Anachronistic Embarrassment, or Cultural Display?

[Incognito]

Insecurity on a massive scale it appears. Would the French countenance the Marching through Paris of former members of the Wehrmacht to celebrate the Blitzkrieg of 1940, or would the Germans allow the Russians to parade through Berlin with banners flying and drums beating to commemorate the winning of WWII?

The difference is as someone said, this is the triumphant party marching through their own towns and cities, so perhaps a better analogy would be the USA and the 04th of July, India and the 15th of August, Brazil and the 07th of September, etc, etc.

It's a bit rich calling it a skirmish, you have to realise the history behind the conflict at the time, this battle shaped modern Britain today and led on to what was to become the largest Empire in the world. None of this would have been possible if it wasn't for the battles between the 'Orange' and the 'Green'. A Catholic Britain would have been a very different player in Europe.

Most people can move on and leave ancient rivalries and differences behind them, even in a couple of generations.
What is so different in the minds of the Loyalist community in NI? Not enough chlorine in the gene pool if you ask me!!

Discuss..........or ignore as applicable.

Taking the above aside, I actually agree with you to a point, I think it is a major issue in the problems in both NI and Scotland. There are too many parades, they are inflammatory and something should be done about it. Erasing history though is not the answer, maybe getting them all to march around a little parade square in the middle of nowhere so they can whistle and bang to their hearts content is the answer, but like it or not Britain was shaped by Unionism and plays an important part in our heritage.


N.B I have family who were in the Orange Lodges. I have never marched on the 12th in my life and I am a member of a political party that advocates for the breakup of the Union.

[doodab]

Erasing history though is not the answer

Maybe getting them all to acknowledge their shared history and move forwards together is the answer?

There is no benefit to anyone from perpetuating hatred and bigotry, but a lot to be gained from understanding how things got to be the way they are.

[Incognito]

Maybe getting them all to acknowledge their shared history and move forwards together is the answer?

There is no benefit to anyone from perpetuating hatred and bigotry, but a lot to be gained from understanding how things got to be the way they are.

That's why I vote SNP and don't 'do' religion. Was up at Culloden at the weekend, such an amazing place really well presented as well.

You see what religion did to the country, pitching clan against clan.

[shaunbhoy]

this battle shaped modern Britain today and led on to what was to become the largest Empire in the world. None of this would have been possible if it wasn't for the battles between the 'Orange' and the 'Green'.

Pure conjecture. Britain already had the beginnings of a foothold in India by the time this battle was played out. And the Empire came about largely because of the Napoleonic era and the resultant arming, having little to do with Religion. I believe the Empire would have come about regardless as it was essentially underpinned by greed. Not a characteristic that is the exclusive preserve of any one particular branch of Christianity.

Taking the above aside, I actually agree with you to a point, I think it is a major issue in the problems in both NI and Scotland. There are too many parades, they are inflammatory and something should be done about it. Erasing history though is not the answer, maybe getting them all to march around a little parade square in the middle of nowhere so they can whistle and bang to their hearts content is the answer, but like it or not Britain was shaped by Unionism and plays an important part in our heritage.

I agree with you there. Too much emphasis is placed on the result of a battle fought over three hundred years ago.
Much more harmony and unity might be brought about if we restricted ourselves to celebrating battles that were fought by men from both sides of this divide within the last century.
Or maybe we should just celebrate beating the Frogs on countless occasions? If that doesn't unify then nothing will. God knows we have plenty of victories to choose from!!

[shaunbhoy]

The difference is as someone said, this is the triumphant party marching through their own towns and cities, so perhaps a better analogy would be the USA and the 04th of July, India and the 15th of August, Brazil and the 07th of September, etc, etc.

Okay then, to make it more of a true comparison, how about a load of New York Yankee fans dressed as Union Soldiers marching through Atlanta to commemorate the successes of Gen Sherman, and of course the city being razed to the ground during the Civil War?
Would it be likely to pass off peacefully enough?

[Incognito]

Pure conjecture. Britain already had the beginnings of a foothold in India by the time this battle was played out. And the Empire came about largely because of the Napoleonic era and the resultant arming, having little to do with Religion. I believe the Empire would have come about regardless as it was essentially underpinned by greed. Not a characteristic that is the exclusive preserve of any one particular branch of Christianity.

Bollox, the Stuarts were supported by the French and the Spanish, Britain would have been poodles. We'd all be speaking Froggy, the Spanish would have got S.America and the Frogs would have taken North. It's nothing to do with the fighting prowess or the 'greed' of one creed over another. The Jacobites weren't really about Catholicism anyway (in the Roman sense), they were more about tolerance. However if they had won then the Church of Scotland would most certainly have been a Catholic religious house in the same sense that the CofE is (i.e reformed) as that was partly the Scottish Jacobite cause (independence being another).

The Stuarts weren't exactly renowned for their battlefield prowess, they lost the crown twice don't forget.

Another point to consider is that there is a reason why most Americans can trace their ancestory back to Scotland or Ireland, most Jacobites were either deported or left of their own free will.

Okay then, to make it more of a true comparison, how about a load of New York Yankee fans dressed as Union Soldiers marching through Atlanta to commemorate the successes of Gen Sherman, and of course the city being razed to the ground during the Civil War?
Would it be likely to pass off peacefully enough?

Nope, there is a reason why they parade in Londonderry/Derry. The inhabitants closed the gates on James, they didn't march on Londonderry/Derry. Here's a US analogy, Civil War Philly -- 150th anniversary parade and review, April 16, 2011

[shaunbhoy]

Bollox, the Stuarts were supported by the French and the Spanish, Britain would have been poodles. We'd all be speaking Froggy, the Spanish would have got S.America and the Frogs would have taken North. It's nothing to do with the fighting prowess or the 'greed' of one creed over another. The Jacobites weren't really about Catholicism anyway (in the Roman sense), they were more about tolerance. However if they had won then the Church of Scotland would most certainly have been a Catholic religious house in the same sense that the CofE is (i.e reformed) as that was partly the Scottish Jacobite cause (independence being another).

What a delightfully cherry-picked version of historical events you portray there Incog. So in essence what you are saying is that without a fairly minor civil war battle, for effectively that is what it was, the mighty British Empire would have been nothing?
Entertaining, but preposterous in equal measure I'm afraid.
Fact is, as an island race we garnered a huge navy together. 200 years ago that gave you great power, and had nothing whatsoever to do with what colour garments, or what style of hat your clergymen opted to wear. All it took was a few ambitious men with enough balls and money behind them and the planet was there for the taking. Would have happened regardless. The Church would have had little say whatever flavour we had. They knew where their bread was buttered.

Nope, there is a reason why they parade in Londonderry/Derry. The inhabitants closed the gates on James, they didn't march on Londonderry/Derry.

Well if they restricted their marches to Londonderry/Derry then your argument might hold water. However, explain to me then why these "marches" need to be carried out across most towns in the West of Scotland as well as some cities in England? And even in Canada and Australia as someone else pointed out?
It is simply down to the small-minded bigotry that has been inbred into the marchers over generations.

[Incognito]

What a delightfully cherry-picked version of historical events you portray there Incog. So in essence what you are saying is that without a fairly minor civil war battle, for effectively that is what it was, the mighty British Empire would have been nothing?
Entertaining, but preposterous in equal measure I'm afraid.
Fact is, as an island race we garnered a huge navy together. 200 years ago that gave you great power, and had nothing whatsoever to do with what colour garments, or what style of hat your clergymen opted to wear. All it took was a few ambitious men with enough balls and money behind them and the planet was there for the taking. Would have happened regardless. The Church would have had little say whatever flavour we had. They knew where their bread was buttered.

Remove the emotion and try to understand what shaped Europe Shaun.

Seven Years' War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the war which began to shape the British Empire. We would not have allied with the Prussians with a Stuart on the throne.

Well if they restricted their marches to Londonderry/Derry then your argument might hold water. However, explain to me then why these "marches" need to be carried out across most towns in the West of Scotland as well as some cities in England? And even in Canada and Australia as someone else pointed out?
It is simply down to the small-minded bigotry that has been inbred into the marchers over generations.

I am not trying to defend them or say they only march in Londonderry/Derry. I am simply rebutting your analogy using that town and the facts as an example against yours. You're right, the vast majority of them are bigoted. What's your point? Most victors do have an air of intolerance about the losing party. Hence all the German; French jokes etc.

[shaunbhoy]

Remove the emotion and try to understand what shaped Europe Shaun.

Seven Years' War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the war which began to shape the British Empire. We would not have allied with the Prussians with a Stuart on the throne.

These cosy little alliances are all well and good, but are formed entirely out of expediency at any given point in time. If your assertions that we were somehow umbilically tied to Germany due to the Hanoverian connection tied our imperial hands in some way, explain World War I. As the Wiki link you highlighted mentions
" William Pitt's saying that "America was won in Germany" referred to the Prussian war effort, which enabled Great Britain to keep her continental commitment limited and focus on her "blue water policy," successfully establishing naval supremacy."

This was a fortunate happenstance for us. The Prussians did not set out to specifically aid Britain, that is just how it panned out. They were serving their own needs at the time and it just happened to work to our advantage too. The geography of Europe was more of a factor than anything else.

I am not trying to defend them or say they only march in Londonderry/Derry. I am simply rebutting your analogy using that town and the facts as an example against yours. You're right, the vast majority of them are bigoted. What's your point? Most victors do have an air of intolerance about the losing party. Hence all the German; French jokes etc.

I think we can agree that the extreme levels of intolerance go way beyond a few stereotypical jokes.
It really does beggar belief that such provocative displays are still tolerated in this day and age. I know you agree with this though, I was simply laying it out for others who may not have given it much consideration before, being as how the marching season is almost upon us again.

[Incognito]

These cosy little alliances are all well and good, but are formed entirely out of expediency at any given point in time. If your assertions that we were somehow umbilically tied to Germany due to the Hanoverian connection tied our imperial hands in some way, explain World War I. As the Wiki link you highlighted mentions
" William Pitt's saying that "America was won in Germany" referred to the Prussian war effort, which enabled Great Britain to keep her continental commitment limited and focus on her "blue water policy," successfully establishing naval supremacy."

This was a fortunate happenstance for us. The Prussians did not set out to specifically aid Britain, that is just how it panned out. They were serving their own needs at the time and it just happened to work to our advantage too. The geography of Europe was more of a factor than anything else.

Britain was shaped by the wars which started from the Jacobite Wars. Killiecrankie (1689) made sure that English intentions would crush Scottish independence. Great Britain was created from the events that led on from 1690. The French harbored James after the Boyne and funded the rebellion in 1708, Louis sent 6000 troops to Scotland (they were intercepted).

You then had the risings of 1715 and 1745. Culloden was funded almost primarily through the French (some Scottish taxation). We would all be speaking French if Charlie had been aware that the French were preparing to invade and hadn't turned around at Derby.

All this was with a Hanoverian at the throne. George II was born in Germany for goodness sake, he held the British crown as well as the Duchy of Hannover. He was German, of course he was going to side with Prussia. This is a bit different from WW1.

The Duke of Cumberland's (George II's son and leader of the British at Culloden) godparents were the King and Queen of Prussia (the Queen was his paternal Aunt). If the Stuarts had won in '45 then they would not have sided with the Prussians in '56. It is simple.