A good point about Ireland only being politically united under the British -- although it was hardly united in terms of "hearts and minds" during that time.

Why can't it be a war AND terrorism? Is there a sanitised Queensberry rules version of war out there that I haven't heard about?

But this vote in the Assembly proves nothing than the fact that there are more Prods than Taigs in Northern Ireland. If Sinn Féin had 30 MLAs, which it probably will come 2011, this would not have passed.

"If Sinn Féin had 30 MLAs, which it probably will come 2011"

I wouldnt be so sure.

Before last election in the Republic the Shinners looked unstoppable but when the results came in it seemed there level of support may have peaked. Whether the trend will be mirrored on this side of the border remains to be seen but being in government inevitebly means having to make unpopular decisions from time to time and alienating a section of ones constituency.

"proves nothing than the fact that there are more Prods than Taigs in Northern Ireland"

The BBC report makes it sounds like (although doesn't explicitly state that) the SDLP abstained.

"SDLP leader Mark Durkan also rejected the notion that the Troubles was a war.

However, he said his party would not support the DUP motion, which he claimed presented a skewed and biased view of the past, adding there had been "wrong on both sides". "

Or is anyone who disagrees with SF a 'Prod' now?

Oh so your Irish now I remeber reading a post a few months back where you werent

Ah Seamus - back to this old chestnut!
Let's not kid ourselves, every election here is a sectarian headcount.
In respect of Ciaran Buckley's very valid point re "hearts and minds" - we're hardly heading in a direction to unite all hearts and minds at present. Maybe it's a little better than before but we really will have to start talking about real issues some day.

I agree that elections in Northern Ireland is held along sectarian lines. What I mean is that if a party is if a party has 30 MLAs, they can sign a petition of concern, which means it requires cross community support, something this wouldn't get. In the next election, I see Sinn Féin getting an extra 2 seats (or 3, if we count Gerry McHugh), for example in Foyle and South Down. Anyone who sees an SDLP recovery is only kidding themselves. Then again, stranger things have happened in this wee part of the world we live in.

And ultimately, on this issue, this debate in the Assembly means and proves only one thing. Unionists are against calling it a war, Republicans are for calling it a war, and the Stoops, the Alliance etc don't have a clue whats going on anyway. We didn't need a Stormont debate to tell us that, did we?

That is actually a really good point that is not often mad,e that the British were the first to create a truly united Ireland, especially concerning Ulaidh

What an excellent idea. The South can vote itself into the Union, and the now recognised unitary country can promptly vote itself back out. Sweet.

I do wish people would stop using terms i don't understand (unless i'm just stupid?).
'Stoops', 'Uliadh'.

WTF???

Is derived from the insult, Stoop Down Low Party. Not as good I feel as South Down and Londonderry Party.

Thanks for clearing that one up Michael.
I've googled for the Ulaidh thing.

Ulster in Irish isn't it?

Apparantly so and very strange coming from a contributor who seems to be Canadian?

Yes Ulaidh is Irish for Ulster. The term Ulster came from the Irish word Ulaidh, the name of the region, and the Norse word ster, which means province. So Ulaidhster is the etymology of Ulster which is what uncivilised Englishmen decided to call here because they couldn't speak the local language.

On a further note, Brian Boru unified Ireland in the 11th century long before the English/British immigrated to Ireland.

Didn't St Patrick (a Roman Britain) do that when he converted a large portion of the Island to Christianity in or around the sixth century?

"Brian Boru unified Ireland in the 11th century long before the English/British immigrated to Ireland."

That's true; for a total of about 12 years IIRC.

And Seamus: disgreeing with Sinn Fein is not the same as not having a clue.

I couldn’t agree more that nationalism has hi-jacked the term Irish and that it is healthy and necessary for unionism to own their Irishness in order to win it back. That means a steadfast insistence that Ireland or Irish in not analogous to things which pertain to the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland has an equal claim on these terms.

No, I' not saying disagreeing with Sinn Féin means not having a clue, I'm saying people who think the SDLP will recover ground on Sinn Féin aren't reading the political climate correctly.

It's not so much that Nationalists hi-jacked the term Irish, Unionists for the most part abandoned it. Most Unionists want nothing to do with the Irish Language, Gaelic Games etc etc. By the meaning of Irish as in 'from the island of Ireland' Unionists are as Irish as the rest of us. But when people say Irish in the modern world, they mean people who identify with Irish culture. You as a Unionist in Belfast what country they are from and they will almost certainly say Northern Ireland, Britain or Ulster. You ask a Nationalist in Belfast what country they are from and they say Ireland. That is what is meant by the term Irish, that they view their nationality as Irish and their country as Ireland. And Irish people, (in the view that I just explained) want an independent Ireland, free from any British control. They don't want a United Ireland under British Control, they want a United Ireland under Irish control.

Seamus you said: "the Stoops, the Alliance etc don't have a clue whats going on".

Aside from the fact they don't agree with you and/or SF, what demonstrates them not having a clue?

"It's not so much that Nationalists hi-jacked the term Irish"

Well they named their state Ireland for a start. That didn't help.

"Unionists ... abandoned it."

There were attempts, AFAIK, to officially rename Northern Ireland "Ulster" in the 60s which were resisted by the then NI PM because he didn't want to concede the term "Ireland" to the Republic. That's hardly "abandoning" it.

Gaelic Games alienated itself from Unionists by proclaiming political objectives in it's constitution. The GAA was set up to prevent the spread of what it perceived as "foreign". You can't blame unionists for not wanting to take part in what essentially amounted to attempts to remove part of their culture.

Neither the SDLP or the Alliance Party had an opinion over the debate in the assembly, neither for it or against it.

"Didn't St Patrick (a Roman Britain) do that when he converted a large portion of the Island to Christianity in or around the sixth century?"

A good point, Junkmale. Ireland was a unified ecclesiastical entity long before the English arrived (and, of course, still is). It was also a single entity (of a fashion) under the High Kings although it was hardly "united".

It's hardly a British idea.

http://threethousandversts.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-ulster-unionism-which-owns-its.html

Michael. I've taken the liberty of using your post as a jumping off point for my own blog.

"t's not so much that Nationalists hi-jacked the term Irish, Unionists for the most part abandoned it. Most Unionists want nothing to do with the Irish Language, Gaelic Games etc etc. By the meaning of Irish as in 'from the island of Ireland' Unionists are as Irish as the rest of us. But when people say Irish in the modern world, they mean people who identify with Irish culture. You as a Unionist in Belfast what country they are from and they will almost certainly say Northern Ireland, Britain or Ulster. You ask a Nationalist in Belfast what country they are from and they say Ireland. That is what is meant by the term Irish, that they view their nationality as Irish and their country as Ireland. And Irish people, (in the view that I just explained) want an independent Ireland, free from any British control. They don't want a United Ireland under British Control, they want a United Ireland under Irish control."

This just about epitomises the narrow minded, exclusivist nationalism I'm always on about.

"A good point, Junkmale. Ireland was a unified ecclesiastical entity long before the English arrived (and, of course, still is). It was also a single entity (of a fashion) under the High Kings although it was hardly "united".

It's hardly a British idea. "

Reg, it took a Roman Briton from the British Isles to bring about some form of ecclesiastical unity, so it most certainly was a British idea.

Oh, and the term 'Irish' or Ireland was never used until long after the Pope gave the island to King Henry II.

I can't see the "South Down and Londonderry Party" recovering but the entry of Fianna Fail into the scene will shake things up.

I think the Alliance Party will pick up some defectors from the SDLP (as will Labour) and Fianna Fail's presence will change the all Ireland context the Shinners operate in. While SF will be organisationally superior to FF in Northern Ireland any alliance with Fianna Fail (which under mandatory coalition will be necessary) will do a lot of damage to their internal cohesion.

30 seats for Sinn Fein in 2011 - perhaps, but most likely two Sinn Feins - one leftist and the other centrist

Baby Doc- it is still a theory that Saint Patrick wasn't from Roman Briton, that he was from France (Roman Gaul). Also, Saint Patrick would, if he was from Roman Briton, would have been Brithonic, rather than British. Modern British culture started with the Normans, rather than the Britons. Also, the title Ard Rí na hÉireann, or High King of Ireland, predates Christianity, the founding of Rome and the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. Sláine mac Dela, was crowned Ard Rí in 1514 BC. The Ard Rí was the king of all Ireland. Irish unity occured over three millenia ago, clearly not a British idea.

"Oh, and the term 'Irish' or Ireland was never used until long after the Pope gave the island to King Henry II."

Well, not in English it wasn't!!! Doesn't mean it wasn't said as gaeilge though!

Wasn't that Pope an Englishman? Hmm. Interesting.


"Reg, it took a Roman Briton from the British Isles to bring about some form of ecclesiastical unity, so it most certainly was a British idea."

Er...so St Patrick (Gawd bless im) not only brought Christianity to Ireland, but also constructed the diocesan administration of the Irish Christian Church. He's some man for one man.

JD - even if their was internal trouble in Sinn Féin, I still think on matters such as debate over the war that both sides of the party would still consider it a war and vote accordingly.

Now Seamus, I don't know a huge amount about pre-Christian Irish history but I know enough to know that the old High Kings of Ireland were largely mythical. A quick Google reveals that the main belief among those who have studied it seems to be that the idea was an 8th century concoction and didn't become a reality until about 850AD. That still predates any major influx from the larger island to our east, but three millenia is stretching the truth somewhat.

While most of the references to the Ard Rí are in mythology, they are from so many different sources of mythology that they were probably based on historical fact. The actual details may be changed but the position probably existed.

"Also, the title Ard Rí na hÉireann, or High King of Ireland, predates Christianity, the founding of Rome and the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. Sláine mac Dela, was crowned Ard Rí in 1514 BC. The Ard Rí was the king of all Ireland. Irish unity occured over three millenia ago, clearly not a British idea."

Seamus, High king of what? It wasn't the high king of Ireland, because before the Papal Normans arrived there was no mention of Ireland or Irish, it was Scotia and Scots. The closest name to anything which might be translated to Irish was hiberni and Patrick called them the common people who were not the noble class rulers, the Scots were.

So it's the high king of the Scots!

"Also, Saint Patrick would, if he was from Roman Briton, would have been Brithonic, rather than British. Modern British culture started with the Normans, rather than the Britons."

Seamus, he would still have been living in the British Isles.

Yes, but that does not make him British. The British Isles didn't exist as an entity even in the vaguest of terms. The ancient Picts, who lived in the north east of Scotland would not be described as British, because they weren't British because Britain didn't exist then.

Yes, but that does not make him British. The British Isles didn't exist as an entity even in the vaguest of terms.

The Romans called the Isles the Britannic Islands because their inhabitants were all British. Ptolemy also names the isles the British Isles and names the island of Ireland little Britain.


The ancient Picts, who lived in the north east of Scotland would not be described as British, because they weren't British because Britain didn't exist then.

There were many different identities and tribes within the British Isles like the Pretani, from which the term "Briton" is derived.

The term British Isles was then and ultimately is today a geographical term, similar to the Indian sub-continent. If you referred to the Pakistanis or the Sinhalese as Indian, you would cause great offense and be considered incorrect. Britain didn't exist then. To refer to Saint Patrick as British is incorrect for a similar reason. You mention that the term Briton comes from Pretani, well you probably find the reason that the island/islands were called Britain or Briton because the Pretani where probably the first tribe that the Romans came into contact with. Saint Patrick, was probably be best described as Roman, rather than anything else.

Secondly, you mention how the Romans called the Irish the Scots. Maybe you should pay a bit more attention in history. The Romans called the tribes of Dál Riata, a tribe from what is today the north of County Antrim, to Scoti, due to the fact that they called themselves the Scots or the Sgaothaich. The reason that they came into the most contact with the Romans is because they reguarly raided the coast of England. These people eventually colanised and took over Scotland, hence the name, Scotland. The Roman term Scoti only applied to a small tribe in Antrim, not all the tribes of the whole island. The term Éire, the Irish word for Ireland, comes from the Fir Bolg name for the island, Ériu. So the name Ireland was in effect thousands of years ago.

Modern British culture started with the Normans, rather than the Britons."
O yeah !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britons_%28historic%29

We are still around you know!

Well, most of historic Brithonic culture in modern Britain would be described as Welsh and Cornish, (which is pointed out in the link you put up Dewi). And most of the peoples who take part in those cultures would describe themselves as Welsh and Cornish rather than British.

"The term British Isles was then and ultimately is today a geographical term, similar to the Indian sub-continent. If you referred to the Pakistanis or the Sinhalese as Indian, you would cause great offense and be considered incorrect. Britain didn't exist then. To refer to Saint Patrick as British is incorrect for a similar reason. You mention that the term Briton comes from Pretani, well you probably find the reason that the island/islands were called Britain or Briton because the Pretani where probably the first tribe that the Romans came into contact with. Saint Patrick, was probably be best described as Roman, rather than anything else."

you say Patrick would have been called a Roman, so without explaining who came into contact with who first, why would Patrick be called a Roman when the Romans names the isles the Britannic Islands?


"Secondly, you mention how the Romans called the Irish the Scots. Maybe you should pay a bit more attention in history. The Romans called the tribes of Dál Riata, a tribe from what is today the north of County Antrim, to Scoti, due to the fact that they called themselves the Scots or the Sgaothaich. The reason that they came into the most contact with the Romans is because they reguarly raided the coast of England. "

I never said the Romans Called the Irish the Scots, I said the ruling class were called the Scots as described by Patrick in his confessional.

"These people eventually colanised and took over Scotland, hence the name, Scotland."

I believe they lived in Ulster right up to the Papal Norman takover, because Saint Malachy's biography which was written in the 12th century by Bernard of Clairvaux, mentions that the people of Bangor were objecting to him erecting a stone monument there. They said, " Good sir, why have you thought good to introduce this novelty into our regions ? We are Scots, not Gauls. What is this frivolity ?" You may also note that Caledonia did not become Scotland in name untill after the 12th century and the Papal Norman arrival in 'Ireland'. This is a very interesting period in time, because I believe the Scots were forced out of Ulster by the Papal Normans.

"The Roman term Scoti only applied to a small tribe in Antrim, not all the tribes of the whole island. "

You could be right, but the island was named Scotia in one of Ptolemy's maps, or was that an area in the island he named Scotia?

"The term Éire, the Irish word for Ireland, comes from the Fir Bolg name for the island, Ériu. So the name Ireland was in effect thousands of years ago."

Interesting point about the Fir Bolg name for the island being Ériu. I'll take your word for that, but always thought Ériu was a reference to some mythical queen?

...and if Ériu was used to make the name Ireland, it's only possible by using an Old Norse influenced language, which adds land onto the end. The Papal Normans used an Old Norse language when they arrived.

We need to know more about this period in our history and we need to know why the people of Bangor suddenly changed their identity after the 12th century

But the only 'Scots' in Ireland, where not the ruling class of Ireland, but the name of a tribe in County Antrim. Why does Saint Patrick mention them? Because Saint Patrick was held and enslaved in and around Slemish, well inside the territory of the Dál Riata. Saint Patrick would have been held by this tribe, thus would have been the Irish tribe he came into contact with.

Also the term Ireland might not have been used before the Norman invasion of Ireland, but Irish people have generally always had a large animosity to the English language and so we won't allow our history to be dictated to by the English language. Just because the Ard Rí wouldn't have used the name Ireland doesn't mean they weren't the Ard Rí of Ireland.

Also, the Dál Riata (or Scots) disapearred from Ireland mostly during the Viking invasion of Ireland, not the Norman. The area was later taken over by the Ulaid, which was a tribe that lends it's name to the province of Ulster.

Also, the Roman name for Ireland, as explained in the Geographia by Claudius Ptolemaeus (or Ptolemy's Geography as it is better know), is Hibernia, after the Iverni tribe in Southern Munster. The Romans never classed Britain and Ireland as the same group of islands, naming them seperately, Britannia and Hibernia.

You know Baby Doc, if I was a betting man I would say you are 'Ulster my homeland' from Slugger. There can't two people that misinformed in the world.

Some of you folk should really get out more!
Look at the start of this posting and then look how pathetic the petty squabbling about ancient times and ancient myths has become.
Why don't we go back and say that the first Neanderthal who came to Ireland should be our role model for the future.
Get a grip.

WHAT IS IT THAT THE IRISH ARE AFRAID TO ADMIT EVEN TO THEMSELVES!

PROOF OF HOW THE PAPACY STOLE IRELAND FROM THE NATIVES.


http://irishcriminology.com/02b-The-Criminological-History-of-Ireland.html


There are many people -- educated English and Irish men among them -- who could not believe that the Pope of Rome would be so treacherous as to start and support an unjust war for over almost a thousand years. ‘No way’, they claim, ‘ could the Catholic Church start a war and then hide its misdeeds.’ This denial is partially due to the relentless efforts made by the Irish Church members, powerful men in all forms of Irish education, to keep the truth from an unquestioning public. As far as corporate propaganda is concerned the Roman Church has no peers.

The documents demonstrating these matters are many and scattered over several centuries and languages. But the main documents which demonstrate without doubt the treachery of the Papacy are now a matter of public record. And five of these documents from the mouths of those most closely associated with the the sale of Ireland can be found on the following WebPage.



http://irishcriminology.com/02b-The-Criminological-History-of-Ireland.html


&#8232irectly because of the Papal Bull ‘Laudabiliter’, the native Gaelic people were pitted against the Norman Christians and then against the transplanted Christian English. The struggle continued until the native Gaelic pagans were obliterated — since when, to the present day, not a thousand families in Ireland can speak Gaelic, contempt for the language being universally shown in the Jesuit-owned third level schools, colleges and universities, where hardly a fluent lecturer can be found.


After the Reformation, of course, the thousand year war instigated by the Papacy continued as between English Protestant and ‘Irish’ Catholic.


Anyone who has a sense of humour should read how Fianna Fail — the Church’s party in Ireland — keeps going all the way to East Timor. No one quite knows why. The Vatican take is that these Irish people, who have been fighting for so long for Catholic conquest and Emancipation , have something important to tell the East Timorese. The smart money is on the notion that the Irish are doing what they know best; they are doing the work of the Pope , and are really in East Timor to steal it, just as Ireland was stolen.


If anyone doubts the documents relating to Ireland, which was, perhaps, one of the first countries to fall to the blackguard Church of Rome, let him read the history of Ireland and refresh himself as to the intermittent risings and skirmishes, endless burnings and hangings, and thousands -- maybe millions of Irish people -- torn from their roots and sent as felons to American, Australia, New Zealand and throughout the world. Irish Catholicism is living proof of the fact that ‘crime does pay’. For a shilling a household, Pope Adrian IV sold Ireland into slavery to his fellow countryman, Henry 11, and the enormity of the bloodshed that was to follow from generation to generation, until from each county the native pagan people were uprooted, demoralized, demonized and destroyed.

Anyone who cares to read these documents will find in them a paradigm for colonial Christianity everywhere and its racial hatred of the simple native peoples who have dared to think differently to that of Rome.


Moreover, it appears from these documents that the Pope and his minions have occupied Ireland illegally and unconstitutionally for some fifteen hundred years, since when they engineered Irish fertility to extend their empire through the Irish Diaspora. Even to the present day Irish ‘vocations’ have extended throughout the world, the current craze being that of East Timor, where the Minister for Foreign Affairs imagines he has a mandate from the people (but has it actually from the Pope) to interfere in matters he knows nothing of, save to do the same in East Timor as was done in Ireland. The Irish are out in East Timor to steal it and to set up antagonisms on behalf of Catholicism that will last forever. The Christian conquest is a recipe for disaster in the world and while the Popes have hardly ever visited Ireland (or are they likely to visit East Timor), they have drained the country of its people, its wealth and its peace in the most inhuman and relentless manner.

One can only hope that by making these documents available some Irish men will reconsider what their country did and still does in this world. They may even question the entire use of government on behalf of the Vatican.


(AND IF YOU ARE STILL ASKING WHY THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT APPEAR ON INDYMEDIA IRELAND, THEN, PERHAPS, YOU SHOULD NOT BE READING THIS ARTICLE!)



Seamus Breathnach

http://www.irish-criminology.com


Methinks Seamus B is a bit of a nutter!

The blog entry has wandered quite a bit. Back to the original issue.

Why don't you just have an official resolution to call the conflict "The Sitchy-eh-shin." It seems to be a cross-community term. Then you can map any meaning you want onto it -- "A vicious campaign of murder and intimidation" or "The glorious struggle for civil rights and national self-determination." Or "the 40-year sequence of events that blighted my career as a tourism operator/industrialist."

If Southern Ireland can be renamed Ireland why can't Northern Ireland be renamed Ulster? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.