Observer article on 1916 commemoration

[Thunderblaster]

individual irishmen in the british army commiting acts of oppression is somwhat different to the irish nation oppressing others

Sir Michael O'Dwyer was a civillian ruler.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Sir Michael O'Dwyer was a civillian ruler.

He wasn't ruling on BEHALF of THIS country!

[CollegeTillIDie]

thats racist.....

to be fair, we are taking this joker far too seriously.

I did say that I was using HIS logic in the situation... I have never forgiven the Austrians for the Von Trapp Family but I digress ....it's consistent with Thunderblasters ridiculous attempts at lambasting his own nation!

[Roverstillidie]

I did say that I was using HIS logic in the situation... I have never forgiven the Austrians for the Von Trapp Family but I digress ....it's consistent with Thunderblasters ridiculous attempts at lambasting his own nation!

twas a wind up.

remember that yank who joined the taliban? next we will be hearing that all septics are islamic fundamentalists.

or those jazis's? jewish nazis. dont even get him started on them.

Sir Michael O'Dwyer was a civillian ruler.

so what? he was a civilan who ruled on behalf of the British empire, of which the irish were a coerced part. he didn't do it on behalf of the Irish nation or the state which didnt appear for many years.

the actions of individuals cannot be taken as a proxy for the behaviour of entire nations. bizarre logic.

[John83]

Sir Michael O'Dwyer was the Governor of Punjab in India in 1919 and he ordered the British battalion stationed to "teach the locals a lesson that they will never forget". The Irish as a nation did not invade India but did assist the Brits in ruling India. Actually, Jamaica at one point was ruled by an Irishman in the 19th Century and it was one of the Marquess of Sligo that ruled the island.

Wellington is famously supposed to have retorted to a reminder of his Irish birth that being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse. I doubt the Marquess of Sligo was of Irish stock.

Cannot be 100% sure that the Irish never oppressed anybody. Look at all the Irish emigration to the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. None of the Irish are playing second fiddle to the natives of these places; the Irish were likely to take part in some form of discrimination to get land.

This is unfortunately true. The Irish were happy to emigrate to a country where their being white was more important than their being Irish, but they didn't translate their own experience into empathy for non-white slaves/immigrants/natives.

I think you can't read any more into our having never taken over anywhere than that we're a small country with awkward logistical problems to overcome if we wanted to invade, say, France.

[Thunderblaster]

I doubt the Marquess of Sligo was of Irish stock.

The Marquess of Sligo is a direct descendant of Grace O'Malley, Pirate Queen of Connacht.

[Thunderblaster]

He wasn't ruling on BEHALF of THIS country!

He was ruling on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

[Thunderblaster]

I was looking at a planned map of Ireland that Sir Roger Casement and Sir Edward Carson were planning out on The Star. The partition of Ireland was planned very differently with the Stormont government ruling as far south as Westport, Longford, Mullingar, Navan and Drogheda while Dublin would have had the rest of the country. That would have led to the partition of Mayo, Roscommon, Longford, Westmeath and Meath. I don't think that the Unionists would have got away with what they did for so long under such a system.

[Thunderblaster]

I think you can't read any more into our having never taken over anywhere than that we're a small country with awkward logistical problems to overcome if we wanted to invade, say, France.

Much better chance of us being invaded than invading. We have to come to terms with the fact that we as a people, not a nation, assisted with the British in colonising other lands.

[CollegeTillIDie]

He was ruling on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

When was Ireland a voluntary part of that?

The vast majority of the population of Great Britain, never mind Ireland, did not have the vote until about 1886 the time of the Third Reform Bill and even then it was restricted to householders. The so called Act Of Union was coerced through an Irish parliament, which consisted exclusively of Anglo-Irish Protestant Landowners, in 1800. You really need to learn your history!

[lopez]

This is unfortunately true. The Irish were happy to emigrate to a country where their being white was more important than their being Irish, but they didn't translate their own experience into empathy for non-white slaves/immigrants/natives.

It is a little more complicated than just turning up and being welcomed as white. This might be the case in Britain in 2006 buit it wasn't the case in the 1950s for the Irish and certainly not in C19 US and Australia. With regards to the latter, most Irish initially arrived encarcerated. In the former, they were deeply hated and seen as lower down the pecking order than blacks. In the words of Noel Ignatiev, they needed to become 'white'. Initially this came about NOT through joining the WASP elite in exploiting black Americans but in undercutting them in the workplace and by strike breaking and later moving into areas seen as 'vulgar' by the elite, such as sport or 'showbiz.' Their bulk in the big cities, and a political sophisitication, also gave them political clout to gain public service jobs, once more at the expense of (the far fewer and politically impotent) emancipated blacks of the late C19.

As for thunderblaster bringing up O'Dwyer, his argument would also suggest that Amritsar was nothing more than an intra-communal spat. After all, the shooting was done largely by sepoys (mostly ghurkhas) who apparently enjoyed their day out if you believe James Lawrence in 'The Rise and Fall of The British Empire.'

[CollegeTillIDie]

Well said gonzo