In fairness, if your granny had balls your grandparents would be gay and you wouldn't exist.Originally Posted by Gather round
It seems the BNP are even getting involved in the protests. Maybe it's time to start a counter protest group to remind NI of the three ignored counties of Ulster that don't necessarily share the protestors sentiments?
For once maybe someone will call me "sir" without adding "you're making a scene."
GR's attempts to belittle Irish Nationalism are a prime example of the fear within Unionism and Loyalism in general that the statelet is seeing what could be seen in the 1920's on it's creation. That the Nationalists are gaining a larger foothold in the areas of society that matter and the influence is growing daily.
Whilst Sf and GA may wish to end partition and you and a lot of people including nationalists and republicans believe it is a fantasy. They are expressing their wish for something that was agreed by the electorate of the whole of this country/nation/island in 1998 to come about. Whether the poll succeeds or not is irrelevant at this juncture. But it is defining within politics of Ireland what is the next logical step.
What we will face now over the next few weeks will be attempts by Loyalism and Unionism in general to base it on an economic argument that it is better as a constituent member of the United Kingdom than as a part of a United Island. What they will fail to see though is that by doing so they will further alienate people as they will be willfully ignoring peoples latent Nationalist desires.
Loyalism is on the backfoot. As a political belief it has always been about us-and-them. The unfortunate result of this is that "them" are going about their lives moving up in the world and becoming more influential and articulate than "us".
It reminds of a quote (I can't remember if it was in a movie or not) about how when the Irish went to the USA in the 18 & 1900s they just took the discrimation on the chin and moved up in society to the point where we had a president in 1960's (if you leave out Andrew Jackson of course) whilst the black poeple of the States kept on cribbing about how hard done by they where... etc.
Loyalism needs to wake up. Because no one else is going to standstill and sooner or later...
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Surely Ulster said no to Sodomy?
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
"The PNSI stand by using water cannons..." - Gerry, is that you?
I'm always amazed by the ability of dominant groups within society to feel persecuted.
Also, I had to laugh when the lead guy said "there may only be 100 people here" and some guy shouts "300!" Anybody who's been following the pro-life demonstrations here (25,000 at yesterday's protest! Let's not question that figure!) will be aware of how some people's maths ability can desert them at crucial moments.
Come out of denial, Danny. They live in part of the British state, paying British taxes, receiving British services and the rest. As I mentioned, they don't administer joint authority or some sort of UN protectorate. This is all self-evident, that there's a separatist movement in what's basically a local authority with long-term no overall control doesn't change any of it.
Of course they don't really abstain- they contest the British national elections and sit in the British local government.Sinn Féin abstain from Westminster, operating, rather, across the whole island of Ireland, including within what is a contested jurisdiction
And are they really in a contested jurisdiction? For 40 years, English, Southern and foreign commentators have told us Unionists are hypocritical- they refuse to accept the will of British governments. True, of course, but a similar test should apply to Sinn Fein. They should accept reality- Southern governments and wider opinion for 90 years have accepted partition, and done basically nothing tangible to end it. The constitutional claim before 1998 was a joke and the GF Agreement since little more than parking in the long grass. Most parties and voters in the South would sh*t themselves at even the notional possibility of a united Ireland in five or ten years time. Remember, the Shinners aren't hoping to go it alone, in a Baile Andarsan Gaeltacht or West-of-the-Banntustan. They want to join another country- that makes deferring to its will almost inevitable, don't ye think?
Yes, implicitly by talking about invasions, since clearly they were ALL centuries ago. Either that or you think more recent British government actions are similar in intent/ effect to invasions. The first's largely irrelevant, as it's ancient history; the second's simply false.
Actually, it has a 42% minority that votes for Nationalist parties in elections. 16% is a long way behind for a single-issue movement that is largely incapable- unwilling- to attract floating vote, let alone permanent support from Non-nationalists. Blame SF and SDLP because there isn't a united Ireland, not Cromwell and Strongbow. You might as well argue Australia or America are majority White/ Hispanic because Captain Cook and the Mayflower brought in guns, gin and syphilis. Historically fascinating, little to do with modern problems.Northern Ireland has a slim protestant minority now because of invasion and ethnic cleansing from the 1100s to the 1700s
Actually, it doesn't. I'm not comparing anyone's morality, just pointing out SF's lack of realism on the one hand, and likely consequence of their antics on the other.saying "there's only one actual country in Northern Ireland" like that gives some sort of moral authority over those who have a different ethnic identity is just plain ignorant
Did you not read the bit where I recommended compromise on BCC and accepted it beyond?So you think the status quo should be maintained, without compromise, until the nationalists have an overall majority?
Your reference to invasions and ethnic cleansing, clearly intented to refer to current politics rather than just old history, suggests otherwise. But relax, I'm not claiming you agree every line of SF policy.Sinn Féin are very anti-British, and I don't agree with that, I don't think that I've ever indicated that I do
Both sides have done. The broad historical facts are almost universally accepted.Acknowledging the reality of the history of Northern Ireland in terms of invasion and colonisation is something both sides need to do
Have you done a PhD on my ancestors? As far as I know, most of them lived in poverty in Ireland as they had in Scotland, continuing until well into the 20th century. So to repeat, spare us the mopery.The fact that your ancestors displaced the native population through force in what was indisputably an act of ethnic cleansing
I'm not claiming supremacy over anyone or anything. You're hysterical, have a lie down.doesn't give you supreme right over the country
Last edited by Gather round; 20/01/2013 at 5:25 PM.
You'd think that some of them would be able to hold their Fleg the right way 'round.
EDIT: Incidentally this is trending on twitter: #MeetUnionJMakeABanner I chortled.
Last edited by BonnieShels; 20/01/2013 at 6:08 PM.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Harsh, Bonnie. I agreed on this very thread that NI Nationalists' aspiration to a united Ireland was valid. I notice you don't (can't?) actually answer any of the reasoned criticisms I offered of how it tries to achieve that aspiration.
Such as? I mean, which areas particularly matter? To what extent is that foothold growing in them? How will this affect something that matters tangibly, like election results?a prime example of the fear within Unionism...that the Nationalists are gaining a larger foothold in the areas of society that matter and the influence is growing daily
You see, the thing is- as I mentioned above- that all this supposed greater influence isn't getting Irish nationalism in NI any new support from the only people who they right rationally want to attract, ie Unionists.
Make your mind up, Bonnie. If you're going to convince Unionists that we're running scared, you'll need to offer something slightly more spine-chilling than, effectively 'there MIGHT be a vote, but we might not win it: although don't worry, we've logically re-defined politics!'Whether the poll succeeds or not is irrelevant at this juncture. But it is defining within politics of Ireland what is the next logical step
Of course there won't be a vote. Not in NI, because we know from every election for decades the strength of support for nationalism (ie, it rose sharply when SF stopped abstaining, then began to tail off because- as I said- there are no floating voters, and because migration rates and family size are roughly the same).
And not in the Republic, because it would be embarrassing for the entire political set-up if and when support wasn't overwhelming.
Are you Rip Van Winkle, just awoken from a kip that began in 1922? For the entire period since then, Unionists have been able to rely on Britain providing an economic safety net. For almost all of it, Britain has been a more affluent country than the Irish Republic. Even the credit-fuelled boom of your Celtic Tiger years has been largely wasted on a property bubble rather than investing in infrastructure.What we will face now over the next few weeks will be attempts by Loyalism and Unionism in general to base it on an economic argument that it is better as a constituent member of the United Kingdom than as a part of a United Island
Are you seriously suggesting that there is some hidden source of support for a united Ireland in NI that doesn't already vote Nationalist? If so, let's see some evidence?What they will fail to see though is that by doing so they will further alienate people as they will be willfully ignoring peoples latent Nationalist desires
Given that its main opposition in NI is basically its mirror image in the us-and-them stakes, that discomfort might not be as terminal as your wishful thinking hopes.Loyalism is on the backfoot. As a political belief it has always been about us-and-them
Compare like with like. The Buckfast brigades bricking each other and the Police around the Short Strand aren't at all articulate. Mainstream Unionist and Nationalist politicians aren't that different in their fluency, or lack of it. See my example above, Gerry Adams waffling on TV last week about the budget deficits, something he clearly knows next to nothing about.The unfortunate result of this is that "them" are going about their lives moving up in the world and becoming more influential and articulate than "us"
There were numerous Presidents of (part-) Irish descent before Kennedy, not just Jackson. As for the delay in electing a Black equivalent, I imagine a century of slavery followed by another of systematic racism, Jim Crow laws and the like might just have been a bigger factor than innate laziness and self-pity.It reminds of a quote (I can't remember if it was in a movie or not) about how when the Irish went to the USA in the 18 & 1900s they just took the discrimation on the chin and moved up in society to the point where we had a president in 1960's (if you leave out Andrew Jackson of course) whilst the black poeple of the States kept on cribbing about how hard done by they where... etc
Do better, FFS.
Last edited by Gather round; 20/01/2013 at 6:27 PM.
Ho. Dear lord.
Anyone who may drop in here from time to time knows my stance well enough at this stage. That you picked apart my post in an odd fashion means I'll have today til my Sunday evening ends and I'm back at my computer to respond.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
GR, quick question - which nationalist majority councils have the tricolour flying over council buildings, either on designated days or all year round? Last I knew, most such councils operated power sharing for key positions in the form of d'Hondt procedures, ensuring elected unionist representatives are given the opportunity to fill these roles.
Bonnie:
For once maybe someone will call me "sir" without adding "you're making a scene."
I was on the bus on the way into a date.Bonnie:
Tomorrow I will pick apart his ******.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Sounds like that went well.
What gave it away...
I'm on foot.ie and watching Ravens v Pats.
Dry bitch.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
SK- don't know, although I'll admit to lazily assuming without checking that some do. If not, I stand corrected. I certainly wouldn't want to exaggerate or invent anythingl likely to increase tensions.
If they did, I'd accept that it would be a) locally popular with the majority community, and b) a response to the way Unionist- controlled Councils act in their areas. I would live with it.
Aye, mayors rotate and the like. If that works for all the main communities locally, fine.Last I knew, most such councils operated power sharing for key positions in the form of d'Hondt procedures, ensuring elected unionist representatives are given the opportunity to fill these roles
Hope the date went well, Bonnie. Did you take the right red hand along?
It was horrendous. As I said. Dry bitch.
I could have chopped it off and tiocfaidh'd it at her to be honest.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
No surprise it came from a movie rather than an esteemed sociology text.
I'm no expert on discrimination in the US and whilst the above claim - rooted firmly in folk mythology - might provide some nice sentiment for us "fightin' Irish" in order to help convince ourselves we're of tough stock and all that, I'm not so sure it would be fair to place anti-black and anti-Irish discrimination in the US on anywhere near the same pedestal. In fact, I could see very easily how the above might be perceived as racially offensive from a black perspective, as if to suggest the collective disadvantaged lot of African-Americans is primarily their own responsibility because they simply don't possess in their genetic make-up the traits of motivation, ambition or resilience that other groups, including the Irish, do happen to possess.
I think it would be naive to suggest that the primary distinguishing causal factors in determining the contemporary or latter positions of American society in which both social groups find or found themselves were their respective collective attitudes or psychological responses to the discrimination facing them. I'd attribute the varying degrees of social mobility generally experienced by the two respective groups more to the differing adverse surrounding social circumstances that faced them. No amount of "taking it on the chin" can improve your lot if there's just no opportunity for social mobility, and social mobility was undeniably much easier for Irish-Americans (as whites, albeit not of WASP descent) than it was for blacks, a class beneath.
I'm sorry I missed that gathering...
The unexpected absurdity of the final words of the video gave me a chuckle and reminded me of that King of the Sheep competition/"F*ckin' hell!" scene in Father Ted:
Lead speaker: "God Save the Queen!"
*Wild applause and largely incomprehensible roaring with a few shouts of "No Surrender" before volume abates.*
Solitary background voice: "Go on, Queen!"
If they are primarily to blame, how might Sinn Féin and the SDLP have realistically gone about achieving a united Ireland in light of unfavourable demographics since and due to the contrived creation of NI? What was the root cause of those unfavourable demographics? Historical factors remain factors that have played fundamental roles in the realisation of our contemporary situation. It would be silly to discount them as merely "historically fascinating" given the obvious existence of causal relationships between the past and the present, never mind the weighty significance attributed to/attempts to derive political validity from historical events, battles and figures by members of both communities in NI.
By the way, do you view Sinn Féin's alleged anti-Britishness as a form of or something akin to racism/xenophobia? Admittedly, the British establishment often finds itself under fire in Sinn Féin discourse, but what do you mean exactly when you accuse the party of being anti-British? I pose the same question to Peadar.
This may surprise you as it surprised me: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...327144275.html
The survey shows that a substantial majority of people would still like to see a united Ireland but only a minority believe it will happen in the next 25 years.
...
One striking feature of the poll is a less partitionist attitude now than in 1987. At that stage when asked what constituted the Irish nation 38 per cent said the 26 counties and 56 per cent said the 32 counties with 6 per cent having no opinion.
In 2012 the proportion saying the 32 counties has remained exactly the same at 56 per cent. But the number saying 26 counties has dropped to 27 per cent while the number with no opinion has jumped to 18 per cent.
In line with other questions about the North those with no opinion is higher among the 18 to 34 age group with almost a third of them in that category.
The drop in adherence to a purely southern Irish identity and the growing acceptance of a dual identity in the North is clearly a response to the Belfast Agreement and the new era in North-South and British-Irish relations.
This is also reflected in the response to the question as to whether a united Ireland is something to be hoped for. Those saying Yes is still substantial at 64 per cent but it has declined since the 1980s. Even more striking, though, is that the number saying that they would prefer not to see a united Ireland has halved to 8 per cent since 1987.
Again there has been a steep rise in the proportion with no opinion, which has doubled to 28 per cent since 1987. Among younger people aged between 18 and 34 the proportion with no opinion is higher again with 37 per cent having no view.
Interestingly, Fianna Fáil voters were strongest in the view that a united Ireland was something to be hoped for. And, strangely, Sinn Féin voters were not as enthusiastic as Fine Gael supporters, despite the fact that Sinn Féin is the only one actively campaigning for unity.
Given the large number with no opinion on the subject it is interesting to note that 69 per cent of people say they would still favour a united Ireland even if they had to pay more in taxation to support it. Just 20 per cent said they would not favour unity in those circumstances while 11 per cent had no opinion.
While there is still strong support for a united Ireland, a majority do not believe that it would happen in the near future.
Asked which of the assertions came closest to their views, 35 per cent said Northern Ireland would never be reunited with the South, 6 per cent said it would be reunited in 10 years, 16 per cent in 25 years, 15 per cent in 50 years, 8 per cent in 100 years and 20 per cent had no opinion.
Curiously, Sinn Féin voters were significantly stronger in the view that there would never be unity than supporters of other parties.As far as I'm aware, there were a few of Scotch-Irish (Presbyterian) descent; a distinctly different social group from that of Kennedy. Buchanan and Roosevelt were just two of them remembered in loyalist murals in Derry in recent times:
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 21/01/2013 at 12:03 PM.
Is there actually significance in meaning derived from the positioning of the red hand's thumb? I've heard something about that before and assume that's what you're referring to? I'm not sure though that there is any consistency of use of the hand with thumb resting against palm or pointing away from palm depending on the cultural or communal identification of those displaying it.
'Ulster Banner' (away from palm):
Blues Brothers' flag (against palm):
Red Hand Commando mural (against palm):
Some more examples...
Ulster Rugby crest (away from palm):
Tyrone GAA crest (away from palm):
Flag of Ulster (positioning appears to vary):
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks