Direct Action Against Statues ?

The Times yesterday carried a story on attempts by Séan Lemass to solve the thorny problem of Nelson’s Column by replacing the controversial statue with a statue of Saint Patrick. Several years later the statue was destroyed by a bomb.
In today’s Observer Henry McDonald reports that the controversial Dublin statue of Sean Russell , nazi ally, has been badly damaged by an unnamed group in memory of the victims of the holocaust.

  • Davros

    you are on dangerous ground as a unionist if you only accept the 73 out of 105 as the voting mandate rather than the 96% in the 26 as this was an all-Ireland vote.

    You have lost me as I suspect was your intenton. Anything rather than answer my question. 11/12 is a larger regional mandate than your 73/105/whatever the westminster total was in those days.

    Interesting to see you therefore accept there was no mandate for partition. Welcome home brother.
    Prior to events 1916-1921 I would have opposed partition and supported Home Rule. So there’s no revelatory aspect to my post and no need to welcome me home.

  • cg

    Christopher

    “Your defence of a paeodphilic sadist is most amusing”

    Please give evidence for your last statement.

    “Perhaps you could tell us do you think it is right in the twenty-first century that a member of the parliament of Europe should eulogise a man who sought collaboration with a regime responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people?”

    No Tony Blair should not be praising a man like George Bush.

    “the depraved concept of blood-sacrifice find no resonance in modern society”

    I believe blood sacrifice is the highest sacrifice someone can make for their country but I wasn’t arguing for it in today’s terms but defending it in the early 20th century.

    You still haven’t responded to my 06:40 post on Farren: not safe in their hands!

  • cg

    “Is this guy for real?”

    Absolutely

  • willowfield

    George

    In 1918, Unionists got 4.6% of the vote in what today constitutes the Irish Republic but heh the other 95% should have stayed stumm and lived as unionists in your view!

    I’m not sure who this comment is directed at, but I’m unaware of anyone advocating the retention of Southern Ireland in the UK after 1918. Unionists tend to support partition.

    But as I’ve said so many times before, unionists don’t accept Irish mandates, they only accept British ones.which is why we needed a war to gain our independence.

    And it has been pointed out to you that unionists did accept Irish mandates: they accepted the Irish nationalist mandate and thus consented to an independent Ireland in that portion of Ireland in which nationalists were the majority; and they accepted the Irish unionist mandate and thus the exclusion of unionist-majority Ireland from an independent Irish state. So your claim is patently false.

    As for your assertion that a war was needed to gain independence, you were asked earlier to explain why. Your failure to do so would indicate that – as I suggested above – you are unable to look dispassionately at the events of the past, and your views are based on emotion rather than reason. That is dangerous, and we live with the awful legacy today.

    cg

    No one is saying unionists aren’t entitled to self determination …

    Young Irelander believes that, and the comment was directed at him. He has been arguing in denial of unionist self-determination on A Tangled Web.

    … but the problem arises when unionists try and create farcical borders so that they hold a majority that’s when it becomes undemocratic and ridiculous.

    You’ve just contradicted yourself. If you acknowledge that unionists are entitled to self-determination, then you cannot also describe a border between nationalists and unionists as “farcical”. The facilitation of unionist self-determination necessitated a border (unless you are arguing that the whole of Ireland should have remained in the UK).

    It was not meant to do either and will not be retracted. It is a line out of Frank mc Guinness’s “Observe the sons of Ulster marching towards the Somme” and I thought it fitted you down to the ground. I would suggest you read it.

    I have seen the play twice. And, regardless of the origin of the line, you directed it at me. You said: “With willow it’s to hell with the truth as long as it rhymes”. That is an accusation that I do not value the truth. If you want to accuse me of such, you need to (a) point out where I have lied or ignored the truth, and (b) explain your reasoning. Alternatively, you should retract the accusation.

    Rubbish you can’t teach something you don’t believe in.

    Of course you can.

    And you accused me of having a closed mind, people are entitled to different views and neither is right or wrong unless you have had divine intervention on this part.

    And my view is that the emotional, green-tinged version of 1916 is a dangerous myth, no matter what “others” say. If you want to take issue with that view, feel free to do so. Simply saying that “others” call them “truthful heritage and values” does not constitute an argument.

    In certain circumstances it is entirely reasonable and acceptable if not necessary to have violent revolution. JFK “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable”

    I doubt anyone would argue otherwise. But the discussion is about Ireland in 1916 in which those circumstances didn’t pertain. The fact that you claim they did, and that it was somehow “glorious”, demonstrates once more the danger of these myths that are handed down to each generation of nationalists. We live today with the awful legacy of those myths.

    This is particularly true of 1916 onwards.

    It is not true of 1916 onwards. And I note your failure to offer any reasoning. But then, according to you, reasoning is unnecessary: what matters is what’s “in the heart”. This is precisely the thinking that has caused so much tragedy in recent years. 3000 dead and still you do not question it.

  • Davros

    No Tony Blair should not be praising a man like George Bush.

    LOL -snappy comeback !

    I believe blood sacrifice is the highest sacrifice someone can make for their country but I wasn’t arguing for it in today’s terms but defending it in the early 20th century.

    Isn’t that a (flawed) religious concept, and as such it was as invalid in 1916 as it would be today ?
    I’m going to escape poxy essay writing today by transcribing Fr Shaw’s criticism of this aspect of 1916.

  • Christopher Stalford

    Davros

    Perfectly reasonable? How is providing justification for the legacy of Pearse, a degenerate pervert and blood-thirsty maniac being reasonable? I agree entirely with the comments made by Alan. His attempts at justification are both trite and self-serving and not based upon a proper reading of history. Liberal historians and Marxists can both see Pearse for exactly what he was.

    A man who espoused a volk-ish world view, obsessed with the supremacy of state power and indiviualistic national charceristics (Celtic/White/Catholic) of race. That a party which sits in the “United Green Left” group in the European Parliament eulogises him demonstrates their utter hypocrisy.

    Now perhaps Mr. Gaskin, who claims to be on the left politically, would care to answer the accusations against Pearse which I have just levelled, rather than wasting our time with misty-eyed crap and “the flame of liberation and justice”.

  • Christopher Stalford

    Gaskin

    “I believe blood sacrifice is the highest sacrifice someone can make for their country”

    How can someone who claims to be on the left believe that?

  • davidbrew

    well of course there was no mandate for partition George-because partition was the sundering of the United Kingdom because of the then government’s capitulation to vile terrorists. How much better the lost 26 would have been if it had remained part of the UK- and how much more likely that sectarianism would have been neutralised

    You’re the one who ignores mandates-you never accept the result of the UK election in 1918 was an overwhelming rejection of the dismemberment of the Kingdom-only a small minority in one part of the Kingdom endorsed that- and a smaller minority in that minority decided to kill to get it .

  • cg

    willowfield

    “You’ve just contradicted yourself2

    I didn’t, unionists were entitled to SD but on an all Ireland basis don’t try and create borders when you haven’t got a majority it’s just gerrymandering.

    This argument on 1916 will never be resolved as we have totally different views but for me 1916 is a very important part of my republicanism and my Irish ness. It is for that reason that I defend it so rigidly.

    Davros
    “Isn’t that a (flawed) religious concept”

    You are defiantly the first person to relate me to religious arguments. My parish priest will be so proud that the lost sheep has returned to the flock 😉

  • Davros

    Chris S- it can and should be discussed, but discussed in a civil manner. I know I’ve strayed over the line in some debates and it destroys one’s case if one get’s unpleasant. It is an emotional subject, and if you want a reasoned debate, calm down. Use emotive language and you’ll only get emotive replies and we’ll lose the opportunity for an interesting discussion. I don’t disagree with the gist of what you say, only the manner in which you are saying it, and fair play to cg, he’s got the courage to address a difficult issue.

  • Christopher Stalford

    Gaskin

    I was referring to Russell or is it now the SF/NF line that the people killed by the Nazi’s deserved their fate? Thought so. Perhaps you could tell us, what the difference is, in an ideological level between Sinn Fein and the BNP?

  • Davros

    cg- it’s something that I find fascinating, how we follow our religious conditionings from childhood.
    A good example is in the Iconography of “the Blanket”. There’s a Pieta style, with the hunger-strikers portrayed christ-like. Reading the history of The Free state and the early ROI I was struck by the centralist and authoritarian nature of the state mirroring the Church Hierarchy.

  • cg

    Stalford

    “a proper reading of history”

    And what is a proper reading of history, a unionist perspective, cop yourself on.

    “That a party which sits in the “United Green Left” group in the European Parliament eulogises him demonstrates their utter hypocrisy.”

    It isn’t but merely an acceptance that he was a great man who laid the seeds for an Irish republic. I would never attempt to judge Pearse by today’s standards as that would be stupid and foolish (you would do well to remember that)
    I understand that Pearse wasn’t left wing “I am old enough to be neither socialist nor syndacalist” but that doesn’t stop me admiring the man.

    “How can someone who claims to be on the left believe that?”

    Because I do

  • Christopher Stalford

    Maybe Mr. Gaskin could answer the question regarding the fundamental contradiction between claiming to be on the left politically, while ascribing loyalty to Patrick Pearse’s Weltanschauung?

  • cg

    Stalford

    “I was referring to Russell or is it now the SF/NF line that the people killed by the Nazi’s deserved their fate? Thought so”

    Why do you ask a question and then answer it yourself.

    Davros
    “There’s a Pieta style, with the hunger-strikers portrayed christ-like. Reading the history of The Free state and the early ROI I was struck by the centralist and authoritarian nature of the state mirroring the Church Hierarchy”

    To a certain extent you are correct as Pearse likened himself to Christ with his blood sacrifice. In the last century republicanism could sometimes get linked with religious stuff, it’s not my belief because my Republicanism is secular but I accept others right to do so.

  • Christopher Stalford

    “And what is a proper reading of history, a unionist perspective, cop yourself on.”

    No, but its not that which your “passionate” history teacher clearly injected you with either. A proper reading of history is a rounded reading, i.e. Marxist and non-Marxist. Both Marxists and non-Marxists would lump Pearse into the same extreme volkish nationalistic schoold of thought as the NSDAP.

    “How can someone who claims to be on the left believe that?”

    Because I do”

    Well then you aren’t a real socialist. Like Hitler, you must believe in using Socialist means to achieve nationalist ends.

  • cg

    Stalford
    “Maybe Mr. Gaskin could answer the question regarding the fundamental contradiction between claiming to be on the left politically, while ascribing loyalty to Patrick Pearse’s Weltanschauung?”

    Firstly I never ascribed myself to anything and secondly it’s probably something to do with my Catholic upbringing and our lords sacrifice for mankind.

  • Christopher Stalford

    Any sign of an answer to my 1.17?

  • cg

    Stalford

    “No, but it’s not that which your “passionate” history teacher clearly injected you with either2

    I know its hard for you to believe that people develop their own ideas, seeing as your a dupper, but I have read all of the material on the subject (as you tend to do when you get full marks in your history A level module on the subject) and formulated my own ideas and opinions.

    “Well then you aren’t a real socialist”

    And I suppose a real socialist like you is going to teach me LOL

  • cg

    “Any sign of an answer to my 1.17?”

    It’s answered in my 01:25

  • cg

    any sign of an answer to my 12:56

  • Christopher Stalford

    Apologies. To take up this religous theme: to attempt to equate the sacrifice which Jesus Christ made for mankind, with the actions of violent Irish republicanism is a blasphemous heresy. Christ died, without a fight, he offered himself for us, and actually rebuked one of his disciples for using physical force when the Roman gaurds came to arrest him. The god of love requires that men commit their hearts to him, not that they kill believing themselves to be like him.

    Is it Socialism or is it Nationalism Chris? It can’t be both.

  • Christopher Stalford

    Gaskin

    re. your post on Farren thread – I don’t believe it for a second. Anyway, back to the debate.

  • Davros

    “to attempt to equate the sacrifice which Jesus Christ made for mankind, with the actions of violent Irish republicanism is a blasphemous heresy.”

    That seems to be the gist of Father Shaw’s argument.
    There’s still a fault-line in Republicanism between a secular wing and “Rosary Bead Republicanism”.( no religious slur intended with the expression). That surfaced last year over the abortion issue.

  • Christopher Stalford

    Davros

    Where would the leadership be at? I always get the impression that Gerry Kelly/Babs de Brun and people like that are more secular than Martin McGuinness and Pat Doherty on the abortion issue. Is that the case or am I just talking rubbish (no comments about that hasn’t stopped you in the past, please)?

  • Davros

    I don’t know how the leadership splits. I’ve heard that Martin M would be very religious , and have heard comments that Bairbre would be less religious and more with radical feminists on this issue. In fact If I recall it was either Malachi O’D or Fionnuala O’C who pressed Martin M on this issue on a TV debate last year.

  • unionist_observer

    I think the main political leadership splits at the min are in the DUP.

  • Christopher Stalford

    Sensible contribution as ever Rebecca. Fool.

  • maca

    “”to attempt to equate the sacrifice which Jesus Christ made for mankind, with the actions of violent Irish republicanism is a blasphemous heresy.””

    Assuiming of course you believe the bible at all.
    “The characters and incidents portrayed and the names used herein are fictitious and any resemblance to the names, character, or history of any person is coincidental and unintentional.”

    “blasphemous heresy” it may not be.

  • Christopher Stalford

    “Assuiming of course you believe the bible at all.”

    I do.

  • Christopher Stalford

    and heresy it is.

  • unionist_observer

    its a fair enough point Stalford, its a bit rich being called a fool by one shrieking about blasphemous heresy.

  • Christopher Stalford

    I wasn’t shrieking anything and its not a fair enough point.

  • willowfield

    cg

    I didn’t, unionists were entitled to SD but on an all Ireland basis don’t try and create borders when you haven’t got a majority it’s just gerrymandering.

    A completely disingenuous argument. One may as well say that Irish nationalists were entitled to SD but on an all-British Isles basis don’t try and create borders when you haven’t got a majority it’s just gerrymandering.

    If a people asserts self-determination, then a border is usually the outcome. You have acknowledged unionist self-determination, so you cannot logically argue against a border. Borders should reflect people, not geography.

    This argument on 1916 will never be resolved as we have totally different views but for me 1916 is a very important part of my republicanism and my Irish ness. It is for that reason that I defend it so rigidly.

    I think it was resolved when you admitted your views were based not on reason but on emotion. That was effectively an admission of defeat.

    You still haven’t pointed out where I lied or ignored the truth. In the absence of this, you should do the decent thing and retract your statement: “With willow it’s to hell with the truth as long as it rhymes”. Or have you thrown fair play out the window along with reason? (Given your support for the Provisional republican movement, I guess that is a stupid question.)

  • cg

    Stalford

    “to attempt to equate the sacrifice which Jesus Christ made for mankind, with the actions of violent Irish republicanism is a blasphemous heresy”

    I didn’t attempt to do anything but merely informed Davros what Pearse believed.

    “Is it Socialism or is it Nationalism Chris?”

    I am a socialist republican

    Willowfield

    “That was effectively an admission of defeat”

    No it wasn’t, merely a realisation that we will never agree on the issue.

  • Young Irelander

    willowfield

    “Young Irelander believes that and the comment was directed at him.He has been arguing in denial of unionist self-determination on A Tangled Web.”

    On A Tangled Web I have been arguing against your claim that it was justifiable for unionists to oppose Home Rule and desire partition on the grounds of ‘unionist self-determination’.
    You acknowledged in our discussions that unionists would likely have felt part of a British nation,if any.
    Since a 32 county Ireland with Home Rule would’ve still been British,you argument was proved to be nonsense.
    Home Rule would not have denied Britishness!

    As I mentioned on A Tangled Web,I think you confuse Home Rule with Irish Republicanism.

  • George

    Davidvbrew,
    “You’re the one who ignores mandates-you never accept the result of the UK election in 1918 was an overwhelming rejection of the dismemberment of the Kingdom-only a small minority in one part of the Kingdom endorsed that- and a smaller minority in that minority decided to kill to get it.”

    The overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland never asked to be a member of your union, were disbarred from holding public office and weren’t allowed vote. Tyranny more like.
    I’m amazed the Irish people spent neary 5 decades asking the British politely to let them rule themselves. You reap what you sow.

    Luckily we only had to endure 120 years of that madness. And as Chris Salford said of Unionist Observer, yes my family has “gone native”, we have left discredited unionism behind us. The Da had to endure the speech at Christmas but we were spared the ignomy.

    Who knows maybe in the future your grandchildren will be as happy I am today they aren’t in the “union” any more too. Perhaps you’ll have to tune into King William and listen to him on your own in your dotage.

    “how much more likely that sectarianism would have been neutralised “

    My constituency was very unionist in 1919 but nobody came forcing my grandparents out of their home.

    Do you know many Protestant families were forced out of their homes in Dublin during this period?

    Would you reckon it was more or less than the 23,000 Catholics in Belfast – a quarter of the Catholic population?

    Would you reckon it’s less than 10,000, less than 1,000, less than 100, less than 10 or less than 1?

  • willowfield

    cg

    No it wasn’t, merely a realisation that we will never agree on the issue.

    No. I said that your declaration that your views are based not on reason but on emotion was effectively an admission of defeat – you have accepted that your views are literally not reasonable. Such a declaration is not “a realisation that we will never agree on the issue”.

    I note your inability to respond to the other points: a tacit admission of defeat.

    But you STILL haven’t pointed out where I lied or ignored the truth. In the absence of this, you should do the decent thing and retract your statement: “With willow it’s to hell with the truth as long as it rhymes”.

    Why make comments if you cannot stand over them?

    Young Irelander

    On A Tangled Web I have been arguing against your claim that it was justifiable for unionists to oppose Home Rule and desire partition on the grounds of ‘unionist self-determination’.

    Yes, I know. That’s what I said above.

    You acknowledged in our discussions that unionists would likely have felt part of a British nation,if any. Since a 32 county Ireland with Home Rule would’ve still been British,you argument was proved to be nonsense. Home Rule would not have denied Britishness!

    You keep repeating this irrelevant point on A Tangled Web, but every time you are asked to explain it, you refuse. For the nth time: the issue was home rule/independence.

    As I mentioned on A Tangled Web,I think you confuse Home Rule with Irish Republicanism.

    Then you think wrong.

  • Young Irelander

    “You keep repeating this irrelevant point on A Tangled Web,but every time you are asked to explain it,you refuse.For the nth time;the issue was home rule/independence.”

    Only a fool or an illiterate person would have difficulty with the point I made so I don’t know what you want me to explain.

    You argued that partition was necessary for the “self-determination” of unionists but as I pointed out to you Home Rule did not threaten the Britishness of the people in Ireland so your argument fails.What is so hard to understand about that?!
    Home Rule was not a republican belief!It would not have broken the link between Ireland and Britain.
    It was simply a form of devolution.If UK unionists desire Direct Rule from London and the UUP desire devolution for the North,should we partition the areas of the North between UK unionists and their supporters and the UUP and their supporters?!
    Furthermore are these groups “different peoples” in your eyes?!

  • Davros

    It’s bad enough when arguments cross threads, but when they cross web-sites …..

  • willowfield

    Young Irelander

    Only a fool or an illiterate person would have difficulty with the point I made so I don’t know what you want me to explain.

    A further refusal to explain the relevance of the point. Clearly you are out of your depth. Why not just concede?

    You argued that partition was necessary for the “self-determination” of unionists but as I pointed out to you Home Rule did not threaten the Britishness of the people in Ireland so your argument fails.What is so hard to understand about that?!

    YET AGAIN you bring up this red herring. At least have the decency to attempt to explain its relevance if you are going to keep repeating it.

    Unionists determined to opt out of home rule: that was the issue. “Threatening Britishness” was not at issue.

    Home Rule was not a republican belief!

    Nobody said it was.

    It would not have broken the link between Ireland and Britain.

    Nobody said it would.

    It was simply a form of devolution.

    We know.

    If UK unionists desire Direct Rule from London and the UUP desire devolution for the North,should we partition the areas of the North between UK unionists and their supporters and the UUP and their supporters?!

    Neither UK Unionists, nor UUP supporters are peoples!

  • Young Irelander

    More one-line reponses and “red herring” accusations.
    You’re not only a troll but a clown.

    “Why not just concede?”

    I won’t concede because I won the argument ages ago!

    As for your constant questions asking me to explain my argument,I’ve come to the conclusion you are an imbecile.

    If threatening Britishness was not the issue as you’re now claiming,then you have acknowledged your argument partition was necessary for self-determination is nonsense!

    If UK unionists and UUP supporters are not different peoples,then Home Rulers and unionists were not different peoples which shatters another one of your claims!

    Give it up man because you are making a show of yourself!

    Davros,I do not desire to keep this argument going.BELIEVE ME.
    He just won’t admit he is wrong.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    YI/WF

    I can’t get away from you two fighting, whether here or on a Tangled Web.

    [/adopts Mick Fealty-style voice]

    Up to yer beds now, before I take my slipper off to yous!

    [/end Fealty]

  • maca

    Christopher
    “and heresy it is.”

    ONLY to those with the same beliefs.

  • Young Irelander

    My apologies Belfast Gonzo,I did not want the argument to spill over to Slugger.

    Isn’t this thread supposed to be about a statue?

  • Davros

    ONLY to those with the same beliefs.

    not sure if that’s true maca. We can recognise blasphemy and heresy even where we don’t accept the beliefs in question.

  • Davros

    In an action packed an Phoblacht this week Seán Russell statue attacked in Dublin as well as the startling revelation by Former Sinn Féin councillor Máirtín Ó Muilleoir that the Daily Ireland will be unashamedly pro-United Ireland. Does being managing director of the Andersonstown Newsgroup (accountants the ever-so-Global Pricewaterhousecoopers) not make one a running dog lackey of the capitalist imperialists ?

  • cg

    I can’t wait for the Daily Ireland so I can finally stop reading that pathetic stoop Irish News.

  • willowfield

    Young Irelander

    More one-line reponses and “red herring” accusations.

    What do you expect? If you state the obvious (“Home Rule was not a republican belief”), a one-liner is all that is likely to result. If you repeat a red herring, obviously it will be pointed out. I note again your failure to explain its relevance.

    If threatening Britishness was not the issue as you’re now claiming,then you have acknowledged your argument partition was necessary for self-determination is nonsense!

    That’s a non-sequitur. Home rule and then independence were the issues, and unionists determined not to be part of either a Home Rule state or an independent Irish state. What’s so difficult to understand? Partition was necessary in order to facilitate that, while also facilitating nationalist self-determination.

    If UK unionists and UUP supporters are not different peoples,then Home Rulers and unionists were not different peoples which shatters another one of your claims!

    On what basis do you make such an assertion? Again, note the absence of reasoning. The latter statement does not follow from the former.

    cg

    You STILL haven’t pointed out where I lied or ignored the truth. In the absence of this, you should do the decent thing and retract your statement: “With willow it’s to hell with the truth as long as it rhymes”.

    Why make comments if you cannot stand over them?

  • Davros

    I can’t wait for the Daily Ireland so I can finally stop reading that pathetic stoop Irish News.

    Come on cg- with your party website and AP/RN, what more do you need ? 😉

  • Christopher Stalford

    Chris Gaskin

    “A socialist Republican”

    No. Sinn Fein are a party that advocates the use of Socialist methods (higher taxes, redistribution of wealth etc.) to attain nationalist ends, i.e. the pre-eminince of the power of the state.

    Real socialists however, believe in the common solidarity of mankind. To them the state is a capitalist construction designed to ensure the divison of mankind and protect the system which exploits the proletarian class.

    You cannot have it both ways. You cannot on one hand argue that you are a socialist, while on the other hand seeking to prop up and sustain one of the cornerstones of the capitalist system. The truth is you are a Nationalist – an extreme volk-ish nationalist. Such views are entirely incompatable with The Communist Manifesto.

  • cg

    Stalford

    “Sinn Fein are a party that advocates the use of Socialist methods (higher taxes, redistribution of wealth etc.) to attain nationalist ends, i.e. the pre-eminince of the power of the state.”

    Wrong Sinn Féin will use their Socialist polices for the benefit of people and not the state. The whole point of our Socialism is the advancement of peoples living conditions. It’s about the eradication of a two tier health system, it’s about equality.

    The state you speak of is the capitalist state. It’s a state controlled by the ruling class and the media which use the state for their own advancement. I believe in a new state where that isn’t true and that’s how my politics are compatible.

    “The truth is you are a Nationalist – an extreme volk-ish nationalist”

    I always find it hilarious when people tell me what I am.

    BTW I have always found Unionisms allegiance to conservatism most perplexing as a lot of unionist areas are decapitated by capitalism. I always wondered why a left wing party never emerged within unionism.

  • Davros

    I always wondered why a left wing party never emerged within unionism.

    It did cg. There was quite a prominent Labour wing.
    The Ulster Unionist Labour Association was set up in June 1918, and at the 1921 election according to Ferriter ( p. 274) it proivided five of the forty Unionists elected.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    the media which use the state for their own advancement.

    Presumably you oppose government grants to the Andytown News group then?

  • cg

    It’s a pity Davros it didn’t remain. It’s not a pity for nationalism but for your average Joe bloggs unionists who deserves to have a left wing alternative.

  • cg

    Belfast Gonzo

    I oppose any state involvement with the media and that includes the license fee.

  • Davros

    cg: Let’s not forget that those were turbulent days,
    with the Russian Revolution and leftism being unpopular with orange and green. Complex history.
    Remember the hammering shipyard workers and Jack White took at Bodenstown in 1934 ? Reds under the bed stuff, not helped by people like Patrick McCartan negotiating a treaty with the Soviet Union 🙂

  • Young Irelander

    willowfield,your points(if they can be called that)have been answered on A Tangled Web.

    Out of respect for other contributors let’s leave this thread alone.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    YI/WF

    Why not just exchange email addresses? It could be the start of a beautiful friendship…

    Doubt it though!

  • Intelligence Insider

    Do the likes of Henry, cg, Pat, etc want to see the former Yugoslavian countries re-united as well? Do they ask for Texas to be re-united with Mexico? Would they support giving back the lands in North America to it’s native citizens? Portugal and Spain re-united? North and South Korea? I would love to hear their views on this.

  • cg

    I don’t see the relevance of this post.

  • Davros

    The Simon Wiesenthal centre in Paris has joined in the debate over this statue.

    Jewish group says beheaded ‘Nazi’ statue should be left as ‘symbol of Irish shame’

    “The group that looks after the statue has conceded that it is almost certainly beyond repair and is considering replacing it.
    But the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris has called for it to be left unrestored as an enduring symbol of Ireland’s “shame.”
    Shimon Samuels, director for international affairs at the centre, the world’s largest Jewish human rights organisation, said: “It’s a blot on the history of Ireland, but blots have to see the public light.”
    He described the statue’s desecration as “an opportunity for Ireland to confront its past.”
    He said: “We’re not iconoclasts but I think the destruction of something like this has a meaning, and we would ask for it to be left there as a lesson of what Irish neutrality was all about.” “

    My own feelings are that it’s unfair to raise the neutrality issue, which has been misrepresented over the years, in this context.

    The article makes the point that if the statue is to be replaced planning permission would be needed. How likely is that to be granted ?

  • Christopher Stalford

    “We’re not iconoclasts but I think the destruction of something like this has a meaning, and we would ask for it to be left there as a lesson of what Irish neutrality was all about.” “

    He certainly didn’t miss with that one! Strong stuff! But entirely correct nontheless.

  • Davros

    Christopher, I think it’s unfair to smear all of Ireland over this.

  • Christopher Stalford

    No definitely not. But Dev’s administration deserves all the criticism levelled at it in this regard.

  • Davros

    I used to accept that Christopher, but the more I read about the tightrope he walked, the more I realise that we owe him, and his Ireland, a great deal.