Bloody Sunday.

[Combwork]

Not sure if this should go in Politics or Off-Topic.

After more than 12 years, the Saville inquiry has said that when 38 years ago British Paras opened fire on a republican protest march in Londonderry, they did so "without justification". 13 protesters were killed, and many more were wounded. Despite the fact that Martin McGuinness (now unbelievably Northern Ireland Deputy Prime Minister but then in the Provisional IRA) was wandering around with a Thompson Sub-machine gun which he "may have fired", British troops have been found guilty of firing into the crowd, hitting people in the back and in one case, shooting dead a man who was trying to crawl away.

There are mixed feelings here. Some say that like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, after 38 years it should be laid to rest. Others say fine, bring the soldiers to Court but do the same to known members of the IRA, like Martin McGuinness. Others say the soldiers should be tried for murder and perjury without bringing IRA (or UDA) members to Court.

After 38 years, the chances of finding out which soldiers did what are slim to none, so what do you all think? Should it be left alone or not? Either way risks the whole fucking mess starting again...........

The 'Real IRA', the 'Continuity IRA' and every other splinter group of nutters without a cause must be rubbing their hands with glee.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Combwork

so what do you all think? Should it be left alone or not? Either way risks the whole fucking mess starting again...........

The 'Real IRA', the 'Continuity IRA' and every other splinter group of nutters without a cause must be rubbing their hands with glee.

I'd want to know more about the episode before venturing an opinion. We have our own Kent State Massacre which has never been brought to trial, seemingly quite similar and from about the same period.

John

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I'd want to know more about the episode before venturing an opinion. We have our own Kent State Massacre which has never been brought to trial, seemingly quite similar and from about the same period.

John

I remember reading about that; four dead for no good reason. To understand Irish politics both north and south, you really need to go back before the Battle of the Boyn in 1690 and work your way forward.

In essence, Northern Ireland (Ulster) is mainly Protestant, Unionist, and wants to remain as part of the United Kingdom. Southern Ireland is an independent country, mainly Catholic, Republican and maintains it has sovereignty over the north.

There are three basic arguments; political, religious and the numbers game. Keeping away from politics and religion (I'm neither brave nor foolish enough to get tangled up in that one) the numbers game is basic. The population of Southern Ireland is much larger than that of Northern Ireland, and the fear amongst the Unionists is that in a united Ireland, the South with its own culture and religion would dominate the North.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Combwork

In essence, Northern Ireland (Ulster) is mainly Protestant, Unionist, and wants to remain as part of the United Kingdom. Southern Ireland is an independent country, mainly Catholic, Republican and maintains it has sovereignty over the north.

It's important to note that the protestant population of Ireland is for the most part not ethnically Irish. Rather, it's English and Scottish, having arrived in Ireland as "colonists". They were drawn to Ireland with the promise of free land. Of course, that land was actually Irish land, in Irish families for centuries.

John

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Combwork

I remember reading about that; four dead for no good reason. To understand Irish politics both north and south, you really need to go back before the Battle of the Boyn in 1690 and work your way forward.

In essence, Northern Ireland (Ulster) is mainly Protestant, Unionist, and wants to remain as part of the United Kingdom. Southern Ireland is an independent country, mainly Catholic, Republican and maintains it has sovereignty over the north.

There are three basic arguments; political, religious and the numbers game. Keeping away from politics and religion (I'm neither brave nor foolish enough to get tangled up in that one) the numbers game is basic. The population of Southern Ireland is much larger than that of Northern Ireland, and the fear amongst the Unionists is that in a united Ireland, the South with its own culture and religion would dominate the North.

If I recall my European history course from over 30 years ago, one of the roots of this dispute relates to the heirs of Henry VIII. Different factions viewed different members of the royal family as bastards because of the various ways Henry had gone about swapping wives. I'm sure my memory is hazy, but is there any accuracy in this recollection?

Regards,

D-ray

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It's important to note that the protestant population of Ireland is for the most part not ethnically Irish. Rather, it's English and Scottish, having arrived in Ireland as "colonists". They were drawn to Ireland with the promise of free land. Of course, that land was actually Irish land, in Irish families for centuries.

John

"the protestant population of Ireland is for the most part not ethnically Irish". True enough, but a fair percentage of U.S. citizens are 'not ethnically American'. In the 19th century, European settlers of all races were drawn to the U.S.A. with the promise of free land which like the above, was not in the gift of the U.S. government to give away.

Using history to decide what should happen now is basically flawed; how far back do you go? As far as the people who live in Northern Ireland are concerned, having lived there for several generations they neither need nor want anyone's permission to stay there.

Most "landed gentry" owe the possession of their land to whichever of their ancestors took it from it's previous owners, usually by force.

Northern Ireland is very fragile. Give it a generation or so for residual hatreds to burn out and maybe, they could live together peacefully. Should the U.K. turn it's back on the North; just walk away? They tried it once and it didn't work.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Combwork

Using history to decide what should happen now is basically flawed; how far back do you go? As far as the people who live in Northern Ireland are concerned, having lived there for several generations they neither need nor want anyone's permission to stay there.

I won't argue with you about that, (mostly to avoid a donnybrook. ). I just thought it was important to point out that it ain't all about croppies 'n' prods". There's a strong ethnic and nationalistic element to the Troubles.

Most "landed gentry" owe the possession of their land to whichever of their ancestors took it from it's previous owners, usually by force.

True, but we're not only talking about gentry or petty nobility. Most of the people tossed of their land were simple Irish crofters, displaced by simple English or Scots crofters, all in an effort to subjugate (dare I say starve out?) the native Irish.

Northern Ireland is very fragile. Give it a generation or so for residual hatreds to burn out and maybe, they could live together peacefully.

Maybe. Who knows? I certainly hope so. How do Catholics and Protestants get on in the Republic? Well, I think.

John

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

If I recall my European history course from over 30 years ago, one of the roots of this dispute relates to the heirs of Henry VIII. Different factions viewed different members of the royal family as bastards because of the various ways Henry had gone about swapping wives. I'm sure my memory is hazy, but is there any accuracy in this recollection?

Regards,

D-ray

I don't really know. I'd left school just before the start of "the troubles" and I don't recall being taught much about Irish history. Then again, I don't remember much about those 5 years anyway.

Schooldays. "The happiest days of your life". That guy had a serious problem with perspective...................

[merrylander]

Speaking of history it seems that we are about to re-write some of it. Maryland is coming out with a commemorative tag plate for the the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. AFAIK except for New Orleans we lost it.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Speaking of history it seems that we are about to re-write some of it. Maryland is coming out with a commemorative tag plate for the the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. AFAIK except for New Orleans we lost it.

History quiz: Who won the French/Indian war?

Regards,

D-Ray