800 years

csk

InFront wrote:

The Union of Britain and Ireland was a historical wrongdoing just like messy old wars and rusty old Roman Emporers.

It's a historical wrongdoing to you standing in Dublin in the 21st Century but it was very much alive in Ireland pre-WWI.

infront wrote:

Everybody who had influenced it, had voted on it, had argued for it, had argued against it was dead. So why should a live man, with no influence over that union, pay for it with his life?

Yet the Act didn't die with them, did it? That's a very basic point.

A live man? If he was a soldier in the British Army and was acting in Ireland, then he was upholding the Act of Union, that's influencing it in his small way.
If he was a member of the British Government and denying Home Rule, then he was upholding it and that is influencing it in his small way. I could go on...
Now before you harp on about the policeman in St.Stephens Green, I don't condone the killing of innocent people. Yet for the policeman in St. Stephen's Green, I could point out Francis Sheehy-Skeffington or I could point out the family gunned down on Moore St while under a white flag of Truce.

To say that no "live man" was influencing the Union is ridiculous beyond all belief.

infront wrote:

As for having little say in it's own administartion, I mean that in the context that it had even been denied Home Rule. Not having a parliament in Dublin was only stupidity - not having a parliament at all would have been oppression.

You say stupidity, as if it was a simple mistake or an oversight and not part of an ongoing and deliberate policy designed to limit the freedom of the people of Ireland in favour of British interests.

infront wrote:

Take Quebec in Canada.

I would rather not, as I said before look to Ireland and why what happened here happened.

infront wrote:

Would you be understanding if the Front de libération du Québec did just that? would they be freedom fighters? Did they ever have that right? When exactly did that right disappear? Why doesnt Northern ireland have that right?

Okay i'll humour you. First I may state that I have absoluetly no understanding or working knowledge of Quebec or its situation. I wouldn't even say I have a superficial knowledge.
But if it's as you describe (and I suspect it's not as clear-cut) then yes I would be understanding, would I condone or condenm it I don't know.

infront wrote:

No , they didnt remember the incident at all and I think the use of the term "what they did to us" is the problem. Nothing was done to that man or to his immediate or living family in that event. He has no ownership of the conflict any more than I (with no irish ancestry) or you have. Politics is not genetic, life experience is not hereditary, personal trauma does not live in chromosomes, it evaporates away on the deathbed.

What a bizarre thing to say. No you're not born with "life experience" inbedded in your head, but surely you are not denying the existence of a social memory or that it informs on the present.
As I said history is a process made up of cause and effect that informs on the present.
Jews for example still remeber the Holocaust even though many had nothing done to them. When Neo-Nazis parade around do Jews witnessing these not feel angry, scared?
Now I know this is not a good example, the Neo-Nazis are in no position to do any damage on the scale of the Holocaust, while in pre-WWI Ireland the British were still in charge, they were still in a position to pass a new Law equivalent to the Penal Laws.

infront wrote:

DeValera suffered no personal oppression either, nor did Collins, nor Higgins, nor Mulcahy nor McDermott.

No you're right there, Collins didn't personally witness the burning of his family home. He was presumably in Dublin fighting this non-existent oppression.

infront wrote:

These men had the vote, the right to education (just like everyone, if they could pay for it), they could run in elections, had all of the things available to him in that society as a Liverpudlian or a Glaswegian or a Londoner of equal social standing would have had.

I already explained this. Your failure to grasp the point in this regards is why I keep saying you have no understanding of this period.

infront wrote:

the republicans with all of their democratic potential.

You mean the democratic potential that they went on to fulfill in the 1918 Election?

infront wrote:

No they did not "remember" these incidents, they would be aware of them, yes.
What Catholic subserviance, in 1916?
What famine was not yet remedied? Ireland was in a poor economic state, but povrty doesn't call for terrorism, it calls for new political measures, that's the most anyone can demand.

Now you're just being pedantic "aware" or "remember", it's the same difference to me. to deny the fact that an "awareness" (to use your word) had no influence is facetious.

infront wrote:

Outdated rhetoric is a bit of a strange description for what i was describing. Anyway, tell me how you would define a terrorist differently and we'll see if it is coherent.

Terrorist was used by the British to dismiss the actions of Sinn Féin as part of their propaganda. For you to use it, creates the impression that you are showing what side of the fence you are on. I don't care what definition you give it, it taints your argument. By continuing to use it you are indulging in mindless rhetoric and considering that the men you are calling "terrorist" have been officially recognised by the Irish State means it is outdated rhetoric at that. Or maybe you are just trying to be delberately emotive? Which further undermines your argument.

infront wrote:

1916 was not a miserable failure, in the long term it was successful in the eyes of deValera and Collins, and most 1916 sympathisers. My point is that seeing how 1916 had worked, the leaders took advantage of the swaying political opinion and put on a similar tack of continual British offense and unco-operation that culminated in the War of Independence and that unreasonable, unspeaking mentality was later dragged out by the civil war.

You know when I say that you don't demonstrate any extensive knowledge of this period, I honestly don't meant to be rude or impolite but when you continue to use "terrorist" or come out with gems like this it's the only conclusion I can come to.

Have you actually read any of Collins views on 1916?
If you did then you would know why this is wrong to say.

The only way 1916 worked was the way it acted as a fulcrum on which Nationalist opinion could turn. That Nationalist opinion didn't turn straight away to Sinn Féin, Sinn Féin still had to seize it for themselves.
All 1916 (and really it was the executions) showed Republicans was that there was now an opening on which they could try to challenge the IPP.

infront wrote:

How could the British administration legally co-operate with such a thing?

How could the people of Ireland, given everything that had gone on (plantations, penal laws, any other oppressive act you care to mention and keep in mind these acts and policies were designed to do any thing from completely wiping out Irish people to keeping them in poverty and subservience) co-operate with the British Administration.

infront wrote:

Now it is, presumably, every MP's own business as to how he divides his time, and if he wants to spend it in an un-mandated, undemocratic parliament with no legal status, fine.

From the Irish point of view that is precisely the kind of parlaiment you are suggesting Sinn Féin should have sat in.

infront wrote:

Say Fine Gael runs on a policy of abortion, and they get elected. Does that mean that the public have voted for abortion? No, it might mean that most people agree with them on abortion, but it isn't an outright vote for abortion, and it doesn't legally permit abortion. You need a constitutional referendum to do so.

Why don't you actually say:
Fine Gael say, if you vote for us we will do all in our power to bring in Abortion. We will hold a referendum or we will find some other method but voting for us means we will do all in our power to bring in Abortion.
Because that would be closer to the truth?

infront wrote:

Have you ever put yourself in DeValera's shoes and examined, knowing the facts, what your conscience might tell you? Have you ever considerded the mentality that shoots a policeman walking through the park after he finished work... a peacekeeping, normal irishman.

You know this is what I have been trying to get you to do. By highlighting the external forces that were acting on these men but you have just dismissed that out of hand because it doesn't suit your view of History.

But why stop with DeValera, why not put yourself in Desmond Fitzgerald's or any other rank and file member of the Irish Volunteers shoes.
Better yet put yourself in the shoes of The O'Rahilly, a man who was vehemently opposed to any insurrection, yet still took part. He died leading what was the only truly heroic action of the whole sordid week.

infront wrote:

And can anybody clear up why this is so different IRA activiity in the last 30 years of the 20th century?

Are you being serious when you ask this?

infront wrote:

The personal situation in those terms (as opposed to the above) is an irrelevance. It's like asking "how do i know if I grew up in Pakistan I wouldnt be an extremist" or "how do you know if you grew up in New york you wouldn't be a Republican", it's a facile and pointless question with no value. All anyone has is their personal experience as it is, and it is in that context, yes bearing in mind the social context, that we all examine history.

Now you're just blowing out of all proportions what I orginally intended as a minor point. All I was trying to do originally was point out that if those men had not have won independence then the factors that influneced their decisions would still be there to potentially influence you. That is all.

infront wrote:

None. Personally I think it would have been as bad as any transition, and I doubt it would be much better than the first legitimate Dáil under Cosgrave (except there would be no arms debt to Britain). However, it would have been one thing: less bloody.

You seem to have missed the point of what I was saying once again.
My point is that your theory of Home Rule is purely Hypothetical based on the perverse belief that it was inevitable, there is no guarantee that a) there would have been no violence or b) that it would have led to full Independence.
I could put forward an equally hypothetical theory on Home Rule where the violence would have been worse and that it would have led to the British Government revoking Home Rule and thus leaving us back where we started.

infront wrote:

Fair enough, but that isn't a widely held opinion. Why would Ireland be the only foreign colony not to have been given self governance? Why would the Statute of Westminster, allowing as it does, for the ability to leave the Commonwealth, and stressing as it does, the superiority of home law to UK law throughout the Commonwealth, not have applied to us?

Does that make it less valid or something?
I would argue that Ireland ceased being a colony with the advent of the Act of Union.
As such the only places we can really look to for comparison (and as I have said I don't particularly feel comparisonds such as these are valid but seeing as you have no qualms in doing so) are Scotland and Wales.
So ask you where oh where is the Republic of Scotland or the Republic of Wales?

infront wrote:

Check the facts, Daniel O Connell and CS Parnell did not seek Irish independence.

I never said that O'Connell or Parnell sought Irish Independence.
You have missed my point again or else you are trying to fudge the issue I brought up.
If your whole thesis is based on foisting what we know now onto the past (and even this is based on a purely hypothetical course of history)
Why can't I look to what we acutally know, that Irish independence was won with the help of violence, and say why didn't O'Connell or Parnell use this like Sinn Féin to achieve their goals?

To base your whole argument on the inevitablity of Home Rule is naive.
I mean even if Home Rule was inevitable. Why should we have to wait?
Why should we have to have only Home Rule in the first place?
[EDIT] Given what we now know about the Celtic Tiger economy Why should we have simply accepted Home Rule at the time the British deigned to give it to us? [EDIT]

You also seem to believe that the men of this period had some kind of superpowers. You say and I can't find the direct quote that John Redmond knew Home Rule was coming as if he had some kind of psychic ability.
You also attribute some kind of Machiavellian super strategy to Collins and DeValera, that everything that happened was the result of their manipulation and their design.
Really these men were no different to us, they were only reacting to the day to day happeneings with the best of their abilities. For you to look at history with these kind of notions is wrong.

As I already said, We have to judge it [the past] by its [the pasts] standards, that doesn't mean we can't still appreciate by todays standards the context that events like 1916 or 1798 occured in.

InFront

csk wrote:

It's a historical wrongdoing to you standing in Dublin in the 21st Century but it was very much alive in Ireland pre-WWI.

Right, but you still haven’t suggested why these men (who had never even given parliament a shot, no pun intended) were right to opt immediately for violence.
You've mentioned the idea of a "social memory". That still just avoids the fact that this was a new, different, liberal government with no political genes to speak of. If anything, you are thereby admitting blame on behalf of the terrorists through their own foolish misguidance and attachment to the past, and quite rightly you would.
I find it strange to think that they could remember the terror of the Act of Union, and yet fail to remember what they were granted in just 1914 with the third Home Rule act.

If he was a soldier in the British Army and was acting in Ireland, then he was upholding the Act of Union,

You can be guaranteed that most of those guys had never even heard of that Act. The people who really knew about it, and could really be convinced to change it were not the British soldiers who quite innocently joined their own army as Irishmen do today, who were sent, whether they chose it or not, to Ireland. The only people who could really be convinced of changing it, were middle aged men in a debating chamber in London, that's who the republicans needed to be dealing with.
We can see that, maybe they couldn’t, but for someone now, to admit that in hindsight terrorism was still the better action, is hardly worth debating with.

that's influencing it in his small way.
If he was a member of the British Government and denying Home Rule, then he was upholding it and that is influencing it in his small way.

No he was upholding it in a much bigger way than any given soldier, actually. Because this guy actually had the decision making process at hand. That is who the republicans should have talked to. The Republicans never entered Westminster

You say stupidity, as if it was a simple mistake or an oversight and not part of an ongoing and deliberate policy designed to limit the freedom of the people of Ireland in favour of British interests.

Hardly British interests, Britain at this stage was about as interested in Ireland as someone would be interested in a sore finger. In fact, the only thing that was of any interest to most people in the entire country would have been the fact that the Northern Unionists came in handy in the Commons from time to time, this place was hardly a British obsession.

Okay I’ll humour you. First I may state that I have absolutely no understanding or working knowledge of Quebec or its situation. I wouldn't even say I have a superficial knowledge.
But if it's as you describe (and I suspect it's not as clear-cut) then yes I would be understanding, would I condone or condenm it I don't know.

I think that makes it pretty obvious where you stand. You would be understanding of the Front de libération du Québec, knowing what was outlined in that paragraph, killing people for their petty cause? Seriously: why not the recent IRA activities? Humour me, though humour is once again the wrong word in this context, was IRA activity from 1970 onwards warranted in your opinion?

Jews for example still remeber the Holocaust even though many had nothing done to them. When Neo-Nazis parade around do Jews witnessing these not feel angry, scared?

Yeah, angry and scared, but they don't have a right to shoot them.

Anyway, please don't compare the British government of the 20th century to Nazis, it's a pretty useless comparison, it's an overly extreme example that doesn’t translate well onto the Irish experience.

Now I know this is not a good example, the Neo-Nazis are in no position to do any damage on the scale of the Holocaust, while in pre-WWI Ireland the British were still in charge, they were still in a position to pass a new Law equivalent to the Penal Laws.

You ignore entirely the presence of social and cultural change in Britain from century to century to fit your own perspectives, do you want a reasonable debate or not, that speculation on the reintroduction of penal laws from the 1700's is utter bull.

Please describe how someone like James Joyce, (just because he's a well known Irish figure who grew up and lived here during the British regime), was oppressed on the basis of being Irish? The answer is, he simply was not. Nobody was automatically "oppressed" by virtue of being Irish, and for you to keep going on about such oppression shows that you're not appreciating the unnecessary nature of the republican violence at the time.

You mean the democratic potential that they went on to fulfill in the 1918 Election?

No the democratic potential they failed to tap into by refusing to ever debate with British politicians to resolve the issue and divert a war. The British politicians were sitting in Westminster, ready and waiting for Sinn Fein, where was Sinn Fein? Busy starting a war in Ireland.

Terrorist was used by the British to dismiss the actions of Sinn Féin as part of their propaganda. For you to use it, creates the impression that you are showing what side of the fence you are on.

Creates an impression that... what? I'm not on either side of any perceived fence: this isn't all about republicanism being perfect and the British being all wrong or vice versa, that is an expired opinion as far as I can see. I received education here, yet I don't feel any allegiance to Ireland, and having a background that would have as you put it "a social memory" of British oppression, wouldn't really be aligned with that tradition either.
This is about something completely different: the simple matter of right and wrong. It goes beyond "them and us".

considering that the men you are calling "terrorist" have been officially recognized by the Irish State means it is outdated rhetoric

What's this, Taoiseach infallibility? I think that the unwillingness to appreciate the crimes committed by the republican - yes - terrorists - of 1916 is overlooked because of the widespread perceived insignificance of their crimes, and the equally common opinion that the method doesn't matter, all that matters is the result.

Or maybe you are just trying to be delberately emotive?

Flinging accusations as petty as that again isn't doing anything for this debate. This is supposed to be a serious debate and not the Thunderdome, if you want to question mine or someone's opinion seriously, then just prove them/ us wrong instead of baseless ridiculing without any substance.

Have you actually read any of Collins views on 1916?
If you did then you would know why this is wrong to say.

I have never been asked so frequently to back up my education on this or another issue, despite having not a single factual error that I can see and consistently forming my opinion with fact. If you want to question my opinion, feel free, it isn't perfect, but for goodness sake stop presuming that for some reason I haven't read up on republicanism or I916 just because I happen not to sympathize with it.

How could the people of Ireland, given everything that had gone on (plantations, penal laws, any other oppressive act you care to mention and keep in mind these acts and policies were designed to do any thing from completely wiping out Irish people to keeping them in poverty and subservience) co-operate with the British Administration.

The same way Nationalists up North are doing it now. Or are they wrong to do so?

From the Irish point of view that is precisely the kind of parlaiment you are suggesting Sinn Féin should have sat in.

Explain how Westminster was illegal and unmandated. Not wrong; illegal and unmandated?

Why don't you actually say:
Fine Gael say, if you vote for us we will do all in our power to bring in Abortion. We will hold a referendum or we will find some other method but voting for us means we will do all in our power to bring in Abortion.
Because that would be closer to the truth?

"We will hold a referendum or find some other method", so in other words we will democratically ask you whether you want it, or we will force it through by violence without asking you whether you want it?
Don't you see how that statement could not be a mandate for abortion? Because what would be the point of promising them a referendum on abortion, if the vote itself was adequate mandate? You are contradicting yourself.

Don't you see the legal problem with that "inference" above? Don't you see how it would be impossible for the British government of the time to keep any integrity whatever by handing Ireland over to a group of terrorists without any valid referendum, or vote on the issue?

Originally Posted by infront
And can anybody clear up why this is so different IRA activity in the last 30 years of the 20th century?

Are you being serious when you ask this?

Go on, humour me. Seriously.

Does that make it less valid or something?
I would argue that Ireland ceased being a colony with the advent of the Act of Union.
As such the only places we can really look to for comparison (and as I have said I don't particularly feel comparisons such as these are valid but seeing as you have no qualms in doing so) are Scotland and Wales.
So ask you where oh where is the Republic of Scotland or the Republic of Wales?

There is nothing like a similar sense of nationalism or desire for self-determination there, nor was there. Also Ireland, despite being part of the archipelago, but being an island nation, has an obvious, tangible unique identity separate from Great Britain.

Why can't I look to what we acutally know, that Irish independence was won with the help of violence, and say why didn't O'Connell or Parnell use this like Sinn Féin to achieve their goals?

Personally I'd suggest they were different types of men who believed in an honourable way of doing things as the best way of doing things. They just weren't militants, or so extremist in their opinions that they would shoot ordinary decent Irishmen or young, hapless, powerless servants of the British army. Yet they got a heck of a lot done, didn't they. Remember O'Connell's philosophy (though Parnells' would have been largely the same) "egum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus"

To base your whole argument on the inevitability of Home Rule is naive.
I mean even if Home Rule was inevitable. Why should we have to wait?
Why should we have to have only Home Rule in the first place?

That "why should we have to wait" philosophy sums up a republican extremist's entire dummy-throwing antics of the first and the last one thirds of the twentieth century.
There was no reason why Ireland should have to settle for Home Rule only, most of the other colonies didn't.

You also seem to believe that the men of this period had some kind of superpowers. You say and I can't find the direct quote that John Redmond knew Home Rule was coming as if he had some kind of psychic ability.

Yes he did express that opinion, or it is expressed in his biography. I will look for an online source. He knew Home Rule was coming because the 3rd HR Bill was law and the political machinery of a home rule state was waiting to be installed. Of course, this was later ruined by terrorism, the rest is history.

You also attribute some kind of Machiavellian super strategy to Collins and DeValera, that everything that happened was the result of their manipulation and their design.

No, lazy opportunism was in fact the term I was associating with them.

Really these men were no different to us, they were only reacting to the day to day happenings with the best of their abilities. For you to look at history with these kind of notions is wrong.

Okay, take events in... since Iraq is such a hot potato... Afghanistan. Now the Taliban and Pashtun "warlords" as we know them here, of the northern welayats of Afghanistan, (local heroes, and local community leaders) are only too doing their best to represent their people to the best of their abilities... right? against a foreign power holding up a puppet government right? They have created their very own Afghani version of a Munster Republic in some provinces. Do you sympathize with that? If not, why not?

PHB

The potato crop failed, that is all. Why is Irelands inability to feed itself a sign of Britain not caring about Ireland?

Because the reason the famine happened was not because there wasn't enough food in Ireland, it was because the food that was there went to England.

InFront

PHB wrote:

Because the reason the famine happened was not because there wasn't enough food in Ireland, it was because the food that was there went to England.

But isn't that exactly what Fratton Fred just said? saying that the crop failed and that there wasn't enough food left in ireland, is the exact same as saying there wasn't enough food in Ireland! Where the food had gone to was irrelevant to the starving dead, it may as well have been in Timbucktwo, the problem was it just wasn't here.

PHB

The problem was that there was enough food in Ireland to feed the majority of the people there, but because the British felt the people in England were more important, the food was exported over there. There was enough food in Ireland, but it was taken.

If you want to see the stark relatities of the famine, and why it amounted to an effective genocide, have a look at either Lyons essay on it, or esle Woodham-Smith's book, the Great- Famine.

LordSutch

If you remove your Political bias & Nationalist bias from the equation, I think it quite Unremarkable that the Largest & most powerful of these islands dominated the smaller islands surrounding it (Ireland inc) although it was never as simple as that anyway, because Ireland & the Irish were also integral partners with Britain & its position on the World Stage (pre 1922)!

Not sure about the "oppression" thing, it seems to me that we (as a group of islands) have done very well, apart from our "Family quarrells" with the North & our brothers & sisters on the larger island next door!

InFront

PHB wrote:

The problem was that there was enough food in Ireland to feed the majority of the people there, but because the British felt the people in England were more important, the food was exported over there. There was enough food in Ireland, but it was taken.

Not sold, eh, "taken"? I think the British government handled the famine unbelievably badly, and the (JC Russell, laissex-faire) government of the time had Irish blood on thier hands.
However, it was the farmers and Landlords (among them Catholics) who, in fairness, as such had no public responsibilities, who sold grain to British merchants. There was no sneaky band of Whig MPs stealing into ireland at nighttime, robbing all the Irish grain and butter in the King's carriages and running off at dawn, that just didn't happen.

Of course, even despite the financial aid and the rates system and poor law and the emergency planning and the provision of 700, 000 jobs "Overnight", in economic terms, the British government still didn't do nearly enough. The Liberals led by JC Russell after June 1846 should bear most of the responsibility for that, having eventually resigned themselves to the bewildering idea that God had 'visited Ireland'. But to simply suggest that Ireland should have stopped trading its grain and fed it to the masses overnight is a facile notion with no economic merit.

In fact, what should have happened was that the British government should have purchased cheaper foodstuffs than grain (more bang for their buck) or else have had planned a more successful maize initiative. They should have simultaneously allowed the economy here to suffer minimal damage by continuing on the sale of Irish grain to British merchants on the mainland, and to have put in place long term industrial investment programmes in the South of Ireland for maximal long term economic recovery and employment. But to suggest that they should halt the sale of Irish goods without considering the serious implications of that for infrastructure, just doesnt add up.

csk

InFront wrote:

Right, but you still haven’t suggested why these men (who had never even given parliament a shot, no pun intended) were right to opt immediately for violence.

You say immediately as if they just woke up one day and decided that they would go out and shoot British soldiers.
Of course they hadn't witnessed the constant failure or delay involved with British Parlaimentary process.

infront wrote:

You've mentioned the idea of a "social memory". That still just avoids the fact that this was a new, different, liberal government with no political genes to speak of.

You are now avoiding the fact that as much as the Irish Nationalist social memory was working on the Irish side, there was a British equivalent social memory acting on their side.
Yes it was a "new, different, liberal government" but it was capable of being replaced with a "new, different, conservative government" or even worse changing into a "new, different, oppressive government".
For example the reign of Charles II saw a "new, different, liberal monarch" when compared with his predeceessors, yet he was not above committing oppressive acts to quell British opinion and thus becoming a "new, different, oppressive monarch" in the process.

infront wrote:

I find it strange to think that they could remember the terror of the Act of Union, and yet fail to remember what they were granted in just 1914 with the third Home Rule act.

No they remembered or were "aware" of the fact that the British brought in the Act of Union because they felt the need to, regardless of whether the people of Ireland wanted such a thing, that the Act had been corrupt and flawed didn't matter to the British.
They remembered or were "aware" that Home Rule had been brought in because it was politically expedient for certain Liberal Governments to do so. They were also "aware" that two sucessive Home Rule Bills had been defeated and that the Liberal Allies of the IPP had done nothing to circumvent the House of Lords until it was once again politically expedient for them to do so. They were also "aware" that the Government had then done nothing in the face of Unionist opposition but delay the Bill further. Of course they would have to wait until the time came for Home Rule to be implemented (of course "the time" was at British convienence) for their worst fears to be confirmed, as the British indulged in further obfuscation. Even John Redmond in the face of this obfuscation could not in good conscience go with this version of Home Rule.

infront wrote:

You can be guaranteed that most of those guys had never even heard of that Act. The people who really knew about it, and could really be convinced to change it were not the British soldiers who quite innocently joined their own army as Irishmen do today, who were sent, whether they chose it or not, to Ireland.

Does the fact they mighn't have been aware somehow excuse it?
Whether they knew or not, whether they wanted to uphold it or not is irrelevant.
Your assertion was that "a live man" had "no influence over that union,"

infront wrote:

No he was upholding it in a much bigger way than any given soldier, actually. Because this guy actually had the decision making process at hand. That is who the republicans should have talked to. The Republicans never entered Westminster

And would they have been entertained in any way, shape of frorm?
Now of course you're going to take the easy way out and say "they never tried, we'll never know" .
But let's look at what we do know, that here I am sitting in the Republic of Ireland. Does that not tell you something?

infront wrote:

Hardly British interests, Britain at this stage was about as interested in Ireland as someone would be interested in a sore finger. In fact, the only thing that was of any interest to most people in the entire country would have been the fact that the Northern Unionists came in handy in the Commons from time to time, this place was hardly a British obsession.

Why did they stay for so long?
Why after the Treaty did they still stay in the North East?
Why did they demand certain facilities in the South?

What you're saying is complete and utter bullsh!t especially about the Unionists and once again shows you don't seem to have any understanding of the contexts involved.
If anything it was the IPP who came in handy around the House of Commons.

infront wrote:

I think that makes it pretty obvious where you stand. You would be understanding of the Front de libération du Québec, knowing what was outlined in that paragraph, killing people for their petty cause? Seriously: why not the recent IRA activities? Humour me, though humour is once again the wrong word in this context, was IRA activity from 1970 onwards warranted in your opinion?

What does where I stand have anything to do with this debate?
Have you just been arguing all along with what position you think I hold?
If that's the case it would explain alot.
Why don't you concentrate instead on the words I'm saying?

As for Quebec, you brought it up as a modern day comparison to 1916.
I said and I qoute "But if it's as you describe (and I suspect it's not as clear-cut) then yes I would be understanding, would I condone or condenm it I don't know".
By " I would be understanding" I meant that I would seek to understand first before condemning out of hand what I know nothing about. I understand why the British did what they did here, that doesn't mean I condone it. TBH a little understanding of the contexts involved from you would go along in this thread.

As you are using Quebec as a comparison to Ireland are you also insinuating that Irish Independence is also a petty cause?
It says everything that needs to be said about you really.

infront wrote:

Yeah, angry and scared, but they don't have a right to shoot them.

Anyway, please don't compare the British government of the 20th century to Nazis, it's a pretty useless comparison, it's an overly extreme example that doesn’t translate well onto the Irish experience.

Did I say it gave them the right to shoot the Nazi's? Once again the point I made sailed right over your head.
What I pointed out is that the Jews still remember what was done to them, but when they see Neo-Nazi's parading around they know they have nothing to fear because the Neo-Nazi's are in no position to do damage on the scale of the Holocaust.
Yet the same cannot be said when Irish people pre-WWI remembered the wrongs done to them, seeing that the perpertrators of those wrongs the British Government were still in a position to do more.

But seeing as You brought up the comparison between the British Government and the Nazi's explain the difference between these two sentences:

In the early Twentieth Century, "Ireland was, quite foolishly, being ruled by a foreign power".

During WWII, France, Poland(or any other number of other countries) were, "quite foolishly, being ruled by a foreign power".

(note the words in Quotation Marks are yours not mine.)

infront wrote:

You ignore entirely the presence of social and cultural change in Britain from century to century to fit your own perspectives, do you want a reasonable debate or not, that speculation on the reintroduction of penal laws from the 1700's is utter bull.

No I don't, if anything it is you who ignores the fundamental reason that Britain stayed here. My point was ,in case you are bothered with what I say and not what You think I'm saying, that despite the presence of social and cultural change the fundamental reason Britain ocuppied Ireland had not changed. In so far as this was the case the reason for Laws like the Penal Laws had not changed, all that changed was that any oppressive Laws passed would have fit in with the social and cultural change in Britain, but that would not make them any less oppressive.

infront wrote:

Nobody was automatically "oppressed" by virtue of being Irish, and for you to keep going on about such oppression shows that you're not appreciating the unnecessary nature of the republican violence at the time.

In the strict meaning you want to give the word, no one was being "oppressed" and the days of being "oppressed" simply because one was Irish were receding. Yet the whole situation in Ireland was created by British oppression, through laws and policies, that were deliberately systematically calculated to, depending on the British mood, destroy completely the Irish people or just simply keep them subjugated. The Irish peole had seen how they had been coerced into an Act of Union they did not want, how the Parlaiment that did not represent 80-90% of the population anyway, had been bribed into accepting that act, they had seen how unfeasible the new Parlaiment was in trying to achieve their aspirations, how the only hope of success was to wait for an opportunity every few years when the vote for the other parties was split and an Irish party could hold the balance of power (provided they could stay unified).
It might not strictly be "oppression" by your definition, but its not not "oppression" either.

Republican violence was unneccessary? Yet the bottom line is that it led to Independence. How is that unneccessary? Is it because you think the cause of Irish Independence is petty and no man should have to die for such a deplorable Thing, especially as the British were so willing to pull out of Ireland any way. Is that your reasoning?

infront wrote:

No the democratic potential they failed to tap into by refusing to ever debate with British politicians to resolve the issue and divert a war. The British politicians were sitting in Westminster, ready and waiting for Sinn Fein, where was Sinn Fein? Busy starting a war in Ireland.

Of course the British politicians inWestminister would have listened?
I can imagine it now:
"Ah, old chum, It is nice to finally make your acquaintance. We are frightfully sorry about that old rebellion mularkey, we didn't mean to pin the bame on you. Now that we have finally met you we see how wrong we were, you are not quite the uncouth half-ape monstrositiess we expected. So now you have made the journey ask away, anything you want, we will do our utmost to help you.
What's that, a Republic you say? By Golly, Let's have another brandy first ay, old fellow.

infront wrote:

Creates an impression that... what? I'm not on either side of any perceived fence: this isn't all about republicanism being perfect and the British being all wrong or vice versa, that is an expired opinion as far as I can see. I received education here, yet I don't feel any allegiance to Ireland, and having a background that would have as you put it "a social memory" of British oppression, wouldn't really be aligned with that tradition either.
This is about something completely different: the simple matter of right and wrong. It goes beyond "them and us".

As I have explained the continued use of the word Terrorist in this debate does nothing but undermine your credibility.

infront wrote:

I have never been asked so frequently to back up my education on this or another issue, despite having not a single factual error that I can see and consistently forming my opinion with fact. If you want to question my opinion, feel free, it isn't perfect, but for goodness sake stop presuming that for some reason I haven't read up on republicanism or I916 just because I happen not to sympathize with it.

I take it that's a No then. Collins' views on 1916 are fundamental to your statement: "1916 was not a miserable failure, in the long term it was successful in the eyes of deValera and Collins,"
If you come out with a Statement like that what am I to think, seriously?

You also say things like:
"In some ways 1916 played such a small part in Dev's and Collins' respective careers. In more ways, it was instrumental to their careers"
"No, lazy opportunism was in fact the term I was associating with them. "
"They wanted to ride the post-1916 'easy' wave that surfers call a tube ride."
"Going out and trying to win an election for yourself is much harder and requires effort. Terrorism is easy, any dumbass can fire a gun"

When I try to get you to see the context of things, you dismiss it out of hand, it's irrelevant says you, then you have the gall to turn around and tell me I should put myself in DeValera's shoes.
I try to explain (yes it was simplistic but that's the only charge you can lay against it) what Sinn Féin did in the lead up to the General Election that meant it wasn't an "easy" ride and that no overt terrorist actions were used and you dismiss it as only a simple school explanation, yet you have not demonstrated any deeper awareness yourself, besides saying they were riding the post-1916 "easy" wave.

TBH you seemed to have bought into the hoary old Nationalist myth that after 1916, "all had changed, changed utterly", that 1916 had shook the Irish People out of the devilish enchantment weaved by the weakling IPP with the connivance of the evil British Gov, that now that the patriotic fires had been relit, the People were now ready to follow Brian Boru, Hugh O'Neill, Fr. John Murphy, Robert Emmet, the Bould Fenian Men and the Brave Boys of 16 into taking up arms and repelling the Sasanach and Na Gallaibh and reclaiming the ancient "sireland" in the name of Cáitlín Ní Ullacháin.

It also looks like another extension of your perverse belief in the inevitability of certain things. The one notable exception of producing a gun that I mentioned is an example of how things were my no means inevitable. Had that gun not been produced and that particular fellow not elected then the success of Sinn Féin in the next General Election would have been far from assured and the subseqeunt events far from certain.

infront wrote:

Explain how Westminster was illegal and unmandated. Not wrong; illegal and unmandated?

Well the Act of Union was quite simply illegal. It was only passed when critics of it were bribed into accepting it. The Parlaiment of Ireland that passed it was also wholly unrepresentative of the population, with 80-90% of people unrepresented.

infront wrote:

"We will hold a referendum or find some other method", so in other words we will democratically ask you whether you want it, or we will force it through by violence without asking you whether you want it?
Don't you see how that statement could not be a mandate for abortion? Because what would be the point of promising them a referendum on abortion, if the vote itself was adequate mandate? You are contradicting yourself.

I only responded to your initial faulty analogy to correct it and bring it into line with what was more akin to what Sinn Féin actually did. Is it any wonder you are laying the charge of contradiction, when your insipid analogies are fudging the issue.

infront wrote:

There is nothing like a similar sense of nationalism or desire for self-determination there, nor was there. Also Ireland, despite being part of the archipelago, but being an island nation, has an obvious, tangible unique identity separate from Great Britain.

You brought up the comparison first and then when I use it to try to illustrate a point, it then becomes invalid?

Is the part underlined, not the indefeasible reason why Ireland should not have had to wait for mere Home RUle, why Ireland should not have been annexed to Britain in the First place?

infront wrote:

Personally I'd suggest they were different types of men who believed in an honourable way of doing things as the best way of doing things. They just weren't militants, or so extremist in their opinions that they would shoot ordinary decent Irishmen or young, hapless, powerless servants of the British army. Yet they got a heck of a lot done, didn't they. Remember O'Connell's philosophy (though Parnells' would have been largely the same) "egum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus"

First off it was only honourable to you. When did the British ever display such Honour?
What about the young, hapless, powerless servants of the British Army that terrified the actual hapless and powerless people of Wexford or Dragooned Ulster or burned Drogheda or shot dead unarmed civilians in Croke Park or the Peaceful Protestors in Derry?
I could go... but really get a grip of your self and stop coming out with ridiculous statements.

infront wrote:

That "why should we have to wait" philosophy sums up a republican extremist's entire dummy-throwing antics of the first and the last one thirds of the twentieth century.
There was no reason why Ireland should have to settle for Home Rule only, most of the other colonies didn't.

You seem to have a naive belief that the relationship between Ireland and Britain was akin to that of a petulant child and a benevolent yet loving parent.
That all Ireland had to do was ask nicely and Britain would just give in.
All the while you ignore the fact that Brtain was here purely for its own need and that those needs were actually heightened in the pre-WWI climate.
What right did Britain have to keep Ireland subjugated?

As is written on Parnell's monument on O'Connell ST. "No man has the right to fix the boundary of the march of a Nation"

infront wrote:

We can see that, maybe they couldn’t, but for someone now, to admit that in hindsight terrorism was still the better action, is hardly worth debating with.

I left this to last simply because of everything you said this is the most ludicrious.

Your whole argument is based on the false premise that knowing what we know now Home Rule was "absolutely unquestionable" coming.
As has been demonstrated that is wrong, Home Rule was not inevitable and it did not guarnatee that a) there would have been no violence or b) that Full Independence would have come.
Yet look to what we actually know, that Full Independence was achieved with the help of violence. That with that Independence, the one aim of the people of Ireland through all the long years of various struggles was finally realised and was enshrined in the Free State Constitution.This was popular sovereignty.
In your desperation to condenm what you see as a crazed cabal of extremist Republicans, you seem to exonerate the people of Ireland from all blame. To do so is foolish, it was the will of the people that allowed Sinn Féin to do what it did, the same as it was the will of the people that allowed the IPP to do what it did, it was the same will that erupted in 1798 and the same will that supported a Catholic King of England or an undersiege Protestant one. A crazed cabal of republican extremeists did not manipulate or "bully their way forward", the were carried on the tide of the people's desire to be free.
Now 1916 was not a manifestation of this will. Yet it turned peoples opinion towards those who were in a better position to achieve what it was the people wanted. Why is this wrong? In the end 1916 kickstarted the process(if I can be so crude), the process ended with the ultimate desire of every generation of Irishmen to ever have walked the earth: Popular Sovereignty.
Ultimately this goal was only ever symbolic but over the years as I have stated this desire was expressed in different ways, in 1690, they Looked to King James II, in the latter half of the 19th Century they looked to Home Rule and in the years after 1916 they looked to Sinn Féin and the Republic. Yet it didn't matter to the vast majority of people what form that freedom would take be it monarchy, Home Rule or Republic. All these organisations were entrusted by the people of Ireland to do, was their best to further the goal of Freedom.
Ultimately this symbolic goal was enshrined in the Free State Constitution that stated "the soveriegnty of the state is derived solely from the people of the State"(not a direct quotation but close enough). This was tremendously important, it negated the oath of fealty to the King and it allowed the eventual declaration of the Republic and finally escaping the evil clutches of the British Empire. No other Dominion had been granted the priviledge of this (AFAIK) at the time.
Now for you to turn around knowing all this and tell me that I should now look to 1916 and say "I condemn these men", simply because today Palestinians, Afhgani's and the Provisional IRA are branded Terrorist and these have some small things in commom with The founding Fathers of this State, as all the while you ignore the element of British fault, is in my opinion disgusting, deplorable, degrading and decrepit.

(after rereading this last point I see it is couched in overtly Nationalistic tones but I still stand by everything I said.)

walrusgumble

InFront wrote:

UCD celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2005. So yes it was there before 1920. Great Catholics like Newman and GM Hopkins were associated with it, and many irishmen: James Joyce, Kevin Barry, Padraig Pearse, etc. All of therse 'opressed' men received a wonderful education in a very much free and Catholic Ireland (yes, even before 1916 and the war of independence)

And the poverty argument really doesn't do much to justify terrorism.

thanks for pointing that out by ucd that was a genuine question, not part of my argument.

as far as poverty not justifing terrorism, again, that word and what happened 80 years ago should not link. poverty and a farmer paying riduclous amounts of annuties to a foreign crown, thats seems justifiable ( not today's standards though, pitty some african countries like somalia dont seem to see it that way, but it happens) justifiable in the sense of waging war, ok it was not a war like the americans ie in a field, instead guerilla which was effective.


as far as the ira, as one pointed out the ira of the 1970's to present greatly differed from 1919-1923. first the old irs swore loyalty to dail eireann (civil war proved that to end). secondly one must remember what the ira was nicknamed by nationalist in derry etc when they suffererd discrimination and gerrymandering, i ran away. the ira had to defend our brothers and sisters in the north, why? well they could not turn to state protection ie northern ireland assembly as it was underpresented by nationalists and their policies were some of the reasons for john hume and co to peacefully demonstrate, they could not turn to the british army (who they enthusically welcomed them to their estates when they first batch came to protect them) after bloody sunday.

that is just one side of an argument, by no means i condone the murdering of members of garda siochana or bank robbing. the bombings of london in 1993 were appalling partiularily when alot of us were prob ringing our relations to see if they were ok, omagh was an embarrassment.
i am not saying what happened 80 yrs ago is right or wrong, put imagne if you are poor etc, may not have much of an education so politics seemed out of the question unless you join connolys socialist. what other options is there?

incidently how come it seems ok for the usa to pump money into rebels/freedom fighters to overthrow a regime and head of state becaause it doesnt take to the usa's fancy, why did the usa not come to rwanda's help in the 1990's

InFront

the ira had to defend our brothers and sisters in the north

Anyone who comes up with that garbage isn't worth engaging on a debate with.

Hmmm, ok csk, I've asked the question below a few times and this debate is quite time consuming for both of us. i'm quite happy to commit to the debate, but not with constant shirking of one issue:

You stated that the fact that The act of Union was illegal and unmandated, and the fact the plantations were wrong and illegali, and because political oratory had not worked in the past. that Sinn Fein were under no responsibility to co-operate with Westminster in London, or with the institutions of the British Government.

So will you will just simply and clearly exaplain why it was permissible for the Sinn fein of the early 20th century to act with violence on those grounds, and not permissible for the SFIRA of later years to act on those grounds against the "illegal" plantations and the "illegal" act of union, given how the political process had failed Nationalism?

Why was political violence in Ulster, as most of us feel, not warranted? If you answer this, I will gladly respond to your points.

Capt'n Midnight

walrusgumble wrote:

that is just one side of an argument, by no means i condone the murdering of members of garda siochana or bank robbing. the bombings of london in 1993 were appalling partiularily when alot of us were prob ringing our relations to see if they were ok, omagh was an embarrassment.
...
incidently how come it seems ok for the usa to pump money into rebels/freedom fighters to overthrow a regime and head of state becaause it doesnt take to the usa's fancy, why did the usa not come to rwanda's help in the 1990's

an embarrassment ? ( "no we are the real IRA" )
per capita it was worse than 9/11

And you didn't mention proxy bombs

Rwanda doesn't have any oil , but more importantly even if there was a regime change was to occur it wouldn't change the status quo with regard to the USA. Same as up North, both ourselves and the UK get referred as the 51st state. I can only think that the CIA never rated the IRA's chances of getting into power highly or that they didn't believe they were really marxist what with all the protection rackets and stuff.

/OT

PHB wrote:

The problem was that there was enough food in Ireland to feed the majority of the people there, but because the British felt the people in England were more important, the food was exported over there.

nah nothing to do with thinking they were more important, it was just down to money, at that stage the welfare of the poor in the UK wasn't rated that highly either.

csk

ArthurF wrote:

If you remove your Political bias & Nationalist bias from the equation, I think it quite Unremarkable that the Largest & most powerful of these islands dominated the smaller islands surrounding it (Ireland inc) although it was never as simple as that anyway, because Ireland & the Irish were also integral partners with Britain & its position on the World Stage (pre 1922)!

Yes, it was quite unremarkable really, so much so, you could even say it was just the natural order of things.

Just like when Germany was the Biggest Power on Continental Europe, and looked to exert influence over its neighbours, quite unremarkable really, just the natural order of things.
Like when France with Napolean at the helm, was the Biggest power on Continental Europe, and looked to exert influence on its neighbours, that was pretty unremarkable, just the natural order of things.
When the Soviet Union, one of only two Superpowers left after World War Two, looked to spread its influence that too was pretty unremarkable, just the natural order of things.

I suppose, when Britain fought back against the Nazi's and the French under Napolean, it was pretty unremarkable too, just the natural order of things.
Or when the United States of America stood up to the Soviet Union, once again it was pretty unremarkable, just the natural order of things.

When Ireland too, fought back against Britain, it was fairly unremarkable and when she won, it was only the natural order of things.

csk

InFront wrote:

Anyone who comes up with that garbage isn't worth engaging on a debate with.

Hmmm, ok csk, I've asked the question below a few times and this debate is quite time consuming for both of us. i'm quite happy to commit to the debate, but not with constant shirking of one issue:

You stated that the fact that The act of Union was illegal and unmandated, and the fact the plantations were wrong and illegali, and because political oratory had not worked in the past. that Sinn Fein were under no responsibility to co-operate with Westminster in London, or with the institutions of the British Government.

So will you will just simply and clearly exaplain why it was permissible for the Sinn fein of the early 20th century to act with violence on those grounds, and not permissible for the SFIRA of later years to act on those grounds against the "illegal" plantations and the "illegal" act of union, given how the political process had failed Nationalism?

Why was political violence in Ulster, as most of us feel, not warranted? If you answer this, I will gladly respond to your points.

What does my position regards Sinn Féin or the Provisional IRA have to do with this debate? As I have said in my post, that you have conviently decided not to answer, stop trying to argue with what position you think I hold and argue with the words I am saying.

When I saw you persistently putting questions to myself and BlackJack about latter day Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA, I suspected there were two reasons for this. Firstly I suspected, you saw this as some sort of trap, that whatever answer I or anybody else gave, you would go, "aha! I have got you now, your true colours are shown, your whole argument is undermined because you are dirty a Shinner and they're terrorists".
Secondly I suspected you were asking because you have no grasp of the contexts involved. This was the only reason I responded to your orginal post in the first place to try to show you the contexts.

If the first instance I have highlighted above is true, then that kind of argument has no place in this debate (your continued use of the word terrorist is what suggests to me that is were you're going with this line of questioning). As regards the second instance above, I have tried to point out the different contexts but you have continously went, not just against my opinion but that of the whole historical profession throughout the world , in condemning it as irrelevant. You have also condemned Irish Independence as a "petty cause" and the men who fought for it as terrorists, now you have the gall to look down your nose at the poster walrusgumble, I suggest you remember this is an Irish message board and a bit of decorum would not go astray.

I have no problem whatsoever with you if you want to disagree with the reasons for 1916 or my opinion or if you want to put forward alternative course of history, after all the what ifs are just as fascinating as the facts, but to base a your whole argument on an imaginary course of history at the expense of reality is absurd.

I am not going to answer your questions on political violence in the North of Ireland as I have already stated, I do not feel its relevant to the topic, but if you wish to hear them that badly, I suggest you start a seperate thread and I will be more than happy to participate (you might even be surprised/disappointed by what I say).

Anyways to make a post on topic for a change and remember this thread isn't actually about the rights and wrongs of Irish Independence but whether or not the idea of "800 years of oppression" is still valid.
I will say again as I said earlier on in the debate, that while we have to move on from a postcolonial society, I feel it is harmful to rush the process. In fact TBH I believe we, as a society, have already retarded that process by trying to rush it.
The revisionism that has taken place, especially around Irish Independence has led to a whole raft of revisionist myths sprouting up that are perverting the course of History. These "revisionist myths" are no better than their Nationalist counteparts but seem to be slowly creeping into general circulation. The usual premise is that Home Rule was inevitable and that it would have been completely peaceful (sound familiar?) and that eventually in the dim and distant future of this alternative(fictional?) reality, Ireland would be a peaceful united 32 county country.

These myths have to be tackled, as they create a sense of embarrasment about the past. This embarassment is completely unwarranted and not only does it spit on the grave of those who died in the name of Irish Independence, it is also unfair and demeaning to those of us who have to inhabit this island in the present. There is absolutely no reason why we should look to the past with shame, bad things were done on all sides of the conflict on these shores and if we, as a society, are to move on, then an acknowledgement of the past is needed not an apology, an acknowledgement warts and all. If we, as a society, are to move on to a multi cultural post-colonial society, we will need a coherent, reasoned 21st century from of Nationalism. Not a demeaned, degraded and downtrodden one, those who perpetuate the "revisonist myths" and joke about M.O.P.E. (most oppressed people ever) Syndrom, are in fact doing more harm than anything and by trying to deny the Irish people their nationalist/republican past, are delaying the move to the multi-cultural society that they claim they want to achieve.

InFront

csk wrote:

What does my position regards Sinn Féin or the Provisional IRA have to do with this debate? As I have said in my post, that you have conviently decided not to answer, stop trying to argue with what position you think I hold and argue with the words I am saying.

CSK I honestly couldn't give a damn what your opinions on the North are, and since I've asked this question twice, i dont think Im the one refusing to answer, I already said I will if you first answer what I put to you earlier.

I dont doubt for a second that everyone agrees that the IRA of the seventies, eighties and nineties were illegally holding an unwarranted and oppressive hold over Northern Ireland with terrorism and murder. We all know they were terrorists. They should have ignored the "illegal plantations" they should have ignored the "illegal" act of union, they should have ignored the famine and the penal laws, and the fact that the poltical system had failed them, and Sinn Fein should have engaged in dialogue much earlier and/ or sat at Westmister. They were wrong to murder. I doubt anyone disagrees there.

So your positionn on the north is largely irrelevant to this debate anyway. All I'm asking, is what was so special about the same people of 1916 - 1921, and why did these normal principles never apply to them? How can we be shocked at IRA activity of later years and not, for example, 1916?

InFront

csk wrote:

I suggest you remember this is an Irish message board and a bit of decorum would not go astray.

This was my favourite bit, oh how I laughed.

it is also unfair and demeaning to those of us who have to inhabit this island in the present.

Personally I dont find it the opinion that the men of 1916 and later were terrorists at all "unfair" or "demeaning" one bit.

If we, as a society, are to move on to a multi cultural post-colonial society, we will need a coherent, reasoned 21st century from of Nationalism. Not a demeaned, degraded and downtrodden one, those who perpetuate the "revisonist myths" and joke about M.O.P.E. (most oppressed people ever) Syndrom, are in fact doing more harm than anything and by trying to deny the Irish people their nationalist/republican past, are delaying the move to the multi-cultural society that they claim they want to achieve.

Since when does a the success of Ireland's multic cultural society depend on conforming to one particular opinion on 1916? Strange.

PHB

Of course the war would have ended, all of the others had.

That's why this was the Great War, it was very very very different to all wars before it. By the time of the rising, the war had reached a complete stalemate, with victory not looking likely from either side.

And by the way, where was home rule after WWI? It was offered on a plate to the Irish. Except now it was in the form of the fourth home rule bill, the unionists, being put off by what they saw the republicans do in 1916, were now completely trenchant in their unwillingness to co-operate with the south of the country.

Exactly the point, by the time of 1916, it was unlikely that Home Rule would include the 6 counties, something that was very important to SF at the time.

However, it was the farmers and Landlords (among them Catholics) who, in fairness, as such had no public responsibilities, who sold grain to British merchants.

Well first off, the British encouraged farmers and landlords to be evicted if any sort of payment was missed, which created a massive financial burden to sell to the English.

There was no sneaky band of Whig MPs stealing into ireland at nighttime, robbing all the Irish grain and butter in the King's carriages and running off at dawn, that just didn't happen.

No it didn't, but what did happen was after Peel finally did something that would actually help the Irish, it was so unpopular amoung the Whig's, that he lost his place as PM, and was replaced by Russell. Russell then, in order to preserve the economic viability of the British agriculture crop, switched the type of help to Public work style stuff, (moving away from something which had been somewhat succesful), and eventually just passed it onto Poor Law unions, Poor Laws which were much harsher than those on their English counterparts.

But to simply suggest that Ireland should have stopped trading its grain and fed it to the masses overnight is a facile notion with no economic merit.

Who cares whether or not it had economic merit? Between 1 million people died!

But to suggest that they should halt the sale of Irish goods without considering the serious implications of that for infrastructure, just doesnt add up.

Yes it does, very simply, 1 million people dead or a loss in the economic productivity of a small part of the English economy, it's a very bloody simple choice. They made a choice was which tantamount to genocide, doing it in full knowledge of their reasons for doing it.

csk

InFront wrote:

Since when does a the success of Ireland's multic cultural society depend on conforming to one particular opinion on 1916? Strange.

Well I suppose I should not have expected you to understand, but just like the hoary old Republican myths that led to such widespread violence since the seventies, the revisionist myths will be just as damaging in the long term.

Once again you have not grasped the point I was making, you continue to do this, is it because everything I say is too far out side your comprehension? I did not say that you had to conform to one opinion. If you believe that's what I said then you are far more deluded than I thought.
What I actually said (and here is the simplistic version just for you:) ) is that telling what amounts to lies as history will only serve to perpetuate the post colonial society.

I suppose since you have absolutely no extensive understanding or a working knowledge of ths period of history, I should not expect you to understand the Historiography of the last 80 years but hey that's your problem not mine.

If you want to debate in a reasonable manner I will, as I have said I don't have any problem with people who disagree with 1916(in fact you would be surprised to see how we might even be in agreement on certain things).

What I do have a problem with is someone who is going to cling to lies and false premises.

InFront

PHB wrote:

That's why this was the Great War, it was very very very different to all wars before it. By the time of the rising, the war had reached a complete stalemate, with victory not looking likely from either side.

Victory isn't relevant, I mean, the whole "they were off at war" argument isn't even relevant. Is this the best people can think of for excusing terrorism? I mean for Heaven's sake even csk had a slightly more credible excuse with "bad history" of the British in ireland.
To say that anything like this was reason enough to throw politcs out the window and start shooting men (when SF had never even attempted serious politics) is just ludicrous.

Exactly the point, by the time of 1916, it was unlikely that Home Rule would include the 6 counties, something that was very important to SF at the time.

Yes, you're absolutely right. In 1916, the Ulster question was looking like a major problem for nationalists here. The politicians (democraticaly) elected in Ulster started looking at the politicians (democratically) elected for Sinn Fein and said "no thanks", didnt they? Of course they did, and they were quite stupid in doing so.

But that was going on up until ten years ago. is murder the answer to secure a united, independent Ireland? Was it ever?

Well first off, the British encouraged farmers and landlords to be evicted if any sort of payment was missed, which created a massive financial burden to sell to the English.

I presume you mean tenants to be evicted?

It really annoys me when posters constanstly ask for a source to baclk up everything, but if you have one, can we see it? I don't think this makes sense. It is my understanding that landowners, be they Anglicans or Catholics, British or Irish, had freedom to rent land as they wished individually.

Then again, the British are known for their eccentricities, you could be right. How did the British givernment encourage evictions? As in how was that encouragement ever manifested in physical or economic form to the landlords? (I'm not being smart, Ive genuinely never heard of it)

No it didn't, but what did happen was after Peel finally did something that would actually help the Irish, it was so unpopular amoung the Whig's, that he lost his place as PM, and was replaced by Russell.

While that is broadly true, it must be remembered that his deletion of the corn laws was not unpopular at all because it was going to 'help the Irish' (and I understand that's not what you said), it was quite simply unpopular because it flew in the face of conservative economic theory at the time. Ireland, alone, was not going to bring down a Prime Minister (and that is telling in itself)

Who cares whether or not it had economic merit? Between 1 million people died!

The fact that people were dying in the short term was bad enough, cutting off sustainable economic infrastructure would have crippled the Irish agricultural industry and pronlonged the famine.
The best reaction from Britain (which didnt happen by the way) would have been to secure adequate short term humanitarian relief and maintain and support the existing agricultural sector, and develop Irish industry.
If "The Irish Sun" as we know it had been circulating at that time, yours is exactly the line of argument they would have taken, despite the other, more comprehensive humanitarian strategies which are too wordy or boring to be right.

Yes it does, very simply, 1 million people dead or a loss in the economic productivity of a small part of the English economy

What about the Irish economy? What would happen if Landlords and farmers lost their buyers in England? What would they do after the famine? What would happen to their tenants?

Hagar

InFront wrote:

What about the Irish economy? What would happen if Landlords and farmers lost their buyers in England? What would they do after the famine? What would happen to their tenants?

They would starve to death on the side of the roads or be forced to emigrate. But I'm just guessing here. :rolleyes:

brianthebard

Oh mighty fu|ck, I knew this thread would be difficult for people to discuss objectively, I never thought it would go so off topic. ffs.

Hagar

Every thread in Politics ends up this way eventually.

[Pirate]The Forum be cursed I tells ye.[/Pirate]

InFront

Hagar wrote:

They would starve to death on the side of the roads or be forced to emigrate. But I'm just guessing here. :rolleyes:

Exactly, so adapting that "grain and butter holding" policy would be as stupid as the policy that was, in fact, adapted. The British should have implemented a better humanitarian programme and a long term economic recovery policy

I think the famine, and 1916/ the War of Independence are all very on-topic, actually. All are dealing with the question whether or not British influence here amounted to oppression.

From Brian's first post:

I'm probably opening a can of worms with this one, but I've seen the old "800 years of English oppression" line being trotted out in politics forum on the subject of the poppy a lot at the minute. Is this still a strongly held belief, that the English actually ruled over this country for 800 years with some sort of pre-Stalin Iron fist, only to be saved by the brave boys of 1916??

PHB

Victory isn't relevant, I mean, the whole "they were off at war" argument isn't even relevant. Is this the best people can think of for excusing terrorism? I mean for Heaven's sake even csk had a slightly more credible excuse with "bad history" of the British in ireland.
To say that anything like this was reason enough to throw politcs out the window and start shooting men (when SF had never even attempted serious politics) is just ludicrous.

No, it's very simple. There was little to no prospect of the war ending at any time soon. Irish Home Rule was conditional on the war being over. Because of this, there was no prospect of Irish Home Rule at any point in the future, even if you believed, and this is a big big if, that the English would honour their agreement.

But that was going on up until ten years ago. is murder the answer to secure a united, independent Ireland? Was it ever?

No it's not. I completely disagree with all the actions of SF in the North, personally I can't stand anyone who is a current member of SF, but this was a completely different situation. The presence of the Unionists within the North gave further belief within SF that the British Parliament would not hold true to their promises, especially considering the fact that the Conservative Party in Britian is not actually it's full name is it, it's the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Then again, the British are known for their eccentricities, you could be right. How did the British givernment encourage evictions? As in how was that encouragement ever manifested in physical or economic form to the landlords? (I'm not being smart, Ive genuinely never heard of it)

No Problem, very simply it was through the Poor Laws. The Poor Laws had taxations on landlords, which was based on the amount of tenants they had on their land. This meant that the small farmers, i.e. the really poor ones who were effected by the famine most, were the worst hit when the Poor Law taxes demanded more from the landlords. The Poor Laws encouraged evictions of poor Irish tenants.

While that is broadly true, it must be remembered that his deletion of the corn laws was not unpopular at all because it was going to 'help the Irish' (and I understand that's not what you said), it was quite simply unpopular because it flew in the face of conservative economic theory at the time.

It flew in the face of conservative economic theory that benefited the English. Yes there was a prevailant trend towards conservative economic theory at the time, but that doesn't at all justify the fact that their theory, was based on self-interest. They weren't acting within Conservative economic theory for the benefit of Ireland, which might be excusable, they were acting within Conservative economic theory for the benefit of England.

Ireland, alone, was not going to bring down a Prime Minister (and that is telling in itself)

That's just historically untrue, look at Gladstone, he fell from power because he tried to push through Home Rule, and eventually spilt the Liberal party down the middle. You can keep trying to pretend that Britain as a whole didn't see Ireland any differently to another colony, or any different to say Wales or Scotland, but they did, and this is quite clear in the British parliamentary debates, and even the political literature which existed at the time.
And hell, even in Russell's case, the actions of Disraeli brought down Russell.

The fact that people were dying in the short term was bad enough, cutting off sustainable economic infrastructure would have crippled the Irish agricultural industry and pronlonged the famine.

That's just untrue. The policies of Britain were what caused the famine in the first place. There has never ever ever ever ever been a famine in a modern democratic country, ever. Why is that? It's because famines are always preventable, if people care enough. Worst case scenario, people would be worse off, but they'd be alive.

The best reaction from Britain (which didnt happen by the way) would have been to secure adequate short term humanitarian relief and maintain and support the existing agricultural sector, and develop Irish industry.
If "The Irish Sun" as we know it had been circulating at that time, yours is exactly the line of argument they would have taken, despite the other, more comprehensive humanitarian strategies which are too wordy or boring to be right.

[/quote]

No. The best reaction (well no not really, there are much better soluations, but back then they didn't know about them) would have been to open the market and give them food. That was what Russell tried, albeit after a long wait, and he was massivly punished for it. Beyond that, the simple act of getting rid of the laws which actively encouraged the famine would have been a good start.

What about the Irish economy? What would happen if Landlords and farmers lost their buyers in England? What would they do after the famine? What would happen to their tenants?

Well, first things first, they'd be alive. So that's a plus. So now that they've got the basics out of the way, let's look at this idea of a massive hit to Irish infrastructure. The development of Irish infrastructure would have been the same, just as it was in the rest of the World where there was massive overcrowding. The change in ownership which occured around the 1870s to 1900s would have happened anyway, because it was inevitable. Maybe, just maybe, there would have been a short term loss in market to Britian, and the buyers in England would have had to look elsewhere for their food, but maybe, just maybe, once the famine was over, they would have went back to Ireland? Why, because it was cheaper! There is no reason to suggest that it would have ruined the Irish economy, and your logic is based entirely on this facetious notion that somehow the Irish economy would have been ruined if we didn't sell to England for 4 years. THat's just silly.

brianthebard

InFront wrote:

I think the famine, and 1916/ the War of Independence are all very on-topic, actually. All are dealing with the question whether or not British influence here amounted to oppression.

I did a quick ctrl+f, the word oppression came up three times, twice in the post I'm quoting. Yes it could be on topic, but actually you need to address the topic not just wander aimlessly through opinions and semantics, breaking each post into one line pieces and then posting a paragraph.

InFront

PHB wrote:

No, it's very simple. There was little to no prospect of the war ending at any time soon. Irish Home Rule was conditional on the war being over. Because of this, there was no prospect of Irish Home Rule at any point in the future, even if you believed, and this is a big big if, that the English would honour their agreement.

That is completely illogical.
Take Iraq in the middle of 2005, after war had been waging for about 2 years. To take your line of thinking, this is what an Iraqi rightfully might say to himself:

"There is no prospect of the American offensive in Iraq ending soon.
Iraqi rule is dependent on the war being over.
Because of this there is no prospect of Iraqi rule.
... We will use violence to overcome the American offensive in Iraq. "

Yet I have no doubt you call these men who kill Iraqis, as they line up in recruitment centres terrorists. how are the dead young men in Iraq less culpable than the young RIC men, or young metropolitan policemen 1916?

Furthermore, you speak about the feeling on World War One as though everybody was in doom and gloom about this war never ending, and Ireland being perpetually tied to a foreign belligerent. Well no, we can be pretty sure that wasn't the general feeling, and especially not in early 1916.
Firstly, the war had actually only being going on for about a year and a half and the British had only really suffered 2 serious losses.
Secondly, consider the truthfulness of the British propaganda machine. the newspapers were dominated with stories of British heroism and victory in this (still rather young) war

Link

• British newspapers published casualty figures that were acceptable to the government but less than accurate.
• British success in battles was emphasised as opposed to the minimal gains actually made.
• Anybody caught spreading the truth regarding Verdun was liable for arrest as an agent provocateur. All countries were guilty of this.

Just look at the rubbish that was printed in newspapers about the Battle of Verdun, which happened just before the Easter Rising in 1916

“To the north of Ypres our progress has been continued, especially on our left. We have taken six quick-firers, two bomb-throwers, and much material; and made several hundred prisoners, including several officers.

The losses of the enemy were extremely high. At a single point on the front, in the proximity of the canal we counted more than six hundred German dead.

On the heights of the Meuse, on the front Les Eparges-St Remy-Calonne trench, we have continued to gain ground, about one kilometre, and have inflicted on the enemy very severe losses.”

You speak (very well) about what republicans must have ben thinking about World War One. Well, what about the British perspective? Wasn't it reasonable for the republicans to face up to why the British wanted to hold onto Ireland for the duration of World War One, which they were apparently winning anyway?

Number one: the importance of Ulster to the war, but lets skip that for a minute

The greater importance was this: Imagine the stupidity of a country who hands over the control of a state in her own back yard to "unknown quantities" at a time of war.
Given that Sinn Fein and germany were both at war with Britain, this is analogous to the USA handing over Florida to the Syrians during a war with Iran.
Was that not a reasonable realisation on the part of the Republicans, who having waited since 1801, now got fed up after the 20 month duration of a promise.

And even more than this! If all of that were for some reason rubbish and false and anti-Irish bullcrap etc, even still there would be zero excuse not to simply get on a boat and debate out the issue in the parliament where they were elected to go and do just that.

Why could this problem be solved with violence (and it was) and not instead with talking or shouting or obstructionism or whatever - after all these were Liberal MPs who had already delivered on so much more for Ireland in recent years.

No it's not. I completely disagree with all the actions of SF in the North, personally I can't stand anyone who is a current member of SF, but this was a completely different situation.

With respect, I find that a little hypocritical. They faced a very similar situation: same illegal planters, same illegal act of union, same illegal british presence....?

The presence of the Unionists within the North gave further belief within SF that the British Parliament would not hold true to their promises,

With no basis. The Unionist objection was that it didnt want to be rallied in with the south and cut away from Britain. If Galway or Cork or Dublin fell into the sea and floated off to the South Pacific, Unionists would hardly have batted an eyelid, they had no interests with the South of Ireland.

I think that is what republicans here were afraid of: losing Ulster. And I think that the prospect of losing Ulster was another significant reason for the easter Rising.

No Problem, very simply it was through the Poor Laws. The Poor Laws had taxations on landlords, which was based on the amount of tenants they had on their land.
This meant that the small farmers, i.e. the really poor ones who were effected by the famine most, were the worst hit when the Poor Law taxes demanded more from the landlords. The Poor Laws encouraged evictions of poor Irish tenants.

When I asked you how the British government "encouraged" the eviction of tenants who could not pay their rents, I had no idea you were going to come up with this. It's almost unbelievable as an argument.
What I had expected you to say was maybe something like "the British Government's initiative on structural reform linked to aid, by making the surrender of all landholdings over a quarter of an acre in size a strict condition for poverty relief". But no: Landlord taxes. Landlord taxes paid for the Public Works Scheme and the Workhouses. Now alone, those were insufficent and underresourced means of staving away famine, but imagine the mortality of Landlord tax had not existed?

Now it is logical enough to say this: Landlords had taxes to pay, estates were not profitable, tenants who could not pay their rents were got rid of with, perhaps, greater urgency.
While that might mean that Poor Law taxes (which were here since the 1830s) "got rid of tenants" in an indirect sort of a way, to say that poor law taxes were wrong is simply ignoring the very great and important good that they did. To say the British givernment were somehow conspiring to evict the poorest tenants in a sort of "lets make it look like we're helping them but really actually trying to evict them on the sneak" is just...... ?

Poor Law, was not invented to encourage landlords to evict its poorest tenants. It was the closest thing Britain had to a social securtiy system that provided a poverty relief.

It flew in the face of conservative economic theory that benefited the English.

Well... the British Ruling classes of Great Britain and Ireland. Cobblers in London would have been just as opposed to it as tenants in Galway, tbh.

Yes there was a prevailant trend towards conservative economic theory at the time, but that doesn't at all justify the fact that their theory, was based on self-interest.

Genuinely I'm glad there is somthing we can agree on. yes, they (the parliament) were acting selfishly and immorally. The Malthusian providentailist theories adapted by the Whig government at the height of the Irish Famine amounts to nothing less than British government oppression.

That's just historically untrue, look at Gladstone, he fell from power because he tried to push through Home Rule, and eventually spilt the Liberal party down the middle.

He did indeed, but that was only in later years.

My point is that during the Famine era, Ireland didn't figure importantly enough to bring down a government, so for you to have suggested that the Peal government was brought down for trying to help Ireland is not really accurate. They were brought down for repealing the Corn Laws which *as it happened* helped Ireland.

Conservative politics and self interest ruled the day, as opposed to any particular hatred (or indeed any real acknowldgement of the existance) of Ireland.

And hell, even in Russell's case, the actions of Disraeli brought down Russell.

But that was not an exclusively Irish issue.

That's just untrue. The policies of Britain were what caused the famine in the first place. There has never ever ever ever ever been a famine in a modern democratic country, ever. Why is that? It's because famines are always preventable, if people care enough. Worst case scenario, people would be worse off, but they'd be alive.

Like, what is your attachment to Irish produce? Don't you see that cheaper iimports were possible that weren't going to hinder the agricultural economy here?
The Government of the day handled the Irish Famine badly, but if they had stopped Irish Landlords and farmers from selling their produce, they'd be pointlessly crippling the economy too. Not to mention the expense.

[/quote]

No. The best reaction (well no not really, there are much better soluations, but back then they didn't know about them) would have been to open the market and give them food.

You mean like soup kitchens? Because they seemed to work pretty well. That's what I would call "giving them food". Preventing a farmer from selling his produce and instead feeding his cillage would cause untold long term economic damage.
If Ireland stopped selling... pharmaceuticals... in the morning, and kept it up for say four years, in four years there would be no contracts left to return to, the market would leave them behind.
Ignoring the possibilities of sending in humanitarian aid and ameliorating the maize situation as adequate short term humanitarian relief on your behalf, and clinging to the notion that it "had" to be Irish food, is just simply wrong (in my opinion). The long term damages just didn't make it a viable option, let alone a clever option.

Beyond that, the simple act of getting rid of the laws which actively encouraged the famine would have been a good start.

Pray tell us of the laws that were designed by the British to start a famine here PHB:rolleyes:

The change in ownership which occured around the 1870s to 1900s would have happened anyway, because it was inevitable.

The same way as the end of a war the British were (believed to be) winning... wasn't??

Maybe, just maybe, there would have been a short term loss in market to Britian, and the buyers in England would have had to look elsewhere for their food, but maybe, just maybe, once the famine was over, they would have went back to Ireland?

Yeah... Why don't we stop selling computer parts in the morning as a little experiment and find out!?! What harm would it do...

Why, because it was cheaper! There is no reason to suggest that it would have ruined the Irish economy, and your logic is based entirely on this facetious notion that somehow the Irish economy would have been ruined if we didn't sell to England for 4 years. THat's just silly.

No, no it's not.

(PS: Brian, that whole post was just for you. On the issue of on-topicness, this is basically a question of the extent of British "Oppression" here and I still fail to see its irrelevance. Because to be honest these are basically the only few periods of British Rule here where the oppression can be called into question )

PHB

That is completely illogical.
Take Iraq in the middle of 2005, after war had been waging for about 2 years. To take your line of thinking, this is what an Iraqi rightfully might say to himself:

"There is no prospect of the American offensive in Iraq ending soon.
Iraqi rule is dependent on the war being over.
Because of this there is no prospect of Iraqi rule.
... We will use violence to overcome the American offensive in Iraq. "

Yet I have no doubt you call these men who kill Iraqis, as they line up in recruitment centres terrorists. how are the dead young men in Iraq less culpable than the young RIC men, or young metropolitan policemen 1916?

That's a relative question, which has a relative anwser. The young RIC Men, or the young metropolitan policemen had been part of an oppression of an entire country's self-determination. The young Iraqi policemen are part of an operation designed to give self-determination to a country. Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it's a relative question.

Furthermore, you speak about the feeling on World War One as though everybody was in doom and gloom about this war never ending, and Ireland being perpetually tied to a foreign belligerent. Well no, we can be pretty sure that wasn't the general feeling, and especially not in early 1916.
Firstly, the war had actually only being going on for about a year and a half and the British had only really suffered 2 serious losses.

That's just silly. Aside from that fact that hundreds and thousands had died by the time, there was a growing realisation that this was a different type of war that had been fought before.

From the start of the war, the war propaganda had put forth a notion of the war being 'over by Christmas'. When this did not happen, and the trench lines began to be dug in, people realised that the war was not as easily won.

Before the appearance of the Tank in 1916, there was very little belief

Secondly, consider the truthfulness of the British propaganda machine. the newspapers were dominated with stories of British heroism and victory in this (still rather young) war

Link
* British newspapers published casualty figures that were acceptable to the government but less than accurate.
* British success in battles was emphasised as opposed to the minimal gains actually made.
* Anybody caught spreading the truth regarding Verdun was liable for arrest as an agent provocateur. All countries were guilty of this.

Just look at the rubbish that was printed in newspapers about the Battle of Verdun, which happened just before the Easter Rising in 1916

And? Big deal, have a look at Fox, then have a look at the opinion polls about the war in Iraq. The media does not directly corresspond to the people. Other types of communication were much more effective in changing the minds of the people at home, and those were mostly through the war letters sent back home, where the reality of the wars became ever more clear.

The overall point was, that SF, when making their decesion, did not think that they would gain Home Rule through the British political system. This was due to a combination of reasons, some wrong and some right. This is why the revolution was justified, it was based on the belief held, (and history will judge whether they were right, and indeed, it has to most people), that the British would not grant Home Rule to the Island of Ireland.

Well, what about the British perspective? Wasn't it reasonable for the republicans to face up to why the British wanted to hold onto Ireland for the duration of World War One, which they were apparently winning anyway?

First off, you can pretend that the media had total control of the populace, but it's silly to suggest that the British government didn't know exactly what was going on. Indeed, just look at Tripoli as evidence to this.

Given that Sinn Fein and germany were both at war with Britain, this is analogous to the USA handing over Florida to the Syrians during a war with Iran.

No it's not, it's would analagous to the U.S.A. handing over freedom to Floria, if they desired such freedom. Whether or not the British were right to act as they did to win the war is somewhat irrelevent. I wouldn't have expected them to hand over during the war, but then again, neither did SF, that's the whole point.

Was that not a reasonable realisation on the part of the Republicans, who having waited since 1801, now got fed up after the 20 month duration of a promise.

It would be, if SF was worried in any way to what would happen to the country that oppressed them for 700 years. They weren't, and the argument that it's for the good of Britain, wasn't really that important to them.
Beyond that, the very point is something you touched on, they had waited since 1801, which was over a hundred years at this stage, during which time, in their minds (whether correctly or incorrectly), the British had been responsible for a famine, evicted people from their lands, destroyed Parnell, blocked Home Rule time after time, and basically screwed around with them. Why would they believe that all of these things, were going to magically change? That all of a sudden, the British were going to keep their word?

even still there would be zero excuse not to simply get on a boat and debate out the issue in the parliament where they were elected to go and do just that.

Once again, thats the point. The parliament wouldn't hear them, they would laugh at them. There was no chance for Home Rule during this war, and they knew it.

With respect, I find that a little hypocritical. They faced a very similar situation: same illegal planters, same illegal act of union, same illegal british presence....?

I can live with that, no they don't actually. The majority of people in the South were Irish Catholics, the majority of people in the North don't exist, it's 50/50 down the middle (not really, but there abouts). When you have a clear cut situation, it's very different. If you have two peoples fighting for the same area, and have lived for generations in the area, it's much more complicated.

The reason I forgive the leaders of 1916 for not accepting the Ulster situation, is because they couldn't comprehend the notion that the Unionists of Ulster had any right to their Island, a view pretty understandable at the time, considering that the British as a whole (which the Unionists were part of), decided that they had a right to our Island. Time however heals this idea, which is why the majority of people in Ireland today don't like SF, and sure even by the time of the treaty negotiations, the issue of Ulster was pretty irrelevent to the decision to be pro or anti treaty.

Now alone, those were insufficent and underresourced means of staving away famine, but imagine the mortality of Landlord tax had not existed?

Poor Law, was not invented to encourage landlords to evict its poorest tenants. It was the closest thing Britain had to a social securtiy system that provided a poverty relief.

Yes, but it was an English law for an English country side. It didn't come close to understanding the fascination Irish people have with land, with owning their own land, and the pride they have in land ownership. Indeed, it's something that's very unusual to the majority of the people in the world, but it's something Irish people have.
The Law was suited for a different country, and the effect it had on Irish people, where there were a massive amount of small farms, was to essentially, using financial incentives, get rid of small farmers from the land. It wasn't invented to encourage it, but once the famine it, it had that effect, and it was an effect that the British were fully aware of.

Genuinely I'm glad there is somthing we can agree on. yes, they (the parliament) were acting selfishly and immorally. The Malthusian providentailist theories adapted by the Whig government at the height of the Irish Famine amounts to nothing less than British government oppression.

Conservative politics and self interest ruled the day, as opposed to any particular hatred (or indeed any real acknowldgement of the existance) of Ireland.

Yes, but, it was not identical to the oppression that the upper classes imposed on the lower in England.
The view that the parliament had towards Ireland was very different to the view they had towards England, maybe for the only reason that they were elected by them, but it goes beyond that. It is simply because of the fact that they were not of their own country, that they cared less what happened to an Irish kid compared to an English kid.

Ultimately, the famine wouldn't have been as bad if it had happened in England. Do you dispute that?

But that was not an exclusively Irish issue.

It was still a very very important part of it.

if they had stopped Irish Landlords and farmers from selling their produce, they'd be pointlessly crippling the economy too. Not to mention the expense.

This is based on this idea...

If Ireland stopped selling... pharmaceuticals... in the morning, and kept it up for say four years, in four years there would be no contracts left to return to, the market would leave them behind.

That's just not a valid analagy.
First off, it assumes that there is multiple sources of cheap pharmaceuticals. If there wasn't, and the replacement war more expensive, then they would instantly swap back after the four years.
Secondly, the agriculture market is quite different, and it's not like it was a contracts based thing that we see in say Business, its based on selling to bigger markets, and then they sell it on.

It's not taking the food off them, you just set up very simple safeguards, like say, ban the export of all foodstuffs from Ireland. The market will then adjust to it, the price will drop massivly, and while the farmers who were selling will be a little worse off, they will still have food to survive. If you then removed the financials incentives towards evictions, or even provided financial incentives towards not evicting, then you'd have solved the problem.

Ignoring the possibilities of sending in humanitarian aid and ameliorating the maize situation as adequate short term humanitarian relief on your behalf, and clinging to the notion that it "had" to be Irish food, is just simply wrong (in my opinion).

It was the only realistic option. The British government would never pay for enough food, simply because they didn't care enough. The only way to feed the Irish people was the keep the food already in Ireland in there or else open up the market to allow the cheap import of cheaper grain, if only temporarily.

The same way as the end of a war the British were (believed to be) winning... wasn't??

Very different. The change in ownership was inevitable due to the nature of how economics developed throughout the world, the belief that the war was going to end of the war was not going to happen for a long time was based on the growing realisation of the realities of war, and mainly due to, although not realised then, the advantage of defensive weaponry over offensive weaponry.

Anwser these:

If Irish products were being bought by the British, they were buying them because they were the cheapest.
If the Irish products stopped for four years, the British would have to buy a replacement until then, at a more expensive price. It had to be more expensive, because otherwise they wouldn't be buying Irish in the first place.
If then, the Irish products, came back on teh market, they would be back at the cheaper price, so why would the british then buy them again, cause ya know, they are cheaper?

---

The point here is that the famine, was in the minds of the Sinn Fein at the time, and in the minds of a lot of people know, a genocide by the British onto the Irish. The actions of the British government and the landlords(who were seen as one in the same, mostly because most of the landlords were British) were unforgivable to the Irish people. This is why it is different to a national football team.
If Ireland had been in control of Ireland, the famine would not have happened, this is something which can't be disputed. Yes, the blight would have still hit, but the government of Ireland would have taken care of the Irish citezins.

The famine, is a personification of the reason why the 1916 rebels were justified in their actions. With self-determination comes a better life, because the people who are in government care about you first and foremost. This was not the case when the British ruled Ireland.

The point I'm making is that the difference between SF at the time of 1916 and the 9/11 terrorists is all about their motives, and their justifications.
One act with the goal of self-determination so that all people within their country can govern themselves, one act with the goal of creating a theocratic state, so that some people in the country can govern over the others.
One is what the Irish wanted, one is almost identical to what the British were doing, sans the theocraticness (although considering the anti-Catholic laws, not as clear cut)

If anything, InFront, I wouldn't be asking why we have to prove why we were different to the 9/11 terrorists, I'd ask why the British government were.

vesp

InFront wrote:

And again, as repeated to that, the French government was overthrown by people who had no mandate to do so. Pearse and co. had no mandate whatsoever to overthrow the British government.
In that context, the republicans are more akin to Nazis than the innocent French.

True. Not only that, the very party who the Irish republican extremists ( Sinn Fein and IRA ) were most alligned with in that era was the Nazi party. After all, Sean Russell died on a precious U-boat on active service. Decades later Sinn Fein erected a statue to commemorate him in Dublin. Enough said.

InFront

vesp wrote:

True. Not only that, the very party who the Irish republican extremists ( Sinn Fein and IRA ) were most aligned with in that era was the Nazi party. After all, Sean Russell died on a precious U-boat on active service. Decades later Sinn Fein erected a statue to commemorate him in Dublin. Enough said.

Ah yes, and appropriately vandalised it was too.


Edit: Okay, sorry about the length. here goes...

The young RIC Men, or the young metropolitan policemen had been part of an oppression of an entire country's self-determination.

And that is what an Iraqi terrorist says about the young clueless 18 year old from Tikrit who simply wants to be a policeman in his community. Yet blowing up the latter is worse, because... he's Iraqi? I dunno. Is the creation of a stable, free, peaceful homeland that your typical RIC Irishman was working for, not all part of self determination? Yes, it is indeed, all relative to the individual.

From 1919 to 1921 one in twenty RIC officers had been murdered by fellow Irishmen who simply wished to be policemen in their communities. There is absolutely nothing correct or justificable in that.

The overall point was, that SF, when making their decesion, did not think that they would gain Home Rule through the British political system.

But there was no basis for such conspiracy theory spinning. What was wrong with them? How come others like Redmond could see it and they could not?

This (and previous) government had delivered so much on Ireland already - an unprecedented, unforeseen era of pacification and empowerment had begun years ago, and was something that, within the Republicans’ lifetimes, the British government had been utterly consistent on. The Famine was beyond… even their parents' memories, 70 years back in history. Catholic emancipation was the stuff their great grandparents enjoyed.

Why ought one choose to disbelieve a government based on the failures of their granny's generation, instead of believing they see before them? It is illogical, and I just don't accept that it's right.

If we accept that their disillusion was unreasonable (whatever about their ability to see so) how can we possibly celebrate their actions? How can they be called "freedom fighters" when, knowingly or not, they won no actual freedoms? What have we gained from their violence? Was it worth it? Had they a real cause to shoot and kill Irishmen? How can we celebrate them, knowing that they were already free, unoppressed Irishmen living in an open and a democratic society?

I think that we, as Irish people, need to cut ourselves apart from that romantic ideology and to see all terrorism for what it is: baseless, undignified, unwarranted acts of blind hatred on a society that bears no responsibility for the aggressor's rage.

Look at it this way:
Imagine you are an Irish policeman Dublin, and you are part of an unarmed, reasonably popular police force, walking the streets, catching petty criminals doing your job. You joined at a toime whne your generation were peacefully pushing home rule with the backing of almost the entire people. Parnell was doing his thing for Ireland and you were doing yours. Suddenly it’s 1916.
What possible blame do you have for upholding the British regime?
Do your social responsibilities for your community not outweigh your patriotic contribution, or indeed are they not integral to one's patriotic duty?
Is it not your position to uphold the rule of democratic law as voted for by the people?
Or should you have shrunk from your duties and moral obligations to add to the stability of your homeland, by somehow predicting some wonderful republican revolutionaries coming to prominence, and shooting the blackguards dead?
We speak of revisionism today as deluded negotianists who expect ideals from the past... were the IRB and later the IRA not themselves guilty of such stupidity in blaming - i.e. shooting - the people who only sought to ameliorate the domestic Irish condition, as opposed to the international standing?

This is why the revolution was justified, it was based on the belief held... that the British would not grant Home Rule to the Island of Ireland.

I'm sorry if I keep repeating myself, but do you genuinely believe there was cause to murder people for the flag? If independence (of an already democratic and free people) took another forty years through genuine, clean politics, it would have been worth it.

Whether or not the British were right to act as they did to win the war is somewhat irrelevant.

No, it is very relevant. If you're going to shoot a man, you want to first ask yourself "is he worthy of blame or not?"

Despite all of the blame that past governments and past leaderships were guilty of, I don't really understand what responsibility anyone on the line from Asquith down to a DMT Policeman was ought to accept, or why anyone on that line was to pay for someone else's historic responsibility with their life.

It would be, if SF was worried in any way to what would happen to the country that oppressed them for 700 years. They weren't, and the argument that it's for the good of Britain, wasn't really that important to them.

It doesn't matter if it was for the good of Britain. The question I'm getting at is "was the British position reasonable?" The overwhelming answer is yes, in 1914 it was. Was it possible to get them to budge on the suspension of the physical presence of parliament here through attending Westminster? Who knows? They never tried it.

Beyond that, the very point is something you touched on, they had waited since 1801, which was over a hundred years at this stage, during which time, in their minds (whether correctly or incorrectly), the British had been responsible for a famine, evicted people from their lands, destroyed Parnell, blocked Home Rule time after time, and basically screwed around with them.

I have a problem with your wording here. You attach a single poltical nametag to Britain in your posts... "Oppressor". There are several problems with this

• Associating preceding governments with succeeding governments is a logical fallacy. Governments replace one another for a reason, allowing for "fast evolution" of the immediate political landscape, while the social identity moves slowly. The social identity is remoulded by blips and bangs of the ruling parties causing "slow evolution" of the political landscape.
• As such, governments, social policy, and eventually, the political landscape all change. Political opinion diversifies. From one point in time to another, all will have changd.
• Therefore the theory amounting to attributing blame, of say, the Norman invasion of 1169, onto the innocent parties of 1919, is invalid. The latter parties are part of a new political and social identity, and can bear no responsibility for their predecessors in evolution

So: do you agree that the position Britain took on suspending home rule was reasonable? You said yourself you wouldn’t have expected them to hand over Ireland when they were at war. Because if you accept that, and also accept that men now are not taxable for what men did 100, 1000, or 100,000 years ago, then you don’t have a case in celebrating the actions of Republican Terrorism at the time.

And by the way, it was the Irish Parliamentary Party and the Irish public who ultimately ruined Parnell. The "buck" of scandal and divorce stopped with them.

Why would they believe that all of these things, were going to magically change? That all of a sudden, the British were going to keep their word?

Logic.

Also, just as a general point, I think it is quite wrong to constantly refer to the policy and decision makers as "the British" (as opposed to their small government) as though they were an inanimate force, colective and steadfast through time. The British as a population were utterly blameless in the entire Irish affair. Conservative economic politics of the 19th century of a small ruling class victimised the larger British population from Glasgow to Guildford to Galway.

Once again, thats the point. The parliament wouldn't hear them, they would laugh at them. There was no chance for Home Rule during this war, and they knew it.

Firstly, I think we have to accept that the British position during WWI (especially given the fact that the Volunteers were co-operating with the Germans) was reasonable.
If it was unreasonable, then it could have been ironed out in politics, where all unreasonable things can be rubbished.
Remember these men had no experience of the political system apart from running in their local constituencies in 1918. In terms of things like public international law and constitutional law they come across as clueless, and their foolishness in demanding international recognition for the first Dail, as it is popularly known, confirms this.

The majority of people in the South were Irish Catholics, the majority of people in the North don't exist, it's 50/50 down the middle (not really, but there abouts). When you have a clear cut situation, it's very different. If you have two peoples fighting for the same area, and have lived for generations in the area, it's much more complicated.

But hang on, you can't just look at the RIC and the Act of Union and the judiciary and say "they're all invalid" and completely overlook or avoid the planters in the same breath.
You used the term 700 years of oppression, and said you sympathise with old Sinn Fein and the old IRB/ A because of the historic mistakes of the British regime, ergo you presumably believe in the theory of "responsibility carried forward".

How could those on the British mainland be the inheritors of blame of oppression and not the ruling Unionist class in Ulster, who oppresse? Why ought it be permissible to deal with the inheritors of the land and the Ulster power structure and the oppressive regime in Ireland, and not the inheritors of the British leadership at London?

The republicans made no distinctions. They would shoot anyone who got in their undemocratic way.

And this: consider the demographics. Where was a policeman, in theory, liable to be shot? Clonakilty was, in terms relative to the rest of the south, a Protestant, Unionist "bastion", were RIC men and government officials within their rights enforcing British law there?
Dungannon was a pretty Catholic, nationalist area, what about that, a place for republicans?
East Donegal vs West Donegal? Antrim vs Monaghan? Within the walls of Trinity College, outside those walls?
Were the Southern Unionists not entitled to their political, anglican, unionist inheritance simply because their neighbours were Catholics? Remember the theory of the island still being united. Northern Ireland now was still only a point on the compass.

The reason I forgive the leaders of 1916 for not accepting the Ulster situation, is because they couldn't comprehend the notion that the Unionists of Ulster had any right to their Island, a view pretty understandable at the time, considering that the British as a whole (which the Unionists were part of), decided that they had a right to our Island.

A key point here is Unionist blame: were the influential unionists, sons of planters, fathers of Ulster, blameless or not? Did they inherit blame like the other influential Britishmen (like them) inherited it?

Because you seem to agree that the Unionists had a claim on Ireland. That means the plantations were validated somwhere along the line, or that the Unionists could not be apportioned blame.

And that has seriious enough implications. If the Unionists at that time are not to blame for the state of Ireland or ulster, can the British politicians really be held to blame for historic blunders either?

---

Now something completely different. The topic of famine is a completly different issue, where men in charge are holding up what is often an oppresive regime....

Yes, but it was an English law for an English country side. It didn't come close to understanding the fascination Irish people have with land, with owning their own land, and the pride they have in land ownership. Indeed, it's something that's very unusual to the majority of the people in the world, but it's something Irish people have.

I agree with you on the Irish fascination with land and ownership (both Pauric Nally and the modern Irish property market are relics of that).

But bemoaning the British government of the time for taxing Landlords, and disrupting the Irish peoples "fascination" with the land by putting them in workhouses to save their lives and prevent even worse atrocities is not the type of argument that wins much sympathy with most people, myself included.

I would put the humanitarian effort of famine relief in a much more important light that taking a starving family away of their one quarter acre, or whatever.

The Law was suited for a different country, and the effect it had on Irish people, where there were a massive amount of small farms, was to essentially, using financial incentives, get rid of small farmers from the land.

To be honest PHB, I spent a part of my own life in the irish countryside, evryone appreciates the very particular irish relationship with the land, but a policy of diminishing small-farm ownership was not a bad one. Fair enough, it should have been backed up with a longterm economic programme for industry and employment, but the agricultural industry, and the social ramifications as it stood during the era of small farm ownership was unsustainable.

Successive Irish governments since 1922 have also taken measures, quite rightly, to end it.

Ultimately, the famine wouldn't have been as bad if it had happened in England. Do you dispute that?

Of course not, and I absolutely agree that it was handled absolutely terribly at British hands. The Irish Famine, given how it occured under the supervision in such a wealthy and a capable world power was a disgrace. It was very unique for its time, and it is right that it should be remembered and the wrongs acknowledged.
But just as I don't agree with how the British government acted on it, neither do I agree with the oversimplified famine "solutions" and pontifications that have often appeared in the popular media on the issue since.

It's not taking the food off them, you just set up very simple safeguards, like say, ban the export of all foodstuffs from Ireland.

I still cannot believe people pursue this theory... "ban all exports from ireland". The situation would have been so disastrously, needlessly expensive, so economically unthinkable, that it would have not only aggravated the Irish economy, but have damaged Britain as a whole. It is a particularly socialist type of foolsihness, that whatever about now, just wasn't going to happen in 1846.
When the famine came back again, years after "The Great famine", it didnt cause this sort of catastrophe. Why? because the economy and the agricultural secotr could sustain it. Now if the villagers were all down at the local landlord's gaff, eating potatoes off the back of a cart, with the landlord reading Karl Marx's theory of commodity fetishm, maybe they might not have been able to cope so well.

If Irish products were being bought by the British, they were buying them because they were the cheapest.
If the Irish products stopped for four years, the British would have to buy a replacement until then, at a more expensive price. It had to be more expensive, because otherwise they wouldn't be buying Irish in the first place.
If then, the Irish products, came back on teh market, they would be back at the cheaper price, so why would the british then buy them again, cause ya know, they are cheaper?

To be perfectly honest, I'm still trying to get my head around your theory that there should have been no poor law taxes and that the British government should be buying all potential Irish exports for four years running, and everything would be rosy. Not alone would there be no market to return to after the famine, there probably wouldn't be a government!

The point I'm making is that the difference between SF at the time of 1916 and the 9/11 terrorists is all about their motives, and their justifications.
One act with the goal of self-determination so that all people within their country can govern themselves, one act with the goal of creating a theocratic state, so that some people in the country can govern over the others.

Well, firstly Sinn Fein weren't up to much in 1916, certainly not organising a rising.

But as for the Republicans in 1916: Pearse et al; yes their long term goals differed to the 9/11 guys. But their immediate aims: the use of violence that was never called for to overthrow a democratic government or political force, and to punish society for (what might as well have been ancient) history, are some of the things the two share.

If anything, InFront, I wouldn't be asking why we have to prove why we were different to the 9/11 terrorists, I'd ask why the British government were.

Like it or not, the British government were the democratic elected. No democracy can be associated with 1916, or the demand the the first Dail be recognized, or the anglo-irish war.

LordSutch

csk wrote:

Yes, it was quite unremarkable really, so much so, you could even say it was just the natural order of things.

Just like when Germany was the Biggest Power on Continental Europe, and looked to exert influence over its neighbours, quite unremarkable really, just the natural order of things.
Like when France with Napolean at the helm, was the Biggest power on Continental Europe, and looked to exert influence on its neighbours, that was pretty unremarkable, just the natural order of things.

When Ireland too, fought back against Britain, it was fairly unremarkable and when she won, it was only the natural order of things.

Ah yes, if only it were that easy csk, but you conveniently forget about the very important second paragraph of post #159 which puts our relationship with Britain into a completly different perspective ~ Remember also, I am looking at this topic from an Irish Unionist point of view.
Or in other words, to clarify "We are are not foreigners" in the eyes of the British, and the British are certainly not foreigners in the eyes of many Irish people (many Irish people are British also) shock horror I hear you cry! ~ but did you ever ask yourself what does British mean? and what are the ingredients of the British flag?

csk

ArthurF wrote:

Not sure about the "oppression" thing, it seems to me that we (as a group of islands) have done very well, apart from our "Family quarrells" with the North & our brothers & sisters on the larger island next door!

So a very successful business man, maybe a multi millionaire, with lots of property, beats seven colours of sh!t out of his wife five days of the week. At the weekend, he gives her a few bob, takes her to a swanky party, where he and she can lord it over the other less successful guests, then he lets her stay in the plush holiday home by the beach. Would that make the beating alright, just a "Family quarrel"?

Of course being an Irish Unionist, no one would expect you to know about the "oppression thing".;)