Printable View
They could have respected the result of their own 1918 election when the majority of the island voted for independence parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Their own insecurity and control freakery led to the very gerrymandering you deny, on the basis of accommodating a belligerent minority threatening force thus perpetuating the problem for decades after, maybe into infinity...
What is gerrymandering? It sounds....icky.
It was named after Gerry Armstrong for one reason or another.
Or Gerry after it?
It comes from a failed Coca-Cola flavour from the early 20th Century. Cherry Mandarine. In norn iron-speak it sounded a lot like gerrymandering and the coke prototypes were tested predominantly on the officers of the army stationed along the border at the time.
Oh, you mean Claonroinnt. Am i the only one who speaks Irish anymore? So disappointing....
If only.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Níl tú an t-aon Gaeilgeóir anseo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
Does Gather round speak Ulster Scots I wonder (ie English with a heavy Northie accent)?
Sure half of Donegal speak practically Ulster Scots.
Also, I'd imagine there's a lot of closet Irish speakers here.
It only becomes, erm, heavy, when he's fair drunk. Otherwise it's quite a soft one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
:eek:
The British did to be fair try to put safeguards in place to protect the minority community in the North such as PR being used in the Stormont elections but Unionists quickly decided to dismantle these in order to tighten their grip on Stormont the Brits did nothing to stop this and just ignored such developments and NI became in effect a one party state for 50 years and there were marked by institutionalised sectarianism within the Government and also in wider society such as the school system and the sectarianism seemed to have become the defining characteristic of the North, of course all this came back to bite Britain in the ass several decades later.
You do realise the Treaty was years after the 1918 Election?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Did you miss the bit where I described the gerrymandering in NI local government then?Quote:
Their own insecurity and control freakery led to the very gerrymandering you deny, on the basis of accommodating a belligerent minority threatening force thus perpetuating the problem for decades after, maybe into infinity...
So obviously I only 'denied' it in the sense that you think anything Ulster unionism or their British government supporters do is gerrymandering pretty much by definition.
No, I speak more German or Italian than Ullans.Quote:
Originally Posted by fixer82
Indeed. Although the effect of ending PR tended to disadvantage smaller parties and independents rather than Nationalists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitude Red
Are you blaming Unionist discrimination, or Britain ignoring it, for institutionalised sectarianism in education?Quote:
NI became in effect a one party state for 50 years and there were marked by institutionalised sectarianism...in wider society such as the school system
Anyway, here's an academic article by John Whyte summing up research on discrimination:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm
Except the reason for the Treaty was the 1918 election, just four years earlier.
And of course the unionists/Brits gerrymandered, otherwise the North wouldn't exist. Or for that matter, the FAI!
AB is arguing that the construction of the northern statelet itself, rather than merely the manipulation of certain electoral boundaries within it post-inception, was an example of gerrymandering, or that NI is essentially a gerrymander.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I'm not sure if "gerrymandering" is the correct academic term to use when describing the construction of a new statelet under such circumstances - perhaps it can be - but in the sense that the new statelet was created by wittingly balancing the desire for an area of territory big enough to sustain itself, or at least, to provide as much economic viability as was possible, with the assurance of seemingly-democratic unionist control, via a newly-created majority, over the jurisdiction and its estranged minority, you could certainly draw valid parallels between NI's construction and the concept of gerrymandering as it is commonly understood.
I am sure. It isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Invincible
I know, but it's a silly argument. Either you accept self-determination as the first principle- in which case a large, localised Unionist population can reasonably claim it- or you don't. In that case what are you left with? Tyranny of the majority. Or some foundation-myth aspiration to it ;)Quote:
AB is arguing that the construction of the northern statelet itself, rather than merely the manipulation of certain electoral boundaries within it post-inception, was an example of gerrymandering, or that NI is essentially a gerrymander
Only if you, like AB, choose to use gerrymander as a generalised term of criticism/ abuse, like fascism, say. Gerrymandering as commonly understood means distorting electoral boundaries, quotas etc. So local government in Derry was such; ditto the city ending up on the 'wrong' side of the border; ditto Fianna Fail increasing the number of three-seaters in the South to disadvantage smaller parties. But the actual border per se isn't a gerrymander.Quote:
You could certainly draw valid parallels between NI's construction and the concept of gerrymandering as it is commonly understood
Anyway, here's a simple illustration of how a gerrymander can work. The 15(00,000) electors are to be organised into three constituencies: moving the boundaries can produce two or zero red majorities even though any proportional system would give them one.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dering_9-6.png
I accept and respect the right of nations and ethno-cultural groups to self-determination, but we both know that NI wasn't founded on the principle of pure self-determination. Half a million unwilling participants were also dragged into the new construction in order to ensure for the new unionist-controlled territory as much economic viability as was possible. Was it fair that the right to self-determination of this newly-resulting nationalist minority was considered secondary to or dependent upon the prior satisfaction of the prioritised economic concerns of uninterested unionists? If pure unionist self-determination wasn't going to be workable, too bad; that's not something that anyone other than the unionist bloc should be forced to be concerned with, never mind be forced to serve. Why make half a million unwilling nationalists suffer the consequences of the impracticality of pure unionist self-determination in order to provide it with a semblance of economic integrity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
The term does have undeniable negative connotations and, in my opinion, the thinking behind the establishment of a new northern state to serve the interests of a democratically-manufactured unionist majority at the expense of a sizable new nationalist minority is comparable to the thinking of those who later appreciated gerrymandering as a further valid form of power retention and consolidation. Parallels can be drawn between the concept understood as gerrymandering (fixing electoral boundaries for self-gain) and the drawing of a new border to suit the interests of a particular majority group at the expense of an alienated minority group. I don't think that's a contentious thought.Quote:
Only if you, like AB, choose to use gerrymander as a generalised term of criticism/ abuse, like fascism, say. Gerrymandering as commonly understood means distorting electoral boundaries, quotas etc. So local government in Derry was such; ditto the city ending up on the 'wrong' side of the border; ditto Fianna Fail increasing the number of three-seaters in the South to disadvantage smaller parties. But the actual border per se isn't a gerrymander.
Indeed, although I didn't claim that the principle or its practical effect was pure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Invincible
Your preferred alternative would have seen about a million unwilling participants dragged into a different new construction. It should be obvious which tends more to a workable compromise.Quote:
Half a million unwilling participants were also dragged into the new construction
No, it was unfair that the border was drawn along the route confirmed in 1925. The number of 'unwilling participants' on both sides could and should have been much reduced. Actually I think you make too much of the economic justifications for that route: what became NI could have managed with an area including Belfast, surrounding suburban towns and a rural/ agricultural hinterland. It didn't need sparsely populated marginal economic areas like South Armagh or the Sperrins. Unionists at the time used the economic argument largely as a fig-leaf for a broader aim, ie to include as many areas as possible with a significant Unionist-minority population, or close to them. Like fellow child of the 1920s Yugoslavia, on a smaller scale.Quote:
Was it fair that the right to self-determination of this newly-resulting nationalist minority was considered secondary to or dependent upon the prior satisfaction of the prioritised economic concerns of uninterested unionists? If pure unionist self-determination wasn't going to be workable, too bad; that's not something that anyone other than the unionist bloc should be forced to be conc. erned with, never mind serve. Why make half a million unwilling nationalists suffer the consequences of the impracticality of pure unionist self-determination in order to provide it with a semblance of economic integrity?
No, it's a limited parallel. The basic justification for creating NI was simple in principle: the only practical alternatives were retaining the pre-1918 status quo (unacceptable to millions of Nationalists), or a united Ireland independent of Britain (unacceptable to a million Unionists). Wherever the border was drawn would have been contentious. The fairer. utilitarian alternative would have been a route to reduce the disaffected stranded on the wrong side to as small a number as possible. For whatever reason the Free State government was unable to do that in the early 1920s, and as far as I know nobody in the South is suggesting a redraw now. In those circumstances, gurning about now just looks odd.Quote:
The term does have undeniable negative connotations and, in my opinion, the thinking behind the establishment of a new northern state to serve the interests of a unionist majority at the expense of a sizable nationalist minority is comparable to the thinking of those who later appreciated gerrymandering as a further feasible form of power retention and consolidation. Parallels can be drawn between the concept understood as gerrymandering (fixing electoral boundaries for self-gain) and the drawing of a new border to suit the interests of a particular majority group at the expense of an alienated minority group. I don't think that's a contentious thought
Perhaps in being confronted with the impracticality of pure self-determination, unionists would eventually have voluntarily opted to join an interested southern state in light of indifference from Britain? Just a speculative thought; who knows?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Offering such a fig-leaf arguably made it more deplorable then.Quote:
No, it was unfair that the border was drawn along the route confirmed in 1925. The number of 'unwilling participants' on both sides could and should have been much reduced. Actually I think you make too much of the economic justifications for that route: what became NI could have managed with an area including Belfast, surrounding suburban towns and a rural/ agricultural hinterland. It didn't need sparsely populated marginal economic areas like South Armagh or the Sperrins. Unionists at the time used the economic argument largely as a fig-leaf for a broader aim, ie to include as many areas as possible with a significant Unionist-minority population, or close to them. Like fellow child of the 1920s Yugoslavia, on a smaller scale.
Naturally, it would have demanded a greater degree of co-operation and conferral in practice, but a more intricate border could have been redrawn in theory, even if it might have looked spatially unusual on a map. (The Baarle-Nassau and Baarle-Hertog enclaves/exclaves of the Netherlands and Belgium appear to function OK, for example, despite their unorthodox constructions.)
Anyway, as you've highlighted, there was indeed an opportunity to do that upon the establishment of the Boundary Commission but it wasn't taken and a redrawing never materialised, for which the Free State must also bear some of the responsibility, albeit with it attempting to bargain from an already-compromised position; beggars (whether morally justified or not) can't be choosers and all that...
Well, things have moved on from then to where we now find ourselves, but our current situation developed directly out of that reality. A redrawing was up for consideration but was never realised so has been since discarded to the dustbin of history. Maybe things could have been different. Rather than positively gurning about it, I suppose I was more engaging in academic speculation, in which there is little harm surely. :)Quote:
For whatever reason the Free State government was unable to do that in the early 1920s, and as far as I know nobody in the South is suggesting a redraw now. In those circumstances, gurning about now just looks odd.
Yes, like with the island of Ireland at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Ditto this.
The example quoted is rubbish as we're talking about a far bigger area, based on an illegally transplanted population.Quote:
Gerrymandering as commonly understood means distorting electoral boundaries, quotas etc. But the actual border per se isn't a gerrymander.
Anyway, before someone bleats about tangents, it did however mean the creation of our own, er, 'beloved' FAI.
But yet another example of colonialism having a lot to answer for, dividing up land on false 'majorities' and arbitrary boundaries. Still that worked well, didn't it.
http://i746.photobucket.com/albums/x...Thinking12.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
It wouldn't even have needed to be intricate, would it? For example, you could just have transferred the big Nationalist-majority towns beside the border across it.Quote:
Naturally, it would have demanded a greater degree of co-operation and conferral in practice, but a more intricate border could have been redrawn in theory, even if it might have looked spatially unusual on a map. (The Baarle-Nassau and Baarle-Hertog enclaves/exclaves of the Netherlands and Belgium appear to function OK, for example, despite their unorthodox constructions.)
Careful, you don't want to lapse into Mopery there ;) Wouldn't you expect the new Free State to have negotiated with at least some confidence?Quote:
the Free State must also bear some of the responsibility, albeit with it attempting to bargain from an already-compromised position; beggars (whether morally justified or not) can't be choosers and all that...
But let's not be too hard on Cosgrave senior. His son was in charge 50 years later; neither he nor any other Taoiseach in 88 years has made any effort to address the issue.
So, the current situation is that your politicians and wider opinion can't be bothered to argue for smaller changes to the border, yet pretend to be committed in principle to abolishing it entirely. That's a little harmful because it's hypocritical and dishonest, no?Quote:
Well, things have moved on from then to where we now find ourselves, but our current situation developed directly out of that reality. A redrawing was up for consideration but was never realised so has been since discarded to the dustbin of history. Maybe things could have been different. Rather than positively gurning about it, I suppose I was more engaging in academic speculation, in which there is little harm surely. :)