Post a reply

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Acé

Pink Ball wrote:
Acé wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:You thought Ireland was... two islands?


just one big island called "Ireland", the "northern ireland" part I just assumed it was called that because the area is Northern

I didn't know they were 2 separate countries

Have you ever seen a map? There's literally a border drawn around Northern Ireland. That's because it's a different country.


yeah i know but it also didn't have a different name like "Scotland" or "Wales" to really differentiate

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Pink Ball

Acé wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
Acé wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:You thought Ireland was... two islands?


just one big island called "Ireland", the "northern ireland" part I just assumed it was called that because the area is Northern

I didn't know they were 2 separate countries

Have you ever seen a map? There's literally a border drawn around Northern Ireland. That's because it's a different country.


yeah i know but it also didn't have a different name like "Scotland" or "Wales" to really differentiate

...no, it would have, if you looked more closely. It would have said 'Northern Ireland'.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Pink Ball wrote:I'll try to explain this as slowly and crudely but fairly accurately as I can.

Many, many years ago, there was an island called Ireland. None of it was British at this point, and everyone was happy.

Britain invaded Ireland. Many British people moved to Ireland but found the Irish to be...unfriendly. They couldn't get the upperhand anywhere and keep the Irish down, bar one corner in the north east of the island.

Eventually, the British gave up trying to convince most of us. That area, about three quarters of the island, became the Republic of Ireland. People born there are Irish. It's not up for discussion.


I'm afraid this isn't fairly accurate.

Ireland has twice been invaded by armies who hold allegiance to the crown of England.

The first time, way, way, way back before even England was considered a fully unified country, we're talking not long after the Norman Conquests. And the reason for this was because of Papal pressure.

It was the objective of the Pope in Rome to encourage its good Kings to go forth and convert the heathens. Ireland was a heathen land populated by heathen Celts, ergo the Pope marked it for invasion. The conquesting Normans, duly obliged.

However, due to the feudal nature of life back then, all this did was install some Lords into big houses and enrich the villages with concrete temples to Rome.

As the centuries passed those nobles gradually became naturalised, as you do. To the point where, even without any form of revolutions or conflict, the island of Ireland simply became a different cultural and political entity to England once again. A bit like how Australia just slowly and gradually became a different entity to England in the modern era, no revolutions needed.

Therein steps Henry the VIII, some many hundreds of years later, who then winds up conquering Ireland all over again. Because of the balance of power politics of the time, and usually at the bequest of an Irish noble who was having grief with another Irish noble.

Many centuries pass once again. Ireland gradually becomes a different place again. All the flunkies posted there gradually become more Irish than English there once again. Tick-tock, time moves on, the gradual changes and differences mount year on year.

Then the potato famine kicks in combined with the chaos caused by mass immigration to the Americas. In this chaotic environment an independence movement finds strength. This is then compounded by the First World War

In the 1920s this movement uses violence to usurp power for itself, regardless of the wishes of individual people. It was not a democratic process in the eyes of this movement. Violent movements, if you'll excuse the pun, were all the rage between the wars.

However, independence was permitted by the crown of England as long as it was democratically founded. A large proportion of the island did not, in fact, wish to be independent and were as violently determined to remain a part of the English socio-political structure.

In order to prevent civil war, the country was divided.

The Irish Nationalist movement, a purely political movement, in order to stay relevant in a post-independence Ireland, merely used the obvious peace solution as a means to continue justifying their violence, and a civil war was forced upon the Ireland anyway.

As for whether the Northern Irish are 'true' Irish or not, well, ironically, how many of the Southern Irish are even 'true' Irish? And not Spanish, English, Viking and whatever else in origin.

Much like England itself, Irish stopped meaning Celt centuries if not thousands of years ago, what we see today is merely the usual modern phenonium of ego-led power politics that uses heritage as a means to fool people into thinking they have a stake in someone else's power games.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Pink Ball

Yeah, what I posted was not 'fairly accurate', you are correct. I basically went with the approach you might use with a very young child.

Looking through your post there, I don't take any issue with most of it, except for the bit about it being the 'obvious peace solution'. Quite a lot of what is still known as Northern Ireland today, even then, saw itself as 'Irish' and not 'British'. Tyrone and Fermanagh being the most obvious counties. Northern Ireland as it was, and still is, was not even the best form of damage limitation, let alone an obvious peace solution.
Last edited by Pink Ball on 14 May 2021, edited 1 time in total.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Pink Ball wrote:Looking through your post there, I don't take any issue with most of it, except for the bit about it being the 'obvious peace solution'. Quite a lot of what is still known as Northern Ireland today was, even then, saw itself as 'Irish' and not 'British'. Tyrone and Fermanagh being the most obvious counties. Northern Ireland as it was, and still is, was not even the best form of damage limitation, let alone an obvious peace solution.


Let's look at the 1918 election map and compare it to what was decided in the peace settlement:

Image

The only really non-obvious part is one section of Tyrone. There's one small island of Sinn Fein in one part of Tyrone. But, being as it's a compromise settlement, like all peace settlements inevitably have to be, Donegal got a huge chunk of non-Sinn Fein to counter the discrepancy.

The question is whether you consider the Irish Parliamentary Party to be Southern or Northern Irish in sentiment when creating the future map. And, again, this is just Tyrone still.

And the pedantry of this issue was settled very quickly by future elections.

Pre-independence the political scene was a difficult one for the average voter, and it remained so up until the 1922 vote, because:

"When the date of the [1921] elections was announced in the House of Commons, the Conservative MP Sir William Davison, who had been born in Broughshane, County Antrim, had asked "What is the object of holding elections in Southern Ireland when any candidates who do not support Sinn Fein would be shot?""

However, in the 1922 election the peace settlement had been put forward, and Sinn Fein split between those who thought it was indeed the obvious solution and those who still weren't happy:

Sinn Fein (pro-treaty) - 38.5% of the 1st preference vote
Sinn Fein (anti-treaty) - 21.8% of the 1st preference vote

And we can already see how, without a need for violence, and without the pressure of being shot for voting for the wrong guy, the violent nationalists do not actually form any kind of majority of the people.

Sinn Fein's anti-treaty wing actually has the same amount of votes as the Labour Party.

By the time of the 1927 election, those still unwilling to accept the peace treaty, AKA voting for Sinn Fein had reduced to an almost insignificant 3.6% of 1st preference voting.

And it's not too much of a stretch to realise that perhaps if they allowed completely free and fair elections in 1918 (the Irish that is, not the English, who were already allowing completely fair and free elections), then perhaps Ireland wouldn't have even voted for independence in the first place - much like the first Scottish referendum.

But then, what is a nationalist movement without a cry for independence?

It's about 3.5%...

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Pink Ball

The Irish Parliamentary Party was in favour of Irish independence, and it does actually take in south Armagh and south Down as well, which to this day would identify (broadly speaking, of course) as 'Irish' and not 'British'. Fermanagh taken as a whole county did identify as 'Irish' more than British. I do believe that it and Tyrone were the two exceptions of the six counties.

You'll also find as well that many (the vast majority, I understant) of those you've labelled as 'happy' with the arrangement were not, in fact, happy with the arrangement. They felt (rightly, in my view) that it was better than the status quo. Their opposition wanted a 32-county Republic, not a 26+6 arrangement.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Iranu

LDS wrote:(the Irish that is, not the English, who were already allowing completely fair and free elections)

What do you mean by completely fair and free?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Pink Ball wrote:The Irish Parliamentary Party was in favour of Irish independence, and it does actually take in south Armagh and south Down as well, which to this day would identify (broadly speaking, of course) as 'Irish' and not 'British'. Fermanagh taken as a whole county did identify as 'Irish' more than British. I do believe that it and Tyrone were the two exceptions of the six counties.


Perhaps the British Government of the time didn't want the Irish to accept the proposal, perhaps they wanted Sinn Fein to fight for the full 32? Either as an excuse to invade or as a means to get Sinn Fein to supress the Unionists without having to look like they were leaving them in the wind?

The truth behind political decisions is impossible to 2nd guess and will always drift into conspiracy theory, hence for one's own sanity one has to assume the most obvious answer, the reason being that, in order for Northern Island to remain functional it needed those counties & that it was the best possible compromise at the time.

Pink Ball wrote:You'll also find as well that many (the vast majority, I understant) of those you've labelled as 'happy' with the arrangement were not, in fact, happy with the arrangement. They felt (rightly, in my view) that it was better than the status quo. Their opposition wanted a 32-county Republic, not a 26+6 arrangement.


Well this is just semantics. Define happy etc. It is obviously meant as "I can live with this just fine", as most, and most being over 95%, did just that. Of course they 'wanted' a 32 county republic, but at no time did they ever have the full support of all those 32 counties and they clearly weren't able to or were too arrogant or whatever, to ever convince that block of Unionists in the North that a 32 county republic would be OK and 'cool' for them too. I've no doubt the crossing over to violent oppression did nothing to help that cause either.

Your replies seem to indicate that the British government was in some way 'determined' to maintain Ireland at all costs and that their every move was some attempt to 'salvage' whatever they could. But this wasn't how the British Empire worked at that time. The issue always was, and always will be, trying to convince the Unionists that joining your cause is 'cool' and 'safe'. Quite why bombing English people helps anyone's situation is beyond me.

Let's imagine they did get a 32 republic in 1921, would we be sitting here discussing the latest terrorist attack upon Dublin by the 'Free Northern Ireland' terrorists from Northern Ireland desperately trying to free themselves from their 'oppressive colonisers'? Would Irish police and military be 'suppressing freedoms'...
Last edited by LDS on 14 May 2021, edited 1 time in total.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby SnookerFan

Acé wrote:My bad, I didn't know Northern Ireland was an entire different COUNTRY

WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF


Image


Says the person who accused me of having a single brain cell the other day.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby SnookerFan

chengdufan wrote:Remarkable thread this. Food for thought on many levels.


Especially that bit about Ireland having a combined rugby team. They have two distinct football teams.

I mean, somebody has got it wrong.
Last edited by SnookerFan on 14 May 2021, edited 1 time in total.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby chengdufan

SnookerFan wrote:
chengdufan wrote:Remarkable thread this. Food for thought on many levels.


Especially that bit about Ireland having a combined rughy team. They have two distinct football teams.

I mean, somebody has got it wrong.

If they're good enough, their cricketers play for England, for God's sake, despite there being an Ireland cricket team.
You can start to see where the confusion comes in.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

Acé wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:You thought Ireland was... two islands?


just one big island called "Ireland", the "northern ireland" part I just assumed it was called that because the area is Northern

I didn't know they were 2 separate countries

rofl

Image

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

Acé wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
Acé wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:You thought Ireland was... two islands?


just one big island called "Ireland", the "northern ireland" part I just assumed it was called that because the area is Northern

I didn't know they were 2 separate countries

Have you ever seen a map? There's literally a border drawn around Northern Ireland. That's because it's a different country.


yeah i know but it also didn't have a different name like "Scotland" or "Wales" to really differentiate

Ever heard of North Korea and South Korea? Shocking fact: different countries!

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby HappyCamper

SnookerFan wrote:Sometimes the English cricket teams play home games in Cardiff.

You get me?


Yes. They represent the England and Wales Cricket Board

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby HappyCamper

SnookerFan wrote:
chengdufan wrote:Remarkable thread this. Food for thought on many levels.


Especially that bit about Ireland having a combined rugby team. They have two distinct football teams.

I mean, somebody has got it wrong.


Some sports governing bodies organise on an all Ireland basis (eg Rugby Union, Cricket) and have a united Ireland team. Some don't (eg Soccer, Snooker) and have separate teams.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby HappyCamper

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Acé wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
Acé wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:You thought Ireland was... two islands?


just one big island called "Ireland", the "northern ireland" part I just assumed it was called that because the area is Northern

I didn't know they were 2 separate countries

Have you ever seen a map? There's literally a border drawn around Northern Ireland. That's because it's a different country.


yeah i know but it also didn't have a different name like "Scotland" or "Wales" to really differentiate

Ever heard of North Korea and South Korea? Shocking fact: different countries!


Ever heard of Australia and Western Australia. The latter is a state within the former country. Makes you think.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

HappyCamper wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Ever heard of North Korea and South Korea? Shocking fact: different countries!


Ever heard of Australia and Western Australia. The latter is a state within the former country. Makes you think.

This is obvious when you see it on any map, because of the absence of border lines.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby HappyCamper

Holden Chinaski wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Ever heard of North Korea and South Korea? Shocking fact: different countries!


Ever heard of Australia and Western Australia. The latter is a state within the former country. Makes you think.

This is obvious when you see it on any map, because of the absence of border lines.


depends on the map. some do show sub national boundaries, some don't. some don't show any borders at all! makes you think.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

HappyCamper wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Ever heard of North Korea and South Korea? Shocking fact: different countries!


Ever heard of Australia and Western Australia. The latter is a state within the former country. Makes you think.

This is obvious when you see it on any map, because of the absence of border lines.


depends on the map. some do show sub national boundaries, some don't. some don't show any borders at all! makes you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt8pNGGh7ag

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby SnookerFan

In Ace's slight defence, I don't remember being taught at whole lot about the troubles in Ireland when I was at school. (Which was entirely in England.)

I think that may be a problem with the schools as much as anything. Something that close to home should be taught.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

SnookerFan wrote:In Ace's slight defence, I don't remember being taught at whole lot about the troubles in Ireland when I was at school. (Which was entirely in England.)

I think that may be a problem with the schools as much as anything. Something that close to home should be taught.


I was taught it in school & I think I'm about the same age as you. Or, at least many here.

It came under the banner of History. Which was an optional subject from the age of 14+ and the extent to which you were taught about it would depend on your level of interest and focus on History as a subject.

In my secondary school only about 10% of students chose to continue studying History at 14+

A secondary problem of teaching too much history to children too young is that History is, by nature, a subject extremely prone to political influence and politicians will inherently use the topic as a means to re-educate rather than educate, which is a whole other problem of the modern education system. Do we really want to over-politicise kids from a very young age?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby mick745

SnookerFan wrote:In Ace's slight defence, I don't remember being taught at whole lot about the troubles in Ireland when I was at school. (Which was entirely in England.)


I think that may be a problem with the schools as much as anything. Something that close to home should be taught.


When i was growing up Northern Ireland was on the news nearly every day, and the ira was the main terrorist threat in the uk. A lot of uk history stems from our relationship with Ireland from Henry viii, Cromwell and more recent.

British schoolkids should be taught the main events of british history - how many can name the year in which the battle of trafalgar took place for instance?