What is the difference between an Irish Republican and an Irish Nationalist?

RepublicanEagle

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and we were talking about Irish politics,reunification and all that, I asked him was he a republican and he said no,but he said he was a nationalist.

What is the difference?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Its a bit wishy washy really.

Irish Republican is generally used for someone who will support armed campaign be it now or in the past. There's also ideals such as equality which would be expected of someone calling themselves a republican.

Irish Nationalist is used usually to refer to people who want a united Ireland but would never accept political violence. So its used for SDLP

Really though I'd argue most Irish nationalists are actually republicans in that they all want a 32-county republic, even if they never accept violence.

RepublicanEagle

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its a bit wishy washy really.

Irish Republican is generally used for someone who will support armed campaign be it now or in the past. There's also ideals such as equality which would be expected of someone calling themselves a republican.

Irish Nationalist is used usually to refer to people who want a united Ireland but would never accept political violence. So its used for SDLP

Really though I'd argue most Irish nationalists are actually republicans in that they all want a 32-county republic, even if they never accept violence.

But what about republicans who do not support political violence?

A_Border_Bandit

It depends on the context really.

Fianna Fail go by "The republican party" and that is grand, whilst Sinn Fein AKA "Irish Republican Army" are considered scumbags for following true to the origins of FF.



I think.

RepublicanEagle

A_Border_Bandit wrote: »

It depends on the context really.

Fianna Fail go by "The republican party" and that is grand, whilst Sinn Fein AKA "Irish Republican Army" are considered scumbags for following true to the origins of FF.



I think.

If you were to define the two terms, what would the definitions be, in a general context and also politically?

Bottle_of_Smoke

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

But what about republicans who do not support political violence?

That's kind of the point. They'd just be republicans. Personally I would define anyone who aspires to a 32-county republic as a republican even if they condemned every armed rebel as far back as the participants of the 1916 rising.

However others would say you're not a true republican unless you accept the right of Irishman to resist foreign rule with with armed struggle. Others would even say you're not a republican unless you aspire to a socialist republic envisaged by James Connolly

Wolfe Tone

In reality a nationalist would be someone who would not be as motivated to get a UI as a republican(ie no violence) although they are pretty similar.

Although its hard to really say what a republican is, someone who wants a 32 county republic? Someone who wants a 32 county socialist republic? Someone who is willing to use violence?

Huge pissing contests on certain republican sites as to what is a republican(Im a bigger republican than you! How can you call yourself a republican?) Awful stench of elitism from some. Personally I would share the same view as Bottle of Smoke, you want a UI, you are a republican.

RepublicanEagle

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

In reality a nationalist would be someone who would not be as motivated to get a UI as a republican(ie no violence) although they are pretty similar.

Although its hard to really say what a republican is, someone who wants a 32 county republic? Someone who wants a 32 county socialist republic? Someone who is willing to use violence?

Huge pissing contests on certain republican sites as to what is a republican(Im a bigger republican than you! How can you call yourself a republican?) Awful stench of elitism from some. Personally I would share the same view as Bottle of Smoke, you want a UI, you are a republican.

People seem to think that being a nationalist makes you a republican, and vice versa.Not true whatsoever.Nationalists who want to see a united Ireland does not make them a republican by default.

Wolfe Tone

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

People seem to think that being a nationalist makes you a republican, and vice versa.Not true whatsoever.Nationalists who want to see a united Ireland does not make them a republican by default.

Ok, define the two then.

RepublicanEagle

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Ok, define the two then.

Irish Nationalism refers to any manifestation whatsoever of national sentiment,culturally;demanding autonomy from Britain but be it complete independence or less; and sometimes for secessionist movements committed to constitutional methods.To put it bluntly, nationalists support any means to promote and bolster all aspects of Irish heritage,from language,culture to political movements.

Irish Republicanism only refers to the belief that Ireland should be a republic.

So ,being a republican does not equate to being a nationalist, and it is irritating when I hear these self-proclaimed and "bar-stool" republicans,(for example) preaching about violence/f**k the brits/prods/up the ra describing themselves as "nationalists" or "patriots".

KeithAFC

They are all the same to me. I don't see any difference.

chughes

I'm Irish and I would consider myself a republican but not in the narrow sense of "Irish Republican" as it has become accepted.

To me a republican is someone who does not believe in a monarchy or any sort of hereditary ruling title. In theory, anyone born in this country should be able to aspire to the highest political offices. A true republic should be able to cater for people of various ideologies and not be dominated by one.

To me, Irish Republicanism has become associated with a particular mindset of which the dominant one is Brits Out. Other traits would include being associated with Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein, The GAA, and paying lipservice to the Catholic church. This form of "republicanism" is, in my opinion, a corruption of what true republicanism is.

Bottle_of_Smoke

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

People seem to think that being a nationalist makes you a republican, and vice versa.Not true whatsoever.Nationalists who want to see a united Ireland does not make them a republican by default.

Nationalist no, Irish nationalist yes.

Nick Griffin of the BNP is a UK nationalist, but not a republican because he's happy with the UK being a monarchy.

Richard Dawkins is a UK republican because he wants to see the end of the monarchy,

So I really can't see how you could be an Irish nationalist and not an Irish republican.

To really mess things up there's a unionist journalist for the newsletter who is actually a "unionist republican" - he wants Northern Ireland to remain in the UK but wants the monarchy status removed!

RepublicanEagle

KeithAFC wrote: »

They are all the same to me. I don't see any difference.

If that is the case, kindly remove your head from your colon.

RepublicanEagle

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Nationalist no, Irish nationalist yes.

Nick Griffin of the BNP is a UK nationalist, but not a republican because he's happy with the UK being a monarchy.

Richard Dawkins is a UK republican because he wants to see the end of the monarchy,

So I really can't see how you could be an Irish nationalist and not an Irish republican.

To really mess things up there's a unionist journalist for the newsletter who is actually a "unionist republican" - he wants Northern Ireland to remain in the UK but wants the monarchy status removed!

I would love to see the Gaelic nobility prior to the plantations restored,can't see it happening though.

KeithAFC

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

If that is the case, kindly remove your head from your colon.

They are one in the same. Both have the same goals and so on.

chughes

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I would love to see the Gaelic nobility prior to the plantations restored,can't see it happening though.

With all due respect, RepublicanEagle, I really don't see the point of reintroducing a ruling elite to this country.

A hereditary ruling class would prevent people of talent and aspiration maximising their potential as their route to the top would be blocked because of being born into the wrong class of people.

RepublicanEagle

KeithAFC wrote: »

They are one in the same. Both have the same goals and so on.

No they don't Keith, that has already been clarified, feel free delve more into the subject, there is plenty of material out there.

RepublicanEagle

chughes wrote: »

With all due respect, RepublicanEagle, I really don't see the point of reintroducing a ruling elite to this country.

A hereditary ruling class would prevent people of talent and aspiration maximising their potential as their route to the top would be blocked because of being born into the wrong class of people.

I would disagree, it hasn't stopped people of talent and aspiration in constitutional monarchies. The Brehon system was actually more fairer compared to English law before the conquest.

pablomakaveli

I'd consider myself a nationalist but i'm against a UI because i think it would do more damage to this country than good.

I don't see why people think wanting a UI needs to be a requisite to being a nationalist.

Wolfe Tone

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'd consider myself a nationalist but i'm against a UI because i think it would do more damage to this country than good.

I don't see why people think wanting a UI needs to be a requisite to being a nationalist.

I suppose, I would more readily associate nationalists with the north, they would want a UI.

pablomakaveli

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I suppose, I would more readily associate nationalists with the north, they would want a UI.

A nationalist in the North would want a UI but they are in a different situation.

Being a nationalist in the republic doesn't necessarily mean wanting a UI.

But if we're talking about nationalists and republicans in NI than i'd usually view the republican as more extremist in their beliefs and nationalists as more moderate.

maccored

it complicates even more when the UI side is brought in, considering many people dont seem to have a grasp of what people mean when they express a wish for a united ireland.

the usual reply is 'the south cant look after the north' rather than the more realistic timescale of a few hundred years turnaround time and a completely new organised government for the whole country.

deise go deo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'd consider myself a nationalist but i'm against a UI because i think it would do more damage to this country than good.

I don't see why people think wanting a UI needs to be a requisite to being a nationalist.

You would be a 26 county Nationalist then, Which is the modern day lead on from 'Free Stater'

Most Nationalist's would consider the whole Island as the 'Nation' and as such a UI is one of the main aims of nationalism.

KeithAFC

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'd consider myself a nationalist but i'm against a UI because i think it would do more damage to this country than good.

I don't see why people think wanting a UI needs to be a requisite to being a nationalist.

You think the UVF would strike again in a UI?

pablomakaveli

KeithAFC wrote: »

You think the UVF would strike again in a UI?

Maybe but theres also the financial damage as well as the inevitable concessions on our culture, flag and anthem being made to Unionists which i don't want to see.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

You think the UVF would strike again in a UI?

No one is afraid of the UVF or any gang of sectarian murderers Keith, no matter how much you try to big them up.

RepublicanEagle

KeithAFC wrote: »

You think the UVF would strike again in a UI?

The Dublin-Monaghan bombings because of British collaboration,so even with reunification, they would not be able to pull such a thing off as no one would collaborate them plus the fact that they did have the level of organisation and professionalism the PIRA had, I would see a joint-security effort with British intelligence to prevent anything, as we have seen with the lockdown of dissident republican activity.

Nobody cares for the UVF/UDA anyway.They have never proven themselves to be capable of anything "sophisticated"...only sectarian violence., however I am not condoning what the other side did either.

KeithAFC

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Maybe but theres also the financial damage as well as the inevitable concessions on our culture, flag and anthem being made to Unionists which i don't want to see.

So you don't want anything to do with Unionists? Ok.

Wolfe Tone, i think many people would be afraid actually.

KeithAFC

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

The Dublin-Monaghan bombings because of British collaboration,so even with reunification, they would not be able to pull such a thing off as no one would collaborate them, I would see a joint-security effort with British intelligence to prevent anything, as we have seen with the lockdown of dissident republican activity.

Myth. The UVF had more than enough to pull off such a bombing.

RepublicanEagle

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Maybe but theres also the financial damage as well as the inevitable concessions on our culture, flag and anthem being made to Unionists which i don't want to see.

I would disagree with that statement,we would have the flag of the four provinces,nothing wrong with that,there are plenty of Irish songs that would be worthy of a national anthem,and they would not threaten our culture,only enhance it given the right management.