Complicated history

Valmont

I don't know if this is the correct forum for this thread but I'll go on.

I was browsing bebo a while back and I came across an interesting homepage.(bear with me!)

For their profile pic they had an Irish flag with Micheal Collins on it, looking proud.

After I looked at their page I saw that the had a photo album called proud to be Irish which contained 48 pictures of men with balaclavas, bomb sites and I.R.A murals.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't it a slight contradiction to have a picture showing recognition of Micheal Collins and then to blatantly support the I.R.A?

Any opinons, thoughts, views, much appreciated.

Cheers

moynihan

It's really a matter of opinion, the IRA has split so many times since the 20s that some people consider them to be a completely different organisation now to what they were then, while others think that the current IRA is continuing in the traditions they had when Collins was in (de facto) command.

Clouseau

With balaclavas?

nollaig

Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't it a slight contradiction to have a picture showing recognition of Micheal Collins and then to blatantly support the I.R.A?

Not a contradiction at all.

He fought to gain independence, just like they did

jaqian

old-IRA fought for independence. Alphabet-Soup-IRA (P-IRA, C-IRA, R-IRA etc) are nothing but scumbags and terrorists.

Valmont

nollaig wrote:

Not a contradiction at all.

He fought to gain independence, just like they did

Well I know that!


The way I see it, the modern I.R.A were born out of the split after Collins accepted the 26 counties. Then there was the civil war and didn't Collins fight against the I.R.A? They rejected the treaty and fought for complete independance, whereas he wanted to use the treaty as a stepping stone to eventually achieve independence.

So it seems in my view that Collins and the I.R.A represented different political views thus making it a slight contradiction to openly support both of them.

Then again how can any Irish person, politics aside, not admire what Collins did for our country!

Thanks for the feedback

Valmont

moynihan wrote:

It's really a matter of opinion, the IRA has split so many times since the 20s that some people consider them to be a completely different organisation now to what they were then, while others think that the current IRA is continuing in the traditions they had when Collins was in (de facto) command.

Well anyone who thinks the I.R.A of today are the same as pre 1920's must be confused but yes it is a good point and I see how people can support the I.R.A of today, not in support of criminal activities but in pursuit of the romantic notion of a united Ireland.

nollaig

Well I know that!


The way I see it, the modern I.R.A were born out of the split after Collins accepted the 26 counties. Then there was the civil war and didn't Collins fight against the I.R.A? They rejected the treaty and fought for complete independance, whereas he wanted to use the treaty as a stepping stone to eventually achieve independence.

So it seems in my view that Collins and the I.R.A represented different political views thus making it a slight contradiction to openly support both of them.

Then again how can any Irish person, politics aside, not admire what Collins did for our country!

Thanks for the feedback

To say that he fought against the IRA is a bit misleading. He fought against the anti-treaty or irregulars. You cannot compare the people that took the anti-treaty side with modern day IRA

Valmont

nollaig wrote:

To say that he fought against the IRA is a bit misleading. He fought against the anti-treaty or irregulars. You cannot compare the people that took the anti-treaty side with modern day IRA

sorry point taken, I should have said the anti-treaty side. I know they are incomparable now, but aren't the anti-treaty folk the roots of what is the modern I.R.A? Not completely as the whole organisation has taken some twists and splits but generally speaking.

nollaig

sorry point taken, I should have said the anti-treaty side. I know they are incomparable now, but aren't the anti-treaty folk the roots of what is the modern I.R.A? Not completely as the whole organisation has taken some twists and splits but generally speaking.

But you could say that the OLD IRA that fought for independence were the roots for the anti-treaty forces, therefore making them the roots for modern day IRA:D

Valmont

nollaig wrote:

But you could say that the OLD IRA that fought for independence were the roots for the anti-treaty forces, therefore making them the roots for modern day IRA:D

Your ability to state the obvious is frightening, even though it's leading absolutely nowhere.:p

Rocker

Yeah it is a bit ironic for SF to be claiming a man who used British guns to kill Republicans. Since 96 and the film both FF and SF have been trying to claim him as their own after calling him a traitor for more then 70 years. I think it’s a huge insult to Collins to say he would have supported those bastards as well.

Valmont

Rocker wrote:

Yeah it is a bit ironic for SF to be claiming a man who used British guns to kill Republicans. Since 96 and the film both FF and SF have been trying to claim him as their own after calling him a traitor for more then 70 years. I think it’s a huge insult to Collins to say he would have supported those bastards as well.

Thank you, finally someone who agrees! I don't blame either FF or SF for trying to claim him because of what he achieved, but I just think that with the direction the I.R.A took it doesn't make much sense to have Collins as their hero.

nollaig

Your ability to state the obvious is frightening, even though it's leading absolutely nowhere.

Yeah, but I was trying to make the point that modern day IRA can just as easily trace their roots back to the formation of the Irish Volunteers as they can to the anti-treaty forces.

I think it’s a huge insult to Collins to say he would have supported those bastards as well.

Well thats impossible to know. Who knows what would have happened if Collins had lived? Maybe, the boundary commission debacle would still have occurred and Collins organised the IRA for another war in the North. It's impossible to know. He could very well have been supportive of the IRA's campaign if he was living in the 1970's. Then again, he might not have.:D

I have no problem with any political party claiming ownership of him. They are prospering in a country that he won so everybody should have the right to revere him

Valmont

nollaig wrote:

Well thats impossible to know. Who knows what would have happened if Collins had lived? Maybe, the boundary commission debacle would still have occurred and Collins organised the IRA for another war in the North. It's impossible to know. He could very well have been supportive of the IRA's campaign if he was living in the 1970's. Then again, he might not have.:D

I have no problem with any political party claiming ownership of him. They are prospering in a country that he won so everybody should have the right to revere him

I'll agree with you there:D Regardless of political stance Collins is an Irish hero.

mcgarnicle

I can see why you think there is a contradiction with modern IRA guys linking themselves with Collins but it is impossible to know how Collins would have reacted to the boundary commission's findings. He signed the treaty under the impression that what would result would be a northern ireland half the size of what we have today and incapable of surviving very long. Not only this but he had actually started to plan a guerilla war aimed specifacally at the north so from this point of view the guys on that site could be right in assuming collins would have supported them.