• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Can the Orange state be reformed? Can Ulster Unionism be normalized?


SevenStars

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,232
There has been more than enough ranting in the media about evil dissidents.

What about Unionist culture which gets off on other people being condemned to hell?

If the Staters and Brits geniunely want a lasting peace in the six counties should they not address the sickness within Unionist culture or is that out of bounds?

And what is the bets that this thread gets withdrawn as "sectarian" by someone who couldnt care less about the north?
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
Unionism is an evil mindset, because it is a racist mindset. It is based on the idea that the colonist is a real human being, and the conquered native is sub human (otherwise the colonist would feel guilt at invading the natives land and taking it from him.) The colonist considers it a horrific injustice that he should have to submit to majority native rule. He would be as well pleased to be ruled by monkeys. This was the attitude of the Pied Noirs in Algeria and of the White South Africans. Neither of which would ever have given in to majority rule if they had had a metropolitan power willing to endlessly supply them with guns, money and troops. Ulster Unionism is a racist fantasy, that is being encouraged by England and the dopey free staters. However, there is hope for the Unionists - just as there was hope for the Pied Noirs and the Whites in South Africa. That hope is a United Ireland, where they will be free to drop this evil mindset.
 

vinoboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
10,954
Above views say so much about these two posters ,a narrow perspective that reveals their own hatred and self loathing .Pyschological assstance required .
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,438
No i don't think it can be reformed. Orangeism isn't a fleeting movement or a new thing, it has become solidly entrenched. It is basically the culture they made/were granted for themselves when they came here, their historiography in Ireland begins with Orangeism.. Before it they had no separate identity here except as displaced non-Gael Protestants, it gave them a cultural and political structure (and even a kind of mythology in the British Israelite aspects) and they will cling on to it at all costs. It was a bestowal upon them by the British elite landowning class, a covenant between lord and peasant. The last chance of something else happening to allow the healing and rejuvenation of a United Ireland (United internally as well as politically - there are more divisions than the one on the map) was over 200 years ago. When they chose Orangeism they allied themselves to the British elites perched here (an unusual alliance between lord and peasant defined by what they were not) instead of to their fellow Irishmen and that is where they remain today.

They will also always attract fondness and support from conservatives everywhere, especially in Britain and in Dublin. Michael McDowell has spoken of his affection for the organisation and his wish that the Republic explore it, B Ahern wanted the Love Ulster to march a long stretch of Dublin's capital when the organisation itself only wanted a small march, i believe this was the innate conservatism of both men speaking... But it shows that the movement is not even just contained in the North but has numerous admirers in powerful positions in the Republic too. An extreme right wing Catholic poster named Faustius a few days ago spoke of his admiration for the Orange Order to give an example of how Catholic Unionists and arch conservatives would themselves love to be allowed to embrace it. I see it as being similiar to Zionism (not just the coloniser aspect) in that it is a system which despite it's sharp edges and political incorrectness (although perhaps being anti-Catholic is fully compatible with being PC - certainly seems so reading the Guardian sometimes...) broadly favored by the elites and granted special affection by them. One possibility however is that it might become surpassed by a new Islamophobic system, like the OO the likes of the EDL defines itself on what it is against, the EDL is the 21st Century incarnation of what the OO represents, to all intents and purposes both the EDL and the OO are the same, both invented by elites, both defined by their opposition to a racial or religious group, both like to march a lot, both claiming the enlightenment and some notion of 'freedom' from an absolutist tyranny (possibly only one of their imaginations) as their source of inspiration.

In some ways nationalists envy it because of the broad-spanning social cohesion in it, it powerfully unites all sections of their community - rich and poor, left and right... whereas Irish nationalism has been under frequent attack from the rich and the 'intelligentsia' here for as long as they feel it is safe to attack it... In truth it is the kind of Union between all layers of society that nationalist Ireland has not seen since the 17thC itself, nationalism in Ireland was usually the movement of one socio-economic class (usually the poorer majority (by virtue of the legacy of the elites being loyalist and unionist)). The liberal intelligentsia in the Republic don't even seem to see Orangeism, much less frame it for criticism, ditto for the island of Britain. The conservative media sometimes cannot stop the gushing of admiration they feel for it, that the ordinary people do not share their feelings is probably a source of continuing frustration, a section of the Reboot Unionism Ver 3.0 program in the works that will not come online for them (yet).

Oh and Bach, it 'should' be against the rules to attempt to derail a thread by posting stupid childish ad-hominem images as a 'response'.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,704
Orange state ? What a tired old cliché. Sloganeering worthy of Goebbels. No surprise from Ulrike.

Nothing wrong with unionism per se any more than there is anything wrong with democratic nationalism or democratic republicanism - "dissident" republicans need to learn their place. Then the rest of the people of NI can get on with their lives.
 

Garza

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
2,561
Unionism is an evil mindset, because it is a racist mindset. It is based on the idea that the colonist is a real human being, and the conquered native is sub human (otherwise the colonist would feel guilt at invading the natives land and taking it from him.) The colonist considers it a horrific injustice that he should have to submit to majority native rule. He would be as well pleased to be ruled by monkeys. This was the attitude of the Pied Noirs in Algeria and of the White South Africans. Neither of which would ever have given in to majority rule if they had had a metropolitan power willing to endlessly supply them with guns, money and troops. Ulster Unionism is a racist fantasy, that is being encouraged by England and the dopey free staters. However, there is hope for the Unionists - just as there was hope for the Pied Noirs and the Whites in South Africa. That hope is a United Ireland, where they will be free to drop this evil mindset.
Unionism is not colonism.

Unionism is the idea that people of different nationalities can work together for the common good. That we have more similiarities than we have differences in the world.

Maybe your confusing Ulster nationalism with unionism, an understandable but not inexcusable mistake.

And nationalism cannot be evil? BNP? Nazis? The Balkans? All nationalism as ever done is to divide people and subjectify minorities in this world. Even murder them.
 

Garza

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
2,561
What about Unionist culture which gets off on other people being condemned to hell?
You do realise that quite alot of us are not religious? If you are gonna hate us SS at least understand us first :roll:.
 

Garza

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
2,561
Anyway on topic of course NI can be reformed, it is reforming as we speak. NI will no longer be or should be a protestant country for a protestant people. Catholics are no longer discriminated against in housing and jobs. We are not fully there to a modern Western European country but we are getting there.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,438
Nationalism is indeed the problem Garza - as seen in the history of the 20th century.

Not Irish Nationalism ?



Donnchadh Ó Corráin
I noted this piece from him...

In the eighteenth century Ireland was dominated by the ‘Protestant nation’, namely, the narrow Protestant ruling class (little different from other European ruling classes)
A sectarian bigoted ruling class formed from a different religon and race to the underclass is 'little different' to what was in the rest of Europe... And he calls this a 'nation'...

Sorry Donnchadh but they were an alien unaccepted unbridged, hostile imposition - there was no noblesse Oblige or anything like it, nothing normal about it... as Terry Eagleton says....

Heathcliff and the Great Hunger ... - Google Books

It is indeed, with the whole field of culture and psychology that hegemony is intimately concerned. But as far as culture went, the rift between elite and populace was unspannable. As Tom Dunne has pointed out, in Ireland, 'in contrast to other European countries, including France, the old or aspiring power elites had much less access to the culture of the poor, as linguistic difference reinforced religious division, and indigenous Gaelic and Gaelicised cultures were long considered politicallu subversive' In the eighteenth century, the class of Catholic middle men could involve themselves in popular culture with no loss of prestige...
What is interesting is how O'Corrain sees the terrible imposition of the alien nobility as somehow natural (not unusual for Europe) yet is at pains to try to suggest an Irish nationalist identity was artifically contrived. I think he has what was natural and what was artifical mixed up.

What is instructive in Eagelton's article is how many times he is at pains to warn us about a 'certain type' of Irish historian.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,704
Eagleton is superb!

Nationalism, so Thomas Kettle argues in The Day's Burden, is the elevation of sentiment from private experience to political principle;

and
A key difference between Anglo-Irish and Irish-Irish nationalism was thus how far emancipation was to include freedom from Rome as well as from Westminster, from an authoritarian mind-set as much as from imperial power. One problem for the Anglo-Irish party was that true empathy with the people meant coming to terms with a religious creed which seemed more an obstacle to liberation than an instrument of it. No populist intellectual could simply shelve the mass of the people's deepest beliefs, but few Anglo-Irish free spirits could regard them as anything but a threat to civilized liberal values. The running battle between priesthood and paganism, Catholicism and Celticism, was not one which seemed open to mediation.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,438
Well in any comparison between Westminster control and Vatican control i would counter by paraphrasing Stalin to illuminate the difference... 'How many divisions does the Pope have?'

And there lies the difference, one form of control was mediated by thuggery and murder - most notorious in 1798. The other by some kind of popular swaying of the minds and hearts of the people.

I don't subscribe to the Whig Interpretation of History.

Every definition of barbarism, ignorance and cruelty and backwardness was evidenced in too many of our would-be foreign masters' deeds, comparisons with the RCC are completely out of scale.
 

Border-Rat

Active member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
263
There has been more than enough ranting in the media about evil dissidents.

What about Unionist culture which gets off on other people being condemned to hell?

If the Staters and Brits geniunely want a lasting peace in the six counties should they not address the sickness within Unionist culture or is that out of bounds?

And what is the bets that this thread gets withdrawn as "sectarian" by someone who couldnt care less about the north?
From their point of view, why should they? The Brits want normalised Nationalists and the Gombeens want happy Brits.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,438
A key difference between Anglo-Irish and Irish-Irish nationalism was thus how far emancipation was to include freedom from Rome as well as from Westminster, from an authoritarian mind-set as much as from imperial power. One problem for the Anglo-Irish party was that true empathy with the people meant coming to terms with a religious creed which seemed more an obstacle to liberation than an instrument of it. No populist intellectual could simply shelve the mass of the people's deepest beliefs, but few Anglo-Irish free spirits could regard them as anything but a threat to civilized liberal values. The running battle between priesthood and paganism, Catholicism and Celticism, was not one which seemed open to mediation.
Firstly don't assume in the above that Eagelton is sympathising with the Ascendancy....

Far from a clash about doctrines or RCC being illiberal or backwards or whatever, far from a religious division or a question of that nature of Roman Catholicsm versus Protestantism, Eagelton makes it clear that it was about protecting priveleges that happened to come with being Protestant...

Leighton remarks on the anomalous nature in the Europe of it's day of a ruling class elite defined largely through religion, as opposed to one whose religion played a less constitutive role: 'In opposition to this notion of an elite which was certainly Protestant but only accidentally so, eighteenth century Ireland evolved the notion that Protestantism was both a necessary and sufficient qualification to gain access to the elite, that hegemonic rights belonged to the entire body of Protestants by virtue merely of their Protestantism'. So it is that Henry Grattan could speak of this brand of Protestant faith as 'bigotry without religion', and Edmund Burke could fasten on to it's purely negative force, intended as it was to put down rather than proselytize. Johnathon Swift was passionately concerned with defending the Anglican establishment and cooly indifferent to divine mystery. Indeed if the Ascendancy had actually converted the Catholics they might have endangered their own priveleges as well as undermining their divide and rule strategy over the people as a whole.
I agree that he is a great writer.
 

Garza

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
2,561
Nationalism is indeed the problem Garza - as seen in the history of the 20th century.

Not Irish Nationalism ?
Indeed I hate all kinds of nationalism, British, Ulster and Irish.

I often smile when people call themselves nationalists and at the same time claim equality for all traditions on this island. Nationalism has been the opposite of that, the subjectation of minorities, read ANY history book. Nationalism is one of the most ugly ideaologies ever to grace this earth and has close links to fascism and racism.

NI has never been a unionist country, it has been an Ulster nationalist country. I want to change NI into a purely unionist country, a country of equals where Irish and British work together for the common good.

That is why nationalism will never unite this island, it is only capable of uniting a single tribe, not several.
 

Scipio

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
943
If Ulster Unionism sheds its religious garbs, then could it be "normalized"? Sure. But lose the religious aspect, and it loses almost all its vitality. The recent election of Tom Elliot instead of Basil McCrea looks instructive in this regard.

Whether it be in Flanders, in Catalonia, or in Northern Ireland, "nationalism" is only getting stronger. Irish people, North and South, will never give up the allegiance that they have to Ireland, and unlike Ulster Unionism, that identity is not and never has been dependent on religion.

The reason the European Union is going through difficulties at the moment, and will continue to do so, is because the elites don't understand that as of now, national identity is still more important to people than a supra-national state. An ironic example of that trend is the ferocious English/British opposition to European "Unionism".

I might also note that in 1964, "Ulster Unionists" took all 18 seats at Westminster. In the increasingly secular age of 2010, they took 9. Go figure. To save Unionism in North-East Ulster, they need to find a panacea for the loss of the emotional religious link with Britain, and find it quick.
 

Scipio

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
943
That is why nationalism will never unite this island, it is only capable of uniting a single tribe, not several.
I think in many ways, you're right. However, the modern nation state is built on nationalism (no better example than the United States), and let's not kid ourselves, the reason the United Kingdom worked so well for 200 plus years is that a "British" nationalism (Rule Britannia) replaced the local Scots and English varities. With that now declining, the UK is starting to go through the inevitable contorsions that result in having 3 different "nations" melded together. The exact same thing is happening in Canada in relation to Québec (a recognized "nation" by Ottawa) and the rest of the country.

It's a key reason why a European state will never work in the short-term, whatever the merits that people like you or I might see in it (and I can think of many).
 
Top