#Irish Nationalist

[heritageposts]

Ask an older generation of white South Africans when they first felt the bite of anti-apartheid sanctions, and some point to the moment in 1968 when their prime minister, BJ Vorster, banned a tour by the England cricket team because it included a mixed-race player, Basil D’Oliveira. After that, South Africa was excluded from international cricket until Nelson Mandela walked free from prison 22 years later. The D’Oliveira affair, as it became known, proved a watershed in drumming up popular support for the sporting boycott that eventually saw the country excluded from most international competition including rugby, the great passion of the white Afrikaners who were the base of the ruling Nationalist party and who bitterly resented being cast out. For others, the moment of reckoning came years later, in 1985 when foreign banks called in South Africa’s loans. It was a clear sign that the country’s economy was going to pay an ever higher price for apartheid. Neither of those events was decisive in bringing down South Africa’s regime. Far more credit lies with the black schoolchildren who took to the streets of Soweto in 1976 and kicked off years of unrest and civil disobedience that made the country increasingly ungovernable until changing global politics, and the collapse of communism, played its part. But the rise of the popular anti-apartheid boycott over nearly 30 years made its mark on South Africans who were increasingly confronted by a repudiation of their system. Ordinary Europeans pressured supermarkets to stop selling South African products. British students forced Barclays Bank to pull out of the apartheid state. The refusal of a Dublin shop worker to ring up a Cape grapefruit led to a strike and then a total ban on South African imports by the Irish government. By the mid-1980s, one in four Britons said they were boycotting South African goods – a testament to the reach of the anti-apartheid campaign. . . . The musicians union blocked South African artists from playing on the BBC, and the cultural boycott saw most performers refusing to play in the apartheid state, although some, including Elton John and Queen, infamously put on concerts at Sun City in the Bophuthatswana homeland. The US didn’t have the same sporting or cultural ties, and imported far fewer South African products, but the mobilisation against apartheid in universities, churches and through local coalitions in the 1980s was instrumental in forcing the hand of American politicians and big business in favour of financial sanctions and divestment. By the time President FW de Klerk was ready to release Mandela and negotiate an end to apartheid, a big selling point for part of the white population was an end to boycotts and isolation. Twenty-seven years after the end of white rule, some see the boycott campaign against South Africa as a guide to mobilising popular support against what is increasingly condemned as Israel’s own brand of apartheid.

. . . continues at the guardian (21 May, 2021)

[hauntedbubbles]

Ghost: *hands Johnny a tea* Here, this’ll sort ya out. Soap: I swear you fuckin’ Brits think tea’ll fix anything. Rudy: *confused* You’re both British, no? Alejandro: *kicks Rudy under the table*  *Whispers* Now you’ve done it…  Soap: *sipping tea* I identify as Scottish. Ghost: You can identify as a fuckin’ tree, mate. But it don’t change nothin’ Scotland’s part of Britain…you’re British. Soap: Geographically, aye. But that’s no’ the point!  Ghost: You know, none of the Welsh or Irish boys make as much noise about it as you… Soap: This doesny concern them! Rudy: *to Gaz* Are they going to fight… Did I miss something? Gaz: *who’s been sitting quiet* Nah mate, this is foreplay for them…I’m just glad my room’s not next to theirs… 

Some Soap Headcanons/Thoughts from a Scottish person? 👇🏼

“Fuckin’ Brits!” 

I’ve seen a lot of folks mention how odd it was, and that the writers have somehow forgotten about Scotland being a part of Britain.

Some folks have suggested that maybe this was just an attempt of them writing Soap as a Nationalist only to be countered with comments that he would have said “Fuckin’ English.” Because Scotland is still a part of Great Britain.

Keep in mind that “British” is often used as a generalisation by many for those living in the UK, so anyone who is strongly against the Union may refuse to associate themselves with it and strongly emphasise by affirming their  “I’m Scottish.”

Whatever Soap’s political views on the treaty of Union, signed all the way back on the 1st May 1707, matter not, because it’s purely banter. The Scots and English have history, and they’re playing with it (Especially when you consider Ghost's whole “Speak English.” stuff.)

As a Scottish person, who’s man was also born here, but his family are English, I often take the piss about his heritage…some of us are just like that, okay? 🤣

Soap’s accent.

I’ve seen it come up again and again in comments that Soap’s accent changes, and sometimes his Scottish accent seems forced…that his VA is clearly not a native, unlike Captain MacTavish’s���

Besides the fact that his VA is actually Scottish, Soap travels the world, he works closely with folks from all over, so it is no surprise to me that his accent is going to dip and change from time to time.

And the times where he’s “forcing it'' in"Alone ","Awa and Bile yer heid!” “It’s pishin’ it doon oot here.” c’mon now, he’s purposely trying to goad Ghost! 🤣 

I worked in tourism, my colleagues came from all over. I’ve grown up with American TV shows and video games. And you bet I hear an accent and have to mimic it! When folk ask me where I’m from, it’s like a default to emphasise my accent as much as possible… oh and angry and drunk… tends to rev up the accent a little more too 👀

Basically, the accent is Scottish… with extra seasoning 🤣

[moattemptstoarticulate]

Seamus Finnigan and Irish Stereotyping

Hello,

This is my first attempt at a Tumblr post so forgive me if this lacks all sense.

For context, I was born and raised Irish, if that's important for this post.

I've been in the Harry Potter fandom since the age of eleven. During that time I've dipped in and out and have gained more knowledge and nuanced thought towards literature in-between. Admittedly these books are not well-written even if you ignore the immense bigotry drowning anything JKR does. I've seen many conversations surrounding the blatant transphobia of JKR and the racism, anti-semitism and homophobia within her work. All of these are extremely important topics that we, as a fandom, need to continue the discussion on. One of the more subtle forms of hate shown through her work that I don't often see talked about, is her treatment of Seamus Finnigan and her portrayal of Irish society and it's people through that.

The more obvious stereotyping is seen through Seamus and his "proclivity for pyrothenics" (a quote from McGongall in the Deathly Hallows Part 2). A key point to note about the books is that they were written during and in the aftermath of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. I'm not going to do an in depth explanation of the Troubles itself as that would require me to recap over 800 years of British Colonial rule and oppression over Ireland but I will give a brief run-through for clarity incase anyone reading is unaware of the conflict.

The troubles as it's known today spanned from 1968-1998 and resulted in an estimated 3600 deaths. The stereotype of Irish individuals having a supposed "proclivity for pyrotechnics" comes from the IRA (Irish Republican Army). This group was formed by Irish civilians to fight against Catholic Nationalist communities oppression through violent means. This post by no means is an attempt to jusitfy the horrifc actions of the IRA during the Troubles. It is only an attempt to shed light on the harmful stereotyping JKR imbedded in her primary Irish representation in the Harry Potter series. Saying your Irish Character has a penchant for explosives, during a time in which Irish people were in the midst or recovering from such a violent conflict, leaves the assumption that Seamus, the only real reoccuring Irish representation, is a part of the IRA or that Irish people in general love to blow things up and cause chaos. This is harmful, especially when being read by young british people. Political relations in Northern Ireland and between Ireland and Britain were incredibly strained and still are in some aspects. Pushing the narrative that Irish people are dangerous does not help heal these relations and subtly increases the bad image of Irish people in the eyes of British society.

Another issue with Seamus Finnigan's character is the mentions of alcohol. It's a common stereotype that Irish people love alcohol and this has been used to demonise our culture in other areas of media. In The Philosphers Stone (keep in mind Seamus would've been 11-12 years old at the time.) Seamus actively tries to turn water into rum. The spell itself can be implied to be of Irish origin "Eye of rabbit, harp string hum, turn this water into rum" as the harp is the Emblem of Ireland. Having your Irish character, at the assumed age of 11, try to turn water into rum is incredibly harmful and builds on this "drunken Irish" stereotype. Not to mention the spell results in multiple explosions, linking back to my first point of his "proclivity for pyrotechnics."

My final point, which is simultanously the most subtle but quite frankly the craziest and most damaging is Seamus' initials matching that of the party Sinn Fein. I've already given a brief synopsis of the Troubles and a key thing to note about Sinn Fein is that they were heavily intertwined with the IRA with the two initally starting out as the same group before splitting into an armed group (the IRA) and a political half (The party Sinn Fein.) So intertwined that their president during the 80s, Gerry Adams, was also the tactical leader of the IRA (alledgedly...). Once again JKR has managed to subtly (yet not so subtly if you know what to look for) imply her primary Irish character is a memeber of the anti- british violent organisation through his initals.

Another point that is more of a reach than my other points is that Seamus is the first of Harry's friends to turn on him in ootp. The only Irish character turning on the British hero and in a sense leading the hate train against him? Given the clear views JKR holds against the Irish, it's not too much of a jump to assume that she'd start by villianising Seamus.

Overall it's clear JKR had some very strong opinions on the Irish that she felt the absolute need to inform everyone on through her work aimed at children. Rather unfortunate as a young Irish reader who watched their idol not only begin a campagin agaisnt their rights as a trans individual but also perpetuate horrible ideas against a country still feeling the impact of decades long violent conflict.

Once again it comes far too easily to condemn JKR and her horribly damaging actions agaisnt her own readers.

[best-overplayed-song]

fun facts

Debbie Harry was inspired to write "One Way or Another" after being stalked. she said: "I was actually stalked by a nutjob so it came out of a not-so-friendly personal event. But I tried to inject a little bit of levity into it to make it more lighthearted. I think in a way that’s a normal kind of survival mechanism. You know, just shake it off, say one way or another, and get on with your life. Everyone can relate to that and I think that’s the beauty of it"

"Zombie" is about the violence in “The Troubles,” the decades-long conflict in Northern Ireland between nationalists (mainly self-identified as Irish or Roman Catholic) and unionists (mainly self-identified as British or Protestant). Dolores O'Riordan wrote the song during the band’s English tour in 1993 in memory of two young boys, Tim Parry and Johnathan Ball, who were killed in an IRA bombing in Warrington, England.

[centrally-unplanned]

I find myself interested in how ineffective integration was for Ireland vis a vis the UK in the 19th century. Certainly after 1832 voting reforms and the 1829 repeal of the ban on Catholics serving in parliament (UK-wide but ofc hitting Ireland the hardest), the Irish were at more-or-less equal footing as the English or Scots when it came to voting rights and the legal system (I think most people don't know this! They think the Irish couldn't vote in the 19th century!) And it wasn't even an "on paper" deal for voting rights, Irish were active in government (they even had Irish PMs, though ofc Protestant), by the latter half of the 19th century economic regulations were equalized, and they got within a hair's breadth of Home Rule before some munitinous unionists and WW1 got in the way. Despite the rep a lot of countries have gigantic ethnic minorities, and liberalism/equal franchise is actually pretty decent solution to that problem. Why didn't ~100 years of representation in the House of Commons, in the era when "nation building" was at its peak, not work?

From what I can tell, timing is of course part of it. At a simple level, World War One was such a nationalist godsend; it created the "radicalism cascade", a weakened center and domino revolutions inspiring everyone with a cause with a sort of temporal Schelling Point. Without it, would the 1912 Home Rule have just been implemented in due time, and Ireland would be like Scotland today? At a more structural level, the timing was particularly rough because WW1 was the tail end of the age of religion in Europe. So much of the conflict was over Protestant vs Catholic, and after WW2 if Ireland was united under one home rule government in the UK it's hard to imagine the secularizing age powering so much conflict. Had they "held on" a few more decades you could see it calming down.

I think those are true enough but you do gotta dig down to another level. "Protestant" wasn't really just a religion in Ireland - it was the Protestant Ascendancy, a ruling class of combined English settlers and converted Irish who, during the imperial era before the 19th century, built an entirely separate ruling class in Ireland. And it was a deep ruling class - Catholics were barred from voting in even the Dublin local parliament, they were banned from being judges or lawyers, inheritance law was rigged to privilege Protestant sons while converting away from the Anglican church came with property confiscations. Depending on what counts, at its peak in the 18th century up to 30% of the country had opportunistically converted, in a system rigged top to bottom against the Catholics.

Imagine for a second India was given representation in the House of Commons and given self-rule. Just ignore the distance and demography issues for now, this obviously wouldn't actually work, instead think about what that transition would look like. The British "Indian Civil Service" would have to be dismantled...which was like 10k brits vs over 100k Indians. Actual british military officers in the country in the 19th century was less than 100k - and it was a rotating duty, they didn't all live there. Dismantling that really isn't that hard! Those people just go home. The core that ruled was deeply integrated into the country, but it was tiny - the vast majority of India was ruled by Indians, in the name of the Crown. They would just...keep going but now be in parliament.

That was impossible in Ireland. Britain had actually launched one of the most intensive cultural conversion programs of a foreign nation around in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was nowhere close to the "light imperial touch" of elsewhere. But it never...worked. Instead it just built this gigantic ruling class, deeply enmeshed in both Ireland and England, completely dependent on that superiority economically, but seen as outsiders by the Catholic Irish majority. "Protestant & Catholic" is at least half a gigantic class war. And in the 19th century the UK brought "laissez faire liberalism" to Ireland and was like "look, we are equal now!" after two+ centuries of rigging the system. It was literally the "kicking out the ladder after climbing up" equality meme.

This was why Home Rule was so bitterly contested, why Protestant Anglo-Irish officers threatened to mutiny in 1912 if it was implemented. They understood that the first acts of Home Rule were going to be, essentially, reparations. Which the Irish almost surely deserved. But Imperial, Liberal, 19th Century UK was not going to give reparations to the fucking Irish, it was not ready to dismantle its dejure and defacto aristocrats in that way - or at least not until it was too late, some land reform for example did begin in 1903. Scotland didn't need it, Wales was too weak to fight it, but Ireland was in the sweet spot of being weak enough to be oppressed but strong enough to oppose it and fight back once the culture changed.

Or at least that is my current read, this is a low-confidence post. Curious to learn more!

[margridarnauds]

In case anyone is one of today's lucky ten thousand: The Irish language still exists, it isn't just a Nationalist vanity project, there are people around who still speak it as their native language and use it at home, who consume media through the Irish language, and who live their lives through the Irish language as much as possible. Just because you don't hear it often if you go into the big cities doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, like.

[on-a-lucky-tide]

How are you going to write his relationship with 141 and the British Army in general?

Tense, difficult and complicated.

Operation Banner was a 40 year deployment, the longest in the history of the British army. And not one where the BA acted with honour or mercy. They used rubber bullets on civilians, there was a period of internment, curfews, patrols, 'no-go' areas. Here's an image of a watchtower in Armagh in 1977.

Then there were so many incidences like Bloody Sunday in 1972. The exact events were debated for ages, and then in 1998 the British ordered a full-scale judicial inquiry. It concluded in 2010 that soldiers on duty had ‘lost control’. They had opened fire without warning and before they had come under fire. It swelled the ranks of the IRA at the time and they bombed the barracks at Aldershot in retaliation.

In October 1984, five people died during an attempt to assassinate Margaret Thatcher in Brighton. In 1987, with Anglo-Irish co-operation on the up, Republicans killed 11 people at Enniskillen’s war memorial during a Remembrance Sunday service. That shocked people on all sides, but it also pushed moderate Irish nationalists to seek a political solution to the conflict. In 1988, the SAS killed members of the PIRA in Gibraltar. The 90s had loads of civilian attacks in London, like the bomb attack on Canary Wharf. PIRA announced it was ceasing operations in 2005, but there are active splinter cells, and the BA left in 2007.

This was a dark period of British history in which the SAS, the British Army, were far, far from the good guys. We joke that the CoD is the "military propaganda game", and, while it pays lip service to Price committing literal war crimes to achieve his aims, it paints it with a sheen of noble self sacrifice - "get our hands dirty, so..." and "greater good" - and never really meets the war crimes bit head on. I never had to make a decision in CoD that left an impact comparable to That Mission in Spec Ops: The Line.

Learning what happened in Ireland is not mandatory in British schools, whereas the Holocaust is, which blows my mind. The NIVC '98 report to 'look at possible ways to recognise the pain and suffering felt by victims of violence arising from the troubles' referred to over 3,600 deaths since 1969. Half of these were civilians. British kids should know that because this whole idea of "the Nazis are always the other guys not us" allows for a kind of insidious, chest thumping nationalism based on lies that lets fascism to propagate. British kids should get the reality check of the behaviour of their ancestors.

He's (the OC) not a fluffy, unproblematic member of the 141, and his cooperation with MI6 would also not be straightforward. It can't be. There's a reason I pointed at Makarov instead of someone like Farah. But I feel like Maka suffers from the "cartoonishly evil" trait (occasionally) just to make extra sure we know we should hate him, which means his motivations are sometimes difficult to relate to. As I build out this guy, and when I use him, it will be grounded in what happened.

Wow. This got rambly. Sorry, Non. Hope even half of that makes sense.

[werewolfetone]

Every other tweet from someone with a union jack in their bio rn is like "you know what the real problem with hamas is? bobby sands." can we be serious for 1 minute please lads

Lord grant me the creativity of a unionist somehow finding a way to turn every world event ever into an excuse to go on wildly inappropriate and increasingly unhinged rants about the IRA

[whencyclopedia]

Alien and Sedition Acts

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed by President John Adams and the Federalist-controlled Congress in 1798 that restricted immigration and free speech in the United States. Framed by the Federalist Party as a necessary measure to protect national security during the Quasi-War (1798-1800), the acts were deeply controversial and were challenged as being unconstitutional.

The acts were passed in response to heightening tensions between the United States and Revolutionary France in the aftermath of the XYZ Affair. Concerned by the recent influx of French and Irish émigrés, whose loyalties were considered questionable, the Federalist Party enacted three 'alien' acts during the summer of 1798. The first was the Naturalization Act, which increased the amount of time an immigrant must live in the United States before being eligible for citizenship from 5 to 14 years. Next came the Alien Friends Act, which allowed the president to deport any non-citizen he deemed to be a threat to national security. This was supplemented by the Alien Enemies Act, in which non-citizens hailing from a country at war with the United States could arbitrarily be detained or deported; the Enemies Act remains in effect today and has been invoked several times, most notably during the world wars of the 20th century. Finally, the Sedition Act criminalized the printing of material considered to be "false, scandalous, or malicious" about the president or the US government.

The Alien and Sedition Acts caused a major uproar, with members of the Democratic-Republican Party (Jeffersonian Democrats) condemning them as unconstitutional. Although no one ended up being arrested or deported under the Alien Acts, several people were arrested, tried, and convicted under the Sedition Act, accused of printing material critical of the Federalist-controlled government. Vice President Thomas Jefferson, leader of the opposition, denounced this as a clear violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and press. The backlash against the Alien and Sedition Acts helped Jefferson win the presidency during the election of 1800 and forever stained the reputation of the Federalists, who would never again win the presidency or enjoy the heights of power they had achieved in 1798.

Background

By the late 1790s, the United States was experiencing a deep partisan rift. The nationalist Federalist Party championed a strong national government, big banks, and a build-up of the American military. In international affairs, Federalists tended to support Great Britain, which they regarded as a natural ally to the US and condemned the radicalism of the concurrent French Revolution (1789-1799). Their rival Democratic-Republican Party (Jeffersonian Democrats), by contrast, emerged in favor of decentralized government and republicanism and denounced the Federalists as too aristocratic. They supported the French Republic and rejected the influence of Britain, which they feared would only lead to a re-emergence of monarchism in the United States. Despite President George Washington's Farewell Address, in which he warned against such partisanship, the divide between the two factions had only widened since Washington left office in March 1797. By the start of John Adams' presidency, each party viewed the other as an existential threat to the country.

President Adams was a Federalist, the only member of that party to ever occupy the presidency. But he was not as radical as the Hamiltonian wing of the party and was not as averse to dealing with France as some of his party may have been. This was significant since, at the time Adams was inaugurated in March 1797, the United States and Revolutionary France were on the brink of war. The French Republic was already at war with Britain and had interpreted the signing of the Jay Treaty – a controversial commercial agreement between the US and Britain – as a British-American alliance. In retaliation, French privateers began attacking neutral American shipping in late 1796, arguing that any American ship carrying British cargo was liable to be seized as a valid prize. Within a year, French privateers had captured nearly 300 American ships and had mistreated their crews. While many Federalists clamored for war, President Adams preferred negotiation. In the autumn of 1797, he dispatched three envoys to Paris – John Marshall, Elbridge Gerry, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney – to assert American neutrality in the ongoing French Revolutionary Wars and to hopefully restore relations between the US and France.

This diplomatic mission failed. In an incident known as the XYZ Affair, French agents refused to open negotiations unless the United States agreed to pay a large bribe, resorting to thinly veiled threats once the American envoys resisted the notion. On 5 March 1798, President Adams told Congress that negotiations had failed and, shortly thereafter, requested a build-up of the American army and navy. The aging former President Washington was pulled out of his retirement at Mount Vernon and named commander-in-chief of the American army, which was being organized by the Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton. American and French frigates clashed on the high seas; although this conflict, the Quasi-War, never wound up escalating beyond limited naval skirmishes, for a time it seemed as though France and the United States were on the brink of a major war.

In the months after the details of the XYZ Affair were published, the American public were firmly behind the Federalists; Adams reached the height of his popularity in mid-1798, allowing him and the Federalists to begin their military build-up program practically unimpeded. The blatant disrespectful behavior of the French agents left the Democratic-Republicans with little ammunition, giving them little recourse but to stand to the side and announce that the country was making a bad decision by going to war with France. This was the context – deep partisan rivalry and the looming threat of war – that led Adams and the Federalists to create the Alien and Sedition Acts, policies that ultimately helped lead to the decline of the Federalist Party itself.

Continue reading...

[theglowsociety]

The idea that the Irish were enslaved before Black people—or that they were enslaved in the same way—is a myth that has been widely debunked by historians. While the Irish did experience severe oppression, indentured servitude, and forced labor, it is important to distinguish these experiences from the transatlantic chattel slavery that African people endured.

The Truth About Irish Indentured Servitude

During the 17th century, many Irish people were forcibly deported to British colonies like the Caribbean and North America. This happened primarily under English rule, especially after the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (1649–1653). Thousands of Irish men, women, and children were sent to places like Barbados and Virginia as indentured servants—a system that involved working under contract for a set number of years in exchange for passage, food, and (eventually) freedom.

However, unlike African slaves:

• Irish indentured servants had legal rights and were promised freedom after completing their term (typically 4–7 years).

• Their servitude was temporary, while African slavery was lifelong and hereditary.

• They were still considered human under the law, whereas African slaves were legally treated as property.

Were the Irish “Slaves” in the Caribbean?

Some Irish indentured servants were treated brutally—enduring harsh conditions, beatings, and even death from overwork. This has led some to claim they were “white slaves,” but this misrepresents the reality. The term “slave” implies permanent, hereditary bondage with no path to freedom, which was the case for Africans but not the Irish.

In places like Barbados, Irish laborers worked on plantations alongside enslaved Africans, but there were key legal and social differences:

• African slaves were enslaved for life and their children were born into slavery.

• Irish indentured servants had an end date to their labor, after which they could gain land and status.

• Over time, Irish indentured servitude faded, while African slavery became more entrenched and brutal.

Where Did the Myth Come From?

The “Irish slaves” myth has been spread largely through misinformation and has been used in modern times to:

• Downplay the horrors of African slavery.

• Suggest that white people suffered just as much under slavery.

• Create a false equivalence between indentured servitude and racial slavery.

This narrative often appears in misleading social media posts and is sometimes used by white nationalist groups to dismiss discussions about racism and systemic oppression.

Acknowledging Irish Struggles Without Rewriting History

The Irish did suffer under British colonialism—facing land dispossession, famine, and forced migration. Their experience was brutal, but it was not the same as African slavery. Recognizing this difference doesn’t diminish Irish suffering but instead allows us to accurately understand history.

Instead of comparing oppressions, it’s more productive to acknowledge the unique struggles faced by both Irish and African peoples—and how colonialism shaped their histories in different but deeply impactful ways.

[lurking-latinist]

Noticed today that HMS Surprise’s ship’s cat has a “particular friend,” a parrot with Irish nationalist sentiments:

O’Brian really said “I have found one (1) odd couple dynamic and I will put it in everything.” How much do you want to bet the parrot is never properly preened and the cat is a big yellow tom with a scar down the side of its face?

Can I have 21 books of the cat and the parrot’s adventures please

[jewish-vents]

I, like too many of us, lost my entire friend group a couple months ago and I'm in a really fucking bad mood about it right now.

The literal leader of the whole group was Arab. I won't say from where, but not Palestine, he would have said so, but he told me where he is from. Several tragedies occurred in the world before 10-7, and in the group chat we broke from our usual unspoken commitment to not discussing politics to give statements of sorrow for the victims. The Irish nationalist never missed a chance to anyway. Then 10-7 did happen and I thought ah, this time I will lead this sharing of communal grief for the brutality of prejudice... but then I thought better of it. I said nothing. No one else did either.

I think the second he found out I was Jewish it was already over. He just came at me one evening and accused me point blank of being a Zionist. I tried to hold my ground and tell him that that is one thing I refuse to discuss with anybody, and he wouldn't take that as an answer, and I just stopped answering his texts until he stopped.

We didn't talk again after, not that we very much did before. I wanted it to just blow over, wait for him to cool off and realize he went way too far, maybe even apologize, but that never happened. I hoped, but I already saw the writing on the wall. Things mostly went back to normal, until he came at me again. Accusing me again. I defended myself again but he really wouldn't have it this time. He used every trick in the book, saying he has family at risk of dying and i don't (because they died during the shoah. as if he's not american too), saying that he was obligated to remove me unless i could prove I wasn't a "threat" in his words. I tried to placate but I knew this was it. He's already made up his mind. He told me that he "has Jewish friends", tokens and Good Jews I'm certain.

Im certain I'm the only Jew hes ever met who didnt roll over for him. I know he wanted me to denounce israel, my homeland, my people. Not that he'd believe me. I told him that I'm on the side of peace, that i detest violence and suffering, and he accused me supporting the "genocide of his people". he's literally afraid of pan-arab replacement

i will never trust goyim again. i will always be afraid. too many times in my fucking life have i done nothing fucking wrong and been punished, ostracized and abandoned.

ordinarily I'd be afraid that he or the rest of my traitor fucking neonazi ex-friends would see this but so what? theyve already blocked me. if theyve seen this blog, they've probably blocked it. and so what if they see it, you gonna tell all your friends about the threatening zionist you excised from your midst? gonna tell your friends about what a heroic little martyr you are, protecting your friends from that fucking jew?

you were a silverfish in your past life and I would i eat you again, centipede that i am.

.

[xclowniex]

Why do you hate the ethnic Irish? Irish is an ethnicity, not just a nationality. The British tried to genocide the Irish so many times, so by your own logic they should be allowed to be nationalist just like Jews.

Please explain? ✨

I think you have be confused with someone else as I have never once said anything about the Irish. I don't hate them and I wish them all the best luck in finishing their decolonization from the British

[anarchotolkienist]

Nationalism troubles me a lot.

Like as a matter of course and fact I take it as obvious that nationalism is an invention of modernity and of liberalism, that nations do not exist, and that their creation will always be genocidal or aspiring towards genocide as the natural end point of their political existence. It's an effort to match the territory to the map and not the other way around and that it therefore should be rejected.

However - if we accept that the invention of nationalism applied not only to the perceived own nation which needed defining and defending, it also created other nations. To take just one example, French nationalism created the Basques and the Bretons, foreign nations who were a threat to the integrity of the french national state and that needed to be utterly culturally assimilated into frenchness, needed to disappear as distinctive cultures (not as political/legal entities, which is a project of the imperial and medieval state before it, but as cultural entities). This causes massive oppression and discrimination against all Bretons and all Basques under french control along national lines, and in fact to some extent gives them shared national interests across class and other political/religious/social lines - the ending of that oppression. Therefore it arguably creates a Breton, say, nation that actually exists because there are actual shared interests here. Multiply these examples across the globe.

However, I don't know how to deal with this at all. The kinds of liberatory nationalism produced by the above dynamic has rarely if ever worked even as a stopgap, and usually just produces a new national state that goes on to try and exterminate or assimilate it's own national minorities (think of the place of Arab Jews after Arab Nationalism broadly succeeded, despite being early contributord and inventors of that project, or the treatment of Irish Travellers by the Irish Republic, or the 'successful' Vietnamisation campaigns carried out on indigenous peoples to the north of Vietnam by the Communist Party following independence, or Breton nationalist collaboration with the Nazi occupation in exchange for a promised Gautelier of Brittany that never materialised, Norwegian nationalism that as soon as they got independence from Sweden pursued extremely brutal Norweiganisation campaigns on the Sámi, and on and on and on), while also creating a new National Culture that extinguished local culture, dialect, traditions...

Therefore, it's clear to me that nationalism isn't a workable solution to the problems supposedly adressed by it, but I frankly don't know how you can struggle on behalf of minoritised peoples and their culture(s) without either being some kind of a nationalist or without the liberal appeal to a seat at the table of the imperial national project. It depresses and troubles me deeply, politically, because I don't see any way out. I worry that liberalism let the national genie out of the bottle and the only thing that can happen now is another two centuries of rolling genocides.

[morbidology]

Why do Irish people support Palestine so much?

Due to our own struggle for independence, we share an understanding of colonialism and oppression with Palestine. Ireland's solidarity with Palestine is reinforced by our own experience with an ethno-nationalist conflict that resulted in six counties being put under British rule.