12th of July

[starbuckslover]

Apologies for posting this in AIBU, I was sure where to put it but..

AIBU form not understanding why people in Northern Ireland still celebrate the 12th of July (and the 11th night), in such an epic fashion? A country that voted for and signed the Good Friday Agreement, begging for peace to then light bonfires burning Irish flags, and marching gleefully in memory of a war that resulted in the death and oppression of goodness knows how many Catholics, is more than a little hypocritical?

How can this still be happening? I know people who are so anxious about brexit as it could upset the peace process who are out watching the marches today..how?!

Also, most place in NI are integrated now so Protestant and Catholic people are living as neighbours. How can these Protestant people go to parades that celebrate their neighbour's persecution...

I would fee the same if there were catholic parades for the same thing...so I am really not on one side or the other.

If anyone can help me to understand how such a huge group of (many) educated, sensible people (I know lots aren't, but many are normal everyday, semi-liberal citizens), can be so hypocritical I would be very grateful...🤷‍♀️

it is likely that eventually people will vote for reunification

Possibly not when they twig they have to pay every time they see a doctor 😁.

YANBU, it's horrific, my uncle is in Belfast and they usually leave on 12th. It goes on in Scotland too. Last year a Catholic Priest was spat at, in the face, by the orange order while parading through a Catholic area. It's always seen to be a day of hatred and bigotry here too. Wish they'd ban it.

any more than 94% were keen on abandoning thei claim to a bit of their country

Seriously maybe it's just the people I know but the folks from the Republic that ive met don't gaf about NI. It's forgotten about, it's not part of their country and it hasn't been for nearly 100 years. There's a division/a difference. If the people who voted are like the ones I know, they didn't had about the claim. A Canadian guy of Irish nationalist descent I know was slating them for cheering the Queen and waving union jacks.

Britain didn't maintain settler enclaves fter independence in the other countries it conquered

• military limitations and international public opinion would never have allowed it

They were left to get on with their lives in Kenya, Nigeria etc

If the same had happened in the early 20th century, we wouldn't have had all these decades of misery

If the Protestant majority hadn't treated the catholics so badly, deprived them of civil rights,
but instead given them equal rights to housing, voting etc then it is just possible that NI could have had a future

However, they made their choices and hence there will be a united Ireland voted for democratically
Its unfortunate that Brexit looks like accelerating this, so less time to get used to it gradually

Just like some Labour or Tory people live in their own bubble and can't understand why opinion polls show most people don't support their party

Same with Unionists

People in the Irish Republic are well aware of the difficulties of reunification,
but polls have alwaays shwn that a big maajority would support reunification, provided NI voted for it first, as in the GFA.

I've lived mostly in Germany since the late 1980s which has had a tough time with reunification:

We are STILL paying a hefty "solidarity tax", an additional income tax to support the former East,
because decades of communist conquest ruined their economy
and for many generations ruined their ability to cope without the state doing everything for them

We have the Eastern voters being the bedrock of the far right AfD, because communst rule relied on whipping up xenophobia to keep power
and because angry people, who can't cope without the state spoonfeeding them, will turn to populists who provide scapegoats

and yet, noone here seriously suggests reunification should not have happened

settler enclaves fter independence in the other countries

How long were they settled and in what numbers compared to Ireland?

If the Protestant majority hadn't treated the catholics so badly, deprived them of civil rights,
but instead given them equal rights to housing, voting etc

Ah yes, they did all that totally independently of the English, didn't they?

(Also I thought you said there was never a protestant majority, it was gerrymandered).

NI was gerrymandered to create a country that was 90% Protestant

Then the ruling Protestant majority gerrymandered voting requirements and the drawing up of constituencies
so that the catholic minority had far fewer elected politicians than they would have had in a fair system

This was so that Protestants could keep an unfair share of power, wealth, public housing etc

Can you point me in the direction of any historical evidence to support your contention that the Scottish planters in Ulster were fleeing persecution/illtreatment from the English? The vast majority of the pre-Cromwellian and pre-Williamite planters were Lowland Scots, from a settled and peaceable part of James’s Scottish kingdom. And they were granted land by the Crown - hardly likely for those at odds with the political regime.

When I said their emigration could well have been due to the impact of the English, I was referring to economic hardship as much as active persecution or I'll treatment.

A quick look suggests that England's economic policies toward Scotland contributed or exacerbated both a downturn in the 1650s due to trade restrictions, and a famine in the 1690s during which tend of thousands of Scots emigrated to Ireland.

Incidentally the early plantation groups included English Catholics avoiding religious persecution.

All before the union.

Perhaps you will look into it yourself and actually regret your derision at my suggestion.

@BigChocFrenzy

When did those practices stop?

You day if unionists had treated Catholics decently maybe they wouldn't be in this position but a. That's current unionists' grandparents or further back and b. It wouldn't have made any real difference to this potential vote, would it?

*say

"How long were they settled and in what numbers compared to Ireland?"

varied a lot acording to the colony
Centuries and many thousands of settlers in most cases
It was about hundreds of thousands in Rhodesia, millions in South Africa

Under intenational law, only the GFA that prevents Westminster dumping NI on the Irish Republic,
or at least expelling NI from the UK

Nationalists have to accept under the GFA that there can only be a united ireland if people vote for it
Unionists have to accept there will be a united Ireland if people vote for it

There is no legal way to stop people in NI eventually voting for a united Ireland

Centuries and many thousands of settlers in most cases
It was about hundreds of thousands in Rhodesia, millions in South Africa

I can't find anything re. colonisation earlier than the 1800s for Rhodesia or South Africa for example. And you're comparing that to a history of influence, involvement and then colonisation from Norman times or earlier?

The Troubles started in the 1960s because Catholics had been deprived of full civil rights for so long
It was too late by then

Full rights for all citizens needed to be allowed from the beginning, to have any chance of avoiding a future united Ireland
It might still never have worked, since NI was created by the threat of violence,
after Ireland as a whole had voted for MPs supporting independence and then had a war of independence when this was refused

In contrast, the Irish republic gave full rights to Protestants and they have played a full part in Irish politics and society
So no angry Protestant minority there

An independent Ireland could even have been avoided by different British behaviour in the early 20th century,
but sentiment rocketed following the brutal suppression of the 1916 Easter Rising

What is your point about the centuries ?

Noone is saying the descendants of settlers should be expelled from Ireland
they are not responsible for invasions and crimes against humanity committed by their ancestors

However, there is no international law, except the GFA, to prevent GB from expelling a country it no longer wants

and there is certainly no law preventing NI voters from eventually choosing a united Ireland

So we give an annual 10 billion quid subsidy to 1 million Ulster Unionists

You still haven't clarified this - how come it goes only to Ulster unionists?

My point was in response to this one of yours;

Britain didn't maintain settler enclaves fter independence in the other countries it conquered

They're not really comparable to Ireland. The republics of Ireland is now the only part of the British isles not part of the Great Britain/the United Kingdom. The situation in Northern Ireland differs from ex colonies. The history is like an hour on the clock compared to a few mins in the exotic colonies. You don't seem to appreciate any subtleties. Everything is cold clinical blah blah blah. You realise this country was virtually in civil war and could be again. Who the fk is going to police it.

However, there is no international law, except the GFA, to prevent GB from expelling a country it no longer wants

Of course there is no law preventing great powers or former great powers dumping regions once they have exploited them for what they wanted and completely fucked them up so they're unstable ... But my poibtbis, its not morally right, is it?

I compared to other colonies, because we had a clean break when they chose independence and hence didn't have the continuing problems we have in NI

Partition didn't solve the problem: it just kept it festering for future generations to suffer

When colonies become independent, they normally do so as a whole, regardless of how many centuries they have been colonised

The colonising country has no legal obligation to support an enclave of settlers who disagree with independence

,and hence didn't have the continuing problems we have in NI

You think no ex British colonies have problems similar to those in NI?

"its not morally right, is it?"

It's not morally right to hang on to a bit of someone else's country

A country that was brutally colonised 800 years ago, kept colonised by centuries of massacres and crimes against humanity committed against the native population

then instead of giving them independence when the country keeps demanding it, we hang on to a bit, by threatening to send in the army again to conquer the whole country, if they dont agree

A united Ireland will be correcting something that should never have happened

The colonising country has no legal obligation to support an enclave of settlers who disagree with independence

What about a moral obligation - especially if they are vulnerable?

It's not morally right to hang on to a bit of someone else's country

Do you think the 48% unionist population think it's someone else's country?

Those problems are for the people of those former colonies to deal with

Some of them have had horrific dictatorships, e.g. Zimbabwe, that caused millions of deaths
Many other African, Asian & Middle East countries too

it still didn't give us the right to hang on to bits of those countries
The whole world - plus international law & institutions that didn't exist in the early 20th century - would have condemned us if we had tried