>>17991058
Why won't you just fish whenever you're hungry instead of wasting a ton of money on food?

>>17991064
If you have a boat and nets you can get a lot of fish and then you store it with salt or ice and you have fish more a lot of time. And if you are able to get big fishes like tuna... you have fish for months.

In case anyone wants a real answer to op's dumb bait, asking "why didn't they just fish" shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the famine. Ireland never ran out of food, crop failures just made the price of food much higher. Prior to this the desperately poor were essentially eating only potatoes because it was all they could afford. Those who were able bodied went into workhouses, but if you got sick and couldn't work or were disabled then you were shit out of luck. These were the people who starved to death during the famine. Not people who could have just gone out and caught some fish.

The vast majority of the deaths during the famine were of people who were hungry but not starving, because food was too expensive to get enough of, so they became malnourished and died from disease. Malnourished people have weakened immune systems. This was also worsened by the fact that people were moving around a lot looking for work. Which meant they were not bathing or cleaning their clothes as much which helped foster sickness, and coming into contact with people from different areas which helped spread disease faster.

>>17991812
Jokes on you dummy I rarely bathe and almost never wash my clothes. I'm as healthy as they cum.

>>17991812
Ok but why didn’t the hungry ppl just go fish?

>>17991869
GIve man fish starve man fishing food will man fish eat man teach

>>17991058
Brits stole all the water

>>17991785
>If you have a boat and nets
They didn’t have enough of this. And the few that did were not keen on letting others use their boats and nets, or even letting others use makeshift boats and nets to fish their waters, which were a privilege granted to them.

File: Screenshot 2025-09-12 111212.png (186 KB, 1260x1192)

186 KB PNG

Picrel is the answer.

Will OP ever get over xer obsession with Ireland?

>>17992272
Forgot to include in this that there isn't really some sort of "alt-history" where the Irish DID fish; they fished during the famine, before it, and after it. It's just that the problems caused by the widespread starvation and devastation the blight brought couldn't be solved by the underfunded and meagre Irish fishing industry.
>so why was the fishing industry so bad?
British policy. Just like why the starvation and devastation in Ireland was so uniquely terrible considering the blight hit all over Europe. The *incumbant* government wasn't totally responsible, but Britain's incompetent at best and malicious at worst governance of Ireland for decades prior certainly was.

Why do the irish blame the famine on "british landlords" despite the fact that many of them identified as irish and had been there for hundreds of years while also claiming the "good planters" like yeats, wilde, synge, swift etc as as irish as irish can be?
Either all protestants are british planters or none of them are. you can't pick and choose

>>17992272
>xer obsession with Ireland?
ironic seeing as paddies are the most left wing anti white people out there
see glasgow, liverpool, boston
every place they go to turns into shit

>>17992313
>the most left wing anti white people out there

You're projecting, Chaim.

File: ulsterloyalists.png (2.6 MB, 1442x948)

2.6 MB PNG

>>17992589
Taig COPE

>>17992313
>>17992634
>heh, stupid irish!!!
>(makes 5000 threads a week on /his/ screaming about them)

like I said, Ireland Derangement Syndrome. It affects many!

>>17993016
You have made hundreds of threads bragging about the ira and trying to justify shit like the warrington bombing.
Brits live in your head rent-free, Taig.

>>17992634
>British loyalists flying flags of American and German origin
sounds about right

>>17991058
Why didn't they all just move to the US? Like 100% of the population.

>>17991058
Angolems kept taking the b8.

>>17991058
>literally several IQ points below the rest of Europe

they don't call the Irish the blacks of Europe for nothing.

>>17991058
No license. Unironically.

Because they had long traditions of grain, olives, and wine production, not fish. Fish was eaten, but usually pickled to survive the trip inland.

>>17991058
Because their insane, one day they will have a real Hunger and that entire island shall be called West Britain.

>>17993484
>they don't call the Irish the blacks of Europe for nothing.

Nobody says this. It's just something you made up.

>>17992131 So you are telling me that hundreds of thousands of people if not millions are starving, they start building ships and go fishing and someone is going to stop them?

>>17991058
Isn't this true of every famine ever?

>why didn't they just get the food somewhere else?
>why didn't they defeat the people who were stopping them?

I'm starting to think OP has a point. Any people in history who were the 'victims' of anything were probably just being lazy. Just the fact that there were 'survivors' proves they couldn't have had it that bad.

>>17995161
I think there is a difference between a famine in Ethiopia that is mostly a dessert country and Ireland where you have plenty of fertile land and also more resources to make ships.

>>17995482
>Ethiopia that is mostly a dessert country
They are still close enough to the sea. They could just walk to the coast and fish from there.

>plenty of fertile land

wat

You understand about population density versus arable land?

Anon already explained about how most of the agricultural output was owned by foreign occupiers and was exported or hoarded.

They'd need the resources to defeat the British first, then it would be possible to take these other measures to mitigate the famine.

File: Screenshot 2025-09-14 100201.png (110 KB, 365x263)

110 KB PNG

>>17991058
didly dee this fish got me parched for more fish guiness soup

>>17995550
>le landlords are foreign occupiers despite living in ireland for hundreds of years and identifying as irish
>but jonathan swift and oscar wilde and wb yeats were irish because...reasons

>>17991058
Ireland is so boring and gay it puts me too sleep dunno how anybody can care about it's history
>England cucks it for 9000 years
>England lets most if it go but keeps the bomby terrorist parts and gets bombed by terrorists, wow.
What's the point? Who cares? It'd be like if we gave some injun reservation independence, cool. Who cares? Why has this board got as many threads about an irrelevant island as it has some of the most major civilizations and war in history?

>>17995598
The Troubles are kino and that is the topic of most Irish threads

>>17995550
So the reason of the famine was political. I don't know what are we talking about here.

The british also prohibited them from fishing with boats and nets or would have taken the fish afterwards?

File: Fionn Brennan and his son(...).jpg (252 KB, 1131x1485)

252 KB JPG

>>17995598
Irish history is imo pretty kino until the 18th century and then picks up a bit towards the end before becoming boring again in the 19th.
>5th to 8th centuries
fun ecclesiastical shenanigans
>8th to 11th centuries
fun viking shenanigans
>12th to 14th centuries
fun norman shenanigans
>15th to 17th centuries
fun english shenanigans
>early 18th century
yawn
>late 18th century
fun rebellious shenanigans
>19th century
yawn
>20th century
yawn
>21st century
yawn

>>17995588
Do you think the landlords were trying to relieve the famine but the British authorities were preventing them? Or the British authorities were trying to relieve the famine but the landlords were preventing them? Or they were copacetic with each other and both were happy to allow the famine?

>>17995627
When the environmental conditions for a famine take place in a country without this kind of political issue, there are measures taken to relieve it. Famines of this kind only ever happen when there is also a political issue that prevents these measures.

>>17994663
>Anon first discovers the British empire
Read the Declaration of Independence, listen to the words of Ghandi, watch an interview with of Ian Smith, watch a documentary on the Anglo Afrikaaner wars. This is the standard English empire mo.

>>17992272
>see social problem in ireland
>look inside
>it's because of the british
this keeps happening

File: Do6u8ghXoAEM6ku.jpg (27 KB, 386x418)

27 KB JPG

>irish national epic
>two culchies fighting over who has the bigger cow
defend this irishanon

>>17996281
what's england's national epic?

>>17996286
stolen any good cows lately, eamon?

>>17996286
They don’t have one because unlike the Irish who kept their pagan myths the English tossed theirs in the bin, what good little goyim they are.
>Beowulf
Swedish

>>17996319
Why has every Beowulf scholar struggled to find the ostensible Swedish original text?

File: fatty.jpg (26 KB, 640x394)

26 KB JPG

>They don’t have one because unlike the Irish who kept their pagan myths the English tossed theirs in the bin, what good little goyim they are.

>Beowulf
>Swedish

>>17996319
>because unlike the Irish who kept their pagan myths the English tossed theirs in the bin, what good little goyim they are.
The irish converted to christianity immediatly, which is why the monks allowed them to keep their myths which they viewed as impotent, while the english didn't fully convert until the norman conquest
Stop coping taig

Why didn't they just hunt rabbits and pigeons and crows and stuff?
>poaching
Those animals were universally considered a pest in british and irish society at the time and were not subject to anti poaching laws.

>>17995598
>Why has this board got as many threads about an irrelevant island
Because there are 3-4 seething anons who obsess over it. Most threads about Ireland are made by non Irish people crying about Ireland. You're in one right now.
>>17996463
They did. Not everyone in Ireland starved, it's just that SO many did. Multiple million people went from mostly relying on one crop to no longer having said crop. Almost none of these people had the money nor means to immediately switch up how they fed their family or made money, so a couple of million people all suddenly trying to make food from hunting small game is pretty ludicrous.

>>17996477
maybe if you taigs didn't infest liverpool, glasgow and america with your filth nobody would care
But you do

>>17996541
Maybe if people didn't emigrate to Britain centuries ago you wouldn't spam 4chan with angry threads to epicly own your made up mind fenians? Have a word with yourself big lad.

>>17996545
You people move to a place, pretend you have a historical identity there instead of being immigrants from the famine and then start your own LARP nationalism independence movements as a cudgel to beat british people over the head with it
Scottish Independence is a creation of taig diaspora in glasgow. Taig diaspora in liverpool are trying to create a liverpool independence movement and do larps like "scouser not english"
The famine is over, why don't you go home?

>>17996557
>inb4 it's "all made up"
There's a reason the orange order has regular marches where i live here in the northwest. it's because they stand against fenians who hate britain and its people despite us graciously receiving them in the mid 1800s
Flemish people and huguenots managed to integrate, why can't you?

>>17996557
>>17996559
>TAIG TAIG TAIG TAIG
I am sorry anon, I do not care that you got mindbroken and sent into a spiralling rage by retarded celtic fans.
>GRRRR WHY DON'T YOU LIKE US
Because you are an autist who sings "haha famine is over" despite the very same famine having also devastated the beloved and staunch loyal Ulster Protestants of the northeast.

But since that can't be used as a drunken ditty to chant while stumbling round the city centre, I guess it's pointless information. You are far too sensitive about this anon, but if you are a Scottish Unionist I genuinely do empathise with you because I also find plastics in Glasgow LARPing about the IRA to be unbearable. But they are more likeable to punters than people like yourself, and so I'm afraid to say that in the long run they'll continue to do alright.

If your goal is to make people stop making fun of oversensitive brits having to chase their tails 24/7 because half their population hate the nation they live in, you are failing.

Again by the way since there was a heap of yapping between then and now, the actual answer to
>why didn't the irish fish during the famine?
is here:
>>17992272
>>17992272
>>17992272

The tl;dr is that they did, obviously, but it wasn't enough. As with many famines, a lot of people starved, others didn't.

>>17996707
>you are an autist who sings "haha famine is over" despite the very same famine having also devastated the beloved and staunch loyal Ulster Protestants of the northeast
NTA, but the song complains about Irish emigrants not going back home despite the famine being over, that's the whole point of the song, and there is no reason to complain about Ulster Protestant emigrants.

>>17996742
I know the song well, it's just that I think it's retarded how popular it is. Basically all of it boils down to the sort of confused and angry sectarian slabbering that was already getting stale in the early 2000s. Both Ulster and Scottish Protestant Loyalists are similar in that the only actual political move they have deployed throughout history is to somehow be grim enough that they'll cause sudden and enormous demographic shift in their favour via vibes.

Meanwhile their political enemies organise themselves, get ahead, get influential, and Loyalist communities are left spinning over it. In essence;
>haha fuck you catholics, you should all leave this place, haha tarrier bastards
>wtf, what do you mean they aren't voting for based british unionist politicians
>noooo muh third column how can this happen, fucking fenians
just so dire to see people still fall for it kekked. not dire for me, because I don't and never will live in Britain-but if I did, it's a sign of how enormous the misstep in British nationalism has been that it will be easier for me to find somewhere to be comfortably and openly Irish Republican than it would for a white briton to be a big British patriot without headlines about worrying right-wing trends in the youth.

not that it matters; we're on /his/, and babysitting crying brit /int/ or /pol/fags is boring as fuck

>>17996752
>it's a sign of how enormous the misstep in British nationalism has been that it will be easier for me to find somewhere to be comfortably and openly Irish Republican than it would for a white briton to be a big British patriot without headlines about worrying right-wing trends in the youth.
That's because British nationalists are nativists which Irish "nationalists" usually aren't, but that's more of a misstep for the latter as there's no point to being a nationalist if you are okay with being demographically replaced.

>>17996707
>but if you are a Scottish Unionist
I'm from the northwest, not scotland
Taigs ruined liverpool like they did glasgow
>But they are more likeable to punters than people like yourself, and so I'm afraid to say that in the long run they'll continue to do alright.
No they aren't. People across england hate "scousers" AKA the irish ones. People like the march the orange order did in southport. the orange order do marches all across britain and people either don't care or respect them

Taigs in liverpool are now trying to promote "liverpool independence" with the claim that liverpool was historically always apart from england and that it was "always more scottish, irish and welsh than english". These taigs came here 150 years ago, created their own seperate parallel communities that never integrated and have the gall to claim that they've been living on this land for thousands of years oppressed by the english. It's all just a proxy justification for irish hatred of britain.
It's no coincidence that these same taigs in liverpool and glasgow also tend to be anti white and left wing. See danny boyle for an example

>>17991058
Because they're retarded losers who still seethe to this day about being btfo by the british. Many such cases

>>17996875
>>17996891
Right, so as I said you are sitting at home crying about muh oirish and scratching your head when they don't really care if you call them a taig. As the very rich revolutionary socialist real estate agents in West Belfast will tell you, people screaming about hating the Irish doesn't really hit as hard when you have surpassed them.

Ulster Loyalism has become synonymous with corruption, incompetence, and blind hatred-which is a big reason why most Ulster Loyalist areas are massive shitholes, while even the most dogshit Republican kips of Northern Ireland tend to interface well with big events and investment groups. I believe the exact same fate awaits people like yourself; in the end, money follows progressives not flavour of the election term populism.

Perhaps instead of trying to use "historical discussion" to gain ammunition for your faggoty bedroom shadowboxing with the collective embodiment of all Irish Catholics you should try foster a more positive engagement with your own history and heritage, anon.

>>17991064
I unironically have done this.

>>17996286
>what's england's national epic?
King Arthur
Robin Hood
Ivanhoe
Jack and the Beanstalk, Jack the Giant Slayer

>>17996286
>>17996989
I hate when people get so lost in a haze of identity politics that they start coming off with shit like "england doesn't have a national epic."

I know people tend to call Beowulf England's national epic and it's a good example, but there is such a wealth of other English stories that I think it's inaccurate to even say England has *one* national epic and instead its national epic is the rich tapestry of folklore and mythology, ie King Arthur and Robin Hood as >>17996989 said.

However I would also make the case for the fact that actual history might now be more important than national epics to the average Irish or British person. Modern day England has a foundational myth in WW2, just as it does in Hastings, just as it does in the myriad of other significant events that helped shape its history. Ireland has the likes of Brian Boru's story creeping into the spotlight as a "historical epic", and the Republic of Ireland very clumsily cobbles together an identity rooted in Irish Republican history despite being an ex-dominion that was squarely opposed to Irish Republicans for most of its existence.

Interesting topic though. Maybe a thread discussing national epics would be fun on /his/.

>>17996319
>Swedish
Beowulf may have been a Geat in the story, but there is no record of him in any Swedish Scandinavian sources. Certain other characters from the epic are mentioned though, but within stories that are otherwise entirely different so Beowulf is by all means an English epic.

>>17997009
Cosgraves 10 years in power = most of the RoIs existence?

Why the irish didn't revolt like crazy? I mean hundreds of thousands of people starving, your children dying, millions having to emigrate... If that doesn't provoke a crazy revolution what could be.


I don't really know much about it just some things but I haven't read there was a big uprising yet.

>>17996948
>sitting at home crying
I post on here between shifts at work
>when they don't really care if you call them a taig
Ulster prots don't care if you call them huns or planters
>surpassed them
The irish are so markedly inferior to the british in every way possible the only way they can "surpass" them is through nepotism
>Ulster Loyalism has become synonymous with corruption, incompetence, and blind hatred-which is a big reason why most Ulster Loyalist areas are massive shitholes, while even the most dogshit Republican kips of Northern Ireland tend to interface well with big events and investment groups. I believe the exact same fate awaits people like yourself; in the end, money follows progressives not flavour of the election term populism.
A paddy complaining about corruption. LMAO. Try searching up curleyism
>Perhaps instead of trying to use "historical discussion" to gain ammunition for your faggoty bedroom shadowboxing with the collective embodiment of all Irish Catholics you should try foster a more positive engagement with your own history and heritage, anon.
Perhaps instead of trying to use "historical discussion" to complain about britain and ulster protestants to make up for the fact that you're an utter failure maybe you could start learning irish and promoting the irish language. or not.

File: trust-me_png.png (155 KB, 498x292)

155 KB PNG

>>17997067
>projection, the post
You responded to my suggestion that you should stop conflating your personal politics with history by doing it multiple times, then coming for me personally.

We both know that you will continue to make threads seething about Ireland, post in threads seething about Ireland, and seethe about it in between doing so. Please do decide whether the Irish are some terifying existential threat to your nation and identity or just a bunch of crying failures though, because hopping between the two every few posts is very weird.
>b-but ireland is corrupt too!!
of course it is, find an irish person who'd disagree. but it doesn't share the reputation for it (along with blind hatred) that loyalism has and does; the sentiments about Ulster Loyalists today are basically the same as they were a century ago. Loyalism has not benefitted one iota in that time from anyone other than the fellas who tried to drag them out of the cycle that you seem intent on repeating.
>but you're complaining about britain and ulster protestants
Now you're making things up. Are these complaints about Britain and Ulster Protestants in the room with us now? YOU sperged out about taigs, anon. I am just replying to you.

back you go >>>/int/ >>>/pol/

>>17997061
In the decades prior to the famine (aka, from 1801 onwards) Irish people were met with two broad strands of political advice;
>We should definitely undo the Act of Union, Britain categorically does not give a fuck about governing Ireland fairly or responsibly.
This was so common a sentiment that it was shared between everyone from dirt poor farmers to landed Protestant aristocrats who'd been in the previous Irish Parliament.
>Assimilating is the only way to survive; ditch Irish, learn English, escape rural poverty.
These were sentiments spread by the likes of Daniel O'Connell, who believed the best path to salvation for the long mistreated Irish Catholics was to try and become responsible citizens via assimilation as soon as possible-aligning with the loose idea of an "Irish Nation" with "Irish Citizens" who had rights of their own in a British context that had emerged in the 1760s.

However all of this was in the aftermath of a very large rebellion; the United Irishmen rebellion in 1798, which had failed and which had seen most radically minded people in Ireland either killed, imprisoned, exiled, or scattered to the wind. All of these factors combined meant that when people were devastated by famine in the 1840s, their focus was surviving or escaping-not rebelling. No foreign aid, no organisation, no real chance of victory-its why the only rebellion during the wave of 1848 revolutions was an abortive scrap in a woman's garden which consisted of 2,000 pissed off peasants struggling to deal with 50 entrenched RIC officers in a farmhouse.

There was more rebellious activity abroad with the Fenian Movement, since so many of those were willing or able to organise revolutions had been caught and forced to flee either in 1798 or in the sporadic rebellions that followed it in the early 19th century.

>>17997095
I'm not the one trying to make a nation that my ancestors immigrated to 150 years ago secede as a proxy for my hatred of britain
That's what the irish are doing.
people with irish surnames used to get the shit bullied out of them in school and were treated the same as pakis were. LMAO

>>17997109
>I'm not the one trying to make a nation that my ancestors immigrated to 150 years ago secede as a proxy for my hatred of britain

Neither are they. This is all just shot you've made up for fuck sake. >>17997109
>bullied out of them in school and were treated the same as pakis were. LMAO

In the 60s or 70s maybe and that probably how long you've been seething about Irish people too you sad old bastard.

>>17992272
>high prices of salt
Wtf, just how poor were the Irish? How the fuck was salt expensive there? That's been an inexpensive commodity for the average person for centuries by that point.

File: 250px-Weird_Al_Yankovic_P(...).png (202 KB, 250x333)

202 KB PNG

>>17997109
>yeah well, at least I'm not someone that you also aren't
>that's LITERALLY what they're doing
>AND guess what, the irish totally got bullied in my school LMAO
It is harder and harder not to think you are just some random teenager who's girlfriend fucked a scouser lad. Give yer head a wobble

anyhow again for anyone actually curious about the question in OP, here you go
>>17992272
>>17992272
>>17992272

>>17997125
>It is harder and harder not to think you are just some random teenager who's girlfriend fucked a scouser lad. Give yer head a wobble
Stop projecting, paddy
mad about all the orange marches we have around here?

File: 1633880439538_png.png (93 KB, 909x510)

93 KB PNG

>>17997122
>how poor were the Irish
Very poor. As in, "beyond dirt peasant poor" in the eyes of anyone who visited. Also we're less talking just salt itself and more for the infastructure and volume required to preserve and transport fish on a scale necessary to supplement the sudden loss of a staple crop.

Everyone, whether it was people from England, France, the Ottoman Empire, wherever-if they came to Ireland, they were horrified at the poverty people were subjected to. Picrel is taken from Gustave de Beaumont's "Ireland: Social, Politic and Religious 1839-1842", written BEFORE the famine. Before someone suggests a hidden agenda, Anglo-Irish Protestants said the same thing-WH Lecky being the best example.

Whatever debates there are about 1840s Ireland, only the most insincere of retards would try downplay how grim it was. They are outflanked on morality by people from 200 years ago, kekked.

>>17997142
Incorrect
The irish prior to the famine were some of the most well fed and tallest people in all of europe.

File: 1633883395010_jpg.png (1.17 MB, 1596x1236)

1.17 MB PNG

>>17997148
>INCORRECT!
okay, here's a source reporting what it was like several decades before the famine.

(Nasby in Exile, Ross D. ,1882)

>>17997148
>On our return, Captain S—— gave me a great many interesting details respecting the really atrocious and crying injustice and oppression under which the Irish Catholics labour: it is more intolerable than that which the Greeks suffer from their Turkish masters. The Catholics are not allowed to call their places of worship churches, only chapels; they must have no bells in them,—things inconsiderable in themselves, but degrading and insulting in their intent. No Catholic can, as you know, sit in Parliament, nor be general in the army, minister of state, judge, &c. Their priests cannot perform the ceremony of marriage, in cases where one party is Protestant, and their titles are not recognised by the law. The most scandalous thing however is, that the Catholics are forced to pay enormous sums to the Protestant clergy, while they have entirely to maintain their own, of whom the state takes no notice. This is manifestly one great cause of the incredible poverty of the people. How intolerable must it appear in a country like Ireland, where more than two-thirds of the whole population are most zealously devoted to the Catholic religion!
Hermann Fürst von Pückler-Muskau, Tour in England, Ireland, and France, in the years 1826, 1827, 1828, and 1829

>>17997148
>When I recollect the well-fed rogues and thieves in the English prisons, I admire, notwithstanding the very natural increase of Irish criminals, the power of morality — I wonder that the whole nation does not go over and steal, in order to enjoy a new and happier existence. And then the English boast of the good treatment of their countrymen, while the innocent Irish are obliged to live worse than their cattle. In Parliament they talk for years together whether it is necessary and becoming to leave 100,000 dollars annually (15,000l.) in the hands of the pastors of 520 Protestants, or 10,750 dollars to the pastors of 3 Protestants; while there are thousands here who scarcely know they have a soul, and know nothing of their body, except that it suffers hunger, thirst, and cold.
Friedrich von Raumer, Letters from Ireland, 1835

File: 187543658.jpg (215 KB, 1237x650)

215 KB JPG

>>17997151
Yes, you are incorrect

>>17997148
>The people in that unhappy country, are in a most wretched situation. Ireland is itself a poor country, and Dublin a magnificent city; but the appearances of general extreme poverty among the lower people are amazing. They live in wretched hovels of mud and straw, are clothed in rags, and subsist chiefly on potatoes. Our New England farmers, of the poorest sort, in regard to the enjoyment of all the comforts of life, are princes when compared to them. Perhaps three-fourths of the Inhabitants are in this situation... All Ireland is strongly in favour of the American cause. They have reason to sympathise with us.
Thomas Cushing, having visited Ireland in 1771.

>>17997162
>>17997158
>>17997153
>poor irish people were... le poor
And poor british people in factories lived shitty lives, as marx and engels documented, you don't see british people complaining about it

>>17997027
Actually I think CnG had an easier time of it than Fianna Fáil did; Cosgrave and his buddies had a very clear vision for Dominion Ireland and (despite what some Fianna Fáilers might say) eventual independence.

Fianna Fáil flip flopped between
>FUCK THE BRITS, REPUBLIC NOW
and
>hey stop that, IRA, that isn't helpful to our electoral ambitions
So by the time the Free State finally became the Republic, both of its two major parties had disavowed most of the shit (and many of the people) that won them statehood while also trying to claim succession from it along old Treaty disagreement lines.

>>17997196
Define "Irish Republicanism".

>>17997199
It's very simply, it calls for the establishment of an independent Irish Republic void of British rule. Its origins are in the late 18th Century, it reached its peak of popularity during the Irish revolutionary years.

There was then a split at partition (or if we're being specific, following the ROI's full severance from Britain in the 1940s) over legitimacy; Irish Republican legitimists reject both the ROI and NI, while some would call themselves Republicans while being content with the current state of affairs-while aspiring to reunite the island. I think difficulties in understanding to what exact degree Fianna Fáil continued to subscribe to Irish Republicanism is why they struggled far more than the likes of CnG or Fine Gael in tackling it; for FG, the job was as well done as possible and the time had come to move on, while for FF they both tried to agree with that while courting this notion that they were going to magically restore the Republic in between cosying up to big investors for Ireland.

>>17991058
The Irish got millions of pounds of food aid from the world and destroyed pretty much all of it in a fit of rage. They just wanted to be victims.

>>17997209
>It's very simply, it calls for the establishment of an independent Irish Republic void of British rule
So southerners are infact republicans.

>>17997227
When was this?

>>17997240
Not all of them, no. Irish Republicanism is only really used to refer to those adhering to Irish Republican Legitimacy, ie those who regard both the ROI and NI as byproducts of a Treaty considered illegitimate by said Republicans.

But there are plenty of Republicans in the ROI, plenty in NI, just as there is a not insignificant Anglophile voting bloc both north and south of the border.

>>17997724
>Irish Republicanism is only really used to refer to those adhering to Irish Republican Legitimacy, ie those who regard both the ROI and NI as byproducts of a Treaty considered illegitimate by said Republicans.
This excludes any and all movements and people who have accepted the Good Friday Agreement.

>>17991058
Because Paddy was too stupid to think of it. DOH!

https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1757365510419197.webm

https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1757374139822925.webm

>>17991812
And to ad to this, because of Penal law, they had no education or a right to own property so they were forced into poverty. They could not afford anything. And it was illegal to fish in many fresh water loughs because they were owned by British landlords. They hadn't the resources to go sea fishing or to buy the fish anyone caught. Salt in Ireland was highly taxed too, so they couldn't afford that to keep the fish in order to distribute it inland for long. So there were not many Irish fishermen during then due to British rule. People who ask this question haven't a clue how unjust and cruel British rule was on the Irish. They left them with nothing

>>17997122
>Wtf, just how poor were the Irish?
VERY
They were forced by law to rent homes and were not allowed to own property. They were PISS poor from getting extorted by landlords and when the rent raised all of a sudden they'd get thrown out. Even when it was snowing. Many people froze to death. See "Lough Sheelin Eviction". The Catholic Irish couldn't even afford shoes in many cases. They didn't live off of almost all potatoes out of choice. They had to. They had to grow the potatoes themselves

>How the fuck was salt expensive there?
Taxes. Salt was taxed in Ireland

File: 616Pzcwka2L._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg (110 KB, 645x1000)

110 KB JPG

>>17996989
>what's england's national epic?
>King Arthur
Which is hilarious, because almost everything about King Arthur was invented by Geoffrey of Monmouth, a seething Welsh nationalist who hated the English. The entire book is WE WUZ KANGZ for Wales.

>>17997160
>british anti irish poster proves our local irish history guy wrong about the idea that the irish were malnourished
>irish history guy doesn't respond at all and leaves thread
eirebros...

>>17997732
Yeah, it does, which is why Sinn Féin have also come under fire for describing themselves as Irish Republican. I believe their line now is that even if the party itself is no longer Republican, the "people and work are" or something retarded like that. I think continuing to abstain from Westminster is how they justify it, but it's ropey as fuck.

There are Irish Republican groups that do indeed reject the GFA, many of which are formed primarily from people who split away from SF. Lasair Dhearg is one group that's getting attention at the minute.
>>17997160
Your source is lifted from Cormac Ó Gráda's work, but is not used to suggest the Irish were all merry and well fed. The very same source you have lifted that picture from spent several pages describing the dire state that Ireland was in prior to the famine; Ó Gráda draws a line from reports on how the cold weather in 1740 was devastating to Ireland, and noting that the climate crisis that hit much of Europe seemed uniquely harmful to Ireland. He lists multiple smaller famines between 1800 and the Potato Blight.

In the exact source you posted, he states;
>The pre-harvest hunger highlighted by visitors to Ireland (mostly in summertime) must be distinguished from the famine proper.
>This summer hunger, hallmark of pre-famine poverty, is still common in some underdeveloped countries today, but it made Ireland special among 19th century western European nations.
>In 1816 and 1822, seasonal dearth lasted four or five months, and risked becoming a famine.
So to simply say "they ate a fuckload of potatoes (a very nutritionally complete food)" to try and discount the reports not only of multiple first hand witnesses to poverty but also to the source you're using to do so is a reach.
>>17998922
I went to bed. It was a Sunday night, anon.

>>17998955
And, as previously stated, British people were in a similar dire situation in their factory towns. Marx and Engels wrote about this
All the shit about muh irish being oppressed really just speaks about how the upper classes viewed the lower classes and not anything specific to the irish. Many of the "british landlords" of the famine were of irish gaelic descent.

>>17998961
But all of the sources are not saying that only the Irish suffered, they're saying that Ireland was uniquely vulnerable to a huge scale famine. There are even English commentators from the time who were warning about it. People coming to Ireland through or from other places where they saw other poor people reported that Ireland's level of poverty was unlike anything they had ever seen.

Again, you won't find a British or Irish historian who would contest how bad things were and how Ireland found itself particularly vulnerable (and therefore particularly devastated), because its accepted as historical fact. You WILL see debates about who or what is truly responsible, and debates about how it could have been prevented-but the only people who seem insistent to downplay it appear to be those who just want people to not care about it for some personal agenda.

>>17998971
The irish suffered so comparatively less compared to other groups on earth they have to make reaches to pretend their suffering was worse like creating an "irish slaves" narrative (and ignoring how most of the indentured servants sent to americas and the carribean were british) and pretending that the british shot people for wearing green (lmao)

>>17998978
Well there we are, that didn't take long. A love of history can and will be ruined if you only use it to bolster your personal obsessions and prejudices.
>Irish slaves narrative
Created by Americans, and also debunked by Americans (alongside Irish historians). Irish historians reject the notion that the Irish were slaves under anyone other than Norsemen or each other. This is why it is literally called the Irish Slaves *myth.*
>Pretending the British shot people for wearing green
DId you take the title and lyrics "The Wearing of the Green" literally, anon? I doubt you are that dense.

>>17998072
So basically since they got raped so hard by the better country they therefore couldn't develop past the point of eating roots from the ground, and ever since have needed handouts from better countries to survive, because of their inferiority.

>>17998995
>Created by Americans, and also debunked by Americans (alongside Irish historians). Irish historians reject the notion that the Irish were slaves under anyone other than Norsemen or each other. This is why it is literally called the Irish Slaves *myth.*
Irish people go on and on about how cromwell enslaved irish people
Yet never mention how the irish army of james the second massacred and transported english people
>DId you take the title and lyrics "The Wearing of the Green" literally, anon? I doubt you are that dense.
Irish people literally say that people who wore green were killed

>>17998955
Good on you for realizing the hypocrisy of how the term is used today. However, Sinn Fein and all the ex-provos who laid down their arms in 98 still call themselves republicans while the psycho hardliners who still want to carry on the armed struggle are a very fringe minority, meaning the term is incoherent and reduntant the way that it is usually used today.

>>17999057
>meaning the term is incoherent and reduntant the way that it is usually used today.
I think that's why there are "Irish Nationalists" and there are "Irish Republicans." Nationalist is anyone who supports reunification, while Republicans tend to specifically identify with the *idea* that NI is illegitimate, that the IRA were right to fight, and so on. Dissident Republican LARPers will insist that they're the only TRUE Republicans, but they are all attention seeking freaks.

Ask Shinners and they'll say they support Irish Republicanism. Then ask how exactly they're going to get it, and they will tell you a border poll. Then ask why it's up to Britain to decide when we get a border poll, and you'll be fed some confused word vomit about how it will magically somehow just "happen" provided everyone keeps voting Sinn Féin.

I'm of the view that there will very obviously be a United Ireland, but hilariously believe there's a good chance Sinn Féin will not be part of the first government leading it.
All of this being said
>Unionism/Loyalism
People forget that Unionism has yet to even really begin any sort of future planning, mostly focused on trying to stop Shinners. Loyalist paramilitaries never really went away, never disarmed, and influence Unionist politics very openly-something that some (even in the DUP) are realising is a retarded situation for them to get themselves into.

When the age bubble pops in NI and the history of the Troubles continues to develop, I think people are in for a big shock-any shift to the status quo in NI today (especially with legacy issues) is going to be very firmly in favour of Irish Nationalists/Republicans.

>>17999053
>Irish people go on and on
People from every country say retarded things about their country's history. Following the Cromwellian conquest, Irish people were indeed transported to English colonies as indentured servants.

If you are not a historian, hearing
>got sent to colonial plantations as an indentured servant
then you will very obviously think of slavery.

Ask Irish historians, and they will tell you that they were not slaves and that Irish slavery is a myth.
>Irish people literally say that people who wore green were killed
And I am asking you for what I suspect is not the first nor last time; do you get all of your information from random tards on the internet, or do you place any value whatsoever in what the actual academic or historic record is?

There are people in England insisting the first bongs were black, shall we listen to them? Some Yank insisted that Saint Patrick genocided the indigenous African population of Ireland using firearms, shall we believe them too?

Come off it, lad. Your confused flailing and faux outrage is weird as fuck.

>>17999100
>IT'S JUST A FEW RETARDS ONLINE SAYING IT
If a large population believes something incredulous then they deserve to be called out for it
A large population of the country of macedonia believes alexander the great was a slavic macedonian, they deserve to be called out on it. same with irish LARPs like the irish were slaves or the irish were considered non white

>>17999090
>Dissident Republican LARPers will insist that they're the only TRUE Republicans
But they're right, that's my point. If you accept the GFA, even if you only do it out of conviction that reunification will happen later down the line, you do recognize the legitimacy of the partition, of the "Free State", and of Northern Ireland.
Despite having decried "free staters" as traitors to the republican cause for 80 years Sinn Fein ended up doing the exact same thing, they abandoned hardline nationalism out of pragmatism so really they are no longer any different.
>any shift to the status quo in NI today (especially with legacy issues) is going to be very firmly in favour of Irish Nationalists/Republicans.
This isn't the win you think it is. If nationalists get everything they want, short of reunification, then they will be much less ardent about reunification.
You can never achieve major change when everyone is already satisfied with the status quo.

>>17992272
>no better fisherman in the world than those on the west coast of ireland
>next to no investment in irish fishing
what does that say about the Irish?

>>17999131
I would believe your sentiment more if you very clearly didn't just have some personal vendetta against Ireland that mostly manifests via crying on the internet about it.

When you run out of any sort of actual historical topics or bits to lean on, you resort to
>I saw an Irish person say this, and it made me ANGRY
That's your issue, not mine.
>>17999152
>But they're right, that's my point.
Eh, I dunno how much I agree. I think the key difference between 1998 and (for example) 1922 is that there was an actual referendum held, and a majority accepted it. We could talk for hours about whether not the things the GFA promised to anyone came true, but unlike in 1922 there was no big threat of anything in particular if the GFA vote didn't pass.

But your criticisms of SF are correct and are very commonplace-but there's certainly a very clear distinction between a "Free Stater/Westbrit", a Nationalist, and a Republican. They are useful labels. If we are talking strict Irish Republican Legitimism, then the "legitimate government" of Ireland in the eyes of all Republicans should be the Continuity Army Council of the Continuity IRA. I think getting bogged down in that corner of things is fruitless; there are very obvious criticisms to be levied at Free Staters, and likewise at SF-but there is a general feeling that where the Anglo-Irish Treaty was a horrific betrayal, the GFA was a compromise. 3 years conflict and 30 years are very different.
>This isn't the win you think it is.
I've heard this line before, except it also ran out of steam a few years ago.

The economists went to work, and now all you see if you go looking for this stuff is how a United Ireland will be initially expensive then rapidly less so. You read about how Britain doesn't care, how NI sees none of that money, blah blah blah. It is my belief that a United Ireland will very obviously happen, but that it won't be that exciting.

>>17999186
It probably says that between the 17th and 20th Century all of Ireland-and all of its resources-were controlled by a foreign government. In fact, if you read the post you're replying to, you can learn about the exact decisions and actions taken by said foreign government that caused the potential of Irish fisheries to be so spectacularly missed.

>>17999192
I'll explain this in a way that even you can understand.
Inferior, "oppressed" nations tend to engage in silly LARPs, pseudohistories and general retarded shitflinging toward the nations that conquered them. Ukranians do it to Russians. Koreans do it to the Japanese. The balkan nations all do it towards each other. And the Irish do it to the British. Irish people have a huge vendetta against the British which means they engage in LARPs, which means they invent narratives of persecution (the irish potato famine was a genocide, irish were slaves, irish were considered nonwhite, etc). This isn't just practised by a few dumb retards but huge portions of the population engage in it. Just look at how genetic studies proved the irish are not "celtic" but genetic bell beakers who cluster with germanics, and how irish celticists try to cope with it by inventing "celtic from the west". Just look at the irish pretending they are the most oppressed people ever. Look at irish nationalists pretending ulster scots in appalachia are their fellow "celts" and how the loyalist rioters in ballymena are "gaels". just look at how the irish seethe at the term british isles.
It's no different from how ukranian nationalists pretend ukranians are the original russians, how koreans seethe at the term "sea of japan", etc

>>17999192
>there was no big threat of anything in particular if the GFA vote didn't pass.
That would actually make Sinn Fein more guilty of treason than the free staters if they did not even need to turn to pragmatism.
But they were under threat, the paramilitaries were steadily dropping in support at the time. If the conflict had carried on it would likely have ended the same way as the Basque conflict, with the unconditional surrender of the IRA and with all convicted terrorists staying behind bars.
>there's certainly a very clear distinction
I don't think all 3 have ever been useful categories for broader sections of Irish politics except maybe during the actual Free State era, and today you can hardly even divide them in two if you exclude fringe elements.
>the Anglo-Irish Treaty was a horrific betrayal
That's, honestly, retarded. You talk of the Independence War and the Troubles as if they were comparable conflicts, they were not. The former was a full-scale guerilla war while it would be a misnomer to even call the latter a war.
If the original Sinn Fein had carried on for 30 years, or even just 10, hundreds of thousands would have died, the economy would have been utterly devastated, people would have left Ireland in droves, all semblance of normal life would have been impossible. That they decided to spare Ireland from this is completely understandable and was 100% the right thing to do.
>I've heard this line before
Yet you continue to miss the point. What the future brings is always uncertain, the present isn't, so if people are content with the present they will be much more skeptical of making rash changes that could easily backfire. And I'm not just talking out my ass, polling shows a consistent discrepancy to religious demographics favouring the no-vote.

>>17999215
This is the biggest pile of shite I've read in a long time.

>>17999215
>I'll explain this in a way that even you can understand.
>"I am angry that historical greivances are not forgotten today."
That you even approach this from the stance of seeing nations as superior/inferior tells all we need to know. You use history to feed your personal biases.

You latch on to whatever crumb lets you suggest that the average person's grasp on a source of historical greivance (Famine, Troubles, Medieval Conflicts, Indentured Service, whatever), and then jump the shark with it. "Irish Famine wasn't a genocide" becomes "Irish Famine wasn't even that bad."

You get ALL of your views and information spoonfed to you from the internet. This is obvious because
>"loyalist rioters in ballymena are gaels"
Let me guess, because some guy on the internet said so? Assumedly the same one you have shilled before? Someone on tiktok, maybe?
When I tell you to fuck off to >>>/pol/ it's because I come to this board to talk about history, not to listen to the screaming ramblings of some underage retard who lifts all his views from social media influencers.

You clearly got mindbroken by micks and here you are, seething forever. Dire.

>>17999375
Why are you allowed to complain about Loyalists LARPing as cu cullain or pretending they're the cruithin or whatever but when i complain about paddies pretending ulster scots are "celtic" suddenly i'm "mindbroken"?
Typical taig hypocrite. Will spend hundreds of posts lambasting loyalists when gets a little bit of criticism starts lashing out and pretending other people are obessed.

>>17999361
>That would actually make Sinn Fein more guilty of treason
That's the line of "got fuck all" ex-provos who believe exactly that. In my view, it makes it less controversial because there was a clear democratic mandate for what happened. If I had to label my own politics I'd say Irish Republicanism comes closest, but I don't believe we're in a situation that warrants an armed campaign by any existant Republican group. The big split in Republicanism didn't happen with the GFA, it happened in the 1980s when Sinn Féin took over the IRA (rather than vice versa).
>except maybe during the actual Free State era
I don't think the labels are as significant or stark; I would say most in Ireland fall under the broad label of Nationalism/Republicanism, with a minority being Free Staters-mostly Fine Gaelers. Shinners and FF would deny it, but the chunk of Anglophilic Irish people is not on the fringe of society.
>Tan War/Troubles were different
Well yeah, course they were. The "Good old IRA" phenomenon has been spotted and written about.

I think anyone who honours the old one but gets their panties in a twist about the newer one is retarded, just like the Shinners who say up the Provos but decide that magically after 1998 all the dissos are evil. I agree with you that prolonged conflict would have been godawful, but we now have the hindsight to see that all of the criticisms and concerns about partition were completely true.
>Yet you continue to miss the point
I don't think I am, I'm saying that the "uncertain future" was realised by those shilling for a UI which is why all they talk about now is how it could IMPROVE the financial stability of most people. How they shill endlessly about pensions and schools and all that. I do not necessarily believe they are all correct, but they know where the debate is going and as of now only the pro-UI camp exists.

>>17999390
>why are you allowed
My main criticisms of Loyalism are not funny updoot gotchas about inconsistencies about how the rank and file of Loyalist groups missinterpret or misrepresent Irish history.

Those things are funny and worth a wee laugh, but they do not have any serious bearing on my views. This is because when I studied Loyalist history I did it because I was interested, not because I wanted to wage a culture war on the internet against strangers.

You're an odd one, lad.

>>17999399
I'm not the one who makes hundreds of posts spamming biased pro IRA history
You are.
I didn't make this thread nor do I make any of the anti irish threads that populate this board.

>>17999499
I do make lots of threads! I wouldn't call them biased. Usually criticism I face is people like yourself, who don't have anything to actually say other than
>I am angry, angry about the Irish
You may not have made this thread, but you've shown everyone your arse in it regardless. See you in the next thread, where I'm sure you'll have found some other boring shite to vomit up on your crusade.

>>17994663
you realize you retard, that this entire event is because the british stopped them from getting food right? Multiple countries were willing to donate and sell the irish food. But the UK had made it illegal for any outside food to come anywhere but from the UK. It had also taken boats and fishing rights from most Irish, who historically had fished a lot. But look at a map and you will see they would be fishing inside the range of british fishing boats, and thus that needed to be stopped.

>>17999039
This kinda reads as arrogance and ignorance. If you knew how England actually conquered Ireland during the 9 year war, you would know it was by the skin of their teeth. It was ridiculous the whole thing actually. The Irish nation before English rule were not "eating roots from the ground", this developed because of poor British management of Ireland and cruel unjust laws being put upon the Irish. The "need for handouts" was Britain's doing

>>17999546
Your threads have an anti protestant bias.
You pretend to be an unbiased, objective historian that is above everything yet you clearly are a paddy with a bias. I'd have more respect for you if you actually admitted your hatred for protestants rather than engage with it under the guise of impartialism

>>17999900
>an anti protestant bias
I am not sectarian, no. Nor are any of the threads I make, nor the posts I make in them.
>I'd have more respect for you
I hate to tell you this anon, but I don't massively care what some raging autist on 4chan thinks about me. Especially when you openly admit yourself that you just have a burning personal crusade to fight because you're angry about scousers or whatever

>>17999911
>I am not sectarian, no. Nor are any of the threads I make, nor the posts I make in them.
There is nothing wrong with being "secterian". All ethnic groups put their own group first and discriminate against others. I am a proud secterian and wouldn't expect an irish catholic to be any different
And your posts are clearly biased to the catholic side.
>I hate to tell you this anon, but I don't massively care what some raging autist on 4chan thinks about me. Especially when you openly admit yourself that you just have a burning personal crusade to fight because you're angry about scousers or whatever
Imagine complaining about protestant planters yet crying when prots complain about catholic planters
LOL

>>17999395
>the chunk of Anglophilic Irish people is not on the fringe of society.
How does this supposed Anglophilia actually translate into politics, specifically regarding Anglo-Irish relations? Does Fine Gael reject reunification? Do they want to restore the personal union with the UK? Do they maybe even want to rejoin the UK? Or how about just joining the mostly symbolic Commonwealth? Now after Brexit I guess maybe they could leave the EU and form a mini-EU just with the UK?
But no, they don't really want to do ANY of this. And just pursuing friendly and neighbourly relations with a fellow western democracy doesn't count as it would be weirder if they didn't.
>I think anyone who honours the old one but gets their panties in a twist about the newer one is retarded
I partly agree with you, but the key distinction between them, and also the modern dissidents, is in how pragmatic they were. And I certainly think that comes with some moral superiority because it is not a good thing to be an idealist retard who brings about endless death and suffering, including for his own people, until the enemy unconditionally surrenders, which usually never happens.
>we now have the hindsight to see that all of the criticisms and concerns about partition were completely true.
Still worth it, especially given that Craigs iteration of Northern Ireland only lasted 50 years.
>I'm saying that the "uncertain future" was realised
A united Ireland has been realised?

>>18000130
>How does this supposed Anglophilia actually translate into politics, specifically regarding Anglo-Irish relations?
Pro-NATO, VERY Pro-EU, generally quite conservative. Specifically regarding Anglo-Irish relations, Fine Gael have always been the anglophiles. Fine Gael took an extra harsh line on Republicans during the Troubles (or at least, Cosgrave did) and instead threw weight behind the constitutional nationalists and Britain themselves via Sunningdale. They have also been widely criticised for a general disinterest in legacy issues, most notably the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

They also attempted to kickstart plans for state commemoration of the RIC (including Auxies and Reserve, aka the Black and Tans).
>just pursuing friendly and neighbourly relations with a fellow western democracy
Said "neighbour and fellow western democracy" was bogged down in a dirty war in a place with a people who are supposed to be Irish citizens too, anon. Anglophilia does not mean they are Royalists, it just means they want to avoid things that would create tension between Britain and Ireland and this usually amounts to following their lead.

When people call someone a Free Stater it isn't because they aren't foaming at the mouth about loving Britain, it's because their politics is seen as the sort of comfortable, partitionist, broadly conservative politics; modern evolutions of the old conservative Pro-Treatyites who were not within Collins' "muh freedom to achieve freedom" camp of IRA leaders. It isn't that serious, but I guess if you aren't from here it maybe sounds weird.

>>17998042
what are these from?

>>18000130
>is in how pragmatic they were
You think so? I think the PIRA specifically (can't say the same of some of the other groups) were quite pragmatic; they just wanted to win.

At multiple points in the Troubles, many did truly believe that Britain were going to pull out. They were all completely wrong, of course-but both within Loyalism and Republicanism there was a sense that the end result here is
>okay, northern ireland broken
>lets begin the process of pulling out
In the 1980s that this sense started to fade, and then in the 1990s it was realised that nobody was going to win or budge-at which point the people in the IRA keeping track of the numbers (of both weapons and informants, kek) realised that another decade of killing wouldn't do much.

All things considered, I think the Provos proved to be incredibly pragmatic. Pragmatic meaning "horrible evil traitors", if you ask the dissos.
>Craigs iteration of Northern Ireland only lasted 50 years
This is more because of Unionist autism than anything the ROI did. We know full well that any British solutions did not involve any sort of path to constitutional change anywhere in Ireland until very long into the conflict.
>A united Ireland has been realised?
Poor wording from me.

I meant that the United Ireland camp realised that what will make people vote Yes or No is the feeling that one or the other promises a general continuation of stability, or an improvement on it. Hence why the United Ireland argument has completely abandoned historic greivances or any arguments like that; they are completely focused on how a UI can benefit
>healthcare
>pension
>schools
I don't know that they're right, but like many debates it looks like they could win it without actually being correct. Meanwhile most of Unionism's equivilant attempts (TogetherUK, Union of People, etc) have fallen flat and got mostly forgotten. Hence my belief that we will probably sleepwalk into a United Ireland long after a majority already want it.

>>18000247
NTA but they are from "The Savage Eye." Third Season I believe. It's an Irish satire show from like 2010

>>18000235
>instead threw weight behind the constitutional nationalists
For this reason I think only the distinction between insurrectionist (i.e. "republicans") and reformist nationalists is clearcut.
But I was actually talking about the modern day.
>commemoration of the RIC
And this is all you had, a politically meaningless commemoration.
Also, the RIC wasn't as bad as you people like to claim. It was just a normal police force trying to maintain the rule of law and only started to become sectarian after all of the Catholic constables were harassed and threatened by the IRA and their supporters into quitting their jobs.
>bogged down in a dirty war in a place with a people who are supposed to be Irish citizens too
Calling it a fucking dirty war is hyperbolic to say the least, loyalist paramilitaries weren't state-sponsored death squads who could kill anyone they deemed as enemies of the state with impunity. And although they did collude with the British security forces to an extent, they were still brought to justice by the British authorities when there was evidence for it. The IRA actually had a similair relationship to the Garda and Irish authorites, just not to the same extent since the conflict primarily took place in British territory.
And politically the two countries were basically always in fundamental agreement over what should be done, that they should try to figure out a way to make people stop killing each other through some sort of power-sharing agreement and that Ireland should only reunify if the people of Northern Ireland vote for it.
But even if you ignore all of what I just said it would still be irrational to be hostile towards a neighbouring country over an increasingly distant past.
>>18000264
>You think so?
Yes and you have only convinced me further of it as deluding yourself into believing that the enemy will eventually hand you a total victory on a silver platter is the opposite of pragmatic.

File: MV5BNmI0M2U4OWQtZWU1YS00Y(...).jpg (377 KB, 1080x1620)

377 KB JPG

>>17991064

This show showed us how difficult such a thing could be for some people. Dinner didn't come easy some days/nights. Especially when the season changed.

File: GuCaYv1W8AAspiN.jpg (366 KB, 820x662)

366 KB JPG

>come out ye black and tans fight me like a man
>proceeds to assasinate unarmed generals like cowards
Why are they like this?

>>18000509
>But I was actually talking about the modern day.
Well me too, Fine Gael's clumsy forays into Northern Ireland's politics usually sees them cosy up with Unionists and try win over a few in the SDLP to stop any future attempts to merge with Fianna Fáil.
>a politically meaningless commemoration
I personally didn't think it was much different to inviting the Queen of England to the Gardens of Remembrance, but you can see given the near universal condemnation that most don't feel that way.
>Calling it a fucking dirty war is hyperbolic to say the least
I don't think so. Journalists who documented the Troubles remarked to negtiators of the GFA that it was word for word a "Dirty old war you've just finished." The scale and intensity of the Troubles is overstated often, though.

IRA collusion with the Irish authorities didn't come anywhere near as close to that of Britain and the Loyalists-instances of collusion with the Guards or authorities are so rare that they're treated as these huge events and black marks on the state. I also don't think brainless hostility toward Britain is worth it, it's more that falling over oneself to appease them in bad-faith discussions-which has happened before-is very silly considering that Britain takes a very proactive approach to maintaining their interests in the region.

>deluding yourself into believing that the enemy will eventually hand you a total victory
I don't think they were correct, I'm just going off what they thought at the time. I do believe the PIRA were pragmatists, I believe pragmatism is where the "ballot+bullet box" strategy overtook Éire Nua-the split in the 1980s was one over principle and pragmatism. Again, both Loyalists *and* Republicans at multiples stages thought it was almost curtains for a continued British military presence-with many even expecting some sort of international intervention (including many in the ROI).

>>18000552
The song is about two neighbours, the lyrics referring to one being an IRA veteran and the other being a Black and Tan veteran. He challenges the British guy to come out and fight him there and then, rather than telling old war stories and admiring his medals.

It's an incredibly simple song, I can only assume you aren't so incredibly stupid as to so critically misunderstand it. If your point is
>NOO GORILLA WAR IS DISHONORABRU
then perhaps Britain should have arrived on Ireland's shores with swords and bows as opposed to guns and armoured trucks.

>>17991812
thank you for the good answer these are rare on this board

>>18001094
I do feel a need to double down on the whole
>Free Stater isn't that serious a label, only really gets used when someone does something people hate that fits the bill

When Sinn Féin lovers for example ask me what I think a United Ireland government looks like and I tell them Sinn Féin probably won't be in it, they get pissy-because they don't realise that a majority of the ROI do not vote for Sinn Féin on principle. Most of them on account of the Provo stuff. Of course, people come out of the woodwork to say "it isn't really any different to what happened back in the 1920s" but given that the Free State and subsequently the ROI ran constant propagada against Republicans-and then later Sinn Féin specifically, I don't think people should be shocked.

File: fff.png (1.16 MB, 848x565)

1.16 MB PNG

>>17991058
Why didn't they just eat cake?

>>17991058
England destroyed their fishing industries to bolster their export markets
Fishmen naively pawned their boats and equipment for food, thinking the blight would be short lived

>>17991058
Because Britain ruled the waves.

>>18001098
>then perhaps Britain should have arrived on Ireland's shores with swords and bows as opposed to guns and armoured trucks.
But the british were fighting against people armed with guns and armoured trucks you spastic
the irish are proud for assasinating an old unarmed man and think it's "based" LOL
The british were merciful and compassionate to the irish despite the fact that at any point they could have bombed the entirety of the nation to rubble

>>18001262
>the irish are proud for assasinating an old unarmed man and think it's "based" LOL

Nobody knows about or gives a fuck about it. It was 100 years ago. Go add it to your list of grievances you clown. Add it under the children's animated movie from Ireland that you whinge and cry about from time to time..

This is a 5 day old whinge fest thread..

>>18001287
Cromwell was 400 years ago yet you're still crying about him

>>17998072
>Oi Paddy, do you have a fishing loicense to fish in my lough?

>>18001314
Most Irish people don't even know about Cromwell or that war.

>>18001262
Yes, I think it's fair enough that if they come up with a way to combat a vastly larger force with superior arms that works then they should use it and be happy about it.

The British were not merciful nor compassionaite, in fact the response to the IRA's campaign in the 1920s was so retardedly heavy handed that everyone from British citizens to the King himself said it was probably a stupid way to do things.

>>18001923
Expanding upon this to say
>inb4 "at least it wasn't the spanish"
>inb4 "well they didn't just start killing everyone, so no sense complaining"
Again, the only real political/military context anyone in Ireland knew between the 17th and 20th century was that of Britain.

By British and Irish standards, the handling of the IRA's campaign was indeed heavy handed and retarded. They
>failed completely to actually tackle the IRA
>lost control of most of the country very quickly
>mostly just waited until the IRA did something, then drove into a nearby town/village and committed reprisals against civilians
>got angry that they lost the support of the public basically straightaway
>caused massive unrest and anger in the actual Irish police force since the British reinforcements were notorious drunkards/untrained tards sent to Ireland with guns+money and not much else
They tried the whole "heh, we'll smash the stupid rebel Irish" thing in late 1920, and the IRA in response carried out the most infamous string of assassinations of the entire conflict.

Once more it's one of those situations where basically everyone at the time ended up on the same page; that the rebellion was terribly managed, the IRA were very effective, and lots should have been done differently. The only ones who disagree are screaming /int/fags who come into these threads to project their video game tier fantasies on what happened. Many posters on this board are outflanked by century old witnesses to the events, that is the level of astute retardation we are dealing with.

This thread is a great example. I could open a British history book from a century ago about the Famine, and read about how horrible it was. But some retards on 4chan in 2025 have decided it was all fine, because they need to undermine it. Weird as fuck.

>>18001094
>I don't think so.
You don't seem to understand what "dirty war" means, it is a term used for anti-communist repression in Latin America where state-sponsored paramilitary death squads would arbitrarily execute anyone they deemed to be a leftist.
>IRA collusion with the Irish authorities didn't come anywhere near as close to that of Britain
Yeah because the conflict took place in the UK, if it had been a unionist insurgency in the ROI the reverse would have been true.
>both Loyalists *and* Republicans
Republicans desperately wanted it to be true, they even NEEDED it to be true, but when you want and need something to be true you can easily delude yourself that it is true. And twisting reality in a way that makes your beliefs pragmatic does not make you a pragmatist. I would also add that they wanted to, and thought they could, overthrow the so called "free state" which was even more deluded. They only started to become pragmatic in the 80s when it became painfully obvious that their delusions were false.
Most loyalists didn't share this delusion though, otherwise Ulster nationalism would have been way more popular. They only thought that it was a real possibility.