IRISH NORTHERNERS AND SOUTHERNERS

[muppet]

Muppet

What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?

The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.

The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.

[leenie]

Must be a wile burden having all that blame on one mans shoulder ...

[muppet]

Must be a wile burden having all that blame on one mans shoulder ...

Was that your point though?

[leenie]

Nope, just acknowledging your admittance that you are to blame..

[muppet]

Nope, just acknowledging your admittance that you are to blame..

I see.

Where would that acknowledgment be exactly?

[leenie]

Muppet

What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?

The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.

The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.

Apologies... The dogma , that you are to blame

This dogma, set of beliefs , principles , would it be held by many ?

[muppet]

Muppet

What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?

The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.

The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.

Apologies... The dogma , that you are to blame

This dogma, set of beliefs , principles , would it be held by many ?

I think we have inadvertently got to the crux of this issue.

Evidently there are a few from the 6 counties who DO blame today's southerners for the 1921 Treaty. But when asked this question they can't bring themselves to answer it.

That brings me back to this from the link in the OP: "Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from repressed southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)." [my emphasis]

I know there is a historical dogma in the 6 counties whereby this view of southerners is gospel. The above touches on it, a few posters here inferred it, and I have encountered it. I believe it is often what is behind the 'Free Stater' insult, even though that would go straight over the heads of most 'Free Staters', as the Free State ceased to exist in 1937.

As I keep saying, I would love to see a 32 county Ireland.

But do I have 'repressed feeling of semi-responsibility, failure...or guilt....' for partition?

Not in the slightest. I wasn't there.

While I am sure there may be some in the 26 counties who feel that way, I seriously doubt there are many.

[foxcommander]

I think we have inadvertently got to the crux of this issue.

Evidently there are a few from the 6 counties who DO blame today's southerners for the 1921 Treaty. But when asked this question they can't bring themselves to answer it.

That brings me back to this from the link in the OP: "Perhaps such hostile reactions amount to victim-blaming as a means of deflecting from repressed southern feelings of semi-responsibility, failure (to create a 32-county republic) or guilt (over partition and the abandonment of northerners)." [my emphasis]

I know there is a historical dogma in the 6 counties whereby this view of southerners is gospel. The above touches on it, a few posters here inferred it, and I have encountered it. I believe it is often what is behind the 'Free Stater' insult, even though that would go straight over the heads of most 'Free Staters', as the Free State ceased to exist in 1937.

As I keep saying, I would love to see a 32 county Ireland.

But do I have 'repressed feeling of semi-responsibility, failure...or guilt....' for partition?

Not in the slightest. I wasn't there.

While I am sure there may be some in the 26 counties who feel that way, I seriously doubt there are many.

Let me know which shop sells the airbrushes you're using Muppet. Couldn't find one at the local Londis

[muppet]

Funny how some of the usual suspects jump in to attack me, but none of them seem to be able to say what it is that bothers them.

[haranguerer]

Even attempts to airbrush the thread 

Plenty have muppet, but they might as well be banging their head against the wall as attempting to get you to acknowledge it.

[Franko]

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.

You said that there were two ways of starting a thread like this.  Posting a balanced piece or posting a biased piece.  Given that you have now argued that there would be no such thing as a non-biased piece, what would you suggest that the original poster should have done?  Post nothing?  See my point about the pointlessness of discussion boards if we follow your rules.  And please drop the faux victimhood, nobody 'attacked' you.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

It goes like this.

<Link a> give one view
<Link b> gives the other view.

Jesus wept.

Bold - agreed.

I've been a member here for about 8 years and never once have I seen a thread started like that.  Until now, I've never seen anyone suggest that it should be that way.

But like I say, I'll look out for your patrolling of this in future.

I suggested a balanced discussion on a divisive political topic, and you then demand that I must always demand balance on everything for ever. I suppose it was always going to reach this level.

Well yeah, it's called being consistent.  And I didn't demand that you did anything, I just said I'd keep an eye out in future.  There's been plenty of divisive political topics discussed here.  Some people might see it as a little hypocritical to criticise a poster for lack of balance on an article which you clearly disagree with, whilst remaining steadfastly silent for years in this regard on any number of other divisive issues. Keep wriggling.

No it isn't. It is called you playing the man all the time and ignoring the issue being discussed completely.

Once again, here is what I said:

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

I was hoping for something to balance the obvious bias in the link which everyone, including the author, understood and accepted but which you insisted wasn't the case. Thankfully you have abandoned that argument.

Most threads quickly have multiple views, thus providing their own balance, and most linked articles provide their own balance or point out that there are other views. What I asked for was a balancing piece, before it descended into the usual Republican worldview.

You now will avoid the topic at all costs and set out to bash me because I have a view different to your own. You set out to pretend that because I favour seeking balance this time round, thus I am a hypocrite for not seeking balance in every post. All the time. You will keep playing the man, and refuse to discuss what he said, or what the main issue of the tread was.

No it isn't. It is called you playing the man all the time and ignoring the issue being discussed completely.

Haha, brilliant!  I'll point out to you that most of what you've posted here regarding the topic is attempts to discredit anyone with these views, including the author of the original piece.  Playing the man indeed.

Once again, here is what I said:

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

I was hoping for something to balance the obvious bias in the link which everyone, including the author, understood and accepted but which you insisted wasn't the case. Thankfully you have abandoned that argument.

Then you followed it up with this...

"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."

You then proceeded to argue that there was no such thing as an unbiased piece.  The mind boggles.  I didn't argue that there was no bias in the article, I simply argued that this is a matter of opinion. 

Most threads quickly have multiple views, thus providing their own balance, and most linked articles provide their own balance or point out that there are other views. What I asked for was a balancing piece, before it descended into the usual Republican worldview.

Ah yes, you allowed all of 36 minutes and one other reply for the thread to take it's course.  Maybe the fact that this thread and others turn out this way is because a lot of people hold a contrary view to yourself.  Of course, all those people's opinions will be without merit and will be 'biased' and 'dogma'.  Because muppet says so.

You now will avoid the topic at all costs and set out to bash me because I have a view different to your own. You set out to pretend that because I favour seeking balance this time round, thus I am a hypocrite for not seeking balance in every post. All the time. You will keep playing the man, and refuse to discuss what he said, or what the main issue of the tread was.

See part 1.  (I did have a laugh at this little rant).  And you are being a hypocrite.

[Franko]

Muppet

What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?

The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.

The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.

In order to compare the GFA and what happened in 1921, the republican negotiators would have to have said.  "Feck this, we'll never win over North Antrim, North Down and East Belfast, we'll just leave them to be ruled by the Brits."  (And then do feck all about it for the next century).  Then hand wring and moralise when the nationalists in those areas decided they were going to do something about it themselves.  Comparisons are bullshit, the GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied.

[muppet]

Muppet

What's this dogma ? I was pointing what happened in 1921 and I asked you to expand on the blaming ?

The dogma is that I am to blame for something that happened 20 years before my father and mother were born. That I should be apologising for this, or better still, lay down my life for this original sin.

The absurd thing is that the GFA did the same thing. It kicked the 32 county Ireland can down the road.

In order to compare the GFA and what happened in 1921, the republican negotiators would have to have said.  "Feck this, we'll never win over North Antrim, North Down and East Belfast, we'll just leave them to be ruled by the Brits."  (And then do feck all about it for the next century).  Then hand wring and moralise when the nationalists in those areas decided they were going to do something about it themselves.  Comparisons are bullshit, the GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied.

Finally, on page 11 post from Franko that does something other than play the man.

However, I have no idea at all what you are on about.

In 1921 everyone, including the Brits, thought it was a temporary solution. Even the border hadn't been decided at the time. Churchill himself later claimed he supported a United Ireland. Almost no one, probably even including unionists, thought the situation wouldn't change for a century.

It was similar with the GFA. Articles 2 & 3 were dropped on one hand but on the other there is a commitment to allow a majority decision to decide on a United Ireland.

Both agreements maintained partition as the status quo. Neither achieved a 32 County Ireland. Not identical obviously, but plenty of similarities.

'The GFA had equal consequences for all those to whom it applied'.

Really?

Spin it all you like, but for the 18 years since the GFA, the 6 counties are still stuck in the UK. Just like in 1921. The headline of the GFA for Nationailsts was the vote, but where is it 18 years later? Do you think it will happen in the next ten years? Or the ten after that?

[Rossfan]

The GFA never had any suggestions of a re partition in the discussions.
However from 1912 to 1920 the non inclusion of all or most of Ulster from a Home Rule Parliament was an ongoing issue.
Then the Brits passed their Act in 1920 for 2  home rule establishments for "Northern Ireland" and "Southern" Ireland"
The latter became the Irish Free State with "Dominion" status as a result of the War of Independence/Truce/Treaty.

[AQMP]

The GFA was a treaty to try to settle the conflict in the North.  It was not about reunification or re-partition.  It had nothing to do with Pearse's republic, 1921, partition, Free State, Dominion status or the price of a pint.

The big point for Nationalists in the North was not a putative sometime in the future border poll, rather it was an end to conflict, a power sharing administration, North-South bodies (though they turned into talking shops) and a recognition by the British and Unionists that if you called yourself Irish and aspired to a United Ireland, it didn't automatically mean you were a danger to the state.

Comparing 1921 and 1998 is a bit odd considering the 77 years of events in between.

Oh, and on a nerdy technical point since we get all shirty about Free State, Republic, names and descriptions of the State etc, Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution were not dropped, they were amended