The Old Derry / Londonderry name problem

[armaghniac]

Your question infers that nationalists have a right to be anti-British and that unionists should just suck it up and carry some sort of guilt that needs to be paid for, on behalf of people who they weren't born to witness. 

Northern Ireland is a sectarian entity and the result of colonisation. Any moral person has an obligation to oppose that and if you benefit from it then you should indeed feel guilty. It never ceases to amaze that while say Germans are not at all proud of having beaten up their neighbours in the past, British people feel no shame whatsoever, but celebrate their conquests. 

NI at present  is inherently sectarian. Unionists continually justify all sorts of sectarian ways of doing things on the basis that they are "traditional" and allege that those who want change to ensure some balance are sectarian. So an Orange march in a nationalist town is OK, and proposing that it end is "sectarian", but a proposal for a similar nationalist march in a unionist town would also be "sectarian". Pure Hypocracy.

[Roger]

I can only conclude that your view on unionists is that they are scum.

[armaghniac]

I can only conclude that your view on unionists is that they are scum.

Don't put words in my mouth.

A strong sense of continuity and community is generally a good thing. But you have to reflect on the legacy that the past is providing you. Unionism has yet to do this, in part because of the focus has been on opposition to campaign of violence and the crassness of some nationalists. 

[Roger]

I can only conclude that your view on unionists is that they are scum.

Don't put words in my mouth.

You said unionists are immoral.

[armaghniac]

You said unionists are immoral.

I said that the project to make Ireland a colony of Britain was an immoral enterprise, so you could interpret that as saying that unionism is immoral. Which doesn't say anything about other aspects of the lives of unionists. That said, there is a bible bashing faction in unionism and I believe that these are hypocritical in many respects on this matter.

I am making a subtle distinction here. Unionists can reasonably argue that conditions do not exist presently for ending the union, and so support its continuation. All parties from SF in, who support the GFA support the union continuing at present. But morality requires working to build common ground rather than continuing to foster division to keep the union going.

[Roger]

No, you said that moral people oppose the NI state. 

You now simply state that unionists are wrong, since they want to remain part of the UK and have no desire to ever change that.  Therefore I presume that you think they are immoral and that's not a word too far removed from scum.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Another question for you Roger: do you think it was right, that before 1805 the non-Established Church Protestants (aka Dissenters, i.e., anything but Church of Ireland/Anglicans) were prohibited from joining the Orange Order?

[Donagh]

'Sectarian' can be political term every bit as much as religious one. I was referring to the decision as being politically sectarian - the motivation is purely political, is it not? It's about asserting/reasserting a Nationalist identity for the city.
My point is that the idea that this move is to avoid confusion for investors and tourists is largely a minor/side issue/benefit to the name change. It's not the main motivation.

For the record, I obviously call the city Derry and would never refer to it by its 'official' title.

No it's about bringing an end to an age old insult. It has to be recognised that the current name of the town is grossly insulting and the status quo is not an acceptable option.

Using the telly for access, apologies for typos...

[Roger]

Another question for you Roger: do you think it was right, that before 1805 the non-Established Church Protestants (aka Dissenters, i.e., anything but Church of Ireland/Anglicans) were prohibited from joining the Orange Order?

I have no opinion on it.

[Donagh]

What does it matter where I live? It's a town in my country just like Cobh, Dún Laoghaire or Craigavon for that matter and as a republican and anti-colonialist, I'm naturally going to reassert my country's sovereignty by ridding it of reminders of an unpleasant past.

For me the name change is simply a matter of easing the memory of an unpleasant, oppressive and colonial past. Bit like Stalingrad, Leningrad, Queenstown or Kingstown.

Part of a wider and interesting debate actually - how far would you go with name changes?
Personally, Londonderry grates on me, bu there are plenty of others that I pass little remarks to. For example...
Would you rename Queen's University? What about the Royal Hospitals?
Then there are the street names, just in Belfast, off the top of my head, I can think of:
Royal Avenue
Gt Victoria Street
Queen Street
Queen's Bridge
Queen Elizabeth Bridge
Queen's Island
Queen's Quay
Victoria Street
King Street
Gloucester Street
Oxford Street
Bedford Street
Chichester Street
(and i'm sure there are about 100 more, just around Belfast)

I know other post-colonial countries have changed street names, but if the Republican strategy for reunification - and SF's Unionist Charter - is based on inclusion, then is that not inconsistent with changing all these names of 'British' origin? Would these 'British' identities not form part of the new inclusive Irish identity? Or will the Irish identity in a united Ireland be an exclusively Irish Nationalist one?

I think you may be reading into it too much. I've no problem with street names or indeed things that reflect the rich cultural history of Ulster. The issue here is about removing reminders of unionisms racist  past, not of unionist culture or identity.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Another question for you Roger: do you think it was right, that before 1805 the non-Established Church Protestants (aka Dissenters, i.e., anything but Church of Ireland/Anglicans) were prohibited from joining the Orange Order?

I have no opinion on it.

Not being smart, but that doesn't surprise me.

To me, it's a fairly important part of recent Irish history, in that it allowed the powers that were to get a majority on their side, at the cost of a diminution of wealth. But that was something that they were prepared to accept insofar as it would lead to an ulitmately superior force to subjugate those who would oppose.

I know for a fact that erstwhile Dissenters don't like to think that they were ever outside of the golden circle, and Anglicans don't like to think that they ever had such venom for anyone other than the Taigs  . I also know that Church of Ireland get a hard time from the Presbys, Methodists, Baptists, etc., hard though that may be to believe.

[Maguire01]

What does it matter where I live? It's a town in my country just like Cobh, Dún Laoghaire or Craigavon for that matter and as a republican and anti-colonialist, I'm naturally going to reassert my country's sovereignty by ridding it of reminders of an unpleasant past.

For me the name change is simply a matter of easing the memory of an unpleasant, oppressive and colonial past. Bit like Stalingrad, Leningrad, Queenstown or Kingstown.

Part of a wider and interesting debate actually - how far would you go with name changes?
Personally, Londonderry grates on me, bu there are plenty of others that I pass little remarks to. For example...
Would you rename Queen's University? What about the Royal Hospitals?
Then there are the street names, just in Belfast, off the top of my head, I can think of:
Royal Avenue
Gt Victoria Street
Queen Street
Queen's Bridge
Queen Elizabeth Bridge
Queen's Island
Queen's Quay
Victoria Street
King Street
Gloucester Street
Oxford Street
Bedford Street
Chichester Street
(and i'm sure there are about 100 more, just around Belfast)

I know other post-colonial countries have changed street names, but if the Republican strategy for reunification - and SF's Unionist Charter - is based on inclusion, then is that not inconsistent with changing all these names of 'British' origin? Would these 'British' identities not form part of the new inclusive Irish identity? Or will the Irish identity in a united Ireland be an exclusively Irish Nationalist one?

I think you may be reading into it too much. I've no problem with street names or indeed things that reflect the rich cultural history of Ulster. The issue here is about removing reminders of unionisms racist  past, not of unionist culture or identity.

I don't understand how street names can be any less of a reminder to you than a town's name.
Where is Unionism's racist past in the name Londonderry, where it isn't in other placenames of British origin.

[Roger]

Another question for you Roger: do you think it was right, that before 1805 the non-Established Church Protestants (aka Dissenters, i.e., anything but Church of Ireland/Anglicans) were prohibited from joining the Orange Order?

I have no opinion on it.

Not being smart, but that doesn't surprise me.

To me, it's a fairly important part of recent Irish history, in that it allowed the powers that were to get a majority on their side, at the cost of a diminution of wealth. But that was something that they were prepared to accept insofar as it would lead to an ulitmately superior force to subjugate those who would oppose.

I know for a fact that erstwhile Dissenters don't like to think that they were ever outside of the golden circle, and Anglicans don't like to think that they ever had such venom for anyone other than the Taigs  . I also know that Church of Ireland get a hard time from the Presbys, Methodists, Baptists, etc., hard though that may be to believe.

I don't really care about 1805 and the Orange Order.  I don't think any of my ancestors came from the Anglican Church and I'm well aware that Presbyterians (probably my background but not solely) would have me labelled a Blackmouth due to discrimination but I find it irrelevant to me in 2009.

[Maguire01]

'Sectarian' can be political term every bit as much as religious one. I was referring to the decision as being politically sectarian - the motivation is purely political, is it not? It's about asserting/reasserting a Nationalist identity for the city.
My point is that the idea that this move is to avoid confusion for investors and tourists is largely a minor/side issue/benefit to the name change. It's not the main motivation.

For the record, I obviously call the city Derry and would never refer to it by its 'official' title.

No it's about bringing an end to an age old insult. It has to be recognised that the current name of the town is grossly insulting and the status quo is not an acceptable option.

Yes, and changing the name back to Derry will be the start of a new insult for Unionists - hardly part of the new inclusive Ireland. Two wrongs won't make a right.
And regardless of whether the move is to end an 'insult', it can't not be political - it's pretty much Nationalists v Unionists.

I agree that the status quo is not an acceptable option. But should we not be looking for a compromise that might get some broad agreement from people 'on both sides'?

I think the idea of a new name is crap, but dual naming is one possible solution. People will continue to call the city in line with their own preference, but both names would have official status, both names would be included on signage / maps etc... thereby you recognise that there are 2 legitimate traditions in the city.

[The Watcher Pat]

'Sectarian' can be political term every bit as much as religious one. I was referring to the decision as being politically sectarian - the motivation is purely political, is it not? It's about asserting/reasserting a Nationalist identity for the city.
My point is that the idea that this move is to avoid confusion for investors and tourists is largely a minor/side issue/benefit to the name change. It's not the main motivation.

For the record, I obviously call the city Derry and would never refer to it by its 'official' title.

No it's about bringing an end to an age old insult. It has to be recognised that the current name of the town is grossly insulting and the status quo is not an acceptable option.

Yes, and changing the name back to Derry will be the start of a new insult for Unionists - hardly part of the new inclusive Ireland. Two wrongs won't make a right.
And regardless of whether the move is to end an 'insult', it can't not be political - it's pretty much Nationalists v Unionists.

I agree that the status quo is not an acceptable option. But should we not be looking for a compromise that might get some broad agreement from people 'on both sides'?

I think the idea of a new name is crap, but dual naming is one possible solution. People will continue to call the city in line with their own preference, but both names would have official status, both names would be included on signage / maps etc... thereby you recognise that there are 2 legitimate traditions in the city.

You hit the nail right on the head there " back to Derry"

Can you explain why it was changer in the start?