What's with the anti-Republican attitudes?

DoireNod

Svalbard wrote: »

The question stands and its a legitimate one.
As another poster pointed out Irish people do seem to have difficulty celebrating the architects of our independence freely as the Americans do. Why is that?

I'm not saying I'm not glad Ireland is independent or that we do not need to at least acknowledge those responsible, but I cannot feel uninhibited pride nor can I swallow much of the Wolf Tones/GAA/Oh-ah-up-the-RA crap that so many seem to think defines what it means to be Irish

I think the media has a big part to play in that. The whole situation created by partition, then the Troubles and the body-count which accompanied it, made it hard for people to be 'proud' of being Irish, since people associated it with 'terrorism'. :eek:

Maybe I'm wrong.

gurramok

Svalbard wrote: »

The question stands and its a legitimate one.
As another poster pointed out Irish people do seem to have difficulty celebrating the architects of our independence freely as the Americans do. Why is that?

Because many feel

1 - that the independence is not finished, that is the north is still the unfinished part.
2 - They are afraid to offend Britain. The USA celebrates their independence from Britain, what is there to be afraid of?
3 - The Irish civil war has split opinion through blood ties.
4 - They want to be part of the UK and feel that ROI is a mistake, they feel British.

Dr. Baltar

Like a previous poster said, "being anti-SF and anti-IRA" does not make you anti-republican.

I am a Republican myself and I look forward to the day that our nation is politically re-united. But at the same time, I am intelligent to know that "Britain" "Dinglish" and "DE KWEEN" are not our enemies, but that Unionism and Loyalism are the political groups that we must politically work together with to compromise.

Peace is so much more important than my ideals however!

The greatest victory our nation has had in modern times was signing the good friday agreement.

Svalbard

gurramok wrote: »

Because many feel

1 - that the independence is not finished, that is the north is still the unfinished part.
2 - They are afraid to offend Britain. The USA celebrates their independence from Britain, what is there to be afraid of?
3 - The Irish civil war has split opinion through blood ties.
4 - They want to be part of the UK and feel that ROI is a mistake, they feel British.

1. Perhaps
2. I sincerely doubt it
3. Quite possibly
4. Well, I doubt many feel that way, but some perhaps.

Reillyman

DoireNod wrote: »

I think the media has a big part to play in that. The whole situation created by partition, then the Troubles and the body-count which accompanied it, made it hard for people to be 'proud' of being Irish, since people associated it with 'terrorism'. :eek:

Maybe I'm wrong.

You my friend, are seeing things from the same view as me. I feel more or less the same, I feel that people are becoming more and more anti-republican because of the troubles and all that goes with it, including the like of halfwit Ferris meeting murderers outside prison gates.

This is totally understandable. But what I can't understand, is people who are taking it too far and trying to denounce and distance themselves from all things Irish, throwing in the GAA, 1916, Irish Patriots, Irish Language etc.

I mean, where will this stop? If peoples attitudes continue to shift in this direction, we will have nothing that we can stand up and be proud of, something that is ours and no-one elses, something that gives hope and encouragement to Irish people...

Dudess

Reillyman wrote: »

Anyway, what I have noticed on Boards over the last year or so is this huge wave of fierce anti-Republicanism. It seems to me that to be anti-Republican is currently the "cool" thing to do, by showing you can think for yourself, are anti-conformist etc etc.

The anti-republican posts are not confined to the obviously understandable(and right imo) negative views of the IRA and SF, but I have seen posts which more or less denounce any achivements we have made breaking free from britain. For example, many people have expressed the view that Michael Collins, Padraig Pearse etc etc were "terrorists"...I mean, come on lads. Another popular thing is that "we'd be better off if we had stayed with Britain."

What I think is that alot of people posting these comments don't actually believe these things themselves, but rather are trying to show how "free-thinking" and "intelligent" they are...

Well I wouldn't say it's a case of trying to be "cool" - they're not 13-year-olds - but I would agree it smacks of trying to show how enlightened and progressive they are, whereas it actually just comes across as phenomenally ignorant and uninformed.
Conor Cruise O'Brien acted like a prick, as do Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris. Pathetic attention-seekers - I've no time for their protégés.
Having sympathy for nationalist/republican ideals does not make you a terrorist supporter or a "Celtic fan scumbag".

Svalbard wrote: »

I doubt most people who disagree with republican dogma are doing it 'to be cool'. They, like me, have a problem with the ardent republican attitude which glorifies barbarism and relies on fuzzy facts and half-truths.

But it's not a case of simply disagreeing with republican dogma (which is a reasonable stance), it's a case of practically worshipping at the altar of loyalism, downplaying the suffering endured by nationalists in the North after partition - even sneering at it, being more outraged by republican atrocities than loyalist/British Army/RUC ones. I have seen those things here and it absolutely sickens me.

DoireNod wrote: »

Ah terrorism. The great buzz-word. We could go back through history and point out countless 'noble' achievements that would, in the event they happened now, be considered terrorism. Sure, depending on how you look at it, what the USA and UK are doing in the Middle East is terrorism. It's only 'terrorism' when it suits.

If you wear a nice uniform and your acts of violence are backed by a state, you are not a terrorist - fact. And if you carry out an act of retribution whose body-count FAR outnumbers that of the offence it is intended to avenge, it's ok - it's self defence.

Republicans can accept criticism

I don't know about all of them. The other side of it recently is the depressing defence/lack of condemnation of Jerry McCabe's killers, and the praise of Martin Ferris. Sadly, some republicans are absolutely blinded and brainwashed.

gandalf

You mistake Anti-Republicanism with the hate of double standards especially those spouted by Sinn Fein and their supporters as demonstrated by Martin Ferris recently.

I have no problem celebrating the people who got us Independence like Padraig Pearse and Michael Collins, but I draw a distinction between them and the recent activities by organisations like the Provos. Shooting Taxi Drivers in the back and blowing up Schoolkids are not the actions of heroes. To be honest the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF and other such gangs with self important names are nothing more than murderous thugs all with the same aim which is to sponge off their communities to perserve their own importance.

TheSpecialOne

Where afraid to stand and say thanks to the brave men who fought for our independence if it wasnt for them we could all be fighting a war in iraq!have some pride for great men like collins connolly griffith etc.....we must be proud of all there efforts althought i do agree that the murder of innocent people is totally immoral...the ira killed the innocent instead of those who where pushing against the idea of a united Ireland!Thats my only gripe with Republicans these days!

But That ferris fella is some twat...what has the two scumbags who killed gerry mccabe got to do with independence!!disgraceful action by him!!Sinn Fein Is A Club For Scum....

DublinWriter

So much sh*te, so little time, where to begin?

Firstly, the 'Brits Out' attitude. No, horah for the Queen, the UK government have been subsidising a rather unproductive corner of this isle for a long time. Qudos to them, I say.

Secondly, the 'leaders' of the 1916 revolution were an unholy mix of idealistic middle-class petite-bourgeois and extreme left-wing ideologues. People in this country don't seem to be able to tell the difference between the clusterf*ck that was 1916 and the subsequent War of Independence. To them it's easier to go all dewey-eyed over a load of historic nonscence than actually do something pragmatic, such as learn your own language.

Thirdly, have you been to Newry lately? Oi! The bargains.

Fourthly, we're all basically fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

Reillyman

DublinWriter wrote: »

Thirdly, have you been to Newry lately? Oi! The bargains.

No, but I have been to Enniskillen, what's your point?

DoireNod

DublinWriter wrote: »

Firstly, the 'Brits Out' attitude. No, horah for the Queen, the UK government have been subsidising a rather unproductive corner of this isle for a long time. Qudos to them, I say.

Rather unproductive corner of this isle? Did you forget to learn Irish history in the 19th and 20th centuries? That 'rather unproductive corner' of the isle was very productive at one stage. The UKs government's subsidisation of the 6 counties is their cross to bear, so to speak.

Secondly, the 'leaders' of the 1916 revolution were an unholy mix of idealistic middle-class petite-bourgeois and extreme left-wing ideologues. People in this country don't seem to be able to tell the difference between the clusterf*ck that was 1916 and the subsequent War of Independence. To them it's easier to go all dewey-eyed over a load of historic nonscence than actually do something pragmatic, such as learn your own language.

Their social status isn't that important when they achieved a degree of Irish independence from British rule. To many people they fought for the principles of 'freedom'. You have a problem with their desire for freedom? Or people commending their actions?

Thirdly, have you been to Newry lately? Oi! The bargains.

What's this got to do with anti-republicanism?

Fourthly, we're all basically fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

Profound...:rolleyes:

Bottle_of_Smoke

gandalf wrote: »

To be honest the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF and other such gangs with self important names are nothing more than murderous thugs all with the same aim which is to sponge off their communities to perserve their own importance.

Thats deeply ignorant. I don't know much about the INLA and the loyalist groups but life in the PIRA was no bed of roses. You had to accept death or imprisonment was your future. You got paid f*ck all. Talking about being a member was completely banned. Getting drunk or even drinking was highly frowned upon. I'd imagine the INLA was similar as were the the UVF in the early days.

just read pages 544,545 and 546 of this (takes less than 3 min, the link starts on page 544)

chapter 33 "The Green Book" The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan

dvpower

DublinWriter wrote: »

People in this country don't seem to be able to tell the difference between the clusterf*ck that was 1916 and the subsequent War of Independence

Too right. In 2016 we'll have massive commemorations and 2022 will go by unnoticed.

gandalf

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Thats deeply ignorant. I don't know much about the INLA and the loyalist groups but life in the PIRA was no bed of roses. You had to accept death or imprisonment was your future. You got paid f*ck all. Talking about being a member was completely banned. Getting drunk or even drinking was highly frowned upon. I'd imagine the INLA was similar as were the the UVF in the early days.

just read pages 544,545 and 546 of this (takes less than 3 min, the link starts on page 544)

chapter 33 "The Green Book" The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan

Jean McConville, Jerry McCabe, Johnathan Ball, Tim Parry, Patrick Gillespie, Brian McDonald.

Erin Go Brath

dvpower wrote: »

Too right. In 2016 we'll have massive commemorations and 2022 will go by unnoticed.

Proof if any is needed that people are not proud of the birth of the republic of Ireland or the free state as it was. 1916 is the seminal event in Irish history. Only when we have a United Ireland will there be a more important day celebrated than Easter 1916.

Bottle_of_Smoke

gandalf wrote: »

Jean McConville, Jerry McCabe, Johnathan Ball, Tim Parry, Patrick Gillespie, Brian McDonald.

That response doesn't make sense of what you posted in the previous post. The link I gave you was the induction for a volunteer and shows how simplistic and ignorant your previous post was.

bug

dvpower wrote: »

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

It's one word I believe should be banned.
This may actually force people to look at the dynamics of different political situations, rather than media labelling.

As for republicanism and boards.ie, well, the two never really went hand in hand.
That's IMO and it's not a popular one... I had always thought it was a question of the boards.ie political demographic more than anything else.

dvpower

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Proof if any is needed that people are not proud of the birth of the republic of Ireland

Wasn't that 1949?
(I thought it was '48 - I had to look it up - but that'll be overlooked too in favour of commemoration of an unpopular, unnecessary and failed uprising.)

Erin Go Brath

dvpower wrote: »

Wasn't that 1949?
(I thought it was '48 - I had to look it up - but that'll be overlooked too in favour of commemoration of an unpopular, unnecessary and failed uprising.)

Freestate '21, republic 49'. Neither are even remotely celebration worthy. I think people are mostly ashamed that we abandoned the north and haven't achieved full independence. The biggest celebrations are the 1798 commemorations (held in Bodenstown) and of course 1916, the two most significant uprisings against British rule. Thats unlikely to change until Unity when we will finally be able to celebrate the birth of a nation.

IIMII

DoireNod wrote: »

Republicans can accept criticism, but it's hard to swallow when it's accompanied by a largely ill-informed concept that all republicanism is, by default, wrong.

Well, if republicanism is bad, the US, France, Italy etc etc etc, must all be rogue states. It is obviously far more democratic to award your upper house and position of head of state based on the concept that your head of state's parents mated with the right cousins / brothers / sisters etc etc.

gandalf

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That response doesn't make sense of what you posted in the previous post. The link I gave you was the induction for a volunteer and shows how simplistic and ignorant your previous post was.

It is a list of innocent people murdered by the Volunteers who you are lauding that I compiled in a very short period of time off the top of my head. I am not ignorant I am showing you that you can dress up an organisation any way you want it is their actions that show their true metal.

This so called code of conduct, call it whatever you want as far as I am concerned its just PR. Its the blood the so called "hard done" by volunteers bathed their hands in that counts. We won't agree on this. These men as far as I am concerned and in the opinion of a lot of others on this Island are thugs, are murderers and imho their actions have held this country back rather than moved it forward.

They have tainted Republicanism forever with their short sighted tribalism and blood lust. They like all the other thug organisations in the North are the same. People who act as apologists for them are imho the real ignorant ones.

IIMII

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Freestate '21, republic 49'. Neither are even remotely celebration worthy. I think people are mostly ashamed that we abandoned the north and haven't achieved full independence. The biggest celebrations are the 1798 commemorations (held in Bodenstown) and of course 1916, the two most significant uprisings against British rule. Thats unlikely to change until Unity when we will finally be able to celebrate the birth of a nation.

Yes, I think 1921 and 1949 are important dates. But even those at that time hankered back to 1916 and 1798, largely because they knew that 1921 and 1949 first saw the abandonment and then the acceptance of partition of the country. At least until 1949, there was an element of waiting at the doorstep for the 6 counties to catch up. But similarly I am happy I wasn't born in a time when the crown had any relevance in the 26 counties. Unlike some of the anglophiles on boards, I appreciated that it was blood, sweat and tears that brought that about, and not British generosity

tolosenc

If I come across as anti-Republican, it's because I am. The following are my reasons:

1. The vocal members of that community celebrate terrorists as heroes(Sands et al., McCabe's killers), and have convicted terrorists in high places in their political wing (Martin McGuinness, for example). This is not something that a rational person wanting to make an argument of any kind would ever do.

2. Nationalism is an inherently silly thing. Why be proud of something that happens completely by chance? It's handy in choosing which side to support in an International football match, but after that, it's a load of hot air.

3. I do not, under any circumstances, want a "United Ireland". Why anyone does baffles me. We are two very different countries socially, economically and historically, why try to mix them? Aside: When was the Island of Ireland ever a sovereign entity? [Answer: Never]

4. The constant telling me that I should be proud of what Pearse and the 1916 jack-the-lads got up to, but that the part of this country's history before the Saorstát should only be remembered for the purposes of bearing a grudge.

5. It wasn't 800 years. Not even close. Stop pulling numbers out of the air.

6. The Republican movement is entirely a socialist one. Socialism is a mistake that should be consigned to history books as such.

There are more, but I'm too tired to go on.

brianthebard

DublinWriter wrote: »

Secondly, the 'leaders' of the 1916 revolution were an unholy mix of idealistic middle-class petite-bourgeois and extreme left-wing ideologues. People in this country don't seem to be able to tell the difference between the clusterf*ck that was 1916 and the subsequent War of Independence.

What are these differences?

ChocolateSauce

While there are many reasons I reject the republican line, the reason I generally have distain (admittedly a personal bias) for it is that it seems to me that when compared with people who do not claim to be 1916-supporting republicans, there are a disproportionately high number of people who:

a) Don't know a thing about history beyond a junior cert textbook, particularly world history
b) Don't know enough about modern politics
c) Don't know enough about human psychology
d) Apply the standards of today to the past, sometimes the distant past.
e) Hurl abuse at their detractors in a manner which sometimes boarders on racism. I have myself been accused of being a foreigner (pejoratively) who couldn't possible be Irish by people on these boards (in real life, no one has done this for some reason).
f) Treat with incredulity opposing ideas regarding the foundation of the state, as opposed to the polite scepticism that would earn them more respect.
g) Support violence and terrorism either in theory or in practice, so long as it is in support of a republican cause.
h) Believe in racial and/or cultural purity.
i) Work on the assumption that they are objectively correct.
j) Are sometimes if not usually anti-EU for what is ultimately a combination of lack of understanding of what freedom and democracy means, what it should mean, and paranoia, or for reason H.



And please, don't ask me to back any of this up with examples. It's my opinion on I don't want to go into further detail.

IIMII

obl wrote: »

The Republican movement is entirely a socialist one.

Eh, not it's not. I'm not a socialist. Don't believe in screwing people either, but I am definitely not a socialist. I do have a social conscience, but not in the nationalise the banks kind of way anyway.

And take the oath of the IRB -

In the presence of God, I, ..., do solemnly swear that I will do my utmost to establish the independence of Ireland, and that I will bear true allegiance to the Supreme Council of the Irish Republican Brotherhood and the Government of the Irish Republic and implicitly obey the constitution of the Irish Republican Brotherhood and all my superior officers and that I will preserve inviolable the secrets of the organisation.

Where in that does it mention socialism?

brianthebard

obl wrote: »

If I come across as anti-Republican, it's because I am. The following are my reasons:

1. The vocal members of that community celebrate terrorists as heroes(Sands et al., McCabe's killers), and have convicted terrorists in high places in their political wing (Martin McGuinness, for example). This is not something that a rational person wanting to make an argument of any kind would ever do.

2. Nationalism is an inherently silly thing. Why be proud of something that happens completely by chance? It's handy in choosing which side to support in an International football match, but after that, it's a load of hot air.

3. I do not, under any circumstances, want a "United Ireland". Why anyone does baffles me. We are two very different countries socially, economically and historically, why try to mix them? Aside: When was the Island of Ireland ever a sovereign entity? [Answer: Never]

4. The constant telling me that I should be proud of what Pearse and the 1916 jack-the-lads got up to, but that the part of this country's history before the Saorstát should only be remembered for the purposes of bearing a grudge.

5. It wasn't 800 years. Not even close. Stop pulling numbers out of the air.

6. The Republican movement is entirely a socialist one. Socialism is a mistake that should be consigned to history books as such.

There are more, but I'm too tired to go on.

Nationalism and republicanism are two different things. Most of your points are pretty silly; people are telling you that you should be proud of Pearse? Who? What percentage of people you meet daily ask about your proudness of Pearse? Have you statistics to back this up? What you posted is a list of personal complaints from which you decided to declare yourself against an entire school of political thought. This is not what I'd call an informed decision and is exactly what the OP was complaining about from the beginning, people rejecting something outright after not even scratching the surface.

Rondolfus

Ireland has always been plagued with traitors, West-Brits and fools with short memories. “Terrorism” is not unique to Republicans, much less Ireland. The British used a far greater level of terrorism in their attempt to control Ireland. Every IRA bombing is well documented, but British collusion with the Loyalist terrorist in their bombing of Dublin is swept under the carpet. Ironically, most of the people holding the sweeping brush are snivelling little Irish West-Brits.

The people involved in the Republican movement right up until the 80s were heroes! First and foremost, their primary motivation was civil rights! They were being discriminated against in an apartheid system! People like to conveniently forget that fact. Also more civilians were killed throughout the troubles by the British forces and the loyalist paramilitaries than the IRA. Another fact that people conveniently forget. We are in a different stage in our relationship with Britain now, but don’t be so naïve as to call it PEACE. If you see the separation walls in Belfast, you will know it is not true peace.

I am Irish, I am proud of the people that made sacrifices for my independence and I support those willing to fight to maintain it.

I support a peaceful solution, however, those who make a peaceful solution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

Rainbowrapids

I'm not anti-Republican, I ascribe to the ideals of a republic. However in Ireland we had nationalist republicanism, which are really contradictory ideologies awkwardly fitting together. I'm not a nationalist, while I take great pride in where I'm from and enjoy the history, the ideals of nationalism in practice have proven to be extremely dangerous, in this country and others. Religion, an extremely emotive and devisive addition was thrown into the mix to spice it up.

So the idea of a Republic where all people are treated equally (cue Ireland being one of the first countries to give us women the vote) and there is a separation of church and state, ends up in practice being a country where public policy and institutions are heavily weighted by religious ethos and influence up until the mid-1990s (and some would say still until this day, albeit thankfully less and less so).

It was an uneasy marriage of ideologies from the start, and in reality the cronyism and corruption displayed over the past 90 odd years since the state was formed, which was not what the people many of whom were true Republicans fought for and doesn't really offer equality, liberty and fraternity to people living here. The wind that shakes the barley hints at the roots of the fraction extremely well IMHO.

I can't imagine why anyone in the North of Ireland who comes from a unionist perspective would have any interest in joining this country even if they were a strident republican as it isn't really a republic at all, much as I might wish it were!

Erin Go Brath

IIMII wrote: »

Yes, I think 1921 and 1949 are important dates. But even those at that time hankered back to 1916 and 1798, largely because they knew that 1921 and 1949 first saw the abandonment and then the acceptance of partition of the country. At least until 1949, there was an element of waiting at the doorstep for the 6 counties to catch up. But similarly I am happy I wasn't born in a time when the crown had any relevance in the 26 counties. Unlike some of the anglophiles on boards, I appreciated that it was blood, sweat and tears that brought that about, and not British generosity

Good points. The partial freedom of Ireland is a lot more desirable than no freedom at all. Absolutely Irish rebellions and guerilla tactics forced the British Govt to the negotiating table in the early 20s. Irelands general election of 1919 and the wishes of the nation were arrogantly ignored by the ruling British. Its sad that the people had to take arms for the freedom denied them but necessary if they wanted a better future for the country