Author
|
Topic: What side do you sympathize with in Northern Ireland?
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 20 August 2003 12:04 AM
No one ever talks about this conflict I guess because it just doesn't fit into any neat pigeon hole for people looking to either be pro- or anti-American or anti-politically correct 1st vs. 3rd world so it just languishes.I tend to support the Protestant side. They are the majority and I can't blame them for not wanting to get annexed by a Catholic theocracy like Ireland. Who wants to have priests sticking their noses into everything and banning birth control pills etc... At the same time all the personalities on the Prot. side seem so grim and joyless (ie: Ian Paisley and company), while the IRA supporters seem more fun and with-it (too bad they have a penchant for knee-capping Catholics who marry Protestants). Still I love it when Paisley denounces the Pope as a "man of sin". He is right about that (but wrong about everything else). If a small conflict like this in a wealthy 1st World country is so unresolvable, what does it say about the odds of ever solving the Middle East dispute?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230
|
posted 20 August 2003 03:21 AM
The Catholics will likely be a majority within 20 years. While Protestants are a majority at present, one has to remember that Northern Ireland was artifically carved out of the rest of Ireland - not only that it was carved with a large stranded Catholic minority. Why is it fair to carve out a territory so that Protestants won't be a minority but not unfair to create a new Catholic minority within that territory? It's an artificial statelet which should never have been brought into existence and was only created because of British imperialism. Had Ireland been united from the outset the state would have had greater economic and industrial strength and been more seculare at its inception. Had the cost of a united Ireland in the 1920s been some sort of entrenchment of minority rights and a formal separation of church and state I suspect Irish nationalists would have agreed (indeed, until Irish independence Protestants had always had a leading role in the Irish nationalist movement. A number of leading Irish nationalists such as Wolf Tone were Protestant northerners. WIth the European Union and the modernisation of Irish society in the past twenty years which has seen both a boost in the Irish standard of living and the diminished role of the Catholic church there's really very little separating life in the north from the south. The only thing keeping Ireland separated today is the persistance of sectarian hatreds which would have long subsided had Ireland been united from its inception.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 20 August 2003 06:11 AM
stockholm, you make it sound like ireland is not a democracy. are countries with a strong church presence in everyday life automatically theocracies to you?it's pretty depressing when you look at surveys such as below. you have the provisional IRA on ceasefire for over five years ... and some partial revelations about where the IRA's arms caches are (supervised by canadian general john de chastelain, remember him), but you have protestant paramilitary organisations not disarming. to an outsider like me, it looks like whatever the IRA and sinn fein do, it seems that it won't be enough for hardline unionists (part of the UUP and the DUP). only some parts of the good friday peace agreement have been adhered to: many of the "north-south" institutions (i.e. where northern ireland ministers and irish ministers sit to decide common cross-border issues) have not been allowed to operate, on the whim of the unionist first minister, david trimble. and policing reform and the demobilisation of UK military posts have been resisted tooth and nail by protestants. if sinn fein has nothing to show for entering into power, that's not a recipe for stability. Gap in Catholic-Protestant attitudes growing, June 2002 quote: Among Catholics surveyed, 54 percent said they were happy with the peace process, while just 26 percent of Protestants shared that optimism. Many more Protestants registered their feelings as either "mixed," "unhappy," "disappointed" or "betrayed."While two-thirds of Catholics said they felt confident or optimistic about the future, as high a proportion of Protestants said they had mixed feelings or fears. And while 65 percent of Catholics said they believed both sides of the community had benefited equally from the peace process, 63 percent of Protestants countered that Catholics had benefited more. When asked whether they thought religion would always divide Northern Ireland society, 89 percent of Protestants and 81 percent of Catholics agreed that yes, it would.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 20 August 2003 12:23 PM
quote: stockholm, you make it sound like ireland is not a democracy. are countries with a strong church presence in everyday life automatically theocracies to you?
Well, considering that abortion is explicitly banned in the Irish constitution and divorce was only legalized about 5 years ago, I think it is fair to say that Ireland is a theocracy in a way that, say, France is not. What some people call "creating an artificial statelet" in Northern Ireland, is what other people would call "self-determination for the Protestant minority in Ireland as a whole". How come its OK for Quebecers and Palestinians and Ukrainians and Latvians and Scots etc... to have "self-determiantion", but its not OK for Unionists in Ulster? Of course this whole conflict would come to an end if those goofs in Northern Ireland would see the light and all become atheists and then these silly religious conflicts would fade away. Esp. since regardless of whether Ulster is part of Ireland or the UK, it is still part of the EU!!!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 20 August 2003 12:48 PM
quote: How much of the current Protestant population is "indigenous" and how many are descendants of the English colonizers?
What difference would it make? People are people. If they are descendants of Scottish Protestants who came to Ireland in the 16 century, does that give them any less of a right? By the same token, do we then disenfranchise anyone Catholic whose ancestors don't go back to St. Brendan in the 6th century? My undersatnding is that Celts originally come from what is now Turkey and wandered over to Brittany and the British Isles about 2,000 years ago. maybe we should repatriate them all to Ankara and Izmir! What does this mean for Canada? Both the French AND the English are descendants of colonizers so I guess neither should have any right to self-determination. That should only be resevred for Aboriginal people - assuming that no one came before them.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 20 August 2003 12:53 PM
Sara, "English colonizers" is an imprecise -- in fact, an incorrect -- description of the majority of the Protestant population of Ulster.Most of that population are descendants of Scots Presbyterians transferred to Ulster in the early C17. Yes, that was an Anglo imperial manoeuvre. But few of the colonists were "English," and it all happened so long ago that talking about who is "indigenous" hardly makes sense now. Mycroft and WW are right, though, in their discussions of the artificiality of what makes a "majority" or a "minority" in the six counties. That is an old imperial game, drawing the lines where you want them, stretching the borders just far enough to claim a "majority." Stockholm, y'know, the day is coming when someone is going to take you to task for the way you use statistics. There are so many variables you seem never to consider.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 20 August 2003 01:07 PM
quote: Mycroft and WW are right, though, in their discussions of the artificiality of what makes a "majority" or a "minority" in the six counties. That is an old imperial game, drawing the lines where you want them, stretching the borders just far enough to claim a "majority."
You're so right! If only the British imperialists in Canada had not drawn the boundaries of Upper and Lower Canada in such a way as to create a French majority Lower Canada, think of all the problem we could have avoided. If the British had made all of British North America into one big colony, there would be no, Quebec and we could have assimilated the French long ago! no referendums, no PQ, no BQ. No Felix Leclerc, No Celine Dion... Damn those British imperialists!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230
|
posted 20 August 2003 01:15 PM
Stolkholm, there is no logical border separating Northern Ireland from the republic. Despite being called Ulster, the Northern Irish statelet is not consistent with the borders of the traditional province of Ulster. The border is an artificial line. That's not the case for the border between Scotland and England - there is a traditional Scottish nation that existed long before union, nor is it the case with Latvia or the other Baltic nations. And again, why is it justifiable to create a statelet for the sake of the island's Protestant minority which creates a new Catholic minority? Why should the 40% of the population of Northern Ireland which is Catholic be made into a minority in order to fulfill the aspirations of the 20 or 30% of the population of the island which is Protestant? The reason the border was drawn the way it was was to make the Northern Ireland statelet "viable" because if you had put the Catholic majority counties that are part of "Ulster" in the republic the resulting 3 1/2 or 4 county (depending on whether you divide Armagh or not) Northern Ireland would have been too small to make the state econonimically viable. [ 20 August 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230
|
posted 20 August 2003 01:26 PM
Ok Stockholm, in 15 or so years time when Catholics are a majority in Northern Ireland do you agree that the entire province should join with the republic (given a referendum) or do you think the border should be redrawn yet again?A bitter border's troubled history quote: The border has its origins in the creation of the Irish Free State in 1921, after the war against colonial Britain. A Boundary Commission was set up to decide where the frontier should be drawn between the British statelet and its newly independent southern neighbor, which went on to become the Republic of Ireland in 1948. Northern Protestants, called unionists because of their support for remaining part of Britain, had a clear majority over Catholics in only four northern counties — Antrim, Down, Londonderry and Armagh. This was deemed too small a territory to form a viable unionist entity, so the predominantly Catholic counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone were added to the emerging British province of Northern Ireland. SLICED IN TWO The arrangement contained many anomalies, not least of which was the division of Ireland’s Province of Ulster. Three of Ulster’s counties — Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan — were now in the Irish Free State. Countless farms were divided between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, and the city of Londonderry — now in Northern Ireland — was cut off from its natural hinterland of Donegal. Many people were unhappy, especially Protestant unionists stranded on the Irish Republic side of the border and Catholic nationalists trapped in Northern Ireland. The Boundary Commission surveyed residents of the border areas to gauge their wishes, but concluded in 1925 that any changes would be incompatible with economic and geographic considerations. The fate of six-county Northern Ireland was sealed.
[ 20 August 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 20 August 2003 01:35 PM
quote: Ok Stockholm, in 15 or so years time when Catholics are a majority in Northern Ireland do you agree that the entire province should join with the republic (given a referendum) or do you think the border should be redrawn yet again?
In a word - YES. If there is a referendum that shows a clear majority of people in response to a clear question (gee that sounds familiar) wish to join Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland and leave the UK AND if there are guarentees of minority rights for Protestants including no infringements on the right to buy birth control pills or to have an abortion, then by all means let's unite Ireland! I think the reaction of most of the British would be "good riddance" anyways.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220
|
posted 20 August 2003 01:48 PM
quote: Ok Stockholm, in 15 or so years time when Catholics are a majority in Northern Ireland do you agree that the entire province should join with the republic (given a referendum) or do you think the border should be redrawn yet again?
The issues in Northern Ireland have long since ceased to be about Catholic vs. Protestant. They've always been more about Republican vs. Unionist than anything else. The IRA does have protestant members, and the UDF can claim their token Catholic membership too. Ask almost anyone in N.Ireland today and they'll claim that the IRA and the UDF are nothing more than organized crime gangs in it for the money. The people in N.Ireland have overwhelmingly voiced their desire for peace, but as always, there's a core contingent who are addicted to the lifestyle and the violence that goes along with it, and who insist on dragging the civilian population along with them.
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220
|
posted 20 August 2003 02:17 PM
quote: My inclination would be not to start cutting it down any further but to offer dual citizenship all in Ulster, let Protestant have their own institutions and see if that works.
I have an Irish passport, because my mother was born in Belfast. The Irish government considers you Irish even if you're from Ulster.
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098
|
posted 20 August 2003 04:31 PM
I'm with black_dog. I'm with anyone who hates the tactics of the "damned UVF and the cruel IRA" together. My dad, who pays close attention to Irish politics, tells a wry story. "Every year they have the Peace Train in Northern Ireland," he says. "It's to symbolize people coming together, Catholic or Protestant doesn't matter, just peace. And every year, regular as clockwork, the IRA would blow up the tracks to stop it. "Well, one year, the IRA was in the middle of a major cease-fire. So we with the Peace Train were very hopeful that there'd be no trouble that year. "So of course, the UVF blew up the tracks."
From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 20 August 2003 04:55 PM
I really have a hard time keeping all the factions straight in my memory, but as I understand it, there are actually four major groups, two on each "side", all fighting it out with eachother. I learned a lot about the troubles when I was travelling in Ireland, but since then it's all gotten fuzzy in my head.We went on a black cab tour through Belfast, though, and the cabby explained to us about all the different neighborhoods, and how the paint on the sidewalks or the borders of the murals etc. helps you to know who's running that particular part of the city. There's the UVF and the IRA, but there are also spinoff groups of each of them that cause trouble separately, and consequently, the conflict isn't always Pro. vs. Cat., but sometimes militant Pro./Cat. vs. slightly less militant Pro./Cat. and things are always shuffling around among the groups etc. At this point in time, I think picking sides is a dangerous thing to do. The conflicts are so old and intricate that unless you're 374 years old with a perfect photographic memory, there's no way to know who's right, or whose claims and grievances are more legitimate. More constructive, I think, would be to find a way to get the kids living in both parts of Ireland to see the futility in the fighting. While I was there, I met a guy who worked in s community outreach sort of position, and his main function was to work with street kids, and kids affiliated with gangs on all sides of the conflict, and try to show them alternatives to the violence and hostility that they've grown up with. He told me that a lot of the kids just got involved in the violence because there was no way not to. If Dad's going out to the march and he and his friends and all his friends' kids are prepped for a battle, then you go. And you fight. And I'm pretty sure that most of them don't really understand it, and don't really know why they're supposed to hate the other guys--until they see their dad or their friend/brother etc. get beaten or killed by "the other guys". The history won't change, and an official, political "solution" is a remote and unlikely proposition at present, but if, at the very least, people could stop killing eachother over it (and not start again), that would be a start...
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220
|
posted 20 August 2003 05:33 PM
quote: There is something deeply obscene about the obsession a small group of Protestants have with their parades through Catholic areas to celebrate British war victories hundreds of years ago.
Yeah, really. What is with these people? The one and only Orange parade I saw, you could barely see the marchers through the ring of police and soldiers guarding them. That's British nationalism for you.
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 20 August 2003 05:33 PM
Gee, April: when are you gonna move here? We need you.
quote: It all would have been easier if Ireland had never separated from the UK in the first palce!
I think this is one of the most appalling statements I have ever read on babble. Stockholm, you are driven by what seems to me your irrational hatred of Catholicism. I am not a Catholic, and I am no more enchanted by the hypocritical hierarchy of that church than you are. But I am amazed that you believe, as you seem to me to do, that any RC is ever as politically inclined to theocracy as are many fundie Protestants. The evidence is especially stark in Ulster, as it is in the southern U.S. Have you ever seen an Orange Day parade in Canada, Stockholm? I have: Westminster United Church, Medicine Hat, Alberta, the Glorious Twelfth, ca 1954-55. The sermon I heard that day would make every self-respecting babbler vomit now, and would probably draw the interest of those who support Canada's hate legislation. And from where do you think our congregation was still hiring its ministers? God, but I can still see that obsessive, nasty little man. The United Church has, of course, come a long way since then.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 20 August 2003 05:42 PM
PS: People might be interested in a classic comparative study by a Canadian scholar, Don Akenson, God's Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press 1992).Publisher's blurb: quote: In this original and unsettling book, Donald Akenson brings to light critical similarities among three politically troubled nations. He suggests that developments in Northern Ireland and South Africa since the seventeenth century -- and in Israel during the twentieth -- must be understood in relation to events that occurred four millennia ago. Asserting that the dominant peoples of these three nations have based their cultural identity on belief in a direct covenant or contract with an all-powerful, all-knowing God, Akenson vividly chronicles the profound effects of this conviction on each nation's tempestuous history.
You bark up funny trees, Stockholm.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 20 August 2003 05:59 PM
We went to the Rock of Cashel, but that's not the same town that the head's in.And it wasn't the death mask. It was a whole, round head. Teeth still in it. Still had hair... But I guess it wasn't Cromwell. Still stumped.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226
|
posted 20 August 2003 06:10 PM
Stockholm... too far? Nah, not Stockholm. Total moderate is that one.I suppose he is right in one aspect. I do drink a lot of whiskey, and no-one makes whiskey like the Irish. As to making babies, well, the more practice I get the longer I will live so.... go Ireland. I have an Irish passport as well as my dad immigrated from the Republic. I also have a British passport as mom came over from the midlands. I guess I hate myself. The terrorist groups left on the island these days (IRA, PIRA, UDF, etc) are all organized crime groups. They have about as much to do with catholicism vs protestantism as peanut butter does. I side with the republicans as the island should be united.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 20 August 2003 08:58 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: OK, I'm sorry i should not have said that about the Irish catholics and whiskey etc..The world would be a better place if we could take the wonderful poetry and humour and music of the Irish and the lovely choral music and stained glass of the Catholic church, WITHOUT the sexual hangups and repressiveness of the Vatican. I guess its rare that we can have the best of both worlds.
Stockholm, are you capable of STOPPING with the overgeneralizations? Are you? This is so silly. It shames babble. Again and again, stats demonstrate that, eg, RCs in Canada are much more liberal than the church fathers. Eire is experiencing an enviable renaissance culturally, economically, socially. What is your problem?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625
|
posted 20 August 2003 09:10 PM
quote: Stockholm, are you capable of STOPPING with the overgeneralizations? Are you? This is so silly. It shames babble.
Word. Stockholm, if you knew fuck all about Ireland, you'd know it's leaps and bounds more democratic than the UK. Do I agree with the anti-abortion, or anti-same-sex-marriage stances? No, most certainly not. But Ireland was not the one raping and pillaging the world for six centuries for the sake of that industrialization you credit to the Protestant faith Ireland also has an effective democratic system, employing Single-Transferable-Vote, and is probably the only nation in the NorthWestern world that can lay some claim to employing local participatory democracy. Perhaps you should go on one of Tony Martin's exchanges to Ireland, as you've obviously got one hell of a lot to learn. Feel free to PM me, I'll make the arrangements. One-sided erroneous secular puritanism is no less bullshit fundamentalism than One-sided erroneous religious puritanism.
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 20 August 2003 11:15 PM
quote: Ireland also has an effective democratic system, employing Single-Transferable-Vote, and is probably the only nation in the NorthWestern world that can lay some claim to employing local participatory democracy.
Yes, but Northern Ireland uses the identical voting system, both for the Northern Ireland Assembly and for local governments. The one thing both sides can agree on. By the way, the North had STV at partition in 1920, but when Labour and the Liberals were about to hold the balance of power in 1929 the Unionists switched to First-Past-The-Post. N.I. switched back under the Good Friday agreement. Having relatives in Northern Ireland, I abstain from the rest of this discussion. It is simply way too complex for outsiders to follow. The unionist community, not to be confused with the Unionist Party (see what I mean?) is an awkward combination of: 1. an ethnic group (descended from the Scots, they have a different accent from the nationalist community and some say they even look different), and 2. a political allegiance to the United Kingdom, and 3. a religious group, or perhaps one should say an anti-church-and-state group, or perhaps an anti-Catholic group. There are so many cross-pressures involved that almost any generalization one makes will be unfair and insulting to someone. Possibly the worst meddlers of all are the Republican sympathizers in the USA who persist in donating money to the IRA. But they simply exemplify the fact that there is wisdom in silence.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
4t2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3655
|
posted 21 August 2003 04:19 PM
OK. Enough already. This is my first post after returning from Canada to Ireland and it's somehow appropriate to be on this subject.First of all, I'm going to play the emotional card and let a roar at anyone deciding who to 'sympathise' with regarding Northern Ireland - it's an attitude adopted with respect to the Middle East far too often, and is more akin to picking a horse or a football team rather than a genuinely useful approach to what is, let's face it, a conflict that has torn apart families and communities for the last God-knows-how-long. It makes me sick, absolutely sick, to hear anyone trivialising the destruction that we as residents of this isalnd have brought on ourselves, egged on by the armchair terrorists and sympathisers of both sides around the world, who never have to come face to face with the facts of the situation. It's not about picking sides or picking a favourite; it's too serious for that, sorry. Regarding Irish stereotypes/jokes/cliches etc. - at this stage, I'm not inclined to get too upset about them - and have been known, with or without alcohol (actually I drink vodka or wine more than anything else, so I do let the side down) to make use of the stage-Irish 'vibe' for comical or rhetorical effect. So what. Like the best Jewish jokes being the ones told by Jews, and so on. But I think some of the remarks here are a wee bit off colour, but again, I'm not going to demand a straight-faced wake. On the other hand, the misconceptions about Irish government are far too obvious to be ignored. For example, with reference to abortion. Now I campaigned heavily (far too heavily, for the time I had available) against the last abortion referendum, which would have tightened the abortion laws further - like any Catholic, I struggled with the moral issues involved, and don't pretend that it's an easy question. But by bringing together the experiences of my own and my friends, and thinking about the various ideas that have influenced me, primarily socialism, I feel comfortable to assert my pro-choice position. But I'm not going to pretend that I'm coming up against a theocracy. The Irish constitution, despite all its flaws that I will debate for hours at a moment's notice, allows it to be amended by referendum. The fact that the people have chosen to insert certain clauses pertaining to abortion is not the result of some Church control; rather, it is a reflection of the opinions of the Irish people, as well as the pre-occupations of the political elite. The debate over how a constitution should be amended is a valid one, but once the choice is made to allow amendment, surely it's fair for the people (who are 100% wrong in my opinion - I don't think abortion should be a written constitutional matter in the first place) to use that power as they wish? Even if it agrees or disagrees with Catholic teaching? The priests never banned birth control pills in Ireland; the legislative body did. Can't you spot the difference? In any case, if you actually were aware of current conditions, you would see the seismic changes in the past 10 years, including the chruch sex scandals, and the invalidity of many old assumptions about 'Catholic Ireland'. BTW, before I forget, whiskey is ours, whisky the Scots. Jack D is neither's. Back to Northern Ireland itself; as far as I am concerned, it's long beyond a religious conflict, I don't believe that the gunmen of the IRA commit their heinous acts because their targets don't accept the theological validity of transubstantiation.....there are numerous social and cultural reasons for the perpetuation of our conflict, and again, like the Middle East, it's not easily solved. Check out the entire forum section here for clues why. I'm prepared to discuss specific aspects of the conflict, to the best of my ability - but not as an omnibus "who do you think should win?" thread....too painful, too real for such a surreal context, sorry.
From: Beyond the familiar... | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 21 August 2003 05:09 PM
skdadl is embarrassed. 4t2, would you believe that I had to stagger downstairs and stare at the bottle of Lagavulin before I could believe that I had the spelling backwards? He's right, you guys: whiskey is them; whisky is us. (Wino m'self, although I can appreciate a wee dram of the single malt at Hogmannay -- or Burns Night -- or on St Andrew's ... and I'm sure we could think of other excuses.) 4t2, it seems to me that you are being super-tolerant, given much of what has gone before in this thread. I thought of raising a question m'self about the pre-conditions for democracy (I do believe there are some, and women's autonomy would certainly be one of them), the problems of thinking about democracy in terms of referenda ... but I figure you need a breather, if this is the first time you have read through this curious thread entire. So: when shall me meet again? So glad to hear that you've landed safely.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 21 August 2003 05:24 PM
I was aware that it's a misconception to believe the Republic of Ireland is a theocracy, and that the Church in Ireland has stood above the tide of change that swept the rest of the west regarding church control.Be that at it may, as others pointed out, violence is entrenched to the point where Protestants are likely to feel uncomfortable when the North finally joins the Republic. I think Canada can play a role here, and offer citizenship and resettlement for those Protestants, by having them emigrate to Quebec. Call it the Parizeau solution, if you like. That should solve everything forever.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 21 August 2003 05:47 PM
quote: I know that this is a terrible thing to say, but in my humble opinion, there is nothing to be done with the Orange Order but to let it die out
At one time, to be anyone in Canada, like a tory politician, or municiple employee, one had to be a member of the Orange Lodge. One can believe that politicians the age of Bill Davis attended a meeting or two in thier youth. The influence of the Orange order in Canada waned significantly in the post war years, for reasons I'm not clear about. Whatever the cause, it's probably related to the decline in church membership and attendance also. Personally, I think it had more to do with the Great Depression, and not the war. My hypothesis is that these groups, like churches and lodges-- which served as the 'social safety net' of the day, were overwhelmed by the Depression. I suspect many people of that era felt betrayed when those organizations could not help them like they thought they would or should, and when post war consumerism started to put food, clothes and wonderous gagets like T.V., refrigerators and washing machines in people's homes, people hitched their wagons to that brave new world. Be that as it may, there remain echoes.
There's an Orange Lodge near me, a few doors down from Adelaide and Oxford streets here in London. Between the Shopper's Drug Mart and a Day Care Center. Oh, in addition, I don't know what the current Ontario membership of the Orange Lodge is, but I think we can determine it by asking a Catholic Priest what it is, and take 1% of that number as accurate. [ 21 August 2003: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|