Ireland's Political Identity Crisis

benway

K-9 wrote: »

WW11 is completely irrelevant.

Not sure about that. Fair enough on the conscription point, but in remaining part of the empire, neutrality on the empire's war wouldn't have been an option, and there certainly would have been consequences.

czx

benway wrote: »

They had it in the UK during WWII. That's one advantage for the man in the streets of independent Ireland.

being indifferent to Nazism?

Galwayguy35

KeithAFC wrote: »

This thread is very interesting for a number of reasons.

A lot of talk about Irish freedom but I thought the people in 1916 fought for a 32 county Irish Republic? That didn't happen. So what is this freedom people talk about? If you are a Irish Republican, you can't say you are free because you don't believe that the 26 counties are legit.

So these vague terms in terms of 1916 don't have a lot of reality behind them because the true meaning of freedom for the 1916 rebels wasn't achieved. So why do the Irish government celebrate it?

Irish Republicans along with others voted in the GFA give up a claim on the north for the sake of the peace process. We now have the aspiration of a United Ireland to be achieved by peaceful means. Dissident Republicans dont recognise this but its not correct to lump everyone in together like you have done. And asking why we should mark the occasion of 1916 is like asking your tradition why they celebrate the 12th of July is it not?

Happy Monday

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Irish Republicans along with others voted in the GFA give up a claim on the north for the sake of the peace process.

Irish Republicans voted for the GFA because you realised that the British were not going away you know!

The IRA had been defeated by the Army and the Loyalists.

Any poll you care to look at today shows over 70% of people in the North wishing to remain in the her majesty's realm the United Kingdom.

Richard

Nodin wrote: »

A republican. I've aways oppossed imperialism and supported self determination. I didn't think what was done here in its name was justifiable, nor what was done elsewhere, regardless of who did it.

What is my position supposed to be, by the way?

I think he's alluding to the fact that a nation isn't necessarily defined by geographical or sea boundaries. How do you decide who gets self-determination? All of an island collectively, or otherwise?

Obviously republicans see themselves in an all-island context, but if you go to New Zealand, you'll see two (main) islands, neither of which is clamouring for independence from the other. And several islands, other than Ireland have more than one nation state on them. Should self-determination be applied collectively to those islands, or should common sense be applied,mas in the case of Ireland?


New Guinea, Borneo, Hispaniola, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, Timor, Sebatik, Usedom, Saint Martin

Richard

Happy Monday wrote: »

Irish Republicans voted for the GFA because you realised that British wasn't going away you know!

The IRA had been defeated by the Army and the Loyalists.

I don't think that is a correct viewing of events. I don't think the Loyalists defeated anyone. Secondly both the IRA and Loyalists got sick of all the killing that wasn't achieving anything and wanted an alternative that they could sell to their supporters. Remember all the triumphant flag waving from IRA supporters in 1994 when they called a ceasefire? That wasn't a triumph at all, but they wanted to be seen celebrating to make it appear to be one.

Richard

Happy Monday wrote: »

Any poll you care to look at today shows over 70% of people in the North wishing to remain in the her majesty's realm the United Kingdom.

Don't appear too smug over this, a significant minority in that 70% don't feel British, aren't big followers of "Her Majesty" and mainly want to stay in the UK because it's a better option for them personally. That may change, although there probably isn't much of a chance of that any time soon...

Nodin

Richard wrote: »

I think he's alluding to the fact that a nation isn't necessarily defined by geographical or sea boundaries. How do you decide who gets self-determination? All of an island collectively, or otherwise?

Obviously republicans see themselves in an all-island context, but if you go to New Zealand, you'll see two (main) islands, neither of which is clamouring for independence from the other. And several islands, other than Ireland have more than one nation state on them. Should self-determination be applied collectively to those islands, or should common sense be applied,mas in the case of Ireland?


New Guinea, Borneo, Hispaniola, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, Timor, Sebatik, Usedom, Saint Martin

....well as the discussion is related to independence, it's logical that those who want it should have it. The problem of the north was the fact it contained two communities in the geographical area.

Happy Monday

Richard wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

Any poll you care to look at today shows over 70% of people in the North wishing to remain in the her majesty's realm the United Kingdom.

Don't appear too smug over this, a significant minority in that 70% don't feel British, aren't big followers of "Her Majesty" and mainly want to stay in the UK because it's a better option for them personally. That may change, although there probably isn't much of a chance of that any time soon...

Should NI join a basket case economy which has gone cap in hand to the IMF?

A state which from its creation to its possible demise has ignored the wishes of Catholics in NI.

The IRA spent 25 years killing people refusing any and all forms of compromise with anyone and then accepts everything they opposed. Men getting older and realising the game was up.

The dynamic you're missing is of younger middle class Catholics wanting to remain in the UK - Rory McIlroy anyone?

johnnyskeleton

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You are right OP, i said this on another forum a last year and was attacked left right and centre that i was living in the past etc. I think the people who died for this countries freedom should be honoured. The Americans got their Independence in 1776 and have a day set aside for this. Try telling a yank that they shouldnt do this and you would be a brave person. Even the orangemen have a holiday for king billy. Why shouldnt we?

If we want an independence day, how about the 21st January, 6th December or the 21st December? Those dates are far more important dates in Irish history because they represent the proclamation of our republic by our elected representatives, our actual independence from the uk and the formalisation of our republic.

Of corse, so called republicans (that is, the people who don't recognise our republic) have a very skewed view of history and choose to ignore these dates and the events they stand for. These republicans believe, in a very anti-republican way, that violence and not the democratic will of the people is the true path to nationhood.

So if we celebrate anything, let's celebrate true acts of nationhood, not bloodshed. To commemorate the rising as our independence day is like the Americans celebratingthe battle of Saratoga or some such. Plus, a Easter Monday changes each year, it would be administratively difficult.

Bravo!

Richard

Nodin wrote: »

....well as the discussion is related to independence, it's logical that those who want it should have it. The problem of the north was the fact it contained two communities in the geographical area.

Yes, but my point is, how do you define the area in question? If 51% of Cork wanted independence, should they get it? Or 51% of Cork City? How do we define these things?

The problem in NI wasnt that it contains to communities, was that in terms of self-determination, nationalists often saw themselves as being part of the majority in Ireland, whilst unionists saw themselves as being the majority within Northern Ireland.

Richard

Happy Monday wrote: »

Should NI join a basket case economy which has gone cap in hand to the IMF?

A state which from its creation to its possible demise has ignored the wishes of Catholics in NI.

The IRA spent 25 years killing people refusing any and all forms of compromise with anyone and then accepts everything they opposed. Men getting older and realising the game was up.

Of course not, but the Republic's financial woes won't last forever. Look at it another way. I suspect that most Protestants who want to stay part of the UK want to do so because of heritage and identity. Most Catholics who want to stay part of the UK want to do so for economic reasons (and also because they know a UI would lead to instability - at least in the short term).

My point is that Catholic support for the union shouldn't be taken for granted - Peter Robinson alluded to this recently. Triumphant flag-waving and going on about "Her Majesty's Realm" won't get much Catholic support.

I'm not here to defend the IRA, but let's not forget that loyalists came to the conclusion that their violence wasn't achieving their aims, either.

The dynamic you're missing is of younger middle class Catholics wanting to remain in the UK - Rory McIlroy anyone?

If it became clear that NI was better off as part of a United Ireland, many Catholic "unionists" would vote for it. Rory McIlroy may be an exception.

Happy Monday

Richard wrote: »

Of course not, but the Republic's financial woes won't last forever. Look at it another way. I suspect that most Protestants who want to stay part of the UK want to do so because of heritage and identity. Most Catholics who want to stay part of the UK want to do so for economic reasons (and also because they know a UI would lead to instability - at least in the short term.

And political reasons for Catholics.
They have far more access to the levers of power in NI than they would ever be granted in the South - Tom McGurk alluded to this on a Newstalk podcast with George Hook recently.

No side has a monopoly on flag waving.
There is plenty of that in the South as well.
Even now people down south refuse to accept the British ethos of Northern Irish Protestants. No attempt has ever been made to attract them into an inclusive Ireland.

later12

Nodin wrote: »

Those who led that Rebellion were in the main dead by independence, if you might recall.

Yes, I appreciate that. I was talking about those who partook be they leaders or of lesser rank - many of whom went on to be Ministers and TDs, four of whom went on to be Chairmen of the Provisional Government / Taoisigh (two of them particularly disastrous), and the likes of Rory O'Connor who never again brought anything but ruin to the state.

benway

czx wrote: »

being indifferent to Nazism?

Seems like plenty round here are indifferent to British colonial oppression, so why not? After all, there's no huge qualitative difference between the "great empires", only questions of degree, and of winners writing the history.

later12

benway wrote: »

After all, there's no huge qualitative difference between the "great empires"

Oh come on.

Nazi Germany- the killing of up to 15 million men women and children belonging to the 'Untermensch' - a killing machine on an industrial scale

--vs--

Ireland in the early 20th century - a country characterised by unprecedented agrarian and urban reform, with strong local, democratic government and further political representation in London; and Catholics and Protestants alike serving at the highest political and administrative offices in the state; free state education similar to elsewhere in Britain with Irish people now enjoying their own universities, and all-in-all a very peaceful society for the average Irishman in the street or behind the plough relative to his British counterparts from the turn of the 20th century up until 1916.

There is no serious comparison.

benway

later12 wrote: »

There is no serious comparison.

Yes, there is. As late as the mid-50s and early 60s, Britain ran a system of concentration camps in Kenya, millions detained, hundreds of thousands killed.

For untermensch, read "natives".

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Britains-Gulag-Brutal-Empire-Kenya/dp/022407363X

bwatson

Richard wrote: »

I don't think that is a correct viewing of events. I don't think the Loyalists defeated anyone. Secondly both the IRA and Loyalists got sick of all the killing that wasn't achieving anything and wanted an alternative that they could sell to their supporters. Remember all the triumphant flag waving from IRA supporters in 1994 when they called a ceasefire? That wasn't a triumph at all, but they wanted to be seen celebrating to make it appear to be one.

The IRA were defeated by British intelligence. They accepted the ceasefires because by that time, just about every ASU had a British agent in it. Not that it is much of an achievement to inflitrate groups such as the IRA and the UVF when for the last 40 years you have been up against the Soviet spy machine.

Loyalist groups didn't beat the IRA. They were just bands of criminals too. Shooting people rarely works in a counter insurgency war. Turning them, however, can completely incapacitate an organisation.

For what its worth I am hugely grateful that MI5 and the like managed to blunt both sides and make Northern Ireland a more peaceful place, relatively speaking at least.

Happy Monday

benway wrote: »

later12 wrote: »

There is no serious comparison.

Yes, there is. As late as the mid-50s and early 60s, Britain ran a system of concentration camps in Kenya, millions detained, hundreds of thousands killed.

For untermensch, read "natives".

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Britains-Gulag-Brutal-Empire-Kenya/dp/022407363X

You'd wonder why Kenya remains part of the Commonwealth then wouldn't you?

tayto lover

While many brave men and women took up arms in a vain struggle to help free our country from British rule in 1916 the last number of Governments have conspired to hand it over to Germany without firing a shot in it's defence.

They should not be allowed anywhere near the 2016 commemorations.

That's my view and i'm not politically minded at all.

Galwayguy35

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If we want an independence day, how about the 21st January, 6th December or the 21st December? Those dates are far more important dates in Irish history because they represent the proclamation of our republic by our elected representatives, our actual independence from the uk and the formalisation of our republic.

Of corse, so called republicans (that is, the people who don't recognise our republic) have a very skewed view of history and choose to ignore these dates and the events they stand for. These republicans believe, in a very anti-republican way, that violence and not the democratic will of the people is the true path to nationhood.

So if we celebrate anything, let's celebrate true acts of nationhood, not bloodshed. To commemorate the rising as our independence day is like the Americans celebratingthe battle of Saratoga or some such. Plus, a Easter Monday changes each year, it would be administratively difficult.

I would have no problem with any of those dates, i never said that a day that would be set aside to mark independence would have to be on Easter Monday. But i would like to see all the men and women who fought oppression down through the ages honoured on such an occasion i.e 1798, 1916 and in the War of Independence. Its very easy 96 years later sitting at our laptops to knock people who gave their own lives to try to free Ireland in 1916.

Galwayguy35

Happy Monday wrote: »

Irish Republicans voted for the GFA because you realised that the British were not going away you know!

The IRA had been defeated by the Army and the Loyalists.

Any poll you care to look at today shows over 70% of people in the North wishing to remain in the her majesty's realm the United Kingdom.

Im going to bite my tongue here any say nothing...

Happy Monday

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

Irish Republicans voted for the GFA because you realised that the British were not going away you know!

The IRA had been defeated by the Army and the Loyalists.

Any poll you care to look at today shows over 70% of people in the North wishing to remain in the her majesty's realm the United Kingdom.

Im going to bite my tongue here any say nothing...

Please don't - opine please opine!

Nodin

Richard wrote: »

Yes, but my point is, how do you define the area in question? .............

With great difficulty, as then and now shows. Certainly taking Kosovo as an example theres one or two areas whose inclusion in the new state seem bound to create trouble.

benway

bwatson wrote: »

For what its worth I am hugely grateful that MI5 and the like managed to blunt both sides and make Northern Ireland a more peaceful place, relatively speaking at least.

So, British intelligence were noble peace-keepers in the whole thing? I think Michael Finnucane, for one, would beg to differ

Happy Monday wrote: »

You'd wonder why Kenya remains part of the Commonwealth then wouldn't you?

It's an interesting story, and beyond the scope if this thread ... but, simply put, the "pipeline" of concentration camps killed or neutralised anti-Brutish elements, particularly within the Kikuyu tribe. At the same time, loyalist elements of that same tribe were granted huge material and political advantage, such that they've been pretty much running the country ever since.

Happy Monday

benway wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

You'd wonder why Kenya remains part of the Commonwealth then wouldn't you?

It's an interesting story, and beyond the scope if this thread ... but, simply put, the "pipeline" of concentration camps killed or neutralised anti-Brutish elements, particularly within the Kikuyu tribe. At the same time, loyalist elements of that same tribe were granted huge material and political advantage, such that they've been pretty much running the country ever since.

And this applies right across the Commonwealth countries I take it?

Ireland is one of few exceptions not to be part of the Commonwealth in reality.

bwatson

benway wrote: »

So, British intelligence were noble peace-keepers in the whole thing? I think Michael Finnucane, for one, would beg to differ

No, and I don't really care that they weren't. I was simply stating that they were the force which neutralized the threat of multiple terror organisations through successfully infiltrating them.

I don't know where you got that from in truth!

benway

Happy Monday wrote: »

And this applies right across the Commonwealth countries I take it?

Ireland is one of few exceptions not to be part of the Commonwealth in reality.

Well, Ireland and Kenya are the two I know best, I and I see striking similarities in the tactics applied by colonial forces in both instances. For example, there's a very interesting parallell between the Kikuyu "Home Guard" loyalists and the Mau Mau rebels, the Free Staters and the IRA. Difference being that the British left Kenya from a position of strength, with Mau Mau, utterly destroyed, while the republican side managed to regroup here, to some extent.

While I'm at it, Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of independent Kenya, is a fascinating character - Oxford educated, alleged leader of the rebellion, despite the fact that he was only back in Kenya for a couple of years, teaching at a Kikuyu school, before being taken into detention for pretty much the entire length of the rebellion. He played a tribal chief in a British propaganda piece of the day, also starring Paul Robeson, the latter of whom was apparently extremely unhappy at being duped into taking part in a paen to the white man's burden: Sanders of the River.

It's interesting that Zimbabwe was raised earlier, I've been there, and I can't really see a huge difference, in terms of massive corruption, tribalism, cronyism, brutality and arbitrary rule between Mugabe and the likes of Kenyatta or especially Yoweri Museveni in Uganda. Seems to me that Mugabe earned himself hate figure status by daring to challenge the entrenched privilege of the white settler community, something which few other post-colonial leaders have done.

But, without meaning to over-reach, I think it's a reasonable assumption that tactics of divide and rule, including a defined, hierarchical class structure, arbitrary privilege, and instances of extreme brutality towards "problem" populations can reasonably be expected in the de-colonised empire. After all, it's how Britain itself is organised.

Ireland, for all its faults, achieved a greater degree of independence than most, which may be one reason as to why we're not part of the commonwealth. Even more than 1916, I regard the adoption of Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937 as a key milestone, worthy of celebration, together with leaving the commonwealth.

After all, why should we even acknowledge the Queen of England as any kind of political authority, simply by dint of her birth "right"?

Clearly, there are many in this country who hold a residual loyalty, or vague fondness for British rule, finding it hard to credit the extent of the Niall Ferguson style revisionism and nostalgia for empire that I'm seeing here.

Getting back on topic, I think that 1916 is worth commemorating primarily as a reminder that a true republic will not be won without a struggle, and that we are a long way from fulfilling the republican ideals on which this nation was founded.

Kinski

benway wrote: »

.Ireland, for all its faults, achieved a greater degree of independence than most, which may be one reason as to why we're not part of the commonwealth. Even more than 1916, I regard the adoption of Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937 as a key milestone, worthy of celebration, together with leaving the commonwealth.

Just out of curiosity, why do you regard the adoption of the current constitution as something worth celebrating? I've heard a couple of legal-types express the opinion that the original Free State constitution was a very impressive document. Neither elaborated much on that, but I got the impression they thought that DeValera's govt replaced a constitution that didn't need replacing (and replaced it with one which stamped a more Catholic identity on the State.)

LordSutch

paky wrote: »

the 1916 Rising encapsulated the entire struggle for Irish freedom in that it was the turning point of a 700 year struggle. it was not just a week of fighting, it was the pinacle of a 700 year struggle against english/british imperialism, to list the casualties as being insignificant is missing the point entirely.

Utter tosh. Most Irish people were very happy with their political system in 1916, and most Irish people were against the rising & those who perpetrated it. In 1916 most Irish people were more worried about their loved ones (massive IRISH casualties) on the Western front than ransacking Dublin on a whim, and its only retrospectively that the Rising has been given a place of honour in Irish history books, as I say - At that time "Easter 1916" the rising was not approved of, or supported by the Irish people. 1918 was another year, and another story . . . . . . .

Sunnyisland

Lord Sutch wrote: »

Utter tosh. Most Irish people were very happy with their political system in 1916, and most Irish people were against the rising & those who perpetrated it. In 1916 most Irish people were more worried about their loved ones (massive IRISH casualties) on the Western front than ransacking Dublin on a whim, and its only retrospectively that the Rising has been given a place of honour in Irish history books, as I say - At that time "Easter 1916" the rising was not approved of, or supported by the Irish people. 1918 was another year, and another story . . . . . . .

One cant pick out a one week in Ireland's history comment on it and say it has nothing to do with the following or preceding years/weeks, If one is to only concentrate on the military defeat of the rebels the purpose of their insurrection is missed, as they always knew a military victory was unlikely if not impossible. As something is a success if its purpose is achieved, the huge increase in support for Sinn Fein at the 1918 election achieved many of the dreams of the 1916 rebels, by endorsing the idea of a republic and radicalising public opinion on Irish nationalism. Although the Easter Rising ended in defeat in April 1916, by December 1918 it appears to have been victorious.

Eggy Baby!

There will be a huge hubbub about it in 2016, on the centennial.

benway

LordSutch wrote: »

Most Irish people were very happy with their political system in 1916

Say what?

There's simply no way you can justify that statement. For one thing the Irish Party's hegemony was premised on their ability to deliver home rule. A substantial change to the political system, don't you think? Hardly indicative of an electorate revelling in Westminster's enlightened rule.

When it became clear that the British establishment had no intention of granting home rule, this ushered in violent revolution. There was clearly a public demand for change - or how else do you propose to explain the fact that Sinn Féin, out of the ashes of the rising, swept the boards in the 1918 election?

More Niall Ferguson style love of a lost empire revisionism / fantasy.

benway

benway wrote: »

Say what?

There's simply no way you can justify that statement. For one thing the Irish Party's hegemony was premised on their ability to deliver home rule. A substantial change to the political system, don't you think? Hardly indicative of an electorate revelling in Westminster's enlightened rule.

When it became clear that the British establishment had no intention of granting home rule, this ushered in violent revolution. There was clearly a public demand for change - or how else do you propose to explain the fact that Sinn Féin, out of the ashes of the rising, swept the boards in the 1918 election?

More Niall Ferguson style love of a lost empire revisionism / fantasy.

You could be off the mark completely with the point relating to Irish people being unhappy with their political system in 1916. It wasn't a new idea then, and it certainly isn't new today to see local problems and then attribute cause to Johnny Foreigner. Then, it was "It's obviously the brits fault", now "It's all Europes fault". People always say that the solution to many problems is more localization of government. Look where that has gotten us!


I would imagine the ideals of nationality and rule to be a slight bit more arbitrary than people are making out.

benway

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

You could be off the mark completely with the point relating to Irish people being unhappy with their political system in 1916. It wasn't a new idea then, and it certainly isn't new today to see local problems and then attribute cause to Johnny Foreigner.

Weak argument.

There's a reasonable inference to be drawn, in circumstances where a party that had been demanding, as their signature policy position, a substantial change to the political system - home rule - had dominated the political scene for the previous thirty years, to be supplanted by a more militant version of the same following a violent insurrection, that the public wanted home rule, or more.

A further reasonable inference may be drawn that the Irish electorate were unhappy with the political arrangement as it stood. Why vote for the Irish Party / Home Rule party / Sinn Féin otherwise?

Whether this was grounded on practical considerations, anti-British sentiment, unthinking nationalism, or misattribution of blame for domestic problems is irrelevant - the point is that all was not well in the Union, the Irish people wanted out, to a greater or lesser extent.

Similarly, if a a Euro-sceptic party dominated the political scene for 30 years, I'd accept that the Irish people wanted to renegotiate their relationship with Europe. National self-determination, anyone?

But some people seem to view the British Empire through such rose-tinted specs, for whatever reason, that they can't accept that the rising represented the extreme fringe of a popular movement, rather than being an aberration.

benway

benway wrote: »

Weak argument.

There's a reasonable inference to be drawn that, where a party that had been demanding, as their signature policy position, a substantial change to the political system - home rule - had dominated the political scene for the previous thirty years, to be supplanted by a more militant version of the same following a violent insurrection, that the public wanted home rule, or more.

A further reasonable inference may be drawn that the Irish electorate were unhappy with the political arrangement as it stood. Why vote for the Irish Party / Home Rule party / Sinn Féin otherwise?

Whether this was grounded on practical considerations, anti-British sentiment, unthinking nationalism, or misattribution of blame for domestic problems is irrelevant - the point is that all was not well in the Union, the Irish people wanted out, to a greater or lesser extent.

Similarly, if a a Euro-sceptic party dominated the political scene for 30 years, I'd accept that the Irish people wanted to renegotiate their relationship with Europe. National self-determination, anyone?

But some people seem to view the British Empire through such rose-tinted specs, for whatever reason, that they can't accept that the rising represented the extreme fringe of a popular movement, rather than being an aberration.

I can see where you're missing the point. Simply put, you're throwing 30 years of political history, and massively popular political initiatives (Land Reform etc) and defining what was the only specifically Irish party worth voting for. Much of this is due to Parnell's masterful leadership. Had he organised and led the Irish Catholic Unionist party I'm sure he would have been just as successful. Look at what happened to the party when he was gone.

The political scene is an ever changing machine, where maneuvering is everything. My point is that you're being overly simplistic - overly black and white. I would doubt, were you to speak to an Irish person from January 1916, that they would share your exact opinion on Britain.

benway

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I would doubt, were you to speak to an Irish person from January 1916, that they would share your exact opinion on Britain.

Let's see, you'd rather have a hypothetical discussion involving us projecting our own biases on a man on the Sackville Street omnibus, circa 1916, than deal with the facts?

I wouldn't presume to know what ordinary people were thinking, it's nigh on impossible, from this remove, to cut through the propaganda emanating from both sides.

But I know for a fact what they'd been doing. They'd been voting, en masse, for the Home Rule Party, pre-Parnell, and once it had mutated in to the Irish Party. These parties proposed Home Rule as their key policy position. Incontrovertible fact.

"Oh, but they had no other parties to vote for, and sure were only voting for Parnell anyway"? Is that all you've got? Really? How do you explain the continued dominance of candidates demanding Home Rule after his death? It was common position between Redmondites and Dillonites, the only issue was one of degree. And how do you explain the fact that the Irish electorate, presumably including many people who had previously voted for the Home Rule and Irish parties, went on to overwhelmingly support Sinn Féin in 1918?

So, the Home Rule Party wasn't really about home rule? Nonsense argument.

As far as I'll get into the realms of subjectivity is to suggest that the Land League was only necessary because of spectacular exploitation and mismanagement by the colonial administration. They created the issue, in my view, and I think the evidence bears me out.

In any event, the democratically expressed will of the Irish people made the sum and total of zero difference to the British establishment - even when the Liberals made moves in that direction, they were thwarted by the House of Lords.

We will never know whether the end of WWI would have resulted in meaningful Home Rule. It's clear, by that stage, that public opinion had moved beyond the point where even Home Rule would have been acceptable, but it's impossible to tell with certainty whether things had already reached this point by 1914, or 1916.

Whether the Rising had massive popular support as it occurred is difficult to say, equally, but we can say for certain that 200,000 Irish men joined the Volunteers around this time, if that isn't a mass movement supporting a redefined relationship with the British Empire, I don't know what is.

That's 200,000 Irish men who showed a tacit willingness to resort to force in pursuance of independence for their country, whether in the form of Home Rule or otherwise. 200,000 Irish men who, if they didn't outright support the rising, at the very least were fellow travellers in the movement, with the only question being one of tactics.

I'm finding it hard to credit that anyone would attempt to deny the fact that the popular demand for independence, in whatever form, had been boiling over for a decades prior to the rising.

benway

benway wrote: »

Let's see, you'd rather have a hypothetical discussion involving us projecting our own biases on a man on the Sackville Street omnibus, circa 1916, than deal with the facts?

I wouldn't presume to know what ordinary people were thinking, it's nigh on impossible, from this remove, to cut through the propaganda emanating from both sides.

But I know for a fact what they'd been doing. They'd been voting, en masse, for the Home Rule Party, pre-Parnell, and once it had mutated in to the Irish Party. These parties proposed Home Rule as their key policy position. Incontrovertible fact.

"Oh, but they had no other parties to vote for, and sure were only voting for Parnell anyway"? Is that all you've got? Really? How do you explain the continued dominance of candidates demanding Home Rule after his death? It was common position between Redmondites and Dillonites, the only issue was one of degree. And how do you explain the fact that the Irish electorate, presumably including many people who had previously voted for the Home Rule and Irish parties, went on to overwhelmingly support Sinn Féin in 1918?

So, the Home Rule Party wasn't really about home rule? Nonsense argument.

As far as I'll get into the realms of subjectivity as I'm going to go is to suggest that the Land League was only necessary because of spectacular exploitation and mismanagement by the colonial administration. They created the issue, in my view, and I think the evidence bears me out.

In any event, the democratically expressed will of the Irish people made the sum and total of zero difference to the British establishment - even when the Liberals made moves in that direction, they were thwarted by the House of Lords.

We will never know whether the end of WWI would have resulted in meaningful Home Rule. It's clear, by that stage, that public opinion had moved beyond the point where even Home Rule would have been acceptable, but it's impossible to tell with certainty whether things had already reached this point by 1914, or 1916.

Whether the Rising had massive popular support as it occurred is difficult to say, equally, but we can say for certain that 200,000 Irish men joined the Volunteers around this time, if that isn't a mass movement supporting a redefined relationship with the British Empire, I don't know what is.

That's 200,000 Irish men who showed a tacit willingness to resort to force in pursuance of independence for their country, whether in the form of Home Rule or otherwise. 200,000 Irish men who, if they didn't outright support the rising, at the very least were fellow travellers in the movement, with the only question being one of tactics.

I'm finding it hard to credit that anyone would attempt to deny the fact that the popular demand for independence, in whatever form, had been boiling over for a decades prior to the rising.

I get where you're coming from in that the elementary evidence certainly shows a massive support for a home rule government, of course we must remember that we would have remained as part of the United Kingdom once HR had been implemented.

On your point RE: Sinn Fein in 1918, the world in 1918 was a vastly different place from pre-1914. Nationalism was on the rise, massively, across Europe. I don't think I need to go into the details here, you know the craic well enough it seems!

I'm just saying, you could easily apply Ireland's situation, and contrast it with that of the Confederate States in 19th century America. All of your reasons for why the Irish cause was just, can just as easily be applied to the Civil War South.

As for the disregard shown towards the Irish by the British Establishment, House of Lords etc, well, we certainly weren't the only ones to be shown their contempt. It wasn't an exclusively Irish problem.

benway

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

All of your reasons for why the Irish cause was just, can just as easily be applied to the Civil War South.

I'm not saying that it was just, I'm saying that it's clearly the case that the Irish people wanted some degree of independence, and that we can reasonably infer from this that a majority of public opinion was far from being "very happy" with the arrangement as it existed.

The reasons, and the justifications, or otherwise, are another issue entirely.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

As for the disregard shown towards the Irish by the British Establishment, House of Lords etc, well, we certainly weren't the only ones to be shown their contempt. It wasn't an exclusively Irish problem.

No doubt. In my opinion, the British Empire, through a combination of arrogance, complacency, exploitation and brutality, sowed the seeds of its own destruction, all around the world.

Happy Monday

benway wrote: »

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

All of your reasons for why the Irish cause was just, can just as easily be applied to the Civil War South.

I'm not saying that it was just, I'm saying that it's clearly the case that the Irish people wanted some degree of independence, and that we can reasonably infer from this that a majority of public opinion was far from being "very happy" with the arrangement as it existed.

The reasons, and the justifications, or otherwise, are another issue entirely.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

As for the disregard shown towards the Irish by the British Establishment, House of Lords etc, well, we certainly weren't the only ones to be shown their contempt. It wasn't an exclusively Irish problem.

No doubt. In my opinion, the British Empire, through a combination of arrogance, complacency, exploitation and brutality, sowed the seeds of its own destruction, all around the world.

Something to remember is that the Irish Party was a deeply conservative Irish nationalist pro British political party.

John Redmond was an imperialist to his core.

Do not confuse this party with Euro sceptical parties as you have mentioned.

paky

Just thought youse might be interested in the Belfast Telegraphs report on the Easter Rising Commemorations in Belfast. Its a small report but has about 35 pictures included, predominatly of members of the Irish republican Socialist Party (whom I thought were extinct at this stage but apparently not). If you look at the bottom of the page, you will see a lot of Unionist comments on the event, an event which only takes place one day a year might i add.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/in-pictures-easter-rising-parade-in-belfast-16142372.html

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

You have already started one thread in this forum on Easter Commemorations. Let's not be greedy.

OP on Belfast Easter Rising celebrations merged into existing thread.

SMASH THE UNIONS

paky wrote: »

Just thought youse might be interested in the Belfast Telegraphs report on the Easter Rising Commemorations in Belfast. Its a small report but has about 35 pictures included, predominatly of members of the Irish republican Socialist Party (whom I thought were extinct at this stage but apparently not). If you look at the bottom of the page, you will see a lot of Unionist comments on the event, an event which only takes place one day a year might i add.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/in-pictures-easter-rising-parade-in-belfast-16142372.html

Some very ugly photos in that link. Most of us will laugh at the ridiculous outfits worn by these bigots (The Black Panthers called - they want their sunglasses and berets back) but I can only imagine how intimidated Ulster Unionists may feel watching that aggressive display of Republican military power. Very sad to see young children being indoctrinated with hateful Republican propaganda.

What are these people celebrating exactly? The 1916 uprising was an undemocratic, thuggish failure that nobody in Ireland asked for. Pity the British didn't execute DeValera too. They would have saved us a lot of misery over the years. I cringe thinking of what lies in store for Ireland as we approach the 100th anniversary of this failure. The only way to stamp out this senseless nationalism is to ridicule these bigots.

Galwayguy35

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

Some very ugly photos in that link. Most of us will laugh at the ridiculous outfits worn by these bigots (The Black Panthers called - they want their sunglasses and berets back) but I can only imagine how intimidated Ulster Unionists may feel watching that aggressive display of Republican military power. Very sad to see young children being indoctrinated with hateful Republican propaganda.

What are these people celebrating exactly? The 1916 uprising was an undemocratic, thuggish failure that nobody in Ireland asked for. Pity the British didn't execute DeValera too. They would have saved us a lot of misery over the years. I cringe thinking of what lies in store for Ireland as we approach the 100th anniversary of this failure. The only way to stamp out this senseless nationalism is to ridicule these bigots.

Wow, so much wrong with that post I just wouldn't know where to start...

SMASH THE UNIONS

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Wow, so much wrong with that post I just wouldn't know where to start...

What a pointless post.

Do the Republicans not look stupid wearing their sunglasses?..in Belfast...in April.
Do pictures of Republican women holding guns and saluting foreign flags convey a desire for peace and reconciliation with Unionists?
Was the 1916 uprising not a failure? Did it achieve independence for Ireland?

Either explain what is "wrong" with my post or don't post at all.

LordSutch

paky wrote: »

Just thought youse might be interested in the Belfast Telegraphs report on the Easter Rising Commemorations in Belfast. Its a small report but has about 35 pictures included, predominatly of members of the Irish republican Socialist Party (whom I thought were extinct at this stage but apparently not). If you look at the bottom of the page, you will see a lot of Unionist comments on the event, an event which only takes place one day a year might i add.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/in-pictures-easter-rising-parade-in-belfast-16142372.html

Scary & ugly pictures indeed, and scenes that many of hoped had been consigned to the dustbin of history. Fat men marching all dressed in black, wearing shades & barets, tough as nails looking women with guns, paramilitary flags and banners, and the saddest thing of all is the kids being indoctrinated into the movement, ready for another generation of dark black hatred

Some of the worst . . .
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00672/erParades007_2_672399s.jpg
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00672/erParades008_2_672431g2.jpg
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00672/erParades005_2_672401s.jpg
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00672/sterParades027_672424s.jpg
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00672/erParades_672405s.jpg

benway

Happy Monday wrote:

John Redmond was an imperialist to his core.

For sure, but he still supported home rule. And, if the 1892 and 1900 elections were an accurate reflection, his was a minority viewpoint within the movement.

LordSutch wrote: »

Scary & ugly pictures indeed, and scenes that many of hoped had been consigned to the dustbin of history. Fat men marching all dressed in black, wearing shades & barets, tough as nails looking women with guns, paramilitary flags and banners, and the saddest thing of all is the kids being indoctrinated into the movement, ready for another generation of dark black hatred

Reminds me a lot of the 12th, were they trying to march down the Shankill dressed like that? Any lambeg drums knocking about?

Oh look, here's the UVF Lodge carrying banners honouring dead UVF men, on their way to share their culture with those lucky folks on the Ardoyne ... uniforms, beer guts and shades present and correct:

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r5/Photos01_bucket/OldBoyneIsland.jpg

Two sides to this story - it will take time and the softening of attitudes on both sides before we see a less aggressive, militarised edge to these parades.

Sneering at "stupid looking" neanderthal republicans, as if there isn't a much wider picture, only exposes your own narrow-mindedness, I'm afraid.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00672/erParades008_2_672398s.jpg

=

http://johnfcaba.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/cumannnamban.jpg



Everyone was laughing at these marches/drills back prior to 1916 also.

benway

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Everyone was laughing at these marches/drills back prior to 1916 also.

Now, now.

I think we've established that no-one here is entitled to speak for "everyone" in 1916 or before.

And we all know that for certain that circa 1918 these kinds of organisations were being taken very seriously indeed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/S._Hogan_-_Flying_Column_No._2%2C_3rd_Tipperary_Brigade%2C_IRA_-_1921.JPG