Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[MMI]

Martian Sheen isn't a terrorist is he?

No, I’m sure he isn’t, but I wasn’t referring specifically to him in my previous post. And in any case, I don’t believe you have answered my point by making such a dismissive remark. Your contention is that if people behaved in accordance with the times they lived in, they are not to be criticised. Thus the Irish are not to be criticised for their murderous raids on mainland Britain during the Roman occupation.

Yet, although many European nations - and even the United States of America – have built empires in the more recent past, Britain alone is to be faulted for doing so.

As for Martin Sheen, I think Ian’s remarks above will suffice.

[The Irish] have justified their actions by saying the English are to blame.

Which is how it appears from your perspective...just like Hezbollah justifies its actions and beliefs...the only perspective that matters is their own...

I agree that we have different perspectives, but I don’t think my views can be summarily disregarded simply because they do not fit in with your uncritical absorbtion of the American/Irish Nationalist version of history; and I am quite unsure that your experience of violence in Lebanon enables you to empathise with Irish Republicans. (Why not with the Loyalists, who are also Irish?)

I am sure Brittan is just like the Jedi coming in to free Naboo...all peace loving and only wanting to help and the bad meanie Irish are then just like the Sith...at least from the English perspective. I am sure that perspective is flipped around for the Irish however.

You tell me you’re a historian, yet here you are comparing British Imperialism and Irish Nationalists with a Hollywood film! I can assure you, the problem is far more complicated than that and deserves to be considered more thoughtfully. I note you have already made a similar point earlier in this thread.

The first thing you need to understand is that the problem is not what the British did to the Irish, but what the Irish did – and are still doing - to each other. When you look at things from that perspective, you will see that Britain’s actions are almost irrelevant.

All it takes is one soldier getting caught pissing on a dead body of an occupied countries "terrorist/freedom fighter) and ten plus years of goodwill goes out the window like so much slop.

I’m not aware of this incident. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Why do African Americans, Jews, People of India, Arabs, etc etc all still complain or comment on what their "oppressors" did too them so many years ago? I will tell you why: Perceptions of injustices resonate just as strongly sometimes as the actual acts that fostered them in the first place real or imagined.

Perceptions of injustice can be – and in this instance, I submit, are – self-delusional; and it would be wrong to pander to such self-deception when trying to understand history.

As the only version of Irish history that is generally noised around the world is the nationalist version, I don’t see how you can accuse England of lies and exaggerations.

No more so than I accuse any other nation of such fickle historical sophistry when it suits them or they don't like the way some thing about themselves or their ancestors sounds. Remember our discussions on the American Revolution? Brittan taught their version to you and your peers in school...while American children were taught their own version. Who had the "truth"...who had the "right" of it? Did Herodotus malign the Persians in favor of his countrymen in his works? Did Livy favor the Romans over all others in his histories?

As the Irish version of history is one-sided and in many places fallacious, I wonder where the sophistry truly resides.

The British educational system – at least when I was at school – spent perhaps one lesson on the American Revolution - two or three if you count the colonial period and events in Canada: it was just one small theatre in a world-wide war and not important enough to bother justifying or apologising for.

But this is a side-issue and we don’t want to start that argument all over again!

Keeping an open mind does not mean disregarding any arguments that support the British cause.

Nor the Irish cause either right?. Not if one is to truly be objective that is. Which I doubt is happening when we discuss things that are very close to one's home. (not mine I was born in beyrut..its the Jew/Arab thingy that should strike close too me)

No-one is allowed to forget the Nationalist view, so that particular question doesn’t arise. They even glory in their atrocities. When, on the other hand, have you heard anyone seriously argue against the Irish “Truth”?

Your opinion is your opinion. I just think its a bit biased is all.

… and therefore invalid? What makes you think that? Simply because I interpret historical events differently from you?

Enviroment imho shapes us in some ways.

Is that an oblique way of making Britain responsible for things like the Plague or potato blight?

Tell me when England invaded Ireland for the sole reason of oppressing the people ...

The sole reason? There is never a sole reason. But it has happened several times. Starting with a series of Norman right on through Elizabethian times. The reasons given by the invaders however...will be documented as self justifing however...that much is pretty much garenteed. Oh I was invited to "help" but now that I am here I am staying...like it or not etc.

Never simply to oppress, then, but to help or protect Ireland, or to prevent Ireland becoming a staging post for England’s enemies.

I’ll make it simpler: when was oppression of the Irish people one of the stated aims of any British invader?

I ... quoted like a whole page of historical notes way earlier in the thread. I just think you were rather subjectivly one sided in your interpetation is all, which is understadable.

Yes, I read and commented upon those notes. I said they did not demonstrate English oppression, but, rather, the opposite. Instead of patronising me by “understanding” my prejudices, please point out the events mentioned that clearly demonstrate England invaded Ireland to suppress the population as a whole (as opposed to rebels in particular).

Continuing to hold dominion ... In other words, trying to maintain the Queen’s Peace in a British province. No different than keeping law and order on the streets of London, Liverpool or Glasgow.

I am certian that from the Crown's point of view thats precisely whats going on.

So why do you doubt and deny it?

Seriously...why do you think the bigots are being so bloody bigoted?

Because the other bigots are killing them! One Irishman against another.

Every rebellion in Ireland has been by Irishmen, and has been focused on other Irishmen or property. Peace has had to be restored by English troops. To that extent, England IS the good guy.

At least from England's point of view.

No. From a detached and dispassionate point of view.

Every invasion by foreign powers has had to be defeated by England to avoid Ireland being conquered or used as a jumping-off point for an attack on Britain. The attempts by the Stuarts to seize the Irish Crown, and then the English Crown, had to be put down for the same reason. If that doesn’t make England the good guy, it certainly justifies the English actions.

To the English it certiantly does.

If you deny it, explain?

… just like the Irish, America paints its act of arch-treachery as a noble strike for freedom!

Yeah must be why they came up with that nifty new form of government that worked so dam well to limit tyranny and all instead of declaring themselves pirate kings (at least for a time...its a bit tattered now days if you ask me).

They replaced a benign tyranny (if you must call it tyranny) with a weak confederacy, run by self-interested smugglers, land-grabbers and other disreputable blackguards, that began its life by reneging on the first international treaty it signed, and planned to turn on its allies (the French and Spanish – who won the American war for them) in order to take over New France and Florida once the English had been ejected.

As for “new”, what about the Licchavi, or Rome or Lucca?

There is a difference, however between acts of treachery and acts of resistance against a foreign invader.

If the shoe were on the other foot I wonder what you would say then?

I would say the same thing: there is a difference.

[denuseri]

How I like to reply with a quote:

Click the reply with quote key,

then I type what I want and make it a different color at various places between the text that is copied into the box and make sure to type something outside the quotes at the bottom.

How MMI does it pulling quote within quote I have no idea lol

Sorry is this is further off topic for you Ian but MMI asked me some questions so I being submissive and all will attempt to answer them. My post before this one I hope will receive some clarification since I went back to the OP and re-read it to see if I somehow missed the boat.

No, I’m sure he isn’t, but I wasn’t referring specifically to him in my previous post. And in any case, I don’t believe you have answered my point by making such a dismissive remark. Your contention is that if people behaved in accordance with the times they lived in, they are not to be criticised. Thus the Irish are not to be criticised for their murderous raids on mainland Britain during the Roman occupation.

Are the English to be criticized for theirs? Do you honestly believe that the entire predicament has zero blame to lay at England door and all the blame on Ireland?

My contention was one being that we should try to view history as objectively as possible IE: not only from our own perspectives, but the perspectives of the people on all sides of any issue in a historical setting.

Yet, although many European nations - and even the United States of America – have built empires in the more recent past, Britain alone is to be faulted for doing so.

No of course not. We do have to however take the bad with the good..."warts and all". Otherwise we risk loosing objectivity.

As for Martin Sheen, I think Ian’s remarks above will suffice.

Shrugs.



I agree that we have different perspectives, but I don’t think my views can be summarily disregarded simply because they do not fit in with your uncritical absorbtion of the American/Irish Nationalist version of history; and I am quite unsure that your experience of violence in Lebanon enables you to empathise with Irish Republicans. (Why not with the Loyalists, who are also Irish?)

I don't honestly empathize with either party. I think war however necessary at times it is deplorable. I just figured that someone best play devils advocate for the sake of discussion since no one was taking up for the much maligned Irish and you two were just bashing them up like Brown shirts going after Juden in Munich before the start of the war. (sarcasm) Point being not everything thats happened to the Irish is necessarily the sole fault of the Irish.

You tell me you’re a historian, yet here you are comparing British Imperialism and Irish Nationalists with a Hollywood film!

Why not often times such analogies get through an otherwise difficult concept to my students when I teach.

I can assure you, the problem is far more complicated than that and deserves to be considered more thoughtfully.

Yes but also sometimes a more laconic approach is merited. Both have their place. Belligerent bellicose ranting however is imho completely unwarranted in any serious discussion (not talking about you MMI).

I note you have already made a similar point earlier in this thread.

Yep and I was very disappointed it was discarded out of hand and the sophistry continued. But I tried.

The first thing you need to understand is that the problem is not what the British did to the Irish, but what the Irish did – and are still doing - to each other. When you look at things from that perspective, you will see that Britain’s actions are almost irrelevant.

Oh personally I fully agree both sides should have put away their toys and went home like 50 years ago or never started fighting to begin with after the peace Collins helped make with the British. I understand the British argument for continued occupation, I also understand their opposition...though considering the resolve of the people wanting one united Ireland free of occupancy by outsiders and all the trouble its caused I must say that someone on both sides of the peace table dropped the ball in Collins day or at the very least lacked foresight.



I’m not aware of this incident. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Oh that was a reference to the United States Soldiers that were all over TV for having taken cell pics of themselves peeing on a dead Afghan.


Perceptions of injustice can be – and in this instance, I submit, are – self-delusional; and it would be wrong to pander to such self-deception when trying to understand history.

Yep but to be anywhere near objective you have to first be able to admit that the self delusions will be prevalent on both sides of the issue in question and perhaps even within one's self.

As the Irish version of history is one-sided and in many places fallacious, I wonder where the sophistry truly resides.

On both sides. As evidenced by our collective references to the "interpetive" history and its two distinct versions we were both tuaght in our respective educations. Which I will refrain from making any further comment on in this thread.

The British educational system – at least when I was at school – spent perhaps one lesson on the American Revolution - two or three if you count the colonial period and events in Canada: it was just one small theatre in a world-wide war and not important enough to bother justifying or apologising for.

But this is a side-issue and we don’t want to start that argument all over again!

lol Agreed!



No-one is allowed to forget the Nationalist view, so that particular question doesn’t arise. They even glory in their atrocities. When, on the other hand, have you heard anyone seriously argue against the Irish “Truth”?

Oh you should have been a fly on the wall during my first European History class ever (we had an Oxford man for our instructor) and to hear him put it, without Great Brittian their would be no Europe to have a history. He oft likened them to the Athenians of Greece...and just as oft left out any and all of the more sorted tales or other bad things they did etc. (and by Britian he did indeed mean England first over all others...the Welsh, Scots etc where all from some lower order in his book).



… and therefore invalid? What makes you think that? Simply because I interpret historical events differently from you?

I was just pointing out your subjectivity is all.



Is that an oblique way of making Britain responsible for things like the Plague or potato blight?

Gosh can we blame the finacial crisis on them too? Seriously...nope not at all...just that how a culture is shaped is often a by product of its enviroment. Like the Russians I am sure wouldnt have been nearly as understanding or light handed with the Irish situation if it had been them and not the Brits dealing with it.

Never simply to oppress, then, but to help or protect Ireland, or to prevent Ireland becoming a staging post for England’s enemies.

Now you sound just like my first European history teacher again...smh. Sure you arnt an Oxford man teaching in the southern USA at a community college? (if you are you may be in for some really good blow jobs soon lol)

I’ll make it simpler: when was oppression of the Irish people one of the stated aims of any British invader?

Oh that would never be the stated claim at least not offically we all know that. Most invaders want to be seen as liberators or protectors if the people they invade. (note how America has followed our British forbears example in the middle east during our invasions there)


So why do you doubt and deny it?

All I am saying is that obviously the people fighting back do not share the viewpoint of the Crown on this matter and they most likely think of themselves as freedom fighters much the same as the "terrorists" in the middle east do. I bet their viewpoints are shared with the Crown as much as Alquieada shares the USA's view or William Wallace shared the English view whilst fighting them at Stierling. (yes I may be setting up for another movie quote or two).





They replaced a benign tyranny (if you must call it tyranny) with a weak confederacy, run by self-interested smugglers, land-grabbers and other disreputable blackguards, that began its life by reneging on the first international treaty it signed, and planned to turn on its allies (the French and Spanish – who won the American war for them) in order to take over New France and Florida once the English had been ejected.

As for “new”, what about the Licchavi, or Rome or Lucca?

Now now shouldnt we make a whole seperate thread where we can flirt over that subject?



I would say the same thing: there is a difference.

Seriously is you were born and raised in Belfast and raised to believe that your father and mother and brothers etc were fighting for your independence from opression...how would you really feel?

[MMI]

Sorry is this is further off topic for you Ian but MMI asked me some questions so I being submissive and all will attempt to answer them. My post before this one I hope will receive some clarification since I went back to the OP and re-read it to see if I somehow missed the boat.

It is not off-topic: it is just one of two or three themes.

Referring back to your last post, you claim that your position is neutral and that history must be viewed objectively. You also allow that people on each side of the problem have their own subjective opinions. However, throughout this thread you have challenged any attempt to put forward an objective justification – or even an explanation – of the English viewpoint. Did I say “challenged”? I meant “denied”: denied out-of-hand with nothing rational to support your rejection.

Then you accuse me of sophistry! At least sophists recognise facts.

I will accept the British have done bad things in Ireland; but you must accept the Irish have done worse, more often, and to their own countrymen. It is despicable to put the blame for their own low behaviour on the English, but innate in the Irish character.

You go on to ask,

Seriously is you were born and raised in Belfast and raised to believe that your father and mother and brothers etc were fighting for your independence from opression...how would you really feel?

Seriously, I still would believe there is a difference between acts of treachery (e.g., British citizens who kill other British citizens in the name of Irish Republicanism) and acts of resistance against a foreign invader (e.g., the French resistance).

================================================== ================================================== ================

Further evidence of the Irish habit of subjugating their own was provided in BBC Radio 4’s “Woman’s Hour” last week when they discussed how mothers in Londonderry are forced to ensure their sons, who have been fingered by Republican Action Against Drugs (an IRA splinter group “policing” Republican areas of Londonderry) to keep an appointment for a shooting, because they will be shot anyway, but more seriously if they ignore the summons. Listen to it, then maybe you’ll understand a bit better:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18068691

MOTHER "I had to let him go"

INTERVIEWER "Why?

MOTHER "Because that's the way of it ..."

It must be remembered that drugs formed a significant proportion of the IRA’s income, and with that in mind, one wonders why RAAD is seeking to eliminate drug dealers in Londonderry, even though drug-dealing and drug-taking is still rife.

[denuseri]

Referring back to your last post, you claim that your position is neutral and that history must be viewed objectively.

Should be viewed as objectively as possible. My position is and will remain in this regard completely neutral.

You also allow that people on each side of the problem have their own subjective opinions.

Yep. Their individual perspectives in combination with the human proclivity to self justify one's self and one's actions no matter how heinous is also factored in. Which is why I say that the one side will view the other as being the bad guys. Just like Al Quida vs the USA, or Arab vs Jew etc etc ...or in this case Irish vs English.

However, throughout this thread you have challenged any attempt to put forward an objective justification – or even an explanation – of the English viewpoint. Did I say “challenged”? I meant “denied”: denied out-of-hand with nothing rational to support your rejection.

When I see a truly objective explanation I shall indeed give much praise. So far I haven't seen anything objective so much as pro-English only with window dressing to give the basest of appearances of objectivity (almost as sublime a use of sophistry and subjectivity as that I receive from my main opponent in the religion section here) at least on your part (much the same as in our discussions concerning the American Revolution only there we were both being "subjectively" objective in our own way due to the primary sources from which we each respectively were drawing our information IE English schools taught a pro-English stance where as American one's taught a pro-American stance).

Then you accuse me of sophistry! At least sophists recognise facts.

Shrugs I call em like I see em. Sophism is a hard bucket to stay away from...its soooo natural for human beings to resort too it. So much so entire schools of philosophers followed it's tenants for centuries before those influenced by Socrates was adopted by people during the Renaissance. Additionally ...I have read all the things you presented as facts...and I have read everything else you presented...my only issue (the main point of which your participation has only added supporting evidence too btw) is that one's perspectives on these matters have everything to do with whether or not one views Mr Sheen's comments as being an affront too society or not. As to whether or not the Irish or the English are objectively in the right? My call is that it is perhaps no different than the USA and the Islamic Terrorists...both parties are perhaps in the wrong to one degree or another "objectively"...with each side "subjectively" accusing the other of being more if not totally in said "wrong".

I will accept the British have done bad things in Ireland;(<<< there you have made an attempt at objectivity...claps in applause) but you must accept the Irish have done worse, more often, and to their own countrymen. It is despicable to put the blame for their own low behaviour on the English, but innate in the Irish character.

Sighs...ahh but their you had to go and resort to the subjective all over again...and that my dear Sir is where the sublime sophism is coming into play followed by a wee bit o' bigotry I might add in bold at the end. Smh, I seem to recall a certain Austrian who made similar comments (though far more bellicose) about a certain group of Semites not so long ago. Innate in their character huh?

You go on to ask,



Seriously, I still would believe there is a difference between acts of treachery (e.g., British citizens who kill other British citizens in the name of Irish Republicanism) and acts of resistance against a foreign invader (e.g., the French resistance).

My guess is you would be throwing rocks with the others at what you have been taught to believe is a foreign invader who has kept your people oppressed for hundreds of years. Additionally you would also most likely self justify such actions and call what the English are doing the real "treachery" and perhaps even honestly believe as children of KKK members sometimes do about people of color that whatever is bad in "them" it is "innate in their character".

================================================== ================================================== ================

I do however thank you for proving my point for me though. (that one's perspective determines who the good guys and the bad guys are in this issue)

It is my overall opinion that:

both sides have done wrong and that their are groups on both sides who are willing to look past said wrongs and agree to both start doing right....but as with most of the other divisions of perspective we have touched on...some asshats (on both sides) ") keep setting things up to fail, or keep pushing, or cant be objective and are going to extremes that some find horrific because they are either unwilling or unable to allow peace or accept it until whatever it is they are fighting for is accomplished without compromise in full or the other side relents in total etc (maybe because its "innate to their character huh?).

Which imho is also a crying shame.