Trinity authorities instructed Ogra Shinn Fein recruiters to remove promotional posters that included the message “BRITS OUT” as it raised anti-British feeling. OSF has adopted the acronym defence, British Regiments, Informers, Troops and Soldiers, and attacked the “lingering existence of a pro-British psyche within the confines of Trinity”. However, the use of “west-Brits in Trinity” presumably none of whom of fit any of the four acronym groups somewhat undermines that defence.
Fair play to Iain, he managed to get over 2,200 people voting in his poll for the top Northern Irish blogs this year… We (just, I imagine) retained our top spot, with Splintered coming straight in at number 2, no doubt his pet subject du jour will have garnered him a lot of fans… I’ve [...] read our review »
Is the best way to overcome the legacy of conflict simply to forget about it? Author and journalist David Rieff spoke on this subject last week in a seminar at the Institute for International Integration Studies (IIIS) at Trinity College Dublin. Rieff has recently written a book titled, Against Remembrance (published in Ireland by Liffey [...] read our review »
Great little review of Listening to Van Morrison by Griel Marcus… It’s a short book, not a biography or a career survey, but an attempt to follow those moments in Morrison’s music, as he’s made it from his first records with Them, from Belfast in 1965 to the present day, when something happens that breaks [...] read our review »
I’m confused.
Do Volvo drivers in Ireland with a penchant for Abba and Ikea furniture get called “West Swedes”?
Martin,
That would depend on whether they wish Ireland to become part of Sweden.
It would also depend on whether they called Gaelic football ‘bog-ball’ and hurling ‘stick-fighting’ and constantly campaign for steps to be taken to kill off all remenants of Gaelic culture.
I mean would anyone who didn’t drive a volvo be anti-Swedish?
The Dubliner @ 07:27 AM:
Those who cannot access (because the link does not work) the reference to the great putdown from Sean McBride quoted by Vincent Browne in last Sunday’s edition of Sunday Business Post might like the entirety of the quotation. The context is a meeting of the directors of the Sunday Tribune, at which Tony Ryan had refused to continue financing the infant paper:
At that point, Donal Flynn leapt up and, donning a ridiculous Lenin-style cap, said he was resigning. Then, pointing at each of the directors, he said: “From this moment onwards each director is responsible for the debts of the company.â€
He then attempted to leave by pushing his way behind Arthur Walls, who was a corpulent man and whose chair was already back onto the wall in that very narrow room.
To that, Sean McBride replied, in that brokenly slurred French accent which was one of his distinguishing features: “I have never seen a better impersonation of Schuschnigg in my life” – a reference to the Austrian chancellor who had capitulated to Hitler in 1938.
Donal was one of the few who got the reference, and was outraged. He demanded that Denis O’Brien, as company secretary, take note of the remark about Schuschnigg and his protestations about being compared to him.
Tony asked: ‘‘Who the fuck is Schuschnigg?â€
At this stage, Arthur Walls was being heaved over the table, Donal was demanding that Denis record word-for-word what was being said about Schuschnigg, and some of us – including Tony – were in fits of helpless laughter at the chaos of it all.
Donal had finally beaten his way out of the room, and I said that I would undertake to finance the company over the following two weeks, to allow for a smooth transfer of Tony’s worthless majority shareholding to me. Tony could have retrieved the situation by retracting his remark about not providing further finance, but he was not a man for retraction.
In short, the Dubliner is seeking circuitously to call me a Nazi: I recognise the insinuation, and by the long established rules of these chat-rooms hereby claim victory.
Except, of course, Browne, and presumably McBride, and by inference the Dubliner have all got it largely wrong.
Schuschnigg became Chancellor of Austria at the age of 36 (when his predecessor Engelbert Dollfuss was assassinated by Nazi agents), and remains the youngest person to hold the office. He did not trust the loyalty of the Army, so organised a Home Guard.
When Hitler announced (20 February 1938) his intention to “protect” the Austrian ethnic Germans, Schuschnigg replied by calling a democratic plebiscite, saying (echoes of Parnell) “Thus far and no further”. Two days before the poll, Hitler sent in the Wehrmacht.
For eighteen months Schuschnigg withstood Nazi physical and mental torture. Six stones lighter, he then spent the War in Dachau and Sachsenhausen concentration camps.
I should be proud to be a Schuschnigg.
What that story doesn’t do, either, is help the Dubliner‘s thesis of nationality. Schuschnigg was a model Austrian patriot, despite being born in what is now Italy. McBride was born in Paris, of an Surrey-born mother.
Sorry to spoil the fun by sticking to facts, and not abuse.
Some clarity as to the nature of the “west brits” that Ogra want eliminated/out:
Census 2006 (figures refer to 26 counties only)
Born in Britain (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales): 222K: 5.3% of population.
Nationality given as Irish-English or UK: 127K: 3.1%.
This is Ireland’s largest “ethnic” minority – approx. double Poles in the 2006 census, who presumably are next on Ogra’s list once the brits are sorted out.
One the nationality thing. If you are born in the Republic of Ireland and intend living there you should be a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. Otherwise there are usual procedures to get joint nationality.
Something like three-quarters of a million residents of England and Wales gave the 2001 Census “White Irish” [yep!] as their ethnic origin. That means first-generation, only.
Does DK @ 12:31 PM have parallel advice for them?
If nothing else, think of all the fun he would be denying us: all the disruptive replies to those daft ethnicity questionnaires. My Hiberno-Brigantian/Icenian/Nordic/Huguenot gets ‘em every time. I hope my grandchild (with a Jewish-American father) can cause equal havoc.
Indeed Questor
And my Prusso-dutch-irish-english-scottish-welsh self would have them rolling in fits in the Aisle except I shorten it simply to Canadian and damn proud of it
“That would depend on whether they wish Ireland to become part of Sweden.
It would also depend on whether they called Gaelic football ‘bog-ball’ and hurling ‘stick-fighting’ and constantly campaign for steps to be taken to kill off all remenants of Gaelic culture. ”
Thats an interesting insight into how southerners view those they percieve to be “west brits”.
I have never met anyone who “constantly campaigns to kill off Gaelic culture”, west brits just wish to be treated equally and for their politics to be respected. Afterall, we west brits count for less than 10% of the population, treating us badly shows insecurity beyond anything rational.
Irish West Brit,
Your posts are a model of tolerance and reasonableness in general.
I am worried though that your own reasonableness makes you take too kindly a view of Mary McAleese. Not only were the Nazi comments deeply insulting but some of us who attended that rather less prestigous university in Belfast (QUB) remember that she was instrumental in having the national anthem removed from and stopping the RUC band playing at graduation. So when you hold her up as a paragon of of respecting unionist identity and tradition you will forgive be from finding that a little amusing.
In terms of this comment “They certainly dont seem very representative of the views of SF members I’ve met, let alone of wider republicanism” I would suggest you have not had to listen to nor meet many SF members in Northern Ireland if you have that sort of idea. Maybe you should listen to the Fermanagh and South Tyrone nonmember of parliament.
Also west Brit,
I have no problem with people of British origin doing what ever it is they want to do, that said I think that the challenge for you is to do it positively.
Basically, play cricket all day long but don’t call Hurling stickfighting.
You want your ‘politics’ to be respected, fine. But let us not forget that there is not a single elected politican (to my knowledge at least) who openly campaigns for the end of Irish political freedom and re-joining the union.
We can have all the lionisation of the Black and Tans we wish and all the degradation of anyone who has ever stood for freedom but you cannot expect the majority of Irish people who are not loyal to the British crown and who have enjoyed freedom to be compfortable with that.
“I am worried though that your own reasonableness makes you take too kindly a view of Mary McAleese. Not only were the Nazi comments deeply insulting but some of us who attended that rather less prestigous university in Belfast (QUB) remember that she was instrumental in having the national anthem removed from and stopping the RUC band playing at graduation. So when you hold her up as a paragon of of respecting unionist identity and tradition you will forgive be from finding that a little amusing.”
Respect runs both ways, Turgon. You can be opposed to the one sided nature of something without being opposed to a whole culture. How would you feel if the situation wrt anthems and bands was reversed?
The Nazi comparisons were grossly over the top and unfortunate considering the significance of WW2 within Unionism. However, I think Unionism sometimes uses this to sweep over the wider point that there was serious misrule.
I think MF is setting up straw-men here.
Sure there are unreconstructed bigots anywhere (‘stickball’) but even the most “West Brit” of political organisations in the Republic seeks the (to my mind) quite tame end of joining the Commonwealth as a Sovereign Republic a la India and South Africa. Sure it’s never going to happen but it is hardly the sort of thing that should bring the cultural foundations of the State crashing down. I have never heard anyone south of the border express anything more ‘unionist’ than this suggestion of joining a rather insipid and toothless organisation with little or no bite or relevance. Having said that, Mandela was happy to take SA back in, largely as a gesture of reconciliation I believe.
There are GAA, Aussie Rule, Baseball and a Lord knows how many other ‘foreign’ sports played in London by hundreds of thousands of people without so much as an eyelid being batted. Equally I don’t think a game of cricket in Dublin is going to bring Gaelic Culture crashing down.
I have no-doubt a hurler could make a fantastic cricketer in his spare time given that you only need to stand still to strike the ball as opposed to running at it at 100 mph. Its a shame that this sort of stereotyping means that few would make that – or indeed the opposite – sporting journey.
Turgon – point taken about McAleese. Clearly many NI people have a more different and more negative view of her than I would – I do feel her heart is in the right place though.
Perhaps I do paint an overly-optimistic of the changes in attitude in the south – this is not to deny the problems and serious challenges which remain, but I really do want to accentuate the really positive changes which have happened –
Particularly that the Taoiseach and President now talk not just of merely acknowledging the minority identity, but seem (to me at least) genuine about embracing and celebrating it as an equal strand, among many strands, in todays multicultural Irish Republic.
This may seem to be very small beans from an NI perspective, but I really want to give credit where credit is due. If things seem to be moving slowly this is because it was impossible to raise these kind of minority issues until after the ceasefires, and even then the whole “stay quiet, keep the head below the parapet” mentality – which was very deeply rooted and goes right back to the early 1920s – people need time and space and reassurance to grow away from that. In that sense McAleese welcoming the southern Loyal Orders wasnt just symbolism, it was also practical and positive.
My other reasons for accentuating the positive is that I absolutely cant stand the depressing, introverted MOPEish “80 years of Crisis and Decline” minority narrative which may have been understandable 20 years ago but which I think is almost the total inverse opposite of where our Irish-British (or West Brit if you prefer!) tradition is going now
- since the mid-90s we have had “10 years of Revival and Respect” – perhaps a little slow at first but certainly in the last few years accepted and embraced at the highest levels by the President and Taoiseach. IMHO, we need to be self-confident and positive on where we are and where we are going now – we absolutely mustn’t forget the past but we dont need to live in it, or define ourselves by it and there is every reason to be confident about the future.
I also want to accentuate the positive because I’ve come across a fair few southern nationalists who are, on the one hand, clearly decent and genuine and inclusive in their beliefs but who, on the other hand, seem to distrust or misunderstand what we are trying to do, or think we’re engaged in some kind of zero-sum agenda to undermine the republic they cherish.
So in giving credit where credit is due I maybe hope to reassure them especially as surely the Irish Republic is enriched by embracing those of West-Brit/Irish-British identity, just as it has been so enriched by the incredible influx of so many other cultures and peoples from around the world in recent years.
Dubliner – if you want to label me an ‘irredentist’ thats entirely up to you. My own view is that the Agreement established nationalism and unionism as equal traditions deserving of mutual respect. This seems to me to be a logical cornerstone of any possible shared future for unionists and nationalists to build.
For me personally this means I really do try to do my best to respect nationalists and the legitimacy of the nationalist tradition – probably many nationalists would laugh and say I fall well short on this, but I do try!
So, for instance, whilst I might disagree with an NI nationalist 100% on the constitutional issue and would happily argue with him or her on that until the cows come home, I certainly wouldnt label nationalists as ‘irredentist’, because a pejorative label like that would really show disrespect and because I think every nationalist has the exact same equal right to their political aspirations and beliefs as I do as a unionist, no more, no less.
———-
To those posters who say campaigning for equal UK citizenship rights for the minority in the south is like campaigning to be Swedish, or Mongolian etc – I really disagree. Both traditions on the island – the British Unionist and the Irish Nationalist – are very much intrinsic to the island, with deep roots here in Ireland which stretch back over the centuries.
All of us – Nationalism, Unionism and both governments – are now signed up to this three-stranded process which embraces the complexity of our relationships on these islands, whilst also respecting both the independence of the Irish Republic and also Northern Ireland’s place in the UK.
To say that the aspiration of people in the south to dual citizenship as the best reflection of their identity that they might as well try to be Mongolian is to miss the point completely. Its a bit like some unionists in the Assembly trying to ban nationalist MLAs from speaking in Irish, on the populist pretence that Irish is just another ‘foreign’ language and that Durkan/Ruane/McDonnell etc might as well be speaking in Suomi or Inuktiktuk for all you care.
In that sense I think both sides can have a tendency to miss the bigger picture.
kensei,
“How would you feel if the situation wrt anthems and bands was reversed?”
If I was at an RoI university I would not have had a problem with having their national anthem or police band at graduation.
In terms of one sided nature of culture it is of coursse interesting that Mary McAleese’s review recommended getting rid of the RUC band and God Save the Queen and commended the Student’s Union on having bilingual signs. It required an independent team of consultants report pointing out the extremely one sided manner in which the Irish signs were being used to force the university into getting rid of them.
To try to proclaim Mary McAleese as some sort of cross community champion one has to ignore both her stated views and her actions which makes it a bit difficult to believe doesn’t it.
Mary Mc Aleese has never been anything other than a communalist, the odd sympathetic noise towards unionism notwithstanding.
Going to a commemorative tower where thousands of people from Ireland fell in a war to exploit Africa, India and China is a disgusting thing to do without mentioning what a disgusting and disgraceful war that was is outrageous, and an insult to the democratic principles the participants in that war were doing so much to resist and smash right across the globe.
As for those proclaiming themselves West Brits, what exactly do you mean by that term? Unionists and West Brits are not necessarily the same thing after all. Look at old Carson. A Gaelic Games man.
“If I was at an RoI university I would not have had a problem with having their national anthem or police band at graduation.”
Northern Ireland and the Republic are not equivalent. In lots of ways. To be specific in this instance, the Republic does not have a massive minority to which the anthem is completely unrepresentative, and to whom the presence of the RUC is offensive.
NI remains part of the UK while a majority wills it so. I accept that has certain results I dislike – the Union Jack still flies over Belfast City Hall, for example, or my economic policy being set for a different country. But I see absolutely no reason why it should be at a graduation.
“In terms of one sided nature of culture it is of coursse interesting that Mary McAleese’s review recommended getting rid of the RUC band and God Save the Queen and commended the Student’s Union on having bilingual signs. It required an independent team of consultants report pointing out the extremely one sided manner in which the Irish signs were being used to force the university into getting rid of them.”
The irony here, of course, that in the same breath that you see no problem with GSTQ and the RUC being at a graduation, you have a problem with bilingual signs being used to make one section of the community uncomfortable.
“To try to proclaim Mary McAleese as some sort of cross community champion one has to ignore both her stated views and her actions which makes it a bit difficult to believe doesn’t it.”
Only if you believe a number of things
1. People are incapable of making mistakes
2. People are incapable of changing their views
3. People should be viewed on only a certain subsection of their actions, rather than in the round
Excetera. I make no great claims either way for President McAleese, merely that your argument is one sided, and in the case of the graduation point, deeply flawed.
kensei,
I was very careful in what I said about the Irish language signs at QUB. I said that they were being used in an extremely one sided fashion. As I have previously stated when I was at Queen’s I, as a rather naive fresher, suggested multilingual signs and that was laugheed at and ridiculed by the Student’s union leadership. It was the way the signs were being used which I objected to and it seems the consultants brought in had pretty similar views. Do you want to accuse them of being a secret group of closet unionists?
The problem is that Mary McAleese (the same person being held up as a cross community champion) saw no problem with getting rid of the national anthem and the RUC band and yet commended the way the Student’s union was using the Irish language signs.
In terms of her making mistakes and changing her views. She seems to have a bit of a track record here. The QUB stuff was in 1993 or 1994 from memory, the “Prods were Nazis” stuff was only a few years ago so she keeps making the same “mistakes” and seems to have had little change in her views.
Garibaldy –
I use the term ‘west brit’ because the thread itself grew out of the way the SF group in tcd was proclaiming “Brits Out” and were using “West Brit” as a term of abuse, and who published a sectarian anti-minority rant against what they called people of ‘pro-British psyche’ in Dublin and against what they called “Anglo-Irish Oligarchs” who they seem to think are somehow running the country behind the scenes…
This kind of crude sectarian stereotyping is profoundly dehumanising and offensive – and is all the more disturbing in the Dublin context, directed against a minority identity which is really quite tiny – a few percentage points at best outside the border counties.
Given that they are in the position of a 98% majority attacking a 2% minority you would think they might show some latitude – instead of seeing any strand of Irish identity other than their own as a threat to be caricatured, dehumanised and expunged.
Like I said earlier on in the thread, I’m certainly not using this to bash SF or republicans in general – quite the opposite as these kind of views arent in the least reflective of what most republicans I know would think, including SF members.
On their Ogra Sinn Fein website they proclaim their republicanism proudly as they’ve every right to do – then they ironically completely contradict that by producing these kind of dehumanising sectarian caricatures – bashing their own fellow Irish citizens and calling for any lingering traces of the minority/British identity to be expunged!
I’m really not trying to score points here, maybe I’m being naive, but I genuinely hope that perhaps more senior people in SF might take this youth branch in hand, switch off the hate speech and perhaps even educate them as to some of the fundamentals of their own republican political tradition.
Perhaps they could start by counting the colours on the Irish flag – Quelle Horreur! – there’s more than just one colour!
(But then again, maybe they view the Irish tricolour itself is some kind of plot by the evil west Brit oligarchy to subvert the purity of the race!)
To answer your other question, in decades gone by there would have been a perception that, so far as minority identity was concerned, the price of acceptance as an equal Irish citizen was that you had to leave the British dimensions of your identity outside the door.
Thankfully, those days are now dead and buried, both north & south – and the equal legitimacy of Ireland’s two great historical traditions has been recognised and enshrined in the Agreement.
In the context of the Republic this means that those of us Irish citizens, small in numbers though we are, have every right to celebrate and express our identity – our Irishness *and* our Britishness – and when people in the minority do want to express or explore their British side, I hope and trust that my fellow citizens in the nationalist majority can respect that for what it is – the fundamental birthright of every Irishman, of both traditions, to be “Irish, or British, or Both”.
As opposed to trying to label the British part of minority identity here as being somehow foreign or alien to Ireland – as though we had just teleported in from Outer Mongolia – or even worse resorting to the kind of vicious sectarian caricatures which were published by Ogra Sinn Fein.
That way, we can move towards a truly shared future between the two traditions where we can all accept each other as equals “in all the diversity of our identities and traditions” – just like it says on page 1 of my constitution – and where nobody needs to leave bits of their identity outside the door to be seen as an equal citizen.
” and the equal legitimacy of Ireland’s two great historical traditions has been recognised and enshrined in the Agreement. ”
Really? the agreement is simply the greening of Non Iron to buy off the Provos and the facilitation of the persuance of republican objectives via economic policy. Any reciprocal faciltiation by ROI (dropping articles 2 & 3 ) is simply an ideological comfort blanket for unionists.
To West Brit the citzenship laws you want passed will never happen you are far to few in number for it to come about.I mean where would this stop would citzenship rights have to be give to the anglo indians and anglo argentinians.
Newbie @ 09:46 PM:
Not quite.
Try Articles 17 to 20 of the Treaty of Rome.
IWB,
You seem to be equating west brit with protestant. In my experience its meaning is the opposite – Castle Catholic would be closer, as it’s aimed mostly at people who “should” feel Irish not British.
As for the Anglo-Irish thing, that seems more nakedly sectarian.
And as for the more senior people in PSF re-educating the youth in true republican values, well given that the whole organisation is openly tribal in who it seeks to represent I doubt it.
And personally, I don’t think it makes any sense to talk about a British minority in the south. Protestant yes, but I suspect very strongly that the vast vast majority of protestants in the south do not feel at all British, and haven’t done in decades.
“I was very careful in what I said about the Irish language signs at QUB. I said that they were being used in an extremely one sided fashion. As I have previously stated when I was at Queen’s I, as a rather naive fresher, suggested multilingual signs and that was laugheed at and ridiculed by the Student’s union leadership. It was the way the signs were being used which I objected to and it seems the consultants brought in had pretty similar views. Do you want to accuse them of being a secret group of closet unionists?”
I don’t believe I accused your views of being unreasonable. I merely contrasted them with your previous stance. Personally, I think that multilingual signs are the best option.
“The problem is that Mary McAleese (the same person being held up as a cross community champion) saw no problem with getting rid of the national anthem and the RUC band and yet commended the way the Student’s union was using the Irish language signs.”
And you apparently see no problem with the RUC band and “National Anthem”. I can’t really comment further without a link to what she actually said.
“In terms of her making mistakes and changing her views. She seems to have a bit of a track record here. The QUB stuff was in 1993 or 1994 from memory, the “Prods were Nazis†stuff was only a few years ago so she keeps making the same “mistakes†and seems to have had little change in her views. ”
She didn’t say “Prods were Nazis”. She compared the passing on of an irrational hatred of Catholics here to the passing on of an irrational hatred of Jews by the Nazis. Unfortunate comparison, but the biggest problem was it was one sided.
But she is generally regarded to have done a lot of cross community work. None of that count for anything?
Irish West Brit,
A grand total of 3 people a year from the Irish Republic but now living in Northern Ireland look for British citizenship.
For years, the DUP’s Gregory Campbell went on about the countless thousands born in the Republic but living in NI who wanted to avail of becoming British citizens.
He was told that there was no market but, unperturbed, he got little postcards made for the disenfranchised to post away. Years have passed and we are still waiting for one of Gregory’s postcards to turn up.
You sound like his southern equivalent, demanding something that nobody wants or needs for reasons best known to your good self.
kensei,
When pro Vice Chancellor she was in charge of the committee which removed the RUC band and the national anthem from graduation and commended the student’s union on their use of Irish language signs. The same signs the independent consultants told QUB to take away within a year of McAleese’s report.
“But she is generally regarded to have done a lot of cross community work. None of that count for anything”
Yes she has done some community work and she compared us to Nazis. You are correct the cross community work counts for nothing.
“Yes she has done some community work and she compared us to Nazis. You are correct the cross community work counts for nothing.”
1. Do you disagree that some people here brought up their children with an irrational hatred of Catholics?
2. “By their deeds ye shall know them”? Does that only count when it suits the argument?
3. She apologised, I believe. What does the Bible advise on that?
Did some people bring their children up with an irrational hatred of catholics? I do not know, I suspect some did, did some people bring their children up with an irrational hatred of Protestants I do not know, I suspect some did.
Reprehensible as such a thing would be it does not in any way justify describing people as behaving in a similar fashion to Nazis. saying it at Auchwitz was particularly inappropriate.
By her deeds I do know her in this context, those are the deeds of a pretty narrow minded individual who is very clearly partial.
She apologised. Well I thought the apology was pretty weak and when placed alongside her other actions and her history I am a bit dubious about that apology. I am sure she is sad she said it because it damaged her. Does she no longer hold that view? I am not so sure about that. I would suggest it was the trouble she got into over the remark that she really regrets.
I see you have given up trying to justify her dropping of the national anthem and RUC band and commending the Student’s Union as even handed.
Face it she is not some great reaching out liberal. She is a tribal nationalist politician. I have no specific problem with that it is just when she is presented as something she most clearly is not.
“Did some people bring their children up with an irrational hatred of catholics? I do not know, I suspect some did, did some people bring their children up with an irrational hatred of Protestants I do not know, I suspect some did.”
Oh, don’t be coy, Turgon. All this nonsense is what pisses people off. The evidence is quite clearly all around you. Call a spade a spade, would you?
Let’s quote our erstwhile First Minster, circa the late fifties:
‘You people of the Shankill Road, what’s wrong with you? Number 425 Shankill Road – do you know who lives there? Pope’s men, that’s who!… How about 56 Aden Street? For 97 years a Protestant lived in that house and now there’s a Papisher in it!’
“Reprehensible as such a thing would be it does not in any way justify describing people as behaving in a similar fashion to Nazis. saying it at Auchwitz was particularly inappropriate.”
She actually extended it further, how people were brought up to hate people with different skin colour. The main drive was that these type of irrational hatred were wrong, and that taken to the ultimate conclusion it leads to Auchwitz. If she had have mentioned Catholics to balance it out, I don’t there would have been any controversy. I think it is quite a valid point to be made at Auchwitz, albert in not quite suchh a cack handed way.
Catholicism tends to divide sin by degree. I believe the Protestant Churches have the view that sin is sin is sin. No?
“By her deeds I do know her in this context, those are the deeds of a pretty narrow minded individual who is very clearly partial.”
Ah. So you only count the deeds that fit your argument? The deeds that are actually words?
“She apologised. Well I thought the apology was pretty weak and when placed alongside her other actions and her history I am a bit dubious about that apology. I am sure she is sad she said it because it damaged her. Does she no longer hold that view? I am not so sure about that. I would suggest it was the trouble she got into over the remark that she really regrets.”
Do you reckon you would have been so harsh on a Unionist equivalent? And what exactly would she have to do to convince you she was genuine?
Cross community work?
“I see you have given up trying to justify her dropping of the national anthem and RUC band and commending the Student’s Union as even handed.”
I haven’t given up anything. I simply said I don’t know all the facts, so I declined to comment.
“Face it she is not some great reaching out liberal. She is a tribal nationalist politician. I have no specific problem with that it is just when she is presented as something she most clearly is not.”
As if people are defined in only one fashion like that or can hold only one specific set of views that are unified.
And if Mary McAleese is a “tribal nationalist”, I imagine current governmental arrangements must be a peculiar agony.
kensei,
I am sure people brought their children up with irrational hatreds. The nonsense of accusing me of being coy (or polite about others) seems not to extend in your case to understanding why Mary McAleese’s various actions greatly antagonise unionists.
So at least we seem agreed that she is a tribal nationalist. That she is is of no concern to me merely that she was held up as something else when she clearly is not.
You seem to feel that her words are somehow different to her deeds. As a politician she lives and works by words. Her sectarian words are deeds in this context. Her cross community work is completely overshaddowed by her real actions such as equating unionists’ behaviour with Nazi behaviour and her own extremely partial behaviour when she had some power here as she did as pro VC at Queen’s.
As to what she would have to make me regard her as genunine. Had she been genunine about feeling her words were totally inappropriate there is a simple step. It is called resignation. This woman is supposed to represent the Irish nation in some way. Some members of that nation want to reach out to those on this island who feel they are unionists and British. She claimed to be one of them. She equated us with Nazis. I would call that a resigning matter if she was serious about cross community outreach.
In terms of the current governmental arrangements I think my views on them are fairly well known but are not the matter for debate at this time. Might I remind you that you are the one who described the orange order as “fruit of the poisoned tree” or some such open minded remark. Do you care to remind me what it was? So for you to give me lectures on open mindedness is a trifle ironic.
“I am sure people brought their children up with irrational hatreds. The nonsense of accusing me of being coy (or polite about others) seems not to extend in your case to understanding why Mary McAleese’s various actions greatly antagonise unionists.”
No, I understand perfectly why that particular comparison would be antagonising, or why supporting the removal of GSTQ and the RUC might annoy you. I originally merely pointed out that parity of esteem runs two ways, and she could oppose getting rid of GSTQ without hating Unionists.
You then brought up the Irish of Irish language signs in Queen’s, which I can’t really comment on with seeing comments — it depends what she said and how she said it.
“So at least we seem agreed that she is a tribal nationalist. That she is is of no concern to me merely that she was held up as something else when she clearly is not.”
No, I don’t agree, particularly. She is certainly a Nationalist, but the use of “tribal” is pejorative and demeaning.
“You seem to feel that her words are somehow different to her deeds. As a politician she lives and works by words. Her sectarian words are deeds in this context. Her cross community work is completely overshaddowed by her real actions such as equating unionists’ behaviour with Nazi behaviour and her own extremely partial behaviour when she had some power here as she did as pro VC at Queen’s.”
You are turning logic upside down. She made a speech, with Unionism being entirely incidental to the point being made. I would suggest she used Unionism as an example because they welded power here – just as the Nazis did, or white people did in the US or South Africa. When challenged, she accepted fully that the logic could apply equally to Catholics, and apologised. Those were unfortunate, cack handed and hurtful but they are just words.
Her actions as president have been different.
On the GSTQ / RUC thing – do you believe I should have to sit through those to get my degree, when I am totally and utterly opposed to them? Why should they be there?
“As to what she would have to make me regard her as genunine. Had she been genunine about feeling her words were totally inappropriate there is a simple step. It is called resignation. This woman is supposed to represent the Irish nation in some way. Some members of that nation want to reach out to those on this island who feel they are unionists and British. She claimed to be one of them. She equated us with Nazis. I would call that a resigning matter if she was serious about cross community outreach.”
Brilliant. What happens when there is serious corruption or abuse of power? Seppuku? I could pull about a billion examples for comparison, but I almost admire the absolutism.
I’d wager you could think of some actions a bit loer down and more appropriate if you really thought of it, Turgon.
“In terms of the current governmental arrangements I think my views on them are fairly well known but are not the matter for debate at this time. Might I remind you that you are the one who described the orange order as “fruit of the poisoned tree†or some such open minded remark. Do you care to remind me what it was? So for you to give me lectures on open mindedness is a trifle ironic. ”
I also stated I’d like, ultimately, to be in a position where I could say I whole heartily back the Orange Order.
The “fruit of the poisoned tree”, was simply that I feel I can’t do that wholeheartedly, regardless of their actions until they deal with the root problem of anti-Catholicism contained in their initiation oath, and take steps within the organization to reverse that. It taints everything they do. I am entirely open to giving them the benefit of the doubt if that start to do that. I am not asking them to remove their culture, merely tackle the sectarianism within it. I’m sure there is plenty I could learn from listening to them too.
My position is entirely clear and open, and entirely lacking in the coy “Maybe, but the other side is bad too” nonsense. Perhaps you would prefer me to lie?
So that is the sum total of your position. She is not that bad because she says some nice things about unionists sometimes and of course visits a few state schools, not to mention that her husband plays golf with a loyalist paramilitary and when she equated unionists to Nazis she said sorry.
As I said had she meant the cross community stuff she would either have not said the Nazi comment or; having said it would have realised that she was fatally undermined on this issue, done the honourable thing and resigned. She did not resign. That is fair enough she is president of RoI and she did not feel it was a resigning matter. That is fine but whilst she can obviously remain president of RoI she cannot have any credibility as a cross community champion whatever she then does. She returned herself back to being the tribal nationalist politician she was and remains.
Turning to yourself,
“I also stated I’d like, ultimately, to be in a position where I could say I whole heartily back the Orange Order.”
The arrogance is quite spectular in this statement that the orange order have to bend over backwards to possibly get the support of someone who has used remarks like “fruit of the poisoned tree”.
You never really grasped this being nice to unionists thing did you? The trully amazing thing kensei is that you lack all insight.
Turgon
The arrogance is quite spectular in this statement that the orange order have to bend over backwards to possibly get the support of someone who has used remarks like “fruit of the poisoned treeâ€.
Is it relly any more arrogant than listening to unionist complain that nationalists arent doing enough to appease them?
Sean,
I do not want to be appeased. I have no problem with Mary McAleese being president of RoI. I have no problem with her being a nationalist. I do not want her to do any appeasing of me.
I do have a problem when she masqurades as some reaching out liberal and expects us to ignore her tribal past and present. She wants to be seen as a great cross community worker. After all she has said and done she cannot expect to be seen as such. That does not make her a bad person but it does mean she cannot claim to be some cross community ambassador.
Turgon
Since you are the only one who has raised the tribal reference I would sugest its your problem not hers
Find a mirror and be honest with yourself, I mean I accepted i am an ugly sumbitch years ago perhaps its your time to be honest
“Dubliner – if you want to label me an ‘irredentist’ thats entirely up to you. My own view is that the Agreement established nationalism and unionism as equal traditions deserving of mutual respect. This seems to me to be a logical cornerstone of any possible shared future for unionists and nationalists to build.
For me personally this means I really do try to do my best to respect nationalists and the legitimacy of the nationalist tradition – probably many nationalists would laugh and say I fall well short on this, but I do try!
So, for instance, whilst I might disagree with an NI nationalist 100% on the constitutional issue and would happily argue with him or her on that until the cows come home, I certainly wouldnt label nationalists as ‘irredentist’, because a pejorative label like that would really show disrespect and because I think every nationalist has the exact same equal right to their political aspirations and beliefs as I do as a unionist, no more, no less.” – Irish West Brit
The GFA applies to the political dynamics in the north of Ireland only. It has no relevance to the south whatsoever, and never will have. In the north, you have two competing nationalisms of equal mass that make a claim to self-determination both of which are the opposite of the other. The claim of those who identify themselves as Irish being the legitimate claim of the indigenous people and the claim of those who identify themselves as British being the illegitimate claim of usurpers.
You are an irredentist, and there is no point in seeking to be coy about that. You claim above that you “disagree with an NI nationalist 100% on the constitutional issue.” Ergo, you do not recognise the right of the Irish to a nation state. Yet, you wish that your asinine demand for a second nation state should be respected by those you would deny a nation state to, rather than dismissed as a contemptible and treacherous self-indulgence on your part. No-one is seeking to deny you the right to self-determination if your destiny is to be a part of a British nation state (see Ryanair.com), but you are seeking to deny the right of the Irish to self-determination because you deem your self-appointed and utterly bogus ‘right’ to usurp the destinies of others, replacing them with a second British nation state to indulge your whims, to be more important that those inalienable and sacrosanct rights.
“In short, the Dubliner is seeking circuitously to call me a Nazi: I recognise the insinuation, and by the long established rules of these chat-rooms hereby claim victory.” – Questor
What is it with your penchant for undignified displays of hysterical whinging? Despite plundering the content of Wikipedia to write your post, you omitted to mention that Kurt von Schuschnigg was not a Nazi. He was the Austrian chancellor who capitulated to Hitler after he failed to prevent the takeover of Austria. He was arrested by the Nazis in 1938 and spent the next 7-years in a German prison. So, comparing you to Schuschnigg is not comparing you to a Nazi, but to a weak individual who surrenders to the demands of others with no regard for the consequences. Ergo, just as you failed to properly understand the meaning of my first post, you have failed again to understand the meaning of the text quoted below:
“By the way, your seeming willingness to surrender hard-won Irish sovereignty to the irredentist whims of a minority puts me in mind of great putdown from Sean McBride quoted by Vincent Browne in last Sunday’s edition of Sunday Business Post: ‘I have never seen a better impersonation of Schuschnigg in my life.’†– The Dubliner
“Nonsense. The UK could pass a law tomorrow to grant citizenship to people in Southern Ireland, just as the ROI did in 2001 in respect of people in Northern Ireland. The UK did not “cede its sovereign territory†to the ROI government.” – Willowfield
“Not true. The UK can grant citizenship to whomever thay like.” – Briso
We’re not talking about theoretical possibilities, but real politics in the specific context of irredentism. The only way that the citizens of the Irish republic would be granted British citizenship is if the citizens of the south voted to rejoin the British monarchy, replacing its president as head of state. This is the wet-dream of “West Brits” – a group of irredentists stranded in the south who never recognised the right of the indigenous Irish people to self-determination or a sovereign and independent state, and who dream of the day that they can be reunited with what they see as their motherland, i.e. Great Britain. There is also a theoretical possibility that Japan will donate its entire annual budget and foreign reserves to France, but that isn’t likely to happen in the real world, is it?
“1. Define “nation stateâ€.
2. Define the criteria “to†a nation state, and the source of these criteria.” – Willowfield
Let’s start with the definition of self-determination in Article 1 of the UN’s “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” This definition has the status of International Law, so we will stick with it here.
Two concepts appear here: the plural “peoples” and the collective right of “peoples” to determine their own destinies. So, we how need to settle of a definition of “peoples” and on the method by which “peoples” can determine their own destinies in accordance with Article 1. The UN’s “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” and the International Court of Justice makes it clear that self-determination is the absolute right of peoples of colonized territories, defining “peoples” as the population, or people, of a fixed territorial entity.
“Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.”
The other commonly accepted definition of “peoples” in international jurisprudence was proposed by the UN’s Special Rapporteur MartÃnez Cobo:
“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.”
So, we can now apply these definitions and proceed to say the people of Ireland have a right to self-determination, which means that they and not any other “peoples” or British colonial power will “freely determine” their own destiny. As it stands, the demands of those who identify themselves as British in the north for a second nation state suppresses the right of those who identify themselves as Irish to self-determination, i.e. to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
They cannot, for example, express their culture by putting the road signs in Irish language as is their wish and as is their inalienable right. This is immoral and a clear violation of the principle of self-determination. However, they have acceded to the arrangement due to political expediency of recognising that unionists were prepared to engage in sectarian civil war rather than accede to democratic will of the majority, to international principles, or to international law.
A “nation state” is the entity by which people can freely determine their own destinies in accordance with Article 1. If you claim to be British, then you will find that your nation state already exists; and, ergo, there is no case to be made under international law for the creation or retention of a second nation state. If you do not claim to be British but some other expedient and ad hoc ethnic group, then you will find that your claim self-determination is rendered void by the indigenous people having a prior claim to the territory.
You can, of course, be British in Ireland just as you can be Irish in Great Britain. The Irish in Great Britain do not make demands of the British to compromise British sovereignty or self-determination by having an Irish head of state to replace their monarch. The British in Ireland should learn the same etiquette.
“So that is the sum total of your position. She is not that bad because she says some nice things about unionists sometimes and of course visits a few state schools, not to mention that her husband plays golf with a loyalist paramilitary and when she equated unionists to Nazis she said sorry.”
She didn’t equate Unionists to Nazis. My position is merely that it is against the generally thrust of her Presidency. Would I say she has been spectacular in reaching out to Unionism? No. Merely that I believe that an emotive mistake is clouding your judgement.
“As I said had she meant the cross community stuff she would either have not said the Nazi comment or; having said it would have realised that she was fatally undermined on this issue, done the honourable thing and resigned. She did not resign. That is fair enough she is president of RoI and she did not feel it was a resigning matter. That is fine but whilst she can obviously remain president of RoI she cannot have any credibility as a cross community champion whatever she then does. She returned herself back to being the tribal nationalist politician she was and remains.”
Or she worded something clumsily and considered it serious but not a resigning issue.
“The arrogance is quite spectular in this statement that the orange order have to bend over backwards to possibly get the support of someone who has used remarks like “fruit of the poisoned treeâ€.
You never really grasped this being nice to unionists thing did you? The trully amazing thing kensei is that you lack all insight.”
I never claimed any great insight, and freely acknowledge I’m an idiot.
The Orange Order do not have to do anything. I fully respect the Orange Order’s right to do what it likes, even hold anti Catholic views , as long as they do no harm to others. I am merely stating my position.
You’ll find that a lot of Catholics dislike the Orange Order. Rather than merely carrying a general and irrational hate, I have thought about the reasons why I dislike the organisation, and tried to be specific. Chief among those reasons is the anti-Catholic stuff, and I think the oath is symbolic in that respect.
I am not going to accept things that I find totally unacceptable, or pretend that the OO is grand when I have big problems with it. That doesn’t mean I hate Unionists. Only by being frank about what we dislike about each other and attempting to come to change, compromise and understanding, will we ever move forward. So, setting my stall out is about the nicest thing I can do. Does that dovetail into the original point I was trying to make? Why, I think it does.
“You never really grasped this being nice to unionists thing did you? The trully amazing thing kensei is that you lack all insight.†– Turgon
“I never claimed any great insight, and freely acknowledge I’m an idiot.” – kensei
A lot of unionists see the PoC as a contract of political servitude wherein northern nationalists grandiosely renamed the Unionist Veto on their right to self-determination as the Principle of Consent, agreeing that nationalists’ rights were subject to unionists’ will. Since you folks signed up to it via the GFA, you shouldn’t be too surprised if they try to make you sing for the supper that they have no intention of ever placing on your table. Sublimation of a supremacist mentality, and all that.
THE DUBLINER
… The claim of those who identify themselves as Irish being the legitimate claim of the indigenous people and the claim of those who identify themselves as British being the illegitimate claim of usurpers.
Every people has the right to self-determination, notwithstanding your arbitrary dismissal of one particular people as “usurpers†on the basis that you perceive them to be descended from people who have been living here for “only†400 years. There is no such time limit on a people’s legitimate rights.
You are an irredentist, and there is no point in seeking to be coy about that. You claim above that you “disagree with an NI nationalist 100% on the constitutional issue.†Ergo, you do not recognise the right of the Irish to a nation state.
That doesn’t follow at all. Disagreeing with the absorption of NI into the ROI does not mean that one doesn’t recognise “the right of the Irish to a “nation stateâ€â€.
We’re not talking about theoretical possibilities, but real politics in the specific context of irredentism. The only way that the citizens of the Irish republic would be granted British citizenship is if the citizens of the south voted to rejoin the British monarchy, replacing its president as head of state.
No, West Brit is simply calling for UK citizenship laws to be extended extra-territorially in the same way that ROI citizenship laws are. Nothing to do with irredentism. Ironically, the irredentists are those in the South who wish to annex NI.
The Dubliner @ 04:44 AM:
Kurt von Schuschnigg was not a Nazi. He was the Austrian chancellor who capitulated to Hitler after he failed to prevent the takeover of Austria. He was arrested by the Nazis in 1938 and spent the next 7-years in a German prison.
Errors in the above:
1. After Austria became a republic in 1919, titles were abolished. Therefore Schuschnigg was not entitled to use the “von”, and certainly did not go by that honorific as Chancellor.
2. Despite what McBride implies, Browne understood him to say, and The Dubliner declares, Schuschnigg did not “capitulate” to the Nazis (which was one reason why he was treated so appallingly). Rather than give way, he resigned the Chancellorship, realising he could do no more. The “capitulation” was by the Nazi Seyss-Inquart, who “invited” the intervention.
3. Schuschnigg was a Christian Socialist (on the conservative right, which developed into the Homeland Front). He was authoritarian. He was prepared to accept a form of Austro-German dualism, but not German domination. No, he was not a Nazi, which is what I said previously.
4. I trust we might find common ground in distinguishing between 7-years in a German prison and seven years in the hell-holes of Dachau and Sachsenhausen concentration camps.
Finally, may I recommend:
1. A cold shower;
2. A sense of humour;
3. Greater use of sources, even including wikipedia?
THE DUBLINER
“1. Define “nation stateâ€.
2. Define the criteria “to†a nation state, and the source of these criteria.†– Willowfield
You’re right to cite Article 1 of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – “All peoples have the right of self-determination†– and to identify the need to “settle of†a definition of “peoplesâ€. (And you will be interested to note that the word “peoples†is employed and not “nationsâ€.)
Your mistake, though, is then to cite the UN’s Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, as this does not apply to NI, which is not a “colonized territory†and not recognised as such by the UN or any international body or court. The Declaration was made in 1960 and its relevance was to the decolonisation process in Africa and Asia, as is indicated by the passages that you quote: “Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence …â€. In 1960, and since, NI was not a colony but an integral part of the UK by the will of its people.
You then go on to quote Martinez Cobo’s working definition of “indigenous, communities, peoples and nationsâ€. Again, this is not relevant as its purpose is to assist the work of the International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs to protect indigenous peoples in places like the Amazon, Africa and Oceania:
– “Indigenous peoples, belonging to the most marginalized and impoverished groups in the world, have the right to be recognized and to have their basic human rights respected. In particular indigenous peoples have the right to be able to survive as peoples and to maintain and develop their cultures based on their own aspirations, visions and identity.â€
This is not relevant to Ireland. Irish nationalists living in NI live in relative affluence in a wealthy, developed advanced society, their human rights are recognised and protected, their culture is secure, and their survival is not under threat.
In short, this definition is not a universal definition of “peoplesâ€.
Far from your attempt to characterise NI as equivalent to a Third World colony or former colony where the “indigenous people†are under threat (and, even if that is your personal view, it is not the legal position, which is what you are trying to assert) – the actual situation is that, in Ireland, there are two separate peoples, one of which is concentrated in Northern Ireland, which is recognised as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
From a legal point of view, you have failed to demonstrate that NI’s right to self-determination is illegitimate. I suggest also that the absence of a single member state of the UN withholding recognition of the UK’s boundaries is another blow to your position.
From a political point of view, we go back to our definition of “peoples†– or, as you might prefer, “nationsâ€. There is no prescriptive definition of such, but the essential components usually involve some or all of the following common components – ancestry, history, customs, heritage, language, culture, religion, territory. Both the Irish/Catholic/nationalist people and the Ulster/British/Protestant/unionist people (or the British people as a whole, if you prefer) are clearly distinct and separate in these terms, they each have the right to perceive of themselves as such, and have done so and clearly established themselves as so.
Finally, you will acknowledge that the right to self-determination is possessed by “peoples†and not by territories. It is not Ireland, therefore, that possesses the right to self-determination, but the self-described “Irish†people (more accurately Irish nationalist/Catholic people). This people, however, shares the territory of Ireland with another people which is concentrated in its own territory. (If, for example, unionists were scattered evenly around Ireland you would be correct in that they would not practically be able to assert their right to self-determination, but they were and are, in fact, concentrated in a territory where they have lived for centuries and are, therefore, able to assert their self-determination in the same way as any other people.)
The obvious solution in such cases is that both peoples’ self-determination be facilitated by dividing the territory – drawing the boundary so as to allow for as many people as possible to belong to the “nation state†in which they belong. That is what happened in Ireland.
C’mon, willowfield. It’s all about concentrations?
If during the mass waves of Irish immigration to Great Britain, places such as east Glasgow, Liverpool, Kilburn, Cricklewood and Hammersmith were to ‘exercise their self-determination’ and vote themselves into the Irish Republic, that is something you’d support?
C’mon, willowfield. It’s all about concentrations?
I fail to see how a people can assert self-determination if it is not geographically concentrated. Can you advise how this might be possible?
If during the mass waves of Irish immigration to Great Britain, places such as east Glasgow, Liverpool, Kilburn, Cricklewood and Hammersmith were to ‘exercise their self-determination’ and vote themselves into the Irish Republic, that is something you’d support?
I don’t think in any of those cases that it would be practicable, nor that any of the residents would have wished to vote themselves into the Irish Republic … given that they had chosen to leave it and move to the UK! Equally, I hardly think that small groups of recent migrants are the same as a people established in large numbers for a period of 400 years!
“I fail to see how a people can assert self-determination if it is not geographically concentrated. Can you advise how this might be possible? ”
The point i was making, and i assume you know full well it was, is that there was a recognised ‘nation’ on this island, Ireland. The seat of the UK government recognised it as such, they gave it self-governance through the medium of the Irish parliament.
This recognised ‘nation’ should not have been allowed to divide due to the wishes of a ‘concentrated’ few.
“I don’t think in any of those cases that it would be practicable, nor that any of the residents would have wished to vote themselves into the Irish Republic … given that they had chosen to leave it and move to the UK! Equally, I hardly think that small groups of recent migrants are the same as a people established in large numbers for a period of 400 years!”
Practicable? Perhaps not. The artillery of the Irish Republic’s army is no match for the UK. If the IR had the full support of the USA, then perhaps it would be practicable.
Those immigrants left for the most part on economic grounds. IR economy has improved, that’s why you see a net influx of immigrants from GB entering the IR these days.
Tell me, how many people left the UK to live in Ulster before Ireland was granted the gift of being part of the UK? They left the UK to live in Ulster and yet their descendants voted to re-join the UK.
How long do you have to be in a certain area as a people to be granted self-determination? You seem to de drawing lines now.
CLADYCOWBOY
The point i was making, and i assume you know full well it was, is that there was a recognised ‘nation’ on this island, Ireland. The seat of the UK government recognised it as such, they gave it self-governance through the medium of the Irish parliament.
Well, the reality was that there were in fact two separate and distinct peoples in Ireland, and it is for peoples not governments to assert self-determination.
This recognised ‘nation’ should not have been allowed to divide due to the wishes of a ‘concentrated’ few.
Sorry, but every people has the right to self-determination, not just those who self-describe as “nations†and who assert that their right to self-determination is somehow superior and may therefore override the right of another people.
Practicable? Perhaps not. The artillery of the Irish Republic’s army is no match for the UK. If the IR had the full support of the USA, then perhaps it would be practicable.
I don’t see how.
Tell me, how many people left the UK to live in Ulster before Ireland was granted the gift of being part of the UK? They left the UK to live in Ulster and yet their descendants voted to re-join the UK.
This doesn’t make sense. How could you leave the UK to live in Ulster when Ulster was part of the UK?
How long do you have to be in a certain area as a people to be granted self-determination? You seem to de drawing lines now.
I’m not drawing any lines. It was the Dubliner who attempted to assert that the Ulster/British/unionist people didn’t have the right to self-determination because their presence of 400 years wasn’t long enough. What do you think? Is 400 years not long enough? What about 500? 1,000?
kensei,
You are no idiot. That defence will not work.
You tried to justify the extremely partisian and bigoted behaviour of Mary McAleese by saying she is reaching out to unionists and when she compares us to Nazi we misunderstood and she has apologised anyway. The reality is of course that we did not misunderstand her and she only apologised because it was damaging her.
I do not care what she thinks of us. If she wishes to come to some state schools and the like and the governors etc. are prepared to let her that is fair enough. That is not, however, real reaching out. She continues to hold her tribal sectarian position and thinks by going to a state school people will not notice her views. She does not need to resign if all she wants to be is president of the RoI (quite an achievement in itself of course). If she also wants to be some sort of outreach figure she is fatally flawed and needs to resign. I care little which she does so long as people do not pretend she is something she is not and she is assuredly not an outreach figure.
What really distresses you is that the president of RoI has let her own mask slip. Hence, you rode out to her defence on this thread. That is fine but it does not change what she is.
“You are no idiot. That defence will not work.”
I suggest you don’t know me well enough to make that assertion.
“You tried to justify the extremely partisian and bigoted behaviour of Mary McAleese by saying she is reaching out to unionists and when she compares us to Nazi we misunderstood and she has apologised anyway. The reality is of course that we did not misunderstand her and she only apologised because it was damaging her.”
No, I didn’t say that. You are now moved from misrepresentation of Mary McAleese, to misrepresentation of me. Really, don’t do that, I don’t like it.
“I do not care what she thinks of us. If she wishes to come to some state schools and the like and the governors etc. are prepared to let her that is fair enough. That is not, however, real reaching out. She continues to hold her tribal sectarian position and thinks by going to a state school people will not notice her views. She does not need to resign if all she wants to be is president of the RoI (quite an achievement in itself of course). If she also wants to be some sort of outreach figure she is fatally flawed and needs to resign. I care little which she does so long as people do not pretend she is something she is not and she is assuredly not an outreach figure. ”
Out of interest,
1. Can you reach out to Unionism while remaining a Nationalist?
2. Can you reach out to Unionism having made mistakes in the past, or must you have an unblemished record?
“What really distresses you is that the president of RoI has let her own mask slip. Hence, you rode out to her defence on this thread. That is fine but it does not change what she is.”
No, I don’t make any assertions about the true nature of people, and I have no intention of speaking about masks, true beliefs, or windows into people’s souls. I merely stated an alternative position that is entirely reasonable if you are willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and suggested your current position is not entirely Christian, and certainly uncharitable. Oh, and some statements were inaccurate.
What distressed me was your initial assertion that because she opposed GSTQ and the RUC at a graduation, therefore she must be some kind of Nationalist monster.
I see you’ve given up on my position on the OO. I’ll assume it’s all reasonable then.
kensei,
You are the one doing the misrepresenting.
“What distressed me was your initial assertion that because she opposed GSTQ and the RUC at a graduation, therefore she must be some kind of Nationalist monster.”
You omit the point that I complained she did the two above yet commended the Student’s Union on the Irish language signs, that last bit is what made her a tribal nationalist.
Of course a nationalist can reach out to unionists and no they do not need an unblemished record. The problem is McAleese’s record is so blemished that she cannot reach out. Her record is beyond repair.
And I do know you well enough to establish you are not an idiot. I actually enjoy debating with you. You do not make me question my assumptions as much as some other nationalist / republican posters but you are tenacious and have a great memory. Indeed (although his views are very different) I would suggest the only more tenacious debater here is Dread and that in my book that is praise indeed.
“You omit the point that I complained she did the two above yet commended the Student’s Union on the Irish language signs, that last bit is what made her a tribal nationalist.”
That’s because it was added only subsequently, and I was talking about my original concern. Your original comment:
“I am worried though that your own reasonableness makes you take too kindly a view of Mary McAleese. Not only were the Nazi comments deeply insulting but some of us who attended that rather less prestigous university in Belfast (QUB) remember that she was instrumental in having the national anthem removed from and stopping the RUC band playing at graduation. So when you hold her up as a paragon of of respecting unionist identity and tradition you will forgive be from finding that a little amusing.”
No mention of Irish signs.
“Of course a nationalist can reach out to unionists and no they do not need an unblemished record. The problem is McAleese’s record is so blemished that she cannot reach out. Her record is beyond repair.”
What, she doesn’t even get three strikes?
“And I do know you well enough to establish you are not an idiot. I actually enjoy debating with you. You do not make me question my assumptions as much as some other nationalist / republican posters but you are tenacious and have a great memory. Indeed (although his views are very different) I would suggest the only more tenacious debater here is Dread and that in my book that is praise indeed.”
Tenacity is no replacement for actual intelligence, and if I have failed in getting people to question assumptions, then it’s a fairly big failure.
It’s ok, I’m comfortable in my own stupidity.