“that’s why Richard Haass needs proof – right from the start – that the will to construct a deal really does exist”

Having abandoned their first, draconian, attempt to control regulate Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests, Sinn Féin and the DUP may now face a wider variety of emboldened dissenting voices in seeking compromise on the issue.  Alex Kane has some advice for the incoming chair of the new, improved, working group on parades.  From the News Letter article

If I were Mr Haass I would gather all of the parties and assorted hangers-on around the table at 9am on the first Monday morning and give them a very simple ultimatum: ‘Meet me on Tuesday morning at 9am and give me one collectively agreed, convincing, credible reason for my hanging around here for the next few weeks. Give me one simple, unambiguous piece of evidence that you – all of you – are serious about a deal. And if you can’t manage something that straightforward then shake hands with me and say goodbye. I can’t fix anything, or broker anything, if I don’t have some concrete proof that you guys are actually serious. I’ll see you in the morning: I’m off now for an Ulster fry and game of pool with Alex Kane.’

Ok, the last suggestion is optional! But my point is this: I sense no great desire on the part of any of the mainstream parties of unionism and republicanism to reach a deal. The DUP can’t sign off on anything without the support of the parading elements (and that includes the Orange Order and Bands’ Forum). This can’t simply be a DUP/Sinn Fein deal this time: and that means that the TUV, PUP and some of the newer elements of loyalism will want an input, too. Similarly, Sinn Fein has to be mindful of the ‘needs’ of dissidents and self-styled residents’ groups. In other words, this isn’t so much about finding a deal acceptable to the Assembly parties as about finding a deal acceptable to parties, groups and organisations whose main impact is on the streets.

The pressures on the two big parties, and particularly the DUP, are going to be enormous. Because they don’t trust each other (and please, forget all the nonsense about good personal relations and behind the scenes cooperation) they will give nothing to each other. They won’t/can’t make life easy for each other. They won’t/can’t stand up to the more belligerent elements from their own sides. They will, inevitably, listen to the sound of the street rather than the beat of compromise and commonsense. And that’s why Richard Haass needs proof – right from the start – that the will to construct a deal really does exist. [added emphasis throughout]

Speaking of which, while I was away, the Northern Ireland First and deputy First Ministers published the Terms of Reference for the Working Group Panel of Parties in the NI Executive.  And here they are, for what it’s worth… [pdf file]

Terms of Reference

An independently chaired Panel will be invited to:

Bring forward a set of recommendations by the end of 2013 on parades and protests; flags, symbols, emblems and related matters stemming from the past that will provide long-term and sustainable solutions that are in the best interests of this community and will make the peace more resilient going forward. In doing so the Group will seek the views of, and evidence from, interested stakeholders on how best to address the issues that cause community division.” [added emphasis]

Membership

The First Minister and deputy First Minister will appoint an independent Chair and Vice Chair from outside the political parties and, in addition to the First Minister/deputy First Minister representatives and the Junior Ministers, invite two nominations from the remaining Executive parties to form the Panel. [added emphasis]

The Panel will determine which stakeholders should be invited to join the Panel and which organisations should be asked to give evidence.

It will also determine how often and in what format it will meet.

Timescale

The Panel will report regularly to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It is anticipated that they will receive draft recommendations by late November or early December.

Key Deliverables

• Report including Recommendations.
• Identification of Next Steps/Future Work.

[ How many representatives is that? – Ed]  3 representatives from the DUP, 3 from Sinn Féin and 2 each from the other 3 Executive parties… [Still in control, then – Ed]  Indeed, but with more people to blame than the last time…

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • So it deliberately excludes to opposition, the non-executive parties.

  • FDM

    No deal is possible because the DUP cannot be trusted to deliver on anything or keep their word.

    A’int you guys been readin’ the papers?

  • cynic2

    I am confused as to the logic underpinning ALex’s suggestion. We all know they will come up with a reason for him to stay. But who believes that they will ultimately agree to anything? The aim will be to hold or enhance the boundaries of their existing laagger while blaming themuns for the failure to make progress.

  • Charles_Gould

    This is quite a broad remit that Haass has. I am fairly optimistic that a deal can be reached.

    *Haass is a serious person
    *There will be areas where they can agree and the deal will focus on these; these are not new issues so much discussion and thought has been done
    *Previous documents have been produced that can be built on. For example, some parts of Eames Bradley, and the previous draft Parades legislation.

  • Charles_Gould

    Haass is a serious person, and a high level US Government appointee. This does matter; parties will know its important to work constructively with him. They will agree on the things that can be agreed. It’s not that hard I would figure.

  • Charles_Gould

    Davenewman

    “So it deliberately excludes to opposition, the non-executive parties”

    That makes sense though; they are the opposition so shouldn’t seek to be part of these deals within the coalition parties.

  • Mick Fealty

    FDM,

    “the DUP cannot be trusted to deliver on anything…”

    Evidence?

  • Charles_Gould

    Quintin Oliver seems to be saying the same things as me, on Radio Ulster Evening Extra today (35 minutes in).

    The agreement will draw on the good parts of:
    *Quigley 2002 on parades
    *Eames Bradley on victims

    He also believes that there is something that can come out of a *”Human rights approach to flags and space”. (Don’t know what he means by that).

  • Reader

    FDM: No deal is possible because the DUP cannot be trusted to deliver on anything or keep their word. A’int you guys been readin’ the papers?
    Then it’s like decommissioning all over again. You need a timetable and a staged approach; external guarantors; stick and carrot. This is obvious, surely? SF and DUP have made deals in the past without either party ever trusting the other.

  • Comrade Stalin

    I’m not disposed to agree with FDM on much but I think he is right on this one. If you agree to a deal – a deal which involved compromise on both sides – and one side then backs out under pressure it is seriously damaging.

    It’s one thing to fail to agree to a deal. It’s another to sign your name to something and then not follow it through. In any other walk of life you’d be wary of people who are so untrustworthy.

  • Morpheus

    Did FDM get a yellow card for having a pop at the DUP?

  • sherdy

    After reading Alex’s article I’m so depressed I think we should withdraw the Haass invite and just get the health minister, whoever that might be in the near future, to order in a regular dose of sunshine pills for everyone in the country.

  • ayeYerMa

    Not surprised Comrade Stalin has no problems with the glorification of murderers at the top, and thinks that we should just continue along with that unpunished (as long as they are not Prod murderers, that is).

  • I responded to Alex Kane in the News Letter earlier here:http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/haass-talks-can-bring-a-positive-outcome-1-5425294

    We then enjoyed a fiery debate on BBC Radio Ulster’s Evening Extra, around 17.35.

    Reactions?

  • FDM

    No Morpheus to be fair I will wear that yellow card. I was however wondering how many drunken extended flaming sessions the rest of us will be allowed, without censure? But hey only a fool says life is fair.

    Evidence that the DUP cannot be trusted to deliver anything post Haass?

    They did a complete reversal of policy and reneged on a deal that was literally years in the making. In doing so they broke their word. At the same time they undermined the entire peace process and the GFA itself. They did this to pander to the mob. The DUP have entered electioneering mode. Hence they will be increasingly required to bow to the mobs ravings. Not a good basis for entering negotiations.

    The DUP demonstrated in their MAZE capitulation that they have no integrity and cannot be trusted to keep to an agreement.

    Can they be trusted to deliver anything post Haass? Recent evidence says no.

    Maybe since I have taken the time perhaps Mick can do the same and explain why the rest of parties shouldn’t use any agreement the DUP sign, given recent events, as so much fire lighting material?

    Seemingly I am not the only one here to hold that opinion.

  • tacapall

    “the DUP cannot be trusted to deliver on anything…”

    Evidence?

    Well the point FDM makes is that they (The DUP) agreed on a peace center at the Maze with Sinn Fein and then they reneged. Im sure you heard the DFM say the same, some people call it lack of integrity but FDM calls it lack of trust – Whats the difference.

    So nothing to say about the lack of condemnation of loyalist terrorists by the same DUP leadership including the snake oil salesman Allister surrounding the discovery of an arsenal of weapons and ammunition that were most likely to be used to murder innocent Catholics in order to blackmail the nationalist population to accept Orange parades through nationalist areas. Either that or the joint chiefs of staff of Unionism/loyalism are playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship in order to give the illusion that they are prepared for the scorched earth policy when it comes to protecting the British identity and loyalist culture in Ireland.

    So will we hear in another few years that these weapons were supplied by British intelligence or that some bad apples in MI5 up in Hollywood turned a blind eye when their agent provocateurs changed tactics from agitating flag protests to instigating murder attempts.

  • Charles_Gould

    Quintin

    I mentioned your comments/discussion above and found I share your views.

    But one thing I didn’t understand was your comments on work on “a human rights approach to flags and space”.

    Perhaps you would like to explain for me….which work is this and what does the approach imply?

    Best, CG.

  • Charles_Gould

    Mick

    There’s lot of “Tunbridge Wells” type angry ranting that goes on here.

    I was wondering is there anything you can do moderation-wise to remove those hot-under-the-collar posts, so that posts are less aggressive?

  • cynic2

    Why pick on the poor old DUPS. SF will be doing the same thing and the rest don’t matter

  • tacapall

    Listen to yer man who wants posts censored because he doesn’t like being reminded of the truth, open your eyes, its not something that hasn’t already happened in the past and its not only happening in Ireland.

  • Bishops Finger

    Mick Fealty

    FDM,
    “the DUP cannot be trusted to deliver on anything…”

    Evidence?
    —————-
    A truly remarkable post.

  • tacapall

    Here’s a bit of truth for you Charles

    “Perfidious Albion”- the View of the U.S. National Security Archive”

    “In paragraphs which will surely raise questions as to possible ongoing current misleadings about Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria, the document states: “The United Kingdom sought to expunge ‘very embarrassing’ information about its role in the 1953 coup in Iran from the official U.S. history of the period, British documents confirm. The Foreign Office feared that a planned State Department publication would undermine U.K. standing in Iran …” The cynic might ask: What standing?

    The cynic might ask here what creditability does Richard Haass have when it comes to human rights.

  • Charles_Gould

    Thanks Quintin. It’s a start. I quite liked what Robin Wilson had to say on Victims, Truth, The Past., etc.

    On parades, I have an instinct towards greater regulation of conduct, with fines to individual people or bands who misbehave. That way the paraders have the right to expression, but those aspects that can reasonably seen as offensive are prohibited and fined.

  • People need to understand that Haass is not coming to provide solutions. He will be here as a mediator. The final report and recommendations need to be approved and signed by, at least, the FM & DFM.
    No more wiggling and saying, for example, that the OO, for example, don’t agree with the recommendations so there is no deal.

  • FDM

    I think it is Fealty time as they say.
    Any chance?

  • Comrade Stalin

    AYM,

    Not surprised Comrade Stalin has no problems with the glorification of murderers at the top,

    According to Peter Robinson the Maze project was not about the glorification of murders, and that is not why he withdrew his support from it.

    Try to keep up.

  • John Ó Néill

    Even aside from the very public flip-flop over the Peace Centre (and the irony that unionist fear the stories a Peace Centre might tell), there is a long history of unionists and the Orders agreeing to engage once they walk some particular stretch of road then walking away only to come back the next year as if it never happened. You can find that story pretty much every summer (eg see background to Twaddell return parade this year).

    So to rephrase FDMs question, where is there evidence that unionists and the Orders have any bona fides here (and by extension, what point is there to talking to them if any deal isn’t a deal)? The only workable grounds for Haass to proceed is to identify an imposed solution that will be the default result. In that regard, this is going off half-cocked unless the default position exists (and outlined in Cardiff, maybe) and isn’t being made public.

  • Neil

    This is why in spite of some protestations to the contrary the DUP have shot themselves in the foot by pandering to the other Unioinist parties. Some people try to spin the situation as the DUP following the will of the people, which it may be, but that ignores the fact that they in future need the Shinners agreement to get anything done, and they cannot be trusted to keep their end of any bargain. Their good word means nothing, they can’t be trusted to deliver. So yeah, I’d send Haass on his merry way, the PC is working fine for me, Ardoyne parade’s cancelled next year, and demographics will deliver what I want anyway. Keep her lit Unionism, get used to seeing your flag being restricted to your ‘sad little ghettos’ to use a Unionist turn of phrase. 🙂

  • cynic2

    “pandering to the other Unioinist parties”

    a very odd analysis

    “the PC is working fine for me”

    Yes but one day you have to come to terms with the fact that the OO exists just as they have to come to terms with you. Sad innit but you both cannot live in your wee bubbles for ever

  • cynic2

    ” Evidence that the DUP cannot be trusted to deliver anything post Haass?”

    1 the are the DUP

    2 they are politicians (sort of)

    DO we need to go further?

  • FDM

    cynic2 27 August 2013 at 11:36 am

    “one day you have to come to terms with the fact that the OO exists”
    ———————

    Indeed and if it was on my terms that would be the day they were made a proscribed organisation, membership of which being a criminal offence with a minimal 3 month jail term attached.

    They offer nothing to society except disunity, violence, economic harm and disruption to transport.

    The 2% tip of the tail of society wagging the dog.

    Proscribe them and consign them to history where they belong.

  • Richard Haass: U.S. is going to take military action against Syria

    “You’re probably looking at sea launch cruise missile, probably some airborne cruise missiles, but something along those lines I think would be the most natural sort of response for the United States to launch at this point,” Haass said

    Should folks in Damascus Street (or Palestine Street) in the Holylands in downtown Belfast be concerned? A small glitch in the control system …

  • Neil

    Yes cynic I will. Just as soon as they’re represented by someone with the balls to make and stick to a deal we can start negotiating. Right now we can expect the DUP to make a deal, wait for the Shinners to fulfil their end of the deal then welch on the deal. Thanks, but no thanks.

  • streetlegal

    The DUP strategy is simply to not to make any further agreements with Sinn Fein on the ‘shared future’ agenda. In other words the DUP will talk and talk, but hold the sectarian line. In this they hope to firm up unionist cohesion and thereby maintain their own electoral base. Current British Intelligence reports point up the increasing likelihood that this DUP strategy will ultimately result in the collapse of the Stormont Assembly early in 2014.

  • BarneyT

    Whilst I understand Alex KAnes point, and I feel the frustration, there is no scope for failure. If he does conclude he has nothing to fix or broker, then we’re in serious trouble. Walking away is not an option.

    The reality is that anyone that aims to engage will have a particular view already, and I would expect, London and Dublin will have informed this to some extent.

    Noone is siezing the high moral ground on this flag\identity issue, and whilst each side nausiatingly accuses the the other side of lacking leadership, the nationalists and loyalists effectively justify the respective actions with replica reactions (I cite the internment pallet pyre adorned in loyalist regalia).

    Loyalism is very much married to a plethora of symbols, icons and slogans and from what I can see nationalism is now not far behind. I think the nationalists have time to turn back from this ugliness (just) however loyalism is steeped in it so they will have much more ground to cover than nationalists on this matter.

    An extreme measure is required now. Both Dublin and London as the preceived and actual custodians of the respective traditions, symbols and cultures need to rule on the use and abuse of their symbols, making it resepctively, unIrish and unBritish to continue to conduct ourselves in the present manner. The President and British Queen need to step up.

    Worth a try, but I suspect none of us over hear can be lessoned in the way the US citizens can be compromised by the phrase, unAmerican.

  • Charles_Gould

    “Current British Intelligence reports point up …”

    Do you have a link for that 🙂

  • Comrade Stalin

    Intelligence reports ? bollocks more like.

  • Cynic2[11.38] ‘Do we need to go further?’
    Er….NO. You’ve covered all the ground. Why shouldn’t SF or SDLP effectively end the DUP in any position of power by saying Robinson ensured by welshing on deal, they can’t be reasoned wiith or trusted again. finito.

  • FDM

    danielsmoran (profile)

    28 August 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Cynic2[11.38] ‘Do we need to go further?’
    Er….NO. You’ve covered all the ground. Why shouldn’t SF or SDLP effectively end the DUP in any position of power by saying Robinson ensured by welshing on deal, they can’t be reasoned wiith or trusted again. finito.

    ————————-

    Which would basically be my opening message looking Haass and the DUP straight across the table.

    I think to say that they have proven that they cannot be trusted to deliver any deal is fair. Additionally I would ask who are we actually negotiating with? Is it the DUP or the extreme loyalists they are letting dictate policy to them?

    How can Haass be a success with the DUP setting the scene with a U-turn integrity failure that holes the GFA below the waterline?

    You reap what you sow, you have heard this, no?

  • FDM[5.45] They will be reaping what Robinson has sowed. Another the DUP and OO should be forced to address, [and always asked together]is do they think it was ok for Germans to march through Polish towns and villages to gloat over their occupation of Polish land, and if not, why is it ok for the OO to do the same? See how long they wait for an answer to that. The upcoming elections will ensure failure for talks and Haaass should tell the parties to their faces that they’re wasting his time, then make his escape from here for good.

  • 241934 john brennan

    When we voted for the GFA, were we not aspiring to attain the highest possible ideal, i.e. as John Hume put it: ‘learning to trust each other by working together for the common good’?
    After Richard Haass listens to everyone, is it not likely that he will produce a blueprint that represents only the lowest common denominator – Peace in our time? But that would not be the inspirational plan needed to motivate people to respect diversity, while working our common ground together.

  • Comrade Stalin

    I commented before, I’m not sure what people are expecting Haass to bring to the table other than a fresh perspective, and I don’t think that is going to be enough.

    The difference here compared with the GFA talks or the St Andrew’s talks was the motivation being supplied by the British government. Agreement was sealed because, to paraphrase Michael Corleone, Tony Blair assured the participants that either their brains or their signature would be on the document. This time there is no such inducement for securing a deal.

  • Reader

    danielsmoran: Another the DUP and OO should be forced to address, [and always asked together]is do they think it was ok for Germans to march through Polish towns and villages to gloat over their occupation of Polish land, and if not, why is it ok for the OO to do the same?
    The Germans should march in the country in which they were born. As should the Orangemen.
    You may be a teeny bit off message characterising unionists as an army of occupation in the 21st century.

  • Reader[8.58] They did become an ‘army of occupation’ four hundred years ago and up until they were planted here, their ancestors were the population of the prisons in Britain whose criminal tendencies would have seen them sent to Australia had they been alive 200 years later, instead they showed their criminal selves by stealing the lands here.

  • Kevsterino

    @FDM, when Robinson wrote that letter, I remember commenting that unless he can establish that the thugs on the street had nothing to do with his decision, his leadership would eventually fail. It is simply not tenable, long term, to be in a responsible position and be dictated to by rabble.

    Now, the deal he made over the Maze has been not permanently revoked, but is on-hold pending ‘consensus’. He puts the building of that consensus entirely on the head of Sinn Fein. I don’t think that position can hold water, either.

    Haass will face as his first task as seeing if he has reliable negotiators across the table. Robinson’s flip-flop on the MLK site puts him at a disadvantage before a word is spoken.

    Too much time in the Floridian sun, I imagine. Who the hell goes to Florida in August, anyway? Crazy…

  • Kev,

    Mad dogs and englishmen Britishmen.

  • Reader

    danielsmoran: Reader[8.58] They did become an ‘army of occupation’ four hundred years ago and up until they were planted here, their ancestors were the population of the prisons in Britain whose criminal tendencies would have seen them sent to Australia had they been alive 200 years later, instead they showed their criminal selves by stealing the lands here.
    So, 200 years better than Australians then? And I wonder how long the Haass family has been living on the US continent? As long as the Kennedys perhaps. So if you have plans for rhetorical digs at settlers you really need to choose your audience wisely. Someone with ancestors who have been stationary for hundreds of years, Someone who doesn’t know that the Irish have also settled widely across the English speaking world while thoroughly disapproving of the English speaking world. (Good trick)

  • Kevsterino

    @Reader, of course, the Haass’s (sp?) didn’t move to America to claim it as German soil and rule over it as Germans. They came here to be Americans.

    Not so with Northern Ireland. Or am I missing something?

  • Reader[9.58]You neeed to differentiate between settling and occupation by force. Not hard to see the difference??????

  • Kevsterino[10.29]You had already made the point for me by posting earlier. Settling in another’s land and taking it by force. The difference? Reader conveniently chooses to fail to see.

  • “Kevsterino[10.29]You had already made the point for me by posting earlier. Settling in another’s land and taking it by force. The difference? Reader conveniently chooses to fail to see.”

    @danielsmoran/kevsterino,

    Haass’s ancestors would have been guilty of immigrating to another country on the basis of those who took it by force. Is that really that much different from those Irish who settled in British colonies such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa? Or from those Scots who settled in Ulaid? After all, there is one theory that many of the lowland Scots are descended from Picts who were driven out of Ireland by the Gaels. If this is true, than the issue of who are the settlers and who are the natives gets much murkier.

  • Kevsterino

    After the Revolution, Mitch, everybody who immigrated to this country came in anticipation of being an equal citizen of this American republic. An American.

    That America was previously taken by force is not relevant to that point.

    Those of the ‘house of Haass’ were not here to claim it for a foreign power and maintain it as part of a German empire, claiming privileged status for themselves based on their being Germans.

    That makes it different. To me, anyway.

  • Rory Carr

    I notice from his Twitterring on the subject of Syria that Mr Haass argues for the concept of legitimacy in the absence of legality when opting for US military action against a sovereign nation, Syria, with whom the US is not at war.

    This “legitimacy” insofar as I can make out is more or less a Humpty Dumpty catch-phrase for whatever the US president decides on military action whether or not the United Nations, or indeed the US Senate agrees.

    Still, quite apart from his earlier sojourns to these shores, this stance ought allow him to feel at home with the protagonists in both communities – Republicans, who can claim “legitimacy” if not legality, for their military campaign and Fleggers, Orangemen and Loyalists who claim “legitimacy” if not legality for their breach of Parades Commission rulings and other venalities.

    And just think afterwards when he has solved our little problem he can hop back home and apply his skills to the internicene warfare between the Crips and the Bloods in Los Angeles and other US cities.

    …hang on a minute ! Why hasn’t the US with all its wonderful negotiating skills and powers of enforcement not already made any headway with its own gang problems ? Couldn’t be that they prefer it that way ? That it keeps the Blacks and Hispanics too busy shooting each other in the ghetto and killing themselves with DEA supplied hard drugs to think about the reality of their lives and to organise against their oppression ?

  • tacapall

    “. Is that really that much different from those Irish who settled in British colonies such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa”

    tmitch. Have you got selective memory or are you deliberately omitting the reality that the majority of those early Irish settlers to those countries were in fact kidnapped and sold by slaves by those respected British establishment type Cameron and Hurd families.

    The Picts were certainly not driven out of Ireland there is some debate that they were in fact early Irish invaders, who were then followed by the Gaels just like Wales and the Isle of Man and indeed some parts of England. In fact most people from Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man and Ireland share the same genetic make up, we are from the same tribe, we simply differ in opinion on who should determine our destiny, hence republicanism rejecting the idea of a monarchical ideology. Republicans have no religious disputes or objections with those who wish to wrap themselves up in a red white and blue piece of coloured cloth anymore than they have any religious differences or objections to those who wrap themselves up in a green white and yellow tricolour. But no-one can deny that those Cameron and Hurd type parasite families in the 1600s financed the plantation of Ulster with religious zealots and at the same time lobbied and financed the round up of Irish people, men, women and children to be the cannon fodder and work mules for their colonisation of not only America but all those countries you mentioned above. Not at all like the freely determined immigration you portray but then again a British persons interpretation of history concerning the relationship between slavery and immigration and the blurred lines that you paint between democracy and oppression is not new news to most people who actually know a little about Irish history.

  • tacapall

    Of course thats “sold as slaves” typo error.

  • Reader

    Kevsterino: @Reader, of course, the Haass’s (sp?) didn’t move to America to claim it as German soil and rule over it as Germans. They came here to be Americans.
    Not so with Northern Ireland. Or am I missing something?

    I’m Irish. I vote, but not the way you would, perhaps.
    I doubt the Haass family moved to America with the intention of living under Native American rule, or asking their permission. As a further guess, they probably felt the land was seriously underpopulated given modern agricultural methods, and represented both a refuge and an opportunity.

  • Son of Strongbow

    “everyone who emigrated to this country came in anticipation of being an equal citizen of this American republic. An American.”

    The Yankee invaders were not invited to America by the Americans. They came and systematically slaughtered the Americans consigning the remaining survivors to ‘reservations’.

    Many of the ‘freedom-loving’ Irish were more than happy to take their place in the Yankee military machine, so sweetly portrayed by the likes of John Ford on celluloid, as it cut a swathe through the Native American peoples.

    To this day Native Americans suffer disproportionately across all social indices from employment to health. Similarly the indigenous peoples of Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere suffer the same social ills whilst the white ‘planters’, Irish included, have prospered at their expense.

    If the Irish incomers had really believed in their croppie rhetoric they would have stood with the indigenous Americans at Wounded Knee and elsewhere rather than pouring their gunfire onto men, women and children.

    Those who arrived later were aware that they came to take the their bounty from ‘stolen’ land.

    So if Irish nationalists are intent on reordering the sins of the fathers Northern Ireland unionists will be very small beer as the ‘colonies’ of North and South America etc are emptied out and the interlopers are returned to Europe.

    The Yankee administration could make a start and establish its bonafides by handing back Páha Sápa to the Lakota.

  • Reader

    danielsmoran: Reader[9.58]You neeed to differentiate between settling and occupation by force. Not hard to see the difference??????
    When were the great days of Irish immigration into the North American continent? And when did the “American Indian Wars” finally end:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
    But then, perhaps you think the Irish planters did not play their part in the violence used to seize territory and control.
    Pacifist Exploitation, maybe?

  • tacapall

    SOS maybe you should read up on some real world history rather than wikipedia or John Wayne films or the British propaganda regurgitated to the ignorant masses. Who do you actually believe first colonised America and made slavery a central spigot in the then explosion of capitalism, who do you believe laid the foundations for the colonisation and murder of the indigenous population. The financiers that made a commoner into a prince the bold William of Orange and those that peddled the so called glorious revolution lie with bible in one hand and sword in the other were the parasites that just like the Orange order do to those neanderthal types who can scratch their ankles while standing have attempted to pull the wool over the peoples eyes for hundreds of years.

  • Kevsterino

    We can probably put together a long and revealing discussion regarding the Indian Wars, but I’m afraid we need another thread for that. But if you’re looking for a difference between what happened to Native Americans and the Native Irish, I have yet to see a marching band parade through an Indian reservation by “Sons of the Conquerors”. ;o)

  • Son of Strongbow

    tacapall ,

    Sorry, I’ve forsworn whataboutery as pedalled by a collusionist delusionist such as you dear boy.

  • tacapall

    Great rebuttal SOS.

  • Reader

    Kevsterino: But if you’re looking for a difference between what happened to Native Americans and the Native Irish, I have yet to see a marching band parade through an Indian reservation by “Sons of the Conquerors”. ;o)
    I suppose that means you are equating Castlederg with a Native American Reservation? Very funny.
    Very well then – what percentage of the land area of Ireland counts as a reservation? And how about the land area of the USA? And then compare the quality of life.

  • FDM

    Son of Strongbow 30 August 2013 at 5:10 pm

    “Sorry, I’ve forsworn whataboutery as pedalled by a collusionist delusionist such as you dear boy.”

    —————–

    You find pedals on bikes. “Peddled” however…

    Tacapall’s point didn’t seem very WHATABOUT to me and he didn’t mention anything in the two wheels department that I can see.

    I am now away to flagellate myself. I feel dirty but in a nice way.

  • Reader

    tacapall: Great rebuttal SOS.
    It was though – the suggestion that Irish settlers bear no responsibility for their own actions because of things that British settlers did 100 years before is whataboutery on an epic scale.
    Or it could be that the poor and the desperate have, throughout human history, taken whatever opportunities they could to get a bit of land and feed their family. And that the land wasn’t always easily won.

  • FDM

    Reader (profile)

    30 August 2013 at 6:51 pm

    tacapall: Great rebuttal SOS.
    It was though
    ——————

    Was it though? How won the bike race then?

    Pedals away at speed…

  • tacapall

    Reader that great rebuttal does not change the facts of history and your whataboutery on an epic scale is laughable when you consider the fact that those slave traders you support called corporate UK have learned nothing nor changed their mindsets about exploiting other human beings nor changed their tactic of using the ignorant masses as cannon fodder to keep their fiefdom intact.

    Of course those early settlers after they were mated with the African natives who were also kidnapped and forced to “Emigrate” to the new world ended up as getting either trained as house slaves or used as target practice for those protestant religious zealots who with bible in one hand and sword in the other, in order to teach the African slaves a lesson when they didn’t do what they were told, used Irish slaves who were valued less than black people, as human targets for their inhumane and barbaric forms of punishment but most likely enjoyment.

    Of course over the centuries things changed and slavery was abolished and the Camerons and Hurds were compensated by the British parliament for the loss of their income from slavery. A tidy sum was paid for those day that would run into 10s of millions now. Yes Irish people were also forced to emigrate through famine and oppression by foreigners in their own land and yes they did fight in various wars throughout the world, but they always seemed to be on the side of those who fought for freedom from colonialism or the native underdog. One things for sure they were not backed nor financed by the Irish government in whatever wars they were involved with in foreign lands.

  • Son of Strongbow

    UPC

    “How won the bike race then.”

    Seems the pedant has pedalled his pedantry peddling into the ditch.

  • tacapall

    Just for you SOS –

    http://www.sikharchives.com/?source=Patrick.net&p=8937

    They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

    Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

    We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? After all, we know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery?

    King James II and Charles I led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

    The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

    Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

    From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

    During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

    Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

    As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

    African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

    The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

    In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

    This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

    England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia.

    There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

    There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry.

    In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

    An interesting analysis of the mindset of a slave owner –

    http://loveforlife.com.au/content/08/02/16/willie-lynch-letter-making-slave-document-everyone-should-read-and-learn-how-evil-a

    Willie Lynch letter: The Making of a Slave – (A document that everyone should read and learn how evil and sick MAN can be)

    Willie Lynch letter: The Making of a Slave
    By FinalCall.com News
    Updated Aug 22, 2005, 01:05 am

    This speech was delivered by Willie Lynch on the bank of the James River in the colony of Virginia in 1712. Lynch was a British slave owner in the West Indies. He was invited to the colony of Virginia in 1712 to teach his methods to slave owners there. The term “lynching” is derived from his last name.

    [beginning of the Willie Lynch Letter]

    Greetings,

    Gentlemen. I greet you here on the bank of the James River in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twelve. First, I shall thank you, the gentlemen of the Colony of Virginia, for bringing me here. I am here to help you solve some of your problems with slaves.

    Your invitation reached me on my modest plantation in the West Indies, where I have experimented with some of the newest, and still the oldest, methods for control of slaves. Ancient Rome would envy us if my program is implemented. As our boat sailed south on the James River, named for our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we cherish, I saw enough to know that your problem is not unique. While Rome used cords of wood as crosses for standing human bodies along its highways in great numbers, you are here using the tree and the rope on occasions.

    I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree, a couple miles back. You are not only losing valuable stock by hangings, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the fields too long for maximum profit, you suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed. Gentlemen, you know what your problems are; I do not need to elaborate.

  • Reader

    tacapall: Yes Irish people were also forced to emigrate through famine and oppression by foreigners in their own land and yes they did fight in various wars throughout the world, but they always seemed to be on the side of those who fought for freedom from colonialism or the native underdog.
    Only two problems with your sweeping statement:
    1) Often, Irish mercenaries fought on both sides in a war. Perhaps they thought both sides were underdogs?
    2) They were definitely on the wrong side in the wars with the Native Americans, weren’t they?
    You also seem to have digressed to slavery. A vile institution, and there is almost no-one who will defend any instance of slavery here. But perhaps you can tell us how Saint Patrick reached Ireland?
    By the way, how did Willie Lynch know the term re-fueling in 1712?

  • tacapall

    Reader yes Im sure Irish people did fight on both sides in some wars but Im sure you can think of another reason other than implying the Irish race are somehow mercenaries maybe they were those Irish types who worked and were loyal to their masters these people, who invited them to become Irish –

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

    “A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe.

    The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British”

    ” They were definitely on the wrong side in the wars with the Native Americans, weren’t they”

    Im sure there were Irish descendants or those who would be classed as Irish involved in the cull of the native American Indians however you conveniently omit to explain whether they were WASP type Irish, planter stock, or Catholic Irish, those forced to emigrate or those Irish descendants from those early Irish kidnapped into slavery, who had no other choice and who by the way after being born in America for a few generations would be classed just like the planter stock called loyalism/unionism in Ireland now who can after a few generations claim to be Irish. So were they really Irish or native American themselves ?

    Your scraping the barrel with the St Patrick’s analogy, its doubtful he was a slave, in fact it was more like a tiger kidnapping, you know for ransom, they did that in them days too you know. In fact it looks like he was treated so well and loved Ireland and his captors so much that when he escaped he missed them and the country that he decided to come back of his own free will and live the rest of his life here. Great fairytale but you must do better if your going to give like for like.

    “By the way, how did Willie Lynch know the term re-fueling in 1712”

    Still doubting the truth of Britain’s role in turning slavery into a global money making corporation that you actually believe the word re-fueling describes planes re-fueling in mid air, sorry Reader but it also explains ships docking in foreign ports for re-fueling water, fresh fruit, food etc too. I suppose they didn’t want those heartless British sailors getting scurvy and all would they.

    Why dont you just stop digging holes for yourself and get a few history books not written with a British slant and even admit the rump of whats called the British establishment are whats left of the original masters of the slave trade who Willie Lynch was talking about in his letter, the Roman empire, remnants and descendants of the time Julius Caesar invaded England. The roman invaders who failed to take control of all of Britain because those mercenaries you call the Irish and the Picts fought together to keep them where they landed, England.

  • hurdy gurdy man

    Tacapall

    From that article you could easily get the impression that it was just the Irish who were sold as slaves. In fact this was a fate suffered by people – paupers, vagrants, orphans and convicts – from throughout the British Isles.

    London’s street-urchin problem, for example, was dealt with by rounding up the kids and shipping them off to Virginia where they would eke out the remainder of their usually short lives in back-breaking servitude. Thousands of them suffered this fate.

  • tacapall

    Hurdy I am aware of that fact and yes the article is just about Irish slaves that’s because its an article about the Irish race. Im sure if you do a search of the same site you would find something about those poor souls from the cities and countrysides of Scotland, Wales and England who suffered the same fate as those poor Irish souls, viewed as useful monkeys to exploit and worked to death by those inner city London bankers and investors except not in the same numbers as the Irish but I do accept the fact that it wasn’t only confined to Irish people.

  • FDM

    SoS just glad tone of help.

    The more important point being that we simply don’t know whether you are selling something or giving us a ride on your bike?

    They are your words after all.

  • “but it also explains ships docking in foreign ports for re-fueling water, fresh fruit, food etc too. I suppose they didn’t want those heartless British sailors getting scurvy and all would they.”

    @tacapaill,

    Actually, the proper term for this is reprovisioning as the ships ran on wind power. Food, water, etc. were provisions.