Nationalism

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

I don't see any reason to be immediately proud of one's country, especially in Western and Central Europe where all states seem to offer the basic civil liberties. Just because you were born somewhere doesn't make that somewhere any better than other places, and I feel nationalism is partly based on this.


Historically, and even now, I think nationalism has been an overwhelmingly negative ideology that has caused so much unnecessary pain. We only need to consider the World Wars, or the conflict in Northern Ireland, to appreciate how bitter, angry and violent this ideology can become. Its sister concept, the "Nation State", ties in with it in this regard. There should be no discrimination within states in my opinion: no one nation of people should have a preferred status. Everyone should be afforded the exact same liberties and the exact same opportunity to direct their lives the way they want.


Which leads me to modern Ireland, where nationalism is still rearing its ugly head. I was subjected to 14 years of compulsory Irish because of this nationalistic pipe dream. I would just love if that time had been spent learning French or German or any of the other languages that would actually stand up to practical usage (even Russian!). But, alas, I am not given the choice. You must learn Irish because it's your culture, I tell you. You disagree? Well you're wrong, now stand in line!

And this is what nationalism eventually comes down to. One group of people forcing their agenda onto unwilling others. The most unjustifiable kind of coercion.

Denerick

There is nothing so absurd as to have pride in a piece of land in which you were accidentally born in. Nationalism, like fascism, or any kind of all consuming ideology, is a replacement for religion in a skeptical age, where old established truths frequently get turned on their head.

ChocolateSauce

My opinion is pretty much the same as ER's. I'm happy to live in a part of the world which generally conforms to my values, many of which I hold to be universal values, but I'm not proud of the fact I'm Irish because I had no part in it. I don't have the right to be proud of the achievements of other people in past generations; I can certainly admire them, and be pleased that I may reap the benefits of those achievements, but proud of them? Only in the sense that I'm proud humans accomplished those things, and I feel this way about things everywhere. I'm proud of humans for going to space and building the Pyramids, and so on; it has nothing to do with nationality, which is an accident of geography.

IrishManSaipan

Nationalism is merely the belief that a nation has the right to govern itself and control its own destiny. What is wrong with that?

Darlughda

No, Nationalism is not merely the belief that a nation has the right to govern itself and control its own destiny.
Were it that so simple there would be no hatred of other nations going on.

It does seem an outdated notion, belonging to the early 20th century but nonetheless, where you see it most prevalent in contemporary Irish culture is in the GAA movement.

Here is is tribalism at its most basic and primitive, those men acutally feel proud wearing those shirts, and feel enormous pride at representing their respective counties? Why?

Grown men running after a ball?

The very same men who probably can't speak a word of Irish or who don't know the first thing about Irish mythology let alone history and contemporary culture?

The rush of the fervour of the mob has always informed nationalism and that what creates mob mentality, imo.

Exile 1798

No one would deny that some of those things are certainly true of some people. But as almost all Irish people could be described as Nationalist in their basic beliefs, I don't accept the tarring of them as a mob, or tribalists or some such. Yeats was an Irish Nationalist.

Grown men chasing a ball – you can do the same trick to any activity to belittle it and make it sound silly. Writing is just scribbling ink on a piece of paper. Humour mostly consists of mixing a reality with an absurdity. What value in that?

In Ireland, we have to forever put up with the complaints about Irish Nationalism from people style themselves as being against all Nationalism. Rarely do they take issue with the creator of Irish Nationalism, British Imperialism. One begat the other. Irish Nationalism was the quite natural and sensible response to foreign Imperialism and all the injustice it wrought on this island. I could take people who complain about our Nationalism more seriously if they acknowledged that as a regrettable fact, rather then used the marks of British Imperialism – the great similarity between modern Ireland and England – as a stick with which to poke Irish Nationalism in the eye. I tend to not regard them as sincere in their stated beliefs for this reason. There seems to be much of the petty contrarian about them.

getz

nationalism is ok in small doses,but when it sponsers a sign lrish language school,oh yes ireland has its own language for the deaf and dumb,and young children who are sent there find that they can only communicate with only a few thousand people in ireland,unable to understand their contemporaries in the UK,unable to understand signings on the wider UK tv networks, i believe then thats taking irishism over the top

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

No one would deny that some of those things are certainly true of some people. But as almost all Irish people could be described as Nationalist in their basic beliefs, I don't accept the tarring of them as a mob, or tribalists or some such. Yeats was an Irish Nationalist.

Its not the early 20th century. Most writers worth their salt in the 19th and early 20th century were nationalists of some hue (Usually the romantic kind) Kind of adds to the argument that nationalism is the philosophy of a philosophical dinosor

In Ireland, we have to forever put up with the complaints about Irish Nationalism from people style themselves as being against all Nationalism. Rarely do they take issue with the creator of Irish Nationalism, British Imperialism. One begat the other. Irish Nationalism was the quite natural and sensible response to foreign Imperialism and all the injustice it wrought on this island.

No-one denies where the origins of Irish Nationalism stem from, and that the Brits did some 'pretty bad things', but that doesn't justify anything.

I could take people who complain about our Nationalism more seriously if they acknowledged that as a regrettable fact, rather then used the marks of British Imperialism – the great similarity between modern Ireland and England – as a stick with which to poke Irish Nationalism in the eye. I tend to not regard them as sincere in their stated beliefs for this reason. There seems to be much of the petty contrarian about them.

I could probably stomach Irish nationalism better if there wasn't such a petty and revolting 'ideological purity' test associated. Nationalists, like fascists and communists are ranked by the level of their devotion and their purity by their compatriots. You really should read some of the nationalist publications of the 19th century, they are laughable in their use of pejorative terms (Uncultured louts calling anyone who disagrees with them a 'west Briton') Generally a divisive and boorish crowd, obsessed with things nobody cares about, and an all round quasi fascist emotionalism that is disturbing when your interfere with the surface.

I am a nationalist in the sense that I am interested in irish history, culture, and all the rest (Particularly its literature) but I despise the emotionalism, which is quasi religious and disturbing.

Exile 1798

Denerick wrote: »

Its not the early 20th century. Most writers worth their salt in the 19th and early 20th century were nationalists of some hue (Usually the romantic kind) Kind of adds to the argument that nationalism is the philosophy of a philosophical dinosor

Either that or it feeds the argument that Nationalism is so ingrained and accepted in today's world that it is barely even considered a great topic for writing and thought as it was in the past. Yeats was both a romantic and practical Nationalist, serving as he did in the government of the new Irish Free Sate and being a big supporter of that project.

Denerick wrote: »

I am a nationalist in the sense that I am interested in irish history, culture, and all the rest (Particularly its literature) but I despise the emotionalism, which is quasi religious and disturbing.

I think a fair definition of an Irish Nationalist is someone who believes in the concept of Irish Nationhood. That is the thought that an Irish Nation exists, and it has a right to independence and self governance.

Exile 1798

One more point on Yeats, he was obviously disturbed by the Nationalism of Pearse and co., but it didn't put him off the idea or the goals of Irish Nationalism.

He didn't dream of throwing the baby out with the bath water as some seem content to do because they dislike Gerry Adams, or because they were bullied while on the Gaelic football team at school.

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Either that or it feeds the argument that Nationalism is so ingrained and accepted in today's world that it is barely even considered a great topic for writing and thought as it was in the past. Yeats was both a romantic and practical Nationalist, serving as he did in the government of the new Irish Free Sate and being a big supporter of that project.

Nationalism (Romantic) was big in the 19th century largely because it was new. Blame Thomas Moore and his poetry about his friend Robert Emmet. It is interesting as historical study, but incredibly boorish when you still see somebody stuck in a 19th century attitude.

I think a fair definition of an Irish Nationalist is someone who believes in the concept of Irish Nationhood. That is the thought that an Irish Nation exists, and it has a right to independence and self governance.

Irish Nationalist is distinct, I think, from contemporary European nationalism, such as Bismarcks Germany. Do you think I find that objectionable? I find the conduct of nationalists to be disturbing, to be frank I find anyone who cares that passionately about anything to be a little loopy and should belong in a mental asylum. And what annoys me more than anything is the simplified historical narrative, another thing which 19th century romantic nationalism has to answer for (Thomas Davis and those bloody Young Irelanders) Take for example your glorification of the 1798 rebellion, a year of blood and atrocity and French invasion. No thanks.

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

One more point on Yeats, he was obviously disturbed by the Nationalism of Pearse and co., but it didn't put him off the idea or the goals of Irish Nationalism.

He didn't dream of throwing the baby out with the bath water as some seem content to do because they dislike Gerry Adams, or because they were bullied while on the Gaelic football team at school.

I admire Yeats, but to call him a Republican is a stretch, he wanted a kind of semi fascist 'new aristocracy' to take control.

I don't particularly mind Gerry Adams and I never played Gaelic football at school. And I don't believe I've ever thrown the baby out with the bath water either, though I could be wrong.

My objection to nationalism isn't theological, have no great problem with it. I find it a little weird that people feel so attached to a piece of land, but thats their business.

Exile 1798

Denerick wrote: »

Irish Nationalist is distinct, I think, from contemporary European nationalism, such as Bismarcks Germany. Do you think I find that objectionable? I find the conduct of nationalists to be disturbing, to be frank I find anyone who cares that passionately about anything to be a little loopy and should belong in a mental asylum. And what annoys me more than anything is the simplified historical narrative, another thing which 19th century romantic nationalism has to answer for (Thomas Davis and those bloody Young Irelanders) Take for example your glorification of the 1798 rebellion, a year of blood and atrocity and French invasion. No thanks.

Well when it comes to 1798 and the United Irishmen I'm fond of both the factual history and the romantic version of that history. I grew up with both, and it's not something that I'm embarrassed to embrace.

We clearly have a very different thought process on topics like this. Ultimately I blame the death and atrocities on the Imperialists, not the rebels. After all, the enlightenment Republicanism of the United Irishmen was much more advanced then British Imperialism at the time. I admire Tone, Russell and Emmett just as I do Washington and Jefferson.

The progressive forces lost in Ireland, whereas they won in America. I don't hold the fact that might defeated right in Ireland as meaning that right was wrong and might was in fact right. More then that, to me the fact that Tone et all were defeated and butchered, rather then being victorious and going on to become Presidents and Parliamentarians, makes their memory all the more important. Who fears to Speak of 98? Who blushes at the name?

And how different would Ireland be today if we'd just won our Independence back then? You could liken it to the difference between ripping off a band aid at once and peeling it off slowly.

And yes, Young Ireland on the face of it led a pretty dismal little rebellion. that's part of the reason many became so enamoured with them at the time.

If you want to read a brilliant book that does a great job of telling the factual lives and folklore of the Young Irelanders I recommend The Great Shame by Thomas Keneally. Some of the leaders of that rebellion led such an incredible journey from the lives of Anglo-Irish aristocrats, to being convicts in Australia, escapees to the United States and military leaders in the American Civil War. Much more enticing then any work of fiction!

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Well when it comes to 1798 and the United Irishmen I'm fond of both the factual history and the romantic version of that history. I grew up with both, and it's not something that I'm embarrassed to embrace.

We clearly have a very different thought process on topics like this. Ultimately I blame the death and atrocities on the Imperialists, not the rebels. After all, the enlightenment Republicanism of the United Irishmen was much more advanced then British Imperialism at the time. I admire Tone, Russell and Emmett just as I do Washington and Jefferson.

The progressive forces lost in Ireland, whereas they won in America. I don't hold the fact that might defeated right in Ireland as meaning that right was wrong and might was in fact right. More then that, to me the fact that Tone et all were defeated and butchered, rather then being victorious and going on to become Presidents and Parliamentarians, makes their memory all the more important. Who fears to Speak of 98? Who blushes at the name?

And how different would Ireland be today if we'd just won our Independence back then? You could liken it to the difference between ripping off a band aid at once and peeling it off slowly.

And yes, Young Ireland on the face of it led a pretty dismal little rebellion. that's part of the reason many became so enamoured with them at the time.

If you want to read a brilliant book that does a great job of telling the factual lives and folklore of the Young Irelanders I recommend The Great Shame by Thomas Keneally. Some of the leaders of that rebellion led such an incredible journey from the lives of Anglo-Irish aristocrats, to being convicts in Australia, escapees to the United States and military leaders in the American Civil War. Much more enticing then any work of fiction!

I admire O'Connell (I believe 'who fears to speak of '98' was aimed at him) much more than I do any of the men of violence, the Tones, the Emmets, and most importantly of all, the Mitchels. John Mitchel for example was a complete crank, his 'Jail Journal' is entertaining but frighteningly paranoid and extreme. I don't hold these guys up on a pedestal, I'm prepared to accept they lived in their particular time and acted as their conscience dictated. But I don't think its a surprise that the grand ideals of the United Irishmen ended up as a barnfire of Protestants in Scullabogue. My interpretation of history is guided by men like Edmund Burke, who hated revolutions and the associated violence they bring. I am at heart a conservative, suspicious of radicalism, and I feel the only reason the American revolution didn't result in chaotic anarchy (Like it did in France) was because it was a revolution led by men of property, with property foremost in the minds of the designers of the Constitution (Most of them were lawyers and landowners)

In other words, the American revolution was essentially a conservative one. Whereas the United Irishmen were influenced moreso by France, which witnessed once of the most bloody calumnities of human history, the French revolution which placed ideas above humanity, and purity above common sense. I'll never be able to understand how people can ever come to the conclusion that revolution is preferable to a little injustice, when revolution most of the time leads to indiscriminate slaughter and grievous atrocity.

Denerick

And besides, the new french 'directory' would have made us a French protectore, not an independent Republic. I'm surprised people still hold these delusions about 1798.

Exile 1798

Denerick wrote: »

I admire O'Connell (I believe 'who fears to speak of '98' was aimed at him) much more than I do any of the men of violence, the Tones, the Emmets, and most importantly of all, the Mitchels. John Mitchel for example was a complete crank, his 'Jail Journal' is entertaining but frighteningly paranoid and extreme. I don't hold these guys up on a pedestal, I'm prepared to accept they lived in their particular time and acted as their conscience dictated. But I don't think its a surprise that the grand ideals of the United Irishmen ended up as a barnfire of Protestants in Scullabogue. My interpretation of history is guided by men like Edmund Burke, who hated revolutions and the associated violence they bring. I am at heart a conservative, suspicious of radicalism, and I feel the only reason the American revolution didn't result in chaotic anarchy (Like it did in France) was because it was a revolution led by men of property, with property foremost in the minds of the designers of the Constitution (Most of them were lawyers and landowners)

In other words, the American revolution was essentially a conservative one. Whereas the United Irishmen were influenced moreso by France, which witnessed once of the most bloody calumnities of human history, the French revolution which placed ideas above humanity, and purity above common sense. I'll never be able to understand how people can ever come to the conclusion that revolution is preferable to a little injustice, when revolution most of the time leads to indiscriminate slaughter and grievous atrocity.

I'm glad you mentioned that you look at history with a Burkean view, that helps me understand your thinking. When we can't convince one another generally the next best thing is to gain a greater understanding of each others view. And I'm glad you're not a pacifist, that would have been a real conversation killer.

To compare the Irish and American experience a bit…

I don't agree that 1798 was more part French then American Republicanism. The United Irishmen weren't exactly Proletarians but rather traders, industrialists, many were members of the Protestant Ascendancy. They had a lot to lose from chaos. So they were not that dissimilar from their American counterparts.

You make a point of the atrocities committed against Irish Loyalists. Popular history neglects to mention that there were many American Loyalists, and a number of massacres of those loyalists during the Revolutionary War. Is the whole American independence project to be condemned on this basis? Are the great American Founders to be derided as "men of violence" because of this? Burke certainly didn't take that view as he supported them.

I wouldn't accept that the condition of Ireland amounted to "a little injustice." The vast majority of Irish people suffered under a great injustice. Certainly more then that of the American Colonists! A key concern of the United Irishmen was the awful subjugation, discrimination and inequality that Irish people endured and the dangerous way society was divided and ruled. Catholics were not so much second class as third class citizens. That's a much more desperate problem then "Taxation Without Representation" and the other issues the American Colonies rose over. And I can argue that the United Irishmen started out as a political Society/interest group and were forced underground and into Revolutionary mode by British repression. The path of the American Revolutionaries surely was the much more belligerent one.

It's true that the Irish Rebellion allied it's self with the France… much like the Americans did. I hardly see how this is a black mark.

Given all this I think the motivations, justifications and methods of the United Irishmen compare very favorably to those of the American Revolution. The difference in many peoples view of them would seem to stem largely from their outcomes.

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I'm glad you mentioned that you look at history with a Burkean view, that helps me understand your thinking. When we can't convince one another generally the next best thing is to gain a greater understanding of each others view. And I'm glad you're not a pacifist, that would have been a real conversation killer.

I'm not a pacifist at all, I hope I didn't give that impression.

To compare the Irish and American experience a bit…

I don't agree that 1798 was more part French then American Republicanism. The United Irishmen weren't exactly Proletarians but rather traders, industrialists, many were members of the Protestant Ascendancy. They had a lot to lose from chaos. So they were not that dissimilar from their American counterparts.

True, the leaders of the United Irishmen were bourgeouis. But most of them were arrested at the home of Oliver Bond in the run up to the rebellion. I think far too much is made of the ideological basis behind the 1798 rebellion, it was not centrally planned as it was not led by a central organisation. Outside of Ulster (Where the rebellion would have stood much greater chance of success if it were not for the 'pacification' of 1797) only a few counties 'rose up', and these were spontaneous, peasant rebellions. Bagenal Harveys influence as leader in Wexford was neglibable to say the least. Whereas the American revolution was actually led by its leaders, 1798 was fought on conditions very close to anarchy.

And furthermore, it is useful to take a bottom up approach to interpreting the rebellion. The overwhelming majority of the rank and file were not United Irishmen in the sense you think of. They were agrarian organisations like the Defenders. And they were mostly Catholic. So I have to disagree with you, 1798 was in my opinion a proletariat revolt, with very little central control.

You make a point of the atrocities committed against Irish Loyalists. Popular history neglects to mention that there were many American Loyalists, and a number of massacres of those loyalists during the Revolutionary War. Is the whole American independence project to be condemned on this basis? Are the great American Founders to be derided as "men of violence" because of this? Burke certainly didn't take that view as he supported them.

America is different because they succeeded. History is funny like that.

I wouldn't accept that the condition of Ireland amounted to "a little injustice." The vast majority of Irish people suffered under a great injustice. Certainly more then that of the American Colonists! A key concern of the United Irishmen was the awful subjugation, discrimination and inequality that Irish people endured and the dangerous way society was divided and ruled. Catholics were not so much second class as third class citizens. That's a much more desperate problem then "Taxation Without Representation" and the other issues the American Colonies rose over. And I can argue that the United Irishmen started out as a political Society/interest group and were forced underground and into Revolutionary mode by British repression. The path of the American Revolutionaries surely was the much more belligerent one.

I'm well aware of the Penal Laws (Mostly repealed in 1793) And Burke was key to the campaign for their repeal. There was a constitutionalist path open, and a new affluent Catholic middle class. I'll agree the condition of the peasantry was wretched in economic terms, but this was the same condition everywhere in Europe, and the United Irishmen did not propose a revolutionary alteration of the landowning system. America benefitted by having a large class of yeomen farmers (Thomas Jefferson loved them, considered them the key to liberty) There wasn't as much rural squalor in America as there was in Europe.

It's true that the Irish Rebellion allied it's self with the France… much like the Americans did. I hardly see how this is a black mark.

Please. The situation was far different. 1798 was at the height of the war with France, if a French army had have landed at Bantry Bay and succeeded, do you really think there would have been Irish indepedence? We would have been like Helvetia, or the Italians, or the Spanish, a French protectorate at the very heart of a European war. It would not have been pretty, and I think there is a fair amount of delusion involved if you think that independence was possible in the face of a large French invasion force.

Given all this I think the motivations, justifications and methods of the United Irishmen compare very favorably to those of the American Revolution. The difference in many peoples view of them would seem to stem largely from their outcomes.

I believe there were clear differences, mainly that the American revolution was strictly controlled in terms of who commanded who, 1798 was essentially a year of anarchy, not rebellion.

Exile 1798

When I try and imagine the mindset of the peasant foot soldier of '98 I imagine a great deal of desperation, fear and yes anger. Knowing the history of the last century and more I think these rebels would have felt themselves in a now or never, do or die situation.

It's not exactly the United Irishmen's fault that their leadership was effectively suppressed by the enemy. I'm sure they would have wanted a much better organised rebellion with a lot more of the promised French support!

On the French, yes it was a bit of realpolitik. Independence movements from small nations confronted by a great power need all the help they can acquire. France wanted to distract and weaken England. There's no evidence that they wanted to dominate Ireland in the same way England did. Yes we may have ended up as a dominion or err Free State if you will, this would have been a step up from the role of a subjugated colony. And I certainly wouldn't be complaining if we were speaking French today.

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

When I try and imagine the mindset of the peasant foot soldier of '98 I imagine a great deal of desperation, fear and yes anger. Knowing the history of the last century and more I think these rebels would have felt themselves in a now or never, do or die situation.

Well, see here's the difference. When a group, long dispossessed and suddenly are given freedom, what do you think would happen? They would be intoxicated by their newfound power, and would become little better than animals. This is what happened during the brief lifespan of the Wexford Republic. I try and imagine the mindset of one of the Protestants held in Wexford gaol during the rebellion, with the constant fear of imminent death hanging round thier shoulders. Humanity, once allowed to 'go away' for a while, is hard to bring back. Mankind is fundamentally a violent, obnoxious beast. We need law and order to protect ourselves. The fields of the dead was always the predestined conclusion of any proletariat revolt in Ireland. This is why I do not romanticise revolutions in Ireland.

It's not exactly the United Irishmen's fault that their leadership was effectively suppressed by the enemy. I'm sure they would have wanted a much better organised rebellion with a lot more of the promised French support!

No, it wasn't their fault, but it does explain why the rebellion resorted to anarchy.

I've got a romantic side too. From a purely imaginative perspective, I'd have loved to have seen Lord Fitzgerald lead a national revolution, and succeed and win independance. Except, I don't think that was ever possible in Ireland, not without catastrophic loss of life and extreme anarchy. And further foreign domination.

On the French, yes it was a bit of realpolitik. Independence movements from small nations confronted by a great power need all the help they can acquire. France wanted to distract and weaken England. There's no evidence that they wanted to dominate Ireland in the same way England did. Yes we may have ended up as a dominion or err Free State if you will, this would have been a step up from the role of a subjugated colony. And I certainly wouldn't be complaining if we were speaking French today.

:rolleyes:

So you're saying your nationalism is motivated by anti Englishness more than pro Irishness? Now I remember why I consider Republicans to be such boors.

Exile 1798

Sorry, I'm not fond of using emoticons and I generally underestimate how hard it is to derive intended meaning from the plain typed words of a stranger.

The speaking French line was tongue-in-cheek.

There is a serious point in there somewhere though, that is that assuming the French had the very worst of ambitions for Ireland, they would be pretty much equivalent to those of the English. In other words, it would be much of a muchness… and I again I re-iterate this is assuming the worst of the French.

It is very hard to say how the future would have played out in a independent, semi-independent, or French dominion Ireland. We're well into hypothetical territory now.

What would have happened if the American Revolution had failed? How much light would the Western World have been denied? Would Jefferson have still have been the great influential figure he was, or would he be regarded as a rebellious blood-soaked scoundrel?

I understand your Conservative Burkean view of the 1798 Rising, what I don't understand is your seeming support for the American Revolution? You say it was a Conservative Revolution, which I disagree with. The Conservative path was the Loyalist one, the Canadian one. I think I've made a pretty good argument for why Ireland's condition was significantly worse and more urgent then America's situation.

Eliot Rosewater

This is an excellent discussion. I'm sorry to butt in without contributing but I haven't yet gotten around to reading the Irish History book Denerick assigned to me.

You get a few people, hardliners, who say that Germany invading Ireland during WWII would have been good for Ireland; that the Fascists wouldn't have treated us the same way they treated everyone else. (:rolleyes:) Does the supporting of the French invasion circa 1798 fall into the same general category? And what of the Spanish armada? Would it just have been trading one tyranny for another?

Denerick

You shouldn't confuse conservatism and Edmund Burke. Burke was a Whig, through and through. By conservative I mean a suspicion of radicalism, and populism. I don't mean Tory, child eating, rebel shooting, duck hunting, black hating, marmite eating toffiness

I disagree, I don't think you can break the American revolution up into conservative and radical factions. THe only real radicals in America was Sam Adams and the Boston dockers, other than that the revolution was solidly lead by conservative minded landowners and yeomen. I have no real opinion about the loyalists. I admire the revolution because of the Constitution primarily, and also become some of the founders were profound intellects which had an overwhelmingly positive impact on human history.

Denerick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This is an excellent discussion. I'm sorry to butt in without contributing but I haven't yet gotten around to reading the Irish History book Denerick assigned to me.

Don't mention Roy Foster! Filthy revisionist...

You get a few people, hardliners, who say that Germany invading Ireland during WWII would have been good for Ireland; that the Fascists wouldn't have treated us the same way they treated everyone else. (:rolleyes:) Does the supporting of the French invasion circa 1798 fall into the same general category? And what of the Spanish armada? Would it just have been trading one tyranny for another?

The French invasion is a curious one, personally I don't see the moral victory in replacing one kind of foreign domination for another. Which is why I think some are more motivated by anti Englishness than pro Irishness.

P.S- Exile, it is hard to detect sarcasm on the internet, for that I apologise. But would you not agree that swapping one tyranny for another is less than productive?

Exile 1798

Denerick wrote: »

You shouldn't confuse conservatism and Edmund Burke. Burke was a Whig, through and through. By conservative I mean a suspicion of radicalism, and populism. I don't mean Tory, child eating, rebel shooting, duck hunting, black hating, marmite eating toffiness

I disagree, I don't think you can break the American revolution up into conservative and radical factions. THe only real radicals in America was Sam Adams and the Boston dockers, other than that the revolution was solidly lead by conservative minded landowners and yeomen. I have no real opinion about the loyalists. I admire the revolution because of the Constitution primarily, and also become some of the founders were profound intellects which had an overwhelmingly positive impact on human history.

I understand Conservative in the Burkean sense of the rejection of radicalism.

What I don't understand is how the American Revolution could be considered anything but radical. As I said, there's a very similar example of a country that took the non-radical and Conservative road, Canada. In fact many Loyalists fled there out of fear of their new Yankee overlords.;)

You've cut to the bone of my admiration of the Republican Rebellion in Ireland and it's bloody consequences. Likewise, as you're not a pacifist, I'm trying to understand how you go about justifying all the horrible death and atrocities committed during the American Revolution. I'm sure both of us agree that the end result was a worthy one, but I see my support of the successful American Uprising and of the unsuccessful efforts of the United Irishmen as being more consistent then you.

And though I understand what Burkean Conservative means, I haven't read a lot of Burke. I'd be very interested in why he supported the American Colonists. If there are any particular books or works by or about Burke you would recommend I would be interested in them.

Exile 1798

Denerick wrote: »

P.S- Exile, it is hard to detect sarcasm on the internet, for that I apologise. But would you not agree that swapping one tyranny for another is less than productive?

No need to apologise and I do agree with that.

My view is that French tyrannical rule over Ireland was extremely unlikely.

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

What I don't understand is how the American Revolution could be considered anything but radical. As I said, there's a very similar example of a country that took the non-radical and Conservative road, Canada. In fact many Loyalists fled there out of fear of their new Yankee overlords.;)

I am not opposed to all revolutions, at times they are necessary, and stem from grievances that are usually just. But I am VERY cautious as to when and if I consider them necessary. I think the American revolution is an anomoly in history as from the very beginning it was centrally controlled and they went in on an inherently conservative agenda (Anti taxation) and controlling the power of government. NOT the big state, totalitarian impulses of revolutionary France, which never bothered with a constitution worth its salt. There was not the same mob violence as there was in France. Indeed, it is the power of the mob that frightens me more than anything, with that kind of electricity in the air, any kind of brutality is possible. America is exceptional in that atrocities were relatively few. For that reason I admire it.

And though I understand what Burkean Conservative means, I haven't read a lot of Burke. I'd be very interested in why he supported the American Colonists. If there are any particular books or works by or about Burke you would recommend I would be interested in them.

Two books on Burke I have read:

Conor Cruise O'Brien wrote a good thematic biography (I'm not sure it'll be your thing ) Its bulky but very informative, and contains all the best of Burkes letters, speeches and writings.

T.H.D Mahony wrote 'Edmund Burke and Ireland', a very thorough analysis of Burkes advocacy in Ireland, his opposition to the Penal Laws, his opposition to the corrupt Dublin Castle government etc. I doubt you'll be able to buy it anywhere, I think its been out of print since the 1960s. If you can't stomach that unionist O'Brien, then I'd certainly recommend Mahony. (There is another book by Luke Gibbons with the same name, but its largely a postmodernist, literary enquiry into his writings and 'anti-colonialism')

Burke did not support the revolution, its a common misconception. He was an Empire man first and foremost. But he did feel that the Brits wasted a golden opportunity to reconcile those 'sons of liberty', and wanted peace at the earliest opportunity. He did not support separatism, but wanted peace with the colonists. He placed blame with Lord North, not Mr. Washington. its important to emphasise he admired the liberal constitutionalism of the American revolutionaries, he thought it identical to his entire political worldview. And for that reason he opposed the violence and chaos of the French revolution.

Darlughda

But is nationalism not just the creation of an identity that borrows from the past identity of folk memories and traditions, to create a whole new ideal, for example, of the Gael, in Ireland, to serve a political cause?

The creation of tradition, as Eric Hobsbawm has detailed, seems to show that nationalism is nothing more than a fabricated set of ideals borrowed from the traditions of the past to give an ethnic group a sense of inherent belonging to a land, and therefore a sense of ownership upon the place, and the motive to wage war against another group who claim an identitity with the very same land?

Denerick

Darlughda wrote: »

But is nationalism not just the creation of an identity that borrows from the past identity of folk memories and traditions, to create a whole new ideal, for example, of the Gael, in Ireland, to serve a political cause?

The creation of tradition, as Eric Hobsbawm has detailed, seems to show that nationalism is nothing more than a fabricated set of ideals borrowed from the traditions of the past to give an ethnic group a sense of inherent belonging to a land, and therefore a sense of ownership upon the place, and the motive to wage war against another group who claim an identitity with the very same land?

Thats a very good point. All tradition is essentially invented. Take the kilt in Scotland for example.

Exile 1798

Darlughda wrote: »

But is nationalism not just the creation of an identity that borrows from the past identity of folk memories and traditions, to create a whole new ideal, for example, of the Gael, in Ireland, to serve a political cause?

The creation of tradition, as Eric Hobsbawm has detailed, seems to show that nationalism is nothing more than a fabricated set of ideals borrowed from the traditions of the past to give an ethnic group a sense of inherent belonging to a land, and therefore a sense of ownership upon the place, and the motive to wage war against another group who claim an identitity with the very same land?

Fabricated implies that it's not natural, that it is a completely artificial construct. I don't think this is generally the case, though obviously it is true of some pretty synthetic Nationalism's ie Belgium, which is why the Belgian's don't really buy into it themselves.

On the other hard Irish Nationhood makes complete sense to me, and is pretty much universally accepted.

You could say the identification with a Nation is the societal evolutionary step that followed tribal association. There's a lot of truth in that.

But as I said before, you can suck the joy out of just about anything in life if you focus mockingly on its component parts. Love is merely a chemical reaction in the brain, football is merely grown men chasing a ball, this kind of thinking has the whiff of nihilism about it. You're welcome to it, but most people will keep loving football.

Exile 1798

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This is an excellent discussion. I'm sorry to butt in without contributing but I haven't yet gotten around to reading the Irish History book Denerick assigned to me.

You get a few people, hardliners, who say that Germany invading Ireland during WWII would have been good for Ireland; that the Fascists wouldn't have treated us the same way they treated everyone else. (:rolleyes:) Does the supporting of the French invasion circa 1798 fall into the same general category? And what of the Spanish armada? Would it just have been trading one tyranny for another?

I think you'd have to be quite the Francophobe to believe that.

Denerick

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Fabricated implies that it's not natural, that it is a completely artificial construct. I don't think this is generally the case, though obviously it is true of some pretty synthetic Nationalism's ie Belgium, which is why the Belgian's don't really buy into it themselves.

On the other hard Irish Nationhood makes complete sense to me, and is pretty much universally accepted.

You could say the identification with a Nation is the societal evolutionary step that followed tribal association. There's a lot of truth in that.

But as I said before, you can suck the joy out of just about anything in life if you focus mockingly on its component parts. Love is merely a chemical reaction in the brain, football is merely grown men chasing a ball, this kind of thinking has the whiff of nihilism about it. You're welcome to it, but most people will keep loving football.

What about Douglas Hyde's 'deanglicisation'? He seemed to want a kind of mock Irishman, wearing breeches instead of trousers, and a countryside population by bright eyed gaelgoirs kicking their heels and singing ancient Gaelic songs. Not so much deanglicisation, more Gaelic invention than anything else.