Whats the moral difference between dissident Republicans today and IRB/A from 1916-21

patsman07

Whats the moral difference between the modern day physical force Republicans and physical force Republican's from the period 1916-1921?

I was asked this question recently enough and the best answer I could come up with is that the Republican's of the 1916-21 era did not resort to Guerilla warfare untill they had a mandate from the majority of the people after the 1918 general election.

Although the 1916 leaders had no mandate, they're actions were on a relatively large military scale and so, did not use the general public as cover (as is the case with guerilla warfare).

I feel that this is a rather weak argument, hopefully some of you will expand upon it.

I would rather if we did not resort to talking about individual incidents/shooting/killings/bombings, but rather the difference in PRINCIPLES that exist/don't exist between the two groups.

Zamboni

I don't think it has anything to do with principles.
Diplomacy and governance have removed the need for that type of action.

walrusgumble

patsman07 wrote: »

Whats the moral difference between the modern day physical force Republicans and physical force Republican's from the period 1916-1921?

I was asked this question recently enough and the best answer I could come up with is that the Republican's of the 1916-21 era did not resort to Guerilla warfare untill they had a mandate from the majority of the people after the 1918 general election.

Although the 1916 leaders had no mandate, they're actions were on a relatively large military scale and so, did not use the general public as cover (as is the case with guerilla warfare).

I feel that this is a rather weak argument, hopefully some of you will expand upon it.

I would rather if we did not resort to talking about individual incidents/shooting/killings/bombings, but rather the difference in PRINCIPLES that exist/don't exist between the two groups.

one could argue if physical violence is ever moral - unless of course one is on the side of the victor who writes the history - that of course is another matter.

I would not get to bogged down on the method of fighting - guerllia warfare. As you know, in previous Irish wars, Ireland were always beaten . be it lack of trustworthy men and women, ammo and guns, leaders and the usual problem of the spie. I doubt the leaders gave much thought into the method in the sense of whether it was good or not morally (except Dev who preferred static warfare) it was more to do with whether it was effective for the ira. Incidentally, most of the main fighting only started in 1920 (around the country)

With regard mandate, how many revolutions, in particular in Africa enjoyed mandate striaght away? The reality is this, two years after 1916, a group known as Sinn Fein set out what they would do and what they stood for if elected to represent the people. After Count Plunkett's election, everyone was clear that SInn Fein intended not to attend westminister. A majority voted them in in 1918. Sinn Fein read out in their declaration of independence that they would use "all means possible" to achieve their goals. For most part the war would diffently not last longer than it did without the people's assistance and at least support - be it with provision of supplies, men, intelligence. The nationwide mandate is a key issue and difference.

The British could easily be criticised for actually loosing Ireland. Their reaction to 1916, countless raids, arbitary arrests, shootings, detention and damage to property, and the complete ignorance of the people's wish by not only making Dáil Éireann and the Republican courts illegal but also rounded the said institutions up.

You look at the difference between 1916 and the Tan period. 1916 even among the Volunteers who stayed at home ended up splitting and being countercommanded by McEoin. They had less men that that enjoyed by IRA in the Tan War. You honestly believe that the Tan War could have continued across the country (sorry, Dublin, Cork, Longford, Roscommon, Limerick, Tipperary, Clare) without the people's support. Only a handfull bothered / dared to come out in Galway, Ashbourne and Shannonbridge in 1916.



With Modern Day - well hopefully thats in the past. One of the big differences, as you know is that even certain Republican leaders recongise the de facto position and have agreed to accept it. Even the most ardent republicans have accepted . .. quiete possibly and humanly, because of them beign completely and utterly sick and tired of deaths, bombs etc.

It also does not help when a small, but very vocal group, from all various areas of life in this side of the country do not give a crap about the north. Look at many threads here, people putting economics etc against being united country. Our politicans are the same. Two prime examples are Dev Valera and Haughey, always going on about the north, doing nought (Haughey being a bit different) both often not helpful, yet when their economy is down they without fail fly up the green card.

It has alot to do with support. Any horses*it about morals and how a method of fighting is not moral is nonsense. Without wishing to sound crass, war is war. People are unfortunately killed. And unfortunately, it is often mostly innocent people. Due to the nature of this issue, one could not properly discuss this without commenting on Britains morals past or present in this country. It really is simple as that.

One solution is to find good political soultions. In the past, for many reasons, our politicans have failed us on this.

brianthebard

moral questions are better suited to humanities tbh.

DublinDes

patsman07 wrote: »

Whats the moral difference between the modern day physical force Republicans and physical force Republican's from the period 1916-1921?

I was asked this question recently enough and the best answer I could come up with is that the Republican's of the 1916-21 era did not resort to Guerilla warfare untill they had a mandate from the majority of the people after the 1918 general election.

Although the 1916 leaders had no mandate, they're actions were on a relatively large military scale and so, did not use the general public as cover (as is the case with guerilla warfare).

I feel that this is a rather weak argument, hopefully some of you will expand upon it.

I would rather if we did not resort to talking about individual incidents/shooting/killings/bombings, but rather the difference in PRINCIPLES that exist/don't exist between the two groups.

Dan Breen fired the first shot at Soloheadbeg in January 1919 in Tipperary killing an RIC when they were hijacking a cart load of explosives been brought to a quarry. The last thing on their minds was whether they had a 'mandate', indeed I'm sure they would strongly state that the mandate they had was the liberation of Ireland and not care less about anything else.

Breen later recalled in my fight for Irish Freedom "...we took the action deliberately, having thought over the matter and talked it over between us. Treacy had stated to me that the only way of starting a war was to kill someone, and we wanted to start a war, so we intended to kill some of the police whom we looked upon as the foremost and most important branch of the enemy forces ... The only regret that we had following the ambush was that there were only two policemen in it, instead of the six we had expected..."

They were condenmed by all 'respectable' opinion at the time, the incident was called an "OUTRAGE" in all the papers, they were described as " bloodthristy criminals", the church and 'respectable' politicans ofcourse competed with one another in their condenmation. Just like the many who will when come on here telling us how good the 'old IRA' was, and how wrong IRA after the treaty is etc, etc, etc

DublinDes

I wonder how many posts this thread can go before some d#ckhead brings up ........ Jerry McCabe It's a pity poor old Ritchie Barron's murder didn't get the attention of McCabe :mad:

Zombrex

patsman07 wrote: »

Whats the moral difference between the modern day physical force Republicans and physical force Republican's from the period 1916-1921?

Are you assuming there is one?

patsman07

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you assuming there is one?

No not necessarily. Maybe I could have phrased the question better. My interest in this topic comes from the fact that the modern establishment, and Irish society, applauds the actions of men like Dan Breen (mentioned above) and abhorrs the actions of modern day physical force Republicans.

I don't support the actions of the Real IRA or other such groups, although I do consider myself an Irish Nationalist and I would like to think that if I had of been alive during the 1916-21 period I would have fought or contributed in some way. I imagine most Irish people fall into this category. Is it a contradiction?

Greyfox

patsman07 wrote: »

Whats the moral difference between the modern day physical force Republicans and physical force Republican's from the period 1916-1921?

Back in 1916-1921 the IRA had every right to do what they done because the English had no right to be in our country and they were fighting to get our contry back, the majority wanted the English out so their violence was neccisary

These days no sane person would support the IRA, their no longer fighting for something Irish people want, their just thugs that killl innocent people and are an embarresment to Ireland

brianthebard

Greyfox wrote: »

Back in 1916-1921 the IRA had every right to do what they done because the English had no right to be in our country and they were fighting to get our contry back, the majority wanted the English out so their violence was neccisary

Why does this change after the creation of the free state? The majority still wanted Britain out of Ireland, but now there is an artificially constructed statelet in part of Ireland. Why does that have legitimacy when the British Empire didn't?

Zombrex

patsman07 wrote: »

No not necessarily. Maybe I could have phrased the question better. My interest in this topic comes from the fact that the modern establishment, and Irish society, applauds the actions of men like Dan Breen (mentioned above) and abhorrs the actions of modern day physical force Republicans.

I don't support the actions of the Real IRA or other such groups, although I do consider myself an Irish Nationalist and I would like to think that if I had of been alive during the 1916-21 period I would have fought or contributed in some way. I imagine most Irish people fall into this category. Is it a contradiction?

It depends, 1916-21 is a long period encompassing a lot of actions.

I think the Easter Rising was an act of pointless terrorism. I think the War of Independence following elections was more justified, but I wouldn't have supported guerilla actions of Collins such as the assassination of RIC members. THe justification for that period seems to have been that the end justified the means, ie it work. But I see that as a hollow justification. Shooting a random child in the head every day until we go Home Rule probably would have worked as well, but I'm not sure anyone would argue that would be a good iea.

There are justified ways to resist occupation and oppression, even armed resistance. But there are limits. I do not hold to this idea that just because you are justified in resistance you are justified in using any and all means of resistance.

Zombrex

Greyfox wrote: »

Back in 1916-1921 the IRA had every right to do what they done because the English had no right to be in our country and they were fighting to get our contry back, the majority wanted the English out so their violence was neccisary

These days no sane person would support the IRA, their no longer fighting for something Irish people want, their just thugs that killl innocent people and are an embarresment to Ireland

They were thugs killing innocent people back in 1916, but because they are fighting for something we wanted back then we tend to over look that. Which is a bit hypocritical in my view.

walrusgumble

Wicknight wrote: »

It depends, 1916-21 is a long period encompassing a lot of actions.

I think the Easter Rising was an act of pointless terrorism. I think the War of Independence following elections was more justified, but I wouldn't have supported guerilla actions of Collins such as the assassination of RIC members. THe justification for that period seems to have been that the end justified the means, ie it work. But I see that as a hollow justification. Shooting a random child in the head every day until we go Home Rule probably would have worked as well, but I'm not sure anyone would argue that would be a good iea.

There are justified ways to resist occupation and oppression, even armed resistance. But there are limits. I do not hold to this idea that just because you are justified in resistance you are justified in using any and all means of resistance.

sir, you know full well the significance of 1916 in that it opened the way or brought the notion of militant republicanism back to the minds of the people (not that it ever went away - let me rephrase that, people had not forgotten the rebellions before) you know that 1919-1921 would not have happened without 1916. it is my opinion that you can't pick and choose whether one or the other was jusified - my humble opinion, no doubt you may think i is narrow minded.

to say 1916 was pointless is a bit disengenious. i honestly don't completely buy the idea that pearse and company, when preparing plans for the rebellion, simply hoped to fight a moral but loosing battle. if that was the case, why all the trouble getting in contact with germany for arms.granted by easter sunday, it became a suicide mission in the sense that even if the whole country rose, there were no arms. romantically, one fears pearse might not have a problem with the idea of pikes against the might of the british forces.

do you honestly believe that static warfare, should there have being a war, was the way to go? dev thought that and you and i know how the attack on the customs house went, and how four courts went in the civil war. it was simply another form of warfar, which no doubt old campaigners like britian would have adopted if it bothered.

i am aware of some of the very horrible things that guerrilla warfare did to mostly young volunteers, and am aware that innocent "spies" were knocked off, and women were tarred and their heads shaved but can you provide a couple of examples of where children were shot in the head intentionally, even accidently war the irish volunteers?

whether its shallow or not, if there is a war, (and i don't say this with any thump of the chest) there are no second chances, its either him or you (you know this) this country could never again fight the british in the conventional manner. you would also be aware that unconventional warfare was no playground for volunteers on a physical and mental manner. many having to sleep rough when on the run.you are fully aware of the potential future of a volunteer if and when he was caught by the british. you would also appreciate that many men, many quiete young, did of a conscience about their deeds.

that it is ok, but after soloheadbeg most ric men were warned prior the real heating up of hostilites that if they did not leave the force they were seen as enemies. many civilians, whether encouraged or by free will shun the men and their families as seen during the land war days and boycotting of landlords. granted, many ric men who were killed were actually popular in their areas and many assisted the ira in information etc and would later die (eg Sgt Potter Kiltoom Roscommon)

i am not attacking your view, i do not wish to either, i am simply giving an alternative without the arm chair rethoric. can i ask one question? look at this actual period. say 1890 - 1925, how many other nations were able to resist occupation of another country etc and win independence or a fraction of it without at some point resorting to violence? (Bismark?) all this, bearing in mind the difference between britain's attitude towards ireland then and in modern times (no please don't interprete that as a 800 years...) at that time 1918 by time of redmonds death and learning of the horrors of ww1 being all in vain, britian was not trusted by ireland.some people did not want home rule they wanted complete independence and were willing to go for it. how else could it be achieved, throught westminister?

i doubt you have neglected to that note of british reaction to the establishing of dail eireann in 1919. wasn't that and setting up state authority a constructive way to fight resistance? something ghandi would have liked? what happened there? why did britain try to blacken politicans in the eyes of the world via the german plot?


1918-1921 a vote for sinn fein and support/partial support for ira/volunteers could be seen as a rejection to home rule and the irish paliamentary party (i won't go as far as saying a complete rejection, maybe more of a wish to seek an alternative, no doubt people who supported sinn fein did not all become die in the wool republicans) you know full well how irish history goes in circles, war then constituionalism and back to war...

walrusgumble

brianthebard wrote: »

Why does this change after the creation of the free state? The majority still wanted Britain out of Ireland, but now there is an artificially constructed statelet in part of Ireland. Why does that have legitimacy when the British Empire didn't?

people realised war was pointless and could only get us so far, but then poltical problems needs to be dealt with by political solutions. many people say the treaty as a far better offer than that of the previous home rule bills and were far sighted to see the potential in imperial conferences etc. the war took the country to bits, it simply could not be maintained with continued fighting. people were near starvation.Had the wars including britains experience in ww1 help this?

quiete obviously many people were not die in the wool republicans (if there is ever a term) irish people don't get arosals from war despite the nonscial notion of the "fighting irish"

maybe people were content with a statelet when they at least could have their own talk shop , sorry parliament and be able to get their representatives do more in irish parliament. hardly an easy task bringing constituents problems to the attention of a house of 400 plus mps?

IIMII

British soldiers walked the street of Dublin as if by right prior to the treaty and in the run up to 1916. The country was garrisioned by a foreign army. Historically, the Irish people had been treated as and were in many cases, actual slaves in their own country. We were always going to make a break for freedom at some point. Dan Breen and Sean Tracy's actions at Soloheadbeg could have been met with no wupport from the country. But as we know, that was not the case. I am thankful to those men and their like that at least in this part of the country we aren't forced to exist under a foreign flag, with British garrisons or for that manner night time training exercises by their helicopters. Those guys were heroes, and sadly not well enough commemorated.

EDIT: The IRB and the IRA were not the smae thing btw

walrusgumble

Wicknight wrote: »

They were thugs killing innocent people back in 1916, but because they are fighting for something we wanted back then we tend to over look that. Which is a bit hypocritical in my view.

why are they considered "thugs"? (for the point of response, lets stick to the old ira, for now, i note your point on your opinion of "hypocritical")

becasue they did not wear uniforms or act by britains rule book of war? was ok to put up with authorities applying one rule for one section of the community and another rule for the other section (minority) for the community. the often well educated british officers were fine sports when they went around towns and villages during reprisals and raids affecting many innocent people who had nothing to do with the volunteers. britsh intelligence often knew this but never stopped them from going into places they did not belong. they were fine "thugs" too forcing business places to close during births/deaths etc of the royal family or remembering anniversaries to ww1 - all to show whose boss

to make things clear. i am not trying to glorify the ira of 1918-1921 but i am at least trying to understand why people did what they did without putting high standard morals and at times high falunton but well meaning notions to a situation where they simply could not survive.

as i have said before in previous threads and posts about this period. britain and their actions on the irish people alone is to blame for losing ireland. their actions in not just stopping but quashing or stamping out any potential and constructive effort by the irish (peacefully ignoring foreign occupation by establsihing dail eireann and courts) did not endear themselves to the irish people. if you are treated like the dirt of someone's shoe or scum of the earth or compared to apes etc (like punch cartoons in the english papers) how are you to react for so long? turn the other cheek?

granted, things did not always work out when our state was first established, we still complain about how alike we are to the brits and depend on them - pitty we did not pay heed to what james connolly said - i think its cheap for the people of 80 plus years ago who actually got off their backsides together as a nation and try and win full independece risking their lives and health and property (whatever they had) to have to then have people pick and nit over the methods taken and comparing them to a stand of morals that (a) in the aftermath of ww11 and the period of enlightment and social rights etc could never live up to and (b) are unable to justify and defend themselves against attacks and remarks of being branded as thugs.

i am sure you know someone who's relatives fought and assisted the war. where they thugs? i have no qualms with criticising the movement, but on the grounds of morals (yes i know that it the topic of the post) that i could not stand for without saying nothing.

i would like to see what opinions are of the alternatives to war ireland had, when it clearly was practically excercising "home rule" by establishing dail eireann and quashed by britain. who is in the wrong moral department wise. why is it the ones who use that line never seem to make comment about this, in particular the manner in which britain tried to discret the tds in the face of the world?

as for modern times. i see where you mean about hypocritical. i will leave that for an open and frank discussion on another occassion on this thread, provided that no one highjacks it so that it will be locked.

IIMII

I wouldn't feel the need to justify myself walrusgrumble. War is horrific, and as a nation the English seem always to have been constantly at war with one nation or another (either by way of conquest, colonisation or power-play) for centuries. That's how they did their business and that is how they built themselves as a nation. They were never going to leave Ireland on the back of a peaceful democratic mandate provided by the 1918 elections. It was inevitable that the only way to get them to leave was to either push them out, or make it impossible for them to rule. We were never going to be strong enough to do the former, but we did succeed in the latter

brianthebard

walrusgumble wrote: »

people realised war was pointless and could only get us so far, but then poltical problems needs to be dealt with by political solutions. many people say the treaty as a far better offer than that of the previous home rule bills and were far sighted to see the potential in imperial conferences etc. the war took the country to bits, it simply could not be maintained with continued fighting. people were near starvation.Had the wars including britains experience in ww1 help this?

I'm not very convinced by your argument, war can only get us so far but it got us the Free State, therefore more war can get us more State? Despite what people would like to believe the rebellion did actually achieve a lot, and won more independence than Home Rule ever would've offered if it ever went through.

maybe people were content with a statelet when they at least could have their own talk shop , sorry parliament and be able to get their representatives do more in irish parliament. hardly an easy task bringing constituents problems to the attention of a house of 400 plus mps?

So then NI should be united with ROI because it doesn't have proper representation at the House of Commons? Again not really sure what you're arguing, could be for or against rebellion.

walrusgumble

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm not very convinced by your argument, war can only get us so far but it got us the Free State, therefore more war can get us more State? Despite what people would like to believe the rebellion did actually achieve a lot, and won more independence than Home Rule ever would've offered if it ever went through.






So then NI should be united with ROI because it doesn't have proper representation at the House of Commons? Again not really sure what you're arguing, could be for or against rebellion.

with regard to your first paragraph/ I think i was responding to your question

of "Why does this change after the creation of the free state? The majority still wanted Britain out of Ireland, but now there is an artificially constructed statelet in part of Ireland. Why does that have legitimacy when the British Empire didn't?"

and i believe you were responding to greyfox's comment of
"Back in 1916-1921 the IRA had every right to do what they done because the English had no right to be in our country and they were fighting to get our contry back, the majority wanted the English out so their violence was neccisary"

if i understand correctly, please correct me if other wise, you questioned why did the attitude/ideas that the majority could get britain out by violence if neccessary change once the free state was established. is that accurate? if i am correct, you ask why was the statelet considered legitimate but the empire was not.

My opinion, somes strictly from a southern persepective and an attempt to look at both sides of the southerner's argument

by the time of the truce the ordinary person was fed up with the war, the british were beginning to smash collins' team, arms was getting harder to find (granted anti treaty people would reject this) When i say war could only get us so far, i did not intend to dismiss obtaining the free state. It was simply that the war got the irish to the table on slightly better terms than previous home rule bills, alas no republic. It would be wrong to dismiss the war effort as it got the sinn feinners to the table. If it did not occur, britian would have only dealt with IPP. People who voted pro treaty realised that a republic or even an united country was not going to be achieved overnight. Politicans of the pro side believed that war was not going to get them over the finishing line, political efforts and co-operation with other dominions would assist ireland get its voice on the international stage via commonwealth in order to push its idea of a republic. Unfortunately both ff and fg, in eyes of some in those days slid away from notion of 32 country republic - it simply was not on.

basically, the southern people accepted its faith by agreeing to the treaty without actually abandoning or wishing to be seen to abandon the republican ideals. So many on the pro side it was a short term arrangement.

To other southern people, they were simply happy to have their own parliament and control their own destinys (subject of course to some limitations of westminister in some areas) some people were happy once their interests were dealt with. some could not

Sir i fully and completely agree with you that the rebellion did alot. My previous posts will prove this. I believe you have or i have allowed my self to be misinterpreted, particularly with my comment "war could only get you so far".

________________________

with regard to their second paragraph about northern ireland. it is northern ireland's business and only their business to leave NI on grounds of representation or lack of in westminister. They do have their own parlimanent. that could not be the sole reason for a united ireland and would completely underestimate unionist and nationalists/republicans / southerners concerns about a feasible united country.

However, if we are looking for a united country, we in the south should make it our aim to make an environment that people in the north would actually have more say in a 32 county country than main land britain. There is no point waiting for them to knock on our door asking to come in, we have to send the invitations out

At this point i have realised that when you say "statelet" you are referring to the north. my comments about representation to westminister was in reference to why some in the south agreed to treaty or in others eyes sold out.

i wrote that thread really late last night and its badly edited. Have i made my self more clearer?

Zombrex

walrusgumble wrote: »

sir, you know full well the significance of 1916 in that it opened the way or brought the notion of militant republicanism back to the minds of the people (not that it ever went away - let me rephrase that, people had not forgotten the rebellions before) you know that 1919-1921 would not have happened without 1916.

That is exactly my point.

Because Easter 1916 was greatly influential (by accident by the way, it was only after the executions of the leaders) in reigniting opposition to British rule that lead to the WoI, we view what it was with rose tinted glasses. We view it as justified because through the mishaps of history it lead to our independence.

But what it actually was was a pointless, misguided, unmandated rebel uprising that turned into pointless terrorism when it was clear that no military victory was possible (which was basically from the start). It cost innocent lives and provoked a devastating British response.

walrusgumble wrote: »

it is my opinion that you can't pick and choose whether one or the other was jusified - my humble opinion, no doubt you may think i is narrow minded.

Of course you can. You based an assessment of an action based on the action, not the cause.

Simply because you have a good cause does not mean that licenses you to carry out any form of action you like, nor does it mean that every action you do carry out must be considered ok simply because your cause was just.

That sort of thinking is ridiculously dangerous and has lead to some of the worst atrocities in history.

walrusgumble wrote: »

do you honestly believe that static warfare, should there have being a war, was the way to go?

Morally, yes.

walrusgumble wrote: »

i am aware of some of the very horrible things that guerrilla warfare did to mostly young volunteers, and am aware that innocent "spies" were knocked off, and women were tarred and their heads shaved but can you provide a couple of examples of where children were shot in the head intentionally, even accidently war the irish volunteers?

You missed my point.

That was an imaginary extreme example to highlight the fallacy of the idea that if a cause is just then any and all action is justified in pursuit of that cause. Which is obviously nonsense, no one would support Connolly executing children on the step of the GPO.

People excuse the Easter Rising because we have pretty much washed our memory clear of all the civilians that died during it, or simply blame the British for that.

If the purpose of the Rising was to provoke a brutal response from the British in order to ignite nationalism it is possible to do that without a mini-war that resulted in the deaths of 220 civilians. I would love to see someone justify what was achieved by the actual rising itself (not the execution of the prisoners, you can get executed for lots of things you don't have to start a war) to the families of those killed in the cross fire.

walrusgumble wrote: »

whether its shallow or not, if there is a war, (and i don't say this with any thump of the chest) there are no second chances, its either him or you (you know this)

Yes but if you were a member of the rising the whole point was that it was you. They set out to get slaughtered to provoke rage towards the British. Eventually that worked, but there are better ways of doing that than a Rising.

walrusgumble wrote: »

that it is ok, but after soloheadbeg most ric men were warned prior the real heating up of hostilites that if they did not leave the force they were seen as enemies.

Enemies are traditionally tried for treason and imprison.

Again simply because the cause was justified does not justify the actions. Simply because the RIC men betraying the mandate of the people of Ireland (which in itself is debatable, but assume they were) that is not a crime worthy of execution.

I appreciate that putting them all on trial was not an option, but simply because you only have limited options does not justify each of them.

walrusgumble wrote: »

can i ask one question? look at this actual period. say 1890 - 1925, how many other nations were able to resist occupation of another country etc and win independence or a fraction of it without at some point resorting to violence? (Bismark?) all this, bearing in mind the difference between britain's attitude towards ireland then and in modern times (no please don't interprete that as a 800 years...) at that time 1918 by time of redmonds death and learning of the horrors of ww1 being all in vain, britian was not trusted by ireland.some people did not want home rule they wanted complete independence and were willing to go for it. how else could it be achieved, throught westminister?

Sorry, I'm not seeing the actual question there

The Corinthian

I wouldn't be so concerned about the moral difference - it's the fact that their socio-economic beliefs don't seem to have been updated much since 1916 that would concern me more.

patsman07

EDIT: The IRB and the IRA were not the smae thing btw[/quote]

Im well aware of this. Although they were quite similar both in membership and aims and objectives.

I think the thread is getting off the point with people arguing about the rights and wrongs of the old IRA. My question is founded in my assumption that probably about 90% of Irish people are grateful to the men and women who fought from 1916-21, however modern day physical force republicans, such as the real IRA and the CIRA are persuing the same methods, with the same stated aims as the old IRA had. So why are they hated in modern Ireland whereas the old IRA are remembered fondly?

brianthebard

walrusgumble wrote: »

with regard to your first paragraph/ I think i was responding to your question

of "Why does this change after the creation of the free state? The majority still wanted Britain out of Ireland, but now there is an artificially constructed statelet in part of Ireland. Why does that have legitimacy when the British Empire didn't?"

and i believe you were responding to greyfox's comment of
"Back in 1916-1921 the IRA had every right to do what they done because the English had no right to be in our country and they were fighting to get our contry back, the majority wanted the English out so their violence was neccisary"

if i understand correctly, please correct me if other wise, you questioned why did the attitude/ideas that the majority could get britain out by violence if neccessary change once the free state was established. is that accurate? if i am correct, you ask why was the statelet considered legitimate but the empire was not.

My opinion, somes strictly from a southern persepective and an attempt to look at both sides of the southerner's argument

by the time of the truce the ordinary person was fed up with the war, the british were beginning to smash collins' team, arms was getting harder to find (granted anti treaty people would reject this) When i say war could only get us so far, i did not intend to dismiss obtaining the free state. It was simply that the war got the irish to the table on slightly better terms than previous home rule bills, alas no republic. It would be wrong to dismiss the war effort as it got the sinn feinners to the table. If it did not occur, britian would have only dealt with IPP. People who voted pro treaty realised that a republic or even an united country was not going to be achieved overnight. Politicans of the pro side believed that war was not going to get them over the finishing line, political efforts and co-operation with other dominions would assist ireland get its voice on the international stage via commonwealth in order to push its idea of a republic. Unfortunately both ff and fg, in eyes of some in those days slid away from notion of 32 country republic - it simply was not on.

basically, the southern people accepted its faith by agreeing to the treaty without actually abandoning or wishing to be seen to abandon the republican ideals. So many on the pro side it was a short term arrangement.

To other southern people, they were simply happy to have their own parliament and control their own destinys (subject of course to some limitations of westminister in some areas) some people were happy once their interests were dealt with. some could not

Sir i fully and completely agree with you that the rebellion did alot. My previous posts will prove this. I believe you have or i have allowed my self to be misinterpreted, particularly with my comment "war could only get you so far".

________________________

with regard to their second paragraph about northern ireland. it is northern ireland's business and only their business to leave NI on grounds of representation or lack of in westminister. They do have their own parlimanent. that could not be the sole reason for a united ireland and would completely underestimate unionist and nationalists/republicans / southerners concerns about a feasible united country.

However, if we are looking for a united country, we in the south should make it our aim to make an environment that people in the north would actually have more say in a 32 county country than main land britain. There is no point waiting for them to knock on our door asking to come in, we have to send the invitations out

At this point i have realised that when you say "statelet" you are referring to the north. my comments about representation to westminister was in reference to why some in the south agreed to treaty or in others eyes sold out.

i wrote that thread really late last night and its badly edited. Have i made my self more clearer?

Yes thank you for clarifying I see now what you were aiming to do. However I would say that things were not so clear cut in 21 when the truce came, and we can't know how things would've panned out afterwards. the war had the potential to go the way of the boers or the americans.
However I would still say to the second point that NI is still legislated to by Westminster in an arrangement far inferior to the Home Rule solution and the reasons you outlined about political representation still hold true for the North.

brianthebard

Wicknight wrote: »

That is exactly my point.

Because Easter 1916 was greatly influential (by accident by the way, it was only after the executions of the leaders) in reigniting opposition to British rule that lead to the WoI, we view what it was with rose tinted glasses. We view it as justified because through the mishaps of history it lead to our independence.

But what it actually was was a pointless, misguided, unmandated rebel uprising that turned into pointless terrorism when it was clear that no military victory was possible (which was basically from the start). It cost innocent lives and provoked a devastating British response.

Sorry but this is nonsense and if you looked at the material of the time rather than the questionable historiography afterwards you would see that this is the case. The rebels did not set out to make a sacrifice despite what Pearse might have wrote and had a huge amount of support. Republicanism was a huge movement in Ireland, the ITGWU was the largest republican organisation in the country. Add to that the Co-operative movement which also sought a change in the mode of production and you have a massive popular movement for economic and social emancipation. Anti-imperialism was widespread despite what the recruitment numbers during WWI might suggest. The support for the Rising was already there long before the executions which simply consolidated anti-British sentiment. To suggest that 1916 was pointless is absurd, if it hadn't been for MacNeill's countermanding order it would have been a completely different story. Even if you accept that it was a failure it was the Rising which caused rebels to be imprisoned in Frongoch and Reading and other prisons, which acted as the catalyst to the spread of knowledge of revolutionary warfare in a way that was impossible beforehand. It also definitively prevented the introduction of conscription into Ireland which was still very much on the table at that time. If as I think you are suggesting that the War of Independence was somewhat more 'legitimate' with more support, etc, you should keep in mind Collins assertion that he would've followed Connolly through the depths of hell. The principle figure of the War of Independence served in the GPO under Connolly, the military commander of the Rising. If you don't see the continuum between the Rising and the creation of a Free State then that's fine, but your assertions are completely wrongheaded.

walrusgumble

Wicknight wrote: »

That is exactly my point.

Because Easter 1916 was greatly influential (by accident by the way, it was only after the executions of the leaders) in reigniting opposition to British rule that lead to the WoI, we view what it was with rose tinted glasses. We view it as justified because through the mishaps of history it lead to our independence.

But what it actually was was a pointless, misguided, unmandated rebel uprising that turned into pointless terrorism when it was clear that no military victory was possible (which was basically from the start). It cost innocent lives and provoked a devastating British response.



Of course you can. You based an assessment of an action based on the action, not the cause.

Simply because you have a good cause does not mean that licenses you to carry out any form of action you like, nor does it mean that every action you do carry out must be considered ok simply because your cause was just.

That sort of thinking is ridiculously dangerous and has lead to some of the worst atrocities in history.


Morally, yes.


You missed my point.

That was an imaginary extreme example to highlight the fallacy of the idea that if a cause is just then any and all action is justified in pursuit of that cause. Which is obviously nonsense, no one would support Connolly executing children on the step of the GPO.

People excuse the Easter Rising because we have pretty much washed our memory clear of all the civilians that died during it, or simply blame the British for that.

If the purpose of the Rising was to provoke a brutal response from the British in order to ignite nationalism it is possible to do that without a mini-war that resulted in the deaths of 220 civilians. I would love to see someone justify what was achieved by the actual rising itself (not the execution of the prisoners, you can get executed for lots of things you don't have to start a war) to the families of those killed in the cross fire.


Yes but if you were a member of the rising the whole point was that it was you. They set out to get slaughtered to provoke rage towards the British. Eventually that worked, but there are better ways of doing that than a Rising.


Enemies are traditionally tried for treason and imprison.

Again simply because the cause was justified does not justify the actions. Simply because the RIC men betraying the mandate of the people of Ireland (which in itself is debatable, but assume they were) that is not a crime worthy of execution.

I appreciate that putting them all on trial was not an option, but simply because you only have limited options does not justify each of them.



Sorry, I'm not seeing the actual question there

sorry, with regard to the last part of your post, i am referring to your valid opinion that alternatives could have being taken for complete seperation. many speak of how other options were available as oppose to war.

dail eireann and the courts were established to provide an alternative to the fighting. many like dev was not always keen on fighting and complained. yet he wanted his bread buttered both ways.

anyway, this is an example of the peaceful movement. it was different to the ipp policy's in that the goal was for complete de facto seperation.

you are aware of why it was limited. britian not only tried to stop it, make it illegal but tired to undermine it in the face of the international world by making false allegations of collaborations with germany and the jailing of TD's.

in this time, when home rule was no longer goal of many, in light of its constitututional wing being stamped out by legislation of the occupier and force.... what alternative are they?????

with exception of maybe bismark in germany, are there any examples of the alternative route that 1920's ireland could have looked at?


with regard to your comment regarding "Enemies are traditionally tried for treason and imprison" - you know yourself they are also often, well in war time, face the punishment of execution. those ric men were tried for treason and there punishment was execution. the ric were the front line of british presence in ireland.there was not too many sorry to see british army leave southern ireland in 1921 was there? its undeniable to say that force had very little to do with it.

the issue about whether the majority actually gave dail eireann mandate for war is a good point. maybe we can discuss this in a different thread (without false assumptions, rhethoric and pub stool trash). no doubt there were sinn feiners who detested the fighting, irb etc. but there was an election after 1918 and as you know sf returned unopposed . then again, there was very little choice party wise and there are rumours and half truths about some dodgy voting and intimidation - by the way during count plunketts election and mcguninness, the ipp were no strangers to some of this either.

walrusgumble

brianthebard wrote: »

Sorry but this is nonsense and if you looked at the material of the time rather than the questionable historiography afterwards you would see that this is the case. The rebels did not set out to make a sacrifice despite what Pearse might have wrote and had a huge amount of support. Republicanism was a huge movement in Ireland, the ITGWU was the largest republican organisation in the country. Add to that the Co-operative movement which also sought a change in the mode of production and you have a massive popular movement for economic and social emancipation. Anti-imperialism was widespread despite what the recruitment numbers during WWI might suggest. The support for the Rising was already there long before the executions which simply consolidated anti-British sentiment. To suggest that 1916 was pointless is absurd, if it hadn't been for MacNeill's countermanding order it would have been a completely different story. Even if you accept that it was a failure it was the Rising which caused rebels to be imprisoned in Frongoch and Reading and other prisons, which acted as the catalyst to the spread of knowledge of revolutionary warfare in a way that was impossible beforehand. It also definitively prevented the introduction of conscription into Ireland which was still very much on the table at that time. If as I think you are suggesting that the War of Independence was somewhat more 'legitimate' with more support, etc, you should keep in mind Collins assertion that he would've followed Connolly through the depths of hell. The principle figure of the War of Independence served in the GPO under Connolly, the military commander of the Rising. If you don't see the continuum between the Rising and the creation of a Free State then that's fine, but your assertions are completely wrongheaded.

if one thing that is good about the film - the wind that shakes the barley, it for once, and i think, very few films / books do noted bar a few lines,recognised the unselfess deeds of the labour movement in this country

i do not completely buy the idea that all men were up for sacrifice, pearse had hoped and counted on, that dispite casements difficulties, the rest of the country rising. there are many accounts that men were on there way up then being stoped at last minute when they heard macneill's orders.

it would have being interesting if macneill's orders were not made. lets be honest the forces were small after the split, but would the rest of the country have followed suit?

walrusgumble

patsman07 wrote: »

EDIT: The IRB and the IRA were not the smae thing btw

Im well aware of this. Although they were quite similar both in membership and aims and objectives.

I think the thread is getting off the point with people arguing about the rights and wrongs of the old IRA. My question is founded in my assumption that probably about 90% of Irish people are grateful to the men and women who fought from 1916-21, however modern day physical force republicans, such as the real IRA and the CIRA are persuing the same methods, with the same stated aims as the old IRA had. So why are they hated in modern Ireland whereas the old IRA are remembered fondly?[/QUOTE]

the following are some hot points of why

1 - political and constitutional improvements between ireland and great britain and the 6 counties have paved way for, to many, acceptable avenues to deal with the the northern ireland issue

2. - hatred of violence, hatred of hate, war that in reality innocent people are killed whether accidentially or not

3 - many in the south freely ready to accept that unionist can not and will not allow their patch being touched.

4. concerns for what the international world thinks

5. the joining of the eu, growth of economy putting issues like the north and unity into the background

6. previous republican (whether authorised or not) attacks in the 26 counties (banks, guards, mountbattend etc - ironically much of this happened during the 1920's)

7. apathy and self centred me fein attitude of many in the south??

8. lack of communication or understanding between the people in the south and north over day to day issues and attitudes - note many down south might have taught that up there was like outter mongolia

9. maybe some politicans in the south are worried about potential of their comfort zones and interests being attacked if united ireland came about? i would sincerely hope and believe the capable and intelligent public rep would welcome a challenge etc

10. continuing strength of unionism

brianthebard

walrusgumble wrote: »

if one thing that is good about the film - the wind that shakes the barley, it for once, and i think, very few films / books do noted bar a few lines,recognised the unselfess deeds of the labour movement in this country

i do not completely buy the idea that all men were up for sacrifice, pearse had hoped and counted on, that dispite casements difficulties, the rest of the country rising. there are many accounts that men were on there way up then being stoped at last minute when they heard macneill's orders.

it would have being interesting if macneill's orders were not made. lets be honest the forces were small after the split, but would the rest of the country have followed suit?

What I don't understand is why they kidnapped Bulmer Hobson but not MacNeill, maybe they needed to keep up appearances. Silly secret societies! After the split the IVF still had quite a large membership of about 18,000 I think, that's a considerable force although there was obviously not enough weapons for them all. But in a popular insurrection numbers are as important as firepower. I don't think any of the men believed they were going out to die to prove a point, not in the way its been presented after the fact.

walrusgumble

a day and a bit has now past since the last post and my question of the alternatives in light of british reaction (or over reaction as one might argue) to teh establishment of dail eireann (the legitimate alernative to physical fighting for the goal of a seperate republic)

I am sure i will get some really good responses (and sadly, some brutal uptiopa crap) when people such as for example, wicknight, when or if they get time to read and bother to reply.

I simply ask for those who want to compare 1920's to today's high moral (if there is such a thing) standards, what was this country's alternative to achieving a Republic seperate from britian (as opposed to home rule or remaining in the empire) when the nice and peaceful methods were not even encouraged or infilrated?

walrusgumble

walrusgumble wrote: »

a day and a bit has now past since the last post and my question of the alternatives in light of british reaction (or over reaction as one might argue) to teh establishment of dail eireann (the legitimate alernative to physical fighting for the goal of a seperate republic)

I am sure i will get some really good responses (and sadly, some brutal uptiopa crap) when people such as for example, wicknight, when or if they get time to read and bother to reply.

I simply ask for those who want to compare 1920's to today's high moral (if there is such a thing) standards, what was this country's alternative to achieving a Republic seperate from britian (as opposed to home rule or remaining in the empire) when the nice and peaceful methods were not even encouraged or infilrated?

WELL?

Zombrex

walrusgumble wrote: »

I am sure i will get some really good responses (and sadly, some brutal uptiopa crap) when people such as for example, wicknight, when or if they get time to read and bother to reply.

I sort of gave up on this thread after my points were ignored and people seemed more interested in arguing straw man than address what I actually said. But since you mentioned me personally ... I assume this was your question

in this time, when home rule was no longer goal of many, in light of its constitututional wing being stamped out by legislation of the occupier and force.... what alternative are they?????

Well there were plenty of alternatives. Peaceful no-cooperation for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cooperation_movement

But this in itself is a bit of a straw man question since a course of action does not become justified simply because you cannot think of any other course of action. My original point was that events such as the Easter Rising were not justified in of themselves. I don't actually have to think of an alternative for that point to stand (but since you asked)

Can someone explain to me how Easter Rising was justifed without using the means to an end argument (which is a very dangerous precedence basically justifying any atrocity so long as it achieves a worthwhile goal)

brianthebard

Could you show some of those strawmen?

walrusgumble

Wicknight wrote: »

I sort of gave up on this thread after my points were ignored and people seemed more interested in arguing straw man than address what I actually said. But since you mentioned me personally ... I assume this was your question

in this time, when home rule was no longer goal of many, in light of its constitututional wing being stamped out by legislation of the occupier and force.... what alternative are they?????

Well there were plenty of alternatives. Peaceful no-cooperation for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cooperation_movement

But this in itself is a bit of a straw man question since a course of action does not become justified simply because you cannot think of any other course of action. My original point was that events such as the Easter Rising were not justified in of themselves. I don't actually have to think of an alternative for that point to stand (but since you asked)

Can someone explain to me how Easter Rising was justifed without using the means to an end argument (which is a very dangerous precedence basically justifying any atrocity so long as it achieves a worthwhile goal)

thanks very much for coming back. i did not intend to witch hunt you when i referred to you. I was calling you and people like you, who are capable of providing good debate and decent straight forward thinking without resort to rhethoric.

India, yes that is a great example. But, would India have being able to effectively do what they did had they being geographically next door to main land britian? Do you honestly believe (now considering at the same time India's importance to the Empire) that Britain would tolerate this behavour on its own door step?, lets bear in mind that it was the union of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland as part and parcel of the inner circle. I know british rule was for a time effective, but could britian have really have being able to be as effective in applying the defence against the realm act against India compared to Ireland?

I don't know if you are trying the skirt the issue i have put at least 3 times here. but i will repeat it again:

Ireland did, or at least non militant members of Sinn Féin tried, to go down a constitutional road and a non cooperation route by establishing Dáil Éireann, Republican Courts, withholding land annunities, Republican Police, ignoring the Privy Council. The wing tried to ignore Westminister, and sadly, sometimes by force and intimidation (preventing public from going to the British Law Courts)

Not only did Britain declare it illegal, thus ignoring the will of the people and despite Britain being keen of giving some devolution anyway, Britain arrested and detained any person involved in these organisations. Not only did they do this but at times, such as Griffith and De Valera etc on thrumped up charges (don't get me wrong, as far as Dev was concerned this suited him in order to get the Irish and importantly world opinion firmly behind them)

The British made false charges that Ireland was conspiring with Germany. This was big deal then as Ireland called the International word to hear them and to be recongnised as the only soverign entity of Ireland. Actions like this undermined Ireland's place in the world.

If records from Historians are to be believed, people would arrested for whistling republican or un british tunes, for allegedly making anti british speeches, for having more than 7 in a group at any one time, for playing their national games. it could be argued that it was not until events such as the burning of cork or the hunger strikes, croke park etc that made people in the international world really sit up and note the allegations of british misrule in ireland.

As i said before, Britain through her actions lost ireland. There was only so much a person could tolerate. Any attempts by the republican or labour movement to speak out was stamped on

Sir, I do invite you to respond, and people like you. But i ask that you respond to the whole of this post and deal particularily with British efforts to stamp out Dail Eireann etc.

Now i accept a possible argument that the ira/irb really controlled the dail or that the irb/ira only gave its allegiance to itself and not the dail. But what people conveniently seem to ignore is that without the fighting, the dailer's would never have being able to sit when ever they did sit (between the courts and dail, very few times during the 1920's)

walrusgumble

Wicknight wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how Easter Rising was justifed without using the means to an end argument (which is a very dangerous precedence basically justifying any atrocity so long as it achieves a worthwhile goal)

i really don't know to be honest can you.

I simply accept the facts and move on, learn from it, and although not very intelligently, thank our lucky stars it can't be allowed to happen again. But, look, many many many countries fought for independence at the end of a barrell. THat does not, from a humanities point of few make this ok, but do you hear other countries moralise and feel ashamed... one only needs to listen to the French anthem (yes weak answer i know, but sometimes, if we all sat about with our pipes and cognac pondering things would never have got done). What i do is not try to moralise it and dismiss because its not invogue with todays attitudes, i try and understand the time

What i do know, and what you know, is that it was intended to continue the Republican militant tradition of Wolfe Tone and Emmet. (many don't seem to have a problem with Wolfe Tone and considering the rest of the world at the time were in revolutions, France and US. Wolfe Tone did not really have a mandate either?, look how that war was riddled with spies) It was the idea that the only thing Britain knows is the gun and bomb. How come it was ok for the Zulu's and other African colonies to fight? (i am not saying you personally think this as i don't know)

People like Pearse, was actually in favour of the Irish Parliamentary Party at first, and no doubt an admirer of Parnell. Pearse and co were outraged that an Irish man, Redmond, would call on Irish people (of course this was by no means the first call to arms for britain) to protect "little catholic belgium".

Considering the British attitude during the Land League wars, considering the unhealthy attitude in the House of Lords and Commons, considering the Converatives willingness to fight tooth and nail for and with Unionism, Pearse and co lost faith, after so many false hopes of home rule. these were not days of all real professional politicans in the sense say Parnell and Llyod George. These were not the days that intense negotiations, declarations, embassadors and delegates were the norm. You look at the faults of the League of Nations later to see the huge problems it had even when it held sessions.

Connolly, saw what happened during the Dublin Lock Outs (sadly this may have happened even if the tricolour had being raised at dublin castle by then) and the conditions that the country was in during this time. THe Irish Parliamentary Party kind of neglected this after Parnell. But how could they be effective in a House that sits 400 plus MP's. Yet they refused to budge from Parliament in Westminister.

Zombrex

walrusgumble wrote: »

India, yes that is a great example. But, would India have being able to effectively do what they did had they being geographically next door to main land britian?

Well yes, I would imagine it would have been a lot easier. Gandai and the Indian movement had to go to great lengths to gain support for their cause in England (where the power actually is), as their were viewed, even in the last century, as a backwards some what barbaric people.

The more affinity and empathy the population of an oppressing nation has with those who they are oppressing the easier it is to change the populations mind.

Ireland was an English speaking island just beside England, which shared large portions of history and culture with the English.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Do you honestly believe (now considering at the same time India's importance to the Empire) that Britain would tolerate this behavour on its own door step?

That depends on what you mean by "Britain" and "tolerate". Britain was the British government of the time, and governments switched between sympathy for Ireland and aggression towards Ireland based on who was in power and the general feelings of the British people.

We tend to present Britain as some kind of totalitarian military nation when discussing Irish history, but in 1916 it was a democracy, at least as far as the English were concerned. The mood of the population in general would shape the views of the government, and I see little reason to believe that the English population in general had very strong feelings about holding on to Ireland.

Not saying they would have been prepared to give it up just like that, but that is again where the non-violent resistance comes in.

walrusgumble wrote: »

I don't know if you are trying the skirt the issue i have put at least 3 times here. but i will repeat it again:

I'm not sure what issue you are putting to me here?

Ireland did try non-violent resistance but they didn't try particularly hard, as more often than not the non-violence resistance went hand in hand with violent resistance. I can't think of any period between 1916 and 1922 when the Republican movement consisted of solely non-violent resistances.

And that nullifies the ability of non-violent resistances to take the moral high ground. There is no point saying we have set up our own Dail and courts and we are going to non-violently resist British rule if at the same time you are shooting RIC men.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Now i accept a possible argument that the ira/irb really controlled the dail or that the irb/ira only gave its allegiance to itself and not the dail. But what people conveniently seem to ignore is that without the fighting, the dailer's would never have being able to sit when ever they did sit (between the courts and dail, very few times during the 1920's)

I'm not ignoring that at all, but again that is the means to an end argument, which I reject. No matter how much you want the ends that does not justify the means by itself. And as far as I'm concerned actions such as the Easter Rising and some (not all) of the actions during the lead up to and War of Independence were immoral.

nacho libre

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, I would imagine it would have been a lot easier. Gandai and the Indian movement had to go to great lengths to gain support for their cause in England (where the power actually is), as their were viewed, even in the last century, as a backwards some what barbaric people.

The more affinity and empathy the population of an oppressing nation has with those who they are oppressing the easier it is to change the populations mind.

Ireland was an English speaking island just beside England, which shared large portions of history and culture with the English.



That depends on what you mean by "Britain" and "tolerate". Britain was the British government of the time, and governments switched between sympathy for Ireland and aggression towards Ireland based on who was in power and the general feelings of the British people.

We tend to present Britain as some kind of totalitarian military nation when discussing Irish history, but in 1916 it was a democracy, at least as far as the English were concerned. The mood of the population in general would shape the views of the government, and I see little reason to believe that the English population in general had very strong feelings about holding on to Ireland.

Not saying they would have been prepared to give it up just like that, but that is again where the non-violent resistance comes in.



I'm not sure what issue you are putting to me here?

Ireland did try non-violent resistance but they didn't try particularly hard, as more often than not the non-violence resistance went hand in hand with violent resistance. I can't think of any period between 1916 and 1922 when the Republican movement consisted of solely non-violent resistances.

And that nullifies the ability of non-violent resistances to take the moral high ground. There is no point saying we have set up our own Dail and courts and we are going to non-violently resist British rule if at the same time you are shooting RIC men.



I'm not ignoring that at all, but again that is the means to an end argument, which I reject. No matter how much you want the ends that does not justify the means by itself. And as far as I'm concerned actions such as the Easter Rising and some (not all) of the actions during the lead up to and War of Independence were immoral.

Are they immoral in your view because you saw an alternative? or are you saying that all violent resistance against an occupying state is immoral?
if it's the latter, do you believe that all conventional wars are immoral?

if it's the former, how can you be sure that the approach you advocate would have worked and resulted in England granting independence to Ireland. is it not equally as likely that with no violence England would have not felt the need to do a deal. could it be that if violence is effective enough it can have a more profound influence on the populace which in turn forces the political establishment to reconsider their approach.

with this in mind if we look at afghanistan today, if the taliban were able to shoot down a few british helicopters you can be sure the pressure on the british government to quit afghanistan would rise considerably. as it is two thirds of the british population think the war is not worth fighting, yet before the sharp rise in fatalities of british soliders, british people didn't really care about this war.
there is even talk of negotiating with "elements" of the taliban now and bring them back "into the fold". where once there was no such talk, they were all extremists who could not be negotiated with and therefore had to be extirpated.

the point being that an efficient campaign of violence can be an effective method of focusing minds and bringing about profound change in a countries strategic thinking on an issue. this is not to disagree that Utilitarianism is immoral - if that is indeed one of your points.


anyway, in the final analysis i think it's easy for us in a forum discussion some 80-odd years later to say that there was a better alternative. i'm sure you've heard the saying the best general is Mr Hindsight.

Victor

Were Collins & DeVelera involved in the sale of illegal drugs?

walrusgumble

Victor wrote: »

Were Collins & DeVelera involved in the sale of illegal drugs?

who know what many of them dáil bonds contained. russia were keen on them;)