« WHAT A C*** | Main | THREE CHEERS FOR BENEDICT 16TH! »

April 22, 2005

Comments

YI:

"NI was attained through threat of force from the UVF and was built on the destabilisation of the island."

"Also, the ROI is NOT destabilised..."

So then, the ROI has recovered from destabilisation or it hasn't, or it has been re-destabilised if it is.

And certainly agitating for a "united Ireland" is destabilising to NI.

If ROI is not now destabilised by legitimising SF/IRA, it soon will be.

Young  Irelander

"So then, the ROI has recovered from destabilisation or it hasn't, or it has been re-destabilised if it is."

What in God's name are you on about man? You are the one who made the remarks. Can you not back them up? The ROI is quite clearly NOT destabilised. We have institutions that work and the economy is in good shape.
Destabilised? What rubbish!

"And certainly agitating for a "united Ireland" is destabilising to NI."

How so? Not only that, but why should nationalists care about "destabilising" a state that was built upon the idea of discriminating against them?

"If ROI is not now destabilised by legitimising SF/IRA, it soon will be."

I disagree. SF won't attain the level of support down south that they can attain in the North.

Ultonian Scottis American

And remind me again: which stable Western democratic country's leader has to continually refuse to form a gov't with a political party because it's backed by a private army?

Pres Bush: "We can't share government with the Democratic Party because they are linked to violent crime and are backed by a private army."

The very next day the US stock, bond, and Dollar markets would crash. The US would be destabilised by that remark alone, uttered only one time.

Get real, YI.

Young  Irelander

Bertie Ahern DOESN'T HAVE TO CONTINUALLY REFUSE to go into government with Sinn Fein. He chooses not to. He has other options available. This is what your argument that the ROI is destabilised is based on?I suggest you get real.

Also, your point about Bush and the Democrats makes no sense! You really are clueless about my country!

Ultonian Scottis American

YI, in previous posts of your'n, you wrote:

"NI was attained through threat of force from the UVF and was built on the destabilisation of the island."

"Also, the ROI is NOT destabilised..."

----------------------------------------------

So let me take it slowly.

So the island was destabilized. But ROI is not now destabilised. Was Saorstat/ROI ever destabilized? If not, what was destabilised, just NI? Has NI been destabilised ever since, and this is all the fault of the UK, because Irish nationalists north or south are not now destabilising, nor have they ever destabilised NI?

Or was NI doing pretty well until Irish nationalists turned it into a war zone?


Young  Irelander

Ultonian,

It was YOU who made the point that the ROI was destabilised due to legalising SF. This is nonsense as the ROI is NOT destabilised! I never claimed that the ROI hs never been destabilised. YOU MADE THE POINT SO THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO BACK IT UP. For what it's worth, I'd say that of course in the early years of the Irish Free State there was instability due to us having a civil war and everything! The point I have been making however is that the ROI (contrary to your claim) is NOT unstable at present. Your comments were laughably inaccurate.

Also, you'll find NI became a war zone due to unionist/British actions and not the actions of Irish nationalists. Get yourself a history book like a good lad.

Ultonian Scottis American

YI:

And which book would that be? Maybe "All The IRA Bombs Were Really Planted By MI5" by Martin McGuinness or perhaps "Irish Nationalists Made Ulster Prosperous And Those Damned Loyalists Just Threw It All Away" by Gerry Adams? Maybe "The ROI Never Sent Guns To Help Kill NI Unionists" by Charlie Haughey. Definitely "No IRA Terrorists Receive Sanctuary In My Country" by Jack Lynch; it's a hoot.

So Bertie doesn't really care about SF being financed and beholden to a violent criminal private army? Once the other problems are cleared up, Bertie will have no problem welcoming SF/IRA into ROI gov't? Sounds like a text book case of classic destabilised country to me. Better crown Gerry Ard Ri and re-launch the Tain.

Young  Irelander

Ultonian,

How can we have an adult debate if you seek to rant and whine like a little child? Since you're probably not a fan of literature, check out the internet instead and read up on the actions of the British in the island of Ireland!

Also, what's your last paragraph about? Bertie Ahern will not allow SF into government in the south so your comments make no sense You are running your mouth about my country despite having a severe lack of knowledge about it. Educate yourself first, Ultonian. You are making yourself a laughing stock.

I have heard some ridiculous statements in the past but to claim that the ROI is a destabilised country really takes the biscuit! You can't back up your farcical comments!

Ultonian Scottis American

YI:

In my opinion, ANY country that even allows a "party" like SF to run in elections whilst shilling for a terrorist group is de facto destabilised. Obviously, you don't.

As for books on Ireland that I've read, they've ranged from the "Tain", "Annals of The Four Masters", and "The Banquet of Dun Na N-Gedh & The Battle of Magh Ragh", through "The Story of The Irish Race", RTE's "History of Ireland", and "The History of Ulster" and "Secret Hitory of the IRA". This is probably less than 10% of the total.

I do remember working a Scottish Society booth at an International Festive here in the states whilst wearing an orange t-shirt with the words "Antrim" emblazed over a picture of the Giant's Causeway. A man with an Irish accent asked me why. I proudly explained that the origin of the Kings of Scotland began with Ulster Kings of Dal Rioghfhada, who gave their name to both The Route and British Dalriada. He began screaming at me that he had studied history at some university in Dublin, and that he had NEVER head such lies before. You must have been one of his classmates.

willowfield

U S A

The "state" is no less an intangible idea than a "nation", maybe more. Both have boundaries, but "state" (in the political sense) is a legal concept subject to immediate change. "Nation" in the sense of "ethnicity" seems to be more objective, although subject to political chicanery.

No. The state is tangible: it has institutions, laws, employees, a boundary, etc. The “nation” has none of these.

However, I could tell immediately when I crossed from the Flemish region of Belgium into the Walloon region. These two "nations" seem to have a palpably different ethos, as well as I suppose DNA groupings, although they share the same "State".

But you passed from the Flemish “state” (i.e. the territorial/legal entity) to the Walloon “state”. The “nations”, if such exist, are merely the commonly imagined cultural/ethnic ties, customs, traditions and culture that bind its members together, regardless of where they live, or of which state they are inhabitants.

willowfield

Young Irelander

I'm not aware of many nationalists who view the Irish nation beyond the confines of the island of Ireland.

So Irish-Americans, say, aren’t part of the “Irish nation”?

Interesting. But I disagree.

Hitler proffered a dangerous form of nationalism; I do not. The history of Ireland is very different to that of Austria. This goes without saying.

Nonetheless you share Hitler's desire to expand territory on the basis that the “nation” is somehow a territorial entity, and you share the belief that the views of the inhabitants of particular territories are of secondary importance to some kind of imperative to unite a pre-ordained territory.

A nation is beyond the imagination. For example, look at the UK - Wales, Scotland and England are nations but the UK itself is not a nation.

The “nation” is an imaginary concept that transcends territory: the Welsh, Scottish and English nations exist within and beyond the legally-defined territories known as Wales, Scotland and England: they exist in the minds of those who believe themselves to belong to such "nations". The UK, on the other hand, is a state that exists within its boundaries.

The Irish nation acknowledges the right of the NI state to be part of the United Kingdom if the majority in NI want to remain there.

That may be your belief. All we know, however, is that the Southern Irish state, the UK state (including particularly the inhabitants of NI), and virtually all other states in the world, acknowledge said right.

NI was attained through threat of force from the UVF and was built on the destabilisation of the island.

ROI was attained through the threat of force from the IRA and was built on the destablisation of these islands. … And your point is?

The people of Ireland never asked for partition, we had it thrust upon us. It was a disgrace and it was wrong.

The people of the British Isles never asked for a partition of the islands, they had it thrust upon them. It was a disgrace and it was wrong. … And your point is?

It is wrong to keep a people divided.

So why do you wish to keep the people of the British Isles divided? Hypocrite!

The border has failed in its objective of segregating Irish from Irish.

So why do you propose a border to segregate British from British? Hypocrite!

Young  Irelander

Ultonian,

The ROI is a democracy and as such, any party is entitled to run for office. Do you believe the British should ban the BNP from running for office? Allowing SF run for elections in the ROI does not make the ROI unstable.

willowfield,

I would say that the Irish in America, Australia and elsewhere have a special affinity to the Irish nation but are not a part of it specifically.
Also, I think your comments comparing me to Hitler are certainly too far. I'm a supporter of the GFA and support unity by consent. Also, let's not forget that Ireland was once a united land and that I and many others are seeking reunification NOT unification.

"ROI was attained through threat of force from the IRA"

I take it you mean the Irish Free State and there was more to it than that as you well know. It was a complex issue that shaped politics in the south for generations.

"The people of the British Isles never asked for a partition of the islands"

Ireland made up one half of the "British Isles" and opposed the Act of Union. There was much dishonesty in how the Act of Union came about as well let's not forget.

"So why do you wish to keep the people of the British Isles divided? Hypocrite!"

The 'British Isles' is not a nation and English, Scottish and Welsh people are not MY PEOPLE. The people of the Irish nation are divided and this is wrong in my opinion.

"So why do you propose a border to segregate British from British?"

I don't seek to impose a border on the British mainland. Are you suggesting that I am somehow British?

Ultonian Scottis American

willowfield:

Maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges, but if I was setting up the books for a musical group, I would include things like the band's patents, trademarks and copyrights under "intangible assets". You can touch the pieces of paper that bestow legal ownership, but that doesn't make them these assets tangible. One the other hand, instruments would be listed as "tanglible assets". Now whether or not a saxophone is a brass instrument or not, or whether a French horn should be listed as a woodwind instrument are debatable points. But even if they don't work, you cannot deny their existance. However, at the stroke of a pen, a "state" can exist or not exist. The people and culture that make up or made up a "nation" are there as such, no matter what you call them.

Since neither the Walloon nor Flemish area of Belgium have a vote in the UN nor are they recognized as sovereign governments by any other country, I don't think that they qualify as "states" as we have been discussing them. The state, in this case, is Belgium.

The Flemish Nation includes the Vlams of Belgium as well as The Netherlands. Belgium was created in 1836(?) - did not the Flemish Nation exist before this?

Ultonian Scottis American

YI:

If the BNP is steeped in criminality and has a well-armed private army, that alone calls for not being allowed to run for political office. If, in addition, they actively seek the destruction of the state, all the more reason to ban them. To allow otherwise is hardly the hallmark of a democratic state, and led to the downfall of the Wiemar Republic as well as Karinsky's government. It shows a government cowed by a threat of rebellion, revolution, or worse. And you consider this "stable"?!? Whatever, dude.

willowfield

Young Irelander

I would say that the Irish in America, Australia and elsewhere have a special affinity to the Irish nation but are not a part of it specifically.

Why?

If you emigrated would you suddenly cease to be part of the "Irish nation"? What about when you go away on holiday?

Also, I think your comments comparing me to Hitler are certainly too far.

Why's that? I've pointed out the similarities in your views: what's wrong with that? If you dispute this, you are free to try to demonstrate the difference between your belief in an imperative to unite a pre-ordained territory in the name of the "nation", with Hitler's desire to do the same thing.

I take it you mean the Irish Free State ...

The ROI evolved out of the Free State.

... and there was more to it than that as you well know. It was a complex issue that shaped politics in the south for generations.

There was more to NI's establishment as you well know. It was a complex issue that shaped politics in the north for generations ... And your point is??

Ireland made up one half of the "British Isles" and opposed the Act of Union.

One half????? The north-east of Ireland made up one half (using your mathematics) of "Ireland" and opposed Irish independence. ... And your point is?

"So why do you wish to keep the people of the British Isles divided? Hypocrite!"

The 'British Isles' is not a nation and English, Scottish and Welsh people are not MY PEOPLE. The people of the Irish nation are divided and this is wrong in my opinion.

The island of 'Ireland' is not a nation and Irish Nationalist people are not MY PEOPLE. The people of the British nation would be divided and this would be wrong in my opinion. ... And your point is??

I don't seek to impose a border on the British mainland.

No-one said you did. You were asked: "So why do you propose a border to segregate British from British?" Please answer the question.

willowfield

USA

The people and culture that make up or made up a "nation" are there as such, no matter what you call them.

Yes. And?

Since neither the Walloon nor Flemish area of Belgium have a vote in the UN nor are they recognized as sovereign governments by any other country, I don't think that they qualify as "states" as we have been discussing them. The state, in this case, is Belgium.

I already explained what I meant by "state". See my previous response to you: "territorial/legal entity". Use that term if you prefer.

The Flemish Nation includes the Vlams of Belgium as well as The Netherlands. Belgium was created in 1836(?) - did not the Flemish Nation exist before this?

It has existed for as long as people have believed it to exist. Of course that predates the creation of Belgium.

Nothing that you have said alters the fact that the "nation" is not a territory: it is a collection of people who share in their imaginations the belief that together they form a "nation", bound together by some kind of shared values/culture/history, whatever.

The "state", on the other hand, unlike a "nation", is a legal/territorial entity.

It's not rocket science.

Young Irelander and Hitler share the belief that the "nation" is a territory as well as a people, and believe that there is an imperative to bring all the nation's supposed territory under the control of the "nation", regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory. Young Irelander believes this should be achieved peacefully. Hitler attempted it by force.

Ultonian Scottis American

willowfield

No question, "nation" (in the ethnic sense) is not co-terminous with "state" (territorial/legal entity), although there can be overlap. And the wider the net is cast to include all of an ethnicity within a single territorial/legal entity, the more likely that exclusive ethnicity is diluted.

This seems to say that in the event of a "united Ireland", the Irish nation, which hegemony over the island of Ireland YI seems to think is necessary for Irish nationhood, stands a good chance of being diminished even more than it currently is.

willowfield

Wouldn't argue too much with that.

The comments to this entry are closed.