Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lessons of History: futility of killing?
Options
Comments
-
I for one, was glad to be born into a free Irish Republic. I take it any day over what had gone before, and that's the only reference that can be used. As was said before on this forum, we don't have a parallel universe to compare with how things could have been better - we can only reference what went before. And before was not better IMO.
I have to disagree on one small point: we do have another reference point and that is what it is like to live in the UK today. IMO it is better to look at the current situation and not what it was like in the 19th century. I am sure you would agree that the ordinary working class were treated very badly all over Britain in the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries not just in Ireland. Things have improved significantly in Britain and I can only suppose that it would have been the same for an Ireland with some form of devolved government. In my experience the working and middle classes have much the same freedoms in both countries. The rich and powerful still live by different rules (nothing has changed in that respect).0 -
I think this is a great point. And violence comes in many manifestations - the Structural Violence of a state - oppressive laws that deny basic rights, discrimination etc.- is as real as other forms. Being helpless is pointless.Manic Moran wrote: »
It's all well and good to eschew violence. But eschewing it to the point of helplessness in the face of those less civilised than you is foolish. There is no dishonour in defending yourself. Being morally correct and dead seems a bit pointless.
NTM0 -
Data_Quest wrote: »Good one. I had not seen that quote before about equipping yourself with a sword. Just goes to prove that the Bible is full of inconsistencies as Jesus also is reported to have said something like: those you live by the sword die by the sword.
Not an inconsistency. As your friend points out, it is merely a statement which supports the concept of self defence. Living by the sword means undertaking violence as a lifestyle, not as a means of preserving life.However, I also believe that deliberately going out to shoot some police men is not an act of self defence.
But how about if the police shoot first? You go and have your peaceful protest, and as you're sitting there peacefully, the police attack. Maybe they shoot a couple of protestors to make a point and try to get them to disperse. Is it not acceptable to attack the police in such a case?
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »But how about if the police shoot first? You go and have your peaceful protest, and as you're sitting there peacefully, the police attack. Maybe they shoot a couple of protestors to make a point and try to get them to disperse. Is it not acceptable to attack the police in such a case?
NTM
If you are on a peaceful protest (therefore unarmed) and the police start shooting then you are unlikely to attack them as they are likely to start shooting again. But I presume what you are asking is it OK to afterwards organise a retaliation shooting of police as a result. As a pacifist I personally would have to say no but I do agree it would be difficult not to support others who do.
However, this is the reason I started this thread to make the point that if police are shot in reprisals for the state's wrongdoing then the state is likely to retaliate with even more violence and that usually leads to a tit-for-tat neagative spiral of violence which takes years to get out of.0 -
If you are on a peaceful protest (therefore unarmed) and the police start shooting then you are unlikely to attack them as they are likely to start shooting again.
You can be armed and peaceful at the same time, though I was thinking more along the lines of armed overwatch.
Situations like Tiannanmen Square and recent events in Iran also indicate that peacefully dying is no better a guarantee of achieving your political goals.
NTM0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,303 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89542
Non-violent protest works well in a democracy or when you need to keep your democratic trading partners happy. You could even argue that violent protest in a democracy is morally wrong as you should be able to achieve your aims peacefully if you have a resonably level of support, and if you don't have that support you are forcing your will on them.
It's interesting to speculate how far the Palestinans would have gotten on had they just used non-violent protests. But in Saudai how far would you get when there are no cameras to report on what happens and those who need oil downplay it ?
In the past whole populations have been wiped out, The Carribs in the west indies no longer protest about independence. In Australia the native population have more land and power than the natives of patagonia,0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Non-violent protest works well in a democracy or when you need to keep your democratic trading partners happy. You could even argue that violent protest in a democracy is morally wrong as you should be able to achieve your aims peacefully if you have a resonably level of support, and if you don't have that support you are forcing your will on them.
It's interesting to speculate how far the Palestinans would have gotten on had they just used non-violent protests.
About as far as you can go with a bullet in the head.
Gandhi, for instance, had the advantage of being 9,000 miles away from the nation he was trying to remove, which itself had just been involved in the extremely expensive Second World War. In addition, there was an extensive background of violence and armed mutiny in India, though he didn't condone it, which stretched the authorities still further.
In addition, he was appealing to the liberal principles of parts of the British population, at a time of a swing to the left in British politics. That wouldn't have cut much ice with the likes of a Stalin, or an unrepentant institutionally racist regime such as the Nazis.0 -
Fascinating thread.
A number of points.
Starting from the original premise I thought I'd state some baseline observations.
1) Violence achieves results. If it didn't no-one would employ it as a tool.
2) Violence can be put to good and bad ends
3) On an amoral basis the use of violence may seem the most effective way to a goal for a given faction
4) Violence may not be the correct tool for a specific stated goal
5) The consequences of violence is a tendency to lead to more violence especially where the attacked/attacker is defeated but not beyond the capacity to reboot/rebuild/reorganize
I've always felt that in the Irish case, the use of violence was in fact the wrong tool applied at the wrong time to a poor if not disastrous result. There was significant room within the British Empire to envisage an alternate structure to the Free State violence actually achieved, especially because, like the Other White Settler Elements of the Empire, there was local democracy and quite uniquely in Ireland, national (UKOGBI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) democracy. As the Empire evolved (with significant Irish engagement up to 1932 and culminating in the 1931 Statue of Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster,_1931) it took on the form of a much looser alliance of nations, something that may well, if not completely, have suited a small nation like our own better. Still, the end result was not completely without merit.
In summary the use of force to achieve ends depends on the ends in a moral sense but in practical terms it is unavoidable.
When you bring morality into the equation it becomes difficult to defend the causes that apply violence and often times as above the timing of violence, but then in both regards the fallibility of man comes into play.
Eoin0 -
Fascinating thread.
A number of points.
Starting from the original premise I thought I'd state some baseline observations.
1) Violence achieves results. If it didn't no-one would employ it as a tool.
2) Violence can be put to good and bad ends
3) On an amoral basis the use of violence may seem the most effective way to a goal for a given faction
4) Violence may not be the correct tool for a specific stated goal
5) The consequences of violence is a tendency to lead to more violence especially where the attacked/attacker is defeated but not beyond the capacity to reboot/rebuild/reorganize
I've always felt that in the Irish case, the use of violence was in fact the wrong tool applied at the wrong time to a poor if not disastrous result. There was significant room within the British Empire to envisage an alternate structure to the Free State violence actually achieved, especially because, like the Other White Settler Elements of the Empire, there was local democracy and quite uniquely in Ireland, national (UKOGBI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) democracy. As the Empire evolved (with significant Irish engagement up to 1932 and culminating in the 1931 Statue of Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster,_1931) it took on the form of a much looser alliance of nations, something that may well, if not completely, have suited a small nation like our own better. Still, the end result was not completely without merit.
In summary the use of force to achieve ends depends on the ends in a moral sense but in practical terms it is unavoidable.
When you bring morality into the equation it becomes difficult to defend the causes that apply violence and often times as above the timing of violence, but then in both regards the fallibility of man comes into play.
Eoin
I think that is an interesting post. I think how the empire developed after Ireland is perhaps not the same path it would have taken without the element of armed Irish republicanism and it's results.
I think another interesting question is how moral were the british establishment in their collective approach to the issue of Ireland ?
Would it be an intelligent proposition as an Irishman/Irishwoman in pre - Independence Ireland to have held yourself to a higher moral standard than the people who are occupying your country and through violence denying you the right to self determination ?0 -
Your use of a Wiki article to forward your point is exactly why Wiki should never be used for this – or anything else for that matter. [See previous rants against Wiki on this forum]. This Wiki article is ignorant of the true nature of the Irish Parliament which was not at all independent of England - but the article suggests this. The Irish Parliament dates from the thirteenth century and was originally formed for the Norman invaders to deal with the issue of native Irish incursions back across land seized by the Norman settlers. The first parliament was convened to deal with this native Irish “lawlessness” as they called it. It was also organized to consolidate the establishment of English law, especially that pertaining to the English succession system, and eradicate Irish Brehon Law - which it initially failed to do beyond the Pale.There was significant room within the British Empire to envisage an alternate structure to the Free State violence actually achieved, especially because, like the Other White Settler Elements of the Empire, there was local democracy and quite uniquely in Ireland, national (UKOGBI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) democracy. As the Empire evolved (with significant Irish engagement up to 1932 and culminating in the 1931 Statue of Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster,_1931) it took on the form of a much looser alliance of nations, something that may well, if not completely, have suited a small nation like our own better. Still, the end result was not completely without merit.
The Irish Parliament ceased to have any power at all when Poynings Law was imposed in 1494. From this date the Irish Parliament was essentially a puppet parliament under Westminster without power of autonomy to pass independent laws. The struggle for wrestling power from England - especially to do with trade regulations that favoured English trade over Irish trade - - came to a head under Henry Grattan in the late eighteenth century. But this ultimately resulted in the entire body - upper and lower houses- being abolished and Ireland put formally under the Westminster Parliament.
To therefore suggest that Ireland was "unique" in having local democracy within the British Empire - i.e. any real control over Irish affairs - is historically incorrect.0 -
Advertisement
-
Your use of a Wiki article to forward your point is exactly why Wiki should never be used for this – or anything else for that matter. [See previous rants against Wiki on this forum]. This Wiki article is ignorant of the true nature of the Irish Parliament which was not at all independent of England - but the article suggests this. The Irish Parliament dates from the thirteenth century and was originally formed for the Norman invaders to deal with the issue of native Irish incursions back across land seized by the Norman settlers. The first parliament was convened to deal with this native Irish “lawlessness” as they called it. It was also organized to consolidate the establishment of English law, especially that pertaining to the English succession system, and eradicate Irish Brehon Law - which it initially failed to do beyond the Pale.
The Irish Parliament ceased to have any power at all when Poynings Law was imposed in 1494. From this date the Irish Parliament was essentially a puppet parliament under Westminster without power of autonomy to pass independent laws. The struggle for wrestling power from England - especially to do with trade regulations that favoured English trade over Irish trade - - came to a head under Henry Grattan in the late eighteenth century. But this ultimately resulted in the entire body - upper and lower houses- being abolished and Ireland put formally under the Westminster Parliament.
To therefore suggest that Ireland was "unique" in having local democracy within the British Empire - i.e. any real control over Irish affairs - is historically incorrect.
Point taken re: Wiki which I used not to support my points, but rather as background, I shall avoid such use in the future. Not being an old hand here has its downsides.
Perhaps I should elaborate on what I meant by that reference:
1) My "unique" point referred only to the fact that Irish MPs served within the Parliament of The Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland. With the exception of Scotland and Wales Ireland was unique among the colonies (the cases of scotland and wales are outliers in this regard) of all types within the Empire in that. To deny it would be foolish.
2) As regards the pre-1801 parliament in all its forms (which I should note I did not intend to use as a supporting of my case) I would agree that its powers were limited by certain factors inherent in its basis and that those flaws were at the very least undesirable. However Poynings law was all but repealed in 1782 and although the resulting parliament hardly represented a universal one, it did at least embody the concept of an Irish body politic.
3) Further to the point of the origin of the parliament it is correct to say that it originated from the colonisers, but there was no reason to believe that something more inclusive could not, at a future date have been created from this. However, I'm not making this part of my case, nor do I think it would further it.
To restate what I meant by the above, Irish people has access to a parliament (witness the large IPP representation in Westminster). This route had the potential to deliver results and had done so on some issues in the past, land reform and local government most obviously.
My prime case is that violence was not really the best choice to achieve the goals of the Irish people in 1916-1921 especially as a long struggle resulted in something not materially different from that which had been proffered in the many versions of Home Rule thrown about by various sides.
That is not to say that morally those who engaged in violence were wrong or right, just that alternative routes to the same goal were possible and might have yielded better results.
Eoin0 -
I think that is an interesting post. I think how the empire developed after Ireland is perhaps not the same path it would have taken without the element of armed Irish republicanism and it's results.
I think another interesting question is how moral were the british establishment in their collective approach to the issue of Ireland ?
Would it be an intelligent proposition as an Irishman/Irishwoman in pre - Independence Ireland to have held yourself to a higher moral standard than the people who are occupying your country and through violence denying you the right to self determination ?
I wasn't passing a moral judgment on those who engaged in violence, merely observing that I felt in balance that violence was not actually the most effective tool to achieve the stated goals. Still I can see how that might be taken as a value judgment.
With that in mind, your question is asking me to make a relative moral judgment as to who was more moral which is frankly, pretty hard in most given sets of circumstances. On the whole I'd say that neither side comes out well, but then that is war, and I rarely expect to see morality in the fighting of a war (cf: Area bombing of Dresden or the Firebombing of Tokyo).
Unpleasant but true!
Eoin0 -
As regards the pre-1801 parliament in all its forms (which I should note I did not intend to use as a supporting of my case) I would agree that its powers were limited by certain factors inherent in its basis and that those flaws were at the very least undesirable. However Poynings law was all but repealed in 1782 and although the resulting parliament hardly represented a universal one, it did at least embody the concept of an Irish body politic.
Poynings Law’s repeal was a brief interlude and it occurred primarily because of the pressure that the British felt in the American colonies; the direct result being the withdrawal of just about all British troops from Ireland. Ireland was given permission to form "Volunteer" corps but the Brits came to distrust these and there was a real fear of rebellion in Ireland. Hence, the prudent thing seemed to be – at that time - for the British to give power to the Irish Parliament.
The old landlord system of aristocratic power came under attack from the ’98 rebels who formed out of the volunteer militia but they were easily dealt with. However as soon as the American situation was resolved and war with France began, Pitt stood up in the Westminster Parliament in January 1799 and denounced the 1782 Act that gave legislative freedom to Dublin and declared that it was a “demolition of the system which before held the two countries together”. i.e. with English control of Irish affairs. He further explained that Britain had an ongoing war with France which was a concern and then he stated his fear that the Irish institution would not be loyal to British interests but would put its own interests first. This was the key to the whole issue. Pitt wanted Ireland back under British legislative control and the only way to do this was by abolishing the Irish Parliament and creating a tiered "union". Which he eventually got. In Pitt’s defence I would say that he promised Catholic Emancipation and was disappointed when it did not happen. But this failure of Catholic Emancipation at that time is an example of failed constitutional politics.Further to the point of the origin of the parliament it is correct to say that it originated from the colonisers, but there was no reason to believe that something more inclusive could not, at a future date have been created from this. However, I'm not making this part of my case, nor do I think it would further it.
But the record indicates that that there was reason to believe this. When was this to happen? - no inclusive parliament had evolved after 500 years so how long would it have taken? And the constitutional path had failed in any attempt to bring it about.To restate what I meant by the above, Irish people has access to a parliament (witness the large IPP representation in Westminster). This route had the potential to deliver results and had done so on some issues in the past, land reform and local government most obviously.
My prime case is that violence was not really the best choice to achieve the goals of the Irish people in 1916-1921 especially as a long struggle resulted in something not materially different from that which had been proffered in the many versions of Home Rule thrown about by various sides.
I read the record differently – that the violence grew out of the failure of British constitutional politics. I believe there was inevitability about 1916 given the repeated tragic failure of constitutional politics especially under Parnell but also before his time. Remember the constitutional route had been tried throughout the nineteenth century and had failed to bring Home Rule. O’Connell had hopes for a “repeal of the union” in the 1830s and 40s -his monster meetings were banned and short shrift given to his hopes. Even Catholic Emancipation was a long drawn out affair before success – and final achievement then came with the price of many Irish Catholic farmers losing the right to vote. This experience left a bad taste in the collective memory of many Irish - so much for constitutional "success".
But the real tragedy of the failure of constitution politics came with Parnell and the Home Rule movement of the mid to late nineteenth century. The Land War only achieved success as the “lesser of two evils” – or “killing Home Rule with kindness” as it was known. Had Parnell been allowed to succeed with his constitutional dream of a Dublin Parliament we would not have had the tragic century that was 20th century Ireland IMO. Shortly after the 1916 Rising Eoin MacNeil [who had refused to participate] said lamentably “Home Rule was a cheque that was constantly being post-dated”. In the end few in Ireland believed the cheque was ever going to be in the mail.0 -
My prime case is that violence was not really the best choice to achieve the goals of the Irish people in 1916-1921 especially as a long struggle resulted in something not materially different from that which had been proffered in the many versions of Home Rule thrown about by various sides.
That is not to say that morally those who engaged in violence were wrong or right, just that alternative routes to the same goal were possible and might have yielded better results.
Eoin
Hi Eoin, you make some very good points but I think the above is not quite true. The Third home rule bill was well known to not grant Ireland the same freedoms as Canada of South Africa had, it was quite a watered down proposal in comparison to the other dominions. As well as that, the people who fought between 1916-1921 were by and large republicans of some sort, and/or nationalists, and obviously believed that Home Rule was not the right thing for Ireland. The Free State that arrived was not what they had hoped for but was also a much better deal than Home Rule.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Hi Eoin, you make some very good points but I think the above is not quite true. The Third home rule bill was well known to not grant Ireland the same freedoms as Canada of South Africa had, it was quite a watered down proposal in comparison to the other dominions. As well as that, the people who fought between 1916-1921 were by and large republicans of some sort, and/or nationalists, and obviously believed that Home Rule was not the right thing for Ireland. The Free State that arrived was not what they had hoped for but was also a much better deal than Home Rule.
One of the better deals concerned taxation. One of the issues for Lloyd George - as demanded in the Home Rule Bill and the Ireland Act 1920 - was Irish taxation. Under the Home Rule Bill Irish taxation was still to be to paid to the British treasury. The Irish side at the Treaty won a major victory on this when the Free State was granted full fiscal autonomy over their domestic affairs - a major difference and one that Lloyd George was most angry about surrendering.0 -
Poynings Law’s repeal was a brief interlude and it occurred primarily because of the pressure that the British felt in the American colonies; the direct result being the withdrawal of just about all British troops from Ireland. Ireland was given permission to form "Volunteer" corps but the Brits came to distrust these and there was a real fear of rebellion in Ireland. Hence, the prudent thing seemed to be – at that time - for the British to give power to the Irish Parliament.
The old landlord system of aristocratic power came under attack from the ’98 rebels who formed out of the volunteer militia but they were easily dealt with. However as soon as the American situation was resolved and war with France began, Pitt stood up in the Westminster Parliament in January 1799 and denounced the 1782 Act that gave legislative freedom to Dublin and declared that it was a “demolition of the system which before held the two countries together”. i.e. with English control of Irish affairs. He further explained that Britain had an ongoing war with France which was a concern and then he stated his fear that the Irish institution would not be loyal to British interests but would put its own interests first. This was the key to the whole issue. Pitt wanted Ireland back under British legislative control and the only way to do this was by abolishing the Irish Parliament and creating a tiered "union". Which he eventually got. In Pitt’s defence I would say that he promised Catholic Emancipation and was disappointed when it did not happen. But this failure of Catholic Emancipation at that time is an example of failed constitutional politics.
But the record indicates that that there was reason to believe this. When was this to happen? - no inclusive parliament had evolved after 500 years so how long would it have taken? And the constitutional path had failed in any attempt to bring it about.
I read the record differently – that the violence grew out of the failure of British constitutional politics. I believe there was inevitability about 1916 given the repeated tragic failure of constitutional politics especially under Parnell but also before his time. Remember the constitutional route had been tried throughout the nineteenth century and had failed to bring Home Rule. O’Connell had hopes for a “repeal of the union” in the 1830s and 40s -his monster meetings were banned and short shrift given to his hopes. Even Catholic Emancipation was a long drawn out affair before success – and final achievement then came with the price of many Irish Catholic farmers losing the right to vote. This experience left a bad taste in the collective memory of many Irish - so much for constitutional "success".
But the real tragedy of the failure of constitution politics came with Parnell and the Home Rule movement of the mid to late nineteenth century. The Land War only achieved success as the “lesser of two evils” – or “killing Home Rule with kindness” as it was known. Had Parnell been allowed to succeed with his constitutional dream of a Dublin Parliament we would not have had the tragic century that was 20th century Ireland IMO. Shortly after the 1916 Rising Eoin MacNeil [who had refused to participate] said lamentably “Home Rule was a cheque that was constantly being post-dated”. In the end few in Ireland believed the cheque was ever going to be in the mail.
As I said, I'm not going to defend the pre-1801 parliament (at least not in this thread).
I will say on your reading that it is as valid as my own. I tend to disagree with your version and for several reasons.
The problem with the "never posted cheque" argument is that the cheque had been mailed however short of our desired amount it was. It might have failed drastically, been of little real effect or it might just have been an amazing change that led to real progress for Ireland and 1916 derailed any chance of it ever had of working post
Still you can't spend too long crying over spilled milk and as I said I think the final outcomes would ultimately have been pretty similar had the route been violent or peaceful.
Eoin0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Hi Eoin, you make some very good points but I think the above is not quite true. The Third home rule bill was well known to not grant Ireland the same freedoms as Canada of South Africa had, it was quite a watered down proposal in comparison to the other dominions. As well as that, the people who fought between 1916-1921 were by and large republicans of some sort, and/or nationalists, and obviously believed that Home Rule was not the right thing for Ireland. The Free State that arrived was not what they had hoped for but was also a much better deal than Home Rule.
Regardless the point remains valid. The outcome of violence was largely (if better in some senses) the same as the outcome without violence. I doubt the destruction wrought by the 1916-1924 period was worth a better deal on tax!
Given the progress made even in the 10 years post treaty, pre-FF's arrival in power I put it to you that even Home Rule presented opportunities for peaceful increases in Irish independence. I'm not saying that the route of violence was not moral, simply that I believe more could have been achieved had 1916 not happened and the subsequent war of Independence been avoided in favour of a peaceful route, but we will as I have noted before, never know.
Eoin0 -
As I said, I'm not going to defend the pre-1801 parliament (at least not in this thread).
I will say on your reading that it is as valid as my own. I tend to disagree with your version and for several reasons.
The problem with the "never posted cheque" argument is that the cheque had been mailed however short of our desired amount it was. It might have failed drastically, been of little real effect or it might just have been an amazing change that led to real progress for Ireland and 1916 derailed any chance of it ever had of working post
Still you can't spend too long crying over spilled milk and as I said I think the final outcomes would ultimately have been pretty similar had the route been violent or peaceful.
Eoin
Well as you say it "might have been anything" but that is fantasy land. My interest is in learning why and how things happened not developing a fantasy universe about what might have been if...I leave that to fiction writers.0 -
Well as you say it "might have been anything" but that is fantasy land. My interest is in learning why and how things happened not developing a fantasy universe about what might have been if...I leave that to fiction writers.
While in general I agree with you on that avenue of thinking, there is room for a little counter factual thinking, if only to allow the power of the imagined end for comparison.
It gives you an understanding that decisions made at a certain point need not have been made, and that other choices could conceivable have been made. If we understand than then we begin to understand too that History is not predetermined but random and DECISIONS are critical to outcomes.
You can pick at my case but I'm not sure the central thesis can be undermined. 90 years of propaganda and hero stories will not change the fact that the Rising was a radical break with 50 years of successful if not perfect and certainly frustrating peaceful development towards a freer Ireland.
In this situation I contest that violent resistance was not the best option and other options were likely to have yielded effectively the same outcome.
Eoin0 -
90 years of propaganda and hero stories will not change the fact that the Rising was a radical break with 50 years of successful if not perfect and certainly frustrating peaceful development towards a freer Ireland.
Eoin
I mean this in all sincerity - you really need to get in touch with what has been written by Irish scholars in the field of historiography within the past 40 years. To lump it all together as "propaganda" is a great disservice to the field and displays perhaps a narrow reading of the published record of what has been a lively discussion on the events.0 -
Advertisement
-
Regardless the point remains valid. The outcome of violence was largely (if better in some senses) the same as the outcome without violence. I doubt the destruction wrought by the 1916-1924 period was worth a better deal on tax!
Given the progress made even in the 10 years post treaty, pre-FF's arrival in power I put it to you that even Home Rule presented opportunities for peaceful increases in Irish independence. I'm not saying that the route of violence was not moral, simply that I believe more could have been achieved had 1916 not happened and the subsequent war of Independence been avoided in favour of a peaceful route, but we will as I have noted before, never know.
Eoin
Under Home rule Ireland would have no say on international issues, would've been beholden to the Imperial parliament for defence and other issues, and would not have been anywhere near independent, not even having the same level of autonomy as Canada, as I already pointed out. I can see what you are saying, but I think its clear that the treaty that came from the war of independence achieved much more than had been offered in the 1912 HR Bill.
I think what you are referring to really is the benefits derived from the Statute of Westminster of 1931, which gave DeValera the opportunity to dismantle the treaty, something which isn't often referred to in history books. However it is impossible to say that that Statute would have happened without the Irish War of Independence, or that Ireland would have been included in it where it not for the same war.0 -
While in general I agree with you on that avenue of thinking, there is room for a little counter factual thinking, if only to allow the power of the imagined end for comparison.
It gives you an understanding that decisions made at a certain point need not have been made, and that other choices could conceivable have been made. If we understand than then we begin to understand too that History is not predetermined but random and DECISIONS are critical to outcomes.
You can pick at my case but I'm not sure the central thesis can be undermined. 90 years of propaganda and hero stories will not change the fact that the Rising was a radical break with 50 years of successful if not perfect and certainly frustrating peaceful development towards a freer Ireland.
In this situation I contest that violent resistance was not the best option and other options were likely to have yielded effectively the same outcome.
Eoin
I originated this thread and went through a similar round of debate with the erudite contributors to this forum. So for what its worth I fully agree with what you are saying (although I admit that we are engaging in speculation about what might have been).
I would speculate further that without the violence the outcome might have been even better over the last 90 years as we would have escaped at least some of the following:- 1000s of violent deaths
- a ruinous civil war
- the economic nightmare of partition that impacts us even today
- the dominance of the Catholic Church
0 -
Data_Quest wrote: »I would speculate further that without the violence the outcome might have been even better over the last 90 years as we would have escaped at least some of the following:
- 1000s of violent deaths
- a ruinous civil war
- the economic nightmare of partition that impacts us even today
- the dominance of the Catholic Church
You could also speculate about the negative aspects of the above scenario.
For example how we would have fared during ww2 without independence ?0 -
Data_Quest wrote: »
- 1000s of violent deaths
- a ruinous civil war
- the economic nightmare of partition that impacts us even today
- the dominance of the Catholic Church
The first two were real probabilities even if Home Rule had happened, the third one I can almost guarantee would have happened regardless and the last one could still have been possible under Home Rule. The censorship act for instance has its roots in pre independence Ireland and was the culmination of a movement involving Catholic and Protestants.0 -
I mean this in all sincerity - you really need to get in touch with what has been written by Irish scholars in the field of historiography within the past 40 years. To lump it all together as "propaganda" is a great disservice to the field and displays perhaps a narrow reading of the published record of what has been a lively discussion on the events.
I was unclear, there is considerable work in this field in terms of research and written material, sadly it rarely moves beyond the circle of academia and a limited if well read circle of Irish history readers into public discourse and even when it does, it rarely shifts the image that is locked into the public consciousness of 1916 as a glorious beginning to a good fight.
As I have repeatedly said, I'm not passing a moral judgment but I believe that violence was not the way forward in 1916.
But anyway, I don't believe we can shift this debate onwards to any great degree!
Eoin0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Under Home rule Ireland would have no say on international issues, would've been beholden to the Imperial parliament for defence and other issues, and would not have been anywhere near independent, not even having the same level of autonomy as Canada, as I already pointed out. I can see what you are saying, but I think its clear that the treaty that came from the war of independence achieved much more than had been offered in the 1912 HR Bill.
I think what you are referring to really is the benefits derived from the Statute of Westminster of 1931, which gave DeValera the opportunity to dismantle the treaty, something which isn't often referred to in history books. However it is impossible to say that that Statute would have happened without the Irish War of Independence, or that Ireland would have been included in it where it not for the same war.
You are correct, I was referring to the results of nearly ten years of diplomacy by Free State politicians and officials and the positive results if such. And example if you will of when violence is not the best option to achieve a goal! Something Dev showed in his subsequent machinations.
It is totally implausible to suggest that some kind of change would not have happened in the Empire in the years following WWI, but I'll not try and guess what that would have looked like. I think it is plausible to suggest however that Ireland might have done well out of it one way or the other had she not fought a nasty of short war with Britain for freedom!
Eoin0 -
Your central thesis that britain would have granted home rule and within it's parameters we could have achieved a free and peaceful Ireland is complete nonsense. The basis of your thinking is the acceptance of 90 years of british and west british propaganda and hero stories portraying britain as the benign, benevolent, at all times fair statesman - when nothing could possibly be further from the truth.You can pick at my case but I'm not sure the central thesis can be undermined. 90 years of propaganda and hero stories will not change the fact that the Rising was a radical break with 50 years of successful if not perfect and certainly frustrating peaceful development towards a freer Ireland.
As for the " previous 50 years of success " :
1886: First Irish Home Rule Bill defeated.
1893: Second Irish Home Rule Bill defeated.
1914: Third Irish Home Rule Act would er, hmmm, come into force after WW1 - and I 'll get a date with Miss World :rolleyes:0 -
You are correct, I was referring to the results of nearly ten years of diplomacy by Free State politicians and officials and the positive results if such. And example if you will of when violence is not the best option to achieve a goal! Something Dev showed in his subsequent machinations.
It is totally implausible to suggest that some kind of change would not have happened in the Empire in the years following WWI, but I'll not try and guess what that would have looked like. I think it is plausible to suggest however that Ireland might have done well out of it one way or the other had she not fought a nasty of short war with Britain for freedom!
Eoin
But you have to realise that what DeValera achieved through diplomacy was only possible because of the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which itself may not have been possible if it were not for the Irish war of independence. Furthermore, if Ireland had been granted Home Rule and had not fought for independence the statute would almost certainly not have applied to Ireland in the same way it did not apply to Scotland or Wales. http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/StatuteofWestminster.html0 -
Data_Quest wrote: »On another thread someone suggested I start a new one based on my opinion that it is rarely worth it to kill anyone in the hope of achieving a political goal.
At one extreme we have a Gandhi Quote:
When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS.
And at the other extreme we have a quote from Dan Breen:
I'll make no apoligies for killing. The only thing I have ever been sorry about is the number that escaped !! Anyman that comes into my house or country and tries to take over, I'm going to kill him, by any means.
I will openly admit that I would lean towards a Gandhi-like way of thinking and find the Dan Breen view abhorrent.
To start the ball rolling I will use a few examples:
1. Was the Irish War of Independance worth all the killing of Irish and British to achieve a 26 county "Free" state? If we had adopted a Gandhi like approach would we have achieved a 32 county independence (or at least a devolved government similar to that of Scotland & Wales) without all the killing of the last 90 years.
2. Was the Spanish Civil War worth all the killing of 100,000s. The facist forces under Franco won out in the end but when Franco died in 1975 democracy was eventually restored.
I would be interested in your thoughts if you think there are situations when killing is justified.
Killing is not futile, or at least the threat of killing.
The Irish state, indeed all states, maintain their power through having a monopoly on the use of violence, and if need be, "legitimate" killing to defend that position and power.
It is by having such a monopoly on violence, and thus authority, that people fear the ultimate consequences of challenging it - as many have, and have been killed in the process.
To say that killing is futile is to say that, for example, the Irish state, and those who gain from the present social order maintained by such a state, have been futile.
Can the Irish state achieve its ends without the threat of killing? - ie, throw in all weapons designed to kill.
I very much doubt it. Much of the wealthy throughout history have maintained, and even created that wealth, through killing. Was it futile for them? - eh, no, I wouldnt have thought so.
Ghandi, imo, is extremely over rated. Violence and the potential to be killed is all around us, and embodied by the state.0 -
Advertisement
-
brianthebard wrote: »But you have to realise that what DeValera achieved through diplomacy was only possible because of the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which itself may not have been possible if it were not for the Irish war of independence. Furthermore, if Ireland had been granted Home Rule and had not fought for independence the statute would almost certainly not have applied to Ireland in the same way it did not apply to Scotland or Wales. http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/StatuteofWestminster.html
I'm not willing to accept that the only way to have improved the Home Rule offering was violence. I think it is plausible that a peaceful movement could have achieved similar gains, perhaps over a longer timeframe.
Eoin0
Advertisement