What Catholics don’t know about Protestants…
David Adams was good enough to post his Talkback piece yesterday in the middle of a thread where, strangely, it seemed to have been completely ignored by his most trenchant critics. It’s worth posting at the top of the blog, since, in many ways, what it claims is easy enough to read in the threads here at Slugger and on the airwaves each weekday between 12noon and 1.30, but is rarely explicitly stated. Namely that everything in Northern Ireland would be okay if Ulster Protestants just admitted they were/are wrong about everything, and Ulster Catholics are right. From Davy Adams
I’ll be speaking about Catholics and Protestants today, so that’s what I’m going to be calling them – none of this politically correct, shorthand stuff. None of this coded language nonsense, about “the nationalist community” and “the unionist community”, when everyone knows precisely who I mean.
Something else, I’ll be talking in general terms – I know fine well that what I have to say doesn’t apply to all Catholics or all Protestants – however, it does apply to enough people on either side to make it a major problem.
If Talk Back is anything to go by, Catholics are forever wondering why Protestants just can’t get with the new programme.
Well, I’ll tell you exactly why that is.
I heard somebody on here the other week talking about “the fear” that exists within the Protestant community. That’s nonsense – there is no fear.
What there is, though, is a deep anger and resentment.
And, no, this anger isn’t about the fact that the DUP is sitting with Sinn Fein in an Executive – deeply distasteful as that was for them, by and large, and except for a few people on the fringe, the Protestant community has come to terms with sharing power with Sinn Fein.
The last assembly election results were proof enough of that.
No, there are two interrelated issues that have Protestants so resentful – and I suspect many Catholics know exactly what they are.
One is this constant rewriting of history and highly selective revisiting of past events that is slowly but surely creating a historical narrative that has Catholics as virtually the only people who suffered during the Troubles.
If Protestants try to raise incidents of mass murder, ethnic cleansing or any of the countless atrocities they were subjected to, they’re accused of living in the past and not being able to accept the new dispensation.
Catholics, on the other hand, seem to be forever raking over the ashes of the Troubles – but, when they do it, well, it’s all to do with a search for justice isn’t it.
In this narrative, Catholics are the innocents and Protestants are always the bad guys.
What Protestants are hearing from Catholics is this: “Of course, it was terrible what happened to some of you and it certainly wasn’t done in our name, but you know you did bring it upon yourselves a wee bit, because you discriminated against us Catholics”.
Well, I wouldn’t try to underplay in the slightest long-ago Unionist Party discrimination in housing allocation and council representation, but let’s be honest here, despite what the Shinners and others have claimed, this place was never anything remotely like a South Africa or a Nazi Germany.
And the truth is, most of the main Civil Rights demands had been met by 1973 – but the wholesale murder of Protestants under all sorts of pretexts, continued for another 20-plus years.
And besides that, just how many Protestant lives was unionist discrimination worth?
The other issue that angers Protestants and something that’s being propagated at every opportunity is the notion that, bar the odd exception that proves the rule, they’re the only people here who are guilty of sectarianism.
Protestants are guilty of sectarianism – but they’re certainly not exclusively guilty of it.
As anybody who was raised in a mixed community or works between the two communities will tell you, it might manifest itself in different, sometimes more subtle ways, but sectarianism is something that blights all of society here.
Catholics seem eager to show Protestants that they forgive them – but only on their own terms.
That is, as long as Protestants accept most of the blame for the Troubles and are willing to be reminded at every turn of all the wrongs they committed, then Catholics are only too happy to forgive them.
Well, this might come as a bit of a surprise, but Protestants don’t want or need that kind of forgiveness. What they do want is a recognition that both sides suffered terribly and that both sides were guilty of inflicting hurt on the other.
Despite what Gerry Adams might claim, the Protestant community has continually held its hands up and admitted its part in the Troubles – which, incidentally, is more than he has ever done – so they feel it isn’t they who need to “get with the programme”.
They feel it’s time that Catholics dropped the condescending attitude, faced up to the truth, acknowledged their share of the blame, and allowed us all to move on – on an equal footing.
Who knows, in those circumstances, Protestants might even accept the idea of a genuine Truth Commission – but only if Gerry Adams is prepared to lead the way, by example.
First broadcast on Talkback, Wednesday, 8th August 2007
I have to sympathise with Davy Adams’ view – the SF driven propaganda campaign for “truth†is nauseating – nauseating to a great deal more than just the Protestant community. This campaign is nothing less than an attempt to exploit victims to justify the actions of ‘republicans’. In this context, the so-called ‘regret’ and ‘responsibility’ that republicans claim to have taken is no more than a self-serving attempt to justify risible actions that led to the death and suffering of many.
Chris may be right in saying each group has a right to its own narrative and David Adams goes overboard in describing it to be a Catholic narrative Though it is very recognisable, lets not give it a legitimacy it doesn’t deserve. The narrative David objects to is a SF narrative that aims to justify their actions while at the same time besmirching the reputation of their enemy.
This is all fair enough in the muck throwing that passes for tribal politics that SF is so good at. It is still nauseating, hypocritical and self-serving propaganda that undermines any sincerity given to ‘republican’ remorse.
Sure Chris – try it on – make your propaganda pitch. Some hear clearly are willing to buy it. Recent Irish elections are suggesting a growing scepticism in “SF truth†and this half-truth campaign that SF are on may just rebound. It demonstrates a callous disregard for victims, a moral hierarchy to murder and complete hypocrisy that – much less than justifying the dirty war – may just identify its supporters for what they are.
Fair play to Davy Adams – he’s entitled to his narrative too. It isn’t the plank in his eye that you seem to be objecting to Chris, it is his right to have a narrative critical of your own. In that light, your criticism is hypocritical.
As Harry Flashman points out – let the victims seek the truth. Every support should be given to those bereaved of loved ones who when going about their daily lives not aiming to do harm had their lives taken from them. For those who committed harm, sought to justify it (and continue to do so) to call for truth on behalf of victims is just too much to take seriously.
David Adams and a great many others have every right to call a spade a spade – whether he spends a month of every year wearing a bowler hat or not.
Seems my post on the 1st page is playing out.
What has been achieved from the conversation? Nothing. Just more “whataboutery” and “when you admit your part first then i’ll admit to mine”
All bullshit and completely destructive.
Al – the vast majority of people here had no part in creating victims – they just tried to get on with their lives in what were miserable times. Many people are just stunned and looking on aghast at the sheer nerve of SF to be organising a march for “truthâ€.
Investigations in to collusion should occur – but SF have a nerve to be calling for it. It’s not as if the Deputy First Minister is about to publish the minutes of meetings of the IRA Army Council when they planned the killings/executions/murders that left of us with so many of the victims we have in society today.
Sometimes a sense of remorse is best expressed when accompanied by a silent sorrow for the misery caused.
It’s not whataboutery to want victims to uncover the truth – whether these victims have republican sympathies or not. It is whataboutery when a party that supported an organisation that created most of the victims goes about shouting “what about collusion!â€
Put in place mechanisms for the discovery of the truth that victims require. Let’s then see what co-operation emanates from the protagonists – the British and others. Without full co-operation is the process worth starting since without it the results can only be partial and paint a picture David Adams is complaining of.
Then – once we know the names of those who planned and aided in the murder of others – do we prosecute them? Is the political dispensation granted by the GFA to apply to paramilitary groups only?
Republicans seem to be answering “yesâ€.
Some see a double standard in this.
Exellent point by DEC.Only one side think it;s right they get inquests. When prods ask about kingsmill tebanne ect we are told to move on.im sick tired hearing the shinners on asking to look into murders.they tell us all of their people killed were innocent and only out for a loaf or pint of milk.
Two excellent posts Rubicon.
SF should be careful what they ask for.
as a unionist i think the best course of action is a truth comission … but a full one, one that for example reveals government agents in the IRA, or how the Irish government couldnt secure the border for 30 years, allowing tonnes of explosives to be smuggled across, but during foot and mouth you couldnt even get a pack of bacon across.
Mnob – yes – a truth commission may be just the way to approach this problem. However, ALL the protagonists would need to agree to give it their full co-operation. Many of the leading decision makers aren’t going to be too comfortable with it, I can’t see them co-operating – much less establishing it.
Look at ‘the players’;
SF – like hell they’ll co-operate and break the little boys club oath some of them took.
DUP – will say they’ll want one but pray like hell it doesn’t happen.
The British – about as likely to get the MI boys to co-operate as SF’s boys club.They can safely rely on SF providing them with sufficient excuse.
Nah – it won’t be happening any time soon. It’s good that people are demanding it and the political parties should be pressed to say whether they’ll support it. Once SF refuse they can then explain to their victims why the truth won’t be coming out – and take some responsibility for that fact.
I think we need to look at this from SFs viewpoint for a moment.
As things stand, SF are rather like the school bully who has had his catapult and BB gun confiscated and been given a sound thrashing by the crowd he thought were his mates.
Gerry and co are in the uncomfortable position of having failed miserably to achieve ANY of their goals. A UI is at best decades away, support for the politics of the left could best be described as a rump and the southern electorate have grown up and moved on. With their terrorist campaign effectively neutered, and having signed up to partition, Stormont govt and the PSNI, SF are suddenly nothing more than the SDLP with attitude.
So what to do? Kicking up a fuss about the past seems like the only viable option. Hey it’s sad but at least it lets people know we’re still alive.
Let’s face it, everyone knows that Connolly, Pearse et al were jeered on the streets in 1916 for being complete dickheads, that the IRA border campaign of the 50s was abandoned due to lack of interest and that Sands et al committed suicide for absolutely no result. Likewise, everyone knows that the troubles were the result of both sides venting their worst sectarian excesses and that there is no hierarchy of victims.
Let Gerry and his mates have their little march and their little mope. Nobody’s listening any more. And if they are, there’s plenty more than happy to counter the bullshit.
I reckon the SF push for “truth”(it doesn’t matter whether I agree with their version or another) is the second phase in the process.The idea is to keep the British involved so as to continue the process.Now that stormont/north south/Iona isles is sown up the process would have appeared to have stopped.That is what the DUP have been trying to do by entering into a deal that they hoped would end all deals so that the process would be finished.
The truth process is the new strategy to get the British government back in so as momentum and secret talks and winks can once again take place.
Why the hell else would SF be pushing this issue?
“Gerry and co are in the uncomfortable position of having failed miserably to achieve ANY of their goals.”
BUT have got their noses in the trough. Holiday homes, salmon fishing and air miles. Does anybody think that the upper echelons in shinnerdom ( and loyalism) would have got any further than humping wheelie bins or cleaning drains?
That’s the reality that Gerry and Martin are scared of their own people realising – people like Richard O’Rawe and those writing in the Blanket have it right. So keep whipping up the mobs – God help Gerry and Co if their supporters ever take a long hard look at what these men put their communities through and why thngs turned out like they did.
Bit like the NI when I was young – when the workers got restless, bang the big drums, play the orange card, look chaps the fenians are coming, get behind us or you’ll lose what little you have in a united Ireland.
Spot on Cruimh and dream on yingyang.
This isn’t the ‘second phase’, it’s merely an act of desperation.
justthoughtidask
’If >all sides< agree that >all sides< participated in the shite and were part of the cause and part of the victim-ry and just get on with life now we’ll be better for it.’
That’s what Davy Adams is sayin
Well why didnt he just say that.
Who is telling Protestants to “move on”? It seems to me that they bring up their cases only as a reaction to Catholics looking for the truth and hardly ever as campaign in their own right.
I do remember calls for an inquiry into the Claudy bomb. They seemed to fizzle out when Mitchel McLaughlin offered support.
So where exactly stands the campaign for an inquiry in that case? FAIR have something about it on their site but I can’t see anything else.
Isn’t it the truth that there are no real campaigns on the Protestant side and rather than anyone telling them to move on they are moving on of their own volition. And they can’t see why Catholics don’t do the same.
Catholics reply that the state has to be held to account for its actions. There is a lot to be said for that but we don’t see much in the way of demands for an enquiry into the Scappatticci affair for example.
I think we all need to think about this a bit more. A truth commission is not something that I think will work because neither the British nor the IRA will tell the truth in my opinion.
We need to agree a basis on which we can all move on.
Yeah.. that’s why they sprung Gerry Adams to participate in the IRA talks with the British Government in 1972.. and kept channels of communication open ever since
Thats exactly richt they talked and only talked for a decade. then they got serious when the chickens started coming home to roost. The british, which by the way as long as you have the nice accent you will never be, were convinced that if they waitted long enough the war would blow itself out. It was only when the “front” expanded to their shores that they became interested in a solution
Why are the loyalists so opposed to this search for the truth? They arent asking for an enquiry into all loyalist murders just the ones involving the security forces. is it really so wrong to expect the government to follow the same rules as the citizens it supposedly represents? how can the british expect to jail and murder its citizens for the same crimes it is commiting against them?
As for investigating collusion between IRA and the security forces I say go for it. If they can find proof of collusion in crimes between the IRA and the british government then lets see just where all the rot in the system is?
As for enquirees into the IRA how do you propose to conduct them? Who’s the minister in charge of the provies? wheres the orders of the days, the written reports and the ministerial orders? You would have to rely on the word of IRA members to even know who is in the IRA and who is officer commanding or who was and how do you determine the veracity of a witness? If you like what hes saying it must be the truth and if he contradicts your previous held notions hes being economical with the truth? If you think the length of the bloody sunday inquiry is long you havent seen nothing yet
Nospinplease
If he had just said that then everyone would nod in agreement, think it applied to everyone but them, and just go on as before.
Before concluding as he did, he laid out the reasons why he was saying it.
Cruimh: “BUT have got their noses in the trough. Holiday homes, salmon fishing and air miles. Does anybody think that the upper echelons in shinnerdom ( and loyalism) would have got any further than humping wheelie bins or cleaning drains? ”
Shinnerdom — yeah, they would… Loyalism, not so much.
To play with the hoary old chestnut, when you send a IRA man to prison, he comes away with a new degree… when you send a Loyalist to prison, he comes away with a new bit of skin art.
Rubicon – i think you make a really good point.
The fact is Collusion should be an issue to everyone not just to PSF – who as you say are in a morallly shaky position to be demanding it.
However I think this “history is being whitewashed” argument hard to swallow.
All SF are doing are promoting their version of what – SOMETHING ALL SIDES DO, ALL OF THE TIME.
At the same time you have a very regular stream of normally high profile commentators complaining, essentially, that SF are having the opportunity to put their side of the story. These arguments are given plenty of airspace / newspapaer print. I’m fine with that but you can’t have that and say your voice isn’t being heard and that the media is absolutely dominated by revisionist SF clones.
Finally – the fact is that everyone knows PIRA killed plenty of people – they addmitted it FFS!. The collusion issue is about, or should be about, bringing disreputable actions of the state to light which were not previously known.
Sorry – I am clearly an idiot.
I meant to say that PSF are on shaky moral ground to be demanding an inquiry into collusion – not demanding collusion itself!
Also on fourth para I was trying to say all SF are doing is promoting their verison of what happened – something everyone did etc.
Andy — in an earlier post I gave examples of how fairly recent events — 1916, the 50s border campaign & the hunger strikes have been spun by the RM to look like glorious struggles rather than the sad grubby shambles that they actually were.
Now in 2007, whilst simultaneously insisting that everyone moves on, SF are intent on portraying the troubles as being all about the Brits & the loyalists, with the brave boys of the ra merely engaged in defence and martyrdom. Everyone who was there knows the truth — all sides were to blame. Is that fact really too tough for SF to accept? Or is this some sort of desperate attempt to get something, anything out of the grubby little conflict that has gifted the RM nothing?
As for digging up huge tracts of the past, realistically, only two words are needed — one is ‘Saville’ and the other is ‘inquiry.’
Millions of pounds wasted and nobody happy.
Do we really want several hundred more?
Even if the perpetrators of these murders are revealed, which in most cases won’t happen, there won’t be any jail terms, merely footnotes on case files and re-opening of old wounds. Justice? There won’t be any. The GFA provided for the early release of hundreds of convicted killers — do their victim’s families feel any better knowing that they’re walking the streets?
Would you rather spend £100 million probing cases where no justice will be done or invest in hospitals and education? Would you rather march for your personal version of the truth or look forward to a power-sharing future?
Hello G L C
it aint just PSF spinning 1916 of course. Anyway – all sides spin virtually all the time.
I broadly agree that their stance to ira violence is – long time ago, nothing to see etc, whereas their attitude to collusion is – we must not leave a stone unturned.
However, SF hypocrisy should be a side issue to the collusion thing. Presumably you agree one could be against all violence and still want investigations into collusion?
Again, take your point on Saville. But are we really saying we could not devise a lower cost model of enquiry?
Andy I was unfortunate enough to have lived here through the worst years of the troubles, ie 70s & 80s, and if one thing was obvious, it was that every side stank to high heaven.
It’s now even more blindingly obvious that the provos were riddled with informers, some of them directly responsible for murder, that collusion occured between loyalists and the security forces, that the RM knew full well for many years that their ‘Brits out’ campaign could never succeed and that politicians from all sides were self-serving leeches.
A lot of things went on which were entirely unforgiveable, but my whole point is that raking up all this stuff will result in zero jail terms, a massive bill, no-one happy and potentially huge damage to fragile community relations.
I lost a friend in the La Mon bombing. I have a fair idea who sanctioned it, but even if a thorough investigation revealed exactly who did it, I fail to see how the family would feel any better, given that no justice will be served.
Equally I fail to see how any victims of collusion will benefit either.
SF are once again displaying a breath-taking cynicism. Years ago they sent kids out on the streets to stone the police in the hope that one of them might catch a rubber bullet or get run over. More recently they hijacked the parades issue and organised residents groups when most residents couldn’t give a toss. Now they’re going to yap for years about victimhood and collusion when they murdered more than anyone else.
Instead of accepting that NI will be part of the UK for many years to come and promoting community relations, they’re playing the tired old mope card yet again. It’s to the southern electorate’s credit that they saw through the crap and rejected this bunch of chancers. It remains to be seen if the northern electorate can do the same.
Regarding Saville, I accept that not all inquiries would be as expensive, but the vast majority would be equally pointless.
Let me point out some relevent facts – the game’s moved on and is now being played at European level. The Europeans are only really starting to pressurise the British Government now on the ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy in Armagh in the early 80′s.
The Brits have responded by giving it to the Ombudsman who is retiring shortly and who has already complained about not receiving extra funding for what will inevitably be a complex and long investigation.
The latest local inquiry will satisfy nobody, nor is it intended to. It’s merely the latest stage in a coverup which has gone on for more than twenty years.
Sinn Fein is in government here now and whether unionists or the Westminster crowd like it or not their words will be listened to abroad and used as proof that there is a genuine demand for truth.
The Sinn Fein march is about putting pressure on the Brits on the international stage, where their position is particularly weak at the moment. What goes around…..!
Davy is articulating the same unionist policy we’ve seen since the ‘Tonight Show’ came here in 1966. ‘If we don’t talk about it then it will all go away’. That was and is the attitude which made the Troubles inevitable.
Best bit so far came from Cruimh – good example of reading between the lines made easy:
“That’s the reality that Gerry and Martin are scared of their own people realising – people like Richard O’Rawe and those writing in the Blanket have it right.”
Not visible but written in bold it should continue – BECAUSE IT SUITS ME TO THINK THEY ARE. It fits your picture much better doesn’t it Cruimh – but what if, just what if, they are wrong……and so are you? Ohhhh scarey.
Highlights well the whole theme of this thread really. “I’m right” “you’re wrong” “You’re all whingers”, “you’re all mooches” (repeat til infinity).
Chris nice try but were not ready for mature debate on this yet.
“The Sinn Fein march is about putting pressure on the Brits on the international stage,…”
FFS, catch yourself on. Who outside of here could care less if Gerry marches from now until kingdom come. As far as the “international stage” is concerned this place is sorted and about time too.
This march is really about Gerry trying, and mostly failing, to distract the troops from the fact that they failed miserably in their objectives. And not only failed but have ended up helping administer that which they sought to destroy. We only fought to gain civil rights? Give us a break.
It’s also about creating a distorted history to justify all that was done in the name of Irish republicanism.
All the dirty, seedy, sectarian slaughter to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter? Again, kid yourself if you like but spare the rest of us.
If you want truth then get it all out in the open. If you want to hear about the dirty deeds of the previous overlords then let’s hear about the dirty deeds of the present ones.
Let’s hear what the leading lights of the party now helping administer the north were involved in. What did they do themselves, what did they order, what did they sanction? Who were all of the informers?
We should have a right to know about the sort of people that are now in government.
Theres a problem here.
Protestants/unionts, whatever you want to call them are not going to buy the guilt trip.
So certain people can stop wasting their time trying and go tell stories to American tourists instead.
shea,
‘Who outside of here could care less…’
The Council of Europe which is currently forcing the British Government to take action on just one case. There are many cases of alleged British Government terrorism, some of which, like the Finucane murder have already aroused interest and backing in the States and in Europe.
You do realise that a minister in Spain went to jail for his part in a ‘dirty war’? And the Spanish government had many supporters and friends in Europe and elsewhere while the Brits have Bush!
This is the beginning of a campaign and there’s no doubt that some abroad will support the attacks on British conduct here because of their own agendas. That’s the reality of politics, friend.
‘England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity’ and all that.
Yeah and every opportunity created by England’s particular difficulties got nowhere…..especially that idea of Sean Russell’s to be friends with the Nazis.
Whatever happened to that list of Jewish people in Ireland that was being drawn up?
Anyone?
Yokel,
It was probably passed onto the Queen Mother and the other Nazis in the British Royal Family. Or to the real fascists in Ireland, the Blueshirts.
Maybe it can be seen during one of those tour things of Buckingham Palace….
Some of the postings on this thread are breathtaking. The British government was faced with a campaign of murder and bombings within its jurisdiction. What exactly would your recommended that the response be? Would you suggest simply ordering more ambulances, more fire engines, extending the capacity of hospitals while passively awaiting the next atrocity? Just to pose the question provides the answer. Like any other government, the response was to gather intelligence and thereby to forestall and if possible to prevent the activities of the terrorists. This is what every government does and indeed has a duty to do. The British government in fact carried out its duties in a remarkably restrained way when compared with, say, the Free State during the Irish Civil War when the casual murder of opponents was the norm.
All this disregards the effect on the unionist community which was watching the murder of its members and the bombings of the towns where they lived in the squalid sectarian campaign waged by the IRA. The British government prevented a downward spiral into civil war.
The funny thing about the unionist narative is that it doesnt seem to encompass the fact that unionists were also bombing and murdering people in their own squalid little campaign and had in fact been the ones who kicked the whole thing off
As I said, you lost. Your dirty little sectarian war didn’t deliver anything except big salaries for the leaders. Nobody but the gullible buys into this partial history crap either. Get over it. Nobody outside the north gives a f***.
I didn’t expect you would even try answering the other points I made.
You made a point?
David,
British policy in Ireland has been repression followed by coercion followed by repression. Even the British admit that now, while claiming that this time it’s all going to be different. We’ll see.
Thats an oversimplifiction Sean.
Davy Adams piece says it all.
I’m an average joe unionist, of the liberal variety, I’ve never been a terrorist & never voted for one, & have gone out of my way to live my life & not offend or cause harm to anyone, regardless of who or what they are, but is it so hard for republicans to understand that people like me, when they look at republicans, especially posting on here, who are cheerleaders for Sinn Fein/IRA & apologists for their dirty little murder campaign, might be a bit pissed off that the majority of Catholics vote for Sinn Fein.
Cromwell
You dont seem to get it a majority of Catholics have never been terorist but they are still pissed off that a majority of protestants vote for the DUP
but since no one has the right to be pissed off at how anyone votes they tend to whinge about it less
and if you have ever voted for paisley or his cabal then you have voted for terrorists, infact if you have ever voted period you have voted for terrorism in one form or another. Lets not forget about the UUP’s reign of terror from 1922 to 1972 or paisleys’s third force and workers strikes
their are no clean hands so quit trying to tell us different
“As anybody who was raised in a mixed community or works between the two communities will tell you, it might manifest itself in different, sometimes more subtle ways, but sectarianism is something that blights all of society here.â€
At the risk of addressing the thread, has this not been the great “success†of British cartography throughout the globe?
British policy in Ireland is and has always been colonial in nature and has therefore been about terrorising the natives into submission.
There are no ‘liberal unionists’, though there were those who would have liked to think of themselves that way. They were called O’Neillites and they disappeared from NI some time ago.
There are lots of unionists who are in denial about what happened here however, just as there were lots of nationalists who were in denial about the nature of Holy Catholic Ireland.
The good thing is that when the bubble starts to burst everything happens very quickly thereafter, like Sinn Fein getting into government for example.
I can remember the 80′s when Sinn Fein were humourless sectarian zealots and then it all changed, nearly overnight or so it seemed.
The same thing is happening right now to unionism.
Lib,
Didn’t most of the O’Neillites end up in Alliance?
I hope you’re right about people no longer being sectarian zealots on both sides. Personally I think it’s less zealotry but still a lot of sectarianism on both sides.
Sean,
Youre obviously never gonna listen anyway, I’ve never voted DUP & I was way too young to vote in 1972, nonetheless the fact is that the majority of Catholics are quite happy to vote for a bunch of possibly re-constructed dirty murdering b*stards & if you are trying to equate that with the DUP & UUP (reign of terror!!!!)your boiler is definetly busted.
You can spend the weekend trying to get the blinkers off, goodbye.
“I can remember the 80’s when Sinn Fein were humourless sectarian zealots…”
Yes, and their military wing was exactly the same hence the killing of Protestants simply because of their religion. So Gerry and his crowd have only recently embraced republican principles then? It kind of proves the twisted history theory.
Wilde Rover
[i]“As anybody who was raised in a mixed community or works between the two communities will tell you, it might manifest itself in different, sometimes more subtle ways, but sectarianism is something that blights all of society here.â€
At the risk of addressing the thread, has this not been the great “success†of British cartography throughout the globe? [/i]
Yes, I think you could call it that. That’s why so many borders in the Middle East are defined by nice straight lines. At some point the Empire’s map-makers got lazy when they left to go home.
At the end of the day, NI was drawn up by the Brits in the same way the boundaries of Pakistan & India were drawn up in 1947 or in the same way that Palestine was allowed to fall into the control of Jewish settlers once the British left.
Some English gents thought it would be a good idea if all the Prods lived in the North and all the Catholics lived in the South. Problem solved. The only thing is that the Ulster Unionist Party of 1922 – mid 1960s readily agreed with this mantra a bit too much, but enough for the British government to give a toss until 1972. It meant that the Unionists could remain in power until eternity if they just made sure that they kept all the Prods sweet. The rest is history …
Cromwell
Just because the UUP reign of terror officially ended in 1972 does not divorce the modern party from its history. As you so eloquently tell us about the modern Sinn Fein day after day after day after day.
And yes I very much DO equate the UUP, DUP and Sinn Fein
Sinn Fein are just a little bit more intelectually honest about their links to paramilitaries. While unionists still prefer the nudge nudge win wink variety of relationship with theirs
Cromwell (I’m an average joe unionist, of the liberal variety,)
You cannot really claim to be the above with that nick.It reeks of intolerence.
“Sinn Fein are just a little bit more intelectually honest about their links to paramilitaries. ”
Haha, like Gerry saying he wasn’t in the IRA.
SF/IRA are the same organisation. One is the political mouthpiece backed up by the armed muscle. The world knows that.
Other parties may have shared platforms with terrorists but only one party has an armed wing, only one party organised and carried out a sectarian murder campaign as SF/IRA did, no matter how desperate you may be to pretend otherwise.
And with the nick (Trueblue) it is pointless talking to you. You will never ever be tolerant towards anyone who differs from your opinon.
“And with the nick (Trueblue) it is pointless talking to you. You will never ever be tolerant towards anyone who differs from your opinon. ”
I don’t think someone who judges people on their nick rather than their views, should be giving lectures on tolerance.
“UUP reign of terror”
Priceless!
thanks apple crumble its nice to see you accept reason for a change
By the way what happened to the repartition of northern Ireland because I know the unionist community accept that partition is a legal and morral imperative