Why is there Orange in the Irish flag anyway? I was always told it means peace with England or something. Is that true?
Printable View
Why is there Orange in the Irish flag anyway? I was always told it means peace with England or something. Is that true?
It represents the Orange Protestant tradition in Ireland. The green represents the Gaelic tradition. The white represents the aspiration for peace between the two.
As do ye...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
"Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save the King"
I like our dirge. It rouses like no other song can. The feeling hearing it in Poznan before the Croatia match or during the All-Ireland Final in 2011 is something that cannot be replicated.
That's why I said 'copycat', dear.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
We'll have to differ. It's tuneless and bombastic like its British or Scottish equivaent.Quote:
I like our dirge. It rouses like no other song can. The feeling hearing it in Poznan before the Croatia match or during the All-Ireland Final in 2011 is something that cannot be replicated
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Copycat? In that it uses music?
GSTQ, FOS and LOMF are all shockingly boring.
I would never descirbe them as bombastic musically. They bore into submission.
It's all about the keeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy chaaaaaaange!
You're confusing those that identify as being "Northern Irish" with those seeking an independent Northern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Unionism and Independence are mutually exclusive ideals.
Interesting, of the small amount (3% in the 2010 Life & Times Survey) of those who think an Independent Northern Ireland would serve our best long term future, four times more identifying as "Catholic" prefer this (4% of Catholics) than those identifying as "Protestant" (1% of Protestants).
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2010/Polit.../NIRELND2.html
Can't help ye there mate, I'm strictly a C-F-G7-Am man. With the occasional Dm for variety.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
As far as I understand, Ulster nationalism is generally described as a loyalist ideology and has been viewed as a fringe or splinter movement within unionism/loyalism. This always puzzled me, however, as loyalty to the Crown/UK wasn't/isn't its driving force, but I suppose the umbrella term, "loyalist", remains appropriate in the sense that the allegiance of Ulster nationalists is manifested in a loyalty to Ulster (or NI, more accurately), of course, in order to ensure it remains free of influence from Dublin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
I think Wiki gives a fairly good overview of the relationship between Ulster nationalism and broader loyalism/unionism:
I'm not familiar with de Paor's thoughts on the matter, but perhaps those 4 per cent who identify as nationalists in the aforementioned survey think along similar lines?Quote:
Ulster nationalism represents a reaction from within Unionism and Loyalism to the uncertain position afforded to the Union by the British government. Its leadership and members have largely all come from within Unionism and have tended to react to what they viewed as crises surrounding the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom, such as the moves towards power sharing in the 1970s or the Belfast Agreement of 1998 which briefly saw the UIM become a minor force. In such instances it has been considered preferable by the supporters of this ideological movement to remove the British dimension either partially (Dominion status) or fully (independence) in order to avoid all-Ireland rule.
However whilst support for Ulster nationalism has tended to be reactive to political change, the theory also underlines the importance of Ulster cultural nationalism and the separate identity of the people of Ulster. As such Ulster nationalist movements have been at the forefront of supporting the Orange Order and upholding the 12th July marches as important parts of this cultural heritage, as well as encouraging the growth of the Ulster Scots language.
Outside the Unionist movement, a non-sectarian independent Northern Ireland has sometimes been advocated as a solution to the conflict. Two notable examples of this are the Scottish Marxist Tom Nairn and the Irish nationalist Liam de Paor.
To be accurate, they identified as "Catholic" - we cannot assume they are all Nationalists.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
The notion of "Ulster Independence" is not one that garners much support at all - it simply wouldn't work.
I am unaware of anyone seeking a mandate on a "Independent Ulster" ticket in Northern Ireland.
Indeed; my mistake. By definition, it's hard to see how they might be in that they'd be espousing a neo-partitionist aspiration, if you will, fundamentally at odds with an ideal intrinsic to Irish nationalism. But then, I suppose there are those who identify as nationalists and identify with the Irish national identity culturally but do not share Irish nationalism's traditional political ideals in that they'd be content to maintain the status quo, or NI's position within the UK, in other words, for economic or other reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
I found a brief outline of de Paor's thinking here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_...reland&f=false
It appears de Paor still identified as an Irish nationalist, for example, in spite of "his rejection of unification as unworkable though ideally desirable" along with "his cautious advocacy of an autonomous or even independent Northern Ireland".
The loyalist brand of "Ulster/NI independence" is traditionally associated with the preservation of the Ulster Protestant/Ulster-Scots cultural (rather than positively religious/theological) identity, if I'm not mistaken? It would be highly unusual for a Catholic to associate with that independence ideology, I would imagine.
Ulster Third Way's party leader, David Kerr, contested the West Belfast parliamentary seat in the 2001 general election, although he fared pretty poorly with just 116 votes in total, or a 0.3% share. Odd constituency in which to contest an election, I would have thought, given the ideology's far-right, loyalist connotations. The party deregistered in 2005 and in spite of his continued leadership of Third Way, Kerr stood in the East Antrim constituency in the general election of that same year under the auspices of the Vote For Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket with an independence-related platform of "direct democracy". Kerr tallied 147 votes, or 0.5% of the share, on this occasion. I'm not aware of anyone having contested an election on an independence ticket more recently than that, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Who were that Loyalist group who wanted to deport all catholics to the Republic, and intern any who refused to go?
Margaret Thatcher?Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Bravo, sir.
It was Ted Heath who proposed/considered something similar actually. Rather extreme plans to forcibly expel hundreds of thousands of Catholics to either the Republic or to the border region within NI followed by a redrawing of the border around this region in order to create a Protestant-only statelet were drawn up by the British government in 1972, according to official files released to the Public Record Office under the 30-year rule in 2003.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/2282...ave_prefs=true
Quote:
At the height of bloodletting in Northern Ireland, the British government considered trying to end the sectarian conflict by forcibly moving hundreds of thousands of catholics to the Irish Republic, according to records released Wednesday.
But the top secret contingency plan -- dated July 23, 1972 -- was rejected out of concern it would not work unless the government was prepared to be "completely ruthless" in carrying it out, and that it would provoke outrage at home and abroad, especially in the United States.
"We do not believe that the government would be able to obtain the support of public opinion in Great Britain for the drastic actions that we consider in this paper," the newly declassified document said.
"Any faint hope of success must be set against the implications of a course which would demonstrate to the world that (the government) was unable to bring about the peaceful solution of problems save by expelling large numbers of its own citizens and doing so on a religious basis," the document added.
It is the first indication that Britain once considered using a method that came to be known as "ethnic cleansing," a strategy Britain, among many nations, denounced when Serbs used it against Muslims and ethnic Albanians during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.
The plan came to light in a batch of formerly confidential papers declassified after 30 years and released by Britain's Public Record Office. The plan is contained in a report commissioned by the government of Prime Minister Edward Heath to prepare for a time when Britain was on the verge "of losing control" in Northern Ireland, the document says.
Almost 500 people were killed in 1972, more than any year since. On Jan. 30 of that year -- now known as "Bloody Sunday" -- British soldiers shot and killed 13 unarmed catholic protesters in Londonderry.
Nearly every day brought some new bloodshed: bombings, gun battles and other violence. During one "fairly quiet" period -- Jan. 20-21, 1972 -- five explosions injured six people, the report says.
Signed by Cabinet Secretary Sir Burke Trend, the plan called for a "massive reinforcement of troops" in the province accompanied by "searches, interrogation and possibly internment" against catholic and Protestant paramilitary groups.
If that failed, another suggested solution involved either redrawing the border or a "compulsory transfer of population" affecting more than a fourth of the province's 1.5 million residents.
More than 200,000 catholics would be moved from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic or "into homogenous enclaves within Northern Ireland." A similar number of Protestants living in lands ceded to the Irish Republic would be moved into what remained of Northern Ireland.
The report notes that such a plan "raises obvious political difficulties" and would provoke outrage in the United States and among Britain's other allies.
"Unless the government were prepared to be completely ruthless in the use of force, the chances of imposing a settlement consisting of a new partition together with some compulsory transfer of population would be negligible," the document said.
It advised the government continue the "present policy of reconciliation, tempered with a firm but selective military response to terrorism."
The documents also include accounts of secret meetings in 1972 between senior British officials and members of the Irish Republican Army.
The first took place in a remote Irish farmhouse on June 20 between P.J. Woodfield, a representative of Northern Ireland Secretary William Whitelaw, and a two-man IRA delegation: Gerry Adams, now leader of the IRA-linked political party Sinn Fein, and Daithi O Conaill, who reputedly became chief of staff of the IRA the following year. O Conaill died in 1991.
According to Woodfield's report, labeled "top secret," the aim of the three-hour meeting was to negotiate an IRA cease-fire. In return, Britain promised not to arrest IRA suspects and to improve conditions for paramilitary prisoners.
Woodfield was impressed with the 23-year-old Adams, who has always denied being a member of the IRA. The meeting, he wrote, was conducted "in an informal and relaxed atmosphere," with the civil servant even helping to draft the wording of the IRA's cease-fire announcement.
"There is no doubt whatever that these two at least genuinely want a cease-fire and a permanent end to violence," Woodfield wrote.
"Their appearance and manner were respectable and respectful. ... Their response to every argument put to them was reasonable and moderate. Their behavior and attitude appeared to bear no relation to indiscriminate campaign of bombing and shooting in which they have both been prominent leaders."
The IRA announced a cease-fire on June 22, 1972, but it broke down July 9.
That just about sums it up DI.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Thanks for that DI - I do vaguely remember Mr Kerr and his alternative ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I think he may have been involved in a website called "Ulster Nation" - which was full of moronic guff.
I presume he stood in West Belfast thinking he would pick up votes from the Shankill area - obviously, he was wrong.
Indeed, 'Ulster Nation' is a journal published by Ulster Third Way. Kerr is its editor. This is the website (last updated in 2007): http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/
Quote:
OUR TASK - A role for radical Ulster-nationalists
Ulster Nation seeks to advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Ulster people by all honourable means. Thus, the central idea that drives our supporters is the redemption of our independence as a nation. We envision a free and prosperous sovereign Ulster state founded on private property, free association, fair trade, sound money, equal justice before the law and secure borders. A bold, self-confident civilisation based in large part on its cultural and ethnic Ulster-Scots roots, without ignoring the contribution of Ulster-Gaels.
As a means of making real our vision of an independent Ulster state, Ulster-nationalists must firstly revitalise our largely Ulster-Scots culture. Without a strong cultural base, Independence will be difficult to attain. But to strengthen Ulster's culture, we must overcome the mis-education of our people by undertaking a campaign to educate them about the true history of Ulster in particular and this island in general.
To recreate our society, we should encourage the growth of largely self sufficient communities among our people. We can develop healthy local communities and institutions by abjuring the realm - seceding from the mindless materialism and vulgarity of contemporary Anglo-American society. To stimulate the economic vitality of our people, we must become producers and not just consumers. By establishing BUY ULSTER campaigns and by forming trade guilds or associations, we can begin to wean ourselves from economic dependency on the Irish Republic and Great Britain. By encouraging the use of private sources of finance, we can begin to break our financial dependency on those who may seek to do us harm.
Once we have planted the seeds of cultural, social and economic renewal, then we can really begin to look to our Ulster Homeland's political renewal. Political independence will come only when we have convinced Ulsterfolk that they are indeed a nation in the organic, historical and Biblical sense of the word, namely, that they are a distinct people with a language, mores and folkways that separate them from the rest of the world. Ulster Nation gives editorial support to the registered political party, Ulster Third Way.
Who said it was going to be easy?
Has anyone consulted the people of Donegal/Cavan and Monaghan about all this "Ulster(sic) Nationalism/Independence"???
Those guys sound like a bit of a laugh.
There's an attempt to examine that complication in the website's FAQs section:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldfan
Quote:
Where is Ulster?
Ulster is a small European country in the north-eastern corner of the island of Ireland. It comprises the six counties of Armagh, Antrim, Londonderry, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Down. Its capital city is Belfast. Ulster has a total land area of 5456 square miles. In comparison, Luxembourg is 999 square miles and Israel is 7992 square miles in area. Ulster is also known variously as 'Northern Ireland' (its legally recognised title), the 'Six Counties', the 'North of Ireland', and 'the Province' according to the political opinions or prejudices of different sections of the community. The Ulster state came into existence in 1921 under the Government of Ireland Act. Ulster remained a part of the United Kingdom with its own devolved parliamentary system, and retained the right to send 13 MPs to the sovereign Westminster Parliament. The greater part of the island was granted independent Dominion status as the Irish Free State under the terms of a controversial Anglo-Irish Treaty. In 1937 that state became Éire. It declared itself to be a republic in 1949.
Ulster is actually nine counties, so is it not true that the Six-County area has no right to call itself 'Ulster'?
Three counties, Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan, lie within the territory of the Irish Republic. Over the past two thousand years, Ulster's boundaries have ebbed and flowed like the tide. The Six-County area contains the Ulster heartland. Under British rule, the fifth ancient province, Meath, was sliced up between Ulster, Leinster and Connacht. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, Ulster was given Cavan. County Louth, especially the area around the Cooley peninsula, is an ancient part of Ulster that is now within Leinster.
Ulster has always been different from the rest of the island. Ninety years ago, when the first Provisional Government of Ulster was set up in response to the threat of a Dublin-based parliament, Edward Carson stated that "We must be prepared... on the morning of Home Rule... to govern those districts of which we have control." That proved to be the six counties of the present-day Ulster state. Modern Ulster was reborn on September 28th 1912 - Ulster Day. We have as much right to call our homeland 'Ulster' as the USA has to call itself 'America' and the Poles have to call their homeland 'Poland'. Poland's current boundaries bear little relationship to its boundaries in 1919. That nation's territory has shifted sideways to the West. Few people will deny the Polish people the right to call their state 'Poland' even though it no longer includes 'ancient Polish' territories that are now part of Lithuania, the Ukraine and Belarus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldfan
Meh, as far as I'm concerned I'm from neither. I'm from Donegal. It's a whole separate entity.
So is Ulster eligible to declare for Ireland or what?
Perhaps a thread in Current Affairs would be more suitable for most of the last few pages.
Ah sure we didn't think Stu would notice.
I'm not. During our discussion about the relative feelings of the local populace in the six counties, there were various studies linked, maybe by you, with various contradictory claims. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
And maybe they're amongst the '3%', but heard and read various clowns from both sides of the divide saying they could be 'independent'. Like I said, hmm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Could you link to any respected source that would indicate "an increased no.of unionists interested in 'independence."?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
You're the one with time on yer hands...
Really not bothered about their various strains of warped thinking.
That'll be a no then.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Hmm.
Hmmm as a professional musician I'd have to step in here and say the tune is anything but tuneless and, rather, one of the more melodic of national anthems along with the 'Star Spangled Banner'Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
You wouldn't be a rank-pulling Irish-American professional musician by any chance? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
OK, you like a tune I don't. I wasn't really commenting on its suitability for orchestral arrangement in a minor key or anything.
Because you say so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Let alone read my reply.
:rolleyes:
Hmm.
And don't forget Les Marseillaise and Il Canto/Fratelli d'Italia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
Anyway...
Back to the eligibility issues at hand.
Speaking of copycat anthems...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWmDbMbDZKk
No I'm a Dubliner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I have many grievances with the USA, in particular their foreign policies, but I can separate that from a good tune.
I am certainly an Irish republican but that doesn't mean I find fault with everything British or Unionist.
I appreciate quality, no matter in what guise it may appear.
Technically yes, but it's really a Catalonia/Spain type thing where we'd have no other choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
I know Danny will probably disagree with me, but I have always found McKiittrick to be quite objective in his writing! Worth a read.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...y-8444651.html
Hehe, no major qualms with McKittrick here.
This is an interesting comment:
Is there a particular or exclusive disregard within loyalism for education that isn't mirrored by those from an equivalent socio-economic background in the nationalist/republican community? It was always said that republican prisoners read books and educated themselves whilst their loyalist counterparts pumped iron. David Ervine denied this to be true, mind, and argued that loyalists were in fact ahead of republicans in their studious endeavours. Was there truth to it, however, or was it a case of the media lazily stereotyping/discrediting loyalists as brainless numbskulls on steroids incapable of any form of intellectual thought?Quote:
One of the deepest problems is a lack of regard for education [within loyalism]. Jobs for Protestants in shipbuilding and heavy engineering used to be so plentiful that education was regarded as basically unnecessary; but loyalism has not adapted to new economic realities.
I think we all know the rioting and disorder isn't merely about a piece of red, white and blue cloth. People will say, "it's just a flag", but that is to naïvely disregard the sentiment and meaning humans - indeed, capable of abstract thought - attach to symbols and objects, especially those artefacts that define us or denote some status. We all do it; if it's not our flag, it's our house or our car or our new iPhone...
Flags have deeper meaning than the mere cloth on which their designs are printed and they resonate deeply with those they're purported to represent/those who identify with them. The current explosion of discontent is about the Union flag's symbolism and what its removal (or flying on only 20 designated days a year, to be more correct) now represents for the unionist/loyalist community. And that is not a tyrannical erosion of their British identity; but, rather, it represents a democratic erosion of the position of supremacy they've enjoyed for decades. Belfast is now, more or less, a 50:50 city in terms of nationalists:unionists and it's clear that certain unionists cannot accept this loss of majoritarian privilege. Obviously, times of economic hardship further stoke the flames, but it appears that democracy isn't favourable for many.
Were protests suspended yesterday as the Union flag was raised for Kate Middleton's birthday, by the way?
I'm not necessarily advocating this as a solution, but would the protests cease if the tricolour was raised permanently beside the Union flag? It would at least discredit the dubious "erosion of identity" narrative. Would unionists/loyalists tolerate such a compromise given current circumstances?
I'm not sure if many are aware, but Belfast apparently has a city flag of its own:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...of_Belfast.svg
Not certain of its provenance, however, nor do I know what its symbolism purports to represent as information on it seems extremely scarce.
Raising the Tricolour would not solve anything.
Loyalists would then denigrate my flag and see it as an "invasion".
I would love to see the Tricolour flying up there but as it has no official status within the United Kingdom it's highly unlikely it would happen.
In saying that Castlereagh BC fly the Ulster Banner and that has no offical status.
Do Newry and Mourne or Moyle DC fly a Tricolour?
McKittrick is right to underline the combination of this issue with the removal of the flag and the disaffection amongst Loyalist communities and it acting as a spark to a tinderbox.
Why have there been no protests outside Stormont considering it only flies the flag on designated days as well?
I've set up a thread in CA for the flag discussion.
I can see Stu twitching in Regina if it continues in here anymore.
http://foot.ie/threads/175511-The-Fl...59#post1654159