reminded of what you have just admitted here.
Let me ask you the same question I have asked others.
Can you understand why I have no interest in a United Ireland under these conditions?
BTW Why do unionists not accept the clear statements in the GFA that everybody accepts their right to be British? We know that unionists aren’t going to change their identity – the idea is absurd.
You’re contradicting yourself and other posters.
Since it has been made abundantly clear on this forum that britishness is reviled by an awful lof of people, it follows that expressing taht britishness is not something that shall be tolerated (see comments upthread).
Sorry, but there has been a little too much honesty over the last couple of posts.No amount of backtracking can change what has been said.
TAFKABO,
… Having just told me what you have just told me, can you understand why there is no fucking way I would be interested in a United Ireland under those conditions?
The ‘conditions’ being constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties, and a system of justice that ‘cherishes all the children equally’ as long as they respect the constitutional and legal rights of others, but sends the bad ones away to Wheatfield Prison.
And you have a problem with that?
My, my, you are really fussy. According to your own standards the UK falls flat, though your real home, France, may be OK since it, like Ireland, is a constitutional democracy. If you said ‘there are a few things I’d change’ or, ‘all things considered, I rather like the archaic system of the UK’, or whatever, but instead you resort to cursing, as if Ireland is on a par with North Korea or Iraq. It seems that your real reasons for being anti-UI are not fully rational.
(I’ll have to stop doing that!)
Taf,
You yourself mentioned Rossknowlagh. Unionists will be accepted just as any other minority is accepted. Just as the Muslim community and the Protestant (republican) community or the Polish community are accepted.
Be good and behave reasonably and you are welcome. Be nasty and you’ll find that you are damaging only yourselves. No-one cares if you want to burn down your own neighbourhoods as long as you don’t bother the rest of us. It’s that simple.
“Who determines what the so called negative aspects are?”
Well, part of it will be in all probability the Dail, a parliament in which you have full say. This will deal with the things that won’t be tolerated. In terms of things below that, it’ll be entirely down to your neighbours to make their own decisions of their own free will.
Most people don’t consider that sectarianism, Aggression and Intimidation are necessary for culture and have a hard time cherishing them. If you insist on burning flags with the names of murder victims scrawled on them, there is not a lot we can do about it but we can’t really love you for it. Similarly, parades would probably be a lot less contentious as the intimidation aspect will be hopefully be somewhat nullified in a Unitary state, but again we can’t really love you for trampling over your neighbours rights, though we’ll tolerate it.
“From my perspective, seeing the demonisation of all aspects of Unionism, it seems clear it would be a case of do what you’re told and we’ll leave you alone.Keep your head down and don’t remind us that you exist.Don’t dare act as if you are free to decide what your own cluture is”
Now, if you stopped talking to the voices in your head and actually were talking to me, you would realise that is nonsense. Pro Protestant organisation? No problem. Anti Catholic one? Big problem. You see, I’m trying to help you. I dearly want you to ditch all the negative and offensive aspects of your culture, so we don’t keep having the same argument over and over, and move on. And that’s true under occupation or freedom
.
“Having just told me what you have just told me, can you understand why there is no fucking way I would be interested in a United Ireland under those conditions?”
No, not really. Is sectarianism and intimidation such an important part of Unionist culture?
TAFKABO
You either didn’t read my post closely enough or are starting to teeter on the edge of paranoia.
To break down what I said.
1) You are vocalizing the same complaints a couple centuries worth of Roman Catholics under Unionist (and its earlier counterparts)rule.
Ergo:
2) We can theorize that no one likes to have their culture dictated to them.
Now, combine 1 and 2 above with the Ulster-Scots cultural myth of “a besieged community” on the boarder, fearing the “hordes of savages,” we come to the crux of matter.
In a United Ireland, Unionists fear they will be on the receiving end of the sort of behaviors they dished out. End of concept, full stop. It was intended as “common humanity” moment — “we-ums: and “you-ums” really do have things in common. However, not taking into account your own bunker mentality, all I seem to have done is excite your paranoia.
You have sought to manufacturesomething out of this statement, some sort of malign suggestion or veiled threat where none intended or existed. To indulge you for a moment and speak even more plainly, I do not think yours is a reasonable fear. However, as it is not my fear and fear, generally, in not a rational emotion, my assessment of your or any other Unionist’s fears is not really all that important, since its never going to seem rational to me, as while I rationally understand the cultural myths of the Unionist community, I do not “own” them on an emotional level. Its not *my* siege-mentality to understnad or fix; I merely point it out.
In short, I only sought to point out the potential teaching moment. If you construed otherwise, I apologize.
Be good and behave reasonably and you are welcome. Be nasty and you’ll find that you are damaging only yourselves. No-one cares if you want to burn down your own neighbourhoods as long as you don’t bother the rest of us. It’s that simple.
I think the scores of posts complaining abut bonfires in exclusively Unionst rather contradicts this point.People are bothered by what Unionists do, even when you aren’t there to witness it.
But the underlying point is still one where I hear people dictating to me the terms under which I shall be allowed to exist, and I have no interest in being part of a country where people who are openly hosile to my community are in a position to do this.
“But the underlying point is still one where I hear people dictating to me the terms under which I shall be allowed to exist, and I have no interest in being part of a country where people who are openly hosile to my community are in a position to do this.”
You live in a country where the terms of existence are dictated to you. All countries have this. It is commonly refered to as “the law”.
In a United Ireland, you would have a full say in the Dail. In fact, in all probability you could control the balance of power. But in fact, I have no desire to dictate terms to you. I imagine they would come out of negotations if and when a vote for a UI occured. I imagine there would be at a minimum some protection for Unionists at the Constitutional level, which would be a powerful thing indeed.
But see above. I note you didn’t reply to me. I only assume was because you found nothing to argue with.
“..scores of posts complaining about bonfires in exclusively Unionist areas (?)”
“…I have no interest in being part of a country where people who are openly hostile to my community are in a position to do this.”
Sorry, I thought you were talking about reasonable demonstrations of reasonable opinions. Hatefests are already illegal and if the local policeforce wants to pick up some brownie points with the majority of the community (both nationalists and unionists!) they would crack down a lot harder on the sort of loutishness we have all been exposed to.
I suspect that we’re now at the stage of ‘give them enough rope….’ The sort of exhibition which has been going on recently will bring retribution, whether that means fewer and fewer people attending every year or the law being enforced.
Have a look at the way in which the law on parades is being tightened up in Scotland. It will happen here as well, you know.
This isn’t about republicans versus unionists, still less about Irish versus British. This is about how we all have to get along together no matter where our allegiances lie.
But see above. I note you didn’t reply to me. I only assume was because you found nothing to argue with.
Don’t flatter yourself.Finding something not worth arguing and finding nothing to argue are not the same things.
You are all saying contradictory things here.I’m happy to allow your posts to speak for themselves on occasion.
In a United Ireland, Unionists fear they will be on the receiving end of the sort of behaviors they dished out. End of concept, full stop.
That’s simply bullshit.
I fear that I would be on the recieving end of behaviour which people percieve other Unionists to have dished out.
Unless you can tell me which behaviour I have dished out that I am afraid to have returned?
You just can’t help but illustrate my point.You percieve me to be part of a collective group that is deserving of punishment.
You tell me what I think (see above cut and paste) and then expect me to feel no threat from being in a country where people who think like you want to punish me for what you percieve are my thought processes?
“You are all saying contradictory things here.I’m happy to allow your posts to speak for themselves on occasion.”
Could you point out where I’ve contradicted myself, rather than you have just misunderstood?
“You tell me what I think (see above cut and paste) and then expect me to feel no threat from being in a country where people who think like you want to punish me for what you percieve are my thought processes?”
No one actually said anything like that, though.
Kensei.
My last post was a response to Dread, not yourself.
Now read his words again In a United Ireland, Unionists fear they will be on the receiving end of the sort of behaviors they dished out.
How is this not telling me what I am thinking?.
And I said that you were all contradicting each other, not that you contradicted yourself.
TAF.
You still taking your munflies?, you seem to be better humoured today. Considering that you seem to be leading everyone a dance in your own mind, and boring the tits off those who are patiently attempting to reason with you.
TAFKABO,
I fear that I would be on the recieving end of behaviour which people percieve other Unionists to have dished out.
That is simply uneducated bullshit. You (and other unionists) will be on no ‘receiving end’ whatsoever post-UI. I really don’t know where you get these irrational fears. The UI constitution will either be the same as the current 26 county one, or a new one entirely. If it is the same as today’s Constitution, then you are fully protected by the same rights and obligations as every other citizen. If it will be a new constitution, then I really don’t think it will be one that removes these rights!
If you think that a UI is going to be some sort of northern republican vengefest then you really are deluded. The UI will be a modern liberal democratic constitutional European state – much like the one you live in.
“a modern liberal constitutional European state – much like the one you live in.”
No thanks, friend. Give me a republic of equals with a written constitution, please. You can keep your antiquated monarchy with it’s government above the law and it’s outdated state religion.
lib2016,
I think you missed my subtle point. TAFKABO lives in a modern liberal constitutional European state* – one that is a Republic too, and has a strongly Catholic tradition!
Yet he fears living in another that has all of those same characteristics! Wierd or what?
[* in case he's too shy to tell you, he lives in Paris, France]
TAFKABO: “I fear that I would be on the recieving end of behaviour which people percieve other Unionists to have dished out. Unless you can tell me which behaviour I have dished out that I am afraid to have returned? ”
TAFKABO, I am talking in necessarily broad terms — the cultural myth goes back how far?
You insistance on personalizing every issue makes any rational discussion of the broader problems in Northern Ireland challenging to say the least. I present the broad gestalt, encompassng the centuries of Unionist Paranoia and you and your persecution complex can’t get past the notion that this is about more than just you.
That is simply uneducated bullshit. You (and other unionists) will be on no ‘receiving end’ whatsoever post-UI. I really don’t know where you get these irrational fears.
From posts like these when taken against the backdrop of finding fault with just about every visible aspect of Unionist and Loyalist identity.
That depends largely on how you behave. If you sort out the negative aspects then you’ll be cherished. Don’t and you’ll be tolerated. And if it is really bad, it won’t be tolerated.
Posted by kensei on Jul 13, 2006 @ 01:25 PM
Is this not the line that the United Kingdom force-fed Ireland prior to the Anglo-Irish War and the establishment of a Free State? Seems to me that when the shoe is on the other foot, so are the complaints.
Posted by Dread Cthulhu on Jul 13, 2006 @ 02:06 PM
Now how am I to understand these posts if not against the backdrop of Republicans and Nationalist hatred for all aspects of Unionist, as regularly displayed on this board and elsewhere?
People tell me that rights will be guaranteed, but I simply don’t believe them. The Love Ulster march was an important indicator, not because of those who visited violence upon the marchers, but the overwhelming majority who enabled them through demonising the march before it started and excused the violence after it had taken place.
The Irish republic, and Irish republicans hate Unionist protestants, no ifs or buts, that’s simply the truth.
When people say things like Unionists will be acceptable, what the really mean is Unionists will be acceptable if they adapt to the point where they are unrecognisable as Unionists.
I find that unnaceptable.
TAFKABO,
The Love Ulster march was an important indicator, not because of those who visited violence upon the marchers, but the overwhelming majority who enabled them through demonising the march before it started and excused the violence after it had taken place.
You have chosen to selectively view that event. The representatives of the Irish Republic that day were the Garda Siochana, and the government. Tell me what they did that was wrong? Keep telling me as the courts sentence the rioters to custodial terms.
The person who principally ‘demonised’ the marchers was none other than friend Frazer. He set out to stir shit, he included known sectarian murderers in his list of ‘innocent’ victims, and he knew what he was doing.
The Irish republic, and Irish republicans hate Unionist protestants, no ifs or buts, that’s simply the truth.
No ‘ifs’, no ‘buts’, you are just wrong.
When people say things like Unionists will be acceptable, what the really mean is Unionists will be acceptable if they adapt to the point where they are unrecognisable as Unionists.
How can you interpret their thoughts? And this on the same day that you pointed out that the OO never has any trouble on its one march in the republic.
As for ‘acceptable’, what does that word mean? Do you think Keith Mills (our resident southern unionist) doesn’t get dinner invites? Do you thinks his neighbours avoid him? Do you think he cannot live, work and play, like anyone else? Ask him.
Your view of the south is naively, but dangerously, wrong and outdated. I wish you could realise that, but the hundred posts in which this has been pointed out to you seem not to have opened your eyes at all, let alone your mind.
“That depends largely on how you behave. If you sort out the negative aspects then you’ll be cherished. Don’t and you’ll be tolerated. And if it is really bad, it won’t be tolerated.”
I love the way you keep quoting this like it is a controversial statement or something. Basicall the levels are: being normal, being sectarian and breaking the law.
As I said, being sectarian must be intrinsinc to Unionist culture if you are fighting so hard for your right to keep it.
I love the way you keep quoting this like it is a controversial statement or something. Basicall the levels are: being normal, being sectarian and breaking the law.
And I have made the point that my problem is with who exactly determines what is and isn’t sectarian or being normal.
Which brings me back to the repeated point that given the interactions on these boards, ot seems abundantly clear to me that any and all aspects of Unionist culture that are demonstrably Unionist, would be deemed as abnormal and sectarian.
Indeed, isn’t it repeated over and over to me and others that my whole raison d’Etre is to be sectarian and to feel superior to my neighbours?
I’m simply taking what republicans keep telling me and imagining how those views would be acted upon in a United Ireland.
I really don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but I do at least expect you to understand my point
As I said, being sectarian must be intrinsinc to Unionist culture if you are fighting so hard for your right to keep it.
Q.E.D.
Stephen.
I’m sorry.
but it seems that I am being accused of being stubborn and wrongheaded for daring to think that the views expressed about Unionists would persist in a united Ireland,?
You don’t seem to see the contradiction in arguing that the Love Ulster marchers basically brought the violence upon their own heads for some percieved crime (what exactly was it again)and then tell me that nothing like this will ever happen again, even though most republicans seem absolutely convinced that I am sectarian simply by dint of being a Unionist.
Yes, the Garda were brilliant that day, but to argue that they and they alone represented Irish society, and the whole raft of politicians and media types that enabled and encouraged the violence were not, is simply a nonsense.
TAFKABO,
… daring to think that the views expressed about Unionists would persist in a united Ireland
That is entirely a question for unionists. If they wish to continue to be unionists no-one could, or would, stop them.
… most republicans seem absolutely convinced that I am sectarian simply by dint of being a Unionist.
No, TAFKABO, unionism is not sectarian, per se. But trying to excuse expressions of sectarianism, as you have done recently, makes you look sectarian (completely independently to your unionism).
… the whole raft of politicians and media types that enabled and encouraged the violence …
You are slandering a large, but unspecified, group. Who do you mean, and how did they encourage the violence? I personally cannot think of any such examples, though I am open to correction. Even Sinn Fein recommended its supporters to stay away – so who is it that you have in mind?
The reality was that the whole ‘Love Ulster’ (sic) thing caught everyone on the hop. No-one saw it coming, and no-one ‘encouraged’ it. It seems to have been fairly spontaneous, since the weapons were weapons of convenience rather than forethought. I personally think that you are reading much too much into this, and are trying to milk it long after it has gone dry.
As for the rest of Irish society, I presume, since you are internet-enabled, that you followed the deluge of condemnation in all the media, north and south. Can you remember even one article that tried to glorify the event? The Gardai represented the southern state, and southern society, very well that day, and showed more clearly than I can articulate, the true meaning of republicanism.
I think you missed my subtle point. TAFKABO lives in a modern liberal constitutional European state* – one that is a Republic too, and has a strongly Catholic tradition!
Yet he fears living in another that has all of those same characteristics! Wierd or what?
Now the idea that Ireland, as it exists today, is remotely similar to a secular republic like France is too funny for words.
Ireland is a Catholic country, France is a country made up largely of Catholics, there is a subtle, but vitally important difference.
That I feel comfortable living in one, but dread the idea of living in the other ought to tell you something.
Take all references to God out of your constitution and you might have a point, but until then….
No, TAFKABO, unionism is not sectarian, per se. But trying to excuse expressions of sectarianism, as you have done recently, makes you look sectarian (completely independently to your unionism).
This is the contradiction I was talking about Stephen.
you say that, but other people insist that Unionist exists to be sectarian and trimphalist.
As for your allegations that I have excused sectarianism, could you elaborate?
TAFKABO,
Ireland is a Catholic country, France is a country made up largely of Catholics, there is a subtle, but vitally important difference.
That I feel comfortable living in one, but dread the idea of living in the other ought to tell you something.
Ah, perhaps we’re coming closer to the crux of your problem with the south.
I can only repeat a point I made above: “Your view of the south is naively, but dangerously, wrong and outdated. I wish you could realise that, but the hundred posts in which this has been pointed out to you seem not to have opened your eyes at all, let alone your mind.”
Perhaps you could explain how exactly the south is a ‘catholic country’?
I would argue that (the south of) Ireland, just like France, is a country comprised largely of catholics, a large proportion of whom are ex-, unpracticing, or uninterested. Nothing in the southern state or its laws follows classic catholic teaching, except perhapds abortion, which is, curiously enough, something that the Free Ps and other Protestant fundamentalists agree with! Certainly the way of life in the south is very similar to that of France and other mainstream European countries.
Can you think of anything else to support your claim?
TAFKABO,
As for your allegations that I have excused sectarianism, could you elaborate?
I’m not going to trawl through all of the last few dozen threads, so just one example for now. IIRC you were initially very defensive about the ‘Fuck Mickey-bo’ flag, and tried to either deny that it ever existed, or tried to imply that it had been taken down quickly. Your position was a disgrace to yourself, and you should never have adopted it. It showed a knee-jerk reaction of denying the sectarianism, rather than condemning it. If I come across other examples, I’ll let you know, but you know better than I what you have posted.
The Angelus played daily by the state broadcaster
The constitution.
State honour guards for Catholic religious relics when they visit the country.
And let me be clear, it is not Catholicism I have a problem with, it’s the idea of Church and State having such a close reationship.
I know Irish people thik they have a secular state, but they don’t.
Neither does the UK as it happens.
TAFKABO,
I’ll grant you the angelus – it is an anacronism that should be removed.
The constitution? Are you living in the far-distant past? The ‘special position of the Catholic church’ was removed by popular vote in 1972. There is nothing ‘catholic’ in it any more – sure there is some old-fashioned ‘family first’ stuff, but that is pretty ecumenical, I can assure you.
State honour guards for Catholic religious relics when they visit the country.
You mean St Teresa or whoever? She also got a PSNI guard in the north, didn’t she? You put your criticism in the plural – are you aware of any other ‘relics’ visiting the south?
If this is the sum or your problems with the southern state, I think you can move back without any great fear!
Stephen.
My reaction to the flag incident was in relation to the initial allegation coming from the Daily Ireland.
I’m sorry but I simply don’t believe anything if it is only reported there.
I remember them manufacturing a story about stones being thrown at a funeral,and I recall them deliberately seeking outsomeone for a quote so that they could have something controversial to put on their front page.
When I talked about the flag being taken down it was to point out that the comments about community leaders not doing anything wasn’t quite the full story.
I make no apologies for any of this.
“And I have made the point that my problem is with who exactly determines what is and isn’t sectarian or being normal.”
Unfortunately, that problem doesn’t disappear in the partitioned state. The bottom line is how the “other side” views sectarianism is entirely up to them.
You are also being disengenious. You asked if you would be “cherished”. I gave you an answer. In terms of the state, or the law, that is an entirely separate thing. You’ll be treated exactly line anyone else, with exactly the same rights. And, btw, if you are looking to make a rights based argument in defensive of marching where you want, a state like Ireland with a written constitution is th eplace to do it.
“Which brings me back to the repeated point that given the interactions on these boards, ot seems abundantly clear to me that any and all aspects of Unionist culture that are demonstrably Unionist, would be deemed as abnormal and sectarian.”
Only in your head. I have specific problems with specific problems of Unionist culture. You can change those things or die a slow protacted death, and that’s the hard truth whether or not we are in a Unitary state or a divided one. I’d much rather see you change, to be honest.
And that is as true for Nationalists as it is for Unionists. But we at least, have started change. For example, Rule 21 of the GAA is now gone.
“Indeed, isn’t it repeated over and over to me and others that my whole raison d’Etre is to be sectarian and to feel superior to my neighbours?”
No, not really.
“I’m simply taking what republicans keep telling me and imagining how those views would be acted upon in a United Ireland.”
Which would be stupid. Republicans don’t run Ireland, for a start.
“I really don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but I do at least expect you to understand my point”
I understand it. I just think it is ridiculous.
“Ireland is a Catholic country, France is a country made up largely of Catholics, there is a subtle, but vitally important difference. ”
No, wrong. Ireland is a Constitutional Democracy. It’s supreme law is Bunreacht na hÉireann, not the Catholic Church. And if you wanted the Constitution reworked for a new state, I have no doubt you could have it.