QuoteWhat will you think of this then ?Originally Posted by WeAreRovers
http://www.langerland.com/content/view/78/59/
HamishThe Guardian newspaper group is getting schitzo - Guardian is still left of center while the Observer is swinging more and more to the right - not surprised but disappointed TBH.
Oh the Observer employed Conor Cruise Quisling O,Brien as editor or had you forgotten?
What will you think of this then ?
http://www.langerland.com/content/view/78/59/
"In 1969 I gave up women and alcohol - it was the worst 20 minutes of my life".
GEORGE BEST.
I read a collection of Pearse's Letters and Papers about twenty years ago, the 'blood sacrifice' theme was fairly strong, but the sacralisation of history was common to both sides. Late 19th Century Catholic spirituality was much influenced by devotion to the Sacred Heart, whilst on the Protestant side the Cross was at the centre of Evangelical spirituality.
On both sides, at a time when church going was fairly universal, the spirituality would have shaped thinking.
If Easter 1916 became the great 'blood sacrifice' for Republicans, then the Somme on 1st July 1916 was the sacrificial day for Loyalists. Frank McGuinness's 'Observe the Sons of Ulster . . .' has some profound insights into the Loyalist psyche.
I don't know the context of those remarks--I only got them from a textbook on Irish history for the leaving. There was a phrase that went something like
"we may kill the wrong people" which always bothered me.
Of course I don't mean to suggest that that kind of sentiment is unique to those involved in the Easter Rising.
It is interesting to note that the journo doesn't seem at all bothered at the role of the civil war in cementing British Parliamentary rule (after all, wasn't the monarchy a lawful government?).
Classic as usual.
Did you ever notice that in every painting of Adam & Eve, they have belly buttons. Think about that...take as long as you want.
The BBC have some interesting stuff on their website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/eas...ion/in05.shtml
If what was important was the 'blood sacrifice', ‘the old heart of the earth needed to be warmed by the red wine of the battlefield’, then, if some of the wrong people were killed, then that was a necessary price. What are such casualties referred to as now, 'collateral damage', or something like that?
Anyway, if the point of the Rising for Pearse is that it is a redemptive event, ‘Bloodshed is a cleansing and sanctifying thing’, then the Observer column last Sunday completely missed the point of what it was all about anyway.
Pearse's reasoning seemed to be that this was not about mandates, or legitimacy, or concepts within a western democratic tradition, but that it was about a mystical event that would shape the history of the nation.
In that he was proved right, whatever people may think of him.
All in the past CTID- all in the pastHamish
Oh the Observer employed Conor Cruise Quisling O,Brien as editor or had you forgotten?
The British invasion of Ireland was a Vatican sanctioned invasion as the Pope at the time wanted to bring Ireland to heel within the Catholic Church. The man that made martyrs of the 1916 Rising was General Maxwell, who got removed from his post in Dublin in the aftermath. It is also to be remembered that the Irish were not only oppressed, but were also oppresers. The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 was instigated by an Irishman, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, from Co. Tipperary.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn!!
What a fantastic piece...Hitler mourned the loss of 16 dead people and so did Republicans, sure they must be the same...
wtf, how can anyone with 1/10 of a brain come out with such vile bollóx? Punch is alive and well
Oh no not them again
Any more info on this Thunderblaster ? Are you talking about the initial Strongbow invasion in the 12th Century ?
So ? Irish people in the British army were taking their orders/military culture/outlook directly from the English. Was it the Irish who were responsible for Amritsar, or the English/British ? None of thsi changes or belittles the fact that the Irish were clearly opporessed as a nation as well. The Israeli's oppression of ther Palestinians doesn't erase or in any way impact the Holocaust...
Point of information, WHICH ARMY was he in again?
Ireland never invaded India , get a grip will you!Ireland as a nation State has NEVER oppressed any other Nation State!
We actually inspired Ghandi to organise his peaceful opposition to British Rule in India.
Last edited by CollegeTillIDie; 18/04/2006 at 6:24 AM.
I know this is going off topic, but I'd have to disagree with you there. Obviously nothing will ever impact the atrocities that occured during the Holocaust, but the current debacle between Israel and Palestine is certainly bringing a bit of anti-semitism back into the world. I know quite a few people now who are of the opinion that, whilst no race of people have ever deserved what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust, they have little or no sympathy left for them because of Palestine and the (supposed) Jewish thoughts towards the Islamic world. So in a way it is impacting not on the events of the Holocaust, but on the sympathy generated from it for Jewish people, which is a problem in itself I think.
Last edited by jebus; 18/04/2006 at 1:33 PM.
That would be the one indeed.
Sir Michael O'Dwyer, born in Co. Tipperary and educated in Tullamore was the Governer of the Punjab region of India at the time of the Amritsar massacre.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn!!
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.Point of information, WHICH ARMY was he in again?
Ireland never invaded India , get a grip will you!
We actually inspired Ghandi to organise his peaceful opposition to British Rule in India.
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.
Gandhi was inspired by his racist treatment in South Africa where there were apartheid laws against Indians.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn!!
individual irishmen in the british army commiting acts of oppression is somwhat different to the irish nation oppressing others. thats quite a leap
Well said. After all if you want to take the Second World War as an Example,
William Joyce an Irishman was the voice of Nazi Propaganda on The English Language service of German Radio. Brendan Bracken , another Irishman was Winston Churchill's private secretary.
Ireland did not as a Nation since 1922 invade anybody or wage war as a Nation state, against Anybody!
Again I would argue was it a matter of State policy?
Irish Emigration to all the countries you mentioned bar the USA occurred when they were under British Rule and the same principles apply in the case of your army instances. All emigrants behaved in the same way. If there was someone they could dump on to get higher up the ladder they would do so.
It's not a uniquely Irish behavioural trait
Thunderblaster
Using your logic ....
Austria started the First World War...
And Adolf Hitler, who started the Second World War, was an Austrian therefore Austria is the most evil state on earth!
thats racist.....
to be fair, we are taking this joker far too seriously.
Last edited by Roverstillidie; 19/04/2006 at 11:23 PM.
Hitler is a different animal that we won't discuss.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn!!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks