Thanks ChrisA and others for their suggestions and tips.
From the Irish Times website just now:
Adams appeal to get ‘due consideration’ from IRA
11:17 The IRA has said it is giving “due consideration” to Gerry Adams’s speech yesterday when he called on it to abandon violence and to commit itself to pursuing its goals through political and democratic means. Mr Adams appealed to the IRA to begin intensive internal consultation on his call as quickly as possible.
Is anyone surprised by this…there is an election looming!!!
I have “Ireland, A Concise History” by Maire and Conor Cruise O’Brien,
with ISBN number 0-500-27379-0. It’s a paperback, and a very accessible survey of Irish
history, with glossy pages and photos. It’s not very deep on anything, but it
does a pretty good job of covering everything. It handles the Northern Ireland question
without taking sides, but expressing regret that there is so much violence over the
issue.
I also have Mike Cronin’s a History of Ireland, ISBN 0-333-65432-3, which does the
same job of surveying Irish history, but in a more academic tone and without the
pictures. I haven’t read this cover to cover, but chapters here and there. So, I can’t give
it an entirely fair review, but it does seem to have more depth than the Concise History,
and to take a fairly detached tone in describing events.
Both books cover pre-history to modern day, which is important, because the Northern
Ireland question has its roots in medieval times.
David,
Perhaps you’re right, though I wouldn’t take such complete integration as a given, only
as a possibility. Either way, the thought behind my comment was that it is regrettable
that so many have died, making no real difference in the political reality, but have much
real and tragic impact on people’s daily lives. I am, however, somewhat optimistic that
we’re approaching a period of stability, and I do agree that EU rules that increase the
transparency of borders can only help that stability.
–Chris
Yes, exactly. No, I wasn’t talking about the descendants of Strongbow.
Yes, I was trying to be careful by acknowledging that the situation is not simple and that few counties could find resolution given similar circumstances.
For the US, it was called the Civil War and Ireland is probably a good example of why Pres. Lincoln pursued war to reunite the states.
Isn’t this calling the kettle black? This is exactly the sort of response you always have when people suggest authors and such.
I liked Coogan’s book on Michael Collins. I learned a lot about the period, the man, and the specific struggle of those days. I found it because I saw the movie and wanted more info. I did not know it was bollox, etc. It wasn’t all that easy to read as I recall but the subject matter was very interesting. This was years and years ago…
Do you two know each other? I mean, people have their spats here but they aren’t constant. Once a friend of mine made an account and we were going to stage these “conversations” but we ran out of steam plus felt it was a bit dishonest.
Of course you could really dislike each other. In any case it’s entertaining.
Not to be too nitpicky, but the Anglo-Irish did indeed cover a span of from medieval times forward.This includes many not just in Northern Ireland but in Dublin and in the Pale (forced English speaking areas) especially,including the named minor royalty who ended up with vast estates. But the Ulster Scots came en masse in the 17th century mostly as a result of several policies by the Brits and worked for those overlords.[ And many of these, in turn, came to America between 1715-1780, creating what we now call the Scots-Irish (see Albion’s Seed by David Hackett Fischer and “The Scots-Irish, a Social History” by xx((name escapes me at the moment))..]
Maybe I am wrong, but I have always believed that the most fervent Orangemen were not Anglo-Irish but Ulster Scots. One of their chief motivations is religious in that under Catholicism in Scotland, they were very ignorant (uneducated) and oppressed. But Presbyterianism brought in schooling which changed things considerably. I most definitely could be wrong, but I thought it was the Ulster Scots who REALLY hate Catholicism and the native Irish because they had to enforce the clearances mano-a-mano while the overlords sat in their castles, or even just spent most of the time back in England.
I think its important to consider Ulster Scots and Anglo-Irish separately, even if both include Unionists. That’s my understanding anyway,subject to correction.
No, I don’t know IRtradRU?, but his attacks on me and my sources have been constant and relentless. I found it very interesting that he was concerned that someone would do that sort of thing to him. That’s all.
Not taking sides here, but I hardly think that it was purely one sided. Just look at the “How Will We Get to the Session” thread…more than half of it seems to be a constant battle just between the two of you. And IRtrad doesn’t seem to be the only one in “attack” mode.
This is true, the conservatives on this website gang up on me, attack me personally and my sources, but when I demonstrate that their facts were in error – they never acknowledge it. Instead they find some other point to attack. I was hoping for a fruitful discussion, and all I get is abuse.
I guess you’re inferring that I was also in “attack mode,” and I suppose it might appear that way when I’m defending myself from the onslaught of attacks from right-wingers, but it is just being defensive on my part. Anyone reviewing the thread objectively can see that.
There are some brilliant minds on this site who have obviously grown tired of this tactic from conservatives and they don’t join in for that reason. I have received a lot of email about this from them and they tell me to give up because it’s pointless. I’m on the verge of taking their advice because it does just become a waste of time at the end of the day.
Yes, I have received many emails, too, from those unwilling to risk getting blistered.
Nobody sends me emails. Sigh.
I tune out when it starts being “the conservatives” or “liberals like you” or “Democrats” or “Republicans.” All that is uninteresting 99% of the time, and I am annoyed and offended when somebody I am trying to have discussion with is refusing to listen to my argument because supposedly someone didn’t speak up during the Clinton administration, or because Tom DeLay said “Boo!” to an old lady in the street in 2003, or because the media are “always” reporting this way or that way.
Probably because you have the good sense to steer clear of those kinds of “discussions.” Also, people are probably intimidated because you have the best avatar on the site.
Labels do come too easily, I admit, in my bilious rants. For many years I worked in retail, as a manager, and had to care about the outcome of various transactions with customers. It’s impossible not to size up people after a while and many in the political sphere, actually SEEK some stable turf of ideology. In the process of aging, I think its natural to see tendencies and draw conclusions, but sometimes, too hastily. Some people are insulted and offended that their views are not unique and that their voice is not being heard minus polemic context, which is understandable. At the same time, they may label themself as a “progressive” or a “libertarian,” for example. Nobody’s perfect.
I can attest that this is true of my grandfather, and he a Canadian by birth! Oddly, I’ve been a Republican (in the Irish sense of the word; sorry Weeks, that’s about as close as you and I get in name. Nyuk.) in my sentiments since childhood, and long before I ever knew this about him. It was quite the revelation when I found out, I can tell you.
Anyway, I’m an American when all’s said and done. Got my own fish to fry.
Labels can’t be helped in political discussions because certain labels define the positions people take. Sometimes people will call someone a “Marxist” without substantiation, and with little or no understanding of what the term means. But what I get tried of in these discussions is when labels like, “whack-o,” “troll,” etc. start getting bandied about – it’s always downhill from that point on.
The “troll” portion has nothing to do with your political affiliation. Just ask IRTrad about that one, as I’m the one who called him it 
I’m with Bloom on this one. It seems that you both are tremendously well versed in your own flavor of politics, and that’s fine. But it honestly gets rather tedious to have to wade through your (used in the plural here…oh to go back to Latin! ) repetitious attacks upon each other to actually find something of substance in a thread. Quite frankly, when you have reduced the whole conversation to a battle such as this, I don’t even read anymore, which in a way defeats the purpose of your posting your “truths”, for I’m sure I’m not the only one who isn’t reading.
Also, as Weeks pointed out, it’s not just the “Left Wingers” that are tiring of the attacks. I’m sure that the “Right Wingers” are also staying out of these conversations because they don’t want to have to be attacked whenever they express an opinion. It’s all like a viscous circle, really. I tend to think that these conversations can be approached without having to reduce it all to name calling and attacks from either side. Or maybe I’m just living in my own little Utopia..who knows But this is the exact reason why I despise politics, and why I avoid talking about it at all.
Lastly, I take total issue with Bloom’s avatar being the best one here. I rather like my bow clad skull and cross bones.
As an aside, Bloom, I would email you, but you know, I just don’t want to get Susan all mad at me. She’s very possessive, you know