|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Apr 22, 2023 20:28:03 GMT
Why 1963? I was born. I am not propsing an alternative history. I am seeking one.
I can see no scenario whereby the Nazis win WW2 or the Confederacy win the US civil war. And I can see no way in which the Unionists retain their God Given right to treat Catholics like shit. Its just not the trajetory of history and much more to the point, it offends against the laws of the free market economics as laid down by the Scotsman Adam Smith. What I observe from Northern Ireland is a quite remarkable extent to which the Unionists and Loyalists have managed to hold an untenable line, long enough to redefine it.
My alternative history questions are these;
What could the Irish Nationalist viewpoint have done differently to either give them a better outcome than they currently have or more likely to give themselves the same outcome earlier and with less bloodshed, which disprortionately fell on their community? In summary, how could they have fucked up a bit less?
What could successive British governments have done differently to either give them a better outcome than they currently have or more likely to give themselves the same outcome earlier and with less bloodshed? In summary, how could they have fucked up a bit less?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 22, 2023 20:34:48 GMT
Why 1963? I was born. I am not propsing an alternative history. I am seeking one. I can see no scenario whereby the Nazis win WW2 or the Confederacy win the US civil war. And I can see no way in which the Unionists retain their God Given right to treat Catholics like shit. Its just not the trajetory of history and much more to the point, it offends against the laws of the free market economics as laid down by the Scotsman Adam Smith. What I observe from Northern Ireland is a quite remarkable extent to which the Unionists and Loyalists have managed to hold an untenable line, long enough to redefine it. My alternative history questions are these; What could the Irish Nationalist viewpoint have done differently to either give them a better outcome than they currently have or more likely to give themselves the same outcome earlier and with less bloodshed, which disprortionately fell on their community? In summary, how could they have fucked up a bit less? What could successive British governments have done differently to either give them a better outcome than they currently have or more likely to give themselves the same outcome earlier and with less bloodshed? In summary, how could they have fucked up a bit less? Latter question: not submit to the genocidal blackmail threats by the Unionist supremacists in the 1880s or the 1910s & 1920s. Enact Home Rule properly for the whole of Ireland in the 1880s. Enforce proper civil rights and abolish gerrymandering in the 1960s. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 23, 2023 15:59:17 GMT
Why 1963? I was born. I am not propsing an alternative history. I am seeking one. I can see no scenario whereby the Nazis win WW2 or the Confederacy win the US civil war. And I can see no way in which the Unionists retain their God Given right to treat Catholics like shit. Its just not the trajetory of history and much more to the point, it offends against the laws of the free market economics as laid down by the Scotsman Adam Smith. What I observe from Northern Ireland is a quite remarkable extent to which the Unionists and Loyalists have managed to hold an untenable line, long enough to redefine it. My alternative history questions are these; What could the Irish Nationalist viewpoint have done differently to either give them a better outcome than they currently have or more likely to give themselves the same outcome earlier and with less bloodshed, which disprortionately fell on their community? In summary, how could they have fucked up a bit less? What could successive British governments have done differently to either give them a better outcome than they currently have or more likely to give themselves the same outcome earlier and with less bloodshed? In summary, how could they have fucked up a bit less? Latter question: not submit to the genocidal blackmail threats by the Unionist supremacists in the 1880s or the 1910s & 1920s. Enact Home Rule properly for the whole of Ireland in the 1880s. Enforce proper civil rights and abolish gerrymandering in the 1960s. Or better yet, let Northern Ireland go in the 1920s and not keep those six Ulster counties under British jurisdiction. That would have averted a lot of problems. In Great Britain, religious discrimination by that point was largely a memory, at least legally. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,540
|
Post by iang on Apr 23, 2023 16:02:38 GMT
Not ignored Stormont as a matter of policy from the 1920s through to the 60s. There were a handful of MPs who tried to raise the situation in Westminster and were in effect told "not our jurisdiction". By the time Britain did intervene, it was too late to prevent significant amounts of bloodshed.
|
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 23, 2023 19:14:25 GMT
Latter question: not submit to the genocidal blackmail threats by the Unionist supremacists in the 1880s or the 1910s & 1920s. Enact Home Rule properly for the whole of Ireland in the 1880s. Enforce proper civil rights and abolish gerrymandering in the 1960s. Or better yet, let Northern Ireland go in the 1920s and not keep those six Ulster counties under British jurisdiction. That would have averted a lot of problems. In Great Britain, religious discrimination by that point was largely a memory, at least legally. That would have come with a lot of it's own difficulties and problems |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Apr 23, 2023 21:17:37 GMT
I am clear the successive GB governments got it all badly wrong, consistently. Putting the troops in, not using them to smash the Ulstermen, internment, Bloody Sunday, the cover-up of Bloody Sunday, right down to the Good Friday agreement and not demanding that drawing a line under Bloody Sunday be, like the release of IRA prisoners, part of the agreement.
I can't see that successive Oirish governments did much wrong.
The Republicans probably delayed a United Ireland by fifty years, possibly indefinitely. I cant see an argument that they moved it sooner.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,673 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 23, 2023 22:00:25 GMT
Or better yet, let Northern Ireland go in the 1920s and not keep those six Ulster counties under British jurisdiction. That would have averted a lot of problems. In Great Britain, religious discrimination by that point was largely a memory, at least legally. That would have come with a lot of it's own difficulties and problems Britain told the Quebeckers STFU you're part of Canada. Same option. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Apr 23, 2023 22:13:39 GMT
Do you want to be British?
Start acting British. Or fuck off.
(spoiler alert, bowler hats are not British anymore. )
|
|
|
|
Post by greyfriar on Apr 23, 2023 22:21:37 GMT
The Free State/Republic had sufficient more fundamental issues from the 1920s derived from grinding poverty, lack of an economy and the inevitable loss of its brightest offspring to focus much on the black north.
Whilst the drivers for this hangover from independence (Scots would do well to reflect on the payoff balance between emotional/identity and fiscal outcomes) were largely alleviated half a century later upon accession to the common market, the indifference towards the six counties of Ulster was deeply rooted in the south.
The trajectory towards conflict was set in motion by the apartheid approach to managing the minority employed by the protestant establishment and the hijacking of the successful civil rights movement by the provos in the early 70s: it is no exaggeration to assert that this derailed the inevitability of reunification.
It’s easy with hindsight to ascribe blame on approaches taken to the security situation, the Catholic population having had cause for sympathy towards the British Army protection at the outset, quite undermined by inappropriate deployments (e.g. the paras) and indiscipline.
Ironically the whole island secularising at pace undermines the logical historical basis for unionism or nationalism, leaving largely tribal and therefore inherently less principled undercurrents at play. Devout Catholics ought to support a DUP led Stormont over a Dail in which the likes of Varadkar pushes ever more aggressively the pro choice, gender self-id etc. social policy, whilst for unionists the fear of Home Rule means Rome Rule is laughable.
|
|
obsie
Non-Aligned
Posts: 840
|
Post by obsie on Apr 24, 2023 16:51:20 GMT
I am clear the successive GB governments got it all badly wrong, consistently. Putting the troops in, not using them to smash the Ulstermen, internment, Bloody Sunday, the cover-up of Bloody Sunday, right down to the Good Friday agreement and not demanding that drawing a line under Bloody Sunday be, like the release of IRA prisoners, part of the agreement. The second was the inevitable consequence of the first.
The greater problem was the fifty years of indifference by British governments that preceded 1969 (there were honourable exceptions on the Labour backbenches in the late 40s and the early 60s - Geoffrey Bing, Paul Rose - but by and large sleeping dogs were let lie until Gerry Fitt and then Bernadette Devlin were elected to Westminster). The creation of the Specials and the abolition of PR for local government elections either came before the Treaty or as soon as possible after it. On both occasions arses should have been tanned by Westminster at the beginning rather than allowing things to fester.
|
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Apr 24, 2023 19:29:22 GMT
And yet in 2023, we find ourselves in a situation where the leader of Sinn Fein is chauffered around in a Crown car.
Are the Loyalists that brilliant?
|
|
