"Consensus"? - the majority would vote for a united Ireland.

Yes but their votes don't matter. It only matters when you vote the *right* way, you know, like the Lisbon Treaty.

Or it only matters if you can gerrymander until you get the result you want.

__________________
True politics is the art of the impossible.

The absence of just cause would be the theoretical barrier to capricious secession. In other words, merely acknowledging that there COULD be circumstances under which a minority group could legitimately claim the right of political self-determination is in no way the same thing as coming down unconditionally on the side of bourgeois nationalism.

The two-nation solution for Ireland was a sound plan that was stupidly implemented (via the incorrectly drawn border and the [resultant?] establishment of the sectarian state).

Any attempt at unification would’ve likely produced a war. I do not think Britain would’ve stayed out of such a war.

As for the thread topic, in any case, let me only reiterate my objection to the politicization of history.

__________________
A historical truth taken out of context can be as deceptive as an outright fabrication.

Well taking a very narrow focus you have a point. If as envisaged in the Treaty of 1921 the Northern State had been 'partitioned' itself in amiable circumstances then the subsequent History of Ireland might have been a lot more pacific than turned out to be the case.

But its problematical that the Ulster Loyalists would have accepted such a division without a serious risk of an effective civil conflict/civil war taking place.

That was what the Ulster Crises of 1914 was leading to until the Great War broke out.

I agree with your observation of not politicising History but its difficult to master.

If people want to use History for political purposes well so be it

- but if they want to comment/write on History on its own terms then they better be careful that they realise that we all carry baggage and the knack is to leave as much as we can at the door...

__________________
This day in Irish History:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


COUNTRY FIRST

[quote=Earnest;1577700]
of course it is . Its a question of whether imperialism in Ireland was positive and rejection of it negative . Thats the political praxis thats plainly evident
we do have to take sides , that of Ireland or Britian . And the Times is making an appeal that Ireland switches sides from regarding its ethos as in line with those who asserted Irelands right to sovereignty and self determination and instead takes the side of British imperialism in Ireland . To act in the present by taking the example of those who stood by Britian in the past .
nor should you . Anyone who suggests you are responsible for anything they did is a complete p.ri.ck . But i suspect you are complaining that your current political opinion is the actual problem vis a vis peoples reaction to it and not that of your ancestors . And that you are veing very dishonest in claiming its your ancestors actions and not your own which is responsible for peoples negative reactions to your own opinions .
whos denying you it ?
obviously they thought it was right otherwise they would not have volunteered . Ther was no conscription applied to them . But the point is they were wrong to do so and the very principle of Irish independence is firmly based upon that position . I find your use of language unnaceptable , sly and insinuating . Nobody is preventing you from participating in Irish life by refusing to agree with your political platform that Ireland owes anything in equivalence to the British army as it owes to those who fought for Irelands independence from foreign imperialism , against the British army which was ( and is) an army of foreign imperialism and foreign occupation in Ireland . They are not equivalent to Irelands actual patriots and never will be . You are not being oppressed because people do not adopt that political position . Irish people not taking a positive view of British militarism and imperialism in Ireland is not an act of oppression against you or preventing you from participating in anything . The Irish people do not owe you an apology for the fact your views are unpopular and indeed insulting towards any country which values its independence and indeed its right to be so .


they didnt decide it and certainly didnt decide anything freely in this country. Id pose the question to you what if the Irish people had a right to determine their own future ? what if Britian recognised that right ? Because they never have been allowed to exercise that right . And the physical threat which prevents them from doing so was and remains the British army . Thats why yhey are unpopular here and will always be seen as an imperialist army no matter how many pro British sycophamts in the Irish times try to suggest Irish people are persecuting protestants for regarding the British army as such historically . Its the same variation on the eoghan harris theme . Never stops .

[quote=T.S. Gracchus;1583836]except the unionists didnt claim any right to self determintion . Britian did not recognise any such right existed either and claimed and asserted its own sovereignty over the entire island . Taking the view Ireland is a nation and that your nation actually has the right to national self determination and sovereignty and to be free from foreign imperialism isnt bourgouis nationalism either
it was not a sound plan and absolutely nobody ive ever heard propagate it has been of sound mind . Whether Conor Cruise OBrien , BICO or any of the other assorted herd of misfits , kooks and oddballs . Furthermore its just another excuse for British imperialism in Ireland .
Foreign imperialists rarely do stay out of wars against foreign imperialism , sort of goes with the territory . Partition resulted in war , just as foreign occupation in all its other forms resulted in war too .
unless of course its you doing the politicising whereby 2 nationism , unionism and imperialism are all good ideas and inherently imbued with right

I posted this first response in error.

__________________
A historical truth taken out of context can be as deceptive as an outright fabrication.

What has any of that got to do with what I was saying? I was responding to Catalpa's claim that the right of secession, after having been acknowledged as a legitimate right, could then be CAPRICIOUSLY asserted by ANY national minority. Of course, therefore, an aggrieved nation's claim to self-determination is something more than bourgeois nationalism. As I said, JUST CAUSE is the defining characteristic.

I'm afraid it did matter that the unionists were both heavily armed and backed by the British. Now, I see nothing "sound" about refusing to consider the possiblilty that the loyalists could've defeated unification on the battlefield.

You appear to be confusing the alternate-history Northern state I was referring to with the Northern state of actual history. As I said, of course, it would've been much more difficult for the former to have functioned as a sectarian state. Consequently, the imperialist/corporatist technique of divide and dominate would've been much more difficult to implement there.

It's interesting how you don't deny that the British would've come to the aid of the loyalists. My concern necessarily has to be what would've happened had they done that very thing. Perhaps the unionists would've taken the other three counties as well? You see the problem?

Imperialism? How would an Irish state that included the nationalist-majority areas of what's now known as Northern Ireland have been any more under British influence than the present-day Republic? How could fear-mongering Unionist politicians/elitists have built such an anti-Catholic consensus in a society in which there were relatively few Catholics, in a society free from a southern territorial aspiration?

On the contrary, expansionists and elitists aren't blind: They well know how the bogus territorial aspiration (The Dublin government probably never really wanted unification) works to their advantage.

__________________
A historical truth taken out of context can be as deceptive as an outright fabrication.

I don't agree with your analysis that the Irish Times was taking Britain's side. I think it was advocating that it is not necessary to take sides over what happened in history. I don't agree that one side in the past was standing by Britain: they simply thought that the interests of the Irish people were best forwarded by union with Britain. I don't think there is such a thing now as British imperialism in Ireland.

I don't know that people have negative reactions to my own opinions. You certainly don't know what they are because I have not revealed them in this thread.

So Connolly etc. were wrong to join the British forces? Nobody should have joined the British forces, even in the 19th century, because they should have anticipated that a rising would take place in 1916? The principle of Irish independence is that no-one should have taken any job under the British crown?

I have no such "political platform" or "political position", and your assumption that I have is unacceptable, sly, insinuating, unpopular and insulting, to throw back at you your own insults. I never suggested that Ireland owes anything to the British army or that its history in Ireland was positive. All I argued was that an Irish patriot might believe that a connection with England was desirable, even though in my opinion he would be mistaken in thinking so.

Britain has made it absolutely clear that if the Irish people in general wanted them to leave they would. It is the lack of agreement among the Irish people that is keeping them here. If you devoted a little effort to working out how to get that agreement instead of rattling on about how it is all Britain's fault, you might have something useful to contribute.