A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.

Started by winghalfback, May 27, 2015, 03:16:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

smelmoth

Quote from: Rossfan on January 23, 2016, 04:32:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 22, 2016, 12:00:22 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 21, 2016, 11:06:37 AM
A toughjob on your hands there General.
Their way of dealing with other cultures to date has been burning them out!

Who is the their in that sentence?
Unionists/ " Ulster British"/ "Loyalists"/ or whatever you want to call them or they want to call themselves.

And is "burning out" the typical reaction of an average unionist to another culture?

Any examples of "burning out" or similar by republicans?
Any news reportsI've seen were about Poles, Lithuanians and black sskinned foreigners being burnt out if LoyalistUnionist areas. I haven't seen or heard of anything similar in the Nationalist areas. Obviously Nationalist community able to handle other cultures better.

There could be 2 explanations for that:
1) there is right wing, facist streak to loyalist paramilitary organisations and they are behind the attacks or let it be known they will tolerate this.
2) imigrant populations in urban areas disproportionately tend towards protestant residential areas.

I think its likely to be 1). But it would be entirely wrong to use that as an insight into unionists as a whole

smelmoth

Quote from: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 23, 2016, 03:56:33 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 23, 2016, 08:41:54 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on January 21, 2016, 09:56:13 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 20, 2016, 12:10:00 PM
Apples beat me to it. A unionist in that council area has now come out and said Dungiven is no-go area for Protestants. Whether that statement holds any validity is neither here nor there, the mask has slipped in that the planned development for a new leisure centre was blocked for motives other than "costs"

Neither here nor there?  Shocking stuff
Read back a few pages

What post are you directing me to that supports a claim that it is "neither here nor there" whether an area of NI is a no-go area for one section of the community?
When I said neither here nor there, I was referring to the fact that community relations should not impact on community need.

Would you (for example) suggest that the Shankill (or Falls) be relieved of facilities because many people there have to be fenced off from "themmuns"? I don't see what is shocking about any of that.

And when I said read back I was referring to posts regarding the OO who parade in Dungiven. So it would seem Dungiven isn't exactly the no go area it is made out to be - again irrelevant

I understand your position a bit now. I don't fully agree with it though.

If an area has a populations that is entirely constituted by one version of themmuns then it cannot be deprived of facilities.

If an area has some split to its population (as almost every area does) and it is not going to to serve all the community, as the majority version of themmuns will claim it as their own, then public funding might be better spent elsewhere. Omagh CBS got a lovely new 3G pitch  (the bees knees at the time) by inviting the local hockey club to train there and generate a cross community dimension to their funding application. It wasn't just a case that it could be used for hockey but evidence of real efforts to ensure it would be used for hockey. This sort of consideration has been around for years.

T Fearon

There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.

LCohen

Quote from: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 05:44:24 PM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.

Even a cursory glance of the site over the years would reveal a succession of posts and posters who interpret the worst excess of loyalism as a stereotype of unioinism. A delve into loyalisms or the followers of Jimbo Alistair and the like will reveal an equal and opposite example of this type of mentality being exhibited by the dyed-in-the-wool, blind to the world, ingornant, antediluvian, backward looking, backward thinking, backward dreamimg, backward tugging numpties that are vocal but unrepresentive of the state we are in or where we are trying to go. Vocal doesn't do it justice. They are very vocal but the noise they make and the dominance it holds over the news does not in any way mean that ordinary everyday people living in NI think or behave in a similar manner.

general_lee

Quote from: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 05:44:24 PM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.
There are morons on both sides that is a given.

The lowest of the low. I don't ever recall any equivalent to the Shankill Butchers or UDA Romper Rooms. Loyalism was a lot more confrontational and the overwhelming majority of killings were borne out of a sectarian hatred of Catholics. Not that Republicanism has not committed it's own fair share of atrocities, but if the sectarian hatred was equal on both sides then a lot, lot more innocent Protestant civilians would have died.

LCohen

#470
Quote from: general_lee on January 24, 2016, 09:46:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 05:44:24 PM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.
There are morons on both sides that is a given.

The lowest of the low. I don't ever recall any equivalent to the Shankill Butchers or UDA Romper Rooms. Loyalism was a lot more confrontational and the overwhelming majority of killings were borne out of a sectarian hatred of Catholics. Not that Republicanism has not committed it's own fair share of atrocities, but if the sectarian hatred was equal on both sides then a lot, lot more innocent Protestant civilians would have died.
What about the bombing campaigns? Using bombs as a weapon when targeting specific individuals seems to pay a regard to the people around them as something less than your equal. Look at the bombs in Shankill, Bangor, Teebane, Enniskillen, Brighton, Hyde Park, Mulloughmore, Aldershot, Guildford, Westminster or the M62 bus bomb. Repblicans will claim there was a target at the centre of those attacks but it is inescapable that the protestant or British people likely (and sadly actually) destroyed in that fall out were expendable and worth the consideration normally accorded to humans. And then there are the bombs with no specific target. Just plant a bomb that is likely to kill these expendable protestants or british civilians  - the bomb at the BBC, the Ealing bomb, Markethill, Manchester, London Docks, Newtownards, Bishopsgate, Warrington, the London Underground, Bangor, the Baltic Exchange, St Albans, Londond Victoria, the Stock Exchange, Harrods, Dunmurry, La Mon, the London Hilton, Claudy, Coleraine, Birmingham. A sad litany that shows scant record for these lesser mortals. And that doesnt even go into those days like bloody friday (of which there were many) when bombs where spread around like confetti on an individual day. Over 130 such bombs in "protestant areas"

And that is not to say that republicans were not capable of direct shootings where the victim's only crime was to be protestant or to be likely to be protestant.

T Fearon

Now we're into the familiar our thugs weren't as bad as their thugs argument😮

seafoid

Quote from: general_lee on January 24, 2016, 09:46:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 05:44:24 PM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.
There are morons on both sides that is a given.

The lowest of the low. I don't ever recall any equivalent to the Shankill Butchers or UDA Romper Rooms. Loyalism was a lot more confrontational and the overwhelming majority of killings were borne out of a sectarian hatred of Catholics. Not that Republicanism has not committed it's own fair share of atrocities, but if the sectarian hatred was equal on both sides then a lot, lot more innocent Protestant civilians would have died.
The killing of Margaret Wright 20 years later was also despicable. One of their own.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

LCohen

Quote from: seafoid on January 24, 2016, 02:45:33 PM
Quote from: general_lee on January 24, 2016, 09:46:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 23, 2016, 05:44:24 PM
There is another woeful trait here to tar one or other community in its entirety with the same brush,when excesses are committed by the lowest of the low on either side.
There are morons on both sides that is a given.

The lowest of the low. I don't ever recall any equivalent to the Shankill Butchers or UDA Romper Rooms. Loyalism was a lot more confrontational and the overwhelming majority of killings were borne out of a sectarian hatred of Catholics. Not that Republicanism has not committed it's own fair share of atrocities, but if the sectarian hatred was equal on both sides then a lot, lot more innocent Protestant civilians would have died.
The killing of Margaret Wright 20 years later was also despicable. One of their own.

A despicable killing. But not because she was "one of their own"

armaghniac

Quote from: T Fearon on January 24, 2016, 12:10:01 PM
Now we're into the familiar our thugs weren't as bad as their thugs argument😮

This isn't the point. The thugs are wrong in any case.

The point is that you have one set of mainstream parties promoting a sectarian 17th century colonisation project and another promoting a democratic society where people work with those around them regardless of their ethnic origins. What has happened is that people have sought to divert attention from the moral imbalance in this situation by referring to carefully edited whataboutery of certain types of thuggery.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

LCohen

Quote from: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 03:57:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 24, 2016, 12:10:01 PM
Now we're into the familiar our thugs weren't as bad as their thugs argument😮

This isn't the point. The thugs are wrong in any case.
The point is that a sectarian murder is equally wrong where its a catholic or protestant that is murdered. And the murderes are equally to be condemned and legally pursued. Anybody equivocating on this point (which some on this site have done) has some sort of serious mental malfunction.

Quote from: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 03:57:38 PM
The point is that you have one set of mainstream parties promoting a sectarian 17th century colonisation project and another promoting a democratic society where people work with those around them regardless of their ethnic origins. What has happened is that people have sought to divert attention from the moral imbalance in this situation by referring to carefully edited whataboutery of certain types of thuggery.

Mainstream unionist politicians will advocate the union. So what?
It would be wrong to throw about accusations of whataboutery if you are going to label the union a "sectarian 17th century colonisation".  If someone feels British what relevance is the events of the 17t century? In Ulster there was a brtual bit effective plantation. This ultimately changes the demographic of the future and therefore the democracy of the 21st century. The relevance of the project originally being a colonisation is what exactly? And as for sectarian - are everyday unioinist more or less sectarian that everyday nationalists?

armaghniac

Quote from: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:32:18 PM
Mainstream unionist politicians will advocate the union. So what?
It would be wrong to throw about accusations of whataboutery if you are going to label the union a "sectarian 17th century colonisation".  If someone feels British what relevance is the events of the 17t century? In Ulster there was a brtual bit effective plantation. This ultimately changes the demographic of the future and therefore the democracy of the 21st century. The relevance of the project originally being a colonisation is what exactly?

It isn't right to colonise people for any period of time. It is even less right to carry on trying to do it for 400 years.

QuoteAnd as for sectarian - are everyday unioinist more or less sectarian that everyday nationalists?

Of course. Unionists wish to retain a sectarian entity, Northern Ireland, and Nationalists wish to remove it.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

LCohen

Quote from: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:32:18 PM
Mainstream unionist politicians will advocate the union. So what?
It would be wrong to throw about accusations of whataboutery if you are going to label the union a "sectarian 17th century colonisation".  If someone feels British what relevance is the events of the 17t century? In Ulster there was a brtual bit effective plantation. This ultimately changes the demographic of the future and therefore the democracy of the 21st century. The relevance of the project originally being a colonisation is what exactly?

It isn't right to colonise people for any period of time. It is even less right to carry on trying to do it for 400 years.
So what would you do with pro-union votes? GFA and all that?

Quote from: armaghniac on January 24, 2016, 04:38:40 PM
QuoteAnd as for sectarian - are everyday unioinist more or less sectarian that everyday nationalists?

Of course. Unionists wish to retain a sectarian entity, Northern Ireland, and Nationalists wish to remove it.
In what way is it sectarian today other than the sectarian attitudes of people on both sides?

You are confident that a UI in 1922 would have been less sectarian than partition?
You are confident that a UI now would be less sectarian th\n what we have now?

armaghniac

Quote from: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:49:00 PM
So what would you do with pro-union votes? GFA and all that?


Quote from: LCohen on January 24, 2016, 04:49:00 PM
You are confident that a UI in 1922 would have been less sectarian than partition?

Alternative history is always a bit tricky. From the start the unionists set out to wreck a UI rather than work to get a proper settlement for themselves within it, so they were committed to sectarianism all along.

Quote from: LCohenYou are confident that a UI now would be less sectarian th\n what we have now?

Yes, in the traditional sense. We'd probably get together and try to stop the place being taken over by Muslims.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

general_lee