For some reason I can’t post my comment in response to the latest comment from Curly K. She made a lovely comment on my earlier blog.
So I’ll write it as a post:
Curly K,
I’d be shocked if anyone agree with all my sentiments. And I’m glad you can see what I’m getting at when I bring 1916 into the picture. This evening’s news reports that the Minister is reconsidering what should be done about future events.
You are so right to point out that we got handed down to us a version of history (I would call it simply a story) which was written by the victors. Kevin Myers (Irish Times journalist) has been trying to write John Redmond and the Irish Parliamentary Party’s achievements back into the story. I admire him for that, even though I think Myers is blind (or acts as if he was blind) to another part of the story.
The Greens celebrate 1916. Whatever takes place later this year will be a Green celebration, and no amount of spin will make it inclusive. There is too much unexamined yet for it to be possible to have an all-Ireland celebration. I don’t begrudge the Greens their day but I feel for the Orange tradition. I get no satisfaction from being partisan.
The best way to bring about a United Ireland is to reject the idea and reject the value of a United Ireland. Instead value what we have. Enjoy the traditions. Subject each tradition to merciless critique for its blindspots.
You are so right to assert that all own the right to Free Speech. Unfortunately the right to walk the streets wearing your beliefs in public was denied on Saturday and the government and police were not up to the challenge.
I’ve just listened to the Minister saying that “hindsight is a wonderful thing…” He is right there. But forecasting is a necessary skill if you are to guard freedom of speech. If only the Minister could have come out and said: “we got it wrong; we miscalculated; we’ll never let this happen again”.
If you lived in Belfast, and your brother had been killed during the war by the IRA, and you’d come South to mark the memory of his death, and you’d had to get back on that bus, would you return to Dublin with your children in order to walk down O’Connell Street again?
Would you run the risk that the government of the South would learn from this experience?
Dublin riots , February 25 , 2006 : the first ‘punch’ : an eyewitness account -
http://1169andcounting.blogspot.com
http://admin2.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=5487
Comment by Sharon O' Suillibhan. — February 28, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
Welcome. It is good to find you popping up here because you have a different point of view from the other blogs I’ve read. You see yourself as part of a struggle the Irish people have been waging for freedom.
You feel yourselves to have been attacked by the forces of the state. You feel yourselves to be innocent.
You see the unionists, the protestants, the loyalists as the other side. And you did not welcome their visit to Dublin.
Pure catholic nationalists is what I call you. You stick to a pure line of thinking. You hope for a United Ireland. You are not the only ones who hope for that. Many others hope for the same and intend to get there by stealth.
You are like Maoists to me. I don’t feel I could make any impression on you because you believe you know the truth. You don’t doubt the justice or worthiness of your cause.
You’ll never see an United Ireland in your lifetime, not in the lifetime of your children. That’s what I suspect.
But you know you have made a mistake. You should not be saying that the other side threw the first punch. The spark that ignites is important because of the context in which it is lit. You set the context of opposition to the march. You are proud of that. It is not your fault that the state failed to provide enough protection to the marchers, or to the ordinary people of Dublin who were going about their business. It is not your fault that the Welsh went back home with stories to tell about celtic savagery.
Thanks again for visiting. You need to get your point of view across. But what would it take to persuade you to listen to another side?
Comment by Administrator — February 28, 2006 @ 11:52 pm
“Protestants” ? I never used that word in my comment to you or , for that matter , anywhere else : either in relation to this issue or any other . Why do you strive to insinuate that i have a religious bias ?
Re the rest of your post - you practically dismiss what I say because of my political leanings - in short : you do not agree with where the messenger is coming from so you dismiss/belittle/sneer at the message .
Thank you for publishing my comments : we will , it appears , just have to agree to disagree .
Sharon .
Comment by Sharon O\' Suillibhan. — March 1, 2006 @ 8:50 am
Sharon,
Thank you for your criticism. It’s good to have it. But why are you running off just as soon as you’ve made it? You close the dialogue almost as soon as you start it. If you have any ambition to get into discussion with the other side or ever persuade them to favour a United Ireland, you’ll need more stamina than that.
I know you didn’t call them “protestants”. I didn’t mean to imply you had. I wasn’t using the word “protestants” in a religious way; I meant it ws a badge of nationalism. There are two nationalisms in Ireland: catholic nationalism and protestant nationalism - republican and unionist if you like. It’s been like that since Daniel O’Connell woke the nationalism of the celtic Irish. When O’Connell spoke to huge rallies, the protestants of the North feared for their future. They opposed the rise of catholic nationalism, opposed the Home Rule Movement, opposed the IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood) and to this day oppose what you hold most dear: the ideal of a United Ireland.
I don’t mean to dismiss, belittle or sneer at your message. It is your behaviour I criticise. It’s about time you stopped and listened and attended to the views of the other side.
I’m suggesting you do something that’s harder than standing up for a United Ireland. Anyone can do that. It is tough to listen to someone you strongly disagree with.
I published your comments even though I thought you had a cheek to simply drop your link onto this blog as a form of advertising. I published your comments because I wanted to hear what you had to say, and I thought others might like to listen to you too.
Your organisation is very unpopular today, especially after Saturday. But your point of view is important. There are more people who agree with your ideals than agree with mine. I believe I am saying something very unpopular when I say that it is time to ditch the ideal of a United Ireland. It has caused more trouble than it is worth.
I hope you’ll feel it worthwhile to argue against me.
Comment by Administrator — March 1, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
“Sharon,
Thank you for your criticism. It’s good to have it. But why are you running off just as soon as you’ve made it? You close the dialogue almost as soon as you start it. ”
You closed it by attempting to spin my earlier comments onto a religious theme - you would rather attempt to steer the discussion towards religion than discuss the topic at hand . I will not be party to that ploy .
“If you have any ambition to get into discussion with the other side or ever persuade them to favour a United Ireland, you’ll need more stamina than that.”
This is rich coming from a person who has attempted to steer the discussion off-topic ! And you done so because you lack the ’stamina’ to discuss the issue at hand . Pot , kettle !
“I know you didn’t call them “protestants”. I didn’t mean to imply you had.”
Re-read your post : THAT is exactly what you implied - now that you realise I will not be baited , you back off ! A lack of ’stamina’ , again .
“I wasn’t using the word “protestants” in a religious way;”
Rubbish ! How quick you fold - tell me , do you dis-associate yourself from ALL your posts that quickly ?
“I meant it ws a badge of nationalism. There are two nationalisms in Ireland: catholic nationalism and protestant nationalism - republican and unionist if you like.”
Then refer to them as such in future . If you wish to talk in ‘buzz-words’ please do so with someone else and spare me the grief.
“It’s been like that since Daniel O’Connell woke the nationalism of the celtic Irish.”
It was already awake - but simply looking for direction .
” When O’Connell spoke to huge rallies, the protestants of the North feared for their future. They opposed the rise of catholic nationalism, opposed the Home Rule Movement, opposed the IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood) and to this day oppose what you hold most dear: the ideal of a United Ireland.”
So let us not seek an end to this conflict because to do so would ‘drive fear’ into the hearts of those opposed to it ? What a pity they , themselves , have no such heart-felt understanding of the Nationalist majority on this isle ! Compromise DOES lead to appeasement .
“I don’t mean to dismiss, belittle or sneer at your message.”
Re-read your post again . You are obviously intelligent enough to realise what impact your chosen words will have . Again - do you EVER stand-over your previous posts ?
“It is your behaviour I criticise.”
And what makes you think you know enough about my ‘behaviour’ to offer criticism ? You ARE arrogant .
“It’s about time you stopped and listened and attended to the views of the other side.”
What makes you think you know enough about my record of contact with ‘the other side’ ? Your arrogance , that’s what .
“I’m suggesting you do something that’s harder than standing up for a United Ireland.”
Honestly - you are full of yourself !
“Anyone can do that. It is tough to listen to someone you strongly disagree with.”
Yes - lets just dismiss their comments with one arrogant post , shall we ?
“I published your comments even though I thought you had a cheek to simply drop your link onto this blog as a form of advertising.”
I repeat - the two links I posted were in connection with the topic you were covering ie the February 25 last Dublin riots . Not ’spam’ or ‘advertising’ on my part . Why do you not see the connection between those two links and the subject matter in hand at that time ? Is it because you do not want to , for some reason ? You have a cheek - it is , of course , entirely your decision to remain ignorant of the facts should you choose too , but you go too far in calling those who would seek to offer people a different opinion ‘cheeky’ . More self-centered arrogance on your part .
“I published your comments because I wanted to hear what you had to say, and I thought others might like to listen to you too.”
Then go to my blog - I will not give its URL in this post least you again accuse me of ’spamming’ and/or ‘advertising’ .
“Your organisation is very unpopular today, especially after Saturday.”
It is unpopular only with those who believe the ’spin’ put on events by the media . People like you , I believe .
“But your point of view is important. There are more people who agree with your ideals than agree with mine.”
Are you opposed to a re-united Ireland , then ?
If so , why ?
“I believe I am saying something very unpopular when I say that it is time to ditch the ideal of a United Ireland. It has caused more trouble than it is worth.”
So let the conflict continue for future generations to deal with ? Your children ? My children ? You want to pass this problem to them ? Simply because you deem it ‘more trouble than it is worth’ ? Selfishness on your part .
“I hope you’ll feel it worthwhile to argue against me.”
See above .
Sharon .
Comment by Sharon O\\\' Suillibhan. — March 1, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
History is rarely more than half true. I would be in favour of highlighting the role Redmond et al played, but Myers does that very “US politics” thing of going far too far too one side. Then again, I suppose that is one way of getting attenion.
I said earlier that I disagreed with the comparison with 1916, but I suppose if you are talking about people’s reactions then maybe I’d agree (not hedging myself at all there am I?)
You know when I first read your post I started thinking Greens? What has the environment to do with 1916, before realisation dawned.
Comment by Fence — March 2, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Fence - so did I. Omani, are you a furriner, sir?
When O’Connell spoke to huge rallies, the protestants of the North feared for their future.
Err, no. Wrong century.
Comment by EWI — March 8, 2006 @ 7:14 pm