Lessons of History: futility of killing?

Eoinp

McArmalite wrote: »

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.

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:

I hear what you are saying and I respectfully disagree. Given that Britain DID allow Home Rule and the gradual advancement for its White Settler Colonies (a process which Irishmen were a big part of but which I accept was not without its issues) why do you exclude the possibility that they would have given such freedoms to Ireland? Do you think Canada, New Zealand and Australia are less sovereign than Ireland? In many ways they have greater freedom of action. especially when you consider the restraints (valid or invalid) that the EU imposes upon us.

In fact if no violence would have resulted in Ireland being more like Canada I'd say lots of people would have taken that deal!
Eoin

Eoinp

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

Actually It occurs to me that had Home Rule applied after the war (as promised - and in the absence of 1916) there is every reason to believe that the statute would have applied to Ireland.

Eoin

brianthebard

Eoin you seem to have assumed that there was no violence involved in the granting of devoled government to Canada but there was. Secondly I don't believe it is plausible to say that Home Rule would eventually have led to an independent republic of Ireland, this was clearly not the purpose of the HR Bill. Also what reason have you for thinking the 1931 statute would have applied to a Home Rule Ireland?

IIMII

Empires by their nature take, but don't give (back).

Ireland was too close to Britain geographically to ever get them out without force.

I would see our own struggle for independence being more akin to the US rather than the Canadian situation to be honest. ie nothing was going to change unless it was brought about be force.

You could make the same arguement with German occupations during the second world war. Should France et al just have sat tight and waited to bestowed with independence after a few hundred years or so?

MarchDub

Eoinp wrote: »

Given that Britain DID allow Home Rule and the gradual advancement for its White Settler Colonies (a process which Irishmen were a big part of but which I accept was not without its issues) why do you exclude the possibility that they would have given such freedoms to Ireland? Do you think Canada, New Zealand and Australia are less sovereign than Ireland? In many ways they have greater freedom of action. especially when you consider the restraints (valid or invalid) that the EU imposes upon us.

In fact if no violence would have resulted in Ireland being more like Canada I'd say lots of people would have taken that deal!
Eoin

I think the model for Ireland that you are using is not valid. Ireland's conquest was more like that of the African colonies than what you refer to as the "White settler colonies". We had a large indigenous population which was not possible – as it turned out - to completely wipe out. Canada and Australia managed to annihilate the aboriginal people and form a large majority of "British" settlers with important cultural ties to the homeland. That was attempted in Ireland through dispossession and plantation but did not work out. Hence we had a minority of settlers ruing the majority "native" population – and the minority did so with the use of a military presence i.e violence or the threat of violence. Just as importantly there were laws and established legislative methods that constituted what sociologist refer to as “Structural Violence” against this large disgruntled native population. In Canada and Australia the native populations had no say whatever is their fate as they were essentially wiped out or rendered so small an entity as to have no say.

The template for the initial Irish conquest was later the one used in Africa and then in India. Put in a ruling class made up of the conquering culture and dependent on the motherland for military support for its privileged position. To be claiming – as I think you are – that there was no violence in the establishment and more importantly, in the facilitation of the continuing hold of the Empire in Ireland - or anywhere - is not true. The use of violence against what was in every way a violent stranglehold on the country is not therefore unreasonable.

McArmalite

Eoinp wrote: »

I hear what you are saying and I respectfully disagree. Given that Britain DID allow Home Rule and the gradual advancement for its White Settler Colonies (a process which Irishmen were a big part of but which I accept was not without its issues) why do you exclude the possibility that they would have given such freedoms to Ireland?

No it DIDN'T allow Home Rule for Ireland, they just made the odd vague comment on it. And the reasons why I " exclude the possibility that they would have given such freedoms to Ireland " -

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. Like someone stated, empires are about taking terrority's, they don't do giving them away.

Do you think Canada, New Zealand and Australia are less sovereign than Ireland? In many ways they have greater freedom of action. especially when you consider the restraints (valid or invalid) that the EU imposes upon us.

Home Rule or not we obviously would have been in the EU, even britain is in it.

In fact if no violence would have resulted in Ireland being more like Canada I'd say lots of people would have taken that deal!
Eoin

There's no point in coming up with cosy possible scenario's to sell your arguement, maybe if their had been no violence I would have got a date with Miss World.

Eoinp

IIMII wrote: »

You could make the same arguement with German occupations during the second world war. Should France et al just have sat tight and waited to bestowed with independence after a few hundred years or so?

There are SO many reasons why this comparison is just wrong.

• First of all the nature of the "occupation" was so enormously different from the invasion and occupation of France et al in WWII. But that is not the argument of this discussion
• Secondly Ireland was part of Metropolitan Britain and elected representatives to the National Parliament, while we now see it as an independence movement, it was no unreasonable for British Politicians to see it as a succession movement of an integral element of the British State that had been part of a union since 1801.
• Thirdly, Britain had shown some willingness to consider options for home rule/self governance at least in the years before actual independence, unlike Germany

Eoin

Eoinp

MarchDub wrote: »

I think the model for Ireland that you are using is not valid. Ireland's conquest was more like that of the African colonies than what you refer to as the "White settler colonies". We had a large indigenous population which was not possible – as it turned out - to completely wipe out. Canada and Australia managed to annihilate the aboriginal people and form a large majority of "British" settlers with important cultural ties to the homeland. That was attempted in Ireland through dispossession and plantation but did not work out. Hence we had a minority of settlers ruing the majority "native" population – and the minority did so with the use of a military presence i.e violence or the threat of violence. Just as importantly there were laws and established legislative methods that constituted what sociologist refer to as “Structural Violence” against this large disgruntled native population. In Canada and Australia the native populations had no say whatever is their fate as they were essentially wiped out or rendered so small an entity as to have no say.

The template for the initial Irish conquest was later the one used in Africa and then in India. Put in a ruling class made up of the conquering culture and dependent on the motherland for military support for its privileged position. To be claiming – as I think you are – that there was no violence in the establishment and more importantly, in the facilitation of the continuing hold of the Empire in Ireland - or anywhere - is not true. The use of violence against what was in every way a violent stranglehold on the country is not therefore unreasonable.

It is not my intention, nor would it ever be my contention to ever claim that there was

MarchDub wrote: »

no violence in the establishment and more importantly, in the facilitation of the continuing hold of the Empire in Ireland - or anywhere

My comparison with the white settler colonies was not a reflection of how I view them but how the British Empire viewed them. I have no problem accepting that how these colonies came to be "white settler colonies" was through intentional or unintentional destruction of the native population.

Whatever way Britain initially dealt with Ireland [and I would agree especially from the 16th Century onwards until the 19th century those dealings were of the nature you describe] in the period we are discussing I don't think British people thought of Ireland in the same way as their African colonies.

Eoin

Eoinp

brianthebard wrote: »

Eoin you seem to have assumed that there was no violence involved in the granting of devoled government to Canada but there was. Secondly I don't believe it is plausible to say that Home Rule would eventually have led to an independent republic of Ireland, this was clearly not the purpose of the HR Bill. Also what reason have you for thinking the 1931 statute would have applied to a Home Rule Ireland?

Because I see no reason to believe that it would not have. Given the role Irish diplomats and officials played even under the limited Free State rule, why would we expect them to play a lesser role under a Home Rule set up?
Eoin

Eoinp

brianthebard wrote: »

Eoin you seem to have assumed that there was no violence involved in the granting of devoled government to Canada but there was. Secondly I don't believe it is plausible to say that Home Rule would eventually have led to an independent republic of Ireland, this was clearly not the purpose of the HR Bill. Also what reason have you for thinking the 1931 statute would have applied to a Home Rule Ireland?

As you pointed out I was under the mistaken impression that there was no violence relating to the granting of devolved government to Canada, I wished you'd linked out to some info, but a dig gave me a pretty good idea of what you had in mind and it is frankly, fascinating. I need to revise my view of Canadian history somewhat!

Eoin

brianthebard

Eoinp wrote: »

Because I see no reason to believe that it would not have. Given the role Irish diplomats and officials played even under the limited Free State rule, why would we expect them to play a lesser role under a Home Rule set up?
Eoin

That's just the thing you refer to 'limited Free State rule' as an example of what could be done, but the Free State was 100 times more autonomous and independent than a Home Rule Ireland would have been. You cannot infer from the experience of the Free State that Ireland would have been given similar diplomatic treatment under Home Rule.
Home Rule explicitly excluded foreign affairs as being part of the Irish parliaments jobs, even the name itself shows this.

MarchDub

Eoinp wrote: »

My comparison with the white settler colonies was not a reflection of how I view them but how the British Empire viewed them. I have no problem accepting that how these colonies came to be "white settler colonies" was through intentional or unintentional destruction of the native population.

Whatever way Britain initially dealt with Ireland [and I would agree especially from the 16th Century onwards until the 19th century those dealings were of the nature you describe] in the period we are discussing I don't think British people thought of Ireland in the same way as their African colonies.

Eoin

How does the violent destruction of a native people ever get to be described as "unintentional"? These were military assaults - and continued presence - that were involved in the establishment of British rule.

Your opinion on how the British “thought” does not seem to be based on any reference other than the fact you “think” this way. If you agree that they were anti-Irish up to the nineteenth century then why would British attitudes change suddenly in the 19th century? And what evidence do you bring to the table to support this? The British certainly treated the Irish as similar to the other colonies in that the Irish were composed of a race of people not highly developed along a Darwinian scale – this was expressed in many ways. It was reflected in literature and in the appalling "ape" cartoons so prevalent in the mainstream British media. But how anyone who has read the details of the Famine reports by the British government can claim anything but the most callous attitude to the Irish is really beyond me.

Honestly, if you think that the treatment of the Irish by the British government during the Famine signifies anything other than serious unfeeling prejudice then you are I are certainly on different wavelengths. The rambling anti-Irish Gospel inspired self-rightous narrative of Treyelyan’s report “The Irish Crisis” is sickening evidence enough of how the Irish were viewed within the British Cabinet - and Nassau Senior’s infamous comment that only one million Irish dead would not solve Ireland’s problems is proof for me of how we were viewed - and I’m not willing to put this on any scale of comparison. If you consider these to be within the bounds of how ANY people should be viewed or treated then you are I are absolutely not singing from the same hymn sheet.

Eoinp

MarchDub wrote: »

How does the violent destruction of a native people ever get to be described as "unintentional"? These were military assaults - and continued presence - that were involved in the establishment of British rule.

Your opinion on how the British “thought” does not seem to be based on any reference other than the fact you “think” this way. If you agree that they were anti-Irish up to the nineteenth century then why would British attitudes change suddenly in the 19th century? And what evidence do you bring to the table to support this? The British certainly treated the Irish as similar to the other colonies in that the Irish were composed of a race of people not highly developed along a Darwinian scale – this was expressed in many ways. It was reflected in literature and in the appalling "ape" cartoons so prevalent in the mainstream British media. But how anyone who has read the details of the Famine reports by the British government can claim anything but the most callous attitude to the Irish is really beyond me.

Honestly, if you think that the treatment of the Irish by the British government during the Famine signifies anything other than serious unfeeling prejudice then you are I are certainly on different wavelengths. The rambling anti-Irish Gospel inspired self-rightous narrative of Treyelyan’s report “The Irish Crisis” is sickening evidence enough of how the Irish were viewed within the British Cabinet - and Nassau Senior’s infamous comment that only one million Irish dead would not solve Ireland’s problems is proof for me of how we were viewed - and I’m not willing to put this on any scale of comparison. If you consider these to be within the bounds of how ANY people should be viewed or treated then you are I are absolutely not singing from the same hymn sheet.

Violent military destruction if a people would only ever be intentional. However disease spreads whether it was an intentional act or not (and sometimes it was intentional as has been documented several times, in multiple locations) and that can kill vast numbers of a people unintentionally, that is all I meant.

My argument is not that there was a blanket change in the British perception of Ireland or her people. Nor that there weren't those with truly offensive views of the Irish during the 19th century and early 20th century. You will find no end of examples of both of those. There were also Englishmen and women who did act with compassion and vigour to try and effect change during the famine admittedly not at governmental level. BUT there was a change in the 19th century in terms of how to deal with Ireland. Home Rule became an option. Also Ireland had a platform in the Westminster parliament to make its case which it did, that marks Ireland out as very different from nearly every other colony.

I'm also not saying that Ireland wasn't and isn't better off independent as I think seems to have been lost here. I'm not even saying that violence was not legitimate in this instance, rather to, restate my case, I think the same result might have been achieved without violence.

Equally it seems clear to me that some kind of Home Rule solution however limited was on the cards even without 1916. I believe that this would have allowed us to achieve even great freedom. Perhaps I am delusional, clearly ya'll think so.

And for the record I don't agree with the views you highlighted and I don't intend to try and defend them. I also, do not sign hymns!
Eoin

IIMII

Eoinp wrote: »

There are SO many reasons why this comparison is just wrong.

• First of all the nature of the "occupation" was so enormously different from the invasion and occupation of France et al in WWII.

France became part of greater Germany, an occupation is an occupation is an occupation.

• Secondly Ireland was part of Metropolitan Britain and elected representatives to the National Parliament, while we now see it as an independence movement, it was no unreasonable for British Politicians to see it as a succession movement of an integral element of the British State that had been part of a union since 1801.

You are talking about a group of politicians with a sense of entitlement unlike any that the world has ever seen. Those same politicians not unreasonably in their view saw the entire globe as an integral part of, and a resource to be exploitedby the British state

• Thirdly, Britain had shown so some willingness to consider options for home rule/self governance at least in the years before actual independence, unlike Germany

Very good of them to consider allowing self governence to an annexed people. Yet they were willing to fight us to prevent us achieving our freedom.

MarchDub

Eoinp wrote: »

Also Ireland had a platform in the Westminster parliament to make its case which it did, that marks Ireland out as very different from nearly every other colony.

Only because the Irish Parliament had been dissolved - through bribery - in 1800, because it posed a threat to the “mother country”. The influence of the [still menacingly large] disgruntled indigenous population and separatist culture was proving too much of a threat. Remember the first attempt at dissolution failed so they then bribed the corrupt members to vote to dissolve. And as for the "platform” they got - some strength that had, it led to dismal failure again and again in trying to repeal the union. The Brits did not move easily - Ireland was in such turmoil throughout the century and gave them such problems with civil disobedience [The Plan of Campaign was a successful direct hit and seriously destablilised the country] that during most of the nineteenth century the country was under Marshal Law. That turmoil is the reason why Gladstone eventually decided to consider Home Rule and not some imagined benevolent consideration - he said so in his statement to parliament. I don't know what record you are consulting on any of this but the dismal record concerning the failure of Parrnell to secure Home Rule doesn't make for anything that looks like concession.

Eoinp wrote: »

I'm also not saying that Ireland wasn't and isn't better off independent as I think seems to have been lost here. I'm not even saying that violence was not legitimate in this instance, rather to, restate my case, I think the same result might have been achieved without violence.

You can say whatever you want - it doesn't make it true or based on anything other than you own thinking. McArmalite might as well claim that he can get a date with Miss World. Same as. Sorry McA, but I don't fancy your chances.

Eoinp wrote: »

Equally it seems clear to me that some kind of Home Rule solution however limited was on the cards even without 1916. I believe that this would have allowed us to achieve even great freedom. Perhaps I am delusional, clearly ya'll think so.

Well, misinformed anyway. The cards were proving too often to be a loaded deck.

Eoinp wrote: »

And for the record I don't agree with the views you highlighted and I don't intend to try and defend them

Now you are confusing me - I highlighted your stated views, so now you are disagreeing with yourself?

Eoinp wrote: »

I also, do not sign hymns!
Eoin

Then you ought to try it - strengthens the voice.

Eoinp

MarchDub wrote: »

Now you are confusing me - I highlighted your stated views, so now you are disagreeing with yourself?

No I'm disagreeing with the virulent racism and anti-Irish posturing that you highlighted. It existed, I won't defend it I don't need to and I don't want to.

Eoin

MarchDub

Eoinp wrote: »

No I'm disagreeing with the virulent racism and anti-Irish posturing that you highlighted. It existed, I won't defend it I don't need to and I don't want to.

Eoin

Thanks - it was your use of the word highlighting that was confusing then. No problem.

Eoinp

MarchDub wrote: »

Thanks - it was your use of the word highlighting that was confusing then. No problem.

Sorry about that! Getting used to the controls, I'm pretty new to forum posting, should be better at it, I've been blogging for ages!
Eoin

Read this

MarchDub wrote: »

I think the model for Ireland that you are using is not valid. Ireland's conquest was more like that of the African colonies

Thought I should look up some of your other historical facts, and found this gem.

You ought to look up the latest anthropological DNA studies. I am afraid that your fantasy that we were taken over by Imperial Britain is somewhat blown out of the water by the fact that our DNA is shared with Vikings, Normans, Anglo-Saxons, and yes, Celts. It was a slow process of assimilation over centuries.

Such assimilation never took place in Africa. Apart from maybe in Hillbrow on a Saturday night.

brianthebard

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please don't vamp old threads like this and especially don't vamp threads with the intention of continuing/starting arguments with posters you disagree with. Mod.

Read this

brianthebard wrote: »

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please don't vamp old threads like this and especially don't vamp threads with the intention of continuing/starting arguments with posters you disagree with. Mod.

Sorry. I thought previous posts were part of the historical record. Won't do it again.

ps - are you and MarchDub related? and can I start a nepotism in Ireland thread?

brianthebard

Why did you vamp this thread again after being told not to?

Read this

You are an idiot. I was apologising for doing so.

Now was your last question retorical, or am I allowed this reply?

It appears that you have very limited views on freedom of expression.

ejmaztec

Read this wrote: »

Sorry. I thought previous posts were part of the historical record. Won't do it again.

ps - are you and MarchDub related? and can I start a nepotism in Ireland thread?

I can't resist mentioning that this is the strangest apology I ever saw on Boards.

Read this wrote: »

You are an idiot. I was apologising for doing so.

Now was your last question retorical, or am I allowed this reply?

It appears that you have very limited views on freedom of expression.

brianthebard

Read this wrote: »

Now was your last question retorical, or am I allowed this reply?

No you are not.

It appears that you have very limited views on freedom of expression.

Yes this is true. Read the charter/rules of boards for a full introduction to the rights you don't have while using this site.

BossArky

Read this wrote: »

You are an idiot.

No need for that.

Banned for a week.