ULSTER AN ETHNIC NATION

Professor Anthony Alcock......One can conclude that what exists in N.I. are two communities: one Irish and Gaelic,the other a non-gaelic amalgam,and it is with the latter that the Ulster Society,in uniting together those of English,Scots Welsh,Huguenot and even some Irish descent is concerned.

But it is the next question that is the interesting one: can this Ulster-British amalgam develop into something distinctive in its own right,different from the general British amalgam,different from the English,Scots,Welsh or Irish? Is this already occuring? Has it already occurred? The answer can either be ''Yes'' or ''No''.

On the one hand,it can be argued that the Ulster-British have indeed developed that feeling of unity that promotes the willl to a common like,and this will has been manifested on many occasions over the past three hundred and fifty years and more. In particular,this unity has been forged in the defence of their linguistic and cultural heritage against the threats of Gaelic and Roman Catholicism and the threat of desertion by their kin. They have developed special local institutions such as the Orange Order,to bring solidarity to the group. And they have a homeland to which they are passionately devoted.

On the other hand, it can be argued that their culture is only a British amalgam; that there is nothing distinctive in terms of way of life between the Ulster-British and the British. However,depending on whether one believes the answer to be ''Yes''or ''No'',there are important consequences,and particularly so if one day N.I. comes to be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom.

For if,indeed,the Ulster-British are different from the other nations of the British Isles then surely they would be in a strong position to claim the right to a national destiny separate from,independent of, the rest of the island of Ireland. If they are not different then they would run the risk of being cast into a united Irish Republic as a mere cultural minority,the British minority in Ireland.

Dr Peter Brooke....When preparing this paper I began with the general title - ULSTER,AN ETHNIC NATION- When we talk about a nation,we are not talking about a piece of territory,even though the ability to hold on to a piece of territory may be an important characteristic of a nation. We are talking about peoples and that brings us on to the question of the 'ethnic nation'.

I'm never very sure what the word 'ethnic' means.If it means simply a set of inherited racial and cultural characteristics - folklore,language,dialect,traditional music etc,- these are certainly things to which nationalists,those who wish to create a national feeling,can appeal. But they are not in themselves sufficent to create a nation. They are not the engine by which a nation comes into existence and in fact many of the strongest nations of the world are based on a combination of widely differing ethnic strains and traditions. The obvious example is the U.S.A.,but we could also cite France,Germany,England,China and India where differences of dialect and even language and culture,exist in abundance.

The crucial element in nation forming seems to me to be loyalty. It is a subjective thing. At the risk of sounding tautologous,a nation is a people which believes itself to be a nation. Nationhood belongs to the realm of opinion. The element of belief is crucial,and historically the greatest formers of opinion and belief have been the churches. It is no accident that the people who formed a nation in Ulster - a nation which,in my view,already exists and does not have to be created - are the Ulster Protestants.

'At the same time it must be remember that many northerners reject fiercely the very idea of being called Irish or even part of the Irish nation. ''The border between Northern Ireland and Eire exists because of the ideological gulf which divides the two people'' says the late Lord Brookeborough,a former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

''It must be noted here here that while the Ulstermen stressed their difference,and want above all to be independant from the Republic,they rarely call themselves a nation or indeed think of themselves as a separate nation. Their desire is to be part of of the United Kingdom. If they want to call themselves anything,the word they prefer to use is British.''

However, no matter how British they may claim to be the Ulsterman's real and first loyalty is to Ulster.

I would say so RSAUB. It covers my feelings anyway.

In relation to the above. I was watching Christians on Channel 4 last night,Sunday 25th January 2009. This part dealt with how religion help form what we know today as England. Apparently it was 'The Honourable Bede' who was largely responsible for bringing this about. He wrote a lot of stuff in which he referred to the 'English people'. Up until that there was no sense of being English,there was just a collection of different communities and tribes. But after Bede had written his annals the people started to think in terms of being English. The man presenting this programme argured that religion played the main part in creating an English identity and indeed the country which came into being.

The Synod of Whitby was the one that did it. It was the Irish churches last 'throw of the dice' and they were beat. Think it was Colman who was the sucessor to Aidan who was making a stand for the Irish Celtic church,but he was defeated by the pro Roman Catholic element and had to 'pack his bags' and head back to Iona.

Rome came on the scene in the 500,s but made little headway except in Kent. Nowhere else wanted to know them. But not to be deterred they made another bid. This time in Northumbria and this time they were succesful.

It was mentioned that the Rome of the Caesars,was going,but that Rome seen another way to have world control and though religion was the way to do it. 'Rome still had imperialistic ambitions'was what the narrator said.

I thought it might have told you how they eventually got the Irish on their side too. However,it didn't and I don't think it is continued next week.

So when did the Irish sell out to Rome,when did they conquer there as well? Maybe the time of the Normans and pope Adrain. Thats only a guess. But whatever, they fell into line,ditched their own church and followed Rome.

Yip WASP, I think these people can see things better than the ordinary fella. In the Intepreting N.I. thread it shows even republicans recognizing this as a fact. We seem as a people unable,unwilling or incapable to articulate our case. This is also pointed out on the I.N.I. thread.

Back in the early sixties it took a Dutchman to put this forward as the situation which exists in Ulster. Two peoples.

The whole Irish case in the end rests on a name....Ireland. It doesn't take account that two separate peoples exist on this island,but yet they would support the opinion that three separate peoples exist on the other island across the Irish Sea and North Channel. One difference is of course that they across the water have three different names. That makes it a lot easier to comprehend for many ordinary people with just a passing interest.

Scotland for the Scots,Wales for the Welsh and Ulster for the Ullish would help people see the situation in a different light.

A few weeks ago I was having a drink in a mates house and the OO came up, one guy put his hand acroos his face to hide his mouth from those to the otherside of him whispering that a person sitting near was a catholic so watch what we say. In other words talking about parades in general is automatically offensive and this is something that has been drummed into us by even our own. I said why whisper about something we hold proud incase someone gets offended, do we get offended when people talk about st pats day or whatever?? Best of it was the catholic fella said he loved the 11th night as he was always out getting pissed with his mates. He never mentioned being off3ended, he never went quiet, he never gave off, he never tried to change the subject or anything like it, if anything he was very positive. The only ones that were negative, went quiet, tried to change the subject etc were Protestant so that in itself shows what we are up against.

Basically I think that runs though a lot of Prods, the fear of being seen to be offensive. This might stem( not sure) from the well played strategty that RCs/republicans/nationalists use of taking offence at every little thing. It manipulates some Prods into a position where they are scared to open their mouth. Its a good strategty, in that it tends to cut out all discussion and criticism at source....before it starts.

Then too,we have those on the Protestant side who go out even further and 'lick ass'. I think you may have seen me refer to them before as obsequious Prods. Personally I can't stand that type of person. I think I prefer a teague more who at least stands for their belief. But its funny,you don't seem to get obsequity on the RC side. It seems to only apply to Protestants. Why this is,I don't know. Maybe a head-shrinker would be able to tell us.

Robert Cielou.

Unionist politicans yesterday issued statements to mark the 90th anniversary of the creation of Northern Ireland. The state was created as a distinct division of the United Kingdom on May 3,1921.

Gregory Campbell, of the DUP,said it was now ''entirely apporiate'' that plans to mark the centenary of Northern Ireland are stepped up.

''Thoughout its history this country has faced trials and difficulties: there were early attempts to strangle it at birth by republicans,'' he said. ''Their campaign commenced in the 1920s by refusing to actively participate or enrol in the state's employment though the police and the civil service. By the late 1960s republicans then complained that this same state refused them such employment. ''We do now however have the opportunity to plan for the next 100 years of the country's existence. As we build for the future we must not forget the past. ''The next four years of the Assembly need to be used to further promote stability but also to ensure that future generations have the prospect of growth and prosperity that terror and violence denied us for so long.

TUV leader Jim Allister said the 90th anniversary was a ''fitting time'' to reflect upon the debt owed to Northern Ireland's unionist forefathers. He added: ''Had it not been for their resolute and unflinching stand,Northern Ireland would be part of a bankrupt Irish Republic.'' He said it was worth observing that the stand of unionists in 1921 was very different from that adopted by the UUP and DUP in 2011. Then,all unionists opposed any suggestion of accepting a goverment which would have included IRA terrorists,'' he said. ''Today,some unionists cosy up in goverment with gunmen and bombers.

Jim Shannon,of the DUP,noted that 90 years ago, Northern Ireland became ''a nation of our own as an intricate part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''. He added: ''As we look to the election we see the future of the next 90 years of Northern Ireland whilst also taking time to remember those who have given their lives in the protection of her people and heritage. We celebrate and remember you as we celebrate our little nation's big day. 'We shall remember them'.''