On the twenty-eighth day of November....

[his holiness nb]

I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should deal with the here, now and future.  But it is easier for those to whom history has been kind/favourable/favoured to do so - that's what I take holiness's statement to mean. 

If that is Holiness'es explanation, then he is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

Missing your point?
I was making a point based on your comment EG.

[Evil Genius]

When I ascribed our recent/present problems in Ireland to "our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place" I made no distinction between those Irish people who are Unionist or those who are Nationalist. (I had hoped including "1690" alongside "1916" was a clue).

I know that EG, but by forgetting the past and dealing with the present as it is now, who does the current situation suit best, nationalists or unionists?
I'll give you a clue, NI is currently part of the "Union".
So my point that your thoughts on how things should be dealt with co-incides with the general unionist idea stands.

And it is currently part of the Union precisely because a majority of the people who live here want it to be so, as recognised by over 90% of the people of this island, North and South, Unionist and Nationalist (theGFA, in case you'd forgotten). The fact that it was originally part of the Union due to the actions of people who died centuries ago is neither here nor there - it doesn't give me the right to discriminate against those who disagree today, nor does it allow those who disagree to ignore the rights of the majority. By exactly the same token, should a majority of the people of NI ever decide that they wish the Union to end, there can be no appeal by aggrieved Unionists to history (for example, to re-draw the border around 4 counties, instead of the six which were selected in the historical precedent of 1921)

My contention was that entirely irrespective of our History, with all its conflicting interpretations, "In the end, the land belongs to the people who llive on it and its destiny should be decided by those self-same people, between themselves. And to do so, all must take responsibility for their own actions when they go wrong, as well as expecting recognition for when they turn out right"
Do you disagree with that? If so, I'd be interested to hear why. In particular, I'd like to know why an Irish Nationalist would take greater exception than someone of a different political affinity (or none).

I dont disagree with that at all. And am very curious as to how you got the inclination I did from my last post   But some would argue that the land does not belong to the people who live on it at all, but instead belongs to Britain. A seperate land to many on this land of Ireland.

"Some would argue" - and some would be wrong, since there is no place for "whataboutery" or irrelevance in my thesis. Try again.

As you know EG, its not as black and white as you might like to think, otherwise things would have been sorted out a long long time ago.

I never said that the present day problems which fall to be resolved by our present day politicians are "black and white". But they will be a hell of a sight less (intractably) grey if we stop harping on about grievances from the past which weren't even suffered by us. Or haven't we all got enough grievances from the here-and-now to be going on with?  

[Evil Genius]

I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should deal with the here, now and future.  But it is easier for those to whom history has been kind/favourable/favoured to do so - that's what I take holiness's statement to mean. 

If that is Holiness'es explanation, then he is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

Missing your point?
I was making a point based on your comment EG.

(Assuming that Billy has correctly characterised your point), I simply don't care if you consider that your ancestors may have been hard done by by mine. They (my ancestors) are not my responsibility. Otherwise, if we are all to be held to account for the words and deeds of people long-dead, the logical conclusion must be that if my great-great-great grandfather threw your great-great-grandfather off his land, then that must give you the right to turn round and evict me. And I'll be fucked if I'm going to stand for that, nor I suggest, should you, since none of us knows what skeletons might be found in our cupboards if a strong enough light were shone inside.

We are were we are. Deal with it.

[MW]

The IRA had claimed a moral right to fight against both occupation and oppression. Afair a mandate from the majority was never a claim nor a requirement. Has it ever been a requirement in our history? I don´t think so.

This "occupation" of which you speak - do you mean the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom?

In this context the occupation is referring to the British Army occupation.

When did this "occupation" begin? And when did it end?

Those who were prominent in the Provisional republican movement accepted that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom until a majority say otherwise. The British Army is of course the army of the United Kingdom. And the majority of people in Northern Ireland are British.

[Donagh]

Those who were prominent in the Provisional republican movement accepted that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom until a majority say otherwise. The British Army is of course the army of the United Kingdom. And the majority of people in Northern Ireland are British.

I think you'll find that no representatives of "the Provisional republican movement" signed the GFA nor was were the articles within officially endorsed by "the Provisional republican movement". What happened was that SF suggested to the rest of the "the Provisional republican movement" that, for now, it presented the best way forward toward their common goals. So, you are incorrect in your assertion that members of the republican movement have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland statlet or it's position in the UK.

[scalder]

Ok so going back to the French example, if the Germans had only partially withdrawn from France in 1945 but held onto part of it.  This area was as part of their Lebensraum policy settled with people from Germany. These settlers now outnumbered the indigenous population and they claimed the right to be part of Germany.

Would this have been deemed acceptable? Would that that they achieved supremacy in the area by displacing, slaughtering and starving the original inhabitants ok?

[Main Street]

When did this "occupation" begin? And when did it end?

Are you asking me?
What the feck do you think, I spend my time answering questions ad infinitum.
Go do some reading, get an encyclopedia, use the internet.

[his holiness nb]

And it is currently part of the Union precisely because a majority of the people who live here want it to be so, as recognised by over 90% of the people of this island, North and South, Unionist and Nationalist (theGFA, in case you'd forgotten).

In case I'd forgotten?? No need to be a smart arse EG.
Also, 90% of people on this island voted for the GFA, many of whom saw it as the best way to eventually achieve a United Ireland.
90% of people did not WANT it to be part of the Union, there really werent many other options given.

"Some would argue" - and some would be wrong, since there is no place for "whataboutery" or irrelevance in my thesis. Try again.

Try what again? And what the hell is that statement even meant to mean?

I never said that the present day problems which fall to be resolved by our present day politicians are "black and white".

I never said you did  

But they will be a hell of a sight less (intractably) grey if we stop harping on about grievances from the past which weren't even suffered by us. Or haven't we all got enough grievances from the here-and-now to be going on with?  

We need to be very clear about the difference between "harping on" and remembering the past.
Its crucial that we remember whats gone before at this stage, lest we make the same mistakes again.
This means remembering right back to the arrival of the British in Ireland. I'm not saying this should be the only thing taken into account by any means, but history cannot be forgotten and must always be taken into account.

[Chrisowc]

Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

[Billys Boots]

he is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

I don't think I am.  I was just pointing out that (my interpretation of holiness's statement was) that it was easier for those to/for whom history had 'been good' to deal with the here, now and future under existing conditions than those to whom history had not been as kind.  I might call it disillusionment, you might call it mopery.  

[his holiness nb]

I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should deal with the here, now and future.  But it is easier for those to whom history has been kind/favourable/favoured to do so - that's what I take holiness's statement to mean. 

If that is Holiness'es explanation, then he is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

Missing your point?
I was making a point based on your comment EG.

(Assuming that Billy has correctly characterised your point), I simply don't care if you consider that your ancestors may have been hard done by by mine. They (my ancestors) are not my responsibility. Otherwise, if we are all to be held to account for the words and deeds of people long-dead, the logical conclusion must be that if my great-great-great grandfather threw your great-great-grandfather off his land, then that must give you the right to turn round and evict me. And I'll be fucked if I'm going to stand for that, nor I suggest, should you, since none of us knows what skeletons might be found in our cupboards if a strong enough light were shone inside.

We are were we are. Deal with it.

You got a whole lot of presumptions from me posting   "EG, not having a go here, but given that you are a Northern Unionist, and given the current status of Northern Ireland, the above is not a bit surprising.
Its one "sides" standard viewpoint on the situation.
Its obvious too that Nationalists would disagree with this viewpoint"

All of a sudden I am saying you should personally be held accountable for the actions of your ancestors?
My point was we shouldnt forget the past, no more, no less  

[behind the wire]

Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

so is Britain's occupation of Ireland.

[his holiness nb]

he is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

I don't think I am.  I was just pointing out that (my interpretation of holiness's statement was) that it was easier for those to/for whom history had 'been good' to deal with the here, now and future under existing conditions than those to whom history had not been as kind.  I might call it disillusionment, you might call it mopery.  

That was my point alright Billy. No more, although its been twisted into a whole lot more 
Time to throw the towel in and get out of this one, I didnt bring a packed lunch 

[Chrisowc]

Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

so is Britain's occupation of Ireland.

How?

[lynchbhoy]

Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

so is Britain's occupation of Ireland.

How?

apache ?