NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to see what you think the people in the north of Ireland (Northern Ireland) are in terms of nationality?

Protestant - Loyalists, Ulster Scots, British, Scottish, Irish? etc.

Catholics - Irish, British?

Northern Ireland came to be in 1922, before that year the British government saw the whole island of Ireland as a single nation (Ireland) in union with Great Britain. The British government under Lloyd George created a small state now called Northern Ireland due to the high number of protestants living in that area, the Irish team that went to London in the 20's to set terms did their best to get parts of Fermanagh and Tyrone into the Free State due to the high number of Irish Catholics in those regions, this was not accepted by the British.
The British (Protestant) settlers came to Ireland in the 1600's, the Irish have been their since before Christ. Whos land is it?

The IRA is no longer seen as a "terrorist" group by the US or other larger states in the world but the Loyalist groups are, in fact there is a silent war being fought between the Loyalists today in part because of drug selling "rights" and other criminal projects they are major players in.

As to protestant loyalty, I don't know. They claim to be loyal to Britain, a nation now stepping out and leaving the north to handle it's own affairs.
Scotland? They are Ulster Scots but as for the actual nation of Scotland they have a form of home rule know and things are looking like they might want full independance soon.

We're whichever the fuck we want to be, nobody can dictate to a person their nationality.

Aren't they, you know, Northern Irish? Really, they're whatever they identify themselves as.

Aren't they, you know, Northern Irish? Really, they're whatever they identify themselves as.

That's what I always just say. I consider myself to be both Irish and British, and Northern Irish is probably the best way of expressing that.

As to protestant loyalty, I don't know. They claim to be loyal to Britain, a nation now stepping out and leaving the north to handle it's own affairs.

If by "stepping out" and "leaving the north to handle its own affairs" you mean "ruling by decree, and planning to fully abolish the elected local assembly in November in order to maintain and extend their direct rule of Northern Ireland."

If by "stepping out" and "leaving the north to handle its own affairs" you mean "ruling by decree, and planning to fully abolish the elected local assembly in November in order to maintain and extend their direct rule of Northern Ireland."

That took you some time, I'm talking in terms of the post-Good Friday Agreement spectrum of the affairs of Northern Ireland.

The British (Protestant) settlers came to Ireland in the 1600's, the Irish have been their since before Christ. Whos land is it?

Yeah, but the Irish mostly came from Scotland (as, for that matter, did most of the British). Give Ireland back to Scotland.

That's what I always just say. I consider myself to be both Irish and British, and Northern Irish is probably the best way of expressing that.

So which passport do you hold?

Mine is the British one, fwiw.

That took you some time, I'm talking in terms of the post-Good Friday Agreement spectrum of the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Which, if we are to believe Peter Hain, have been all but abandoned.

Personally I strongly believe northern Ireland belongs to the rest of Ireland. That is my own opinion though.

So which passport do you hold?

Mine is the British one, fwiw.

British, because I got it before I was 16 and my parents were responsible for getting it.

It should be up for renewal next year, I'll probably just keep it. Two passports = double the cost and hassle.

Personally I strongly believe northern Ireland belongs to the rest of Ireland. That is my own opinion though.

"Belongs" in what way?

Legally, it "belongs" to the UK.

What are they?
British - Great Britain
Irish - Republic of Ireland
Other, Waht?


Shouldn't the first option be 'British - United Kingdom'. The North of Ireland hasn't been connected to Great Britain since sometime shortly after Gondwanaland.

"Belongs" in what way?

Apparently you and me are property of the 'other' Irish people.

I personally, as a man of Irish descent, feel that there should exist only a single, united Irish state. let it be noted, however, that my completely Irish grandmother is the daughter of a Northern Irishman that fled to America b/c of the IRA, and that my grandmother's mother was an Irish Catholic whose parents were active in the IRA here in America. Go figure! :cool:

Shouldn't the first option be 'British - United Kingdom'. The North of Ireland hasn't been connected to Great Britain since sometime shortly after Gondwanaland.

Well, if we are putting things back the way they were historically, we should endeavour to rejoin Ireland physically with GB. Ireland can be called "Eastern Great Britain" or something.

And somebody find some live sabre-tooths, stat. Come on boffins, we can solve this one!

let it be noted, however, that my completely Irish grandmother is the daughter of a Northern Irishman that fled to America b/c of the IRA...

What age is your grandmother?

Well, if we are putting things back the way they were historically, we should endeavour to rejoin Ireland physically with GB. Ireland can be called "Eastern Great Britain" or something.

Possibly 'western Great Britain' would be more appropriate unless we transversed the poles at some point or suchlike.

And somebody find some live sabre-tooths, stat. Come on boffins, we can solve this one!

Tir-nan-og go braugh!

Apparently you and me are property of the 'other' Irish people.

How interesting, although it is a pity that nobody bothered to inform me until now.

Possibly 'western Great Britain' would be more appropriate unless we transversed the poles at some point or suchlike.

Well, let's face it, if we're filling in the Irish sea, then that doesn't seem like such a leap of imagination.

(yes, I put the wrong one down)



Tir-nan-og go bragh!

I agree....what?

"Belongs" in what way?

Legally, it "belongs" to the UK.

Well of course, right now it is part of the UK. But I think the UK should just let go and have northern Ireland unite with the rest of the island. Again this is my personal opinion and I'm not saying it must be done.

Éire go Brách

Well of course, right now it is part of the UK. But I think the UK should just let go and have northern Ireland unite with the rest of the island. Again this is my personal opinion and I'm not saying it must be done.

You think it should happen in complete disregard for the opinions of the majority of the people actually living in Northern Ireland

Éire go Brách

Interestingly, the slogan displayed above the front entrance by Unionist demonstrators at Balmoral, Belfast on Easter Tuesday 1912, if I remember correctly.

(Bearing in mind my memory is patchy at best, above may not be true, being as it is from a textbook in school about 6 or 7 years ago)

The Irish of northern Ireland, be they protestant or catholic, are Irish and them and their land should be a part of the Irish republic. Nothing can change that, not even the divisive and sickening influence of christianity. I'm in favour of the reunification of Ireland and the reunification of Ulster (three of the counties of Ulster lie within the Irish Republic, wheras six are currently occupied by the English). The people who live there who don't want this are traitors.

The people who live there who don't want this are traitors.

To whom/what would I be a traitor?

The Irish of northern Ireland, be they protestant or catholic, are Irish and them and their land should be a part of the Irish republic.

Why?

They're Northern Irish... why even ask the question?

We're whichever the fuck we want to be, nobody can dictate to a person their nationality.

Um, almost every country in Africa, Spain & France (Basques), China, and North/South Korea all say differently.

See also Jugoslavia, Yemen, East/West Germany, North/South Viet Nam & Czechoslovakia (all back in the day).

One could also argue for Wales & Scotland in the UK, the creation of Panama, and most of history. :D

I still don't know why the title is "Ireland" when in reality the topic is about what people in another country feel.

Bad title, bad question, bad thread. *dusts hands*

You think it should happen in complete disregard for the opinions of the majority of the people actually living in Northern Ireland

that sums up my view entirely

this isn't some British colony if the Northern Irelands population actually wanted to leave the U.K I highly doubt we would stop them its not really are supply of oil or anything

it always amazes me how some Americans march round calling themselves Irish and as such feel they have a say in this when America is the one that makes it illegal for states to leave the union and you will notice that no one cares about the U.K over possessions which are far more justifiable to leave than Ireland

Yeah, but the Irish mostly came from Scotland (as, for that matter, did most of the British). Give Ireland back to Scotland.

Actualy its the reverse, the Scotii(Scotti?) were originally from Ireland, and moved over to Scotland.

Um, almost every country in Africa, Spain & France (Basques), China, and North/South Korea all say differently.

See also Jugoslavia, Yemen, East/West Germany, North/South Viet Nam & Czechoslovakia (all back in the day).

One could also argue for Wales & Scotland in the UK, the creation of Panama, and most of history. :D

Yeah, but what you are missing here is that both Irish nationality and UK nationality are available to the vast majority of Northern Ireland residents - all those born in Northern Ireland prior to the start of 2005. In this it is quite possibly unique, and markedly different from the examples you speiled off.

Actualy its the reverse, the Scotii(Scotti?) were originally from Ireland, and moved over to Scotland.

You are entirely correct. Mea culpa.

How interesting, although it is a pity that nobody bothered to inform me until now.

the Irish Republics constitutional claims and the IRA campaign are news to you?

the Irish Republics constitutional claims and the IRA campaign are news to you?

I don't recall them claiming that I "belong" to anybody, just that NI should be part of the Republic, not that it actually "belongs" to it.

Yeah, but what you are missing here is that both Irish nationality and UK nationality are available to the vast majority of Northern Ireland residents - all those born in Northern Ireland prior to the start of 2005. In this it is quite possibly unique, and markedly different from the examples you speiled off.

I'm going to go with this answer.

I don't recall them claiming that I "belong" to anybody, just that NI should be part of the Republic, not that it actually "belongs" to it.

really?

what were articles 2 and 3 about if not terroritorial claims, ie, the island and the republic should be the same, ie, you as an irishman/woman 'belong' to the irish nation, not one overseas.

republican are/were quite explicit about it.

really?

what were articles 2 and 3 about if not terroritorial claims, ie, the island and the republic should be the same, ie, you as an irishman/woman 'belong' to the irish nation, not one overseas.

republican are/were quite explicit about it.

"should" is a very important word.

Even the IRA didn't say that NI belonged to the Republic, they always said they wished for a united 32 county republic and rejected British rule in the north; not that the north actually belonged to the republic.

"should" is a very important word.

Even the IRA didn't say that NI belonged to the Republic, they always said they wished for a united 32 county republic and rejected British rule in the north; not that the north actually belonged to the republic.

that doesnt make a lot of sense.

the IRA derive legitimacy from the first dail, which predates partition, so was a 32 county parliament. thats the republic in irish republican army, and that declared republic predates partition. so yes, the 6 counties belong to the provisional republic according to the IRA.

articles 2 and 3 claimed the 6 counties and that reunification was the imperitive of the actual republic of ireland. the policy is still for peaceful reunification via majority rule.

im strugging to see your point here.

im strugging to see your point here.

I think Nads here is trying to draw the distinction between being a constituent part of something, and a mere possession thereof.

really?

what were articles 2 and 3 about if not terroritorial claims, ie, the island and the republic should be the same...

No, the island is only part of Ireland. Re-read your source material.

Yeah, but the Irish mostly came from Scotland

Irish went to Scotland, then came back.

Yeah, but the Irish mostly came from Scotland (as, for that matter, did most of the British). Give Ireland back to Scotland.
8 minutes too late...

8 minutes too late...

Closer to 8 hours. Someone else pegged it as ass-backwards about ten posts up.

That's what I always just say. I consider myself to be both Irish and British, and Northern Irish is probably the best way of expressing that.

Exactly, it's no different to being British and English, British and Scottish or British and Welsh.

Or you're like me, and just like to see myself as just British.:cool:

Exactly, it's no different to being British and English, British and Scottish or British and Welsh.

Technically it is markedly different: considering yourself both British and Irish means that two separate sovereign states are involved, whereas with your examples only a single sovereign state enters the question - separate nations within that state certainly, but only a single sovereign state.

Technically it is markedly different: considering yourself both British and Irish means that two separate sovereign states are involved, whereas with your examples only a single sovereign state enters the question - separate nations within that state certainly, but only a single sovereign state.

I don't see that as a major difference or problem, since being 'British Irish' doesn't immediately have to mean allegiance to Dublin.

Off topic I know, but as we're all supposed to be European now, doesn't it make the subject of being Irish or British obsolete. Mind you I wonder how long it will be before we get a "liberation" army to get us out of the clutches of the evil United States of Europe (when it happens).

I don't see that as a major difference or problem, since being 'British Irish' doesn't immediately have to mean allegiance to Dublin.

You don't. Many many others do.

An Irishman is an Irishman, and should therefore be an Irishman.

A single, united Republic of Ireland is the only true way to go. The battle-lines of Protestant vs. Catholic is not absolute, but rather a trend of the Pro-British vs. Pro-Republican stances. Given the handling of the Great Potato Famine, I fail to see how any Irishman would want to be part of a government that allowed such a large portion of their population die.

As to any and all comments about Irish/Scottish/Celtic ancestry, here's how it went:

The Celts, a tribe of North Africans, migrated up through Iberia and from there, found their way to two large landmasses: Ireland and Britain. Some went to Ireland, others went to Britain. Those in Britain also maintained connections with family members living in Gaul. Vercingitorex, if you want a notable figure. Those in Ireland, Britain, and Gaul maintained communications, and eventually some of those in Ireland migrated to the northern parts of Britain, which were uninhabited, becoming the Scots. At this time, there was a single overlordship between the Irish and the Scots.

Over the course of the years, a new power came to northern Gaul: the Vikings. They intermarried, and having been given land by the new Frankish king, were settled in Normandy. At the same time, Saxons, Jutes, and Angles began to invade Britain, fighting with the Celtic natives, the modern day Welsh, forming England and Wales. In turn, the Welsh supported their cousin, William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, when he came to England, and were part of the forces responsible for the victory at Hastings, when William became the Conqueror.

During the aforementioned fall and rise of the Welsh peoples, in England, Wales, and northern France, the Scots and the Irish began to slowly seperate, but the monarchs of both nations were descended of the same royal line. However, in an idiotic decision, the pope made Henry II the feudal overlord of Ireland, a claim not well established by his heirs until Henry VIII. Edward I tried to enforce it, along with his son and grandson, but the Bruces of Scotland and, for a time, Ireland, foiled those plans.

Eventually, after the union of the crowns, Scots migrated back to Ireland. The Scots-Irish were not Irish, except for living there.

It should be noted that any claim the current British Monarch has over the sovereignty of Ireland, or any part therof, is illegitimate if derived from Henry VIII's invasions. However, the Scottish descent of the monarch is a legitimate claim, since the thrones of Ireland and Scotland were held by the same family, a family that led its people first to Ireland, then to Scotland, but maintaining connections with both lands.

An Irishman is an Irishman, and should therefore be an Irishman.

A single, united Republic of Ireland is the only true way to go. The battle-lines of Protestant vs. Catholic is not absolute, but rather a trend of the Pro-British vs. Pro-Republican stances. Given the handling of the Great Potato Famine, I fail to see how any Irishman would want to be part of a government that allowed such a large portion of their population die.

You are aware that there is most likely nobody alive in Ireland or England that was alive during the Potato Famine, right? Tony Blair's government has no more to do with the Famine than Kim Jong Il's.

You don't. Many many others do.

And therein lies the problem.

Snip

You forget one thing: More people in Northern Ireland want to be a part of the United Kingdom.

Linky (http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2004/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html)

What the people of Northern Ireland want should matter, no?

Yeah, but the Irish mostly came from Scotland (as, for that matter, did most of the British). Give Ireland back to Scotland.

where did you get that from?
all the books i have read, ireland was first landed by people who come the area now know as germany.

also n-irl is not british nor has it ever or can be. britain is geographical term which referes to island which scorland walse and england are on.
northren ireland is apart on the island called ireland,(the clue is in the name).
i would like them to become apart of the republic, but it would be a long and hard process. firstly we would have to establish one police force and military. then alter thier laws, then we can join politically.

then alter thier laws, then we can join politically.

Aww but I wanted to alter your laws instead

Off topic I know, but as we're all supposed to be European now, doesn't it make the subject of being Irish or British obsolete. Mind you I wonder how long it will be before we get a "liberation" army to get us out of the clutches of the evil United States of Europe (when it happens).

the difference from being controlled by the republic and being controlled by the uk, is that one is a peace nation as the other still continues barbaric slaughter of other nations. iraq and such.

the difference from being controlled by the republic and being controlled by the uk, is that one is a peace nation as the other still continues barbaric slaughter of other nations. iraq and such.

So if you're such a peaceful nation why would you want us? We don't have such a good record in that area. I wouldnt want us

Aww but I wanted to alter your laws instead

more of us than you.
the laws i'm talking about are the gun ones and other liberal ones.

So if you're such a peaceful nation why would you want us? We don't have such a good record in that area. I wouldnt want us

We only want it cos England has it. If they gave it to us we wouldn't want it anymore, we'd just throw it away and start bombing Wales till they handed that over.

So if you're such a peaceful nation why would you want us? We don't have such a good record in that area. I wouldnt want us

i ment peaceful in the sense that ireland doesnt meddle with other countries politics othe rthan ones that effect us.
one ireland would mean better internal security for us. i would however not like to force anyone, which is why i would make it an independant state first before full unity.

We only want it cos England has it. If they gave it to us we wouldn't want it anymore, we'd just throw it away and start bombing Wales till they handed that over.

Now we've just slipped into ridiculous ideas.........its obvious no-one would ever want Wales :p

more of us than you.
the laws i'm talking about are the gun ones and other liberal ones.

What I mean is that the attitude seems to be that N. Ireland doesn't get to have a say in its future. People talk in terms of Britain and Ireland instead. What about the people who's lives would actually be affected

What I mean is that the attitude seems to be that N. Ireland doesn't get to have a say in its future. People talk in terms of Britain and Ireland instead. What about the people who's lives would actually be affected

still not britain. britain is an island, that cannot be change unless a hugh climate change.

still not britain. britain is an island, that cannot be change unless a hugh climate change.

Fine then change Britain to UK and then answer my question

Fine then change Britain to UK and then answer my question

catholics there first. first come first serve.
my granny is from derry. people there would agree they would get better treatment if they where apart of the republic.

edit: bloody sunday anyone?

where did you get that from?
all the books i have read, ireland was first landed by people who come the area now know as germany.

As pointed out earlier I had a brainfart, and the Scots came from Ireland, not the other way round.

catholics there first. first come first serve.
my granny is from derry. people there would agree they would get better treatment if they where apart of the republic.

edit: bloody sunday anyone?

You realise you're talking about a community that is quite possibly largely seperated from the protestant community in the same area. Thats the way it is in a lot of places in the north so you cant use it as a representative source

also n-irl is not british nor has it ever or can be. britain is geographical term which referes to island which scorland walse and england are on.

Nope. 'Great Britain' refers to the landmass comprising of Wales, Scotland, England and off-lying islands. 'Britain' is a synonym for 'United Kingdom', which as any fule knoes contains Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland.

catholics there first. first come first serve.
Dinosaurs were in Northern Ireland before the Catholics were. Should we hand NI, and everything else, back to the Dinosaurs, because they were 'there first'? Or, on a more serious note, what about handing America and Canada back to the Native Americans and Forst Nations respectively before they were 'there first', or hand Australia back to the Aborigonies, or Spain to the Caliphate?

my granny is from derry. people there would agree they would get better treatment if they where apart of the republic.
And? If I could exchange the British and Irish government and system of government I probably would. What's your point?

edit: bloody sunday anyone?
What about it?

catholics there first. first come first serve.


Screw the johnny-come-lately Catholics and their new-fangled religion. People were knocking about Ireland for eight thousand years before some chap got nailed up to die.


EDIT: it appears that the earliest inhabitants of Ireland did actually come from Scotland during the Mesolithic.

So, the picture is this: the Irish came from Scotland, became the Irish, then some of them went back to Scotland, became the Scottish, and then some of them came back to Ireland again...

I think Nads here is trying to draw the distinction between being a constituent part of something, and a mere possession thereof.

Bingo.

An Irishman is an Irishman, and should therefore be an Irishman.

A single, united Republic of Ireland is the only true way to go. The battle-lines of Protestant vs. Catholic is not absolute, but rather a trend of the Pro-British vs. Pro-Republican stances. Given the handling of the Great Potato Famine, I fail to see how any Irishman would want to be part of a government that allowed such a large portion of their population die.

Protestant and Catholic, have nothing to do with it, save for on a false superficial level.

Only, I believe 50% of Catholics want to enter a united Ireland. 25% want to remain in the UK.

Even if it was 75% for a united Ireland and 25% for the UK, it should still be enough to blow out of the water the ridiculous theory that Catholic = Nationalist and Protestant = Unionist.

In addition, only 23% of the population as a whole want to enter a united Ireland. 58% of the population as a whole want to remain in the UK, and 7% of the population as a whole would rather Northern Ireland was an independent state (interestingly, a larger % of Catholics (9%) than Protestants (4%) want an independent state, somewhat flying in the face of the old theory that only Protestants want an independent Northern Ireland in order to oppress Catholics.

It should be noted that any claim the current British Monarch has over the sovereignty of Ireland, or any part therof, is illegitimate if derived from Henry VIII's invasions. However, the Scottish descent of the monarch is a legitimate claim, since the thrones of Ireland and Scotland were held by the same family, a family that led its people first to Ireland, then to Scotland, but maintaining connections with both lands.

That's OK then, as the union of the Crowns came under a Scottish king, so the descent, as if it mattered, is no problem.

You are aware that there is most likely nobody alive in Ireland or England that was alive during the Potato Famine, right? Tony Blair's government has no more to do with the Famine than Kim Jong Il's.

"Most likely"? It was 160 years ago, I think it's rather more certain than "most likely" :p

also n-irl is not british nor has it ever or can be. britain is geographical term which referes to island which scorland walse and england are on.

Er....no.

Great Britain is the name of the island England, Scotland, and Wales are on.

Britain is synonymous with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

catholics there first. first come first serve.

Interestingly, the Catholics wouldn't be Catholic if it wasn't for the English (Henry II, to be precise), they would still be following the native Irish Christianity brought to them by St. Patrick (yet another Brit, incidently).

So I fail to see your point about Catholocism.

Interestingly, the Catholics wouldn't be Catholic if it wasn't for the English (Henry II, to be precise), they would still be following the native Irish Christianity brought to them by St. Patrick (yet another Brit, incidently).

Well, they would have been Catholics prior to that, just not Roman Catholics. I think 'Cletic Catholics' is the term oft used.

Well, they would have been Catholics prior to that, just not Roman Catholics. I think 'Cletic Catholics' is the term oft used.

Well, I was going for the common use "Catholic" = "Roman Catholic".

Well, I was going for the common use "Catholic" = "Roman Catholic".

Aye, I'm just raising interesting points of pedantry.

Aye, I'm just raising interesting points of pedantry.

Well, you are wont to do that :p

I have an idea. Why don't you go over to a square in the middle of Belfast and start asking people loudly, and see how many minutes you can make it before being SHOT.

I have an idea. Why don't you go over to a square in the middle of Belfast and start asking people loudly, and see how many minutes you can make it before being SHOT.

You could go on forever, seeing as we have very low gun ownership, what with it being illegal and all, and one of the lowest crime rates in the world (the lowest according to the UN).

Other: THE 4TH BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, BABY!

My order of best countries:

1: Scotland
2: Germany
3: Canada
4: Ireland

Fine, beat to a bloody pulp by nationalist drunks. But last I was there the police carried guns. Plus, what better way can you think of to incite a riot?

Fine, beat to a bloody pulp by nationalist drunks.

Yes, an ever so regular occurance.

Parent: Where are you off to tonight then?
Child: Out for a few drinks, and then join in the usual 'beaten to a pulp by nationalist drunks'. Should be a good night.

But last I was there the police carried guns.

Yup, just like in many countries, and as they should do.

Yes, an ever so regular occurance.

Parent: Where are you off to tonight then?
Child: Out for a few drinks, and then join in the usual 'beaten to a pulp by nationalist drunks'. Should be a good night.



Yup, just like in many countries, and as they should do.

Unless they are the LAPD, in which they shouldn't be trusted with anything more lethal than a crayon.

I have an idea. Why don't you go over to a square in the middle of Belfast and start asking people loudly, and see how many minutes you can make it before being SHOT.

Let me guess: you have never been to Northern Ireland, never mind Belfast, yes?

Well. I always been a staunch republican, so yeah. Northern Irish are Irish, no matter what the Protestants. Fuck them, they only been on the island for 400 years. The Catholics and the Irish themselves has been there much longer.

The funny thing is, I've been interested in this the past couple weeks and summer with the devolution. Wonder what tomorrow will bring at St. Andrews.

I mean, I don't care if N. Ireland doesn't join, as long Catholic/republicans have equal treatment... that and Ian Paisley fucking croaks. Paisley and Thatcher are the two main reasons the Troubles have dragged on for so long, IMO. Hell, Northern Ireland indepdence would be good. Have no one control it. However, it's seems that it's a unionist thing on indepdence.

But yeah, I was suprised to see this topic on here. Northern Ireland doesn't attention as much these days, in general and alot in the States.

I wrote two essays on the subject today acutally. The one that's really important is that although it's a political and military peace, it's not a cultural and ethnic or religious peace. Northern Ireland is still very divided, at least on the Loyalist side.

Been reading the two books we have at our school that take place in Northern Ireland, they're below my reading level, but I like them. I was surprised we had them in the first place.

Well. I always been a staunch republican, so yeah. Northern Irish are Irish, no matter what the Protestants. Fuck them, they only been on the island for 400 years. The Catholics and the Irish themselves has been there much longer.

Quti trying to over-simplify the issue: some of the Protestants are Irish, and some of the Catholics are British.

...to say nothing of your apparent assumption that religious belief is something genetic.

So, what about those Catholics in the North who consider themselves to be British? Do they get the same 'fuck them' response?

Well. I always been a staunch republican, so yeah. Northern Irish are Irish, no matter what the Protestants. Fuck them, they only been on the island for 400 years. The Catholics and the Irish themselves has been there much longer.

The funny thing is, I've been interested in this the past couple weeks and summer with the devolution. Wonder what tomorrow will bring at St. Andrews.

I mean, I don't care if N. Ireland doesn't join, as long Catholic/republicans have equal treatment... that and Ian Paisley fucking croaks. Paisley and Thatcher are the two main reasons the Troubles have dragged on for so long, IMO. Hell, Northern Ireland indepdence would be good. Have no one control it. However, it's seems that it's a unionist thing on indepdence.

But yeah, I was suprised to see this topic on here. Northern Ireland doesn't attention as much these days, in general and alot in the States.

I wrote two essays on the subject today acutally. The one that's really important is that although it's a political and military peace, it's not a cultural and ethnic or religious peace. Northern Ireland is still very divided, at least on the Loyalist side.

Been reading the two books we have at our school that take place in Northern Ireland, they're below my reading level, but I like them. I was surprised we had them in the first place.

Yeah....

This piece pretty much is a perfect example of why I hate discussions on this topic.

"Most likely"? It was 160 years ago, I think it's rather more certain than "most likely" :p
Well you never know, there are some people who just refuse to die.
Fine, beat to a bloody pulp by nationalist drunks. But last I was there the police carried guns. Plus, what better way can you think of to incite a riot?
Shouting out in a square in Belfast "Do you want to be Irish of English?" will just have people shout either "Irish", "English", or "Go back to the asylum you wierdo" back at you.

Shouting out in a square in Belfast "Do you want to be Irish of English?" will just have people shout either "Irish", "English", or "Go back to the asylum you wierdo" back at you.

Why would the choice be between Irish and English? British, more like.

Oh, and the line is probably 'are you on day release from Purdysburn?'

Why would the choice be between Irish and English? British, more like.

Oh, and the line is probably 'are you on day release from Purdysburn?'

Awww man i've missed using that phrase. Thankyou for reminding me about it. I feel like a kid again :p

I realize that wikipedia is not some be-all, end-all, amazing encyclopedia of truth.. but please consider this when you're talking about the origins of the Celts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#Origins_and_geographical_distribution

I realize that wikipedia is not some be-all, end-all, amazing encyclopedia of truth.. but please consider this when you're talking about the origins of the Celts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#Origins_and_geographical_distribution

That's actually pretty much established historical fact. I've got several books on the Celt which all place their origins in the German Danube area.

Interesting debate this, the usual mix of reasoned debate and a few idiots, but I definately think its worth it.

Just to clarify a point made earlier, Ireland changed its constitution in 1998 to withdraw its constitutional claim on Northern Ireland and changed it to a rather fussy statement affirming the right all the people of Ireland to be part of an Irish nation and a declaration of an aspiration towards a United Ireland. It was seen to be a pretty big watershed moment at the time!

BTW, one of the most interesting pieces of work I read was a survey of the English and S Irish to establish if either side actually wanted Northern Ireland/Ulster. It was a piece of work aimed at addressing the "Empire Building" claims against the British and the "Culturally United" claims that were often used by seperatists. The results showed that neither sides culturally identified with Northern Ireland, and a small majority on both sides thought Northern Ireland would be better on its own.

So I'm going to vote for Northern Irland as Northern Irish.

I believe Britain's 'ownership' of Northern Ireland is quite illegal. I understand the rift of the North-Irish people of believing to be British, and other North-Irish people believe to be Irish and want one Irish state *and some, well...they want North Ireland to be a country*.

I don't side with extremists, ie the IRA, but I do side with the notion of their being a single Ireland. Britain's Occupation, yes bring on the flame!!!, of the Northern Ireland is bad for the Irish. Infact, it always has been bad for the Irish. It is one, if not the only reason why there was an IRA and why there was so much death and why there are more Irish *full blooded mind you* people in AMERICA than there are full blooded Irish in IRELAND *the Republic of*.

But so many people get used to being raised as a Briton, that it's like 'Oh no, we are British.' Sure, think that, but you are Irish first. Irish first, British second.

Not that any single British *British as in SCOTTISH, WELSH, MANNIN, some weird Frenchman in the Channel, and ENGLISH but not IRISH* person is evil and truely wants to opress Ireland. But this 'ownership' is opression. Not direct opression, but it causes the Irish to opress the Irish. The British know this, but they turn the other way. They go 'Oh, the Irish? Ah, look the French.'.

I mean, it's no different from my fellow Americans going 'Ah, North Korea? Hey look, them damn Muslims!! LETS GET 'EM!' *Dramatization, of course*.

I don't know how to truely word this, so I know how I have worded it will get some negative attention. If you want to respond, send me a TG being as I don't keep up with the General board that much.

But, honestly, I think Northern Ireland should belong to the Republic of Ireland.

And, if the 'British' in Northern Ireland truely want to be British, then perhaps something should be truely done to settle the matter. Otherwise, it's just a big fucking mess that is going to continue to plague our children and their children and so on.

Not that any single British *British as in SCOTTISH, WELSH, MANNIN, some weird Frenchman in the Channel, and ENGLISH but not IRISH* person is evil and truely wants to opress Ireland. But this 'ownership' is opression. Not direct opression, but it causes the Irish to opress the Irish. The British know this, but they turn the other way. They go 'Oh, the Irish? Ah, look the French.'.


Of course it wouldn't be oppression if the will of over half the population was ignored in order to unite ireland?

I believe Britain's 'ownership' of Northern Ireland is quite illegal. I understand the rift of the North-Irish people of believing to be British, and other North-Irish people believe to be Irish and want one Irish state *and some, well...they want North Ireland to be a country*.

I don't side with extremists, ie the IRA, but I do side with the notion of their being a single Ireland. Britain's Occupation, yes bring on the flame!!!, of the Northern Ireland is bad for the Irish. Infact, it always has been bad for the Irish. It is one, if not the only reason why there was an IRA and why there was so much death and why there are more Irish *full blooded mind you* people in AMERICA than there are full blooded Irish in IRELAND *the Republic of*.

But so many people get used to being raised as a Briton, that it's like 'Oh no, we are British.' Sure, think that, but you are Irish first. Irish first, British second.

Not that any single British *British as in SCOTTISH, WELSH, MANNIN, some weird Frenchman in the Channel, and ENGLISH but not IRISH* person is evil and truely wants to opress Ireland. But this 'ownership' is opression. Not direct opression, but it causes the Irish to opress the Irish. The British know this, but they turn the other way. They go 'Oh, the Irish? Ah, look the French.'.

I mean, it's no different from my fellow Americans going 'Ah, North Korea? Hey look, them damn Muslims!! LETS GET 'EM!' *Dramatization, of course*.

I don't know how to truely word this, so I know how I have worded it will get some negative attention. If you want to respond, send me a TG being as I don't keep up with the General board that much.

But, honestly, I think Northern Ireland should belong to the Republic of Ireland.

And, if the 'British' in Northern Ireland truely want to be British, then perhaps something should be truely done to settle the matter. Otherwise, it's just a big fucking mess that is going to continue to plague our children and their children and so on.

Dramatisation might be right there mate. Again I don't think its half as simple as your making out there. For a start it hasn't always been a problem in fact Northern Ireland was pretty peaceful from 1922 up until the early 1970's when the troubles started, there were nationalists and unionists before then but they got about as much credibility as the current day Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, and the majority of people happily got on with living and working. As for now, the cease fire is holding, recent reports have indicated the IRA have stopped all paramilitary activity, and hopefully something might get sorted out about Stormont, I think its a long time untill we'll see Jerry Adams and Ian Paisley sitting down over a pint but at the moment its looking good.

Also I do have a bit of a problem with all the millions of so-called "full blooded Irish" in America, look sorry pal, if you and your parents were born and raised in America, if you don't qualify for Irish Citizenship, (ie At least 1 grandparent born in Ireland) you are American. This American need to cling onto any cultural heritage you may have, is part of the cause of the problems to start with as well over 50% of the IRA's money towards paramilitary Activities came from America. As for "blood" if you worked it out most of the English are probably full blooded Germans if you worked it back enough, but I'm fairly sure no-one cares!

I believe Britain's 'ownership' of Northern Ireland is quite illegal.
Why so? Without proof, that's just an assertion.

I understand the rift of the North-Irish people of believing to be British, and other North-Irish people believe to be Irish and want one Irish state *and some, well...they want North Ireland to be a country*.
What do you mean, 'believing to be British'? If one can be Scottish and British, English and British, why can one not consider oneself Irish/N. Irish and British?

I don't side with extremists, ie the IRA, but I do side with the notion of their being a single Ireland. Britain's Occupation, yes bring on the flame!!!, of the Northern Ireland is bad for the Irish.
a) Do you really want to be hauled in front of the Mods for flamebaiting then?

b) That does, and never has, had any legal weight over the dispute of the legality of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

Infact, it always has been bad for the Irish. It is one, if not the only reason why there was an IRA and why there was so much death
If Britain spontaneously caused people to turn to terrorism and murder, as you rudely assert, why did the IRA not appear in 1801?

and why there are more Irish *full blooded mind you* people in AMERICA than there are full blooded Irish in IRELAND *the Republic of*.
I call bullshit. Ever heard of the Irish Potato Blight? Here you go, I'll even give you a little proof (http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/immig/irish2.html).

But so many people get used to being raised as a Briton, that it's like 'Oh no, we are British.' Sure, think that, but you are Irish first. Irish first, British second.
Are you really condescending enough to presume to tell people what nationality they consider themselves to be? Don't you think that's their business, not mine or yours?

Not that any single British *British as in SCOTTISH, WELSH, MANNIN, some weird Frenchman in the Channel, and ENGLISH but not IRISH* person is evil and truely wants to opress Ireland. But this 'ownership' is opression. Not direct opression, but it causes the Irish to opress the Irish. The British know this, but they turn the other way. They go 'Oh, the Irish? Ah, look the French.'.
Opression? Opression? are you truely insane?

I mean, it's no different from my fellow Americans going 'Ah, North Korea? Hey look, them damn Muslims!! LETS GET 'EM!' *Dramatization, of course*.
WTF?

I don't know how to truely word this, so I know how I have worded it will get some negative attention. If you want to respond, send me a TG being as I don't keep up with the General board that much.
Come on, we're not all that bad :D.

But, honestly, I think Northern Ireland should belong to the Republic of Ireland.
If a majority of Northern Irish people wanted it, so would I. But they don't and so I stand by their decision to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

And, if the 'British' in Northern Ireland truely want to be British, then perhaps something should be truely done to settle the matter. Otherwise, it's just a big fucking mess that is going to continue to plague our children and their children and so on.
The matter has been settled. Both British and Irish citizenship has been offered to most NI residents, allowing them to choose, I believe.

I want to see what you think the people in the north of Ireland (Northern Ireland) are in terms of nationality?

Protestant - Loyalists, Ulster Scots, British, Scottish, Irish? etc.

Catholics - Irish, British?

Northern Ireland came to be in 1922, before that year the British government saw the whole island of Ireland as a single nation (Ireland) in union with Great Britain. The British government under Lloyd George created a small state now called Northern Ireland due to the high number of protestants living in that area, the Irish team that went to London in the 20's to set terms did their best to get parts of Fermanagh and Tyrone into the Free State due to the high number of Irish Catholics in those regions, this was not accepted by the British.
The British (Protestant) settlers came to Ireland in the 1600's, the Irish have been their since before Christ. Whos land is it?

The IRA is no longer seen as a "terrorist" group by the US or other larger states in the world but the Loyalist groups are, in fact there is a silent war being fought between the Loyalists today in part because of drug selling "rights" and other criminal projects they are major players in.

As to protestant loyalty, I don't know. They claim to be loyal to Britain, a nation now stepping out and leaving the north to handle it's own affairs.
Scotland? They are Ulster Scots but as for the actual nation of Scotland they have a form of home rule know and things are looking like they might want full independance soon.

When Northern Ireland, which is Protestant, became free they found themselves in quite the predicament. join Catholic Ireland, who had been persecuted and oppressed by the Anglicans and Protestants of England for a thousand years, or stick with the non-Catholics.

They chose to stick with the non-Catholics in case there were any hard feelings. Probably a smart move.

<snip> However, it's seems that it's a unionist thing on indepdence.<snip>

How much of this thread have you actually read? The wishes of the people of Northern Ireland have been pointed out by me and several others, and it's been established that a higher proportion of Catholics than Protestants want an independent Northern Ireland.

Catholic =/= Nationalist, and Protestant =/= Unionist, however I fear, based on the rest of your post, that this not-so-subtelty is lost on you. In particular this choice line:
as long Catholic/republicans have equal treatment

Not that any single British *British as in SCOTTISH, WELSH, MANNIN, some weird Frenchman in the Channel, and ENGLISH but not IRISH* person is evil and truely wants to opress Ireland.

What's great about this is that you've called several territories (Isle of Man and the states collectively known as the Channel Islands) explicitly not part of the UK British, yet claim that Northern Ireland, which is the only constituent country explicitly mentioned in the full name of the UK, isn't British.

Interesting.


But, honestly, I think Northern Ireland should belong to the Republic of Ireland.

I have no intention of belonging to anybody.

If Britain spontaneously caused people to turn to terrorism and murder, as you rudely assert, why did the IRA not appear in 1801?


"Society of the United Irishmen"
"1798 Rebellion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Irishmen


"Robert Emmet (4 March 1778 - 20 September 1803) was an Irish nationalist rebel leader. He led an abortive rebellion against British rule in 1803 and was captured, tried and executed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Emmet

"Young Ireland was an Irish nationalist revolutionary movement, active in the mid-nineteenth century."
"1848 Uprising"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Ireland

In every generation, Etc etc and so on.

I have no intention of belonging to anybody.

And as long as the tribute arrives in the brown leather sacks by each full moon, you've nothing to worry about.....

And as long as the tribute arrives in the brown leather sacks by each full moon, you've nothing to worry about.....

What on earth are you on about? :confused:

"Society of the United Irishmen"
"1798 Rebellion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Irishmen


"Robert Emmet (4 March 1778 - 20 September 1803) was an Irish nationalist rebel leader. He led an abortive rebellion against British rule in 1803 and was captured, tried and executed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Emmet

"Young Ireland was an Irish nationalist revolutionary movement, active in the mid-nineteenth century."
"1848 Uprising"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Ireland

In every generation, Etc etc and so on.

Interesting, it's nice to see someone come up with some sort of proof instead of just rantings.

Interesting, it's nice to see someone come up with some sort of proof instead of just rantings.

What Nodinia fails to mention is that Emmet's movement was led by a rich Protestant land owner who held estates in both GB and Ireland, wasn't supported by the peasant population, and can therefore not be described as a popular movement like the IRA.

He also fails to mention that the Young Ireland rebellion had a grand total of around 50 members (most of whom joined believing they were looking for food), and collapsed when they were denied permission to raid a woman's cabbage patch for food, and was easily put down by the RIC. Again, not a movement that commanded popular support, unlike the IRA campaign for independence in the late 1910s/early 1920s.

Do most people actually think that it is accepable to give away countries? Even Northern Ireland, where the majority of people have voted to remain a part the the UK. :eek:

To answer the OP: I see them as British like me, but with cooler accents.

England doesn't want to keep northern Ireland by any means. Why would they? Its a drain (apart from sellafield) and makes them look bad. But Ireland doesn't really want it either as its so messy.
How about it just detaches and starts anew as its own nation? That way, its nobody's problem but theirs...

I mean, they don't call it "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" for nothing...

What Nodinia fails to mention is that Emmet's movement was led by a rich Protestant land owner who held estates in both GB and Ireland, wasn't supported by the peasant population, and can therefore not be described as a popular movement like the IRA.

He also fails to mention that the Young Ireland rebellion had a grand total of around 50 members (most of whom joined believing they were looking for food), and collapsed when they were denied permission to raid a woman's cabbage patch for food, and was easily put down by the RIC. Again, not a movement that commanded popular support, unlike the IRA campaign for independence in the late 1910s/early 1920s.

I'll bear that in mind, I'm afraid I'm no expert on Irish history by any means.

England doesn't want to keep northern Ireland by any means. Why would they? Its a drain (apart from sellafield) and makes them look bad. But Ireland doesn't really want it either as its so messy.
How about it just detaches and starts anew as its own nation? That way, its nobody's problem but theirs...

England doesn't keep Northern Ireland at all. Northern Ireland and England are both constituent countries (states, if you like) of the United Kingdom.

I mean, they don't call it "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" for nothing...

Great Britain is the island on which the home nations of England, Scotland and Wales are on. Northern Ireland is not a part of Great Britain, and is so separate in the UK's name.

Interestingly, the Catholics wouldn't be Catholic if it wasn't for the English (Henry II, to be precise), they would still be following the native Irish Christianity brought to them by St. Patrick (yet another Brit, incidently).

So I fail to see your point about Catholocism.

i'm using the term catholic to lable the more native irish, who werent just planted there.
i'm not actually catholic by faith but i would still lump my self in that cathagory culture wise.

i'm using the term catholic to lable the more native irish, who werent just planted there.
i'm not actually catholic by faith but i would still lump my self in that cathagory culture wise.

Catholics: here before Christ.

And, to really piss you off, here's the first line from "History of Ireland" on wikipedia.
The History of Ireland began around 8000 BC, when the island's first human inhabitants arrived from Britain

Dinosaurs were in Northern Ireland before the Catholics were. Should we hand NI, and everything else, back to the Dinosaurs, because they were 'there first'?

if a dinosaur was to knock on my door asking for his land back i would run away very fast. luckily they are all dead now. also i think ireland was submerged at that time anyway.

[QUOTE=New Burmesia;11792829]Or, on a more serious note, what about handing America and Canada back to the Native Americans and Forst Nations respectively before they were 'there first', or hand Australia back to the Aborigonies.QUOTE]


i would actually.

Unless they are the LAPD, in which they shouldn't be trusted with anything more lethal than a crayon.

thats probably the most amazing thing i have read in this thread.

p.s. guns suck.

as long Catholic/republicans have equal treatment... that and Ian Paisley fucking croaks.


:cool:

if a dinosaur was to knock on my door asking for his land back i would run away very fast. luckily they are all dead now. also i think ireland was submerged at that time anyway.
My point still stands. Sitting saying "we were here first" is a poor argument.

i would actually.
So, what do you intend to do with the 99.9% of the populations of Australia, the USA, New Zealand?

Northern Ireland/Ulster. .

hey we have some of ulster.

Dramatisation might be right there mate. Again I don't think its half as simple as your making out there. For a start it hasn't always been a problem in fact Northern Ireland was pretty peaceful from 1922 up until the early 1970's when the troubles started,

1911 i believe. first attack by ulster voluteers. date may not be perfect.
one could argue that it started a few hundreth years ago when catholics in all ireland couldnt vote, own land were being for beign catholic.

They're whatever they care to call themselves.

Shame that the UK and Ireland both want nothing to do with Northern Ireland, mind.

Not that the governments are, in any way, different. Same laws and pretty similar quality of life, really.

But anyway.

1911 i believe. first attack by ulster voluteers. date may not be perfect.
one could argue that it started a few hundreth years ago when catholics in all ireland couldnt vote, own land were being for beign catholic.

Not just Catholics. Most Protestants were under the same restrictions. Only Anglicans had the freedoms and rights denied to Catholics and Dissenters.

If Britain spontaneously caused people to turn to terrorism and murder, as you rudely assert, why did the IRA not appear in 1801?.......

Opression? Opression? are you truely insane?............



The matter has been settled. Both British and Irish citizenship has been offered to most NI residents, allowing them to choose, I believe.


a/ so nobady tried to take it back before that.....?

b/ i would call planting spies into political party in order to slow it down, oppressive. also bugging. also british 'intelligence', still with holding info about protestant terrorist to us. also still not admitting the bloody sunday soldiers as war criminals.

c/ you are who you are. you dont get to choose.

"Society of the United Irishmen"
"1798 Rebellion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Irishmen


"Robert Emmet (4 March 1778 - 20 September 1803) was an Irish nationalist rebel leader. He led an abortive rebellion against British rule in 1803 and was captured, tried and executed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Emmet

"Young Ireland was an Irish nationalist revolutionary movement, active in the mid-nineteenth century."
"1848 Uprising"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Ireland

In every generation, Etc etc and so on.


also wolftone, who was infact a protestant.

They're whatever they care to call themselves.

Shame that the UK and Ireland both want nothing to do with Northern Ireland, mind.

Not that the governments are, in any way, different. Same laws and pretty similar quality of life, really.

But anyway.

laws are hughely different.

also wolftone, who was infact a protestant.

Wolfe Tone was one of the leaders of the United Irishmen, which were mentioned...

Many of the leaders of the republican movement have been Anglican.
Isaac Butt founder of the Home Government Association
Robert Emmet of the 1803 Rebellion
Wolfe Tone as someone else has mentioned
Charles Stewart Parnell - Irish Land League leader and Home Rule Party leader
Douglas Hyde - revived the Irish language.
and no doubt many many more. Republicanism and Unionism isn't about religion its just been made out to be that way.

As for my opinion on the matter, Ireland should remain as it is until the people of Northern Ireland genuinely want to join a united Ireland. Instead of having it all put into united Ireland in one go I think it should be phased in in order not to damage the economy. Eg one of the 6 counties having a referendum each 20 years until the whole of NI is part of Ireland, when that time comes. I have been branded as a Unionist by many I have talked with about this idea but I genuinely would like to see a United Ireland some day but you have to take the economic aspect into account.

What Nodinia fails to mention is that Emmet's movement was led by a rich Protestant land owner who held estates in both GB and Ireland, wasn't supported by the peasant population, and can therefore not be described as a popular movement like the IRA.


Yes, but I believe what Nod was trying to say was that being a Nationalist had/has nothing to do with being a Catholic. Which would also fit into your earlier point I believe. ;)

Anyway, this debate in general has taken a slow curve towards nastyness and apart from watch some people foolishly trot up half truths and mis-guided pieces of history to back up their points, I bid this adieu.

No, the island is only part of Ireland. Re-read your source material.

The Irish constitution till 1999

Article 2

The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

Article 3

Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the parliament and government established by this constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole territory, the laws enacted by the parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstat Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect.

Replaced with


Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3

1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

you are wrong

Yes, but I believe what Nod was trying to say was that being a Nationalist had/has nothing to do with being a Catholic. Which would also fit into your earlier point I believe. ;)

I was pretty sure that he was saying that disaffection with British rule could be shown through the existence of 'popular' uprisings every so often, and that the IRA wasn't the first? :confused:

I was pretty sure that he was saying that disaffection with British rule could be shown through the existence of 'popular' uprisings every so often, and that the IRA wasn't the first? :confused:

Well, maybe that too.

A 'popular' uprising doesn't necessarily have to have full backing and support of the people.... only that they aren't actively against it. A silence could be seen as tantamount to complicity.

This silence/complicity could be seen as an excuse in later years during the Auxies/Black & Tans reprisals. Even then the IRB (and later the IRA) never had 'widespread' support, but at the same time people didn't actively participate against them on a large scale. The religion of their leadership has nothing to do with anything and the popular appeal in the early days of such a group was quite a misleading portrayal they like to keep for 'legitimacy' purposes.

(But, you already know this anyway)

Of course it wouldn't be oppression if the will of over half the population was ignored in order to unite ireland?

easily done when you draw the border to maintain that majority and allow terrrorists to ethnically clense entire areas.

biggest single movement of regugees between WW2 and the Balkan war? 1970 in the black north.

As for the poster who claims no-one in the north was opressed, the apartheid minister for the south african interior was quoted on a visit to the north of ireland saying 'i wish we had a fraction of the powers you guys do' referring to the special powers act.

brits out

easily done when you draw the border to maintain that majority and allow terrrorists to ethnically clense entire areas.



Which terrorists exactly? Seems like both sides can claim that honour

Which terrorists exactly? Seems like both sides can claim that honour

the RUC

the RUC

And as for the IRA?

Well, maybe that too.

A 'popular' uprising doesn't necessarily have to have full backing and support of the people.... only that they aren't actively against it. A silence could be seen as tantamount to complicity.

This silence/complicity could be seen as an excuse in later years during the Auxies/Black & Tans reprisals. Even then the IRB (and later the IRA) never had 'widespread' support, but at the same time people didn't actively participate against them on a large scale. The religion of their leadership has nothing to do with anything and the popular appeal in the early days of such a group was quite a misleading portrayal they like to keep for 'legitimacy' purposes.

(But, you already know this anyway)

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that both the Emmet uprising and the Young Ireland uprising lacked the necessary public support to do anything, whereas Nodinia appeared to be claiming that widespread feeling against the British presence didn't begin with the well supported IRA-led uprising which led to independence, but was rooted in popular and well supported resistance over several generations.

And as for the IRA?

plain english for the bigiots

one was a police force that trained and supplied intellegence to loyalist terrorists.

the other is a reaction.

in your own time

What Nodinia fails to mention is that Emmet's movement was led by a rich Protestant land owner who held estates in both GB and Ireland, wasn't supported by the peasant population, and can therefore not be described as a popular movement like the IRA..

A fact not unrelated to the 30,000 plus dead from the 1798 rebellion.


He also fails to mention that the Young Ireland rebellion had a grand total of around 50 members (most of whom joined believing they were looking for food), and collapsed when they were denied permission to raid a woman's cabbage patch for food, and was easily put down by the RIC. Again, not a movement that commanded popular support, unlike the IRA campaign for independence in the late 1910s/early 1920s.

While it was hardly the most well attended of cabbage raids, it did come from a tradition of risings and insurrections, which were born of the general discontent of the population. There was also a constant level of rural, often sectarian violence, and attacks against property, which in many ways was the expression of this discontent on a thuggish, less directed level, running from the 1600s through to Parnells era.

plain english for the bigiots

one was a police force that trained and supplied intellegence to loyalist terrorists.

the other is a reaction.

in your own time

Of course, you could very easily put it like this:

One was a terrorist organisation that actively attacked police forces and endangered the lives of civilians on both sides of the community.

The other was a reaction.



Both interpretations are, probably, correct. To claim that one side was, in some way, 'better' than the other is absolute bollocks.

Both interpretations are, probably, correct. To claim that one side was, in some way, 'better' than the other is absolute bollocks.

so you are holding the RUC up the same benchmark as the Provos?

no wonder they got away with it for so long....

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that both the Emmet uprising and the Young Ireland uprising lacked the necessary public support to do anything, whereas Nodinia appeared to be claiming that widespread feeling against the British presence didn't begin with the well supported IRA-led uprising which led to independence, but was rooted in popular and well supported resistance over several generations.

Well, in that respect no uprising had the support of the people (anywhere in the world).

Hell, it wasn't until post-executions for the Rising that people became sympathetic to the 'cause'. Before that, the IRB (led by Bulmer Hobson if I'm not mistaken)/Volunteers/Citizen's Army were little more than continuing the 'tradition' of small, not well supported, but vocal groups making a bloody statement.

so you are holding the RUC up the same benchmark as the Provos?

no wonder they got away with it for so long....

As far as I see it, both sides did some pretty awful things, and there's really no point at all in dragging up the past and revisiting the Troubles every time Northern Ireland is debated. The Troubles are part of the past, the IRA have 'embraced peace', the RUC are now the PSNI, and the UDA, according to an informer, now have one gun between the whole organisation, and the rest of the loyalist groups are just as ill-equipped. Something to move on from, not bring up every opportunity.

Well, in that respect no uprising had the support of the people (anywhere in the world).

Hell, it wasn't until post-executions for the Rising that people became sympathetic to the 'cause'. Before that, the IRB (led by Bulmer Hobson if I'm not mistaken)/Volunteers/Citizen's Army were little more than continuing the 'tradition' of small, not well supported, but vocal groups making a bloody statement.

Yea, but that's why I said the IRA, not the IRB. The very reason the Easter Rising failed was because people were apathetic towards violence and full independence (supporting the IPP and peaceful demand for Home Rule) and as you rightly point out militarism, fronted by Sinn Fein, only gained support after the brutality shown by the British

Yea, but that's why I said the IRA, not the IRB.
Ah. I get your point now.


The very reason the Easter Rising failed was because people were apathetic towards violence and full independence (supporting the IPP and peaceful demand for Home Rule) and as you rightly point out militarism, fronted by Sinn Fein, only gained support after the brutality shown by the British

Indeed.

Thanks for the discussion, I'm done once again. :)

laws are hughely different.
They're both EU members, hence the basic right are going to be pretty similar.

I know that, say, abortion, is different, mind...

They're both EU members, hence the basic right are going to be pretty similar.

I know that, say, abortion, is different, mind...

Although, it's interesting that NI has abortion laws closer to RoI than the UK.

As far as I see it, both sides did some pretty awful things, and there's really no point at all in dragging up the past and revisiting the Troubles every time Northern Ireland is debated. The Troubles are part of the past, the IRA have 'embraced peace', the RUC are now the PSNI, and the UDA, according to an informer, now have one gun between the whole organisation, and the rest of the loyalist groups are just as ill-equipped. Something to move on from, not bring up every opportunity.

broadly agreed, but when unionsts defend police run death squads, it needs to be tackled. state murder is murder despite how much some want to justify it.

and if you think political policing is over, ask yourself how many people were charged over the stormont 'spy' ring and why the cops announce they are investigating gerry adams for murder on the eve of the st andrews talks? bear in mind its well known in republican lore that he never fired a gun....

for those who dont know, the london government sent a senior cop into belfast to investigate the loyalists murdering catholics with ruc help. his office in the ruc hq burnt down. how many cops went to jail for assisting the 100 plus murders their poxy terrorists carried out? take a wild guess....

bear in mind its well known in republican lore that he never fired a gun....


You're right. He may in fact have merely ordered the deaths of many people, innocent or otherwise. What a nice chap you appear to be defending.

You're right. He may in fact have merely ordered the deaths of many people, innocent or otherwise. What a nice chap you appear to be defending.

defending? where?

im merely pointing out that the C-RUC reopen a murder from 1971 and tell the press on the eve of significant talks.

whether he did it or not is irrelevant.

political policing

The Irish constitution till 1999

Article 2

The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, #its islands and the territorial seas#.

you are wrong

Really...

Really...

what are you trying to get at?

Quti trying to over-simplify the issue: some of the Protestants are Irish, and some of the Catholics are British.

...to say nothing of your apparent assumption that religious belief is something genetic.

So, what about those Catholics in the North who consider themselves to be British? Do they get the same 'fuck them' response?

No.

I didn't mean to over-simpifly.

This is what happens when your father brainwashes you when you're a youngin.'

I am a second-generation Irish-American. My grandfather grew up on a farm in County Mayo. And now, I don't say I'm say full-blooded Irish, because I have a bit of Russian and Polish in me too (and German, however, my mother is unsure of that.) But my father was born in 1960, the Troubles began when he was 9. My father's family gave to NORAID and what not, so as you can see, he was instilled Irish republicanism in him at young age. The same thing with me. I mean my dad has supported the IRA (Provos), but he doesn't care about the united Ireland concept. He just felt that discrimnation needed to end. It's for the most part ended, however, in a wrong way, with violence.

I've just been taught, the whole thing that Protestants = bad, Catholics = good/Republican = good, Loyalist = bad/Green = good and Orange = bad.

Plus, it's like Bono says, "I'm sick of Irish-Americans coming up to me, who haven't been back to their country in twenty or thirty year, come up to me and talk about "the revolution back home"

That is me.

I am one of those insolent Irish-Americans, uneducated about the North because I don't live there.

Of course, I'm trying to change.

I'm glad the IRA gave up their arms, I'm glad there's talks going on right now in Saint Andrew, even if the future of Assembly looks bleak, I don't blame them for not trying. Omagh was a terrible event. Enniskillen was too.

Because evenutally, the younger generation will come around and say "You know what, us Catholics and Protestants, republicans and unionists, we've set that aside, and we want to govern ourselves. We really do."

However, it's time to stop dwelling on the past, like you said, it's time to move on. Except that will be hard. Very hard, I expect it may be another generation before wounds begin to heal and Northern Ireland moves on as a whole.

so you are holding the RUC up the same benchmark as the Provos?

no wonder they got away with it for so long....

the provos are the closest to fixing the problem.

They're both EU members, hence the basic right are going to be pretty similar.

I know that, say, abortion, is different, mind...

as wellas guns, police with guns and gay marriage.

as wellas guns, police with guns and gay marriage.

I didn't know that gays were allowed to marry in the UK yet? Or that policemen there regularly carried guns?

"We have always thought the Irish a bit odd, they refuse to be English."
-Winston Churchill

Words from one of the most loved men in English history, It just so happens that he was the 4th man in the 'chain of command' over the British delegation (Lloyd George and Lord Birkenhead being the top 2) during the talks that lead to The Partition of Ireland in 1921.

I didn't know that gays were allowed to marry in the UK yet? Or that policemen there regularly carried guns?

Yeah the first gay marriage took place in Belfast I think. The police in northern ireland regularly carry guns. Not so for the rest of the UK

I didn't know that gays were allowed to marry in the UK yet? Or that policemen there regularly carried guns?

Yea, it wasn't a marriage, it was a Civil Union.

And the police in NI regularly carry guns, all police officers are issued with a pistol to carry at all times when on duty, but the police in GB don't carry guns.

Yea, it wasn't a marriage, it was a Civil Union.

And the police in NI regularly carry guns, all police officers are issued with a pistol to carry at all times when on duty, but the police in GB don't carry guns.

Oh, didn't know that. So it's basically different from both the UK and the RoI in that aspect?

Why is it that so many Americans, who have no connection to Ireland other than the fact that some distant relative once passed through on their way to the cattle market, claim to be 'Irish' and thus stick their nose in things they don't in anyway understand?

Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and should remain that way for as long as the people of Northern Ireland want to be.

Lest we forget that the leader of the 'war on terror' was the IRA's biggest funder for the last century.

Oh, didn't know that. So it's basically different from both the UK and the RoI in that aspect?

Yup

Yea, it wasn't a marriage, it was a Civil Union.


if they still get tax breaks, its the same to me.

c/ you are who you are. you dont get to choose.

Anyone born in the six counties prior to the end of 2004 can chose their nationality their culture may be a given thing, but their nationality (which the whole thread revolves around) is not.

what are you trying to get at?

Sorry about the terseness of that last post - I had emptied a cup of coffee in to the keyboard and was severely limited in what characters I could use: I was highlighting the clause 'its islands and the territorial seas' in the constitution.

Lest we forget that the leader of the 'war on terror' was the IRA's biggest funder for the last century.

Libya is the leader of the 'war on terror'? News to me.

Libya is the leader of the 'war on terror'? News to me.
:rolleyes:

Fine. Second biggest funder.

Because that changes the meaning of the point so much it was worth pointing out. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Fine. Second biggest funder.

Because that changes the meaning of the point so much it was worth pointing out. :rolleyes:

It was more a case of pointing out that the commonly held misconsception was a misconception.

Might as well check that we are all singing from the same factual hymnsheet before we dare venture into the murky depths of opinion...

It was more a case of pointing out that the commonly held misconsception was a misconception.

Might as well check that we are all singing from the same factual hymnsheet before we dare venture into the murky depths of opinion...
Well, I'll take the correction; it is a fair point that it's not all Americans who support the IRA, or all Presidents who invite their leaders to the White House. It's just incredibly grating to hear people who have no idea whatsoever about the situation make judgements about what should be done.

Let Northern Ireland decide it's own future; not tell it that it 'wants' to be part of the Republic.

thats what I think also.. Let the majority decide what happens to it

in addition to that (sorry for double posting), Ireland is a good example of a terrible way of dealing with a nation. Look at how the partitions in Israel, Korea and Ireland have succeeded? It never works so never do it basically

People like this infuriate me.

DAMN RACIAL-NATIONALIST SCUM!

anywhom


Ireland have been British-Christian longer than they were Irish-Christian.
So sucks to be you buddy, your British. You drink in bars and speak english, you learn about the empire and such.
Dont Rock the damn boat.

People like this infuriate me.

DAMN RACIAL-NATIONALIST SCUM!

anywhom


Ireland have been British-Christian longer than they were Irish-Christian.
So sucks to be you buddy, your British. You drink in bars and speak english, you learn about the empire and such.
Dont Rock the damn boat.

there is so much wrong with that bile i dont even know where to begin!

Ireland have been British-Christian longer than they were Irish-Christian.
So sucks to be you buddy, your British. You drink in bars and speak english, you learn about the empire and such.
Dont Rock the damn boat.

Thats incredibly wrong... we consisted of an Irish kingdom and subkingdoms before the Normans and the British were even around. There was kingdoms when St Patrick arrived in Ireland circa 433 AD, Christianity was a state faith in Ireland after he convinced the High King of Ireland to accept it. The Normans came in 1169. That is 736 years.

When did the British come to Ireland? The British controlled the Pale from around 1364 in some shape or form. The current year is 2006, I think you'll find thats 642 years. And even then they didn't control the whole nation. The Gaelic chieftains continued there for much of that time.

We speak English? so what?? I also speak Irish as a second language and German as a 3rd it doesnt mean anything?

Swiss and Austrians speak German, yet that doesn't make them German does it

People like this infuriate me.

DAMN RACIAL-NATIONALIST SCUM!

anywhom


Ireland have been British-Christian longer than they were Irish-Christian.
So sucks to be you buddy, your British. You drink in bars and speak english, you learn about the empire and such.
Dont Rock the damn boat.


Seriously. "British-Christian"? Did you just invent a term to argue your point (however limp that is) ?

People like this infuriate me.

DAMN RACIAL-NATIONALIST SCUM!

anywhom


Ireland have been British-Christian longer than they were Irish-Christian.
So sucks to be you buddy, your British. You drink in bars and speak english, you learn about the empire and such.
Dont Rock the damn boat.
He is trying to accuse me of being racist but yet the stereotype of Irish drinking in pubs is a hell of a lot more racially orientated. I however see the Irish as being heavy drinkers as being an amusing thing rather than anything to cause offence.

"We have always thought the Irish a bit odd, they refuse to be English."
-Winston Churchill

Words from one of the most loved men in English history, It just so happens that he was the 4th man in the 'chain of command' over the British delegation (Lloyd George and Lord Birkenhead being the top 2) during the talks that lead to The Partition of Ireland in 1921.

churchill was a prick. my understanding is that he sent the black and tans. and they were just not sporting.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_tans#In_action_in_Ireland)

You're completely inaccurate, David Lloyd George was in power with the Conservatives when the Black and Tans were sent to Ireland in 1920 - 1921.
Winston Churchill offered us the 6 counties back if we fought in the Second World War but we didn't. But nobody could expect a reasonably new nation to fight a war like that. However Randolf Churchill his father was a Unionist sympathiser after the 1885 Election.

People like this infuriate me.

DAMN RACIAL-NATIONALIST SCUM!

anywhom


Ireland have been British-Christian longer than they were Irish-Christian.
So sucks to be you buddy, your British. You drink in bars and speak english, you learn about the empire and such.
Dont Rock the damn boat.

Sounds like your racist scum... Are you a member of the friggin' BNP or something?

Sounds like your racist scum... Are you a member of the friggin' BNP or something?

the thing about english people is, they like to jump and shout about, but when it comes to a fair fight they run away like girls. when me and mate were in london we had grand old time putting in the fear.

the thing about english people is, they like to jump and shout about, but when it comes to a fair fight they run away like girls. when me and mate were in london we had grand old time putting in the fear.

Yea, you sound like such heroes...

the thing about english people is, they like to jump and shout about, but when it comes to a fair fight they run away like girls. when me and mate were in london we had grand old time putting in the fear.

So, you're just a little yob shit then. You are an embrassment to your country, not a hero.

churchill was a prick. my understanding is that he sent the black and tans. and they were just not sporting.

Ah - Ireland: the only place where people shout 'black bastard' at other people without being racist.

where did you get that impression from?

Ah–Ireland: the only place where people shout ‘black bastard’ at other people without being racist.
Black and Tans isn’t a racist term, it’s the name for a group of militias, primarilly the Royal Irish Constabulary Reserve Force, set up by the British government in 1920 to fight the IRA and Sinn Féin. Black and Tan refers to the uniforms the miltias wore.

Not exactly the comfiest subject....

EDIT>> oh, I'm being a numpty. Re-read your post and it looks like you already knew that. I am a twat.

Yeah, but the Irish mostly came from Scotland (as, for that matter, did most of the British). Give Ireland back to Scotland.


Actually you're very wrong.The original settlers in Ireland and britain came from the continent, France i think.Then a few centuries later when the Romans ruled briain they called Ireland Scotis which is Latin for Scotland.Scotland was just part of watever they called england.Anyway when the Romans left the Scoti(Irish) invaded Scotland and settled there(the scots today are desended from them) and the Angles and Jutes from northern Germany invaded england.The english already there went to live in wales(the welsh are their descendants) and so the Irish and british did NOT come from Scotland.And as regards to this thread it's really offensive asking people who aren't from northern Ireland what they are.As far as I can tell from people i know from therer they see themselves as northern Irish.And just to say something about all the political problems there,the first step is to wait until ian paisley dies.He put his big orange ass in thw way of progress and he left it there.

the Irish Republics constitutional claims and the IRA campaign are news to you?

A claim on the north hasn't been in our constitution for years.Taking it out was part of the good friday agreement.Personally I would love to see a united Ireland and seing as how the loyalists are only in a slight minority today(and its shrinking) I think eventually it will happen.

An Irishman is an Irishman, and should therefore be an Irishman.

A single, united Republic of Ireland is the only true way to go. The battle-lines of Protestant vs. Catholic is not absolute, but rather a trend of the Pro-British vs. Pro-Republican stances. Given the handling of the Great Potato Famine, I fail to see how any Irishman would want to be part of a government that allowed such a large portion of their population die.

As to any and all comments about Irish/Scottish/Celtic ancestry, here's how it went:

The Celts, a tribe of North Africans, migrated up through Iberia and from there, found their way to two large landmasses: Ireland and Britain. Some went to Ireland, others went to Britain. Those in Britain also maintained connections with family members living in Gaul. Vercingitorex, if you want a notable figure. Those in Ireland, Britain, and Gaul maintained communications, and eventually some of those in Ireland migrated to the northern parts of Britain, which were uninhabited, becoming the Scots. At this time, there was a single overlordship between the Irish and the Scots.

Over the course of the years, a new power came to northern Gaul: the Vikings. They intermarried, and having been given land by the new Frankish king, were settled in Normandy. At the same time, Saxons, Jutes, and Angles began to invade Britain, fighting with the Celtic natives, the modern day Welsh, forming England and Wales. In turn, the Welsh supported their cousin, William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, when he came to England, and were part of the forces responsible for the victory at Hastings, when William became the Conqueror.

During the aforementioned fall and rise of the Welsh peoples, in England, Wales, and northern France, the Scots and the Irish began to slowly seperate, but the monarchs of both nations were descended of the same royal line. However, in an idiotic decision, the pope made Henry II the feudal overlord of Ireland, a claim not well established by his heirs until Henry VIII. Edward I tried to enforce it, along with his son and grandson, but the Bruces of Scotland and, for a time, Ireland, foiled those plans.

Eventually, after the union of the crowns, Scots migrated back to Ireland. The Scots-Irish were not Irish, except for living there.

It should be noted that any claim the current British Monarch has over the sovereignty of Ireland, or any part therof, is illegitimate if derived from Henry VIII's invasions. However, the Scottish descent of the monarch is a legitimate claim, since the thrones of Ireland and Scotland were held by the same family, a family that led its people first to Ireland, then to Scotland, but maintaining connections with both lands.

ok i dodin't see this til' now.It's basically a detailed version of what i said but when you say that Scotland has a legitimate claim to the throne of Ireland you're very very wrong. 1.You said it yourself, they came to Ireland first. 2.Ireland doesn't have royalty or a crown. 3.Neither does Scotland.

Interestingly, the Catholics wouldn't be Catholic if it wasn't for the English (Henry II, to be precise), they would still be following the native Irish Christianity brought to them by St. Patrick (yet another Brit, incidently).

So I fail to see your point about Catholocism.

I never unsterstand why people bring religion into this.Who cares what someone believes?That's a personal matter not a political one.I don't see how international boundaries can be dranw on religious grounds.

So, you're just a little yob shit then. You are an embrassment to your country, not a hero.

did i call myself a hero?
yob? is that a typo?

I want to see what you think the people in the north of Ireland (Northern Ireland) are in terms of nationality?

Protestant - Loyalists, Ulster Scots, British, Scottish, Irish? etc.

Catholics - Irish, British?

Northern Ireland came to be in 1922, before that year the British government saw the whole island of Ireland as a single nation (Ireland) in union with Great Britain. The British government under Lloyd George created a small state now called Northern Ireland due to the high number of protestants living in that area, the Irish team that went to London in the 20's to set terms did their best to get parts of Fermanagh and Tyrone into the Free State due to the high number of Irish Catholics in those regions, this was not accepted by the British.
The British (Protestant) settlers came to Ireland in the 1600's, the Irish have been their since before Christ. Whos land is it?

The IRA is no longer seen as a "terrorist" group by the US or other larger states in the world but the Loyalist groups are, in fact there is a silent war being fought between the Loyalists today in part because of drug selling "rights" and other criminal projects they are major players in.

As to protestant loyalty, I don't know. They claim to be loyal to Britain, a nation now stepping out and leaving the north to handle it's own affairs.
Scotland? They are Ulster Scots but as for the actual nation of Scotland they have a form of home rule know and things are looking like they might want full independance soon.

Firstly; the Irish Scots as you term them are descended from Irish settlers who colonised South Western Scotland, so your history is remiss.

Secondly; Ireland, as with most global regions, has been subject to mass population movement/migrations, so to claim that the current populace have been their since before Christ is a fallacy.

Thirdly; the IRA, Real IRA, Loyalist groups etc are all involved in drugs and crime. Maybe you should read the news once in a while as you would discover that the largest bank raid in Northern Irish history was carried out by the IRA.

Fourthly; the US never saw the IRA as a terrorist organisation as they allowed them to openly fund raise in the US.

I would advise that you learn a little about a subject before making comments you pass off as factual

Ah - Ireland: the only place where people shout 'black bastard' at other people without being racist.

i'll try to clear this up.
'fear dubh' means 'devil' or 'bastard'. 'fear' means man and 'dubh' means black. so black man, devil and bastard is the same word. this is because we didnt have blacks until recently so it never occured to anyone that there would be people with black skin. so when black people came we had to make up a new word for black man cause we thought it was offensive to call them bastards all the time. so we now calll 'back man', 'fear gorm', which means 'blue man'.

The Celts, a tribe of North Africans, migrated up through Iberia and from there, found their way to two large landmasses: Ireland and Britain. Some went to Ireland, others went to Britain. Those in Britain also maintained connections with family members living in Gaul. Vercingitorex, if you want a notable figure. Those in Ireland, Britain, and Gaul maintained communications, and eventually some of those in Ireland migrated to the northern parts of Britain, which were uninhabited, becoming the Scots. At this time, there was a single overlordship between the Irish and the Scots.

Total falacy - the Celts were never a single tribal group, it is a historical term to describe a large group of similar peoples. Also the Celts were never a tribe from Northern Africa.

Your historical knowledge is way off mate.

Also, Vercingetorix and his tribe were actually of Germanic descent.

When Northern Ireland, which is Protestant, became free they found themselves in quite the predicament. join Catholic Ireland, who had been persecuted and oppressed by the Anglicans and Protestants of England for a thousand years, or stick with the non-Catholics.

They chose to stick with the non-Catholics in case there were any hard feelings. Probably a smart move.

I know someone else has probably said this to you already but when the hell did all this happen?I hope you were joking but in case you weren't.....1.The north is not protestant it has quite a lot of catholics too as well as other groups.No country can be described as solely one religion. 2.Free from what?It was never freed from anything because their wasn't anything to free it from.There is now but that's due to partition. 3. There wasn't a choice the Irish delegation and the british government discussed it and the Irish were backed into a corner(not literally) and had to sign.The british of course were being threatened by action from the UVF by edward carson.

And, to really piss you off, here's the first line from "History of Ireland" on wikipedia.[/QUOTE]

And who made wikipedia infallible?It's from learned archaeologists and historians that everyone else got their knowledge that contradicts that or at least i did anyway.

He is trying to accuse me of being racist but yet the stereotype of Irish drinking in pubs is a hell of a lot more racially orientated. I however see the Irish as being heavy drinkers as being an amusing thing rather than anything to cause offence.
Seems to me that he's suggesting that the British are heavy drinkers by suggesting that drinking in bars makes the N.Irish British.


As to the topic, Self-determination is all I'm going to say. If the people there want to be in the RoI, then let them, ditto for wanting to be part of the UK. I can see some potential problems regarding certain provinces wanting to be RoI but being outweighed by the majority, but in general terms, let the majority decide what they want; suggestions of either making them part of RoI or keeping them part of the UK against the majority will are tantamount to tyranny.

Self-determinism:)

Yea, but that's why I said the IRA, not the IRB. The very reason the Easter Rising failed was because people were apathetic towards violence and full independence (supporting the IPP and peaceful demand for Home Rule) and as you rightly point out militarism, fronted by Sinn Fein, only gained support after the brutality shown by the British

It did not fail because of the people being apathetic.It failed because
1. The German arms sent never reached the volunteers.
2. The plan to occupy buildings which was created at the last minute was flawed and gave the british targets.
3. Eoin Mac Neill tryed to cancel the rising and so most volunteers in Dublin and practically all the volunteers in the rest of the country didn't participate.

That said I admire the rebels of 1916 and think it's a part of our history to be proud of.

It depends on who you ask up there. I regard Northern Ireland as a remnant of British imperialism in Ireland that shouldn't really be there, but I support whatever the majority of people there support.

A claim on the north hasn't been in our constitution for years.Taking it out was part of the good friday agreement.Personally I would love to see a united Ireland and seing as how the loyalists are only in a slight minority today(and its shrinking) I think eventually it will happen.

wrong 59% of the population still support the Union with Britain. You also fail to take into account that neither British or Irish governments really want to take on Northern Ireland as its an economic burden on both. The Irish economy is booming without Northern Ireland, if re-unification was to take place it would put great strain on our economy. I'd be willing to take the plunge for a United Ireland though but only in phases as I said earlier or else it will hit the economy too hard.

for that reason i suggest an independant n-irl until its fixed then reunion.

I'm moving to Ireland next year. Be sure to say hello if you see me on the street. I'll be the American guy.

Éirinn go Brách!!

I'm moving to Ireland next year. Be sure to say hello if you see me on the street. I'll be the American guy.

where?

I'm moving to Ireland next year. Be sure to say hello if you see me on the street. I'll be the American guy.

I'm sure you'll blend in nicely with the thousands of others...

where?

We're not sure yet. My girlfriend is still applying to colleges.

I'm sure you'll blend in nicely with the thousands of others...

There are other Americans there? Fuck. It's true, there are no more original ideas to be thought.

Éirinn go Brách!!

Desperate Measures go Brách!!

We're not sure yet. My girlfriend is still applying to colleges.

cool, to start or just for a semester?
trinity is in centre dublin near all the cool place to drink, but ucd is itself a really cool place to drink. also lots of free drink nights.

There are other Americans there? Fuck. It's true, there are no more original ideas to be thought.

Well, they're 99% tourists, so you'd be more or less original.

i'll try to clear this up.
'fear dubh' means 'devil' or 'bastard'. 'fear' means man and 'dubh' means black. so black man, devil and bastard is the same word. this is because we didnt have blacks until recently so it never occured to anyone that there would be people with black skin. so when black people came we had to make up a new word for black man cause we thought it was offensive to call them bastards all the time. so we now calll 'back man', 'fear gorm', which means 'blue man'.
Please, just stop being a idiot. It's too painful to watch.

Please, just stop being a idiot. It's too painful to watch.

excuse me?

cool, to start or just for a semester?
trinity is in centre dublin near all the cool place to drink, but ucd is itself a really cool place to drink. also lots of free drink nights.

Cool. She's going for a year long program. We are thinking seriously of staying, though. We're taking two of our cats with us, it might just be easier to stay in Ireland until they die then to transport them back to the States.

Well, they're 99% tourists, so you'd be more or less original.

... HA HA... heh ha haa...


I am a mastermind....

Please, just stop being a idiot. It's too painful to watch.

its not very productive to call someone an idiot without telling them why.

i'll try to clear this up.
'fear dubh' means 'devil' or 'bastard'. 'fear' means man and 'dubh' means black. so black man, devil and bastard is the same word. this is because we didnt have blacks until recently so it never occured to anyone that there would be people with black skin. so when black people came we had to make up a new word for black man cause we thought it was offensive to call them bastards all the time. so we now calll 'back man', 'fear gorm', which means 'blue man'.

Devil in Irish is not 'fear dubh'. Diabhal or deamhan (similar to the anglo demon or the greek daemon.) means devil.
Bastard is merely bastart or tuili

'Fear gorm' indeed means 'blue man'. The reason being however is that the first contacts between the Irish and Africans occured in the middle ages. Pirates from Algeria frequently sailed up Europe's Western coast on slave raids and other trading matters. The Tuaregs (and maybe Bedouin) have a disctintly blueish tinge to their skin (don't know why, they just do). That was the first encounter between the two peoples. 'Blue man' or 'fear gorm' came from the interactions of the Tuareg traders and the Southern Irish.

i am aware that there is more than one word for devil.
that was the explination we were given in school, why not to call a black man, a black man in irish.

i am aware that there is more than one word for devil.
that was the explination we were given in school, why not to call a black man, a black man in irish.

Yes, there is more than one word. 'Fear dubh' however is not one of them.

Yes, there is more than one word. 'Fear dubh' however is not one of them.

i can assure you it is. not only do i trust my old teacher, i've been reminded this by other fluent speakers, and i have read it being used in books.

i suggest an independant n-irl until its fixed then reunion.

I didn't know we were broken.