Perhaps some of the most surprising observations come from people such as Baron Prior, who as James Prior was Margaret Thatcher's Northern secretary during the course of the 1981 hunger strikes, and also from Lord Tebbit, who was injured in the 1984 IRA Brighton bombing and whose wife was paralysed in the attack.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-bbc-documentary-asks-who-won-the-war-in-north-1.1942143
Militarily the provos probably edged this one, the Brits got a serious bloody nose
However the settlement is probably favours the Brits most or at least would be closest to their ultimate aims. IRA got something that was on the table back in the 70s anyway so the whole thing from their point of view never reached anything like their aims.
The Unionist got shafted as they went berserk at Sunningdale and it ended up getting implemented anyway.
The Brits ultimately wanted to get out of NI with the sovereignty of the UK in tact and they achieved that, although they have had to give up alot of garrisons.
"War"? What "war"? The British authorities NEVER referred it to as a war because by doing so they would've had to acknowledge the republicans as a legitimate combatant and then abide by the UN conventions. That is why it was called a "terrorist campaign". Maybe they are seeing the light after all!
None of the players ever wins civil wars.
Who won the Lebanese civil war? Dubai, who took over from Beirut as the regional financial centre.
Who won in the North? The place is still a mess.
Wars are a sign of deep dysfunction. It's like saying who won when x had cancer.
It ended in a kind of a "score draw". We then got an Agreement ( not a Settlement) that most can live with.
Meanwhile Demographics will get working in the 6 Cos and as English Nationalism grows in the "New UK Constitution" means less money going to to the 6 Cos........
What a fine journalist Peter Taylor is. Getting them to admit to anything less than total victory is very impressive. Definitely a programme to watch.
Tyrone won it,but only by playing puke football
Dishonourable draw.
Quote from: Aerlik on September 26, 2014, 07:36:00 AM
"War"? What "war"? The British authorities NEVER referred it to as a war because by doing so they would've had to acknowledge the republicans as a legitimate combatant and then abide by the UN conventions. That is why it was called a "terrorist campaign". Maybe they are seeing the light after all!
I'm not sure the hypocrisy with this regard is entirely one-sided. The relatives of the terrorists who were shot in Gibraltar or Loughgall don't seem too keen on calling it a war. Nor would republicans who shot people who were unarmed ("combatants" or not) and refused to keep prisoners of the so-called war. If "war" rules were applied there'd be plenty on the republican side of the fence would have had a free visit to The Hague.
Very few conflicts end in a draw.
If the IRA won, then the Brits lost ?. That would be hard to argue.
The biggest boast is that the Brits couldn't defeat the IRA which counts as a win.
Although the Brits would beg to differ.
The IRA's goal was a British withdrawal and a united Ireland.
The goal of the Brits was to keep NI as part of the UK.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide who won.
Quote from: dec on September 26, 2014, 07:04:05 PM
The IRA's goal was a British withdrawal and a united Ireland.
The goal of the Brits was to keep NI as part of the UK.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide who won.
Aye but it's not over yet. Just another phase. During this phase, the money gets thrown around.
Quote from: orangeman on September 26, 2014, 07:11:37 PM
Quote from: dec on September 26, 2014, 07:04:05 PM
The IRA's goal was a British withdrawal and a united Ireland.
The goal of the Brits was to keep NI as part of the UK.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide who won.
Aye but it's not over yet. Just another phase. During this phase, the money gets thrown around.
Surely the 'war' is over?
Politics is war by other means.
Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".
Quote from: Tonto on September 26, 2014, 05:35:27 PM
If "war" rules were applied there'd be plenty on the republican side of the fence would have had a free visit to The Hague.
And that is why the English refused to call it a war. Imagine Thatcher and Pinochet in the waiting room of The Hague Court No.1, awaiting their turns for their respective war crimes...
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 27, 2014, 06:46:11 AM
Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".
That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.
Quote from: Aerlik on September 27, 2014, 07:51:53 AM
Quote from: Tonto on September 26, 2014, 05:35:27 PM
If "war" rules were applied there'd be plenty on the republican side of the fence would have had a free visit to The Hague.
And that is why the English refused to call it a war. Imagine Thatcher and Pinochet in the waiting room of The Hague Court No.1, awaiting their turns for their respective war crimes...
I didn't and don't want to argue about what constitutes war crimes. All I was saying was that republicans like to call it a war, but didn't obey the rules of war.
Prior and Tebbitt seem to be calling it a draw.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29364986
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 08:07:17 AM
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 27, 2014, 06:46:11 AM
Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".
That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.
The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation. The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland.
Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.
Of course the entire island of Ireland is one nation, that is even in the GFA.
Quote from: orangeman on September 27, 2014, 09:32:17 AM
Prior and Tebbitt seem to be calling it a draw.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29364986
Neither side got what they wanted and if it is a draw the Brits got a point away from home so must feel "happier" that there is no UI and the six are still theirs.
I've said it before on here but the goal of republicans was to stop the persecution and discrimination - violent and physical - as well as bringing Irish/nationalist/catholic / working class up to parity and no longer second class citizens in relation to the unionist/loyalist/prod/ planters.
Ireland's reunification was then seen as the ultimate way to get this , so became the mantra.
Sunningdale is v similar to gfa - but back then it would have never worked - it wasn't practical as neither side would adhere to it.
It was a jump too far for unionist/loyalists and sunningdale didn't dictate how it could enforce changes on them.
Ireland is an Island country - it once was, so at some point it will be again.
Since gfa people are content now to be able to live normal lives so reunification will happen more slowly.
It's all down to money, economy and then the voting majority will go for it both side of the border.
Without their British army leaders, the unionist/loyalist violent groups haven't the about to mount anything more than a short riot.
These will have no effect or long term issue after reunification.
Bigger issue is healthcare, dole , jobs etc
The subsidy money from Brit gov to take the 6 counties off their hands will only stretch do far.
No one wins wars. But the nationalist peoples of the 6 counties have got what they alwYs wanted and needed!
Quote from: Tonto on September 27, 2014, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 08:07:17 AM
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 27, 2014, 06:46:11 AM
Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".
That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.
The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation. The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland.
Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.
Perhaps you think that Scotland is comprised of two nations also, given that 45% of the people voted for an independent Scotland outside the union, while 55% opted to remain British? Maybe Glasgow and Dundee should be given federal status, or become self governing cantons? Also, northern unionists were not able to exercise self determination. Their 'country' was carved out for them by the British government and imposed by threat of force. Had they been left to themselves, they would've been unable to hold on to more than 3 counties at best. In all likelihood, they would've had to have reached some sort of negotiated settlement with their fellow citizens of this island. They may have argued for and obtained some sort of northern parliament for themselves, but the wishes of the majority of the island would have been respected and the integrity of Ireland as a country would've been maintained. Also, the GFA has not made the argument defunct. The agreement was ratified by both parts of the island as the best deal available at present, but noone said that it was a full and final settlement.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 27, 2014, 12:31:46 PM
I've said it before on here but the goal of republicans was to stop the persecution and discrimination - violent and physical - as well as bringing Irish/nationalist/catholic / working class up to parity and no longer second class citizens in relation to the unionist/loyalist/prod/ planters.
Ireland's reunification was then seen as the ultimate way to get this , so became the mantra.
Sunningdale is v similar to gfa - but back then it would have never worked - it wasn't practical as neither side would adhere to it.
It was a jump too far for unionist/loyalists and sunningdale didn't dictate how it could enforce changes on them.
Ireland is an Island country - it once was, so at some point it will be again.
Since gfa people are content now to be able to live normal lives so reunification will happen more slowly.
It's all down to money, economy and then the voting majority will go for it both side of the border.
Without their British army leaders, the unionist/loyalist violent groups haven't the about to mount anything more than a short riot.
These will have no effect or long term issue after reunification.
Bigger issue is healthcare, dole , jobs etc
The subsidy money from Brit gov to take the 6 counties off their hands will only stretch do far.
No one wins wars. But the nationalist peoples of the 6 counties have got what they alwYs wanted and needed!
This particular nationalist person from the 6 counties begs to differ. I'd like a 32 county Ireland independent of Great Britain, please.
Quote from: orangeman on September 27, 2014, 09:32:17 AM
Prior and Tebbitt seem to be calling it a draw.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29364986
Fellow Conservative peer and former party chairman Lord Norman Tebbit, whose wife was paralysed in the Brighton bombing, told Peter Taylor: "I have no sympathy for those who declared the war but having said all that, one way or another, a ceasefire was achieved and to that extent it was a price that was worth paying.
Tebbit himself is a victim of British colonialism, persecution, sectarianism and Thatcherism and he's too blinkered to see it (supposedly). His wifes life changing injuries were a price worth paying, the ultimate slap in the face to the poor woman. Tebbit knows only too well what went on in the 6 and his role in it and he tells this to the public to save face for the "establishment". I wonder if his private opinion matches his public.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 12:59:08 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 27, 2014, 12:31:46 PM
I've said it before on here but the goal of republicans was to stop the persecution and discrimination - violent and physical - as well as bringing Irish/nationalist/catholic / working class up to parity and no longer second class citizens in relation to the unionist/loyalist/prod/ planters.
Ireland's reunification was then seen as the ultimate way to get this , so became the mantra.
Sunningdale is v similar to gfa - but back then it would have never worked - it wasn't practical as neither side would adhere to it.
It was a jump too far for unionist/loyalists and sunningdale didn't dictate how it could enforce changes on them.
Ireland is an Island country - it once was, so at some point it will be again.
Since gfa people are content now to be able to live normal lives so reunification will happen more slowly.
It's all down to money, economy and then the voting majority will go for it both side of the border.
Without their British army leaders, the unionist/loyalist violent groups haven't the about to mount anything more than a short riot.
These will have no effect or long term issue after reunification.
Bigger issue is healthcare, dole , jobs etc
The subsidy money from Brit gov to take the 6 counties off their hands will only stretch do far.
No one wins wars. But the nationalist peoples of the 6 counties have got what they alwYs wanted and needed!
This particular nationalist person from the 6 counties begs to differ. I'd like a 32 county Ireland independent of Great Britain, please.
I'm all for it, but proper process must be adhered to now.
There is no rush given the end of violence and almost all discrimination
I'm with you Myles but we can't or won't force it down people's throats - thats what I mean
It was a draw and it could have been called a draw before it started. If it happened again it would end in a draw again.
Republicanism could never force Britain to leave NI and leave behind a unionist majority. Therefore Republican violence could never win.
Republicanism is an idea as much as a group of people therefore the British could never defeat all republicanism.
Neither side won. Neither side could ever win. Each side was assured that they could never (militarily) lose. It was futile. The Dissos are the only ones who can't see this.
The 'dissos' are a banding together of some opportunistic fellas that see they can now make money for themselves as opposed for 'the cause' AND some people from areas that are still getting grief from the state bodies / cops ( where old ruc types still prevail ) - such as in Derry City
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Tonto on September 27, 2014, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 08:07:17 AM
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 27, 2014, 06:46:11 AM
Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".
That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.
The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation. The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland.
Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.
Perhaps you think that Scotland is comprised of two nations also, given that 45% of the people voted for an independent Scotland outside the union, while 55% opted to remain British? Maybe Glasgow and Dundee should be given federal status, or become self governing cantons? Also, northern unionists were not able to exercise self determination. Their 'country' was carved out for them by the British government and imposed by threat of force. Had they been left to themselves, they would've been unable to hold on to more than 3 counties at best. In all likelihood, they would've had to have reached some sort of negotiated settlement with their fellow citizens of this island. They may have argued for and obtained some sort of northern parliament for themselves, but the wishes of the majority of the island would have been respected and the integrity of Ireland as a country would've been maintained. Also, the GFA has not made the argument defunct. The agreement was ratified by both parts of the island as the best deal available at present, but noone said that it was a full and final settlement.
Not a new argument. Remember getting my eyes opened on OWC a few years ago on the Unionist take on things, something I'd never considered before and their position was entirely understandable.
Guerrilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.
I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.
Quote from: bennydorano on September 27, 2014, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Tonto on September 27, 2014, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 08:07:17 AM
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 27, 2014, 06:46:11 AM
Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".
That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.
The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation. The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland.
Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.
Perhaps you think that Scotland is comprised of two nations also, given that 45% of the people voted for an independent Scotland outside the union, while 55% opted to remain British? Maybe Glasgow and Dundee should be given federal status, or become self governing cantons? Also, northern unionists were not able to exercise self determination. Their 'country' was carved out for them by the British government and imposed by threat of force. Had they been left to themselves, they would've been unable to hold on to more than 3 counties at best. In all likelihood, they would've had to have reached some sort of negotiated settlement with their fellow citizens of this island. They may have argued for and obtained some sort of northern parliament for themselves, but the wishes of the majority of the island would have been respected and the integrity of Ireland as a country would've been maintained. Also, the GFA has not made the argument defunct. The agreement was ratified by both parts of the island as the best deal available at present, but noone said that it was a full and final settlement.
Not a new argument. Remember getting my eyes opened on OWC a few years ago on the Unionist take on things, something I'd never considered before and their position was entirely understandable.
I can understand why unionists would make the 'two nations' argument, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Presumably the Irish are one of the nations, but who is the other? It can't be the British nation, as Britain consists of more than one country. It can't be the 'Northern Irish', at least not according to census data, which shows that only a minority of people from the 6 counties classify themselves in that way. Ulster-British? Ulster-Scots? Irish-British? How can a claim for nationhood be made when the people making the claim aren't sure what nationality they are? Any ideas, Tonto? Genuine question.
Quote from: orangeman on September 27, 2014, 11:41:23 PM
Guerilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.
I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.
Guerilla warfare cannot exist today.
The IRA got out at the perfect time but without anything to show for the deaths of any of their members in the previous 26 years.
If the Brits ever decide end their interest here, it'll be because of economic reasons - not anything any campaign achieved.
British could end their interest here when a majority of people ask them to leave.
Yep, you might be waiting a long time.
"That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused."
And this justifies bombing people in the '70s & '80s ?
If peaceful campaigning was followed, the UK would be forced to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Catholic community: by international public opinion.
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 28, 2014, 05:42:47 AM
And this justifies bombing people in the '70s & '80s ?
If peaceful campaigning was followed, the UK would be forced to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Catholic community: by international public opinion.
Pretty obvious you have no grasp on the subject matter. Ever heard of Bloody Sunday?
and yes. of course the uk would deal with it in the correct manner. Awesome job they did too.
now go do some homework before you embarrass yourself again.
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 28, 2014, 05:42:47 AM
"That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused."
And this justifies bombing people in the '70s & '80s ?
If peaceful campaigning was followed, the UK would be forced to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Catholic community: by international public opinion.
I didn't say that. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in the very same post, if you want to go back and read it again.
Quote from: ONeill on September 28, 2014, 12:46:59 AM
Quote from: orangeman on September 27, 2014, 11:41:23 PM
Guerilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.
I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.
Guerilla warfare cannot exist today.
The IRA got out at the perfect time but without anything to show for the deaths of any of their members in the previous 26 years.
If the Brits ever decide end their interest here, it'll be because of economic reasons - not anything any campaign achieved.
Your opinion is interesting - in the opinion of ex volunteers I know and families of dead volunteers, they are happy that parity and equality have been installed in the 6 counties. There is no longer the same systematic persecution of nationalists or GAA men just because it would send a tyrannical message out to the rest of the parish etc
Our kids and families are free to grow up careless of political or violent oppression.
No longer second class citizens with teaching the top level of achievable career for young nationalists.Main objective achieved. Reunification will happen depending of economics.
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 28, 2014, 05:42:47 AM
"That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused."
And this justifies bombing people in the '70s & '80s ?
If peaceful campaigning was followed, the UK would be forced to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Catholic community: by international public opinion.
All I can say here is 'wow'
You are obv some person on here taking the p*ss
Like talking to a brick wall!
No wonder many think we Irish are as mad as cut snakes!
Is this barryqeejit another of Syfín's names? :( :-[
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 28, 2014, 09:12:55 AM
Quote from: ONeill on September 28, 2014, 12:46:59 AM
Quote from: orangeman on September 27, 2014, 11:41:23 PM
Guerilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.
I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.
Guerilla warfare cannot exist today.
The IRA got out at the perfect time but without anything to show for the deaths of any of their members in the previous 26 years.
If the Brits ever decide end their interest here, it'll be because of economic reasons - not anything any campaign achieved.
Your opinion is interesting - in the opinion of ex volunteers I know and families of dead volunteers, they are happy that parity and equality have been installed in the 6 counties. There is no longer the same systematic persecution of nationalists or GAA men just because it would send a tyrannical message out to the rest of the parish etc
Our kids and families are free to grow up careless of political or violent oppression.
No longer second class citizens with teaching the top level of achievable career for young nationalists.Main objective achieved. Reunification will happen depending of economics.
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 11:52:43 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on September 27, 2014, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Tonto on September 27, 2014, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 08:07:17 AM
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 27, 2014, 06:46:11 AM
Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".
That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.
The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation. The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland.
Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.
Perhaps you think that Scotland is comprised of two nations also, given that 45% of the people voted for an independent Scotland outside the union, while 55% opted to remain British? Maybe Glasgow and Dundee should be given federal status, or become self governing cantons? Also, northern unionists were not able to exercise self determination. Their 'country' was carved out for them by the British government and imposed by threat of force. Had they been left to themselves, they would've been unable to hold on to more than 3 counties at best. In all likelihood, they would've had to have reached some sort of negotiated settlement with their fellow citizens of this island. They may have argued for and obtained some sort of northern parliament for themselves, but the wishes of the majority of the island would have been respected and the integrity of Ireland as a country would've been maintained. Also, the GFA has not made the argument defunct. The agreement was ratified by both parts of the island as the best deal available at present, but noone said that it was a full and final settlement.
Not a new argument. Remember getting my eyes opened on OWC a few years ago on the Unionist take on things, something I'd never considered before and their position was entirely understandable.
I can understand why unionists would make the 'two nations' argument, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Presumably the Irish are one of the nations, but who is the other? It can't be the British nation, as Britain consists of more than one country. It can't be the 'Northern Irish', at least not according to census data, which shows that only a minority of people from the 6 counties classify themselves in that way. Ulster-British? Ulster-Scots? Irish-British? How can a claim for nationhood be made when the people making the claim aren't sure what nationality they are? Any ideas, Tonto? Genuine question.
Of course it's British. Chris Froome born & raised in Kenya of English parents gave a great description / explanation of how he feels British (to Paul Kimmage). Not English, Welsh, Scotch or Northern Irish but British http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-1-30391816.html
EU employment rights did more to advance equality than any campaign.
Quote from: armaghniac on September 28, 2014, 04:09:56 PM
EU employment rights did more to advance equality than any campaign.
This is an inconvenient truth for some.
Quote from: bennydorano on September 28, 2014, 04:07:39 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 11:52:43 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on September 27, 2014, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Tonto on September 27, 2014, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 27, 2014, 08:07:17 AM
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 27, 2014, 06:46:11 AM
Look at Scotland, 45% voted for independence and no violence. There is a lesson in that for Gerry and his "hard men".
That was democracy at work and it worked well. However, the terms 'democracy' and 'Ireland' don't sit well in the same sentence. In the latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, the democratic wishes of the greater number of people on this island were denied, when the demand for Home Rule was refused. Thereafter, the state of Northern Ireland was established and sustained at the point of a gun against the wishes of a majority on the island. If there was a referendum tomorrow for all the people of this island, the chances are a majority would vote in favour of a reunited Ireland outside the union. Would that vote be allowed? Would the result be respected? If force is used to suppress democracy, the likelihood is always that some will see force as a means of re establishing their democratic rights. Personally I think that approach is badly misguided, but I understand how others might arrive at that conclusion.
The argument that NI was formed against the majority of the people of Ireland only works if you consider the entire island to be one nation. The fact is that the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists (a similar number of unionists and nationalists were caught on the "wrong" side of the border) were able to exercise self-determination by the partition of Ireland.
Either way, the argument that all of the people of Ireland should vote in a referendum to determine whether or not the whole of the island should separate from the rest if the UK is defunct thanks to both parts of Ireland ratifying the Good Friday Agreement by referendum.
Perhaps you think that Scotland is comprised of two nations also, given that 45% of the people voted for an independent Scotland outside the union, while 55% opted to remain British? Maybe Glasgow and Dundee should be given federal status, or become self governing cantons? Also, northern unionists were not able to exercise self determination. Their 'country' was carved out for them by the British government and imposed by threat of force. Had they been left to themselves, they would've been unable to hold on to more than 3 counties at best. In all likelihood, they would've had to have reached some sort of negotiated settlement with their fellow citizens of this island. They may have argued for and obtained some sort of northern parliament for themselves, but the wishes of the majority of the island would have been respected and the integrity of Ireland as a country would've been maintained. Also, the GFA has not made the argument defunct. The agreement was ratified by both parts of the island as the best deal available at present, but noone said that it was a full and final settlement.
Not a new argument. Remember getting my eyes opened on OWC a few years ago on the Unionist take on things, something I'd never considered before and their position was entirely understandable.
I can understand why unionists would make the 'two nations' argument, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Presumably the Irish are one of the nations, but who is the other? It can't be the British nation, as Britain consists of more than one country. It can't be the 'Northern Irish', at least not according to census data, which shows that only a minority of people from the 6 counties classify themselves in that way. Ulster-British? Ulster-Scots? Irish-British? How can a claim for nationhood be made when the people making the claim aren't sure what nationality they are? Any ideas, Tonto? Genuine question.
Of course it's British. Chris Froome born & raised in Kenya of English parents gave a great description / explanation of how he feels British (to Paul Kimmage). Not English, Welsh, Scotch or Northern Irish but British http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-1-30391816.html
Significant that his parents are English. For most English I've met, British and English are the same thing - it's just the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish who struggle with the concept. But let's assume you're right and that the two nations on this island are the Irish and the British. How then does that square with Tonto's assertion that partition was an exercise in self determination on the part of unionists? Britain already had self determination, complete with its own parliament, own flag, own anthem, etc etc. The action of unionists, therefore, could not be an act of British self determination, or an assertion of nationhood, as these things had already taken place. It was rather a desire on the part of some British people to retain a particular piece of land under British control, a desire which flew in the face of their own parliament, which had already passed the Home Rule bill.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 28, 2014, 09:12:55 AM
Quote from: ONeill on September 28, 2014, 12:46:59 AM
Quote from: orangeman on September 27, 2014, 11:41:23 PM
Guerilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.
I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.
Guerilla warfare cannot exist today.
The IRA got out at the perfect time but without anything to show for the deaths of any of their members in the previous 26 years.
If the Brits ever decide end their interest here, it'll be because of economic reasons - not anything any campaign achieved.
Your opinion is interesting - in the opinion of ex volunteers I know and families of dead volunteers, they are happy that parity and equality have been installed in the 6 counties. There is no longer the same systematic persecution of nationalists or GAA men just because it would send a tyrannical message out to the rest of the parish etc
Our kids and families are free to grow up careless of political or violent oppression.
No longer second class citizens with teaching the top level of achievable career for young nationalists.Main objective achieved. Reunification will happen depending of economics.
I understand that some people will feel that as a form of comfort but it's not really logical thinking in my opinion.
You're underestimating the roles of people like Hume over the last 30 years and the role of our friends on the continent.
In terms of volunteers, maybe I'm wrong but social and economic betterment was far from their thoughts. There was one goal and it was the same one that drove many campaigns right back to the 1500s.
Maybe the older you get you lose the fire but when I think of the many many friends and relations who lost their lives around the ages of 17-23 it's really sad. They went to their grave and their last thought was striking a blow for old Ireland and removing British rule.
The question is...did they? Was it all worth it? You need to remove sentiment from the decision.
100% correct. They acted illegally, although I'd doubt that would be their take on it. There are hundreds of history books explaining their motivations.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 28, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 28, 2014, 09:12:55 AM
Quote from: ONeill on September 28, 2014, 12:46:59 AM
Quote from: orangeman on September 27, 2014, 11:41:23 PM
Guerilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.
I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.
Guerilla warfare cannot exist today.
The IRA got out at the perfect time but without anything to show for the deaths of any of their members in the previous 26 years.
If the Brits ever decide end their interest here, it'll be because of economic reasons - not anything any campaign achieved.
Your opinion is interesting - in the opinion of ex volunteers I know and families of dead volunteers, they are happy that parity and equality have been installed in the 6 counties. There is no longer the same systematic persecution of nationalists or GAA men just because it would send a tyrannical message out to the rest of the parish etc
Our kids and families are free to grow up careless of political or violent oppression.
No longer second class citizens with teaching the top level of achievable career for young nationalists.Main objective achieved. Reunification will happen depending of economics.
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
With decades of previous treatment metres out to nationalists ( could count hundreds of years) it was not on any horizon to change in the ruling establishment/loyalist/unionist mindset let alone agenda.
Your sentiment is nice, but in reality and fact- previous years of history prove your rationale to be untrue.
Sunningdale was never going to be accepted by establishment/unionist/loyalists and nationalists/republicans knew they needed more guarantee as it quite obv wasn't going to work.
Only after a campaign fighting BACK did people sit up and take notice.
Disgraceful it had to come to that.
Sorry to have to bring it up - but if you had actually personal and family experience and knowledge of what had historically gone on for decades prior to gfa - you might and prob see things a whole lot differently.
Quote from: ONeill on September 28, 2014, 05:03:04 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 28, 2014, 09:12:55 AM
Quote from: ONeill on September 28, 2014, 12:46:59 AM
Quote from: orangeman on September 27, 2014, 11:41:23 PM
Guerilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.
I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.
Guerilla warfare cannot exist today.
The IRA got out at the perfect time but without anything to show for the deaths of any of their members in the previous 26 years.
If the Brits ever decide end their interest here, it'll be because of economic reasons - not anything any campaign achieved.
Your opinion is interesting - in the opinion of ex volunteers I know and families of dead volunteers, they are happy that parity and equality have been installed in the 6 counties. There is no longer the same systematic persecution of nationalists or GAA men just because it would send a tyrannical message out to the rest of the parish etc
Our kids and families are free to grow up careless of political or violent oppression.
No longer second class citizens with teaching the top level of achievable career for young nationalists.Main objective achieved. Reunification will happen depending of economics.
I understand that some people will feel that as a form of comfort but it's not really logical thinking in my opinion.
You're underestimating the roles of people like Hume over the last 30 years and the role of our friends on the continent.
In terms of volunteers, maybe I'm wrong but social and economic betterment was far from their thoughts. There was one goal and it was the same one that drove many campaigns right back to the 1500s.
Maybe the older you get you lose the fire but when I think of the many many friends and relations who lost their lives around the ages of 17-23 it's really sad. They went to their grave and their last thought was striking a blow for old Ireland and removing British rule.
The question is...did they? Was it all worth it? You need to remove sentiment from the decision.
Your logical opinion and thinking is far from that of the volunteers.
Men who I know and have discussed motives and objectives with. Uneducated men who wanted parity of citizenship and financial advancement of the next generation.
Hume et all did their best but as we saw in civil rights march in Derry - was as powerless most of the time as anyone else. That's actually paraphrasing him as I asked him similar questions at a friends house about 15 years ago - he was friendly with my friends father. House in inishowen.
Eu laws came in but as we know the British gov never heeded anyone else- Geneva convention etc ( republicans also guilty of certain things in a dirty war)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 28, 2014, 07:03:27 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 28, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 28, 2014, 09:12:55 AM
Quote from: ONeill on September 28, 2014, 12:46:59 AM
Quote from: orangeman on September 27, 2014, 11:41:23 PM
Guerilla warfare is hard to defend against but somehow I think that with all the advances in technology, surveillance and intelligence gathering, any campaign against the Brits militarily wouldn't last very long. Most combatants would be either dead or in jail.
I couldn't see a new game ending up a draw. You'd get big odds on a draw and bigger odds on a defeat for the Brits.
Guerilla warfare cannot exist today.
The IRA got out at the perfect time but without anything to show for the deaths of any of their members in the previous 26 years.
If the Brits ever decide end their interest here, it'll be because of economic reasons - not anything any campaign achieved.
Your opinion is interesting - in the opinion of ex volunteers I know and families of dead volunteers, they are happy that parity and equality have been installed in the 6 counties. There is no longer the same systematic persecution of nationalists or GAA men just because it would send a tyrannical message out to the rest of the parish etc
Our kids and families are free to grow up careless of political or violent oppression.
No longer second class citizens with teaching the top level of achievable career for young nationalists.Main objective achieved. Reunification will happen depending of economics.
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
With decades of previous treatment metres out to nationalists ( could count hundreds of years) it was not on any horizon to change in the ruling establishment/loyalist/unionist mindset let alone agenda.
Your sentiment is nice, but in reality and fact- previous years of history prove your rationale to be untrue.
Sunningdale was never going to be accepted by establishment/unionist/loyalists and nationalists/republicans knew they needed more guarantee as it quite obv wasn't going to work.
Only after a campaign fighting BACK did people sit up and take notice.
Disgraceful it had to come to that.
Sorry to have to bring it up - but if you had actually personal and family experience and knowledge of what had historically gone on for decades prior to gfa - you might and prob see things a whole lot differently.
You know that I didn't? You think there were no previous generations in my family? Or the families of other nationalists who can (and could always) see the futility of violence in our country?
And to state that "previous years of history prove your rationale to be untrue" suggests that the world was the same in the 70s and 80s as for the first half of the century. I've given numerous examples of how it was very different. In addition to what I mentioned, someone else mentioned Europe, employment legislation, there's were changes to housing legislation in 1971 etc. If you genuinely think NI could or would have remained as it was in the 1960s... a quick look at the rest of the world would suggest otherwise.
the rest of the world moved on and the 6 counties didn't - it took more than talk (or lack of) to move it on sadly
your hindsight is nice....but not accurate
Your logical opinion and thinking is far from that of the volunteers.
Men who I know and have discussed motives and objectives with. Uneducated men who wanted parity of citizenship and financial advancement of the next generation.
.....we either mixed in very different circles or your old age is showing.
The 17-23 year old volunteer joined for one reason only and it was an age-old motive on this island.
Quote from: ONeill on September 28, 2014, 08:37:49 PM
Your logical opinion and thinking is far from that of the volunteers.
Men who I know and have discussed motives and objectives with. Uneducated men who wanted parity of citizenship and financial advancement of the next generation.
.....we either mixed in very different circles or your old age is showing.
The 17-23 year old volunteer joined for one reason only and it was an age-old motive on this island.
Undoubtedly yes
You obv haven't spoken to too many ex volunteers
Ask the question to any of them as to the root of their motivation!
They are not warmongers on a blood lust!!
I think that's the problem here. You are speaking about revisionists today. I'm talking about East Tyrone circa 1988. If you think young lads became volunteers for economic or social development then you're living in cuckoo territory.
Cuckoo land indeed lynchboy.
What you are trying to say is just the revisionism that is becoming apparent in the last few years. Because the twin aims of a United Ireland and the "Brits out" we're not realised we are now told they weren't the aims, it was all so Catholics could get a job and a house :-\
And before you say it, yeah I have spoken to and know plenty of ex volunteers.
You seem to think you have a monopoly there
Quote from: ONeill on September 28, 2014, 08:51:15 PM
I think that's the problem here. You are speaking about revisionists today. I'm talking about East Tyrone circa 1988. If you think young lads became volunteers for economic or social development then you're living in cuckoo territory.
Nope I'm talking about the motivation from the 70's before and after
Quote from: Saffrongael on September 28, 2014, 09:15:35 PM
Cuckoo land indeed lynchboy.
What you are trying to say is just the revisionism that is becoming apparent in the last few years. Because the twin aims of a United Ireland and the "Brits out" we're not realised we are now told they weren't the aims, it was all so Catholics could get a job and a house :-\
And before you say it, yeah I have spoken to and know plenty of ex volunteers.
You seem to think you have a monopoly there
Not a monopoly - I can only speak about personal exp and from the ex IRA and ex INLA lads ( most ex POW, some ex hunger strikers) that i know, met and asked questions of - as I was intrigued by their motivation.
I ask you if you asked the deeper question after the initial response of ' I wanted to fight the Brits ' or ' I wanted a united Ireland ' ( though no one I spoke to ever gave that as the actual reason for volunteering.
One response was for his brothers and sisters kids to grow up in a society free from persecution and able to get the jobs they were denied because they were catholic. ( the guy had cousins educated in queens that had to go to England and oz in order to fully utilize the phd and degrees they obtained)
Maybe there were some blood thirsty fellas among them that wanted to fight the Brits and get a re-united Ireland - but while only a few might be poets like sands, I'd say only a few were thoughtless savages. Human life needs motivation. Defending lives was part of it but most if you really ask for motivation will give you a real answer rather than the glib cliche.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 28, 2014, 09:37:28 PM
Quote from: ONeill on September 28, 2014, 08:51:15 PM
I think that's the problem here. You are speaking about revisionists today. I'm talking about East Tyrone circa 1988. If you think young lads became volunteers for economic or social development then you're living in cuckoo territory.
Nope I'm talking about the motivation from the 70's before and after
To be far lynchboy I grew up in South armagh in the 70s and 80s and knew a few who fought and went to funerals of volunteers who died for their beliefs
They joined to free their country not for anything else
Growing up that was the mantra Brits out
Remember instructions were to continue boycotting elections til the hunger strikes,
Remember the bombing campaigns as part of the economic war
Newry growing up was a wasteland
Remember the Easter commerations when the military speech was that the war was being won and that the Brits will leave
I am not a shinner but respect what these guys joined up for which was in their eyes to free their country
After the border campaign finished in the early 60,s there were very few who were involved in Republican politics in the North,it was only with the brutally againist the civil rights marchers and the loyalist pogroms in Belfast that the IRA grew in numbers and although some who joined,joined to free Ireland the majority joined because of the injustice that was happening around them.The new recruits were then educated both inside and outside the jails in Republican politics and of course then they believed the only way to a far society was in a United Ireland.I am with Lynchboy on this.
'No reform short of its abolition can remedy the fundamental injustice of the six county state.'
An Phoblacht, 26 August 1993
Interesting letter in Belfast Telegraph last week from " a Protestant unionist former soldier" who wasn't far wrong when he said growing up in the 60s a small unionist elite governed NI as if it was their own estate (appropriate as they were mostly Fermanagh farmers) and there was an expanding but still small middle class and a huge working class kept divided by the playing of the orange and green card.He basically bemoaned Paisley ever getting involved in politics.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 28, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
So you are suggesting that it would have been better for the nationalist population in the 6 counties during the 60's to just sit back and wait for times to change. Don't bother fighting back or protesting peacefully with a civil rights movement. You'll be handed equality when the time is right by the british government and the unionist politicians, not to mention opportunity for jobs and education.
awesome insight Maguire. please tell us more pearls of wisdom.
I can't help but think that many of the contributors on here must be only in their 20's. As a child of the 60's I grew up in a time when to express any sort of irishness outside of your own community was strictly not allowed. If you were lucky enough to be employed as a minority of catholics were you were viewed with suspicion. You worked in an environment where pictures of Royalty and union jack bunting was standard. I do not support violence but even I must reluctantly accept that the advances in equality wouldn't have happened without the troubles. As to who one? well just look at how easily catholic/nationalists in their 20's have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern State...says it all.
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 29, 2014, 09:04:18 AM
. As to who one won ? well just look at how easily catholic/nationalists in their 20's have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern State...says it all.
What were they to do seeing as their Reps agreed to a deal that would see the 6 Cos remain separate ( for now) to the rest of Ireland and this deal was voted on and accepted by the vast majority of the Irish people.
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 28, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
So you are suggesting that it would have been better for the nationalist population in the 6 counties during the 60's to just sit back and wait for times to change. Don't bother fighting back or protesting peacefully with a civil rights movement. You'll be handed equality when the time is right by the british government and the unionist politicians, not to mention opportunity for jobs and education.
awesome insight Maguire. please tell us more pearls of wisdom.
Are you just making things up? Nowhere did i suggest just sitting back and waiting for change. I absolutely support peaceful protest and a civil rights movement, or civil disobedience.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 06:20:55 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 28, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
So you are suggesting that it would have been better for the nationalist population in the 6 counties during the 60's to just sit back and wait for times to change. Don't bother fighting back or protesting peacefully with a civil rights movement. You'll be handed equality when the time is right by the british government and the unionist politicians, not to mention opportunity for jobs and education.
awesome insight Maguire. please tell us more pearls of wisdom.
Are you just making things up? Nowhere did i suggest just sitting back and waiting for change. I absolutely support peaceful protest and a civil rights movement, or civil disobedience.
Yep - because pleading with the british government and the unionists for concessions works. it was only a matter of time really in the 60's and early 70's.
and not to worry, because if they say no the Irish government and the population of the free state will ensure that the nationalists in the 6 counties get equality. There's no way they won't intervene.
great job.
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 06:20:55 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 28, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
So you are suggesting that it would have been better for the nationalist population in the 6 counties during the 60's to just sit back and wait for times to change. Don't bother fighting back or protesting peacefully with a civil rights movement. You'll be handed equality when the time is right by the british government and the unionist politicians, not to mention opportunity for jobs and education.
awesome insight Maguire. please tell us more pearls of wisdom.
Are you just making things up? Nowhere did i suggest just sitting back and waiting for change. I absolutely support peaceful protest and a civil rights movement, or civil disobedience.
Yep - because pleading with the british government and the unionists for concessions works. it was only a matter of time really in the 60's and early 70's.
and not to worry, because if they say no the Irish government and the population of the free state will ensure that the nationalists in the 6 counties get equality. There's no way they won't intervene.
great job.
So first you criticise me for not supporting peaceful protest and a civil rights movement. Then when I point out that you're wrong, you suggest that it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Make your mind up.
The fact is there was 25 odd years of violence. Hardly an advertisement for the effectiveness of that approach.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 06:20:55 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 28, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
So you are suggesting that it would have been better for the nationalist population in the 6 counties during the 60's to just sit back and wait for times to change. Don't bother fighting back or protesting peacefully with a civil rights movement. You'll be handed equality when the time is right by the british government and the unionist politicians, not to mention opportunity for jobs and education.
awesome insight Maguire. please tell us more pearls of wisdom.
Are you just making things up? Nowhere did i suggest just sitting back and waiting for change. I absolutely support peaceful protest and a civil rights movement, or civil disobedience.
Yep - because pleading with the british government and the unionists for concessions works. it was only a matter of time really in the 60's and early 70's.
and not to worry, because if they say no the Irish government and the population of the free state will ensure that the nationalists in the 6 counties get equality. There's no way they won't intervene.
great job.
So first you criticise me for not supporting peaceful protest and a civil rights movement. Then when I point out that you're wrong, you suggest that it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Make your mind up.
The fact is there was 25 odd years of violence. Hardly an advertisement for the effectiveness of that approach.
You never mentioned the civil rights movement in your first post. I just wanted to mention it, not that I believed it would work.
Getting beaten off the streets or mown down like dogs by the army isn't really an effective way of gaining equality.
Might not have been 25 years of violence if the people of the 26 counties really made their voices heard.
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 07:55:51 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 06:20:55 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 28, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
So you are suggesting that it would have been better for the nationalist population in the 6 counties during the 60's to just sit back and wait for times to change. Don't bother fighting back or protesting peacefully with a civil rights movement. You'll be handed equality when the time is right by the british government and the unionist politicians, not to mention opportunity for jobs and education.
awesome insight Maguire. please tell us more pearls of wisdom.
Are you just making things up? Nowhere did i suggest just sitting back and waiting for change. I absolutely support peaceful protest and a civil rights movement, or civil disobedience.
Yep - because pleading with the british government and the unionists for concessions works. it was only a matter of time really in the 60's and early 70's.
and not to worry, because if they say no the Irish government and the population of the free state will ensure that the nationalists in the 6 counties get equality. There's no way they won't intervene.
great job.
So first you criticise me for not supporting peaceful protest and a civil rights movement. Then when I point out that you're wrong, you suggest that it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Make your mind up.
The fact is there was 25 odd years of violence. Hardly an advertisement for the effectiveness of that approach.
You never mentioned the civil rights movement in your first post. I just wanted to mention it, not that I believed it would work.
Getting beaten off the streets or mown down like dogs by the army isn't really an effective way of gaining equality.
Might not have been 25 years of violence if the people of the 26 counties really made their voices heard.
How do you know how effective a civil rights movement, peaceful protest or civil disobedience might have been over 25 years? We'd probably have a lot less than 3,000 plus deaths and many multiples of that injured.
And even if you support the approach of shooting and bombing people, and if you somehow believe that it was all for equality and not nationalism, and if you then think that it achieved its objectives, you then have to ask yourself, was the outcome worth the death of 3,000 plus people? Was it a price worth paying?
When is this nonsense on?
As for the question, I would say we won. But its a f**king mess currently. Both sides are losing
Quote from: Apparently so on September 29, 2014, 08:14:57 PM
When is this nonsense on?
Starting now.
QuoteAs for the question, I would say we won. But its a f**king mess currently. Both sides are losing
After a giant effort 20 years ago, not much effort to keep things moving now.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 08:10:44 PM
How do you know how effective a civil rights movement, peaceful protest or civil disobedience might have been over 25 years? We'd probably have a lot less than 3,000 plus deaths and many multiples of that injured.
And even if you support the approach of shooting and bombing people, and if you somehow believe that it was all for equality and not nationalism, and if you then think that it achieved its objectives, you then have to ask yourself, was the outcome worth the death of 3,000 plus people? Was it a price worth paying?
No lives are worth losing. that's a stupid question.
The civil rights movement didn't get off to a great start now did it? so you think that people would have gotten back on the streets to peacefully protest week in, week out for their rights if they thought they would lose their lives doing so?
The irish government weren't doing much of a job in helping them. They might give the PM a cross look next time they saw them but that was about it.
if you don't fight your corner you won't get anything. How often do people in a position of ultimate power yield something if there is no reason to? Could you see the unionists being reasonable? Never never never.
Get off your unicorn Rainbow Brite and come into the real world.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 08:10:44 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 07:55:51 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 06:20:55 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 28, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
So you are suggesting that it would have been better for the nationalist population in the 6 counties during the 60's to just sit back and wait for times to change. Don't bother fighting back or protesting peacefully with a civil rights movement. You'll be handed equality when the time is right by the british government and the unionist politicians, not to mention opportunity for jobs and education.
awesome insight Maguire. please tell us more pearls of wisdom.
Are you just making things up? Nowhere did i suggest just sitting back and waiting for change. I absolutely support peaceful protest and a civil rights movement, or civil disobedience.
Yep - because pleading with the british government and the unionists for concessions works. it was only a matter of time really in the 60's and early 70's.
and not to worry, because if they say no the Irish government and the population of the free state will ensure that the nationalists in the 6 counties get equality. There's no way they won't intervene.
great job.
So first you criticise me for not supporting peaceful protest and a civil rights movement. Then when I point out that you're wrong, you suggest that it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Make your mind up.
The fact is there was 25 odd years of violence. Hardly an advertisement for the effectiveness of that approach.
You never mentioned the civil rights movement in your first post. I just wanted to mention it, not that I believed it would work.
Getting beaten off the streets or mown down like dogs by the army isn't really an effective way of gaining equality.
Might not have been 25 years of violence if the people of the 26 counties really made their voices heard.
How do you know how effective a civil rights movement, peaceful protest or civil disobedience might have been over 25 years? We'd probably have a lot less than 3,000 plus deaths and many multiples of that injured.
And even if you support the approach of shooting and bombing people, and if you somehow believe that it was all for equality and not nationalism, and if you then think that it achieved its objectives, you then have to ask yourself, was the outcome worth the death of 3,000 plus people? Was it a price worth paying?
I could now ask you with your own ' how do you know what would have happened.....'
The peaceful protests and civil rights weren't working
In fact it made it worse for the nationalist /Irish/GAA families in the north - you prob won't read that in your books
Fact - civil rights and somewhat passive resistence for decades ( hundreds) of years wasn't having any effect
Fact- a few decades of fighting back did agitate a move for equality
- can't really dispute what happened with what ifs!!
Jim prior also apparanly believes that the militant action by republicans helped bring about the equality sought
Looking like the Lannister's at the minute, but it's early days.
John Hume virtually ignored.
Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire
Were Sinn Féin against the notion of having the Troubles recognised as a war and if so, what was it?
The reason I ask - I remember watching some TV discussion on the BBC years ago. Danny Morrison was there with some Loyalist ex-paramilitary. Morrison was cruising in the debate until the question of why "the Troubles" were called that, and not a war.
As I recall - and I'm open to correction on this - Morrison had been equating the Troubles to a war until the Loyalist said something to Morrison about Republicans above anyone not being in a position to recognise the conflict as a war and that Morrison knew well that this was so. Morrison made no reply, and I've always wondered about it since (a poor reflection on what I have to worry about, I know).
Anybody help me out?
See the bake on the Loyalist round the bonfire when Taylor said (paraphrasing) sure when a majority vote for a UI what's the problem? (After letting him talk shite for a while).
Quote from: Gaffer on September 29, 2014, 10:16:48 PM
John Hume virtually ignored.
Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire
Seamus Mallon was representing the SDLP - maybe he should've emphasised Hume's contribution a bit more. John, unfortunately, isn't able to speak up for himself these days.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 29, 2014, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on September 29, 2014, 10:16:48 PM
John Hume virtually ignored.
Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire
Seamus Mallon was representing the SDLP - maybe he should've emphasised Hume's contribution a bit more. John, unfortunately, isn't able to speak up for himself these days.
Hume and Mallon lead the nationalist charge long before sf came about
Two fantastic men and politicians
Why is the other side trying to make out that they are been treated like second class citizens. Has the community drugs fund run out. There is no doubt the DUP will be making more of an effort to get these poor people what they want so I can see a rough period coming up.
I did find this funny.
CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.
See more at: http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-1-30391816.html#sthash.3AWqdHRh.dpuf
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 30, 2014, 01:25:53 AM
I did find this funny.
CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.
There are plenty of irish who've never set foot on the island. Are they discounted?
Quote from: foxcommander on September 30, 2014, 04:34:29 AM
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 30, 2014, 01:25:53 AM
I did find this funny.
CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.
There are plenty of irish who've never set foot on the island. Are they discounted?
If they haven't bothered their arse paying a visit then yes, they should be discounted.
Quote from: mikehunt on September 30, 2014, 09:23:25 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 30, 2014, 04:34:29 AM
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 30, 2014, 01:25:53 AM
I did find this funny.
CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.
There are plenty of irish who've never set foot on the island. Are they discounted?
If they haven't bothered their arse paying a visit then yes, they should be discounted.
That's the republic's football team bollixed, then. :)
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 30, 2014, 12:17:01 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on September 30, 2014, 09:23:25 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 30, 2014, 04:34:29 AM
Quote from: barryqwalsh on September 30, 2014, 01:25:53 AM
I did find this funny.
CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.
There are plenty of irish who've never set foot on the island. Are they discounted?
If they haven't bothered their arse paying a visit then yes, they should be discounted.
That's the republic's football Soccer team bollixed, then. :)
Fixed that for you ;)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 29, 2014, 09:28:18 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 08:10:44 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 07:55:51 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 06:20:55 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 28, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.
And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...
So you are suggesting that it would have been better for the nationalist population in the 6 counties during the 60's to just sit back and wait for times to change. Don't bother fighting back or protesting peacefully with a civil rights movement. You'll be handed equality when the time is right by the british government and the unionist politicians, not to mention opportunity for jobs and education.
awesome insight Maguire. please tell us more pearls of wisdom.
Are you just making things up? Nowhere did i suggest just sitting back and waiting for change. I absolutely support peaceful protest and a civil rights movement, or civil disobedience.
Yep - because pleading with the british government and the unionists for concessions works. it was only a matter of time really in the 60's and early 70's.
and not to worry, because if they say no the Irish government and the population of the free state will ensure that the nationalists in the 6 counties get equality. There's no way they won't intervene.
great job.
So first you criticise me for not supporting peaceful protest and a civil rights movement. Then when I point out that you're wrong, you suggest that it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Make your mind up.
The fact is there was 25 odd years of violence. Hardly an advertisement for the effectiveness of that approach.
You never mentioned the civil rights movement in your first post. I just wanted to mention it, not that I believed it would work.
Getting beaten off the streets or mown down like dogs by the army isn't really an effective way of gaining equality.
Might not have been 25 years of violence if the people of the 26 counties really made their voices heard.
How do you know how effective a civil rights movement, peaceful protest or civil disobedience might have been over 25 years? We'd probably have a lot less than 3,000 plus deaths and many multiples of that injured.
And even if you support the approach of shooting and bombing people, and if you somehow believe that it was all for equality and not nationalism, and if you then think that it achieved its objectives, you then have to ask yourself, was the outcome worth the death of 3,000 plus people? Was it a price worth paying?
I could now ask you with your own ' how do you know what would have happened.....'
I can't be certain (although i've mentioned a few examples of progress that were happening), but it's unlikely that 3,000 plus people would have died.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 29, 2014, 09:28:18 PM
The peaceful protests and civil rights weren't working
In fact it made it worse for the nationalist /Irish/GAA families in the north - you prob won't read that in your books
Fact - civil rights and somewhat passive resistence for decades ( hundreds) of years wasn't having any effect
Fact- a few decades of fighting back did agitate a move for equality
- can't really dispute what happened with what ifs!!
It's back to that approach that because X happened around a similar timeframe to Y, then X happened because of Y. It totally ignores that at the same time A, B, C, D,E and F were also happening.
And it's a lie to say the civil rights movement wasn't having any impact. The 'one man, one vote' was agreed in 1969, the Housing Executive was established in 1971. Some progress was being made and it was clear the status quo couldn't continue.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 29, 2014, 09:28:18 PM
Jim prior also apparanly believes that the militant action by republicans helped bring about the equality sought
One opinion. I could list numerous individuals with the opposite opinion.
EDIT: I just watched the programme - he said no such thing. He said "violence worked" - he made no reference to it bringing about equality.
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 09:09:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 08:10:44 PM
How do you know how effective a civil rights movement, peaceful protest or civil disobedience might have been over 25 years? We'd probably have a lot less than 3,000 plus deaths and many multiples of that injured.
And even if you support the approach of shooting and bombing people, and if you somehow believe that it was all for equality and not nationalism, and if you then think that it achieved its objectives, you then have to ask yourself, was the outcome worth the death of 3,000 plus people? Was it a price worth paying?
No lives are worth losing. that's a stupid question.
It's not a stupid question. A difficult one maybe, for someone who supported that approach. If no lives are worth losing, then you can't justify a violent approach.
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 09:09:24 PM
The civil rights movement didn't get off to a great start now did it? so you think that people would have gotten back on the streets to peacefully protest week in, week out for their rights if they thought they would lose their lives doing so?
The irish government weren't doing much of a job in helping them. They might give the PM a cross look next time they saw them but that was about it.
if you don't fight your corner you won't get anything. How often do people in a position of ultimate power yield something if there is no reason to? Could you see the unionists being reasonable? Never never never.
Get off your unicorn Rainbow Brite and come into the real world.
As i've responded to another post, the 'one man, one vote' was agreed in 1969, the Housing Executive was established in 1971. Some progress
was being made and it was clear the status quo couldn't continue.
I totally agree about "fighting your corner". I don't agree that you do that with bombs and bullets.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 29, 2014, 11:22:15 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 29, 2014, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on September 29, 2014, 10:16:48 PM
John Hume virtually ignored.
Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire
Seamus Mallon was representing the SDLP - maybe he should've emphasised Hume's contribution a bit more. John, unfortunately, isn't able to speak up for himself these days.
Hume and Mallon lead the nationalist charge long before sf came about
Two fantastic men and politicians
But by your logic, they didn't have a clue what they were talking about, given that they totally opposed violence.
You said to me:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 28, 2014, 07:03:27 PM
if you had actually personal and family experience and knowledge of what had historically gone on for decades prior to gfa - you might and prob see things a whole lot differently.
Well surely these two men had very real personal and family experience? How can they be fantastic men and politicians if they got it so wrong?
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 29, 2014, 09:04:18 AM
I can't help but think that many of the contributors on here must be only in their 20's. As a child of the 60's I grew up in a time when to express any sort of irishness outside of your own community was strictly not allowed. If you were lucky enough to be employed as a minority of catholics were you were viewed with suspicion. You worked in an environment where pictures of Royalty and union jack bunting was standard. I do not support violence but even I must reluctantly accept that the advances in equality wouldn't have happened without the troubles. As to who one? well just look at how easily catholic/nationalists in their 20's have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern State...says it all.
Yes there was terrible discrimination, but claims such as the above just discredit the argument. As per the 1971 census: "Protestant male unemployment was 6.6% compared to 17.3% for Catholic males, while the equivalent rates for women were 3.6% and 7% respectively." So yes, an unjustifiable gap, but far from a "minority" of Catholics in employment.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 30, 2014, 07:32:29 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 09:09:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 29, 2014, 08:10:44 PM
How do you know how effective a civil rights movement, peaceful protest or civil disobedience might have been over 25 years? We'd probably have a lot less than 3,000 plus deaths and many multiples of that injured.
And even if you support the approach of shooting and bombing people, and if you somehow believe that it was all for equality and not nationalism, and if you then think that it achieved its objectives, you then have to ask yourself, was the outcome worth the death of 3,000 plus people? Was it a price worth paying?
No lives are worth losing. that's a stupid question.
It's not a stupid question. A difficult one maybe, for someone who supported that approach. If no lives are worth losing, then you can't justify a violent approach.
Quote from: foxcommander on September 29, 2014, 09:09:24 PM
The civil rights movement didn't get off to a great start now did it? so you think that people would have gotten back on the streets to peacefully protest week in, week out for their rights if they thought they would lose their lives doing so?
The irish government weren't doing much of a job in helping them. They might give the PM a cross look next time they saw them but that was about it.
if you don't fight your corner you won't get anything. How often do people in a position of ultimate power yield something if there is no reason to? Could you see the unionists being reasonable? Never never never.
Get off your unicorn Rainbow Brite and come into the real world.
As i've responded to another post, the 'one man, one vote' was agreed in 1969, the Housing Executive was established in 1971. Some progress was being made and it was clear the status quo couldn't continue.
I totally agree about "fighting your corner". I don't agree that you do that with bombs and bullets.
It may be clear that the status quo couldn't continue but there were those in power who were doing their best to ensure it did. If you don't think that the physical approach accelerated the issues i'm afraid you're in dreamland. The peaceful approach may have got there at some point too but who's to say it would even be resolved now. You only have to look at the likes of Gaza to see what one side can do to another if they have the means and the backing of a powerful government.
and to repeat, no life is worth losing but sometimes it happens. Thankfully people like yourself won't be entrusted with ensuring my rights as a citizen if it came down to it.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 30, 2014, 07:55:03 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 29, 2014, 09:04:18 AM
I can't help but think that many of the contributors on here must be only in their 20's. As a child of the 60's I grew up in a time when to express any sort of irishness outside of your own community was strictly not allowed. If you were lucky enough to be employed as a minority of catholics were you were viewed with suspicion. You worked in an environment where pictures of Royalty and union jack bunting was standard. I do not support violence but even I must reluctantly accept that the advances in equality wouldn't have happened without the troubles. As to who one? well just look at how easily catholic/nationalists in their 20's have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern State...says it all.
Yes there was terrible discrimination, but claims such as the above just discredit the argument. As per the 1971 census: "Protestant male unemployment was 6.6% compared to 17.3% for Catholic males, while the equivalent rates for women were 3.6% and 7% respectively." So yes, an unjustifiable gap, but far from a "minority" of Catholics in employment.
1971 things were starting to ease. In the area in which I grew up all the best land was protestant. Jobs were nonexistent and a majority of men were unemployed. Those who got work were lucky but it was mainly casual labouring in the summer. But discrimination still prevent most catholics from aspiring to any sort of career. All senior positions in the state were reserved for Protestants.
my comments regarding the working environment stand. When I started my first job in 1979, it was in such an environment. My line manager even thought it was funny to ask me if when I went to confession did I tell the priest that I enjoyed pulling myself off. Statistics damn lies and statistics. Many of todays DUP and UUP not to even mention the TUV hark back to those good old days.
I you take an overall look at it today
- Big landowners are still protestant
- Protestants would still own a lot of the wealth in the north
- The majority of Catholics aged 30-40 have been left with large student loans
Nothing is going to change anytime soon.
Quote from: Hereiam on October 01, 2014, 10:36:09 AM
I you take an overall look at it today
- Big landowners are still protestant
- Protestants would still own a lot of the wealth in the north
- The majority of Catholics aged 30-40 have been left with large student loans
Nothing is going to change anytime soon.
There's very much a slide the other way where I'm from, some historically Protestant owned and farmed land has moved into Catholic hands, the spuds taste the same though.
I'd say if the details were available high ranking Civil servants, cops and private business owners are very much weighted towards the protestant faiths and change will be slow there too.
Quote from: Hereiam on October 01, 2014, 10:36:09 AM
I you take an overall look at it today
- Big landowners are still protestant
[/b]- Protestants would still own a lot of the wealth in the north
- The majority of Catholics aged 30-40 have been left with large student loans
Nothing is going to change anytime soon.
That is never going to change.
The student loans piece to me is an irrelevance as anyone I know paying them off is paying off a very comfortable amount. I have never heard of anyone being crippled by a student loan.
Quote from: Hereiam on October 01, 2014, 10:36:09 AM
I you take an overall look at it today
- Big landowners are still protestant
Farming is no longer the main route to a living.
Quote- The majority of Catholics aged 30-40 have been left with large student loans
Some Protestants have loans too, but these people are in GB. A large proportion of Protestants left school at 16 and went drinking around bonfires. The Catholics have done better, loans or no loans.
Quote
Nothing is going to change anytime soon.
Everything is changing, but gradually.
Just reading today that the OO has bought a substantial bit of property on Perry street in Dungannon
http://www.dungannon.gov.uk/userfiles/image/Perry%20Street%20(1).JPG (http://www.dungannon.gov.uk/userfiles/image/Perry%20Street%20(1).JPG)
I heard today also that the OO is providing subsidies to young members to go to university so they do realise there is a problem for young uneducated protestants. Interesting times.
Quote
I heard today also that the OO is providing subsidies to young members to go to university so they do realise there is a problem for young uneducated protestants. Interesting times.
Unfortunately, when you see the likes of McCausland, Dodds and Allister, the educated Protestants don't make much of a positive contribution either.
Quote from: armaghniac on October 01, 2014, 03:25:48 PM
, when you see the likes of McCausland, Dodds and Allister, the educated Protestants don't make much of a positive contribution either.
3 very good arguments for a Catholic Education if ever there was one :-\
Quote from: Hereiam on October 01, 2014, 03:22:35 PM
Just reading today that the OO has bought a substantial bit of property on Perry street in Dungannon
http://www.dungannon.gov.uk/userfiles/image/Perry%20Street%20(1).JPG (http://www.dungannon.gov.uk/userfiles/image/Perry%20Street%20(1).JPG)
I heard today also that the OO is providing subsidies to young members to go to university so they do realise there is a problem for young uneducated protestants. Interesting times.
Where might the OO get its funding from?
Is there a membership fee?
Do they not get some government funding?
Quote from: johnneycool on October 01, 2014, 10:42:24 AM
Quote from: Hereiam on October 01, 2014, 10:36:09 AM
I you take an overall look at it today
- Big landowners are still protestant
- Protestants would still own a lot of the wealth in the north
- The majority of Catholics aged 30-40 have been left with large student loans
Nothing is going to change anytime soon.
There's very much a slide the other way where I'm from, some historically Protestant owned and farmed land has moved into Catholic hands, the spuds taste the same though.
I'd say if the details were available high ranking Civil servants, cops and private business owners are very much weighted towards the protestant faiths and change will be slow there too.
Plenty of SF and SDLP ministers in government these days, ideally placed to address any employment imbalances in their departments.
Quote from: Hereiam on October 01, 2014, 10:36:09 AM
I you take an overall look at it today
- Big landowners are still protestant
- Protestants would still own a lot of the wealth in the north
- The majority of Catholics aged 30-40 have been left with large student loans
Nothing is going to change anytime soon.
For the first point, farm land tends to pass down through families, so you wouldn't expect much change there. I don't see any big deal either way.
For the second point, I have no idea who owns what wealth. Your perception may be true. Or it may be rubbish. Look at just how much property in the north was controlled by NAMA. Who knows exactly who owns what.
As for student loans, that just reflects a highly educated population. It's a real glass half full approach to spin that as a negative.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 30, 2014, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 29, 2014, 11:22:15 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 29, 2014, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on September 29, 2014, 10:16:48 PM
John Hume virtually ignored.
Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire
Seamus Mallon was representing the SDLP - maybe he should've emphasised Hume's contribution a bit more. John, unfortunately, isn't able to speak up for himself these days.
Hume and Mallon lead the nationalist charge long before sf came about
Two fantastic men and politicians
But by your logic, they didn't have a clue what they were talking about, given that they totally opposed violence.
You said to me:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 28, 2014, 07:03:27 PM
if you had actually personal and family experience and knowledge of what had historically gone on for decades prior to gfa - you might and prob see things a whole lot differently.
Well surely these two men had very real personal and family experience? How can they be fantastic men and politicians if they got it so wrong?
No harm to you maguire but if you have to ask those questions - I really depicts that you don't have the foundation of knowledge to question any opinions let alone try to force your own as being correct.
I agree with you though on that Catholics having student loans is actually a good sign.
You don't realise though that while it might not look like a huge disparity in percentage of Catholics to Protestants in gainful employment - there was a huge disparity in the level of employment and associated salary ( indeed casual contract v full time contract etc)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 01, 2014, 08:41:53 PM
You don't realise though that while it might not look like a huge disparity in percentage of Catholics to Protestants in gainful employment - there was a huge disparity in the level of employment and associated salary ( indeed casual contract v full time contract etc)
Northern Ireland was designed to make Catholics or Irish people hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Things have changed.
One issue in the near future is that the graduates in many professional categories are mostly Taigs and there will shortly be problems with the Health Service maintaining "fair employment", as 60% of the available occupational therapists and the like are from the Catholic background.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 01, 2014, 08:41:53 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 30, 2014, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 29, 2014, 11:22:15 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 29, 2014, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on September 29, 2014, 10:16:48 PM
John Hume virtually ignored.
Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire
Seamus Mallon was representing the SDLP - maybe he should've emphasised Hume's contribution a bit more. John, unfortunately, isn't able to speak up for himself these days.
Hume and Mallon lead the nationalist charge long before sf came about
Two fantastic men and politicians
But by your logic, they didn't have a clue what they were talking about, given that they totally opposed violence.
You said to me:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 28, 2014, 07:03:27 PM
if you had actually personal and family experience and knowledge of what had historically gone on for decades prior to gfa - you might and prob see things a whole lot differently.
Well surely these two men had very real personal and family experience? How can they be fantastic men and politicians if they got it so wrong?
No harm to you maguire but if you have to ask those questions - I really depicts that you don't have the foundation of knowledge to question any opinions let alone try to force your own as being correct.
I agree with you though on that Catholics having student loans is actually a good sign.
You don't realise though that while it might not look like a huge disparity in percentage of Catholics to Protestants in gainful employment - there was a huge disparity in the level of employment and associated salary ( indeed casual contract v full time contract etc)
What is wrong with those questions? I suspect it's just another attempt by you to patronise and play the man. But maybe you could humour me and tell me how Hume and Mallon could be such fantastic men and politicians, yet the same time, so far off the mark.
As for the point on employment, I don't dispute what you say. I was responding to another poster who implied that over 50% of Catholics were unemployed. Regardless of the undeniable discrimination at the time, that claim was clearly ridiculous and adds nothing to the argument.
Lynchboy is the local equivalent of "But you weren't in Nam, maaann"
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 01, 2014, 09:48:13 PM
Lynchboy is the local equivalent of "But you weren't in Nam, maaann"
Not quite
It would be the equivalent of someone now telling us all how 'nam should have been handled.
All well and good but it completely discounts all the variables and environment 'there' at the time - which are crucial to any decision or informed opinion.
Hindsight and reading the info doesn't give the full picture.
Maguire- huge and Mallon brought the war against oppression to the tv screens and even though they were shouted down at every programme by the loyalist/unionists - they showed the people just how ridiculous the second class citizenship was and thus folk realised it wasn't 'just them' that they were right in feeling victimised and saw the disparity between the first class and second class treatment.
There was no sf then. Sdlp were not the diarrhoea back then ( ok some of them were) as they are now
Just watched it. By the looks of his marijuana plant Gerard Hodgkins is without doubt the clear winner 8)
Quote from: Ulick on October 01, 2014, 10:16:33 PM
Just watched it. By the looks of his marijuana plant Gerard Hodgkins is without doubt the clear winner 8)
Ha ha you know him so well ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: hardstation on October 01, 2014, 10:21:52 PM
Nah, Sean McKinley obviously was.
Yeah thought that was very sad.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 01, 2014, 09:58:46 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 01, 2014, 09:48:13 PM
Lynchboy is the local equivalent of "But you weren't in Nam, maaann"
Not quite
It would be the equivalent of someone now telling us all how 'nam should have been handled.
All well and good but it completely discounts all the variables and environment 'there' at the time - which are crucial to any decision or informed opinion.
Hindsight and reading the info doesn't give the full picture.
Maguire- huge and Mallon brought the war against oppression to the tv screens and even though they were shouted down at every programme by the loyalist/unionists - they showed the people just how ridiculous the second class citizenship was and thus folk realised it wasn't 'just them' that they were right in feeling victimised and saw the disparity between the first class and second class treatment.
There was no sf then. Sdlp were not the diarrhoea back then ( ok some of them were) as they are now
And my point is, if my opinion is wrong, then the logic follows that their opinion was also wrong. I wasn't there in the 1960s, but they were.
So if they were great men and great politicians in advocating the pursuit of civil rights and equality by peaceful and political means, and opposing violence, how is it that i'm supposedly so far off the mark for sharing that same opinion?
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 01, 2014, 10:31:13 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 01, 2014, 09:58:46 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 01, 2014, 09:48:13 PM
Lynchboy is the local equivalent of "But you weren't in Nam, maaann"
Not quite
It would be the equivalent of someone now telling us all how 'nam should have been handled.
All well and good but it completely discounts all the variables and environment 'there' at the time - which are crucial to any decision or informed opinion.
Hindsight and reading the info doesn't give the full picture.
Maguire- huge and Mallon brought the war against oppression to the tv screens and even though they were shouted down at every programme by the loyalist/unionists - they showed the people just how ridiculous the second class citizenship was and thus folk realised it wasn't 'just them' that they were right in feeling victimised and saw the disparity between the first class and second class treatment.
There was no sf then. Sdlp were not the diarrhoea back then ( ok some of them were) as they are now
And my point is, if my opinion is wrong, then the logic follows that their opinion was also wrong. I wasn't there in the 1960s, but they were.
So if they were great men and great politicians in advocating the pursuit of civil rights and equality by peaceful and political means, and opposing violence, how is it that i'm supposedly so far off the mark for sharing that same opinion?
Where did I say they were great men for opposing violence?
Seriously you just don't get it. That's why I say it's because you are missing the insight of understand in the place during the 'troubles' as you weren't there or party to any of it.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 02, 2014, 08:33:39 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 01, 2014, 10:31:13 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 01, 2014, 09:58:46 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 01, 2014, 09:48:13 PM
Lynchboy is the local equivalent of "But you weren't in Nam, maaann"
Not quite
It would be the equivalent of someone now telling us all how 'nam should have been handled.
All well and good but it completely discounts all the variables and environment 'there' at the time - which are crucial to any decision or informed opinion.
Hindsight and reading the info doesn't give the full picture.
Maguire- huge and Mallon brought the war against oppression to the tv screens and even though they were shouted down at every programme by the loyalist/unionists - they showed the people just how ridiculous the second class citizenship was and thus folk realised it wasn't 'just them' that they were right in feeling victimised and saw the disparity between the first class and second class treatment.
There was no sf then. Sdlp were not the diarrhoea back then ( ok some of them were) as they are now
And my point is, if my opinion is wrong, then the logic follows that their opinion was also wrong. I wasn't there in the 1960s, but they were.
So if they were great men and great politicians in advocating the pursuit of civil rights and equality by peaceful and political means, and opposing violence, how is it that i'm supposedly so far off the mark for sharing that same opinion?
Where did I say they were great men for opposing violence?
Seriously you just don't get it. That's why I say it's because you are missing the insight of understand in the place during the 'troubles' as you weren't there or party to any of it.
Ok, so they were great men and politicians even though their fundamental principle of non-violence was wrong/misguided? Reads like a contradiction to me, but whatever.
But this idea that I don't get it because I wasn't there doesn't stand up to logic, given that many of those who WERE THERE, including Hume and Mallon, reached the same conclusions.
At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.
It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.
The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 11:14:01 AM
At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.
It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.
The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.
no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.
as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.
the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.
You still won't get a unionist/loyalist leader today to come out and admit that the inequality of Stormont and local government leading up to the civil rights movement in any way contributed to the troubles.
They just don't see it that way.
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 11:14:01 AM
At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.
It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.
The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.
wum.
Quote from: johnneycool on October 03, 2014, 12:39:33 PM
You still won't get a unionist/loyalist leader today to come out and admit that the inequality of Stormont and local government leading up to the civil rights movement in any way contributed to the troubles.
They just don't see it that way.
They still have the blinkered ubermensch mentality that they were, are and always will be right, that the 6 Cos was a grand place till the IRA started using violence for no reason.
They still seem to see the starting point in any talks as
1- Republicans need to apologise ( "for starting all the trouble")
2- Orangemen to be allowed to walk where they want ( "Civil rights")
3- Union Jacks to fly everywhere ( "NI is an integral part of UK and totally British")
They totally ignore the demographics that will likely see the "Catholic/Nationalist/Irish" Community being a majority by 2021.
Quote from: johnneycool on October 03, 2014, 12:39:33 PM
You still won't get a unionist/loyalist leader today to come out and admit that the inequality of Stormont and local government leading up to the civil rights movement in any way contributed to the troubles.
They just don't see it that way.
That is very true. There are plenty of unionist who do accept that all of these things happened but there isn't a unionist polictian who will stand up and say it. The splintered nature of unionist politics does not produce good leadership. There are unionist commentators who are prepared to say what needs to be said.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 11:14:01 AM
At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.
It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.
The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.
no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.
as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.
the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.
I don't suppose anybody does want to have to justify death. I mean, where would you start? Thankfully its not something I have to do.
Just becasue you announce something as proof does not actually make is proof.
Do you know, the Unionist posturing over Stormont at the moment would make you believe that Republicans/Nationalists actually give a fcuk about the place. Generally speaking we don't, its loss would be a bigger blow to Unionists.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 03, 2014, 01:04:53 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on October 03, 2014, 12:39:33 PM
You still won't get a unionist/loyalist leader today to come out and admit that the inequality of Stormont and local government leading up to the civil rights movement in any way contributed to the troubles.
They just don't see it that way.
They still have the blinkered ubermensch mentality that they were, are and always will be right, that the 6 Cos was a grand place till the IRA started using violence for no reason.
They still seem to see the starting point in any talks as
1- Republicans need to apologise ( "for starting all the trouble")
2- Orangemen to be allowed to walk where they want ( "Civil rights")
3- Union Jacks to fly everywhere ( "NI is an integral part of UK and totally British")
They totally ignore the demographics that will likely see the "Catholic/Nationalist/Irish" Community being a majority by 2021.
I agree that politcial leadership within unionism remains blinkered. There is a significant but too easily silenced unionist underbelly that would utterly reject points 2 and 3. They woud uphold point 1 but would not see that as the only apology that needs to be made.
As for the demographics. They are at best unclear and the the voting intent/future voting intent in a constitutional referendum is very much unclear. The point that is most troubling today and was touched upon in Taylor's documentary is the group within unionism that won't accept and vote for a united Ireland. The lack of leadership within unionism means that group are not being tackled and that is the backdrop to a violent reaction to any future united ireland.
As I have posted previously I consider the likelihood of a united ireland anytime soom very low. Any vote in NI will be very disruptive and highlight the basket case we are. That then would be the context of the southern referendum. They would run a bloody mile
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 03, 2014, 01:18:53 PM
Do you know, the Unionist posturing over Stormont at the moment would make you believe that Republicans/Nationalists actually give a fcuk about the place. Generally speaking we don't, its loss would be a bigger blow to Unionists.
The "holiday" option suites the shinners well. A porogue of stormont allows powers to be handed back to NIO. NIO implement the welfare cuts. Power goes back to the executive. Sinn Fein can still tell the southern voters that they didn't implement the welfare cuts in the northern and everybody trundles along
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 01:16:11 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 11:14:01 AM
At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.
It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.
The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.
no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.
as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.
the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.
I don't suppose anybody does want to have to justify death. I mean, where would you start? Thankfully its not something I have to do.
Just becasue you announce something as proof does not actually make is proof.
its more factual than the 'what if's' of the (non) progress that was not or ever going to be made (sadly) by dialogue.
when you have ex brit gov ministers grudgingly stating that violence assisted the fast tracking of things to gfa - then there might be something in it. he's hardly a pro republican (prior) ...though he and politicans are in general not to be believed !!
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 01:25:34 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 03, 2014, 01:04:53 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on October 03, 2014, 12:39:33 PM
You still won't get a unionist/loyalist leader today to come out and admit that the inequality of Stormont and local government leading up to the civil rights movement in any way contributed to the troubles.
They just don't see it that way.
They still have the blinkered ubermensch mentality that they were, are and always will be right, that the 6 Cos was a grand place till the IRA started using violence for no reason.
They still seem to see the starting point in any talks as
1- Republicans need to apologise ( "for starting all the trouble")
2- Orangemen to be allowed to walk where they want ( "Civil rights")
3- Union Jacks to fly everywhere ( "NI is an integral part of UK and totally British")
They totally ignore the demographics that will likely see the "Catholic/Nationalist/Irish" Community being a majority by 2021.
I agree that politcial leadership within unionism remains blinkered. There is a significant but too easily silenced unionist underbelly that would utterly reject points 2 and 3. They woud uphold point 1 but would not see that as the only apology that needs to be made.
As for the demographics. They are at best unclear and the the voting intent/future voting intent in a constitutional referendum is very much unclear. The point that is most troubling today and was touched upon in Taylor's documentary is the group within unionism that won't accept and vote for a united Ireland. The lack of leadership within unionism means that group are not being tackled and that is the backdrop to a violent reaction to any future united ireland.
As I have posted previously I consider the likelihood of a united ireland anytime soom very low. Any vote in NI will be very disruptive and highlight the basket case we are. That then would be the context of the southern referendum. They would run a bloody mile
until the economics change and a majority of unionists will prefer to reap the financial benefits of a reunified Ireland and again (like celtic tiger times) abandon their principles and vote yes.
Same for the southern contingent. we are all money mad and if its financially beneficial, the vote will be yes too.
a reunification might breathe life into the fg/sdlp/unionist parties as if/when they bandy together, they could be close to forming a gov!
that would be some craic, the unionists/loyalists in a coalition with power in the driving seat in a reunified Ireland!!
don't laugh.....imo its very real !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 02:19:49 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 01:16:11 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 11:14:01 AM
At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.
It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.
The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.
no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.
as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.
the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.
I don't suppose anybody does want to have to justify death. I mean, where would you start? Thankfully its not something I have to do.
Just becasue you announce something as proof does not actually make is proof.
its more factual than the 'what if's' of the (non) progress that was not or ever going to be made (sadly) by dialogue.
when you have ex brit gov ministers grudgingly stating that violence assisted the fast tracking of things to gfa - then there might be something in it. he's hardly a pro republican (prior) ...though he and politicans are in general not to be believed !!
I'd say the bombing of Canary Wharf brought pressure on the English government moreso than anything happening here as it was hindering big business, the banking sector in a big way.
Quote from: johnneycool on October 03, 2014, 02:25:33 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 02:19:49 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 01:16:11 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 11:14:01 AM
At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.
It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.
The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.
no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.
as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.
the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.
I don't suppose anybody does want to have to justify death. I mean, where would you start? Thankfully its not something I have to do.
Just becasue you announce something as proof does not actually make is proof.
its more factual than the 'what if's' of the (non) progress that was not or ever going to be made (sadly) by dialogue.
when you have ex brit gov ministers grudgingly stating that violence assisted the fast tracking of things to gfa - then there might be something in it. he's hardly a pro republican (prior) ...though he and politicans are in general not to be believed !!
I'd say the bombing of Canary Wharf brought pressure on the English government moreso than anything happening here as it was hindering big business, the banking sector in a big way.
true. it was alright once we were confined to fighting in paddyland. different story once they saw this sihte firsthand.
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 01:28:38 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 03, 2014, 01:18:53 PM
Do you know, the Unionist posturing over Stormont at the moment would make you believe that Republicans/Nationalists actually give a fcuk about the place. Generally speaking we don't, its loss would be a bigger blow to Unionists.
The "holiday" option suites the shinners well. A porogue of stormont allows powers to be handed back to NIO. NIO implement the welfare cuts. Power goes back to the executive. Sinn Fein can still tell the southern voters that they didn't implement the welfare cuts in the northern and everybody trundles along
But in that case it supports exactly the unionist charge that they aren't capable of taking the hard decisions which is what government is about.
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 03, 2014, 02:53:25 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 01:28:38 PM
The "holiday" option suites the shinners well. A porogue of stormont allows powers to be handed back to NIO. NIO implement the welfare cuts. Power goes back to the executive.
But in that case it supports exactly the unionist charge that they aren't capable of taking the hard decisions which is what government is about.
I await with baited breath for the day a Unionist Politician makes a hard decision........ ::)
Quote from: johnneycool on October 03, 2014, 02:25:33 PM
I'd say the bombing of Canary Wharf brought pressure on the English government moreso than anything happening here as it was hindering big business, the banking sector in a big way.
Quite happy to let both sides fight over scraps in another country. When you demonstrate how to financially cripple a country it's a different ballgame. Looking back on it that was a hell of a chess move, especially since it broke the ceasefire.
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 03, 2014, 01:18:53 PM
Do you know, the Unionist posturing over Stormont at the moment would make you believe that Republicans/Nationalists actually give a fcuk about the place. Generally speaking we don't, its loss would be a bigger blow to Unionists.
Unionists will only care about Stormont until the moment there's a nationalist / republican majority and a SF First Minister. Then they'll collapse it and ask for direct rule again. They will never accept the reality of being a minority.
It was very sad to see the wee lad who was interviewed 40 years ago who vowed back then to fight for his country and take on the Brits. Now 52 he looked much more, having served life for his part in the war.
For once, Blair seemed honest in his assessment that no one won the war but everyone one the peace.
The orange woman who seemed to have one too many on board was another sad case when she told the policeman that Rabbinson needed to grow a set and that Rabbinson had sold the orange order out.
Taylor's observation that he has watched parades for 40 plus years and back in 70s in Ardoyne the large marches were made up of Catholics looking for civil rights and now the large marches consist of Orangemen looking for what they feel they have lost was an intersting one.Full circle.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 11:14:01 AM
At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.
It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.
The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.
no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.
as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.
the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.
They weren't moving anywhere fast, but that bit in bold is simply incorrect. Many Unionists were kicking and screaming, but the Housing Executive was formed in 1971 and the One Man, One Vote was legislated for by Stormont in 1969. That's two of the Civil Rights Association's 6 demands. It was nowhere close to being enough, but it was a start.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 02:19:49 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 01:16:11 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 11:14:01 AM
At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.
It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.
The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.
no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.
as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.
the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.
I don't suppose anybody does want to have to justify death. I mean, where would you start? Thankfully its not something I have to do.
Just becasue you announce something as proof does not actually make is proof.
its more factual than the 'what if's' of the (non) progress that was not or ever going to be made (sadly) by dialogue.
when you have ex brit gov ministers grudgingly stating that violence assisted the fast tracking of things to gfa - then there might be something in it. he's hardly a pro republican (prior) ...though he and politicans are in general not to be believed !!
But the biggest achievement of the GFA was peace itself, so to suggest that the violence achieved the GFA is ludicrous.
And Prior didn't suggest that "violence assisted the fast tracking of things to gfa" - he suggested that Republicans had won the war. Maybe his interpretation of victory is McGuinness sitting as dFM. But again, that's one opinion, and one that you'd disregard out of hand if it didn't suit.
What else did the GFA achieve?
Well it cemented the principle of consent and allowed for a referendum if there looks like it's likely there'll be a Catholic majority. In reality, that was always the case.
It provided for power-sharing at Stormont. Maybe that's some kind of political equality, but really, how has it improved the lives of nationalists (or anyone for that matter)?
It got people out of prison (again, just like the peace itself, all that did was reverse some of what had happened during the conflict - in itself it advanced nothing).
The fact is, the GFA's biggest achievement was peace itself, so to suggest that violence fast-tracked peace...
....and what fast tracked things to the GFA??
Hint - it wasn't dialogue and the kind hearted benevolence of the unionists/loyalists!!
Sorry maguire, I know you want to espouse the sdlp agenda and that the reality of violent resistence having fast tracked the required change - but that's the reality of it.
It's not arrogance , it's what happened prior to your on the ground first hand knowledge of the six county situation .
Sad to say it took violence in the mix to escalate things - but it did. Violence alone also did not and would not achieve anything. As dialogue alone ( with people not willing to listen) was not getting us anywhere. It took many things and unfortunately violence was one of them.
If you'd been where we were and experienced what we did - then you'd understand.
Also this was not experienced in all parts of the six counties. Do just speaking from personal exp.
What if's are grand - but not the reality.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 08:58:49 PM
....and what fast tracked things to the GFA??
But as per my previous post, the GFA's biggest achievement was peace itself, so the idea that violence fast-tracked peace is illogical.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 08:58:49 PM
If you'd been where we were and experienced what we did - then you'd understand.
You persist with this line, but ignore the fact (not opinion) that many who DID live in the middle of it all DID oppose violence.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 03, 2014, 09:38:46 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 08:58:49 PM
....and what fast tracked things to the GFA??
But as per my previous post, the GFA's biggest achievement was peace itself, so the idea that violence fast-tracked peace is illogical.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 08:58:49 PM
If you'd been where we were and experienced what we did - then you'd understand.
You persist with this line, but ignore the fact (not opinion) that many who DID live in the middle of it all DID oppose violence.
Ok
You are not making any sense at all now
Yes, absolutely people opposed violence - I don't think anyone wanted to resort to it
But
And to tie in your first piece
That in no way disproves that the violence helped and fast tracked the final decision to peace ( when it was shown dialogue wasn't working AND even now unionist/loyalists don't want to talk or agree with anything )
You just don't get it.
I can't keep repeating this - it's there in historical fact.
Oppression, civil rights and attempts at dialogue not working, the violent retaliation, the eventual ceasefires and peace/gfa - no matter what parallel universe or history misunderstanding you have.
Maybe it's an issue with your own arrogance!?
Interesting article from Danny Morrison first published in 2007
145 Divis Street
It wasn't supposed to be like this, thought one of Ian Paisley's lieutenants as he looked out across the front lawn of the City Hall. Above him the Union Jack flew, but before his eyes were thousands of St Patrick's Day revellers; dancing and singing; children on their fathers' shoulders applauding Girls Aloud. A sea of green - but worst still were flags coloured green, white and orange: the hated Tricolour.
What had gone wrong?
There was a time when 27,000 occupied houses in Belfast were unfit for human habitation. There was a time when in West Belfast male unemployment reached fifty per cent in places like Ballymurphy. In Enniskillen figures showed that Protestants were being allocated public housing at the rate of 11 to 1 over Catholics who made up half the population. There was a time when the IRA border campaign had fizzled out, when republicans were demoralised and were prepared to try new tactics, including participating in politics.
In Britain in September 1964 the Tory government called a Westminster general election for October 15. Sinn Fein was proscribed but for election purposes it stood as the Republican Party. On September 6, the republicans put a Tricolour in the front window of their election headquarters at 145 Divis Street.
The campaign got off to a slow start for all parties. Ulster Unionists were united and were standing in all twelve constituencies. The nationalist vote was badly divided – though in West Belfast Harry Diamond of Republican Labour was quietly confident that there was some unionist apathy and he could beat James Kilfedder for the seat, even though the intervention of former IRA prisoner Billy McMillan would split the vote.
The first scare came on Saturday, September 26, in a screaming front-page headline, when the 'News Letter' announced: "The Dollars Roll In – 'Plenty' in Sinn Fein election coffers". The main lead in its Monday edition was: "Paisley to march against Tricolour". Ian Paisley, Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, called upon Protestants to assemble in their thousands at the City Hall that evening to march on Divis Street. It was a call that sent a chill through the nationalist community, which had been subject to loyalist and police incursions in previous decades.
The RUC told the Minister of Home Affairs that it regarded the display of the Tricolour and Paisley's proposed protest as 'provocative acts'. (The flag had been in the window for three weeks without a complaint being made.) The Minister met Paisley and appealed to him. He agreed to call off the march but not the rally.
Later that day fifty RUC men, using pick axes and crowbars, smashed their way into the republican offices, seized the Tricolour, put it into a patrol car and drove off at high speed, whilst a sullen crowd of several hundred nationalists looked on. A notice was served on Billy McMillan, under the Flags and Emblems Act, which referred to the illegal "display of the Tricolour flag or flags of the Irish Republic, or any other flag or anything purporting to represent the Irish Republic."
From the street nationalists began shouting abuse at those in the republican office and demanded that a new Tricolour be displayed. The election directorate assuaged the crowd by issuing an ultimatum to the RUC that if the flag wasn't returned by Thursday it would be replaced.
That Monday night Paisley held a triumphant rally in the grounds of the City Hall where he welcomed unionist candidate, James Kilfedder. Kilfedder told the crowd: "The republicans must not be allowed to fly the Tricolour, and when the last vote is counted on polling day we must show the world that there was no wavering in the determination of the people to keep the Union Jack flying over West Belfast."
Unionist voters in the constituency were now galvanised.
In Ballynahinch, prime minister Terence O'Neill, surrounded by members of the Apprentice Boys, the Black Preceptory and six Orange bands, commenting on the seizure of the Tricolour, ridiculously declared that Sinn Fein was the main challenge and described the republicans as "nothing more than modern anarchists who refuse even now to abjure the discredited policy of violence." He ignored the fact that the threat of violence came from Paisley and the actual violence from the RUC under government instruction.
On Tuesday night Paisley held another rally at the City Hall and called upon the Minister to prosecute those responsible for displaying the flag. Over in Divis Street there was a standoff between a large nationalist crowd and riot police. On Wednesday night there were more scuffles, followed by RUC baton charges and stone throwing. On Thursday, after lodging their nomination papers, the republican candidates returned to the election headquarters and once again placed a Tricolour in the window to the cheers of supporters.
Shortly after 2pm a column of RUC men, backed up by a tender, arrived at the offices. They tried to break down the reinforced door and when that failed they simply smashed the pane-glass window, stepped in and seized the flag. Immediately, fighting broke out and by evening rioting was widespread throughout Divis Street and the Falls Road, and continued for the next two nights. Hundreds were injured and scores of people, including a mother of eight, were arrested and subsequently imprisoned for up to six months.
Calm was eventually restored but at the cost of nationalists biting their tongue: the Tricolour was never replaced in the window of 145 Divis Street - though the RUC didn't interfere either with the flag when it was carried in a parade from Beechmount to Hamill Street, which concluded in an election rally.
During the election campaign the British Labour leader (and subsequent prime minister) Harold Wilson issued a pledge to the Campaign for Social Justice that as PM he would outlaw racial and religious discrimination in the North. His remarks drew this page one headline from the 'News Letter': 'Interference in Ulster housing – Wilson bombshell'.
On October 15, James Kilfedder defeated Harry Diamond to become the Unionist MP for West Belfast. Billy McMillan lost his deposit. After the republican split in 1969 he became a leader in the 'Official' Republican Movement and was later assassinated by the INLA during a feud.
Kilfedder was carried shoulder-high at the City Hall amid cheers and the singing of 'The Sash'. He was greeted by an ebullient Ian Paisley who said: "I am absolutely satisfied. Sandy Row and Shankill did their stuff. They are well able to answer the Falls any day."
Last Wednesday, on St Patrick's Day, thousands of young people carrying Tricolours swarmed down Divis Street, past where 145 once stood, but oblivious to its history, through Castle Street and up Donegall Place to a concert outside the City Hall. It was the very route, in reverse, that 38-year-old Ian Paisley had threatened to take from the City Hall to Divis Street forty years earlier to remove from a window one Tricolour.
What, indeed, had gone wrong.
< Prev ... Next >
[ back ]
© 2007 Irish Author and Journalist - Danny Morrison
Quote from: glens abu on October 04, 2014, 05:40:06 PM
Interesting article from Danny Morrison first published in 2007
145 Divis Street
It wasn't supposed to be like this, thought one of Ian Paisley's lieutenants as he looked out across the front lawn of the City Hall. Above him the Union Jack flew, but before his eyes were thousands of St Patrick's Day revellers; dancing and singing; children on their fathers' shoulders applauding Girls Aloud. A sea of green - but worst still were flags coloured green, white and orange: the hated Tricolour.
What had gone wrong?
There was a time when 27,000 occupied houses in Belfast were unfit for human habitation. There was a time when in West Belfast male unemployment reached fifty per cent in places like Ballymurphy. In Enniskillen figures showed that Protestants were being allocated public housing at the rate of 11 to 1 over Catholics who made up half the population. There was a time when the IRA border campaign had fizzled out, when republicans were demoralised and were prepared to try new tactics, including participating in politics.
In Britain in September 1964 the Tory government called a Westminster general election for October 15. Sinn Fein was proscribed but for election purposes it stood as the Republican Party. On September 6, the republicans put a Tricolour in the front window of their election headquarters at 145 Divis Street.
The campaign got off to a slow start for all parties. Ulster Unionists were united and were standing in all twelve constituencies. The nationalist vote was badly divided – though in West Belfast Harry Diamond of Republican Labour was quietly confident that there was some unionist apathy and he could beat James Kilfedder for the seat, even though the intervention of former IRA prisoner Billy McMillan would split the vote.
The first scare came on Saturday, September 26, in a screaming front-page headline, when the 'News Letter' announced: "The Dollars Roll In – 'Plenty' in Sinn Fein election coffers". The main lead in its Monday edition was: "Paisley to march against Tricolour". Ian Paisley, Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, called upon Protestants to assemble in their thousands at the City Hall that evening to march on Divis Street. It was a call that sent a chill through the nationalist community, which had been subject to loyalist and police incursions in previous decades.
The RUC told the Minister of Home Affairs that it regarded the display of the Tricolour and Paisley's proposed protest as 'provocative acts'. (The flag had been in the window for three weeks without a complaint being made.) The Minister met Paisley and appealed to him. He agreed to call off the march but not the rally.
Later that day fifty RUC men, using pick axes and crowbars, smashed their way into the republican offices, seized the Tricolour, put it into a patrol car and drove off at high speed, whilst a sullen crowd of several hundred nationalists looked on. A notice was served on Billy McMillan, under the Flags and Emblems Act, which referred to the illegal "display of the Tricolour flag or flags of the Irish Republic, or any other flag or anything purporting to represent the Irish Republic."
From the street nationalists began shouting abuse at those in the republican office and demanded that a new Tricolour be displayed. The election directorate assuaged the crowd by issuing an ultimatum to the RUC that if the flag wasn't returned by Thursday it would be replaced.
That Monday night Paisley held a triumphant rally in the grounds of the City Hall where he welcomed unionist candidate, James Kilfedder. Kilfedder told the crowd: "The republicans must not be allowed to fly the Tricolour, and when the last vote is counted on polling day we must show the world that there was no wavering in the determination of the people to keep the Union Jack flying over West Belfast."
Unionist voters in the constituency were now galvanised.
In Ballynahinch, prime minister Terence O'Neill, surrounded by members of the Apprentice Boys, the Black Preceptory and six Orange bands, commenting on the seizure of the Tricolour, ridiculously declared that Sinn Fein was the main challenge and described the republicans as "nothing more than modern anarchists who refuse even now to abjure the discredited policy of violence." He ignored the fact that the threat of violence came from Paisley and the actual violence from the RUC under government instruction.
On Tuesday night Paisley held another rally at the City Hall and called upon the Minister to prosecute those responsible for displaying the flag. Over in Divis Street there was a standoff between a large nationalist crowd and riot police. On Wednesday night there were more scuffles, followed by RUC baton charges and stone throwing. On Thursday, after lodging their nomination papers, the republican candidates returned to the election headquarters and once again placed a Tricolour in the window to the cheers of supporters.
Shortly after 2pm a column of RUC men, backed up by a tender, arrived at the offices. They tried to break down the reinforced door and when that failed they simply smashed the pane-glass window, stepped in and seized the flag. Immediately, fighting broke out and by evening rioting was widespread throughout Divis Street and the Falls Road, and continued for the next two nights. Hundreds were injured and scores of people, including a mother of eight, were arrested and subsequently imprisoned for up to six months.
Calm was eventually restored but at the cost of nationalists biting their tongue: the Tricolour was never replaced in the window of 145 Divis Street - though the RUC didn't interfere either with the flag when it was carried in a parade from Beechmount to Hamill Street, which concluded in an election rally.
During the election campaign the British Labour leader (and subsequent prime minister) Harold Wilson issued a pledge to the Campaign for Social Justice that as PM he would outlaw racial and religious discrimination in the North. His remarks drew this page one headline from the 'News Letter': 'Interference in Ulster housing – Wilson bombshell'.
On October 15, James Kilfedder defeated Harry Diamond to become the Unionist MP for West Belfast. Billy McMillan lost his deposit. After the republican split in 1969 he became a leader in the 'Official' Republican Movement and was later assassinated by the INLA during a feud.
Kilfedder was carried shoulder-high at the City Hall amid cheers and the singing of 'The Sash'. He was greeted by an ebullient Ian Paisley who said: "I am absolutely satisfied. Sandy Row and Shankill did their stuff. They are well able to answer the Falls any day."
Last Wednesday, on St Patrick's Day, thousands of young people carrying Tricolours swarmed down Divis Street, past where 145 once stood, but oblivious to its history, through Castle Street and up Donegall Place to a concert outside the City Hall. It was the very route, in reverse, that 38-year-old Ian Paisley had threatened to take from the City Hall to Divis Street forty years earlier to remove from a window one Tricolour.
What, indeed, had gone wrong.
< Prev ... Next >
[ back ]
© 2007 Irish Author and Journalist - Danny Morrison
Great article.
Shows that at the time sitting back only allowed the status quo to continue. Try to defy them and you'll get locked up.
Talking is fine but actions speak louder than words.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 03, 2014, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 03, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on October 03, 2014, 11:14:01 AM
At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.
It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.
The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.
no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.
as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.
the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.
They weren't moving anywhere fast, but that bit in bold is simply incorrect. Many Unionists were kicking and screaming, but the Housing Executive was formed in 1971 and the One Man, One Vote was legislated for by Stormont in 1969. That's two of the Civil Rights Association's 6 demands. It was nowhere close to being enough, but it was a start.
Not moving fast, now there is an understatement. 40 years on and those self same people are many camp Twadell, organizing graduated responses etc very progressive.
Unionists are used to getting their own way. Like spoilt children they expect to get their own way and if. It, they'll toss the toys out of the pram. They don't know any other response.
Its worked for them in past so why would they do any different.
Quote from: Hereiam on October 06, 2014, 09:35:26 AM
Its worked for them in past so why would they do any different.
The eyes of the world are on them and people have copped on to their childish behaviour. They're being told to grow up now which never happened before and the stick has come out a time or two which again never happened before.