Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know how old you are, so maybe when Paisley was setting his thugs upon the civil rights marchers, you were not even born yet (though you have undoubtedly read or heard about it).
However the point Evening Sun is making is a valid one. If X amount of people abstained for whatever reason (i.e. thought the system was rigged, police were biased, etc.), others were trying to improve their situation via peaceful means.
So just like not all Brits in NI were Paisley like bigots, not all Irish were violent troublemakers. Yet sometimes it doesn't seem like you can differentiate, and instead use sweeping generalizations to describe all of the Irish.
Do you recognize that within yourself?
`
At least two men were honest enough to tell it as it was.
GERRY FITT and JOHN HUME.. Irish Nationalists
Interestingly, Fitt later claimed that at a meeting of the SDLP on the Friday before the march, an event the party had hoped to use to its advantage by having one of its high-profile members arrested and imprisoned, Fitt told me that Hume was wary of involvement and had said; ' I don't know - there are all sorts of strange people running around Derry who are not Derry people at all and I think there is going to be shooting down there. I don't want to be there at all. I think the IRA are going to start a shooting war.'
He ( Fitt ) told the House of Lords in April 1996 that....The Protestant people in Northern Ireland - the loyalists - do not vote for gunmen. The whole history of Northern Ireland shows that the loyalist population does not vote for murderers or converted criminals. I am sorry to have to say this, but it is not the same of the nationalist population. Time and time again, the nationalist population has voted for released terrorists, whether or not they have been murderers. It votes for people who have been sentenced for terrorist or criminal acts. The Protestant population does not do that. Interviewed by author, 27 July 1989 House of Lords.
At least two men were honest enough to tell it as it was.
GERRY FITT and JOHN HUME.. Irish Nationalists
Interestingly, Fitt later claimed that at a meeting of the SDLP on the Friday before the march, an event the party had hoped to use to its advantage by having one of its high-profile members arrested and imprisoned, Fitt told me that Hume was wary of involvement and had said; ' I don't know - there are all sorts of strange people running around Derry who are not Derry people at all and I think there is going to be shooting down there. I don't want to be there at all. I think the IRA are going to start a shooting war.'
He ( Fitt ) told the House of Lords in April 1996 that....The Protestant people in Northern Ireland - the loyalists - do not vote for gunmen. The whole history of Northern Ireland shows that the loyalist population does not vote for murderers or converted criminals. I am sorry to have to say this, but it is not the same of the nationalist population. Time and time again, the nationalist population has voted for released terrorists, whether or not they have been murderers. It votes for people who have been sentenced for terrorist or criminal acts. The Protestant population does not do that. Interviewed by author, 27 July 1989 House of Lords.
Was this reply suppose to answer my question or mitigate my comment about how a peaceful civil rights protest was attacked by the Paisley's henchmen, with the tacit approval of the RUC
Hopefully you will address it, as Catholics being driven out, and the start of the Troubles seem very intertwined.
In more recent news reported by the Irish Times, the Irish Taoiseach Martin has taken some heat from his own FF party.
I thought you would be especially interested how the term "reunification" was being used in the context of "Irish unity", but not by hardened Republicans;
---
Mr Martin also denied there has been any departure from Fianna Fáil’s core policy of the political reunification of Ireland.
At the launch of the Government’s Shared Island initiative during the week, he said his own priority was to promote greater North-South cooperation, prioritising sharing the island over reunification.
Some TDs in his party have criticized him for no longer using the term “united Ireland”. But the Taoiseach insisted on Saturday that “Fianna Fáil is committed to a united Ireland, that has always been its position.”
It was “very false and frankly ill informed” to suggest a shared island agenda in the context of the Belfast Agreement “is somehow straying from Fianna Fail policy”, he added.
“It’s a nonsense… I don’t think it’s fair. To me, it is a very noble objective to say to all persuasions on this island, how do we share this island,” he said, adding that his approach “is more in step with the Irish people,” he said.
“We have done research on Northern Ireland ourselves as a political party over the last number of years.
“We have identified a very strong middle ground in Northern Ireland, that want to get things done for them, that want to create a future.”
Mr Martin said he is “very impatient and hungry to get real progress on these kinds of issues.
---
This of course flies in the face of what Roscoe claims is no interest or discussion of a united Ireland among any of the Irish parties in the south.
i understand the reasons for voting brexit , if i lived in the mainland uk , i might well have voted that way myself
however , can you see how brexit might well go against unionists in sofar as it brings forward the conversation about a united ireland , park for a minute the belief that SF are always looking for that , not every catholic in northern ireland votes SF or even wants a united ireland but most catholics and indeed many unionists dont want a hard border either due to the disruption of trade which would inevitably come about
would unionists consider a border down the irish sea in terms of trade with the EU ( including the republic of ireland ) as unacceptable ?
i realise politicians cant be seen to accept it but is a third way palatable to unionists as a solution to the brexit dilemma , even unionists must see that northern ireland faces a different post brexit situation than the rest of the uk due to geography , agriculture alone will be hit hard if a hard border goes up
Yes I agree the Protestants are not much good at presenting their side of things and the Irish Catholics are brilliant at it. John Ford and his films was a big help with Rio Grande and others ' Glory O To The Bold Fenian Men ' and the tears in the eyes etc. Even in more recent times its the same with Collins. I don't know of anything like that from the Protestant side. The Siege of Londonderry/Derry would make a great movie but there is no chance of that.
Agree with what you say about the Catholic population and their view of the Protestant population but have to add the different religions played a big part in it too. Long before the Easter Rising Rome had financed and blessed an army going to Ireland. The Protestants on the island have always been a small minority numbered in thousands while Catholics were in millions.
I don't think it would be a big deal to let us have this wee small part in the north of the island
I have seen Rio Grande and do not recall that movie having anything to do with Irish Catholics, rather it was a film about American soldiers fighting against Indians (think feather, not dot).
I have never even heard of those other two, much less seen them.
Additionally I am not sure who "Collins" would be in more recent times.
Unless you mean the film Michael Collins, but I'd hardly call a movie from the 1990's recent. Although I like Liam Neeson as an actor overall, I didn't find MC that compelling.
As to your assertion that the Irish are better at presenting their side of things, did it even cross your thoughts that maybe their side of things garners sympathy, being the oppressed?
You can say British Protestants are not good at presenting their side, but if your side is the one with the power, and in some cases abusing the civil rights of the minority (which Irish Catholics have been in NI until recently), there is no way to make that into a sympathetic position.
However, as to your thought about a movie about the "Siege of Derry" or something like that, with good actors and a sharp director, I could see that being a film worth seeing.
Why you think it would not have a chance to be made is perplexing.
Unless you mean that it would not be popular at the box office?
But if that were the case, then it wouldn't be a good movie to begin with.
It's hard to abstain, when you do not have a vote to abstain from.
That is a good an obvious point lost on some Unionists, and certainly most Loyalists, Evening Sun.
Many in the orange tribe believe that the Irish refuse to participate, then try to play the victim as UR claimed in his last post.
But if you do not have a say in how your future is defined, why play along with a rigged system?
After the GFA, the green tribe has been fully engaged because they now have some real skin in the game.
When several of our regular participants claim the Irish in NI are PR geniuses, it ignores the fact that many people around the world understand the plight they have experienced.
This perplexes them to the point of trying to explain away why the Irish have the empathy/sympathy, and the Unionists the criticism.
A previous thread asking about this was tied to the Scottish independence vote, and was shut down due to the Scottish question becoming a dead issue. So while I understand the mods reason for closing that thread, I'd still like to discuss the general question about whether NI should leave the UK and/or will it ever be reunified with the whole of Ireland?
For example, here is a running dialog from the other thread in which I had made the following comment to which Tallybalt had responded as follows;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 That "opinion" poll seems biased as does the reporter. I have seen polls where UK citizens want to be done with NI due to the sectarian violence/crime, and the economic drain it has on the rest of the UK. I have also seen polls where the subject of a unified Ireland polls much closer than what this article says.
Regardless, what most people do not realize is that virtually every political party in the Republic has within its charter an ambition of a united Ireland. It is not something regularly campaigned upon, since it is a moot point until a majority of people in NI vote for it to become a reality, as per the GFA.
Aside from the need of economic strength of the Republic to be in place as I mentioned earlier, those use to the welfare teat in NI must be convinced to stand on their own two feet. Sadly many people may want reunification, but put their own greedy personal interests ahead of it.
The political parties in the Republic included the objective of a unified Ireland in their charters a long time ago, when sentiments were strongly anti-British and pro-Independence. As you pointed out, it's not a campaign issue these days so it's not an issue at all. Just something left over from the past.
If you ask a random selection of people across Ireland about Northern Ireland, most will shrug. The younger generation in particular. I don't doubt that the majority like the notion of a unified Ireland, but as I mentioned such moves comes with tremendous political headaches that will make the unification politically troublesome and problematic to the point that I suspect the vast majority of the Irish population, both North and South, are content to let sleeping dogs lie.
There's nothing "greedy" about rejecting or wanting unification.
First of all, you misunderstood my comment about being greedy. Clearly wanting or not wanting unification has nothing to do with greed. My point was that people living in NI receiving financial aid/welfare from the UK, might put their own personal interests of continuing to receive it above their personal desire to want reunification.
As to the idea that people, especially the young don't give a flip, that has not been my experience in having asked people this very question, both in person(granted limited sampling), and via forum threads like this one. Granted the younger generation might be as involved or adamant as their parents/grandparents, but there I still a desire among many. However without passion about the issue, one wonders what catalyst it would take to bring the issue to the front burner?
So I'd like to discuss these and other issues related to the subject.
Glad to here it Rachelava, and welcome to the discussion.
While NI has been a mess for some time (and still poses many different challenges), the peace accord has held, and life has certainly improved for those living there.
Which aspects do you feel particularly are of interest/helpful?
`
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
