Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. The army of the United Kingdom was in the United Kingdom. Film at 11.

...one acheived by main force and coercion. Which brings us back to square one.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Hiding behind yet another excuse eh oscar?

It could be worse, I could be ignoring the question completely. Is it morally wrong for Chile to be ruled by anyone except Mapuche, or Australia by anyone but Aborigines?

Nodin wrote: »

...one acheived by main force and coercion. Which brings us back to square one.

So your justification for the 1916 rising is that because Ireland was part of the UK by means that involved force and/or coercion, Irish republicans have a permanent and incontrovertible right to start a war whenever they feel like it in order to undo that union?

I'm sure that's very comforting to the dissidents. Oh wait, that's different. It's never quite entirely clear how it's different, but it certainly couldn't be double standards. No sirree bob.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your justification for the 1916 rising is that because Ireland was part of the UK by means that involved force and/or coercion, Irish republicans have a permanent and incontrovertible right to start a war whenever they feel like it in order to undo that union?.

Had, yes.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sure that's very comforting to the dissidents. Oh wait, that's different. It's never quite entirely clear how it's different, but it certainly couldn't be double standards. No sirree bob.

I don't see how that tone is going to get anyone anywhere.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

Had, yes.



I don't see how that tone is going to get anyone anywhere.

Why ''had'' and not ''has '' ?

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

Why ''had'' and not ''has '' ?

The current Northern situation is different.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

The current Northern situation is different.

I presume because of the GFA ? If so would accept that any dissidents may see that as changing nothing and how can we say they are wrong ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

It could be worse, I could be ignoring the question completely.

I notice you haven't told me whether you believe OCorcrainns original question which you answered was hypothetical or not.

Is it morally wrong for Chile to be ruled by anyone except Mapuche, or Australia by anyone but Aborigines?

You haven't given any contextual background to these scenarios so a comparison can be made.

So your justification for the 1916 rising is that because Ireland was part of the UK by means that involved force and/or coercion, Irish republicans have a permanent and incontrovertible right to start a war whenever they feel like it in order to undo that union?

Hmmm. Now you've left out your own counterfactual argument that the above subverted an ongoing peace process. Care to answer your own question then in this scenario you have presented? Can you also ignore as well please your own little boobytrap you left in the question re the possibility that the dissidents can borrow this argument to justify their actions so you can then go on to conveniently condemn all "violence" used down the ages in an attempt to remove the British presence from this country. Thanks. .

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Had, yes.

What - specifically - removed that right (and when), and has it been permanently removed?

I don't see how that tone is going to get anyone anywhere.

I apologise for the tone - genuinely.

I genuinely believe that it was every bit as morally wrong to use violence in 1916 as it is today to undo the union. I've been repeatedly told that this belief of mine is grounded in naivety, ignorance and a failure to educate myself on Irish history. I ask for an explanation of why it was morally justifiable for an unelected minority to use violence in 1916 against the wishes of the people, and yet is not morally justifiable for an unelected minority to use violence in 2013 against the wishes of the people, and nobody will tell me.

If this lack of understanding on my part is, as I'm repeatedly told, a product of ignorance, would it be too much to ask for some enlightenment?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I notice you haven't told me whether you believe OCorcrainns original question which you answered was hypothetical or not.

It wasn't hypothetical, no.

Hmmm. Now you've left out your own counterfactual argument that the above subverted an ongoing peace process. Care to answer your own question then in this scenario you have presented? Can you also ignore as well please your own little boobytrap you left in the question re the possibility that the dissidents can borrow this argument to justify their actions so you can then go on to conveniently condemn all "violence" used down the ages in an attempt to remove the British presence from this country. Thanks. .

I'll tell you what: I'll do us both a favour, and stop discussing this with you. All I want to know is why it was morally right for a tiny unelected minority to use violence in 1916, but why it's not morally right for a tiny unelected minority to use violence in 2013. If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it - but spare me the rhetorical mystery tours.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

......

If this lack of understanding on my part is, as I'm repeatedly told, a product of ignorance, would it be too much to ask for some enlightenment?

Theres sufficient protection of the nationalist community, and a clear recognition that there is no longer a barrier to unification outside the wishes of the majority.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

It wasn't hypothetical, no.

So then neither was mine?

I'll tell you what: I'll do us both a favour, and stop discussing this with you. All I want to know is why it was morally right for a tiny unelected minority to use violence in 1916, but why it's not morally right for a tiny unelected minority to use violence in 2013. If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it - but spare me the rhetorical mystery tours.

Sigh for the umpteenth time.

You've been given plenty of reasons but continue to ignore them anyway. What I think you're really saying throughout this thread is that there was no justification at all for an insurrection in Ireland. It can be easily inferred from your answer to OCorcrainn's first question and your subsequent attempts to extricate yourself from the consequences of that answer.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So then neither was mine?



Sigh for the umpteenth time.

You've been given plenty of reasons but continue to ignore them anyway. What I think you're really saying throughout this thread is that there was no justification at all for an insurrection in Ireland. It can be easily inferred from your answer to OCorcrainn's first question and your subsequent attempts to extricate yourself from the consequences of that answer.

Why not just put an end to it and answer his question ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Why not just put an end to it and answer his question ?

I believe Ireland was under an illegal colonial occupation in 1916 and force was justified in attempt to remove that presence. The attempt to condemn 1916 because the dissidents use it as a justification for their campaign is a red herring. Tell me, can you be blamed for your actions in the present day because of what others might do many years into the future as a consequence of what you did now? Its ridiculous.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Theres sufficient protection of the nationalist community...

From what did the nationalist community need protection in 1916, and how did the rising provide it?

...and a clear recognition that there is no longer a barrier to unification outside the wishes of the majority.

That's just a statement that violence is justified if you think you might need it to get what you want.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I believe Ireland was under an illegal colonial occupation in 1916 and force was justified in attempt to remove that presence.

But Northern Ireland is not under an illegal colonial occupation in 2013 and force is not justified in an attempt to remove that presence?

The attempt to condemn 1916 because the dissidents use it as a justification for their campaign is a red herring.

Actually, it's a straw man. I'm condemning 1916 because I think it was unjustified. You think I'd suddenly become supportive of it if the dissidents went away?

Happyman42

It doesn't matter whether individuals think it's justified or not and that is brought into focus by the dissidents (who don't see themselves as 'dissidents' btw, that's just another perjorative term like 'terrorist') You constantly get people on here try to get others to say whether they 'support' this or that, it's nosense, as if saying you supported this or that made any difference, They have support, a growing support. They are in a direct line from Pearse and Tone in that they believe, 'Ireland Unfree Shall Never Be At Peace'.
Ireland isn't 'at peace'.
The question should be, are you going to give them what they seek and live with the unknown consequences, a United Ireland or if not, live with the known consequences, growing violence and chaos.
Moral judgements don't come into it, the British had to put theirs away to do a deal with the IRA and SF, as did SF and the IRA. The same will have to be done with the 'dissidents' sooner or later.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

They are in a direct line from Pearse and Tone in that they believe, 'Ireland Unfree Shall Never Be At Peace'.

That's a line that's often quoted as if it was axiomatic; as if there were some unbreakable causal link between Irish "freedom" (a concept that's pretty woolly in its own right) and violence; as if Pearse and Tone were helpless victims of a power beyond their control, that drove them against their will into a conflict that they were desperate to avoid; as if they had no free will in the decisions they made, but were mere actors in a Greek tragedy into whose script they have no input.

But it's not an axiom; it's a threat. It's a bald assertion that until Irish republicans get what they want, they reserve the right to inflict violence on whomever they feel deserves it.

The idea that it doesn't matter whether or not republican violence can be justified is a pretty bizarre abdication of a responsibility to exercise any moral judgement over the movement you profess to support.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

You constantly get people on here try to get others to say whether they 'support' this or that,

A man who won't openly admit what he supports is shady in the extreme.

TOMASJ

RandomName2 wrote: »

You can be brave, you can be steadfast, you can be loyal, and you can still be totally wrong.

As i said before "how many people here or elsewhere would have the guts to fast to death"

Would you? if you felt (your cause was totally right)

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

But Northern Ireland is not under an illegal colonial occupation in 2013 and force is not justified in an attempt to remove that presence?

Already agreed with you on that here in a previous thread on "Irish Unity", in that both jurisdictions on the island today have popularly elected legislatures (D.E. and N.I. Assembly) that most people appear to be happy with and give their consent to. What was agreed after 1916, 1921, the 1998 GFA etc is a compromise. I'm happy enough with it as it stands although ultimately I'd like to see a single Irish state come about through compromise and agreement among the people of the whole island.

Actually, it's a straw man. I'm condemning 1916 because I think it was unjustified.

Grand, whatever the correct term is to describe it.

You think I'd suddenly become supportive of it if the dissidents went away?

Thats a fair viewpoint too. Apologies if I'm only saying this now and I may have wasted your time, but I've actually intrinsically nothing against your observation that an alternative route may have existed towards Irish independence (Home Rule). It's logical to suggest that a problem may have more than one successful solution available to solve it.

But as I've said previously we'll never know how that would have unfolded as it's a counterfactual argument. I think that 1916 was still justified even despite the alternative solution you believe may have been there.

You did say here in a thread on the Falkland Islands that:

Then negotiations can't happen, because the UN - the very body you keep invoking in this debate - has declared that the fundamental human right of self-determination cannot be overridden by sovereignty disputes.

Did the majority of the Irish people not have a similar right pre 1921? Remember Britain went to war after peace negotiations failed in order to uphold the rights of the Falkland Islanders and ensuring that their wishes to be British citizens were upheld. Would you deny the Irish people the same right to use force, if say, negotiations had also failed to establish their rights to independence because they desired it?

oscar, all I wish to find out is, when you said that:

I'm saying explicitly that insurrection isn't justifiable when it subverts an ongoing peace process.

is insurrection then justifiable if there there is no ongoing peace process to subvert?

I'd genuinely like to know whats your position on this. That's it really. Thanks.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Thats a fair viewpoint too. Apologies if I'm only saying this now and I may have wasted your time, but I've actually intrinsically nothing against your observation that an alternative route may have existed towards Irish independence (Home Rule). It's logical to suggest that a problem may have more than one successful solution available to solve it.

But as I've said previously we'll never know how that would have unfolded as it's a counterfactual argument. I think that 1916 was still justified even despite the alternative solution you believe may have been there.

I think it's pretty simple: if you have a choice between killing people to possibly achieve a goal, and possibly achieving that goal without killing people, then there's only one morally correct option.

It's fair to say that the instigators of the 1916 rising had no way of knowing for sure that a peaceful approach would have been successful; but it's also true that they had no way of knowing that starting a war would be successful, so they made a judgement call that the violent path was the correct one.

It would take a hell of a lot of seriously convincing argument to convince me that they were right about that, and I haven't seen anything that would amount to the barest foundations of such an argument.

Did the majority of the Irish people not have a similar right pre 1921?

I've never denied their right to self-determination. My quarrel has always been with the idea that it's morally justifiable to use violence to achieve it.

Would you deny the Irish people the same right to use force, if say, negotiations had also failed to establish their rights to independence because they desired it?

Yes, if there was any prospect of achieving their desired outcome without the use of violence. It comes back to the question of whether it's right to kill people if you get impatient with the pace of a non-violent process.

is insurrection then justifiable if there there is no ongoing peace process to subvert?

Insurrection may - may - be justifiable as an direct response to an immediate threat of violence by state forces, if there is no peaceful alternative immediately available.

I have yet to be told what the existential threat that the leaders of the 1916 rising were hoping to avert; from what I know, they decided to use violence not because there was any immediate danger to which they were responding defensively, but because they felt they had an innate right to kill people in order to achieve their aims.

I can't see any substantive difference between that position and that of those who continue to declare their innate right to kill people in Northern Ireland today.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a line that's often quoted as if it was axiomatic; as if there were some unbreakable causal link between Irish "freedom" (a concept that's pretty woolly in its own right) and violence; as if Pearse and Tone were helpless victims of a power beyond their control, that drove them against their will into a conflict that they were desperate to avoid; as if they had no free will in the decisions they made, but were mere actors in a Greek tragedy into whose script they have no input.

But it's not an axiom; it's a threat. It's a bald assertion that until Irish republicans get what they want, they reserve the right to inflict violence on whomever they feel deserves it.

The idea that it doesn't matter whether or not republican violence can be justified is a pretty bizarre abdication of a responsibility to exercise any moral judgement over the movement you profess to support.

What you really need to do Oscar for your own education, is to talk to people of my father's generation who could depend on being roughed up regularly at ad hoc checkpoints on border roads, who where regularly refused work because of their religion, who could look forward to a July of being taunted and be beaten if they objected.
They endured the violence of discrimination and subjugation.
The country has never been at peace, and it is not just republicans who are responsible for the violence.
Too many Irishmen and women have a habit of averting their eyes in their quest to avoid their reponsibilities. Already we have somebody on here since my last post attempting to deflect with pointless and snide accusations.
Violence begets violence begets violence. The nature of the conflict on this island is cyclical because those with the power to solve it regularly avert their eyes, just as they are now with the 'dissidents'.
As I said, people witter on about morals and then have to put them aside, eventually. Why bother wittering in the first place, less people would die.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Violence begets violence begets violence.

And the belief that violence is a perfectly valid and totally justifiable way of achieving a political outcome has no bearing on the cycle of violence, of course.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

seriously convincing argument to convince....

You would also need a good one to convince me in how Britain came to be here wasn't wrong.

It comes back to the question of whether it's right to kill people if you get impatient with the pace of a non-violent process.

If the occupying power prolong the talks simply as a ruse to maintain their control or refuse to talk to the occupied, force can be justified I think.

Insurrection may - may - be justifiable as an direct response to an immediate threat of violence by state forces, if there is no peaceful alternative immediately available.

I believe illegal occupation without consent is a form of violence that has a right to be resisted by those under that occupation.

but because they felt they had an innate right to kill people in order to achieve their aims.

One of the unavoidable consequences of deciding to use force. But this choice faces all who choose that path, which obviously includes the organs of the state too.

getzls

TOMASJ wrote: »

As i said before "how many people here or elsewhere would have the guts to fast to death"

Would you? if you felt (your cause was totally right)

You know i always thought about these people who starved them-selves to death.

And i thought, you know, the Prods were stupid.

But not that bloody stupid.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You would also need a good one to convince me in how Britain came to be here wasn't wrong.

Fair enough; you could also argue that how the Normans came to rule Britain was wrong, but we're not talking about the rights and wrongs of seeking independence; rather about the rights and wrongs of choosing to do so through violent means.

If the occupying power prolong the talks simply as a ruse to maintain their control or refuse to talk to the occupied, force can be justified I think.

That comes back to the calculus of how many deaths a given year's delay in achieving an outcome justifies - and that's even accepting (which I don't) that violence is inevitably going to hasten the attainment of a political aim.

I believe illegal occupation without consent is a form of violence that has a right to be resisted by those under that occupation.

You snuck illegality back into the argument, and you still haven't explained what law was broken.

One of the unavoidable consequences of deciding to use force. But this choice faces all who choose that path, which obviously includes the organs of the state too.

Can you accept that when the organs of the state choose to use force, they are (at least nominally) answerable to the populace, whereas a tiny secret society that opts to use force lacks even a veneer of legitimacy?

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

From what did the nationalist community need protection in 1916, and how did the rising provide it?.

There the problem was being iin a permanent minority position and thus unable to get out via Westminister.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's just a statement that violence is justified if you think you might need it to get what you want.

...in certain circumstances.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

but we're not talking about the rights and wrongs of seeking independence; rather about the rights and wrongs of choosing to do so through violent means.

Don't forget about states occupying/colonising/annexing etc through violent means too.

You snuck illegality back into the argument, and you still haven't explained what law was broken.

Apologies, not deliberately in the case of interpreting past events if relevant laws hadn't been drawn up by that time. You can still argue right and wrong on the basis of morality as you said earlier up the thread.

You can use the word "illegality" though in present examples of wrongful occupation should they occur as a body of laws exist to deal with them such as the Rome Statutes (see article 8 on page 9 - Crime of Aggression), plus UN Resolution 3314 of December 1974. Also its no real harm either to use these laws to interpret previous events before these laws came into force.

Can you accept that when the organs of the state choose to use force, they are (at least nominally) answerable to the populace, whereas a tiny secret society that opts to use force lacks even a veneer of legitimacy?

Not in the case of a wrong or illegal occupation. The populace must give consent.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

There the problem was being iin a permanent minority position and thus unable to get out via Westminister.

That's a restatement of the assertion that Ireland could never possibly have achieved independence through solely peaceful means, which I don't believe stands up to scrutiny.

...in certain circumstances.

I've been trying to establish what those circumstances are, and thus far they seem to be "we want to". It's hard to escape the conclusion that, where Irish republicanism is concerned, the thinnest of pretexts will suffice to resort to violence.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Apologies, not deliberately in the case of interpreting past events if relevant laws hadn't been drawn up by that time. You can still argue right and wrong on the basis of morality as you said earlier up the thread.

Yes, but then you're arguing that past actions permanently and irrevocably grant a right to future generations to use violence should they decide that it's opportune to do so.

I don't think you can realistically argue that Ireland was "occupied" by Britain in 1916, without simultaneously arguing that Northern Ireland is "occupied" today, and as such you can't justify 1916 and condemn current dissident violence without hypocrisy.

Also its no real harm either to use these laws to interpret previous events before these laws came into force.

You can't use them to retrospectively justify 1916: you can't claim that the rebels were justified in reacting to something that would at some future date become illegal.

Not in the case of a wrong or illegal occupation. The populace must give consent.

The populace in 1916 gave consent to the Home Rule movement. No consent was sought or given for armed insurrection at that time; the populace didn't want it, didn't believe they needed it, and didn't welcome it when it came.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a restatement of the assertion that Ireland could never possibly have achieved independence through solely peaceful means, which I don't believe stands up to scrutiny..

And I do.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've been trying to establish what those circumstances are, and thus far they seem to be "we want to". It's hard to escape the conclusion that, where Irish republicanism is concerned, the thinnest of pretexts will suffice to resort to violence...

Hardly. These things are nuanced. Nor is there some mechanistic formula that one can apply.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, but then you're arguing that past actions permanently and irrevocably grant a right to future generations to use violence should they decide that it's opportune to do so.

I'm only interpreting backwards in time. Have a go yourself at going forward. Tell me what the island of Ireland will be like in 2113 as regards politics, economy, society etc? See the problem yet?

I don't think you can realistically argue that Ireland was "occupied" by Britain in 1916, without simultaneously arguing that Northern Ireland is "occupied" today, and as such you can't justify 1916 and condemn current dissident violence without hypocrisy.

You've snuck dissidents back into the argument now too. As I've said previously D.E and the N.I Assembly exist today. Where were their native equivalents in 1916? Wouldn't you then suggest that the Westminster parliament was Ireland's parliament in their absence? I'd immediately reject such a notion.

You can't use them to retrospectively justify 1916: you can't claim that the rebels were justified in reacting to something that would at some future date become illegal.

Ok then, strickly speaking they operated on the notions of right and wrong.

The populace in 1916 gave consent to the Home Rule movement. No consent was sought or given for armed insurrection at that time; the populace didn't want it, didn't believe they needed it, and didn't welcome it when it came.

Until the British committed the distastrous mistake of executing the 1916 leaders. A classic example of state violence that helped destroy the Home Rule concept, as eventually borne out by the November 1918 GE result. You can only argue on a counterfactual basis that 1916 interrupted the Home Rule project, but it can be argued against a background of historical reality that it was the reactive violence of the British state to 1916 that ended the chances of John Redmond's Home Rule Party of delivering independence by it's own efforts.

Chuck Stone

I've addressed the parallel, non-violent, universe before with the usual suspects but they tend to ignore it - perhaps because it gives them 'dissonance headaches'.

We work with the history we have not the parallel 'alternate history' anti-Republicans like to conjure. This invoking of a parallel history is simply a method of magnifying Republican violence while diverting attention from the violence, or the threat of violence, of the British.

With the above in mind I think it's safe to say that the usual suspects' concern isn't really with violence, but rather, the 'green' shade of violence which is little other than evidence of double standards and hypocrisy.

marienbad

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've addressed the parallel, non-violent, universe before with the usual suspects but they tend to ignore it - perhaps because it gives them 'dissonance headaches'.

We work with the history we have not the parallel 'alternate history' anti-Republicans like to conjure. This invoking of a parallel history is simply a method of magnifying Republican violence while diverting attention from the violence, or the threat of violence, of the British.

With the above in mind I think it's safe to say that the usual suspects' concern isn't really with violence, but rather, the 'green' shade of violence which is little other than evidence of double standards and hypocrisy.

The problem is we can't seem to agree on ''the history we have''.

Chuck Stone

marienbad wrote: »

The problem is we can't seem to agree on ''the history we have''.

'We' can't seem to place it in a wider context. The British Empire was built on brutality and violence against less technologically advanced peoples yet rebellion against it is decried as 'terrorism'.

RADIUS

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Going by your logic then it's our fault that Britain invaded us!

An Irish king invited the Normans (who controlled Britan) to invade and thus helped found the lordship of Ireland. Maybe it is the IRA apologists should educate themselves.

marienbad

Chuck Stone wrote: »

'We' can't seem to place it in a wider context. The British Empire was built on brutality and violence against less technologically advanced peoples yet rebellion against it is decried as 'terrorism'.

If you don't mind me saying so that is just simplistic sloganeering. I don't know of any empire that wasn't built on brutality and violence and I would even add to the list using torture and terror to maintain it.

And of course rebellion against it is decried as terror - so what ? It is who when where and why is doing the decrying that counts.

And the very labelling you are accusing others of doing is just mirrored on your own side.

Our history is much more nuanced that, and it is the inability to even allow any departure from what ever is the current orthodoxy is just boring.

It is like talking to a pack of Jesuits and that is why I rarely if ever bother with these threads ( though I have been sucked into two at the moment,)

Chuck Stone

marienbad wrote: »

I don't know of any empire that wasn't built on brutality and violence and I would even add to the list using torture and terror to maintain it.

So why does this incontrovertible fact seem to escape, as if by selective amnesia, so many people in the context of Irish rebellions?

And of course rebellion against it is decried as terror - so what ?

So what? That's depressingly blithe.

It is who when where and why is doing the decrying that counts. And the very labelling you are accusing others of doing is just mirrored on your own side. Our history is much more nuanced that, and it is the inability to even allow any departure from what ever is the current orthodoxy is just boring.

Yes, so why do some folks ignore violence, or the threat thereof, of empires and other overarching systems and scream 'terrorism' when these systems' monopoly on the use of violence is challenged?

It is like talking to a pack of Jesuits

It's like trying to explain to fish that they're in water.

marienbad

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So why does this incontrovertible fact seem to escape, as if by selective amnesia, so many people in the context of Irish rebellions?



So what? That's depressingly blithe.



Yes, so why do some folks ignore violence, or the threat thereof, of empires and other overarching systems and scream 'terrorism' when these systems' monopoly on the use of violence is challenged?



It's like trying to explain to fish that they're in water.

The viciousness and violence of empire, to my mind, does not escape others. But you can recognise that and still see its mirror image in the other side.

Even if we confine ourselves to the modern period- say since the Act of Union the history of these islands is so entangled that is not easy to say which is Empire and which is anti-empire , a couple of examples - Roger Casement , a British Consular official and an Irish patriot or Sir Michael Francis O'Dwyer , an Irish catholic from Co.Tipp and the ultimate authority for the massacre at Amritsar . Those oppressed people in India or Egypt saw little difference between an Irish accent or a Welsh or English one -, and it is all part of our history. And this is where the ''selective amnesia '' you refer to really comes in to play. And it leads to this binary view of our history where one side is all good and the other is all bad and is used to close down any conversation and question the ''patriotism '' of posters.

And as for my '' so what'' being so ''depressingly blithe''- you are missing the point , my ''so what'' is just in response to another truism that is constantly trotted out. The key part of my sentence you ignore i.e,'' It is who when where and why is doing the decrying that counts''

I personally find historians such as Niall Ferguson with their lauding of empire and its civilizing mission as actually laughable if it wasn't so tragic, as if to say '' ok we might have brought you the opium wars but we gave you trains and tracks too, you ungrateful slant eyed f*&kers''.

And it is these slant eyed f*&kers and those wogs and taigs that make up ''the who'' of my sentence. And their schools and universities make up ''the where'' and usually just before and long after independence after make up '' the when'' and the ''why'' is that old cliché - those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it'' .

Everything is open for discussion and not just the atrocities of empires,that is unless we want to go on a merry go round of endless repetion.

Chuck Stone

marienbad wrote: »

The viciousness and violence of empire, to my mind, does not escape others.

It certainly does when it comes to those who describe Irish rebellion against the British as 'terrorism' while ignoring the violence of empire.

But you can recognise that and still see its mirror image in the other side.

How can it be a mirror image? How can the violence used by a slave in his struggle for freedom be deemed equal to the threat of violence that makes him a slave? This mirror image line is nonsense.

Even if we confine ourselves to the modern period- say since the Act of Union

'The act of Union' is the language of empire; it makes the control of Ireland sound like it was a romantic marriage rather than a shotgun wedding.

the history of these islands is so entangled that is not easy to say which is Empire and which is anti-empire , a couple of examples - Roger Casement , a British Consular official and an Irish patriot or Sir Michael Francis O'Dwyer , an Irish catholic from Co.Tipp and the ultimate authority for the massacre at Amritsar.

The anti-empire history is far more a part of the psyche of the average Irish person than the tacit approval of empire that seems depressingly persistent among some.

Those oppressed people in India or Egypt saw little difference between an Irish accent or a Welsh or English one -, and it is all part of our history.

There is no 'our history'. Some of the people of the empire benefitted from it. Is it any surprise that those who shout down criticism of the establishment tend also, not surprisingly, to be anti-Republican?

And this is where the ''selective amnesia '' you refer to really comes into play. And it leads to this binary view of our history where one side is all good and the other is all bad and is used to close down any conversation and question the ''patriotism '' of posters.

I've argued earlier in the thread that blanket condemnation of the Republican threat to the monopoly of force in the north is nothing more than a 'good versus evil' quasi-religious conceptualizing of a complex issue. I'm quite aware that there is no black-and-white when it comes to these issues.

It is who when where and why is doing the decrying that counts

The winners of wars get to write the history. If a British person dared question British involvement in WW1 or WW2 they'd be considered a nutter; here, if you cast aspersions on Irish rebellion against the British empire or sell it as terrorism, you can make a financially rewarding career in journalism out of it.

I personally find historians such as Niall Ferguson with their lauding of empire and its civilizing mission as actually laughable if it wasn't so tragic, as if to say '' ok we might have brought you the opium wars but we gave you trains and tracks too, you ungrateful slant eyed f*&kers''.

I've often said it wasn't the British who built the railways but the peasants who would have starved had they not - pity we couldn't help our empire apologists realise that colonialism never was a civilising mission.

Madam

RADIUS wrote: »

An Irish king invited the Normans (who controlled Britan) to invade and thus helped found the lordship of Ireland. Maybe it is the IRA apologists should educate themselves.

Maybe they thought 'the enemy of my enemy' was preferred - the Normans becoming more Irish than the Irish - eventually:) Besides didn't the King of a very small part of Ireland want them to make him king of his wee bit of Ireland again - hence the invite?

Are there any IRA apologists on here?:(

RandomName2

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How can it be a mirror image? How can the violence used by a slave in his struggle for freedom be deemed equal to the threat of violence that makes him a slave? This mirror image line is nonsense.

You’ll need to define what you mean by slave, because, you know, I though a slave was someone who couldn't own property, have freedom of movement, attend educational institutes, vote, run for office, or seek whatever work he may choose.

You seem to be talking about empires in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as if there was something incongruous about their existence; when in reality most of the world was part of one empire or other. Some empires were more autocratic (Russia and Austria) and some less so (France and Great Britain). Of course, it gets problematic when you start talking about Ireland in the same sentence as somewhere like India, due to the unification of Ireland and Britain. India didn't have representatives in Westminster, for instance.

But it’s interesting when one thinks of armed insurrections, in terms of national liberation, against the British Empire. Only the Mau Mau, Stern Gang and Irish Republicans come to mind. It was quite a disappointment, I imagine, to the Japanese Army that India didn't share the same sentiments of “England’s difficulty is India’s opportunity” and “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”. I suppose Ghandi mustn't have been a proper revolutionary if he wasn't holding a Kalashnikov.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

brutality and violence

All people who see themselves as separate should be able to pursue bids for national liberation. But what brutality and violence are you talking about? You could say exploitation. You could say mismanagement. Sure. But you say violence. But I suppose it is an example of double standards and hypocrisy to not, you know, invent stuff. The threat of violence in 1914 was from Unionists. The United Kingdom had just granted us home rule. Are you attempting to conflate the Troubles with WW1?

It’s also, as a side-note, interesting that any criticisms made against Republicanism you term "quasi-religious conceptualizing of a complex issue"; yet you yourself just shrug off all such criticism as the biased diatribe of "empire apologists". I'm sure that isn't just a vague, sweeping generalisation, lacking in substantiation, when made from the other side. :rolleyes:

Ultimately I find it interesting how a thread on Bobby Sands can end up talking about 1916. It's as if there is some logical juncture which excludes O'Connell, Davitt, Butt and Parnell, but instead treats only Pearse, De Valera, and Adams.

marienbad

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It certainly does when it comes to those who describe Irish rebellion against the British as 'terrorism' while ignoring the violence of empire.



How can it be a mirror image? How can the violence used by a slave in his struggle for freedom be deemed equal to the threat of violence that makes him a slave? This mirror image line is nonsense.



'The act of Union' is the language of empire; it makes the control of Ireland sound like it was a romantic marriage rather than a shotgun wedding.



The anti-empire history is far more a part of the psyche of the average Irish person than the tacit approval of empire that seems depressingly persistent among some.



There is no 'our history'. Some of the people of the empire benefitted from it. Is it any surprise that those who shout down criticism of the establishment tend also, not surprisingly, to be anti-Republican?



I've argued earlier in the thread that blanket condemnation of the Republican threat to the monopoly of force in the north is nothing more than a 'good versus evil' quasi-religious conceptualizing of a complex issue. I'm quite aware that there is no black-and-white when it comes to these issues.



The winners of wars get to write the history. If a British person dared question British involvement in WW1 or WW2 they'd be considered a nutter; here, if you cast aspersions on Irish rebellion against the British empire or sell it as terrorism, you can make a financially rewarding career in journalism out of it.



I've often said it wasn't the British who built the railways but the peasants who would have starved had they not - pity we couldn't help our empire apologists realise that colonialism never was a civilising mission.

Where to even begin ! Might I ask is it possible to have such a conversation and leave emotion out of it ?

For example 'The Act Of Union'' is just the name of the statute as is the Roman Catholic Relief Act . That is just a fact and to not recognise it as such is just being contrary. The use of the title does not imply agreement. What do you call it if when having a conversation ? '' The On-going Subjection of The Irish People through the Process of A bought and paid for Undemocratic Parliament Act of Union Act ''.

This is just a constant argument from emotion , as is you denying ''there is no ''our history'' or the cliché that only the victors write the history.

A good example of the complexity and interconnectedness of our history can be seen in the signatories of 1916.

Clarke and Connolly were born abroad and Pearse of English origins, Clarke's father served in the British army and Ceannt's in the R.I.C. And both Connolly and his brother served in the British army, a sizeable portion of ''legitimate targets '' right there , to use that more modern phrase. In fact one of Plunketts uncles , a unionist stiving for reconciliation and for his pains had his house burned down in the civil war by anti-treaty forces.

So as you can see some of our ''founding fathers '' are those you describe as having ''benefited from empire'' or worked for empire and I would say that every Irish family could show the same lineage .

Life and history is not as black and white as people like to believe. And the non recognition of that ensures we never get beyond the sloganeering and on to the really interesting questions .

Chuck Stone

RandomName2 wrote: »

You’ll need to define what you mean by slave

I used the analogy of slave and system of slavery to deconstruct another poster's 'mirror image' as regards the violence of rebellion versus the violence of empire. The colonial empire is the reason for rebellion. It's not as if those who rebel against empire are infected by a criminal insanity virus.

Some empires were more autocratic (Russia and Austria) and some less so (France and Great Britain).

Would you like to travel back to the times of slavery and plantation and ask those who created vast wealth for their masters on threat of torture and murder if they thought that the Empires of GB and France were less autocratic?

Of course, it gets problematic when you start talking about Ireland in the same sentence as somewhere like India, due to the unification of Ireland and Britain. India didn't have representatives in Westminster, for instance.

And the average Irish person did? Access to Westminster had many restrictions placed on it, one being the requirement to own property over a certain value (I'd imagine enough to exclude the vast majority of regular people).

I suppose Ghandi mustn't have been a proper revolutionary if he wasn't holding a Kalashnikov.

Why compare India with Ireland? Should a person on minimum wage in Ireland be thankful he's doesn't have the working conditions of an Indian worker? You're not comparing like with like.

All people who see themselves as separate should be able to pursue bids for national liberation. But what brutality and violence are you talking about? You could say exploitation. You could say mismanagement. Sure. But you say violence.

Empire is built on violence or the threat of violence. Does the idea that the Irish experience of Empire was less brutal than that of those transported to the West Indies make claims of Independence or actions towards those ends less virtuous? No.

But I suppose it is an example of double standards and hypocrisy to not, you know, invent stuff. The threat of violence in 1914 was from Unionists. The United Kingdom had just granted us home rule. Are you attempting to conflate the Troubles with WW1?

I'm glad you mentioned the threat of violence from Unionists. This threat of violence by Unionists is what led to the creation and maintenance of the sectarian statelet and second class citizenry of the minority. This point seems to be lost on many who see Republican violence, in the face of Unionist brutality, as evil and Unionist violence or the threat thereof as 'security'.

It’s also, as a side-note, interesting that any criticisms made against Republicanism you term "quasi-religious conceptualizing of a complex issue";

Labelling Republican violence terrorism (the favoured term of useful idiots) and the violence of the British/Unionist security or law and order is black-and-white thinking. It's a good versus evil false dichotomisation of the issue.

junder

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I used the analogy of slave and system of slavery to deconstruct another poster's 'mirror image' as regards the violence of rebellion versus the violence of empire. The colonial empire is the reason for rebellion. It's not as if those who rebel against empire are infected by a criminal insanity virus.



Would you like to travel back to the times of slavery and plantation and ask those who created vast wealth for their masters on threat of torture and murder if they thought that the Empires of GB and France were less autocratic?



And the average Irish person did? Access to Westminster had many restrictions placed on it, one being the requirement to own property over a certain value (I'd imagine enough to exclude the vast majority of regular people).



Why compare India with Ireland? Should a person on minimum wage in Ireland be thankful he's doesn't have the working conditions of an Indian worker? You're not comparing like with like.



Empire is built on violence or the threat of violence. Does the idea that the Irish experience of Empire was less brutal than that of those transported to the West Indies make claims of Independence or actions towards those ends less virtuous? No.



I'm glad you mentioned the threat of violence from Unionists. This threat of violence by Unionists is what led to the creation and maintenance of the sectarian statelet and second class citizenry of the minority. This point seems to be lost on many who see Republican violence, in the face of Unionist brutality, as evil and Unionist violence or the threat thereof as 'security'.



Labelling Republican violence terrorism (the favoured term of useful idiots) and the violence of the British/Unionist security or law and order is black-and-white thinking. It's a good versus evil false dichotomisation of the issue.

But isn't 'good vrs evil' exactly the 'false dichotomy' that you are pushing only in your case portraying republicans as the goodies and the unionist / British as the baddies

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

But isn't 'good vrs evil' exactly the 'false dichotomy' that you are pushing only in your case portraying republicans as the goodies and the unionist / British as the baddies

I believe that people who struggle for equality, independence and self-determination in the face of violence or the threat of it have the right to stand up for themselves. Good and evil doesn't really come it.

RandomName2

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I believe that people who struggle for equality, independence and self-determination in the face of violence or the threat of it have the right to stand up for themselves. Good and evil doesn't really come it.

To all intents and purposes that is a 'yes'.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I used the analogy of slave and system of slavery to deconstruct another poster's 'mirror image' as regards the violence of rebellion versus the violence of empire. The colonial empire is the reason for rebellion. It's not as if those who rebel against empire are infected by a criminal insanity virus.

Your choice of terminology was equivalent to Godwin's law. Moreover this line of argument implicitly believes that 1) rebellion is exclusive to empires and 2) that all rebellions against empires are legitimate.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Would you like to travel back to the times of slavery and plantation and ask those who created vast wealth for their masters on threat of torture and murder if they thought that the Empires of GB and France were less autocratic?

Which century? Because we were talking about the 18th century last I checked... not much slavery or plantation by either of those powers then tbh. In both, Parliament was expanded at the expense of monarchy.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And the average Irish person did? Access to Westminster had many restrictions placed on it, one being the requirement to own property over a certain value (I'd imagine enough to exclude the vast majority of regular people).

And the average Irishman does today? Access to the Dail is almost exclusive to people belonging to dynasties and bearing strong political party affiliations. Straw man if ever I head one. Throughout the late 19th century such restrictions were rolled back (for instance Butt was from the 'ascendancy', but was quite impoverished, particularly due to his being an MP meant that he had no wage). By the early 20th century, franchise concerns were with women, not men of modest means.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why compare India with Ireland? Should a person on minimum wage in Ireland be thankful he's doesn't have the working conditions of an Indian worker? You're not comparing like with like.

No indeed. You say 'empire' but that is not treating like with like; for Ireland's relationship was not the relationship of client state and empire. The American Revolution was fought on the pretext of 'no taxation without representation'. Ireland could not say anything of the sort.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Empire is built on violence or the threat of violence. Does the idea that the Irish experience of Empire was less brutal than that of those transported to the West Indies make claims of Independence or actions towards those ends less virtuous? No.

Yes, yes it does.

The fact was that violence was needlessly introduced into Ireland's bid for national liberation by revolutionaries. Most other countries under British rule, who sought independence in the twentieth century, who had far less political means than was available to Irish nationalists, did not see the need to fire a shot.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm glad you mentioned the threat of violence from Unionists. This threat of violence by Unionists is what led to the creation and maintenance of the sectarian statelet and second class citizenry of the minority. This point seems to be lost on many who see Republican violence, in the face of Unionist brutality, as evil and Unionist violence or the threat thereof as 'security'.

Well the two were not mutually exclusive; although you are again conflating different things. You are essentially saying 1920/1970; which is not doing the complexity of the issue justice.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

The fact was that violence was needlessly introduced into Ireland's bid for national liberation by revolutionaries.

The most original needless process of them all - empire building. Nuff said.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

The most original needless process of them all - empire building. Nuff said.

Or the other original needless things... like the migration of humans into Western Europe, the end of the Ice Age and the creation of the island of Ireland, the introduction of Christianity, the Reformation, the Enlightenment... particularly considerations relating to nationalism because, without nationalism, people would feel no need to be independent.

With all due respect, at this stage your treatment of historical perspectives relating to particular events is so broad that it makes the discussion become meaningless.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

Or the other original needless things... like the migration of humans into Western Europe, the end of the Ice Age and the creation of the island of Ireland, the introduction of Christianity, the Reformation, the Enlightenment... particularly considerations relating to nationalism because, without nationalism, people would feel no need to be independent.

With all due respect, at this stage your treatment of historical perspectives relating to particular events is so broad that it makes the discussion become meaningless.

Ah, but's it not you see. Whats the ice age got to do with this topic? Cant you just concentrate for once on the inherently unjust process that is empire building (especially against unwilling subjects) for a change instead of fixating on the methods that people have used in an attempt to reverse it?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ah, but's it not you see. Whats the ice age got to do with this topic? Cant you just concentrate for once on the inherently unjust process that is empire building (especially against unwilling subjects) for a change instead of fixating on the methods that people have used in an attempt to reverse it?

You are projecting your moral values back into the past and it is a meaningless exercise .