IRISH NORTHERNERS AND SOUTHERNERS

[OgraAnDun]

No doubt Tony Fearon will explain to us what they don't have in common. Their sense of humour perhaps.

Northerners, according to the bould Tony are more religious than their southern counterparts.

And he gets most of the people on the board hook, line and sinker. I just skip his contribution to threads about nationality at this stage.

[seafoid]

I never really thought much about the abandonment until I went to Belfast and saw a list of all the people who were killed in the 20s.
Regina Doherty was channelling Cupid Stunt.
The GAA is one of the strongest reminders that it is the one nation. I think RTE always downplay the significance of 6 county Sams as well. It is way more than just football and beating Kerry.

[From the Bunker]

I never really thought much about the abandonment until I went to Belfast and saw a list of all the people who were killed in the 20s.
Regina Doherty was channelling Cupid Stunt.
The GAA is one of the strongest reminders that it is the one nation. I think RTE always downplay the significance of 6 county Sams as well. It is way more than just football and beating Kerry.

Look RTE show Full home game Ireland six nation 'A' Internationals in Rugby. Who the sh1te are interested in that other than family, friends, club colleagues and the odd anorak? That for me shows where the powers that be that are RTE.

[muppet]

Hello all. I'm the author of the piece. Wordpress has a facility that allows you to see the origin of traffic to your blog so thought I'd check out what people were saying. Might as well engage with some of the criticism whilst I'm at it! Thanks for reading, by the way, those that did, and for your range of thoughts and opinions on it. All appreciated.

In relation to accusations of bias, it's a personal account, articulating my own experiences and that of my family, friends and community. I can't articulate the personal experiences of people I don't know, of communities in which I did not grow up or with whom I have not had the opportunity of interacting on a meaningful basis. Any personal account is, of course, going to be "biased" in that sense. (For what it's worth, a published unionist blogger got in touch with me and had very positive words to say about what I'd written. He welcomed the perspective.)

So you saw it as southern-bashing? What parts in particular?

Here is wile Joe:

" My father, a veteran republican, fluent Irish speaker and traditional musician steeped in all things Gaelic quipped to me during the week, "Don't be too hard on the southerners Joe, some of them are almost as Irish as we are."

Take the reference to the (foolish) Meath East TD. She unwisely suggested that an attack on Sinn Féin's Belfast office in 1982, where staff were murdered, was 'brought upon themselves'. It has to be said that this was a particular stupid comment from the TD.

However the article leaps from that to:

"She blindly and sanctimoniously assumed that the suffering of the nationalist community and republicans was "all brought on by [their] own actions", as if nationalist trouble-making was the primary source or cause of the conflict."

But worse than that. He then uses that daft cow, and in particular his twisting of her idiotic comments, as a brush to tar us all:

"Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)."

I have relatives in the wee 6 and I lived up there for a while. I consider myself a 32-county Ireland man. I know I am an Irishman and I don't need Joe f**king Brolly to tell me what that is.

The last think this island needs is Catholics of the 6 counties to think bashing the 26 counties is somehow going to improve their lot.

I think you're being overly defensive and cherry-picking. I would suggest Joe was being slightly tongue-in-cheek with the "almost as Irish as we are" bit. And I wasn't southerner-bashing. My ma's a southerner, as are my relations. Plenty of southerners have responded positively to the piece. It's hardly tarring all with the one brush when I make clear distinctions throughout and also make it very clear that there are southerners who are empathic. I'm very careful to make it clear that southerners are not a monolithic group. When I brought up Regina Doherty's comment, for example, I brought it up in the context of referring to "certain other southerners - especially those of a partitionist persuasion", so there's absolutely no reason why you should have thought I was generalising and accusing all southerners of harbouring her sentiments.

On Regina Dohery's comment, she used the words "all brought on by your own actions" as Gerry Adams spoke about attacks on him, his family and other members of the nationalist and republican community. At best, there was ambiguity, but she was still victim-blaming. I analysed what she said in two other pieces I wrote around the time I heard it. Here: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/suspicion-hangs-over-veracity-of-regina-dohertys-death-threat-allegation/ and https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/the-death-threat-to-regina-doherty-and-misconceptions-about-sinn-fein-in-the-south/

My father's cousin (who I mention in the piece) was a member of Sinn Féin, so did the same principle of "bringing it upon himself" apply to him simply because of his Sinn Féin membership? Why would he and other victims killed because of their politics (or religion) be any different from those other innocent people she blamed for their own fate? It's entirely reasonable to assume her application was general. (By the way, I'm not affiliated with any party myself and I link to plenty of sources in my writings to provide further background info besides 'An Phoblacht', which I've linked to pretty infrequently.)

As for my suspicion that hostile reactions like Doherty's are rooted in defensiveness, notions of southern guilt over sacrificing their northern compatriots or repressed feelings of failure (over not achieving full 32-county independence), such feelings have long been written about. They aren't theories I've come up with myself. It was a theme in some of the work of James Joyce. Elizabeth Keane, Donnacha Ó Beacháin, Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd have also documented such feelings.

The reaction to republicanism using its voice or emerging as an electoral force in the south has been more hostile than how republicans are treated in the north by unionists or even by British politicians and, indeed, monarchs. What reason do critics have in the south to be more angry than, say, unionists or British politicians/monarchs have to be? That's why I suspect there may be some deeper underlying psychological complex at root. Call it an irritable or unresolved hang-over from partition maybe?

Republicans are a "nuisance" for the southern establishment because republicans force the state to self-reflect and ask deep questions of its origins, its legitimacy and its very existence. Republicans, by their very existence, expose the reality that the southern state is a failed attempt at putting the principles of the 1916-proclaimed republic celebrated every Easter by the state into practice. Anger, indignance and rejection perhaps helps deflect from this uncomfortable fact and from southern establishment hypocrisy.

It is difficult to tell whether you are speaking for all Northerners, or just Republicans, or indeed which branch of Republicans. There is a whole spectrum of views in the south of say John Hume and say Gerry Adams. You focus on one, rather uneducated, view of Gerry adams, which was articulated stupidly, and extrapolate from that the view of many southerners of all northerners. It may be your personal opinion, but you are attributing an attitude, and the reasons for it, to many people who are not you. Do they not have a right to have their own opinions on what their own views are?

I don't like many aspects of Republicanism. It has absolutely nothing to do with 1916, 1921 or any sense of guilt.

It has everything to do with drug dealing, smuggling, bank robbing, racketeering, bombing children, knee-capping, extortion and other criminal activity and not least the habit of shooing dead ordinary decent Irishmen such as Jerry McCabe and Gaa-star John Morley, and most especially, historically Adam's regular appearances on TV refusing to condemn any of it. That is what I grew up watching, so using  something James Joyce wrote about has little or no relevance to me.

When you then get into attacking the various southern Governments for not putting pressure on the Brits for legacy issues, you are of course correct. But then Gerry Adams behaves exactly the same when with his legacy issues. So why does he get a free pass?

As for this constant Sinn Féin mantra that the south is a failed state, Ireland was the poorest part of Europe at the end of the 19th Century. It was the only country in Europe that had a smaller population in 1900 than in 1800. It is far from perfect, but it has come a long, long way.

Here are a few surveys of the best countries in the world to live in. Of course they are media gimmicks and a bit twee, but but it is enough to show that your Ireland-bashing looks to me like little more than a party political agenda:

http://www.techinsider.io/the-top-countries-to-live-in-2015-12 (Ireland 7th)
http://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/2/ (Ireland 12th)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-best-places-to-live-in-the-world-is-norway-according-to-the-un-s-human-development-report-a6773891.html#gallery (Ireland 7th - with a picture of Giant Causeway to boot!)
http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list (Ireland 18th)

Finally, this constant dogma about how the south left the north behind is very grating. In July 1921 there was a ceasefire and negotiations began, leading to a treaty. The outcome was not ideal from an Irish point of view, to put it mildly. In 1994 and in 1996 there were two ceasefires. Negations began and another treaty was the outcome. Again a 32 county was not secured. Modern Sinn Féin was commendably part of the latter process, by signing up to it and canvassing a yes vote.

Why is it that there is no guilt on behalf of those who signed up to this recent treaty, in light of it's failure to secure a 32 county Ireland, or at least to free northern Nationalists & Republicans of British rule? Indeed the recent agreement reinforcing partition, at least in the short/medium term, is deemed to one of Gerry's great successes. Why the double standards all the time and why is there never, ever an public scrutiny or criticism of Adams within Sinn Féin?

This great unquestioned leadership cultism is perhaps my greatest fear of Sinn Féin. And it has nothing to do with guilt.

[haranguerer]

You're an awful dopey **** muppet

[muppet]

You're an awful dopey **** muppet

Back to your default abusive position. You'll feel better there.

[Franko]

There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.

I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"


https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/

Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?

I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread?  If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so.  It's not up to him.

There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.

I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.

Yeah, cos that's how things work round here.  How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread?  The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article.  The 'bias' was only your opinion.

I wasn't the OP on that thread.

As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?

You've been the OP on plenty of threads.  I've yet to see you post two differing opinions for the sake of balance.  Like I said earlier, some posters thought the article was bang on.  Some didn't.  It's all a matter of opinion.  We had a difference of opinion over this a while back.  You ended the conversation by saying that my opinion was wrong because it was just 'dogma'.  Why was my opinion just dogma and yours wasn't?  You said recently here that your posting style gets people angry.  Maybe it's because, when you see an opinion different from your own, you immediately default to words like 'biased' and 'dogma', dismissing immediately the other's POV and attempting to assume the standard role of all knowing sage.

Of course it was biased. It was one person's criticisms of a lot of other people. Please tell me how this cannot be biased. If it was a self-criticism it could be deemed to be honest, but when you bash others it can nevertheless be anything other than opinion and biased opinion at that.

I notice he posts links to An Phoblacht in his articles. No bias there either.

By that fuzzy logic, your criticisms of the writer and the piece are also biased (the writer, and quite a few others seemed to agree with what he was saying).  Does that immediately render them incorrect also?

Brilliant. You finally got there. Now see why I suggested some balance? Instead we got the usual one way traffic of Southern bashing that appears in that article, supported by a few others.

Ah right, so you've just admitted that your opinion on the issue is a load of bollocks.  This is a quare zero sum game here.  I'll keep an eye out for you policing other threads for balance from the opening poster.  If I don't see it I'll just have to conclude that you're full of shoite.

[armaghniac]

As for this constant Sinn Féin mantra that the south is a failed state, Ireland was the poorest part of Europe at the end of the 19th Century. It was the only country in Europe that had a smaller population in 1900 than in 1800. It is far from perfect, but it has come a long, long way.

Here are a few surveys of the best countries in the world to live in. Of course they are media gimmicks and a bit twee, but but it is enough to show that your Ireland-bashing looks to me like little more than a party political agenda:

http://www.techinsider.io/the-top-countries-to-live-in-2015-12 (Ireland 7th)
http://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/2/ (Ireland 12th)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-best-places-to-live-in-the-world-is-norway-according-to-the-un-s-human-development-report-a6773891.html#gallery (Ireland 7th - with a picture of Giant Causeway to boot!)
http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list (Ireland 18th)

The reality is that for narrow political advantage SF does not wish to compare North and South. If they say that the South is actually doing rather well then it rather inhibits the whine policies they sell to the 26 county voters. If they say that elements of the NI approach (property taxes anyone) has merit then that also rather inhibits the whine policies they sell to the 26 county voters.

That said, the many limitations of SF do nothing to justify the disgusting partitionism that permeates much of 26 county society. Some the proponents of these attitudes think these attitudes stick it to the Shinners, but of course they also mainly exclude a large part of the Irish people.

[muppet]

There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.

I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"


https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/

Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?

I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread?  If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so.  It's not up to him.

There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.

I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.

Yeah, cos that's how things work round here.  How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread?  The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article.  The 'bias' was only your opinion.

I wasn't the OP on that thread.

As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?

You've been the OP on plenty of threads.  I've yet to see you post two differing opinions for the sake of balance.  Like I said earlier, some posters thought the article was bang on.  Some didn't.  It's all a matter of opinion.  We had a difference of opinion over this a while back.  You ended the conversation by saying that my opinion was wrong because it was just 'dogma'.  Why was my opinion just dogma and yours wasn't?  You said recently here that your posting style gets people angry.  Maybe it's because, when you see an opinion different from your own, you immediately default to words like 'biased' and 'dogma', dismissing immediately the other's POV and attempting to assume the standard role of all knowing sage.

Of course it was biased. It was one person's criticisms of a lot of other people. Please tell me how this cannot be biased. If it was a self-criticism it could be deemed to be honest, but when you bash others it can nevertheless be anything other than opinion and biased opinion at that.

I notice he posts links to An Phoblacht in his articles. No bias there either.

By that fuzzy logic, your criticisms of the writer and the piece are also biased (the writer, and quite a few others seemed to agree with what he was saying).  Does that immediately render them incorrect also?

Brilliant. You finally got there. Now see why I suggested some balance? Instead we got the usual one way traffic of Southern bashing that appears in that article, supported by a few others.

Ah right, so you've just admitted that your opinion on the issue is a load of bollocks.  This is a quare zero sum game here.  I'll keep an eye out for you policing other threads for balance from the opening poster.  If I don't see it I'll just have to conclude that you're full of shoite.

Everyone, including the author of the piece, has admitted their bias. Everyone except you that is.

And I'm very sure you'll keep an eye on me, you have been stalking me for some time now.

[muppet]

As for this constant Sinn Féin mantra that the south is a failed state, Ireland was the poorest part of Europe at the end of the 19th Century. It was the only country in Europe that had a smaller population in 1900 than in 1800. It is far from perfect, but it has come a long, long way.

Here are a few surveys of the best countries in the world to live in. Of course they are media gimmicks and a bit twee, but but it is enough to show that your Ireland-bashing looks to me like little more than a party political agenda:

http://www.techinsider.io/the-top-countries-to-live-in-2015-12 (Ireland 7th)
http://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/2/ (Ireland 12th)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-best-places-to-live-in-the-world-is-norway-according-to-the-un-s-human-development-report-a6773891.html#gallery (Ireland 7th - with a picture of Giant Causeway to boot!)
http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list (Ireland 18th)

The reality is that for narrow political advantage SF does not wish to compare North and South. If they say that the South is actually doing rather well then it rather inhibits the whine policies they sell to the 26 county voters. If they say that elements of the NI approach (property taxes anyone) has merit then that also rather inhibits the whine policies they sell to the 26 county voters.

That said, the many limitations of SF do nothing to justify the disgusting partitionism that permeates much of 26 county society. Some the proponents of these attitudes think these attitudes stick it to the Shinners, but of course they also mainly exclude a large part of the Irish people.

Sinn Féin partitions its politics and policies incredibly well.

Regarding the 2nd part, is the Good Friday Agreement not the basis for the current existence on this island? I know it isn't ideal, but are we not all better off with it than without?

[Franko]

There was a thread I read a while back that had tailed of into the abandonment felt by Northerners by their compatriots in the South, I looked for it there but I couldn't find it.

I then came across this blog post today which I thought fairly well summed up the feeling of being a "Nordie"


https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/irish-northerners-and-southerners/

Any chance of a balancing piece or will this be the usual one way traffic of Southerner bashing?

I'm not aware of a rule about having to post both sides of the argument when starting a thread?  If you've got something to post that 'balances' MoChara's piece, then by all means go ahead, you're quite free to do so.  It's not up to him.

There are two ways of starting a topic such as this. Post a balanced piece or a biased piece.

I am simply suggesting that the former might have been a better way to start the discussion.

Yeah, cos that's how things work round here.  How many pro Trump articles have you posted on the US Election thread?  The OP and quite a few after him, were quite happy with the content of the article.  The 'bias' was only your opinion.

I wasn't the OP on that thread.

As for the bias, it is an article critical of a whole load of people. Are you arguing that it was balanced and that any criticism of it is biased?

You've been the OP on plenty of threads.  I've yet to see you post two differing opinions for the sake of balance.  Like I said earlier, some posters thought the article was bang on.  Some didn't.  It's all a matter of opinion.  We had a difference of opinion over this a while back.  You ended the conversation by saying that my opinion was wrong because it was just 'dogma'.  Why was my opinion just dogma and yours wasn't?  You said recently here that your posting style gets people angry.  Maybe it's because, when you see an opinion different from your own, you immediately default to words like 'biased' and 'dogma', dismissing immediately the other's POV and attempting to assume the standard role of all knowing sage.

Of course it was biased. It was one person's criticisms of a lot of other people. Please tell me how this cannot be biased. If it was a self-criticism it could be deemed to be honest, but when you bash others it can nevertheless be anything other than opinion and biased opinion at that.

I notice he posts links to An Phoblacht in his articles. No bias there either.

By that fuzzy logic, your criticisms of the writer and the piece are also biased (the writer, and quite a few others seemed to agree with what he was saying).  Does that immediately render them incorrect also?

Brilliant. You finally got there. Now see why I suggested some balance? Instead we got the usual one way traffic of Southern bashing that appears in that article, supported by a few others.

Ah right, so you've just admitted that your opinion on the issue is a load of bollocks.  This is a quare zero sum game here.  I'll keep an eye out for you policing other threads for balance from the opening poster.  If I don't see it I'll just have to conclude that you're full of shoite.

Everyone, including the author of the piece, has admitted their bias. Everyone except you that is.

And I'm very sure you'll keep an eye on me, you have been stalking me for some time now.

You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'.  You then admit that your own opinions are also biased.  I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules.  As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual.  Happy policing.

[Applesisapples]

I know you're on the wind up but a Fermanagh Catholic farmer hasn't very much in common with Larne, Newtownards, Ballymena etc.
However he has an awful lot in common with people in Cavan, Leitrim, Longford etc etc.

Exactly every region on the Island has differences which have nothing to do with the separate jurisdictions. You will never forge a common NI identity in the way that people up here feel Irish or British it just isn't possible. Is it possible they can work together for the common good and with mutual respect? Absolutely but good luck persuading the Unionists on that one as everything must first start with the fleg.

[Applesisapples]

Maybe I'm the only northerner on here to think this way, but lets see. Firstly I'm bored at this stage by Tony's campaign for a NI identity. I would believe that he is only doing it for the rise, but sure I can't help myself.

I don't believe we were abandoned by the treaty, I do believe that everybody including the British at the time saw it as a holding position, except perhaps the Unionists.The treaty was the best available at the time short of an all out sectarian war which would have ended with the British flat-out steamrollering the whole Island. I do believe that many in the South don't really think or care about the North on any given day, in the same way that people in Manchester wouldn't be losing sleep over the lot of Cornish farmers or fishermen. Not all people in the South are ill-informed on the North and not all are uncaring but there are some.I do think but can't prove that Southern Politicians feel a guilt about partition that is sub-conscious and their reaction to the rise of SF seems to touch that raw nerve. I also firmly believe that a State founded on violence or the threat of violence be it either side of the border should not be hypocritical when it comes to SF. I grew up threw the worst of the troubles and I commend Adams and McGuinness who both from the early '70's have worked to deliver the imperfect peace we now have.

I don't believe Adams is in any way stupid, I do however cringe when I hear him speak. I have stated before that when it comes to dealing with the British in the past the Irish Government outwardly could have been more robust and supportive of Northern Nationalists, however the couldn't exactly threaten to invade given the disparity in the armed forces. What is unknown is the work that went on behind the scenes, governments very often can say things privately that must remain of the record for diplomatic reasons. I am disappointed by the utterances of some of my fellow northerners on this forum who take simplistic and jingoistic positions that are not helpful.

A UI is achievable but only in the context of uniting everyone both within the 6 counties and across the border thats will take time and work. I won't see it but perhaps my Grand children will (if I ever get any!).

[muppet]

Maybe I'm the only northerner on here to think this way, but lets see. Firstly I'm bored at this stage by Tony's campaign for a NI identity. I would believe that he is only doing it for the rise, but sure I can't help myself.

I don't believe we were abandoned by the treaty, I do believe that everybody including the British at the time saw it as a holding position, except perhaps the Unionists.The treaty was the best available at the time short of an all out sectarian war which would have ended with the British flat-out steamrollering the whole Island. I do believe that many in the South don't really think or care about the North on any given day, in the same way that people in Manchester wouldn't be losing sleep over the lot of Cornish farmers or fishermen. Not all people in the South are ill-informed on the North and not all are uncaring but there are some.I do think but can't prove that Southern Politicians feel a guilt about partition that is sub-conscious and their reaction to the rise of SF seems to touch that raw nerve. I also firmly believe that a State founded on violence or the threat of violence be it either side of the border should not be hypocritical when it comes to SF. I grew up threw the worst of the troubles and I commend Adams and McGuinness who both from the early '70's have worked to deliver the imperfect peace we now have.

I don't believe Adams is in any way stupid, I do however cringe when I hear him speak. I have stated before that when it comes to dealing with the British in the past the Irish Government outwardly could have been more robust and supportive of Northern Nationalists, however the couldn't exactly threaten to invade given the disparity in the armed forces. What is unknown is the work that went on behind the scenes, governments very often can say things privately that must remain of the record for diplomatic reasons. I am disappointed by the utterances of some of my fellow northerners on this forum who take simplistic and jingoistic positions that are not helpful.

A UI is achievable but only in the context of uniting everyone both within the 6 counties and across the border thats will take time and work. I won't see it but perhaps my Grand children will (if I ever get any!).

Very good post.

[muppet]

You totally dismissed the claims of the author because they were 'biased'. You then admit that your own opinions are also biased.  I'm just pointing out that, by your logic, neither opinion has any merit.. So there's not a lot of point in a discussion board if we follow your rules.  As for the bit in bold – the feeling's mutual.  Happy policing.

Nope.

I asked for balance, which you have repeatedly attacked me for. You have denied any bias until now, when you are left as the only one insisting there wasn't any bias. Everyone has bias. Because of human nature it is almost impossible to avoid bias on anything. That is simply the way we are. Again, that is why I asked for balance at the start, instead of doing what some of you do and automatically bash any different view.

Your logic saying that a biased position has no merit is absurd. Everyone has at least some bias.