So, lets say we get to August or some summer month, and 4,000,000 people are protesting right out front the white house.
Do they send in the tanks? Do they kill 1,000,000 people? Would republican civilians see empathy for the dead americans who were democrats? Or would it unite the nation like 9/11 did, except this time against the government?
Incredibly fucked up to think there’s any upside to the troubles. Typical clueless yank energy.
As someone who lived through the Troubles, there were clearly upsides vs the country we had before.
The civil rights movement grew at a pace, the police service was completely revamped, and cross community relations improved dramatically. Most importantly, we largely stopped killing each other.
There was nothing good in the Troubles, but what came out of it was undoubtedly better than what had been there before.
We then ask was this due to the troubles, or was it a progression held back by the troubles.
Incredibly absurd perspective. It’s like a US southerner saying “There were no upsides to the civil war”, and then someone points at the federal abolishment of slavery, and you respond “oh yeah well the question now is did the civil war prevent the south from releasing their slaves from captivity?”
Like, I’m trying to use less hateful language, but I really don’t know what the fuck else to say to you other than point out the fact that you… well, like, some people just need someone to grab their heads and shake them really hard for a while. That’s you.
It was deeply rooted systemic shitting on that was going nowhere.
lol, next you’ll wonder if India is better off today for having overthrown the brits, too.
fucking yes, they were a bunch of sadistic fucks destroying everything they could in the name of profit.
the worst descendants of those sick fucks got shunned to america, for being too fucking crazy. they eventually schismed into what is now known as american protestants/various other brands of fundamentalist christians
protestants, all evangelical christians really, fundamentally do not respect consent. they have tied their own supposed eternal salvation onto the idea that they must “save” everyone else by spreading the Good Word by any means necessary…desperate people like that are not stable.
Would it have been better if there was violence, but only one side was violent?
Peace happens when both sides have a motive to achieve peace. You cannot have a peace treaty when only one side is willing to use force.
Three sides were using force. The republicans and unionists were mainly occupied with using violence against their own people suspected of “disloyalty”. As usual, regular people were the big losers.
Incredibly fucked up to think there’s no upside to fighting imperialism. Typical clueless Brit energy.