Martin Mc Guinness Passes Away at 66

[Bazil Douglas]

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/martin-mcguinness-record-in-executive-cant-exorcise-the-ghosts-of-the-past-35321466.html

Great article that accurately outlines how McGuiness is and will be viewed outside hard nationalist circles (and SF AGMs, I guess) in the six counties.

The rush to lionise the nationalist answer to Ian Paisley here just because he's gone shows a serious lack of perspective. Like Paisley, he took the north deeper down the rabbit hole. Everyone would have been better off without both.

I can only surmise that those on here who are being disingenuous with their views on McGuinness, fall into two categories, they either are 40 and under in age or live in the south. Anyone of my generation and older will only too readily remember what it was like growing up in the Protestant state. I could what about all day on nationalist grievances, my experience in work and on the streets and the actions of our fellow countrymen. But I won't. Martin McGuinness got embroiled in the troubles and the IRA because of his experiences. The history is there go read it. In fact those of you who want to objectively view the northern state and the cause of the troubles should go read Bonfires on the Hillsides by James Kelly. The best history of the North to be written. I personally could never pick up arms, but many like McGuinness did so out of frustration and a sense injustice. Am I condoning the atrocities ... absolutely not, but they need to be viewed in context. The SDLP and John Hume great man as he is could not have delivered the GFA or the peace process with out the IRA's actions, Unionists simply would not have moved, if you believe otherwise then you are a fool. There was much done on both sides and we thankfully have moved beyond that. You don't have to like Martin mcGuinness to acknowledge his contribution in delivering the North to where we are now. He has continuously stretched himself and nationalism in attempts to reach accommodation with political unionism only to be thwarted by intransigence. Unlike some he has never denied his past or sought to hide behind red hats or shotgun licences.

A very constructive post that shows an understanding of the Northern situation.
On the other hand we have syferus being as articulate as Jolene Bunting.

[vallankumous]

It still isn't in the North.  Unfortunately we don't live in anything approaching a "normal" society.  Two points McGuinness made last night were significant.  1) When was the last time you heard the DUP talk about "reconciliation" and 2) the anecdote about attending the Euro soccer matches. - These show the way a huge swathe of Unionism regards Irishness.

That's nonsense. If that was the case there wouldn't be so much concern about normal things. Health, education, housing, social welfare are the main concerns of people in the north across all sections. These topics are of less importance on an online forum as there is no discussion in agreement. There is only discussion in argument online.
Corruption in the political system has brought it down. An election will bring it back up. This is normal.

Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism are normal. It's ok to be either as long as it's done peacefully. I've no time for Unionism, FG have no time for Nationalism, the Tories have no time for SCottish Nationalism and the BNP have only time for English nationalism. Normal.

[PW Nally]

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/martin-mcguinness-record-in-executive-cant-exorcise-the-ghosts-of-the-past-35321466.html

Great article that accurately outlines how McGuiness is and will be viewed outside hard nationalist circles (and SF AGMs, I guess) in the six counties.

The rush to lionise the nationalist answer to Ian Paisley here just because he's gone shows a serious lack of perspective. Like Paisley, he took the north deeper down the rabbit hole. Everyone would have been better off without both.

I can only surmise that those on here who are being disingenuous with their views on McGuinness, fall into two categories, they either are 40 and under in age or live in the south. Anyone of my generation and older will only too readily remember what it was like growing up in the Protestant state. I could what about all day on nationalist grievances, my experience in work and on the streets and the actions of our fellow countrymen. But I won't. Martin McGuinness got embroiled in the troubles and the IRA because of his experiences. The history is there go read it. In fact those of you who want to objectively view the northern state and the cause of the troubles should go read Bonfires on the Hillsides by James Kelly. The best history of the North to be written. I personally could never pick up arms, but many like McGuinness did so out of frustration and a sense injustice. Am I condoning the atrocities ... absolutely not, but they need to be viewed in context. The SDLP and John Hume great man as he is could not have delivered the GFA or the peace process with out the IRA's actions, Unionists simply would not have moved, if you believe otherwise then you are a fool. There was much done on both sides and we thankfully have moved beyond that. You don't have to like Martin mcGuinness to acknowledge his contribution in delivering the North to where we are now. He has continuously stretched himself and nationalism in attempts to reach accommodation with political unionism only to be thwarted by intransigence. Unlike some he has never denied his past or sought to hide behind red hats or shotgun licences.

A very constructive post that shows an understanding of the Northern situation.
On the other hand we have syferus being as articulate as Jolene Bunting.

Great post Applesisapples.

[seafoid]

Jolene Bunting would do great work in Ballaghaderreen

[OgraAnDun]

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/martin-mcguinness-record-in-executive-cant-exorcise-the-ghosts-of-the-past-35321466.html

Great article that accurately outlines how McGuiness is and will be viewed outside hard nationalist circles (and SF AGMs, I guess) in the six counties.

The rush to lionise the nationalist answer to Ian Paisley here just because he's gone shows a serious lack of perspective. Like Paisley, he took the north deeper down the rabbit hole. Everyone would have been better off without both.

I can only surmise that those on here who are being disingenuous with their views on McGuinness, fall into two categories, they either are 40 and under in age or live in the south. Anyone of my generation and older will only too readily remember what it was like growing up in the Protestant state. I could what about all day on nationalist grievances, my experience in work and on the streets and the actions of our fellow countrymen. But I won't. Martin McGuinness got embroiled in the troubles and the IRA because of his experiences. The history is there go read it. In fact those of you who want to objectively view the northern state and the cause of the troubles should go read Bonfires on the Hillsides by James Kelly. The best history of the North to be written. I personally could never pick up arms, but many like McGuinness did so out of frustration and a sense injustice. Am I condoning the atrocities ... absolutely not, but they need to be viewed in context. The SDLP and John Hume great man as he is could not have delivered the GFA or the peace process with out the IRA's actions, Unionists simply would not have moved, if you believe otherwise then you are a fool. There was much done on both sides and we thankfully have moved beyond that. You don't have to like Martin mcGuinness to acknowledge his contribution in delivering the North to where we are now. He has continuously stretched himself and nationalism in attempts to reach accommodation with political unionism only to be thwarted by intransigence. Unlike some he has never denied his past or sought to hide behind red hats or shotgun licences.

A very constructive post that shows an understanding of the Northern situation.
On the other hand we have syferus being as articulate as Jolene Bunting.

Great post Applesisapples.

I think that most under the age of 40 (or certainly 30) would lean towards SF, especially in the north.

[Lar Naparka]

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/martin-mcguinness-record-in-executive-cant-exorcise-the-ghosts-of-the-past-35321466.html

Great article that accurately outlines how McGuiness is and will be viewed outside hard nationalist circles (and SF AGMs, I guess) in the six counties.

The rush to lionise the nationalist answer to Ian Paisley here just because he's gone shows a serious lack of perspective. Like Paisley, he took the north deeper down the rabbit hole. Everyone would have been better off without both.

I can only surmise that those on here who are being disingenuous with their views on McGuinness, fall into two categories, they either are 40 and under in age or live in the south. Anyone of my generation and older will only too readily remember what it was like growing up in the Protestant state. I could what about all day on nationalist grievances, my experience in work and on the streets and the actions of our fellow countrymen. But I won't. Martin McGuinness got embroiled in the troubles and the IRA because of his experiences. The history is there go read it. In fact those of you who want to objectively view the northern state and the cause of the troubles should go read Bonfires on the Hillsides by James Kelly. The best history of the North to be written. I personally could never pick up arms, but many like McGuinness did so out of frustration and a sense injustice. Am I condoning the atrocities ... absolutely not, but they need to be viewed in context. The SDLP and John Hume great man as he is could not have delivered the GFA or the peace process with out the IRA's actions, Unionists simply would not have moved, if you believe otherwise then you are a fool. There was much done on both sides and we thankfully have moved beyond that. You don't have to like Martin mcGuinness to acknowledge his contribution in delivering the North to where we are now. He has continuously stretched himself and nationalism in attempts to reach accommodation with political unionism only to be thwarted by intransigence. Unlike some he has never denied his past or sought to hide behind red hats or shotgun licences.

A very constructive post that shows an understanding of the Northern situation.
On the other hand we have syferus being as articulate as Jolene Bunting.

Ah bejaysus, she can't be that bad. I never heard of her before now but if she's the daughter of Ronald Bunting, Paisley's lapdog, I'll owe poor syferus an apology.

[Applesisapples]

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/martin-mcguinness-record-in-executive-cant-exorcise-the-ghosts-of-the-past-35321466.html

Great article that accurately outlines how McGuiness is and will be viewed outside hard nationalist circles (and SF AGMs, I guess) in the six counties.

The rush to lionise the nationalist answer to Ian Paisley here just because he's gone shows a serious lack of perspective. Like Paisley, he took the north deeper down the rabbit hole. Everyone would have been better off without both.

I can only surmise that those on here who are being disingenuous with their views on McGuinness, fall into two categories, they either are 40 and under in age or live in the south. Anyone of my generation and older will only too readily remember what it was like growing up in the Protestant state. I could what about all day on nationalist grievances, my experience in work and on the streets and the actions of our fellow countrymen. But I won't. Martin McGuinness got embroiled in the troubles and the IRA because of his experiences. The history is there go read it. In fact those of you who want to objectively view the northern state and the cause of the troubles should go read Bonfires on the Hillsides by James Kelly. The best history of the North to be written. I personally could never pick up arms, but many like McGuinness did so out of frustration and a sense injustice. Am I condoning the atrocities ... absolutely not, but they need to be viewed in context. The SDLP and John Hume great man as he is could not have delivered the GFA or the peace process with out the IRA's actions, Unionists simply would not have moved, if you believe otherwise then you are a fool. There was much done on both sides and we thankfully have moved beyond that. You don't have to like Martin mcGuinness to acknowledge his contribution in delivering the North to where we are now. He has continuously stretched himself and nationalism in attempts to reach accommodation with political unionism only to be thwarted by intransigence. Unlike some he has never denied his past or sought to hide behind red hats or shotgun licences.

A very constructive post that shows an understanding of the Northern situation.
On the other hand we have syferus being as articulate as Jolene Bunting.

Great post Applesisapples.

I think that most under the age of 40 (or certainly 30) would lean towards SF, especially in the north.

That may be so but I am alluding to a lack of personal experience of the north in the 60's and 70's. My Dad god rest him related stories of how neighbours who were B Specials took great delight in abusing their powers as an auxiliary police force, neighbours mind you not strangers. Every July a home up until the late early '80's the OO transported their lambegs 3 miles from the hall to bate them outside the chapel. Times have changed but the trouble can't be viewed in isolation or from the comfort of todays catholic middle class. Those from the south quick with the condemnation easily forget the blood on the hands of many of the founding fathers of the southern state.I have also stopped short of accusing our southern fellow countrymen of abandoning us, as I don't think they had much option. But I do believe their is a suppressed guilt in the southern mindset that they did so and are some how responsible for the trouble, hence the fervour to heap it all (blame) onto SF and the IRA.

[Avondhu star]

Do the people in the North really believe that the South ever had the military capacity to enter and take over the six counties? It would have led to two events. 1. The British would have come back and whipped the souths arse 2. The loyalists would have reacted with a fetocity that would have led to civil war. The facts are that up to joining the EEC Ireland was a economically backward country entirely dependant on the British market. We could hardly feed ourselves and certainly could not finance a military operation aimed at taking over the six counties and holding a million unionists against their will.

[Hardy]

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/martin-mcguinness-record-in-executive-cant-exorcise-the-ghosts-of-the-past-35321466.html

Great article that accurately outlines how McGuiness is and will be viewed outside hard nationalist circles (and SF AGMs, I guess) in the six counties.

The rush to lionise the nationalist answer to Ian Paisley here just because he's gone shows a serious lack of perspective. Like Paisley, he took the north deeper down the rabbit hole. Everyone would have been better off without both.

I can only surmise that those on here who are being disingenuous with their views on McGuinness, fall into two categories, they either are 40 and under in age or live in the south. Anyone of my generation and older will only too readily remember what it was like growing up in the Protestant state. I could what about all day on nationalist grievances, my experience in work and on the streets and the actions of our fellow countrymen. But I won't. Martin McGuinness got embroiled in the troubles and the IRA because of his experiences. The history is there go read it. In fact those of you who want to objectively view the northern state and the cause of the troubles should go read Bonfires on the Hillsides by James Kelly. The best history of the North to be written. I personally could never pick up arms, but many like McGuinness did so out of frustration and a sense injustice. Am I condoning the atrocities ... absolutely not, but they need to be viewed in context. The SDLP and John Hume great man as he is could not have delivered the GFA or the peace process with out the IRA's actions, Unionists simply would not have moved, if you believe otherwise then you are a fool. There was much done on both sides and we thankfully have moved beyond that. You don't have to like Martin mcGuinness to acknowledge his contribution in delivering the North to where we are now. He has continuously stretched himself and nationalism in attempts to reach accommodation with political unionism only to be thwarted by intransigence. Unlike some he has never denied his past or sought to hide behind red hats or shotgun licences.

A very constructive post that shows an understanding of the Northern situation.
On the other hand we have syferus being as articulate as Jolene Bunting.

Great post Applesisapples.

I think that most under the age of 40 (or certainly 30) would lean towards SF, especially in the north.

That may be so but I am alluding to a lack of personal experience of the north in the 60's and 70's. My Dad god rest him related stories of how neighbours who were B Specials took great delight in abusing their powers as an auxiliary police force, neighbours mind you not strangers. Every July a home up until the late early '80's the OO transported their lambegs 3 miles from the hall to bate them outside the chapel. Times have changed but the trouble can't be viewed in isolation or from the comfort of todays catholic middle class. Those from the south quick with the condemnation easily forget the blood on the hands of many of the founding fathers of the southern state.I have also stopped short of accusing our southern fellow countrymen of abandoning us, as I don't think they had much option. But I do believe their is a suppressed guilt in the southern mindset that they did so and are some how responsible for the trouble, hence the fervour to heap it all (blame) onto SF and the IRA.

Balderpoppytwaddle

[seafoid]

The Southern media presented the north in a certain way for years in conjunction with the Irish govt. Shinners were not allowed to speak on telly. John Hume was beatified. Some outlets are worse than others. The Irish Independent is atrocious. Over the next 20 years there will be a clear nationalist majority in NI. And Sasana has just shot itself.

[lynchbhoy]

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/martin-mcguinness-record-in-executive-cant-exorcise-the-ghosts-of-the-past-35321466.html

Great article that accurately outlines how McGuiness is and will be viewed outside hard nationalist circles (and SF AGMs, I guess) in the six counties.

The rush to lionise the nationalist answer to Ian Paisley here just because he's gone shows a serious lack of perspective. Like Paisley, he took the north deeper down the rabbit hole. Everyone would have been better off without both.

I can only surmise that those on here who are being disingenuous with their views on McGuinness, fall into two categories, they either are 40 and under in age or live in the south. Anyone of my generation and older will only too readily remember what it was like growing up in the Protestant state. I could what about all day on nationalist grievances, my experience in work and on the streets and the actions of our fellow countrymen. But I won't. Martin McGuinness got embroiled in the troubles and the IRA because of his experiences. The history is there go read it. In fact those of you who want to objectively view the northern state and the cause of the troubles should go read Bonfires on the Hillsides by James Kelly. The best history of the North to be written. I personally could never pick up arms, but many like McGuinness did so out of frustration and a sense injustice. Am I condoning the atrocities ... absolutely not, but they need to be viewed in context. The SDLP and John Hume great man as he is could not have delivered the GFA or the peace process with out the IRA's actions, Unionists simply would not have moved, if you believe otherwise then you are a fool. There was much done on both sides and we thankfully have moved beyond that. You don't have to like Martin mcGuinness to acknowledge his contribution in delivering the North to where we are now. He has continuously stretched himself and nationalism in attempts to reach accommodation with political unionism only to be thwarted by intransigence. Unlike some he has never denied his past or sought to hide behind red hats or shotgun licences.

excellent post Applesisapples
spot on.

funny how I heard Mc Guinness refer to the old set up as the apartheid state !!!

no one seems to be whinging about the use of that phase anymore!!
but that's what it was!!

[Donagh]

Definitely no guilt, 25 years of Section 31 censorship and the Stickie takeover at Montrose granted them absolution.

[seafoid]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/21/northern-ireland-an-uncertain-peace

[foxcommander]

That may be so but I am alluding to a lack of personal experience of the north in the 60's and 70's. My Dad god rest him related stories of how neighbours who were B Specials took great delight in abusing their powers as an auxiliary police force, neighbours mind you not strangers. Every July a home up until the late early '80's the OO transported their lambegs 3 miles from the hall to bate them outside the chapel. Times have changed but the trouble can't be viewed in isolation or from the comfort of todays catholic middle class. Those from the south quick with the condemnation easily forget the blood on the hands of many of the founding fathers of the southern state.I have also stopped short of accusing our southern fellow countrymen of abandoning us, as I don't think they had much option. But I do believe their is a suppressed guilt in the southern mindset that they did so and are some how responsible for the trouble, hence the fervour to heap it all (blame) onto SF and the IRA.

I wouldn't. That's exactly what happened.

Northern Ireland might as well have been somewhere close to Papau New Guinea from the way freestaters used to talk about it.
You're bang on about the guilt though, it was the easier option for them to sacrifice their countrymen and pretend it wasn't happening.
It's why they were always very uncomfortable about talking about the north, just citing SF and the RA for being evil was the get-out clause every time, not the way they abdicated responsibility.

However it was disappointing that fellow GAA people held the same opinions.

[Il Bomber Destro]

However it was disappointing that fellow GAA people held the same opinions.

Ricey spoke well on this before.

"Northern people have probably been a bit paranoid down the years. The Northern mindset is complicated because the Troubles probably made a lot of people feel like you are out on your own. You do fend for yourself. You do fight your own corner. There'd be a bit of everyone that kind of goes, 'Well no one likes us. They think of us as different. They don't count us as Irish.'

Army checkpoints
"We would definitely have had this idea that people in the south didn't really understand where we were coming from.
"I remember as a wee boy going to the Ulster final in 1989 between Tyrone and Donegal. Clones from my house is maybe an hour's drive but in 1989, you'd be leaving the house at 10 o'clock in the morning because crossing the border meant police and army checkpoints that took two or three hours to go through. And the same again that evening, meaning you weren't home until 11 at night.
"People in the south probably didn't realise what a struggle it was for us to just get playing GAA on the same level as them.But that was part of what made us into the people we were and it feeds into the mindset of a lot of people in the North. Part of us would have been thinking that we fought just to get playing Gaelic games and then when we arrived down to the south, the people who were meant to be the same as us didn't seem to understand what we were about.
"It wasn't as though we were expecting a welcome mat laid out for us but it was strange to feel as though we were different in some way. After a while, you just go, 'Right, if that's the way they see us, fair enough'. There wasn't outright hostility but I suppose the more competitive the football got, the more hostile the whole scene got . . . . But that's just sport really."