Che Guevara: Hero or Hitler?

[RedGlitter]

I came across this article this morning and I'm interested in finding out how the Che fans (I remember we have at least a couple here) feel about the issues mentioned.

Ché Guevara’s Legacy – The Politics of Hate

Linda Sue Grimes

BellaOnline's Republican Party Editor

(bellaonline.com)

Suppose you had had the misfortune of living under a brutal dictatorship, you had been imprisoned, you had seen your relatives murdered, and you had been tortured while imprisoned. But you were one of the lucky ones and somehow managed to escape the firing squad.

How do you think you might feel if after years of making a life for yourself and your family in a different country where you were allowed to work and prosper, you begin to notice people on the street, especially adolescents, wearing shirts with the image of one of the dictatorship’s henchmen, a man whom you witnessed in the act of murdering your own relatives.

Reactions to “Cultural Icon Guevara

Here is how Armando Alvarez feels: "There is something wrong with a society in which people wear shirts with the image of someone who preached hatred and enjoyed killing."

And here is how Carlos Barberia feels: The 73-year-old is waiting for a bus in New Jersey, and he spots one of the T-shirts on a sidewalk newsstand rack. He buys the shirt and sets it ablaze along with a newspaper. To the police officer who appears to assess the situation, Barberia explains, “Ché Guevara killed my father. He had my father shot by a firing squad in Cuba. The officer seemed to understand Barberia’s protest and did not cite him.

Cuba-Americans who experienced first hand the brutality of the Castro-Guevara take-over of Cuba in the late 1950s are appalled at the ignorance displayed in the recent commercialization of the image of Ernesto “Ché Guevara. They liken wearing a Ché T-shirt to wearing a Hitler T-shirt or a mug-shot of the Grand Dragon of the KKK.

Ignorance of Politics and History

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, depending how one looks at it, it is simple ignorance of history and the meaning of events that accounts for the sanitizing of the biography of Ernesto Guevara. Young rebels identify the rebelliousness of Ché. They fancy themselves revolting against the angst of their troubled adolescent lives as the great Ché revolted against, well, whatever it was he revolted against. Most of the adolescents do not know and do not care to find out. But still there are many who think they know and yet are languishing under the romanticized versions of movies and far-left ideologues who embrace this handsome rebel, thinking they are supporting a noble cause.

Actually, Ché Guevara did not leave any real accomplishments. As head of La Cabaña, a Cuban prison, he presided over the execution of hundreds of Cubans, not only counterrevolutionaries but also journalists, businessmen, and homosexuals. He took pleasure in shooting many of the victims in the back of the head himself but mostly sat back and enjoyed watching his firing squad do its job.

Destroyed Cuban’s Economy

As head of National Bank of Cuba and of the Department of Industry of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform Guevara’s policies resulted in near collapse of the Cuban economy: According to his deputy, Ernesto Betancourt: “[He] was ignorant of the most elementary economic principles.

Castro’s second in command became an embarrassment because of his incompetence. Much is made of Guevara being a physician, having earned his doctorate in medicine at the University of Buenos Aires, but there apparently in no record that he completed medical studies.

Political Philosophy of a Crushed Revolutionary

After his failed tenure in Cuban government, Guevara decided his real calling was in being a revolutionary. So he traveled to Africa to organize revolts but every one of his insurrections was crushed. Finally, he headed to Bolivia, where he tried to organize land-owners to revolt. But the land-owners who had actually prospered under their government were not interested in revolution. Badly misjudging the political climate in Bolivia, Guevara paid with his life.

The political philosophy of Ernesto Guevara is antithetical to the merchandizing of the Ché mug-shots plastered on T-shirts, caps, key-rings, etc. And most of the people who proudly wear and display that mug-shot are of the very ilk that met Ché’s bullets with their heads.

For example, Carlos Santana proudly displayed his Ché T-shirt at the 2005 Academy Awards. The irony is that people—“roqueros— who tried to listen to rock music in Cuba during the early sixties ended up in the concentration camps for “delinquents.

[gmc]

Freedom fighter or terrorist?

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/batista.htm

Under Batista, Cuba became profitable for American business and organized crime. Havana became the "Latin Las Vegas," a playground of choice for wealthy gamblers, and very little was said about democracy, or the rights of the average Cuban. Opposition was swiftly and violently crushed, and many began to fear the new government.


Things are never simply black or white. What would you have done if you were an ordinary cuban during those years-say a farm worker?

[spot]

What really amazed me was the "Destroyed Cuban’s Economy", as though the embargo hasn't been there all these years. What is it now? Coming up to fifty years of economic blockade? And we're meant to blame Che Guevara?

[RedGlitter]

gmc;725883 wrote: Freedom fighter or terrorist?

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/batista.htm



Things are never simply black or white. What would you have done if you were an ordinary cuban during those years-say a farm worker?


I'm sure I don't know. That's why I'm trying to get a handle on this. I found that link you gave us to be very interesting.

I have seen those Che shirts and memorabilia for years and never gave it much thought. But when I read the OP article I posted today, I decided to try and get into it to see what was what. So I'm looking for opinions.

[gmc]

RedGlitter;725937 wrote: I'm sure I don't know. That's why I'm trying to get a handle on this. I found that link you gave us to be very interesting.

I have seen those Che shirts and memorabilia for years and never gave it much thought. But when I read the OP article I posted today, I decided to try and get into it to see what was what. So I'm looking for opinions.


Don't bother with other people's opinions form your own.

try these two. The first looks like a Cuban site.

http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=748

if you want a quick overview of the background to it all.

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/64.html

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/62.html

# Cuban relations with the USA:

1. No quick deterioration of the American-Cuban relations.

2. Castro was thought to be a social democrat, not a nationalist.

3. He outraged the USA by nationalising American-owned estates and factories.

1. President Eisenhower reacted by threatening to stop importing Cubas goods.

1. Forced Cuba to sign a trade agreement with Russia.

2. July 1960:

1. USA stopped import of Cuban goods

2. USSR promised to buy Cuban sugar

3. Cuba confiscated all remaining American property

4. Relations between USA and Cuba worsened, but USSR relations with Cuba improved.

1. USA broke off diplomatic relations with the two countries.

2. Russia, at that point in time, was already supplying economic aid to Cuba

3. The USA, President J.F. Kennedy even approved a plan to invade Cuba:

1. The ‘Bay of Pigs’ happened on April 1961

2. Proposed by Batista supporters.

3. To be executed from American bases in Guatemala.

4. The CIA was deeply involved.

5. Badly planned and excecuted




Then ask what would you have done had you been cuban at the time. Batista or castro who would you have supported.

[Bryn Mawr]

gmc;726084 wrote: Don't bother with other people's opinions form your own.

try these two. The first looks like a Cuban site.

http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=748

if you want a quick overview of the background to it all.

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/64.html

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/62.html

#

Then ask what would you have done had you been cuban at the time. Batista or Castro who would you have supported.


Your list missed out several significant events :-

1) Castro's guerrillas overthrew the Batista regime in Jan 1959

2) CIA began arming guerrilla forces in Cuba in May 1959

3) CIA supervised bombing campaign by US based cuban exiles winter 1959/1960

4) US started planning Bay of Pigs invasion in March 1960

5) Cuba applied to UN for relief in July 1960

6) Bay of Pigs invasion failed April 1961

7) Economic embargo in place Mid 1961

8) Operation Mongoose launched by Kennedy to overthrow Castro regime in Late 1961

In 1959, Castro was a nationalist, not a communist - it was the embargo that forced him into bed with the Russians (which, along with the placement of US nuclear missiles in Turkey in 1960/1, led directly to the Cuban missile crisis) who had widespread support from the people of Cuba.

Between the takeover and the embargo Cuba's had the fastest expanding economy in the region.

As to Che Guevara, after you oust a brutal dictator it is normal to try the higher echelons of the previous regime for their crimes - often with fatal results. In this, is this any different from all the other revolutions in the last hundred years (my memory gets hazy before then).

[RedGlitter]

This is good. This is what I was looking for, some background on this matter because I wasn't taught about this stuff in school and have little knowledge of the history factor....

[Indian Princess]

I just watched a special on this on television

[spot]

Here's the basis for her opening paragraphs. I'm not sure whether I'm mis-reading her, but my impression was that her mention of Carlos Barberia implied that he was the person described in the first two paragraphs. There's very little correlation between the account on which she draws and her "Suppose you had had the misfortune" text. Did anyone else read it and not make that connection?Indian Princess;726215 wrote: I just watched a special on this on televisionA special on what, Princess?

[Galbally]

Its an interesting debate, I think the thing that fascinate people about Che Guevara are his contradictions, he was certainly someone who was idealistic and did believe in his various causes and also someone who was violent and ruthless (i.e. a solider). Its that classic romantic troubled hero init? It also helps that he looked liked a rockstar and of course that iconic image of him, in which he looks like a meaner version of Jim Morrison obviously did his reputation no end of good with us image obsessed westerners. Also, like all the best rock stars he died relatively young, (unlike Castro). His legend is actually quite similar to our own Irish version Michael Collins, who was certainly ruthless and had people killed, but was (and is) revered here because he led the IRA in the 1920s when it fought the British Army to a standstill, and is probably more responsible than any other Irish leader of the time in the subsequent emergence of the Republic of Ireland. He was as hated by the British in his day as Guevara was by the U.S. in his. Though Collins was certainly far more of the pragmatist and less radical in his ideas, and basically he was simply a nationalist and certainly not a socialist or anything of that ilk.

Unfortunatly Latin American and South American history is full of similar figures to Guevara who seem to promise a new start, but end up engaged in Casearism (which is the eternal idea that only strong and ruthless leaders are the ones who can offer solutions, not constitutional governments) and crude repression of people with a different philosophy in their own societies. Which is why much of that part of the Americas has never fulfilled its true potential, along with yes of course a lot of meddling from big powers of their day like the U.S., Spain, Britain, etc etc.

But essentially its that whole romantic doomed hero type stuff, all a bit juvenile.

[spot]

Galbally;726222 wrote: He was as hated by the British in his day as Guevara was by the U.S. in his.That might be true of de Valera but I'm surprised you think it's so of Michael Collins, who was instrumental in getting the Anglo-Irish Treaty agreed in 1921. de Valera was always seen as virulently anti-British, Collins as pragmatic and capable of compromise.

[Galbally]

I guess that its fair to say that at least as many Cubans hate Guevara as love him, because of what happened during the revolution, but Collins was more universally admired by the Irish (even many of those who had fought against him in the Irish Civil War).

[Galbally]

spot;726228 wrote: That might be true of de Valera but I'm surprised you think it's so of Michael Collins, who was instrumental in getting the Anglo-Irish Treaty agreed in 1921. de Valera was always seen as virulently anti-British, Collins as pragmatic and capable of compromise.


I think spot you will find that until the British Government saw Collins as someone they could negotiate a settled peace with in 1921, they had spent most of their time trying to find out who he was and kill him, as he was so effective in organizing the guerilla struggle. Which is fair enough as thats what happens in wars, after all he also spent a lot of time trying to work out how to kill a lot of them, so I think they all understood each other quite clearly. But yes, De Valera was much more of an idealog and his reputation has declined over the years while Collins has grown. Though I am not sure that some of that is not also based on the romantic ideal that Collins represented, and of course had he survived and De Valera died young then maybe it would be different.

[spot]

I can't believe that people can look at the record of Batista and feel the revolution wasn't a necessity. As for what's happened since, I can think of few peoples that have more reason to be proud of what they've accomplished than Cubans. The revolution relied on people like Che Guevara. His subsequent history of armed struggle on behalf of the dispossessed is unconvincing perhaps but given the opposition he faced I'm not sure what alternative approach could have been any more successful.

Anyone who has articles as biased as that in the OP written about them forty years after their death gets my vote. Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua comes in for similar propagandist treatment and Somosa's regime and the Contras provide a continuity to what Che Guevara fought against.

[Galbally]

spot;726241 wrote: I can't believe that people can look at the record of Batista and feel the revolution wasn't a necessity. As for what's happened since, I can think of few peoples that have more reason to be proud of what they've accomplished than Cubans. The revolution relied on people like Che Guevara. His subsequent history of armed struggle on behalf of the dispossessed is unconvincing perhaps but given the opposition he faced I'm not sure what alternative approach could have been any more successful.

Anyone who has articles as biased as that in the OP written about them forty years after their death gets my vote. Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua comes in for similar propagandist treatment and Somosa's regime and the Contras provide a continuity to what Che Guevara fought against.


I think that its certainly a valid point that Cuba was ripe for some form of revolution in 1959, given the way the country was run, whether what happened was the best possible thing that could have happened is not so clear, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing. But I thought that this thread was more about the perception of Guevara, not the actual details of what happened in Cuba at the time. Not being Cuban myself, I can't really speak for the people there about what is best for them.

Just another point about Collins and De Valera to sidetrack, its fascinating to think "what if" say Collins hadn't been killed and De Valera had. I don't think that Collins would have left the North to go its own way as De Valera did. He would probably have tried to subvert the northern State using violence and local agitation, but keeping a distance politically to wrong-foot the British Government of the time. He certainly hinted that that was precisely what he intended to do. What that would have led to is hard to know, though probably catastrophe given the wider situation in the world in the 1930s, and the inevitable bloodshed that would have resulted locally also, but of course, its impossible really to say what he would have done so its all moot I guess.

[spot]

Comparing and contrasting Michael Collins with Che Guevara is an interesting exercise, I'd not have thought of it but there are a number of parallels.

As for the six counties, the Wikipedia references to 1922, before the Civil War, suggest that he'd begun down the track you're offering. Would the British have backed the Orangemen meaningfully during the mid-20s? Probably they would. Edward Carson had been a major intransigent obstacle to Irish independence but he seems to have become a spent force by the time of the Treaty - would it have been Lord Craigavon (if you excuse the anachronistic title) around whom a military UVF response centred? I'm way out of my depth at this point. I think it would have been entirely up to the London government, and not Stormont, to decide how to react to a full-on IRA six counties offensive in the 20s. I expect they might even have stamped down hard and tried to set things back to square one.

It's all over with now, Galbally. Who'd have thought it ever could be?

[koan]

The stuff legends are made of.



I'm an advocate for nonviolent resistance so I couldn't put him on the list of my heroes. I do have a lot of respect for Castro and his revolutionaries for having accomplished what they did, despite the odds. I can see why people love him and I can see why people hate him. I don't see any comparison to Hitler being reasonable on a large scale.

I'd rather people study and promote the success that nonviolent tactics have achieved. Unfortunately most people seem to think it's not worth the wait and the rewards are too few but... when Gandhi could stop a war by not eating... that's what my heroes are made of.

[Galbally]

spot;726255 wrote: Comparing and contrasting Michael Collins with Che Guevara is an interesting exercise, I'd not have thought of it but there are a number of parallels.

As for the six counties, the Wikipedia references to 1922, before the Civil War, suggest that he'd begun down the track you're offering. Would the British have backed the Orangemen meaningfully during the mid-20s? Probably they would. Edward Carson had been a major intransigent obstacle to Irish independence but he seems to have become a spent force by the time of the Treaty - would it have been Lord Craigavon (if you excuse the anachronistic title) around whom a military UVF response centred? I'm way out of my depth at this point. I think it would have been entirely up to the London government, and not Stormont, to decide how to react to a full-on IRA six counties offensive in the 20s. I expect they might even have stamped down hard and tried to set things back to square one.

It's all over with now, Galbally. Who'd have thought it ever could be?


Aye, it is, thank god. Time to get on with other peacefully. One of Joyce's characters famously said "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake", perhaps finally we have.

[Bryn Mawr]

Galbally;726247 wrote: I think that its certainly a valid point that Cuba was ripe for some form of revolution in 1959, given the way the country was run, whether what happened was the best possible thing that could have happened is not so clear, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing. But I thought that this thread was more about the perception of Guevara, not the actual details of what happened in Cuba at the time. Not being Cuban myself, I can't really speak for the people there about what is best for them.




I think that whoever and however Batista was deposed the reaction of the US would have been the same - he was their puppet and they'd punish the Cubans for daring to get rid of him.

They appear to have considered Cuba to be one of their colonies, even to the extent of having their nominees running parts of the government for long stretches of time. After all, they engineered Cuba's move to independence from the Spanish so it was theirs, wasn't it?

[el guapo]

Ive been to Cuba publicly not a bad word against Castrel but in private a different story

[gmc]

posted by galbally

Just another point about Collins and De Valera to sidetrack, its fascinating to think "what if" say Collins hadn't been killed and De Valera had. I don't think that Collins would have left the North to go its own way as De Valera did. He would probably have tried to subvert the northern State using violence and local agitation, but keeping a distance politically to wrong-foot the British Government of the time. He certainly hinted that that was precisely what he intended to do. What that would have led to is hard to know, though probably catastrophe given the wider situation in the world in the 1930s, and the inevitable bloodshed that would have resulted locally also, but of course, its impossible really to say what he would have done so its all moot I guess.


Also way off post but whet do you think would have been the result if the British hadn't executed the leaders after the dublin uprising making them in to martyrs? I have seen it suggested that that was what turned sentiment from passivity to support.

[Galbally]

gmc;726530 wrote: posted by galbally



Also way off post but whet do you think would have been the result if the British hadn't executed the leaders after the dublin uprising making them in to martyrs? I have seen it suggested that that was what turned sentiment from passivity to support.


I think its just impossible to know really. Best to just try and understand the past that was, though it is always fascinating to think what if I suppose.

[Richard Bell]

...

Attached files

[spot]

That, I take it, is Michael Moore?

[Richard Bell]

spot;731856 wrote: That, I take it, is Michael Moore?


No, it's Family Guy's Peter Griffin.

[spot]

He plays the part of an overbearing right-wing politician with ambitions that lean toward world domination and the supremacy of western civilization?

[Kittypaws]

Just my opinion here ... but if I were the dictator of an itty bitty banana republic situated in the shadow of the world's most powerful nation ... if the only thing i had to offer the world was cigars and 1960's automobiles ... i'd try to settle my diferences with them ...

[gmc]

Kittypaws;732032 wrote: Just my opinion here ... but if I were the dictator of an itty bitty banana republic situated in the shadow of the world's most powerful nation ... if the only thing i had to offer the world was cigars and 1960's automobiles ... i'd try to settle my diferences with them ...


He did but the american government told him to sod off and then backed an invasion to try and put Batista back in power and then systematically wrecked the cuban economy by refusing to trade with them. Foolishly castro thought the americans would understand the desire to be free of a dictator.

[Galbally]

gmc;726530 wrote: posted by galbally



Also way off post but whet do you think would have been the result if the British hadn't executed the leaders after the dublin uprising making them in to martyrs? I have seen it suggested that that was what turned sentiment from passivity to support.


Just to answer this one finally, I think in the long run the Irish would have tried by whatever means were available to get out of the U.K. in the 20th Century as we were never happy in it. Unlike the Scots or the Welsh, our experience of being subject to English rule (and part of their happy clappy Empire) was never actually very happy clappy one for us, so all it would have meant would be that the process would have happened in a more constitutional manner than it did unfortunatly, but there would still have been a lot of trouble between Nationalists and Unionists as their aspirations have been so diametrically opposed for the past 200 years. Before that though things were a little different.

[spot]

I'm working from memory, Galbally, but I don't think Eire (are we allowed to call the Republic of Ireland that? Is it still right?) is a member nation of the Commonwealth. If it's not, do the Irish have a huge objection to the idea that they could maybe join?

[Galbally]

spot;732634 wrote: I'm working from memory, Galbally, but I don't think Eire (are we allowed to call the Republic of Ireland that? Is it still right?) is a member nation of the Commonwealth. If it's not, do the Irish have a huge objection to the idea that they could maybe join?


Sorry Spot, we kinda call our country "The Republic of Ireland" (ROI), or "The Republic" or "the South", and we do notice that our country is always called "Eire" (which is the Gaelic name for the state, but we don't normally use it ourselves) or sometimes "Southern Ireland" in Britain semi-offically, which is a bit annoying, though I don't think its intentional usually. In the North we are reffered to as either "The South" or "The Free State" depending what side you are on up there. We call our country "The Republic" or just "Ireland" as a short-hand normally, and we call Northern Ireland, "The North" or "The Six Counties" we never call it "Ulster" as Unionists do because 3 of the Ulster counties are in the South. I admit we are all a bit prickly about this stuff on this island, but can you blame us really?

We aren't members of the Commonwealth either as we left in 1948 and I don't think we really want to join again, we have an attitude towards such things that would be similar to British people's attitude to the rest of Europe. Then again maybe if the island is unifed in the future being a member of the commonwealth would be a useful way of providing people who had a British/Unionist identity with a link to Britain that wouldn't be too offensive to the people who have an Irish Gaelic identity.

Interestingly, because of the new border controls that are coming into force in the U.K., with these ID cards etc etc, the common-travel area between the Republic and the U.K. may be coming to an end, (no one seems to be mentioning this aspect of tightening UK borders at all, as they seem to have forgotten that the UK has a land border with another state that is hundreds of miles long). This would mean that passport control would have to set up along the border, which the UK would have to seal off somehow, and we will probably have to join the Shengen agreement down here with the rest of the EU instead. (which is very inconvieniet for anyone living near the border on either side of it will immeadiately tell you). So they better sort that one out fast.

Talking about names, I wonder what you want to call the UK if Scotland left?, there are several options I suppose and keeping the U.K. would be one of them, and probably the handiest one as long as N. Ireland's position in the Union doesn't change. I also wonder what would Scotland be called politically, probably Scotland I guess. A question for the Scots, would you like Scotland to remain in the Commonwealth if it becomes independent?

[spot]

Galbally;732667 wrote: I admit we are all a bit prickly about this stuff on this island, but can you blame us really?I can't blame you in the least and I'm grateful for the explanation, thank you.

You "wonder what you want to call the UK if Scotland left" and that's intriguing. We wouldn't be Great Britain and anything any longer since Great Britain is the name of the largest island off the mainland of Europe. We'd not be the United Kingdom any longer since we'd consist of one country (England), one principality (Wales) and one province (Northern Ireland). We're currently a United Kingdom since the monarch inherits the crowns of both England and Scotland.

In long form we'd be the Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland which is equivalent to the current title of the realm, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since that gets abbreviated internationally to the United Kingdom I suppose we'd then be known internationally as the Kingdom. I'd settle for that.

Whether Scotland (or alternatively North Britain if you want to use an old term for the same country) would remain a monarchy is entirely their choice. I expect they'd want to and that Queen Elizabeth would still open their parliament and remain their Head of State as Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland.

Regarding cross-border travel I note that there's current legislation that singles out the Republic of Ireland for special treatment already - a reciprocal right for its citizens to vote in UK elections while they're resident here. I'm sure that sort of specificity could be extended to the land border if comon sense were applied. And isn't the Republic's phone system an extension of the UK's still? Doesn't the world dial +44 to get to you? Maybe I'm out of touch and it's changed.

[gmc]

posted by galbally

Talking about names, I wonder what you want to call the UK if Scotland left?, there are several options I suppose and keeping the U.K. would be one of them, and probably the handiest one as long as N. Ireland's position in the Union doesn't change. I also wonder what would Scotland be called politically, probably Scotland I guess. A question for the Scots, would you like Scotland to remain in the Commonwealth if it becomes independent?


Good question. The UK would still be the UK and scotland would definitely be scotland. As to whether we will go for independence I don't know. The ironic thing is that all the things annoying us now have been foisted upon us by scots.

[Galbally]

spot;732690 wrote: I can't blame you in the least and I'm grateful for the explanation, thank you.

You "wonder what you want to call the UK if Scotland left" and that's intriguing. We wouldn't be Great Britain and anything any longer since Great Britain is the name of the largest island off the mainland of Europe. We'd not be the United Kingdom any longer since we'd consist of one country (England), one principality (Wales) and one province (Northern Ireland). We're currently a United Kingdom since the monarch inherits the crowns of both England and Scotland.

In long form we'd be the Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland which is equivalent to the current title of the realm, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since that gets abbreviated internationally to the United Kingdom I suppose we'd then be known internationally as the Kingdom. I'd settle for that.

Whether Scotland (or alternatively North Britain if you want to use an old term for the same country) would remain a monarchy is entirely their choice. I expect they'd want to and that Queen Elizabeth would still open their parliament and remain their Head of State as Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland.

Regarding cross-border travel I note that there's current legislation that singles out the Republic of Ireland for special treatment already - a reciprocal right for its citizens to vote in UK elections while they're resident here. I'm sure that sort of specificity could be extended to the land border if comon sense were applied. And isn't the Republic's phone system an extension of the UK's still? Doesn't the world dial +44 to get to you? Maybe I'm out of touch and it's changed.


Erm? Spot we are a completely seperate entity here, and our phone system is different, you need to ring 00353- to get to the Republic of Ireland. Irish internet addresses end in .ie not .co.uk >. Also Sterling is not legal tender here and hasn't been since 1948, (I have often seen English tourists that still seem bemused by this) so you can't use it to buy things in the shops you need Euros instead, previous to Euros you needed Irish Pounds (or Punts) (you can't use Dollars either US posters). At present there are bilateral agreemens on residency, voting rights for all UK citizens (and we have a lot of UK citizens living here since the boom started), and border controls etc, as well as the now common EU ones.

However, I am not sure what the specific problem is, but apparently the way the legislation on border controls is being framed in the U.K. at present means that the system as operated now, will not be practical, and it will end. I know that both Governments are trying to work this out, but our government is not very happy with how thats going at present apparently, also we are a bit worried that members of suspected terror cells in the UK that are made up of U.K. citizens can at present cross into the Republic without a passport and cannot be stopped by us, which gives our already somewhat overworked policeforce (called the Gardai for anyone who is interested) more to worry about, though the revervse of this situation was the case in the 1970s so we understand where the British government is coming from on this one, but as you can see, its actually quite a complicated problem, so its interesting to see how they will resolve it.

[spot]

Galbally;732720 wrote: Erm? SpotI promise not to wind you up for at least the rest of the week, how's that? Ooooh that was a good one though - I'll try to feel guilty in a while.

[Galbally]

spot;732803 wrote: I promise not to wind you up for at least the rest of the week, how's that? Ooooh that was a good one though - I'll try to feel guilty in a while.


Naughty.

[Bryn Mawr]

Galbally;732667 wrote: Sorry Spot, we kinda call our country "The Republic of Ireland" (ROI), or "The Republic" or "the South", and we do notice that our country is always called "Eire" (which is the Gaelic name for the state, but we don't normally use it ourselves) or sometimes "Southern Ireland" in Britain semi-offically, which is a bit annoying, though I don't think its intentional usually.



Talking about names, I wonder what you want to call the UK if Scotland left?, there are several options I suppose and keeping the U.K. would be one of them, and probably the handiest one as long as N. Ireland's position in the Union doesn't change. I also wonder what would Scotland be called politically, probably Scotland I guess. A question for the Scots, would you like Scotland to remain in the Commonwealth if it becomes independent?


Oops - sorry. Not meant to annoy.



The UK would still be applicable as a short form but what would we call Great Britain and what would that make The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Galbally]

Bryn Mawr;732930 wrote: Oops - sorry. Not meant to annoy.



The UK would still be applicable as a short form but what would we call Great Britain and what would that make The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?


The thing about using "Eire"is that for a long time the British Government wouldn't use the "Republic of Ireland" as they were kinda unilaterally p*ssed off that we had declared ourselves a Republic and left the Commonwealth without telling them first, and they objected to the name as they thought it implies that all of Ireland is a Republic when of course 6 Northern Irish counties are still in the UK. Therefore they used the Gaelic form of Eire, and obviously if we use the English name, why can't the British Government? So there was always a little bit of an insult when that term "Eire" was used officially, as its up to us what the politcally correct name for our country is, not the British Foreign Office, do you see what I am getting at here? That may seem like a small thing, but small things count in things like this. Don't worry though, its all grist for the mill. :rolleyes:

[Galbally]

Bryn Mawr;732930 wrote: Oops - sorry. Not meant to annoy.



The UK would still be applicable as a short form but what would we call Great Britain and what would that make The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?


I suppose it would be the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. Isn't Great Britain the whole Island? While Britain is just England and Wales?

[Bryn Mawr]

Galbally;732942 wrote: The thing about using "Eire"is that for a long time the British Government wouldn't use the "Republic of Ireland" as they were kinda unilaterally p*ssed off that we had declared ourselves a Republic and left the Commonwealth without telling them first, and they objected to the name as they thought it implies that all of Ireland is a Republic when of course 6 Northern Irish counties are still in the UK. Therefore they used the Gaelic form of Eire, and obviously if we use the English name, why can't the British Government? So there was always a little bit of an insult when that term "Eire" was used officially, as its up to us what the politcally correct name for our country is, not the British Foreign Office, do you see what I am getting at here? That may seem like a small thing, but small things count in things like this. Don't worry though, its all grist for the mill. :rolleyes:


Totally see your point and it's not a small thing at all.

[spot]

It was on the stamps I collected in my youth, that's all. It's sort of ingrained from that. I wasn't (for once in my life) intending any insult. I know there's none taken, I'm just explaining.

[Bryn Mawr]

Galbally;732946 wrote: I suppose it would be the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. Isn't Great Britain the whole Island? While Britain is just England and Wales?


No - it's Great Britain to distinguish it from Less Britain which we now call Brittany.

Maybe Albion? :wah:

[spot]

Hmm. Lesser Britain's the name of the whole island of Ireland, I think, in contrast to the bigger island that's Great Britain. We could try checking if that helps.

[Galbally]

spot;732950 wrote: It was on the stamps I collected in my youth, that's all. It's sort of ingrained from that. I wasn't (for once in my life) intending any insult. I know there's none taken, I'm just explaining.


Good man. I know you are. None taken.

[Galbally]

Bryn Mawr;732951 wrote: No - it's Great Britain to distinguish it from Less Britain which we now call Brittany.

Maybe Albion? :wah:


Really? Methinks you are pulling me leg now.

[Galbally]

spot;732966 wrote: Hmm. Lesser Britain's the name of the whole island of Ireland, I think, in contrast to the bigger island that's Great Britain. We could try checking if that helps.


Now you are taking the p*ss. I think there was a move in Britain in the Nineteenth Century to try and foist "West Britain" on Ireland, the cheek of ye. You actually live in Eastern lesser Ireland, everyone knows that. :p

[YZGI]

And you guys wonder why Americans have no idea what to call your respective places of living?:wah:

[Galbally]

YZGI;732978 wrote: And you guys wonder why Americans have no idea what to call your respective places of living?:wah:


You actually mean "the Colonials" or Colonists (as in people from the Colonies) when you say Americans don't you?

I think English people think of The United States of America as "Far Western Britain". Canada as "Far North Western Britain with Bears", and Australia as "Upside Down Britain".

[spot]

That's so distressingly true that I almost blushed as I read it.

[YZGI]

Galbally;732983 wrote: You actually mean "the Colonials" or Colonists (as in people from the Colonies) when you say Americans don't you?



I think English people think of The United States of America as "Far Western Britain". Canada as "Far North Western Britain with Bears", and Australia as "Upside Down Britain".
1 out of 3 aint so bad..:wah: