Is there an area of land catholics are confined into where they donāt enjoy the same rights as protestants. You are conflating entirely different conflicts
Times change, they believed militant action had taken them as far as it could and they could see that out democratically. Time will tell if that was correct or not.
I donāt think we would have seen anything like the bloodshed in Northern Ireland if every citizen of the occupied six had the same rights. I donāt blame downthrodden people for taking up arms to fight back.
It is far from an isolated case, it has happened many times across the world
1 Like
Yes as is said it was a civil rights issue within a country. You are making bizarre comparisons to despots and occupying armies.
But even if they had the same rights, there still would have been a valid unionist majority for the history of that state, not a minority rule as in south Africa, or a foreign occupier as in Afghanistan.
The better analogy would be the civil rights movement in the states.
The state was created on a gerrymandered basis.
The free state quislings should have that on their conscience - if they had one.
Confirmed
Not really, Puerto Rico and their struggles/rebellions against the US in the 50s and 60s is probably a far more apt comparison if we are using the US based examples.
The north came about through British imperialism, hence why it can easily be grouped with some of the others I have mentioned earlier. I have little interest debating whether you think that is valid or not.
Even taking Northern Ireland out of this. There is a trend which is back up many many times around the world as to how these type of conflicts came about and what happened during them. I would doubt there is one where the oppressors came out on the right side of history.
How long do u give an occupier before considering them as locals?
The United States
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
All of the americas actually
The list goes on.
If you think northern Ireland is the same as russia in Afghanistan then thereās no more to be said.
People born in a country can have a claim to being local. You donāt agree?
Really? I would have thought that most fair minded people would condemn the likes of the US and Australia for their treatment of the indigenous tribes and people they wiped out and displaced in conflict. Why the need for reparations if they were fully justified in their actions?
They won the conflicts alright but most would see it as shameful parts of their history as opposed to being on the right side of it.
1 Like
They might get a few tut tuts but they are held up as bastions of fairness, justice, democracy. So did they come out on the wrong side of history, i dont think so.
Yeah I see your point on a macro sense. It the greater history of the United States they see themselves as that mainly based on overthrowing the British themselves and their decisive involvement in the World Wars. But they have faired far worse with a lot of their overseas policies and excursions in their history.
Funnily enough they like to keep that kind of stuff out of their history books.
Does any country admit to mistakes? that US imperialism book has certainly made an impression on you.
The states has many flaws now and historically, but the constitution, bill of rights and such a large workable federation are admirable .
Does any country treat the occupied peopleās fairly? NZ probably the best due to the treaty of waitangi
None
Not really - imperialism only really worked through bloodshed and putting the local āsavagesā in their place.
All jokes aside, it is a phenomenal book even just for the couple of chapters on Globalism, logistics in the second world war and how Herbert Hoover was able to bring about standards in the likes of screw threads and other common materials which have shaped the world today
The problem with a lot of historical analysis of this kind is there is a sort of default position that the oppressed or minority are the good guys. The outcomes of various conflicts would bring that into question, and suggest that human societies have a hard time with equal rights, regardless of who is in power. Very often the oppressed become the oppressors as soon as they gain power.
You can argue for the merits of the Russian revolution, but look at what transpired afterwards. Not just in Russia but in all of the USSR. Hardly a bastion of human rights.
The Taliban in Afghanistan? The assortment of dictators in Africa? Cuba? Itās a long list.
Even in Ireland, after Independence did we see the kind of pluralist society envisioned in the 1916 Proclamation? Nope, we got a Catholic country for a Catholic people, a constitution that enshrined the āspecial placeā of the Catholic church, and all the misery and abuse that came with that.
1 Like
yeah that is a common theme as well. Imperialism is overthown and there is a very sudden change in power with the new state/government left with a country where infrastructure is in rack and ruin and there isnāt a pot to piss in. Leads to huge power vacuums to be exploited. Just as the catholic church did in this country, pretty much taking the social services off the state after independence and forcing its will on the country.
1 Like
What book is this? Iāve scrolled up and canāt spot the title
Itās in the good books thread, will bump for you