The real Michael Collins was a murderous, degenerate thug that used tactics that would make the Islamists in Iraq blush. Make no mistake about it he was no freedom fighter as this movie would have you believe, but rather a bloody terrorist with no regard to human life. It sickens me that the British must be unfairly vilified as means to justify his characters actions. DO NOT BELIEVE THIS FILMS LIES!
share[deleted]
How dare you attempt to defend that mick murdering bastard as well as those who would destory Western civilization. Anglo-Americans have been the greatest force for good in the history of recorded time. If those two nations left Iraq than the result would be a state left to thugs engaged in a bloody protracted civil war... much like after the English left Ireland in 1922. However geo-politically speaking that is where such a simile breaks down. While Iraq's vast oil reserves are worth British blood, perhaps Ireland's potatoes were not.
share[deleted]
Anglo American have been the greatest force for good!! your a fool if you don't realise that between them they've killed more ppl than Stalin and Hitler wake the *beep* up and look beyond their carefully programmed propaganda.clinton?-mass murderer you prob think he's a hero,thatcher,wilson,lloyd george,roosevelt,w.wilson,blair,brown,campbell,bush(es),churchill are *beep* mass murderers!!!! but are they seen as such?no there seen as the good,the policeman,the hero
do us all a favour b4 u post such rose tinted glasses stuff again,do your proper research and find out both sides of the story(you'll find out the good side are the most evil snakes to control the earth and its ppl like you who keep the machine rolling
i.e "the dead peasant act"-sounds like a french revolution feudal law right?
no-THIS IS AN ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW USED TODAY TO INSURE EMPLOYEES LIVES THEN CLAIM THE MONEY WHEN THEY DIE
dont sound very humane to me
plus your a racist *beep* let see what happens to you when someone kicks your race down for 700 years
and btw IRELAND invaded ENGLAND 1st!!! and its thanks to the militia they set up that the romans never fully conquered britain-only e.g of an occupying force actually protecting a country from invasion.
oh yeah *beep* YOU
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Your post made me laugh so much thank you.
"Our revenge will be the laughter of our children" - Bobby Sands 1954-1981 R.I.P.
[deleted]
"Make no mistake about it he was no freedom fighter as this movie would have you believe, but rather a bloody terrorist"
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
"It sickens me that the British must be unfairly vilified as means to justify his characters actions"
so you dont think that the original Bloody Sunday ever happened? Check some books mate. Also, check out the black and tans. Smashing fellows they were. When it came to systematic murder and rape.
"used tactics that would make the Islamists in Iraq blush"
yes collins is widely credited with inventing guerilla warfare, terrorism, whatever you prefer to call it. The cause of this? The long occupation of his homeland by an opressive force. You reap what you sow.
The Brits unfairly vilified???!!!!
Never.................
"Everyone, Republican or otherwise has their own
particular part to play. No part is too great or too
small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Bobby Sands (1954-1981), on hunger strike in 1981
While Michael Collins was certainly no angel himself, the portrayal of the British is fairly accurate, despite a few things done for dramatic effect.
shareMichael Collins was a true freedom fighter.He rid Ireland of the barbraic British forces who raped,pilaged and murdered the citizens of Ireland for over 750 years. The true terrorists were the British who invaded and colonized more than 25% of the worlds land mass. They basically went on a murderous rampage with slavery and rape as two of there cornerstones. Go to any part of the world were Britain colonized and ask the natives how there ancestors felt.I garantee you will hear gruesome stories of what these British settlers did to the natives.Including shipping boat loads of natives to work as slaves on plantation settlements.
masshttp://pages.britishlibrary.net/empirehist/history.htm
Listen here boyo, the British and their empire have done more for the cause of human civilivation in one day than the Irish have in 700 years. It never ceases to amaze me the level of pure stupidity and gross ignorance found on the internet.
The English people have spend their time on the world stage combating tyranny and injustice in the forms of Papal and Islamic theocracy, French Napoleonian ambition, Fascist and Marxist collectivism along with countless other lesser evils. They have bleed themselves dry in the service of mankind, not to metion their contributions to literature, technology, economics, politics, and philosophy that make up the very foundation of Western culture. Yes they were once an empire, but in every culture they ruled they instilled such British notions of equality, democracy, and free enterprise. Can't one see that where the Union Jack was planted so were the concepts of the Enlightenment. Those ruled by the British were the better for it.
If they were the better for it why did the British empire disintegrate because those who were under this oppressive regime did not want British culture forced upon them they wanted to shape there own lives. Create there own economic policy, develope their own thechnology and in general be free to explore the wonders of the human mind without an oppressive regime looking over them and judging every thing they done.The link below explains everything.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1826480,00.html
Don't give me that cultural reactivism crap. That is just a vail that pseudo-intellectuals use to mask the backward savagery and barbarianism of certain societies. Anytime someone trots out that bankrupted concept I am reminded of the British colonial offical in India that came across a Sati in progress. A Sati was a popular Hindu ritual where in after the death of a man it was customary to burn his wife and servants alive. His native guide witnessing his dismay declared that in India that this was a long standing tradition. The Brit retorted that in his country they had a long standing tradition of hanging those that burnt women. In 1829 their cruel English overlords banned the Indians from exercising that quaint cultural practice. More's the pity, right? As I recall after the redcoats peacefully left India there was a massive amount of bloodshed. Tell the tens of thousands of muslims and hindus that died that they were better off without the oppressive regime of the British Empire maintaining stabily. Another point of interest: it was the Royal Navy that all but ended the international slave trade in 1807. BTW I wouldn't use the Guardian to wipe, I read The Sun.
shareFirstly The Sun is a paper that is more woried about what posh and becks are wearing than current international affairs. You cant just pick a handful of example and conclude that the British Empire was pursuer of humanity spreading its message all across the world there are fare more examples of British. The british carried out a lot of injust actes around the world.Take Irish socialist James Connolly refering to the Union Jack as "the Butcher's apron".
.Grotesque claims with the latest research on the huge scale of atrocities committed by British forces during the Mau Mau rebellion in colonial Kenya in the 1950s: the 320,000 Kikuyu held in concentration camps, the 1,090 hangings, the terrorisation of villages, electric shocks, beatings and mass rape documented in Caroline Elkins’s book Britain’s Gulag (8) - and well over 100,000 deaths. This was a time when British soldiers were paid five shillings (equal to $9 in today’s money) for each Kikuyu male they killed, when they nailed the limbs of African guerrillas to crossroads posts. And when they were photographed holding severed heads of Malayan communist “terrorists” in another war that cost over 10,000 lives.As the Cambridge historian Richard Drayton puts it: “We hear a lot about the rule of law, incorruptible government and economic progress - the reality was tyranny, oppression, poverty and the unnecessary deaths of countless millions of human beings”.Britain’s empire was in reality built on genocide, vast ethnic cleansing, slavery, rigorously enforced racial hierarchy and merciless exploitation.
When India’s Andaman islands were devastated by December’s tsunami, who recalled that 80,000 political prisoners had been held in camps there in the early 20th-century, routinely experimented on by British army doctors? Perhaps it’s not surprising that Hitler was an enthusiast, describing the British empire as an “inestimable factor of value”, even if it had been acquired with “force and often brutality.
That is only a small snipet of some of Britains
conquest are you happy with Hitcher with all the good Brtian has spread throughout the world thought so.I rest my case.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Michael Collins was brutal, a murderer and a military genius and those traits also are similar to the 18th president of The United States Ulysses S. Grant. If The IRA stayed on the original tactics thousands would have been killied in pointless uprisings like the one in 1916. In a way of looking Collins tactics saved many lives on the Britsh and Irish side. Hitcher you have such a bright out look on the British Empire you should be praising Collins, He saved alot of British soldiers by going after individual targets instead of military take overs where large number of troops go head to head. Ohh and the "Micks" I believe you called them beat The Superpower of the world. Not to bad for a bunch of potato farmers. On the view of the film Michael Collins going to say it is propaganda is abit far, seeing as it is about events almost a hundred years ago about people who are dead. Yes the film is abit praising of Michael Collins but it cleary shows he was ruthless. Umm you must of missed the whole part where he pulls together 12 men to carry out assassinations, then the scenes of the assassinations. After all this film is called Micahel Collins its going to have some self deserved hero worship. Also have you seen any of Neil Jordons other work. Crying Game puts the modern day IRA in a bad light so the whole argument the movie was made to change views on politics is a weak sided one. Unless it was made to change the political views of events 100 years ago. which makes no sense because most sensible know the diference between the IRA of the early nineteen hundreds and the IRA of today or recent past. Then again many terrorist acts have you heard of that were done with out weapons. Now this film puts the British army and government in a bad light, we are talking about a nation that conquered and stole a quater of the world. The British government is only a good goverment today if you are right wing. Britains Labour party is similar to some countries conservative parties. Its a too one sided goverment, so Britains goverments past and present isn't to great. Now the people and the country are great, people are people there is no only bad or good side to a nations people but there goverment can be bad or good. Now yes some great things have come out of of Britain but they are also the 2nd largest nation to destroy other nations culture, ever hear of a language called Gaelic, they pretty much blasted it off the face of the earth. Then not to mention the native indians. They literally slaughter entire tribes. So before you go on about how the British Empire helped humanity it has its share of blood on its hands. Micahel Collins was no different then any other revolutionary and you cant call him a murderer and not George Washington , Aberham Lincon, William Wallace, Vladimir Lenin, Che Guevara. War is War, Michael Collins was fighting it in a different way that in the end saved the lives of many soldiers. And you cant say this is pro Irish rant, I am from Canada.
shareOkokoko, I completely agree with you and before anybody does say something about me making a pro-Irish statement..I'm British. Yes Michael Collins killed a lot of people both ruthlessly and cold-bloodedly but it was no worse than what the British did and in many in cases it was not as bad as what the British did. Ok, so he might have started the shooting of spies and political agents first but what the British soldiers did in reprisals - killing innocent women and children, burning down homes, storming Croke Park at a hurling game and locking everyone in to then shoot them? Yes in many ways the British Empire has done good deeds with regards to government but I feel that in Ireland we royally screwed up. Neil Jordan's film has been criticised for being a 'pro-IRA' movie and yes it does show or hint at the foundation of the IRA through Michael Collins but the guy fascinates me and if you read his biography, it shows that he didn't want to do what he did initially, he did it because he felt that it was the only way to get across the message of what the Irish people wanted. In the end it was him who formed the Anglo-Irish peace treaty and was killed for it. Oh, and another British opinion for Michael Collins and the Irish - The Wind that Shakes the Barley - that shows you what us oh-so-wonderful Brits did to a people who's land we invaded, and that's by a British director - some of the stuff that the Black and Tans did makes me feel physically sick. Yes Michael Collins killed people but yes he was a revolutionary and yes he was a freedom fighter and not a terrorist.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
this is a great thread with great arguments on both sides. At least it hasnt resorted to petty name calling and blind stubbornness (like on others and the "in the name of the father" threads).
Just one point Hotrodder, youre being a bit euphemistic with the whole "england discouraged gaelic" line. Apart from QEI, who loved and learnt irish and scots gaelic, the English prohibited the speaking of Irish (much the same as they prohibited the scots wearing kilts after Bonnie Pricnce Charlie). Also following "an Gorta Mor" (the famine) the mass emigration and the death of millions of native irish speakers was what largely led to the diminishing numbers of Irish speakers and the near death of the language itself. Yes, in todays time Irish is largely irrelevant as English is the world language. But the British did more than just discourage gaelic... on the plus side, a lot of irish are proud of our language now and its enjoying a (very) mini-revival. I can converse quite well as a lot of people my age can. Also, Breton (the French version) and Cymru are enjoying a revival too.
And i would like to agree with the fact that the english brought some good things to the "Empire". The idea of government and the legal system being the two that stick out for me. Even if there have been a couple of low points for those too in recent times.
Slan go foill
Stu
[deleted]
[deleted]
Some of these comments have made me feel physically sick. I am Irish and, like most of us Irish, am hugely proud of being so. Michael Collins was a political genius, a man of the utmost class pride and passion, his only aim in life was to give Eire back to its people - a land that had been beaten burnt stolen and spat on for over 700 years. He loved Eire more than life itself, and fought 'til the death for it. War was the only option, words had no power, action was neccessary. Michael Collins once said something along the lines of "I hate them for making hate neccessary" - these are not the words of a monster, these are the words of a patriot, a true Irishman, a saviour for my country. And I thank God that the soul and spirit of Michael Collins graced our beautiful green land of Eire, and that his passion still lives on today. I live in the Republic of Ireland, Eire; I can walk outside every day with my head held high, I can choose to speak in whichever language I like - my mothertongue or English, we can fly our green white and gold wherever and whenever we like, we are a free people...so, thank you Michael Collins (RIP). God bless Eire - North and South, Catholic Protestant Muslim Jew, God bless our freedom. Here's to Peace and Liberty...
sharegood post! im reading the last few lines of it with a cork accent though so im laughing pretty hard! ya langer ;)
share-- Michael Collins once said something along the lines of "I hate them for making hate neccessary" --
I think that pretty much sums up my opinion of Michael Collins. As the end of the film says "he died trying to remove weapons from Irish politics" (or similar). He didn't want to fight a war on the British Empire, but he didn't have a choice.
-- He loved Eire more than life itself, and fought 'til the death for it. --
Indeed he did. Like Winston Churchill wrote, looking back at the 1922 negociations: "Michael Collins rose looking as if he was going to shoot someone, preferably himself. In all my life, I have never seen so much passion and suffering in restraint."
Amen.
---
[DON'T PANIC]
This is one heated question... As expected, you'd get many differant views...
As far as I'm concerned, He was a Freedom Fighter, and the British were the Terrorist...
Here's my idea on the matter... If you show up to another land, you are the terrorist, and if you were born and raised on the land, you are a freedom fighter... If you kill incocent people and they are the targets, you are a terrorist.... If you only kill someone who needs to be killed for your countries independence, and not innocents, you are a freedom fighter.. Just depends who's side you are on..
But then, it's silly to even bring it up, since no matter if you call someone a freedom fighter or a terrorist, if they kill someone they are murderers...
*************
"I am a donut" (Eddie Izzard as JFK in Berlin)
rightly feckin said there, i think ya were being too nice there though!
"Come.... on.... you,Boys in blue,come on you boys in blue" Dub fans
Hey hitcher do you not wonder why so many countries hate the english?? The welsh hate you lot, so do the scots. I was in cardiff for st. paddy's day during the rugby and every person from Wales were saying how they hate the English. You say they brought enlightenment? Does rape, murder and slavery count as Enlightenment? The Brits never once brought a country it overthrew any good. They didn't do anything for the land they colonised. When the Romans colonised they built roads, architecture and developed land. The British took from the land and gave nothing back. Most of the British are embarrassed of what their country used to do. Look at the likes of Braveheart. A film of pure hatred to the British. Why?? Because no one likes you lot.
Why is it to every corner of the world everyone loves the Irish?? The war on terrorism you talk about also? Tony Bliar only wanted to be in that war so he wouldn't fall out with his wee friend George W. Bush. If the Americans didn't go to war in Iraq would the British have? you know they wouldn't the chicken *beep* little *beep*
Michael Collins fought back through Gureilla warfare as it was the only way the arrogant British would get out of a country that wasn't theirs. You can justify that the British were right in colonising countries such as Ireland? How so?? They were all rapists and murderers. Are you proud of your rapists and murderers ancestors?? If someone raped and murdered your mother would you say "Ah sure it's the British way. It's what we do best"!
Ask am I proud of the way we fought back?? To right I am. I was glad to see the Brits die is a war they couldn't win!
The Irish were a major part of the British Army for hundreds of years. What did they do when they were asked to attack the natives of another country? Yup, they did as ordered. If the British did oppressing the Irish were part of it. Or do you think they asked their Mam for a note which said "Please excuse young Patrick from sticking his boot on a Zulu's neck because he feels a bit peaky."
You were part of the Empire. Irish soldiers fought as part of it. And most of them were proud of it.
I could argue further but you obviously know sod all about history but romantic bollocks.
"Don't move! You are surrounded by armed bastards!"
People take the easiest option, by and large.
Its easier to fight in the army of an empire then it is to take on that empire in a guerilla war.
You are right of course HR, more Irishman have died fighting for the British Empire rather than fighting aginst it. However thats nothing to be proud of.
Please read some history because you are so wrong with your theory that the brits never once brought a country it overthrew any good! what is your basis for this theory because you clearly have not studied history!
What has Britain given Ireland? well heres a list of a few things
English common law in which we still practice today
Education, the 1831 primary education act which funded primary schools all over the country and was the FIRST of its kind in the United Kingdom
Roads,Railways,Canals,Harbours
A banking system
Pensions for the elderly and blind introduced by the liberal government and which the newly formed Irish Free State cut
Opened up Phoenix Park to the public(the largest walled public park in Europe)
Beautiful architecture such as College Green,GPO,Custom House,Georgian Squares located around Dublin city.
University's, most notably Trinity whose alumni include Oscar Wilde,Bram Stoker,Jonathan Swift and Samuel Beckett.The British Government also set up and funded university's in Galway,Cork,Belfast and Dublin(UCD),Once known as the Queens colleges.Funded the catholic training college in Maynooth
Parliamentary representation ( O'Connell and Parnell fine examples of politicians who represented us in the House of Commons)
A non corrupt civil service and judiciary system, and a police force in which the majority were Irish men by the late 19th century
My God. One is reminded of that old adage "There are none so blind as those that cannot see"
Just three words which may prompt you to check out further:
THE PENAL LAWS
"BTW I wouldn't use the Guardian to wipe, I read The Sun."
Best. Comment. Ever! (It's hilarious! If there was ANY credibility, with those last four words, it was all gone.)
What Britain did in Ireland over 750 years is well-documented. Any history book will tell you, even if you read one that has not been written by an Irishman OR an Englishman. I read a Swedish one that had the history of Ireland from 1800 to modern day, and it didn't take sides, but simply pointed out how speaking Gaelic was a punishable offense and religion being forced upon people and such, but also reported that during the potatoe famine, Britain WAS in fact trying to help, but it didn't work out very well.
The Brits did not tread lightly on the Irish (or Scottish, for that matter) over the years, but thank goodness that's all in the past now. "Michael Collins" is as historically accurate as you can get and still have a good movie. Deal with it.
Meh, forum trolls...
[deleted]
I know this thread has been dead for a bit now but I just want to correct something.
A few pages from the start, I'm nearly sure it was hitcher, said that the Tans were RIC. This is wrong. The RIC were the police and doing their job. The Black and Tans were ex-soldiers from World War 1 who Britain sent over to help the situation. They were called Black and Tans because their uniforms were a mixture of police and military uniforms. Lets just say they got somewhat out of control, mind you the British did nothing to stop them, and did some truly terrible things such as attacking Croke park and burning Cork city (not to mention they then had the cheek to walk around with bits of burnt cork attached to their hats) I just felt it was imporant to make the distinction.
On a side note I'm glad to see most people debating this topic so sensibly as it is something that could easily get out of hand.
I should probably say something witty, deep or meaningful.
[deleted]
Sorry, my mistake. I was always under the impression they were a seperate entity. Thanks for setting it straight.
BTW I'm female, unless you're using lad in the sense of a group of people like lads or guys.
I should probably say something witty, deep or meaningful.
[deleted]
We all know how the british ruled...in one afternoon they gunned down 700 unarmed civilians attending a speech in Amritsar in 1920. So dont give us the aqueduct of civilization garbage.
share[deleted]
I admit this film is baised....To a certain extent....But Michael Collins CANNOT be compared to terrists or The British themselfs. Yes, he did have a few British soldiers shot,but if it wasnt for that "Few", I Highly doubt Ireland would be a Republic now. "Thehitcher22" Describes him as a Vile Man, among other things but NEVER Did He set out to kill Every single British Soldier/Person he saw, Unlike, The Black and Tans for one, Who Would set out to Rape,Shoot,Attack,Toture,Kill Men Women And Children Who didnt cooperate with them and even then you werent safe! It makes me sick to think that some people are so ignorant to say Michael Collins Was A Terrerist or a Murderer...... I Would Describe Him As BRAVE! This hitcher fellow also Says and I Quote: "the British and their empire have done more for the cause of human civilivation in one day than the Irish have in 700 years." The Ireland and Its People are Growing, Which we for the first time are allowed to do! Also, It Was The BRITISH Who Setup The 1st Concentration Camp During South African War, So Listen Here You ignorant Piece of nothingness, You Are Calling The Wrong Person Vile..... The Only Vile Person I Can Make Out Of This Whole Thing Is You!!
I Hate Them For Making Hate Necessary-Michael Collins
[deleted]
ok here we go, I'm going to take you on a tour of the Plantations.
all plantations were started from the British, whether it was James or Cromwell
the two worst ones were the Ulster Plantation and The Cromwellian plantation,
''but in every culture they ruled they instilled such British notions of equality, democracy, and free enterprise''
in the Ulster Plantation, you took our land, you removed Brehon Law(the law of our land) and you denied us land. Great work there mate.
''Those ruled by the British were the better for it.'''
this is quite humorous, as it clearly shows you have yur head stuck up your arse.
In the Cromwellian Plantation, Cromwell proposed; ''To Hell or To Connacht''
whoever didnt comply were murdered, thats real equality and freedom there.
oh and one other ting, In 1803, something called the Penal Laws came about, do you know what this did...It denied Catholic education, voting rights, equal job oppurtunities and other things. Democracy with the British, in Ireland..nah
Tell that to the victims of torture during the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya where the BRITISH castrasted and murdered innocent civilians
I dont even know why im wasting my time engaging with an idiot like you
Ireland is gone down the toilet
that is a fact
brits or no brits,, the country is wrecked
"the barbraic British forces who raped,pilaged and murdered the citizens of Ireland for over 750 years".
You make it sound like they did it non-stop. It was more like outbreaks of violence now-and-again.
By the time of Michael Collins, most people had come to accept the Union of Britain and Ireland as the natural order of things. Had it not been for Britain's heavy-handed reaction to the 1916 Rising, Ireland's history might have turned out differently.
"They basically went on a murderous rampage with slavery and rape as two of there cornerstones"
Not entirely. And rape was never an official policy of theirs.
[deleted]
Going back to the orginal intent of this thread, Micheal Collins was a bloody, buggering terrorist that killed without regard to the current political climate of his time. Fact: Ireland was no more an occuptied country in the early 1900s then is Wales or Scotland today. Each bloody bog trotter had the vote and representation in the King's parliament. Fact: Had Collins and the IRA waited less then twenty years devolution from London would have been undoubtly granted. Fact: The use of exterme measures by the Royal Irish Constabulary Reserve Force
were infact a thermidorian reaction to those first used by Collins and his ilk.
I am not trying to simply stir trouble by attacking historical firgures that have opposed the British Empire, if so I would be posting shots at Gandhi. No, I respect him because he, like MLK, knew that when facing an inherently "good" society such as the British or the Americans then one could and should use peaceful and nonviolent forms of protest successfully. I damn Collins for not!
By the by, what exacting have you bloody Irish patriots have to be so bloody proud of....coming from the freaking Switzerland of the atlantic! Even Brazil declared war on the Nazis!
Eire is a great and beautiful nation, and its people are passionate, proud, warm and dignified. We have ALOT to be proud of. And I will not disrespect my country by justifying our pride further to you.
This country has had enough troubles of its own to last another 700 years. Neutrality from "world wars" is merely a Godsend. Let me remind you also of the thousands of Irish men and women that died in both world wars, as well as the thousands of Irish-Americans that died in the Vietnam war. And furthermore the hundreds of thousands that have died to rid our country of a foreign reign.
You seem to lack any sort of sensical understanding as far as Irish history is concerned - it kinda sounds like you're just trying to stir it up though! Be entitled to your opinion all you like, but let's get one thing clear here; you DO NOT know and will NEVER know the struggles and torture our country has been through. Everyone in Ireland has been touched some way or another by this conflict. Living here and understanding the people, society and history of the country to even the smallest extent would prove to anyone the filth and evil that we underwent as a nation, and we have come out of it a culturally, economically and socially strong country.
No nation deserves to be occupied, and ultimately destroyed, by a foreign ruler. Different cultures, traditions and languages is what makes the world such a beautiful and diverse place. No-one has the right to steal or force away one's heritage. Thank God we still have our rich heritage in Eire. Most of us may be speaking English, but by God those tongues are driven by green blood. Eireann go bràth!!
[deleted]
Your posts actually serve as an example of the single major defect in the Irish mind-set. The Irish as a whole seem to define themselves culturely and historically simply in that they are not British. That damn island is so full of teary eyed tales of struggles and suffering at the hands of the hated English it has not bothered to mark out a national identitiy outside of its relationship to Britian. The result is a fixutaion on a myth that this film represents. The myth being that the Royal presence in Ireland cira-1920's warrented the actions taken by Collins. The facts bare out that it most undoubtly did not. His wholesale use of bloodshed did indeed force the Empire to compromise and grant limited independence. The result was a civil war. Way to shovel it to John Bull. I
shareEire does not define itself in terms of the British empire. Far from it. We have a culture that has triumphed over the most powerful of foes, and the spirit of Eire lives on today stronger than ever.
You don't have a clue, not a clue about my country or people.
Ag duine féin is fearr a fhios cá luíonn an bhróg air.
[deleted]
No, what he was was the embryo of political motivated terroristism that has grown into that 'rough beast' that your poet Yeats warned of. He released the 'blood-dimmed tide' of violence known as urban warfare which has resulted in millions of deaths. Collins is the spiritual father of Septmeber 11th and July 7th.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I jolly might feel justified in taking the shillelagh shoved up your posterior and giving you a thrashing, but that feeling of justifcation and the satisfation it would give me does not grant me the right to do so. Thus just because muslim extremists feel that U.S. and British support of Israel and moderate Middle Eastern regimes works against their satanic ends it does not excuse them from crashing planes and blowing up buses killing thousands of innocent civilians. Just as if YOU molested your family behind closed doors then civil society has a legal and moral right, nay obligation to kick them down and bring YOU to justice. In that regard the coalition of the willing had the duty to ensure that Saddam's Iraq, a sponsor state of terrorism, did not continue to brutalize it's citizens as well as hold the world's economic and physical well-being hostage. Yet once again the Anglo-Americans are at the forefront fighting a global struggle to protect freedom and order. What contribution have the Irish made to this clash of cultures? Let's see they are crying over the use of their bloody island as a stopping point in the American extraordinary rendition of terrorists. That's only one reason why it seems like the term Irish pride is a contradiction in terms. Oh and for the record I am not a homosexual but it is a known fact that your beloved Micheal Collins was. He loved to lay in bed with one or two strapping young lads plotting the downfall of the perverted, self indulgent British lifestyle! Cheers.
share
Ya know what, Irish skin is thick enough to endure any pathetic little w.a.s.p. sting we may get along the way. We've dealt with worse, I can asure you.
Hitcher you seem to live in your own eccentric world, where you cannot see past your own blood-line, and ultimately will never be able to admit to the history of your ancestors. Stay there, wallow in your own laughable ideologies, while the majority of us - the realists of the world - celebrate our own and other cultures, the diversity of the world. It humours me that you step out of that little existence to "waste" your energy on the topic of a race you so clearly hate. Anyone would think you're jealous of us Irish, perhaps to the point of insanity - a trait you so naturally seem to convey through your posts. But seriously, stay in that minority, be our guest. Many British people today acknowledge and accept the history of their nation's vile political tactics in colonising the smaller, or poorer countries of the world. And the majority of Brits and Americans are completely opposed to the war in Iraq. Let's see how your conservative bum-buddies do in the next U.S. election. But no, stay there in your pathetic mind-set, and please come up with more little fables for this thread, they're hugely entertaining!
"Oh and for the record I am not a homosexual but it is a known fact that your beloved Micheal Collins was. He loved to lay in bed with one or two strapping young lads."
Ha ha, you complete and total nutcase!! Ran out of your little imperialist stories to tell the board? Jaysus, the man could have been a flamingly flamboyant, tutu-wearing, high-heal-walking, belly-dancing, raging homosexual for all we care, we'd still love him. Because he was a HERO and a LEGEND, and your cowardly little mind is too small and stupid to accept that. I refused to resort to name-calling in previous posts, as you so blatantly didn't ya ponse, but after reading your last two posts, normal words have actually failed me! I still think you're taking the pi*s though, surely no-one could really be that thick!
[deleted]
Sorry Pulwhsh but he was at best a bi-sexual. Read any half-way legitimate biography on him and you're see. Another bit of info this movie left out.
shareYour leftist anglophobic rants are truly pathetic. They expose u for the apologist of murders that YOU are. THE REAL WORLD. Let's talk about the real world. In the world I live in the IRA bomb that blows up results not in a symbolic victory for the Eire but in the end of another human life full of hopes and loves. In my world those men, women, and childern that died in London and New York where not the necessary sacrifices for the supposed sins of American and British neo-colonalism but mere innocent victims. In my world I understand that not all cultures are equal and some advocate barbaic measures to achive primative goals. As a self admitted realist then you must allow the need for a hegemonic power to govern and regulate the excesses of humanity. You so love quoting dead languages try this out 'Pax Britannica'. While the role of the world's policeman is never popular with bandits and thugs those of the realist school of thought hold that stable international relations require a nation to assume it. Why then do you attack the UK and later the USA for fulfilling such a role with wisdom and compassion?!? Perhaps it is becuase they tend to force humanity and logic on the dark regions of the world. You want imperialist stories laddy? Where's that rightoues indictnation for the 95% of women that in certain ex-colonial areas have undergone forced female circumcision or the return of slavery and tribal violence since the end of British rule. I have stated this before but you seem a bit dense so I'll repeat myself: EVERY PEOPLE RULED BY THE BRITISH WERE THE BETTER FOR IT. And for the time being you're right that the polls have turned on President Bush and Prime Minister Blair...but recall the results of an inprompto poll taken 2000 years ago that picked Barabbas. As a good Catholic boy you catch my meaning.
sharehitcher you must be some sort of wind-up merchant. You are criticising anyone who comes on here to try and counter-argue your clearly provocative opening post. You then veer off on wild tangents in some lame attempt to promote the good that the English did. Yes, they brought some good things to their occupied countries but surely that good has been outweighed by the bad, downright evil, things that they also did. Any country that was invaded was done so for the queen and her pockets. Lets not pretend it was done in some attempt to civilise the world. Please dont insult our intelligence.
If you still persist in peddling that myth, then first explain why the English are resented in the vast majority of countries that it once occupied?
Before you accuse me of being an apologist for terrorists, let me state that i am not. Im just looking for an iota of balance to your arguments.
I have attempted to stay on topic. The topic being that the Micheal Collins presented in this film is pure ficition. Does it not frighten you to think that sixty years from now Hollywood will be presenting Saddam or Bid Laden in the same distorted light? Others have attempted to justifiy current acts of terrorism, what would you have me to do? Remain silent against such blood libel! In regards to your question I retort with the Commonwealth of Nations. Fifty plus ex-British colonies that have remained tied economicly and politically to the motherland. A quick glance down the CN list and you will see none suffer from serious instability. Perhaps because they did not reject the teachings that their colonial mentors emparted to them. You seem like a reasonable chap so I will suggest you check into the work of historian Niall Ferguson. He makes the case for empire much better then I could hope to do. Cheers.
share[deleted]
Hey Pulwhash, I've got nothing against Protestants whatsoever. Sorry if it came across as though I did. I've got some great friends who are Protestant (none of whom would consider themself a 'w.a.s.p.' though), so I didn't mean to offend you. I use the term 'w.a.s.p.' along with the word 'sting' - suggesting certain w.a.s.p.'s attitude to the rest of us. After all, that particular form of people are responsible for the largest amount of colonisation in the world.
Hitcher - why must you presume I'm a man? God forbid a woman would argue with your "intellect" right? Well I ain't - the clue is in the name.
You keep referring back to your original post. While most of us have stayed on point, you seem to ramble off on a big long spiel any time you make a comment. What do you want to come of this argument? you want us all to say "oh *beep* wait a minute, looks like we, and all the rest of the millions of Irish all over the world, got it wrong. The Brits brought joy and happiness to Eire, especially the Tans - they were undoubtedly the 'happy little elves' of the British empire, spreading the gifts of love and humanity across our land. Praise the curse of the imperialists, for they are the ones that have saved us from ourselves" - Well bollox hitcher, bollox to that. You're a bitter imbecile, incapable of making any legitimate sort of sense and reason out of that closed-in, ranting mind of yours.
And have you seen anyone on this board actually celebrating the violence of the I.R.A.? No. Unneccessary bloodshed is evil, no matter what side it's from. Also, how dare you insult my language. Dead eh? Really? Then how come it has just been made an official language of the European Union? It's people like you that sometimes make the world such a grey place for the rest of us. Either you are a complete nut-job or you get a kick in disrespecting the world's races for the craic - either way, grow the *beep* up ya ponse!
[deleted]
What the Brits did bring to Ireland was such concepts as religious tolerance, pluralism, the english language, the rule of law, and free market capitalism. You can thank us anytime. The Royal Irish Constabulary (or as you so euphemisticlly labeled them Tans) were acting in defense of a put upon minority made up of Irish protestants. Yes maybe they put a bit of stick about but the times called for no less. As far as "celebrating the violence of the IRA", well that pretty much sums up my opinion of the film in question and all those who defend it. The bloodshed in that conflict was indeed unneccessay. So go run off to the arms of the EU and socialism. That gutter language sounds better in chains anyway. I should have known you were a darling Irish girl, in all your posts u wail like a banshee.
shareBean si (you seem to know alot of gaelic words, even if your spelling has been "sugar-coatedly" anglicised) ha ha! You don't have an iota you racist amadan! 'Bíonn an fhírinne searbh' but you just can't face up to it. Would ya go away with dissing our native tongue, and that the Brits "gave" us the English language, lucky us my arse. You really are scraping the bottom of your muddled up little barrell. The eccentricity of your mind entertains me oh so very much... You know why we have evil dictators and vile colonists in the world today? Thanks to the screwed-up thinking you seem to proclaim so fluently and crazily to the majority of us realists. Keep lying to yourself, minority-boy.
sharereligious tolerance, your joking right? please say yes. for you information when england got complete controll of Ireland they OUTLAWED catholism and executed its followers and priests, it was basicly pre christian rome.
"Come.... on.... you,Boys in blue,come on you boys in blue" Dub fans
well, the first few sentences are a twisted logic, if i can say so. What Collins did was very different in nearly all aspects to the likes of Saddam and Bin Laden. First, its debatable whether Saddam can be classified as a terrorist at all. He was a dictator of his own people. Very different. Bin Laden is waging an ideological religious war against a foreign country (the USA). Collins fought an occupying force. He didnt kill innocent women and children but picked legitimate (to use war speak) military and political targets to attempt to free his country. There is a vast difference between Collins and the examples you use to compare him with. Bin Laden is scum imho and, for the reasons ive outlined above, i think its unfair to compare Collins to him. Saddam was just an altogether different kettle of fish and your comparison there doesnt stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.
With regards to the Commonwealth, again i dont feel its a valid point. To pick a few of the countries. Canada (to where i recently moved from Ireland), Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. These are members of the Commonwealth. I dont think that this was a decision of the indigenous people of these colonies somehow!! In all these countries, british people were moved there and occupied the land of the native americans, aborigine, maori and african. Furthermore the number of non-applicants to the Commonwealth nearly matches the amount of members! Whether that is because they dont like the English or not i dont know but it does take somewhat from the point you were making.
Anyway, as i said, the english did much to be commended (legal system & government) in the countries it occupied but this is outweighed by the atrocities committed in some countries. Ireland, to me, is one such country. I dont hate the english, i dont even dislike them. What makes me argue on these topics is the blind belief that they were right to occupy, that they did nothing wrong while occupying and that they did not deserve to have to deal with rebellion (which is essentially what your opening post states).
Slan go foill
Stuart
"Fifty plus ex-British colonies that have remained tied economicly and politically to the motherland. A quick glance down the CN list and you will see none suffer from serious instability. "
You counting Kenya in that list?
Could this be the root of the problem?
"Let's talk about the real world. In the world I live in the IRA bomb that blows up results not in a symbolic victory for the Eire but in the end of another human life full of hopes and loves."
Sounds to me like a family member or a friend has been lost in an IRA bombing.
I can see now why the topic makes you so spiky, thehitcher22. I'm truly sorry for your loss. Any militant organisation who target civilians is dispicable.
Just remember: Modern IRA and Michael Collins's IRA are two completely different organisations. Modern IRA have a history of targeting civilians. Michael Collins's IRA only targeted military/political persons, never civilians.
"spiritual father of Sept 11th"
Are you insane? Collins only targeted those working for the Crown. He did not kill civilians. He was a honourable man and pious man. He worked hard to stop unnecessary bloodshed while trying to secure the treaty.
How you can compare him to Islamic extremists is beyond me. Statements like those make me believe you just want to get people angry; you can't really be that ignorant or blinded by your prejudice.
Also, how do you like the fact that Ireland's GDP per capita is higher than the UK's?
As for Ireland's role in WWII, tens of thousands of Free Staters (including my grandfather) volunteered and fought with British units.
"It is estimated[34] that around 50,000 volunteers from Éire/Ireland joined the British armed forces during the second World War."
thehitcher22 is just after an argument. He's trolling the "Wind That Shakes the Barley" forums too, saying the same things he does here...
But hey, he reads the Sun, we have to agree with what he says, as after all, he'll have his squad of derelicts after us! ;)
The IRA of Michael Collins never targeted civilians. Modern day IRA have though, I'm pretty sure.
share[deleted]
"Eire does not define itself in terms of the British empire. Far from it. We have a culture that has triumphed over the most powerful of foes, and the spirit of Eire lives on today stronger than ever.
You don't have a clue, not a clue about my country or people".
Well begorrah, bejaysus, isn't it de proud coleen ye are!
have you read the documented atrocities performed by the english people on ireland. take a look at the plantations for example. did your history books portray the vile inhumane treatment of irish people, namely buckets of tar poured onto peoples heads (those who refused to bow down to the british monarchy)? do you know why ireland had no economy for 800 years, and britain flourished?
ok, your argument: i agree with your point to an extent, the irish people would have been better off being affiliated with britain, but come on, was it necessary to kill so many people for a bit of land and a label?
a lot of irish people would hate me for saying it, but i myself have seen first hand what english people are like, and in my honest opinion, i believe them to be rather nice people.
i dont understand your reference to "a good catholic boy" as you said to somebody further up ^. it shouldn't come down to faith, as faith is simply a means of identifying where somebody is originally from(in ireland). i say "originally from" meaning ireland or england. it's a little known fact that some of the best irish people were protestants, so i'm not sure where you're going with that one... oh, and believe it or not, it was the catholic church that shunned the irish people, and closed its gates to them during the time of the famine... however it was a famine which was instilled by the english presence.
i must blame the english people for instilling a hatred into some irish people though. hence, in a way, any acts of "terrorism" was brought on yourselves, if you get me...
personally, i dont give a *beep* what has happened, what's done is done, lets move on in harmony...
Ultimately, my main point in this discussion is to portray to you that, i feel you can't force anybody to do anything, namely enter into a country and claim it's yours, kill people that disagree etc. you might say "thats *beep* but when you think about it, isn't that the lifestyle you are used to living in (freedom). and i personally think that it is that point there that the english shot them selves in the foot with america, and the whole war of independance. when you think about it, it was about greed... dont bother disagreeing, everyone knows its true.
i have tried to stay neutral in this, so i'd expect at least a neutral, unbiased reply. thanks, and i hope you at least understand the irish standpoint
so, please, go find out some true documentation of history, and then come back to me.
[deleted]
Let me preface this with a word of thanks to you and that fellow Pulwhash for carrying on a civil meeting of the minds. All too often on the internet one finds those that answer truths and facts with simple name calling and personal attacks.
First I do not acknowledge that in the 800 years of British involvement in Ireland there existed wide-spread abuse and mistreatment. Yes there were isolated incidents of it, I'll grant u that. But few and far between. The single governmental example that comes to mind is perhaps Cromwell's campaign in the 1650's. Much has been made of his supposed massacres if memeroy serves me correctly. However one must place his actions in context with the times and political climate. Any student of history knows that such events were tragicly common for the time. Look at the warfare of the hundred years' war. Also he was reponding to the Irish support of the royalist cause. Throughout the ages the Irish have been extermly meddlesome in regards to internal English politics. Another major misconception that has sinked into Anglo-Irish history is that of the potato famine of the mid-1800's. There are actually rags posing as books that argue that that natural disaster was intentionally casue by the British. Such theories rank up there with those that hold that President Bush was responable for hurricane katrine or 9-11. It would be laughable save the point that far too many hold it as fact. What is fact is that the English people all but saved the Irish from stravation with large shipments of grain and the creation of thousands of soup kitchens. Ironic isn't it. Think how many Murphys, O'Connors, and Collins would not exist today if not for the imperialist rule of Ireland. So no I will not grant you your supposed 'vile inhumane treatment'.
I am however pleased that you will allow, "the irish people would have been better off being affiliated with britain." That is so true. Socially, politically, and most importantly economically. I recently came across a study that stated that excluding Cork, Galway, and Dublin the GNP and the per-capital income of Northern Ireland is higher then that of the Irish republic.
The whole 'good Catholic boy' remark was not a slur at papualists in general but in reference to a remark concerning Blair and Bush's low poll numbers. I related the story of Barabbas who along with Jesus was put before the Jews by Pilate who then asked them to chose who would go free. I would think you know who they chose. Thus my point was that popluar opinion is value netural and should not be a basis of argument. As Catholics have been known to read the Bible I would think that the meaning would be clear. Perhaps too complex of an allegory for IMDB. Sorry for the confusion.
Couldn't agree with you more conserning the USA and their independence. The American Revolution with it's foundations in Smith, Locke, and Hume is perhaps the single greatest political event in the history of time. I use greatest in every sense of the word. The prodigal son of America has now taken on the burden that the Empire so long carried. It does my heart well to see the circle come complete.
As far as documentation of history what are you talking about? I think maybe the problem is that we are reading different books/rags.
You poor misguided soul! Michael Collins was a great man! You want to see a terrorist with no regard for human life? Look up a man named Winston Churchill.
share[deleted]
Comparing Churchill with Collins is like comparing Blair with Bin Laden. It's pure historical bunk. They stand as polar opposites. One stood for freedom and order the other flirted with the forces of anarchy and red fascism. Thank you for defending Sir Winston but please do not do him the disservice of lumping him in with the likes of that Fenian murder Collins.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Collins was a great man end of story he gave this country its path to freedom,and for this britan done great things yeah true, but they also are the cause of Bloody Sunday and its now proven that they had a hand in helping the 1974 dublin and monaghan bombings now think about that go on.
"Come.... on.... you,Boys in blue,come on you boys in blue" Dub fans
[deleted]
you misuderstand me which i know gave a wrong impression of my views, i agrre totally in what you say, i was saying this to a person (no names mentioned!!) who believes that the english army are all good and they never did wrong, not the population or even most of the soliders , its just a small group
"Come.... on.... you,Boys in blue,come on you boys in blue" Dub fans
[deleted]
It is utterly ridiculous that Collins and Churchill are mentioned in the same vain. In this life no man can control the results of his actions. Therefore we can only judge those by their intentions. Churchill's were noble, Collin's were anything but. While yes both are dead that is where the similarities end. Perhaps in chess the pawn and the king go in the same box after the game but I can assure you that in the afterlife Churchill and Collins are in two very different places. I take your point on the trash that are the yobs but do not allow a few hooligans to degrade the over all sacrifice, bravery, and piety of the British people.
shareChurchill invented the concertration camp so you are right he cant be compared to collins who at least had a cause - freedom. You say the Anglo-Americans defend freedom - BULL! You tear it apart - empire is nothing but selfish greed - you are so up your own arse - read a history book - get some perspective. Im not saying the Irish are blameless but even Churchill admired Collins. The world is better off without people like you. It was the British that created the situation and Collins just tried to solve it. Would you prefer it if the irish didnt use guerilla tactics and get massacred in the streets - what would you do if your country was occupied.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
that guy kinda got my angry like greene does! I was part schooled in England and part in Ireland so I can see both sides but they are too extreme to the point of dillusion. You seem to know a lot more - do you have some kind of history qualification?
share"Therefore we can only judge those by their intentions. Churchill's were noble, Collin's were anything but."
Are you fugging kidding?
Churchill argued constantly throughout the 1930's (often in the nmost racist terms) against moves to grant independence to India. India independence came once Churchill had been dumped out of power
Churchill whose overreaching arrogance and incompetence caused the disater in the Dardenelles?
“Comparing Churchill with Collins is like comparing Blair with Bin Laden. It's pure historical bunk. They stand as polar opposites. One stood for freedom and order the other flirted with the forces of anarchy and red fascism. Thank you for defending Sir Winston but please do not do him the disservice of lumping him in with the likes of that Fenian murder Collins”
Now I know you’re on a windup
“I recently came across a study that stated that excluding Cork, Galway, and Dublin the GNP and the per-capital income of Northern Ireland is higher then that of the Irish republic”
Want to exclude Belfast & Derry from the analysis,?
What happens if you exclude London from the UK analysis?
I don't understand why people still insist on branding him a terrorist but he was nothing of the sort. People have said he was worse than the black-and-tans!
But in all fairness Collins objective was never to attack innocent civilians enjoying a Sunday GAA match murdering 100s. He never burned people out of their homes or tourtured them or beat them up. He'd lost his own home to the Tans in fact. He never murdered children or raped women. He took action only against the Occupying forces using Guerilla Warfare tactics.
He signed a treaty that brought us closer to complete independence than ever before. Although we weren't completely free I feel it was the best we could have hoped for given the political climate and tensions of the time.
Now I don't know who said it but some-oen had the audacity to suggest we celebrate our Cultural Identity in terms of our relationship to the British Empire. AS in we only ever mourn what they took
Now while I do think we have reason to be just a little angry at what happend I have to say Get over yourselves lads! It just shows then mentality of some people doesn't it! Why do some Brits think everything here revolves around them. If you ask me they are stuck in the past not us!
If anything we in Ireland try to forget the Occupation and concentrate on our heroes and legends and beautiful land. We have a rich heritage to be proud of. Our country was a great nation long before the English arrived. And it still is. We still have our language, little used though it is, we still have our songs, our legends, our sports. We don't need to use the English Occupation as our identity. Believe it or not we actually are our own Country, our own People!
Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onasis
A number of things to bear in mind about the British Empire.
The British Empire was not just run by the English. The Scots, Welsh and Irish also played a role in creating and maintaining the British Empire. Plenty of Irish fought for the British Empire. For an abvious example look no further than the Duke of Wellington, who was born in Dublin. Granted the Irish were victims of the Empire but they were also agents in creating the Empire. By the by, the Scots tried to start their own Empire in the early 18th century by invading the Americas. They failed terribly, bankrupting the country, which caused them to sign the Act of Union in 1707. Oh and Scotland is named after the Irish tribe, the Scotii. So you could argue Scotland is an Irish occupied territory.
The main cause for the collapse of the British Empire was not a sudden growth in nationalism and resultant wars of independence, but was in fact World War 2, when Britain throwed the Empire against Nazism. Economically and politically Britain never recovered from World War 2, leading to the collapse of the Empire.
The Growth and Development of the British Empire should be placed in the context of the time. The notion of the nation state is a modern development, developed in the nineteenth century. Prior to the nation state, the empire was the prevalent and standard form of government. The Brits are not unique in having an Empire, they are only unique in having the largest and most 'succesful' empire.
If it wasn't for the British Empire there would be no USA, Australia, New Zealand or Canada and everyone in Europe would probably be speaking German.
First to nickcameron
But the most evil men in Briton’s history were 100% English (Cromwell, Henry
VIII) to name a few.
The British Empire started to fall on April 19th 1775.
After WWII Briton was no longer the premier world power. The U.S.A and USSR took over that job. These 2 powers would not let them rule the world as before. They had to take a back seat.
The world also got a lot smaller so Briton could not control their empire as before. They ruled by their Navy. With the invention of Air travel they no longer had the technological advantage.
And lets get something straight, it was not England who kept the world from speaking German, IT WAS AMERICA AND AMERICA ALONE. If was not for our aid (weapons, medicine, money) during the early parts of WWII and then our military might (Atomic bomb, Air force, Navy) during the rest of the war. England would not have made it past 1941.
And if it was up to the British Empire, the USA, Canada, Australia, THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, and New Zealand would still be saluting a MONCARH!!!!!!!!!!!
Now for the moron Hitcher. You obviously have no clue about Michael Collins. He was not a terrorist but a freedom fighter. He did not target civilians but military and political targets. But you are too stupid to see that. He used what ever means he had to fight back against an empire that had been terrorizing most of the Catholic Irish population for 700 hundred years. And guess what, it worked!!! YOU ARE ANOTHER FOOL WHO NEEDS TO LEARN HISTORY!!!
Agreed.
Hitcher is a throwback to an earlier time; a bygoner. The bad news is that some of his ilk still exist on a very small part of the planet. The good news is that, every day, there are fewer of them. In a generation or two there should be none at all.
In the mean time, the Republic of Ireland, in less than a century, transformed itself from a dirt poor colony to a European economic powerhouse. Ireland is the world's leading exporter of computer software and it's per capita income is thousands of pounds higher than England's. No surprise there-the corporate world recognized that Ireland possessed an educated, eager but underemployed population. In an era of instant telecommunication, they were a natural underexploited resource. They're not exactly DeValera's "Comely Maidens dancing at the crossroads" and any Yank (myself included) looking to sweep an Irish lass off her feet with tales of his wealth in America, better have the surname Trump or be a very good storyteller.
Now, the people of Northern Ireland can share in the island's economic success. However. the majority is going to have to spend less time goose stepping in triumphal parades celebrating 400 year old battles and devote more time to college and advanced studies (computer technology in particular). The era of patronage ship yard jobs and factory work ( ie no "Papes") is disappearing. But rest assured, you too can share in the economic success of your predominantly Catholic neighbors to the south if you embrace the future rather than obsess on ancient "victories" that have nothing to do with you or your families.
I have no doubt that the people of the Republic, as is their duty, will be happy to embrace you into their workforce. Good Luck!
If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading.
Fred W.
I agree - he reeks of Darwin - the idea that they are somehow saving the world when all empire does is wreck it further. Iraq included - im not defending Hussain but surely it's worse now.
share[deleted]
I agree with trade or the controlling of trade being important to all empires but I think paranoia has a lot to do with it also. Romans suffered from the Hannibal complex - Britain being a vunerable island naturally wanted a buffer zone and on an on it goes. Nationalism is certainly a dangerous thing as it makes most a assume a continuity of culture - people in Ireland still feel very attached to the history (as do I - it's a hard habit to break) when we are really not the same people we were in 1921 - morality, society, edication, government have all changed so can we really call ourselves the same people - I do agree that it is time to move on - I'm sure that when people fought for Irish freedom they did not mean just politically - surely one can only be free when they are mentally free - which to a large extent we still are not.
share[deleted]
this thread has been going on since January...come on!!!!!!
"Come.... on.... you,Boys in blue,come on you boys in blue" Dub fans
"No, I respect him because he, like MLK, knew that when facing an inherently "good" society such as the British or the Americans then one could and should use peaceful and nonviolent forms of protest successfully."
This statement is pretty ill informed. Considering the fact that the American society was not good. African Americans were less then second class citizens(some of them were lynched, they had very little rights, second class education and they had to demand and fight for rights to receive them.etc). And the country started on genocide of a native peoples and built by slavery. Yeah, good society?..not really.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=18144304
Hitcher is just another faceless coward hiding behind the anonymity of his computer screen and just stirs it for the sake of it.
Why did the mighty British not execute De Valera after the rising? Because he was born in New York thus a US citizen and mighty Britain was kissing ass to try get the USA to "help out" in WW1.
What would you have me do hop over the fenian sea and have you say that to my face. By the by you're right about De Valera. Historically he sould have been shot.
share[deleted]
"By the by you're right about De Valera. Historically he sould have been shot." Maybe he should... But he wasn't and that was the point. The British were too cowardly to shoot him.
I think you will find Bilwick that you will never get a straight answer. I am in the same position on other threads, asking questions and all I get is side steps.
Just look at the language he uses, quote:
“mick murdering bastard.” Can you imagine him walking into a Dublin pub and saying that ha ha ha.
He might walk in but I can guarantee you he would have to be carried out....
sharelol the guy who made this bored is a twat
shiela go's out with her mate stella