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.
Yes of course! Or can I call myself French because of my Norman heritage, Italian because of my Roman heritage or Danish because of my Viking heritage? Incidentally your post shows you 'may' be a bit confused about the term 'British'?
My main point as it pertained to my recent reply to you, was that people in NI seem to be even more "hyphenated" than what you claim us Americans are. That would especially be true if you view someone as having to have been born in a particular county, to claim that is your heritage. Don't get me wrong, I understand the born and bred part, as I consider myself true blue American, regardless of my ancestors place of origin.
(BTW - most of us are not into the whole hyphenated-American thing).
That said, many of the people of Northern Ireland do not assimilate into one society.
Obviously their ethnic, cultural, religious and political association are a much larger factor in their day to day lives than just about any other western society.
This alone could be the biggest stumbling block to ever getting most of them to agree on who they are, and whether they should be British, Irish, or some hybrid of a distinct independent people.
On a related side note, I was listening to a SDLP man running for office, and it almost seemed as if was not proposing a united Ireland (which was always part of their political platform). Instead he seemed resigned to the fact the Unionists would not go along with it, so NI needed to have their own independent nation.
The irony of course is that if the two sides cannot even keep a devolved government going in NI, how would they ever be able to agree on a government of their own choosing.
Not all Americans think in terms of being hyphenated-Americans, and even the ones that do typically do it for benign reasons.
The people in NI on the other hand seem to define most of their existence to whom they identify as, whether it be pride, heritage, ideology or the like. I have read about or watched many a Unionist for example talking about the need to conduct parades as part of their culture. It is as if they believe talking that away from them would somehow diminish who they are as a people.
There seems to be little desire for assimilation into one culture whether it be a unique Northern Irish category, British, Irish, etc.
So in your mind, if a child is born in NI, (having nothing to do with what the parents will indoctrinate them into), what should that person designate themselves to be, if asked?
My main point as it pertained to my recent reply to you, was that people in NI seem to be even more "hyphenated" than what you claim us Americans are. That would especially be true if you view someone as having to have been born in a particular county, to claim that is your heritage. Don't get me wrong, I understand the born and bred part, as I consider myself true blue American, regardless of my ancestors place of origin.
(BTW - most of us are not into the whole hyphenated-American thing).
That said, many of the people of Northern Ireland do not assimilate into one society.
Obviously their ethnic, cultural, religious and political association are a much larger factor in their day to day lives than just about any other western society.
This alone could be the biggest stumbling block to ever getting most of them to agree on who they are, and whether they should be British, Irish, or some hybrid of a distinct independent people.
On a related side note, I was listening to a SDLP man running for office, and it almost seemed as if was not proposing a united Ireland (which was always part of their political platform). Instead he seemed resigned to the fact the Unionists would not go along with it, so NI needed to have their own independent nation.
The irony of course is that if the two sides cannot even keep a devolved government going in NI, how would they ever be able to agree on a government of their own choosing.
Not all Americans think in terms of being hyphenated-Americans, and even the ones that do typically do it for benign reasons.
The people in NI on the other hand seem to define most of their existence to whom they identify as, whether it be pride, heritage, ideology or the like. I have read about or watched many a Unionist for example talking about the need to conduct parades as part of their culture. It is as if they believe talking that away from them would somehow diminish who they are as a people.
There seems to be little desire for assimilation into one culture whether it be a unique Northern Irish category, British, Irish, etc.
So in your mind, if a child is born in NI, (having nothing to do with what the parents will indoctrinate them into), what should that person designate themselves to be, if asked?
`
I don't disagree, the biggest 'stumbling block' to peace in N. Ireland are the people themselves and the divides that each generation passes down to the next. Mankind fights, mankind makes war and mankind needs to 'move on' from confrontation for peace to ensue, unfortunately there are places and people in the world where people cannot 'let it lie' e.g. Middle East, North Ireland. The British and French or the French and Germans have had 'fractious' relationships over the years (like ALL neighbours on the planet) yet they seem (like most places in the world) in the main to be able to let bygones be bygones and the population of these countries benefit because of it. Can you imagine if the French still burned German flags because of WWII? Or if every year the Americans marched through Tokyo on the anniversary of the Hiroshima nuclear bombing? Ultimately the Irish won't 'let it go' and whatever they call themselves is ultimately a result of the divides.
Three UDR members of the same family murdered by the IRA. All three were off duty at the time. As the title says they were a defensive organization. The family also lost their daughter who was in the UDR she was knocked down at a checkpoint. Was it deliberate?
I read the BBC link you posted, but what title are you referring to regarding the UDR being classified as a "defensive organization"
Do you consider them to have been so?
I read the BBC link you posted, but what title are you referring to regarding the UDR being classified as a "defensive organization"
Do you consider them to have been so?
I know what the acronym stands for, and am familiar with them having read about their inception and disbanding.
I was asking you where you came up with "the title says they were a defensive organization".
Another words I would have been surprised to have read the article and missed a title claiming they were defensive in nature.
So maybe you meant their name had "defensive" in it, not that the article claimed they were a defensive branch.
Just as few would call the IRA a literal "army", the UDR was not some benign organization only armed with defensive weapons or purpose.
As you undoubted know, they were heavily criticized and disbanded for collusion/infiltration by Loyalists among other things.
Now your take on them might be different, hence the reason I asked you if you thought they were "defensive".
I know what the acronym stands for, and am familiar with them having read about their inception and disbanding.
I was asking you where you came up with "the title says they were a defensive organization".
Another words I would have been surprised to have read the article and missed a title claiming they were defensive in nature.
So maybe you meant their name had "defensive" in it, not that the article claimed they were a defensive branch.
Just as few would call the IRA a literal "army", the UDR was not some benign organization only armed with defensive weapons or purpose.
As you undoubted know, they were heavily criticized and disbanded for collusion/infiltration by Loyalists among other things.
Now your take on them might be different, hence the reason I asked you if you thought they were "defensive".
`
Cause that's what it was...a defensive organization. They were not an army prepared to go to war. Yes, there were a few who took the law into their own hands but the vast majority stuck to the rules. It seems you will always look for the bad and ignore the good. I'll say it again ..your headline says it all ' reunification ' spells out quite clearly where your sympathies lie. Its not a neutral statement.
Cause that's what it was...a defensive organization. They were not an army prepared to go to war. Yes, there were a few who took the law into their own hands but the vast majority stuck to the rules. It seems you will always look for the bad and ignore the good. I'll say it again ..your headline says it all ' reunification ' spells out quite clearly where your sympathies lie. Its not a neutral statement.
It is hard not to look at the UDR in a negative way, and I suspect most historians that are not apologists for it, feel the same.
I think it actually tried to start out positively, and when it had as many as 18% Catholics, it might have had a chance.
Of course when they left in droves due to conflicts with how the community perceived them, it was doomed from that point forward.
It is almost impossible to police a community that is distrustful of the force, regardless in what corner of the globe it is occurring.
In all honesty I think you have been too focused on the term reunification, partly because many on your side of the divide have grown up being taught Ireland was never unified.
Regardless, at times while discussing this subject I have used the term "unified" instead, as it is shorter, but in essence says the same thing.
Even most of the commentary from Nationalists/Republicans refer to Northern Ireland becoming part of a united Ireland.
Though Unionists do not want to see that happen, they also use the terminology of a united Ireland.
As to where sympathies lay, I try to see both sides, am looking forward to Stormont resuming, and positive change occurring.
That can be without the six counties leaving the UK to join, (rejoin ) Ireland. But the ball needs to move forward. The petty and frankly trivial nature of SF & DUP that argue over "pride flags" instead of getting to the business of NI is perplexing.
Didn't you perceive SF & DUP being more productive to the needs of NI when McGuinness and Paisley were in office compared to now?
It is hard not to look at the UDR in a negative way, and I suspect most historians that are not apologists for it, feel the same.
I think it actually tried to start out positively, and when it had as many as 18% Catholics, it might have had a chance.
Of course when they left in droves due to conflicts with how the community perceived them, it was doomed from that point forward.
It is almost impossible to police a community that is distrustful of the force, regardless in what corner of the globe it is occurring.
In all honesty I think you have been too focused on the term reunification, partly because many on your side of the divide have grown up being taught Ireland was never unified.
Regardless, at times while discussing this subject I have used the term "unified" instead, as it is shorter, but in essence says the same thing.
Even most of the commentary from Nationalists/Republicans refer to Northern Ireland becoming part of a united Ireland.
Though Unionists do not want to see that happen, they also use the terminology of a united Ireland.
As to where sympathies lay, I try to see both sides, am looking forward to Stormont resuming, and positive change occurring.
That can be without the six counties leaving the UK to join, (rejoin ) Ireland. But the ball needs to move forward. The petty and frankly trivial nature of SF & DUP that argue over "pride flags" instead of getting to the business of NI is perplexing.
Didn't you perceive SF & DUP being more productive to the needs of NI when McGuinness and Paisley were in office compared to now?
`
Yes, but then they realised by playing a part at Stormont they were helping to prop up a British institution and that couldn't be allowed to continue so off they went. So far they have not went into their usual mode of being discriminated against but give them time and that whinge could again be heard. The DUP and the other parties have said time after time that they are ready to get Stormont up and running but Sinn Fein refuse to return to Stormont.
The UDR were 'sitting ducks' and unable to return like with like. Many of their members ( including the Greenfinches ) were murdered by the IRA and this sometimes included their children too.
There were some Catholics who joined the UDR but they were murdered which had the desired effect of many of them leaving but not them all there were a brave few who remained.
I don't disagree, the biggest 'stumbling block' to peace in N. Ireland are the people themselves and the divides that each generation passes down to the next. Mankind fights, mankind makes war and mankind needs to 'move on' from confrontation for peace to ensue, unfortunately there are places and people in the world where people cannot 'let it lie' e.g. Middle East, North Ireland. The British and French or the French and Germans have had 'fractious' relationships over the years (like ALL neighbours on the planet) yet they seem (like most places in the world) in the main to be able to let bygones be bygones and the population of these countries benefit because of it. Can you imagine if the French still burned German flags because of WWII? Or if every year the Americans marched through Tokyo on the anniversary of the Hiroshima nuclear bombing? Ultimately the Irish won't 'let it go' and whatever they call themselves is ultimately a result of the divides.
We tend to agree, and those are some interesting examples you gave.
I have suspected for some time that the perpetual marching in NI is counter-productive to finding a cohesive bond between the two communities.
There is certainly nothing wrong with a one day celebration like we have in America celebrating kicking King George & Co off our shores.
That is coming up in 3 days, but then it is over, and we do not keep at it.
Additionally our songs and celebrations are not rubbing the salt into the wound of Britain, but rather celebrating our freedom.
We also don't seek out a British community of people to parade through their section of town, signing derisive tunes about the Brits.
Here is hoping the marches this year will go on without the typical violence and the police caught in the middle.
I'd also like to think that if a united Ireland does occur, the Irish Nationalists will not want to do to the Unionists what they have done for so many years.
`
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.
) Ireland. But the ball needs to move forward. The petty and frankly trivial nature of SF & DUP that argue over "pride flags" instead of getting to the business of NI is perplexing.
