Republicanism’s RUC moment?
Peter Robinson has made his position crystal clear:
“We still take the position that the structures must be removed completely. There is no purpose of having a structure if you do not intend to operate in a paramilitary fashion.”
The Belfast Telegraph editorial agrees arguing:
“The IRA needs to be definitive and decisive. Why? Consider the transformation of policing as an example. Disposing of the RUC’s name was largely a symbolic matter — a painful one for most unionists — but one that was considered utterly necessary to win the support of nationalists and republicans. And so it proved to be.”
Ending with the instruction:
Go back to the plough. Slán abhaile.
CS Parnell -
Bang on. You have a willing quisling (nod to Dave) in me.
—
UMH -
“Since when did a dog born in a stable suddenly become a horse?”
Are you calling yourself a dog, or calling Northern Ireland a shed? (joking)
I’ve been assuming for a while now that you are Presbyterian. If I’m wrong, my apologies. If you are then your comments above aren’t without a history – see this sample chapter from ‘The People with No Name’. But, is Ulster not your homeland? I’m reminded of this verse from Samuel Thompson – born Co. Antrim at the tail end of the period described in the book chapter above:
I love my native land, no doubt,
Attach’d to her thro’ thick and thin
Yet tho’ I’m Irish all without
I’m every item Scotch within.
If he could reconcile the two, what has happened since that you can not? For my part, I can say that Sinn Féin movement and twentieth-century nationalism happened that I could not.
(Also, I don’t mean this as a lure to a United Ireland, but in remaking CS Parnell’s suggestion that in your dealings with the southern jurisdiction (and elsewhere) that unionists say, “We are Irish too, we just have a different view about what is right for our part of Ireland. Deal with it.”)
‘Since when did a dog born in a stable suddenly become a horse?’
Apart from bastardizing a quote from Wellington, are you suggesting you don’t belong in this ‘stable’? If you claim your not Irish, what right have you to dictate the destiny of Ireland and its people?
Tell me what you think those British people (you know the people from Britain) view you as?
“Since when did a dog born in a stable suddenly become a horse?”
Pancho’s Horse
“[i]Since when does a person not born in Great Britain become british? “[/i]
Fuck sake catch up!
Unanswered things sometimes spake volumes hi !
RepublicanStones
“[i]If you claim your not Irish, what right have you to dictate the destiny of Ireland and its people?”[/i]
I have the right to choose the nationality which best suits me, no matter where I was born or raised. No chauvinist pig will ever dictate what nationality I must be and as an inhabitant on this island I have the right to see the island develope how I best see fit.
“[i]Tell me what you think those British people (you know the people from Britain) view you as?”[/i]
I’m glad to see you’re taking notice of what the British people on the mainland think about us. There’s a bit of Unionist in you after all. Maybe you can debate with them directly some day in Westminster?
Kensai,
Most revolutionary thing ever written down. Christ Kensai Jefferson’s the man but don’t leave out that wee jew the Romans hammered.
[i]“Then please don’t make spokesperson-like statements such as, “No-one in the Republic of Ireland is going to …” You do not speak for everyone in the Republic of Ireland. You certainly don’t speak for me.” – Oilifear[/i]
Look, kiddo, an observation doesn’t designate the observer as a spokesperson for the group he is observing, nor is it necessary to attach a disclaimer to such observations so that halfwits such as you don’t become alarmed and confused by them. See how this works? No? Well then go back to your colouring books because I can’t help you anymore.
[i]“…parity of esteem between competing nationalism doesn’t even work in a context where the two competing groups are of roughly equal mass where it translates as parity of contempt…”
So, to summate – parity of esteem doesn’t work when it is parity of contempt? Wow. You are clever.”[/i]
As usual, the point sailed right over your head like your sister’s ankles on prom night. The ghastly term “Parity of Esteem” translates as parity of contempt wherein it is used by both warring tribes to censor the symbols of their respective tribes. For further insight, see how fond the Shinner grassroots are of squealing about British flags flying from council buildings. Competing nationalisms can never hold each other in esteem when they are both competing for the right to exercise self-determination on one wee plot of turf. While the Shinner leadership have already signed away their claim to the particular plot in question, they haven’t quite passed the message on to the grassroots who seem to be under a different illusion, and what you are seeing being played out as Parity of Contempt is the underlining dynamics of competing nationalisms which were not addressed by a process wherein NI was consolidated within the UK.
Essentially, ‘parity of esteem’ is about making life a bit easier for northern nationalists. No-one begrudges them a bit of comfort*, but you shouldn’t confuse self-serving expediencies with some sort of newfangled international principles that the bunch of tossers that folks in NI elected unwittingly stumbled upon, and that will be exported to other territories in order that people in less fortunate places may enjoy the Nirvana that has been created in NI by the wise men and the GFA (mostly pre-written by the British government). Being self-serving, however, northern nationalists wish to do exactly that, using such self-serving expediencies as the basis on which to promise their fellow travellers, unionists, a promised land built by others who may have a thing or two to say about turning their country into a replica of Northern Ireland.
[i]*Disclaimer: Does not represent the views of mankind.[/i]
Dave, so you are skeptical of the practicalities of a genuine parity of esteem? So am I. And, as you correctly point out, using the cover of so-called “equality” as an excuse to remove the symbols of the other tribe is indeed an expression of contempt rather than an effort towards mutual tolleration – nevermind a mutual respect. (I don’t think that the phrase “parity of esteem” was ever used as an excuse for those particular kinds of cattle raid.)
None-the-less, where it can be instilled – meaning a culture of *genuine* parity of esteem – I believe it to be a far superior form of resolution to the kind of conflict found in Northern Ireland compared to beating each other over the head with clubs. If you are going to beat anyone over the head with anything, it should be the message to keep a cool, think about things from the other’s perspective, bear that in mind and don’t do things just to piss the other off.
—
“*Disclaimer: Does not represent the views of mankind.”
For banalities such as “No-one begrudges them a bit of comfort”, these kinds of disclaimers aren’t necessary – although any confusion could be avoided through saying “I don’t begrudge them a bit of comfort”. However, when you make a statement as sweeping as “No-one in the Republic of Ireland is going to …”, I think I have the right to say that you don’t speak for me – nevermind that the statement itself was patently incorrect (as my existence should prove).
Jeez Dave, you do get a bit tetchy when someone doesn’t swallow your bible hook line and sinker.
UMH
“Fuck sake catch up!”
Great response. You really cut him to the quick with that.
Can I just make a few quick points in light reference to some points made by ‘southern posters’.
I am a northern nationalist, and whilst I do not feel a united Ireland is inevitable it is something I would aspire to. But not for its own sake. I think complete Irish independence is the aim of Irish nationalism, not simply a ‘united Ireland’. If a united Ireland acutally damaged prospects for complete independence that I would prefer it would not happen.
Another point is that if I felt the Irish language would be sacrificed and or oppressed in a united Ireland to placate unionists, then again I would be opposed to that united Ireland and on that point I am not alone.
The future of Irish language and culture is more important to me and people like me than unity. A minority of northern nationalism of course, but certainely not an insignificant number.
But my main point is this, a united Ireland can only ever come about if nationalist or a least pro-united Irelanders form the majority of voters in Northern Ireland.
The views of this majority would have to be taken into account as well as a minority unionist community.
I would suggest that ‘southern’ Ireland would have many issues with the people left behind in 1922 as with unionists.
Negotiations would be with a northern government with a majority of nationalists, thus the Republic, if that state continues would make a gain more nationalist than unionists whose views would have to be taken into account.
I think that the people of Tyrone and Armagh may be found to be a little less receptive to the destruction of Irish Ireland than some people in the South may wish.
Pancho’s Horse: Since when does a person not born in Great Britain become british?
It’s actually quite complicated, but for those so inclined a useful simplification is that you can be British if you were born in the UK. I suspect in the case of UMH, that would apply to him, and his parents, and his grandparents and on back a few generations. And you, or he, can be Irish if you(he) or your(his) parents or grandparents were born in Ireland. As a special case, for people in Northern Ireland, both of those labels are even more optional than usual.
And on your other question – people are notoriously reluctant to give up their comfort blankets. Ask Northern nationalists, for instance, if you want another example.
“[i]It’s actually quite complicated, but for those so inclined a useful simplification is that you can be British if you were born in the UK.[/i]
Correct, but the point to remember is that your place of birth or nurture does not dictate your nationality. The idea that the country you were born or raised in, is to be the nationality you must use, is outdated.
the point to remember is that your place of birth or nurture does not dictate your nationality.
If your place of birth, nurture, current and future residence does not define your nationality, then something strange is going on.