Explain the Troubles to me. I don't know anything about it. Was it just that the Irish wanted Northern Ireland and the British wouldn't give it up?
Northern Ireland was run by the descendants of psychotic Scottish Presbyterians who were calling for the extermination of all Irish Catholics from Northern Ireland and to stay with Br*tain. The Irish wanted to not die and not be second class citizens. The Br*tish gave military aid to the Protestants and terrorized Irish civilians with torture and massacres. After thirty years of IRA bombings the Protestants grudgingly agreed to end anti-Irish apartheid in exchange for being allowed to keep the Cuck Stamp on their flag.
The Irish wanted their whole island. Britain on the other hand had no coherent policy and ended up basically giving up Northern Ireland, but with a massive time delay. They gave up Rhodesia, South Africa, their entire colonial Empire, so it's not surprising they also gave up Northern Ireland. In a few decades Northern Ireland will be majority Catholic and majority Irish and will then vote to join Ireland.
>>18004644Irish chimping out because one side didn't worship Mary and that was worth car bombing places.
Northern Ireland has been an equal part of the United Kingdom for 200 years. It is not ruled. Is part of the Union in much the same way a US state is. And was defended and policed when violence broke out along religious and loyalist / nationalist lines. Before joining the union the area now know as Northern Ireland had been under varying degree of English control since the 12th century. It was not simply a case of ‘Irish’ fighting for freedom. An independent Ireland already existed. It is an especially sad conflict, Irish killing Irish amongst civilian populations. And Britain quite rightly sought to maintain law and order.
>>18004687>In a few decades Northern Ireland will be majority Catholic and majority Irish and will then vote to join Ireland.Tbh, in that timespan it’s more likely that neither group can attain an overall majority due to mass immigration and declining native birth rates leading to the emergence of a third bloc of migrants/non-whites. It’s already the case that catholics have a 1-2% plurality due to their birth rates being historically higher than Protestants until the 2010’s but the former has fallen to below replacement levels too since Irish millennials and zoomers don’t have many kids on either side of the border. Protestants have had below replacement fertility rates for a lot longer and so their population is already slowly ageing out and declining but Irish catholics will be following this trend now as well. The migrant population in Northern Ireland was relatively small but it has been expanding rapidly in 2020s due to spillover from the huge uptake in migration in both post-brexit UK (boriswave) and also the RoI.If they hold the balance of power in future elections or a border poll remains to be seen. The 2021 census suggested most non-whites identify with British or NI on nationality over Irish. This makes some sense since they actively chose to migrate to UK territory and most migrant families kids are educated in the Protestant dominated state schools rather than catholic schools and that usually ties them to British/ulster peers growing up. They’re not exactly going to be no-surrender type loyalists but might on balance vote to stay in the UK if it was put to them. On the other hand, unionists and especially loyalists are strongly tied to anti-immigrant sentiment now and that may alienate many non-whites compared to shinners progressivism.
imagine jim crow america but with chechen levels of terrorism and both sides are white
>>18004727>imagine jim crow americaleast hysterical taig
>>18004727There was definitely discrimination against Irish catholics in pre-troubles NI but it’s an exaggeration to compare it to Jim Crow or apartheid South Africa. There was no legal basis for it or separate bathrooms or waiting at the back of bus kind of shite. The biggest discrepancy was that catholics had a nearly twice as high rate of unemployment than Protestants and were also often discriminated in social (council) housing in unionist controlled councils. Though nationalist controlled councils were often accused of doing the same in reverse, they just controlled less areas. Unionists were accused of gerrymandering the country in their favour after they subdivided councils and constituencies away from the six-county model into a dozen smaller ones for their new parliament, though election results for nationalists & republicans was historically only between 20-30% anyway with about 8 to 12 seats from 52. Initially after partition there were quite a number of catholics in high positions within the judiciary, police, civil service etc. but this declined over the decades as these individuals retired and catholics were often under pressure to either not join by antagonistic loyalists but also their own community often treated them as sellouts especially in the police. This is still the case today, as the PSNI had to abandon their 50-50 hiring policy because simply far too few catholics apply to be police officers.There were strongly anti-catholic politicians amongst the loyalists who pushed for hardline and militaristic policies against the perceived republican threat. There were also some more moderate unionists who tried to push for allievating catholics in the hope they’d become more comfortable with the NI state.
>>18004730belfast is literally segregated by walls
This video will tell you everything you will ever need to know about the Troubleshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpYW_w5pgo
>>18004644Yes.
>>18004644Ironiggers first expelled all protestants from Republic Irenigeria and then were like nah we wuz ulsterites(they aren't) and started funding the catholic minority that should've been expelled in NI to do terrorism(the US also sent a lot of material, trained them etc.). The British state meanwhile was trying to play a peacemakers instead of siding with their loyal subjects and exterminating the vermin.Your pic is btw a good illustration of it. You have terrorist from IRA, armed with a rifle that totally didn't come from America waiting to pounce on innocent people. Despite this superpower support however the IRA was wrecked by the 1990's they started really strong but then loyalists got smart and wrecked their assholes. Then Tony Blair, then not catholic yet just surrendered. 2 decades later he officially converted. Really makes you think.
>the irish revolution is an unpopular revolt that tries to push britain out of ireland>brits batter them but leave eventaully due to the war being unpopular>irish people ethnically cleanse protestants>protestants in the north don't want that and sign the ulster covenant
>>18004808ghetto or gated community?
>>18004808When was that wall built anon?
>>18004724I don't think the third bloc care as much about the history as the economic facts. If the government keeps ignoring NI while dealing with its own issues and it keeps getting worse it depends on whether the south also declines or manages to clean up its own issues.
>>18005370How is NI being ignored?
QRD on how the Troubles started:>In the 1920s, Ireland is partitioned>26 counties become the Irish Free State-later the Republic of Ireland>The remaining 6 in the northeast are Northern Ireland, staying in the UK>Northern Ireland is governed by a very undemocratic regime of Ulster Unionists, most of whom are in the Orange Order>Sectarian governance, abuse of emergency powers, and general anti-democratic attitudes dominate the politics>In the 1960s, a Civil Rights movement was born to try and reform Northern Ireland>Their key issues were ending sectarianism in housing+employment+elections, stating that Irish Catholics are de-facto 2nd class citizens>Loyalists (aka, hardline Unionists) oppose this, and don't want Protestant domination to end>They form paramilitaries in 1966 and start attacking both Civil Rights marches and other infastructure targets>They start a terror campaign aimed at hardening the government against any concessions to the protestors>Riots begin to break out when the local police (RUC) join the Loyalists in the attacks, or do nothing to protect the civil rights marches>Things escalate throughout the 1960s>1969, a particularly bad riot in the city of Derry gets out of hand and a Catholic/Nationalist area of the city pushes Loyalists and the Police out of the area-declaring "Free Derry">The British Army are called in to restore order, and are welcomed at first>However, it becomes clear that the Army are working with the much hated RUC and even with the Loyalists>The IRA, which had spent all this time deciding if Marxism was cool or not, splits into two groups; Marxist IRA and loosely Socialist IRA>They begin their own terror campaigns>The Troubles beginsThe main role played by the Republic of Ireland was suppressing the IRA where they could. The main "fight" was between Irish Republicans and the British Army/RUC. Loyalist Paramilitaries were active throughout, but mostly targeted civilians in sectarian attacks.
Answers to common questions:>So who were the good guys?They weren't really any. Every single belligerent in the conflict caried out atrocities against civilians. The highest civilian bodycount belongs to Loyalism, but Irish Republicanism isn't far behind.>Who were the least bad guys?The constitutional nationalists like the SDLP, who opposed the IRA's campaign. However, many make the argument that they wouldn't have survived or been so successful were it not for the IRA's campaign. There were also moderate voices on the British side who had a working relationship with the Provisional IRA until that fell apart in the 1980s. >Who started it?Ulster Loyalists.>Who won/lost?If there was a "winner", it's again the constitutional nationalists; they recieved enormous concessions without really conceding anything themselves. After them it's Britain, who managed to see a peace reached on their terms. Then probably Republicans, who did gain the things other nationalists got but they failed to reach many of their goals. The only ones who didn't really get anything out of the conflict were Unionists/Loyalists.There are a lot of really retarded takes flying around about the Troubles (and there always will be) but as a general rule of thumb, if someone is trying to convince you that any particular "side" (or even any specific paramilitary) were the "good guys" they are a retard. Even those who were quite literally in the Provisional IRA would tell you that they hate some of the shit that went on-likewise with the UVF and UDA, for the edgelords who think they were all permanent ethnonationalists.Gusty Spence disavowed the UVF's campaign that he helped start, and Irish Republican leaders condemned some later leaders in the IRA for some things they did. It's never black and white.
>>18005382Northern Ireland being ignored by Westminster is the one consistent thing about NI politics. SoS of NI is so openly a punishment job that British political shows make jokes about it-anyone who messes up is threatened with being sent to Belfast.It doesn't matter if you are a diehard monarchist from the Shankill or a poncey nationalist from Malone; Britain doesn't care about you and will fuck you over in a pinch without a second thought. We see less of it with Nationalists because Sinn Féin has the most Westminster seats but they abstain-but Unionism has a long history of throwing their weight behind the Tories and getting fucked over. Labour the same.>>18005369Ironically there are more peace walls today than there were during the Troubles.>>18005362There are gates at interface points where you can walk or drive through-they just close at night.
>>18005432Brexit got dragged out for years longer than it needed to, precisely to accommodate a solution that will keep all sides in NI happy and uphold the GFA though?
>>18005420>>18005427>>18005432Ulster Loyalists were the good guys, defending their people from ethnic cleansing.
>>18005439>>18005439The only reason that became a problem is because all the people in NI who were shouting "you haven't told us how the Irish border will be handled" were ignored. Unionists (particularly the DUP and TUV) hoped it would somehow lead to a hard border in Ireland-which fucks over NI, but can be presented as a "win" over Nationalism.A majority in NI voted against Brexit specifically because they knew it'd fuck everyone here over. Throughout the entire delay of Brexit it was>can't we just do a hard border>no>please can't we do a hard borderAnd in the end all of Unionism's protests about a Sea Border or a Protocol were ignored, instead the "Windsor Framework" (which most newspapers here laughed at for being the equivilant of jingling keys for Unionists) put it all to bed.We still have the British Government trying to force the Legacy Act, which insanely has united opinion between Unionists and Nationalists in opposition to it. NI gets no real investment, no real attention, and NI MPs are basically only there to prop up a shitty minority government if necessary.
>>18005441Loyalist titans like Gusty Spence and Billy Hutchison would disagree with you. Mind the edge.
>>18005444But there are plenty of loyalists who would agree with me>edgeSo it's "based" when irish people defend themselves against ethnic cleansing but it's "edgy" when brits do it?
>>18004712You are dumb as fuck.
>>18004730That anon is obviously not from Ireland you dumb fuck. >>18005290
is there a stigma against wearing camo/military surplus in northern ireland due to the troubles or what
>>18005509what stigma, northern irish on both sides actively celebrate what their grandparents did. on one neighborhood you have nationalist-catholic murals, on the other neighborhood you have ulster flags and union jacks raised everywhere
>>18005446>But there are plenty of loyalists who would agree with meAnd they'd be wrong. It is absolutely the mark of a poorly informed edgelord to suggest "Ulster Loyalists were good guys."Everyone can understand *why* people joined the UVF and UDA; while some obviously had sectarian motivations, others heard the IRA killing people and were told this was an opportunity to fight them. However, as we now know (through both legacy investigations and admissions of veteran Loyalists) the reality of Loyalist saw them clumsily shoot people they assumed to be Catholic, and who were therefore potentially Republicans. They made no serious impact on the Provisional IRA's campaign, and in fact waged far more impactful campaigns on one another over personal feuds and drug territories.The Irish men and women who joined paramilitaries did so against the combined threat of British Security Forces, the RUC, Loyalist Paramilitaries, and a state that hated them. The men and women who joined Loyalist paramilitaries did so against Irish Catholics, whoever they were. I would suggest the writings of Gareth Mulvenna or Susan McKay or Billy Hutchison to get a good insight to the reality of how things worked.
>>18005509No. Unless you are literally wearing stuff with Paramilitary symbols on them, nobody gives a fuck. Plenty of people in the Punk scene or whatever dress in that stuff; it's only shit like balaclavas and so on.
>>18005529where did the paramilitires get all the camo and tactical stuffwhy didnt they just wear civilian clothes to blend in
>>18005537because then the ira and uvf would've applief the israeli method of just killing every civilian on sight
>>18004644Northern Ireland is a fake gerrymandered state created for the decedents of low IQ migrant invaders who were sent to Ireland as a bio weapon to help prevent the Irish raising another army to challenge English power. This caused some issues when the English finally gave up trying to subdue the rest of Ireland after being slaughtered by the IRA. But their old bio weapon was effective enough that they were able to partition six counties.
>>18005537>where did the paramilitires get all the camo and tactical stuffThey didn't usually actually wear that stuff except for photoshoots. Pic related is meant to look like its "action" but in fact it is a staged photograph from a set of photos at a secretive location the Provisional IRA used for training operations.The instances where any paramilitary would get into an engagement where anyone can look at them for any extended amount of time were extremely rare. Most killings were either ambushes, assassinations, or bombings-only very rarely were there extended firefights, in which case people just wore general clothing to hide their figure/face. Most of the "camo and tactical stuff" could be bought or obtained without suspicion. The UDA were sometimes known as "Wombles" for example on account of the jackets many of them wore both casually and in shows of strength.>>18005540>low IQ migrant invaders Some of whom concieved the very concept of modern Irish Nationalism and Irish Republicanism in the late 18th century. Pretty much the only thing Irish nationalists have almost entirely agreed on for the last 200 years is that sectarianism is retarded and that Britain uses it to divide people. I think your grip on the topics you're talking about might be lacking, anon.
>>18005509It was illegal to wear a balaclava for a while, not sure if that's still on.
>>18005561nah. back in fashion for many thanks to kneecap, heaps of irish artists make a killing now selling pink/artsy balaclavas kekked
I have shilled the site before but I'll do it again because it's that good.>republicanarchive.comThis is a free to access massive archive of historical documents about Irish Republicanism.You can read;>18th/19th Century pamphlets/writings by or about Irish Republicans>Entire books in pdf form, such as>"Freedom Struggle", once banned in the UK and Republic of Ireland, written and published by the Provisional IRA in 1973>"Revolutionary in Ireland", an autobiography by the first Chief of Staff of the Provisional IRA-detailing what lead him and others to found the organisation>"The Revolutionary Works of Seamus Costello", showcasing the founder of the Irish Republican Socialist Party and INLA-the first Republican paramilitary not to claim any links to the IRA or the revolutionary rera>Very rare books like "The Price of my Soul" by Bernadette Devlin or "We shall Rise Again" by Nora Connolly, daughter of the famous James Connolly>Entire collections of magazines from throughout the Troubles; before during and after it, all documenting major events in detail>Foreign publications in France, Sweden, Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, and elsewhere that supported Irish Republicans>All of this for freeThere is no better source on the internet for specifcially Irish Republican material that is free to access. Can't recommend it enough. Happy to give recommendations depending on the topic.
>>18005545>Pretty much the only thing Irish nationalists have almost entirely agreed on for the last 200 years is that sectarianism is retarded and that Britain uses it to divide people. I think your grip on the topics you're talking about might be lacking, anon.Which is why the totally non secterian irishmen of 1798 proceeded to kill innocent protestants and stuff them in burning buildings.
>>18005582See the thing is anon when you mention one atrocity from a conflict and try to use that to paint a whole picture, it makes you look like a tard.For example, look at the horrors of Scullabogue Barn; the United Irishmen massacred anywhere between 150 and 200 people-including noncombatants such as women and children. This was carried out in reaction to news from nearby New Ross, where scores of captured rebels were similarly executed. with those murdered being accused simply of being Loyalists. It was a Catholic United Irishman who most famously spoke out against Scullabogue, and the Protestants leading the movement were also not magically sectarian.Take any conflict in which a load of regular people are suddenly armed and sent to fight, you will find atrocities.
>>18005565Huh of course. I must have seen them around but I just never clocked it. Para chic — kekekeke
>>18005579>RMF, Revolutionära marxisters förbund>A fringe Swedish trotskyist party that received a whopping 1300 votes in the 1973 election
>>18005592It's because the irish have a hatred towards libertyWhen the americans revolted they formed a democratic societywhen the french revolted they formed a democratic societywhen the irish revolted the first time they began massacring protestants and when they did it a second time they did the same thing and then made ireland into a theocratic backward stateQuite ironic that both revolutions were led by forward thinking anglo liberals but those same anglo liberals saw their ideals betrayed by the catholic rabble mob. yeats thought he was establishing a bohemian liberal state only to be dejected at seeing what ireland turn into
>>18005647There were a load of weird tiny groups abroad that supported Irish Republicans. Here's a French one.
>>18005545>Pretty much the only thing Irish nationalists have almost entirely agreed on for the last 200 years is that sectarianism is retarded and that Britain uses it to divide peopleThat's a lie Irish nationalists have been telling for the last 200 years in a vain attempt to win over Protestants, but it never worked as you would have to be retarded to fall for such ludicrous bullshit.
>>18005664This>Russell, who had become increasingly unhappy in the Irish Free State (which according to Yeats he called "a country given over to the Devil"),[24] moved to England soon after his wife's death in 1932. Despite his failing health he went on a final lecture tour in the United States, but returned home utterly exhausted. He died of cancer in Bournemouth in 1935.[1]The liberal anglos who went along with irish republicanism saw it as a failure when they saw its bitter fruit
>>18005664>that's a lie>they have been trying to win over protestants for 200 yearshuh?It's very obvious why in the 19th Century most Protestants didn't try join any insurrectionary groups; politics became dominated by constitutional nationalism (Repeal, then Home Rulers, then the Irish Parliamentary Party) and the much smaller bloc of Irish Unionism was mobilised to try and combat it. In 1905 Ulster Unionism began to drift away from the rest of Irish Unionism, and now here we are. There were no large-scale rebellions in Ireland between 1803 and 1916, but what few there were did often have some Protestants involved.I don't think it's very surprising that no real organised or active revolutionary republican movements managed to magically call rebel Protestants to their banner.>>18005671>"this">post almost exactly 60 seconds laterkekked. Russell is a horrendous example, and the fact that you're lifting it straight from wikipedia is telling. He was an artist and a poet who like many was disillusioned with the Free State-which turned much of what was fought for between 1916-1922 on its head.
>>18005692>kekked. Russell is a horrendous example, and the fact that you're lifting it straight from wikipedia is telling. He was an artist and a poet who like many was disillusioned with the Free State-which turned much of what was fought for between 1916-1922 on its head.Prove to me why Russel is a "horrendous example">he was an artist and poetArtists and poets have lead successful revolutions before and not been blackpilled at the result.
>>18005692>It's very obvious why in the 19th Century most Protestants didn't try join any insurrectionary groups; politics became dominated by constitutional nationalismDo you somehow not consider Irish constitutional nationalists to be Irish nationalists, even though you call them nationalists?>what few there were did often have some Protestants involved.A handful of intellectuals who were out of touch with their own community, some of whom even converted to Catholicism.
>>18005698Because you have presented him as an example of someone who left Ireland due to seeing Irish Republicanism as a failure. He didn't. He, like many others, was not "blackpilled" by the outcome of Republicanism but by the failure of the movement and the victory of the Conservative establishment. He spent his final years in the Free State agitating to end partition, but the Civil War had horrified to such a degree that he believed it had permanently poisoned Irish politics. He was one of many people who supported the Irish Revolution but who believed that in the aftermath of the Civil War all the promised gains had been abandoned, and causes for social progress (he championed progressive causes until his death) were left by the wayside. So to present him as an example of "regretting going along with Irish Republicanism and seeing it as a failure" is beyond retarded, his main issue with the Free State was how it abandoned the things the Republican revolution had championed.>Artists and poets have lead successful revolutions Russell didn't lead the revolution, he was a pacifist. His main "role" in the revolution was showing sympathy to Republicans and with the Dominion league-as he hoped (like Plunkett) that an all-island Dominion would lead to independence peacefully.
>>18005716>Do you somehow not consider Irish constitutional nationalists to be Irish nationalistsNo, but considering that constitutional nationalism drew the support of many Protestants, the point is that the Protestants who weren't in fringe insurrectionist movements were often supporting them instead.>A handful of intellectuals who were out of touch with their own communityOh you're that poster.Considering the primary concern was>we don't like catholicsI don't think there's much concern over those views not being seen as workable by the intellectuals you so clearly revile. Was Carson not out of touch with his own community? Were Craig and his cabal not out of touch with the rest of Protestant Irish Unionism? The answer is that they both were, and the point is that Irish Republicanism isn't an ideology defined by a lack of sectarianism-just one that encouraged it, with mixed success. I think overly criticising their failures to attract Protestants when the only other political camp was one of denying mandate after mandate on grounds of sectarian concerns is very silly.
>>18005738>No, but considering that constitutional nationalism drew the support of many ProtestantsThe All-for-Ireland League did, but in the south they were the only alternative to the IPP so of course they would get behind the less sectarian option.>>we don't want to be ruled by catholicsftfyAnd that was a legitimate and understandable concern given how much Catholics resented Protestants.
>>18005768>The All-for-Ireland LeagueYeah, who suggested that for some reason a Unionist minority should be able to veto any Irish legislation and that their representation in parliament should be ballooned far beyond what was anywhere near proportional.He in essence argued for partition without partition through an absolutely insane and unworkable amount of concession to Ulster Unionists-who weren't interested anyway.>ftfyThey "didn't want to be ruled by Catholics" because of imagined concerns. Catholic resentment of politics can't be seen as surprising given the context of the period we're talking about, anon.I think you should read more about partition, and about the history of Unionism prior to its implosion.
>>18005777>Ulster Unionists-who weren't interested anyway.Carson himself said that home rule wouldn't be that bad if it was going to be O'Briens vision of it. However, that was never really an option as the IPPs dominance of Catholic politics remained unthreatened, despite the success of the AFIL in Munster.>Catholic resentment of politics can't be seen as surprising given the context of the period we're talking about, anon.And? I never claimed that one side had perfectly legitimate concerns while the other was only driven by an irrational and religious hatred, you did.
>>18005798>Carson himself said that home rule wouldn't be that bad As soon as he realised that he couldn't speak separatism out of existence, he flip flopped constantly between>no, this is wrong, partition is a disaster, we must prevent it>but also, ulster unionists, you must hold fast and keep what you haveThe AFIL was a non-starter from the get go; the insane concessions they wanted to give Ulster Unionists would have made even the moderates in Sinn Féin laugh, and they struggled massively with their rivals in the United Irish League.>I never claimed that one side had perfectly legitimate concerns while the other was only driven by an irrational and religious hatredI didn't claim anything of the sort.Just that the concerns-or ambitions-of the Nationalist/Catholic side of the debate very obviously outweighed sectarian brinkmanship. Decades of ignored mandate for Home Rule vs a minority of people not wanting to lose their disproportionately influential command of things-as was the sentiment expressed at the time. The most legitimate concern Unionists (claimed to have) had was one of economics-but that obviously proved to not be a priority for them as partition absolutely shattered not only the northern economy but also that of the rest of the island. It caused endless logistical problems for decades, and what money was circulating in Northern Ireland certainly wasn't going anywhere near the average Protestant in Belfast or elsewhere in the north. The economic argument fell more and more out of use as time went on, favouring brinkmanship and sectarianism.
Imagine you’re a US executive from Seagate in 1994. You just opened a fab in Derry the year prior. Some Northern Irishman accosts you in a bar>Can’t believe you built your plant here! Don’t you know it’s the Troubles(tm)?There were over 100 people murdered in all of Northern Ireland last year! Fucking brave!You smile awkwardly>Oh wow…that’s a lot…so manywhile remembering that the head of security at your Oklahoma City fab told you that 5 employees were murdered off campus in 1993, a small fraction of the over 250 murders in OKC that year and many times the murder rate of Northern Ireland
It was simply a low-level war where the people of Northern Ireland chose to be both British and Irish.
>>18006120>It was simply a low-level war where the people of Northern Ireland chose to be both British and Irish.>the people of Northern Ireland>chose to be both British and Irish.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
>>18006077Are you a retard? The IRA were targeting economic centres and infastructure targets, it was their openly stated goal to make Northern Ireland completely ungovernable and part of that was by shattering its economy.Very obviously that does not make it an attractive target for business investments. Jesus some of you people are so stupid I have to assume you are underage.>>18006330>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAyou say this like the entire united ireland argument isn't specifically framed around targeting people who are in the middle ground and not loyal to either a specifically irish or british identity.
