Ireland's Political Identity Crisis

benway

benway wrote: »

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

I'm almost certain these organizations would have been openly derided by the Irish public at large. Marching in Dublin with wooden guns while many had husbands/fathers in a trench somewhere.


All I'm saying is: We need to be able to call a spade a spade. Just because something is Irish, doesn't mean that there is universal implied goodness by default.

Happy Monday

John Recmond supported home rule as did we all.
He supported the creation of an Irish parliament in Dublin within the United Kingdom.

But posters here have suggested that this position implies a vehemently anti British position.
Far from it - many people including Winston Churchill supported Irish home rule.

Like saying that the creation of the Stormont executive and assembly in 1998 weakened British rule in NI.
Far from it - it strengthened it.

benway

Rojomcdojo wrote:

I'm almost certain these organizations would have been openly derided by the Irish public at large. Marching in Dublin with wooden guns while many had husbands/fathers in a trench somewhere.

And I'm almost certain that the Irish public at large would have been deriding those morons who went marching off with gusto to die in the King's war, mocking those delusional fools who thought that the carrot of home rule wouldn't be removed as soon as the need for Irish cannon fodder passed, and pitying those misfortunates who went to fight because of their financial circumstances.

Happy Monday wrote: »

John Recmond supported home rule as did we all.
He supported the creation of an Irish parliament in Dublin within the United Kingdom.

Yup, but he was only one extreme in the independence movement, with Pearse and Connolly at the other.

Ultimately, his side lost the argument. Sinn Féin obliterated the Irish Party at the polls, and the IRA, with massive popular support, whether you like to admit it or not, rendered the country ungovernable by the colonial authorities.

Happy Monday wrote: »

Like saying that the creation of the Stormont executive and assembly in 1998 weakened British rule in NI.
Far from it - it strengthened it.

It certainly seems to have ended loyalist hegemony in the north, which is a good thing. If only they'd implemented something like the current arrangement 50 years ago, without being forced to, down the barrel of a gun. Where we go from here remains to be seen.

benway

benway wrote: »

And I'm almost certain that the Irish public at large would have been deriding those morons who went marching off with gusto to die in the King's war

What's the difference? Both involved men dying for causes which boiled down to simplicities such as the ability to set things like rates and public expenditure from Dublin, as opposed to London. Where's the heroism in that?

benway

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What's the difference? Both involved men dying for causes which boiled down to simplicities such as the ability to set things like rates and public expenditure from Dublin, as opposed to London. Where's the heroism in that?

We're getting subjective here, obviously, but I think that the republican movement was about much more than simplicities. Take a look at the Proclamation or even our current constitutional order, and have a think about how fundamentally incompatible these ideas are with the idea of a hierarchical society, with a monarch at the top, by "right" of birth.

On a more practical level, British administration in Ireland had long been defined by exploitation, as is inevitably the case with colonial administrations. I think that it was a reasonable assumption that an independent Ireland would be preferable. And I think that this was proved to be correct - for one example, it took till 1969 for an equal franchise to be granted in the north. For another, in the North, the Land Acts and Irish Land Commission were almost immediately suppressed, following partition.

I am absolutely certain that there was nothing to gain for an Irish man fighting for the King, other than a bullet in the head. I personally don't believe that home rule would have been implemented had events not overtaken it, but in any event, there's nothing much to choose between King and Kaiser.

Happy Monday

benway wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

John Recmond supported home rule as did we all.
He supported the creation of an Irish parliament in Dublin within the United Kingdom.

Yup, but he was only one extreme in the independence movement, with Pearse and Connolly at the other.

Ultimately, his side lost the argument. Sinn Féin obliterated the Irish Party at the polls, and the IRA, with massive popular support, whether you like to admit it or not, rendered the country ungovernable by the colonial authorities.

Happy Monday wrote: »

Like saying that the creation of the Stormont executive and assembly in 1998 weakened British rule in NI.
Far from it - it strengthened it.

It certainly seems to have ended loyalist hegemony in the north, which is a good thing. If only they'd implemented something like the current arrangement 50 years ago, without being forced to, down the barrel of a gun. Where we go from here remains to be seen.

He was supported by 99% of Irish people at that time including Patrick Pearse until 1913.

Connolly had the support of a few hundred dear souls similar to those fine people we saw marching in Derry yesterday.

The real shame is that Redmond didnt achieve his goal of a 32 county Irish political entity.

The independence that followed on a 26 county basis was little more than Home Rule in reality.

benway

Happy Monday wrote: »

He was supported by 99% of Irish people at that time including Patrick Pearse until 1913.

Not sure about that. Redmond was in a minority in the Irish Party - seems that the majority were more radical, if the election results were anything to go by:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Irish_UK_MPs_1885-1918.gif

In any event, it's abundently clear that somewhere between 1910 and 1918 ... probably around 1916, public opinion moved overwhelmingly towards a more radical course.

Happy Monday wrote: »

The real shame is that Redmond didnt achieve his goal of a 32 county Irish political entity.

I'm not sure about that, either. Firstly, I don't think the loyalist minority would have been willing to give up their privileged position. Secondly, the Irish Party failed to deliver on its main policy position in 30 years, I see no reason to believe that a Redmondite party would have been any more successful at Westminster in delivering basic fairness for Ireland.

Most fundamentally, I think that the British model is basically rotten, and that we're much better off making a break with them. The only pity, for me, is that it wasn't a cleaner break, that the institutions of government, and model of governance, weren't comprehensively overhauled to fit the new republican model.

KeithAFC

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

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

Anyone know how big the attendances were to these events? It seems to me the Republican movement is struggling at the moment to get people interested. I watched a video the other day of a Sinn Fein event which was attended by young people from all over the Island. And I asked myself why? A UI can only come about if the majority of people in Northern Ireland vote in favour of it.

Sinn Fein come out and condemn the dissidents and people who support them but then they attend these sort of events which is the inspiration the dissidents get to carry on. They get their "mandate" from 1916.

Happy Monday

benway wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

He was supported by 99% of Irish people at that time including Patrick Pearse until 1913.

Not sure about that. Redmond was in a minority in the Irish Party - seems that the majority were more radical, if the election results were anything to go by:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Irish_UK_MPs_1885-1918.gif

In any event, it's abundently clear that somewhere between 1910 and 1918 ... probably around 1916, public opinion moved overwhelmingly towards a more radical course.

Happy Monday wrote: »

The real shame is that Redmond didnt achieve his goal of a 32 county Irish political entity.

I'm not sure about that, either. Firstly, I don't think the loyalist minority would have been willing to give up their privileged position. Secondly, the Irish Party failed to deliver on its main policy position in 30 years, I see no reason to believe that a Redmondite party would have been any more successful at Westminster in delivering basic fairness for Ireland.

Most fundamentally, I think that the British model is basically rotten, and that we're much better off making a break with them. The only pity, for me, is that it wasn't a cleaner break, that the institutions of government, and model of governance, weren't comprehensively overhauled to fit the new republican model.

How have you determined that Redmond was in a minority??

For Catholics in the North a 32 county model would have been better.

For the island as a whole home rule followed by dominion status would have been the most preferable route. Look at Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Can't agree with your position on British democracy - Westminster has been the cradle of global democracy.

paddyandy

The Basic Essential freedom to walk down the street while feeling safe is not here in Ireland for many people in the Republic .Irish Patriotism for most people seems to be a shallow Pub Patriotism for Flag-waving sessions and winning some gee-gaw cup or medal at Games .All washed down with Chilled Lucozade we call beer while listening to the fields of Athenry .True Patriotism is a lot more than this .We made a mess of it all .

paky

southsiderosie wrote: »

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.

that thread was intended to give the unionist perspective of the easter rising commemorations. both threads are completely different but giving your user name it would probably seem appropriate for you to merge both threads. would i be correct in that assertion? perhap 'westbrit with poltical agenda' would be a more appropriate username?

The Corinthian

The 1916 rising was an accidental success. Militarily it was a disaster. In terms of popular support at the time also. Ironically its success is entirely down to how the British authorities mishandled its aftermath to the point that it won sympathy and support for those executed and their cause.

In the longer term the big looser turned out to be the Irish Parliamentary Party; the 1918 election saw them decimated, losing over 90% of their seats in Ireland and instead saw Sinn Fein and the Irish Unionist parties increase at their expense. It was the final nail in the coffin for a non-sectarian form of nationalism, that was the ideal of Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet and Charles Stewart Parnell and saw a Roman Catholic dominated nationalism which to this day celebrates uncompromising idealism, regardless of how self-defeating it is.

It was this form of nationalism that exasperated divides between north and south, encouraging an increasingly defensive protestant population in Ulster to circle the wagons and make partition inevitable. It was this form of nationalism that could not accept this, or accept anything other than a republic and led to a civil war the moment we had independence. It was this form of nationalism that ultimately helped to foster and justify the mass exodus of Irish protestants in the south and sectarianism in the north, which in turn became decades of conflict in the last decades of the last century.

It is this form of nationalism that glorifies grand futile gestures and uncompromising ideals, as exemplified by the greatest of these grand futile gestures - the 1916 Rising.

Nonetheless, the Rising does represent an important event in our nation's history, and those who fought in it were ultimately patriots. However, neither should we hold it up with blind idealism either as many of the social and political problems that Ireland faced since independence were as a result of the dogged mediocrity of the philosophies of those same patriots.

It resulted in Ireland's eventual independence, but I cannot help but feel that had Parnell been successful in his goals half a century earlier, that we would have ended up with a far better independent nation today.

Richard

KeithAFC wrote: »

Anyone know how big the attendances were to these events? It seems to me the Republican movement is struggling at the moment to get people interested. I watched a video the other day of a Sinn Fein event which was attended by young people from all over the Island. And I asked myself why? A UI can only come about if the majority of people in Northern Ireland vote in favour of it.

Sinn Fein come out and condemn the dissidents and people who support them but then they attend these sort of events which is the inspiration the dissidents get to carry on. They get their "mandate" from 1916.

I think event such as this are probably necessary for the moment. It gives these people something which goes along with their identity. I'd rather they did this than the PIRA was ressurected in order to find another way to assert their identity.

If a united Ireland came about, you (or decendents) would probably want to march in Ulster using Loyalist and British symbols even though they would be out of date.

benway

Happy Monday wrote: »

How have you determined that Redmond was in a minority??

He led the Parnellite faction in the 1892 and 1895 election - allegedly the share of the vote was greater than the number of seats would suggest, but still no more than a third, by the most generous of estimates, of that obtained the Dillonite faction. Not that Dillon was demanding full independence or anything, but he was a hell of a lot more radical than Redmond.

Happy Monday wrote: »

For Catholics in the North a 32 county model would have been better.

For sure. I feel guilty premising my positions on what happened in the south, only using the north as an example of how bad things might have been. There is an argument that the rising was premature, and that had there been more patience, a truer form of independence on could have been achieved.

On the other hand, there's no evidence that the British establishment had any intention of granting even a limited form of home rule - impossible to say how earnest the intentions the 1914 Act were. It's quite plausible that it was simply a ploy to prevent rebellion in Ireland, and to tempt Irish men into making cannon fodder of themselves.

Along those lines, I think there's a valid argument that only violent rebellion would have forced the colonial authorities to grant home rule and fair treatment to the Irish people, and that such a move would have likely been brutally suppressed had the British military not been committed on the continent.

I can see both sides, but it's absolutely clear to me that we're still very much in a Not Yet Uhuru state of play.

Happy Monday wrote: »

Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Are all countries where the expropriation of "native" territories was ongoing, and which were underpopulated to start with. I'm not sure they provide any kind of accurate reference point for post Land War Ireland.

Happy Monday wrote: »

Can't agree with your position on British democracy - Westminster has been the cradle of global democracy.

Revolutionary France and the US would take that title, in my view. It was a strange form of democracy where mostly hereditary Lords could veto measures proposed by the people's representatives in the commons.

The Corinthian wrote: »

had Parnell been successful

More like if the British establishment had been willing to accede to the democratically expressed will of the Irish people, exemplified by the House of Lords veto of successive Home Rule Bills. As I said above, I'm not sure that anything other than violent rebellion would have succeeded in extracting any meaningful concessions.

KeithAFC

Richard wrote: »

I think event such as this are probably necessary for the moment. It gives these people something which goes along with their identity. I'd rather they did this than the PIRA was ressurected in order to find another way to assert their identity.

If a united Ireland came about, you (or decendents) would probably want to march in Ulster using Loyalist and British symbols even though they would be out of date.

They should be fully entitled to express their culture in anyway they want. I have no problem with this at all. Same way they should have no problem with Ulster Protestants marching with the Union flag.

It is about expression of identity and culture. I think the arrests only came about because of what some one said at this event?

The Corinthian

benway wrote: »

More like if the British establishment had been willing to accede to the democratically expressed will of the Irish people, exemplified by the House of Lords veto of successive Home Rule Bills. As I said above, I'm not sure that anything other than violent rebellion would have succeeded in extracting any meaningful concessions.

Ultimately Canada, Australia and South Africa did not achieve independence through violent rebellion though and Ireland only partially did so, thus I'd disagree.

Of course it also depends on how you define meaningful concessions; dominion status was a step towards independence for all of the above, but such was the blinkered ideology of nationalism at the time that it was one of the casus belli for the civil war when we achieved it. That we were able to use dominion status to achieve full independence and a republic two decades later without a shot being fired probably did not fit with the romantic view of grand useless gestures methinks.

benway

The Corinthian wrote: »

Canada, Australia and South Africa

Forgetting the Boer War? Think that's pretty relevant. While I'm at it, just a little reminder for the nostalgists for empire that Britain deployed concentration camps in prosecuting that conflict.

Canada and Australia are special cases, I think, being thought of as terra nullis, and where the "natives" weren't sufficiently numerous to mount serious resistance, nor did their social organisation lend itself to it.

Even if we're to take that argument at its height and say that these countries did achieve independence by negotiation, there are many other examples: the United States, Kenya, India, Israel, Egypt, where violent insurrection was a precursor to independence.

Cherry-picking your examples ever so slightly, I think.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course it also depends on how you define meaningful concessions; dominion status was a step towards independence for all of the above

Dominion status is not what was envisaged in the Home Rule Act of 1914, if there was even the will to implement the Act once the empire had demobilised.

We're in the realm of pure speculation here, but even had home rule been granted, I certainly can't see that dominion status, followed by full 32 county independence would have followed as a natural consequence. In fact, I can easily see how it would have descended into a civil war with a secessionist north anyway.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It was this form of nationalism that exasperated divides between north and south, encouraging an increasingly defensive protestant population in Ulster to circle the wagons and make partition inevitable.

I am not at all sure about this. Firstly, it's not like the Ulster protestant population weren't, and aren't, prone to bellicose nationalism and/or religious fervour themselves, don't forget that they armed themselves before the Home Rulers did.

On a more practical basis, they held a privileged position, which had been consistently eroded from the repeal of the Penal Laws and Catholic Emancipation onwards - I'd suggest that their stance may have had more to do with preserving their own position than any apprehension of repression.

The Corinthian wrote: »

such was the blinkered ideology of nationalism at the time that it was one of the casus belli for the civil war when we achieved it.

Not denying that nationalism is a blinkered ideology, but I think that this is a grossly simplistic view of the civil war. There are also issues of entrenched privilege on the Free State side, the obvious fact of partition, among many others.

But it's an undeniable fact that, more often than not, increased independence from the British Empire was not granted without armed struggle. They took countries by force, and they aimed to hold them by force.

The Corinthian

benway wrote: »

Forgetting the Boer War? Think that's pretty relevant.

I didn't forget the Boer War; it would be relevant if it had achieved independence for South Africa - but it didn't.

Canada and Australia are special cases, I think, being thought of as terra nullis, and where the "natives" weren't sufficiently numerous to mount serious resistance, nor did their social organisation lend itself to it.

Really? Was India another special case? Read up about Gandhi if you think violent insurrection was a relevant precursor to independence.

Dominion status is not what was envisaged in the Home Rule Act of 1914, if there was even the will to implement the Act once the empire had demobilised.

I never said it was. Had Parnell not fallen from grace, it is not that unlikely that Ireland would have had dominion status by 1914. But he did, so the process would have taken longer, by a decade or two, than it did thanks to 1916. But at least that longer process would not have left us with a legacy of gombeen republicanism.

We're in the realm of pure speculation here, but even had home rule been granted, I certainly can't see that dominion status, followed by full 32 county independence would have followed as a natural consequence. In fact, I can easily see how it would have descended into a civil war with a secessionist north anyway.

Arguable; as I demonstrated earlier, Ulster Unionism actually benefited greatly from the aftermath of the Rising; the big loser was the Irish Parliamentary Party.

Not denying that nationalism is a blinkered ideology, but I think that this is a grossly simplistic view of the civil war. There are also issues of entrenched privilege on the Free State side, the obvious fact of partition, among many others.

Of course there were other issues, however this uncompromising, short-term mentality is something that unfortunately is central to modern Irish nationalism; we got the glorification of a backward peasant culture - comely maidens dancing at the crossroads - rather than the modern state that we should have had under men of actual vision like Parnell.

Happy Monday

benway wrote: »

The Corinthian wrote: »

Canada, Australia and South Africa

Forgetting the Boer War? Think that's pretty relevant. While I'm at it, just a little reminder for the nostalgists for empire that Britain deployed concentration camps in prosecuting that conflict.

Canada and Australia are special cases, I think, being thought of as terra nullis, and where the "natives" weren't sufficiently numerous to mount serious resistance, nor did their social organisation lend itself to it.

Even if we're to take that argument at its height and say that these countries did achieve independence by negotiation, there are many other examples: the United States, Kenya, India, Israel, Egypt, where violent insurrection was a precursor to independence.

Cherry-picking your examples ever so slightly, I think.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course it also depends on how you define meaningful concessions; dominion status was a step towards independence for all of the above

Dominion status is not what was envisaged in the Home Rule Act of 1914, if there was even the will to implement the Act once the empire had demobilised.

We're in the realm of pure speculation here, but even had home rule been granted, I certainly can't see that dominion status, followed by full 32 county independence would have followed as a natural consequence. In fact, I can easily see how it would have descended into a civil war with a secessionist north anyway.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It was this form of nationalism that exasperated divides between north and south, encouraging an increasingly defensive protestant population in Ulster to circle the wagons and make partition inevitable.

I am not at all sure about this. Firstly, it's not like the Ulster protestant population weren't, and aren't, prone to bellicose nationalism and/or religious fervour themselves, don't forget that they armed themselves before the Home Rulers did.

On a more practical basis, they held a privileged position, which had been consistently eroded from the repeal of the Penal Laws and Catholic Emancipation onwards - I'd suggest that their stance may have had more to do with preserving their own position than any apprehension of repression.

The Corinthian wrote: »

such was the blinkered ideology of nationalism at the time that it was one of the casus belli for the civil war when we achieved it.

Not denying that nationalism is a blinkered ideology, but I think that this is a grossly simplistic view of the civil war. There are also issues of entrenched privilege on the Free State side, the obvious fact of partition, among many others.

But it's an undeniable fact that, more often than not, increased independence from the British Empire was not granted without armed struggle. They took countries by force, and they aimed to hold them by force.

I'll think you'lll find that India achieved independence through peaceful means.
Violence followed after this.

The Boers sent tens of thousands of young men to fight for Britain in WW1.

The US and Israel have remained close allies of the UK after independence .

All of these countries followed the democratic model laid down at Westminster.

benway

Happy Monday wrote: »

All of these countries followed the democratic model laid down at Westminster.

No monarch or hereditary upper chamber = your argument is invalid.

It's the French model, as adopted and adapted by the US "Founding Fathers" that's the seminal form of democracy. Can't see how this would even be at issue.

The Corinthian wrote:

Read up about Gandhi

I know plenty about Ghandi, and I've formed the view that it was the upsurge in violent revolutionary groups who convinced the British of the obvious unsustainability of their position, Ghandi was the beneficiary. So, I absolutely do think that violence was a relevant precursor in India, it's naïve in the extreme to suggest otherwise.

As it was with the Boer War, the Union of South Africa was formed in the following decade, and their involvement in WWI mainly involved invading Namibia in the name of helping the Empire.

The Corinthian wrote:

Ulster Unionism actually benefited greatly from the aftermath of the Rising;

Because, as I said, Ulster Unionism is about protecting the privileged position of the protestant community from any perceived threat. Home Rule would have proved an impetus to the Unionists just the same. They'd already armed themselves in anticipation.

The Corinthian wrote:

we got the glorification of a backward peasant culture

Post-colonial inferiority complex, anyone? Not to worry, there's a lot of it about ....

The Corinthian

benway wrote: »

I know plenty about Ghandi, and I've formed the view that it was the upsurge in violent revolutionary groups who convinced the British of the obvious unsustainability of their position, Ghandi was the beneficiary.

Can you back up this view then.

As it was with the Boer War, the Union of South Africa was formed in the following decade, and their involvement in WWI mainly involved invading Namibia in the name of helping the Empire.

And yet their independence was effectively in 1931; how does this relate to the Boar war?

Because, as I said, Ulster Unionism is about protecting the privileged position of the protestant community from any perceived threat. Home Rule would have proved an impetus to the Unionists just the same. They'd already armed themselves in anticipation.

How many? This is the big difference between the two periods, because both the IRB and the unionists decreased in importance around the time of Parnell. It was only as a result of the rise of Sinn Fein that they gained support again.

Post-colonial inferiority complex, anyone? Not to worry, there's a lot of it about ....

No, just familiar with the cultures of many other nations, including those who gained independence in the 20th century, in comparison to the De Valeran ideal that was pushed on us. The accusation of post-colonial inferiority complex is just a lazy and clichéd ad hominem that allows the attacker to rebut without defending such an asinine pseudo-culture.

benway

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can you back up this view then.

I can, but it'll take a small essay to do it, and it's way too far off topic. Fair enough if you buy the "non-violence defeated the empire" line, there's evidence for that as well. I personally don't buy it, and there was clearly a reasonable apprehension on the British side that a full-scale insurrection was likely, as evidenced by the Amritsar Massacre.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And yet their independence was effectively in 1931; how does this relate to the Boar war?

The Union of South Africa was founded in 1910 an independent dominion - that's their date of independence. Same as saying that Ireland became independent in 1922. The Boer War ended in 1902. Do the maths.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It was only as a result of the rise of Sinn Fein that they gained support again.

The what now? Nearly a quarter million men signed the Ulster Covenant in 1912, two years after yet another electoral clean sweep for the Irish Party. Sinn Féin didn't arrive as a political force until after the rising.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, just familiar with the cultures of many other nations, including those who gained independence in the 20th century, in comparison to the De Valeran ideal that was pushed on us. The accusation of post-colonial inferiority complex is just a lazy and clichéd ad hominem that allows the attacker to rebut without defending such an asinine pseudo-culture.

I'm not attacking, and I'm not rebutting. I'm familiar with a few other cultures myself, and I think that the "pseudo-culture" had more of a basis in reality, outside of the cities, than perhaps you may care to admit. In much of the country, it didn't take much pushing.

Obviously, I don't buy de Valera's vision, nor Catholicism, either, but I think there's an overwhelming tendency to characterise Irish culture as "backwards" and to emphasise the contrived and artificial elements, above those elements that accorded with the lives of the majority of the population at the time, those living outside the cities.

Just look at any thread on the Irish language or the GAA and you'll see what I mean - I don't think that "post-colonial inferiority complex" is a cliché without good reason. And we're back to the OP.

MaxSteele

Can't believe some of the smug, superior posts disregarding the event as "living in the past" and having the "bury it under the bridge" attitude. I don't think the 12th of July celebrations of the Battle of the Boyne will abandoned anytime soon, why should nationalists and republicans be ridiculed for wanting to celebrate a milestone in their history ??

Typical Celtic Tiger, "modern" Ireland attitude. It isn't a national incite hatred of britain day. Completely blown out of proportion. Get over yourselves.

lugha

MaxSteele wrote: »

I don't think the 12th of July celebrations of the Battle of the Boyne will abandoned anytime soon, why should nationalists and republicans be ridiculed for wanting to celebrate a milestone in their history ??

And I expect on another thread you might be inclined to draw attention to the rather unsavoury mindset of some of those that do celebrate the battle of the Boyne!
And in a similar vein, it is interesting that some who lament Ireland’s reluctance to make a big deal about independence (which did not happen in 1916 BTW) cite the British and the Americans in particular, who do go large on the whole nationalism / patriotism thing.

Waving a mini stars and stripes or wearing a poppy are in themselves fairly benign actions. But it is the very same urge that is instilled in / integral to the people of these countries that enabled their leaders in the past and present to engage in all manner of “interventions” in other countries, which are far from benign.

It always intrigues me that so many Irish nationalists who would wish to see a more fervent sense of nationalism among the Irish people, one that takes a substantially anti-English shape, fail to see that it was precisely this urge amongst the English in the past which drove them to build their empire, causing a lot of bother to many in the process, including ourselves.

For me nationalism / patriotism, like its evil twin religion, is a malign force. There is far more bad (of a truly horrific kind) than good done in their name. Look at the lowest ebb that mankind has sunk to in history in the brutal treatment of his fellow man and you will find that more often than not, it was done for God or country.

Don’t urge the Irish to be more like the British or the Americans in our attitude to nationalism. Urge them to be more like us.

benway

lugha wrote: »

It always intrigues me that so many Irish nationalists who would wish to see a more fervent sense of nationalism among the Irish people, one that takes a substantially anti-English shape, fail to see that it was precisely this urge amongst the English in the past which drove them to build their empire, causing a lot of bother to many in the process, including ourselves.

There are a couple of elements to this, I think.

Cultural nationalism is a positive force, I think it makes life comprehensible and meaningful, gives us a sense of who we are, where we came from and where we might go to. I think it's very important, and something that should be nurtured. I think it's a more healthy to acknowledge, and critically engage with these things, than to the exist in the empty, meaningless consumerist world.

Political nationalism is a different animal entirely, and I would fully accept the danger of a benign cultural nationalism being co-opted and turned into something much more sinister. But there's no need to throw the baby out with the bath-water.

Anyway, here's a series of documentaries by Adam Curtis on the subject of the myth of the nation, completely brilliant, especially the first, about the Nazi and the last, about Thatcher's attempts to channel Churchill and fight a "good war" against the Argies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Living_Dead_(television_documentary_series)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1758338679527790685
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8179092243297154729
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-314906531328011893

lugha

benway wrote: »

Cultural nationalism is a positive force
Political nationalism is a different animal entirely

You distinction between cultural and political nationalism is reasonable enough. But the OP was not calling for the promotion of the Irish language or Irish games / culture; his was a call to, er arms, for 1916. So I would think political nationalism is very much what he has in mind.

PS Thanks for the video links. They certainly look like they are worth the watch.

The Corinthian

benway wrote: »

I can, but it'll take a small essay to do it, and it's way too far off topic.

The Union of South Africa was founded in 1910 an independent dominion - that's their date of independence. Same as saying that Ireland became independent in 1922. The Boer War ended in 1902. Do the maths.

1909, not 1922, was the date of the South Africa Act. And the maths there was seven years since the end of hostilities. Meanwhile while the Rising took place in 1916 and the Free State was formed in 1922, yet in this time there was no such lull in the conflict, as there was in South Africa where the move was more towards a joining of the four colonies, supported by the Afrikaners. It was not driven by conflict.

1931, which is the date I quoted, represents when the dominion effectively was all but independent, one may also look to 1961 when it also became a republic, but by this stage it had already been independent for a long time.

The what now? Nearly a quarter million men signed the Ulster Covenant in 1912, two years after yet another electoral clean sweep for the Irish Party. Sinn Féin didn't arrive as a political force until after the rising.

Indeed, but I never said that the Rising did this, all I said was that it was the final nail in the coffin for a non-sectarian form of nationalism that had been growing throughout the nineteenth century and had briefly declined during the Parnell years - hence my sorrow at his failure.

I'm not attacking, and I'm not rebutting. I'm familiar with a few other cultures myself, and I think that the "pseudo-culture" had more of a basis in reality, outside of the cities, than perhaps you may care to admit. In much of the country, it didn't take much pushing.

It didn't take much pushing? To this day Irish remains obligatory, for example, yet is spoken even less than before and many examples of that culture, such as Irish dancing, were largely or completely (re)invented.

But I wouldn't necessarily mind that as much as the parochial and xenophobic culture that we fostered; this was what was so backward about it, a priest-ridden nation that produced few people of merit in public life and those few with merit left as soon as they could. This is the culture than damned Joyce until he left Ireland in disgust and damned the rest of us to an insular protectionist and dysfunctional economy that saw emigration as a means to control unemployment and routinely blamed everything on 800 years of oppression. Hell, we're practically the only country in Europe that has no honours system of any kind because it would be too British for us.

This culture, which was defined as much as being anti-English as pro anything else, is what the brand of nationalism that 1916 represents gave us. It's the culture that gave us cute hoors and parish pump politics, Irish solutions for Irish problems and false neutrality.

MaxSteele wrote: »

Typical Celtic Tiger, "modern" Ireland attitude. It isn't a national incite hatred of britain day. Completely blown out of proportion. Get over yourselves.

To begin with if you read my first post on this thread I have made no such claim as to say it is any kind of national incite hatred of Britain day and completely accept that it is an important day commemorating an event in which patriots died which went some way twoards our independence.

However they also represented a form of nationalism that has cause as much if not more harm than good overall and that my regret was that Parnell was not more successful before them.

And I remember Ireland long before the Celtic Tiger; my attitudes are shaped by what I witnessed before the Celtic Tiger, not during or after.

benway

The Corinthian wrote: »

Irish dancing, were largely or completely (re)invented.

My mother's from West Clare, she tells me that people had been going and dancing sets in each other's houses for generations. Obviously, the official version mirrored, formalised and distorted, these phenomena, but they weren't pulled out of thin air.

Funny you should mention Joyce, to this day most young Dubliners would rather they were in Berlin, or Paris, or London ... most of the artists I know are just aping the fashionable styles in these places, as they perceive it, rather than creating something uniquely of its time and place.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This culture, which was defined as much as being anti-English as pro anything else, is what the brand of nationalism that 1916 represents gave us. It's the culture that gave us cute hoors and parish pump politics, Irish solutions for Irish problems and false neutrality.

I love the way that "Irish solutions for Irish problems" is synonymous for a half-assed approach. Some small insight into our national self loathing. A bit Irish, wha?

Personally, I think we need a bit more of that, I've done quite a bit of reseach in criminal justice policy, I think the tendency towards international best practice going forward is an absolute scourge - we'd be much better advised to conduct our own research and tailor our own policy. There's no hesitation to ape British legal instruments and precedents, btw.

Personally, I think it's the colonial heirloom of a grossly unequal society, in terms of politics, that's fed the cute hoor phenomenon ... although you're trotting out a nice collection of clichés yourself there, if you don't mind me saying.

Happy Monday

benway wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

All of these countries followed the democratic model laid down at Westminster.

No monarch or hereditary upper chamber = your argument is invalid.

It's the French model, as adopted and adapted by the US "Founding Fathers" that's the seminal form of democracy. Can't see how this would even be at issue.

The Corinthian wrote:

Read up about Gandhi

I know plenty about Ghandi, and I've formed the view that it was the upsurge in violent revolutionary groups who convinced the British of the obvious unsustainability of their position, Ghandi was the beneficiary. So, I absolutely do think that violence was a relevant precursor in India, it's naïve in the extreme to suggest otherwise.

As it was with the Boer War, the Union of South Africa was formed in the following decade, and their involvement in WWI mainly involved invading Namibia in the name of helping the Empire.

The Corinthian wrote:

Ulster Unionism actually benefited greatly from the aftermath of the Rising;

Because, as I said, Ulster Unionism is about protecting the privileged position of the protestant community from any perceived threat. Home Rule would have proved an impetus to the Unionists just the same. They'd already armed themselves in anticipation.

The Corinthian wrote:

we got the glorification of a backward peasant culture

Post-colonial inferiority complex, anyone? Not to worry, there's a lot of it about ....

Ah no France in 1776 was ruled as a dictatorship by an oppressive king who was later beheaded. Their revolution only took place in 1789 making you argument invalid.

The US has been ruled by Anglo Saxons since 1776 with one or two exceptions.

Tens of thousands of Boers joined Britain in fighting Germany in WW1. I wonder how many Jews would help Germany in its time of need.

Come to think of it 60,000 Irishmen went to fight on the British side in WW2. How many Irish fought for the Hun?

And of course the US came to their support in their time of need. Twice.