Whatever Happened To The Cruthin?
Honest Nev
until the Gaels invaded and pushed them towards Ulster, from whence
they eventually fled to lowland Scotland (when the Gaels encroached
further still).
What is the current opinion of the Cruthin?
yrs Neville.
p.s. i am interested cos I have read some texts that put them forth as
100% accepted historical fact, and some that consider them a complete
myth.
Kevinmccabe1
>Date: 3/5/2003 4:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <a5ec705.03030...@posting.google.com>
>
>According to what I hear the Cruthin inhabited a large part of Ireland
>until the Gaels invaded and pushed them towards Ulster, from whence
>they eventually fled to lowland Scotland (when the Gaels encroached
>further still).
>
>What is the current opinion of the Cruthin?
Well, I think Unki's a basically good guy...
Kevin McCabe
Séimí mac Liam
news:20030306024519...@mb-dh.aol.com:
He said cruthin, not cretin.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Turlough
> He said cruthin, not cretin.
That's them garlic tings they put on the salads, right?
Chesney Christ
>According to what I hear the Cruthin inhabited a large part of Ireland
>until the Gaels invaded and pushed them towards Ulster, from whence
>they eventually fled to lowland Scotland (when the Gaels encroached
>further still).
>
>What is the current opinion of the Cruthin?
You left out the part where the Cruthin and the Gaels had a war over
which end of a hard boiled egg should be sliced off.
--
George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party;
1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as
citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation
under God."
Duke of URL
> According to what I hear the Cruthin inhabited a large part of
> Ireland until the Gaels invaded and pushed them towards Ulster, from
> whence they eventually fled to lowland Scotland (when the Gaels
> encroached further still).
> What is the current opinion of the Cruthin?
The ferocious pirateth do a lot of cruithin in thertain neighborhoodth of
NY, SF, Miami...
Honest Nev
> A certain Honest Nev, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
> >According to what I hear the Cruthin inhabited a large part of Ireland
> >until the Gaels invaded and pushed them towards Ulster, from whence
> >they eventually fled to lowland Scotland (when the Gaels encroached
> >further still).
> >
> >What is the current opinion of the Cruthin?
>
> You left out the part where the Cruthin and the Gaels had a war over
> which end of a hard boiled egg should be sliced off.
But the rest of it`s accurate? Thanx: I`m glad someone gave a serious
answer at last.
And I always thought the big-endian/little-endian thing was from
"Gulliver`s Travels"! Fascinating wot you can learn on this group.
Yrs Neville.
Btw thanx for not being trivial/sarcastic like some of the others.
Chesney Christ
>> You left out the part where the Cruthin and the Gaels had a war over
>> which end of a hard boiled egg should be sliced off.
>
>But the rest of it`s accurate? Thanx: I`m glad someone gave a serious
>answer at last.
Ahem. There's no evidence of the existence of the Cruithin. It's used as
a race theory by some quarters in NI; little more.
>And I always thought the big-endian/little-endian thing was from
>"Gulliver`s Travels"! Fascinating wot you can learn on this group.
You might want to reinstall the sense of humour plugin.
Harry Merrick
> A certain Honest Nev, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
>
> >> You left out the part where the Cruthin and the Gaels had a war over
> >> which end of a hard boiled egg should be sliced off.
> >
> >But the rest of it`s accurate? Thanx: I`m glad someone gave a serious
> >answer at last.
>
> Ahem. There's no evidence of the existence of the Cruithin.
There is some circumstantial evidence however.
> It's used as
> a race theory by some quarters in NI; little more.
Yes, an attempt to prove that the Celts were not the first in Ireland and
that sic. "Protestants" were! Little doubt about that I would have said,
with or without the Cruthin! The "Protestant" equivalent in those times came
from Lowland Scotland. They were not Celts. Very difficult to be sure to be
sure when talking about pre-history.
>
>
> >And I always thought the big-endian/little-endian thing was from
> >"Gulliver`s Travels"! Fascinating wot you can learn on this group.
>
> You might want to reinstall the sense of humour plugin.
Indeed. Perhaps we all should!
Harry Merrick.
Aemon
wrote:
>According to what I hear the Cruthin inhabited a large part of Ireland
>until the Gaels invaded and pushed them towards Ulster, from whence
>they eventually fled to lowland Scotland (when the Gaels encroached
>further still).
False. The Cruithne are still all over Ireland.
>What is the current opinion of the Cruthin?
See above.
Aemon
Aemon
<thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A certain Honest Nev, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
>
>>> You left out the part where the Cruthin and the Gaels had a war over
>>> which end of a hard boiled egg should be sliced off.
>>
>>But the rest of it`s accurate? Thanx: I`m glad someone gave a serious
>>answer at last.
>
>Ahem. There's no evidence of the existence of the Cruithin. It's used as
>a race theory by some quarters in NI; little more.
Cruithne is a name applied by the Gaelic people to the people who were
living in Ireland before they arrived. It is these people that the
well publicised "haplotype" comes from - unless I'm very much
mistaken. Interestingly the "haplotype" was found in the DNA of men
wth Gaelic surnames.
iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
pathetic justification for Loyalism...
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Chesney Christ:
>
>>A certain Honest Nev, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
>>
>>>> You left out the part where the Cruthin and the Gaels had a war over
>>>> which end of a hard boiled egg should be sliced off.
>>>
>>>But the rest of it`s accurate? Thanx: I`m glad someone gave a serious
>>>answer at last.
>>
>>Ahem. There's no evidence of the existence of the Cruithin.
>
>Yes there is. There just isn't any evidence to back up loyalist
>fantasies about them being proto-orangemen.
Precisely.
Aemon
Honest Nev
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:17:16 +0000, Chesney Christ
> <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >A certain Honest Nev, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
> >
> >>> You left out the part where the Cruthin and the Gaels had a war over
> >>> which end of a hard boiled egg should be sliced off.
> >>
> >>But the rest of it`s accurate? Thanx: I`m glad someone gave a serious
> >>answer at last.
> >
> >Ahem. There's no evidence of the existence of the Cruithin. It's used as
> >a race theory by some quarters in NI; little more.
>
> Cruithne is a name applied by the Gaelic people to the people who were
> living in Ireland before they arrived. It is these people that the
> well publicised "haplotype" comes from - unless I'm very much
> mistaken. Interestingly the "haplotype" was found in the DNA of men
> wth Gaelic surnames.
Now you`ve gone and done it!
I wonder if this`ll get listed before Diarmuid`s reply?
> iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
> pathetic justification for Loyalism...
>
> Aemon
nev
Harry Merrick
> <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >A certain Honest Nev, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
> >
> >>> You left out the part where the Cruthin and the Gaels had a war over
> >>> which end of a hard boiled egg should be sliced off.
> >>
> >>But the rest of it`s accurate? Thanx: I`m glad someone gave a serious
> >>answer at last.
> >
> >Ahem. There's no evidence of the existence of the Cruithin. It's used as
> >a race theory by some quarters in NI; little more.
>
> Cruithne is a name applied by the Gaelic people to the people who were
> living in Ireland before they arrived.
It is known that they came from the Lowland areas of Scotland. They were not
Gaelic.
It is these people that the
> well publicised "haplotype" comes from - unless I'm very much
> mistaken. Interestingly the "haplotype" was found in the DNA of men
> wth Gaelic surnames.
Very mistaken, since their names are not known! Nor was their DNA!! For
goodness sake, what nonsense!
>
> iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
> pathetic justification for Loyalism...
Well, he *is* recognised as an authority on the Cruithne, and as such his
opinions do have to be respected. Unlike yours, since you are most
definitely NOT an authority on the Cruithne! (Or much else, come to that!).
And NO. He did not try to justify Loyalism through the Cruithne! Really,
Aemoan, you do get decidedly worse as time goes on!
It always gives me a laugh when Republicans such as yourself get SO excited
over the Cruithne! - Obviously, there simply "has" to be something in those
claims after all!!
Harry Merrick.
Aemon
>Scríobh Honest Nev:
>
>>Aemon <repub...@email.com> wrote in message news:<s5no6vopk7uu5j0t7...@4ax.com>...
>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:17:16 +0000, Chesney Christ
>>> <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >A certain Honest Nev, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
>>> >
>>> >>> You left out the part where the Cruthin and the Gaels had a war over
>>> >>> which end of a hard boiled egg should be sliced off.
>>> >>
>>> >>But the rest of it`s accurate? Thanx: I`m glad someone gave a serious
>>> >>answer at last.
>>> >
>>> >Ahem. There's no evidence of the existence of the Cruithin. It's used as
>>> >a race theory by some quarters in NI; little more.
>>>
>>> Cruithne is a name applied by the Gaelic people to the people who were
>>> living in Ireland before they arrived.
>
>Can you provide a few quotes to back this up?
As per usual, we can count on Ger to require some rigour in these
matters. This is a good thing. I've found some URLs that comment on
this:
http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/cairney/51.htm
Much of this is mired in unprovable/disproved ancient stories.
My intuition is, and perhaps I should have declared this, that given
that the Picts as identified as aka Cruithne by the above author,
spoke a non-indo-european language but yet Celtic/Gaelic IS an
indo-european language, that the "Picts/Cruithne" coming from a
non-indo-european language speaking culture were NOT Celts and I would
further infer that they arrived BEFORE Celtic culture.
>As far as the Gaels were concerned, the Cruithin were people in one
>part of Ireland, just like there were people called Laighin or Uladh.
>People before the Celts were called things like Fir Bolg.
Do you believe that the Fir Bolg exist Ger?
>>It is these people that the well publicised "haplotype" comes from - unless I'm very much
>>> mistaken.
>
>You're very much mistaken.
Quite possibly but I believe that the Cruithne/Pictish and their
possible pre-Celtic origins are worth more investigation.
Who was it that built the village at Skara Brae? I believe that it was
the Cruithne/Picts?
>
>>>Interestingly the "haplotype" was found in the DNA of men
>>> wth Gaelic surnames.
>
>The Cruithne would have Gaelic surnames. Surnames weren't adopted
>until the 9th century or so.
There are records of surnames going back before this surely? The
Annals of the Four Masters contains references to people with surnames
back before the 9th Century...in the patronymic naming tradition e.g.
Cormac Mac Erc, Erc Mac Donal, Donal Mac Diarmuid etc etc (not actual
people).
>>Now you`ve gone and done it!
>>
>>I wonder if this`ll get listed before Diarmuid`s reply?
>>
>>> iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
>>> pathetic justification for Loyalism...
>
>That much is true.
Sadly.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Harry Merrick:
>>"Aemon" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
>>news:s5no6vopk7uu5j0t7...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:17:16 +0000, Chesney Christ
>>> <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<cut>
>Ah, the blind dissing the blind...
Who turned out the lights.
>>> iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
>>> pathetic justification for Loyalism...
>>
>>Well, he *is* recognised as an authority on the Cruithne, and as such his
>
>No Harry, he isn't.
I'd enjoy it very much if Harry could provide us with papers written
by Academics in Universities in Britain or Ireland that quote Iain
Adamson's work as a creditable comment on Picts and/or Cruithne.
> Historians who want recognition as authorities in
>their field publish in peer reviewed academic journals, not the vanity
>press.
>
>>opinions do have to be respected.
Laughed at more like.
>> Unlike yours, since you are most
>>definitely NOT an authority on the Cruithne! (Or much else, come to that!).
>>And NO. He did not try to justify Loyalism through the Cruithne!
Yes he did. Do I have to get a copy of the book and quote it to prove
my point?
>> Really, Aemoan, you do get decidedly worse as time goes on!
<giggle>
>In fairness Harry, you're no better yourself.
At least I don't contradict myself.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>
>>On 5 Mar 2003 16:37:01 -0800, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>According to what I hear the Cruthin inhabited a large part of Ireland
>>>until the Gaels invaded and pushed them towards Ulster, from whence
>>>they eventually fled to lowland Scotland (when the Gaels encroached
>>>further still).
>>
>>False. The Cruithne are still all over Ireland.
>
>Silliness.
In light of what I've said today, my comments should be read to say,
"The people who were in Ireland BEFORE the arrival of the Celtic
Indo-European culture have genetic decendants alive and living all
over Ireland as opposed to living in a few enclaves in the Shankill
Road".
I would expand this to say that the pre-Celtic people of Ireland have
decendants that went all over the world wherever the Irish Diaspora
went....even New Zealand.
Of course, this is hard if not impossible to prove, but it stands to
reason and isn't silliness, in my most humble opinion.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:24:13 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>
>>>Scríobh Honest Nev:
>>>
>>>>Aemon <repub...@email.com> wrote
>[...]
First of all, I should have said this before, I want to know the truth
about this matter and if my ideas can be shown to be false then that
is good because it will bring my knowledge closer to the truth. I am
glad that our Observer is commenting on this matter.
>>>>> Cruithne is a name applied by the Gaelic people to the people who were
>>>>> living in Ireland before they arrived.
>>>
>>>Can you provide a few quotes to back this up?
>>
>>As per usual, we can count on Ger to require some rigour in these
>>matters. This is a good thing. I've found some URLs that comment on
>>this:
>>
>>http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/cairney/51.htm
>
>Tourist websites are always a good source, I find..
It was the first one I found in a hurry.
>>Much of this is mired in unprovable/disproved ancient stories.
>
>Indeed. Mother-goddess of fertility, usual tourist vagueness.
>
>>My intuition is, and perhaps I should have declared this, that given
>>that the Picts as identified as aka Cruithne by the above author,
>
>And by Irish annalists closer in time to the Picts.
Isn't that what I'm suggesting?
>>spoke a non-indo-european language but yet Celtic/Gaelic IS an
>>indo-european language, that the "Picts/Cruithne" coming from a
>>non-indo-european language speaking culture were NOT Celts and I would
>>further infer that they arrived BEFORE Celtic culture.
>
>It is the general belief that the Picts were a Celtic people who spoke
>a P-Celtic language. Scottish Welshmen, to put it in simplistic
>terms.
My intuition on this is that these "Picts" were people who became
culturally assimilated by the Celtic newcomers. They took up the new
Celtic language but retained their "Pictish" for ritual purposes.
If it could be proven, I wouldn't be in the slightest suprised if
"Pictish" was related to Basque.
>>>As far as the Gaels were concerned, the Cruithin were people in one
>>>part of Ireland, just like there were people called Laighin or Uladh.
>>>People before the Celts were called things like Fir Bolg.
>>
>>Do you believe that the Fir Bolg exist Ger?
>
>The FirBolg are euhemerised gods of agriculture.
I can accept that. That, however, implies that the ones who were
euhemerised existed in the first place though. Who were those people?
>>>>It is these people that the well publicised "haplotype" comes from - unless I'm very much
>>>>> mistaken.
>>>
>>>You're very much mistaken.
>>
>>Quite possibly but I believe that the Cruithne/Pictish and their
>>possible pre-Celtic origins are worth more investigation.
>
>Indeed. Keep the grant money flowing.
I'm not receiving any grant money for this. I want to know.
>>Who was it that built the village at Skara Brae? I believe that it was
>>the Cruithne/Picts?
>
>Skara Brae is Neolithic. IMO its a bit like asking if Gaels built
>Newgrange. We have no idea what language the builders of either spoke.
Do you think that the people who built Newgrange have descendants
walking about Erin's green isle nowdays?
>>>>>Interestingly the "haplotype" was found in the DNA of men
>>>>> wth Gaelic surnames.
>>>
>>>The Cruithne would have Gaelic surnames. Surnames weren't adopted
>>>until the 9th century or so.
>>
>>There are records of surnames going back before this surely? The
>
>Not AFAIK. Patronyms, but not surnames.
Ok. I accept your comment with that clarification.
>>Annals of the Four Masters contains references to people with surnames
>>back before the 9th Century...in the patronymic naming tradition e.g.
>>Cormac Mac Erc, Erc Mac Donal, Donal Mac Diarmuid etc etc (not actual
>>people).
>
>A patronym is not a surname. The Four Masters were writing in the
>1600s.
Ok. I accept your comment with that clarification.
>>>>Now you`ve gone and done it!
>>>>
>>>>I wonder if this`ll get listed before Diarmuid`s reply?
>>>>
>>>>> iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
>>>>> pathetic justification for Loyalism...
>>>
>>>That much is true.
>>
>>Sadly.
>
>No worse than Shinner appeals to Celtic heritage.
At least there is a modicum of fact in that one as opposed to
Adamson's idea which is pure fantasy.
> Or indeed to a binding mandate to the second Dáil. The past has no veto on the
>present.
That is too big for me to comment on right now. That one idea is
worthy of a thread all by itself.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:25:37 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>
>>>Scríobh Harry Merrick:
>>>>"Aemon" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:s5no6vopk7uu5j0t7...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:17:16 +0000, Chesney Christ
>>>>> <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><cut>
>>
>>>Ah, the blind dissing the blind...
>>
>>Who turned out the lights.
>
>In some places, the dark ages never ended.
>
>>>>> iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
>>>>> pathetic justification for Loyalism...
>>>>
>>>>Well, he *is* recognised as an authority on the Cruithne, and as such his
>>>
>>>No Harry, he isn't.
>>
>>I'd enjoy it very much if Harry could provide us with papers written
>>by Academics in Universities in Britain or Ireland that quote Iain
>>Adamson's work as a creditable comment on Picts and/or Cruithne.
>
>Harry wouldn't lower himself like that. This is SCI, the correct
>response to a demand for references is outraged indignation and
>irrelevant URLs.
How true.
>>> Historians who want recognition as authorities in
>>>their field publish in peer reviewed academic journals, not the vanity
>>>press.
>>>
>>>>opinions do have to be respected.
>>
>>Laughed at more like.
>
>Politely ignored I suspect.
Of course.
>>>> Unlike yours, since you are most
>>>>definitely NOT an authority on the Cruithne! (Or much else, come to that!).
>>>>And NO. He did not try to justify Loyalism through the Cruithne!
>>
>>Yes he did. Do I have to get a copy of the book and quote it to prove
>>my point?
>
>Please don't. The book hardly merits such attention.
Ok I won't. It might be worth a laugh though.
>>>> Really, Aemoan, you do get decidedly worse as time goes on!
>>
>><giggle>
>>
>>>In fairness Harry, you're no better yourself.
>>
>>At least I don't contradict myself.
>
>Sure about that are you?
Errr....yes. Certainly not within the same posting/email.
BTW thanks for replying to these postings. I am genuinely interested
in this matter.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:32:26 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>
>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>>>
>>>>On 5 Mar 2003 16:37:01 -0800, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>According to what I hear the Cruthin inhabited a large part of Ireland
>>>>>until the Gaels invaded and pushed them towards Ulster, from whence
>>>>>they eventually fled to lowland Scotland (when the Gaels encroached
>>>>>further still).
>>>>
>>>>False. The Cruithne are still all over Ireland.
>>>
>>>Silliness.
>>
>>In light of what I've said today, my comments should be read to say,
>>"The people who were in Ireland BEFORE the arrival of the Celtic
>>Indo-European culture
>
>Assuming such a cut-off has any validity. The arrival of a culture and
>the arrival of a people are two different things.
I accept that. I am beginning to think that Celtic culture arrived,
mostly, prior to the actual arrival of "Celts", if you like.
>>have genetic decendants alive and living all
>>over Ireland as opposed to living in a few enclaves in the Shankill
>>Road".
>
>Aye, but so what?
Well for a start it contradicts Adamson's claims.
> The same is true of Gaels, English, Welsh, Norman,
>Vikings and Hugenots, to name but a few..
Indeed.
>>I would expand this to say that the pre-Celtic people of Ireland have
>>decendants that went all over the world wherever the Irish Diaspora
>>went....even New Zealand.
>
>Sadly, some of them came back :)
<laugh> I'll cry for ye...
>>Of course, this is hard if not impossible to prove, but it stands to
>>reason and isn't silliness, in my most humble opinion.
>
>No, its relatively simple to prove that people in Ireland today have a
>genetic heritage which pre-dates Celtic culture. That's what Hill et
>al. demonstrated, and what L*g*n constantly misinterprets.
Agreed.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:09:19 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>[....]
>
>>>>spoke a non-indo-european language but yet Celtic/Gaelic IS an
>>>>indo-european language, that the "Picts/Cruithne" coming from a
>>>>non-indo-european language speaking culture were NOT Celts and I would
>>>>further infer that they arrived BEFORE Celtic culture.
>>>
>>>It is the general belief that the Picts were a Celtic people who spoke
>>>a P-Celtic language. Scottish Welshmen, to put it in simplistic
>>>terms.
>>
>>My intuition on this is that these "Picts" were people who became
>>culturally assimilated by the Celtic newcomers. They took up the new
>>Celtic language but retained their "Pictish" for ritual purposes.
>
>The Picts are generally to believed to have spoken a P-Celtic
>language. They were culturally assimilated into Scotland, in
>particular during the reign of Kenneth McAlpine. They abandoned their
>language, probably for the same reason the Irish abandoned theirs
>during the 19th century.
Ok, so was that language, Pictish, non-indo-european or not?
> Gaelic in Scotland, like English in Ireland,
>was the language of economic power and social status.
Granted.
>>If it could be proven, I wouldn't be in the slightest suprised if
>>"Pictish" was related to Basque.
>
>This idea is generally regarded as inaccurate. Pictish is most likely
>P-Celtic.
I'm wanting more proof of that.
>>>>>As far as the Gaels were concerned, the Cruithin were people in one
>>>>>part of Ireland, just like there were people called Laighin or Uladh.
>>>>>People before the Celts were called things like Fir Bolg.
>>>>
>>>>Do you believe that the Fir Bolg exist Ger?
>>>
>>>The FirBolg are euhemerised gods of agriculture.
>>
>>I can accept that. That, however, implies that the ones who were
>>euhemerised existed in the first place though. Who were those people?
>
>Anthropomorphic representations of natural phenomena. You might as
>well ask who was Yhwh.
The term euhemerised implies that someone/something actually did exist
in order to be deified by later generations. The Norse god Odin is an
example of this, imho.
>>>>Quite possibly but I believe that the Cruithne/Pictish and their
>>>>possible pre-Celtic origins are worth more investigation.
>>>
>>>Indeed. Keep the grant money flowing.
>>
>>I'm not receiving any grant money for this. I want to know.
>
>Watch this space.
Ok.
>>>>Who was it that built the village at Skara Brae? I believe that it was
>>>>the Cruithne/Picts?
>>>
>>>Skara Brae is Neolithic. IMO its a bit like asking if Gaels built
>>>Newgrange. We have no idea what language the builders of either spoke.
>>
>>Do you think that the people who built Newgrange have descendants
>>walking about Erin's green isle nowdays?
>
>Of course.
Yay.
>>>>>>> iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
>>>>>>> pathetic justification for Loyalism...
>>>>>
>>>>>That much is true.
>>>>
>>>>Sadly.
>>>
>>>No worse than Shinner appeals to Celtic heritage.
>>
>>At least there is a modicum of fact in that one as opposed to
>>Adamson's idea which is pure fantasy.
>
>I carry the heritage of picts, celts and vikings in my veins.
>
>So what? Some of the weirder blood nationalism starts with the
>premise of first come, first served. It doesn't matter who got here
>first.
So how does a group/individual own land in the first place?
>Nationalism has no exclusive claim to Ireland just because
>their surnames are older.
What was Cromwell's intention when he asked "To hell or Connaught?"
then?
>If Paisley turns out to be a Basque, he has
>no superior rights either. Where you came from is interesting, but it
>doesn't give you a veto.
In New Zealand, British and Irish settlers came during the 19th
Century. They lived fairly much in harmony with the native Maori
people. It was when the British Government directly intervened and
starting confiscating land from Maori that the trouble really started.
Surely, as an example for argument's sake, Maori could be said to have
owned the land that is now called New Zealand before the British
Government arrived. In the same way, the Gaelic Irish owned the land
of Ireland before it was stolen from them by the force of arms
employed firstly by Strongbow & friends, then Cromwell and then
William and friends....
>You still have to live in the present.
Granted.
A thought that is always in the back of my mind when discussing these
matters is that:
There are injustices in history BUT if history hadn't happened exactly
the way it did then my parents probably wouldn't have met to produce
me and a world in which I happen to be alive in HAS to be better than
one in which *I* don't exist.
That thought, makes, for me, historical injustice easier to be with
but it does not mean that injustices that exist right now, in the
present, should be anymore tolerated now just because they were in the
past.
>>> Or indeed to a binding mandate to the second Dáil. The past has no veto on the
>>>present.
>>
>>That is too big for me to comment on right now. That one idea is
>>worthy of a thread all by itself.
>
>Its a silly idea. Politics isn't Amish. Societies change.
Indeed, see my comment above.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:08:20 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>
>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>>>>On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:32:26 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>[...]
>
>[Cruithin]
>>>>"The people who were in Ireland BEFORE the arrival of the Celtic
>>>>Indo-European culture
>>>
>>>Assuming such a cut-off has any validity. The arrival of a culture and
>>>the arrival of a people are two different things.
>>
>>I accept that. I am beginning to think that Celtic culture arrived,
>>mostly, prior to the actual arrival of "Celts", if you like.
>
>Its more whether Celtic people arrived at all.
I get that. It is also my impression that even on the continent, where
Celtic culture emerged that "Celtic" was not a "race" but a culture
that was shared in by the people around Italian Alp/Swiss
Alpine/Austrian border. People use the term as a race now when they
refer to Welsh, Irish, Scots, Manx, Brettanese and Cornish these days
but perhaps innappropriately.
> Or if they did, whether
>they arrived in small or great numbers. I think the example of
>Christian culture is a useful illustration. People have no difficulty
>accepting that St Patrick alone, or with relatively few disciples,
>brought Christianity to Ireland. There was no Christian invasion, in
>the sense of hordes of Christian soldiers marching onwards, yet there
>were major changes in law, culture, social organisation, and the
>introduction of literature.
>However, the perception of a Celtic invasion is coloured by Book of
>Invasion, by tales about the Tuatha De Danann and the Milesians, so
>people expect there to be a historical invasion. It ain't necessarily
>so. In the long term, the transmission of ideas is much more
>important.
Granted.
To get back to what we were discussing in an earlier thread re: first
come first served/Indigenous rights:
From the United Nations:
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali:
"The way indigenous people are treated by States and the international
community will be a major test for the seriousness of our commitment
to a genuinely universal human rights regime. If we are serious about
development, political participation and human rights, we must address
the special situation of indigenous people."
Also available at the following URL:
http://www.gcc.ca/Political-Issues/international/united_nations_draft_declaration.htm
<extracted quotes follow>
"Colonisation
Recognition that indigenous peoples have been deprived of their human
rights and freedoms and that this has led to their colonisation and
the taking of their land"
"Article 1 : Human Rights
Indigenous peoples have the right to all the human rights and freedoms
recognised in international law.
Article 2: Equality
Indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples. They must be free
from discrimination.
Article 3 : Self-Determination
Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. This means
they can choose their political status and the way they want to
develop.
Article 4 : Distinct Characteristics
Indigenous peoples have the right to keep and develop their distinct
characteristics and systems of law. They also have the right, if they
want, to take part in the life of the rest of the country.
....
Article 7: Cultural Integrity
Indigenous peoples shall be free from cultural genocide.
Governments shall prevent:
(a) actions which take away their distinct cultures and identities;
(b) the taking of their land and resources;
(c) their removal from their land;
(d) measures of assimilation;
(e) propaganda against them
....
Article 27: Restitution
Indigenous peoples have the right to return of land and resources
taken without their consent.
Where this is not possible, they shall receive just compensation in
the form of land and resources.
Article 28 : Environment
Indigenous peoples shall receive assistance in order to restore and
protect the environment of their land and resources.
Army activities shall not take place on the land of indigenous peoples
without their consent. Hazardous material shall not be stored or
disposed of on the land of indigenous peoples. Governments shall take
measures to assist indigenous peoples whose health has been affected
by such material.
....
There are many more provisions in the "United Nations Draft
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" that Britain is in
breach of re: Ireland.
It is my contention that "native Irish" do indeed have special rights
in Ireland.
Aemon
rick
> It is my opinion that that's racist bollox. I have Pict, Viking, and
> Celtic heritage. Which parts of me have special rights? How exactly
> are my UberGael rights to be enforced?
>
> --
> "Ferr fíor fertaib"
> Féachadóir
Uberallies?
Paul Carr
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:37:20 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
<snip>
> >If Paisley turns out to be a Basque, he has
> >no superior rights either. Where you came from is interesting, but it
> >doesn't give you a veto.
>
> In New Zealand, British and Irish settlers came during the 19th
> Century. They lived fairly much in harmony with the native Maori
> people. It was when the British Government directly intervened and
> starting confiscating land from Maori that the trouble really started.
The Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840. Wouldn't that not be an example
of direct British intervention? At the time, there was hardly any "Western"
settlement in New Zealand.
Paul Carr
Allan Connochie
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:09:19 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>
> >Scríobh Aemon:
> >>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:24:13 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Scríobh Honest Nev:
> >>>
> >>>>Aemon <repub...@email.com> wrote
> >a P-Celtic language. Scottish Welshmen, to put it in simplistic
> >terms.
>
> My intuition on this is that these "Picts" were people who became
> culturally assimilated by the Celtic newcomers. They took up the new
> Celtic language but retained their "Pictish" for ritual purposes.
True the original inhabitants may well have been assimilated by Celtic
culture, but then again that applies to all the tribes of Britain and not
just the Pictish tribes. The Picts only appear as seperate from the Britons
after centuries of Roman rule in the non-Pictish part of Britain.
"Speculation on the origins of the Picts is misplaced. The Picts did not
'come' from anywhere: history, time and the varied weight of Roman influence
upon different regions created then from solidly British
roots.................New Penguin History of Scotland.......Thomas Clancy
[Lecturer in Celtic at Galsgow Uni] and Barbara Crawford [Lecturer in
Medieval History at St Andrews]
>
> If it could be proven, I wouldn't be in the slightest suprised if
> "Pictish" was related to Basque.
The language known as 'Pictish' was a P-Celtic language similar to Brittonic
and Gaulish. That is not really questioned seriously nowadays. We know
what Pictish was through nomenclature, kinglists and inscriptions. There is
not a single sentence of this Pictish language surviving.
"In most of Pictland as place names show, a Celtic language of the P-Celtic
group was widespread............Edinburgh History of Scotland Vol One by
Professor A.A.M.Duncan"
The other language you are referring to [which as far as I know has no
appellation] survives in only 25 brief inscriptions found down the east
coast of Scotland. It is possible that it may have been the remnants of an
older language used for religious purposes. However it has baffled the
experts who have not linked it to any other language. Some examples are
1. besmeqqnanammovvez
Meqq is possibly the Irish "son of"
2. etocuhetts ahehhttanan hccvvevv nehtons
Nehton is seemingly the name "Nechton" and in other incriptions Ethernan,
Drostan and Uovet are names mentioned.
Both examples taken from the Edinburgh History.
cheers
Allan
Harry Merrick
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:25:37 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>
> >Scríobh Harry Merrick:
> >>"Aemon" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
> >>news:s5no6vopk7uu5j0t7...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:17:16 +0000, Chesney Christ
> >>> <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <cut>
>
> >Ah, the blind dissing the blind...
>
> Who turned out the lights.
>
> >>> iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
> >>> pathetic justification for Loyalism...
> >>
> >>Well, he *is* recognised as an authority on the Cruithne, and as such his
> >
> >No Harry, he isn't.
>
> I'd enjoy it very much if Harry could provide us with papers written
> by Academics in Universities in Britain or Ireland that quote Iain
> Adamson's work as a creditable comment on Picts and/or Cruithne.
There are no such works on the Cruthin. Adamson is the only person to make a
study in depth of them SFAIK.
>
>
> > Historians who want recognition as authorities in
> >their field publish in peer reviewed academic journals, not the vanity
> >press.
> >
> >>opinions do have to be respected.
>
> Laughed at more like.
Yes, I am aware of your failings.
>
>
> >> Unlike yours, since you are most
> >>definitely NOT an authority on the Cruithne! (Or much else, come to that!).
> >>And NO. He did not try to justify Loyalism through the Cruithne!
>
> Yes he did. Do I have to get a copy of the book and quote it to prove
> my point?
I have read all his books. So, yes, go on have a look.
>
>
> >> Really, Aemoan, you do get decidedly worse as time goes on!
>
> <giggle>
>
> >In fairness Harry, you're no better yourself.
>
> At least I don't contradict myself.
Oh but you do, frequently. AND go off at half cock without proper knowledge as to
what you are talking about. Not in this post I agree, but in one or two others. I
seem to remember giving you links to various News paper site myself at one time.
Harry Merrick.
Muiris Mag Ualghairg
standard sound changes needed to account for the two languages such as C
Irish (older kw) where Irish has P (older Kw). The term appears to have
been used for a number of different groups in Ireland who may have spoken a
P Celtic language at one point in their history (for example the Partraigh
in Galway). By the time of recorded history these peoples were
indistinguishable from the rest of the Irish - in the sense that they may
have use the term as an ethnic label much as other undoubtedly Gaelic groups
did in Ireland.
As regards Iain Adamson's arguments regarding the Cruithne - his theory
fails to explain one historically clear fact. The movement of peoples into
Scotland (specifically Scottish Dáil Riada and Argyll) which he ascribes to
the Cruithne fleeing the Gaels carried with it as their language Gaelic - in
fact Argyll means the Coast of the Gaels - which may be an indication as to
how they actually thought of themselves. In addition to this the peoples in
Gaelic Speaking Scotland (which did include large parts of the 'Lowlands')
consistently thought of themselves as being Gaels - that is the same ethnic
label used to describe those whom Mr. Adamson says were their enemies.
There were undoubtedly Welsh speaking areas within Scotland (by Welsh I mean
the local variant of Brythonic spoken at the time) but these can be ascribed
to the linguistic situation in Scotland prior to the arrival of the
'cruithne' (who inconveniently insisted on calling themselves Gaels!)
I have to say that the only time I have ever heard mention of Mr Adamson's
theories in academic circles is to mock them - and like many here I have
read Mr. Adamson's generalised book on this (I still can't figure out what
all the rubbish about America and pictures of modern pottery were doing in
there - hardly what one would expect from a serious academic work). The
reality about it is that Mr. Adamson has misrepresented history and
conveniently forgotten most of the facts - such as the ethnic label that
they decided to use, the fact that they spoke Gaelic and not Welsh, the fact
that they were seen as Gaels by the native Welsh of the area and we have
proof of this from the contemporary sources, the fact that they didn't
maintain any memory of these events but rather adopted a 'Gaelicised'
version of their history while in Scotland - where the Gaels shouldn't
really have gotten to under Mr Adamson's theories as they should really have
been Cruithne. He forgets to explain what happened to their language and why
when the came 'back' a substantial number WERE Gaelic speakers and the
majority of the rest were in fact Scots speakers (unless of course Scots was
somehow the language of the original Cruithne?).
In fact the book is a travesty of history and any one who has done any
serious research would know it as such!
Muiris
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 14/03/03
Mike
http://www.stephen.j.murray.btinternet.co.uk/bronze.htm
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/9/5078
Two extreme possibilities regarding the demographic nature of early
cultural transitions in the British Isles can be contrasted: (i) demic
diffusion models such as the wave-of-advance model (27) proposed for the
arrival of farming in Europe (2), which predicts considerable genetic
discontinuity; and (ii) cultural diffusion models, which predict genetic
continuity, as they involve little or no movement of people, only the
diffusion of technology. For example, the arrival of a Celtic material
culture including Hallstatt and La Tène elite goods and skills in the late
Bronze Age and early Iron Age once was interpreted as reflecting waves of
immigrants but is now usually explained without invoking folk migrations
(3). As with the Neolithic, however, no solid evidence is available.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ancientireland/
http://www.geocities.com/diarmidlogan/genetics.html
"Aemon" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
news:aqa07v4cb4kusip94...@4ax.com...
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:37:20 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>
>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>[....]
>
>>>The Picts are generally to believed to have spoken a P-Celtic
>>>language. They were culturally assimilated into Scotland, in
>>>particular during the reign of Kenneth McAlpine. They abandoned their
>>>language, probably for the same reason the Irish abandoned theirs
>>>during the 19th century.
>>
>>Ok, so was that language, Pictish, non-indo-european or not?
>
>What part of P-Celtic don't you understand?
I understand that well enough. Alright then, who was there *before*
the Picts?
>>>>If it could be proven, I wouldn't be in the slightest suprised if
>>>>"Pictish" was related to Basque.
>>>
>>>This idea is generally regarded as inaccurate. Pictish is most likely
>>>P-Celtic.
>>
>>I'm wanting more proof of that.
>
>What proof have you already? Check a few linguistic texts man. Don't
>rely on tourist websites.
>
>[..]
Ok the references that Allan mentioned earlier in this thread:
"
:The other language you are referring to [which as far as I know has no
:appellation] survives in only 25 brief inscriptions found down the east
:coast of Scotland. It is possible that it may have been the remnants of an
:older language used for religious purposes. However it has baffled the
:experts who have not linked it to any other language. Some examples are
:
:
:1. besmeqqnanammovvez
:
:Meqq is possibly the Irish "son of"
:
:2. etocuhetts ahehhttanan hccvvevv nehtons
:
:Nehton is seemingly the name "Nechton" and in other incriptions Ethernan,
:Drostan and Uovet are names mentioned.
:
:Both examples taken from the Edinburgh History.
"
That language. Thats the one I'm referring to.
>>>>>The FirBolg are euhemerised gods of agriculture.
>>>>
>>>>I can accept that. That, however, implies that the ones who were
>>>>euhemerised existed in the first place though. Who were those people?
>>>
>>>Anthropomorphic representations of natural phenomena. You might as
>>>well ask who was Yhwh.
>>
>>The term euhemerised implies that someone/something actually did exist
>>in order to be deified by later generations.
>
>Nope. It means a deity was downgraded to a (super)human.
>
>>The Norse god Odin is an example of this, imho.
>
>You think there was a historic Odin?
I agree with Thor Heyerdahl on this one.
>>>>At least there is a modicum of fact in that one as opposed to
>>>>Adamson's idea which is pure fantasy.
>>>
>>>I carry the heritage of picts, celts and vikings in my veins.
>>>
>>>So what? Some of the weirder blood nationalism starts with the
>>>premise of first come, first served. It doesn't matter who got here
>>>first.
>>
>>So how does a group/individual own land in the first place?
>
>Inheritance or purchase usually.
What of, being the first one's there?
>Do you think who owned land a thousand years ago means something? A
>thousand years ago, our family farm belonged to the Friars of Derry.
>After Henry VIII nationalised the church, the land was transferred to
>the Anglican Church, who sold it to a landlord, from which it was
>transferred to the local tenants after the land acts were passed.
>
>Are you saying the church has a claim on our farm?
Er....nah...they've got well enough for the moment.
>>>Nationalism has no exclusive claim to Ireland just because
>>>their surnames are older.
>>
>>What was Cromwell's intention when he asked "To hell or Connaught?"
>>then?
>
>Social engineering. What has that got to do with the price of beans?
The "to hell" bit was "we'll kill you if you want to stay on your land
that your family have owned for generations", but you knew that.
>>>If Paisley turns out to be a Basque, he has
>>>no superior rights either. Where you came from is interesting, but it
>>>doesn't give you a veto.
>>
>>In New Zealand, British and Irish settlers came during the 19th
>>Century. They lived fairly much in harmony with the native Maori
>>people. It was when the British Government directly intervened and
>>starting confiscating land from Maori that the trouble really started.
>>Surely, as an example for argument's sake, Maori could be said to have
>>owned the land that is now called New Zealand before the British
>>Government arrived. In the same way, the Gaelic Irish owned the land
>>of Ireland before it was stolen from them by the force of arms
>>employed firstly by Strongbow & friends, then Cromwell and then
>>William and friends....
>
>So what? Cromwell and Strongbow are dead. Are you going to
>dispossess any farmer who lacks a proper Gaelic surname and matching
>haplotype?
No but I would want the ownership/sovereignty of the whole Island of
Ireland to return to Ireland, not dispossessing people who've been
living on the land since the 15th-16th C no matter how unjustly their
ancestors stole the land in the first place.
>>>You still have to live in the present.
>>
>>Granted.
>
>Then why give a damn about Strongbow?
It was the start of the shite. It got worse in the mid 16th C. Got
worse again in the 17th C. Improved a bit when the mighty Dan came
along...you know yourself.
>>A thought that is always in the back of my mind when discussing these
>>matters is that:
>>
>>There are injustices in history BUT if history hadn't happened exactly
>>the way it did then my parents probably wouldn't have met to produce
>>me and a world in which I happen to be alive in HAS to be better than
>>one in which *I* don't exist.
>
>Now that might be the worthy of several threads...
I agree.
>>That thought, makes, for me, historical injustice easier to be with
>>but it does not mean that injustices that exist right now, in the
>>present, should be anymore tolerated now just because they were in the
>>past.
>
>Fine, but try to focus on the real injustices of the present.
OK.
> Drop the weird gripes with Strongbow.
It is the via the context of that history that I interpret current
goings on. For example, the Penal laws implemented a social apartheid
in Ireland and I see that the very same mindset that implemented the
Penal laws is still very much alive today...
Aemon
Aemon
wrote:
>
>"Aemon" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:pu947v0i10i73cruf...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:37:20 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >If Paisley turns out to be a Basque, he has
>> >no superior rights either. Where you came from is interesting, but it
>> >doesn't give you a veto.
>>
>> In New Zealand, British and Irish settlers came during the 19th
>> Century. They lived fairly much in harmony with the native Maori
>> people. It was when the British Government directly intervened and
>> starting confiscating land from Maori that the trouble really started.
>
>The Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840. Wouldn't that not be an example
>of direct British intervention?
No. It was a patch up by the British forces because the Maori proved
too apt at fighting. That is, the Waitangi Treaty was signed so that
hostilities were bought to an end. The Waitange Treaty occupies a
similar position to the Good Friday Agreement in that respect and a
comment flows from that:
"Don't let the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement be
strung out for so long that it justice is denied!"
The Waitangi Treaty was signed in the 1840s and it took until the
1970s for it to be treated seriously.
I am concerned that this will happen with the Good Friday Agreement,
which is why I agree with Mitchel McLaughlin on this matter when he
welcomed David Trimble's call for a Border Poll ala GFA.
> At the time, there was hardly any "Western"
>settlement in New Zealand.
Indeed, and what there was was mostly harmonious with the local Maori.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:36:17 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>>>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:08:20 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:32:26 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>[...]
>
>>>[Cruithin]
>>>>>>"The people who were in Ireland BEFORE the arrival of the Celtic
>>>>>>Indo-European culture
>>>>>
>>>>>Assuming such a cut-off has any validity. The arrival of a culture and
>>>>>the arrival of a people are two different things.
>>>>
>>>>I accept that. I am beginning to think that Celtic culture arrived,
>>>>mostly, prior to the actual arrival of "Celts", if you like.
>>>
>>>Its more whether Celtic people arrived at all.
>>
>>I get that. It is also my impression that even on the continent, where
>>Celtic culture emerged that "Celtic" was not a "race" but a culture
>
>This has been said so many times its worrying that I have to repeat it
>to someone with a self-proclaimed interest in the subject: Celtic is a
>linguistic designation. People who spoke any of a group of languages
>are Celtic. There was no Celtic race.
That doesn't contradict what I was saying above. If anything it
agrees.
>>that was shared in by the people around Italian Alp/Swiss
>>Alpine/Austrian border. People use the term as a race now when they
>>refer to Welsh, Irish, Scots, Manx, Brettanese and Cornish these days
>>but perhaps innappropriately.
>
>There's no perhaps about it.
OK.
>>> Or if they did, whether
>>>they arrived in small or great numbers. I think the example of
>>>Christian culture is a useful illustration. People have no difficulty
>>>accepting that St Patrick alone, or with relatively few disciples,
>>>brought Christianity to Ireland. There was no Christian invasion, in
>>>the sense of hordes of Christian soldiers marching onwards, yet there
>>>were major changes in law, culture, social organisation, and the
>>>introduction of literature.
>>
>>>However, the perception of a Celtic invasion is coloured by Book of
>>>Invasion, by tales about the Tuatha De Danann and the Milesians, so
>>>people expect there to be a historical invasion. It ain't necessarily
>>>so. In the long term, the transmission of ideas is much more
>>>important.
>>
>>Granted.
>
>You say 'granted' so easily, and then you come out with nonsense like
>the following:
>
>>To get back to what we were discussing in an earlier thread re: first
>>come first served/Indigenous rights:
>>
>>From the United Nations:
>>
>>General Boutros Boutros-Ghali:
>>
>>"The way indigenous people are treated by States and the international
>>community will be a major test for the seriousness of our commitment
>>to a genuinely universal human rights regime. If we are serious about
>>development, political participation and human rights, we must address
>>the special situation of indigenous people."
>
>Does any of this apply to Ireland? How do you identify the indigenous
>people? What's the difference between a Cosgrave and a McCosker? Is
>John Hume the Catholic indigenous? Are Peter Robinson's children less
>indigenous than Mary Robinson's children? Is Martin McGuinness more or
>less indigenous than Ken Magennis?
>
>>Also available at the following URL:
>>
>>http://www.gcc.ca/Political-Issues/international/united_nations_draft_declaration.htm
>>
>[snip]
>
>>There are many more provisions in the "United Nations Draft
>>Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" that Britain is in
>>breach of re: Ireland.
>>
>>It is my contention that "native Irish" do indeed have special rights
>>in Ireland.
>
>It is my opinion that that's racist bollox. I have Pict, Viking, and
>Celtic heritage. Which parts of me have special rights? How exactly
>are my UberGael rights to be enforced?
Give Ireland to the Irish. A simple statement of course but as we all
know, not so simply implemented.
Aemon
Aemon
<mui...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
<cut of pertinent critique of Adamson's book re: Cruithne>
>In fact the book is a travesty of history and any one who has done any
>serious research would know it as such!
>
>Muiris
Go raibh mile maith agat, Muiris.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:46:26 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:37:20 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
<cut>
>>>>>So what? Some of the weirder blood nationalism starts with the
>>>>>premise of first come, first served. It doesn't matter who got here
>>>>>first.
>>>>
>>>>So how does a group/individual own land in the first place?
>>>
>>>Inheritance or purchase usually.
>>
>>What of, being the first one's there?
>
>What has that got to do with anything? Your Warrenson & O'Connell
>ancestors weren't the first people to set foot in NZ.
Even if I didn't have Maori ancestry, which I do, I'm still inclined
to think that if anyone owned New Zealand 200 years ago it was Maori
in their own particular tribal areas. The fact that there were
extensive land thefts committed by the Crown, and recognised as such
by the Crown, in the courts in New Zealand currently supports my
contention.
>>>Do you think who owned land a thousand years ago means something? A
>>>thousand years ago, our family farm belonged to the Friars of Derry.
>>>After Henry VIII nationalised the church, the land was transferred to
>>>the Anglican Church, who sold it to a landlord, from which it was
>>>transferred to the local tenants after the land acts were passed.
>>>
>>>Are you saying the church has a claim on our farm?
>>
>>Er....nah...they've got well enough for the moment.
>
>You see, if you start talking about 'first come..', that's where you
>end up.
I disagree, there were people there before the Christian religion ever
arrived.
>>>>>Nationalism has no exclusive claim to Ireland just because
>>>>>their surnames are older.
>>>>
>>>>What was Cromwell's intention when he asked "To hell or Connaught?"
>>>>then?
>>>
>>>Social engineering. What has that got to do with the price of beans?
>>
>>The "to hell" bit was "we'll kill you if you want to stay on your land
>>that your family have owned for generations", but you knew that.
>
>I do. What's it got to do with anything?
I'm pointing out the historical injustice that ought to be rectified,
in some way or another.
>>>So what? Cromwell and Strongbow are dead. Are you going to
>>>dispossess any farmer who lacks a proper Gaelic surname and matching
>>>haplotype?
>>
>>No but I would want the ownership/sovereignty of the whole Island of
>>Ireland to return to Ireland, not dispossessing people who've been
>>living on the land since the 15th-16th C no matter how unjustly their
>>ancestors stole the land in the first place.
>
>Bollocks.
>
>Start that road, and you get all sorts of interesting questions you
>really don't want to see. For starters, what's some blow-in called
>Warrensson doing here?
Thats my father's name. I don't mind answering any such questions.
> That's not a native name.
O'Connell is.
> Then we'd have to find a new grand marshal for the parade, because Mumba isn't an Irish
>name.
wtf?
>Look, let's cut to the chase: Get it into your thick fucking skull
>that no one had more right to be here than anyone else.
I've never said that. What I'm saying is that the sovereignty of
Ireland rightly belongs to the Irish people as a whole and not in
parts as it is now.
Abusive language is not called for.
>>>>>You still have to live in the present.
>>>>
>>>>Granted.
>>>
>>>Then why give a damn about Strongbow?
>>
>>It was the start of the shite. It got worse in the mid 16th C. Got
>>worse again in the 17th C. Improved a bit when the mighty Dan came
>>along...you know yourself.
>
>Do the good guys wear white hats in your history books?
Some of them wore broad black brimmers, with their ribbons frayed and
torn...
>>>>A thought that is always in the back of my mind when discussing these
>>>>matters is that:
>>>>
>>>>There are injustices in history BUT if history hadn't happened exactly
>>>>the way it did then my parents probably wouldn't have met to produce
>>>>me and a world in which I happen to be alive in HAS to be better than
>>>>one in which *I* don't exist.
>>>
>>>Now that might be the worthy of several threads...
>>
>>I agree.
>
>You still don't have the hang of this irony thing do you?
Mea Culpa, your wit is so subtle.
>>>>That thought, makes, for me, historical injustice easier to be with
>>>>but it does not mean that injustices that exist right now, in the
>>>>present, should be anymore tolerated now just because they were in the
>>>>past.
>>>
>>>Fine, but try to focus on the real injustices of the present.
>>
>>OK.
>>
>>> Drop the weird gripes with Strongbow.
>>
>>It is the via the context of that history that I interpret current
>>goings on. For example, the Penal laws implemented a social apartheid
>>in Ireland and I see that the very same mindset that implemented the
>>Penal laws is still very much alive today...
>
>Then quit trying to roll back the penal laws by unIrishing the
>descendants of the people who benefitted from them.
How am I trying to do that. I'm quite ok with them deciding for
themselves whether they are Irish or British, as is enshrined in the
GFA.
> That's as much an injustice as the Penal Laws themselves.
I'm not claiming that so argue that point with someone else.
> Work to get equality legislation implemented, work to get a police force everyone can
>accept, get your party to stop mickeying around over whether they'll
>get rid of their private army.
Now thats a more direct and appropriate comment. For all that, I,
personally, am committed to a peaceful resolution to the northern
impasse and have said so to many of my friends in the party. They, for
the most part are likewise committed to the peace process.
You'll have to take my word on that, as far as I'm concerned.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>
>>The Waitangi Treaty was signed in the 1840s and it took until the
>>1970s for it to be treated seriously.
>>
>>I am concerned that this will happen with the Good Friday Agreement,
>>which is why I agree with Mitchel McLaughlin on this matter when he
>>welcomed David Trimble's call for a Border Poll ala GFA.
>
>Exactly what would a border poll resolve?
If the border poll abolished the border the police force would become
unified and the British soldiers would have to leave, there would be
no/greatly lessened possibility of collusion between the police and
loyalist hitsquads...ottomh.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>
>[..]
>>Give Ireland to the Irish. A simple statement of course but as we all
>>know, not so simply implemented.
>
>Nice evasion.
No evasion. Simply stated I'm for Irish home rule.
Aemon
Maggie Stewart-Grant
OK no need to watch *this* thread any more. We are reduced to bad language
and name-calling. Thought I was going to get more out of it than *this*.
T.I.M.
Aemon
Keep on it. Ger isn't usually abusive and I haven't been abusive.
Aemon
Fr. Des
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>Scríobh Maggie Stewart-Grant:
>
>[...]
>
>>OK no need to watch *this* thread any more. We are reduced to bad language
>>and name-calling. Thought I was going to get more out of it than *this*.
>
>poster on the first day. If you like I can mention n*z*'s and
>officially end it.
That is Godwin's Law by Proxy:
Using the threat of mentioning n*z*s in order to end a thread.
Fr. Des
Aemon
Aw c'mon Ger. Just when it was getting into the guts of it all...don't
throw the towel in.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:14:37 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:46:26 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>>>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:37:20 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>>>>>So how does a group/individual own land in the first place?
>>>>>
>>>>>Inheritance or purchase usually.
>>>>
>>>>What of, being the first one's there?
>>>
>>>What has that got to do with anything? Your Warrenson & O'Connell
>>>ancestors weren't the first people to set foot in NZ.
>>
>>Even if I didn't have Maori ancestry, which I do, I'm still inclined
>>to think that if anyone owned New Zealand 200 years ago it was Maori
>>in their own particular tribal areas.
>
>Good man. Now look at the Hill et. al. results for Ulster, and see
>what they tell you about the ancestry of the people who live there.
>Then, after you've done that, explain why my ancestry or anyone else's
>should matter a damn in a vote tomorrow.
Personally, I believe that natural justice indicates that the
indigenous inhabitants of a place are due some special respect or at
the very least a lack of disrespect, i.e. they oughtn't have to put up
with people parading past their front doors rubbing it in about how
their ancestors lost 3 centuries ago and these same paraders then
claiming that they're merely enjoying their buddies company and the
freedom of the Queen's chain and "its not a wind up"....
I, like you, believe in universal sufferage and fortunately this is
the case these days in the north of Ireland.
It wasn't so long ago though, i.e. within both of our lifetimes.
>>The fact that there were
>>extensive land thefts committed by the Crown, and recognised as such
>>by the Crown, in the courts in New Zealand currently supports my
>>contention.
>
>And as I pointed out, the land ownership issue was resolved in Ireland
>over a century ago. Google things like Michael Davitt and Land League
>if your memory is shaky.
I concur with what you say and my comments were referring to the land
thefts that occurred here in New Zealand by Crown forces *after* the
signing of the Treaty of Waitangi - which occupies a very similar same
position in NZ's history as the GFA does in Ireland's.
I might point out that the Treaty of Waitangi was agreed to and signed
in the 1840s whereas the GFA was in the 1990s. It was promptly
forgotten and ignored by the Crown as it had had the effect that they
had desired i.e. ceasing hostilities. I, for one, do *NOT* want to see
a repeat of this behaviour by the British Crown.
If Ireland can learn anything from New Zealand's history this is it.
>>>>>Do you think who owned land a thousand years ago means something? A
>>>>>thousand years ago, our family farm belonged to the Friars of Derry.
>>>>>After Henry VIII nationalised the church, the land was transferred to
>>>>>the Anglican Church, who sold it to a landlord, from which it was
>>>>>transferred to the local tenants after the land acts were passed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you saying the church has a claim on our farm?
>>>>
>>>>Er....nah...they've got well enough for the moment.
>>>
>>>You see, if you start talking about 'first come..', that's where you
>>>end up.
>>
>>I disagree, there were people there before the Christian religion ever
>>arrived.
>
>Are you now suggesting that the land be handed over to neo-pagans?
No. The people that were there before the church, who were pagans
proper, arrived had descendants who became Christian. Those
descendants are still walking around in Ireland today. You're one of
them, unless I'm very much mistaken.
>Or are you just going to haplotype-test every farmer in Ulster? Will
>there be Penal Laws to disinherit christians?
No. I'm not talking about disinheriting anyone. I'm talking about
Ireland ruling Ireland, Irish home rule.
>It isn't just the Cruithinologists who have weird ideas about
>ancestry.
You're misrepresenting me a bit.
>>>>>>>Nationalism has no exclusive claim to Ireland just because
>>>>>>>their surnames are older.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What was Cromwell's intention when he asked "To hell or Connaught?"
>>>>>>then?
>>>>>
>>>>>Social engineering. What has that got to do with the price of beans?
>>>>
>>>>The "to hell" bit was "we'll kill you if you want to stay on your land
>>>>that your family have owned for generations", but you knew that.
>>>
>>>I do. What's it got to do with anything?
>>
>>I'm pointing out the historical injustice that ought to be rectified,
>>in some way or another.
>
>There are no Penal Laws any more.
Good eh? It seems to me that the mindset that created them in the
first place is still in existence and has altogether far too much
currency in the six counties.
> There is universal suffrage.
And thats great.
>Exactly what wrong is being suffered here today?
Have a look at the video "Siege of the Short Strand". I will quite
gladly make a copy and mail it to you all at my expense. Send me your
mailing address and I'll get it off to you within the week.
>>>>>So what? Cromwell and Strongbow are dead. Are you going to
>>>>>dispossess any farmer who lacks a proper Gaelic surname and matching
>>>>>haplotype?
>>>>
>>>>No but I would want the ownership/sovereignty of the whole Island of
>>>>Ireland to return to Ireland, not dispossessing people who've been
>>>>living on the land since the 15th-16th C no matter how unjustly their
>>>>ancestors stole the land in the first place.
>>>
>>>Bollocks.
>>>
>>>Start that road, and you get all sorts of interesting questions you
>>>really don't want to see. For starters, what's some blow-in called
>>>Warrensson doing here?
>>
>>Thats my father's name. I don't mind answering any such questions.
>
>Then answer them:
>Who is Irish, Mary Robinson's children or Peter Robinson's children?
>Who is Irish, McCosker or Cosgrave? Which Humes are Irish, and which
>aren't?
They're Irish if they're born in Ireland and they chose to be Irish.
If they're born in Ireland and they choose not to be Irish then they
aren't.
Ask the individuals concerned themselves.
>How exactly do you decide who is Irish, and what differences will the
>non-Irish experience as a result?
I'm not going to. Thats not what I'm about. I agree with the sentiment
in the 1916 Proclamation:
"The republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and
equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to
pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its
parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and
oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien
government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the
past."
>>> That's not a native name.
>>
>>O'Connell is.
>
>So, get back where you came from you mongrel blow-in.
Come now...
> Learn to swim and all that.
I won my school's swimming cup in 1983.
>Think I'm joking? I probably am. But are you? Or do you even realise
>that's what you say when you rabbit on about native Irish?
See above.
>>> Then we'd have to find a new grand marshal for the parade, because Mumba isn't an Irish
>>>name.
>>
>>wtf?
>
>Obviously she's the descendant of a foreign oppressor
Do you mean Samantha Mumba?
>>>Look, let's cut to the chase: Get it into your thick fucking skull
>>>that no one had more right to be here than anyone else.
>>
>>I've never said that. What I'm saying is that the sovereignty of
>>Ireland rightly belongs to the Irish people as a whole and not in
>>parts as it is now.
>
>The sovereignty of the Ireland belongs to the people to dispose of as
>the choose. In the Good Friday Agreement, ratified by referendums on
>the same day in voting booths all over Ireland, the people made their
>choice clear. We decided its up to the people of Northern Ireland
>whether they want to be part of the Republic of Ireland or the United
>Kingdom.
Had I been in Ireland at the time of the referendum, I too, would have
voted for it. I see the GFA as a progressive, intelligent and
compassionate document. I earnestly want to see it implemented.
As I say above, I have a concern that the British Crown forces will
renege on it as they did so greivously on the Waitangi Treaty.
>>Abusive language is not called for.
>
>Read what you write and think about what it actually means then.
Read what I've said and see if it tallies with what you've accused me
of.
>>>>>>>You still have to live in the present.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Granted.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then why give a damn about Strongbow?
>>>>
>>>>It was the start of the shite. It got worse in the mid 16th C. Got
>>>>worse again in the 17th C. Improved a bit when the mighty Dan came
>>>>along...you know yourself.
>>>
>>>Do the good guys wear white hats in your history books?
>>
>>Some of them wore broad black brimmers, with their ribbons frayed and
>>torn...
>
>Some of them blow up McDonald's in the name of Irish freedom. Quit
>chanting party slogans, you're smarter than Ray.
That was opportunistic...I claim artistic license, I like the song.
>[..]
>>>>> Drop the weird gripes with Strongbow.
>>>>
>>>>It is the via the context of that history that I interpret current
>>>>goings on. For example, the Penal laws implemented a social apartheid
>>>>in Ireland and I see that the very same mindset that implemented the
>>>>Penal laws is still very much alive today...
>>>
>>>Then quit trying to roll back the penal laws by unIrishing the
>>>descendants of the people who benefitted from them.
>>
>>How am I trying to do that. I'm quite ok with them deciding for
>>themselves whether they are Irish or British, as is enshrined in the
>>GFA.
>
>Then why are you rabbiting on about Penal Laws, Cromwell, Strongbow
>and (just now) Christian invaders? What has this got to do with
>anything?
Because the mentality that oppressed Ireland in past is still alive,
kicking and it has far too much currency, imho.
>>> That's as much an injustice as the Penal Laws themselves.
>>
>>I'm not claiming that so argue that point with someone else.
>
>Explain what Penal Law injustice you think needs rectifying? Does my
>family stand to lose its farm to some neo-opagan hippy?
Hardly. My point is about sovereignty of the whole of Ireland. There
is actually a legal basis for me to persue the ownership of the farm
my grandfather grew up on in Kerry but I'm not going to bother with
it. I'd rather just buy some of the land in Cill Rialaig and be done
with it. Much easier and it wouldn't upset anyone.
>>> Work to get equality legislation implemented, work to get a police force everyone can
>>>accept, get your party to stop mickeying around over whether they'll
>>>get rid of their private army.
>>
>>Now thats a more direct and appropriate comment. For all that, I,
>>personally, am committed to a peaceful resolution to the northern
>>impasse
>
>Yes yes, I know this week's party line from the heros in the broad
>brimmed hats..
Make fun all you like, its still true.
>>and have said so to many of my friends in the party. They, for
>>the most part are likewise committed to the peace process.
>>
>>You'll have to take my word on that, as far as I'm concerned.
I understand your cynicism in this respect but as far as I know, and
I've got a pretty good idea about the attitudes within the party, I'm
prepared to swear on my great-great uncle Sean O'Connell's - the
Seanacai from Cill Rialaig - grave that Sinn Fein really is committed
to the peace process.
Nik
Aemon
>And if as is likely the border poll confirmed the existence of the
>border instead?
I am fairly confident that if a border poll ala the GFA was held
tomorrow that the border would still be there the day after....but I
wouldn't say that about the border poll held 7 years afterwards.
As you've pointed out, in past, the GFA does not specify that another
border poll *HAS* to be held 7 years later but that this is the
minimum amount of time before the next one, the hellish clatter that
would arise if another one wasn't held exactly 7 years later to the
day would cause one to be held, I believe.
I still haven't, as Falcon suggested, written to the NIO asking them
what criteria the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
would use as the criteria for deciding that:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SCHEDULE 1
POLLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 1
2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the
power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a
majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland
should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a
united Ireland.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
it "appears like to him that a majority of those voting would express
a wish that Northern ireland should cease to be part of the United
Kingdom..."
What criteria can/will he use to decide this?
Sure as hell it can't be a Census that has religious affiliations
assigned to those who claim no religious affiliation, regardless of
what that is AND religious affiliation isn't an entirely reliable way
to decide such a thing in the first place. There are protestant
republicans and catholic unionists - admittedly not many of both but
some nonetheless.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:14:10 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>
>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>>Give Ireland to the Irish. A simple statement of course but as we all
>>>>know, not so simply implemented.
>>>
>>>Nice evasion.
>>
>>No evasion. Simply stated I'm for Irish home rule.
>
>So is the GFA
Great. Roll on the border poll.
Aemon
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:43:45 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>>>>On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:14:37 +0000, Féachadóir etc...
>[..]
>
>>>>Even if I didn't have Maori ancestry, which I do, I'm still inclined
>>>>to think that if anyone owned New Zealand 200 years ago it was Maori
>>>>in their own particular tribal areas.
>>>
>>>Good man. Now look at the Hill et. al. results for Ulster, and see
>>>what they tell you about the ancestry of the people who live there.
>>>Then, after you've done that, explain why my ancestry or anyone else's
>>>should matter a damn in a vote tomorrow.
>>
>>Personally,
>
>I take this to mean you haven't actually looked at Hill?
Give me an URL please.
>>I believe that natural justice indicates that the
>>indigenous inhabitants of a place are due some special respect or at
>>the very least a lack of disrespect, i.e. they oughtn't have to put up
>>with people parading past their front doors rubbing it in about how
>>their ancestors lost 3 centuries ago and these same paraders then
>>claiming that they're merely enjoying their buddies company and the
>>freedom of the Queen's chain and "its not a wind up"....
>
>All very fine and good, but here's the thing. Harold McCosker marching
>in his orange sash bears a native Gaelic name, while John Hume sitting
>indoors or buggering off to Bundoran
I've been there. Nice place, nice beach. I swam in the ocean and then
walked down the strand whilst a blood red sun sank into the west,
awesome.
>for the weekend has Planter roots.
>
>There are people alive today who knew people who were alive in 1921.
>There's no one alive with that connection to the plantation. That far
>down the road, who arrived when doesn't create any meaningful
>distinction, there's been too much mixing. Gael & Planter are all
>native at this stage.
Its because the planter descendants make their own distinction on this
one that makes the problem difficult i.e. the goal posts get shifted
frequently, that is, they'll claim to be Irish or British depending on
whom it is that they are arguing with and/or the point they're trying
to make.
>>I, like you, believe in universal sufferage and fortunately this is
>>the case these days in the north of Ireland.
>>
>>It wasn't so long ago though, i.e. within both of our lifetimes.
>
>It isn't any more. Quit looking back. The issue has been resolved,
>concentrate on what needs fixing, not what isn't broke.
My comment is more meant to point to the fact that the attitude that
bought about that voting system is still alive and kicking.
>>>>The fact that there were
>>>>extensive land thefts committed by the Crown, and recognised as such
>>>>by the Crown, in the courts in New Zealand currently supports my
>>>>contention.
>>>
>>>And as I pointed out, the land ownership issue was resolved in Ireland
>>>over a century ago. Google things like Michael Davitt and Land League
>>>if your memory is shaky.
>>
>>I concur with what you say and my comments were referring to the land
>>thefts that occurred here in New Zealand by Crown forces *after* the
>>signing of the Treaty of Waitangi - which occupies a very similar same
>>position in NZ's history as the GFA does in Ireland's.
>
>Except you're the beneficiary of the oppressor's legacy in NZ.
Like I've said before, I've got Maori ancestry. I have sympathy with
Maori aspirations for historical redress. I'm not proud of the Crown's
past behaviour in New Zealand and I support, in a moral sense, Maori
attempts to redress the historical wrongs that went on here. I can't
help being born here.
>Is that why you're so eager to wrap the mantle of the victim around
>yourself in Ireland?
Relatives of mine suffered because of the political situation in
Ireland that was forced upon them by another country. There is still a
bullet hole in a building in Ballinskelligs where one of my relatives
was lined up for a firing squad.
>>I might point out that the Treaty of Waitangi was agreed to and signed
>>in the 1840s whereas the GFA was in the 1990s. It was promptly
>
>Who cares.
Lots of people here in New Zealand care about the Treaty of Waitangi
and the fact that it was ignored for more than a century after
signing.
> The Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed in 1921.
And its led to a lot of suffering, on both sides of the border.
>>forgotten and ignored by the Crown as it had had the effect that they
>>had desired i.e. ceasing hostilities. I, for one, do *NOT* want to see
>>a repeat of this behaviour by the British Crown.
>
>Spare me the chuckie rhetoric.
Its not chuckie rhetoric, its whats happened in past and it doesn't
make it right.
>Everybody tried to wriggle out of
>their commitments before the ink was dry, unless I missed the beating
>of armalites into ploughshares.
Armalites weren't around in 1921 but I take your meaning. Fine Gael
and Fianna Fail are still to decommission formally.
>[..]
>>>>>You see, if you start talking about 'first come..', that's where you
>>>>>end up.
>>>>
>>>>I disagree, there were people there before the Christian religion ever
>>>>arrived.
>>>
>>>Are you now suggesting that the land be handed over to neo-pagans?
>>
>>No. The people that were there before the church, who were pagans
>>proper, arrived had descendants who became Christian. Those
>>descendants are still walking around in Ireland today. You're one of
>>them, unless I'm very much mistaken.
>
>Am I? I have Viking surnames in my family tree. That means a bit of
>me is a post-christian invader. Does that mean you're only going to
>take some of the farm?
No. I'm not suggesting that and nowhere have I. I'm on about home rule
not the appropriation of private individual's property. I wouldn't
even seek that Blarney Castle be returned to Gaelic hands.
>>>Or are you just going to haplotype-test every farmer in Ulster? Will
>>>there be Penal Laws to disinherit christians?
>>
>>No. I'm not talking about disinheriting anyone. I'm talking about
>>Ireland ruling Ireland, Irish home rule.
>
>Ireland is ruling Ireland. Ireland decided that Ireland would be ruled
>by the British and Irish governments, and by the Assembly in Belfast,
>and by cross-border bodies to share jurisdiction, until and unless the
>people in Northern Ireland decided otherwise.
I'm suspicious of the underlying motivations/sincerity of the Crown
signatories to that document, and rightly so given the past behaviour
of the British Crown forces both in New Zealand and in Ireland.
Roll on border poll!!
>The Irish people have the right to dispose of their sovereignty as
>they choose. We have decided we're happy with governments, assemblies
>and commissions in Dublin, Belfast, London and Brussels governing
>different parts of our country. The border stopped being an issue the
>day the GFA was ratified by the people. It is no longer a matter of
>constitutional debate, merely one of party policy.
I'll be only too happy to agree whole heartedly with you on this when
the first border poll happens, regardless of the result.
>>>It isn't just the Cruithinologists who have weird ideas about
>>>ancestry.
>>
>>You're misrepresenting me a bit.
>
>Try not to bring in Strongbow and pagans to justify present policy
>then.
>
>[...]
>>>>I'm pointing out the historical injustice that ought to be rectified,
>>>>in some way or another.
>>>
>>>There are no Penal Laws any more.
>>
>>Good eh? It seems to me that the mindset that created them in the
>>first place is still in existence and has altogether far too much
>>currency in the six counties.
>
>You can't legislate for opinions, and I don't think I';d like you to.
>Do you really want the government regulating your thoughts?>
I most certainly don't. What I'm saying is that these "opinions" have
more currency than they:
1. deserve
2. ought to have based upon the numbers of people who actually hold
these opinions
>You can legislate for actions., Northern Ireland has employment
>equality legislation, a police ombudsman with powers to put the Gardaí
>to shame, Parades Commissions, and independent housing executives.
>
>Your neighbour might think you're a wanker, but if he discriminates
>against you, you have legal redress. The Penal Laws are no more.
Sometimes discrimination is hard to prove especially when it is
creatively framed so as to bring about that result in the end anyway.
The voting system in the north as recently as 1972 is a case in point.
As you say thats gone now but I don't think it unreasonable at all to
be very weary of the powers that be in the six counties.
>>> There is universal suffrage.
>>
>>And thats great.
>>
>>>Exactly what wrong is being suffered here today?
>>
>>Have a look at the video "Siege of the Short Strand". I will quite
>>gladly make a copy and mail it to you all at my expense. Send me your
>>mailing address and I'll get it off to you within the week.
>
>Short Strand isn't government policy. If it was, those burning police
>landrovers wouldn't be standing between the tribes.
Do you want me to send you a copy? I'm happy to do so.
>[...]
>>>>>Warrensson doing here?
>>>>
>>>>Thats my father's name. I don't mind answering any such questions.
>>>
>>>Then answer them:
>>>Who is Irish, Mary Robinson's children or Peter Robinson's children?
>>>Who is Irish, McCosker or Cosgrave? Which Humes are Irish, and which
>>>aren't?
>>
>>They're Irish if they're born in Ireland and they chose to be Irish.
>>If they're born in Ireland and they choose not to be Irish then they
>>aren't.
>
>And if they chose not to, the son't have the right to a say in
>Ireland's future?
Only when it comes to referenda. My wife, who is a British citizen,
could vote in the Irish General elections as and when she was actually
living in Ireland but couldn't in referenda. I don't have any issue
with that, do you?
As it happens I voted the way she wanted to anyway re: abortion.
>>Ask the individuals concerned themselves.
>>
>>>How exactly do you decide who is Irish, and what differences will the
>>>non-Irish experience as a result?
>>
>>I'm not going to.
>
>Who does then?
A person is Irish if they were born in Ireland and chose to identify
as Irish. The person that decides this is themselves.
>>Thats not what I'm about. I agree with the sentiment
>>in the 1916 Proclamation:
>
>>"The republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and
>>equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to
>>pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its
>>parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and
>>oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien
>>government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the
>>past."
>
>The GFA was endorsed by a majority throughout the island, and in both
>jurisdictions. IOW, in 1998 we all agreed on something "oblivious of
>the differences ...which have divided a minority from the majority in
>the past."
And I'm very glad about that. Like I say, had I been in Ireland in
1998, I would have voted for the GFA as well.
>What we agreed BTW, was that its up to the people of Northern Ireland
>to decide the future of Northern Ireland. Not the people of all
>Ireland. Not the descendants of Gaels. Just the people of Northern
>Ireland. All of them. Siad Féin, so to speak.
You are quite correct. Roll on the border poll.
>[...]
>>>>>Then we'd have to find a new grand marshal for the parade,
>>>>>because Mumba isn't an Irish name.
>>>>
>>>>wtf?
>>>
>>>Obviously she's the descendant of a foreign oppressor
>>
>>Do you mean Samantha Mumba?
>
>Good to see you paid attention to the events of our National Day in
>the nation's capital.
As you know I'm no longer in Ireland.
I've got nothing against Samantha at all. I don't like the music she
makes but I welcome the increasing diversity she represents.
>[...]
>>>>I've never said that. What I'm saying is that the sovereignty of
>>>>Ireland rightly belongs to the Irish people as a whole and not in
>>>>parts as it is now.
>>>
>>>The sovereignty of the Ireland belongs to the people to dispose of as
>>>the choose. In the Good Friday Agreement, ratified by referendums on
>>>the same day in voting booths all over Ireland, the people made their
>>>choice clear. We decided its up to the people of Northern Ireland
>>>whether they want to be part of the Republic of Ireland or the United
>>>Kingdom.
>>
>>Had I been in Ireland at the time of the referendum, I too, would have
>>voted for it. I see the GFA as a progressive, intelligent and
>>compassionate document. I earnestly want to see it implemented.
>
>No you don't.
Yes I do.
> Either that, or you don't actually understand what it
>says. Three pars up you wrote "the sovereignty of Ireland rightly
>belongs to the Irish people as a whole and not in parts as it is now."
>
>Sorry to break it to you, but in the GFA we agreed to our sovereignty
>in parts.
Oh yeah, you're right. Sorry for the chuckie rhetoric...
> Not only that, we agreed that only the Northern Ireland
>part gets to decide if we've ever change the situation.
Roll on the border poll.
>>As I say above, I have a concern that the British Crown forces will
>>renege on it as they did so greivously on the Waitangi Treaty.
>
>Maybe they're following the Gerry Adams definition of "jump together".
Maori did jump and the British Crown forces did not.
>>>>Abusive language is not called for.
>>>
>>>Read what you write and think about what it actually means then.
>>
>>Read what I've said and see if it tallies with what you've accused me
>>of.
>
>Odd notions of Gaelic purity,
All that I'm saying about that is that the Gaelic people of Ireland at
the *very least* should not be treated with the disrespect they still
are in the six counties and more properly actually respected - which
they still aren't as is demonstrated every July.
> pissing and moaning about historic issues long resolved, misreading of the GFA,
I believe, but don't know of course, that when the GFA is implemented
as written that eventually Ireland will be ruled as a whole by
Ireland.
>chuckie cant about "Crown Forces".
There is very good reason for me and the Republican movement to be
suspicious of "Crown Forces" more particularly, as I've stated the
unspecified criteria by which the British Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland will decide if a majority of the people of Northern
Ireland want the border changed.
I can see that I'm going to have to write a letter to NIO.
>Have I missed anything?
See above.
>[....]
>>>>>Do the good guys wear white hats in your history books?
>>>>
>>>>Some of them wore broad black brimmers, with their ribbons frayed and
>>>>torn...
>>>
>>>Some of them blow up McDonald's in the name of Irish freedom. Quit
>>>chanting party slogans, you're smarter than Ray.
>>
>>That was opportunistic...I claim artistic license, I like the song.
>
>You didn't watch the evening news start with the latest death every
>evening growing up. Its not quite so romantic without the soundtrack.
You're quite right. We did see quite a bit on TV here on New Zealand,
slanted as it was in its reporting here.
In 1948 a Catholic Arch Bishop here in New Zealand was prosecuted for
Treason for uttering the sentiment "The Irish are badly treated"....
>[..]
>>>>>Then quit trying to roll back the penal laws by unIrishing the
>>>>>descendants of the people who benefitted from them.
>>>>
>>>>How am I trying to do that. I'm quite ok with them deciding for
>>>>themselves whether they are Irish or British, as is enshrined in the
>>>>GFA.
>>>
>>>Then why are you rabbiting on about Penal Laws, Cromwell, Strongbow
>>>and (just now) Christian invaders? What has this got to do with
>>>anything?
>>
>>Because the mentality that oppressed Ireland in past is still alive,
>>kicking and it has far too much currency, imho.
>
>ITs as alive as the mentality that's dying for the chance to do unto
>others as they've done unto us. Let it go man, you're a stranger
>here, don't pick sides in a fight you don't understand.
This very fight has involved members of my family. I don't believe
that I am a stranger to it and I am earnestly trying to fully
understand it.
Thats a significant part of the reason why I'm discussing this with
you right now.
>>>>> That's as much an injustice as the Penal Laws themselves.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not claiming that so argue that point with someone else.
>>>
>>>Explain what Penal Law injustice you think needs rectifying? Does my
>>>family stand to lose its farm to some neo-opagan hippy?
>>
>>Hardly. My point is about sovereignty of the whole of Ireland. There
>
>Disposed of in the GFA.
See above.
>>is actually a legal basis for me to persue the ownership of the farm
>>my grandfather grew up on in Kerry but I'm not going to bother with
>>it. I'd rather just buy some of the land in Cill Rialaig and be done
>>with it. Much easier and it wouldn't upset anyone.
>
>Didn't you see The Field? Strangers buying land in rural Ireland
>always upsets someone.
People in the area know full well who I'm related to. I was given a
copy of "Tragedies of Kerry" immediately upon identifying who I was
related to by someone in Port Magee. That someone had a grandfather
who was my great-grandfather.
>>>>>Work to get equality legislation implemented, work to get a police force everyone can
>>>>>accept, get your party to stop mickeying around over whether they'll
>>>>>get rid of their private army.
>>>>
>>>>Now thats a more direct and appropriate comment. For all that, I,
>>>>personally, am committed to a peaceful resolution to the northern
>>>>impasse
>>>
>>>Yes yes, I know this week's party line from the heros in the broad
>>>brimmed hats..
>>
>>Make fun all you like, its still true.
>
>I have no doubt it is. Trouble is, I suspect its only conditionally
>true.
>
>>>>and have said so to many of my friends in the party. They, for
>>>>the most part are likewise committed to the peace process.
>>>>
>>>>You'll have to take my word on that, as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>>I understand your cynicism in this respect but as far as I know, and
>>I've got a pretty good idea about the attitudes within the party, I'm
>>prepared to swear on my great-great uncle Sean O'Connell's - the
>>Seanacai from Cill Rialaig - grave that Sinn Fein really is committed
>>to the peace process.
>
>SF is a political party. Like any party, it'll go along with whatever
>it sees as giving it the greatest benefit.
Of course.
Aemon
Maggie Stewart-Grant
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:q0fg7vc54imf8u0v6...@4ax.com...
> Scríobh Maggie Stewart-Grant:
>
> [...]
>
> >OK no need to watch *this* thread any more. We are reduced to bad
language
> >and name-calling. Thought I was going to get more out of it than *this*.
>
> poster on the first day. If you like I can mention n*z*'s and
> officially end it.
>
> "Ferr fíor fertaib"
> Féachadóir
No need. I was interested in the discussion regarding the Picts, in
particular, as I have been doing a considerable amount of research,
launching my personal study with work done by Elizabeth Sutherland. I just
was going to lurk and read. Sorry for the outburst on my part!
Magaidh
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:42:41 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>>Scríobh Aemon etc....
>
>>>>>Exactly what would a border poll resolve?
>>>>
>>>>If the border poll abolished the border the police force would become
>>>>unified and the British soldiers would have to leave, there would be
>>>>no/greatly lessened possibility of collusion between the police and
>>>>loyalist hitsquads...ottomh.
>>>
>>>And if as is likely the border poll confirmed the existence of the
>>>border instead?
>>
>>I am fairly confident that if a border poll ala the GFA was held
>>tomorrow that the border would still be there the day after....but I
>>wouldn't say that about the border poll held 7 years afterwards.
>
>So why waste money supporting Trimble's call for a poll this May?
Personally, I'm not wasting any money. I'm only lending moral support
to Trimble's call - which was really only a strategic move on his part
to shore up support within his own party - which has been a bit shaky
over the last couple of years.
I would lend my moral support to it, albeit for different reasons to
Trimble, for the simple fact that, as I have said, even though the GFA
doesn't specifiy that a border poll MUST be held 7 years afterwards I
rather suspect that, as I've said already, the clatter that would
arise would be difficult to refuse.
Myself and the Republican movement are in this for the long haul. From
our perspective its been 800+ years already of British dominance...we
can wait another 10 +/-
>I wouldn't be that confident in seven years either. The demographics
>aren't *that* optimistic.
>
>>As you've pointed out, in past, the GFA does not specify that another
>>border poll *HAS* to be held 7 years later but that this is the
>>minimum amount of time before the next one, the hellish clatter that
>>would arise if another one wasn't held exactly 7 years later to the
>>day would cause one to be held, I believe.
>
>So given that even in seven years there's no prima facie majority, why
>waste the money. Wait till the census figures give the SoS a reason
>to call the poll.
You are joking about that aren't you? How can you have any confidence
in the census taking measures after the last abortion of a census that
any truly professional census taker wouldn't want to be associate with
lest it sully their professional reputation....
> Don't go creating unnecessary aggro.
If a democratic poll causes aggro then there's something seriously
sick about the society that reacts in that manner. The usage of
Unionist propaganda that went on for years about "democracy" is now
turning against them and instead of reacting like adults they pack
hissy fits and start demanding repartition....
>>I still haven't, as Falcon suggested, written to the NIO asking them
>>what criteria the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
>>would use as the criteria for deciding that:
>[..]
>>it "appears like to him that a majority of those voting would express
>>a wish that Northern ireland should cease to be part of the United
>>Kingdom..."
>>
>>What criteria can/will he use to decide this?
>
>Sectarian headcount based on census, local and national election
>results..
The last census was bogus. The results were changed by the census
takers after they were returned thus invalidating the results.
The idea of being based on national election results is more like it.
That allows for the possibility of Protestants voting nationalist, I
know some who think this way and I've specifically asked them, "If you
were given a chance to vote for a United Ireland would you?". They
answered me honestly and said yes. Everytime a person of Protestant
background expressed this opinion to me, more than once this has
happened, I had a really good feeling.
I'm not the only one who feels this way within my party either.
>>Sure as hell it can't be a Census that has religious affiliations
>>assigned to those who claim no religious affiliation, regardless of
>>what that is AND religious affiliation isn't an entirely reliable way
>>to decide such a thing in the first place.
>
>Of course it isn't. sure its not about religion at all. Sure its a
>grand wee place.
1. Are the Provos the defenders of the Catholic faith?
2. If "Eire Nua" ever came to be, for example, do you think that the
seperation between church and state would increase or decrease?
3. If it was all about religion the UVF and the UDA would never be at
each others throats.
The vast majority of Shinners that I knew were not church goers. There
was the one here and there but that was a small %, probably less than
the non-Shinner Irish public.
In support of what you say there once was a significant religious
aspect to it but these days there's no-one on the Lower Shankill
debating the transubstantiation of the communion host at the time of
consecration....
>>There are protestant
>>republicans and catholic unionists - admittedly not many of both but
>>some nonetheless.
>
>Census returns combined with Nationalist V Unionist voting patterns
>gives a fair indication to the SoS of how a vote is likely to go*. And
>I'm sure the NIO have the phone number for the MRBI and Gallup.
Of course they do. They know what the truth is, they're just not
saying it to the general public. I'd bet money that its as close as
47-48% Catholic vs 48-49% Protestant, 5-6% neither, but as I suggest
above I wouldn't regard that as a probable vote in favour of the GFA,
principally, I believe because I think that a significant number of
Catholics in the North might actually vote to retain the border for
two main reasons:
1. They're fearful of the potential for a civil war.
2. They want to retain the NHS etc...
I have to admire the NHS.
>* Or rather, a rough guide assuming nationalists vote UI and unionists
>vote UK.
I think that the ratio of (SF + SDLP / UUP + DUP) % votes with perhaps
the Women's Coalition + NI Alliance Party as the indicator in the
upcoming Stormont election would be the best basis upon which to
decide to hold an election.
What do you think?
> The imponderable is how many nationalists are less concerned
>with being part of a UI than with having their rights recognised
>within the UK.
Thats a *really* fair comment.
I can tell you that when I said to a unnamed but long standing
Republican activist, "I care more about ending the abuse of the
Nationalist community in NI than I do about a United Ireland." He
replied, "You're a true comrade".
Of course we both thought that the ending of the abuse was most likely
in a United Ireland....and don't tell me I'm imagining the abuse in
the six counties. I'll send you a copy of "Siege of the Short Strand"
if you do....
> With a fair police service,
This is a very pertinent factor but sadly, as you will see when you
watch "Siege of the Short Strand" it wasn't happening on the 8 June
2002 and on a number of other days May to July 2002.
> employment equality reform
Does it keep getting reformed every few years? I know lads who have
fake protestant names so they can get work in Protestant areas.
>etc
Whats the rest of the etc?
>in place, would you get rid of a devolved in Assembly in Belfast
>for the drudges in the Dáil?
Personally, I would support a federal Ireland where Stormont answered
to the Dáil and not Westminster, and so would a lot of people I think,
if it was put to them.
> Even if you regarded the Assembly and
>Dáil as interchangeable, would you swap the NHS for Mickey Martin's
>mickey mouse service?
Definitely not - see above re: admiration.
> Or swap Nuala O'Loan for the Morris Tribunal?
....
>One poll will be enough to show where people stand on that. That poll
>won't happen until the headcount makes a UI a possibility.
The Stormont Elections every 5 years I think should be the touch paper
on that - see above. That has to be the truly democratic solution.
Aemon
Aemon
>Waste of money.
Democracy in action.
Aemon
Sharon L. Krossa
> As per usual, we can count on Ger to require some rigour in these
> matters. This is a good thing. I've found some URLs that comment on
> this:
>
> http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/cairney/51.htm
Cairney isn't exactly a reliable source for anything. See my review of
his book at:
http://www.medievalscotland.org/postings/cairneyreview.shtml
The specific page references above is typical unsupported nonsense from
Cairney.
....
> >>>Interestingly the "haplotype" was found in the DNA of men
> >>> wth Gaelic surnames.
> >
> >The Cruithne would have Gaelic surnames. Surnames weren't adopted
> >until the 9th century or so.
>
> There are records of surnames going back before this surely? The
> Annals of the Four Masters contains references to people with surnames
> back before the 9th Century...in the patronymic naming tradition e.g.
> Cormac Mac Erc, Erc Mac Donal, Donal Mac Diarmuid etc etc (not actual
> people).
A lot depends on what people mean by "surnames". If they really mean
surnames -- which is just another term for bynames, a second name, which
may or may not be a family name -- then yes, they show up in Ireland
before the 9th century. Literal patronymics are a kind of
surname/byname.
However, if they don't really mean surnames, but rather mean family
names -- names indicating what family you belong to (which are only one
particular type of surname) -- then no, they only show up around the
10th century for Ireland. (And if they mean fixed, inherited surnames,
they show up even later still.)
Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa, skros...@MedievalScotland.org
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
Sharon L. Krossa
> >>>>Interestingly the "haplotype" was found in the DNA of men
> >>>> wth Gaelic surnames.
> >>
> >>The Cruithne would have Gaelic surnames. Surnames weren't adopted
> >>until the 9th century or so.
> >
> >There are records of surnames going back before this surely? The
>
> Not AFAIK. Patronyms, but not surnames.
Patronyms are a kind of surnames. See below.
> >Annals of the Four Masters contains references to people with surnames
> >back before the 9th Century...in the patronymic naming tradition e.g.
> >Cormac Mac Erc, Erc Mac Donal, Donal Mac Diarmuid etc etc (not actual
> >people).
>
> A patronym is not a surname. The Four Masters were writing in the
> 1600s.
No, a patronym is a surname. Although family names are a kind of
surname, not all surnames are family names. A literal patronymic is a
kind of surname. A surname is any second/additional name used to
distinguish between different people with the same given name. A synonym
for "surname" is "byname".
That being said, in modern English speaking cultures, we do tend to
think of surnames as being family names (usually fixed as well as
inherited) because that is essentially the only kind of surname that has
been used in English speaking cultures for some centuries.
Which is why, if one wants to communicate clearly about the use or
non-use of surnames or family names, it is often a good idea to avoid
the term "surname" and use "bynames" if bynames in general are meant and
"family names" if specifically family names are meant, or "fixed,
inherited surnames" if fixed, inherited surnames are meant. (Fixed,
inherited surnames are a sub-set of family names -- Gaelic family names
are not fixed, as the form is different for men and women, while English
family names are.)
Aemon
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:14:16 +0000, Féachadóir
>
>>>>Great. Roll on the border poll.
>>>
>>>Waste of money.
>>
>>Democracy in action.
>
>There's not much point in voting just for the sake of it. When it's
>likely to result in constitutional change, then it's worthwhile. At
>the moment, its a waste of money to prop up the UUP. If SF policy is
>to prop up Trimble fair enough, but its a superfluous vote.
Amusing to see you put it that way but the SF analysis is that:
'if a border poll is taken, then, because there is provision for
repeats of the border poll and the demographics continue to shift,
that another border poll will be taken again in the future, should the
first one fail, and eventually the border will be voted out of
existence'.
Nik
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
wrote:
>Amusing to see you put it that way but the SF analysis is that:
>
> 'if a border poll is taken, then, because there is provision for
>repeats of the border poll and the demographics continue to shift,
>that another border poll will be taken again in the future, should the
>first one fail, and eventually the border will be voted out of
>existence'.
So, in the interests of principle, they'll be behind calls for regular
border polls afterwards then? Or is this a standard SF case of
"Democratic means so long as we benefit, but if that looks like
changing, then fuck them."
Gavin Bailey
--
"Bombs are flying, people are dying,
Children are crying, politicians are lying too."
- "I'm Super", Big Gay Al
Aemon
Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 19:29:08 +1200, Aemon <repub...@email.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Amusing to see you put it that way but the SF analysis is that:
>>
>> 'if a border poll is taken, then, because there is provision for
>>repeats of the border poll and the demographics continue to shift,
>>that another border poll will be taken again in the future, should the
>>first one fail, and eventually the border will be voted out of
>>existence'.
>
>So, in the interests of principle, they'll be behind calls for regular
>border polls afterwards then?
Yes.
> Or is this a standard SF case of
>"Democratic means so long as we benefit, but if that looks like
>changing, then fuck them."
No. There's been a sea change in Republican thinking but it seems to
have passed your notice.
Aemon
lisieux
>
> iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
> pathetic justification for Loyalism...
>
> Aemon
Yes he seemed to think they had some sort of non-gaelic existence
which is difficult to see from the archeological record.
lisieux
>
> It always gives me a laugh when Republicans such as yourself get SO excited
> over the Cruithne! - Obviously, there simply "has" to be something in those
> claims after all!!
>
> Harry Merrick.
There is a lot in it Harry. However nothing too sensible.
Harry Merrick
At that far distant in time it is hardly surprising.
However, it certainly got up the noses of extremist Republicans and was a good laugh from that point
of view. Fair play to the man, it was, after all, only an idea! Nobody has come back with definitive
proof that he is not right. So, he may be right, despite all. To pour scorn and derisive mockings on
the poor man for that, is to display a degree of Republican insecurity which I find highly suspicious,
and *very* amusing!
Harry Merrick.
Nik O'Kiwi
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:15:59 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>>>Scríobh Aemon:
>[etc]
>
>>>>>Good man. Now look at the Hill et. al. results for Ulster, and see
>>>>>what they tell you about the ancestry of the people who live there.
>>>>>Then, after you've done that, explain why my ancestry or anyone else's
>>>>>should matter a damn in a vote tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>>Personally,
>>>
>>>I take this to mean you haven't actually looked at Hill?
>>
>>Give me an URL please.
>
>"Y chromosome variation and Irish origins", Hill, Jobling & Bradley,
>Nature, Vol 404, March 2000, p351
>
>Not sure if its available online, it may be on Logan's site.
>
>>>>I believe that natural justice indicates that the
>>>>indigenous inhabitants of a place are due some special respect or at
>>>>the very least a lack of disrespect, i.e. they oughtn't have to put up
>>>>with people parading past their front doors rubbing it in about how
>>>>their ancestors lost 3 centuries ago and these same paraders then
>>>>claiming that they're merely enjoying their buddies company and the
>>>>freedom of the Queen's chain and "its not a wind up"....
>>>
>>>All very fine and good, but here's the thing. Harold McCosker marching
>>>in his orange sash bears a native Gaelic name, while John Hume sitting
>>>indoors or buggering off to Bundoran
>>
>>I've been there. Nice place, nice beach. I swam in the ocean and then
>>walked down the strand whilst a blood red sun sank into the west,
>>awesome.
>
>Bord Fáilte and the McEniffs are grateful for the commercial I'm sure.
>Doesn't answer the question though.
>
>>>for the weekend has Planter roots.
>>>
>>>There are people alive today who knew people who were alive in 1921.
>>>There's no one alive with that connection to the plantation. That far
>>>down the road, who arrived when doesn't create any meaningful
>>>distinction, there's been too much mixing. Gael & Planter are all
>>>native at this stage.
>>
>>Its because the planter descendants make their own distinction on this
>>one that makes the problem difficult i.e. the goal posts get shifted
>>frequently, that is, they'll claim to be Irish or British depending on
>>whom it is that they are arguing with and/or the point they're trying
>>to make.
>
>Nationalists do the same. Unionists are denied the right to their
>Britishness to denigrate their preference for British over Irish rule,
Not by me they're not. I'm married to a British person. What I'm
unimpressed by is the British presumption that they can rule in the
six counties.
>then told they aren't really Irish.
Whether they are "Irish" or not is up to them. I do notice however,
that, when asked, that the answer given depends on what point they're
trying to make i.e. having their cake and eating it too...
> Historically, the problem stems from the Glorious Revolution, but the Glorious Revolution itself and
>what followed is irrelevant to the problem of getting people to live
>together.
>
>>>>I, like you, believe in universal sufferage and fortunately this is
>>>>the case these days in the north of Ireland.
>>>>
>>>>It wasn't so long ago though, i.e. within both of our lifetimes.
>>>
>>>It isn't any more. Quit looking back. The issue has been resolved,
>>>concentrate on what needs fixing, not what isn't broke.
>>
>>My comment is more meant to point to the fact that the attitude that
>>bought about that voting system is still alive and kicking.
>
>So is the attitude that blows up kids eating Big Macs, but you didn't
>seem so keen to dwell on that when I mentioned it.
Personally, I can't support any action that injures innocent
civilians, particularly children.
>>>>I concur with what you say and my comments were referring to the land
>>>>thefts that occurred here in New Zealand by Crown forces *after* the
>>>>signing of the Treaty of Waitangi - which occupies a very similar same
>>>>position in NZ's history as the GFA does in Ireland's.
>>>
>>>Except you're the beneficiary of the oppressor's legacy in NZ.
>>
>>Like I've said before, I've got Maori ancestry.
>
>So what? John Hume and Gerry Adams have planter ancestry. Ken Magennis
>has Gaelic ancestry.
>
>>I have sympathy with
>>Maori aspirations for historical redress. I'm not proud of the Crown's
>>past behaviour in New Zealand and I support, in a moral sense, Maori
>>attempts to redress the historical wrongs that went on here. I can't
>>help being born here.
>
>And no-one can help being born in Northern Ireland. So quit rabbiting
>on about penal laws and Strongbow.
I see them as part of the same policy continuum that has been the
causative factor in the troubles of the last 30-35 years. The
inherited British Hegemony. I am truly excited that the Stevens Report
is due out on April 17.
Surely, the British Government has known about this collusion for a
long time. I'm wondering why this information is finally seeing the
light of day, in an official sense.
Are the British Government trying to prepare the Unionist/Loyalist
population for the inevitable abolition of the Border?
>>>Is that why you're so eager to wrap the mantle of the victim around
>>>yourself in Ireland?
>>
>>Relatives of mine suffered because of the political situation in
>>Ireland that was forced upon them by another country. There is still a
>>bullet hole in a building in Ballinskelligs where one of my relatives
>>was lined up for a firing squad.
>
>I can show the landscape of my own history in Glencolmcille. Neither
>scene justifies support for the chuckies.
I can't comment on your family landscape because I don't know about
it.
>>>>I might point out that the Treaty of Waitangi was agreed to and signed
>>>>in the 1840s whereas the GFA was in the 1990s. It was promptly
>>>
>>>Who cares.
>>
>>Lots of people here in New Zealand care about the Treaty of Waitangi
>>and the fact that it was ignored for more than a century after
>>signing.
>
>Please don't snip quotes out of context. the next sentence sets this
>question in context.
>
>>> The Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed in 1921.
>>
>>And its led to a lot of suffering, on both sides of the border.
>
>Life's like that. It stubbornly refuses to be perfect.
To my mind, the strategy of the Republican leadership of recent years
has been insightful, compassionate and earnestly attempting to find
justice.
I understand your misgivings about militant Republicans but I think
that you discount too readily the reports of suffering that emanate
from the 6 counties.
>>>>forgotten and ignored by the Crown as it had had the effect that they
>>>>had desired i.e. ceasing hostilities. I, for one, do *NOT* want to see
>>>>a repeat of this behaviour by the British Crown.
>>>
>>>Spare me the chuckie rhetoric.
>>
>>Its not chuckie rhetoric, its whats happened in past and it doesn't
>>make it right.
>
>"The British Crown" is straight from the AP/RN stylebook.
Is 'the Crown' suitable?
>>>Everybody tried to wriggle out of
>>>their commitments before the ink was dry, unless I missed the beating
>>>of armalites into ploughshares.
>>
>>Armalites weren't around in 1921
>
>I'm talking about the commitments given on decommissioning in the GFA
I note that the GFA does not specify *when* complete decommissioning
is to occur. I am confident that there will be a day when the IRA will
be completely decommissioned.
>>but I take your meaning. Fine Gael
>>and Fianna Fail are still to decommission formally.
>
>You'll also notice that FF cumann members don't often make the news
>for getting themselves shot ion their way to administer a bit of
>community policing.
If they were administering community policing in the North they might
get shot.
>>>>>Are you now suggesting that the land be handed over to neo-pagans?
>>>>
>>>>No. The people that were there before the church, who were pagans
>>>>proper, arrived had descendants who became Christian. Those
>>>>descendants are still walking around in Ireland today. You're one of
>>>>them, unless I'm very much mistaken.
>>>
>>>Am I? I have Viking surnames in my family tree. That means a bit of
>>>me is a post-christian invader. Does that mean you're only going to
>>>take some of the farm?
>>
>>No. I'm not suggesting that and nowhere have I. I'm on about home rule
>>not the appropriation of private individual's property. I wouldn't
>>even seek that Blarney Castle be returned to Gaelic hands.
>
>Then why are you complaining about natives and land grabs?
Because of the immorality and the lack of recognition that the land
grabs were immoral and illegal.
>>>Ireland is ruling Ireland. Ireland decided that Ireland would be ruled
>>>by the British and Irish governments, and by the Assembly in Belfast,
>>>and by cross-border bodies to share jurisdiction, until and unless the
>>>people in Northern Ireland decided otherwise.
>>
>>I'm suspicious of the underlying motivations/sincerity of the Crown
>>signatories to that document, and rightly so given the past behaviour
>>of the British Crown forces both in New Zealand and in Ireland.
>
>I don't trust governments much myself. But I trust them more than I
>trust self-appointed Army Councils that claim to speak on my behalf.
Thats up to you.
>>>>Good eh? It seems to me that the mindset that created them in the
>>>>first place is still in existence and has altogether far too much
>>>>currency in the six counties.
>>>
>>>You can't legislate for opinions, and I don't think I';d like you to.
>>>Do you really want the government regulating your thoughts?>
>>
>>I most certainly don't. What I'm saying is that these "opinions" have
>>more currency than they:
>>
>>1. deserve
>>2. ought to have based upon the numbers of people who actually hold
>>these opinions
>
>Any you've canvassed how many unionists exactly?
Not that many, to be fair. I have spoken to some, but asking how many
"unionists", due to the fact that a Unionist is by definition against
Irish Home rule is pointless. I have spoken with Northern Protestants
though and some of them told me that they would be prepared to vote
for a United Ireland given the chance.
>>>You can legislate for actions., Northern Ireland has employment
>>>equality legislation, a police ombudsman with powers to put the Gardaí
>>>to shame, Parades Commissions, and independent housing executives.
>>>
>>>Your neighbour might think you're a wanker, but if he discriminates
>>>against you, you have legal redress. The Penal Laws are no more.
>>
>>Sometimes discrimination is hard to prove especially when it is
>>creatively framed so as to bring about that result in the end anyway.
>
>You're not familiar with how NI employment law works are you?
Why don't you edify me?
>>The voting system in the north as recently as 1972 is a case in point.
>>As you say thats gone now but I don't think it unreasonable at all to
>>be very weary of the powers that be in the six counties.
>
>I agree. I never trusted the guy who was Minister for Education for
>example.
Whether you trust him or not, by the accounts that I have heard, he's
been doing a good job, and what's more some of the accounts that I've
heard have come from Northern Protestants.
>>>>Have a look at the video "Siege of the Short Strand". I will quite
>>>>gladly make a copy and mail it to you all at my expense. Send me your
>>>>mailing address and I'll get it off to you within the week.
>>>
>>>Short Strand isn't government policy. If it was, those burning police
>>>landrovers wouldn't be standing between the tribes.
>>
>>Do you want me to send you a copy? I'm happy to do so.
>
>Who produced it? Who edited it? Who sells it? When was it first
>broadcast?
Watch it and make your own mind up. I'm more than happy to send you a
copy. Email me with a post box or something, or even your local Garda
station and I'll send it there for you to pick up.
>>>>They're Irish if they're born in Ireland and they chose to be Irish.
>>>>If they're born in Ireland and they choose not to be Irish then they
>>>>aren't.
>>>
>>>And if they chose not to, the son't have the right to a say in
>>>Ireland's future?
>>
>>Only when it comes to referenda. My wife, who is a British citizen,
>>could vote in the Irish General elections as and when she was actually
>>living in Ireland but couldn't in referenda. I don't have any issue
>>with that, do you?
>
>Let me get this straight. You would deny Irish citizens the right to
>vote in post-UI referendums?
Not at all. That would be one of those matters that would be sorted
out and in any event it would be contrary to the spirit of the GFA.
>>>Who does then?
>>
>>A person is Irish if they were born in Ireland and chose to identify
>>as Irish. The person that decides this is themselves.
>
>A person is an Irish citizen if born in Ireland. Their ethnic
>background is irrelevant.
I'm an Irish citizen.
>>>What we agreed BTW, was that its up to the people of Northern Ireland
>>>to decide the future of Northern Ireland. Not the people of all
>>>Ireland. Not the descendants of Gaels. Just the people of Northern
>>>Ireland. All of them. Siad Féin, so to speak.
>>
>>You are quite correct. Roll on the border poll.
>
>Waste of money.
Justice is never a waste of money and I'm sad to hear you say so.
>>>>Do you mean Samantha Mumba?
>>>
>>>Good to see you paid attention to the events of our National Day in
>>>the nation's capital.
>>
>>As you know I'm no longer in Ireland.
>
>I didn't actually. I don't pay that much heed to your comings and
>goings. :)
Ok, well I'm not at the moment.
>[...]
>>>Odd notions of Gaelic purity,
>>
>>All that I'm saying about that is that the Gaelic people of Ireland at
>>the *very least* should not be treated with the disrespect they still
>>are in the six counties and more properly actually respected - which
>>they still aren't as is demonstrated every July.
>
>Drumcree isn't Northern Ireland, however much some might wish it to
>be. I might equally point to the sane and reasonable discussions
>between the Apprentices and local residents in Derry as an example of
>how everyone gets along dandy. Neither gives the complete picture.
>Which you select says a lot about what you want to see.
Quite right. So are you willing to watch "Siege of the Short Strand"
or not?
>>>pissing and moaning about historic issues long resolved, misreading of the GFA,
>>
>>I believe, but don't know of course, that when the GFA is implemented
>>as written that eventually Ireland will be ruled as a whole by
>>Ireland.
>
>Nonsense. It will be ruled by Brussels.
That would be better than the situation as it stands.
>>>chuckie cant about "Crown Forces".
>>
>>There is very good reason for me and the Republican movement to be
>>suspicious of "Crown Forces" more particularly, as I've stated the
>>unspecified criteria by which the British Secretary of State for
>>Northern Ireland will decide if a majority of the people of Northern
>>Ireland want the border changed.
>
>Maybe you could take your seats in Westminster and ask a PQ?
What is a PQ? A something question?
>>In 1948 a Catholic Arch Bishop here in New Zealand was prosecuted for
>>Treason for uttering the sentiment "The Irish are badly treated"....
>
>>>ITs as alive as the mentality that's dying for the chance to do unto
>>>others as they've done unto us.
I know that there are some who think like this but the leadership
doesn't and neither do the republicans who maintain a balanced view on
the bigger picture.
>>> Let it go man, you're a stranger
>>>here, don't pick sides in a fight you don't understand.
>>
>>This very fight has involved members of my family. I don't believe
>>that I am a stranger to it and I am earnestly trying to fully
>>understand it.
>
>No, you've already decided you understand it. How long were you here
>before you got your membership card from the true comrades?
I had a membership card a year before I arrived.
Nik
Howard Beale
Nik O'Kiwi <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
news:gh8e9vk6tcrplk6hg...@4ax.com...
>
> Not by me they're not. I'm married to a British person. What I'm
> unimpressed by is the British presumption that they can rule in the
> six counties.
I'm starting to have doubts about this new fangled thing they're calling
democracy, as well. It'll never catch on
--
Howard Beale
"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"
Nik O'Kiwi
>Scríobh Aemon:
>>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:11:48 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>
>[..border polls..]
>>Myself and the Republican movement are in this for the long haul. From
>>our perspective its been 800+ years already of British dominance...we
>>can wait another 10 +/-
>
>What's this "we", white man?
I'm a member of the Irish Republican movement therefore, when I speak
of the Irish Republican movement, I am entitled to us "we".
>>>So given that even in seven years there's no prima facie majority, why
>>>waste the money. Wait till the census figures give the SoS a reason
>>>to call the poll.
>>
>>You are joking about that aren't you? How can you have any confidence
>>in the census taking measures after the last abortion of a census that
>>any truly professional census taker wouldn't want to be associate with
>>lest it sully their professional reputation....
>
>You expect precision from statistics? People don't work like that,
>groups are fuzzy at the edges. I have enough trust in whoever will be
>SoS to expect an informed decision to be made based on census data and
>election votes. There is no reason to expect a UI vote from a border
>poll today. There is no need for a border poll today.
That Census was a disgrace and I'm a bit suprised that you're not
noting it or are you just naysaying my comments about it more because
you just disagree with me rather than that there's something decidedly
unprofessional and dodgy about the methodology of that Census result.
iirc you've made a comment about it in another post, which supports
what I'm suggesting...
>>> Don't go creating unnecessary aggro.
>>
>>If a democratic poll causes aggro then there's something seriously
>>sick about the society that reacts in that manner. The usage of
>
>If a vote is unnecessary, it creates aggro. This vote is unnecessary.
Strictly speaking General Elections are unnecessary...
>>Unionist propaganda that went on for years about "democracy" is now
>>turning against them and instead of reacting like adults they pack
>>hissy fits and start demanding repartition....
>
>So your response is to demand a vote you know will change nothing?
If a border poll held now, maintains the border, for now, its only
another 7 years to another and then, I believe, the result will be
different. Have a look at the current northern demographics for
children under the age of 12....
I know that the GFA does not say that another Border Poll *MUST* be
held 7 years after the last one but I don't think that 7 years could
pass and then not have another border poll.
>[...]
>>>>it "appears like to him that a majority of those voting would express
>>>>a wish that Northern ireland should cease to be part of the United
>>>>Kingdom..."
>>>>
>>>>What criteria can/will he use to decide this?
>>>
>>>Sectarian headcount based on census, local and national election
>>>results..
>>
>>The last census was bogus. The results were changed by the census
>>takers after they were returned thus invalidating the results.
>
>The raw data was released. You know how many people answered
>athiest/neither/none,
IIRC 14%
> as well as how they were assigned.
I do, by postal code. I know for a fact that there are mixed areas in
the North...and so do you.
> Protestant or Catholic isn't just a measure of religion in Ireland, but of
>ethnicity. The census reported on ethnicity as well as devotion.
>
>>The idea of being based on national election results is more like it.
>
>It will not be based solely on elections, any more than it will be
>based on the census. It will be based on all available information.
To my mind, the Stormont Elections are the best possible indicator.
There are Protestant Nationalists just as there are Catholic Unionists
so an actual Political poll i.e. the Stormont Election, will show what
the true numbers are....assuming that the results aren't tampered
with.
>>That allows for the possibility of Protestants voting nationalist, I
>>know some who think this way and I've specifically asked them, "If you
>>were given a chance to vote for a United Ireland would you?". They
>>answered me honestly and said yes. Everytime a person of Protestant
>>background expressed this opinion to me, more than once this has
>>happened, I had a really good feeling.
>
>Good for you. How do you feel about the union-voting Catholics?
I despair but it is their prerogative regardless of how much I don't
understand them/disagree with them.
>They'd tend to cancel each other out I imagine.
Quite possibly but the Stormont Election will give the best picture
that is possible.
>>I'm not the only one who feels this way within my party either.
>
>Aren't ye the happy bunch.
We are, these days.
>>>>Sure as hell it can't be a Census that has religious affiliations
>>>>assigned to those who claim no religious affiliation, regardless of
>>>>what that is AND religious affiliation isn't an entirely reliable way
>>>>to decide such a thing in the first place.
>>>
>>>Of course it isn't. sure its not about religion at all. Sure its a
>>>grand wee place.
>>
>>1. Are the Provos the defenders of the Catholic faith?
>
>No, they're the self-proclaimed defenders of Catholics.
There have been Protestant members of the Provos...
>>2. If "Eire Nua" ever came to be, for example, do you think that the
>>seperation between church and state would increase or decrease?
>
>No idea. I'd be too busy fighting against the neo-stalinist
>dictatorship that would result to worry about the church.
Neo-stalinist...listen to yourself. Is Maskey a neo-Stalinist Mayor?
Is Mr McGuinness a neo-Stalinist Education Minister?
>>3. If it was all about religion the UVF and the UDA would never be at
>>each others throats.
>
>You really don't understand the loyalist outlook do you?
I understand that they want to control their drug turf...
I also understand that if a border poll was held tomorrow and the
border abolished that the Loyalists would immediately try to start a
civil war of sorts. Innocent Catholics would be murdered for the mere
fact of their familial, cultural background...
>>The vast majority of Shinners that I knew were not church goers. There
>>was the one here and there but that was a small %, probably less than
>>the non-Shinner Irish public.
>
>There's life beyond chuckies.
>
>>In support of what you say there once was a significant religious
>>aspect to it but these days there's no-one on the Lower Shankill
>>debating the transubstantiation of the communion host at the time of
>>consecration....
>
>Its not about doctrine. Its about affiliation. Its about religion, not
>about religious belief.
Therefore, its not a 'Religious War'.
>>>>There are protestant republicans and catholic unionists - admittedly not many of both but
>>>>some nonetheless.
>>>
>>>Census returns combined with Nationalist V Unionist voting patterns
>>>gives a fair indication to the SoS of how a vote is likely to go*. And
>>>I'm sure the NIO have the phone number for the MRBI and Gallup.
>>
>>Of course they do. They know what the truth is, they're just not
>>saying it to the general public. I'd bet money that its as close as
>>47-48% Catholic vs 48-49% Protestant, 5-6% neither, but as I suggest
>
>You can bet all you want. If you don't accept the census, neither of
>us can collect on the bet.
True enough. How about the Stormont Election coming up then?
>>above I wouldn't regard that as a probable vote in favour of the GFA,
>>principally, I believe because I think that a significant number of
>>Catholics in the North might actually vote to retain the border for
>>two main reasons:
>>
>>1. They're fearful of the potential for a civil war.
>>2. They want to retain the NHS etc...
>>
>>I have to admire the NHS.
>
>Ya traitor!
Not really. The NHS is worthy of admiration.
>>>* Or rather, a rough guide assuming nationalists vote UI and unionists
>>>vote UK.
>>
>>I think that the ratio of (SF + SDLP / UUP + DUP) % votes with perhaps
>>the Women's Coalition + NI Alliance Party as the indicator in the
>>upcoming Stormont election would be the best basis upon which to
>>decide to hold an election.
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>I think the vote would maintain the status quo. It's a waste of money
>for at least ten years.
Quite probably you're right about the status quo, but the Republican
perspective its worth doing now, especially as David Trimble is
calling for it...
and check out the demographics for children in the six counties now
under the age of 12.
>>> The imponderable is how many nationalists are less concerned
>>>with being part of a UI than with having their rights recognised
>>>within the UK.
>>
>>Thats a *really* fair comment.
>
>Its why the Civil Rights Movement started.
Indeed.
>>I can tell you that when I said to a unnamed but long standing
>>Republican activist, "I care more about ending the abuse of the
>>Nationalist community in NI than I do about a United Ireland." He
>>replied, "You're a true comrade".
>
>How sweet.
I'm using it as an example to support what you're saying above. Be
charitable Ger.
>>Of course we both thought that the ending of the abuse was most likely
>>in a United Ireland....and don't tell me I'm imagining the abuse in
>>the six counties. I'll send you a copy of "Siege of the Short Strand"
>>if you do....
>
>Do you feel Protestant rights will be respected in a united Ireland?
Yes I do.
>Do you think Protestants believe that?
Probably not, in a lot of cases.
> How would you reassure them about their fears?
The truth about how it is for Protestants in the Republic right now
ought to be enough, and more so when negotiations are entered into
about how a UI could be for Northern Protestants, but at the moment
they aren't even joining the discussion on this one - at a leadership
level anyway.
>>> With a fair police service,
>>
>>This is a very pertinent factor but sadly, as you will see when you
>>watch "Siege of the Short Strand" it wasn't happening on the 8 June
>>2002 and on a number of other days May to July 2002.
>
>Who produced this video? Who edited it?
Watch the video yourself and don't *prejudge* it. That would be
prejudiced now wouldn't it?
>>> employment equality reform
>>
>>Does it keep getting reformed every few years? I know lads who have
>>fake protestant names so they can get work in Protestant areas.
>>
>>>etc
>>
>>Whats the rest of the etc?
>
>Independent housing authority, free and fair elections for starters.
Hurrah...
>>>in place, would you get rid of a devolved in Assembly in Belfast
>>>for the drudges in the Dáil?
>>
>>Personally, I would support a federal Ireland where Stormont answered
>>to the Dáil and not Westminster, and so would a lot of people I think,
>>if it was put to them.
>
>So sort of a scaled down Éire Nua?
Éire Nua is policy that Ruari and comrades clings to these days. So
yes, a scaled down Éire Nua, if you like.
>>>One poll will be enough to show where people stand on that. That poll
>>>won't happen until the headcount makes a UI a possibility.
>>
>>The Stormont Elections every 5 years I think should be the touch paper
>>on that - see above. That has to be the truly democratic solution.
What could be more so?
Nik
Harry Merrick
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:38:33 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>
..........."SNIP"..........
>
> >>Its because the planter descendants make their own distinction on this
> >>one that makes the problem difficult i.e. the goal posts get shifted
> >>frequently, that is, they'll claim to be Irish or British depending on
> >>whom it is that they are arguing with and/or the point they're trying
> >>to make.
> >
> >Nationalists do the same.
Yes.
> Unionists are denied the right to their
> >Britishness to denigrate their preference for British over Irish rule,
Yes again. Although the "Protestant Community" which better describes the majority within Northern
Ireland's Six Counties, are perfectly happy, generally speaking, in calling themselves "Irish" as well.
However, the real problem arises when they are then associating themselves with the Republican "Irish", who
deliberately try to deny them their Cultural rights to be Protestant and not Catholic, to remain British,
to be Governed by Britain and to enjoy all the benefits of being British. The Republican Movement now finds
itself foist on it's own petard since they it was who carried on the last thirty-five years or so of
attacks on Protestants and their Culture. Is it any wonder that they are now held in deep suspicion? -
Thankfully, the Republic's Government recognise the problem, and also that the myth of Sinn Féin and the
IRA NOT being one and the same, is exactly that, a myth. See Mary Harney's speech yesterday.
>
>
> Not by me they're not. I'm married to a British person.
What the hell has that got to do with anything?
> What I'm
> unimpressed by is the British presumption that they can rule in the
> six counties.
They are requested to do so by the majority vote within Northern Ireland, and always have done so. And if
the British so wished, I would remind you, they *could* enforce their rule over ALL Ireland if they so
wished, and nothing the Irish could do could stop it. However, the British don't want Ireland per se, and
why should they?
>
>
> >then told they aren't really Irish.
>
> Whether they are "Irish" or not is up to them.
If they are born on the island of Ireland, then they are Irish. That does NOT mean that they have to be
Irish Citizens. Most are percieved as being British Citizens, since that is their Heritage and Culture. The
Republican's have shot themselves in the foot by their own actions if they think that the Protestant
community will *ever* succumb to the temptation of abandoning their Britishness and becoming Irish after
all the Republican pogroms against the Protestant and British community in the North!
> I do notice however,
> that, when asked, that the answer given depends on what point they're
> trying to make i.e. having their cake and eating it too...
Bit like yourself then, eh, Amoan?
>
>
> > Historically, the problem stems from the Glorious Revolution, but the Glorious Revolution itself and
> >what followed is irrelevant to the problem of getting people to live
> >together.
> >
> >>>>I, like you, believe in universal sufferage and fortunately this is
> >>>>the case these days in the north of Ireland.
> >>>>
> >>>>It wasn't so long ago though, i.e. within both of our lifetimes.
> >>>
> >>>It isn't any more. Quit looking back. The issue has been resolved,
> >>>concentrate on what needs fixing, not what isn't broke.
> >>
> >>My comment is more meant to point to the fact that the attitude that
> >>bought about that voting system is still alive and kicking.
> >
> >So is the attitude that blows up kids eating Big Macs, but you didn't
> >seem so keen to dwell on that when I mentioned it.
>
> Personally, I can't support any action that injures innocent
> civilians, particularly children.
Then why were you not out Protesting against the Republican, "sic" "war" with Britain? Hypocrisy again! Not
to mention the ongoing wars in the Congo, supported by aid supplied by the Irish Govt. and going straight
into corrupt pockets! - OUR money, I might add! Why are you not today protesting about that?
>
>
> >>>>I concur with what you say and my comments were referring to the land
> >>>>thefts that occurred here in New Zealand by Crown forces *after* the
> >>>>signing of the Treaty of Waitangi - which occupies a very similar same
> >>>>position in NZ's history as the GFA does in Ireland's.
> >>>
> >>>Except you're the beneficiary of the oppressor's legacy in NZ.
> >>
> >>Like I've said before, I've got Maori ancestry.
Ah, So he is NOT Irish, actually.
>
> >
> >So what? John Hume and Gerry Adams have planter ancestry. Ken Magennis
> >has Gaelic ancestry.
I am sure that we all have Gaelic ancestry. I certainly do. Total nonsense again, Amoan.
>
> >
> >>I have sympathy with
> >>Maori aspirations for historical redress. I'm not proud of the Crown's
> >>past behaviour in New Zealand and I support, in a moral sense, Maori
> >>attempts to redress the historical wrongs that went on here. I can't
> >>help being born here.
> >
> >And no-one can help being born in Northern Ireland. So quit rabbiting
> >on about penal laws and Strongbow.
>
> I see them as part of the same policy continuum that has been the
> causative factor in the troubles of the last 30-35 years. The
> inherited British Hegemony. I am truly excited that the Stevens Report
> is due out on April 17.
God! It doesn't take much to excite Amoan! Wonder what his wife thinks!
>
>
> Surely, the British Government has known about this collusion for a
> long time. I'm wondering why this information is finally seeing the
> light of day, in an official sense.
Yes, it is very easy to point fingers of shame and pontificate against an official institution such as a
Government and it's legitimate armed forces. Your bleatings would hold SO much more water if you came out
against the IRA and the paramilitaries, and insist on Reports and Enquiries and then compensation for the
acts so performed by them. Until you do, ALL your arguments are spurious, lacking in credibility, and
beneath contempt.
>
>
> Are the British Government trying to prepare the Unionist/Loyalist
> population for the inevitable abolition of the Border?
No. We are a democracy. The lies and intimidation of the Republican Movement will NOT affect the judgement
of the British Government, and will not bring about a United Ireland. This will only happen when the time
is right for all parties. It is NOT so at the moment, and will not be for the foreseeable future.
>
>
> >>>Is that why you're so eager to wrap the mantle of the victim around
> >>>yourself in Ireland?
> >>
> >>Relatives of mine suffered because of the political situation in
> >>Ireland that was forced upon them by another country. There is still a
> >>bullet hole in a building in Ballinskelligs where one of my relatives
> >>was lined up for a firing squad.
> >
> >I can show the landscape of my own history in Glencolmcille. Neither
> >scene justifies support for the chuckies.
>
> I can't comment on your family landscape because I don't know about
> it.
Good heavens! Mr. Knowall admits he doesn't know all! I will have to readjust my opinions slightly.
>
>
> >>>>I might point out that the Treaty of Waitangi was agreed to and signed
> >>>>in the 1840s whereas the GFA was in the 1990s. It was promptly
> >>>
> >>>Who cares.
> >>
> >>Lots of people here in New Zealand care about the Treaty of Waitangi
> >>and the fact that it was ignored for more than a century after
> >>signing.
> >
> >Please don't snip quotes out of context. the next sentence sets this
> >question in context.
Hmm. Now where have I seen this done before? Beacon? Aemon?
>
> >
> >>> The Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed in 1921.
> >>
> >>And its led to a lot of suffering, on both sides of the border.
> >
> >Life's like that. It stubbornly refuses to be perfect.
>
> To my mind, the strategy of the Republican leadership of recent years
> has been insightful, compassionate and earnestly attempting to find
> justice.
Wonderful. So you think that brute force, intimidation and terror are justified then. HELPPP! Mr Bush!
Where are you??
>
>
> I understand your misgivings about militant Republicans but I think
> that you discount too readily the reports of suffering that emanate
> from the 6 counties.
And so do you. Sitting comfortably in front of a Computer in your sitting room in New Zealand does not do
much for your insight into Irish matters, it does have to be said. Listening to the usual fragrant lies and
propaganda from your Republican friends in cozy conference and e-mail does not make a profound and honest
proponent of opinion, nor is it at all helpful in our situation here.
>
>
> >>>>forgotten and ignored by the Crown as it had had the effect that they
> >>>>had desired i.e. ceasing hostilities. I, for one, do *NOT* want to see
> >>>>a repeat of this behaviour by the British Crown.
> >>>
> >>>Spare me the chuckie rhetoric.
> >>
> >>Its not chuckie rhetoric, its whats happened in past and it doesn't
> >>make it right.
> >
> >"The British Crown" is straight from the AP/RN stylebook.
>
> Is 'the Crown' suitable?
What a stupid question!
>
>
> >>>Everybody tried to wriggle out of
> >>>their commitments before the ink was dry, unless I missed the beating
> >>>of armalites into ploughshares.
> >>
> >>Armalites weren't around in 1921
> >
> >I'm talking about the commitments given on decommissioning in the GFA
>
> I note that the GFA does not specify *when* complete decommissioning
> is to occur. I am confident that there will be a day when the IRA will
> be completely decommissioned.
That was one of the major mistakes the GFA made, not being specific enough. Republican's would not have
been allowed to get away with that if the DUP had been in on the negotiations. I don't agree with the DUP,
but they do represent a large minority, and maybe now a majority, of Unionism. They cannot be ignored
nonetheless. There will never be a United Ireland until the DUP is included 100%, like it or not!
Decommissioning by the IRA will indeed happen, but only eventually. Sadly it will only be done very
reluctantly, and if not done openly, there will be great reservations by most that they have not
decommissioned fully. That is the case at the moment in fact. In all actuality, by the rules of the GFA,
the IRA are already months if not years in default of the original time limit for decommissioning.
>
>
> >>but I take your meaning. Fine Gael
> >>and Fianna Fail are still to decommission formally.
> >
> >You'll also notice that FF cumann members don't often make the news
> >for getting themselves shot ion their way to administer a bit of
> >community policing.
>
> If they were administering community policing in the North they might
> get shot.
Bullshit. How can you possibly say that? You simply do not know!
>
>
> >>>>>Are you now suggesting that the land be handed over to neo-pagans?
> >>>>
> >>>>No. The people that were there before the church, who were pagans
> >>>>proper, arrived had descendants who became Christian. Those
> >>>>descendants are still walking around in Ireland today. You're one of
> >>>>them, unless I'm very much mistaken.
> >>>
> >>>Am I? I have Viking surnames in my family tree. That means a bit of
> >>>me is a post-christian invader. Does that mean you're only going to
> >>>take some of the farm?
> >>
> >>No. I'm not suggesting that and nowhere have I. I'm on about home rule
> >>not the appropriation of private individual's property. I wouldn't
> >>even seek that Blarney Castle be returned to Gaelic hands.
> >
> >Then why are you complaining about natives and land grabs?
>
> Because of the immorality and the lack of recognition that the land
> grabs were immoral and illegal.
Rights of Conquest? Now, of course, considered illegal and immoral by the "Trendy" Socialist or Liberal
pinko. In those days it was the accepted way by all countries. It is only now, when we have the do-gooder
softies allowed a say, that the Tail wags the Dog, and things are allowed to get out of control.
>
>
> >>>Ireland is ruling Ireland. Ireland decided that Ireland would be ruled
> >>>by the British and Irish governments, and by the Assembly in Belfast,
> >>>and by cross-border bodies to share jurisdiction, until and unless the
> >>>people in Northern Ireland decided otherwise.
> >>
> >>I'm suspicious of the underlying motivations/sincerity of the Crown
> >>signatories to that document, and rightly so given the past behaviour
> >>of the British Crown forces both in New Zealand and in Ireland.
> >
> >I don't trust governments much myself. But I trust them more than I
> >trust self-appointed Army Councils that claim to speak on my behalf.
>
> Thats up to you.
It is undoubtedly very much a majority opinion. Self-appointed Army Councils are hardly the stuff of
Democracy.
>
>
> >>>>Good eh? It seems to me that the mindset that created them in the
> >>>>first place is still in existence and has altogether far too much
> >>>>currency in the six counties.
> >>>
> >>>You can't legislate for opinions, and I don't think I';d like you to.
> >>>Do you really want the government regulating your thoughts?>
> >>
> >>I most certainly don't. What I'm saying is that these "opinions" have
> >>more currency than they:
> >>
> >>1. deserve
> >>2. ought to have based upon the numbers of people who actually hold
> >>these opinions
> >
> >Any you've canvassed how many unionists exactly?
>
> Not that many, to be fair. I have spoken to some, but asking how many
> "unionists", due to the fact that a Unionist is by definition against
> Irish Home rule is pointless.
The crux of the problem! Until you persuade them, the Unionists and Loyalists, to take a different point of
view, nothing will change. However, by NOT discussing the possibility of a United Ireland with them, you
are never going to find out what has to be done to instigate a change of heart.
> I have spoken with Northern Protestants
> though and some of them told me that they would be prepared to vote
> for a United Ireland given the chance.
No, not given the chance! Given the right conditions for it. I would be certain that very few Protestants
would vote for a UI under any circumstances today.
>
>
> >>>You can legislate for actions., Northern Ireland has employment
> >>>equality legislation, a police ombudsman with powers to put the Gardaí
> >>>to shame, Parades Commissions, and independent housing executives.
> >>>
> >>>Your neighbour might think you're a wanker, but if he discriminates
> >>>against you, you have legal redress. The Penal Laws are no more.
> >>
> >>Sometimes discrimination is hard to prove especially when it is
> >>creatively framed so as to bring about that result in the end anyway.
> >
> >You're not familiar with how NI employment law works are you?
>
> Why don't you edify me?
Waste of time. You don't listen.
>
>
> >>The voting system in the north as recently as 1972 is a case in point.
> >>As you say thats gone now but I don't think it unreasonable at all to
> >>be very weary of the powers that be in the six counties.
> >
> >I agree. I never trusted the guy who was Minister for Education for
> >example.
>
> Whether you trust him or not, by the accounts that I have heard, he's
> been doing a good job, and what's more some of the accounts that I've
> heard have come from Northern Protestants.
And you are perfectly correct, McGuinness did indeed do a good job. The main problem that Protestants have
with him is that he was a leader of the PIRA and has, if not doing it himself, been responsible for
organizing killings, bombings and general mayhem. In most people's eyes, he is a criminal at best and a
murderer at worst.
>
>
> >>>>Have a look at the video "Siege of the Short Strand". I will quite
> >>>>gladly make a copy and mail it to you all at my expense. Send me your
> >>>>mailing address and I'll get it off to you within the week.
> >>>
> >>>Short Strand isn't government policy. If it was, those burning police
> >>>landrovers wouldn't be standing between the tribes.
> >>
> >>Do you want me to send you a copy? I'm happy to do so.
> >
> >Who produced it? Who edited it? Who sells it? When was it first
> >broadcast?
>
> Watch it and make your own mind up. I'm more than happy to send you a
> copy. Email me with a post box or something, or even your local Garda
> station and I'll send it there for you to pick up.
Don't believe a word of it! Somehow I think this has as much relevance as the video showing the IRA man in
Colombia being in Ireland when he was actually in Colombia! A fix. Anybody can make a film showing whatever
you want. Here in Northern Ireland this video has been thoroughly discredited by most, and David Irvine in
particular.
>
>
> >>>>They're Irish if they're born in Ireland and they chose to be Irish.
> >>>>If they're born in Ireland and they choose not to be Irish then they
> >>>>aren't.
> >>>
> >>>And if they chose not to, the son't have the right to a say in
> >>>Ireland's future?
> >>
> >>Only when it comes to referenda. My wife, who is a British citizen,
> >>could vote in the Irish General elections as and when she was actually
> >>living in Ireland but couldn't in referenda. I don't have any issue
> >>with that, do you?
> >
> >Let me get this straight. You would deny Irish citizens the right to
> >vote in post-UI referendums?
>
> Not at all. That would be one of those matters that would be sorted
> out and in any event it would be contrary to the spirit of the GFA.
WHAT do *you* know about the spirit of the GFA? Not a lot, IMO.
>
>
> >>>Who does then?
> >>
> >>A person is Irish if they were born in Ireland and chose to identify
> >>as Irish. The person that decides this is themselves.
> >
> >A person is an Irish citizen if born in Ireland. Their ethnic
> >background is irrelevant.
>
> I'm an Irish citizen.
Born in Ireland of Maori descent? Living in New Zealand by preference? - Oh come on! Oh, sorry, perhaps by
legal change. Or, maybe, the chance of being born in Ireland. But your soul, obviously, is in New Zealand.
>
>
> >>>What we agreed BTW, was that its up to the people of Northern Ireland
> >>>to decide the future of Northern Ireland. Not the people of all
> >>>Ireland. Not the descendants of Gaels. Just the people of Northern
> >>>Ireland. All of them. Siad Féin, so to speak.
> >>
> >>You are quite correct. Roll on the border poll.
> >
> >Waste of money.
>
> Justice is never a waste of money and I'm sad to hear you say so.
Most people would be very happy for there to be a Border Poll, as it would clear the air from all this
Republican misrepresentation of actuality. Believe me, Republicans are a definite minority amongst
Catholics and Nationalists. In the same way, Loyalists are a definite minority amongst Protestants and
Unionists. There can be no doubt that a Border Poll would declare a resounding "NO" to a UI at this stage.
Both Irish and British Governments will not allow this poll. Obviously hidden agenda's afoot.
>
>
> >>>>Do you mean Samantha Mumba?
> >>>
> >>>Good to see you paid attention to the events of our National Day in
> >>>the nation's capital.
> >>
> >>As you know I'm no longer in Ireland.
> >
> >I didn't actually. I don't pay that much heed to your comings and
> >goings. :)
>
> Ok, well I'm not at the moment.
He hardly ever is. So full of misinformation and arrogant self opinion.
>
>
> >[...]
> >>>Odd notions of Gaelic purity,
> >>
> >>All that I'm saying about that is that the Gaelic people of Ireland at
> >>the *very least* should not be treated with the disrespect they still
> >>are in the six counties and more properly actually respected - which
> >>they still aren't as is demonstrated every July.
> >
> >Drumcree isn't Northern Ireland, however much some might wish it to
> >be. I might equally point to the sane and reasonable discussions
> >between the Apprentices and local residents in Derry as an example of
> >how everyone gets along dandy. Neither gives the complete picture.
> >Which you select says a lot about what you want to see.
>
> Quite right. So are you willing to watch "Siege of the Short Strand"
> or not?
That wretched video! All highly orchestrated, all highly propagandized! Not the real story.
>
>
> >>>pissing and moaning about historic issues long resolved, misreading of the GFA,
> >>
> >>I believe, but don't know of course, that when the GFA is implemented
> >>as written that eventually Ireland will be ruled as a whole by
> >>Ireland.
> >
> >Nonsense. It will be ruled by Brussels.
>
> That would be better than the situation as it stands.
Then you are a traitor to your Republican dogma. Actually, it is fair to say that we all are being ruled
from Brussels at this moment. That makes your arguments about a UI merely spurious nonsense.
>
>
> >>>chuckie cant about "Crown Forces".
> >>
> >>There is very good reason for me and the Republican movement to be
> >>suspicious of "Crown Forces" more particularly, as I've stated the
> >>unspecified criteria by which the British Secretary of State for
> >>Northern Ireland will decide if a majority of the people of Northern
> >>Ireland want the border changed.
> >
> >Maybe you could take your seats in Westminster and ask a PQ?
>
> What is a PQ? A something question?
The Republican Movement has been supporting a completely illegal private army, the PIRA, for more years
than I care to remember! They have no rights as such to be considered as "Legitimate" in the face of
things. I consider the British, Irish and American leaderships to be guilty of deceit and stupidity of the
worst kind to be pandering to such an evil organisation. I would say the same if the Orange Order was
involved. The Republican Movement is regarded by most as highly suspicious and untrustworthy as has been
demonstrated many times historically, and recently. The "Crown Forces" ARE wholly legitimate, and as such
should not be drawn into contempt by a band of murderous thugs.
>
>
> >>In 1948 a Catholic Arch Bishop here in New Zealand was prosecuted for
> >>Treason for uttering the sentiment "The Irish are badly treated"....
> >
> >>>ITs as alive as the mentality that's dying for the chance to do unto
> >>>others as they've done unto us.
>
> I know that there are some who think like this but the leadership
> doesn't and neither do the republicans who maintain a balanced view on
> the bigger picture.
Who's kidding who here? Your a joke Amoan!
>
>
> >>> Let it go man, you're a stranger
> >>>here, don't pick sides in a fight you don't understand.
> >>
> >>This very fight has involved members of my family. I don't believe
> >>that I am a stranger to it and I am earnestly trying to fully
> >>understand it.
> >
> >No, you've already decided you understand it. How long were you here
> >before you got your membership card from the true comrades?
>
> I had a membership card a year before I arrived.
A membership for the Communist Party? Dear me! That really explains it all. An outmoded Commie for an out
moded principle! LOL!
Harry Merrick.
Nik O'Kiwi
The jury is still out on this one. It seems to me that the facts are
thus:
1. There was a period in Irish history prior to the arrival of the
Gaelic culture, if not the people, en mass.
2. There were people already in Ireland at this time.
It was my belief that these pre-Gaelic people were the Cruithin...but
I'm not sure...
In any event, Adamson, is a clown because the "pre-Gaelic" Irish are
'genetically' spread all over Ireland and the world at large but more
particularly Ireland and *NOT* concentrated in Loyalist areas...
The idea is just too stupid to be given any creedence and I'm suprised
that someone spent enough intellectual energy to produce a book
detailing the stupid idea it is in the first place.
Nik
Harry Merrick
> On 9 Apr 2003 14:30:55 -0700, lis...@gaelmail.com (lisieux) wrote:
>
> >Aemon <repub...@email.com> wrote in message news:<s5no6vopk7uu5j0t7...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> iirc, it was Iain Adamson who tried to use "Cruithne" as some sort of
> >> pathetic justification for Loyalism...
> >>
> >> Aemon
> >
> >Yes he seemed to think they had some sort of non-gaelic existence
> >which is difficult to see from the archeological record.
>
> The jury is still out on this one. It seems to me that the facts are
> thus:
>
> 1. There was a period in Irish history prior to the arrival of the
> Gaelic culture, if not the people, en mass.
So? We don't actually know.
>
>
> 2. There were people already in Ireland at this time.
Nobody said that there were not!
>
>
> It was my belief that these pre-Gaelic people were the Cruithin...but
> I'm not sure...
It is possible. And so?
>
>
> In any event, Adamson, is a clown because the "pre-Gaelic" Irish are
> 'genetically' spread all over Ireland and the world at large but more
> particularly Ireland and *NOT* concentrated in Loyalist areas...
Ridiculous man! Since when were there Loyalist areas in pre-history!
>
>
> The idea is just too stupid to be given any creedence and I'm suprised
> that someone spent enough intellectual energy to produce a book
> detailing the stupid idea it is in the first place.
Had you properly read and understood the book, there is very little claim to what you say. However,
since it obviously winds you up so much, it is perfectly clear that Adamson must be on a wining streak
here! LOL!
Obviously, you must have been talking to the Leprechauns.
Harry Merrick.
Nik O'Kiwi
>Scríobh Nik O'Kiwi:
>>On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:38:33 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>[....]
>
>>>Nationalists do the same. Unionists are denied the right to their
>>>Britishness to denigrate their preference for British over Irish rule,
>>
>>Not by me they're not. I'm married to a British person. What I'm
>
>How special.
>
>>unimpressed by is the British presumption that they can rule in the
>>six counties.
>
>Indeed. Far better to presume you know better than the 95% majority
>in the Republic and the 78% majority in the North who were happy with
>that state of affairs in the GFA referendum.
I'm not. I support the GFA.
>>>then told they aren't really Irish.
>>
>>Whether they are "Irish" or not is up to them. I do notice however,
>>that, when asked, that the answer given depends on what point they're
>>trying to make i.e. having their cake and eating it too...
>
>So do chuckie wankers like you when you presume to speak on behalf of
>the Irish people.
How so? My point doesn't shift depending on who I'm talking to or what
point I'm trying to make...and a bit less of the "chuckie wankers" eh?
>>>>My comment is more meant to point to the fact that the attitude that
>>>>bought about that voting system is still alive and kicking.
>>>
>>>So is the attitude that blows up kids eating Big Macs, but you didn't
>>>seem so keen to dwell on that when I mentioned it.
>>
>>Personally, I can't support any action that injures innocent
>>civilians, particularly children.
>
>Why are you a member of a party that does?
We do not. I have heard Senior Party members bemoan these occurences,
with my own ears.
>[snip nordie cant]
>
>>>I can show the landscape of my own history in Glencolmcille. Neither
>>>scene justifies support for the chuckies.
>>
>>I can't comment on your family landscape because I don't know about
>>it.
>
>Yet you feel free to pontificate about Northern Ireland.
All that I said above was, I'm ignorant about *YOUR* family landscape.
I'm sorry if *YOUR* family has directly suffered.
>[...]
>
>>>Life's like that. It stubbornly refuses to be perfect.
>>
>>To my mind, the strategy of the Republican leadership of recent years
>>has been insightful, compassionate and earnestly attempting to find
>>justice.
>
>Where's the compassion and justice in breaking a teenagers legs
>because he sold a joint?
I don't know if this, exactly, has happened. I'm against such actions
myself. For what its worth, this sort of 'community policing' has
dropped dramatically in recent years - certainly in Derry, from whence
I have received anecdotal evidence of this decrease.
>>I understand your misgivings about militant Republicans but I think
>>that you discount too readily the reports of suffering that emanate
>>from the 6 counties.
>
>I come from a border county. I know more that you ever read in your
>provo pamphlets about suffering, and about who administers it in
>nationalist communities.
Ok.
>>>You'll also notice that FF cumann members don't often make the news
>>>for getting themselves shot ion their way to administer a bit of
>>>community policing.
>>
>>If they were administering community policing in the North they might
>>get shot.
>
>If someone showed up to kneecap me, I might take a shot at them
>myself.
Fair enough.
>>>Then why are you complaining about natives and land grabs?
>>
>>Because of the immorality and the lack of recognition that the land
>>grabs were immoral and illegal.
>
>Its history. Go give your own land back to the Maori if you care so
>much about it.
There is no need to "give the land back" so much as pay the due rent
for it, pay the due respect. These matters are actually being sorted
out and have been being sorted out here in New Zealand since 1975
and...what's more it looks like a permanent settlement is not far in
the future.
AND, I am a registered member of the Ngai Tahu tribe. If you phone the
Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board and as for the Geneology people, mention
my name, you will find that I am so.
I know that I don't look it but thats not the issue. I can prove it by
reference to geneological records and thats what matters to Maori.
>>>I don't trust governments much myself. But I trust them more than I
>>>trust self-appointed Army Councils that claim to speak on my behalf.
>>
>>Thats up to you.
>
>No boyo, its your issue. I didn't elect your provos tp speak for me.
>They don't, and you don't, and I deeply resent your "true comrades"
>actions in my name.
I'm not "speaking for you".
>>>I agree. I never trusted the guy who was Minister for Education for
>>>example.
>>
>>Whether you trust him or not, by the accounts that I have heard, he's
>>been doing a good job, and what's more some of the accounts that I've
>>heard have come from Northern Protestants.
>
>It is true the British civil servants in Stormont have praised him for
>administering British policy
As long as he administers it properly in a way that enhances Education
Peace and Justice in the six counties, well, good job, Martin.
>>>>>Short Strand isn't government policy. If it was, those burning police
>>>>>landrovers wouldn't be standing between the tribes.
>>>>
>>>>Do you want me to send you a copy? I'm happy to do so.
>>>
>>>Who produced it? Who edited it? Who sells it? When was it first
>>>broadcast?
>>
>>Watch it and make your own mind up.
>
>Answer the questions I asked please. Who produced it?
Local people from the Short Strand.
> Who edited it?
Local people from the Short Strand.
>Who sells it?
I've made that information available in past. Hold on...I'll google it
> When was it first broadcast?
It hasn't been as far as I'm aware. Here's a reference from the net:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*WED FEB 19, 7 pm, at Independent Media Center, 1415 Third Ave,
between Pike and Union in Downtown Seattle; Committee for Truth and
Justice in Ireland presents: "Spirit of Resistance: A Video Series
Celebrating the STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND." "Siege
of the Short Strand" Though it went largely unreported in mainstream
media, the small nationalist community of the Short Strand has since
last May been subjected to a premeditated, concerted and violent
pogrom by Loyalist paramilitaries. Assisted by the paramilitary
police, the PSNI (formerly known as the RUC), by August of this year
the nightly loyalist attacks left dozens of homes wrecked, scores of
residents injured, some quite seriously and the entire community is
traumatized. This video was written, produced, filmed and edited
entirely by Short Strand Residents and is an indictment of broadcast
medias coverage of events in this community. Suggested Donation $5, no
one will be turned away due to lack of funds
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I note that the video is NOT available on
http://www.sinnfeinbookshop.com/ if that answers anymore of your line
of questioning here.
Can I send you a copy? If so, where to?
>>>>You are quite correct. Roll on the border poll.
>>>
>>>Waste of money.
>>
>>Justice is never a waste of money and I'm sad to hear you say so.
>
>Horseshit. The poll will result is lots of money wasted to produce a
>status quo result. Its a waste of money.
Time will tell.
>>Quite right. So are you willing to watch "Siege of the Short Strand"
>>or not?
>
>Who produced it? Who edited it? Who sells it? When was it first
>broadcast?
See above. In quick answer "The residents of the Short Strand".
>>>Nonsense. It will be ruled by Brussels.
>>
>>That would be better than the situation as it stands.
>
>You don't know much about the commission mindset either, do you?
Tell me what you're referring to, in particular please.
>>>No, you've already decided you understand it. How long were you here
>>>before you got your membership card from the true comrades?
>>
>>I had a membership card a year before I arrived.
>
>End of discussion.
Ger...don't throw the towel in.
Nik
Chesney Christ
>> Not by me they're not. I'm married to a British person. What I'm
>> unimpressed by is the British presumption that they can rule in the
>> six counties.
>
>I'm starting to have doubts about this new fangled thing they're calling
>democracy, as well. It'll never catch on
There is of course no such "British presumption" or any other type of
presumption. Partition rightly or wrongly has been affirmed by the Irish
people several times since 1921, most recently with the Good Friday
Agreement which was overwhelmingly endorsed on both sides of the border.
To me that looks very much like an entirely Irish presumption on
Northern Ireland's constitutional status.
--
George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party;
1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as
citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation
under God."
Cadiz
"Chesney Christ" <thegreat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eG9HNTBK...@ntlworld.com...
Partition as imposed by the British was never sanctioned by the Irish
people. The evolving status we now have was probably sanctioned to the
extent it was voted for in two different elections which did not in fact
amount to a national poll on partition as such because the capabilities and
rights of the two sets of electors were entirely different.
Cadiz
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
> Scríobh Nik O'Kiwi:
> >On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:38:33 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>
> >>Nationalists do the same. Unionists are denied the right to their
> >>Britishness to denigrate their preference for British over Irish rule,
> >
> >Not by me they're not. I'm married to a British person. What I'm
>
>
> >unimpressed by is the British presumption that they can rule in the
> >six counties.
>
> in the Republic and the 78% majority in the North who were happy with
> that state of affairs in the GFA referendum.
Happy is perphaps too strong a word, they voted for it in two entirely
different elections and each constituency certainly had differing levels of
empowerment. I am not entirely sure we have a unionist majority in favor of
it in Northern Ireland these days.
The ageement did not actually deliver collective responsibility, it was more
of an Afghanistan style solution with each party having ministerial or
department fiefdoms. That was significantly less than ideal in many
practical and important respects.
Telmey®
>Indeed. Far better to presume you know better than the 95% majority
>in the Republic and the 78% majority in the North who were happy with
>that state of affairs in the GFA referendum.
>
Trust you to get involved in a nor die thread AND get it wrong, tutu
tutu
now go write out 100 lines ;
I must get my % right
I must get my % right
I must get my % right
PS
Don't you ever do the likes of this again,
(71.1% in the north (of the 81.1% turnout))
Nik O'Kiwi
wrote:
Uncharacteristic harshness there Telmey...
Nik