FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Just as it says...
User avatar
By EwanM
#88047
And like all stupid relgions it causes conflict just like in Northern ireland.

Well, the conflict in Northern Ireland hasn't really got much to do with religion. Really, it is just that the majority of nationalists are Roman Catholic and that unionists are mainly Protestant. These religious terms are now false, however. They are used to describe people from one side or other of divide regardless of whether they practise Christianity or not. It is true that Catholics and non-Anglicans suffered some brutal treatment throughout the ages from England and that politics and religion got mixed somewhere, largely as a result of the religious conflicts that abounded in Europe anyway over the Mediaeval and Early Modern periods. The truest cause of the conflict in Ireland over the past eight hundred years is political; i.e. whether or not Ireland should be free from any kind of rule by Britain. Like the Middle East, however, the whole situation in Ireland has been distorted over the centuries. To give only a couple of summarised examples: first, something worth pointing out that it was a Gaelic king who invited the Cambro/Anglo-Normans into Ireland in the first instance. So, it is not just a simple case of those evil Brits who invaded Ireland and held down the natives. Fast forward several hundred years and many of those in Ireland who came from Scotland etc. regarded Ireland as their homeland and saw themselves as Irish. Those who claimed to be descended from pre-Norman Ireland and those who were Irish as a result of invasions and plantations formed the Society of United Irishmen. Before the French Revolution broke out and some Machiavellian political dealings within the United Irishmen, it was a group made up of Catholics and Protestants who were not of the Anglican faith seeking more religious freedom and political reform. So, again, it is not the case that all Protestants were united and seeking to hold down Catholics. If people actually read up in some of the history of the British Isles they would find many of their prejudices completely debunked. All of their clear, petty and simplistic notions of what happened would suddenly become very muddied. What has happened in Ireland over the years, though, has been one ill-informed person passing down their prejudices to their children for generations. It's incredibly sad to see young children hate people for no other reason than that it has been bred into them. With common sense and a bit of luck, hopefully these prejudices were eventually disappear, but it's going to take a long time.

The situation in the Middle East is quite different from Ireland, but there are some similarities. As with the United Irishmen, simple politics and religious matters were not the only motivation of some people. A lot of what has gone on in the Middle East has propagated as being about religion and a land dispute, but is really is about misplaced macho notions of pride and muscle-flexing and self-interest, which is almost entirely to the detriment to those from below, those who are just trying to make a life for themselves in this uncertain world.


I would agree with most of that, but I would still say that it is wrong to completely write off religion in terms of Northern Ireland nor the United Kingdom.
Why was the Union of Scotland and England so easy for transition? Because both countries were largely Protestant. This has been argued by Linda Colley MBE, who claimed that the countries could unite under one common goal, against a Catholic common enemy - Catholic France.
As for Ireland during the 18th Century and the North of Scotland, those in Power of the UK envisioned them as savages, and second rate - certainly horrid, but very clear in some literature.
When those Irish did came to Scotland around the late 1700s and early 1800s, many of these Irish settlers were hounded with Sectarian abuse. I have read many an article written in 19th Century Glasgow that depicts the Irish as "scum" and poor, citing their living standards and beliefs.
Certainly today's conflicts are less religious based and as you mentioned, it is very much part of ill-informed passing down through generations. However my club and our rivals are drawn into this, 2 Scottish Teams are dragged into this conflict and seen as a symbol for both sides of the arguement. Its pathetic and many Scottish Celtic and Rangers fans, who have no links to the conflict what so ever, still make sing songs and fly Rep. Of Ireland and Union Jack Flags.
Many singing the songs will not know of the meaning - however the lyrics still speak of religious hatred.
User avatar
By racechick
#88647
Tonight. on tele, a programme about gazza and why the Israeli's have expelled journalists. Now I wonder why that might be? Ive not seen the programme or read any reviews so who knows, the israelis may just come up smalling of roses! But I bloody well doubt it! Sorry Im drunk and this topic really really pisses me off!!
User avatar
By welshie
#88702
UN "shocked" by Gaza destruction

The UN's humanitarian chief has told the BBC the situation in Gaza after a three-week Israeli offensive against Hamas was worse than he anticipated.

Sir John Holmes, who visited Gaza on Thursday, said he was shocked by "the systematic nature of the destruction".

He said that the territory's economic activity had been set back by years.

Meanwhile, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert is reported to have placed his justice minister in charge of defending Israel against any accusations of war crimes.

Daniel Friedman will lead an inter-ministerial team to co-ordinate a legal defence for Israeli civilians and the military, a government source was quoted by AFP as saying.

Richard Falk - the UN special rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian territories - has said there was "a prima facie case" that Israel gravely breached the Geneva Conventions during its 22-day campaign.

Israel responded by saying that Mr Falk's "bias against Israel was well known".

Future of Gaza

Mr Holmes, the top UN official responsible for emergency relief and humanitarian affairs, said the scale of destruction would have "disturbing" repercussions for the people of Gaza.

In an interview with the BBC's Today Programme, he described an industrial area where every building within a square kilometre had been levelled, by bulldozers and shells.

He told of broken pipes pumping out raw sewage onto the streets.

"I'm sure the Israelis would say that's because there were people there firing shells and rockets from there, or perhaps manufacturing them.

"But the nature of that destruction means that any kind of private economic activity in Gaza is set back by years or decades," he said.

"That's very disturbing for the future of Gaza, for the future of the people of Gaza, who are forced to fall back on the public sector and indeed on Hamas, who control the public sector."

Israel said it launched its offensive to stop cross-border rocket attacks by militants in Gaza against its civilians.

The intense fighting ended on Sunday, with both sides declaring a ceasefire.

Palestinian medical officials said about 1,300 Palestinians were killed and thousands more were injured. Thirteen Israelis died during the conflict.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 846625.stm (Friday 23rd January, 2009)
User avatar
By racechick
#88746
so are we going on body counts to judge on who should feel the most sympathy? 13 deaths is 13 too many also!


No you need to understand far more than just body counts to figure out where sympathy should lie.

See our F1 related articles too!