Drumcree moving to Christmas slot?

The Orange Order seems to have decided to apply to march down the Garvaghy Road on Christmas Day.

The SDLP has called the move “appalling” and “shameless” with local SDLP MLA Dolores Kelly accusing the Order of deliberately planning the latest march to “up the ante” in the wake of last weekend’s riots.

123 thoughts on “Drumcree moving to Christmas slot?”

  1. ‘Piffle- remember Isandlwhana? There was never a successful Irish uprising because there was never sufficient popular support’

    Sweet Jesus, Darth, you’re clueless.

  2. Hiya Congal:

    ‘A “democracy” where only Prods get to vote other Prods into power and do as they will and the rest of the populace be hanged? Sorry, that one goes well beyond “taxation without representation,” which got the ball rolling on another bit of revolution, I seem to recall.’

    “This was changing by 1918. So why resort to terrorism?”

    Because the end-goal was not better treatment under the English Crown, the end-goal was Irish independence. And that, Congeal, the Ulster Prods and Britain were not going to grant willingly.

    Congal Claen: “”Being on the side of the equation for the Union and all that goes with it (Black and Tans, the RIC, Bolingbrook and Paisley, etc.), I suppose you wouldn’t.”

    And also on the side of the Cruthin, who were ethnically cleansed by your “side”. What’s the point in casting this up?”

    The fact that you keep seeking paper over the English invasion of Ireland and the subsequent repression of the Catholic majority by claiming that the Act of Union made it all good, or at least excusable. Frankly, you sound as if you believe British and Protestant violence is acceptable, but Irish retaliation is reprehensible. What is gravy for a goose must be gravy for a gander. If the invasion of Ireland and the subsequent repression and terrorization of the Catholic majority was made good by the Act of Union, then obviously the terrorism of the War of Irish Independence was made good by the establishment of the Irish Free State.

    “This is not democracy, but oligarchy — the rule of the few.”

    In what way was it any different before English involvement in Ireland?

    As a minimum, they were Irish Catholic bastards as opposed to English / Scots Protestant bastards, which counts for something. They were the accepted order, not the imposed one. Likewise, when they spoke for their districts, they spoke for their districts, as opposed to only the Protestant interests. Their identity was Irish, not English / Scots. They did not seek to outlaw the Gaelic language and culture and impose a foreign language and a foreign religion on the populace.

    Congal Claen: “So, in other words,the Catholic majority should have just lain there and taken the abuse heaped upon them?”

    No. They should have continued on with the political process. I believe, as do many others, that this would have borne fruit. Terrorism has poisoned this island

    Right. The English were just give up power over Ireland because they were asked nicely, just like they did in Kenya and Zimbabwe afterwards and in the American Colonies previously. Guerrilla war was the only thing that delivered the 26 counties — making the Irish “colony” too expensive… too unprofitable to maintain, just as was done in the American colonies. I seem to recall they asked politely and agitated politically, too. Look what that got them — the intolerable acts and the Boston massacre. NI Catholics marched for civil rights — they got Para One.

    Congal Claen: “As the English sowed, so did they reap.”

    And what do you think will be the harvest from the terrorism that was sowed in the early 1900s?

    An Irish Republic, free of the English crown, for starters… hadn’t you noticed?

  3. Darthrumsfeld: “”The English rule of Ireland was midwifed in violence and bigotry, Congal Claed. As the English sowed, so did they reap.”

    Translation: So it’s fine to murder Irish people who have the temerity to consider themselves British.”

    Seeing as Congal Claen seems to believe the Act of Union sanctified the English outrages against Ireland such that Irish violence was wrong, I would think that turnabout was fair play, don’t you think? Shouldn’t the treaty that established the Irish Free State forgive the Irish violence, as the Act of Union apparently forgave the English / Scots aggression?

    Darth: “”just goes to prove that if you want independence/equality you have to fight for it.”

    well Ghandi didn’t -though of course his followers did murder thousands of muslim and ethnically cleanse large parts of India to achieve their pure Indian nation-lessons learned from West Cork perhaps?”

    More likely the Ulster Plantation…

    Hiya George: “Which group killed more Darth? Do you know?”

    A more salient question would be “does he care?”

  4. “Being on the side of the equation for the Union and all that goes with it (Black and Tans, the RIC, Bolingbrook and Paisley, etc.), I suppose you wouldn’t.”

    Being on the side of the equation for the Republic and all that goes with it (Scullabogue, 1641, Dunmanway, Darkley, Ballykelly, La Mon,Sean Kelly etc) I suppose you would.

    And how far does that juvenile point scoring advance our repsective cases?

    “The English rule of Ireland was midwifed in violence and bigotry, Congal Claed. As the English sowed, so did they reap.”

    Translation: So it’s fine to murder Irish people who have the temerity to consider themselves British.

    “Are ye serious? Banockburn, Flodden Field, Culloden, Stirling Bridge, etc, etc…’”
    oops -all these were before the Union except Culloden, when the Scots sought to restore a Jacobite to the throne of …Great Britain!!!! Yup, they were Unionists too, only Jacobite Unionists. To the bottom of the class with you.

    “just goes to prove that if you want independence/equality you have to fight for it.”

    well Ghandi didn’t -though of course his followers did murder thousands of muslim and ethnically cleanse large parts of India to achieve their pure Indian nation-lessons learned from West Cork perhaps?

    The reason Ireland remained British from the 17th century on- It suited the Irish ruling class of the time because they were largely British by race;it suited the political class because they had leverage in the House of Commons for much of the 19th and earlier 20th century, thus having access to the purse strings; it suited the Irish commercial classes most of the time because of the markets it opened up to them; it suited the Irish working classes because there was nothing else on offer, except emigration, which many of them chose , to labour markets in Great Britain.

    In fact it was nearly everyone’s second best option until a viable alternative came along- and arguably that wasn’t until the EU started throwing money at Ireland when all of a sudden it didn’t matter if sovereignty was pooled, diminished, or even submerged. Not an inspiring vision, but the reason most Irish people accepted the Union without question until 1914

  5. “That’s why a pitch forked farmer is going to get slaughtered going up against a well trained soldier.”

    Piffle- remember Isandlwhana? There was never a successful Irish uprising because there was never sufficient popular support

  6. Darth,
    you mention Dunmanway and West Cork.

    Are you talking about the loyalist paramilitary activity in association with British forces there, and the extra-legal retribution carried out by said forces against the local population (murder that is)?

    Or are you talking about the local population’s extra-legal retribution against the loyalist paramilitaries or “helpful citizens” as the Black and Tans had called them in the helpful list they left behind (murder that is)?

    Which group killed more Darth? Do you know?

  7. Darth,

    “Are ye serious? Banockburn, Flodden Field, Culloden, Stirling Bridge, etc, etc…’”

    As Bob DeNiro would say – U talkin ta me!

    ‘well Ghandi didn’t’

    Pacifism works fine if you don’t mind having your cheek slapped. Personally I think one needs to stand up to an oppressor.

    ‘lessons learned from West Cork perhaps?’

    Do you really think that comment dignifies an answer?

    ‘most Irish people accepted the Union without question until 1914’

    Not that I agree in any sense, but what period of time does your fantasy Ireland exist? You honestly think the Irish were happy with the Penal laws! In words you just possibly might (but I’m not holding out much hope) understand – CATCH YOURSELF ON!

  8. ‘Piffle- remember Isandlwhana? There was never a successful Irish uprising because there was never sufficient popular support’

    Sweet Jesus, Darth, you’re clueless.

  9. Hi Smcgiff,

    “You’re a gas man, Congal. I can’t even remember what the original debate was about, but the above seems to aid my point that you can’t justify Ireland being British.”

    So, there’s a general consensus among classical scholars that these islands were known as Britannia or some derivative of this and you think that this reinforces your argument that Ireland or the inhabitants of Ireland were not known as British???

    “For a start. The Britons the laudable gentlemen mentioned have been superseded on numerous occasions. What with the invasions by the Normans, and Germanic tribes etc you’d be hard pressed to find any Britton in, er, Britain never mind Ireland.”

    Most of the time the invasions are by small groups. The groups take over militarily and culturally. Usually they don’t wipe out the indigenous people. You should consult a few genetic studies of these isles just to show you how similar we all are. On your “hard pressed to find any Britton” point, you should tell the people of Fermanagh. The Gaelic version of which means men of Menapii. A tribe from Northern England. I suppose they weren’t Britons either?

    “Besides, names change – The island of Ireland is now known under two different names, and was previously Hibernia (and many variations of such), the Free State and Eire. So, because some bearded crusties called the place the equivalent of Britain a couple of thousand years ago carries little weight for the calling of the Island of Ireland British.”

    This argument would carry more weight if it weren’t for the rather inconvenient fact that currently, Ireland is just one island from the British Isles. The RoI isn’t politically British. But, that’s a different discussion…

    “it just goes to prove that if you want independence/equality you have to fight for it”

    This is where we disagree. I genuinely believe that if Scotland wanted independence now or in the future it would be granted. Do you seriously think this would be denied?

  10. Hi Congal,
    ‘I genuinely believe that if Scotland wanted independence now or in the future it would be granted.’
    I completely agree. Scotland would be allowed to cede, but back in 1916 the famine was still in living memory, and the relationship between England and its neighbouring countries was far different. It took two world wars for Britain to realise the Empire was past tense.
    ‘were not known as British???’
    Bingo – past tense. You’ve got it. The islands were known as British, but that doesn’t make the Irish British, same way you would not describe yourself as a ‘Prisoner Of her Majesty’. As I’ve said in other threads I’ve no particular beef with anyone who wants to call these islands the British Isles (or POMerities for that matter), unless they insist the Irish people call themselves British (excepting those Irish that wish it) – I’m not suggesting you are mind!!!
    ‘The groups take over militarily and culturally.’
    So, what Brittonishness (Britishness) from the times of the ancients is left – Dancing around the maypoll? Wearing sheepskin as the garment of choice?

  11. Hi Smcgiff,
    “It took two world wars for Britain to realise the Empire was past tense.”
    I don’t consider Ireland part of the Empire. To me, it’s an integral part of the nation.
    “Bingo – past tense. You’ve got it.”
    This is true. And also present tense as you agree the islands are known as the British Isles.
    “The islands were known as British, but that doesn’t make the Irish British”
    What makes them Irish then?
    “So, what Brittonishness (Britishness) from the times of the ancients is left – Dancing around the maypoll? Wearing sheepskin as the garment of choice?”
    Many things. You have the rich archaeological legacy. Of which Newgrange is probably the best known. Similar to Maes Howe, constructed by fellow Brits in Orkney. You have a lot of intricately worked gold – check out the National Museum in Dublin. Which is a bit of a mystery. There is so much of it. But no mines have been located. Although, it’s suspected Croagh Patrick may be the source. Which is possibly why it is considered a holy mountain – that the ancients did also. You’ll also have glimmers of the past in placenames, etc. eg Fermanagh. Then you also have the genetic legacy. I’m sure ye’ve a bit of a Brit in ye 😉
    Hi Darth,

    “oops -all these were before the Union except Culloden, when the Scots sought to restore a Jacobite to the throne of …Great Britain!!!!”

    The point I was trying to show was that Ireland was no different to Scotland in rebelling against the English. But, that they never resorted to terrorism. I take your point about Culloden though…

    Hi Dread,

    “And that, Congeal, the Ulster Prods and Britain were not going to grant willingly.”
    I just disagree.
    “The fact that you keep seeking paper over the English invasion of Ireland and the subsequent repression of the Catholic majority by claiming that the Act of Union made it all good, or at least excusable…”
    I don’t. However, I think it no worse than Gaelicization of Ireland…
    “They were the accepted order, not the imposed one.”
    Are you serious?
    “Likewise, when they spoke for their districts, they spoke for their districts, as opposed to only the Protestant interests.”
    Again, are you serious?
    “Their identity was Irish, not English / Scots. They did not seek to outlaw the Gaelic language and culture and impose a foreign language and a foreign religion on the populace.”
    Gaelic was a foreign language imposed on the populace. Gael actually means invader in Welsh.
    “Right. The English were just give up power over Ireland because they were asked nicely, just like they did in Kenya and Zimbabwe afterwards and in the American Colonies previously. Guerrilla war was the only thing that delivered the 26 counties — making the Irish “colony” too expensive… too unprofitable to maintain, just as was done in the American colonies. I seem to recall they asked politely and agitated politically, too. Look what that got them — the intolerable acts and the Boston massacre. NI Catholics marched for civil rights — they got Para One. “
    Personally, I believe the RoI would have come into existence without the need for a terrorist campaign. Also, you cannot compare the US war of Independence with the terrorism of the Ra. In the US armies fought each other in battles. Here, the Ra shot unarmed off-duty soldiers, policemen and indeed civilians especially only sons. On some occasions as they left church.
    “An Irish Republic, free of the English crown, for starters… hadn’t you noticed?”
    I did. I also noticed how successful it was up until the Republic joined the EU. How long will the EU last? Who knows? But when it ends, which it will, how well do you think the Republic will do?

  12. Heya Congal Claen:

    ““It took two world wars for Britain to realise the Empire was past tense.”
    I don’t consider Ireland part of the Empire. To me, it’s an integral part of the nation.”

    So “integral” it had to be conquered in Elizabethan times, looted by Cromwell, starved by the Great Hunger, economically stunted and bullied by the like of the Black and Tans and the RIC… Oh, but the “Act of Union,” passed by the Protestant oligarchy, forgives all that, or so *you* say.

    “And that, Congeal, the Ulster Prods and Britain were not going to grant willingly.”
    I just disagree.

    And on what factual basis do you “just disagree?” How many “former British colonies” existed in 1918 that had been given their manumission for the simple price of asking for it?

    Right. The English were just give up power over Ireland because they were asked nicely, just like they did in Kenya and Zimbabwe afterwards and in the American Colonies previously. Guerrilla war was the only thing that delivered the 26 counties — making the Irish “colony” too expensive… too unprofitable to maintain, just as was done in the American colonies. I seem to recall they asked politely and agitated politically, too. Look what that got them — the intolerable acts and the Boston massacre. NI Catholics marched for civil rights — they got Para One. “
    Personally, I believe the RoI would have come into existence without the need for a terrorist campaign. Also, you cannot compare the US war of Independence with the terrorism of the Ra. In the US armies fought each other in battles. Here, the Ra shot unarmed off-duty soldiers, policemen and indeed civilians especially only sons. On some occasions as they left church.”

    I notice you were quick to miss the exmaples of Zimbabwe/rhodesia and Kenya, btw… As for the “American Colonies,” history disagrees with you. Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox, fought a guerrilla war against the British in South Carolina and was oft criticized by the British as little more than a bandit. Likewise, the American militia was known to use “ambush” tactics, firing from behind fences and trees, such as in the case of the British rout from Lexington and Concord. While standard infantry tactics now, it was roundly criticized as an “uncivilized” way of making war by English officers. Additionally, the superior sharpshooters of the colonials (rifled barrels vs “Brown Bess” smoothbores) made shooting English officers a possibilty — yet another “uncivilized” practice. As a side note, the British frequently agitated the “Native American” population to do their terrorizing for them, as demonstrated by the Cherry hill massacre. Likewise, the English practice of using impressed criminals and mercenaries in the colonies did not aid in the “civilization” of the struggle.

    With the Irish, they discovered that open-field battles against the British were wasteful — too much British heavy equipment, as typified by the Easter Rebellion of 1916 — the wont of artillery on the Irish side was keenly felt by those in the Customs House. As for shooting collaberators, I seem to recall the French resistance was oft lauded, or at least respected for doing that sort of thing, on duty or off. As for the inevitability of the Irish republic, that is 20/20 hindsight at best. In 1918, Britain was not in the habit of freeing its colonial holdings just for the asking.

    ““An Irish Republic, free of the English crown, for starters… hadn’t you noticed?”
    I did. I also noticed how successful it was up until the Republic joined the EU. How long will the EU last? Who knows? But when it ends, which it will, how well do you think the Republic will do?”

    As for the past, I would point out you don’t shake off the deliberate depopulation and the stunting a state’s economy at agarian status immediately. Secondly, there was that small matter of the Irish Civil, the Great Depression and World War II skewing both the local and world economies. As for going forward, I suspect the “Celtic Tiger” will do just fine — esp. given how much continental whinging there is about it growth rate and its low taxes.

  13. Congal,
    The Irish Republic was outperforming the UK for over a decade before it joined the EU, to which Ireland is the second-largest contributor after Germany when you take into account the fishing rights we had to hand over.

    You take a very simplistic view towards Ireland. I feel you should broaden your Irish horizons.

    NI has got 3 times as much EU cash per capita as Ireland and then there’s the 3 billion plus from Britain each year and it still is in trouble.

    Personally I believe the ROI could have come into existence without a terror campaign too but the British decided on terror instead of democracy when it came to rights of small nation Ireland. Terror lost, Irish democracy won.

    By the way, on British Isles, I see the Observer Weather section now puts Dublin in the “rest of the world” while Lifford was on the BBC Newsline weather report last night. Strange days indeed.

  14. Hi Dread,

    ”So “integral” it had to…”

    So integral it sent MPs to Parliament.

    “And on what factual basis do you “just disagree?” How many “former British colonies” existed in 1918 that had been given their manumission for the simple price of asking for it?”

    I don’t consider Ireland a colony.

    “I notice you were quick to miss the exmaples of Zimbabwe/rhodesia and Kenya, btw…”

    I’m not trying to defend Britain’s colonial past. I don’t think we should have had an empire.

    “As for the “American Colonies,” history disagrees with you. Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox, fought a guerrilla war against the British in South Carolina and was oft criticized by the British as little more than a bandit…”

    I don’t think so. There is a big difference between guerrilla warfare and terrorism. Terrorists expect to hide behind the law when it suits them. I don’t remember the Continental Army hiding behind the law.

    “As for shooting collaberators, I seem to recall the French resistance was oft lauded, or at least respected for doing that sort of thing, on duty or off.”

    And what political recourse did the French have during this time? For the same reason, I do not consider Mandella a terrorist. He had no democratic way to move forward. During the early 1900s Irish Nationalism did. But, they couldn’t wait and resorted to terrorism. We’re still reaping the benefits of that. So are the Republic.

    “In 1918, Britain was not in the habit of freeing its colonial holdings just for the asking.”

    Again, I don’t consider Ireland a colony.

    “As for going forward, I suspect the “Celtic Tiger” will do just fine”

    Genuinely, and I mean this, I do hope the Celtic Tiger continues to prosper. Whether it does or not is a different matter. I would worry about the portability of the hi-tech industries. Personally, I prefer to take my chances with the UK which has a longer proven track record of success.

    Hi George,

    “The Irish Republic was outperforming the UK for over a decade before it joined the EU, to which Ireland is the second-largest contributor after Germany when you take into account the fishing rights we had to hand over.”

    When you say outperforming, by what measure do you mean?

    “NI has got 3 times as much EU cash per capita as Ireland and then there’s the 3 billion plus from Britain each year and it still is in trouble.”

    We both know that there are special circumstances here caused by terrorism. Even tho’ we are still blighted with it, things have improved. We can only imagine what NI would’ve been like without terrorism.

    “the British decided on terror instead of democracy when it came to rights of small nation Ireland. Terror lost, Irish democracy won.”

    We’ll just have to disagree on this George. The 1918 election was won by the Conservative and Unionist party. Nationalism chose terror…

  15. Hi Congal:

    “”So “integral” it had to…”

    So integral it sent MPs to Parliament”

    Sure, if’n you ignore the prior, oh, what, three to four *CENTURIES* of Irish history, I suppose you can put it so simply… reality is another matter entirely.

    ““And on what factual basis do you “just disagree?” How many “former British colonies” existed in 1918 that had been given their manumission for the simple price of asking for it?”

    “I don’t consider Ireland a colony.”

    Your “consideration” and a dollar will get you a coke out of the vending machine, but not much else. Ireland was treated as a colony / occupied territory. this is made clear by the English regard for the Catholic majority and body of laws they promulgated to administer said colonial acquisition. Your “consideration” doesn’t change that one whit.

    ““I notice you were quick to miss the exmaples of Zimbabwe/rhodesia and Kenya, btw…”

    I’m not trying to defend Britain’s colonial past. I don’t think we should have had an empire.”

    Yet the conquest of Ireland was permissable, according to your posts. By extraction, all the things the English imposed upon the Irish to enforce and maintain said conquest were permissable. You dismiss the farcical “Act of Union” with a weak argument that smacks of moral equivalency, which is to admit you don’t really have an arguement and, thusly, must rely upon verbal legerdemain and your “beliefs” and “consideration,” — bootstrap levitation, since you “believe” your “believing” makes it so, to bridge the gap.

    ““As for the “American Colonies,” history disagrees with you. Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox, fought a guerrilla war against the British in South Carolina and was oft criticized by the British as little more than a bandit…”

    I don’t think so. There is a big difference between guerrilla warfare and terrorism.”

    I “consider” the IRB and IRA to have been guerrillas, not terrorists. Doesn’t that make me automatically right? Besides, the treaty that established the Irish Free State would have sanctified all the violence, just as you believe the Act of Union erases all the Protestant violence which preceded and, given some of your statements, came antecede it.

    ““As for shooting collaberators, I seem to recall the French resistance was oft lauded, or at least respected for doing that sort of thing, on duty or off.”

    And what political recourse did the French have during this time? For the same reason, I do not consider Mandella a terrorist. He had no democratic way to move forward. During the early 1900s Irish Nationalism did. But, they couldn’t wait and resorted to terrorism. We’re still reaping the benefits of that. So are the Republic.”

    First of all, Mandela’s lot had their own little bombing campaign against “soft” targets — something you seem to conveniently forgot, thus squarely marking them as terrorists. Secondly, I repeat, what are your examples, beyond your own “beliefs,” that Ireland had a reasonable chance of exiting the British Empire without their war of independence? I’m talking facts on the ground — something that would have gainsay’ed the decision of Collins and the other leaders AT THAT TIME. They didn’t have a time machine to see the eventual break-up of the British colonial empire and, given the examples of Kenya and Rhodesia, they might well have opted for revolution as the proper course, anyway. Your “beliefs” have the benefit of eighty plus years of hindsight and carry little weight in whether or not Collins and the leadership of the IRA made the right decision following the 1918 election, based on the facts at hand. As for the French, they had the same options the Irish had following the English invasion — submit, resist, or collaberate.

    As for the Republic, it would not have existed as such without the revolution and guerrilla war against the English for some time. I mean, how long did it take to free Rhodesia and under what circumstances? I seem to recall there was some unpleasentness required to achieve that goal, as there was in Kenya.

    ““In 1918, Britain was not in the habit of freeing its colonial holdings just for the asking.”

    Again, I don’t consider Ireland a colony.”

    Your consideration doesn’t make it so. But, for a moment, lets grant your supposition. Does Ireland *not* being a colony make British bigotry, discrimination and violence any more permissable? How about the concentration, oops, I meant “internment” camps? The firing into the celebrating crowds at Miltown Malbay, where there were RIC and Highland Light Infantry charged with murder, but not other action taken? How about when the B&Ts ran amok in the same place?? How about the Croake Park massacre? What was the comment?? “Lord Hugh Cecil said it best: “It seems to be agreed that there is no such thing as reprisals, but they are having a good effect.”” They weren’t, but that’s English high-mindedness for you. In August of 1920, the British suspended all coroners’ courts, due to the large number of warrants served on members of the Crown forces. They were replaced with “military courts of enquiry”. Britannia may rule the waves, but on land, Britannia waives the rules. Throw in what is today known as “collective punishment” — the destruction of the houses and private property of those thought sympathetic with Nationalism, and it certainly sounds like Ireland was being treated as a occupied territory, if not a colony in rebellion.

    “Genuinely, and I mean this, I do hope the Celtic Tiger continues to prosper. Whether it does or not is a different matter. I would worry about the portability of the hi-tech industries. Personally, I prefer to take my chances with the UK which has a longer proven track record of success.”

    Oh, yes… I have a couple hundred shares of the old Rolls Royce and the oil-stained driveway of a pre-Ford Jaguar to show you if you really believe the above. What’s the old line — why are the English into deep sea drilling, ship-building and automobiles and not computers? They haven’t figured out how to make a silicon chip leak oil.

  16. Hi Dread,

    “Sure, if’n you ignore the prior, oh, what, three to four *CENTURIES* of Irish history, I suppose you can put it so simply… reality is another matter entirely.”

    If you want to base a terrorist campaign on events that happened centuries ago fair enough. However, you then open yourself to others taking a similar attitude. So, as the Gaels ethnically cleansed my forebears forcing them to flee to Scotland. Why should I cry any tears for the Gaels when the English gave them a bit of a rough time?

    BTW, I think what I’ve just written is a load of ballix. But, it’s the logical outcome of your arguments…

    ”Your “consideration” and a dollar will get you a coke out of the vending machine, but not much else. Ireland was treated as a colony / occupied territory. this is made clear by the English regard for the Catholic majority and body of laws they promulgated to administer said colonial acquisition. Your “consideration” doesn’t change that one whit.”

    Name one other “colony” that sent MPs to Westminster.

    “I “consider” the IRB and IRA to have been guerrillas, not terrorists…”

    Sorry, they’re terrorists. In wars guerillas, do not generally attack civilian targets. Terrorists do. That’s what the Ra did/does. Guerillas do not expect to be treated any differently to their foes. Terrorists do. The Ra did/does. If the Ra are a guerilla outfit, why the big deal about such operations carried out against them in Gibraltar or Loughgall?

    “First of all, Mandela’s lot had their own little bombing campaign against “soft” targets — something you seem to conveniently forgot, thus squarely marking them as terrorists…”

    I have not. Mandela had no democratic way forward. The Ra did. For exactly the same reason I do not consider the French Resistance terrorists.
    Should NI ever be forced into a UI, and loyalists resort to the same methods as the Ra would you consider them terrorists or freedom fighting guerillas?

    “Secondly, I repeat, what are your examples, beyond your own “beliefs,” that Ireland had a reasonable chance of exiting the British Empire without their war of independence?”

    The fact that it was being discussed by the UK government suggests that it wasn’t completely of the radar. Why discuss it, if it was never going to happen?

    “As for the French, they had the same options the Irish had following the English invasion — submit, resist, or collaberate.”

    They did on current events at the time. Whereas, you seem to suggest the French resistance would have been fair enough even if the invasion had happened centuries before.

    “Rhodesia, Kenya, etc”

    How many MPs did they send to Westminster. They were colonies. Ireland was not.

    “How about the concentration, etc, etc…”

    Whataboutery! We can both indulge in this. Where does it get us?

    “why are the English into deep sea drilling, ship-building and automobiles and not computers? They haven’t figured out how to make a silicon chip leak oil.”

    You may be interested to know that an Englishman, Charles Babbage, is recognized as the father of modern computers. Having built the differential calculating machine. Then again, maybe not 😉

  17. “I “consider” the IRB and IRA to have been guerrillas, not terrorists…”

    Sorry, they’re terrorists. In wars guerillas, do not generally attack civilian targets. Terrorists do. That’s what the Ra did/does. Guerillas do not expect to be treated any differently to their foes. Terrorists do. The Ra did/does. If the Ra are a guerilla outfit, why the big deal about such operations carried out against them in Gibraltar or Loughgall?

    Your biggest problem, I suspect, is that you seem to believe the PRIA and the IRA of the Irish War of Independence are one in the same, right down to doctrine and tactics. The IRA, during the immediate, post-1918 conflict, attacked police, informers and British troops. They did not hide behind laws, they did not fire into crowds of civilians (this being the job of English forces, as noted above) and fought a classic guerrilla war. In contrast, during the immediate, post-1918 conflict, the RIC, the British Army (with a few execeptions), the Auxilliaries andthe Black and Tans fought a war relying on summary execution, near random mayhem and civilian reprisal. I have been deliberate in *not* dealing with the current Troubles, largely because the Provos degenerated from a legitimate struggle into thuggery and drug dealing. The Irish War for Independence and the Troubles are not comparable — the Troubles degenerated into terrorism, the War of Independence was a guerrilla war, with hit and run attacks against isolated police barracks, informers (the bane of any revolutionary movement) and the forces of the occupying power.

    “”Your “consideration” and a dollar will get you a coke out of the vending machine, but not much else. Ireland was treated as a colony / occupied territory. this is made clear by the English regard for the Catholic majority and body of laws they promulgated to administer said colonial acquisition. Your “consideration” doesn’t change that one whit.”

    Name one other “colony” that sent MPs to Westminster”

    Without executive or legislative power over Ireland, which, at that time resided in the hands of the Crown’s representative in the body of the governor-general, squarely marking Ireland a colony, representation in Parliment was a mirage, another seeming of democracy without substance.

    “First of all, Mandela’s lot had their own little bombing campaign against “soft” targets — something you seem to conveniently forgot, thus squarely marking them as terrorists…”

    I have not. Mandela had no democratic way forward. The Ra did. For exactly the same reason I do not consider the French Resistance terrorists.”

    Sure they did. They could have followed Ghandi’s route… The French had a government in Vichy which was about as real as Irish participation in English Parliment. They had at least as many options as did the Irish. the IRA in 1918-1921, did not bomb cafes — Mandela’s boys did — that marks the latter terrorists and the former gurrillas. The dividing line between the two is tactics, not their political options in your estimation.

    “How about the concentration, etc, etc…”

    Whataboutery! We can both indulge in this. Where does it get us?

    That was not whataboutery, that was a refutation of the notion that England wasn’t treating Ireland as a colony. The examples cited of English tactics (EXACTLY the same anti-guerrilla, anti-civilian tactics they used in the Boer War, btw) that belie your arguement.

    “why are the English into deep sea drilling, ship-building and automobiles and not computers? They haven’t figured out how to make a silicon chip leak oil.”

    You may be interested to know that an Englishman, Charles Babbage, is recognized as the father of modern computers. Having built the differential calculating machine. Then again, maybe not 😉

    You just crossed the line from whataboutery into humbug. All Babbage did was *almost* build a pocket calculator that even the Jolly Green Giant couldn’t carry. good thery, but, iirc, no examples of working product, although given his material limits, I give him credit for a good effort. This also has no bearing on the sorry state of British industry.

  18. Hi Dread,

    “Your biggest problem, I suspect, is that you seem to believe the PRIA and the IRA of the Irish War of Independence are one in the same, right down to doctrine and tactics.”

    You judge me correctly Dread.

    “The IRA, during the immediate, post-1918 conflict, attacked police, informers and British troops. They did not hide behind laws, etc, etc…”

    Green tinted specs I suspect Dread. I’m surprised you can see through them, such is the depth of tint.

    “Without executive or legislative power over Ireland, which, at that time resided in the hands of the Crown’s representative in the body of the governor-general, squarely marking Ireland a colony, representation in Parliment was a mirage, another seeming of democracy without substance.”

    The Governor-General was a largely ceremonial post. In fact there continued to be a Governor-General up until 1937. Are you seriously saying Ireland was a British colony until 1937?
    “Sure they did. They could have followed Ghandi’s route… The French had a government in Vichy which was about as real as Irish participation in English Parliment. Etc, etc…”

    Westminster in 1918 comparable to Vichy France? Catch yerself on Dread.

    “All Babbage did was *almost* build a pocket calculator that even the Jolly Green Giant couldn’t carry. good thery, but, iirc, no examples of working product, although given his material limits, I give him credit for a good effort. This also has no bearing on the sorry state of British industry. You just crossed the line from whataboutery into humbug”

    I have to say Dread I did not expect such an attack over such an inocuous point of interest. If he had been Irish, I suspect you may have taken a different slant. Sad, sad, sad…

  19. Congal,
    can you tell me what you believe was the democratic mandate for this union with Ireland?

    What was the difference between the union of 1801 and a rackrenting, fifth-columnist annexation in your view because I don’t see any.

    Would you agree that with no democratic mandate for union, there was no democratic mandate for British Conservatives to rule Ireland in 1918?

  20. Hi Dread,

    “Your biggest problem, I suspect, is that you seem to believe the PIRA and the IRA of the Irish War of Independence are one in the same, right down to doctrine and tactics.”

    You judge me correctly Dread.

    Then you are wrong on the fact, Congal. Yes, there was shooting of civilians, but it was primarily by pro-Union forces. From Wikipedia, under “The Anglo-Irish War”: “The Anglo-Irish War (also known as the Irish War of Independence) was a guerrilla campaign mounted against the British government in Ireland by the Irish Republican Army under the proclaimed legitimacy of the First Dáil, the extra-legal Irish parliament created in 1918 by a majority of Irish MPs. It lasted from January 1919 until the truce in July 1921.

    The Irish Republican Army which fought in this conflict is often referred to as the Old IRA to distinguish it from later organisations that used the same name.”

    Thusly, your “beliefs” aside, disctinctions have been made between the terror campaign arising from the ’69 Troubles and the Anglo-Irish War of 1918-1921.

    “The IRA, during the immediate, post-1918 conflict, attacked police, informers and British troops. They did not hide behind laws, etc, etc…”

    Green tinted specs I suspect Dread. I’m surprised you can see through them, such is the depth of tint.

    Hardly, as I am of Anglo-Irish descent and an Episcopalian, you efforts at ad hominem attack are flawed from from the start. Secondly, I again would direct you to the Wikipedia entry for the Anglo Irish War:

    “Volunteers began to attack British government property, carried out raids for arms and funds and targeted and killed prominent members of the British administration.” (Legitimate political targets, Congal, not “women and children” as you would have us believe).

    This is not to say there weren’t atrocities commited during the struggle, albeit by the Unionists. Quoting further: “… estimated that in the first 18 months of the conflict Crown forces carried out 38,720 raids on private homes, arrested 4,982 suspects, committed 1,604 armed assaults, sacked and shot up 102 towns and killed 77 unarmed republicans or other civilians.” Additionally, ” Some regiments of the British army had a reputation for killing unarmed prisoners. The Essex Regiment was one of these.”
    Then there were the Black and Tans, an organization, and I quote: “While officially they were part of the RIC, in reality they were a paramilitary organisation who left a reputation of murder, terror, drunkenness and ill-discipline that did more harm to the British government’s moral authority in Ireland than any other group.” Let us not forget the Auxilliaries: “Auxilaries drove in trucks into Croke Park (Dublin’s premier football ground) during a football match, shooting into the crowd at random. 14 unarmed people were killed and 65 wounded. Later that day two republican prisoners, and an unassociated friend who had been arrested with them, were “shot while trying to escape” in Dublin Castle. This day became known as Bloody Sunday. Today a stand in Croke Park is named the Hogan Stand, after a Tipperary player who was killed in the attack.”

    “Without executive or legislative power over Ireland, which, at that time resided in the hands of the Crown’s representative in the body of the governor-general, squarely marking Ireland a colony, representation in Parliment was a mirage, another seeming of democracy without substance.”

    The Governor-General was a largely ceremonial post. In fact there continued to be a Governor-General up until 1937. Are you seriously saying Ireland was a British colony until 1937?

    The Governor General *became* ceremonial after the establishment of the Irish Free State. From Wikipedia: “The IRA, as the ‘army of the Irish Republic’, was perceived by members of Dáil Éireann to have a mandate to wage war on the Dublin Castle British administration headed by the Lord Lieutenant running Ireland” (pre-Free State position of the Lord-Lieutenant)

    “All Babbage did was *almost* build a pocket calculator that even the Jolly Green Giant couldn’t carry. good theory, but, iirc, no examples of working product, although given his material limits, I give him credit for a good effort. This also has no bearing on the sorry state of British industry. You just crossed the line from whataboutery into humbug”

    I have to say Dread I did not expect such an attack over such an inocuous point of interest. If he had been Irish, I suspect you may have taken a different slant. Sad, sad, sad…

    Not in the least. Babbage had a good idea, albeit one he could not build a demonstration model of. Thusly, his creation was stillborn. A better example for you to have made was Alan Turing, the father of artificial intelligence, or perhaps Babbage’s associate, who developed the first programming scheme, Ada Byron, as the mother of programming. As for “attacking” you, all I have ever done is present fact and rhetoric, as opposed to you “beliefs” and “considerations” which have little to no root in historical fact. If you want to be “attacked,” this is as close I will go: You think like a liberal arts student — you seem to believe that if you want and wish sufficiently hard and sneer sufficiently well, opposing opinions will wither before you stunning intellect. I, on the other hand, am an auditor, used to dealing in supportable facts. While i do confess some rhetorical flourishes here and there, my foundation is in fact and history.

  21. Hi Dread,

    On whether the Ra from the early 1900s were terrorists…

    “Then you are wrong on the fact, Congal. Yes, there was shooting of civilians, but it was primarily by pro-Union forces. From Wikipedia, under “The Anglo-Irish War”:

    “The Anglo-Irish War (also known as the Irish War of Independence) was a guerrilla campaign mounted against the British government in Ireland by the Irish Republican Army under the proclaimed legitimacy of the First Dáil, the extra-legal Irish parliament created in 1918 by a majority of Irish MPs. It lasted from January 1919 until the truce in July 1921.”

    Note the use of “extra-legal”. Then also from Wikipedia…

    “No definition has been accepted as authoritative by the United Nations. However, the so-called “academic consensus definition,” written by A. P. Schmid of the UN’s Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention is widely used by social scientists and within the UN itself:
    Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.[2]”

    I don’t see how you could possibly consider the RA not to be terrorists using this accepted definition.

    Again, from Wikipedia…

    “Éamon de Valera demanded in the Dáil that the IRA desist from the ambushes and assassinations that were allowing the British to successfully portray it as a terrorist group, and to take on the British forces with conventional military methods.“

    So, even old Dev thought they were successfully being portrayed as a terrorist grouping.

    “Thusly, your “beliefs” aside, disctinctions have been made between the terror campaign arising from the ’69 Troubles and the Anglo-Irish War of 1918-1921.”

    Distinctions have been made between the PIRA and the UVF. However, they’re both terrorist groupings. Like the Original Ra.

    “Hardly, as I am of Anglo-Irish descent and an Episcopalian, you efforts at ad hominem attack are flawed from from the start.”

    So, just because you’re a Prod, that makes you correct as you’ve taken the “other side’s” view? Believe it or not Dread, there’s Catholic blood in me. Does that cancel that out?

    “Legitimate political targets, Congal, not “women and children” as you would have us believe.”

    “Legitimate political targets” is a dangerous term Dread. I don’t have time to trawl through to document incidents. However, you could consult Peter Hart’s book to find how broadly “Legitimate political target” was stretched.

    “… estimated that in the first 18 months of the conflict Crown forces carried out 38,720 raids on private homes, arrested 4,982 suspects, committed 1,604 armed assaults, sacked and shot up 102 towns and killed 77 unarmed republicans or other civilians.”

    Why did you leave “Arthur Griffith estimated that in the first 18 months…” from this quote Dread. Could it possibly be that you didn’t want readers to know how partisan this quote was?

    “The Governor General *became* ceremonial after the establishment of the Irish Free State.”

    Let me remind you that it was you who claimed that Ireland was a colony because of the power residing in the hands of the Governor-general. Here’s your line…

    “Without executive or legislative power over Ireland, which, at that time resided in the hands of the Crown’s representative in the body of the governor-general, squarely marking Ireland a colony”

    Now you’re saying the office didn’t exist until the formation of the Free State. That rather destroys your argument for Ireland being a colony. Besides, the Lord-Lieutenant was a largely ceremonial role also. Opening Parliament, etc…

    On the Babbage argument, which is really just a sideshow, I still think you’re being a bit hard on the man.

    “If you want to be “attacked,” this is as close I will go: You think like a liberal arts student — you seem to believe that if you want and wish sufficiently hard and sneer sufficiently well, opposing opinions will wither before you stunning intellect. I, on the other hand, am an auditor, used to dealing in supportable facts. While i do confess some rhetorical flourishes here and there, my foundation is in fact and history.”

    A “liberal arts students”! I’ve never been so viciously assaulted in my life! I must tell my mates. I actually always favoured science myself. And indeed studied Physics at university. Therefore, I’d consider myself well versed in dealing with “supportable facts”. Even tho’ you’re “used to dealing in supportable facts” I note you messed up the Governor-general fact. That doesn’t bode too well for your interpretation of the other “facts”…

  22. Note the use of “extra-legal”.

    I never said they were angels, Congal, I said they were not terrorists. The proper word for what the IRA was doing is “sedition,” defined thusly:

    sedition: an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.

    (source: wordreference.com)

    As opposed to:

    terrorism, act_of_terrorism, terrorist_act: the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

    (Source as above)

    The primary difference is not your belief, but the choice of target: specifically government targets, in the body of police, military, judges and tax collectors, versus civilian targets — i.e. those not part of the instrumentality of the government. Thusly, the Old IRA, while certainly seditious, was not a terrorist group, as its targets were not random, but targetted the instuments of British occupation. Arguable, the terrorists were the Black and Tans and the Auxilliary, along with those regiments who participated in reprisal against civilians. Likewise, PIRA, RIRA, UVF, UDA and the rest of the alphabet soup gang are terrorists — bombs and random killing of non-combatants. Likewise, based on *YOUR* definition from the UN, how is Mandela’s mob’s bombing campaign *not* terrorism?

    Éamon de Valera demanded in the Dáil that the IRA desist from the ambushes and assassinations that were allowing the British to successfully portray it as a terrorist group, and to take on the British forces with conventional military methods.“

    So, even old Dev thought they were successfully being portrayed as a terrorist grouping.

    Dev also thought that occupying the Post Office in 1916 and the occupation of the Customs House in 1920 were good notions. The results, however, speak for themselves. As such, I wouldn’t necessarily be taking Dev’s judgement at full face value on most subjects.

    Why did you leave “Arthur Griffith estimated that in the first 18 months…” from this quote Dread. Could it possibly be that you didn’t want readers to know how partisan this quote was?

    At this point, Congal, I suspect its just me and on this one. I left a bear in the woods to see if you would catch it. That said, do you disagree that the RIC, the B&T, the Auxilliaries and the British Army did none of the things Arthur Griffith related in the quote? By all means, if you have a more reliable or less partisan source on the number of actions taken by the Crown forces, one that isn’t partisan, I will certainly entertain it.

    “Legitimate political targets” is a dangerous term Dread. I don’t have time to trawl through to document incidents. However, you could consult Peter Hart’s book to find how broadly “Legitimate political target” was stretched.

    Lesee… Police, Judges, British military and paramilitary formations and tax collectors, auxilliary policemen who may or may not have been faking a surrender. Beyond that, you can do your own research, thank you very much. T’isn’t my task to support your side of the discussion…

    On the Babbage argument, which is really just a sideshow, I still think you’re being a bit hard on the man.

    The capability of his invention would have been that of the cheapest of children’s calculators. Likewise, he couldn’t complete one that worked. It was, at best, a technological oddity — I would say that the programming / card reading aspect of it was more interesting aspect of it, since anything the difference engine and analytical enging could have accomplished, one could do far faster on an abacus.

    A “liberal arts students”! I’ve never been so viciously assaulted in my life! I must tell my mates. I actually always favoured science myself. And indeed studied Physics at university. Therefore, I’d consider myself well versed in dealing with “supportable facts”. Even tho’ you’re “used to dealing in supportable facts” I note you messed up the Governor-general fact. That doesn’t bode too well for your interpretation of the other “facts.”

    Really? This from someone who spends most of their arguement with “feelings” and “beliefs” as their primary support, along with contradictory arguements, such as you “belief” that Mandela and co. were not terrorists, despite their random attacks against civilians with their bombing campaign?? I would have expected better for a scientist, although in light of recent stats on how many scientists fudge their results to fit pre-determined outcomes, I suppose I may just be optimistic on that front. That said, I know I’m not perfect and, therefore, hardly expect you to be. That said, your approach is hardly scientific, seemingly based more in Orange / Protestant / English heartstrings than anything factual, but then, contrariwise, you seem to think me overly green (the green eye-shade comment is annoying for entirely unrelated matters coming from profession, btw). You started with your conclusion (Ireland was an integral part of Britain) and proceded to back-fill your support. The two isles, politically, were not integrated. until late in the game, iirc. You forgive / dismiss English terrorism, sectarianism and the like with a tone reminiscent of “well, it was better for the stupid Paddies, who never had it so good,” conveniently ignoring the atrocities and brutality necessary to create and maintain the union — were they “integral,” there would have been no need for such.

  23. At this point, Congal, I suspect its just me and on this one. I left a bear in the woods to see if you would catch it. That said, do you disagree that the RIC, the B&T, the Auxilliaries and the British Army did none of the things Arthur Griffith related in the quote? By all means, if you have a more reliable or less partisan source on the number of actions taken by the Crown forces, one that isn’t partisan, I will certainly entertain it.

    Should read “do you suggest”… sigh…

Comments are closed.