Yep, it's all about when. If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now".
What's your rule, Toad?
So have we settled on the "20 years rule" then? The the "5 second rule" for food that hits the floor?
"No land stealing allowed during the last 20 years. All stealing 21+ years ago is fine."
No, you're being silly. I note that you won't put forward any ideas of your own about when it's "OK", apart from suggesting that the invasion of Ireland (800 years ago) is not, the invasion of native American lands (up to 150 years ago) is.
Ireland is an island about the size of South Carolina. It got along nicely before Henry II allowed the Normans to set up shop.
What do you mean "got along nicely"? Got involved in wars amongst it's seperate kings, got invaded by the Vikings, invaded parts of Britain, ran slaver raids against Britain and the European mainland, etc.
In short, it "got along" just the same as every other Euorpean country at the time.
The division into two states is apparently OK though because the theft of Irish land was more than 20 years ago.
No, the division into two states is OK because there are two seperate population groups, each centred in different areas, that consider themselves different, one of which wishes to be "Irish", the other "British"
Let's be clear about this, if there weren't two seperate groups then Ireland would be united now. The fact that it's not isn't down to what happened hundreds of years ago, it's down to the wishes of the current communities.
What government existed that ruled Europe as a whole prior to individual areas of Europe ruling themselves?
Romans? Should the Italians have the right to dictate nationality to all their old areas?
HRE? Should the Germans have the right to re-unite various territories?
And what about Ireland? When the Normans "invaded" Ireland was 6 seperate kingdoms.
And why exactly should political boundaries of 800 years ago deny democratic rights to people who live there now? I'm pretty sure no-one in Northern Ireland was alive 800 years ago.
Again we're back to "when". You're OK with conquest by force of arms as long as it was ancient enough not to affect what you desire or feel is right.
No, I think it was wrong. I just don't think the people who live there now can be blamed for it, any more than I think you personally can be blamed for slavery or stealing land from native Americans.
And unlike you, I apply the same standards to everyone, not one rule for the Irish, another for everyone else.
Had the Nazi's conquered Europe, it'd all be OK in another 20-50 years or so after all the WW2 actual participants had died out. Is this the line of thinking?
No. Never "OK". The question isn't what's "OK" several hundred years ago, because we cannot change what happened in the past.
We can only change what happens now and in the future, and what's the point in punishing those alive now for what their ancestors did in the past?
Toad, do you feel you're to blame for slavery or theft of land from native Americans? Do you feel you should compensate them?
Pretty much by design, this area was settled by non-Irish under the aegis of the English throne. Is it then suprising they consider themselves "British"?
Not at all. The US was mainly settled by Europeans, is it suprising they don't consider themselves native Americans? Israel was settled by Jews, is it suprising they don't consider themselves Arabs?
Are you willing to apply the same principle to Israel? One referendum amongst the Arabs and Jews to see who rules Israel, winner takes all?
I think it would be stupid, but it seems to be your position, at least if you apply the same logic to the ME that you apply to Ireland.
Or is Ireland a special case because
you have Irish ancestry?
Certainly. That's why I think all Ireland should vote on it.
If you think the Irish should have a say on whether some British people are British or Irish, why shouldn't British people have a say on whether Irish people are British or Irish?
Your position continues to be that Ireland is a special case, the Irish should have special rules. If your "rules" only apply to one side, not the rest, it's a pretty sure sign they aren't fair.
Who decided the "British Isles" are a political/govenmental entity?
Who decided Ireland is?
Both are geographic entities, neither is a political entity. Again, you are arguing one should be a political entity, not the other. Why one, and not both?
I think Europe does that every once in a while. 1914 and 1939 spring to mind and now the EU seems to be trying a bit of a more voluntary approach.
And which do you think is the correct approach? I'd say voluntary, but you don't seem to agree, at least in one case.
Funny, I thought YOU were the one saying a larger country, England, has the right to absorb people from smaller entities like Ireland.
No, I'm saying it was wrong. It happened a long time ago, and you can't change what happened in the past.
And nobody alive now had a hand in doing it, and nobody alive now lost anything when it was done.
And above all, changing it now would punish people who did nothing wrong, and reward people who did nothing right, and that's just silly.
As the Church Lady says, "how conveeeeenient"
Well, my principle applies to all people, everywhere. Yours seems to have one rule for Ireland, one for everyone else.
But you do have that "20 year rule" thing going for you on the theft of Ireland from the Irish.
And what's your rule, Toad? If you're Irish you get wrongs from 800 years ago righted in your favour now. If you're American, you get to keep what you stole.
You're Irish American, aren't you? How conveeeeenient.
A significant number of people in the Irish Republic regard themselves as British. They have a British heritage and background, yet they do not qualify for a British passport under the provisions of the British Nationality Act of 1948 as amended by the 1981 Act.
Um, anyone from Ireland when it was part of the UK qualifies for British citizenship. Anyone born in the Irish republic as a foreign citizen doesn't, although they have a right of residence in the UK.
What's difficult about that? Do Canadians and Mexicans qualify for US citizenship?
Now where else on the planet can one be a subject, yet not a citizen?
Apparently, only in Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
You do realise that those born in the Irish Republic are citizens of the Irish Republic, and not British subjects, those born in Northern Ireland are citizens of the United Kingdom?
