In Scotland, there was a fimine around the same time as in Ireland. The difference between both of them? In Scotland the people showed solidarity with those starving and didn´t let them starve to death. So just to put the blame on the English is just "one side". Had those wealthier in Ireland also helped those starving, maybe some lives could had been saved. Another "country" another "solution" to the same problem.Dear Mr hoopster it is only chit if it is untrue,as for the famine I could cry for what happened to the people of ireland, the hard nastiness of laissez faire, the ill luck to have a stupid,unsympathetic man like Travelyan in charge at the time ,a better man could have kept the death rate right down and been a hero in ireland and all it would have taken was doing the morally right thing by our fellow man,that one person should die of starvation in the richest country in the world was a disgrace,and whilst they were harder times then there was no excuse for the authorities to be so mortally hard for Ireland.The era of England putting the irish down was over,we had freedom of the press and assembly,a decent native police service and as wide a franchise as the rest of the UK.
Depends on the conditions you regard some of the resident posters on this forum as being "decent posters", as well as how you see them being here for "the joy of the debate". Sometimes it´s more bickering than debating, but to some people both means quite one and the same.I am no fanatic and have learned that the truth is actually sometimes / frequently different to our nation's mythical history but you will have to excuse me if I put my own patriotic interpretation on the facts and I will afford you the same honour as well,because the decent posters of this site are here for the joy of the debate.
I don´t know about any sensitiveness, to me it rather looks like the "Irish problem" has been for too long a pain in the back of the British parliament and they wanted to somehow get a solution for that problem.Next,the people of Ireland in 1912 lived under a government that was increasingly sensitive to the wishes of its governed and my reading of the achievements of the IPP up to the time leads me to believe the people of ireland had the most able politicians in Westminster and the people of Ireland should have stuck by them,so,all the bad things that happened were the fault of the men who reached for the pike and the gun.The morality of the gun running has always bothered me but faced with their certainty that they were going to be forced into a situation where their livings were at risk what could they do,in my opinion they bought the guns they never used to be taken seriously and not be steamrolled ,this should have made the home rulers redouble their efforts and dig deep into their ingenuity to find a form of words and institutions to placate the unionists even if it took another ten years(the onnus being on them as they were the ones seeking change).THe end result a better history and a United ireland.
A British Army Division consisting of nearly 100% of Ulster Unionists doesn´t surprises anybody that they were "flocking" to the trenches with "Hurray bravery" and dispised the Easter Rising. You may look at where these soldiers were before, it´s been the UVF.The clowns who organised the rising are the ones to blame for the partitioning of Ireland and destroying any chance of unity for over a hundred years and beyond,the men of the 36th Ulster division marched off to war singing about how proud they were to be Irishmen and came home angry,and embarrassed to be irish,thanks to killers of the Easter rising.
I´d strongly recommend you to do just that and "listen" (respectively reading) the "o-tone" of them. Undistorted and plain in their own expressions, so might get the idea of their own ideas and values. I did so on some rare but despite on some occasions to read it from the original and not just relying on the extracts to find in TPCs books. I´ve long ago shifted from Coogan to Dwyer, a better writer and a historian.I have never knowingly read loyalist propaganda,my knowledge of irish history comes from anecdote ,the press,personal experience,Tim pat Corrigan,and the history forum of politics.ie ever I have been really amazed at the wide breadth of knowledge of the contributors,their honesty in even presenting facts that go against their own sides narrative.
To some Paisley was "the defender of the Protestant faith" (and "majority"), to many others he was just the "Devil".By the way I always thought Ian paisley a bad man who rabble roused for his own ends,who poured petrol on glowing embers instead of oil on troubled waters as a Christian minister should have,instead of opposing civil rights marches he should have joined them and helped keep republican influence of the organisation at bay,civil rights and the lifting up of mankind being the right thing for a Christian to be heavily involved in,but he was totally incapable of the humility necessary to join anybody else's endeavour as an equal.