Searching for the origins of the Irish nation.'

Villaricos

So this is a title Ive been given for a sociology essay in college but as I also study history its has more interest to my than a regular old college essay. The premise of the essay is
Choose a period of time in Irish history when you think the Irish nation came into existence. Read about that period of Irish history. In your essay you should argue that this is (or is not) the period in which the Irish nation came into existence.
I just thought it might be an interesting topic to bring up here. So when do consider the Irish nation came into existence? I mean I suppose some people would say with the Free State but was Ireland not a nation before then?

What do people think?

brianthebard

1921 tbh. The concept of a nation is fairly new in fairness anyways, nationalism only really came about in the 1800s. You could argue that the Young Irelanders and Fenians that saw Ireland as more than just a country, but in more romantic terms, brought the nation into being. Certainly (as our lecturer is continually telling us) there is a big difference in the way O'Connell thinks of the country and the YI's. For me though it wasn't until Independence.

Jackie laughlin

The Bard is correct; nationalism is a recent phenomenon, though you will find the "800 years of oppression" crowd arguing otherwise. Indeed some go back to seeing roots in ancient Greek awareness of being Greek as opposed to the "barbarians".

I think it's important to distinguish between the the geo-politics of nationalism and cultural nationalism.

Gaelic culture and a sense of nationhood owes much to 19th century scholars and (frankly) Anglo Irish gentry who valued and took care of Irishness after the famine left a people demoralised. After the fall of Parnell this culture became popular but was eventually sanitised and appropriated by sectarian, militaristic, Catholic and authoritarian forces and became the culture of the newborn but politically divided Irish nation. This dreadful, narrow-minded concept of Irish nationalism has waned in the last couple of decades.

walrusgumble

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The Bard is correct; nationalism is a recent phenomenon, though you will find the "800 years of oppression" crowd arguing otherwise. Indeed some go back to seeing roots in ancient Greek awareness of being Greek as opposed to the "barbarians".

I think it's important to distinguish between the the geo-politics of nationalism and cultural nationalism.

Gaelic culture and a sense of nationhood owes much to 19th century scholars and (frankly) Anglo Irish gentry who valued and took care of Irishness after the famine left a people demoralised. After the fall of Parnell this culture became popular but was eventually sanitised and appropriated by sectarian, militaristic, Catholic and authoritarian forces and became the culture of the newborn but politically divided Irish nation. This dreadful, narrow-minded concept of Irish nationalism has waned in the last couple of decades.

one piece of evidence that the 800 years of oppression gang fail to remember was that during the preliminary rounds of talks held by llyod geogre and dev in july 1920 was that llyod clearly noticed and asked dev that why there was no word in irish for "republic" when dev demanded a republic. llyod then proceeded to state something along the lines that the celts never envisaged such a thing as a republic (at that time "Saor Stat Eireann (sp)) was used in the headings of government papers.

the Gaelic league was a fine example of this. when it was established it was the one society where working class, the rich, catholics,protestants, republican/nationalists and unionist actually could and did come together for the love of the arts.it was when people like dp moran came out with rants like "one could only be a true irishman if they were catholic" (something along that line) that alienated the other members of the population.wasn't doughlas hyde edged out when irb got there hands on it. jackie is right about needing to assess the cultural side of things seperately as it could not be ignored.people like the yeats brothers, maud gome, synge (sp) and shaw prove to the world that ireland was not a total idiot of an island and highlighted that there the island had an identity and brought the myths of the likes of cuclainn (sp) to a new generation and in writing.

as everyone here has pointed out the origins would probably start around early 19th century and strong links to wolf tone with a possible quick summary of incidents such as ulster plantation, james II V King william of orange to give an understanding on why ireland was the way it was in 1916 up to the present day.the sad thing is if one looks close at irish history, there are a few things, myself as a moderate nationalist are glad are gone. some pointed out by jackie. one book i may suggest which may help or at least give you some pointers; "Robert Kee's "green flag of natiolism" (sorry cant think of proper title but it def history on irish nationalism") wolf tone laid down the foundation as to what the nation should be, completed independence from the crown with every person regardless of creed etc standing together.

you would probably have to mention people as far back as o'connell (briefly). because as you are aware there are two strands of theory that each took turns to seek independence and in a way led to the next incidents; constitutionalist such as o'connell (well at least the catholic vote),parnell, and redmond. then of course the militants such as wolf tone,emmet, young irelanders, various members of the irb,pearse and 1916 leaders, and collins. you will surely see the struggle that occured between the two strands at various points.

i am sure when one looks at each period they all at somehow relate to each other. eg parnell's work for the land league (irish land for irish people) helped his popularity when the home rule question came in.the land league movement also proved to the crown that the so called peasant was not an idiot and was well informed of politics and gimmicks such as successfully holding protests,boycotts and standing for their rights. (the origin of that word came from ireland and during this time) land is one thing the irish hold dear. the various land acts (grants to buy their own land from the government) resulted in loans which were stopped (at least going into westministers hands) during the economic war of 1932ish to 1938. look at what westminister had offered in each of the 3 home rule bills, 1920 act of governement and the treaty itself to understand the differences between them and the reasons irish rejected themselves and possibly why pearse lost patience in the home rule party (and of course the fact that the previosu centuries had a revoluton/rebellion against the crown). you know yourself it is unavoidable to avoid assessing why unionist had the stance they did also. as you are aware the path to independence was carried by many classes of people, eg protestant landlords such as parnell, socialist / labour movement such as connolly and in some respect larkin, and of course the women of ireland such as markevic and cumann na mban.

Shutuplaura

I'd say its pretty recent also but to pin a date on it is crazy - 1921 for instance (no offence!) because most of the participants who created the Irish state were born in the latter half of the 19th century. Padraig Pearse who could perhaps be called a founding father died in 1916. He and a lot of his generation looked to older fenians like Tom Clarke and O'Donovan Rossa.

I'd portray nationalism as a contantly developing thought process which developed over a long period. The Irish Volunteers on the late 18th century were motivated in part by nationalism. Patriotism which I believe is defined as a form of nationalism was well known in the 18th century for instance. There was conscious efforts by gaelic learned classes to preserve aspects of gaelic culture in the 17th century. Also, even in the late 18th century before the renaissance of the early 20th century there was an upsurge in interest in Irish culture - again its only something I barely know but i believe there was a congress of people interested in Irish music in Belfast in the 1790's. Going back further since the reformation Irish resistance to English/British Rule has been put in us v's them, catholic v's protestant - a definition of an other that surely led on to a sense that the english/anglo-irish are foreign to Ireland, which would be an important concept in the development of nationalism. The fact that the English are refered to as Gaill or foreigners is an other indication that people at the time felt a ense of distinctness from people who weren't from the island or which while it may not be nationalism surely is an important point in its development.

I believe that modern nationaism is as much a definition of what someone is not that what someone is and that the main reason nationaism arose in the 19th century is that the movement of people became more widespread and common during this period. Unlike in other eras of mass movement such as the 30 Years War (some of the propagande from that sounds very nationalistic almost) Europe didn't stop moving after 1815 due to the transport revolution and the process was allowed to continue. Actually, on that note perhaps the mass movement of people during the famine was also a factor. A number of people who emigrated came back or maintained contact in other ways with ireland so perhaps that was also a factor.

All in all I guess ther are so many factors and so many opposing points you could take it sounds like a pretty easy essay to do well in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_nationalism

brianthebard

Sorry Walrus but O'Connell wasn't looking for independence, he was very happy about existing in a country that was part of Great Britain. He was seeking repeal of the Union. I know thats a small distinction for some but it pays to try and be as clear about each point as possible in history.

Jackie laughlin

Gael Vs Gall doesn't mark emergent nationalism any more than Greek Vs Barbarian.

It is very important too to consider technology (in its widest) sense. Nationalism was determined by the ability to integrate a nation state.

Brian,
That's not a small distinction, considering the blood spilled over it.

brianthebard

Small to some, huge to others tbh.

Chuchu

People/historians generally fall into one of two categories in relation to the origins of nationalsim (Irish or otherwise) you're either a Modernist or a Medievalist... its possibly the most black and white argument in historiography with little or no grey areas to contend with, having read the arguments you will more than likely 'be' one or the other right away!
Here's some interesting reading (although it might be a bit of a tangent in realtion the OP's essay):

The Modernist view:
E.J. Hobsbawm: Nations and Nationalism since 1780
Ernest Gellner: Nations and Nationalism

Challenged by the Medievalists and others:
Adrian Hastings: The Construction of Nationhood. Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism
Anthony D. Smith: Theories of Nationalsim

ENJOY!!:)

walrusgumble

brianthebard wrote:

Sorry Walrus but O'Connell wasn't looking for independence, he was very happy about existing in a country that was part of Great Britain. He was seeking repeal of the Union. I know thats a small distinction for some but it pays to try and be as clear about each point as possible in history.

yes, you are correct, i apologise. i stand corrected on that. i think i slightly mentioned that in mentioned that in brackets in words like "at least getting the catholic vote", but the way i put the sentence it would have implied that he was looking for independence. it was more not putting my statement in a proper manner. wasn't that one of many reasons that he fell out with the young irelander's?. either way you are right about tryng to be more clearer when talking about each point, as we have seen in previous threads were misunderstandings lead to torrent insults and misrepresentations.

either way as i am sure you may agree or emphasis better, o'connells work may have made it hard for the people of the catholic faith or at least baptised in the catholic faith, to their voice heard in elections such as say... elections in the 1880's irish parliamentary party era or 1918 genreal election

brianthebard

Yes you are right the fact that O'Connell didn't seek independence was a key factor in his falling out with the Young Irelanders. They saw nationalism and the nation as something that they belonged to, on a spiritual and cultural level. They talked about the soul of a nation, something O'Connell didn't really think about or comprehend.

Why do you say his work made it hard for Catholics to be heard in elections? I guess it may be true because the amount of land/property a person had to hold to get enfranchised rose soon after emancipation, but personally I feel once Catholic emancipation was established it became harder to ignore the majority voice in this country. Although its not a period I have studied greatly so feel free to refute that statement!

(apologises if I'm not being clear, I'm quite tired-rag week and all that!)

walrusgumble

brianthebard wrote:

Yes you are right the fact that O'Connell didn't seek independence was a key factor in his falling out with the Young Irelanders. They saw nationalism and the nation as something that they belonged to, on a spiritual and cultural level. They talked about the soul of a nation, something O'Connell didn't really think about or comprehend.

Why do you say his work made it hard for Catholics to be heard in elections? I guess it may be true because the amount of land/property a person had to hold to get enfranchised rose soon after emancipation, but personally I feel once Catholic emancipation was established it became harder to ignore the majority voice in this country. Although its not a period I have studied greatly so feel free to refute that statement!

(apologises if I'm not being clear, I'm quite tired-rag week and all that!)

ah for f&^k sake. i got be careful with my typing. damn damn damn. i meant to say he made it easy or lead the way for catholics to have their vote. rag week eh? so maynooth's is on this week, i heard wednesday nite is meant to be brilliant.

brianthebard

Lolz the funny thing is either statement is worth considering. Yeah he definitely opened the playing field for the nationalists that came after him, even if they didn't see eye to eye.

I don't know what wednesday night is like-I'm trying (and failing) to get some work done for my english tutorial thats on at nine tomorrow! Fecking final year!

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Gael Vs Gall doesn't mark emergent nationalism any more than Greek Vs Barbarian.

It is very important too to consider technology (in its widest) sense. Nationalism was determined by the ability to integrate a nation state.

Brian,
That's not a small distinction, considering the blood spilled over it.

Hi Jackie, I probably wasn't making myself clear but I don't see why it doesn't point towards the emergance of nationalism. It's not an area I've studied at all really so I'm only whistling in the wind but I think that the idea that you belong to a coherant grouip of people which is different from another group is surely an important step along the road to nationalism. I'm not making an argument for gaelic nationalism at all. I guess the difference is how I define nationalism so I won't agrue further. Incidentially, I googled greek nationaism and got a few hits!

Jackie laughlin

S'Laura,
There's a post above about modernist approaches to nationalism and I find this an overwhemingly compelling argument. I think there's a difference between identity and nationalism. Neither Greek nor Irish awareness of "foreigner" produced anything by way of integration. That waited a millennium or so.

csk

It seems a very strange premise for an essay on the Nation to point towards a specific age or era but it is interesting nonetheless. It would be very important to understand that such a premise gives rise to a certain grey area simply because most people cannot look past their own inherent prejudices when it comes to an idea of specifically the Irish Nation. Simply because it has become the accepted norm of the nation as the fundamental block for building States, some people have in the past wished to deny the status of the Irish Nation for their own ends; namely the maintenance of the Union. The question of whether or not there is an Irish Nation is very much routed in that kind of thinking in past works.

However that doesn’t even take into account that there might not be such a thing as a Nation in the first place. The debate over that question is also very grey as the various sides seems to conflate at will the concepts of the Nation, Nation-State and Nationalism and none of them can agree on definitions as far as I can see. To pick a specific era of Irish History would depend on what side of the divide you’re on, so to speak, in terms of Ireland being a Nation or not, tbh a case can be made for either side and it comes down again as far as I can see whether or not you believe you are apart of a wider community, a community that you feel compassion for or not.

Jackie laughlin

The way out is to define your terms and then go seeking origins.

Shutuplaura

Perhaps Jackie, as I said its an area I stayed away from in college for the most part. So having never done so I'm probably on shakey ground there. In my own defence thouigh I found the below online which doesn't contradict what I was saying:

"According to Smith, (Anthony D Smith) the preconditions for the formation of a nation are as follows:

A fixed homeland (current or historical)
High autonomy
Hostile surroundings
Memories of battles
Sacred centres
Languages and scripts
Special customs
Historical records and thinking"

I.E. a feeling of identity - real, imagined, constructed or forged in the mysts of time; which is important in building a nation state.

Jackie laughlin

S'laura,
I studied it in college and since. The ground remains shakey but, as you're discovering, manageable.

Shutuplaura

Ah, praise from Caeser.

Victor

I think the cementing of Ireland as a national concept came before the Act of Union (when there was some difference between Irishness and a say Britishness) and after the Flight of the Earls (before which local fuedal systems were stronger than a national identity).

1921 merely marks the beginning of the modern state.

Erin Go Brath

The nation that evolved in Ireland was formed over two millennia, the result of diverse forces both internal and external to the island. While there were a number of groups of people living on the island in prehistory, the Celtic migrations of the first millennium B.C.E. brought the language and many aspects of Gaelic society that have figured so prominently in more recent nationalist revivals.

Ireland, and its beginnings as a nation, seems to be a very subjective issue. Everyone seems to have a different idea of the timeline involved in the emergence of the nation.

Pivotal events which have shaped our nations identity such as the Flight of the Earls, and the Plantation of Ulster, seem likely to be the major events that triggered nationalism as a struggle. The fight to cement our own gaelic identity, and preserve our culture only began to take off in any major way during this period.