What's with the anti-Republican attitudes?

nesf

I've deleted several posts by GodSaveTheQueen and posts that solely consisted of responses to him by the way, in case people are wondering where their posts have gone.

Joey the lips

eoin wrote: »

You can be anti-SF and anti-IRA without being anti-Republican.

Yes but that tends to equate to RSF or 32 county who in fairness dont seem to know who they are fighting with,.

goldenbrown

in reply to op
I live in a republic and I am in favour of all republics

res publica = a thing of the people,

but you may be confusing republicanism with followers of the physical force outlook that would like to 'push' the million or so islanders who are represented by the orange on the flag draped on a coffin....into the sea...though they are born here..

Joey the lips

goldenbrown wrote: »

in reply to op
I live in a republic and I am in favour of all republics

res publica = a thing of the people,

but you may be confusing republicanism with followers of the physical force outlook that would like to 'push' the million or so islanders who are represented by the orange on the flag draped on a coffin....into the sea...though they are born here..

I dont understand this comment to whom are you refering?

Fratton Fred

I don't have a problem with republicans any more than i do socialists or capitalists, what i have a problem with is extremism/militantism which seems to be the case with a lot of republicans in Ireland.

looking from as a relative outsider, it sometimes appears that the Irish "Uber" Republicans are dismissive of the "Run of the mill" republicans in much the same way as a radical militant muslim considers any muslim who does not share their views to be as bad as the infidels.

Like most things, some repubicans give the majority a bad name.

gurramok

Funny thing is that FF are republicans along with Michael McDowell, they must be bombers and murdering scum too as after all we like generalisations!

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

Funny thing is that FF are republicans along with Michael McDowell, they must be bombers and murdering scum too as after all we like generalisations!

well they have certainly nuked the economy

jmayo

gurramok wrote: »

Funny thing is that FF are republicans along with Michael McDowell, they must be bombers and murdering scum too as after all we like generalisations!

The only time I would link the word republican with McDowell was in the American context of the word.
As for ff I thought they only stood for re-election :mad:

mick867

Its amazing how a thread can be spun away from the extremely pertinent initial question, which was:

Whats with the anti republican attitude?

My simple answer would be that a great deal of Irish people would harbour Republican sympathies-

If by Republican we mean that at some stage Ireland would be a United island and united by the will of both sets traditions,

Whereas a huge majority of people both sides of the border would define republican as meaning supporting the ira and the knock on of that would be - supporting the murders- rapes- robberies- drug dealing- porn peddadling- protection rackets etc that the ira or thier trading partners have carried out in the past.

I would like a one island Nation- but I dont want anything gained on the back of terrorism or criminality.

If you can seperate the true Republicans from the ferris republicans and show a distinct difference-

Then your onto something that can be the start of something valuable-

-=Shamrock=-

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

Does it not say more about you, the fact that you feel like you have to associate national pride with what you called "Oh-ah-up-the-RA crap"?

Im very proud of being Irish, very happy of how we finally managed to remove the British from power on this part of the island and do consider Collins et al as heroes. I dont however have any sympathy for the modern IRA or SF. For me national pride and the wolfe tones/IRA stuff is seperate, very little to do with each other.

Why does our history have to be incontrovertibly linked to the current IRA and SF, who have very little to do with our history.

DoireNod

-=Shamrock=- wrote: »

Why does our history have to be incontrovertibly linked to the current IRA and SF, who have very little to do with our history.

It doesn't have to be, of course, but one has to accept that the Troubles and conflict in the 20th century has dominated our recent history. Sinn Féin and the current IRA have a big part in Irish history. People seem to think that history has to be nice and rosy, so they try to distance themselves from all the negative aspects of history, but maybe I'm wrong?

-=Shamrock=-

DoireNod wrote: »

It doesn't have to be, of course, but one has to accept that the Troubles and conflict in the 20th century has dominated our recent history. Sinn Féin and the current IRA have a big part in Irish history. People seem to think that history has to be nice and rosy, so they try to distance themselves from all the negative aspects of history, but maybe I'm wrong?

Thats my point though. The current IRA and SF are nothing like what they were in the early 20's. They were not planting any bombs in shopping streets back then... or maybe they were and im just going for the rosy option you suggested.

Interesting point.....

Liam Byrne

-=Shamrock=- wrote: »

Does it not say more about you, the fact that you feel like you have to associate national pride with what you called "Oh-ah-up-the-RA crap"?

For me national pride and the wolfe tones/IRA stuff is seperate, very little to do with each other.

Why does our history have to be incontrovertibly linked to the current IRA and SF, who have very little to do with our history.

This is pretty much what I said above; SF & the IRA call themselves "The Republican Movement", and so the question as posed by the OP ends up having a different slant entirely.

But the question is WHY normal people allowed them to hijack the aims and associate it with the thuggery, whataboutery and criminality that is actually the main objection that people have.

If someone shoots a Garda or robs a bank, why do people look at who they're associated with before they decide to judge whether or not they'll accept it ?

To be fair, this happens across the board; if a traveller causes a riot in a hotel, then rather than supporting the hotel's stance that their guests shouldn't have to put up with it, Pavee Point or whoever will say there was discrimination; if a TD does something objectionable, the party faithful will defend them to the hilt and vote for them again - for example, just as SF should say "get out. now" to Ferris, FF should have said the same to Bertie Ahern or John O'Donoghue. But they don't.

And as a result of the initial actions PLUS the implicit condoning by those who should be the first to complain about "tarring with the one brush", neutrals roll their eyes and wash their hands of it......but by not sorting out the issues and condemning unacceptable actions, it's the ones being tarred who are to blame - through their own inaction.

Red Sleeping Beauty

I didn't think there was an anti-republican element on this site but there does seem to be a fair few posts from people who don't give a toss about "the North" and are glad to let the 6 counties be ruled by Westminster. I'm not as educated as some but I've often tried desperately to understand what a republican and a republic is because your average dictionary (not just wiki ) will say it's a country without a monarch. Republicanism in Ireland seems to solely relate to British rule, the treaty, free state etc. but there are "northern" republicans and "southern" republicans. It's quite a confusing subject but the flippant remarks , on both sides don't really help I suppose.


How many "Southern Ireland" political parties include a policy (or view) Northern Ireland in their manifesto ?

gurramok

Alan Rouge wrote: »

How many "Southern Ireland" political parties include a policy (or view) Northern Ireland in their manifesto ?

Most do. They have in their manifesto's whether its priority is No.1(SF) or No. 100(the old PD's) for unification and they have their different ways of supporting it.

For example...Labour Party http://www.labour.ie/party/constitution.html

The Labour Party upholds the right of all of the people on the island of Ireland to evolve their relations with one another through the operation of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement endorsed by all of the people of the island. Within this context the Labour Party believes that the aspirations of working people are best addressed on an all-Ireland basis and will work for deeper all-Ireland co-operation on economic, social, cultural and environmental issues.

Thats what the certain anti-unity posters forget.

K-9

FF and I think FG too, though obviously they both have moved to a more Nationalist side.

With the conflict over I think the lines between Republicanism and Nationalism will merge over time.

People like Martin Ferris certainly don't help though!

-=Shamrock=-

gurramok wrote: »

Most do. They have in their manifesto's whether its priority is No.1(SF) or No. 100(the old PD's) for unification and they have their different ways of supporting it.

For example...Labour Party http://www.labour.ie/party/constitution.html



Thats what the certain anti-unity posters forget.

You can hardly call that labour manifesto extract a call for unity. All it does is support cross "border" agencies. Very weak stance there, close to the old PD's as you say.

gurramok

Yeh, they are all using the Belfast Agreement as the basis of unification.

I've never seen in any Dail parties manifesto the rejection of unification if the people of NI supported it so it looks llike a fair few posters here have no proper political representation to reject that Union so i suggest they setup a local UUP or a DUP branch to protect their future interests to preserve the status quo :P

stovelid

I should point out that I'm happy enough to live in a democratic republic as we do. I find much common cause with the views of republicans on monarchy, Imperialism and social issues.

The problem with living in a country with disputed territory is that republican opinion will become largely focused on that.

It's hard for a question like What's with the anti-Republican attitudes, posed in Ireland, not to broach the question of where you stand on partition. Or for people who are equivocal about partition to be regarded as unpatriotic.

It also leads to the unfortunate situation where views on the matter can basically amount to a plebiscite on armed republicanism.

So my basic stance is that although I have a lot of problems viewing politics along national (as opposed to social/class) lines, I'm not castigating republicans generally, just opting out of(or more to the point: not to be particularly bothered about) the specific historical (and contemporary) instance of Irish republicanism, including reunification.

I support the right of any citizen to pursue a peacefully-achieved, consensual, united Ireland.

I also absolutely defend my right, and that of other citizens, to have opposed the IRA, and to a lesser extent, Sinn Fein.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And remind me again what that "situation" that you describe has to do with murdering people in Adare, or in Omagh ?

Nothing. Did you see what I was responding to? It was just one of Gandalf's points I took exception to. I'm not an IRA sympathiser

RiverWilde

I don't think people are anti-republican per se. The notion of having a united Ireland is valid. I think though most people are 'anti-murdering bastards.' Until the majority of people in the North want to join the Republic - god knows why they hell they'd want to is another issue - the North will remain part of the UK.

I think there will always be an element in society who are so steeped in blood and hatred that the mere idea of a peaceful, prosperous NI is totally foreign to them and anyone who does not agree with them are in their eyes, legitimate targets for that hatred .

Riv

Dudess

Sand wrote: »

That another thing about the average Provo thats pretty pathetic and laughable...whataboutery.

Yawn. That's not actually what I said - try to read posts properly. I did not use any "whataboutery" whatsoever. I said there are some people who are rightly disgusted by republican violence but then tar all of those with republican sympathies with the brush of terrorist... and some of them even dismiss/gloss over what was faced by catholics - like the way CCOB dismissed Bloody Sunday, the Quinn brothers murders, joined the UKUP, all that nasty sh1t. But you know, it's kinda going against the grain - who cares who it hurts... :rolleyes:

People were asked for the views on Provos/republicans. They gave them. Of course the tried and true Provo response is "Whatabout <insert loyalist group here>".

Nope. The OP did not ask for views on provos/republicans - he asked for an explanation for anti republican attitudes which does not refer specifically to violence. I also find the lickarse loyalist apologises use whataboutery too.

It only reveals that they cannot comprehend anything other than tribalism. I reckon the average loyalist and the average Provo are scumbags, seperate to the average human being ( Catholic or Protestant, Irish or English) who is not. Provos and Loyalists are a ****ing plague on everyone else in Ireland and the UK and if you managed to kill yourselves off it would be some small service to the rest of mankind.

Happy now?

No, because you're not reading my posts properly - try to.

Hard to respond to that seeing as you have personalised it. Any remark I make about such people might be construed as personal abuse.

Oh right, so someone who will condemn IRA atrocities and Sinn Féin, but who still has sympathies with nationalist/republican ideals (without the violence) you'd have a problem with? Can you actually outline why?

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

Yawn. That's not actually what I said - try to read posts properly. I did not use any "whataboutery" whatsoever. I said there are some people who are rightly disgusted by republican violence but then tar all of those with republican sympathies with the brush of terrorist... and some of them even dismiss/gloss over what was faced by catholics - like the way CCOB dismissed Bloody Sunday, the Quinn brothers murders, joined the UKUP, all that nasty sh1t. But you know, it's kinda going against the grain - who cares who it hurts... :rolleyes:

O'Brien has nothing to do with this. That is whataboutery. It is classic "I can't defend my position so what about?" I've seen it on the McCabe threads. CCOB was a fool but during a time in the 70's he played an important part in this states history and security. I've no doubt he'll go down as a figure of hatred among some, like Kevin O'Higgins, 80 years later.

Nodin

RiverWilde wrote: »

I don't think people are anti-republican per se. The notion of having a united Ireland is valid.

The armed struggle towards a united Ireland was primarily driven by discrimination in a sectarian statelet. This is a point that gets passed over again and again. Had their been even an attempt to have a fair society up there, damn few if any would have taken up the gun.

walrusgumble

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.
In fact its about time that people question what has been pretty much unquestionable in most of Irish society. Perhaps Collins, Pearse and co are not the noble heroes we are told they are. Perhaps we need to judge them by modern standards and not through the sepia-tinted lens with which we normally view republican history.

Does anyone else find their national pride tainted somewhat by the knowledge that our independence was gained by terrorism?

no. why not ask the french and americans then?

if you compare actions and mentalities of times prior to say 1940's to modern day are you proud to be from a country which was once part of an empire of the daddy of all terrorists?, look at africa and asia and middle east, how they prided their prowess

of course that is not really an intelligent response. but before i am dismissed as a so and so , at least how the cope on to realise that time prior to say world war II, attitudes and mentalities to many matters such as class divide, women, war etc have stark differences to what we in the enlightened "modern" days enjoy. it might be better to look and try to understand the problems and issues and theories of those days than pick point at people who can no longer defend themselves to being scruntise by todays standards. it is quiete possible that people such as collins and pearse themselves may have taken a different line had they not being from the world of the 20th century

IIMII

Dudess wrote: »

Can you actually outline why?

Because Aul' Britannia loves us still Dudess, and some of these people resent partial or total Irish independence. You are wasting your time arguing with these guys - they just want to get your back up. The single greatest act of terrorism was the occupation of this island by the English - they just overlook that

RiverWilde

Nodin wrote: »

The armed struggle towards a united Ireland was primarily driven by discrimination in a sectarian statelet. This is a point that gets passed over again and again. Had their been even an attempt to have a fair society up there, damn few if any would have taken up the gun.

Armed struggle? What a load of bollox. When someone picks up a gun and has the bloody cheek to murder people and call it an 'armed stuggle' I'm sorry that's just pathetic. How on earth does blowing people up going about their daily lives constitute an 'armed struggle?'

Riv

IIMII

RiverWilde wrote: »

How on earth does blowing people up going about their daily lives constitute an 'armed struggle?'

Riv

And how exactly did the English install themselves here in the first place, and then maintain that presence? Cop on

RiverWilde

IIMII wrote: »

And how exactly did the English install themselves here in the first place, and then maintain that presence? Cop on

So you're okay with terrorism? In your mind it's perfectly acceptable to detonate a carbomb in a busy town and murder innocent people going about their daily lives? You're fine with the notion that if you murder enough people they'll come around to your point of view?
Yeah, I think you're the one who needs to cop on.

Riv

walrusgumble

Svalbard wrote: »

The question stands and its a legitimate one.
, 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

thats absolutely fair enough.

i am a republican and feel no shame of how my country was established (well, civil war) i also don't accept that being an irish republican means supporting terrorism. i also DESPISE that trash talk. especially seeing young people (i am in my early 20's) spilling over beer spouting out that nonsense and i also dislike how a famine song gets mixed up with belts of the ra. some day we will all learn (i hope) or any notion of republican aims or even a show of friendship to our unionist countrymen /britsh(oohhh touchy) goes out the window

i think the wolfe tones are recalling popular chants, melodies and lyrics from the 1916-1924 years and poems written in those days about certain people. but of course, they to some people have being highjacked by modern events and they themselves don't hide their opinions to modern days