LOLZZZZZ. Steve Staunton is Rep Ireland's football manager for the uninformed or don't give a shit.IG-Calibre wrote:
apparently the GAA are starting to get really worried bout the state of the grass after the rugby games and think they will need to fertlize it. Panic over apparently Steve Staunton has told them not to worry. he's putting a pile of shite on in a few weeks ...
It's funny how it stops being terrorism when the 'terrorists' have won and are then in charge. Then they say their struggle was a war of Independence. History is written by the winners, that's why i disagree with the word terrorist, it's too subjective. The British would have referred to the Americans as terrorists or insurgents back in the days of colonial rule. If the Irish hadn't had their own struggle for Independence they'd still be under the yoke of British oppression and treated as second class citizens with their culture, language and religious beliefs suppressed (Not that I'm a fan of religion, but everyone should have the freedom of choice).
It's pointless even arguing about whether it's terrorism or freedom fighting, all that matters in the end is who wins because they'll decide what goes in the history books. Personally i think it's only a matter of time before Ireland is unified, i think it's inevitable as long as the catholic population keeps increasing faster than the protestant population and so long as a democratic voting system is in place.
It's pointless even arguing about whether it's terrorism or freedom fighting, all that matters in the end is who wins because they'll decide what goes in the history books. Personally i think it's only a matter of time before Ireland is unified, i think it's inevitable as long as the catholic population keeps increasing faster than the protestant population and so long as a democratic voting system is in place.
Thats the way of it, There was a time Nelson Mandela was a "terrorist" then became one if the worlds greatest statesmen..Braddock wrote:
It's funny how it stops being terrorism when the 'terrorists' have won and are then in charge. Then they say their struggle was a war of Independence. History is written by the winners, that's why i disagree with the word terrorist, it's too subjective. The British would have referred to the Americans as terrorists or insurgents back in the days of colonial rule. If the Irish hadn't had their own struggle for Independence they'd still be under the yoke of British oppression and treated as second class citizens with their culture, language and religious beliefs suppressed (Not that I'm a fan of religion, but everyone should have the freedom of choice).
It's pointless even arguing about whether it's terrorism or freedom fighting, all that matters in the end is who wins because they'll decide what goes in the history books. Personally i think it's only a matter of time before Ireland is unified, i think it's inevitable as long as the catholic population keeps increasing faster than the protestant population and so long as a democratic voting system is in place.
Personally i think it's only a matter of time before Ireland is unified, i think it's inevitable as long as the catholic population keeps increasing faster than the protestant population and so long as a democratic voting system is in place.
My words exactly.
My words exactly.
Not that Mandela's situation can be compared in any shape or form. Two completely different ball games.IG-Calibre wrote:
Thats the way of it, There was a time Nelson Mandela was a "terrorist" then became one if the worlds greatest statesmen..
Why not? Black south Africans had invaders rule over them. They had their right to own land revoked. Not aloud to bear arms, put in jail without trial, had their lands stole from them and then forced to pay their landlords to farm their own land. Very much similar.ProudLimey wrote:
Not that Mandela's situation can be compared in any shape or form. Two completely different ball games.IG-Calibre wrote:
Thats the way of it, There was a time Nelson Mandela was a "terrorist" then became one if the worlds greatest statesmen..
From The Daily Mail yesterday (UK paper!)
Opening Croke Park a different perspective
Tipperary’s popular half-back and captain, Michael ’Mick’ Hogan, who had travelled to Dublin for an afternoon’s sport to play in a friendly against Dublin, lay motionless on the greensward of Croke Park, blood oozing from his gunshot wounds, cut down by a British machine gun. So too Jane Boyle, dressed in her Sunday best, who had attended the match with her fiance and was to have got married five days later, and William Scott, a fanatical 14-year-old ’Dub’ or Dublin supporter.
A couple of yards away lay 11-year-old William Robinson and 10-year-old Jerome O’Leary - good friends, Gaelic football fanatics and defenceless children who were bleeding to death after being gunned down by the so-called tough men of the Black and Tans. At one point during an afternoon of madness, the Tipperary and Dublin teams were lined up in the centre of Croke Park to be executed summarily by the British but mercifully a high-ranking, although unidentified, officer intervened and screamed that there had been enough killing on this awful day. November 21, 1920. Bloody Sunday. The first Bloody Sunday, that is. The second followed 52 years later in Derry.
In all, 14 Irish citizens were killed by British forces at Croke Park on Bloody Sunday and 80 badly wounded - including Hogan’s Tipperary colleague Jim Egan - which goes a long way to explaining why the ground is so strongly identified with Irish nationalism. Part shrine, part cathedral, a living historical monument to the freedom fight. Hill 16 - the massive terrace that holds up to 15,000 fans - is built on the rubble of Sackville Street (renamed O’Connell Street when the British moved out) after the uprising of Easter 1916 had left the city centre in a state of some disrepair. The rubble was carted out to Croke Park, piled high and grassed over.
It is a mercifully rare, probably unique, occurrence for a sportsman to be shot dead by British troops on the field of play, so the story of Mick Hogan warrants re-telling. Indeed, just telling - it is doubtful if anybody this side of the Irish Sea without Irish antecedents has ever even heard it. Strangely, it was never included in history lessons in British schools.
Horan was born at Currasilla near Nine-Mile-House in Tipperary in 1896 into an old and much respected farming family. A talented sportsman who played for the Grangemockler GAA club, he rose quickly though the junior ranks to captain Tipperary, and like most able-bodied men in the area he joined the local volunteers to help in the underground fight to rid Ireland of the occupying British Army. Indeed, as a natural leader, he had been elected company commander of the Grangemockler Volunteers on the Friday night before the Tipperary team travelled up to Dublin by train the next day.
The Irish War of Independence (1919-21) had meant that all Gaelic sport had been banned by the occupying forces throughout 1920 but by the autumn a few inter-county matches had been allowed and Tipperary’s game against Dublin - undoubtedly the two top sides of the era - had been organised hastily to raise funds for the families of those who had been imprisoned by the British. It was undeniably an overt political act during a period of extreme tension. While that does not excuse anything that followed, it does place the incident in context.
Bloody Sunday took place soon after the death of hunger striker Terence McSwiney and execution of Kevin Barry, and the Irish Republican Army were looking for revenge. Early on the morning of the match, in an operation planned by Michael Collins, a hit squad - the 12 Apostles - staged a series of raids on British intelligence officers in Dublin who were collectively known as the Cairo Gang. An hour later 14 covert intelligence officers had been killed and six badly wounded.
The British Army, based at Collinswood, considered how to retaliate and thoughts turned immediately to Croke Park where a crowd of between 15,000 and 20,000 people was expected. In fact, however, Dublin was in such turmoil that day that the figure was nearer 10,000. The Army later argued that such a crowd was probably the best hiding place for the assassination squad and their intention was to search everybody as they left after the game. Anybody not cooperating would be shot dead on the spot.
It was a combined exercise between the Police (RIC) and the Army (Black and Tans), with the latter taking the lead. A spotter aircraft was dispatched to fly over Croke Park where the game had started half-an-hour late, and three armoured vehicles circled the ground. However, contrary to Hollywood’s version in the film of Michael Collins - Liam Neeson taking the starring role - a tank did not burst on to the field itself.
On the approach of the soldiers and police, the turnstile attendants raised the alarm, a stampede ensued and the armed forces rushed straight into the ground and on to the pitch, firing indiscriminately. In the chaos it is doubtful if they actually targeted Hogan as such, although Army officials would probably have known of his background and that of other players. They were simply reckless as to whom they killed.
Later that night two IRA officers, Dick McKee and Paedar Clancy, were arrested for their alleged part in the morning assassinations and shot dead at Dublin Castle while "trying to escape". Meanwhile Hogan’s remains, accompanied by the team, arrived in Clonmel on the Wednesday after the game. Thousands joined the funeral procession to Grangemockler.
He was buried in his Tipperary football suit, the coffin was draped with the Tricolour and lowered into the grave by the men who had played beside him on that fateful day.
Thirty years later the main stand at Croke Park was named in his honour and one of the massive new stands retains his name. They say sport and politics shouldn’t mix but on this day they were indivisible - which explains why Croke Park will always be more than just a sports stadium and Mick Hogan is more than just a Tipperary football player.
Opening Croke Park a different perspective
Tipperary’s popular half-back and captain, Michael ’Mick’ Hogan, who had travelled to Dublin for an afternoon’s sport to play in a friendly against Dublin, lay motionless on the greensward of Croke Park, blood oozing from his gunshot wounds, cut down by a British machine gun. So too Jane Boyle, dressed in her Sunday best, who had attended the match with her fiance and was to have got married five days later, and William Scott, a fanatical 14-year-old ’Dub’ or Dublin supporter.
A couple of yards away lay 11-year-old William Robinson and 10-year-old Jerome O’Leary - good friends, Gaelic football fanatics and defenceless children who were bleeding to death after being gunned down by the so-called tough men of the Black and Tans. At one point during an afternoon of madness, the Tipperary and Dublin teams were lined up in the centre of Croke Park to be executed summarily by the British but mercifully a high-ranking, although unidentified, officer intervened and screamed that there had been enough killing on this awful day. November 21, 1920. Bloody Sunday. The first Bloody Sunday, that is. The second followed 52 years later in Derry.
In all, 14 Irish citizens were killed by British forces at Croke Park on Bloody Sunday and 80 badly wounded - including Hogan’s Tipperary colleague Jim Egan - which goes a long way to explaining why the ground is so strongly identified with Irish nationalism. Part shrine, part cathedral, a living historical monument to the freedom fight. Hill 16 - the massive terrace that holds up to 15,000 fans - is built on the rubble of Sackville Street (renamed O’Connell Street when the British moved out) after the uprising of Easter 1916 had left the city centre in a state of some disrepair. The rubble was carted out to Croke Park, piled high and grassed over.
It is a mercifully rare, probably unique, occurrence for a sportsman to be shot dead by British troops on the field of play, so the story of Mick Hogan warrants re-telling. Indeed, just telling - it is doubtful if anybody this side of the Irish Sea without Irish antecedents has ever even heard it. Strangely, it was never included in history lessons in British schools.
Horan was born at Currasilla near Nine-Mile-House in Tipperary in 1896 into an old and much respected farming family. A talented sportsman who played for the Grangemockler GAA club, he rose quickly though the junior ranks to captain Tipperary, and like most able-bodied men in the area he joined the local volunteers to help in the underground fight to rid Ireland of the occupying British Army. Indeed, as a natural leader, he had been elected company commander of the Grangemockler Volunteers on the Friday night before the Tipperary team travelled up to Dublin by train the next day.
The Irish War of Independence (1919-21) had meant that all Gaelic sport had been banned by the occupying forces throughout 1920 but by the autumn a few inter-county matches had been allowed and Tipperary’s game against Dublin - undoubtedly the two top sides of the era - had been organised hastily to raise funds for the families of those who had been imprisoned by the British. It was undeniably an overt political act during a period of extreme tension. While that does not excuse anything that followed, it does place the incident in context.
Bloody Sunday took place soon after the death of hunger striker Terence McSwiney and execution of Kevin Barry, and the Irish Republican Army were looking for revenge. Early on the morning of the match, in an operation planned by Michael Collins, a hit squad - the 12 Apostles - staged a series of raids on British intelligence officers in Dublin who were collectively known as the Cairo Gang. An hour later 14 covert intelligence officers had been killed and six badly wounded.
The British Army, based at Collinswood, considered how to retaliate and thoughts turned immediately to Croke Park where a crowd of between 15,000 and 20,000 people was expected. In fact, however, Dublin was in such turmoil that day that the figure was nearer 10,000. The Army later argued that such a crowd was probably the best hiding place for the assassination squad and their intention was to search everybody as they left after the game. Anybody not cooperating would be shot dead on the spot.
It was a combined exercise between the Police (RIC) and the Army (Black and Tans), with the latter taking the lead. A spotter aircraft was dispatched to fly over Croke Park where the game had started half-an-hour late, and three armoured vehicles circled the ground. However, contrary to Hollywood’s version in the film of Michael Collins - Liam Neeson taking the starring role - a tank did not burst on to the field itself.
On the approach of the soldiers and police, the turnstile attendants raised the alarm, a stampede ensued and the armed forces rushed straight into the ground and on to the pitch, firing indiscriminately. In the chaos it is doubtful if they actually targeted Hogan as such, although Army officials would probably have known of his background and that of other players. They were simply reckless as to whom they killed.
Later that night two IRA officers, Dick McKee and Paedar Clancy, were arrested for their alleged part in the morning assassinations and shot dead at Dublin Castle while "trying to escape". Meanwhile Hogan’s remains, accompanied by the team, arrived in Clonmel on the Wednesday after the game. Thousands joined the funeral procession to Grangemockler.
He was buried in his Tipperary football suit, the coffin was draped with the Tricolour and lowered into the grave by the men who had played beside him on that fateful day.
Thirty years later the main stand at Croke Park was named in his honour and one of the massive new stands retains his name. They say sport and politics shouldn’t mix but on this day they were indivisible - which explains why Croke Park will always be more than just a sports stadium and Mick Hogan is more than just a Tipperary football player.
Exactly, why does Britain always try to say there's no comparison between the Irish struggle and the likes of the African collonial struggles? Foreign invaders, civil and human rights abuses... how many similarities does it take before the two can be compared?JahaManRed wrote:
Why not? Black south Africans had invaders rule over them. They had their right to own land revoked. Not aloud to bear arms, put in jail without trial, had their lands stole from them and then forced to pay their landlords to farm their own land. Very much similar.
JahManRed wrote:
Why not? Black south Africans had invaders rule over them. They had their right to own land revoked. Not aloud to bear arms, put in jail without trial, had their lands stole from them and then forced to pay their landlords to farm their own land. Very much similar.
I'm sorry, I thought you were originally comparing Mandela to the more recent activities of IRA, but my mistake as you're clearly talking about pre-1921. I can see where you draw the similarities from, but the main difference between the Irish struggle and colonial struggles is race and religion. Mandela's struggle against apartheid (*not* a colonial struggle) was based on race equality. The Irish struggle centred on religion. These so called "foreign invaders" had been settled for hundreds of years by the C20th, the landowning class as you mentioned were mainly Protestant Irish. The Irish were fighting for independance, Mandela was not. Of course both groups suffered, but that does not make them the same.Braddock wrote:
Exactly, why does Britain always try to say there's no comparison between the Irish struggle and the likes of the African collonial struggles? Foreign invaders, civil and human rights abuses... how many similarities does it take before the two can be compared?
Also remember that the Irish were not just the colonised, but the colonisers also. Quite ironic really. Look at the nineteenth century:
1830: 42% of Irish were in army
1890: Viceroy of India Lord Lansdowne was Irish
7/8 of governors of Indian provinces were Irish
1/4 of army officers in India were Irish
And not all of them were Protestant (e.g. McDonald in India).
Back to the main topic: All I'm arguing is not to look at these two struggles in a black and white way. Yes, similarities can be found, that's not very difficult There are similarities between the British concentration camps in South Africa and the Nazi concentration camps in Germany, but we don't go calling the British Nazis (at least I hope we don't^^). Similarities do not necessarily make two things the same.
Last edited by ProudLimey (2007-02-14 08:22:56)
This is not strictly true many great United Irishmen were Protestant - Loyalist sectarian violence in the Northern Irish conflict centered on religion - any Catholic would do as a murder victim they didn't distinguish between those either Republican/Nationalist/Pro Union.ProudLimey wrote:
The Irish struggle centred on religion..
Okay, perhaps my statement was a bit broad but on the whole that was the key dividing line.IG-Calibre wrote:
This is not strictly true...
No, maybe in your interperation of the conflict it was, but you're not seeing the bigger picture, it was predominately an issue of Union which is not a sectarian issue per sayProudLimey wrote:
Okay, perhaps my statement was a bit broad but on the whole that was the key dividing line.IG-Calibre wrote:
This is not strictly true...
That's such a narrow way of looking at the complex political situation in the North. I consider myself a Republican and I'm an atheist. As an example: when someone decides to take up arms against the British army as a result of 26 civil rights protesters being killed by members of the British Parachute regiment do you think they're doing it because religious freedom is top of their agenda? The situation in the north (from a republican point of view) is about a people wanting to gain control in a society that they believe has been taken from them by the British, a society where they are now subjected to being treated as second class citizens and policed by a force with a unionist/loyalist majority.ProudLimey wrote:
Okay, perhaps my statement was a bit broad but on the whole that was the key dividing line.
IG-Calibre wrote:
No, maybe in your interperation of the conflict it was, but you're not seeing the bigger picture, it was predominately an issue of Union which is not a sectarian issue per say
I think I should reiterate. I was using religion as a cause for tension in contrast with race as a cause for tension in South Africa. As for Ireland, I never said that religion was the *only* cause for friction, but it was *a* dividing line for a long time; that can't be disputed. Of course it was not the only cause, but I was using it as a comparison: nothing more. Hope that's clear!Braddock wrote:
That's such a narrow way of looking at the complex political situation in the North. I consider myself a Republican and I'm an atheist. As an example: when someone decides to take up arms against the British army as a result of 26 civil rights protesters being killed by members of the British Parachute regiment do you think they're doing it because religious freedom is top of their agenda? The situation in the north (from a republican point of view) is about a people wanting to gain control in a society that they believe has been taken from them by the British, a society where they are now subjected to being treated as second class citizens and policed by a force with a unionist/loyalist majority.ProudLimey wrote:
Okay, perhaps my statement was a bit broad but on the whole that was the key dividing line.
Braddock, you're putting words into my mouth. The only thing I have been talking about is the conflict pre-1921 in Ireland and Mandela's struggle in South Africa. I never, ever, mentioned anything to do with the situation in the North, nor whether it's right or wrong to take up arms. That's going off on a tangent.
Last edited by ProudLimey (2007-02-14 11:00:33)
look the actually motivations to the various struggles are inconsequential. The "accepted" perception of Mandela at one time was that of a terrorist. Fact. Yet he still became a world statesman. Fact.
And for that he is unique. Fact. There won't be another statesmen like who commands the same amount of respect than Mandela, not for a long time anyway.. I disagree that the motivations behind Mandela's struggle is 'inconsequential'. If his main cause had been anything other than racial equality, we wouldn't see him in the same glowing light.IG-Calibre wrote:
look the actually motivations to the various struggles are inconsequential. The "accepted" perception of Mandela at one time was that of a terrorist. Fact. Yet he still became a world statesman. Fact.
I agree, but that is not the inconsequentiality I was referring to tbhProudLimey wrote:
And for that he is unique. Fact. There won't be another statesmen like who commands the same amount of respect than Mandela, not for a long time anyway.. I disagree that the motivations behind Mandela's struggle is 'inconsequential'. If his main cause had been anything other than racial equality, we wouldn't see him in the same glowing light.IG-Calibre wrote:
look the actually motivations to the various struggles are inconsequential. The "accepted" perception of Mandela at one time was that of a terrorist. Fact. Yet he still became a world statesman. Fact.
This is off topic, but since I know almost nothing about the Ireland situation, has Northern Ireland ever had a referendum on independence? It seems like if the majority of the people in N. Ireland want to stay, let them stay. It'll be harder for the people who live in mixed neighborhoods, but there's always been the option of moving to Ireland if they find it so unchangeably oppressive.
I would say in all honesty Loyalists are now in the minority (people who want to remain in the UK) though it's not offical yet, make no mistake the complete reunification of the island has been agreed in principle since partition, it's a question now of "when" the referendum on reunification happens, but, as of a few weeks time if (and thats a very big if!!) everyting goes according to plan, British involvement in many major aeras will be removed from the Island of Ireland completely, and, we will be a lot closer to that day.. (The last British WatchTower was dismantled today!!)UGADawgs wrote:
This is off topic, but since I know almost nothing about the Ireland situation, has Northern Ireland ever had a referendum on independence? It seems like if the majority of the people in N. Ireland want to stay, let them stay. It'll be harder for the people who live in mixed neighborhoods, but there's always been the option of moving to Ireland if they find it so unchangeably oppressive.
To balance things out a bit....
A poll conducted in 2005. If someone has a more recent poll then please give a link!
Do you think the long-term policy for Northern Ireland should be for it…
to remain part of the United Kingdom 58 %
or, to reunify with the rest of Ireland? 23%
(Independent state) 7%
Other answer (please specify) 2%
Don't know 11%
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2005/Politica … ELAND.html
A poll conducted in 2005. If someone has a more recent poll then please give a link!
Do you think the long-term policy for Northern Ireland should be for it…
to remain part of the United Kingdom 58 %
or, to reunify with the rest of Ireland? 23%
(Independent state) 7%
Other answer (please specify) 2%
Don't know 11%
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2005/Politica … ELAND.html
Last edited by ProudLimey (2007-02-14 16:50:01)
I understand that you may see it that way but I view the situation in the North as a continuous struggle and not one that can be divided into sections. You could replace my reference to Bloody Sunday with the way Irish catholics were not allowed to attend school or speak their own language (and in that instance it it was the British that decided catholicism would be a point upon which to segregate classes of people, I would've been an atheist if I'd lived back then too but the British would no doubt have seen me as a catholic and treated me accordingly. Perhaps this is where a confusion of concepts arises in many British people's attitudes, Catholicism was seen not just as a religion back then but as a race almost and that idea has persisted somewhat to this day).ProudLimey wrote:
Braddock, you're putting words into my mouth. The only thing I have been talking about is the conflict pre-1921 in Ireland and Mandela's struggle in South Africa. I never, ever, mentioned anything to do with the situation in the North, nor whether it's right or wrong to take up arms. That's going off on a tangent.
It is true that religion is a point of conflict in the north, that's obvious, but in terms of Republicans desire to regain the occupied Counties religion doesn't really enter into it. It just happens that many of the people involved in the struggle come from Catholic backgrounds.
By the way it will be a United Ireland rugby team that plays England at Croke Park in the six nations. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.
That poll means nothing, it's now 2007 and N.Ireland has seen a massive influx of Europeans onto the island since then, there are an estimated 40K Polish people alone, that's one former occupied country, probably an even larger number of Portuguese (mainly Catholic), then there are all the migrants from former slavic, soviet, occupied countries forging new lives for themselves here now. This Country is massively changed from 2005..
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-02-15 04:20:02)
I'm not here to defend how the British conducted themselves in Ireland in the nineteenth century, and I understand you feel strongly on the subject, however it's worth reminding yourself that when Catholic Emancipation came in 1829 (and after that) the landowning class had long been Irish, if what anglocised. Also, the working class in Britain were not much better off around this time. As I say I understand where you're coming from, but I get annoyed by this constant sense of being the 'victims' (a few that some, but not many Irish) seem to hold, and blaming the British for everything bad that has ever happened in Ireland. That attitude can only go so far.Braddock wrote:
I understand that you may see it that way but I view the situation in the North as a continuous struggle and not one that can be divided into sections. You could replace my reference to Bloody Sunday with the way Irish catholics were not allowed to attend school or speak their own language (and in that instance it it was the British that decided catholicism would be a point upon which to segregate classes of people, I would've been an atheist if I'd lived back then too but the British would no doubt have seen me as a catholic and treated me accordingly. Perhaps this is where a confusion of concepts arises in many British people's attitudes, Catholicism was seen not just as a religion back then but as a race almost and that idea has persisted somewhat to this day).ProudLimey wrote:
Braddock, you're putting words into my mouth. The only thing I have been talking about is the conflict pre-1921 in Ireland and Mandela's struggle in South Africa. I never, ever, mentioned anything to do with the situation in the North, nor whether it's right or wrong to take up arms. That's going off on a tangent.
It is true that religion is a point of conflict in the north, that's obvious, but in terms of Republicans desire to regain the occupied Counties religion doesn't really enter into it. It just happens that many of the people involved in the struggle come from Catholic backgrounds.
By the way it will be a United Ireland rugby team that plays England at Croke Park in the six nations. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.
As for United Ireland Rugby team, I'm all for it. But I'm also all for it when the British and Irish Lions play. That is the real elite squad.
IG, the poll was only conducted under a year and a half ago, I really doubt that much has changed since then. You mention the Polish and Portuguese immigrants moving into Northern Ireland, how many of those are economic migrants who will return after a few years? Also, how do you know that they are all ardent republicans? Afterall, they chose the UK over the RoI, didn't they? I know that there are many Polish migrants who enter the RoI, but you should distinguish between them and those who choose the UK. The likelihood is that they chose NI 1.) because there are more Catholics than the rest of UK, and 2.)because of the healthy economy (look at Belfast house prices for that). I don't see how they affect the poll in any way.IG-Calibre wrote:
That poll means nothing, it's now 2007 and N.Ireland has seen a massive influx of Europeans onto the island since then, there are an estimated 40K Polish people alone, that's one former occupied country, probably an even larger number of Portuguese (mainly Catholic), then there are all the migrants from former slavic, soviet, occupied countries forging new lives for themselves here now. This Country is massively changed from 2005..
Last edited by ProudLimey (2007-02-15 06:40:37)
Did you know that when Ken Loach and other great British directors began giving a voice to the working class people of Britain in the 70's and 80's the British Government put in place various obstacles for catholics in relation to gaining funding as they were afraid similar dramas involving Irish Catholics might strike too much of a chord with the British working class and thus lead to sympathy for their plight!ProudLimey wrote:
Also, the working class in Britain were not much better off around this time.
I was surprised to hear this, I heard about it from the head of 'Make Films' (based in Belfast) at a lecture and presentation he gave recently. He claimed he and his catholic contemporaries found it almost impossible to get films made because of the hoops they would make you jump through to get funding while his Protestant contemporaries never seemed to have much problem getting their projects green lit!
Might not have been such a bad thing though as all Northern Irish films are shit, Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter!
well as someone who lives here. let me tell you a lot has changed since then, the poll is out of date and the views of only 1200 people.ProudLimey wrote:
IG, the poll was only conducted under a year and a half ago, I really doubt that much has changed since then. You mention the Polish and Portuguese immigrants moving into Northern Ireland, how many of those are economic migrants who will return after a few years? Also, how do you know that they are all ardent republicans? Afterall, they chose the UK over the RoI, didn't they? I know that there are many Polish migrants who enter the RoI, but you should distinguish between them and those who choose the UK. The likelihood is that they chose NI 1.) because there are more Catholics than the rest of UK, and 2.)because of the healthy economy (look at Belfast house prices for that). I don't see how they affect the poll in any way.
Let's get the devolved government set up and running here first. It's going to be some time before the discussion of Reunification starts in ernest. As I have stated - it has been agreed in principle since Partition and, the mechanism to bring it about finialised in the Good Friday Agreement. It just needs that critical democratic mass to get the process going, and that's just a question of time, because Protestant Loyalism is rapidly losing it's majoriety here through this euro neo-plantationism we are experiencing and which is set to continue, unless there is a sudden influx of Sasanachs again lol - in other words hoist by their own petard! and when the debate on Reunification does start I think it's fair to assume where peoples of former occupied country's sympathies will lie, don't you?. Let those who can't stomach living in a Republic be repatriated to the sceptered Great Britian.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-02-15 09:01:06)