Is it really controversial to state that unionist politics has its roots in a philosophy of British superiority, or a right-wing (in my definition = divisive among humanity) viewpoint? Wouldn't have thought so...Originally Posted by Mise_Eire
Is it really controversial to state that unionist politics has its roots in a philosophy of British superiority, or a right-wing (in my definition = divisive among humanity) viewpoint? Wouldn't have thought so...Originally Posted by Mise_Eire
I'm not complaining - the honesty about your hostility is like a breath of fresh air.Originally Posted by farnaby
if you had specified Unionist Politicians or Unionist politics, that would have been a different matter - But you used a broad brush on the unionist community.
Obviously we feel our system is better than yours - that's what politics is all about, just as you feel a national republic is better .... But you showed that you harbour a deep resentment against my entire community. Which is very different.
As i understand it unionism is a political concept, so i don't see that i've made anything approaching a racial slur on your community (cue Northern protestants i've known, marrying a protestant etc. ok better not). I just honestly think the statement i quoted from the republican proclamation is anathema to the current unionist centre (primarily DUP-voting these days, no?) in its statements of equality of rights and opportunities, and that this is a bad position for that movement and anyone who believes in it to take.Originally Posted by Mise_Eire
As long as you specify politics, fair enough.
I do find the whole equality thing a bit dubious though - we have equality.
It was there to be taken from the days of NICRA getting their demands met and Sunningdale. Equality - genuine equality - isn't an issue.
What IS an issue is that there is no chance that the unionist/protestant community will ever concede that Terrorists and Murderers such as Gerry Kelly, Sean Kelly, John Whyte or Mad Dog Adair are our equals. They are scum.
The heart of unionism is fear. Fear of the "one settler, one bullet approach" favoured by "physical force republicanism". No surrender and no, no, no are all we can ever come up with because - well its worked so far.
With times things might change. If the perceived threat to the protestant community diminished with time you might see attitudes change. Ulster prods have more interest in a united Ireland than you might think.
Do you mean Ulster prods see the benefits of a UI, but see obstacles to being entirely comfortable in it so don't discuss it; or they don't see this but should?Originally Posted by caulfield
If the former, tell us more (unless it's a UI within the UK...). The latter is, I believe, a common nationalist position especially in these Celtic Tiger days - I certainly believe it but have no northern connections to test against.
Oh god this socialist nonsense is really getting nauseating now. Look the resources of this island are not going to be seized and shipped of to some other land, the market exists so it will be provided for and hopefully with better value and effieceny than at present.Originally Posted by Cael
Life is a beautiful magnificent thing, even to a jelly fish ~ Charlie Chaplin
You gotta love this convenient notion that force withheld is in a different category, morally speaking, from force actually used. Like we wouldn't have seen "physical force unionism" if the shoe had been on the other foot at the time of partition. It seems to me that the very existence and survival of the entity, from the Ulster Covenant on, is predicated on the willingness to use and to threaten force. What else is meant by " using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Covenant)