Muppets

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Wow! Things have heated up here!

Laura,
You really are being pedantic. The assertion has now shifted firstly to an "invasion FROM England" and secondly to describe virtually all assaults in which the Gaels lost out as an English invasion. You even include English civil wars! You are going back to the 12th century; at this early stage you cannot even talk about the Irish as an integrated, self aware people - never mind the English.

I know, its getting interesting. Pleas don't misunderstand me, I wasn't claiming and invasion from England, I definately was saying English Invasion. I understand the point you are trying to make but its pedantic and of dubious historical accuracy.

Henry II was King of England and he invaded Ireland so therefore I maintain it was an English Invasion even though he was a Norman King and most of the soldiers on the ground were Welsh.

Also, Ireland while not a de facto unified political entity did have a high kingship who nominally ruled over all the lesser kings on the island:

"The High King of Ireland was essentially a ceremonial, pseudo-federal overlord (where his over-lordship was even recognised), who exercised actual power only within the realm of which he was actually king."

People may not have recognised a person as high king but they recognised the office.

Besides that, your point is silly because whether you characterise it as Leinster, Ferns or Ireland there was an invasion of the island of ireland in the twelfth century. You seem to be confusing a nation with a state. The English Nation might not have existed in the 12th century but there was an English State which was a political entity capable of taking actions, projecting its power, making war and making peace. The Portugese involvement in World War I was partly based on a treaty it made with England in the 14th cenury.

You are right in that I would characterise many of the assaults faced by gaelic lords as invasions - whats wrong with speaking about an invasion of say Tyrone or and invasion of Inishowen.? The definition of invasion is pretty clear:

"An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering territory, altering the established government, or a combination thereof."

I wasn't just thinking of armed men running up a beach. Regards the Cromwellian Conquest, it also meets the criteria to be classed as an invasion. It was also a reconquest but thats neither here nor there. D-Day was both an invasion and a reconquest.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

"Dogmatic revisionist" is an oxymoron.

Trust me it isn't. To see any one way of looking at the past as the only accurate view of the past is completely dogmatic, whether its a revisionist, marxist or feminist. Revisionism is a really useful tool becasue it forces people to review commonly held beliefs but it creates its own myths if it too isn't questioned or subject to revision.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Election doesn't effect the argument about wrongdoing.

True, elected officials can and do do wrong. To take an extreme example Hitler was elected after all. There has been hundreds of terrible elected governments. I'd want to be a fool to argue that with you. The question is not whether you approve of their actions though, its of legitimacy. Elections do impart - shall we say a certain legitimacy to a government. Why else do third world dictators so frequently rig elections? However you use language which seeks to de legitimise them and their actions. Collins was not a murdering thug becasue he was elected twice to do a job - he owed his position in the Irish Volunteers to an election and his position as a government minister to an election. Your words are the words of a dogmatic revisionist in a very Irish sense of the word.

Jackie laughlin

Ah, Laura, gimme a break! "Revisionism" categorised along with "Marxism" and "feminism"!! The latter two have grounding perspectives on the world (class and gender). Revisionism is nothing like them. It is simply iconoclasm and a personal willingness to be swayed by the better argument. True, there may be iconoclasts whose wish is to replace the fallen idols with others. However, there are those of us whose ambition is to spread doubt.

No, I'm not confusing nation and state. Both are constructs. Both grow and change.

The point I'm trying to make is that the "800 years of oppression" argument is nonsense. The fact that you have to keep redefining (shifting the goalposts!) in order to maintain it makes my point. These two islands have been politically and culturally entwined since ... well, forever. It will always be so.

This is not an argument against Irish independence. On the contrary, it might lead to an honesty which says that the "traditional" or "conventional" argument for independence is based on a myth or even a carefully constructed lie. It is a lie, however, that has motivated blood-thirsty zealots and may do so again - if it is not nailed!

I have long thought that many Irish nationalists who feel a need for "800 years of oppression" suffer from a feeling of cultural inferiority. This feeling is incomprehensible to me. Ireland is the root of one of the basic "mother cultures" of Europe. Culturally Ireland "Lords it over" Britain. Frankly, we should be trying to control our arrogance rather than trying to make ourselves feel better. The problem may be that the Irish ruling class of, say, the 20th century were/are petty people with no sense of the true worth of Irishness. OK, let's call a spade a spade: our ruling class are unsophisticated yobs. (That is the judgement of a working class lad on the Irish bourgeoisie!)

Jackie laughlin

Dictators rig elections to claim legitimacy. Criminals settle for a quota.

csk

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Ah, Laura, gimme a break! "Revisionism" categorised along with "Marxism" and "feminism"!! The latter two have grounding perspectives on the world (class and gender). Revisionism is nothing like them. It is simply iconoclasm and a personal willingness to be swayed by the better argument. True, there may be iconoclasts whose wish is to replace the fallen idols with others. However, there are those of us whose ambition is to spread doubt.

No, I'm not confusing nation and state. Both are constructs. Both grow and change.

The point I'm trying to make is that the "800 years of oppression" argument is nonsense. The fact that you have to keep redefining (shifting the goalposts!) in order to maintain it makes my point. These two islands have been politically and culturally entwined since ... well, forever. It will always be so.

This is not an argument against Irish independence. On the contrary, it might lead to an honesty which says that the "traditional" or "conventional" argument for independence is based on a myth or even a carefully constructed lie. It is a lie, however, that has motivated blood-thirsty zealots and may do so again - if it is not nailed!

I have long thought that many Irish nationalists who feel a need for "800 years of oppression" suffer from a feeling of cultural inferiority. This feeling is incomprehensible to me. Ireland is the root of one of the basic "mother cultures" of Europe. Culturally Ireland "Lords it over" Britain. Frankly, we should be trying to control our arrogance rather than trying to make ourselves feel better. The problem may be that the Irish ruling class of, say, the 20th century were/are petty people with no sense of the true worth of Irishness. OK, let's call a spade a spade: our ruling class are unsophisticated yobs. (That is the judgement of a working class lad on the Irish bourgeoisie!)

Jackie I suspect you are not really aware of the meaning of revisionism nor its place in Ireland. The fact that you need to spout trite cliches and dead arguments only serves to highlight this. The fact that you see revisionism as some kind of badge of honour is perverse in the extreme akin to telling Jews that Nazism is a good thing for them. Of course that may be a little extreme or a trite analogy in its own right but it captures the essence of your argument perfectly. Forgive me for not elaborating further but I don't have the patience for such unsophisticated nonsense and doublethink.

Jackie laughlin

Csk,
"a little extreme"! That's an understatement.

I'm perfectly aware of the connotations of revisionism in Ireland. It is an honourable tradition. Well, I don't suppose it's old enough yet to be a tradition. Official Irish history is largely a simplistic fiction in need of revision.

csk

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Csk,
"a little extreme"! That's an understatement.

I'm perfectly aware of the connotations of revisionism in Ireland. It is an honourable tradition. Well, I don't suppose it's old enough yet to be a tradition. Official Irish history is largely a simplistic fiction in need of revision.

As I said it captures the essence of your argument perfectly. This post only reinforces by earlier comment.

Jackie laughlin

Csk,
No, you said that I didn't know about Irish revisionism and then went on to hurl a few insults. It's not a problem for me. Zealots are beyond the reach of revision but I can try to talk to potential doubters.

csk

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Csk,
No, you said that I didn't know about Irish revisionism and then went on to hurl a few insults. It's not a problem for me. Zealots are beyond the reach of revision but I can try to talk to potential doubters.

Where are the insults, Jackie? As for being a zealot, I find that funny, considering and all how you(yes you!) are the one calling yourself a revisionist!

The irony in such is funny. The fact that such irony exists is in itself quite ironic. It's like a vicious circle of irony. I will give you credit though it's quite amusing!:D

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Csk,
Official Irish history is largely a simplistic fiction in need of revision.

All history is constantly reviewed and revised. Thats what the study of history is all about. This is why i don't like 'revisionism'. It implies that a persons view of history is passively recieved and goes unanalysed unless that person adopts a revisionist line. Quite insulting really. Revisionism as CSK pointed out does definately in the Irish context "have grounding perspectives on the world" and has as much of an agenda as official Irish history. I'll also ask what does the phrase 'official Irish history' mean anyway? When I was in school I was never given anything more than a teachers opinion. The same teachers always stress that the ultimate goal is to make your own mind up. As a former history teacher i can say that this is a goal of teachers and a rewarding one at that when a kid comes out with their own ideas. I was never told by the state how to spin history at all in fact.

Regarding invasions of Ireland, well, I don't think I'm shifting the goalposts at all. In fact, I don't think you even understand the revisionist rhetoric you come out with. You asked when did the English invade and you have your answer. The King of England invaded in 1171. This marked the beginning of a period of shall we say interventions by the English Crown into Irish political and cultural life. No doubt the two island shared many links for centuries before then but that means nothing. There was links between Ireland and the the Roman Empire and Ireland clearly wasn't part of that. I also never trotted out the line of 800 years of oppression. Regardless of what you think of my politics or my view of history I think its a complete insult that you would accuse me of mouthing something so simplistic. In fact it is yourself who is the only person here who engages in sloganeering. Collins was a 'murdering thug', a 'Dictators rig elections to claim legitimacy. Criminals settle for a quota.' I mean WTF?!! Is that all you can say to support your accusation of muderousness and thuggery? I'd have respect for any opinion thats intellectually honest so please don't misunderstand me, I'm not having a go at you, I just think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I have long thought that many Irish nationalists who feel a need for "800 years of oppression" suffer from a feeling of cultural inferiority. This feeling is incomprehensible to me. Ireland is the root of one of the basic "mother cultures" of Europe. Culturally Ireland "Lords it over" Britain. Frankly, we should be trying to control our arrogance rather than trying to make ourselves feel better.

I knod of agree with what you are saying. Irish people have a need to paint themselves as victims which possibly comes from our post -colonial experience. You as much fall into that as anyone else. Dismissing the rebels as murderers or thugs implies that you too see yourself as a victim. Why not move beyond such narrow confines?

Jackie laughlin

"revionist zealot" is another oxymoron!

Laura,
I am of an age with Gerry Adams and co. I was not taught to question history. I regarded 1916 etc. as the work of heroes. Indeed, I was probably childishly ready to kill and die for Ireland. Then I grew up and began to read for myself. I'm still exploring the complexity I've discovered.

I'm always intrigued by censorious phrases and "chip on the shoulder" is an old favourite of mine. "Moving on" is its more common, modern equivalent.

I'm not a professional historian. Teaching history (badly) in class is but one way to indoctrinate and ceate myths. Ceromonies, anniversaries, parades, reverent adjectives etc. etc. are ather ways.

I can't see a great deal wrong in plain speaking. The use of words like "thug", "murderer", "disgrace" should not be forbidden in discourse. There is a corresponding set of respectful terms used by those who created the myths.

Of course I realise that "revisionism" is a term of abuse in Ireland and that there is a view abroad that it is in some sense a coherent school of thought. I tend to use the word in the broader sense of being open to and willing to take part in revision. I do feel that it is important to attack received orthodoxy.

"'Dictators rig elections to claim legitimacy. Criminals settle for a quota.' I mean WTF?!! Is that all you can say to support your accusation of muderousness and thuggery?" Now, this just isn't fair comment. My slogan-like summary came AFTER argument.

If you do not subscribe to the "800 years of oppression" thesis, I owe you an apology.

csk

Jackie laughlin wrote:

"revionist zealot" is another oxymoron!

Not in your case Jackie, which is what led me to make my original comments.

Jackie laughlin

Expand, please.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

If you do not subscribe to the "800 years of oppression" thesis, I owe you an apology.

For a start, I definately do not although to I believe that the Kings of England have been players in the politics of the island of Ireland since the 12th century. I really don't see how anyone can claim otherwise.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Of course I realise that "revisionism" is a term of abuse in Ireland and that there is a view abroad that it is in some sense a coherent school of thought. I tend to use the word in the broader sense of being open to and willing to take part in revision. I do feel that it is important to attack received orthodoxy.

My main problem with revisionism in Ireland is that it is extremely politically motivated. Either that or its often sensationalism of dubious historical merit written to sell books and gain notoriety. I guess thats a major reason why revisionism is such a dirty word in Ireland. I think its entirely within my right to dislike a movement based not on a serious study of the past but based on modern politics. Events are twisted or given a spin. Collins becomes a murdering thug when a look at his life and actions in a broader context shows he wasn't any such thing. I also dislike the way it seems to imply that only revisionists seek to reexamine past events. Finally, I believe that like every other historical method, it too should be subject to revision.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I am of an age with Gerry Adams and co. I was not taught to question history. I regarded 1916 etc. as the work of heroes. Indeed, I was probably childishly ready to kill and die for Ireland. Then I grew up and began to read for myself. I'm still exploring the complexity I've discovered.
I'm always intrigued by censorious phrases and "chip on the shoulder" is an old favourite of mine. "Moving on" is its more common, modern equivalent.

well to be honest and with respect Jackie, that to me suggests that you do indeed have a chip on your shoulder. A convert is usually the biggest zealot. And I do really think that you are a revisionist zealot. The most prominant example is calling Collins a murderer. Such heavy language of condemnation doesn't belong in historical discussion, which should strive for objectivity.
You also refuse to accept that he acted the Dail which was in turn a body elected on an all Ireland basis has any legitimacy, even to the point where you disparage elections in general. I disagree with lots of government policy but don't refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government because I do. Thats what you are doing. You can disagree with Collins which is fair enough but you can't deny that he was acting within an institutional framework which had been accorded some sort of legitimacy by virtue of an election. To do so strikes me as being dogma of a politically motivated kind.

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
I don't dispute your point about Kings of England being "players" in Ireland for centuries. Don't forget the Dutch involvement. Moreover, the Irish have been "players" in Britain for even longer.

I can't see many history books being written as part of an ambition to become rich. I'm sure there is an element of vanity in all publication. (There's probably an element of vanity in all posts here.) However, I can't see any necessary contradiction between being scholarly and being iconoclastic. If a book is incompetent, it should be criticised on that basis.

Of course I realise that historical events are coloured by writing about them. That's inevitable. It gives us what I believe is called, historiography. Although that is - I think - more about methods. However, the whole purpose of questioning official Irish history is that it has not been scholarly but has actively been creating myths for use in the political circumstances of the later time. It was liberation into scholarly history (complex history) which opened my eyes.

It is utterly wrong to say that I was "converted". The truth is that I grew up. There comes a time in everyone's life when they begin to realise (or they should begin to realise) that the simplistic certainties of childhood are of little use in the adult world of complexity. This applies as much to personal life as it does to accepting the founding myths of the state.

"Converts" and "zealots" are people who suffer from certainty. Every single opinion I hold is held conditionally. I am constantly open to and seeking to revise my views. If I could be said to be zealous about anything, it would be about the importance of doubt and argument. Telling me that I "have a chip on my shoulder" doesn't address anything. It doesn't discourage me. It is just the voice of yet another censor. Come to think of it, it is possible that every time I've been involved in a debate about anything, someone has told me that I've "a chip on my shoulder". I do know that I've many times defended others so meaninglessly accused. Sorry, but I'll "move on" under the force of a better argument and under no other pressure.

I think I've already answered you on the question of plain speaking.

I certainly never disparaged all elections. I argued that election in itself doesn't justify the successful candidate's past crimes or offences.

I don't think I said anything much about the first Dail. I am of course aware that all of those successful in that British or UK or British/Irish election did not take part in the Dail. I am also aware of the large proportion of members who were elected unopposed. However, this is the first time I've made this point in Boards.

As I said, I'm not a professional historian but I've read widely and devoted some time to the founding of the state and to its Founding Fathers. No, I don't think that all of them were depraved monsters but the more I read, the more depressed (No, of course not in any clinical sense!) I become that such people can be held up as exemplars in a civilised society.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Laura,
I don't dispute your point about Kings of England being "players" in Ireland for centuries. Don't forget the Dutch involvement. Moreover, the Irish have been "players" in Britain for even longer.

You denied that England invaded Ireland though. What about Dutch involvement? As in William of Orange? Don't get me started on that clown - I'll save it for another thread though. Ireland being players in Britain is just silly. There is no comparison. Although I guess in a sense you are correct its not comparing like with like.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I certainly never disparaged all elections. I argued that election in itself doesn't justify the successful candidate's past crimes or offences.

I don't think I said anything much about the first Dail. I am of course aware that all of those successful in that British or UK or British/Irish election did not take part in the Dail. I am also aware of the large proportion of members who were elected unopposed. However, this is the first time I've made this point in Boards.
.

Well you seemed to disparage elections to me if it didn't suit your beliefs. This was back when you denied even the shred of a possibility that the government of the first Dail had any legitimacy or have you forgotten that?

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Laura,
I can't see many history books being written as part of an ambition to become rich. I'm sure there is an element of vanity in all publication. (There's probably an element of vanity in all posts here.) However, I can't see any necessary contradiction between being scholarly and being iconoclastic. If a book is incompetent, it should be criticised on that basis.

Never said anyone wrote a history book to become rich. My words were to gain noteriety. Why a writer would what that I can only guess. Some writers, nationally and internationally have built careers on it though.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

As I said, I'm not a professional historian but I've read widely and devoted some time to the founding of the state and to its Founding Fathers. No, I don't think that all of them were depraved monsters but the more I read, the more depressed (No, of course not in any clinical sense!) I become that such people can be held up as exemplars in a civilised society.

Well fair play to you Jackie, I'm assuming you are an absolute pacifist,in which case you have my complete respect, even though I disagree personally.
If you are not of course you are taking nonsense.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I think I've already answered you on the question of plain speaking.

You have said you see nothing wrong with it. You haven't given a satisfactory reason why phrases like murdering thug/dross belong in a debate on history, when the objective as you yourself said is the truth or at least a modicum of objectivity is satisfactory. McArmalite indulged in plain speaking about the British Empire's legacy to the world and was met with scorn. Why shouldn't your plain speaking not also be met with scorn? Perhaps its best not to speak plainly but objectively.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

"Converts" and "zealots" are people who suffer from certainty. Every single opinion I hold is held conditionally. I am constantly open to and seeking to revise my views. If I could be said to be zealous about anything, it would be about the importance of doubt and argument.

I don't want to censor anyone so I won't say you have a chip on your shoulder again. Regarding the rest of the above, to be honest, I've never seen you express any doubt that the founding narrative of the state is anything other than a pack of lies. You also seem to tout revisionism like its a Jerusalem of historiography when as a tool its as limited as any other. You are also replacing the certainty of one interpretation with the certainty of another.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

However, the whole purpose of questioning official Irish history is that it has not been scholarly but has actively been creating myths for use in the political circumstances of the later time. It was liberation into scholarly history (complex history) which opened my eyes

The study of Irish history has been pretty scholarly imo. Folk versions of history are always going to be different but then thats the same all over the world. The value of plain speaking you are espousing is just that. Calling some Collins a murdering bastard is the same as calling him a glorious hero who could do no wrong. Both are bullsh!t.

csk

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Expand, please.

Well as I said before I don't have the time or the patience to get into this and considering the fate of the "Irish in Stormont" thread I don't see any potential discussion on this being fruitfull.

However I will say this one brief thing. You talk about Official State history and while I have an idea as to what your alluding to, it is arguable whether any such thing existed. Even if we do take it that there was such a thing as Official State history, then the making of such a thing was so complex, so larbyrinthine in nature that merely seeking to destroy it as you do, would not do it or anyone (including you) justice.

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
This started, if my memory serves me, when I asked when the English invasion had taken place? You then re-defined it as an invasion from England by kings of England who were not necessarily English. I've tried to argue through these shifts. However, the fundamental point is that the two islands are intertwined and interbred and the "800 years approach" on which a deformed notion of nationalism relies is - to use your word - silly.

You do realise that having first accused me of disparaging all elections, you now accuse me of disparaging elections that don't suit my "beliefs"?On elections I can only repeat myself yet again: Election in itself doesn't justify the successful candidate's past crimes or offences.

If I said something about the legitimacy of the first Dail and government, I can't recall and I'm not going searching. I do recall saying that returning to the first Dail as the one and ony legitimate election/parl/gov. - as some do - is, again, silly. However, I don't mind saying that its legitimacy at the time is certainly open to question.

I think what you said was that books were written with content that would ensure sales and make the author notorious. History books don't sell well in any event and wanting notoriety is not at all uncommon. (Many of your "heroes" and my "thugs" craved notoriety.) To repeat myself: a history has to stand as a scholarly book or as incompetent.

As I've said before - and I'm saying that a lot too! - I'm not a pacifist. Moreover I don't see what bearing pacifism has on anything I've said.

I could write you an essay on the impossibility of absolute objectivity. It is of course valuable as a guiding thread. The problem with it is that when someone claims to be being objective, it is usuaslly no more than a sneaky way of accusing someone else of being subjective and therefore easily dismissed.

My plain speaking IS being met with scorn. You regard it as "silly"; you say explicitly that I'm talking nonsense. I did not use the words "thug" and "dross" lightly; they were carefully chosen and descriptive of the people in question. You don't like the words and want me to be more "objective". I trust your selection of the word "clown" was as carefully considered.

Yes, I found academic Irish history to be scholarly and a revelation -a completely different world to the simplisiic myths and whitewashing of the official "history".

I wouldn't be qualified to tout anything in relation to historiography; I know very little about it - and I made that plain. "Revisionism" is just another word for old fashioned iconoclasm.

You clearly just don't believe me when I tell you how highly I rate doubt. You also just flatly refuse to believe me when I say that every view I hold is held conditionally. Look, I'm not lying. I can say no more.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Laura,
This started, if my memory serves me, when I asked when the English invasion had taken place? You then re-defined it as an invasion from England by kings of England who were not necessarily English. I've tried to argue through these shifts. However, the fundamental point is that the two islands are intertwined and interbred and the "800 years approach" on which a deformed notion of nationalism relies is - to use your word - silly.

What the hell do you think English invasion means? Hoards of English people spontaneously decide to grab a pitchfork and head on over to ireland? Don't be silly. The king of England is the ruler and head of the English state and its people. If he invades anywhere then its convenient and accurate to refer to the invasion as an English Invasion.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

You do realise that having first accused me of disparaging all elections, you now accuse me of disparaging elections that don't suit my "beliefs"?On elections I can only repeat myself yet again: Election in itself doesn't justify the successful candidate's past crimes or offences.
If I said something about the legitimacy of the first Dail and government, I can't recall and I'm not going searching. I do recall saying that returning to the first Dail as the one and ony legitimate election/parl/gov. - as some do - is, again, silly. However, I don't mind saying that its legitimacy at the time is certainly open to question.

Elections may not provide a justification for a candidates past crimes or offenses but it does suggest that the candidates elected had the approval of a broad spectrum of people. Therefore to characterise them as murdering thugs or dross is an inaccuracy. You suggested Collins moved in the shadows and kiled who he pleased. He didn't. He gave speaches in the Dail, election speaches and was an elected representitive. Whether you think the Dail was legitimate or not, you can't deny that it didn't have a proven support. More support than any other revolutionary movement Ireland produced and in 1919 more support than either home rule or unionism. I'd also agree that RSF hocus pocus about the first dail is a load of nonsense - did I ever say otherwise? People who believe that probably number in the dozens rather than hundreds.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I think what you said was that books were written with content that would ensure sales and make the author notorious. History books don't sell well in any event and wanting notoriety is not at all uncommon. (Many of your "heroes" and my "thugs" craved notoriety.) To repeat myself: a history has to stand as a scholarly book or as incompetent.

An example of what I meant would be Ruth Dudley Edwards. She is now making a living as a journalist and media commentator. Internationally Niall Ferguson (a much better imo revisionist historian) is doing well as a media talking head on the back of famed gained for his revisionist history of the First World War.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

My plain speaking IS being met with scorn. You regard it as "silly"; you say explicitly that I'm talking nonsense. I did not use the words "thug" and "dross" lightly; they were carefully chosen and descriptive of the people in question. You don't like the words and want me to be more "objective". I trust your selection of the word "clown" was as carefully considered.

And rightly so. I'm sure McArm didn't use his words lightly either. Or that other lad O'Leprasy. The clown comment was clearly a joke but since you ask, I did consider it carefully.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Yes, I found academic Irish history to be scholarly and a revelation -a completely different world to the simplisiic myths and whitewashing of the official "history".

I wouldn't be qualified to tout anything in relation to historiography; I know very little about it - and I made that plain. "Revisionism" is just another word for old fashioned iconoclasm.

You clearly just don't believe me when I tell you how highly I rate doubt. You also just flatly refuse to believe me when I say that every view I hold is held conditionally. Look, I'm not lying. I can say no more.

Jackie, I've no doubt that you are sincere. I also do respect your position. I just believe you are not applying the same standards equally across the board. Revisionism is only a small strand of Irish history studies. Not eveyone who goes to or teaches in Universities is a revisionist - but a country mile to say the least. But what you seem to think is that the only rational way of viewing the past is by taking a revisionist standpoint which nonesense. Revisionism itself is open to flaw - RDE claiming Pearse was gay was very questionable. Personally I reckon he may have been but there is no proof either way so its irrelevant. This is unlike the case with Casement who definitely was. Likewise, Peter Harts revisionist history of the IRA in Cork is riddled with inaccuracies and his failure to respond satisfactorily to local historians about the valid points they make has really damaged his credability (in the last case he retreated to an ivory tower and disparaged the historians because they were local and non academic even though the points they make to refute his allegations are valid and seem to suggest he actually lied and fabricated sources - or at the least was extremely naive in believing people).

I ask if you are pacifist because I make it a rule never to argue with pacifists about war/revolution etc. Every state has its founding narrative and folk history tends to mythologize the participants, be they William the Conqurer, George Washington, Simon Bolivar, Nelson Mandela or Mick Collins. Its not unique to Ireland and the Irish states founding fathers to me anyway seem to have far less blood on their hands than most others. I also think that while they are not saints they seem to have acted for the most part with integrity and in a way they honestly though was best (not Dev, I think he was a bastard if you forgive my plain speaking) so don't see anything wrong with holding them up as examples of civic virtue like other countries do of their military/war leaders.

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
Two a.m!!!!! Are you on the other side of the world or a worse night owl than me?

There is nothing to forgive when you speak plainly. It's to be praised and encouraged. However, it generates a couple of points. Is "bastard" an permitted term while "thug" is not? I think the latter is far less woolly than the former. If you regard Dev as a "bastard", are you happy that people be encouraged to admire him, see him as a hero or role model?

My eyes were opened a long, long time before "revisionism" became a term of abuse in Ireland, long before I read RDE and long before I read Cruiser, to whom I think the term may have been first applied in its abusive sense. Any thoughful and concerned person reading about Pearse asks the kind of questions you mention. Pearse emerges as extremely complex - though fascinating - my view seems to call up words like: noble, sad, bad, mad.

I don't require historians to behave in any particular way at all. They don't even have to be iconoclasts. However, I do think that a democratic society needs to have any consensus challenged. All I'm saying is that my reading history caused many of the plaster saints of Ireland to fall off their pedestals.

When an Irish king invaded/entered/pursued an enemy into another Irish king's territory with or without invititation, was that national oppression, imperialism etc? No, you just can't apply the logic of nation states to a time prior to their development.

Having approval does not forgive wrongdoing or remove it from the record. That is the argument of B. C-Flynn and M. Lowrey. The election result does not mean that a successful candidate escapes evaluation and possibly appropriate labelling.

If you want to open a thread on the electoral legitimacy of the first Dail, I'll repeat the few brief points I've already made about it.

It is true that Collins was responsible for political assassinations. It is also true that he made speeches and was elected. Ferris is a sitting TD and a convicted, unrepentant gun runner, responsible for who knows how many shootings. Election isn't absolution or a chance to whitewash a CV.

The position of RSF, which you describe as hocus pocus, is the position of a whole tradition and was only relatively recently abandoned by SF/IRA. I accept of course that you never thought it in any way plausible.

I've argued with many a pacifist. The guilt of a person cannot be assuaged by comparison with either a more guilty person or a person responsible for more bloodshed. Each situation has to be thought about. Most (all?) states do indeed have founding myths and statues. Some states have erected statues to monsters, others to dedicated constitutionalists, others still to people who, while having good points - even a lot of good points, were not the sort of people whose actions you would want anyone inspired to emulate.

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote: »

You denied that England invaded Ireland though. What about Dutch involvement? As in William of Orange? Don't get me started on that clown - I'll save it for another thread though. Ireland being players in Britain is just silly. There is no comparison. Although I guess in a sense you are correct its not comparing like with like.

Well you seemed to disparage elections to me if it didn't suit your beliefs. This was back when you denied even the shred of a possibility that the government of the first Dail had any legitimacy or have you forgotten that?

Never said anyone wrote a history book to become rich. My words were to gain noteriety. Why a writer would what that I can only guess. Some writers, nationally and internationally have built careers on it though.

Well fair play to you Jackie, I'm assuming you are an absolute pacifist,in which case you have my complete respect, even though I disagree personally.
If you are not of course you are taking nonsense.

You have said you see nothing wrong with it. You haven't given a satisfactory reason why phrases like murdering thug/dross belong in a debate on history, when the objective as you yourself said is the truth or at least a modicum of objectivity is satisfactory. McArmalite indulged in plain speaking about the British Empire's legacy to the world and was met with scorn. Why shouldn't your plain speaking not also be met with scorn? Perhaps its best not to speak plainly but objectively.

I don't want to censor anyone so I won't say you have a chip on your shoulder again. Regarding the rest of the above, to be honest, I've never seen you express any doubt that the founding narrative of the state is anything other than a pack of lies. You also seem to tout revisionism like its a Jerusalem of historiography when as a tool its as limited as any other. You are also replacing the certainty of one interpretation with the certainty of another.

The study of Irish history has been pretty scholarly imo. Folk versions of history are always going to be different but then thats the same all over the world. The value of plain speaking you are espousing is just that. Calling some Collins a murdering bastard is the same as calling him a glorious hero who could do no wrong. Both are bullsh!t.

Laura (or anyone else for that matter), you have more than adequately made your point. I'm not been plausible, and I know I may not be the most popular guy on the board , but as the saying goes - never argue with a fool, you'll only bring yourself down to their level.

I'm not going to mention names, but one of the posters here, despite what they may say, is, fortunately, one of the last of the political dinosaurs called ' the Stickies ', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_IRA , ( first called Offical Sinn Fein, then SF the Workers Party, then Democratic Left, then crawled in to the Labour Party :rolleyes:). One or two of these political dinosaurs are regretfully still lurking around and unfortunately posting on the boards. The brain behind 'stickie' ism was none other than the absolute nutcase, the Rasputin of Irish politics - Eoghan Harrass ( Harris). None put it better than Vincent Brown when he described the stickies as schizophrenic politics. With eoghan harris invovled - what else could you expect. Don't bother argueing with the stickie who clams to be in the Labour party, as I said - never argue with a fool, you'll only bring yourself down to their level. Just put it down to the looney left.

Leave it to them, they'll tie themself in knots anway.;):)

Jackie laughlin

McA,
You're not normally reluctant to speak out. Tell us who the boards participant is who used to be a Shinner but is now a member of the Labour Party. Is this some kind of dark secret?

The Labour Party should have maintained a clear distance from SF/IRA. It belongs to a constitutional tradition which should remain untainted by terrorists, their apologists and supporters. I argued strongly against it at the time and still feel that the ex-Shinners should not have been allowed to join. Moreover, Labour today should have no dealings with the present SF/IRA.

Shutuplaura

McArmalite wrote: »

Laura (or anyone else for that matter), you have more than adequately made your point. I'm not been plausible, and I know I may not be the most popular guy on the board , but as the saying goes - never argue with a fool, you'll only bring yourself down to their level.

I'm not going to mention names, but one of the posters here, despite what they may say, is, fortunately, one of the last of the political dinosaurs called ' the Stickies ', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_IRA , ( first called Offical Sinn Fein, then SF the Workers Party, then Democratic Left, then crawled in to the Labour Party :rolleyes:). One or two of these political dinosaurs are regretfully still lurking around and unfortunately posting on the boards. The brain behind 'stickie' ism was none other than the absolute nutcase, the Rasputin of Irish politics - Eoghan Harrass ( Harris). None put it better than Vincent Brown when he described the stickies as schizophrenic politics. With eoghan harris invovled - what else could you expect. Don't bother argueing with the stickie who clams to be in the Labour party, as I said - never argue with a fool, you'll only bring yourself down to their level. Just put it down to the looney left.

Leave it to them, they'll tie themself in knots anway.;):)

Is Jackie an ex stickie? You kept that quiet Jackie! By the way, yes I am on the other side of the planet.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

McA,
You're not normally reluctant to speak out. Tell us who the boards participant is who used to be a Shinner but is now a member of the Labour Party. Is this some kind of dark secret?

The Labour Party should have maintained a clear distance from SF/IRA. It belongs to a constitutional tradition which should remain untainted by terrorists, their apologists and supporters. I argued strongly against it at the time and still feel that the ex-Shinners should not have been allowed to join. Moreover, Labour today should have no dealings with the present SF/IRA.

The Irish Citizen Army had its roots in the irish labour movement though didn't it? Same founder members too wasn't it?

McArmalite

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

McA,
You're not normally reluctant to speak out. Tell us who the boards participant is who used to be a Shinner but is now a member of the Labour Party. Is this some kind of dark secret?

The Labour Party should have maintained a clear distance from SF/IRA. It belongs to a constitutional tradition which should remain untainted by terrorists, their apologists and supporters. I argued strongly against it at the time and still feel that the ex-Shinners should not have been allowed to join. Moreover, Labour today should have no dealings with the present SF/IRA.

You mean, Labour Party/Offical IRA since many of the old 'rusty guns' have slithered into the party

Jackie laughlin

No, Laura, I'm not ex-stickie. I did a post here some time ago about my attitude to and limited contact with them. They asked me to join many years ago. I was almost offended because the person asking knew me and my politics. I told him that I was a constitutionalist and deplored his private army and that I was a democrat (and a very anti-authoritarian one) and would have no place or comfort in a democratic centrist party.

I've tried in a modest and apparently unsuccessful way to keep socialism and the Labour Party away from shinners, ex-shinners etc.

I've also said in another posting that I've spent a bit of time trying to figure out what James Connolly thought he was up to in 1916. It doesn't make sense. He was in a different tradition and a different league as a thinker and as a person to the others. I see his actions as a betrayal and a waste.

Where are you, by the way?

Shutuplaura

Melbourne ATM.
Regarding Connolly, the past is a foreign country and I wouldn't try and see his actions through the lens of modern life. Who the hell knows in the end why he decided to rebel. I personally could take a good guess and say that as someone who came from the slums of Glasgow seeing the repression of the labour movement in the states and living in one of the most overcrowded cities in Europe he felt that trying to force change would be less of a crime that doing nothing and maintaining the status quo. But then maybe its bull and his reasons were completely different. Either way I wouldn't be afraid to cut him a bit of slack.
I agree that he is one of the most attractive of the rebels of the period and that his politics have been conveniently sidelined once he was safely dead.

Erin Go Brath

James Connolly during his Court Martial prior to execution: "We succeeded in proving that Irishmen are ready to die endeavouring to win for Ireland those national rights which the British government has been asking them to die to win for Belgium. As long as that remains the case, the cause of Irish freedom is safe. I personally thank God that I have lived to see the day when thousands of Irish men and boys, and hundreds of Irish women and girls, were ready to affirm that truth, and to attest it with their lives if need be"

James Connolly both an Irish patriot, and hero of the working class. The fact that he was executed while badly injured only serves to raise his stock even higher in the hearts and minds of the people. I saw a number of murials dedicated specifically to his memory on the Falls Road recently. He took on both the big employers, and the British Government in his time. A truly great man, may he RIP.

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Melbourne ATM.
Regarding Connolly, the past is a foreign country and I wouldn't try and see his actions through the lens of modern life. Who the hell knows in the end why he decided to rebel. I personally could take a good guess and say that as someone who came from the slums of Glasgow seeing the repression of the labour movement in the states and living in one of the most overcrowded cities in Europe he felt that trying to force change would be less of a crime that doing nothing and maintaining the status quo. But then maybe its bull and his reasons were completely different. Either way I wouldn't be afraid to cut him a bit of slack.
I agree that he is one of the most attractive of the rebels of the period and that his politics have been conveniently sidelined once he was safely dead.

Not trying to be a wise arse Laura, but he was from an Irish ghetto in Edinburgh called Cowgate. His wife, Lillie Reynolds, incidentally was a Protestant.

Shutuplaura

Heavens to Betsy McArm, I wouldn't have thought it for a second!