Protestan / catholic relations?

[ScottishJohn]

Sorry but no matter what your views on Rev I an Paisley he still amzed me by sharing power with Sinn Fein.

He had to. What other choice was there. It was partly his fault that the situation got to that stage. The DUP and Sinn Fein hijacked the process that the UUP and SDLP started, both of which were far more palatable. But you guys allowed yourselves to get cold feet and rush back to the comfort zones, so you ended up with the DUP and Sinn Fein in the driving seats instead.

I am afraid that your view on the start of the troubles is not correct. It was not just about evil Unionists opressing poor Irish Catholics. Working class people from my community where also betrayed by their Unionist masters.

Why don't you explain how the two situations are comparable?

Remember what Paisley said in 1968? For years we have been lied to, For years we have been told that we are true blue but we have found them out! The Dictators in Glengall Street (ie the Ulster Unionist Goverment

Paisley was a rabble rouser. He said whatever it took to cause a stooshie to propell himself up the ladder.

Anyone like to challenge me?

Yup Me!

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I am no supporter of the DUP but they have always condemmed pariamilitary activity or violence in this country from either side.

I agree that the DUP have always publicly condemned terrorism which is more than Sinn Fein have done, but it is demonstrable that some of the DUP's elected members have been deeply involved with Loyalist paramilitaries.
George Seawright springs to mind.

 

[TeutonKnight]

He had to. What other choice was there. It was partly his fault that the situation got to that stage. The DUP and Sinn Fein hijacked the process that the UUP and SDLP started, both of which were far more palatable. But you guys allowed yourselves to get cold feet and rush back to the comfort zones, so you ended up with the DUP and Sinn Fein in the driving seats instead.



Why don't you explain how the two situations are comparable?



Paisley was a rabble rouser. He said whatever it took to cause a stooshie to propell himself up the ladder.



Yup Me!

1. Mandates are wonderfull things are they not? The DUP where voted in as the majority Unionist Party because the UUP had already shown that it was weak and divided. What other choice? Direct rule from Westminister. Regardless power sharing is the only way forward in Northern Ireland.

2. At the same time that PD and the Civil Rights movement where parading for so called equality working class Protestants where in the same situation. Living in slums and in poor conditions. Not encouraged to better themselves. The fact of the matter is they did not complain and yet they where abused by Stormont just as much. The Unionist or rather Big house Unionism was a law onto itself. It was not about religion at all. Please don't give me that speel about Lord Craigavon, that was said in a different time and context.

3. Despite your own views on Ian Paisley he was the voice of the silent majority in the 1960s thw very same people who the Dictators in Glengall Street had forgotten about. Like or lump it his views where held by the vast majority of traditional Protestant voters in NI. Again a different time and a different context.

 

[TeutonKnight]

I agree that the DUP have always publicly condemned terrorism which is more than Sinn Fein have done, but it is demonstrable that some of the DUP's elected members have been deeply involved with Loyalist paramilitaries.
George Seawright springs to mind.

Then you would also know that George Seawright was expelled from the DUP?

Deeply involved?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Then you would also know that George Seawright was expelled from the DUP?

Deeply involved?

Yep, I know he was. When the level of his involvement with the UVF became embarassing enough for the party to illustrate their hypocrisy they expelled him. It was hard to maintain the moral high ground when one of their elected members was also in the UVF.

Deeply involved. Hmmm, I'd say so.
You live in Ulster and so are presumably aware that in August 2006 Mr. Seawright was listed by the UVF as one of it's members who were killed in the "Troubles".
You are presumably also aware that in 1984, before the DUP removed the paarty whip, he went on record as saying that taxpayer's money should be used to finance an incinerator with which to burn "the scum who have been indoctrinated by the Catholic Church" and that Catholic Priests should be "thrown in and burnt as well" ?

I'm guessing that living in Ulster you are aware of these things but I would be happy to provide links if you are not.

 

[TeutonKnight]

Yep, I know he was. When the level of his involvement with the UVF became embarassing enough for the party to illustrate their hypocrisy they expelled him. It was hard to maintain the moral high ground when one of their elected members was also in the UVF.

Deeply involved. Hmmm, I'd say so.
You live in Ulster and so are presumably aware that in August 2006 Mr. Seawright was listed by the UVF as one of it's members who were killed in the "Troubles".
You are presumably also aware that in 1984, before the DUP removed the paarty whip, he went on record as saying that taxpayer's money should be used to finance an incinerator with which to burn "the scum who have been indoctrinated by the Catholic Church" and that Catholic Priests should be "thrown in and burnt as well" ?

I'm guessing that living in Ulster you are aware of these things but I would be happy to provide links if you are not.

Oh I am well aware of these things but this is just one example. One example of West Belfast Cllr who eneded up getting shot by the INLA if I remember rightly? Who had been expelled from the party becaue of that sentance that you quoted! So your point is?

It was seen that this man was engaging in a process beyond the democratic scale so he was booted out!

Your previous comment suggested that there where other members of the party deeply involved I am asking for proof, but seeing as this is but one man I find that quite laughable for the reasons I have given above.

That's like saying that the whole labour movement can be summed up by Artur Scargill etc etc.

I think you might also do well to the quote from the manic street preachers. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The situation in Northern Ireland give rise to tehse sorts of things.

I don't live in Ulster I live in Northern Ireland. Ulster the Province is not the same as Northern Ireland.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

2. At the same time that PD and the Civil Rights movement where parading for so called equality working class Protestants where(sic) in the same situation.The fact of the matter is they did not complain and yet they where abused by Stormont just as much.

This is an interesting assertion. Care to back it up with some evidence ?

The problem (for you) with history is that it can't really be changed.
In 1968 the Catholic community (or Nationalist if you prefer, it had little to do with different theologies and everything to do with identity and power) was significantly worse off in almost every possible way. Let's have a closer look at some of that history:

a) At the time of the civil rights movement (c.1968) there was significant underepresentation (proportionate to population) of Catholics/Nationalists throughout every level of Northern Ireland government. Whilst Catholic/Nationalist won 25 out of the 80 local councils in 1920, the gerrymandering of 1922 ensured that by the next election they controlled 2 out of the 80 councils (1). The redrawn boundaries and restriction of voting rights were so discriminatory and so blatant that the Cameron Commission investigation of 1968 issued a report critical of the electoral system. Reporting as one example that in Derry although the Catholic population formed 60% of the electorate, the districting system ensured that Catholic/Nationalist candidates won only 40% of the county borough seats (2).

b) The overwhelming majority of the RUC and B Specials were from the Protestant/Unionist community. Less than 10% of the RUC and a negligble proportion of the B Specials were Catholic/Nationalist. This fact coupled with the The Special Powers Act and the fact that the B Specials made no attempt to hide their association with the Orange Order led to widespread and well documented discrimination, harrassment and ex jure beatings by the security forces of members of the Catholic/Nationalist community (3).
The truth of this fact is re-inforced by the several British-sponsored and independent commissions that investigated such abuses and published damning reports of the security forces' treament of Nationalist communities (4).
In the judicial system Protestants outnumbered Catholics in 1968 by sixty-eight to six (5). Jury selection was also biased in favour of Protestant/Loyalists as since jurors were selected from the voting roles, only ratepayers (the vast majority of which were Protestant) could be selected. (5)

c). Since Local Housing Authorities (LHA) in Ulster in 1968 were appointed by the local councils, gerrymandering had given Unionists almost complete control of selection of LHA members. One example of the effect of this on housing allocation in the 1960s can be seen in county Fermanagh where despite forming the majority of the County's population, Catholics were awarded only one third of the 1500 housing units built in the post war period (6).
Unemployment and low paid employment was disproportionately high at this time amongst the Nationalist community. In public sector employment (excluding police and judiciary - see above) in 1959 Catholics held only 6% of senior positions but 40% of manual labour positions (7). The Cameron Commission reported that Unionist councils had used their position to discriminate against Catholics in the hiring process (8).
Unemployment in the private sector was similarly disproportionately high for Catholics pre Civil Rights. Whilst in work, Catholics were predominantly more likely to be in lower paid professions such as clothing manufacture and textiles whilst Protestants overwhelmingly dominated the relatively better paid occupations such as shipbuilding (9).

I would be very interested to see any evidence you could provide to back up the assertion that in 1968 Protestants "were in the same situation" as Catholics in Ulster.

(1) "Northern Ireland : The Political Economy of Conflict" Rowthorn and Wayne. Polity Press - London 1988. Page 29.
(2) Ibid page 30.
(3)Ibid page 38. Also "Conflict in Northern Ireland : The Development of a Polarised Community" John Darby 1976; Gill and MacMillan.
(4) Report of the Cameron Commission, the Scarman and Hunt Reports, and investigations by James callaghan and Max Hastings.
(5) CF John Darby 1976 page 64).
(6) "Church and State in Modern Ireland : 1923 - 1979" 2nd edition, John White 1980, Gill and MacMillan.
(7) CF Whyte 1980.
(8)CF Rowthorne and Wayne 1988, page 32.
(9)CF Rowthorne and Wayne, page 109 figure 2.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Oh I am well aware of these things but this is just one example. One example of West Belfast Cllr who eneded up getting shot by the INLA if I remember rightly? Who had been expelled from the party becaue of that sentance that you quoted! So your point is?

It was seen that this man was engaging in a process beyond the democratic scale so he was booted out!

Your previous comment suggested that there where other members of the party deeply involved I am asking for proof, but seeing as this is but one man I find that quite laughable for the reasons I have given above.

That's like saying that the whole labour movement can be summed up by Artur Scargill etc etc.

I think you might also do well to the quote from the manic street preachers. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The situation in Northern Ireland give rise to tehse sorts of things.

I don't live in Ulster I live in Northern Ireland. Ulster the Province is not the same as Northern Ireland.

Nope. George Seawright was murdered by the IPLO, ie. the Irish People's Liberation Organisation. You knew he was a member of the UVF ?

I am also well aware of the sort of things that the situation in Northern Ireland gave rise to and gives rise to. Not quite sure of the relevance of the Manic Street Preachers quote in this specific context, but thanks for the advice.

Your previous post was implying that the DUP and its membership were/are squeaky clean on the subject of paramilitary involvement. This is factually incorrect as illustrated.
Why on earth you imagine that I am implying that all members of the DUP can be summed up by Mr Seawright, I do not know. Perhaps it was a rhetorical device.

Regarding other DUP members deeply involved with Loyalist paramilitaries; how about the Rev. William McRea appearing on political platforms with known leaders of the LVF including Billy Wright ? (The Independent 23/4/1997).
I'm sure you'll agree that McRea was a very prominent member of the DUP (he was an MP too).

Have a look at the "Irish News" 26/7/2006 and the allegations made by PUP member Dawn Purvis re DUP collusion with the paramilitaries. It would be interesting to know exactly who the armed bodyguards that have guarded the home of Ian Paisley in the past really are and where they got their firearms from.
It would also be interesting for the police to investigate the claim of Mr Dallat Chief Whip of the SDLP to the effect that when he and his family were offered a house in a Protestant area he declined as he had learned from his colleagues that a DUP member had approached the UVF to have him burned out.
Are Dallat and Purvis lying ?

If you are interested in more DUP members' links with paramilitary organisations then try Google.

Northern Ireland is a political entity within the geographical region of Ulster. I'm not going to split hairs about it. I'm happy to refer to the six counties as Northern Ireland if you prefer.

 

[TeutonKnight]

If you are interested in more DUP members' links with paramilitary organisations then try Google.

I don't need google. I am aformer member of the DUP. So I know exactley what the Party line is on these things. I would expect nothing more.

Have a look at the "Irish News" 26/7/2006 and the allegations made by PUP member Dawn Purvis re DUP collusion with the paramilitaries. It would be interesting to know exactly who the armed bodyguards that have guarded the home of Ian Paisley in the past really are and where they got their firearms from.
It would also be interesting for the police to investigate the claim of Mr Dallat Chief Whip of the SDLP to the effect that when he and his family were offered a house in a Protestant area he declined as he had learned from his colleagues that a DUP member had approached the UVF to have him burned out.
Are Dallat and Purvis lying ?


? I question their motives yes. Dallet a well known sicophant of the nationalist movement. I like Dawn Purvis so I'm not going to comment.

Regarding other DUP members deeply involved with Loyalist paramilitaries; how about the Rev. William McRea appearing on political platforms with known leaders of the LVF including Billy Wright ? (The Independent 23/4/1997).
I'm sure you'll agree that McRea was a very prominent member of the DUP (he was an MP too).

Oh so you are aware that at that time Billy Wright was also a lay preacher? Correct? Nah just does not fit into things does it. Of course it is an embarassment that Willy McCrea done that. No doubt however teh situation in Portadown was much covered by that rag of a newspaper. No wait it was just that inccident. TIME AND CONTEXT!

I am also well aware of the sort of things that the situation in Northern Ireland gave rise to and gives rise to. Not quite sure of the relevance of the Manic Street Preachers quote in this specific context, but thanks for the advice.

Some peopel do not view George as a terrorist and some people do not view Sean Kelly as a terrorist in Northern Ireland. That is the point I am trying to make about the Manic Street Preachers quote.

Nope. George Seawright was murdered by the IPLO, ie. the Irish People's Liberation Organisation. You knew he was a member of the UVF ?

When was that possibly before I was even born. IPLO/INLA/PIRA/CIRA/RIRA/OIRA it's all teh same to me despite whatever pesduo marxist ideology they spout.


The question you should be asking yourself is why did the Unionist goverment of that era feel the need to do that? Would it be because

A. Surrounded by a Hostile state that's goverment was deeply involved with teh Roman Catholic Church and thus a threat?

B. The IRA's campaighn against those in the North in that era. That ultimatley failed due to Nationalists in the south not giving a toss.

I will hunt out sources for you. I trust first hand accounts from people on the ground would be ok? Like for example the childhood memoirs of Gregory Campbell MP MLA. Nah to biased for your taste? Tuff. I am afraid that just because we are not as romantic in visiona sthe dear old republicans it seems that we are very old hat indeed some may say a bowler hat.

So out of the whole history of the DUP. Rev W.Mcrea and George Seawright? Oh aye and the UWC Strike of the 1970s and not forgetting the third force etc etc. It matters not time and context, time and context.

Quis Separabit?

The Independent lol.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

So you are ready to concede that the DUP has had paramilitary links then ?
Which can presumably be justified by time and context ?

If so, fair enough. Edit the previous post appropriately.

The above post is a tad unclear to me; specifically the statement "The question you should be asking yourself is why the Unionist Government of that era feel the need to do that ?"
Is this in reference to my post #27 detailing the discrimination against Catholics in the pre Civil Rights era ? If so you realise that you are agreeing that there was significant discrimination towards the Nationalist community and that the Loyalist community was therefore not "in the same situation" ? Again if so, great; just edit your previous posts accordingly and give the reason for the editing.
If the statement is not in reference to post #27 could you please clarify.

The fact that Billy Wright was a lay preacher and also leader of the LVF (an organisation that admitted to the murder of 13 people) is indeed sickening.What I'm not too sure about is how this makes the Rev. McRea's association with him any less culpable. Presumably "time and context" or some other moral relativism.

I regard George Seawright and Sean Kelly both as terrorists. How about you ? If you regard Seawright as a true blue freedom fighter then I suppose you can get out of the "DUP has had no paramilitary connections" statement on a technicality. It would, however, raise some much more disturbing questions about your political standpoint as I'm sure you realise. Do you regard Billy Wright as a terrorist BTW ?

You imply (presumably - again you are bit vague here) that my explanation of how Nationalists were discriminated against is a "romantic vision". Would you like to address each of the points made and their source material please rather than making blanket statements. That's usually how people debate I think.

This thread has been an eye-opener for me insomuch as I have always considered revisionism to be a characteristic of hard line republicanism. Obviously it's a disease that is more prevalent than I realised.
I feel the need also to point out at this stage that Sinn Fein and the PIRA et al are abhorrent, but misrepresenting the causes of the conflict and the degree to which violence and politics are intertwined in Northern Ireland is wrong and unhelpful.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I don't need google. I am aformer member of the DUP.

No ! What a surprise !
I have no doubt you know what the "party line" is. I would suggest therefore that a spot of research may help you specifically more than others.

You realise presumably that "Quis Separabit" is used as the motto of the UDA amongst other organisations ?

 

[TeutonKnight]

It is also the motto of the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Irish Guards. Do you view them as terrorists? As regards the Ulster Defence Association it was set up as a reaction to the actions of the PIRA. My view is that there is no need for such organisations in mordern Northern Ireland we are trying to make it a more pluralist society.

I beg your pardon? Are you suggesting that I am brainwashed in some way? I left the party five/six years ago because I could not stand the mix of Hyper Calvinism and Politics.

"So you are ready to concede that the DUP has had paramilitary links then ?
Which can presumably be justified by time and context ?"

I can't really genralise can I?

"If so you realise that you are agreeing that there was significant discrimination towards the Nationalist community"

Never disputed that the Upper Class Unionist Goverment let the people down.

"What I'm not too sure about is how this makes the Rev. McRea's association with him any less culpable."

It was not as if they where boozam pals was it? If I recall there where a great many people that spoke that night on a platform. Portadown is a very small place and I doubt that the Rev William McCrea MP MLA knew that Billy Wright would be there. However as I just said I think it was an awfull thing and a disgrace. The only person who can justify that is the Rev William McCrea himself. Why not send him an email instead of jumping down my throat.

"If you regard Seawright as a true blue freedom fighter."

Thank you. I was not going to play the "your biased" card but it seems to me that you have confirmed my suspicions. Your username, your religion and your place of living suggest to me someone of Irish stocke. Which is fair enough. Just please don't put your pressupositions onto me.

You want me to be an apologist for loyalism then ? And teh fight against teh Pan Nationalist Front?

Do you regard Billy Wright as a terrorist BTW ?

Why does that matter? Of what purpose does it serve me to answer that onlt to fuel your conviction or rather sneaking suspision that I am a Bigot? Anyone in my book who oversteps the markas regards to constitutional politics is wrong. Of course I do not support bombing and murdering of innocent RCs. Yet again I ask is it it some sort of loyalist apologist you want.

What did Gusty Spence say "Abject and True remorse. I don't recall the PIRA or any of her splinter groups apologising for the murders of Protestant members of the security forces?

"romantic vision"

But of course it is. Just pick up a nationalist history book

That's usually how people debate I think.

I think I just said that the aristocratic Unionist goverment was a let down did I not? So know I don't feel the need to address each individual point. Neither do I have the time to go into archieves and get source material and investigate futher.

Obviously it's a disease that is more prevalent than I realised.


My friend I know you are iching to call me a bigot and yet you know nothing about me. It is normally that when one comes from a certain place and speaks a certain way asssumptions are made of that person and their kith and kin.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Oh dear.

Somewhere else on this thread another poster spoke of the high degree of paranoia that exists in any discussion of N.Irish politics.
You're bringing up my ethnicity and religion to suggest I am biased is really bad form and tedious (I will discuss my my ethnicity later if you are interested). I suggest you read an essay entitled "Bulverism" by your fellow Churchman C.S.Lewis. Bulverism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would also suggest in any debate that you address what is being said as oppsed to who is saying it.

Now back to debating eh ?

Previously in this thread you have made two factual statements. That the DUP has never had any paramilitary connections and that at the time of the Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland working class Protestants were in the "same situation" as their Catholic counterparts regarding discrimination, employment, poverty, civil rights etc.

I have illustrated at length, and with care to provide supporting documents for my claims, that both these assertions of yours are false. You have signally failed to respond.
Do you now accept that your previous statements were not accurate ?
This is nothing whatsoever to do with my genetic make-up, my theological views, the place of my birth etc. It is to do with that which is demonstrably true and that which is demonstrably false.

You also suggested that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I'm still not sure of the relevance of this to the discussion at hand but my only guess given the context is that perhaps you think Mr. Seawright as a member of the UVF was a true blue freedom fighter or a terrorist. Your opinin on this has a relevance to one of the only two factual points I have made, ie. that the UVF have had terrorist connections. That is my reason for asking. It has a relevance to my claim. CF. Your view of Billy Wright.

I asked specifically if you were referring to the evidence I provided in post #27 as a "romantic vision". And if so, what evidence you can bring forward to support this claim ?
You have failed to answer that citing instead that I should pick up a nationalist history book.

That's the historical debating bit over. The bit I enjoy. Now we have to deal with a rather tedious and much less interesting part of the discussion.
I am not "iching" or even itching to call you a bigot. I have not called you a bigot and I have not implied you are a bigot. I don't know if you are a bigot or not but if pressed I would conclude from the minimal evidence available that you are probably not. My primary reasons for this are that a) You are a Christian and b) I have never met anyone yet from the Anglican Church who is a bigot.
Your suggesting that my ethnicity causes a bias is a tad unfortunate and could be misinterpreted by some but on balance I think this suggests poor debating technique rather than bigotry.
Anyone who knows the "party line" of any party should research carefully and constantly question that party line because experience shows that the "party line" is seldom the whole truth.
Irish history is something I am very interested in. I also think that revisionism and denial in general are bad things and specifically in Northern Ireland as it moves closer to a lasting peace. I would take South Africa's "Truth and Reconciliation" approach as the correct way for a country to heal.
You asked in your first post on this thread for someone to challenge you. I have. It would be good if you were to rise to that challenge by checking my evidence and argument for veracity rather than suggesting reasons why I might hold that position other than because I think it is true.

My ethnicity includes Irish, German, Jewish and Romanian allegedly. 19th and 20th century Liverpool was somewhat of a melting pot. I am likely to be one of a number of diasporas.

Mike.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

It is normally that when one comes from a certain place and speaks a certain way asssumptions are made of that person and their kith and kin.

You mean, in exactly the way you have just done in this very post ?

You are a master of irony.

 

[TeutonKnight]

I will take all your points at once if I may. Simply you need to redifine between ideology and religion and futher to this you also need to define between working class Protestants and Middle to Upper class Protestants. It is not a simple case of the whole group being put into the same boat.

You can cite as many sources to me as you want. I was not around in those days. What I have tried to do is understand why the Goverment of the day felt they had to do that. I also said that Workingclass Protestants where also let down by their masters.

I would take South Africa's "Truth and Reconciliation" approach as the correct way for a country to heal.

Interesting idea and one I would support but I doubt it work.

Anyone who knows the "party line" of any party should research carefully and constantly question that party line because experience shows that the "party line" is seldom the whole truth.

I refer you to the fact that I am an ex member.

a "romantic vision".

So what you want me to do is scan in from books passages and chapters that I feel to show Irish nationalists romanticism in relation to this issue.?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

So what you want me to do is scan in from books passages and chapters that I feel to show Irish nationalists romanticism in relation to this issue.?

No. I would llike you first to clarify if you are referring to the my description of the situation of large parts of the (poorer) Nationalist community pre-1968 as laid out in post #27 as a "romantic vision".
If so I would like you to tell me why you think that and why you think think the well-regarded works I quoted are flawed.

Let's back up a little also.
ScottishJohn (I think) raised the point in this thread some time ago that one of the reasons why the conflict in N. Ireland flared up again was because large parts of the Nationalist community were very badly discriminated against when compared to their economic counterparts in the Unionist community. Yourself and Tyndale felt this wasn't so and you claimed that Nationalist and Unionist communities were in the "same situation". I took pains to show why I felt this was simply untrue. Do you still hold this position or would you care to develop it ?
You mentioned in one of your posts that there were reasons for the discrimination. I understand the fear of the Unionist community that led to it. I'm not commenting on the justification for the discrimination, merely that it did in fact exist.

One thing we can agree on is the fact that IRA border campaign of the early 60s probably has little to do with the modern Troubles because Nationalist simply did not care much about it.

A major factor that neither of us have mentioned that was tremendous fuel to the IRA both in recruiting and in PR for the terror of the 70s and 80s were the events that unfolded on the 30th January 1972 in Derry.
I hope by now you realise that I in no way regard this as an excuse for what the IRA went on to do. There is simply no justification. But there's no getting away from the fact that Bloody Sunday changed the course of N.Ireland's history.

I think that Republicanism and Loyalism have very little to do with differences in religious ideology or practice. I think the polarisation of the communities in N. Ireland was/is much more to do with identity and maintaining or trying to acquire political supremacy.
That is not to say that there haven't been despicable religious leaders on either side of the divide all too willing to exploit religious bigotry for political gain.

I suspect that our views on how a lasting peace in N. Ireland can come about are not too dissimilar in theory but may differ in practice.

Two very different ways in which peace was brought to divided communities in the modern era are what happened in Spain after the death of Franco and what happened in South Africa after the fall of Apartheid.
In Spain the the people found peace and prosperity by choosing to forget the horrors inflicted by each community and never to talk about it whilst in S. Africa the people chose to look the horrors squarely in the face and try to forgive.

 

[TeutonKnight]

No. I would llike you first to clarify if you are referring to the my description of the situation of large parts of the (poorer) Nationalist community pre-1968 as laid out in post #27 as a "romantic vision".
If so I would like you to tell me why you think that and why you think think the well-regarded works I quoted are flawed.

It is romantic in so much that only poor nationalists suffered. Poor Loyalists lived in paradise or so we are told. I did not say ther where flawed I suggested that there where also poor loyalists/Protestants done over (so to speak) by their Unionist Masters. Oh no wait I can't say that can I because I can't quote source material to prove my point.

Yourself and Tyndale felt this wasn't so and you claimed that Nationalist and Unionist communities were in the "same situation".

Yes I just have to ask the man on the street in East Belfast. Even the dogs in the street knew the poverty and the miseray of the men of working class Protestant stick. Again I guess I can't prove it with source material so I guess that also must be a lie.

I understand the fear of the Unionist community that led to it.

Good but you still don't think their fears where justified? Even when things like this happen in the Sainted Free State?

Destroying the shameful fiction of non-sectarianism - The Irish Times - Thu, Oct 08, 2009

merely that it did in fact exist.

Have I denied it?

One thing we can agree on is the fact that IRA border campaign of the early 60s probably has little to do with the modern Troubles because Nationalist simply did not care much about it.

It certainly helped reinforce the view of a hostile state.

in no way regard this as an excuse for what the IRA went on to do.

Very refreshing indeed. Most use it as a justification.

I think that Republicanism and Loyalism have very little to do with differences in religious ideology or practice. I think the polarisation of the communities in N. Ireland was/is much more to do with identity and maintaining or trying to acquire political supremacy.

I do not disagree with this.

That is not to say that there haven't been despicable religious leaders on either side of the divide all too willing to exploit religious bigotry for political gain.

Good at least you agree that it was not just evil old Born Again Protestants or No Surrender Christians as they are called who where responsible for religious bigotry.

I do not think that the systems you have mentioned will work and the reason for that is because I believe that there is a lack of education on both sides. There is still a deep feeling of fear, loathing and mistrust that has festered it's way down through the generations and will be very hard to get rid off. Asking someone to sit in front of the person that killed their relatives mat work in SA but SA is a lot bigger than NI. NI is very parochical and I doubt that it would work.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

It is romantic in so much that only poor nationalists suffered. Poor Loyalists lived in paradise or so we are told. I did not say ther where flawed I suggested that there where also poor loyalists/Protestants done over (so to speak) by their Unionist Masters. Oh no wait I can't say that can I because I can't quote source material to prove my point.

Now you see, statements such as these make me wonder if you have indeed read the post in question.
I took pains to compare the situation of the Nationalists to that of their economic counterparts in the Unionists community. I don't know who said or implied that "poor Loyalists lived in paradise" but it certainly was not me. My point has always been that the significant disenfranchisement, comparative poor economic opportunity, underepresentation in the judiciary and public sector and security forces etc, etc in the nationalist community provided the milieu in which the IRA could rely on recruitment and popular backing for their subsequent terror campaign.
Their border campaign died of apathy because nationalists on the other side of the border were not interested because they were not second class citizens.
History shows time and again that evil breeds evil. If you humiliate and subjugate a significant group of people it opens the door for leaders that the people would otherwise shun. CF the rise of the Nazis in Germany following their humiliation in the post first world war period.

You seem to have a problem with my quoting sources. Why ? Most people regard this as a good thing as in the study of history it raises subject matter from anecdote to that which is verifiable. If the sources are no good then they can be shown to be no good.
Without them a debate on historical matters runs the risk of deteriorating into "This happened" being countered with "No it didn't". That doesn't shed any light on anything.

Regarding the causes for Unionist discrimination against Nationalists in the pre-civil rights era and the gerrymandering and efforts to keep Nationalists out of even the least impacting positions of power; yes, they had their reasons. I do not think that such reasons were good either from an ethical point of view or from a practical point of view. Ie. they brought about exactly the thing they were designed to prevent, armed conflict and murder of Unionists and significant power to extreme Republicanism in the shape of Sinn Fein.

In answer to your question "Have I ever denied it ?" ie. the sort of discrimination that I have described; well you did write that Unionists were "in the same situation" as their Nationalist counterparts. They weren't. This is demonstrable. If you take from this that I am implying that Unionists in the 1960s were "living in paradise" then I am afraid you don't understand my point or you are using rhetoric.

The situation in N. Ireland is still too raw for truth and reconciliation. A period of stability and economic growth is necessary before this could happen.
Seeing Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness talking face to face is a step in the right direction though and something I never thought I would see.

 

[TeutonKnight]

poor economic opportunity, underepresentation in the judiciary and public sector and security forces etc, etc in the nationalist community

What about the ones who point blank refused to join any part of the state of Northern Ireland as they did not recognise it? Or are they lumped into the same tally of the wrongs of the old Unionist Goverment?

If you humiliate and subjugate a significant group of people it opens the door for leaders that the people would otherwise shun.

I agree hence the rise of Rev Ian Paisley.

with my quoting sources

Because I am not in a postion to quote them back at the moment until I return to Northern Ireland which won't be for a while yet.

they brought about exactly the thing they were designed to prevent

I agree it seems they did not listen to Sir Edward Carson which will forever be a great shame to Unionism.

They weren't.

Interesting that I have no acess at this moment in time to the documents I had relating to the abject poverty of working class Protestants. Who to be frank where taught from an early age that you don't answer back.

A period of stability and economic growth is necessary before this could
happen.

I agree 100%.

Protestnt Catholic relations as regards to pre and post troubles in my view. Can be traced back to one single event in the history of Ireland. The Plantations of Ulster in 1609. The tribal Divisions, yes I grant you where in place long before the Scotts and the English arrive. I have always put forward the case that violence be it secterian or tribalistic is endemic in Irish history.

To understand teh Ulster question as ATQ Stewart himself puts it we must look at the continuing conflict pattern that seems to carry on since the plantation. That's my view no doubt however you will tell me something different.

I agree that the old Unionist Goverment discriminated against the Nationalists. That itself goes against tradition Carsonite Unionism and will be their shame forever. However I want to pint out that it was not the Unionist Goverment of the days fault that the majority of Nationalists tended to be Roman Catholics? Was it?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

However I want to pint out that it was not the Unionist Goverment of the days fault that the majority of Nationalists tended to be Roman Catholics? Was it?

I don't understand this or its relevance. What do you mean ?
It wasn't the government's "fault" that the majority of Loyalists tended to be Protestants either. So what ? Who said it was ?

The divisions were about identity. Religion was one (probably the most convenient, lacking any recognisable genetic difference) of the ways in which the communities could be differentiated.

If you read my other posts on this thread (do you read the posts BTW ?) you will see that I think that the cause of Ulster's problems stem from the Plantations of the 17th century.

For what seems like something approaching the thousandth time; one of the major causes of the modern Troubles was the relative or comparative disenfranchisement, disempowerment, exclusion, discrimination, unemployment etc of the Nationalist community compared to their economic counterparts in the Unionist community. This is demonstrable. I have showna fraction of the evidence so far. You have not responded except to say that "some people" make out the Unionists were living in paradise.
You have tacitly agreed that these things existed (not poverty but active discrimination against Nationalist realitive to their Unionist counterparts) because you attempt to justify them by saying that the Unionists were frightened of their hostile neighbours. Their hostile neighbours who had just shown that they could not be arsed supporting the border campaign.
Are you ready to edit your post addressed to ScottishJohn that Unionists and Nationalists were in the "same situation"? It is impossible to say they were in the same situation when the Nationalist community averaged 30-35% and yet there control of councils, representation in judiciary and juries, representation in the security forces, representation in public sector employment etc was consistently below 7%.