The enduring scar of sectarianism

David McKittrick, in yesterday’s Indie, writes:
“There have been 65 emergency re-housing cases in the five months since April; the total for the whole of last year was 100……………………A total of 1,500 sectarian attacks – an average of four a day – were recorded in the past year, almost exactly the same as in the previous 12 months………Last year, north Belfast, a traditionally deeply divided area, notched up 560 sectarian incidents, more than a third of those recorded in the whole of Northern Ireland…………… racially motivated attacks, which are now running at a rate of almost 1,000 a year.”
It’s the volume that is scary.

There’s a leading article also:
“There is no magic way of eradicating those 1,500 sectarian incidents, but addressing the existing marching problems is vital. So too is giving a much greater priority to the issue of community relations, for to date politicians have concentrated most of their energies on bedding in the new settlement. But if that figure is to be reduced a new focus is needed, a new attempt to make Northern Ireland a less restless society”
Perhaps that should read “a less restless society in the summer”.

Update – Slightly more positive from the Economist.

  • Brit

    Thanks for the history lesson. The short answer, reading between the many lines was, its the Brits and Yanks fault. For any problem in the modern world go down the chain of causation and stop when you hit a Brit or a Yank? That is the anti-imperialism or the Irish nationalism of fools.

    You say the civil war was forseeable (and of course it is now in retrospect) but in my recollection the millions in the West who marched “Not in My Name”, giving such satisfaction to Saddam (but not to the majority Shias and Kurds who welcomed the invasion), were worried about the Iraqs who would die during the invasion because the Iraqi forces were so strong and the Americans and allies so indiscriminate.

    There are important distinctions between causation and moral reponsibility. In your pushing off a building example there is no intervening human action required so no dilution of moral reponsibility.

  • Greenflag

    I’m outta here .

    Once again we have wandered very far from the ‘thread ‘ subject which David McKittrick’s article prompted . One of the reason’s perhaps is because by now most people in NI and elsewhere take NI sectarianism for granted a bit like the weather and are only grateful perhaps that it is no worse than ever .

    The best thread and the shortest on this eternal subject has to go to Sammy Morse on page 1 which I quote

    ‘So, 1500 attacks and 100 rehoused in a year.’

    And how many arrests? A couple of dozen, at the most, and even fewer convictions. Sectarian hate crime will persist while it is effectively not subject to criminal penalties.”

    I’d go further than Sammy and suggest that sectarian ‘hate ‘ crime should be subject to severe financial penalties and jail time with a mandatory 10 year no parole hard labour for a second offence !

    As to what constitutes a hate ‘crime’ ? Burning Churches, Orange halls , Schools, and sectarian parading in areas which don’t want it would be a good start ! Making associations and institutions financially responsible for the cost of clean up and any damage to public or private property following ‘festivities ‘ would also help rein in some of the excesses .

  • Brit

    Greenflag. I like you there is “no lying in you” (to quote from Scarface)

    Israel is most certainly the Goliath in the Israeli v Hamas / Palestinians dispute, and to a lesser extent is the regional middle eastern Goliath – although Hezbollah are no weaklings nor Syria and, in particular, Iran are moving towards Goliath status. My refusal to comment was based on my qualified defence of Israel (as a Goliath) and that would lead the discussion into a boring dead-end.

    Orwell in the ‘Lion and the Unicorn’ essays was talking about the man on the street, the mass of working class and lower middle class English people in the 40s and 50s and not the ruling class and aristocracy of the 18th and 19th Century who were responsible for the crimes of the empire. The anti-English mythology of some or our celtic brethren often seems to forget the existence of a mass English working class who were also the victims as well as beneficiaries of the British state during the empire.

    “Ultimately ? The achievement of ‘democracy’ in both Iraq and Afghanistan are no doubt laudable and praiseworthy ends from a western perspective . But do these laudable ends justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands in those regions ?”

    Democracy is a great thing and I am no human rights relativist / racist who says democracy is only for whites or advaced economies. That said neither I, nor any left-liberal supporter of interventionism generally or the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions in particular, would justify them on the principal basis that those nations were undemocratic. If a country is involved in genocide against its own people, or unable to stop a genocide happening, or functioning as a base for attacks on other nations then these may give rise to a justification for invasion, not a mere lack of democracy. If “democracy” results all the better but lack of democracy is no way near a sufficient condition for military action and the establishment of democracy should never be a primary objective of a foreign power.

    And if you think it was about oil the Americans could have easily cut a deal with Saddam over oil and let him annex Kuwait and murder as many Kurds, Sunnis, marsh Arabs as he felt like. It was about perceived danger and instability in the region, plus link ups between Iraqi arms and islamist terrorsts which would have been politically and strategically unacceptable to America (and pretty much everyone else).

    “The Afghans I expect will add the American scalp to their Russian and British collections.”

    Firstly its not just Americans (or even Americans and Brits who are in Afghanistan). Second they are there with the support of the Afghan government and its people. T

    “I’ll leave the ‘morality’ preaching to the clerics and the rest of the god seekers .”

    This athiest thinks that there can be morality without God and indeed that there has always been morality without God. To argue to the contrary is to deny any right to any kind of moral judgment and to cede moral authority to those who live there live on the basis of a “speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability” (Sidney Hook).

    “I would add that the point that most Irish nationalists and republicans miss is one that you have touched on in your post and that namely is the fact that for several centuries i.e 1700 to 1920 Ireland as a whole was part of the British ‘polity’ and it was’nt unreasonable for Unionists post 1918 to want to remain part of the Union with access to British and world markets etc etc .”

    You should think about joining the PUP!

  • Guest

    No,I’m afraid that’s not the answer at all.

    You missed the point.I simply backtracked to the origins of Sunni dominance to show that it was not the doing of Saddam and his dictatorship, but the rather a hangover from imperialism.That’s where I stop on the chain.Don’t mistake that for a call to victim-hood.Jack straw at the time admitted as such. (“A lot of the problems that we are having to deal with now – I have to deal with now – are a consequence of our colonial past.”)
    Saddam maintained the status quo,violently suppressing any change.Anybody,who could not forsee that his removal would result in a clamour to realign, and that this would entail violence,should be not be allowed give guidance to any government.
    We can go into all kind of questions concerning what would have happened if there was no western intervention but its useless without discussing whether the west’s responsibility can or cannot be discharged into local-feuding.We are into the language of “greater right” and “best of all possible worlds”.I believe that it cannot for the same reasons that most of the little “Davids” cannot be considered to only be reacting to the western presence.You’ve given sound logic on that above.
    Conclusion:David v Goliath.

  • Dewi

    Enough?

  • Greenflag

    Brit ,

    ‘You should think about joining the PUP!

    I held that view before the PUP were heard of 😉
    As an Irish nationalist/republican (note the small n and r ) they would’nt have me and they’d be right 🙂

    Finally I’d like to add -I agree with Dewi ;).

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    Brit

    >>In particular I think the comments of Greenflag and Head the Ball are particularly interesting and reflect a nuanced and intellectually honest analysis< < ROFL - Except that I exposed Heidtheba's nonsense for what it was and in detail. I suppose you missed that like the half a dozen comments I put your way and you couldn't answer. No wonder you spew out heaps of garbage without really understanding it if you are believing anything yer man is saying. I'm beginning to think you are just a troll, and I usually like trolls. Are you and Heidtheba the same fella?, it would figure. >>It is this refusal to accept the existence and validity of the British/Ulster Unionst identity on the island…< < I did no such thing, I refuted his 'accident of history' bullshit. Should you care to pay attention I went into some detail in doing so. However learning seems to be outside your trolling remit. >>- explain it as a kind of Uncle Tom false consciousness amongst a sub-set of Irish who are akin to the US loyalists to Britain during the US civil war, and accordingly think it will disappear overnight in the utopia of a UI.< < The above shite just about sums up your whole contribution, rambling inexact and utterly pointless even when I am mentally fixing your mistakes. 'A sub-set of the Irish' WHAT? Really what does this mean? 'US Loyalists to Britain during the US civil war' WHAT? How can this made up sub-set who are akin to people loyal in the wrong war(US war of independence you are lookin fur) disappear in a UI utopia? How is that even possible? >>Many Greek islands were Turkish and vice versa but, aside from Cyrpus, this is no re-opened.< < The Ottoman empire ruled them, they were not peopled by Turks. Is there no beginning to your knowledge? >>Most borders and many national disputes arise from war, conflict and imperialism, NI is no different.< < Finally you understand that brute force implemented the sectarian carve up. And whilst Britain was supposedly fighting for small nations in Europe in WW1 in a few short years she was loping bits off another to suit her selfish needs. Quick end the thread before the miasma returns. Heidtheba Sorry pal I tried to read and comprehend your 11.20am but gave up, my talents do not stretch that far. Should you choose to put your points to me in an ordered fashion that disnae gie me a sore heid then I'll happily reply. >>Finally I’d like to add -I agree with Dewi ;)<< Ditto without the smilie though, at times like this it is best to pay attention to an auld saying of my Grannie's; "If ye argey wi eedjits that makes ye an eedjit yersel!" And it's sayonara fae this eedjit, I am fed up fed up duelling intellectually with unarmed bandits.

  • RepublicanStones

    Prionsa me ‘aul flower, what was that you were saying about a padded cell? I think we have found a new Willowfield in the form of Brit. He likes to avoid answering questions, goes round and round in circles and when asked not to try wishy-washy excuses he duly obliges with one.

    comical stuff.

  • HeadTheBall

    a Phrionsa,

    Obliged to you for the material on anti-Catholicism, especially the detail on Scotland, which was entirely new to me (that’s why I asked). I must also check out the Gordon riots of 1780, about which I know almost nothing.

    On the remainder, would you not agree that much of this stuff is anti-Irish rather than anti-Catholic? As an old Shankill Prod I have on occasion found myself defending Irish neutrality in WW2, which I do with complete sincerity even though my family lost men in that unpleasantness.

    On the main topic you say: “I refuted his ‘accident of history’ bullshit”.

    No you didn’t. You ignored it completely. I paid you the courtesy of treating your rant point-by-point, but now, seeing a real risk of getting your scrotum nailed to the wa’, you are running away

    There is a certain kind of Irish nationalist (and though you are a Scot I count you as one) that dare not re-examine even a scrap of the sacred legacy of “brave little Ireland fighting for her freedom”. I seriously recommend that you revisit some of your more obvious prejudices and blind spots. You could find it quite liberating.

  • Sean

    RS

    Perhaps you hit closer to the target than it appears at first blush? Doesn’t willowfield have a long history of dissapearing and reapearing under a new name but with the same old nonsense?

    Willowfield is that you man? Come in out from the cold and have a beer

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    Boys

    He doesn’t come close to Willowfield stature, willow at least made you think now and then apart from being an almight pain in the arse. Don’t get me wrang as you might have guessed I am gettin close to chewin aff ma fingers rather than dealing with him again. Now I think he was doing me a favour ignoring me, hopefully he’ll resort to that.

    HTB

    I’ll come clean gettin called “A heid the ba” in Parliamo Glesga means that you are a bampot………nae offence!

    >>On the remainder, would you not agree that much of this stuff is anti-Irish rather than anti-Catholic?< < Aye could be in parts an overlap, but I can only re-iterate the fact, fact mind you that in 1840's Glasgow there were more anti-Catholic organisations than Catholic families. Something like 40 odd to 30 odd. Of course within 50 years as a result of the half hearted attempt at genocide that was the famine and the Highland clearances, Catholics probably made up a third of the exploding population. Something you may also find of interest was the Church of Scotland's apology for the anti-Catholic Irish way it behaved especially in the last century. A fantastic move at reconcilliation. >>As an old Shankill Prod…< < Do you keep your Republicanism quiet? >>No you didn’t. You ignored it completely.< < Well I did refute it, I cited the plantations to which you hysterically(my laughter) claimed were failures. In any event, whether we agree or not to say I ignored it, even completely is patently and demonstrably untrue. >>I paid you the courtesy of treating your rant point-by-point, but now, seeing a real risk of getting your scrotum nailed to the wa’, you are running away<< Must of missed that bit, I'll give you the courtesy of allowing for the fact that this piece of brilliance was in your previous jumbled up reply to me. So how's about detailing it patiently and paying attention when I reply. There are quite a few my betters on this forum and many of similar standing I reckon, but have yet to have ma baws nailed tae any wa's ma man ;¬) Your last para is just more bleating I'm afraid, convince me I am wrong. provide intelligent insightful analysis to back up any evidence you may wish to enter the foray. I have been convinced to change my mind a few times on here, give it a go.

  • Brit

    PE you combine patronising and misplaced arrogance, personal insults and gratuitious rudness. Have you been to the RS internet debating school?

    Examples:-

    “you spew out heaps of garbage without really understanding it”

    “rambling inexact and utterly pointless even when I am mentally fixing your mistakes”

    You adopt a similar approach with others.

    And then alleging that I am troll and /or that I am a previous poster with a different handle.

    If my arguments are so weak and ill-conceived I am surprised you bother to address them and so exercised about them. In any event there is no need for the man playing.

    For the record I am (as I have been quite open about) a centre-left liberal-minded English (although with more Scots “blood”) social democrat and Labour Party member of the Eustonite tendency. I am no expert in Irish history (and in general prefer political philosphy to history) but I have long been interested in the NI conflict. Given my father’s background, my political background and the part of London I grew up in I have been long exposed to Irish nationalism and republicanism and grew up as an instinctive supporter of constitutional nationalism. As I grew up and started to read, particularly from a Unionist perspective, I came to the conclusion that modern Irish Republicanism was fundamentally reactionary and undemocratic, whilst wrapping itself in a flag of liberation and progress. I am a soft or defacto Unionist but I think there are things of value in the thinking of a number of NI political entities from the SDLP, Alliance, the UUP to the PUP. I have never been on this site previously under a different name. My mission is to challenge Republicanism from a universalist, democractic, left-liberal perspective and to challenge its claim to be a progressive movement. There is long history (Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao) of murderous totalitarians claiming to be progressives.

    Now back to the matter in hand, you said:

    “They Irish sure are quare wans eh? Setting up their own prescriptive and loaded definition of Irish, sure if that committee hadn’t met to agree that loaded definition, no-one would be any the wiser. Well they could always imaginate a definition of Irish that has them as perpetual slaves of colonial rule. A mad hatter’s British/Irish identity that no-one can really define, I’m sure that would be better.”

    Notwithstanding your very high opinion of yourself I am not sure this is the most clear and coherent bit of writing I’ve come across. But if I understand it correctly it seems to be saying that the only true vision of Irishness is an Irishness free and separate from Britain and that the alternative is some sort of colonial slave identity. Given that the Scots and Welsh are hardly colonial slaves in tow to the Brits/English this is patent nonse.
    It also seems to be suggesting that the Ulster Unionist/Protestant/British identity is in some way mad or contradictory. Your other comments seem to be suggesting it is some sort of non Irish foreign import and the less valid for it. I think this is a mixture of reactionary hostility to the outsider and a kind of wishful thinking away of the validity to the British identity and claim to Britishness of the NI Prods. I particularised my critique of this approach in a number of bullet points one of which was as follows:-

    Republicans explain the Protestant Unionsts identity “… as a kind of Uncle Tom false consciousness amongst a sub-set of Irish who are akin to the US loyalists to Britain during the US civil war, and accordingly think it will disappear overnight in the utopia of a UI.

    cont…

  • Brit

    And you “fisked” it thus:-

    . A sub-set of the Irish’ WHAT? Really what does this mean? ‘US Loyalists to Britain during the US civil war’ WHAT? How can this made up sub-set who are akin to people loyal in the wrong war(US war of independence you are lookin fur) disappear in a UI utopia? How is that even possible?”

    To clarify:-

    A sub-set of the Irish people. By “people” I mean humans and in this case I am refering to the ones living in the island of Ireland.
    And yes well done I accidently wrote civil war rather than war of independence. I have no knowledge of your life circumstances – perhaps you have lots of time to perfect your posts – but I don’t and am relaxed about them and happy to speak in short hand and to assume some interpretation from readers. I never pick up on grammatical errors or typos of other posters for the same reason.

    My suggestion here is that, from a traditional Republican perspective, the Unionist identity is one which is loyal to a foreign occupying power and thereby analogous to the signficant number the US inhabitants who were loyal to the British state during the war of INDEPENDENCE. It is an idiotic perspective because the Unionists have been both British and inhanitants of NI for centuries and came from over a short stretch of water.

    And yes the claim from Republicans (which I have heard them make) is that the “loyalist” mentality or warped sectarian sub-culture of whatever they call it would disappear with the end of the “occupation” and the unification of Ireland. The Protestant people would not disappear of cousre but their British false consciousness would go and they would embrace their Irishness (becoming part of the Protestant Irish representted by the orange on the tricolour). This view is exactly the mixture of dictating the identity of a separate group (the totalitarian and undemocratic nature of Republicanism) with a wishful thinking that this group will suddenly discover or embrace their true Irishness (the irrational nationalists nature of Republicanism).

    There also seemed to be a suggestion in your exchanges with HtB that one island or one landmass should mean one state, one nation or one people. It needs no detailed analysis of the war and population exchanges between, say Greeks and Turks, to know that this assumption is mistaken.

  • Greenflag

    head the ball ,

    ‘There is a certain kind of Irish nationalist that dare not re-examine even a scrap of the sacred legacy of “brave little Ireland fighting for her freedom”.’

    That’s true . They may however be ‘outnumbered ‘ by their equivalents on the unionist side of the fence although that’s a guess based on bias instead of real numbers 😉 Unlearning is very difficult and quite possibly intellectually disturbing and unhealthy and the difficulty is compounded by the degree of ease with which the organism ( Prod or Taig ) has absorbed ritual brainwashing either of the religious or political bent . As most of the absorbtion takes place in the early and youthful years any unlearning mostly has to take place when the organism has long past maturity and has survived long enough to become capable of ‘unlearning ‘ . Many of those who are too successfully ‘brainwashed ‘ in the earlier years often do not survive long enough to achieve any potential for ‘unlearning’ as they age or else find the prospect too daunting and threatening to self esteem , authenticity and identity .

    I’d guess that the ‘kind ‘ of Irish nationalist you refer to above is a species much more frequently found in Northern Ireland than in the Republic . Reason being of course environmental conditioning and maladaptation to the political status quo ante 1920 .

    ‘As an old Shankill Prod I have on occasion found myself defending Irish neutrality in WW2, which I do with complete sincerity even though my family lost men in that unpleasantness.’

    I have long pondered on the ‘neutral in favour of the Allies ‘ Irish use of the term ‘Emergency’ to describe World War II. But to describe WWII as an ‘unpleasantness’ has to be understatement of the century ;)? Congratulations at long last a first for a Shankill prod 😉

    Unpleasantness certainly beats ’emergency’ by an Irish mile in the Spinmasters British & Irish Steeplechase Understatement Handicap Race , now being run for a century on London, Dublin and Belfast political courses over mostly heavy ground .

    My money is on the ducks 🙂

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    Brit

    God*groans* here goes;

    >> I am no expert in Irish history< < At last something we agree on. Would you agree that there seems to be a school of thought growing here that you are no expert in comprehension either? >>But if I understand it correctly it seems to be saying that the only true vision of Irishness is an Irishness free and separate from Britain and that the alternative is some sort of colonial slave identity.< < Perhaps not so strongly put. The only problem I have with people wishing to retain a british/Irish or brit-Scot identity even is if Britain comes first. >>It also seems to be suggesting that the Ulster Unionist/Protestant/British identity is in some way mad or contradictory.< < Where did I do that? I take it you mean when also claiming to be Irish at the same time?, perhaps but my main issue is when irishness is claimed merely to mess about. Example St. Patricks day in Belfasy.........but hey this is auld grun. >>Given that the Scots and Welsh are hardly colonial slaves in tow to the Brits/English this is patent nonse.< < Simple question. Which countries interests interests come first, England or Wales/Scotland......always? And I have read you peddling this crap a few times. There is hardly a comparison (in terms of violent treatment anyhow) with the Irish experience and that of the Scots and Welsh. >>Your other comments seem to be suggesting it is some sort of non Irish foreign import and the less valid for it.< < Like you said at the outset you are no expert in Irish history, but at the cost of repeating myself for the umpteenth time. The plantations achieved the goal of bringing in a friendly non-Irish population. Their descendents are today's Unionists. Surely you get it now? Basic, basic stuff. >>a kind of wishful thinking away of the validity to the British identity and claim to Britishness of the NI Prods…< < Again for the umpteenth time I have done so such thing! prove it! >>I never pick up on grammatical errors or typos of other posters for the same reason.< < Again neither do I, it is your multiple errors in fact time and time and time again that I pick up on. Show me where I have picked up on grammer? >>There also seemed to be a suggestion in your exchanges with HtB that one island or one landmass should mean one state, one nation or one people. It needs no detailed analysis of the war and population exchanges between, say Greeks and Turks, to know that this assumption is mistaken.<< I made no such assertion, your comprehension is atrocious! I repeat again! The islands used as examples by HTB to back up his faulty argument did not stand upto investigation. In fact they showed the opposite. Pardon my French, but wtf has the population exchanges between Greece and Turkey(which I know of well) got to do with the faulty argument that two communities naturally emerged on the islands cited by htb? I am fed up with your nonsense. Try actually answering my points above.

  • Brit

    At last something we agree on. Would you agree that there seems to be a school of thought growing here that you are no expert in comprehension either?”
    A school of thought the extends to some closed minded anti-British bigots.

    “Perhaps not so strongly put. The only problem I have with people wishing to retain a british/Irish or brit-Scot identity even is if Britain comes first.”
    Well the Prods can chose to put Britain first and Ireland (the Republic/green/Catholic ireland) last whether or not you have a problem with it. Its not for you to tell them.

    “Where did I do that? I take it you mean when also claiming to be Irish at the same time?, perhaps but my main issue is when irishness is claimed merely to mess about. Example St. Patricks day in Belfasy………but hey this is auld grun.”
    When you said “A mad hatter’s British/Irish identity that no-one can really define”
    “Simple question. Which countries interests interests come first, England or Wales/Scotland……always? And I have read you peddling this crap a few times. There is hardly a comparison (in terms of violent treatment anyhow) with the Irish experience and that of the Scots and Welsh.”
    The British government puts Britain’s interests as a whole first and they certainly don’t have a checklist in decreasing order of importance for any new policy which looks first at the English interest, then Scotland and then Wales. Some policies may be disproportionaetly harmful or beneficial to Scotland or Wales or London or Cornwall.

    “Like you said at the outset you are no expert in Irish history, but at the cost of repeating myself for the umpteenth time. The plantations achieved the goal of bringing in a friendly non-Irish population. Their descendents are today’s Unionists. Surely you get it now? Basic, basic stuff.”
    I am aware of the plantation and I am aware that the Unionists/Prods/Brits in the 6 counties are descended from those who settled from Scotland and England. However in view of the length of duration of those people inhabiting those areas, together with the physical and cultural links between north Eastern ireland and Scotland and the centuries of travel, I consider the Unionists to have just as strong a claim to be indigeouns and home grown. We can go back to the Norman conquest if you are that bothere about racial purity. On this basis I don’t accept the foreign colonial paradigm of these people as foreign occupiers. As I have said ad nauseum there are all sorts of peoples whos status as locals is not challenged who have been in their “native” countries for a shorter period. Third and fourth generation Israelis are not American or German or Russian or Iranian or Moroccan and their people have only been in Israel in signficant numbers for decades.

    When I alleged that you engaged in a “a kind of wishful thinking away of the validity to the British identity and claim to Britishness of the NI Prods…< < You stated that "Again for the umpteenth time I have done so such thing! prove it!" Saying that the Prod identity was mad, that there was only one true irish identity seems to have made the point. "show me where I have picked up on grammer?" ;o) >>There also seemed to be a suggestion in your exchanges with HtB that one island or one landmass should mean one state, one nation or one people. It needs no detailed analysis of the war and population exchanges between, say Greeks and Turks, to know that this assumption is mistaken.<< "I made no such assertion, your comprehension is atrocious! I repeat again! The islands used as examples by HTB to back up his faulty argument did not stand upto investigation. In fact they showed the opposite. " HtB was just saying that there were two valid nations on the island of Ireland and was showing you that this was not at all unusual with numerous counter examples. Your "investigation" did not invalidate his point but I think you were obsessed with the wording "accidentally" and you showed that state action, war and conquest were at the heart of many such conflicts. But of course war and conquest are the cause of most distinct forms of national identiy, most boundaries and most national and ethnic disputes. "Pardon my French, but wtf has the population exchanges between Greece and Turkey(which I know of well) got to do with the faulty argument that two communities naturally emerged on the islands cited by htb?" Forget the word naturally and even forget the word emerged, they're not helpful. The key is the contention that there are two national communities which are legitimate and valid, where they came from is an historical irrelevance (the 17th Century was long ago). The Turkish and Greek example shows how deliberate (rather than accidential) changes of population and national identity are not re-opened after a few decades.

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    Brit

    >>A school of thought the extends to some closed minded anti-British bigots.< < How dare you............I resemble that remark! I don't think you understand the difference between recognising a Brit/Unionist identity and recognising a Brit/Unionist Irish identity. i can accept one whilst questioning the validity or reasoning behind claiming the other. Your naivety is alarming if you do not believe that England's interests over-ride all. Why for example would British civil servants bury a report in 1974 detailing that Scottish oil was worth far more than anyone believed. In who's interests was this? It's the McCrone report btw; http://tinyurl.com/3snn2h Sorry I refuse to answer you any more regarding the plantations. Put as many silly slants on my straightforward points as you like. Sad! >>HtB was just saying that there were two valid nations on the island of Ireland and was showing you that this was not at all unusual with numerous counter examples.< < I am getting really really really bored now. I will not repeat myself again here either. >>Forget the word naturally and even forget the word emerged, they’re not helpful<< Of course not since they get in the way of your deliberate and wilful lack of comprehension. Go away, I no longer care what you read into my points. You are obviously a troll because no-one could consistantly mis-read, misunderstand miss out bits etc. the way you have to suit your respons narrative. Good God I find myself continually fixing your fawlty analysis of the most basic simple points that I make. What hope is there?

  • Brit

    “What hope is there?”

    the feeling is mutual, love.