The Southern "Irish"

[The Real Laoislad]

I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.

I met a Dub once who thought I was from County Portlaoise...

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.

Don'y get me wrong, I have met many "educated" people in the six counties, who think that Strabane is in Co Derry!

I hope you pointed out it's Co. Londonderry...

Don't know where that is!
Anyway it's in Co Tyrone.  

[Evil Genius]

I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.

Don'y get me wrong, I have met many "educated" people in the six counties, who think that Strabane is in Co Derry!

I hope you pointed out it's Co. Londonderry...

Don't know where that is!
Anyway it's in Co Tyrone.  

With three rivers and a canal, surely to goodness it would be no bother to divert the flow somewhere so as to move Strabane from Tyrone to Donegal, thereby improving both counties?     

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.

Don'y get me wrong, I have met many "educated" people in the six counties, who think that Strabane is in Co Derry!

I hope you pointed out it's Co. Londonderry...

Don't know where that is!
Anyway it's in Co Tyrone.  

With three rivers and a canal, surely to goodness it would be no bother to divert the flow somewhere so as to move Strabane from Tyrone to Donegal, thereby improving both counties?     

  Cheeky cnut! 

[Evil Genius]

I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.

Don'y get me wrong, I have met many "educated" people in the six counties, who think that Strabane is in Co Derry!

I hope you pointed out it's Co. Londonderry...

Don't know where that is!
Anyway it's in Co Tyrone.  

With three rivers and a canal, surely to goodness it would be no bother to divert the flow somewhere so as to move Strabane from Tyrone to Donegal, thereby improving both counties?     

  Cheeky cnut! 

Don't blame me - it was that Myles Na G character who put me up to it...

P.S. That's enough of the personal abuse - you don't know who you're dissapointing...

[his holiness nb]

P.S. That's enough of the personal abuse - you don't know who you're dissapointing...

I can categorically proclaim that I am not dissapointed by that post EG 

But lets not be childish and drag a discussion from one thread into another with silly little swipes.

No need for it. Lets just try to get along.
Thats all I ask 

[Myles Na G.]

Myles

We need to recognise that the Protestant /British part of our population is as legitimately Irish as the Catholic / nationalist part. The implications of that are quite significant. It would mean accepting that the 6 north eastern counties of the island are part of the UK because a significant number of Irishmen and Irish women want it that way. It would mean accepting that Northern Ireland is an Irish state in exactly the same way that the 26 county republic is. That means that the Northern Ireland flag - the old Stormont government banner - is an Irish flag just like the tricolour. (Maybe it could even fly at Croke for rugby internationals). Once we start recognising and respecting our protestant / British neighbours as first class Irish citizens, they can maybe start taking us seriously when we tell them that their rights / culture / identity etc would be respected in an independent unitary state. Won't happen tomorrow, but if we don't start down that road it won't happen at all.

Who isn't recognising unionists as being Irish?
A bigger number of Irish men and women don't want the 6 counties to be part of the Uk. 
An old flag? Is that all that unionism has to bring to the table in redefining Irishness? Is that all they'd want in the definition to allow them all to declare themselves Irish because lets not forget an awful lot would knock your teeth in if you said they were Irish.
When have Protestants/Unionsts not have been treated as first class irish citizens?

If I can take your first and last statements - I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island. There are the obvious historical reasons, whereby Planter and Gael, Catholic and Protestant have been traditional enemies. In more modern times, this has translated itself into a more subtle form of in - group / out-group dynamic. Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic. The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect. The insistence of protestants in the north east of the island in retaining their sense of Britishness has also contributed to nationalists viewing them as second class Irish. In the minds of most nationalists, Irish and British are incompatible, therefore anyone who says they are British cannot be Irish at the same time.

I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.

I also accept that there are some unionists who wouldn't class themselves as Irish at all. They are citizens of this island, nonetheless, and have every right to define themselves as they see fit.

[Evil Genius]

I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island. There are the obvious historical reasons, whereby Planter and Gael, Catholic and Protestant have been traditional enemies. In more modern times, this has translated itself into a more subtle form of in - group / out-group dynamic. Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic. The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect. The insistence of protestants in the north east of the island in retaining their sense of Britishness has also contributed to nationalists viewing them as second class Irish. In the minds of most nationalists, Irish and British are incompatible, therefore anyone who says they are British cannot be Irish at the same time.

I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.

I also accept that there are some unionists who wouldn't class themselves as Irish at all. They are citizens of this island, nonetheless, and have every right to define themselves as they see fit.

I couldn't have put it better myself! 

(Though no offence, Myles, but I would never use a phrase like "in-group/out-group dynamic". Is it something to do with Line Dancing or the Hokey Cokey?  )

[Myles Na G.]

I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island. There are the obvious historical reasons, whereby Planter and Gael, Catholic and Protestant have been traditional enemies. In more modern times, this has translated itself into a more subtle form of in - group / out-group dynamic. Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic. The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect. The insistence of protestants in the north east of the island in retaining their sense of Britishness has also contributed to nationalists viewing them as second class Irish. In the minds of most nationalists, Irish and British are incompatible, therefore anyone who says they are British cannot be Irish at the same time.

I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.

I also accept that there are some unionists who wouldn't class themselves as Irish at all. They are citizens of this island, nonetheless, and have every right to define themselves as they see fit.

I couldn't have put it better myself! 

(Though no offence, Myles, but I would never use a phrase like "in-group/out-group dynamic". Is it something to do with Line Dancing or the Hokey Cokey?  )

Are you sure that it's not the phrase?

[Evil Genius]

I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island. There are the obvious historical reasons, whereby Planter and Gael, Catholic and Protestant have been traditional enemies. In more modern times, this has translated itself into a more subtle form of in - group / out-group dynamic. Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic. The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect. The insistence of protestants in the north east of the island in retaining their sense of Britishness has also contributed to nationalists viewing them as second class Irish. In the minds of most nationalists, Irish and British are incompatible, therefore anyone who says they are British cannot be Irish at the same time.

I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.

I also accept that there are some unionists who wouldn't class themselves as Irish at all. They are citizens of this island, nonetheless, and have every right to define themselves as they see fit.

I couldn't have put it better myself! 

(Though no offence, Myles, but I would never use a phrase like "in-group/out-group dynamic". Is it something to do with Line Dancing or the Hokey Cokey?  )

Are you sure that it's not the phrase?

Shhhh, don't alert everyone, or before you/we/I* know it, they'll be after us for the Masonic Handshake, the Solemn & Binding Oath of Admission to the Lodge, Captain Jack Sparrow's Treasure Map and the Secret of How to Open a Milk Carton without Spilling It all over you, while Lying Severely Hungover in Bed...

* - Delete as applicable

[pintsofguinness]

Myles

If I can take your first and last statements - I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island.

Where is your evidence for this? Do any of the main nationalist parties feel that protestant's arent Irish? Adams has said he believes them to be Irishmen like him so I dont know where that would come from. 

Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic.

And I've asked you what would needed to be included in this definiton of Irishness that would include protestants and the only think you've been able to suggest is a flag.  So, you criticise a definiton of irishness but arent able to tell me what it should be. 

The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion.

Well why wouldnt they? What's the issue with the Irish language? There was no ulster scots in 1922 so they could have hardly included that in the constitution.  There would have been what? 90-95%? of the citizens of the freestate Catholics so that's why it was given a place in the constitution.

The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect.

What? That's what religions do! Do you think this was only confined to Ireland so as to marginalise protestants?

I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.

Why not? 80% or more of the Island was forced in to an arragnement in 1922. 
Who was shooting and bombing them btw? 

[Main Street]

it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.

[Zapatista]

it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.

Plus a large % of Nationalist voters. The days of being at the whim of a small % of Unionists are over.

[Myles Na G.]

Myles

If I can take your first and last statements - I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island.

Where is your evidence for this? Do any of the main nationalist parties feel that protestant's arent Irish? Adams has said he believes them to be Irishmen like him so I dont know where that would come from. 

If you notice, I said 'properly Irish', not 'Irish like Gerry Adams'. Many unionists consider themselves both Irish and British, which I'd imagine Gerry doesn't. The 'Brits Out' policy operated by Gerry's party is as good a way of saying to one section of the population that they're not really Irish and they're not really welcome. I once read an interview with Danny Morrison when he was publicity director for the Shinners. He showed his deep knowledge and understanding of the unionist community by suggesting that their rights would be protected in a united Ireland by making sure they had access to contraception. He then went on to say that if they were really, really unhappy, they could always consider 'repatriation' to GB. How can you repatriate someone who belongs here?

Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic.

And I've asked you what would needed to be included in this definiton of Irishness that would include protestants and the only think you've been able to suggest is a flag.  So, you criticise a definiton of irishness but arent able to tell me what it should be. 

See above. Being Irish and British would probably cover it.

The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion.

Well why wouldnt they? What's the issue with the Irish language? There was no ulster scots in 1922 so they could have hardly included that in the constitution.  There would have been what? 90-95%? of the citizens of the freestate Catholics so that's why it was given a place in the constitution.

The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect.

What? That's what religions do! Do you think this was only confined to Ireland so as to marginalise protestants?

So that makes it okay then?

I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.

Why not? 80% or more of the Island was forced in to an arragnement in 1922. 
Who was shooting and bombing them btw? 

Spot on. 80% of the population was forced into an arrangement at the point of a gun. 90 years later we're still picking up the pieces. Why repeat the mistake?

[Myles Na G.]

it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.

Bertie Ahern recently spoke out against change on the basis of a narrow majority. I'm with Bertie.