West Brits Out?

Trinity authorities instructed Ogra Shinn Fein recruiters to remove promotional posters that included the message “BRITS OUT” as it raised anti-British feeling. OSF has adopted the acronym defence, British Regiments, Informers, Troops and Soldiers, and attacked the “lingering existence of a pro-British psyche within the confines of Trinity”. However, the use of “west-Brits in Trinity” presumably none of whom of fit any of the four acronym groups somewhat undermines that defence.

  • cladycowboy

    willowfield

    “Well, the reality was that there were in fact two separate and distinct peoples in Ireland, and it is for peoples not governments to assert self-determination.”

    Two slightly differing cultures i grant you. As for distinct and seperate peoples? Only if how you pray to your preferred diety makes me and David Healy seperate people. What happens to the children of the inter-married, of which over time, i’m sure the majority of us are? Are ‘we’ a seperate and distinct ‘nation’?

    “Sorry, but every people has the right to self-determination, not just those who self-describe as “nations” and who assert that their right to self-determination is somehow superior and may therefore override the right of another people.”

    The UK government was one of those who described Ireland as a nation. There has been a huge concentration of Irish immigrants and their descendants over the course of a century and more, in some British cities, comparable and indeed exceeding the numbers of British immigrants in Ireland. Do they constitute a ‘nation’? Or are they merely proud people of Irish ancestry in Britain?

    “Tell me, how many people left the UK to live in Ulster before Ireland was granted the gift of being part of the UK? They left the UK to live in Ulster and yet their descendants voted to re-join the UK.

    This doesn’t make sense. How could you leave the UK to live in Ulster when Ulster was part of the UK?”

    The ‘UK’ was formed in 1707. Ireland wasn’t part of it until 1801. Hence, anyone who left the UK between 1707 and 1801 to go to Ulster was making a choice to leave the UK. Yet their descendants later voted to stay within it, (not being given a chance to have voted themselves into it). So you see, people do leave a country for another yet want their new place of residence to become politically entwined with the land they left. Not very nice to your new neighbours but that’s life. right?

    “What do you think? Is 400 years not long enough? What about 500? 1,000?”

    I was wanting to grant it to 1st and 2nd generation Irish in Britain so no need for even 400yrs. Let’s have a bit of self-determination for the ‘distinct and seperate peoples’ of east Glasgow, Merseyside and NW London. A few unilaterally declared Republics and i’d bet my bottom Queen’s shilling that your view on self-determination would change overnight.

  • willowfield

    CLADYCOWBOY

    Two slightly differing cultures i grant you. As for distinct and seperate peoples? Only if how you pray to your preferred diety makes me and David Healy seperate people.

    So you articulate the chauvinistic nationalist perspective that the Ulster/unionist people are not a separate people because you say so, and their own clearly-expressed views don’t matter. But the reality is otherwise: two peoples with separate histories, customs, traditions, religions, identities, and who – most importantly – collectively articulate these separate facets. Perhaps to you Serbs and Croats are merely “slightly differing cultures”, but your chauvinistic view doesn’t matter – what matters is that Serbs and Croats assert themselves to be separate peoples.

    And, if you consider that British unionists and Irish nationalists are not separate, then by extension you must also consider that Irish and British people are not separate peoples. After all, only if how you pray to your preferred diety makes you and Frank Lampard seperate people.

    Tell us, then, how do you determine who is and isn’t a “nation”, what are your criteria, and by what authority do you make these determinations?

    What happens to the children of the inter-married, of which over time, i’m sure the majority of us are? Are ‘we’ a seperate and distinct ‘nation’?

    What happens to the children of inter-married Serbs and Croats? English and Scots? French and German? They usually make their own minds up about their identity.

    The UK government was one of those who described Ireland as a nation.

    As I already said, it is for peoples not governments to assert self-determination. (That’s the whole point!)

    There has been a huge concentration of Irish immigrants and their descendants over the course of a century and more, in some British cities, comparable and indeed exceeding the numbers of British immigrants in Ireland. Do they constitute a ‘nation’? Or are they merely proud people of Irish ancestry in Britain?

    You’d need to ask them. I’m unaware, however, of Irish immigrants in British cities declaring themselves to be a “nation”. As far as I know, they are content to live in the UK.

    The ‘UK’ was formed in 1707. Ireland wasn’t part of it until 1801. Hence, anyone who left the UK between 1707 and 1801 to go to Ulster was making a choice to leave the UK. Yet their descendants later voted to stay within it, (not being given a chance to have voted themselves into it). So you see, people do leave a country for another yet want their new place of residence to become politically entwined with the land they left. Not very nice to your new neighbours but that’s life. right?

    The usual understanding is that the UK was created in 1801. I’m not sure what people you refer to who moved to Ulster between 1707 and 1801, but their descendants were perfectly entitled to make up their own minds about self-determination, regardless of whatever particular constitutional arrangements prevailed in past centuries.

    I was wanting to grant it to 1st and 2nd generation Irish in Britain so no need for even 400yrs. Let’s have a bit of self-determination for the ‘distinct and seperate peoples’ of east Glasgow, Merseyside and NW London. A few unilaterally declared Republics and i’d bet my bottom Queen’s shilling that your view on self-determination would change overnight.

    If you want to grant self-determination to “1st and 2nd generation Irish in Britain” then how can you argue against Ulster Protestant/unionist self-determination? The pity for you, however, is that those people don’t assert themselves to be considered separate peoples for the purposes of self-determination, and aren’t considered to be so.

  • cladycowboy

    “If you want to grant self-determination to “1st and 2nd generation Irish in Britain” then how can you argue against Ulster Protestant/unionist self-determination? The pity for you, however, is that those people don’t assert themselves to be considered separate peoples for the purposes of self-determination, and aren’t considered to be so.”

    No pity at all. i was only using it as an exercise to show how ludicrous the idea is. So it’s simply a matter of assertion? By your own definition, the people who left Ireland for Britain, perhaps 2 million and more, and their greater number of descendants are a seperate people from the natives. Why don’t they consider themselves different from their neighbours? Different enough to seek self-determination? Are they living a false consciousness of being British?

    “Perhaps to you Serbs and Croats are merely “slightly differing cultures”, but your chauvinistic view doesn’t matter – what matters is that Serbs and Croats assert themselves to be separate peoples”

    I didn’t intend to come across as chauvanistic, didn’t think i had, but if i offended your sensibilities then let me apologise, sorry.

    Serbs and Croats are different peoples. Biggest difference being language. We all spoke Hiberno-English in 1921. The Serbs and Croats were thrown together in Yugoslavia as ‘we’ were in the UK. When Yugoslavia split, there was a Serbia and a Croatia. The Serbs in Croatia simply became Serbo-Croats, there was no ‘Northern Croatia’ formed for their benefit.

    The reality is that those with a British identity in Ireland have been ‘granted’ self-determination on lesser grounds than almost any other group in history. History has been kind to them.

    I’m getting the general drift. Irish go to Britain, integrate. British go to Ireland, declare land British. What did we ever do to you eh?

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    Turgon,

    Mary Mac was on the receiving end of anti-catholic sectarainsim growing up and was in a good position to see the undoubted similarities between the identification of the jews as the cause of Germanys problems and the Protestant attitude to Catholics in non-iron pre-troubles as the enemy within.

    Although it is undoubtedly unwise for her as president to say this does not mean it is not a reasonable point to make based on experience and observation.
    The northern Prod has many positive attributes but suffers from siginifcant religious intolerance. Trying to pretend that sectarianism is equally shared between the 2 communities is nonsense but perhaps not polically correct to say in this post agreement world.

    She has tried to be fair in most of her public duties but as her remarks will show form time to time has and always will be a Irish Nationalist whose views were shaped growing up in quite an unpleasnat sectarian state.

  • willowfield

    CLADYCOWBOY

    I note your failure to set out how you determine who is and isn’t a “nation”; what your criteria are, and by what criteria you make these determinations. Seems, then, that you have no basis for making these arbitrary and chauvinistic determinations. Not much of an argument for denying self-determination to Ulster Protestants/unionists, then. Nor much of an argument for granting it to Irish/Catholic nationalists, either. Come back when you’ve worked out your position, and tell us why any territory should be included in a particular state against the wishes of its inhabitants, or why any people should be included within a state against its wishes.

    And, incidentally, Serbs and Croats speak the same language. And they weren’t forced into Yugoslavia, either: they chose to become part of it.

  • cladycowboy

    WILLOWFIELD

    Thanks for the edumecation. It was a bit of a hybrid but they do speak the same language and whilst i’m not sure the common Serb or Croat were party to the formation of Yugoslvia, it took the grip of Tito to keep it together for so long.

    “Come back when you’ve worked out your position, and tell us why any territory should be included in a particular state against the wishes of its inhabitants, or why any people should be included within a state against its wishes.”

    That’s just the thing, it’s such a complex issue, i don’t think i have a single transferable argument for every situation, do you? I’m only trying to draw out why you think Northern Ireland deserved to come into existence.

    I have similar views to you on what constitutes a ‘nation’, a group of people with common culture and tradition. The ‘Irish’ are a nation (I’ll exclude those from the north-eastern counties of a British persuasion and their diaspora). The Irish, because of their troubled history have had quite a diaspora. Wherever they went to, they lived there in great numbers, by your defintion, as a seperate and distinct people. Do you think they deserved self-determination in the great cities of the US, Britain and little pockets around the globe? They oftimes differed from their new neighbours in culture, religion, history, tradition, customs and identities. Sound familiar? Why did they accept the common political will of the country they moved to? Why didn’t they say, we’re not Americans, we’re New Yorkers and we do not accept your will, we want a seperate New York parliament? Were they living out the false-consciousness of being Americans when they went along with the political will of the country they moved to?

    I assume, if you think that Ulster Protestants and Catholics are such a distinct people that no doubt you feel that Bangladeshi Muslims and white Londoners are too. You’ll be joining in with their protests, no doubt, if they decide that they want east London and the west midlands to have it’s own laws and affiliate itself with Bangladesh. You would, wouldn’t you, holding such strong and unswervable views on the idea of nationhood?

    Or would you think, i can see we’re not entirely the same but please respect the wishes of the majority and not seek to divide the state?

  • willowfield

    CLADYCOWBOY

    Thanks for the edumecation [sic]. It was a bit of a hybrid but they do speak the same language and whilst i’m not sure the common Serb or Croat were party to the formation of Yugoslvia, it took the grip of Tito to keep it together for so long.

    So Serbs and Croats not separate peoples, then, in your view? Try telling that either to a Serb or a Croat. Or do you accept that they are? If so, why do you not accept that Ulster Protestant/unionist and Irish Catholic/nationalist are separate? And if you do not accept that Ulster Protestant/unionist and Irish Catholic/nationalist are separate, why do you accept that Irish and British are separate? I think you’re in a bit of trouble on this one.

    That’s just the thing, it’s such a complex issue, i don’t think i have a single transferable argument for every situation, do you? I’m only trying to draw out why you think Northern Ireland deserved to come into existence.

    I have a consistent position which I apply to all situations.

    Do you think they deserved self-determination in the great cities of the US, Britain and little pockets around the globe? They oftimes differed from their new neighbours in culture, religion, history, tradition, customs and identities. Sound familiar? Why did they accept the common political will of the country they moved to? Why didn’t they say, we’re not Americans, we’re New Yorkers and we do not accept your will, we want a seperate New York parliament? Were they living out the false-consciousness of being Americans when they went along with the political will of the country they moved to?

    They chose, in modern times, to go to those established countries and become citizens of those countries. They don’t recognise themselves as separate from the rest of, say, the United States, for the purposes of self-determination. They are consciously American. They haven’t developed over time as a separate people. They don’t seek self-determination, and if they did it would be impracticable. That is not the same as a people established for centuries in a territory, culturally connected to that territory from before modern times and before even the concepts of democracy and self-determination were established.

    Now, tell us why you think any territory should be under the jurisdiction of a state against the wishes of its inhabitants. And why any people should be forced into a state against its wishes. If you think either situation is just, why do you think Ireland should not have remained in the UK?

  • Diluted Orange

    CLADYCOWBOY

    [i]The Serbs in Croatia [b]simply[/b] became Serbo-Croats, there was no ‘Northern Croatia’ formed for their benefit.[/i]

    You might have missed it but the transition from Yugoslavia to Croatia, Bosnia etc was far from simple hence nearly a decade of the bloodiest conflict on European soil since WWII. Maybe the fact that no ‘Northern Croatia’ was formed was why such a volatile resistance existed amongst Croatian Serbs and more so the Bosnian Serbs to the break-up of what they saw as their country, Yugoslavia, at the time.

    Stating that because a homeland wasn’t created for Croat-Serbs or Bosnian-Serbs, so ipso-facto, it shouldn’t have been done so for Ulster Protestants in 1922, counters your argument somewhat when you consider the carnage that occurred in that civil war in contrast to our own relatively minor skirmish.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing but consider that 4,000 people were killed in the Irish Civil War (more than during the whole of the NI Troubles). This was essentially a stupid fight between 2 factions within the same ideology (Nationalism) over a few mis-worded sentences in a Treaty designed to placate them both. Just imagine if you add approx 1 million disgruntled Unionists to the equation, who disagreed fundamentally to the other 2 sides in the conflict, if all of Ireland had been given Home Rule. Then basically you’d have all the ingredients for a classic Yugoslavian-like civil war – I don’t think I need to tell you that in that scenario a ‘Northern Croatia’ would have been by far the best solution to what would have been an inevitably even more torrid conflict.

    I don’t think that the partition of Ireland itself has much to do with the problems we have today but more like the role of the Unionist hegemony in governing NI from 1922-72, when they stoked up the levels of sectarianism in our society, and then the Troubles themselves after this period, when the IRA and the loyalists ran amok for a few decades. The fact that Northern Ireland exists isn’t the problem, it’s the attitudes of the populace within that state that is.

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    “Diluted Orange”
    The fact that Northern Ireland exists isn’t the problem.

    If northern Ireland was on a separate land mass and the protestant birth rate had been higher than the Catholic one then you might have a point. But in a situation where the prods were constantly worried about catholic loyalty to the state and the Catholics were unhappy about being cut off form the rest of their nation then you have excellent civil war conditions. When you add in the history of Nationlaist Ireland to rebel against the British an the in-built sectarianism of loyalist politics then what the f*** do you expect was going to happen eventually.

  • Sean

    diluted Orange
    for the first time since I met you on this board i think I agree with you

    i know i am scared too

  • cladycowboy

    WILLOWFIELD,

    I’ve already agreed with you that Serbs and Croats are seperate peoples, the mix-up was over the language they spoke.

    Whilst i don’t think it goes to the extent you do, there are differences obviously between an average Ulster Protestant and Catholic.

    We disagree over the validity of the creation of Northern Ireland, an affront to the democratic wishes of this island’s people(s). You keep referring to ‘Ulster’, Northern Ireland as a territory. The territory they moved to was Ireland, as they would have known by the fact an Irish parliament represented them in Dublin, a parliament that many landowners from Ulster sat in, it was their parliament, they called themselves Irishmen and Ulstermen.

    When it became clear that this ‘territory’ overwhlemingly wanted independence from Britain, only then did ‘Northern Ireland’ become ‘their’ territory. It’s the intellectual equivalent of declaring my bedroom a seperate territory.

    You having taken this leap of intellect though are no doubt a fan of the idea of re-partioning NI to allow for a greater number of people to exercise their ‘self-determination’?

    “They are consciously American. They haven’t developed over time as a separate people. They don’t seek self-determination, and if they did it would be impracticable.”

    Why do you always say it would have been impracticable for Irish people to express self-determination in another country? Yet it wasn’t impracticable to cut a small island in half leaving 100,000’s of your ‘nation’ and 100,000s of my ‘nation’ in the ‘other’s’ nation state.

    Do you think that Co. Derry/Coleraine/Londonderry, Co.Tyrone, Co. Fermanagh, south Armagh, South Down, west Belfast (ah, remember west Berlin, it can work) and the glens of Antrim should be allowed to express their self-determination, as they have lived here as a seperate people for centuries?

    Your answer should be yes, you said you were consistent.

    HI DILUTED ORANGE

    I know, bad example, should have got myself a civil service job and i’d have more time to think! How about Russians in Ukraine, Latvia etc after the break-up of the Soviet Union? Different people living in the same state, different languages but still manage to live together and the Russian monority as equals accept the wishes of the national territory as a whole, despite once being advantaged.

    However, even if we take the terrible example i highlighted, if a ‘northern Croatia’ had been formed, we’d only be awarding the aggressors, wouldn’t we? There was no Croat-Serb attempt to form a homeland in Serbia? Where would be the intellectual and moral honesty in awarding the aggressor, Serbia with homelands in others territories but not Croat homelands in Serbia? We’d end up with a patchwork if we did.

    I don’t think a civil war in Ireland would have been anywhere near as bad as in FYugoslavia if Ireland hadn’t been partitioned. We keep hearing how everyone got on in the pre-troubles Northern Ireland of yesteryear. At that point, nationalists were being ‘denied’ self-determination. Surely, if the shoe was on the other foot, all we’d expect is a few skirmishes with soldiers over the next few decades a la IRA border campaign. Something wholly manageable.

    Interestingly, if Northern Ireland hadn’t have been formed, and the democratic wishes of the Irish people enacted, how do you think the rest of the wqrld would have perceived this all-out ‘civil'(we’re the same people now?) war for a unionist homeland? Do you think it might have recieved the same response in moral repugnancy of the push for a greater Serbia did?

    I just think, contrary to you, that a lot of our ills would have been sorted out by now if Ireland hadn’t been partitioned. There is hope for the future though with this new dispensation.

  • willowfield

    CLADYCOWBOY

    I’ve already agreed with you that Serbs and Croats are seperate peoples, the mix-up was over the language they spoke.

    I see, but given that (i) you dismissed the notion that Ulster Protestant/unionists and Irish Catholic/nationalists were separate and distinct on the basis that they spoke the same language, and (ii) you now acknowledge that Serbs and Croats speaking the same language does not mean that they are a single people; does your own logic not lead you similarly to acknowledge that neither are the former two groups a single people? I await your logical answer.

    And – I ask again – given that you accept that Serbs and Croats are separate, on what basis do you accept that Ulster Protestant/unionist and Irish Catholic/nationalist are a single people?

    I also ask again – if you do not accept that Ulster Protestant/unionist and Irish Catholic/nationalist are separate, why do you accept that Irish and British are separate?

    We disagree over the validity of the creation of Northern Ireland, an affront to the democratic wishes of this island’s people(s).

    How can it have been an affront to the democratic wishes of the island’s people, when those peoples voted (a) for Irish independence – which was granted; and (b) for retention in the UK – which was also granted? Their democratic wishes of each people were facilitated, albeit that minorities were left on either side of the border.

    You keep referring to ‘Ulster’, Northern Ireland as a territory. The territory they moved to was Ireland, as they would have known by the fact an Irish parliament represented them in Dublin, a parliament that many landowners from Ulster sat in, it was their parliament, they called themselves Irishmen and Ulstermen.

    Er, they settled and developed in Ulster. Check out some demographic maps and you will see that Ulster Protestants/unionists were settled in Ulster, mostly concentrated in the north and east of Ulster – in what became NI. That is the territory in which they were the majority population. Neither the fact that Ulster is in Ireland, nor that there was an Irish parliament, alters that!

    When it became clear that this ‘territory’ overwhlemingly wanted independence from Britain, only then did ‘Northern Ireland’ become ‘their’ territory.

    Nonsense. Ulster Protestants/unionists had been in Ulster for centuries before the home rule movement.

    It’s the intellectual equivalent of declaring my bedroom a seperate territory.

    ???

    You having taken this leap of intellect though are no doubt a fan of the idea of re-partioning NI to allow for a greater number of people to exercise their ‘self-determination’?

    As a supporter of the Belfast Agreement, no, although in purely theoretical terms it would be entirely just.

    Why do you always say it would have been impracticable for Irish people to express self-determination in another country?

    I don’t. I do, though, say it would be impracticable to establish within small urban communities, various separate states.

    Yet it wasn’t impracticable to cut a small island in half leaving 100,000’s of your ‘nation’ and 100,000s of my ‘nation’ in the ‘other’s’ nation state.

    Er, the fact that NI was created and still exists 86 years later is proof enough that it was practicable! Dear me.

    Do you think that Co. Derry/Coleraine/Londonderry, Co.Tyrone, Co. Fermanagh, south Armagh, South Down, west Belfast (ah, remember west Berlin, it can work) and the glens of Antrim should be allowed to express their self-determination, as they have lived here as a seperate people for centuries?

    They do express self-determination at every election. On not one single occasion has any candidate arguing for repartition ever been elected.

    However, even if we take the terrible example i highlighted, if a ‘northern Croatia’ had been formed, we’d only be awarding the aggressors, wouldn’t we? …

    You need to be careful. Who were the aggressors? Serbs living in Serb districts of Croatia were attacked by Croats. Serb communities were expelled from Croatia or fled. The Serbs committed unforgivable atrocities, but the Croats were guilty of similar horrors. And, as far as I know, there are no Croat districts in Serbia.

    Interestingly, if Northern Ireland hadn’t have been formed …

    In that situation, unionists would have become the Croats, seeking separation, and nationalists would have been the Serbs, seeking to enforce union!

    Finally, I ask AGAIN for you to tell us why you think any territory should be under the jurisdiction of a state against the wishes of its inhabitants. And why any people should be forced into a state against its wishes. If you think either situation is just, why do you think Ireland should not have remained in the UK?