Workers Republic Viewpoint on Ulster

Congal · Workers Republic Viewpoint on Ulster

Not a big fan,but this guy seems to have a good grasp of the situation that evolved in Ulster..... and it was written in 1939.....

http://www.workersrepublic.org/Pa.../Trotskyism/irelandandulster.html

Congal

''Protestants suffered no persecution'' He's wrong about that. Thats why so many of them headed off to America.......the Ulster-Scots.

But overall he has a fair grip of the situation. Unlike so many.

parkhead_rfb

he is wrong about many things.

the first one being the six county state was created against the will of the rest of the ireland and a third of those in the six county state its self. ireland culturally, historically and linguistically has always been one unit.

without doubt those in the north have a right to have their culture respected but you cant create plastic states to suit the demands of a relatively small community. this is made even worse when you consider the discrimination those catholics left in the new state faced.

he also fails to recognise that there was in fact no 'famine'. at the time people in ireland were starving food was actually being exported from the island. no investment in ireland also ensured that agriculturaly there were no advances. to suggest the deaths of all those at this time was due to 'a famine' is not correct.

Aventinian

parkhead_rfb

scotland has always been distinctive, in the same ways ireland has always been. scotland has even had its own law and education system. I also wouldnt advocate the break up of the uk unless scotland voted for it.

Morph

Scotland still has its own legal and educational systems

parkhead_rfb

i am aware of that, thats the point i was making.

Congal

Neil

If you accept the principle that secession is acceptable then I don't see how you can honourably then deny the same right to others.

History, however is full of peoples who have - Irish, Indians, Bosnian Moslems, Croatians, Nigerians, Georgians etc.

parkhead_rfb

you can deny it when the purpose of secession is to maintain the power and privaledge of a few. the way nationalists were treated in the six counties was shamefull. The very fact that shows the six counties for what it was is that county tyrone remained in the six county state despite having a nationalist majority, surely the nationalist majority in derry also should have had their wishes respected?

whatever way you look at it partition was a means for unionists in the north to retain their power.

Congal

The way Unionists in Eire were treated was shameful.

Neil

By your definition Parkhead secession can never be acceptable where it leaves a sizeable dissatisfied minority. Thus Latvia & Estonia could never leave the USSR, Croatia & Bosnia could never leave Yugoslavia, The United states could never have seceded from the Britsih empire (it is estimated that 1/3rd of Americans were "Tories" who were severley oppressed) & of course Protestants in Ireland would have been allowed a veto over Ireland's secession as an intensely Catholic country.

This was basicly the Unionist view too.

parkhead_rfb

parkhead_rfb

Congal

Neil

parkhead_rfb

ireland was a distinct cultural island for the most part with its own language tradtions etc. I think that history shows the vast majority on the island were shat upon for years. the british presence in ireland was at the heart of this. The vast majority on the island wanted to see an end to the british presence so that was their right to do this.

a small minority in the north east though wanted to subvert this demand. so rather than go with the will of the majority they created a plastic state which had absolutely no historical or cultural basis. particularly given that around a third of those inhabiting it would have not considered themselves british at all.

from then on the new state was a rampantly sectarian one discriminating against those who saw themselves as non british in practically every way it could manage to do so. It even gave its self a conveniently historical name of ulster, when in fact 3 of the nine counties who made up ulster were not part of the new state.

I have also stated that not all of the six counties actually included in the state wanted to be there either, but were made to against their will.

It is for these reasons i dont see any logical reason for supporting the partitioned state. it has no histrorical basis, no cultural basis, it ignores the will of many within it and discriminated against those who didnt consider themselves british.

SLG

Sorry, I missed that bit Parkhead. When partition took place, which of the six counties did not want to become part of British Ulster?

Neil

Still waiting for a redefined definition Parkhead. Once again all you are doing is trotting out all the old grievances on your side, ignoring those on the other and calling it a principle. I think if it were any other clash you would be able to see how sectarian this is.

SLG we have already been told that an Ulster of all 9 counties would have been acceptable even though the Dark Ages Ulster is as much a historic curiousity as Pictland is in Scotland. This would have had a small Catholic majority & thus entitled to democraticaly vote to be part of Eire, whereas the present NI has a small Protestant majority & thus any vote for the Union is undemocratic

Cymro

Cymro

Once again here we see Parkhead drawing the Irish struggle in only black and white. I think all if not most on this site agree in an United Eire, in an Independent Scottish Republic, and a few of us foreigners on this site also believe passionatly in Welsh independence.

But Parkhead, with every due respect you managed to make the most passionate Nat look like the most ardent Unionist in your "Poor us" attitude when it comes to Irish history.

I am aware that the names of people like Michael Collins is still spat upon in certain Republican ciricles. But, agree with it or not, he agreed to allow the majority in NI to have an opt out in order to allow the rest of the island of Ireland to secure 'Free State' status. Ask yourself this, what would have been the result had Michael Collins et al decided to refuse Irish Independence unless it was the entire island? How many more Irish Catholics would have been killed by the murderous Black and Tans? How many more innocent Irish people would have been killed by both sides during the fighting between the Republicans and the British State?

Agree with it or not, but the democratic will of the people had to be essential for the success of the Irish State. If the British backed Protestant Majority in NI had been ignored the Irish Civil War would have been far more bloody. Unfortunalty certain elements within the Republican Movement both past and present forgot/forget what the Tricolour stands for.

I think we all look forward to Republicans being a majority in NI and allowing the land to be unified but personally I couldn't give a rats arse if the are Catholic, Proddie, Sikh or Muslim. Maybe if it stopped being about Catholics and Protestants competing to be the biggest victim of the troubles that day will arrive a lot sooner.

Same goes for Scotland.

parkhead_rfb

no we dont forget what it stands for. most republicans are perfectly willing to accept that unionists wish to maintain their seperate culture. we do not though feel that unionist have the right to just create a seperatist state as they dont like the will of the vast majority. had the six county state had any historical or cultural background then there may have been a point in it but what ever wat you look at it it did not.

the six counties were previously part of a nine county province and around a third didnt even want to be within the new state. given the mass discrimination which went on after partition do you still think its right this state was allowed to be formed?

the creation of plastic states to suit certain interests does not work. iraq, israel and the six counties prove this.

parkhead_rfb

parkhead_rfb

Congal

Quote...'Ulster had previously been nine counties'.......and who designated it as nine counties?. Who's configuration was it? Rolling Eyes

Congal

Quote.....''so if the majorty in wales want independence (and i think that would be the best thing to happen) then it should happen. small pockets shouldnt be able to subvert that and then attack those nationalists left within it.''

It was the nationalists within Ulster that were doing the attacking. Not those who supported B.U. They were happy enough with the deal that was made. Dublin signed up to that deal,that the island would be one,but Ulster could opt out if she so wished......which she did.

Ulster people had no interest in forcing anyone to be British. They just wanted to be left alone to git on with building their country. But there were those that didn't want that. Didn't want Ulster to suceed. So when Ulster was only new born she was fightin for her very existence.

There were those out to pull her down by foul means or fair. Should Ulster have launched a terror campaign for the return of the three lost counties. Maybe they shoulda. But I don't think so.

Davy Ervine when asked on 'The Loyalists' Peter Taylor series on T.V. about the bombs in Dublin...how did he explain that. He said it was 'return of serve' In other words there was no political motive behind it. No trying to bomb the Irish people into the U.K. They had made up their minds to secede from the Union. Ulster and the rest of the U.K. respected that decision. But they didn't return the compliment. They launched a series of attacks against Ulster from its formation......

''If, on the other hand,as some allege,complete ease and security are national perils in themselves, Ulster will escape these in the future as it has in the past. Whatever its fate,it will not perish because its defensive virtues of constancy and tenacity have gone to rust''

Notice its DEFENSIVE virtues. Not offensive.

Neil

One of the reasons you give for Wales being a distictive area with a right to separation is its Welsh language. Of course the language of Ulster Prtoestants was always English, whereas Irish Gaelic was the historic language of the Catholics, one which they have spent a lot of money in trying largely unsuccessfully, to mauntain. By that standard the protestant parts of Ulster are entireely entitled to nationhood.

I am STILL waiting for Parkhead to come up with a definition of when a community is entitled to secede. It appears, from his refusal to answer, that the true answer is "when me & the IRA say so".

Cymro

parkhead_rfb

parkhead_rfb

SLG

So what is to stop one of the six counties that has a nationalist majority seceding and joining the Republic?

parkhead_rfb

Cymro

Ffyc sakes Parkhead

30 years of fighting, infighting and terrorist attacks by bothsides is nothing like all out Civil War. Had the majority Unionist been forced into an Independent Eire in the 20's the fighting would have been far worse and would have held the country back I am convinced of that.

Not all Unionists are against powershareing and you know that.

Britain messed up in Ireland. But in the North East, they where in a majority and that would not have changed. Allowing three quarters to go it alone at the expense of the other quarter is a temporary answer. Michael Collins was right to do what he did, sad that may be.

Isreal was established on religion. Was Eire? Britain actually opposed to creation of Israel originally but followed the US eventually - some things never change! Iraq was a plastic state, no one denies this.

Northern Ireland isn't a state to begin with, it's a Province. It has not indepdence (though some have tried to make it one) and any developments in it's 'status' over the years have allways included increasing Eire's invovlment (and rightly so) - from the Downing St Decleration, to the Good Friday Agreement.

Neil

I don't think you will find "many unionists" treating Ulster scots as a serious thing, indeed your descrption of their reaction proves it. It is the sort of nonsense which is an inevitable result of the subsidies given to gaelic to palcate the ticking parcel brigade.

I note you still can't find a definition of nation that would legitimise bringing the Protestants in at gunpoint.

Rinty · t

As usual I find myself in the middle here.

Ulster Scots - Very much a real cultural entity and, IMO, one that is very helpful in establishing a real understanding of what makes up Ireland, Northern Ireland and how we got where we are. The trouble is it is often used as a political football to associate (wrongly) with ancient tribes or with loyalist culture.

Ulster (Geographically) - there can be no dispute on this, Ulster is nine counties. People in Northern Ireland often use "Ulster" to describe Northern Ireland and it is probably a legitimate loose term but not wholly accurate. My cousins in Newry and my wee brother in Dundalk are both Ulstermen whether they live in Ireland or Britain. One side or the other claiming it is irrelevant and again just political footballing. Across the planet, many descriptions & cultures exist across modern borders. remember that the original ulster "plantations" took place in Donegal and Cavan, more than in Antrim and Down.

The Six Counties - I prefer to use Northern Ireland as a name because it is, whether we like it or not, a very real entity that has existed for coming up on a century now. But rfb is right to say that all people in those counties were not given the choice of staying in the UK or seceding to Ireland. The line was drawn and opinion was taken across those six counties as a whole. Ultimately though we have to look at things from where we are now and any vote now should be as a whole NI not individual towns or counties, IMO.

At what point do we say that historical issues are secondary to contemporary reality? I would say that few if any people in NI actually were alive in any other situation other than the one that exists now and we should treat NI as a country collectively now. That may have been different 30 years ago or more but not now. Do we go back a hundred years or more when deciding other borders? I dont think so. We could argue, on that basis that Northumberland is Scottish or that parts of Dumfrieshire are English or that Shetland is Danish.

Congal

Rinty · y

Congal,

The borders of Ulster may have been old and who drew them up is irrelevant, they exist and have existed for a long time. Most people would recognise Ulster as being something that crosses the borders, in sport and in and other isues it is still used extensively. Poeple who live in Ulster have no reason to change that just becasue another area has decided to lay claim to the name.

Are you saying that Donegal is not in Ulster?

Congal · Re: y

Rinty · t

Several people did at various times. The Ulster Plantations were in Monaghan Cavan Donegal so you could say QE1 did it. Others would claim the O'Neills (their symbol, the red hand, is still used on the Ulster flag) others would say the Norman barons. There are others who claim it goes much further back than that. Of course counties themselves are relatevely modern but the Ulster label existed before that.

Even though rfb hasnt answered your question, I dont think it is a reason not to answer mine.

Do you think Donegal is not in Ulster?

parkhead_rfb

parkhead_rfb

SLG

Are the nationalists involved so sensitive to their needs? Are there not already Unionists who are citizens of the Republic (albeit not very many)?

Cymro

Congal

Seeing no one will answer the question, either though unawareness or just being obstinate. I will tell you who it was.

Once again it was the English at the time of Elizabeth the First who drew up what is called by some the historical Ulster borders.

I would say among nationalists there is more reason to support the present day B.U.,than the historical English one. As a least nationalists had some input into present day six county statelet[as they so love to call it Smile

] in the form of Michael Collins. And the goverment was the representives of England,Scotland and Wales. Unlike historical Ulster which was an entirely English configuration.

Neil

I'm not surprised Congal. This whole "I have sacred rights to the oul sod because my ancestors were in charge before 1917/1689/1492/1066/1071/432/64/3004BC" wears a bit thin. We are where we are & Ulster Protestants have as much right to determine their own future as anybody else.

Rinty · y

Neil

But Holland is actually the name of the biggest province of the Netherlands - it has been applied to the whole country over time & through laziness & also because the Netherlands was the historic name of the entire territory of Belguim, Luxumburg & "Holland" (plus or minus various border alterations with France & Germany). And guess what - it doesn't matter - nobody gains or loses rights because they are or aren't living in territory that was or wasn't called Holland or the Netherlands at some time in history. The same applies to the name Ulster - it is what it is now.

Rinty · y

Congal

When all is said and done.........it is an English configuration [ a nine county Ulster], its as simple as that.

But not alone in Ulster, but thoughout this island England set the boundries. But again not just on this island. But on the mainland as well.

They were the map makers.

Bit like when they went to America too. Some people seem to think those states with their straight line boundries, were already in place. The map makers came out too and defined where one state would end and the other start.

You even have the shiring of Scotland England and Wales, done by the map-makers.

This island was no exception. Ulster at one time was in an area covered by present day 12 counties. At another time it was only an area covered by Antrim and Down, where dwelt the Ulaid from whence Ulster got its name.

Rinty · y

Absolutely congal, most things in the empire were named and defined. Today though it is usual to refer to ulster as the counties in Northern Ireland and the neighbouring counties of Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan.

To me Antrim and Down are the Ulster Scots counties but back in old QE1 days they were largely ignored by the planters.

Montgomery and Hamiltons venture into what were mainly sparsley populated lands was what formed what most of us know as modern Ulster and Ulster scots.

Thats when my folks came to NI and when most of the protestant/unionist population that live across the six counties came from.

But the closeness of all thing Ulster and Scottish can be seen both sides of the border, the Glasgow Irish/catholic population is largely from Donegal.

Congal

I agree Rinty. But some[maybe all] irish republicans keep reminding folk that Ulster is nine counties. I find this a very strange stance to take,actually pushing and glorifying what after all is an English set province.

parkhead_rfb

parkhead_rfb

cymro the dup and uup make up the vast, vast majority of unionist votes. its clear what the unionist community think of power sharing.

You didnt answer my question, what would you have done had you been a nationalist denied these basic rights and attacked by the state? surely you wouldnt have resistsed physically?

neil you would also do well to remember that it was civil rights which kicked off the "troubles" in 69. Although the heart of the conflict is also in partition the realisation that nationalists will never be viewed as equals in a british/unionist controlled state was also central. Had unionists not enacted a campaign of mass discrimination it is very feasable that no oter conflict would have occured post partition.

Cymro

Congal

Oh! I missed your question Rinty. Yes I do agree that Donegal is in Ulster.....that is the nine county Ulster as designated by the English.

On another site I kept using the term B.U. I was challenged about this by a republican.....the same republican who kept telling me that Ulster was the nine county English version.

I had to explain to him that I sorta used that B.U. title at his and others behest. As they kept reminding me that there were nine counties in Ulster[English] so B.U. was more precise and factual. Although granted he would probably have termed it the six-county statelet Wink

But even the counties are English inspired,as they are on the mainland too.

parkhead_rfb

cymro i mentioned the uup after you said that the dup didnt represent all unionists. well between those two they represent near enough all of those who vote. outside maybe the progressive unionist party (pup) there are very few other parties which are worth even making note of.

i also disagree with your assessment on why the dup overtook the uup. history shows that any unionist politician who begins to look like they might support power sharing very quickly receive a loss if support either electorally or within their own party.

The DUP basically just say no to everything and thats about all they can do. I would imagne paisley even starts screaming "no, no. no" when hes offered a cup of tea in stormont.

I just wish the unionist working class communities would look at the dup's actual policies and see they actually have nothing to offer them other than the fact under their control they will be better off than catholics. the ending of traditional heavy industries in the economy is causing real trouble for unionist communities and the dup dont seem capable of doing anything about it.

Rinty · u

The way I see it is that there is one side that se Ulster as shared across borders, but most of them want those borders done away with, and there is another side who want Ulster to be exclusively Northern Ireland, therefore doing away with the border that divides Ulster making it within one border. I cant see how anyone can claim moral highground here or that one side is being unfair over the Ulster title.

I live in Ayrshire, its part of Scotland, but I dont want the title of Scotland to apply to Ayrshire only.

Congal

Same here. I've no problem with saying that Cavan Monaghan Donegal are part of the province known as Ulster. I think this from an Ulster Nationalist site maybe explains it.

Where is Ulster?
Ulster is a small European country in the north-eastern corner of the island of Ireland. It comprises the six counties of Armagh, Antrim, Londonderry, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Down. Its capital city is Belfast. Ulster has a total land area of 5456 square miles. In comparison, Luxembourg is 999 square miles and Israel is 7992 square miles in area. Ulster is also known variously as 'Northern Ireland' (its legally recognised title), the 'Six Counties', the 'North of Ireland', and 'the Province' according to the political opinions or prejudices of different sections of the community. The Ulster state came into existence in 1921 under the Government of Ireland Act. Ulster remained a part of the United Kingdom with its own devolved parliamentary system, and retained the right to send 13 MPs to the sovereign Westminster Parliament. The greater part of the island was granted independent Dominion status as the Irish Free State under the terms of a controversial Anglo-Irish Treaty. In 1937 that state became Éire. It declared itself to be a republic in 1949.

Ulster is actually nine counties, so is it not true that the Six-County area has no right to call itself 'Ulster'?
Three counties, Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan, lie within the territory of the Irish Republic. Over the past two thousand years, Ulster's boundaries have ebbed and flowed like the tide. The Six-County area contains the Ulster heartland. Under British rule, the fifth ancient province, Meath, was sliced up between Ulster, Leinster and Connacht. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, Ulster was given Cavan. County Louth, especially the area around the Cooley peninsula, is an ancient part of Ulster that is now within Leinster.
Ulster has always been different from the rest of the island. Ninety years ago, when the first Provisional Government of Ulster was set up in response to the threat of a Dublin-based parliament, Edward Carson stated that "We must be prepared... on the morning of Home Rule... to govern those districts of which we have control." That proved to be the six counties of the present-day Ulster state. Modern Ulster was reborn on September 28th 1912 - Ulster Day. We have as much right to call our homeland 'Ulster' as the USA has to call itself 'America' and the Poles have to call their homeland 'Poland'. Poland's current boundaries bear little relationship to its boundaries in 1919. That nation's territory has shifted sideways to the West. Few people will deny the Polish people the right to call their state 'Poland' even though it no longer includes 'ancient Polish' territories that are now part of Lithuania, the Ukraine and Belarus.

Rinty · y

Cymro

parkhead_rfb

the thing is though when you actually break down the results in the north the majority backing the good friday agreement from unionist communities was actually pretty slim.

The SDLP in the past have also always been vocal in the criticisms of the ira in the past, the dup in particular have been more than happy to utilise loyalist paramilitaries when it suited.

For me the breakdown in the agreement is purely about unionist resistance to change. Republicans have taken unprecedented steps to keep the agreement alive where as unionists have almost consistently thrown spanners in the works.

The fact that the ira were willing to decommission weapons so the dup then demanded photo evidence was really just scraping the barrell. People would also do well to remember that ira decomissioning wasnt even a part of the agreement, the agreement only asks that all parties are committed to peace and encourage other groups to take the same stance.

I dont think it can be doubted that sinn fein have pushed the pira in this direction.

What really dissapoints me is that if the agreement was working i am confident that the unionists would eventually see that besides from blocking unification the unionist parties have very little to offer but incompetence. very similar to the bnp in that when actually in office they find themselves out of their depth.

Congal · Re: y

parkhead_rfb · Re: y

Rinty · y

Cymro

Congal · Re: y

parkhead_rfb

and the unionist community also have the blood of numerous catholics slaughtered by loyalist paramilitaries purely for being catholic. the ira acknowledge their were terrible deeds committed by republicans but these victims were never the intended targets. the shankill butchers et all knew exactly what they were up to.

and please dont give me that old chest nut that the dup and uup arent terrorists where as sf are close to the ira. anyone who has looked at "the troubles" is well aware that unionists have been happy to use loyalist groups on numerous occassions. even loyalist paramilitaries criticise them for this.

Congal

parkhead_rfb

as far as i am aware there have been two instances where republicans have directly attacked people purely for being members of the unionist community.

one was at kingsmill. i would totally condemn the actions at kingsmill but as far as i am aware that wasnt sanctioned by the leadership of the relevant group and those who took part where actually punished. I believe the same can be said for the incident you mention if its the same one i am thinking of.

I totally condemn both incidents but to try and compare the republican campaign with one almost solely based on attacking innocent catholics is laughable. But then what else can you expect from someone who denies there was discrimination against nationalists despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.

imo republican volunteers were and are fighting a campaign which was morally justified and neccecary at that time. They joined knowing full well that their fate would almost certainly be death or a lengthy jail term. They suffered in prisons and throught society for their involvement yet wouldnt be broken. The strength of character of men like bobby sands and francis hughes will forever be an inspiration to me.

I dont agree with all campaigns republicans have taken part in but i will always state that the root of the conflict is the british presence in ireland.

Rinty · y

Congal

Rinty · y

Congal · Re: y

Rinty · o

Congal

SOURCE....Northern Ireland....the background to the conflict.

Although commited to constitutional politics, the Nationalists frequently employed parlimentary absentionism as a political tactic. They abstained from 1921 until 1925,and again from 1934 until the late 1940s

Thoughout the 1950s and 1960s the Nationalist Party became increasingly anchronistic. Its electoral rural; it emphasised the unification of Ireland to the exclusion of all socio-economic issues;and it was peroidically absentionist,thereby robbing Catholics of what limited representation they might already have.

TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES! and ABSENTIONIST AS WELL Wink

Rinty · y

Tha nationalist party were not representative of the nationalist population and I am glad you chose a quote that clearly states. "robbing Catholics of what limited representation they might already have."

By relying on that quote are you finally admitting that catholics had limited representation?

Congal · Re: y

Rinty · y

Congal

The fact remains......they didn't take their seats. Then they cried about no representation....these are facts. No matter how much you find them stupefying or whatever other discription you care to chose.

Its very eveident no matter what books or sources are quoted.....your minds are set on a certain course.

They were in a dilemma. They couldn't be seen to be supporting a state....they wanted to bring down. One thing was 'laughing at the other'.
So absentionism was a way out for them.

And don't forget they wern't interested in socio-economics as quoted.

It was the border....that was their main interest. It always has been anyone that thought different ........well Rolling Eyes

Rinty · i

parkhead_rfb · Re: y

Then we have the Shinners themselves....

'Provisional Sinn Fein[linked with the Provisional IRA] have based their appeal on a rudimentary combination of Catholic conservatism and orthodox physical force republicanism,and equally enthusiastically urged absention in elections'.

thats just total nonsense. sinn fein have based their policies largely on those of the left wing with heroes such as connolly hardly likely to be viewed as conservatively catholic. sinn fein also have largely supported views such as the right for woman to chose to have an abortion.

Congal · Re: i

Rinty · y

Workers Republic Viewpoint on Ulster

t

y

Re: y

t

y

y

y

u

y

Re: y

Re: y

y

Re: y

y

y

Re: y

o

y

Re: y

y

i

Re: y

Re: i

y