Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

Tramps Like Us

Manassas61 wrote: »

Every major player in the PIRA said Gerry Adams was in the PIRA. Brendan Hughes for example said he WAS in the PIRA. This is from a person who lived it during that time.

He has no credibility left now anyway and most people aren't stupid, they know what his past was.

Where do you get this from? Very few "major players" from the IRA have said that Gerry Adams was in the IRA. Perhaps you could name some?

I think the whole "Was Gerry Adams a member" is a waste of everyones time, at the end of the day who cares? If it came out that he was never in the IRA would it make one iota of difference in your opinion? There are many former members of the IRA in political office - like it or not someones former IRA membership is not treated as some form of great scandal or outrage by the majority of the general public, especially in the south (besides the professionally outraged)

Manassas61

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Where do you get this from? Very few "major players" from the IRA have said that Gerry Adams was in the IRA. Perhaps you could name some?

I think the whole "Was Gerry Adams a member" is a waste of everyones time, at the end of the day who cares? If it came out that he was never in the IRA would it make one iota of difference in your opinion? There are many former members of the IRA in political office - like it or not someones former IRA membership is not treated as some form of great scandal or outrage by the majority of the general public, especially in the south (besides the professionally outraged)

Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price have both said he was. I think it would be misleading people to try and claim he wasn't.

But history will show people who said he was will be proven right.

Tramps Like Us

Manassas61 wrote: »

Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price have both said he was. I think it would be misleading people to try and claim he wasn't.

But history will show people who said he was will be proven right.

Thats two. Both with an agenda against Adams. You said "Every major player in the PIRA said Gerry Adams was in the PIRA.". This is a fib.

Personally I dont really care either way, its not as big a deal as you seem to think.

Godge

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Thats two. Both with an agenda against Adams. You said "Every major player in the PIRA said Gerry Adams was in the PIRA.". This is a fib.

Personally I dont really care either way, its not as big a deal as you seem to think.

After Ray Burke, CJH and Bertie Ahern, whether our politicians have lied to us is a big deal to those of us in the South.

Gerry Adams at the very least is regarded by many as having lied about a number of issues.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Hang on a sec, one of the IRA fan boys was lauding the fact the IRA killed only 724 civilians and claimed if they were blood thirsty savages, the figures would have been a lot higher.

The British army killed less than a third of the number of civilians than the IRA, but apparently they were going around killing any one of fighting age?

Good old republican hypocrisy strikes again.

When there were incidents in the early 1970's, that's exactly what they did. Hence Ballymurphy, Bloody Sunday. Standard colonial stuff. Go in hard, teach the natives a lesson, beat the crap out of people, smash stuff up.

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No more unbelievable than people defending any other outrage during the troubles to be honest.

Internment without trial, torture, execution without trial, mistaken identity. All indefensible, yet people will bend over backwards to point out that their side doing it was ok, but an outrage when the other side did.

Im not saying that Tramps was necessarily doing this but a huge problem in Northern Ireland is that people look at things through tribal rather than civic point of view which puts the good of society as a whole first and the rules of basic justice. Until that problem is seriously sorted you are always going to have the possibility of violence; as much as the supporters of UKIP might dislike Diane Abbot they are not going to petrol bomb her offices or try to attack her home the way that DUP and PUP supporters recently attacked Alliance Party members' homes and offices. This is one of the reasons I dislike the Orange Order so much- they openly celebrate things like the Dolly's Brae pogrom, the "battle" of Garvagh and the battle of the Diamond while claiming to be upstanding defenders of law and order which sends out a clear message that illegal violence and even murder is only bad and to be deplored as long its themuns who are doing it. In fairness liberal Unionists have realized how serious this problem since the 60s but their unwillingness to recognize wrong doing by the actual British state and how that feeds into the problem has meant that they have been in general less than successful. The 26 counties went through a very brutal civil war but 15 years afterwards they had settled down to peaceful society in which opponents showed each other a level of respect- but where is Northern Ireland's DeValera?

Manassas61

but where is Northern Ireland's DeValera?

Why would Northern Ireland need a DeValera? He was a disaster for the Republic with his smooching of the Roman Catholic Church and its influence on society.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Why would Northern Ireland need a DeValera? He was a disaster for the Republic with his smooching of the Roman Catholic Church and its influence on society.

That really shows how little you know about the history of the south- DeValera blocked serious attempts to actually turn the Free State into a full blown confessional state and went out of his way to protect religious minorities such as Jews and Protestants. He also kept Ireland neutral during the Spanish Civil War and gave what support he could to the Republic. He made serious efforts also to get the USSR into the League of Nations. You should read a biography of him instead of quoting tired old presumptions.

Any what about the influence of the OO and Free Presbyterians over the North now????

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

That really shows how little you know about the history of the south- DeValera blocked serious attempts to actually turn the Free State into a full blown confessional state and went out of his way to protect religious minorities such as Jews and Protestants. He also kept Ireland neutral during the Spanish Civil War and gave what support he could to the Republic. He made serious efforts also to get the USSR into the League of Nations. You should read a biography of him instead of quoting tired old presumptions.

Any what about the influence of the OO and Free Presbyterians over the North now????

Revisionism at its finest.

He was a huge influence in the Roman Catholic Church having so much power. Just read what he said in his Constitution.

Recognition of the "special position" of Roman Catholicism;
a recognition of the Roman Catholic concept of marriage which excluded civil divorce;

Not to mention the contraception law which was in place from 1935 to 1980.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Revisionism at its finest.

He was a huge influence in the Roman Catholic Church having so much power. Just read what he said in his Constitution.



Not to mention the contraception law which was in place from 1935 to 1980.

No its not revisionism at its finest-read a biography.

Also here is what it said- "The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens. "

Which was a simple fact- it was a sop to buy off people who wanted laws similar to Franco's Spain. Also why did you not quote the article that followed it in the consitution-" The State also recognises the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations existing in Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution."

Painted Pony

FTA69 wrote: »

She was apparently caught twice

I don't know anymore than anyone else if she was an informer or not, but surely you can a tiny problem with this caught twice suggestion?

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

No its not revisionism at its finest-read a biography.

Also here is what it said- "The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens. "

Which was a simple fact- it was a sop to buy off people who wanted laws similar to Franco's Spain. Also why did you not quote the article that followed it in the consitution-" The State also recognises the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations existing in Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution."

Just look at his Constitution and the special place he had for the Roman Catholic Church. That is not secularism and certainly wasn't a warm house for Atheists.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Just look at his Constitution and the special place he had for the Roman Catholic Church. That is not secularism and certainly wasn't a warm house for Atheists.

The head of the British State is also the head of the Church of England and the Church of Wales-the UK has a state Religion. Have a read of the coronation oath at some time.

Glass houses and stones.

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

The head of the British State is also the head of the Church of England and the Church of Wales-the UK has a state Religion. Have a read of the coronation oath at some time.

Glass houses and stones.

No one is arguing about the religious position of Northern Ireland within the Union. I challenge the fairy tale all inclusive line about the Republic at that time.

FTA69

Painted Pony wrote: »

I don't know anymore than anyone else if she was an informer or not, but surely you can a tiny problem with this caught twice suggestion?

According to Ed Moloney she was caught once by the IRA after asking too many questions and arousing suspicion. Due to the fact she was a mother of 10, including a Republican prisoner, she was initially warned and reprieved. Apparently her handlers leaned on her to resume informing after a few months and she came under suspicion again. Informants have always been easily discarded by their handlers, she wasn't the first or the last.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

No one is arguing about the religious position of Northern Ireland within the Union. I challenge the fairy tale all inclusive line about the Republic at that time.

I didnt say it was all inclusive- my point was that Devalera was on the side of inclusivity which isnt exactly the same thing. He did some horrible things such as the internment of Republicans during WWII, the hanging of people and the use of torture in certain cases. However you simply cannot compare that great statesman to any of the leaders of Northern Ireland during the first Stormount period.

LordSutch

SoulandForm wrote: »

He did some horrible things such as the internment of Republicans during WWII. . .

Not that I'd be a fan of Dev, but what was wrong with that?

SoulandForm

LordSutch wrote: »

Not that I'd be a fan of Dev, but what was wrong with that?

Something called civil liberty-you Unionists love to go about civil and religious liberties but you than you seem to quite happy with their violation.

LordSutch

SoulandForm wrote: »

Something called civil liberty-you Unionists love to go about civil and religious liberties but you than you seem to quite happy with their violation.

Bearing in mind that were talking baout the middle of WWII, what would have been the modus operandi of the Republicans that were rounded up, and what were their aims during WWII?

Painted Pony

FTA69 wrote: »

According to Ed Moloney she was caught once by the IRA after asking too many questions and arousing suspicion. Due to the fact she was a mother of 10, including a Republican prisoner, she was initially warned and reprieved. Apparently her handlers leaned on her to resume informing after a few months and she came under suspicion again. Informants have always been easily discarded by their handlers, she wasn't the first or the last.

First of all, the IRA’s cellular structure was very effective. It hard to believe that many of them would be giving up any useful information to some housewife asking a lot of questions. Possible, but a bit doubtful IMO.

Second, once she was caught the first time, do you really think the IRA would have turned a blind eye? Someone might have been putting the life and liberty if their “volunteers” at risk and they just let her back into the community? Widow or no, at the very least I think they would have exiled her.

Third, once she was caught, what earthly use would she be to the British? Even if they had no concern for her personal safety, how would they expect her to get any useful information? Anything she passed on was as likely to misinformation as real.

Now maybe this is what happened but I have my doubts. For me, this whole caught twice thing has a real whiff of media spin about it, something that republicans concocted because they knew how murdering a widow of 10 was likely to look. The may simply have suspected that she was informing (if this is the actual reason she was killed) and the stakes were just too high for them to take the chance that she was not.

SoulandForm

LordSutch wrote: »

Bearing in mind that were talking baout the middle of WWII, what would have been the modus operandi of the Republicans that were rounded up, and what were their aims during WWII?

The Republican movement was pretty divided at that time so I dont think you can speak of Republicans in general as regards their aims-yes the IRA did haphazardly attempt a bombing campaign in England around this time (in which Brendan Behan was involved in and where Borstal Boy comes from). The point though is that we are talking about interning people for their refusal to go along with Dev's recognition of the Free State.

SoulandForm

Painted Pony wrote: »

First of all, the IRA’s cellular structure was very effective. It hard to believe that many of them would be giving up any useful information to some housewife asking a lot of questions. Possible, but a bit doubtful IMO.

The PIRA went through various phases- at the point of time we are talking about they didnt have an effective cellular structure, that came later on.

LordSutch

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Republican movement was pretty divided at that time so I dont think you can speak of Republicans in general as regards their aims-yes the IRA did haphazardly attempt a bombing campaign in England around this time (in which Brendan Behan was involved in and where Borstal Boy comes from). The point though is that we are talking about interning people for their refusal to go along with Dev's recognition of the Free State.

Thanks for the info. I shudder to think of a haphazrd bombing campaign in England during WWII, and one has to ask what the hell were they thinking of? the mind boggles. Never knew about the Brendan Behan connection to the dimwits.

SoulandForm

LordSutch wrote: »

Thanks for the info. I shudder to think of a haphazrd bombing campaign in England during WWII, and one has to ask what the hell were they thinking of? the mind boggles. Never knew about the Brendan Behan connection to the dimwits.

"England's problem is Ireland's opportunity..." of course. It mainly consisted of setting fire to Post Office boxs.

I am really shocked that you never knew about Brendan Behan's militant Republicanism. Maybe you should sit down and read Borstal Boy.

LordSutch have you ever actually had a proper conversation with a Republican in your life?

SoulandForm

LordSutch wrote: »

Thanks for the info. I shudder to think of a haphazrd bombing campaign in England during WWII, and one has to ask what the hell were they thinking of? the mind boggles. Never knew about the Brendan Behan connection to the dimwits.

People such as Peadar O'Donnell, George Gilmore and Liam O'Flathery were hardly dim. Irish Republicanism like it or not has attracted some very bright people.

Happyman42

Painted Pony wrote: »

First of all, the IRA’s cellular structure was very effective. It hard to believe that many of them would be giving up any useful information to some housewife asking a lot of questions. Possible, but a bit doubtful IMO.

Second, once she was caught the first time, do you really think the IRA would have turned a blind eye? Someone might have been putting the life and liberty if their “volunteers” at risk and they just let her back into the community? Widow or no, at the very least I think they would have exiled her.

Third, once she was caught, what earthly use would she be to the British? Even if they had no concern for her personal safety, how would they expect her to get any useful information? Anything she passed on was as likely to misinformation as real.

Now maybe this is what happened but I have my doubts. For me, this whole caught twice thing has a real whiff of media spin about it, something that republicans concocted because they knew how murdering a widow of 10 was likely to look. The may simply have suspected that she was informing (if this is the actual reason she was killed) and the stakes were just too high for them to take the chance that she was not.

There are plenty of people still well and living in the South who heeded their warnings and got out. Being warned first was the modus operandi in a lot of cases, especially as you went down the ranks.

SoulandForm

LordSutch wrote: »

Thanks for the info. I shudder to think of a haphazrd bombing campaign in England during WWII, and one has to ask what the hell were they thinking of? the mind boggles. Never knew about the Brendan Behan connection to the dimwits.

Just to be clear that campaign if you can call that was a typical example of Irish insular thinking at its very worst.

That said LordSutch you realize that conscription wasnt brought in in Northern Ireland during that war not because of fear of Republicans but because of fear of Loyalists who were still bitter over the battle of the Somme and the betrayal of Donegal as they saw it.

Rubeter

SoulandForm wrote: »

Just to be clear that campaign if you can call that was a typical example of Irish insular thinking at its very worst.

Surely you can understand how for many Irish people siding with Britain in 1940 would be like the people of Warrington siding with the IRA today, 20 years is not a long time and they certainly didn't know what we know today about WWII.

SoulandForm

Rubeter wrote: »

Surely you can understand how for many Irish people siding with Britain in 1940 would be like the people of Warrington siding with the IRA today, 20 years is not a long time and they certainly didn't know what we know today about WWII.

Up to a point I can- but so much was at stake in WWII and Irish people had fought so bravely in Spain.

I can understand it, but that doesnt mean that I agree with it.

Even now I think Ireland as a whole (and that very much includes the PUL) is too insular and doesnt pay enough attention to mainland Europe.

It was actually the left such that it existed at that time-both Protestant and Catholic- that was most behind the war effort.

Rubeter

SoulandForm wrote: »

Up to a point I can- but so much was at stake in WWII and Irish people had fought so bravely in Spain.

I can understand it, but that doesnt mean that I agree with it.

Even now I think Ireland as a whole (and that very much includes the PUL) is too insular and doesnt pay enough attention to mainland Europe.

It was actually the left such that it existed at that time-both Protestant and Catholic- that was most behind the war effort.

People didn't really know what was at stake at the time, Germany how bad, Britain? Hmmmm people's impressions of that country were well and truly set.
Why on earth would you be expected to agree with it, and we must live on different Islands if you think the people here are insular, practically every person I know knows more about Europe than many many (comparable age wise) people I have met in and from Britain.

SoulandForm

Rubeter wrote: »

Why on earth would you be expected to agree with it, and we must live on different Islands if you think the people here are insular, practically every person I know knows more about Europe than many many (comparable age wise) people I have met in and from Britain.

Yes Britain is also insular (and you could well be justified in saying more so) but at the same time it is a pretty big place with a greater variety of opinion than Ireland. Should Ireland copy Britain?

If Ireland spoke Irish it would be lot less insular because it wouldnt so be reliant on the anglo-saxon world for ideas and entertainment.

Iwasfrozen

SoulandForm wrote: »

If Ireland spoke Irish it would be lot less insular because it wouldnt so be reliant on the anglo-saxon world for ideas and entertainment.

I don't believe that, you can get the Simpsons in german.

Rubeter

SoulandForm wrote: »

Yes Britain is also insular (and you could well be justified in saying more so) but at the same time it is a pretty big place with a greater variety of opinion than Ireland. Should Ireland copy Britain?

What? What do you mean by "should Ireland copy Britain?"
Are you asking should we become more insular like they are?

Just want to add I wouldn't think there is more of a variety of opinions in Britain, just more people with each opinion.

If Ireland spoke Irish it would be lot less insular because it wouldnt so be reliant on the anglo-saxon world for ideas and entertainment.

Could be true.

Howard Juneau

SoulandForm wrote: »

Yes Britain is also insular (and you could well be justified in saying more so) but at the same time it is a pretty big place with a greater variety of opinion than Ireland. Should Ireland copy Britain?

If Ireland spoke Irish it would be lot less insular because it wouldnt so be reliant on the anglo-saxon world for ideas and entertainment.

If Ireland spoke Irish we would actually become more insular.
The vast majority of people in this country do not want to speak the language, or even have it taught as a compulsory subject in school

SoulandForm

Howard Juneau wrote: »

If Ireland spoke Irish we would actually become more insular.
The vast majority of people in this country do not want to speak the language, or even have it taught as a compulsory subject in school

Are you sure about that? Look at the Dutch- no one speaks Dutch or interested in learning it so they go out of their way to learn so many languages. Plus the number of Irish speakers and Gaelscoileanna is increasing all the time. I went to Grammar School in the north where Irish wasnt thought but I have been learning it and it has been a very rewarding experience.

Iwasfrozen

SoulandForm wrote: »

Are you sure about that? Look at the Dutch- no one speaks Dutch or interested in learning it so they go out of their way to learn so many languages. Plus the number of Irish speakers and Gaelscoileanna is increasing all the time. I went to Grammar School in the north where Irish wasnt thought but I have been learning it and it has been a very rewarding experience.

The languages the Dutch mostly learn is English and the language of neighbouring countries. Even if the Irish did speak Irish our only neighbour speaks English so that's the only language we'd learn anyway.

Blame geography for Ireland's isolation not language. We're never going to be Germany, smack bang in the centre of Europe.

Howard Juneau

SoulandForm wrote: »

Are you sure about that? Look at the Dutch- no one speaks Dutch or interested in learning it so they go out of their way to learn so many languages. Plus the number of Irish speakers and Gaelscoileanna is increasing all the time. I went to Grammar School in the north where Irish wasnt thought but I have been learning it and it has been a very rewarding experience.

I'm 100%.sure of it.
All you need do to satisfy yourr own curiosity is look at threads & polls on here & you will see the apathy & hatred for the language.
The govt had said the subject would be removed as a compulsory subject, but it hasn't happened to date

SoulandForm

Howard Juneau wrote: »

I'm 100%.sure of it.
All you need do to satisfy yourr own curiosity is look at threads & polls on here & you will see the apathy & hatred for the language.
The govt had said the subject would be removed as a compulsory subject, but it hasn't happened to date

Actually I have been shocked by the amount of people who speak where I live (an urban place) and their happiness to let me practice it with them-and such a wide range of people from Protestant Ministers to hippies to Doctors. Those who dont speak it usually regret that they cant.

Howard Juneau

SoulandForm wrote: »

Actually I have been shocked by the amount of people who speak where I live (an urban place) and their happiness to let me practice it with them-and such a wide range of people from Protestant Ministers to hippies to Doctors. Those who dont speak it usually regret that they cant.

Níl sé sin cheart, b'féidir go bhfuil na daoine seo at thógáil an mícháel.

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The languages the Dutch mostly learn is English and the language of neighbouring countries. Even if the Irish did speak Irish our only neighbour speaks English so that's the only language we'd learn anyway.

True, though having to learn a foreign language would open people's minds and we wouldn't be stuck in "the curse of the Anglo-Sphere" that is the fear or apathy towards other languages. We would be more comfortable with dubbed TV and films for example.

Blame geography for Ireland's isolation not language. We're never going to be Germany, smack bang in the centre of Europe.

I agree there, geography plays a much greater role in a country's level of insularity than its language, sure it's geographical isolation that gave rise to different languages in the first place and islands do tend to me more inward looking and the greater the population the more inward looking that society usually is, hence Britain (and as an extreme example Japan) being more so than little Ireland.

Note, I do not use the word "insular" as an insult, because I know too much about the rest of the world and don't naively think that densely populated, highly urbanised and very mixed part of Europe people usually compare us to when using that word is representative of human societies worldwide.
We are insular compared to people from Brussels but not compared to the vast majority of people worldwide.

FTA69

Painted Pony wrote: »

First of all, the IRA’s cellular structure was very effective. It hard to believe that many of them would be giving up any useful information to some housewife asking a lot of questions. Possible, but a bit doubtful IMO.

There was no cellular structure in the early-1970s. What existed then was the old brigade and battalion structure which would have meant a Volunteer would have been exposed to many other members at any one time. McConville lived in the Divis Flats, massive tower blocks where Republicans moved around unmasked and openly carrying guns. Having someone who lived in those flats reporting on names, faces etc could provide reams of low-level information.

Second, once she was caught the first time, do you really think the IRA would have turned a blind eye? Someone might have been putting the life and liberty if their “volunteers” at risk and they just let her back into the community?

They obviously didn't want the bad publicity of killing a widowed mother of ten, which has been demonstrated by the fact they initially denied responsibility for killing her.

Third, once she was caught, what earthly use would she be to the British? Even if they had no concern for her personal safety, how would they expect her to get any useful information? Anything she passed on was as likely to misinformation as real.

As I said above, the early-1970s was a very different time and as such all someone had to do was stick their head out the door in order to see something worth passing on.

An Coilean

Howard Juneau wrote: »

The govt had said the subject would be removed as a compulsory subject, but it hasn't happened to date

No they havent, FG were suggesting it going into the election, but they faced a backlash from the electorate on the issue and Labour were also against it. When it came to putting the program for government together the idea was dropped.

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

True, though having to learn a foreign language would open people's minds and we wouldn't be stuck in "the curse of the Anglo-Sphere" that is the fear or apathy towards other languages. We would be more comfortable with dubbed TV and films for example.

They wouldn't learn a foreign language, they'd just end up being bilingual Irish and English speakers.

Rubeter wrote: »

I agree there, geography plays a much greater role in a country's level of insularity than its language, sure it's geographical isolation that gave rise to different languages in the first place and islands do tend to me more inward looking and the greater the population the more inward looking that society usually is, hence Britain (and as an extreme example Japan) being more so than little Ireland.

Note, I do not use the word "insular" as an insult, because I know too much about the rest of the world and don't naively think that densely populated, highly urbanised and very mixed part of Europe people usually compare us to when using that word is representative of human societies worldwide.
We are insular compared to people from Brussels but not compared to the vast majority of people worldwide.

I'd agree with this, we are inward looking but not cripplingly so.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

No they havent, FG were suggesting it going into the election, but they faced a backlash from the electorate on the issue and Labour were also against it. When it came to putting the program for government together the idea was dropped.

You mean they faced a backlash against students hoping to be Irish teachers.

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They wouldn't learn a foreign language, they'd just end up being bilingual Irish and English speakers.

The hypothetical situation was described as "if we spoke Irish" not "if we were a bi-lingual country" therefore we would be just like the Dutch, Danish etc...
Now unless you don't consider English to be a foreign language to those people (which would be daft) then indeed it would be a foreign language in an Irish speaking Ireland.
This isn't an Irish language thread and it was just a hypothetical musing not even on the topic of the language, so don't be jumping onto your "anti Irish language" horse.

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

The hypothetical situation was described as "if we spoke Irish" not "if we were a bi-lingual country" therefore we would be just like the Dutch, Danish etc...
Now unless you don't consider English to be a foreign language to those people (which would be daft) then indeed it would be a foreign language in an Irish speaking Ireland.
This isn't an Irish language thread and it was just a hypothetical musing not even on the topic of the language, so don't be jumping onto your "anti Irish language" horse.

I understand what you're saying but we'd still be stuck in te curse of the anglosphere as the only other language we 'd speak en mass would be English.

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I understand what you're saying but we'd still be stuck in te curse of the anglosphere as the only other language we 'd speak en mass would be English.

What is the world's most widely spoken second language? Are all those people stuck in the Anglo-sphere? Get real.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You mean they faced a backlash against students hoping to be Irish teachers.

Indeed they did, and students hoping to be many other things as well, and of course the backlash did not just come from students (if it did it would probably have been ignored).

Godge

SoulandForm wrote: »

If Ireland spoke Irish it would be lot less insular because it wouldnt so be reliant on the anglo-saxon world for ideas and entertainment.

If Ireland spoke Irish, we would be even more insular than we are already. The Ireland of the 1930s - 1950s under De Valera who was promoting a cultural nationalism was one of the most insular countries in the world.

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

If Ireland spoke Irish, we would be even more insular than we are already. The Ireland of the 1930s - 1950s under De Valera who was promoting a cultural nationalism was one of the most insular countries in the world.

But Ireland spoke English then, indeed Ireland has been at its most insular since it became an English speaking country.