Lessons of History: futility of killing?

Data_Quest

On another thread someone suggested I start a new one based on my opinion that it is rarely worth it to kill anyone in the hope of achieving a political goal.

At one extreme we have a Gandhi Quote:

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS.

And at the other extreme we have a quote from Dan Breen:

I'll make no apoligies for killing. The only thing I have ever been sorry about is the number that escaped !! Anyman that comes into my house or country and tries to take over, I'm going to kill him, by any means.

I will openly admit that I would lean towards a Gandhi-like way of thinking and find the Dan Breen view abhorrent.

To start the ball rolling I will use a few examples:

1. Was the Irish War of Independance worth all the killing of Irish and British to achieve a 26 county "Free" state? If we had adopted a Gandhi like approach would we have achieved a 32 county independence (or at least a devolved government similar to that of Scotland & Wales) without all the killing of the last 90 years.

2. Was the Spanish Civil War worth all the killing of 100,000s. The facist forces under Franco won out in the end but when Franco died in 1975 democracy was eventually restored.

I would be interested in your thoughts if you think there are situations when killing is justified.

ejmaztec

Data_Quest wrote: »

On another thread someone suggested I start a new one based on my opinion that it is rarely worth it to kill anyone in the hope of achieving a political goal.

At one extreme we have a Gandhi Quote:

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS.

And at the other extreme we have a quote from Dan Breen:

I'll make no apoligies for killing. The only thing I have ever been sorry about is the number that escaped !! Anyman that comes into my house or country and tries to take over, I'm going to kill him, by any means.

I will openly admit that I would lean towards a Gandhi-like way of thinking and find the Dan Breen view abhorrent.

To start the ball rolling I will use a few examples:

1. Was the Irish War of Independance worth all the killing of Irish and British to achieve a 26 county "Free" state? If we had adopted a Gandhi like approach would we have achieved a 32 county independence (or at least a devolved government similar to that of Scotland & Wales) without all the killing of the last 90 years.

2. Was the Spanish Civil War worth all the killing of 100,000s. The facist forces under Franco won out in the end but when Franco died in 1975 democracy was eventually restored.

I would be interested in your thoughts if you think there are situations when killing is justified.

One of the disadvantages of the end result of a violent war of independence in Ireland, was that people with no governmental experience got to call the shots in the running of the country.

How much did the appointed civil servants run rings around Dev and Co, and who were the appointees?

Morlar

Were it not for anti-church activities which sparked the conflict Franco would have remained a relative unknown in the army. The spanish civil war caused people to side with franco over the communists who were killing priests and nuns, people who otherwise would not have.

Re the Irish example your working on the assumption that where Irish independence not achieved via the Rising and Civil war, India would also have been granted independence in the same manner. I don't agree with that.

Also it is on the assumption that Ireland would eventually have been given independence or that it would have been morally acceptable to suffer it in the meantime. I think in the Irish context it was justified & Dan Breen though not as articulate or educated as Ghandi was perfectly right in my view. Ghandi had the numbers and the distance from london and the Irish precedent. We had none of those advantages.

brianthebard

As Morlar said Gandhi learned from the Irish experience, as did many other high profile Indian politicans/independence campaigners. That both the Irish and Indian situations ended in partition despite differing tactics (violence versus non violence) should be taken into account in this debate I feel.

McArmalite

Data_Quest wrote: »

On another thread someone suggested I start a new one based on my opinion that it is rarely worth it to kill anyone in the hope of achieving a political goal.

At one extreme we have a Gandhi Quote:

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS.

And at the other extreme we have a quote from Dan Breen:

I'll make no apoligies for killing. The only thing I have ever been sorry about is the number that escaped !! Anyman that comes into my house or country and tries to take over, I'm going to kill him, by any means.

I will openly admit that I would lean towards a Gandhi-like way of thinking and find the Dan Breen view abhorrent.

To start the ball rolling I will use a few examples:

1. Was the Irish War of Independance worth all the killing of Irish and British to achieve a 26 county "Free" state? If we had adopted a Gandhi like approach would we have achieved a 32 county independence (or at least a devolved government similar to that of Scotland & Wales) without all the killing of the last 90 years.

2. Was the Spanish Civil War worth all the killing of 100,000s. The facist forces under Franco won out in the end but when Franco died in 1975 democracy was eventually restored.

I would be interested in your thoughts if you think there are situations when killing is justified.

Firstly, ok I was a bit sharp with you over on the other thread ,but well, a few have been similar to me of late, so apologies.

Ghandi who was undoubtedly totally sincere in his pacifism ( unlike so called 'Peace ' groups in Ireland which I will address later ) and did everything he could to bring about a free peaceful India. He is sometimes held up by people as prove of success but he didn't succeed in either -

Creating a free India as the british engineered the partition of the country thru their puppet Jinnah and Muslim League

It was not bloodless despite the very best efforts of Ghandi or his followers. The british murdered between 350 to over a 1,000 people at Amritsar. Not Ghandi's fault in any way, but blood brought into the equation by the british mass murders and hence it's wrong to say it was a successful ' peaceful ' transition to freedom. The british engineered partition of India resulted in the deaths of at least a million and millions of refugees. Again it's wrong to say it was a successful ' peaceful ' transition.

In examples 1 and 2 above, not trying to put you down, but your answer to when your rights are been trampled on and a people are repressed and indeed murdered at gun point, the solution is to wait around for a few decades and hope things will change ?

And if you had been in Derry or Belfast in August 1969, would you have urged the nationalists not to resist and let the RUC and loyalists mobs murder and burn down the homes of as many they liked ?

Data_Quest

ejmaztec wrote: »

One of the disadvantages of the end result of a violent war of independence in Ireland, was that people with no governmental experience got to call the shots in the running of the country.

How much did the appointed civil servants run rings around Dev and Co, and who were the appointees?

I agree: the road that these inexperienced idealists led us down brought economic ruin and a backward priest-ridden society that has taken us 50 years to recover from. As has often been said before the 60s social revolution did not take shape in Ireland until the mid to late 70s. I remember Ireland in the 70s as a kid: statues of the Virgin Mary being led through the streets preceeded by young virgins dressed in white scattering rose petals - strange stuff. I also remember that we could not buy contraceptives openly until the 80s.

And don't get me started on corrupt politicians. When did the self serving corruption start? We know now that corruption was rife in the 70s, 80s, 90s but when did it really start? Could 90 years of a British Government be worse than what we got instead?

Data_Quest

Morlar wrote: »

Were it not for anti-church activities which sparked the conflict Franco would have remained a relative unknown in the army. The spanish civil war caused people to side with franco over the communists who were killing priests and nuns, people who otherwise would not have.

Re the Irish example your working on the assumption that where Irish independence not achieved via the Rising and Civil war, India would also have been granted independence in the same manner. I don't agree with that.

Also it is on the assumption that Ireland would eventually have been given independence or that it would have been morally acceptable to suffer it in the meantime. I think in the Irish context it was justified & Dan Breen though not as articulate or educated as Ghandi was perfectly right in my view. Ghandi had the numbers and the distance from london and the Irish precedent. We had none of those advantages.

Based on my original premise then I would argue that the Socialist Government was wrong to kill royalists, capitalists and clergy and whoever else they targeted (must read up more on this and try to understand what they were trying to achieve). Although I do sympathise with their cause and the subsequent fight against the catholic fascists (the feeling against the church must have been strong after 100s of years of ruthless control including the Spanish Inquisition - which is another example of violence begetting more violence).

Capt'n Midnight

Data_Quest wrote: »

I remember Ireland in the 70s as a kid: statues of the Virgin Mary being led through the streets preceeded by young virgins dressed in white scattering rose petals - strange stuff.

I can remember it in Westport in the late 80's - early 90's

Morlar

Data_Quest wrote: »

I do sympathise with their cause and the subsequent fight against the catholic . . . .

I doubt you could put revenge for the spanish inquisition as a justification for the red terror. Besides, communist antagonism towards the christian church was not unique to the Spanish context. Nor were the communists accurate in describing catholic nuns and priests as 'fascist'. My sympathies would be on the side that thought this red terror should not be tolerated;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)

The Red Terror in Spain (Spanish: Terror Rojo en España) is the name given to various acts committed by sections of nearly all the leftist groups[4] during the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s, and included desecration and burning monasteries and churches and killing of 6,832[5] members of the Catholic clergy, killing of lay people, as well as attacks on landowners, industrialists, and politicians.[5] The Spanish Catholic hierarchy has always claimed that there was a planned and systematic persecution of the Catholic Church by its enemies. In that sense, the archbishop and historian Antonio Montero Moreno claimed, that on the cusp of the civil War, and before its actual beginning, “a program of systematic persecution of the Church was planned to the last detail”.[6] Various methods of assault were used by the Republican forces, including shooting, burning, crucifixion, and dismemberments.[7]

To go back to your other point ;

Could 90 years of a British Government be worse than what we got instead?

Could I ask in what ways do you think we would be better off paying taxes and swearing allegiance to the queen of england ? Corruption and incompetent politicians are not unique to Ireland. Britain may have had colonies to buffer them against the economic depression unlike Ireland, also it is not surprising that a fledgling newly independent state will have decades of economic challenges. No one is saying our current politicians are free of corruption or incompetence but it would be a fantastic leap to go from that to 'we would be better off without independence'

Data_Quest

Morlar wrote: »

Re the Irish example your working on the assumption that where Irish independence not achieved via the Rising and Civil war, India would also have been granted independence in the same manner. I don't agree with that.

Also it is on the assumption that Ireland would eventually have been given independence or that it would have been morally acceptable to suffer it in the meantime. I think in the Irish context it was justified & Dan Breen though not as articulate or educated as Ghandi was perfectly right in my view. Ghandi had the numbers and the distance from london and the Irish precedent. We had none of those advantages.

Sorry, I only addressed your first point in my last post.

I am afraid I do not know much about Indian history but I take you point that the Irish experience was taken into account when India was granted independence (1947 according to Wikipedia).

So let us assume that the 26 counties had not broken away from the British are you saying that India would not have gained independence at some time after 1947 and would still now be part of the British Empire?

Your point about Dan Breen is interesting: if you are correct that he was not as educated as Gandhi then that strenghtens my arguement: a poor education can lead to violence and xenophobia.

I have to disagree with you that he was perfectly right to take part in the killing of 2 Irish police officers (imagine the impact this had on the victims' families? And worst of all he had no remorse afterwards and wished he could have killed more).

On the point about eventual Irish 32 county independence: all I can say is look at Scotland today: it has achieved a form of devolved Government (not idependence I agree but aren't we all part of Europe now? why does it matter?)

Snickers Man

Data_Quest wrote: »

Sorry, I only addressed your first point in my last post.

I am afraid I do not know much about Indian history but I take you point that the Irish experience was taken into account when India was granted independence (1947 according to Wikipedia).

So let us assume that the 26 counties had not broken away from the British are you saying that India would not have gained independence at some time after 1947 and would still now be part of the British Empire?

Indian agitation for Home Rule was about the same vintage as that in Ireland. In the wake of the First World War the Indian nationalists demanded payback for their support of the British in that war and especially for the large number of Indian soldiers that had fought and died in places like Mesopotamia and Palestine.

The British response was to brutalise and criminalise the agitators and as early as April 1919 to shoot them down in their hundreds in Amritsar.

Incidentally, Amritsar is at the heart of the Punjab whence a disproportionate number of soldiers, mainly Sikhs, were recruited into the British Army. IT was also a hotbed for Indian nationalism.

It is interesting to compare Britain's repayment of its "debt of honour" to the Indian soliders with the claims made by some in Ireland today that had there been no 1916 Rising, the good faith displayed by the 35,000 Irishmen who were killed in the war would have left Britain with no option but to enforce the Home Rule that had been promised before the war.

I wonder.

Without belittling the achievements of Gandhi, I think the simple arithmetic of power politics played its part in Britain's abandonment of India. In order to defeat the Japanese in WWII the British had to beef up considerably its Indian Army. It was therefore faced at the end of WWII with a powerful, well trained well equipped Army which it had established itself but which could quite easily have gone into business on its own account. I am certain that was a major influence on Britain's decision to quit.

Manic Moran

I'm not entirely convinced that Ghandi was quite as much an objector to killing as is commonly held. Absolutely he believed that peace was the best course of action, was it necessarily the be-all and end-all? "Cast not the first stone" doesn't mean that you shouldn't have one in your pocket...

From his book "My Experiments With The Truth"

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn

The Arms Act of 1858 prohibited Indians from owning firearms unless deemed a 'loyal' subject of the British Empire. It was put into place after the Indian Mutiny of 1857 to make sure those upstarts could never stage an insurrection again. The hour of trial in question was World War I, for which Ghandi attempted to recruit Indians to serve in the British Army. The thinking was that such an act of loyalty to the British would result in India being a valued and trusted people, similar to the other dominions and not simply a bunch of untrustworthy serfs incapable of doing anything for themeselves.

It was not bloodless despite the very best efforts of Ghandi or his followers. The british murdered between 350 to over a 1,000 people at Amritsar. Not Ghandi's fault in any way, but blood brought into the equation by the british mass murders and hence it's wrong to say it was a successful ' peaceful ' transition to freedom

An intresting and very valid point. I think it's unlikely that Ghandi thought that nobody would die. (If he did, he was somewhat detached from reality). He was willing to sacrifice lives. The difference in the philisophy really is over 'how many lives' vs 'if people are going to die, perhaps it should be better that the people dying are the people on the other side'

NTM

Morlar

Manic Moran wrote: »

The hour of trial in question was World War I, for which Ghandi attempted to recruit Indians to serve in the British Army.

Wasn't Gandhi himself a medic orderly for the british in the Boer war ? There was a documentary about him recently showing that he campaigned for the rights of merchant class indians in South Africa too (above those of non merchant caste/class indians or above those of the black south africans for that matter). I think like most historical figures there are no 'absolutes' in terms of good and bad people.

Morlar

Data_Quest wrote: »

I am afraid I do not know much about Indian history but I take you point that the Irish experience was taken into account when India was granted independence (1947 according to Wikipedia).

This seems to be the generally accepted view.

Data_Quest wrote: »

So let us assume that the 26 counties had not broken away from the British are you saying that India would not have gained independence at some time after 1947 and would still now be part of the British Empire?

No - that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that it probably would not have happened in the same timeframe, or the same manner without Irish independence.

Data_Quest wrote: »

Your point about Dan Breen is interesting: if you are correct that he was not as educated as Gandhi then that strenghtens my arguement: a poor education can lead to violence and xenophobia.

Until now I had not realised that this was your argument. Gandhi was an upper class university educated lawyer, Dan Breen (iirc) was a non university educated labourer.

There were of course university educated republicans in both the Rising and War of Independence so I am not sure your point about education and non violence holds up very well. Gandhi had a different set of circumstances, a country with a vast landmass and an enormous population, one of the most distant geographically from britain. Ireland had a tiny population, poor on the whole uneducated and never more than a few hours from re-inforcement from britain. The choices Irish republicans had were more limited than those of the indian independence movement.

Data_Quest wrote: »

I have to disagree with you that he was perfectly right to take part in the killing of 2 Irish police officers (imagine the impact this had on the victims' families? And worst of all he had no remorse afterwards and wished he could have killed more).

First of all the families of Irish people killed by british forces in Ireland also felt the impact of their loss. Secondly, Breen fought (and killed) for Irish independence, on the whole I believe he was the right man for that time and in that context. This does not translate into meaning that he was 100% correct in every thing he ever did. Though as it happens in the context of Ireland of that time I have no issue with the soloheadbeg ambush you referred to. Without that spark which lit the war of independence who knows where we would be ? It is not beyond the realms of imagination to say we could very well still be under some form of british occupation, also in a roundabout way india would not have had our example to draw inspiration from either.

Data_Quest wrote: »

On the point about eventual Irish 32 county independence: all I can say is look at Scotland today: it has achieved a form of devolved Government (not idependence I agree but aren't we all part of Europe now? why does it matter?)

A country having independence and controlling it's own destiny does matter to some people (myself included) and not to others. I have no interest in being engaged in trying to convince you on this point so I will leave that to others, you would be free to back up your point about the benefits of paying taxes to a foreign monarch etc

brianthebard

ejmaztec wrote: »

One of the disadvantages of the end result of a violent war of independence in Ireland, was that people with no governmental experience got to call the shots in the running of the country.

How much did the appointed civil servants run rings around Dev and Co, and who were the appointees?

I'm not sure if this is accurate, are you sure that no politicians from before independence didn't swap sides after 1916 and join Sinn Fein? Also much/all of the civil service was left intact in Ireland after independence, isn't that half the reason we have such problems with it at present?

Data_Quest

Morlar wrote: »

I doubt you could put revenge for the spanish inquisition as a justification for the red terror. Besides, communist antagonism towards the christian church was not unique to the Spanish context. Nor were the communists accurate in describing catholic nuns and priests as 'fascist'. My sympathies would be on the side that thought this red terror should not be tolerated;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)

To go back to your other point ;


Could I ask in what ways do you think we would be better off paying taxes and swearing allegiance to the queen of england ? Corruption and incompetent politicians are not unique to Ireland. Britain may have had colonies to buffer them against the economic depression unlike Ireland, also it is not surprising that a fledgling newly independent state will have decades of economic challenges. No one is saying our current politicians are free of corruption or incompetence but it would be a fantastic leap to go from that to 'we would be better off without independence'

I am quoting the Wikipedia article you mentioned:

"Regional, religious and ideological tension had been developing for decades and possibly centuries in Spain in the lead-up to the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War. Since completion of the Reconquista at the end of the 15th century the Spanish monarchy had maintained a centralized, traditionalist, aristocratic and devoutly Catholic regime that became increasingly difficult to maintain as the country industrialized and anarchist, socialist, communist and peripheral nationalist thinking grew in popularity. The fall of the monarchy and establishment of the first and second Spanish Republics in 1873 and 1931 respectively exacerbated these tensions, between conservatives trying to maintain the old order and those demanding redistribution of wealth and retribution for the traditionally privileged and pro-hierarchical position of the landowning class and the Catholic Church."

And to back this up I quote Antony Beevor in his comprehensive study "The Battle for Spain" (page 91):

"Even so, it was surprising how few foreign newspapers made the connection between the religious repression dating back to the Middle Ages and the violent anti-clericalism that developed in the nineteenth century."

Once again I will state that I do not support the atrocities committed on either side of the Spanish Civil War. Extreme acts of violence on both sides just made things worse and after the war thousands of Republicans were rounded up and executed.

Regarding the other point: I lived in England for 10 years and never had to swear allegiance to the Queen. I obviously paid taxes for the 10 years and had no problem paying it to the British Revenue (who I agree support a figurehead monarchy but that is true of a lot of European countries). Incidentally, a lot of Irish people who have emigrated to Australia over the years swear allegiance to the Queen in order to get their Australian passport. I don't hear of many of them objecting.

McArmalite

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is accurate, are you sure that no politicians from before independence didn't swap sides after 1916 and join Sinn Fein? Also much/all of the civil service was left intact in Ireland after independence, isn't that half the reason we have such problems with it at present?

I've heard for instance that Kevin O'Higgins was a member of Redmond's IPP and concemned 1916 until he seen the tide turning and switched to SF but cannot find it in Google to be sure.

Practically all of the civil service were from the british administration. It was said that the golf course replaced the the Free Masons and the unionist party branches as the old boys club of the Dublin Castle . They were more like London civil servants sent to run the finances of some remote British county council: they would try to make a good job of it but their prime concern was to protect the interests of the British Empire as a whole.

Totally agree with you " isn't that half the reason we have such problems with it at present? ". Yes indeed, they ran Ireland as a de facto colony of britain.

The pensions of the RIC, judges, retired british civil service and other administration had to be paid by the new state. Also payment for damage to government administration property in both Ireland and Britain. And again repayment of british government money invested in the railways, harbours etc Under the terms of the treaty a British Lord Justice named Shaw was sent over to Dublin to preside at a tribunal that would assess the compensation. he was generous to his own side :mad:.

Their were other factors such as paying rents to landlords, sterling domination etc Is it any wonder the state was basically bankrupt for decades ? Did we actually win the war with the signing of the treaty ?

R.Dub.Fusilier

Data_Quest wrote: »

On another thread someone suggested I start a new one based on my opinion that it is rarely worth it to kill anyone in the hope of achieving a political goal.

the fight for irish freedom was totaly justified . the war was taken to the british on their own doorstep , so to speak, it was a brutal war at times but as Tom Barry put it ‘ They said I was ruthless , daring , savage, bloodthirsty, even heartless … the clergy called me and my comrades ‘’murderers’’. But the British were met with their own weapons, they had gone down in the mire to destroy us and our nation, and down after them we had to go’. Tom Barry , Liam Mellows , Sean Tracey , Dan Breen and many others fought a just war against far superior forces and deserve the thanks and respect of the Irish nation from breaking the shakles of the British Empire.

Data_Quest

McArmalite wrote: »

Firstly, ok I was a bit sharp with you over on the other thread ,but well, a few have been similar to me of late, so apologies.

Ghandi who was undoubtedly totally sincere in his pacifism ( unlike so called 'Peace ' groups in Ireland which I will address later ) and did everything he could to bring about a free peaceful India. He is sometimes held up by people as prove of success but he didn't succeed in either -

Creating a free India as the british engineered the partition of the country thru their puppet Jinnah and Muslim League

It was not bloodless despite the very best efforts of Ghandi or his followers. The british murdered between 350 to over a 1,000 people at Amritsar. Not Ghandi's fault in any way, but blood brought into the equation by the british mass murders and hence it's wrong to say it was a successful ' peaceful ' transition to freedom. The british engineered partition of India resulted in the deaths of at least a million and millions of refugees. Again it's wrong to say it was a successful ' peaceful ' transition.

In examples 1 and 2 above, not trying to put you down, but your answer to when your rights are been trampled on and a people are repressed and indeed murdered at gun point, the solution is to wait around for a few decades and hope things will change ?

And if you had been in Derry or Belfast in August 1969, would you have urged the nationalists not to resist and let the RUC and loyalists mobs murder and burn down the homes of as many they liked ?

No need to apologise I am enjoying the debate.

With regard to Gandhi: I have already admitted that I do not know much details about how Indian Independance was achieved so I will bow to your (and others) better knowlege on the subject.

However I was using Gandhi as an example of one end of the paficism/violence scale. Maybe the examples I picked were not the best. If I was to believe that Jesus was a historical figure I would have chosen him as an example (turn the other cheek etc) of the extreme pacifism side and maybe members of the Baader-Meinhof gang at the other end.

When your rights are being oppressed I do not advocate doing nothing; I definitely agree something should be done (e.g. follow the example of Martin Luther King, Daniel O'Connell). I am not saying it is the easy way as often your oppressors will react with violence. The trick IMO is not to respond with more violence.

You mention Aug 69 in Belfast and Derry: the Civil Rights Movement had the right idea IMO: peaceful protest. This is a perfect example of the oppressors reacting with extreme violence but unfortunately the nationalists retaliated with more violence and everything spiralled out of control for 20 or 30 years. I just wonder could there have been a better more peaceful way?

Data_Quest

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

the fight for irish freedom was totaly justified . the war was taken to the british on their own doorstep , so to speak, it was a brutal war at times but as Tom Barry put it ‘ They said I was ruthless , daring , savage, bloodthirsty, even heartless … the clergy called me and my comrades ‘’murderers’’. But the British were met with their own weapons, they had gone down in the mire to destroy us and our nation, and down after them we had to go’. Tom Barry , Liam Mellows , Sean Tracey , Dan Breen and many others fought a just war against far superior forces and deserve the thanks and respect of the Irish nation from breaking the shakles of the British Empire.

You say the fight for Irish "freedom" was totally justified. What did we get as a result?

A divided Ireland that makes no economic sense (Donegal left in in virtual isolation, villages split in 2 along the border etc);
A ruinous Civil War;
Economic deprivation for 40 or 50 years;
Change of masters from London to the Vatican;
Mass emigration to the hated British Empire and the US;
Backward isolationist policies for 20 or 30 years;
Priest ridden mono-cultural society from which we are only now recovering;
Corrupt self-serving politicians;
Child abusing clergy;

Other than that everything was great (dances at the crossroads etc)

MarchDub

Data_Quest wrote: »

You say the fight for Irish "freedom" was totally justified. What did we get as a result?

A divided Ireland that makes no economic sense (Donegal left in in virtual isolation, villages split in 2 along the border etc);
A ruinous Civil War;
Economic deprivation for 40 or 50 years;
Change of masters from London to the Vatican;
Mass emigration to the hated British Empire and the US;
Backward isolationist policies for 20 or 30 years;
Priest ridden mono-cultural society from which we are only now recovering;
Corrupt self-serving politicians;
Child abusing clergy;

Other than that everything was great (dances at the crossroads etc)

I think you ought to read up on what we left behind - and what went before. Revolution doesn't happen in a vacuum. The justification came from the past experience under British rule. We had land dispossession on a grand scale, no voting rights, economic imperialism with laws passed in Westminster favouring England's production quotas [killing our trade during the eighteenth century] , no representative government, famine on a grand scale, - none of which changed until we stood up and demanded these changes. And each change took a long and hard battle - little was won by our forefathers without enormous effort. It seems, I must say, a little banal to sit around quoting De Valera out of context to support what reads like a myopic perspective.

As for India - I just want to add that it is a fallacy to say that India gained Independence through the passive philosophy of Gandhi. If only. There was a lot of bloodshed in the fight for India - Gandhi was only one of many who were involved in the Indian Independence movement. In 1942, for example, after the Quit India declaration was made the British army moved into vast areas making arrests of officials - they were met with serious rioting organized by militant Congress leaders. The British acknowledged that this was the worst rioting since 1857 and the most serious challenge since then.

And remember, Sinn Fein began as a passive movement also.

Data_Quest

MarchDub wrote: »

I think you ought to read up on what we left behind - and what went before. Revolution doesn't happen in a vacuum. The justification came from the past experience under British rule. We had land dispossession on a grand scale, no voting rights, economic imperialism with laws passed in Westminster favouring England's production quotas [killing our trade during the eighteenth century] , no representative government, famine on a grand scale, - none of which changed until we stood up and demanded these changes. And each change took a long and hard battle - little was won by our forefathers without enormous effort. It seems, I must say, a little banal to sit around quoting De Valera out of context to support what reads like a myopic perspective.

As for India - I just want to add that it is a fallacy to say that India gained Independence through the passive philosophy of Gandhi. If only. There was a lot of bloodshed in the fight for India - Gandhi was only one of many who were involved in the Indian Independence movement. In 1942, for example, after the Quit India declaration was made the British army moved into vast areas making arrests of officials - they were met with serious rioting organized by militant Congress leaders. The British acknowledged that this was the worst rioting since 1857 and the most serious challenge since then.

And remember, Sinn Fein began as a passive movement also.

You raise some good points. I was being a bit over the top I agree but essentially I believe it was a mistake to sign the breakaway Treaty that we did splitting Ireland in two.

I have no doubt that revolution does not happen in a vacuum. The British politicians of the 19th century have a lot to answer for: preventing people like Daniel O'Connell and Charles Stuart Parnell from making more progress than they did. These great men, who essentially followed pacifist policies within the British parliament, seemed to have been stymied at every turn by the machinations of those in power. If more concessions had been granted we might have gotten a limited form of Home Rule at the end of the 19th or the beginning of the 20th century which might have appeased militant tendancies and thus preventing 1000s of killings in the 20th century.

MarchDub

Data_Quest wrote: »

You raise some good points. I was being a bit over the top I agree but essentially I believe it was a mistake to sign the breakaway Treaty that we did splitting Ireland in two.

But you have to consider the context of the time - it was seen by Collins as a stepping stone , and one with seemingly great potential for more in the near future. Most importantly, the promised Boundary Commission was a carrot held out with much promise for a future re-united Ireland. In addition, it is clear from the records that we have that the Irish side understood that the location of the boarder was not by any means a done deal and that county by county elections would allow for a re-drawing of the border according to each of the six counties’ unionist or nationalist allegiances. This would have resulted in Fermanagh and Tyrone joining the Free State thus ensuing an economically unviable status for the remaining four. So, it is not credible really to look back and say, well it all didn’t work out – that was not the fault of the signers of the Treaty.

Data_Quest wrote: »

I have no doubt that revolution does not happen in a vacuum. The British politicians of the 19th century have a lot to answer for: preventing people like Daniel O'Connell and Charles Stuart Parnell from making more progress than they did. These great men, who essentially followed pacifist policies within the British parliament, seemed to have been stymied at every turn by the machinations of those in power. If more concessions had been granted we might have gotten a limited form of Home Rule at the end of the 19th or the beginning of the 20th century which might have appeased militant tendancies and thus preventing 1000s of killings in the 20th century.

Agree. The greatest tragedy for twentieth century Ireland was the failure of Parnell and the Home Rule movement in the late nineteenth century. This failure led directly to the violence that plagued Ireland for the entire century. The political fault here lies with the British Conservatives AND the Liberals who both dropped the ball in refusing to grant it. But within Ireland the Catholic Church played a major role in discrediting and demonising the person of Parnell when he tried to hold Ireland together in the face of British intransigence. The denouncing of Parnell’s character by Church authorities because of the divorce “scandal” was a black day for relations between nationalists and the growing power of the Clerics.

Data_Quest

MarchDub wrote: »

But you have to consider the context of the time - it was seen by Collins as a stepping stone , and one with seemingly great potential for more in the near future. Most importantly, the promised Boundary Commission was a carrot held out with much promise for a future re-united Ireland. In addition, it is clear from the records that we have that the Irish side understood that the location of the boarder was not by any means a done deal and that county by county elections would allow for a re-drawing of the border according to each of the six counties’ unionist or nationalist allegiances. This would have resulted in Fermanagh and Tyrone joining the Free State thus ensuing an economically unviable status for the remaining four. So, it is not credible really to look back and say, well it all didn’t work out – that was not the fault of the signers of the Treaty.



Agree. The greatest tragedy for twentieth century Ireland was the failure of Parnell and the Home Rule movement in the late nineteenth century. This failure led directly to the violence that plagued Ireland for the entire century. The political fault here lies with the British Conservatives AND the Liberals who both dropped the ball in refusing to grant it. But within Ireland the Catholic Church played a major role in discrediting and demonising the person of Parnell when he tried to hold Ireland together in the face of British intransigence. The denouncing of Parnell’s character by Church authorities because of the divorce “scandal” was a black day for relations between nationalists and the growing power of the Clerics.

I think we are in broad agreement then. I admit I am looking back with 20/20 hindsight. I don't blame Collins and the other signatories for trying their best to come up with a compromise that would be acceptable to the leaders back in Ireland (as it was the subsequent vote in the Dail was only barely passed). So with the benefit of hindsight then I think it was a bad deal for Ireland: if they had been better negotiators they might have secured a better deal? Collins openly admitted that he was not a politician and did not relish the job of negotiating against the likes of Llyod George and Winston Churchill.

MarchDub

Data_Quest wrote: »

I think we are in broad agreement then. I admit I am looking back with 20/20 hindsight. I don't blame Collins and the other signatories for trying their best to come up with a compromise that would be acceptable to the leaders back in Ireland (as it was the subsequent vote in the Dail was only barely passed). So with the benefit of hindsight then I think it was a bad deal for Ireland: if they had been better negotiators they might have secured a better deal? Collins openly admitted that he was not a politician and did not relish the job of negotiating against the likes of Llyod George and Winston Churchill.

I think Collins did well to get what he did and was intelligent enough to know what the limits were on the British side. History records that no matter what "deal" the signatories got it was likely to be broken - or at least maneuvered about as is the case with the Boundary Commission - if it did not suit the fundamental needs of the English side . The history of Ireland is strewn with treaties broken on the English side. I don't say this with any cavalier attitude - from the Treaty of Windsor of 1175 - broken almost as soon as the ink was dry - through the Treaty of Limerick of 1691 and on into our own time, the power brokers were one side.

I for one, was glad to be born into a free Irish Republic. I take it any day over what had gone before, and that's the only reference that can be used. As was said before on this forum, we don't have a parallel universe to compare with how things could have been better - we can only reference what went before. And before was not better IMO.

meathstevie

No matter how ugly it sounds but you need Dan Breens if you want to spark up a conflict of any sort. Basically someone who's willing to lap up sufficient ideology to justify his actions in his own mind a to be unleashed after.
A good few Black'n'Tans would have been chips of that block.
Hitler's SS will have counted quite a few of that persuasion in it's ranks, same with Stalin's NKVD etc etc... .

My admiration goes out to people like for example a Micheal Gorbatchev who had an enormous military machine at his disposal but had the courage of thinking there was another way. Same goes for example for people like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness and people in the Blair,Major,Reynolds, Bruton and Aherne administrations who knew one couldn't beat the other and could find ways and means to explore different options.

Manic Moran

If I was to believe that Jesus was a historical figure I would have chosen him as an example (turn the other cheek etc) of the extreme pacifism side

He also strongly recommended that if you don't own a sword, you should go buy one, selling the cloak off your back if you have to to get the money. (At least, if you believe what the Bible says.)

It's all well and good to eschew violence. But eschewing it to the point of helplessness in the face of those less civilised than you is foolish. There is no dishonour in defending yourself. Being morally correct and dead seems a bit pointless.

NTM

ejmaztec

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is accurate, are you sure that no politicians from before independence didn't swap sides after 1916 and join Sinn Fein? Also much/all of the civil service was left intact in Ireland after independence, isn't that half the reason we have such problems with it at present?

Yes, given where we are now, I wouldn't have trusted any of them, least of all the civil service. I appreciate that most of the administrative mechanism was staffed by the same people, but their allegiances must have been questionable to say the least. Who knows what they got up to in the background, whilst at the same time possibly pretending that they respected their new masters. I think that it's a safe bet to assume that some of them were probably even spying for the British, and passing on relevant information.

As there were bound to be professional politicians in the mix, these may well have hard time of it, especially trying to "teach" politics and protocol to ex-gunmen.

Data_Quest

ejmaztec wrote: »

Yes, given where we are now, I wouldn't have trusted any of them, least of all the civil service. I appreciate that most of the administrative mechanism was staffed by the same people, but their allegiances must have been questionable to say the least. Who knows what they got up to in the background, whilst at the same time possibly pretending that they respected their new masters. I think that it's a safe bet to assume that some of them were probably even spying for the British, and passing on relevant information.

As there were bound to be professional politicians in the mix, these may well have hard time of it, especially trying to "teach" politics and protocol to ex-gunmen.

Here is an example of one James O'Connor Lord Justice before Independence and Counsel for the Irish Free State from 1922–1924. This is a sample of the advice he gave to Lloyd George in Dec 1919 (from the Cabinet Minutes Dec 13th 1919 British Archives):

"The Prime Minister (Lloyd George) gave a summary of a coversation which he and the Lord Privy Seal had with the Right Hon. James O'Connor, a Lord Justice of Ireland. The latter had asked the PM to see him...... He (O'Connor) had admitted that the Irish people lived in a land of delusions, where the population, who never read anything but their own newspapers, did not in the least understand the facts of the situation. They believed that the British people had only one desire, namely, to rob the Irish people of their patrimony (I think? word is difficult to read). The best Irish citizens condemned the regime of murder, but there was no moral courage in Ireland to prompt the people to denounce the murderers.......He (O'Conner) had stated that he was more of a Catholic than an Irishman, and had undertaken to ascertain the views of the Irish hierarchy on these questions."

If this is typical of the allegiances of the advisors to the Free State we were obviously in trouble from the start.

Data_Quest

meathstevie wrote: »

NMy admiration goes out to people like for example a Micheal Gorbatchev who had an enormous military machine at his disposal but had the courage of thinking there was another way. Same goes for example for people like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness and people in the Blair,Major,Reynolds, Bruton and Aherne administrations who knew one couldn't beat the other and could find ways and means to explore different options.

That is the good thing about modern times in relation to Ireland: our politicians have negotiated a peaceful settlement that makes violence less likely. I am no fan of Bertie Aherne but it would seem that he worked very hard to achieve recent major agreements (as did all the people you mentioned). There are a few militants left but hopefully they will fade into the background in the next few years when they realise that there are not many people left to react to their killing.

In 1919-1921 there was an offer by the British Cabinet that (if partition was not a valid option) they would organise an All Ireland Council in order to negotiate a way forward between Republicans and Unionists. Does anyone know why this option was not pursued at the time?

Data_Quest

Manic Moran wrote: »

He also strongly recommended that if you don't own a sword, you should go buy one, selling the cloak off your back if you have to to get the money. (At least, if you believe what the Bible says.)

It's all well and good to eschew violence. But eschewing it to the point of helplessness in the face of those less civilised than you is foolish. There is no dishonour in defending yourself. Being morally correct and dead seems a bit pointless.

NTM

Good one. I had not seen that quote before about equipping yourself with a sword. Just goes to prove that the Bible is full of inconsistencies as Jesus also is reported to have said something like: those you live by the sword die by the sword.

However, I did consult a Christian friend on this and she said that your quote from Luke is often interpreted as a justification for self defence (Christians are very flexible when it comes to interpreting the Bible ). So this answers your last point: if you look at the original post I never argued that you should "eschew violence to the point of helplessness". I have to agree that Self defence is one time when you have to use violence to protect yourself ie when you are being physically attacked yourself. However, I also believe that deliberately going out to shoot some police men is not an act of self defence.

Data_Quest

MarchDub wrote: »

I for one, was glad to be born into a free Irish Republic. I take it any day over what had gone before, and that's the only reference that can be used. As was said before on this forum, we don't have a parallel universe to compare with how things could have been better - we can only reference what went before. And before was not better IMO.

I have to disagree on one small point: we do have another reference point and that is what it is like to live in the UK today. IMO it is better to look at the current situation and not what it was like in the 19th century. I am sure you would agree that the ordinary working class were treated very badly all over Britain in the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries not just in Ireland. Things have improved significantly in Britain and I can only suppose that it would have been the same for an Ireland with some form of devolved government. In my experience the working and middle classes have much the same freedoms in both countries. The rich and powerful still live by different rules (nothing has changed in that respect).

MarchDub

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's all well and good to eschew violence. But eschewing it to the point of helplessness in the face of those less civilised than you is foolish. There is no dishonour in defending yourself. Being morally correct and dead seems a bit pointless.

NTM

I think this is a great point. And violence comes in many manifestations - the Structural Violence of a state - oppressive laws that deny basic rights, discrimination etc.- is as real as other forms. Being helpless is pointless.

Manic Moran

Data_Quest wrote: »

Good one. I had not seen that quote before about equipping yourself with a sword. Just goes to prove that the Bible is full of inconsistencies as Jesus also is reported to have said something like: those you live by the sword die by the sword.

Not an inconsistency. As your friend points out, it is merely a statement which supports the concept of self defence. Living by the sword means undertaking violence as a lifestyle, not as a means of preserving life.

However, I also believe that deliberately going out to shoot some police men is not an act of self defence.

But how about if the police shoot first? You go and have your peaceful protest, and as you're sitting there peacefully, the police attack. Maybe they shoot a couple of protestors to make a point and try to get them to disperse. Is it not acceptable to attack the police in such a case?

NTM

Data_Quest

Manic Moran wrote: »

But how about if the police shoot first? You go and have your peaceful protest, and as you're sitting there peacefully, the police attack. Maybe they shoot a couple of protestors to make a point and try to get them to disperse. Is it not acceptable to attack the police in such a case?

NTM

If you are on a peaceful protest (therefore unarmed) and the police start shooting then you are unlikely to attack them as they are likely to start shooting again. But I presume what you are asking is it OK to afterwards organise a retaliation shooting of police as a result. As a pacifist I personally would have to say no but I do agree it would be difficult not to support others who do.

However, this is the reason I started this thread to make the point that if police are shot in reprisals for the state's wrongdoing then the state is likely to retaliate with even more violence and that usually leads to a tit-for-tat neagative spiral of violence which takes years to get out of.

Manic Moran

If you are on a peaceful protest (therefore unarmed) and the police start shooting then you are unlikely to attack them as they are likely to start shooting again.

You can be armed and peaceful at the same time, though I was thinking more along the lines of armed overwatch.

Situations like Tiannanmen Square and recent events in Iran also indicate that peacefully dying is no better a guarantee of achieving your political goals.

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Non-violent protest works well in a democracy or when you need to keep your democratic trading partners happy. You could even argue that violent protest in a democracy is morally wrong as you should be able to achieve your aims peacefully if you have a resonably level of support, and if you don't have that support you are forcing your will on them.

It's interesting to speculate how far the Palestinans would have gotten on had they just used non-violent protests. But in Saudai how far would you get when there are no cameras to report on what happens and those who need oil downplay it ?

In the past whole populations have been wiped out, The Carribs in the west indies no longer protest about independence. In Australia the native population have more land and power than the natives of patagonia,

Nodin

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Non-violent protest works well in a democracy or when you need to keep your democratic trading partners happy. You could even argue that violent protest in a democracy is morally wrong as you should be able to achieve your aims peacefully if you have a resonably level of support, and if you don't have that support you are forcing your will on them.

It's interesting to speculate how far the Palestinans would have gotten on had they just used non-violent protests.

About as far as you can go with a bullet in the head.

Gandhi, for instance, had the advantage of being 9,000 miles away from the nation he was trying to remove, which itself had just been involved in the extremely expensive Second World War. In addition, there was an extensive background of violence and armed mutiny in India, though he didn't condone it, which stretched the authorities still further.

In addition, he was appealing to the liberal principles of parts of the British population, at a time of a swing to the left in British politics. That wouldn't have cut much ice with the likes of a Stalin, or an unrepentant institutionally racist regime such as the Nazis.

Eoinp

Fascinating thread.

A number of points.

Starting from the original premise I thought I'd state some baseline observations.

1) Violence achieves results. If it didn't no-one would employ it as a tool.
2) Violence can be put to good and bad ends
3) On an amoral basis the use of violence may seem the most effective way to a goal for a given faction
4) Violence may not be the correct tool for a specific stated goal
5) The consequences of violence is a tendency to lead to more violence especially where the attacked/attacker is defeated but not beyond the capacity to reboot/rebuild/reorganize

I've always felt that in the Irish case, the use of violence was in fact the wrong tool applied at the wrong time to a poor if not disastrous result. There was significant room within the British Empire to envisage an alternate structure to the Free State violence actually achieved, especially because, like the Other White Settler Elements of the Empire, there was local democracy and quite uniquely in Ireland, national (UKOGBI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) democracy. As the Empire evolved (with significant Irish engagement up to 1932 and culminating in the 1931 Statue of Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster,_1931) it took on the form of a much looser alliance of nations, something that may well, if not completely, have suited a small nation like our own better. Still, the end result was not completely without merit.

In summary the use of force to achieve ends depends on the ends in a moral sense but in practical terms it is unavoidable.

When you bring morality into the equation it becomes difficult to defend the causes that apply violence and often times as above the timing of violence, but then in both regards the fallibility of man comes into play.
Eoin

Morlar

Eoinp wrote: »

Fascinating thread.

A number of points.

Starting from the original premise I thought I'd state some baseline observations.

1) Violence achieves results. If it didn't no-one would employ it as a tool.
2) Violence can be put to good and bad ends
3) On an amoral basis the use of violence may seem the most effective way to a goal for a given faction
4) Violence may not be the correct tool for a specific stated goal
5) The consequences of violence is a tendency to lead to more violence especially where the attacked/attacker is defeated but not beyond the capacity to reboot/rebuild/reorganize

I've always felt that in the Irish case, the use of violence was in fact the wrong tool applied at the wrong time to a poor if not disastrous result. There was significant room within the British Empire to envisage an alternate structure to the Free State violence actually achieved, especially because, like the Other White Settler Elements of the Empire, there was local democracy and quite uniquely in Ireland, national (UKOGBI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) democracy. As the Empire evolved (with significant Irish engagement up to 1932 and culminating in the 1931 Statue of Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster,_1931) it took on the form of a much looser alliance of nations, something that may well, if not completely, have suited a small nation like our own better. Still, the end result was not completely without merit.

In summary the use of force to achieve ends depends on the ends in a moral sense but in practical terms it is unavoidable.

When you bring morality into the equation it becomes difficult to defend the causes that apply violence and often times as above the timing of violence, but then in both regards the fallibility of man comes into play.
Eoin

I think that is an interesting post. I think how the empire developed after Ireland is perhaps not the same path it would have taken without the element of armed Irish republicanism and it's results.

I think another interesting question is how moral were the british establishment in their collective approach to the issue of Ireland ?

Would it be an intelligent proposition as an Irishman/Irishwoman in pre - Independence Ireland to have held yourself to a higher moral standard than the people who are occupying your country and through violence denying you the right to self determination ?

MarchDub

Eoinp wrote: »

There was significant room within the British Empire to envisage an alternate structure to the Free State violence actually achieved, especially because, like the Other White Settler Elements of the Empire, there was local democracy and quite uniquely in Ireland, national (UKOGBI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) democracy. As the Empire evolved (with significant Irish engagement up to 1932 and culminating in the 1931 Statue of Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster,_1931) it took on the form of a much looser alliance of nations, something that may well, if not completely, have suited a small nation like our own better. Still, the end result was not completely without merit.

Your use of a Wiki article to forward your point is exactly why Wiki should never be used for this – or anything else for that matter. [See previous rants against Wiki on this forum]. This Wiki article is ignorant of the true nature of the Irish Parliament which was not at all independent of England - but the article suggests this. The Irish Parliament dates from the thirteenth century and was originally formed for the Norman invaders to deal with the issue of native Irish incursions back across land seized by the Norman settlers. The first parliament was convened to deal with this native Irish “lawlessness” as they called it. It was also organized to consolidate the establishment of English law, especially that pertaining to the English succession system, and eradicate Irish Brehon Law - which it initially failed to do beyond the Pale.

The Irish Parliament ceased to have any power at all when Poynings Law was imposed in 1494. From this date the Irish Parliament was essentially a puppet parliament under Westminster without power of autonomy to pass independent laws. The struggle for wrestling power from England - especially to do with trade regulations that favoured English trade over Irish trade - - came to a head under Henry Grattan in the late eighteenth century. But this ultimately resulted in the entire body - upper and lower houses- being abolished and Ireland put formally under the Westminster Parliament.

To therefore suggest that Ireland was "unique" in having local democracy within the British Empire - i.e. any real control over Irish affairs - is historically incorrect.

Eoinp

MarchDub wrote: »

Your use of a Wiki article to forward your point is exactly why Wiki should never be used for this – or anything else for that matter. [See previous rants against Wiki on this forum]. This Wiki article is ignorant of the true nature of the Irish Parliament which was not at all independent of England - but the article suggests this. The Irish Parliament dates from the thirteenth century and was originally formed for the Norman invaders to deal with the issue of native Irish incursions back across land seized by the Norman settlers. The first parliament was convened to deal with this native Irish “lawlessness” as they called it. It was also organized to consolidate the establishment of English law, especially that pertaining to the English succession system, and eradicate Irish Brehon Law - which it initially failed to do beyond the Pale.

The Irish Parliament ceased to have any power at all when Poynings Law was imposed in 1494. From this date the Irish Parliament was essentially a puppet parliament under Westminster without power of autonomy to pass independent laws. The struggle for wrestling power from England - especially to do with trade regulations that favoured English trade over Irish trade - - came to a head under Henry Grattan in the late eighteenth century. But this ultimately resulted in the entire body - upper and lower houses- being abolished and Ireland put formally under the Westminster Parliament.

To therefore suggest that Ireland was "unique" in having local democracy within the British Empire - i.e. any real control over Irish affairs - is historically incorrect.

Point taken re: Wiki which I used not to support my points, but rather as background, I shall avoid such use in the future. Not being an old hand here has its downsides.

Perhaps I should elaborate on what I meant by that reference:

1) My "unique" point referred only to the fact that Irish MPs served within the Parliament of The Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland. With the exception of Scotland and Wales Ireland was unique among the colonies (the cases of scotland and wales are outliers in this regard) of all types within the Empire in that. To deny it would be foolish.

2) As regards the pre-1801 parliament in all its forms (which I should note I did not intend to use as a supporting of my case) I would agree that its powers were limited by certain factors inherent in its basis and that those flaws were at the very least undesirable. However Poynings law was all but repealed in 1782 and although the resulting parliament hardly represented a universal one, it did at least embody the concept of an Irish body politic.

3) Further to the point of the origin of the parliament it is correct to say that it originated from the colonisers, but there was no reason to believe that something more inclusive could not, at a future date have been created from this. However, I'm not making this part of my case, nor do I think it would further it.

To restate what I meant by the above, Irish people has access to a parliament (witness the large IPP representation in Westminster). This route had the potential to deliver results and had done so on some issues in the past, land reform and local government most obviously.

My prime case is that violence was not really the best choice to achieve the goals of the Irish people in 1916-1921 especially as a long struggle resulted in something not materially different from that which had been proffered in the many versions of Home Rule thrown about by various sides.

That is not to say that morally those who engaged in violence were wrong or right, just that alternative routes to the same goal were possible and might have yielded better results.
Eoin

Eoinp

Morlar wrote: »

I think that is an interesting post. I think how the empire developed after Ireland is perhaps not the same path it would have taken without the element of armed Irish republicanism and it's results.

I think another interesting question is how moral were the british establishment in their collective approach to the issue of Ireland ?

Would it be an intelligent proposition as an Irishman/Irishwoman in pre - Independence Ireland to have held yourself to a higher moral standard than the people who are occupying your country and through violence denying you the right to self determination ?

I wasn't passing a moral judgment on those who engaged in violence, merely observing that I felt in balance that violence was not actually the most effective tool to achieve the stated goals. Still I can see how that might be taken as a value judgment.

With that in mind, your question is asking me to make a relative moral judgment as to who was more moral which is frankly, pretty hard in most given sets of circumstances. On the whole I'd say that neither side comes out well, but then that is war, and I rarely expect to see morality in the fighting of a war (cf: Area bombing of Dresden or the Firebombing of Tokyo).
Unpleasant but true!
Eoin

MarchDub

Eoinp wrote: »

As regards the pre-1801 parliament in all its forms (which I should note I did not intend to use as a supporting of my case) I would agree that its powers were limited by certain factors inherent in its basis and that those flaws were at the very least undesirable. However Poynings law was all but repealed in 1782 and although the resulting parliament hardly represented a universal one, it did at least embody the concept of an Irish body politic.

Poynings Law’s repeal was a brief interlude and it occurred primarily because of the pressure that the British felt in the American colonies; the direct result being the withdrawal of just about all British troops from Ireland. Ireland was given permission to form "Volunteer" corps but the Brits came to distrust these and there was a real fear of rebellion in Ireland. Hence, the prudent thing seemed to be – at that time - for the British to give power to the Irish Parliament.

The old landlord system of aristocratic power came under attack from the ’98 rebels who formed out of the volunteer militia but they were easily dealt with. However as soon as the American situation was resolved and war with France began, Pitt stood up in the Westminster Parliament in January 1799 and denounced the 1782 Act that gave legislative freedom to Dublin and declared that it was a “demolition of the system which before held the two countries together”. i.e. with English control of Irish affairs. He further explained that Britain had an ongoing war with France which was a concern and then he stated his fear that the Irish institution would not be loyal to British interests but would put its own interests first. This was the key to the whole issue. Pitt wanted Ireland back under British legislative control and the only way to do this was by abolishing the Irish Parliament and creating a tiered "union". Which he eventually got. In Pitt’s defence I would say that he promised Catholic Emancipation and was disappointed when it did not happen. But this failure of Catholic Emancipation at that time is an example of failed constitutional politics.

Eoinp wrote: »

Further to the point of the origin of the parliament it is correct to say that it originated from the colonisers, but there was no reason to believe that something more inclusive could not, at a future date have been created from this. However, I'm not making this part of my case, nor do I think it would further it.

But the record indicates that that there was reason to believe this. When was this to happen? - no inclusive parliament had evolved after 500 years so how long would it have taken? And the constitutional path had failed in any attempt to bring it about.

Eoinp wrote: »

To restate what I meant by the above, Irish people has access to a parliament (witness the large IPP representation in Westminster). This route had the potential to deliver results and had done so on some issues in the past, land reform and local government most obviously.

My prime case is that violence was not really the best choice to achieve the goals of the Irish people in 1916-1921 especially as a long struggle resulted in something not materially different from that which had been proffered in the many versions of Home Rule thrown about by various sides.

I read the record differently – that the violence grew out of the failure of British constitutional politics. I believe there was inevitability about 1916 given the repeated tragic failure of constitutional politics especially under Parnell but also before his time. Remember the constitutional route had been tried throughout the nineteenth century and had failed to bring Home Rule. O’Connell had hopes for a “repeal of the union” in the 1830s and 40s -his monster meetings were banned and short shrift given to his hopes. Even Catholic Emancipation was a long drawn out affair before success – and final achievement then came with the price of many Irish Catholic farmers losing the right to vote. This experience left a bad taste in the collective memory of many Irish - so much for constitutional "success".

But the real tragedy of the failure of constitution politics came with Parnell and the Home Rule movement of the mid to late nineteenth century. The Land War only achieved success as the “lesser of two evils” – or “killing Home Rule with kindness” as it was known. Had Parnell been allowed to succeed with his constitutional dream of a Dublin Parliament we would not have had the tragic century that was 20th century Ireland IMO. Shortly after the 1916 Rising Eoin MacNeil [who had refused to participate] said lamentably “Home Rule was a cheque that was constantly being post-dated”. In the end few in Ireland believed the cheque was ever going to be in the mail.

brianthebard

Eoinp wrote: »

My prime case is that violence was not really the best choice to achieve the goals of the Irish people in 1916-1921 especially as a long struggle resulted in something not materially different from that which had been proffered in the many versions of Home Rule thrown about by various sides.

That is not to say that morally those who engaged in violence were wrong or right, just that alternative routes to the same goal were possible and might have yielded better results.
Eoin

Hi Eoin, you make some very good points but I think the above is not quite true. The Third home rule bill was well known to not grant Ireland the same freedoms as Canada of South Africa had, it was quite a watered down proposal in comparison to the other dominions. As well as that, the people who fought between 1916-1921 were by and large republicans of some sort, and/or nationalists, and obviously believed that Home Rule was not the right thing for Ireland. The Free State that arrived was not what they had hoped for but was also a much better deal than Home Rule.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

Hi Eoin, you make some very good points but I think the above is not quite true. The Third home rule bill was well known to not grant Ireland the same freedoms as Canada of South Africa had, it was quite a watered down proposal in comparison to the other dominions. As well as that, the people who fought between 1916-1921 were by and large republicans of some sort, and/or nationalists, and obviously believed that Home Rule was not the right thing for Ireland. The Free State that arrived was not what they had hoped for but was also a much better deal than Home Rule.

One of the better deals concerned taxation. One of the issues for Lloyd George - as demanded in the Home Rule Bill and the Ireland Act 1920 - was Irish taxation. Under the Home Rule Bill Irish taxation was still to be to paid to the British treasury. The Irish side at the Treaty won a major victory on this when the Free State was granted full fiscal autonomy over their domestic affairs - a major difference and one that Lloyd George was most angry about surrendering.

Eoinp

MarchDub wrote: »

Poynings Law’s repeal was a brief interlude and it occurred primarily because of the pressure that the British felt in the American colonies; the direct result being the withdrawal of just about all British troops from Ireland. Ireland was given permission to form "Volunteer" corps but the Brits came to distrust these and there was a real fear of rebellion in Ireland. Hence, the prudent thing seemed to be – at that time - for the British to give power to the Irish Parliament.

The old landlord system of aristocratic power came under attack from the ’98 rebels who formed out of the volunteer militia but they were easily dealt with. However as soon as the American situation was resolved and war with France began, Pitt stood up in the Westminster Parliament in January 1799 and denounced the 1782 Act that gave legislative freedom to Dublin and declared that it was a “demolition of the system which before held the two countries together”. i.e. with English control of Irish affairs. He further explained that Britain had an ongoing war with France which was a concern and then he stated his fear that the Irish institution would not be loyal to British interests but would put its own interests first. This was the key to the whole issue. Pitt wanted Ireland back under British legislative control and the only way to do this was by abolishing the Irish Parliament and creating a tiered "union". Which he eventually got. In Pitt’s defence I would say that he promised Catholic Emancipation and was disappointed when it did not happen. But this failure of Catholic Emancipation at that time is an example of failed constitutional politics.



But the record indicates that that there was reason to believe this. When was this to happen? - no inclusive parliament had evolved after 500 years so how long would it have taken? And the constitutional path had failed in any attempt to bring it about.



I read the record differently – that the violence grew out of the failure of British constitutional politics. I believe there was inevitability about 1916 given the repeated tragic failure of constitutional politics especially under Parnell but also before his time. Remember the constitutional route had been tried throughout the nineteenth century and had failed to bring Home Rule. O’Connell had hopes for a “repeal of the union” in the 1830s and 40s -his monster meetings were banned and short shrift given to his hopes. Even Catholic Emancipation was a long drawn out affair before success – and final achievement then came with the price of many Irish Catholic farmers losing the right to vote. This experience left a bad taste in the collective memory of many Irish - so much for constitutional "success".

But the real tragedy of the failure of constitution politics came with Parnell and the Home Rule movement of the mid to late nineteenth century. The Land War only achieved success as the “lesser of two evils” – or “killing Home Rule with kindness” as it was known. Had Parnell been allowed to succeed with his constitutional dream of a Dublin Parliament we would not have had the tragic century that was 20th century Ireland IMO. Shortly after the 1916 Rising Eoin MacNeil [who had refused to participate] said lamentably “Home Rule was a cheque that was constantly being post-dated”. In the end few in Ireland believed the cheque was ever going to be in the mail.

As I said, I'm not going to defend the pre-1801 parliament (at least not in this thread).

I will say on your reading that it is as valid as my own. I tend to disagree with your version and for several reasons.

The problem with the "never posted cheque" argument is that the cheque had been mailed however short of our desired amount it was. It might have failed drastically, been of little real effect or it might just have been an amazing change that led to real progress for Ireland and 1916 derailed any chance of it ever had of working post

Still you can't spend too long crying over spilled milk and as I said I think the final outcomes would ultimately have been pretty similar had the route been violent or peaceful.
Eoin

Eoinp

brianthebard wrote: »

Hi Eoin, you make some very good points but I think the above is not quite true. The Third home rule bill was well known to not grant Ireland the same freedoms as Canada of South Africa had, it was quite a watered down proposal in comparison to the other dominions. As well as that, the people who fought between 1916-1921 were by and large republicans of some sort, and/or nationalists, and obviously believed that Home Rule was not the right thing for Ireland. The Free State that arrived was not what they had hoped for but was also a much better deal than Home Rule.

Regardless the point remains valid. The outcome of violence was largely (if better in some senses) the same as the outcome without violence. I doubt the destruction wrought by the 1916-1924 period was worth a better deal on tax!

Given the progress made even in the 10 years post treaty, pre-FF's arrival in power I put it to you that even Home Rule presented opportunities for peaceful increases in Irish independence. I'm not saying that the route of violence was not moral, simply that I believe more could have been achieved had 1916 not happened and the subsequent war of Independence been avoided in favour of a peaceful route, but we will as I have noted before, never know.
Eoin

MarchDub

Eoinp wrote: »

As I said, I'm not going to defend the pre-1801 parliament (at least not in this thread).

I will say on your reading that it is as valid as my own. I tend to disagree with your version and for several reasons.

The problem with the "never posted cheque" argument is that the cheque had been mailed however short of our desired amount it was. It might have failed drastically, been of little real effect or it might just have been an amazing change that led to real progress for Ireland and 1916 derailed any chance of it ever had of working post

Still you can't spend too long crying over spilled milk and as I said I think the final outcomes would ultimately have been pretty similar had the route been violent or peaceful.
Eoin

Well as you say it "might have been anything" but that is fantasy land. My interest is in learning why and how things happened not developing a fantasy universe about what might have been if...I leave that to fiction writers.

Eoinp

MarchDub wrote: »

Well as you say it "might have been anything" but that is fantasy land. My interest is in learning why and how things happened not developing a fantasy universe about what might have been if...I leave that to fiction writers.

While in general I agree with you on that avenue of thinking, there is room for a little counter factual thinking, if only to allow the power of the imagined end for comparison.

It gives you an understanding that decisions made at a certain point need not have been made, and that other choices could conceivable have been made. If we understand than then we begin to understand too that History is not predetermined but random and DECISIONS are critical to outcomes.

You can pick at my case but I'm not sure the central thesis can be undermined. 90 years of propaganda and hero stories will not change the fact that the Rising was a radical break with 50 years of successful if not perfect and certainly frustrating peaceful development towards a freer Ireland.

In this situation I contest that violent resistance was not the best option and other options were likely to have yielded effectively the same outcome.

Eoin

MarchDub

Eoinp wrote: »

90 years of propaganda and hero stories will not change the fact that the Rising was a radical break with 50 years of successful if not perfect and certainly frustrating peaceful development towards a freer Ireland.


Eoin

I mean this in all sincerity - you really need to get in touch with what has been written by Irish scholars in the field of historiography within the past 40 years. To lump it all together as "propaganda" is a great disservice to the field and displays perhaps a narrow reading of the published record of what has been a lively discussion on the events.