Oh, did I say that out loud?

That's why the Protestants used to dress up in orange and march through the streets. It was to provoke the Catholics and incite them to violence -- so the British could complain about the Catholic terrorists.

it was about.

Those guys in Orange were descendants of the British Empire and in this country were the Loyalists.

The loyalists here and there were happy to remain part of the British Empire.

Had everyone been treated equally by the Empire, here and there, we might still be British subjects.

You know what happened here, what happened in Ireland was centuries of rebellion by the Native Irish (catholics) mostly losing as it is hard to defeat an Empire.

In 1916 the 'terrorists' (catholics/native Irish) rose up again and this time managed to take back their country not before many of them were executed (those 'terrorists' are now some of Ireland's most respected and honored heroes)

By 1922 most of Ireland was free from British occupation and rule. And the 'terrorists' became heroes.

But not the northern province.

The Native Irish rebelled against the bigotry and mistreatment by the British once again starting in the '60s. A repeat of the past, many died, were tortured etc. The loyalists resisted any rights being given to the native Irish, see your photo.

So it is 'Loyalists V Native Irish'

Or you could think of it as 'Republicans V Democrats'

As well as a distant cousin through the O'Brien side. If anyone has not read his writings(The Path to Freedom),I hope they will.

He has been mentioned in the post below though.

The Irish rebels were Catholic, almost to a man (and woman). There were exceptions, of course, but they heavily identified as Catholic. The Orangemen were Protestant. As you point, mostly descendants of English colonizers. The English had been colonizing Ireland for a LONG time. Since the 12th Century at least. The aristocracy of Ireland were Anglo-Norman, placed in power by the Anglo-Norman kings, and they ruled their native Irish subjects with an iron fist. Many of the former Irish nobility married into these families and they became Anglo-Irish before long (couple hundred years). Another wave of invasion and colonization occurred under Elizabeth I. One wave, which left a deep scar on Ireland was the one initiated by Oliver Cromwell, which certainly had religious underpinnings. And, of course, during the "Glorious Revolution" of the late 17th century, James II (a Catholic) was deposed by William of Orange and Mary. That revolution was initiated largely in opposition to James II's Catholicism, and James drew support from Irish Catholics. William of Orange defeated an Irish army fighting for James in 1690 at the Battle of the Boyne, which has become foundational to the conflict between Republicans and Unionists. That battle lead to the identification of the Unionists with the color orange, in opposition to the green Catholics.... symbolism which persist in the flag of the RoI today, and in the tensions that still persist in the North.

I'd agree that there is a strong political element to the tensions, but there is NO DOUBT, that religion was heavily associated with the factions involved. This was absolutely NOT the case in American Revolution, where the American colonies had a wide background of religious affiliation. The combatants in the American Revolution did not identify themselves in religious opposition at all, as the conflict in Ireland most certainly did.

The Easter 1916 Rising is a special case, as well. Great Britain was, of course, embroiled in the Great War at the time. The Republicans saw that as an opportunity, of course. There had actually been some strong movement toward support of Irish autonomy before the Great War. Some limited autonomy was introduced in 1912, but strongly opposed (even violently opposed) by the Ulster Unionists. The Republicans opposed them with their own militias and the British finally restrained the unionists with a threat of force. Who knows how things would have progressed, but when war broke out in 1914, both sides agreed to support the British in the war effort. There were holdouts on the Republican side, and they looked to keep pressing. They actually made a deal with the Germans who supplied arms to the rebellion. Despite modern popular myth, the rebellion was not strongly supported. Many families had men serving in British Army, and many saw it as a breach of a promised truce until the end of the war. The rebellion was crushed quickly, but the British handled the aftermath very poorly, executing leaders and imprisoning a few thousand. This led to resentment in the Irish public. The British attempted to fix this by restarting Home Rule negotiations and releasing the uprising prisoners, but the damage was mostly done and Sinn Fein gained strength.

1918 was marked by increased violence, and a continued strengthening of Sinn Fein, and once the war was over, the Irish War for Independence was all but inevitable. Britain was weary of war, and death (as Spanish flu swept through Europe), and cimmitted only token forces to the war. Political support for Irish Independence had been growing in Parliament in any case, so 1922 comes and the Republic is formed, with Ulster (a stronghold for Unionists) remaining in the UK.

I'm a bit of a history buff. When I was in Dublin some years ago, there was a GREAT exhibit on the War for Independence, and it included a ton of cool stuff, like Michael Collins' uniform and personal field office.

My point here was that was a strong religious identification associated with the factions in Ireland.

It was a war for independence.

The colonists were located in the areas that not only allowed them to access the wealth of the land, but they purposefully oppressed the Irish. The Troubles were far, far more economic than religious. And totally about independence.

or a symbol associated with a rival gang can get you into big trouble, even if you are just an ignorant and unaffiliated person. Back in the 1990s one of my students--a scholarship player on our football team--got into trouble in California while visiting relatives because he wore his KU T-shirt (red and blue) in a territory claimed by one of the gangs--I don't 100% remember which one, but I believe it was the Crips. He would have gotten into trouble even if he had been in the other gang's territory, because red and blue were the rival colors, and his shirt had both colors on it.

He was just shooting baskets at the park when a couple of guys approached him aggressively and demanded to know why he was wearing that shirt. He apologized and did a lot of very submissive explaining and sucking up (which, I assure you, was not his normal way of interacting with anyone!), so the guys let him go with a warning to ditch that shirt and to stay out of their territory in the future.

A lot of the people on any side of a "religious" conflict are not necessarily as religious as they claim to be. Their religion is mainly just a cultural marker that identifies which side they are on. The IRS were "Catholic" primarily in the sense that they identified being Irish with being Catholic, and being Protestant with being part of the oppressor/enemy group. The reverse was true on the Protestant side.

I don't doubt that many of the people on either side did consider themselves to be Catholic or Protestant, and some might even have been devout in their religious observance and commitment. But I am pretty sure that for most, religious affiliation was a tribal marker more than it was a deeply felt religious commitment. Of course, as long as that particular marker is associated with notions about God and good and evil, it provides a lot of warm feelings and the conviction that one is on the side of the angels, even if one is not really all that devout or observant.

It was about power, and the way the upper classes had divided and conquered the working class in Ireland. When it looked as if the working class might rise up and demand better pay, working conditions, civil rights, etc., the power establishment exploited the religious divide to maintain control. It was the same old technique that has been used for centuries to maintain privilege; in this country the "divide" most often used is race or ethnicity, not religion, but it is the same ugly game.

Here is a typical example, from 1990:

http://www.csmonitor.com/1990/0301/dshane.html

The irony of an essentially Protestant establishment selecting a former Catholic terrorist for such a post is not lost on O'Doherty.

The terrorist label was used depending on which side they were on.

'terrorists' also.

Now that we are an Empire, with all the old European Empires tagging along, anyone who resists our occupations of their countries are also 'terrorists'.

It's strange how history works out. The US threw out the Empire, the first colonial state to succeed in doing so. Airc from history, the American Revolution inspired other oppressed countries to rise up also, Ireland eg, though with little success at the time.

And they use 'labels'. The Irish eg, were 'savages', same with Native Americans and Africans.

It's sad to see this country become what they fought against.

But human nature doesn't change I suppose and people like the Bush's were always Imperialists.

The Irish Repulicans during the War for Independence was partisans (initially), and then a genuine military force in rebellion. The terrorism didn't emerge until later with the PIRA and the UDA (and similar organizations) in Northern Ireland.

And what would you call the 1916 rebels, most of them hung by the British for their 'terrorist' actions?

What would you call the Founding Fathers, also called 'terrorists' by the British?

What would you call the torture and murder of Native Peoples, sometimes for things as simple as demanding equal rights, to VOTE eg, in their own countries?

800 years is a long time to fight for Independence. What should we call all of Ireland's rebels down through the centuries, Lord Edward Fitzgerald eg?

All were called terrorists.

And why is the word 'terrorist' ALWAYS used to describe the victims of Imperialism.

Was Mandela a 'terrorist?

What do YOU call those who invade lands that belong to others, then murder, pillage, torture the people who resist such invasions?

I abhor violence which is why I abhor Imperial occupations.

If someone enters your home with a weapon and you defend your home, who is the terrorist?

What should native people do when their lands are invaded?

And, did Native Irish people invade and occupy Britain, rob their lands, destroy their language and culture, relegate their people to ghettos, deny them rights to vote, eg, torture them for resisting the brutal invasion?

Or was it the other way around?

And finally, what would WE do should China invade this country?

Most people do not realize that the Britts destroyed the Irish culture to the point it is mostly lost. The modern Irish kind of borrowed their culture from the Scottish since theirs was lost. Really sad.

terrorism is war practiced by the weak.

The root of the conflict includes religious differences.

Protestants. Like all of history, it's much more complicated than black and white.

English and Scottish protestants settled Northern Ireland after the British subdued a long string of rebellions.

Conflict among humans has existed since we climbed down from the trees, and our genetic ancestors were fighting among themselves forever.

But we're talking about the IRA and its roots in Northern Ireland. I'll stick with history and not convolute the facts to support my hypothesis.

Catholic Pope refused to grant him a divorce. The poster you responded to is correct, the conflict began BEFORE there were Protestants.

The fight is and always was about INDEPENDENCE.

Not to mention that the Church excommunicated any Catholic who was a member of Ireland's Resistance fighters so even after there were Protestants, it was not about religion, it was about INDEPENDENCE.

Ireland was made up 4 provinces. After nearly 8 centuries of fighting for Independence, the IRA rose up again in 1916, the 'terrorists/freedom fighters' were exrecuted by the British in the middle of Dublin. However, finally, in 1922 their actions helped free 3 of those provinces creating what is known today as the Republic of Ireland. The 4th province, the North of Ireland, Ulster, is still under British control.

Get with the context.

gang, of Irish history where its freedom fighters, who LIBERATED Three of Ireland's four provinces, and their descendents, have been called 'terrorists'.

Clinton reversed those policies. I guess you disagree with him for removing that label and lifting the ban on the current leaders of the IRA placed there by Bush. I'm not sure, because you don't seem to know very much about the history of Ireland's long, centuries old struggle or the history of its Irish Republican Army.

This isn't for you, sabrina -- just a wandering idiot who (by coincidence) shares your interpretation of the context of this discussion:

Let me just say to the spineless, knuckledragging, undereducated dweebs to whom I am referring: you didn't have the stones to debate me straight up and banned me from the little enclave. Your arrogance has no merit, not unlike your empty arguments. In just one week of posting, I outed yet two more of you over here. Unlike you, however, I'm willing to face you head on. And it is to you I say: Shove this in your cave!


==========

Back to the discussion, sabrina. Sorry for the brief diversion.

whereas "islamic terrorists" have exactly the same democracy and wealth as americans, so their motives clearly are purely 100% religious.

plus, many americans are roman catholics, whereas american muslims don't count. and they're probably black, too.

Most Irish-Americans identified more with Catholics and the Republican cause than the other way round.

Loyalists/Protestants.

The reason for Irish Americans identifying with the Native Irish/catholics was because their ancestors were either murdered, starved in the Famine, or forced into exile.

But, I certainly agree that the Irish were persecuted and died in the millions thanks to the British occupation. Same goes for a lot of peoples and places around the world.

I should have been more clear, people like the Bush family, identified with the loyalists and the British and once in power, took steps to defend the occupation and the bigotry against the Native Irish. That was reversed by Clinton thankfully.

It's more a question of heritage, which is why so many Irish Americans supported the IRA, and you are right, both republicans and democrats.

That often gets confused and complicated by religious differences. But, like most wars, it ultimately devolves into a struggle for land and wealth.

different last names, (vs the darker or sometime red headed Irish)- who call themselves "John" instead of "Sean" or "Billy" instead of "Liam" (never ever Billy for Nationalists) there are a lot of cultural clues that help the people there fear each other.
If a person can't suss out your back round from all of that, they will ask where you are staying (as neighborhoods are largely segregated) or where your people went to in America- as Canadian Irish are more often Loyalists than say, Bostonians.

I spent a month in Belfast working on a documentary, and every conversation began with this sort of discreet "backround check".
It was interesting.

generations can be a matter of life or death.

I used to do a lot of asylum cases - I know about subtle identity differences and informal "background checking." It is interesting, indeed.

while because my name and current or usual location (NYC) didn't help. When called on it, many admitted that they were pretty certain from my looks right away, that I was of Catholic stock. My cousin, who looks similar and had the unfortunate name Sean, was pulled off a bus, beaten and left for dead and that was just on his looks plus name. He was always careful to try and blend in, but some drunken loyalist sports fans could tell. He finally decided it was time to get out of Belfast.

was dangerous for a long time there. My friend who was born and raised there, was subjected to daily harassment from the soldiers starting when she was merely a child, on her way to school.

I went to Belfast also before the peace process began and saw the war zone myself. There were guns trained on 'strangers' walking down the street. At one point we saw a crowd gathered, they were very quiet. I asked someone if something was wrong. She told me that a 12 year old child had been shot the night before. And she added, 'caught in the crossfire'. There was barbed wire separating this section from the 'protestant' section. Soldiers were chit chatting with those on the protestant side.

The army was supposed to be there to 'keep the peace'.

I got to know a soldier who was assigned to NI and asked him how he felt about it all. He said he didn't feel they belonged there and felt a lot of sympathy for the native Irish people.

We also had guests at our home from both sides of the conflict. THEY were neighbors and friends. Things are never as black and white as they are painted to be.

The student and his girlfriend, both Protestants, had a good time here, but I learned later that he had joined the RUC, not to fight, but as a doctor. His neighbor, the Catholic girl, told me she had begged him not to join as it would be very dangerous. They cared about each other as human beings.

He was killed in a convoy a few years after joining. And his Catholic neighbor, herself died in her '30s, most people believed from the stress and the fear and heartache of it all.

War is evil. Good people are mostly the ones who suffer, innocent people.

Very shortly after, the Peace Process began. I know that they both wanted that to happen so badly and I wish they had lived to see it.

we could not buy planes from a company that would not hire any Catholics. I met his supervisors, both less talented but the right backround. He'd also hit that glass ceiling there, but loved the place and it was enough for him.
the segregation in the ghettos there was incredible- and all being fed propaganda on a small local level just to keep them hating each other.
I have no idea if you could find it any where, but I worked on a documentary about it- The Fourth Green Field. I recorded the sound and made tea and coffee. You can only see the boom mike once in the whole thing.

Yes, the Native Irish/Catholics were relegated to ghettos in their own country. They had a law too that prevented them from voting. If you didn't own a house, you couldn't vote. Of course the poor, those who were being kept down, mostly didn't own homes so couldn't vote.

I'm glad that he was able to find a decent job. The Kennedys did a lot for the Irish in the North. And for the falsely accused. The corruption was intense.

When Clinton reversed Bush's policies towards the IRA, I remember seeing an interview on Charlie Rose with a British officer. He was livid, filled with hate and angry that Clinton was giving a voice to these 'savages'.

One thing I found funny though. When Ian Paisley came here for a visit, Katie Couric interviewed him. She asked him: 'But why do you hate the Irish'? He responded, in his wonderful, NI accent, very sincerely: 'I don't hate them, Katie, I just wish they were all dead'! The look on her face was priceless. She got a glimpse of what was okay to say in NI and was pretty shocked.

I remember thinking, please do not let anything happen to this guy, he is the best messenger for the Irish in NI that world could possibly have.

Thanks for telling me about your documentary. I hope I can find it. 'The Fourth Green Field'

I'm sure you've heard Tommy Makem's Four Green Fields

so often did the director/ editor play it over the year or so it took to edit it. It was a grueling job, I cried hard a few times when these people told their stories. Not easy when you're a weak thing with a boom mike!

My main job was, sadly enough to flag fro the director when I felt the accents were getting thick and their words would not be intelligible enough for American ears. With most of these people being segregated and undereducated, their accents were thick and that they were recounting such horrors and upset themselves, and not speaking as clearly as they could. It was heart wrenching to have to stop them and ask them to repeat themselves. But they wanted to go on the record, so they were quite kind about it.

There was then (is?) a law in the UK, that if someone wanted to talk about Irish nationalism, they had to mute the sound, and would show subtitles. It would undermine the credibility of the speaker in a way, which I guess was the purpose. That was why the director did not want any subtitles.

I found that it has been downloaded on Youtube, in a few parts. Let me know what you think- and if you notice the part where the boom dips into the pic- that was me.

Thanks for the info on the subtitles. I can imagine how hard for those people it must have been to try to express themselves on such a painful subject.

I am looking forward to seeing it and will let you know what I think after watching. Hopefully sometime tomorrow I will have enough time to watch it.

Protestants who were also suffering abuses, as well as for interviewing Amnesty Interntional. Turned out to be a big reason why a lot of American groups who originally wanted to screen it refused to. Sad to see them missing the big picture and clinging to the sectarianism. We had a local showing and the Irish AMericans booed at AI saying "even if" someone was guilty, you don;t shoot them in the back. Ugh.

I think you'll totally get why she chose to include them. BTW, just getting into Amnesty International's London office- exacly like the opening credits for Get Smart, with those iron doors slamming behind you multiple times. Never seen security like that before.

was and always has been the goal of Ireland's resistance fighters. Of Ireland's four provinces, the IRA/United Irishmen, whatever the resistance was called during the centuries long fight for Independence, finally freed three of those Provinces after the 1916 uprising, celebrating its Independence in 1922 as the Republic of Ireland rather than a colony of the British Empire.

There is still one province, Ulster, under the control of the British. Republicans in Ireland = Supporters of a Free Ireland.

They just wanted the British out. If Britain had happened to be a Roman Catholic country (i.e. if the Pope had granted Henry the Eighth an annulment) the Irish would still have wanted the British out. This was not a war motivated by religion.

You'd be seeing Ireland as a Lutheran (or whatever) country now.

But the Ireland was largely peaceful util Henry VIII and the introduction of the CoE. Elizabeth I actively opposed Irish Catholicism, and Ireland's part in the Glorious Revolution (support the Catholic James II against the Protestant William of Orange) sealed an identification by religion that persists to this day.

its people, a Brutal Dictatorship that lasted for centuries?

I know what WE in this Country did to the British Empire and we call the Revolutionaries the Founding Fathers.

The IRA = The Founding Fathers

And no, it was not a religious war. Only people who do not know the history of how 'catholic/protestant came about think of it as a religious war.

During the time of Henry V111, when he was a Catholic, everyone was Catholic in England. When he became angry at the Church for refusing to allow him to ditch his wife and marry Ann Boleyn, he started his own Church, the Church of England.

He ordered everyone to become 'protestants' and death was often the penalty for refusing to do so.

The countries they were occupying, Ireland, apparently didn't get the message.

When the British Empire decided to give away Ireland's land to the English settlers (see Plantation of Ulster) they were Protestants. The natives were still Catholics.

And for all the centuries of occupation by the British Empire the Native Irish or 'catholics' fought the Empire, mostly losing, dying etc, who were 'protestants'. Until the early 20th Century when the Irish (catholics) threw the Empire (protestants) out of their country except for the Northern provence, Ulster where the protestants remained in control.

They treated the native Irish, (catholics) the same way this country treated African Americans. In the '60s the Native Irish (Catholics) rose up once again against the injustices being inflicted on them. Sort of like the Founding Fathers did here.

The 'loyalists'/protestants naturally didn't want any changes, they were happy, for the most part, as were the loyalists (protestants) here with the way things were.

So from the '60s on, the rebels, (native Irish/Catholics) continued to fight for their rights in their own country against the Empire, now fading.

The words 'catholic' and 'protestant' were merely to distinguish between the descendants of the British Empire and the Native Irish.

The fight was not religious, it was a fight for Civil Rights and coincidentally it began in earnest about the same time as the Civil Rights Movement here.

Many of those rights have been granted, thanks in large part to Clinton, who unlike Bush Sr, understood the struggle and helped negotiate a peace deal. Bush Sr, called the IRA terrorists as did Maggie Thatcher.

When rights are denied, people will rise up.

A more correct way to distinguish the two sides would be 'Native Irish' and 'Anglo Irish'

in every Nationalist's home, next to the one of JFK.

It is the root of why many would describe themselves as "the blacks of Europe" according to Bernadette McAlisky.

Interestingly enough, the younger generations had kept the influence of black activist culture in dress and music, with track suits and Kangol hats, and bands like Public Enemy in the 80's and 90's. That was all an interesting thing to see for an Irish girl from the Bronx. I miss Belfast!

Native Irish/catholics as the 'n#$$&rs' of Europe' due to their treatment in the North by the British. You might find this post interesting regarding the centuries long alliances of African Americans and Native Irish/catholics http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6284616

I remember seeing many African Americans, dressed in green, at protests outside the British Embassy in NYC right before Clinton began his policies of supporting a peaceful solution to the 'troubles', reversing Bush Sr's ban on Jerry Adams coming to this country and inviting him for talks, also lifting the Bush Sr ban on fund raising for the victims of the struggle.

eg, from books talking about terrorism:

World Politics in the 21st Century: Student Choice Edition "The IRA (Irish Republican Army), a Catholic terrorist group ... while Protestant terrorists seek to deny the Catholic terrorists' objective"
Chronologies of Modern Terrorism "Recognizing the impasse, most Catholic terrorist groups accepted a cease-fire in 1994."
Serenade of Suffering "it makes precious little sense for either a Protestant or Catholic terrorist group in Belfast to release toxins"

Bigotry against the Native Irish by the Loyalists, or 'Anglo Irish' was the cause of the centuries long fight for Independence in Ireland.

The British Empire always calls those who resist their brutal occupations 'terrorists'.

Let me ask you a question. What do you think of IRA leaders, Patrick Pearse and his brother?

by academics or a prominent political commentator.

Maybe you are just unfamiliar with the terminology that was frequently used? There's no reason that you should have been, but I'm just answering the question in the OP.

I don't think about either Pearse at all. I wouldn't have been able to identify them as IRA leaders; I suspect they are from the 1920 era. Why is that relevant to showing that 'Catholic terrorist' is a phrase used about the IRA?

of Jerry Adams today. They were hung by the British for 'terrorism' and until the Republic of Ireland gained its freedom, and had they NOT finally achieved freedom after 8 centuries of 'terrorist' rebellions, Pearse would still be a 'terrorist' today.

I am very familiar with the Imperial label 'religious terrorist' 'savages' or as Churchill used to refer to all Arabs whose countries the Empire also brutally invaded, 'insects' whom he wanted to drop chemical weapons on.

Pearse and Collins et al were also called 'terrorists' by the British. The difference is that their actions resulted in freeing Ireland finally after 800 years, from the British. NOW they are HEROES.

Whoever wins gets to write the history.

The IRA to the Brits were ALWAYS terrorists, where do you think WE got the word,, now that we too are an Empire?

Those 'historical books' are biased. They would have said the same thing about the 1916 rebels. However to the Irish in the now free Republic, they are great Heroes and you can visit their graves and the jail cells the Brits tortured them in today as historical sites signifying Ireland's battle for freedom.

Bush Sr, eg, hated the IRA, no need to guess why. Clinton otoh, understood the history and participated in the peace process and never called them terrorists.

If you want a biased view of Ireland's history you will find it, if you want Free Ireland's view about the IRA, you can find that too.

What you posted are biased views from the Imperial perspective. I guess it depends on where people stand on native people as opposed to imperial powers.

It will take another century or so, as it did with so many other Irish 'terrorists', Ann Devlin eg, before today's 'terrorists' pass into history as 'heroes'.

They should be in jail, not in government.

He's a laoch for many Irish. He (and many of his Sinn Fein compadres) has been investigated a thousand times or more, and has never been found to be guilty of anything. The British would have loved to have gotten something - ANYTHING - on him, even trumped up if they could have.

So stuff your lies.

wee child and they drove a tank into his living room, and took away his Dad and brother.

I asked a silly question- why do you all have such Italian sounding names? LOL. It was in-your-face Catholicism.

freedom for most of the country.

Clinton lifted the ban on Jerry Adams put in place by Bush and invited him to come here. He also made it possible for Adams while he was here to fund raise for the poor children who were victims of the conflict.

During the lifetimes of most historical heroes, the 'bad guys' call them 'terrorists' but history has a way of sorting all that out.

We are still too close to the conflict there right now. So those who never wanted justice for the Native Irish in NI, are still very angry. But people die off and those intense feelings due to their own personal involvement become a thing of the past.

were fighting for Independence from the same Empire.

I suppose that's what it took to become independent from the oppression, inequality, in Ireland's case genocide, murder, torture, theft of land, centuries of it.

The 'vicious murderers' here, the FFs, didn't wait Centuries.

In fact you might say the Irish rebels had far more cause to be 'vicious murderers' than the FFs, whose heritage was not here while Ireland belonged to the Irish, they WERE the native people invaded and occupied and brutalized, starved and tortured for eight hundred years.

I think they waited way too long, though I know they tried throughout the centuries, to end that particular vicious and brutal occupation.

Like Patrick Pearce and Michael Collins, Jerry Adams will be viewed as a hero when the North reunites with the South which is inevitable.

You can't steal people's land and murder their people and expect them to just accept it. Even centuries later, that theft will be remembered.

Face it, Empires are brutal and not particularly long lasting as they tend to make many enemies as the ravage and pillage and murder their way towards becoming an Empire.

I would call the Irish rebels, 'blowback' and now heroes, as you will find if you visit the Free parts of Ireland.

LOL.

For the Irish (and many others) they were just another army determined to force the British to withdraw, one of a long line of warriors determined to free Ireland over many centuries. After the attempted genocide by the British, I think just about any means necessary were going to be utilized.

It's the same way American Revolutionary army members weren't terrorists. They were fighting for independence.

by the British. Many more millions of Irish "civilians" have been slaughtered over the centuries by you Brits.

Sorry but nope, not gonna label the IRA a terrorist organization. There's a powerful anger that comes from centuries of abuse and outright slaughter. I'll see your 541 British civilians and raise you a few million Irish.

They were terrorists because they killed to induce terror in the civilian population for political ends. That's the definition of terrorism. I don't doubt they were angry, but that doesn't alter their status as terrorists.

That doing this terrified the British is no surprise.

War is scary. Guerrilla warfare is even scarier. Asymmetrical warfare means the underdog will use the tools they have to wage war. Deal with it. The Irish had to deal with attempted extermination. Millions have perished at British hands. That anger has fueled some terrible deeds that I refuse to condemn. Your guys committed despicable atrocities. For centuries.

Your inability to see this from anything but a British perspective is pretty depressing but entirely unsurprising.

whose killings you won't condemn.

I already provided the Correct Answer (see post #34 for the Correct Answer).

Luckily, I like both of you enough to provide a Malcolm X quote that will clear it up:

"If a robber comes into your home with a gun, and you chase him out with a gun, that doesn't make you a 'robber'." -- Malcolm X

Those civilians lived in Northern Ireland, you know; they were in their home.

The Irish were indeed at home in Ireland.

I'm bowing out. It's not worth a hide and it's certain we're never going to agree.

I've at least acknowledged the fall-out of the war for the British. You continue to ignore the millions of Irish lives lost. Nary a word.

Frankly it says a whole lot more about you than I.

I'm done here. We'll never agree and you aren't worth a hide. Feel free to have the last word.

The thread is about whether the IRA were called 'Roman Catholic terrorists'. I showed they have often been called 'Catholic terrorists' (and another poster has found 'Roman Catholic terrorists'. I didn't say whether that is a good description or not; but they were, by all normal definitions, terrorists. They terrorised civilians for political ends. Previous massacres, or the Famine, do not alter that. You think the murdering of civilians is justified because of past killing. OK, so you supported a terrorist group. That's your chosen stance.

occupation, eliminated. And then ask, 'I wonder why the Native Irish people got angry enough to FIGHT BACK'?

Ireland's population was once over 8 million, it was reduced to 3 million over the course of time, the biggest holocaust at one time, being the Famine.

I know, if you kill one human being it's MURDER.

If you kill millions it's VICTORY!

I have a weird way of thinking I suppose, I feel that the more you kill, the more you should expect consequences.

Like Iraq, I am one of those people who just can't, as we have been told to do 'get over it'. I keep seeing all those dead people, the tortured the maimed.

Ireland is littered with dead 'catholics' or as I prefer, Native Irish people.

Maybe the Irish people were not violent ENOUGH.
l
It's something I have a conflict over, in these situations.

Do I agree with MLK or with Malcolm X?

Don't know for sure, though I lean towards MLK for the most party.

However there is no denying that when violence is reigned down on a population, peacefully trying to ignore it has never stopped it.

While violent revolutions, see the American Revolution eg, tends to sort things out.

My preference would be for Empires to stop violently invading other people's countries, killing and torturing and stealing their land and resources and then treating them like dirt.

AND I would like to see us STOP BLAMING THE VICTIMS when they fight back.

The IRA killed a lot of people who had no responsibility at all for any killing. They did so to create terror in the population. That makes them terrorists. You may feel the end justified the means, but that doesn't stop them being terrorists.

Just be clear-eyed about the methods you support.

these types of things would not be happening.

It took the Irish tribes 6 centuries to drive the British out of the lower provinces, I suspect the tribes of Ireland will continue to try to drive the British out for another six centuries if that is what it takes.

The British deliberately "genocided" a million or so Irish, complete with many of the other horrors that fascist imperialists commit on innocent people when they invade and occupy lands not their own. Many Irish will not be forgiving and forgetting this any time soon.

British fascist imperialists murdered 2/3 of my Irish family in the 1800's. It is heartbreaking to see the death records of little 5 year old Patrick, little 8 year old year old Mary, poor Bridget, dead at 15, another Irish mother's heart, like so many Irish mother's hearts, broken over and over by the death of her babies at the hands of the British fascists.

I abhor violence; therefore, I highly recommend that the British fascist terrorists and their cronies leave Ireland peacefully, and leave Ireland to the Irish.



32

I'm sorry about your ancestors Zorra. The genocide of the Irish people gets little attention and perhaps it's past time to make clear just who the terrorists in Ireland were.

Every drop of blood spilled in Ireland over the centuries was caused by that occupation.

of history so cleverly that relatively few people are aware of the true horror and monstrous oppression the Irish people suffered under for centuries at the hands of the British. So its really good to get it out in the open her, so more people will finally begin to understand what happened, and begin to understand that Irish Republican freedom fighters were/are just some frivolous terrorists.

The enormous injustices imposed upon the Irish people in their everyday lives, for centuries, was very similar to how Europeans and Euro-Americans treated the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Australia, Africa, etc.

They don't teach students about this in the US, except occasionally in colleges and universities. I suspect this thread is the first time more than a few DUers have become aware of the horror of the long oppression of Ireland.

Thanks again, sabrina1. You have a good heart, and a strong desire help bring about a good life and liberty, equality and justice for everyone, everywhere.

Just because you support the goal of independence doesn't mean you should deny that they carried out terrorist acts. It's very similar to Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians want their independence, something I strongly support, but that support doesn't mean that I have to deny that the tactics used by some groups weren't terrorism. In the case of the IRA, their campaign of bombing was one where they stretched the definition of who was a legitimate target and resulted in the bombing of a shopping area and two small children were killed.

And yr very mistaken if you think it was only the British who saw the IRA as a terrorist organisation. That's as incorrect as trying to say that only Israel sees Hamas or other groups like Islamic Jihad as terrorists...

What the IRA is a good example of is how it's possible for groups like theirs to put aside terrorism and engage in a legitimate political environment if those groups are ones that want independence from colonial masters.

As this thread demonstrates in a microcosm.

FYI, you're doing the same thing as murial volgelstranger, trying to classify the IRA without context. As many on this thread have explained numerous times, they didn't operate in a vacuum. The Native Irish were persistently targeted by both the British Army and loyalists for centuries as well as during the era of the IRA. That the Irish finally began a tit for tat campaign was just one more campaign in a long series of maneuvers in a centuries old war. Obviously the British didn't like it - but that didn't stop them from CONTINUING to kill Irish, even as they labelled the Irish "terrorists", while the loyalists (and British Army) who were doing the exact same things, were not.

Let me repeat, the actions of the IRA were in direct response to the British Army and loyalist persecution and murder of Irish civilians. Millions of innocent Irish civilians. The IRA's actions were another maneuver in a centuries old war for independence. You don't think the randomly slaughtered Irish citizens weren't terrorized by the British? Daily? For centuries? Is the entire British Army a terrorist organization too then? Because THAT would be a closer fit to what you're suggesting about the IRA. Or were both sides engaged in a violent war over Irish independence with some eras more especially bloodier than others?

I'm not going down your tangent of the I/P conflict. Its not exactly analogous with both conflicts far too nuanced to be reduced simply to bombs. Its far too facile an analogy and I reject that.

And I had a huge laugh at your comment about how it wasn't "only the British" who saw the IRA as a terrorist organization. You're Australian, voluntarily ruled by a British monarch. Of course you're going to take their side. So fine, I'll moderate my comments - it's the British and their loyal subjects who saw them that way. Feel better? Lol...

Picking a few loud posts in any DU thread tells you a few DUers believe something, but that's in no way a microcosm of outside of DU. A hint that the romantic 'NO!! THEY AREN'T TERRORISTS!!' view was pretty much limited to the US when it came to the world outside of Britain and Ireland is that the US was the place the IRA did most if not all of its fundraising. And that's because in the US there resided a bunch of doughy eyed twits who'd in most cases never left the US and would fill the IRAs coffers when they were down at the pub having a drink, which is of course as far removed from the reality of what the IRA were doing as someone claiming great knowledge of Ireland because their great great great grandma came from Ireland to live in the US. If yr in any doubt at all that the IRA was a terrorist group and its offshoots are terrorist groups, just take a wander round some of the more reputable websites out there that deal with terrorism. I'll give you a whole bunch of links and books to read if you can't manage to find any...

I don't know what context you think I'm missing. Wait, I do. It's the 'context' where acts of terrorism magically get redefined as not being terrorism because someone's pretty confused about the admittedly loose definition of terrorism (the US struggles to define it so as to not have itself included as having committed acts of terrorism) and thinks there's an extra bit that goes: 'In the case of acts of violence against civilians to try to gain a political goal, if someone agrees with the political goal then it's not terrorism'.

Supporting the goal of a terrorist group doesn't mean you have to support the tactics the group use when those tactics involve indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Finger pointing and going 'but they did it more and worse!' just doesn't cut it. The reason why is because the problem isn't the number of civilians killed, the problem is that civilians are killed at all.

I addressed yr claims that the Palestinian situation isn't anywhere similar to Ireland downthread. There's no tangent about it because if someone claims that one is terrorism and the other isn't then they haven't got a grasp of what terrorism and/or resistance movements are, not to mention a less than detailed understanding of both conflicts.

Hope you don't mind but I'll finish up on one more note touching on having a less than detailed understanding of something. Yr correct in noticing I'm Australian, but not much else. Australians aren't subjects of the Queen, who's nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead with zero power when it comes to affairs in this country. She's mainly there because a lot of people (there's also lots that want a Republic) don't want a head of state who's elected in some circus style popularity contest like in the US, there's sporting advantages in being part of the Commonwealth where we go from a minnow on the world stage to a dominating powerhouse in the smaller pond, and having no power, there's no real impetus for change. On the other hand, and something yr clearly unaware of, is that along with British convicts, there were also Irish convicts transported here. They were smaller in number, but many were political prisoners and they had a strong influence in unionising the convict labour. I've read accounts of them downing tools after they'd decided they'd done enough work for the day and going on strike. That attitude and the Irish influence influenced the way the country developed, so don't you be giving me any of that 'of course you'd side with them!' nonsense. Mind you, if informing you that the British committed war crimes against the Irish and discriminated against them and oppressed them means I support the British, I'd love to see what you consider to be criticism...

You say yes, I say no. Sorry but that gets old fast.

Civilians get killed in war. That's a fact. Labeling one side "terrorists" because civilians got killed doesn't work for me (and obviously others). I'm NOT fine with glossing over the numbers killed - that's a despicable tactic Violet Crumble and diminishes the horrors the Irish endured. Those numbers are an integral part of why the IRA stepped up their tactics in this WAR and are integral to the context. Unless you're implying both sides in a war are terrorists then selecting the oppressed population and labeling them as the baddies in that war is pretty low. Clearly however you've decided that. Frankly it says more about you than anything I can come up with (and which also means this convo is done for me. Feel free to have the last word).

Lastly, I'm fully aware of Australia's position re the Queen. I've lived in Sydney in the past but couldn't resist the poke. My boyfriend's mum was a bigwig in the First Fleeters so I also know that 12% of the convicts came from Ireland. That doesn't change the FACT that perhaps you personally don't like being part of the Commonwealth but its indisputable that Australia belongs.

One can call Hamas and the Provisional IRA terrorists without having any sympathy for Netanyahu or the late Ian Paisley.

The Famine was indeed passive genocide, and a horrible outrage, and no one should ever forget or minimize it; BUT it is not a justification for murdering civilians over 100 years later.

Fortunately, the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland finally realized that the only option was peace (and BTW President Clinton and George Mitchell played an admirable role in contributing to the peace agreement).

during those "100 years" after the Holocaust.

There was no gap in persecution or slaughter. It continued on its merry way. The IRA didn't materialize after 100 years of peaceful co-existence, they came to be because the British Army and the loyalists continued their assault on innocent civilians.

In fact that was one of the IRA's main tactics was to institute a tit for tat assault in this latest phase of the WAR - when the British or loyalists killed Irish citizens, the British would be retaliated against. The British had all the cards to stop the slaughter - stop killing the Irish and leave!

This was a WAR for Irish independence. Like muriel vogelstranger, I presume you are British from your name. Do you think George Washington and the Continental Army are terrorists? They too used unconventional methods in an assymetrical WAR for independence. Lumping the IRA in with Hamas is despicable. They weren't determined to exterminate the English. They weren't determined to eradicate England. They simply wanted you Brits OUT and the oppression to end.

While Clinton and Mitchell played their role, I remain convinced that the tit-for-tat military operations of the IRA played their part in bringing about peace. I double dog dare you to assert otherwise. The British public was sick of being targeted the same way the Irish had been for centuries. THAT fatigue was real and persuasive.

in occupied France, even the Jews who fought with the French Resistance against the Nazis, were terrorists.

And then the Dutch Resistance, and the Polish Resistance, and all the rest of the folks who resisted Nazi occupation were terrorists as well.

Add the Seminoles, Comanche, Lakota, Nez Perce, Cheyenne, etc to your defined list of terrorists while you are at it.

The IRA was/is only trying to free Ireland from a violent, murderous, occupier and oppressor that has killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens, and to this day is still occupying Irish land and oppressing Irish people. The IRA is just a resistance group, really no different from those groups who were struggling to free their lands from the Nazis or other imperialist occupiers.

If your definition of terrorist includes the French Resistance, Native Americans, and every other people who fought against invasion and occupation, then the IRA could fit in with those groups.

It's odd, how those on the side of violent, hostile invaders view as terrorists the people they kill and steal land from, people who are simply fighting off thieves and killers in order to protect their homes and families

32

Fought unconventionally and were labelled as terrorists by the British in America's own war of independence.

Doubt any of those screaming that the IRA are terrorists will dare to smear Washington and the Continental Army with that same label...

'terrorist' or 'religious' so long as they are used accurately with the proper historical context.

History is what it is, and all of those words are a part of it. Why would I object to them?

Why do YOU object to putting them in proper historical context?

The British Empire invaded and occupied many countries, Ireland was one of the first before they became an Empire.

Throughout the history of that brutal occupation, half the population of Ireland was eliminated.

Such words as 'savages' and 'terrorists' were the names given to Irish Rebels by the Empire.

Most of them failed in their bid for Independence throughout the centuries.

But because of the treatment of the Native Irish over the centuries, they never gave up trying to restore their rights.

Most of them were hung, slaughtered, tortured their homes burned to the ground, their lands stolen etc.

Same thing ANYWHERE an Empire invades a country.

After 800 years of Freedom Fighting, in 1916 things changed after the latest rebellion. But not before the British, once again, murdered the 'terrorists' in the middle of Dublin.

See they thought they had a RIGHT to other people's land.

The people/terrorists disagreed.

By 1922 with the Empire embroiled in another war, the opportunity finally came for Ireland to get its Independence.

It was a glorious time for a people who had struggled for so long to gain their freedom.

However, they did not get ALL of Ireland, there was one Province not included in the final deal.

The native people in that province continued to be treated as lesser human beings. That was a mistake as had they been given the same rights as the Loyalists, the 'troubles' might never have happened.

But such was not the case and in the '60s, the Native Irish again began yet another struggle for their rights, again led by the IRA.

Naturally the Loyalists called them 'terrroists' and 'savages' etc AGAIN.

I've explained the reason for the words 'Catholic/Protestant' causing confusion regarding that struggle. It was not a religious war, it was a fight for Independence and today's 'terrorists' just like yesterday's, will be called 'heroes' once Ireland is completely reunited with this time, will probably happen peacefully.

a mighty fine job, at that. Thank you.

It highlights the importance of the true meaning of words, something not so appreciated in western culture as in Ireland. The resistance to English rule, at the time of the IRA & "the Troubles" -- was an 800-year old, living organism. Part of it included violence, though by no means all of it. That violence was part of the effort to protect the Old Sod for the families who rightfully lived upon it; hence, it cannot properly be termed "terrorism," any more than it might accurately be said the Irish were "invading" England for colonial purposes.

Recognizing this fact does not mean that one endorses violence. Yet, at an extended family reunion, when I talked with a cousin who frequently traveled to deliver packages to Bobby Sands back in the day, I didn't turn my nose up, and call him "the enemy." I knew who the real enemy was. (And it wasn't even those dumb kids in British uniforms, it was those who sent them.) Nor did it mean I endorsed his actions. But I understood them.

There's a few posts here about the non-combatants killed in IRA actions. I can't see them in terms of a number: each one was a living human being, with hopes and dreams, who had his/her life cut short by terrible violence. Their numbers are best added to those killed by the occupying forces, and the sum-total viewed as blood on the hands of the British.

I'm still in frequent contact with my family in Ireland. Many of them are engaged in a conflict over water rights. They know that their favorite American cousin is an advocate of Gandhi's tactics. I think it's a positive sign that the majority of the leaders of the movement are women, adding a dynamic that makes non-violent conflict resolution much more likely.

On a final note: a few years back, when the Cheney-Rumsfeld torture program was becoming known to the American public, I posted an essay in which I documented how that program had direct ties to that of the British against the Irish. Far too many innocent people in Ireland were subjected to those very same tortures -- which is not to suggest that I am okay with it in any instance.("When Irish Eyes Aren't Smiling," by H2O Man).

Again, I thank you for your powerful defense of the Irish.

'troubles' were just another struggle for Rights in the long, sad over 800 year old brutal oppression of the people of Ireland.

A few point to the tragic deaths of those who became victims of that latest struggle. I could not agree more with you on whose hands the blood is for every death that has occurred in Ireland from the beginning of the Occupation:

Uris's "Trinity" on his massive bookshelf of Irish literature (actually, it sets next to my 2004 book on the contributions of Irish immigrants to the culture of NJ/NYC/PA/upstate NY!). He and his younger brother published a book on the Native American history of the northeast (comparing the 12,000 + year archaeological record to the oral traditions as taught by Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman, one of their grandfathers); it includes information on the fascinating relationships between the Iroquois, Lenapi, Irish, and Scotch-Irish. (By no coincidence, those four bloods flow in our veins.)

My grandfather was born in Ireland in 1874. His father brought his family to the US in 1879. My great-grandfather's cousin was a close associate of Michael Collins. He and his cousin, Joseph Brennan, would serve as the first two secretaries of finance in the Irish Free State. Tim Pat Coogan has noted that had Eamon de Velera accepted my great grandfather's cousin's input on Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Free State's constitution -- a plan that the Protestant minority was willing to accept -- decades of violence would have been avoided.

I've given my son my copies of documents from the Royal Irish Academy, authored by our grandfather (x7), who was a participant with the United Irishmen in 1798. These include a poem he wrote while imprisoned, sentenced to be executed. Richard was a "hedge master," who taught seven languages, science, and math. He advocated freedom by way of public education -- a dangerous thing at the time.

When a scholar is sentenced to hang, side-by-side with those who took up the gun, because he taught literature, I think that makes clear who the "terrorists" were.

The OP might as well have asked: were the Indian people who kicked England out of India "Hindu terrorists"? And were the Vietminh who kicked the French out of Vietnam "Buddhist terrorists"? But I suppose the actual answers to those questions might disrupt the world-views of some of our good friends here on this forum.

like to buy it.


My great-grandfather's cousin was a close associate of Michael Collins How fascinating. I am sure your family has passed down some very interesting information on that period of Ireland's history.