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.
Actually I meant my reply after that, as I acknowledged the Generals dates were off, but I pointed out how as recently as PM Thatcher saying a "Cromwellian solution" for NI might be in order.
As to Enoch Powell, I am not a PC type, thus his comments that offended many do not need to be purged from history, as some apparently would like to do.
Thus anyone praising him is automatically given a raised eyebrow.
Frankly, I don't know much about him outside of his UUP years, where he brought a unique conservative perspective that bothered people on both sides of the divide. I do remember he (like most other members of the UUP) use to deride Paisley for his extreme views. Yet Powell himself was apparently considered extreme on his foreign immigration views.
I wonder if it would be fair to say Powell was pro-Unionist, but anti-Loyalist?
`
I have never seen it in print that Thatcher said a 'Cromwellian solution' might be in order for NI. Not saying she didn't say it, but not to my personal knowledge.
Many young people hear Enoch Powell's name and recoil in horror. They know of him, but know little about him beyond his 'Rivers of Blood' speech. Many don't even know that.
I remember his UUP years, as he was often on television talking about the issues in NI. Pro-Unionist, but Anti-Loyalist? That's interesting. Powell was anti Common Market, as the EU was known at the time, and definitely a Unionist. He was an MP in NI during some of the worse years of the 'troubles.' He was a brave man, and that's for sure.
You do well irsih_bob even for an intelligent man coming out with cobblers because what I have said is FACTUAL so try to sniff me off is a tut, tut for your usual good grey cells.
On Enoch Powell he was an exceptional man who was not well treated by his party and yet the rank and file population admired him. Was good that he was an MP from Ulster for a while and they had a very intellectual giant. As for Ulster it is saddled with a political party with a ferocious link to violence and refuses to sit in parliament. They should be dumped by Westminster.
I have never seen it in print that Thatcher said a 'Cromwellian solution' might be in order for NI. Not saying she didn't say it, but not to my personal knowledge.
Many young people hear Enoch Powell's name and recoil in horror. They know of him, but know little about him beyond his 'Rivers of Blood' speech. Many don't even know that.
I remember his UUP years, as he was often on television talking about the issues in NI. Pro-Unionist, but Anti-Loyalist? That's interesting. Powell was anti Common Market, as the EU was known at the time, and definitely a Unionist. He was an MP in NI during some of the worse years of the 'troubles.' He was a brave man, and that's for sure.
While most people not familiar or interested in Northern Ireland might not be aware Thatcher said it, in the lead up to the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985, she said it to the dismay of many in her own party and administration.
To paraphrase her, "she didn't understand why Catholics were opposed to British rule in NI, and maybe they should accept a Cromwellian solution by being evicted from Ulster at the barrel of a gun like their ancestors".
Needless to say this represented her feelings, but was a major gaffe politically.
As to Powell, what I meant by Unionist vs. Loyalist is that he seemed reasoned toward a peaceful solution. Though he could likely be considered a hard core conservative in other political views, unlike PM Thatcher his mindset was more pragmatic toward NI.
While his recommendations had no chance of acceptance within the Irish community, he was not without some empathy for both sides positions.
Thus he was part of the UUP and undoubtedly pro-Unionist. However he was a critic of the extremist loyalists like Paisley.
So I was wondering whether others familiar with his time in the uUP, agreed with my notion of him being pro-Unionism and anti-Loyalism?
While most people not familiar or interested in Northern Ireland might not be aware Thatcher said it, in the lead up to the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985, she said it to the dismay of many in her own party and administration.
To paraphrase her, "she didn't understand why Catholics were opposed to British rule in NI, and maybe they should accept a Cromwellian solution by being evicted from Ulster at the barrel of a gun like their ancestors".
Needless to say this represented her feelings, but was a major gaffe politically.
As to Powell, what I meant by Unionist vs. Loyalist is that he seemed reasoned toward a peaceful solution. Though he could likely be considered a hard core conservative in other political views, unlike PM Thatcher his mindset was more pragmatic toward NI.
While his recommendations had no chance of acceptance within the Irish community, he was not without some empathy for both sides positions.
Thus he was part of the UUP and undoubtedly pro-Unionist. However he was a critic of the extremist loyalists like Paisley.
So I was wondering whether others familiar with his time in the uUP, agreed with my notion of him being pro-Unionism and anti-Loyalism?
`
Always thought the descriptions were in truth only seperated by class background.
Always thought the descriptions were in truth only seperated by class background.
Tomato - tomatoe
You might be right as I have been trying to discern whether there is a big enough difference to warrant the distinction. While a Unionist might agree with Loyalism and visa versa, aren't their political representatives/parties different in tone, if not substance?
The same is true of the other side, between Nationalism and Republicanism.
Roscoe thinks I am daft (as you Brits or Irish might say) in this regard, yet posters like Ulsterman have more or less acknowledged the difference in their view.
For example, back in Paisley's heyday of bombastic anti-Catholic bigotry, he was denounced by many Unionists as being too extreme, yet Loyalists seemed to embrace his rhetoric.
Trimble of the UUP and Powell as well, were not enamored with Paisley to say the least.
Then you have the other side of the coin where Hume & Durkan were critics of McGuinness and Adams as being outside the mainstream. Granted in both cases one can argue it was political rhetoric designed to keep power from the DUP & SF respectively.
Yet I believe most neutral observers would consider the UUP and SDLP more moderate than the DUP & SF.
So that brings us to the question of whether you can define Unionists as more moderate than Loyalists, and Nationalists more moderate than Republicans?
Just to keep you all up to date a car bomb was exploded on Saturday in Londonderry. Just before it exploded a group of young people had just walked past it.
You might be right as I have been trying to discern whether there is a big enough difference to warrant the distinction. While a Unionist might agree with Loyalism and visa versa, aren't their political representatives/parties different in tone, if not substance?
The same is true of the other side, between Nationalism and Republicanism.
Roscoe thinks I am daft (as you Brits or Irish might say) in this regard, yet posters like Ulsterman have more or less acknowledged the difference in their view.
For example, back in Paisley's heyday of bombastic anti-Catholic bigotry, he was denounced by many Unionists as being too extreme, yet Loyalists seemed to embrace his rhetoric.
Trimble of the UUP and Powell as well, were not enamored with Paisley to say the least.
Then you have the other side of the coin where Hume & Durkan were critics of McGuinness and Adams as being outside the mainstream. Granted in both cases one can argue it was political rhetoric designed to keep power from the DUP & SF respectively.
Yet I believe most neutral observers would consider the UUP and SDLP more moderate than the DUP & SF.
So that brings us to the question of whether you can define Unionists as more moderate than Loyalists, and Nationalists more moderate than Republicans?
`
I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure paisley distanced himself from the sink estate - uvf type voter, his demographic was more the evangelical Ulsterman and woman. He was still fairly middle class but obviously less so than your respectable ulster unionist establishment politician who MP, s from London were unashamed to be seen with.
May I remind the General that going on about the irish being oppressed by Britain that an awful lot of the Irish were very deeply oppressed by their controlling church and that continued AFTER independence!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulsterman
Just to keep you all up to date a car bomb was exploded on Saturday in Londonderry. Just before it exploded a group of young people had just walked past it.
I think this is a good time for all of us with our many different pounts of view and countries of origin to condemn the bombing in Derry.
And Irish Bob just a random opinion- go easy on the name calling on rjhowie. Maybe his folksy style has me biased, even if I disagree with his views.
Just to keep you all up to date a car bomb was exploded on Saturday in Londonderry. Just before it exploded a group of young people had just walked past it.
Thanks for the heads up as news like this travels slowy across the pond unless there are major casulaities. Sounds like it could have been much worse, and one wonders what the bombers planned to accomplish with this reckless act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the South
I think this is a good time for all of us with our many different pounts of view and countries of origin to condemn the bombing in Derry.
And Irish Bob just a random opinion- go easy on the name calling on rjhowie. Maybe his folksy style has me biased, even if I disagree with his views.
In regard to Irish Bob, we all pretty much keep name calling and criticism of each other to a minimum. This is more of a discussion group exchanging views and ideas rather than arguing and making insults.Considering the nature of the subject, I think we are doing well.
As to the bombing, I have said on several occasions the senseless violence by dissident groups at this point does not have the support of the people.
Even those who want a united Ireland are probably scratching their heads wondering what this bomb was suppose to accomplish.
Ulsterman said youngsters were passing by and luckily were not killed or maimed. They could have been tourists, Irish folks that want a united Ireland, or just other innocent people, not the "enemy".
It seems like a senseless act in an effort to prove something, but what exactly, other than endangering innocent people having a night out on the town?
`
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.
