The Political History of Northern Ireland

[Myles Na G.]

I don't get Unionism at all. If they're British, they should live in Britain. The occupied 6 counties is not part of Britain.

The British have been in the north of Ireland longer than white people have been in Australia or North America. Try telling the Americans that they should hand back control of the US to the descendants of Sitting Bull and his like.

Rubbish:

• Farrandeelin is correct the 6 counties is not part of Britain. 
• Britain was created with the Act of Union in 1707. North America was settled in the 16th century (belfore Britain was created), therefore the British could not have been in Ireland longer than they have been in North America as the "British" only came into being after both were "settled".

The settling of America began in the early 17th century. The plantation of Ulster started in the early 17th century also. Both these events happened before the state known as 'Britain' was created, but so what? The British presence in Ulster - contrary to what republicans would tell you - is not a government or a state or an army. It is the hundreds of thousands of people who trace their ancestry back to England, Scotland and Wales and who feel an allegiance with those places as a result. I repeat, since these people have been in Ulster for as long as the white settlers have been in North America, they have as much claim to the territory here as do the descendants of the white settlers in the USA.

More bullshit from your BP-sized leaking well of excrement ... at least the US government has gone some way to recognise the wrongs the settlers did to that land's native people (theft, ethnic cleansing, genocide, famine), unlike the English and the wrongs their planters did to this land's native people (theft, ethnic cleansing, genocide, famine) ... but sure what else would you expect from those lovely people who introduced the world to the lovely concept of the concentration camp?

But they haven't given them back control over lands they previously held, have they, so what's your point?

[Olaf]

Being a bit mischevious when I say you are a bigot - it's just your views are bigoted and are the usual blinkered types trotted out by the unionist/loyalist dup et al bigots!
Nothing to do with my pedantically pointing out that the actual mainland is the European continent land mass itself!
But best ofl luck in that cocoon surrounded by sand!

??

[fingerbob]

I don't get Unionism at all. If they're British, they should live in Britain. The occupied 6 counties is not part of Britain.

The British have been in the north of Ireland longer than white people have been in Australia or North America. Try telling the Americans that they should hand back control of the US to the descendants of Sitting Bull and his like.

Rubbish:

• Farrandeelin is correct the 6 counties is not part of Britain. 
• Britain was created with the Act of Union in 1707. North America was settled in the 16th century (belfore Britain was created), therefore the British could not have been in Ireland longer than they have been in North America as the "British" only came into being after both were "settled".

The settling of America began in the early 17th century. The plantation of Ulster started in the early 17th century also. Both these events happened before the state known as 'Britain' was created, but so what? The British presence in Ulster - contrary to what republicans would tell you - is not a government or a state or an army. It is the hundreds of thousands of people who trace their ancestry back to England, Scotland and Wales and who feel an allegiance with those places as a result. I repeat, since these people have been in Ulster for as long as the white settlers have been in North America, they have as much claim to the territory here as do the descendants of the white settlers in the USA.

More bullshit from your BP-sized leaking well of excrement ... at least the US government has gone some way to recognise the wrongs the settlers did to that land's native people (theft, ethnic cleansing, genocide, famine), unlike the English and the wrongs their planters did to this land's native people (theft, ethnic cleansing, genocide, famine) ... but sure what else would you expect from those lovely people who introduced the world to the lovely concept of the concentration camp?

But they haven't given them back control over lands they previously held, have they, so what's your point?

While your point is valid, there is also the obvious difference that native americans don't make up half the population of the U.S.

[red hander]

'But they haven't given them back control over lands they previously held, have they, so what's your point?'

No? What about the 58 million acres of land in North America stipulated as reservations/tribal land?  What's your point, apart from poisoning every thread on the board (apart from the GAA ones, obviously)?

[Myles Na G.]

'But they haven't given them back control over lands they previously held, have they, so what's your point?'

No? What about the 58 million acres of land in North America stipulated as reservations/tribal land?  What's your point, apart from poisoning every thread on the board (apart from the GAA ones, obviously)?

You think the reservations and tribal lands are a good deal for Native Americans? You obviously know as little about that situation as you do about politics here.

[red hander]

'But they haven't given them back control over lands they previously held, have they, so what's your point?'

No? What about the 58 million acres of land in North America stipulated as reservations/tribal land?  What's your point, apart from poisoning every thread on the board (apart from the GAA ones, obviously)?

You think the reservations and tribal lands are a good deal for Native Americans? You obviously know as little about that situation as you do about politics here.

No, but that wasn't the question, the question was   'But they haven't given them back control over lands they previously held, have they?', which I answered.   You just revert to type by throwing in more shite when you're proved wrong ... there are house flies that talk more sense about politics than revisionist nobends like you

[Zapatista]

In August 20008 a thread was started on this board in connection with the Warrenpoint ambush and more specifically, the celebrations to mark its anniversary by a republican splinter group. (I don't now recall its name.)
Many of the board members here will remember that the exchanges across the political divide grew a bit heated before Mod 1 stepped in and closed down the thread.
But, just before Mod1 intervened, a spin off thread to discuss the history of Northern Ireland was started.
Wiser counsel, IMO, prevailed and this thread was aborted. Feelings on both sides were running high and in the wake of the mod's intervention on the Warrenpoint thread, the likelihood was that he'd do the same with this one.
I am proposing that the subject in question should be brought up again, now that passions on both sides ought to have cooled down somewhat.

Is this the thread you wanted?

[give her dixie]

Was out in Rapa Nui/Easter Island a few years back, and they have the same "mainland" problem.
Chileans that have settled and stole land there, like to refer to Chile as the mainland, and the natives get really pissed off with the reference.
Personally for me, I detest the reference to England as the "mainland". People who tend to use the term usually refer to catholics as Roman catholics, and Derry as L......derry.

[Zapatista]

Was out in Rapa Nui/Easter Island a few years back, and they have the same "mainland" problem.
Chileans that have settled and stole land there, like to refer to Chile as the mainland, and the natives get really pissed off with the reference.
Personally for me, I detest the reference to England as the "mainland". People who tend to use the term usually refer to catholics as Roman catholics, and Derry as L......derry.

I honestly think the term is often used as a joke or with the intent of getting a reaction. I don't think it's a term used casually. I would use it myself in sarcasm. With that in mind it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

[Ulick]

I don't get Unionism at all. If they're British, they should live in Britain. The occupied 6 counties is not part of Britain.

The British have been in the north of Ireland longer than white people have been in Australia or North America. Try telling the Americans that they should hand back control of the US to the descendants of Sitting Bull and his like.

Rubbish:

• Farrandeelin is correct the 6 counties is not part of Britain. 
• Britain was created with the Act of Union in 1707. North America was settled in the 16th century (belfore Britain was created), therefore the British could not have been in Ireland longer than they have been in North America as the "British" only came into being after both were "settled".

The settling of America began in the early 17th century. The plantation of Ulster started in the early 17th century also. Both these events happened before the state known as 'Britain' was created, but so what? The British presence in Ulster - contrary to what republicans would tell you - is not a government or a state or an army. It is the hundreds of thousands of people who trace their ancestry back to England, Scotland and Wales and who feel an allegiance with those places as a result. I repeat, since these people have been in Ulster for as long as the white settlers have been in North America, they have as much claim to the territory here as do the descendants of the white settlers in the USA.

So what? It was you who made the comparison not me. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong.

[glens abu]

i thrive on my hatred of unionism and hunnery and make no apologies for it. get yourselves down to ardoyne on tuesday, all hands on deck. T.A.L

will they be able to get a crowd this time as they had to call off their protest at the tour as they couldn't muster enough people.

[Tony Baloney]

Two bald men fighting over a comb springs to mind.

i thrive on my hatred of unionism and hunnery and make no apologies for it. get yourselves down to ardoyne on tuesday, all hands on deck. T.A.L

will they be able to get a crowd this time as they had to call off their protest at the tour as they couldn't muster enough people.

The World Cup is on, don't expect too much in the way of community activism. Maybe next week. Unless it rains.

[Lar Naparka]

In August 20008 a thread was started on this board in connection with the Warrenpoint ambush and more specifically, the celebrations to mark its anniversary by a republican splinter group. (I don't now recall its name.)
Many of the board members here will remember that the exchanges across the political divide grew a bit heated before Mod 1 stepped in and closed down the thread.
But, just before Mod1 intervened, a spin off thread to discuss the history of Northern Ireland was started.
Wiser counsel, IMO, prevailed and this thread was aborted. Feelings on both sides were running high and in the wake of the mod's intervention on the Warrenpoint thread, the likelihood was that he'd do the same with this one.
I am proposing that the subject in question should be brought up again, now that passions on both sides ought to have cooled down somewhat.

Is this the thread you wanted?

Not quite.   

However, it's a case of making do with what you've got and I've enjoyed the craic so far as the Battle of The Boyne is re-enacted one more effin' time!

[Myles Na G.]

'But they haven't given them back control over lands they previously held, have they, so what's your point?'

No? What about the 58 million acres of land in North America stipulated as reservations/tribal land?  What's your point, apart from poisoning every thread on the board (apart from the GAA ones, obviously)?

You think the reservations and tribal lands are a good deal for Native Americans? You obviously know as little about that situation as you do about politics here.

No, but that wasn't the question, the question was   'But they haven't given them back control over lands they previously held, have they?', which I answered.   You just revert to type by throwing in more shite when you're proved wrong ... there are house flies that talk more sense about politics than revisionist nobends like you

They haven't given them back the land they took from them. In some cases, the reservations are far away from their ancient homelands. In addition, the total land given over to the Native American peoples amounts to about 3% of the total available territory. Hardly a fair shake is it. But at least they're doing something, eh?

[Myles Na G.]

I don't get Unionism at all. If they're British, they should live in Britain. The occupied 6 counties is not part of Britain.

The British have been in the north of Ireland longer than white people have been in Australia or North America. Try telling the Americans that they should hand back control of the US to the descendants of Sitting Bull and his like.

Rubbish:

• Farrandeelin is correct the 6 counties is not part of Britain. 
• Britain was created with the Act of Union in 1707. North America was settled in the 16th century (belfore Britain was created), therefore the British could not have been in Ireland longer than they have been in North America as the "British" only came into being after both were "settled".

The settling of America began in the early 17th century. The plantation of Ulster started in the early 17th century also. Both these events happened before the state known as 'Britain' was created, but so what? The British presence in Ulster - contrary to what republicans would tell you - is not a government or a state or an army. It is the hundreds of thousands of people who trace their ancestry back to England, Scotland and Wales and who feel an allegiance with those places as a result. I repeat, since these people have been in Ulster for as long as the white settlers have been in North America, they have as much claim to the territory here as do the descendants of the white settlers in the USA.

So what? It was you who made the comparison not me. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong.

And I was just pointing out that, in fact, it was you who'd got your facts wrong.