What is the difference between an Irish Republican and an Irish Nationalist?

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 03:47PM #1

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and we were talking about Irish politics,reunification and all that, I asked him was he a republican and he said no,but he said he was a nationalist.

What is the difference?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 14-02-2011 03:53PM

Its a bit wishy washy really.

Irish Republican is generally used for someone who will support armed campaign be it now or in the past. There's also ideals such as equality which would be expected of someone calling themselves a republican.

Irish Nationalist is used usually to refer to people who want a united Ireland but would never accept political violence. So its used for SDLP

Really though I'd argue most Irish nationalists are actually republicans in that they all want a 32-county republic, even if they never accept violence.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 03:54PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its a bit wishy washy really.

Irish Republican is generally used for someone who will support armed campaign be it now or in the past. There's also ideals such as equality which would be expected of someone calling themselves a republican.

Irish Nationalist is used usually to refer to people who want a united Ireland but would never accept political violence. So its used for SDLP

Really though I'd argue most Irish nationalists are actually republicans in that they all want a 32-county republic, even if they never accept violence.

But what about republicans who do not support political violence?

A_Border_Bandit · 14-02-2011 03:58PM

It depends on the context really.

Fianna Fail go by "The republican party" and that is grand, whilst Sinn Fein AKA "Irish Republican Army" are considered scumbags for following true to the origins of FF.

I think.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 04:06PM

A_Border_Bandit wrote: »

It depends on the context really.

Fianna Fail go by "The republican party" and that is grand, whilst Sinn Fein AKA "Irish Republican Army" are considered scumbags for following true to the origins of FF.

I think.

If you were to define the two terms, what would the definitions be, in a general context and also politically?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 14-02-2011 04:13PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

But what about republicans who do not support political violence?

That's kind of the point. They'd just be republicans. Personally I would define anyone who aspires to a 32-county republic as a republican even if they condemned every armed rebel as far back as the participants of the 1916 rising.

However others would say you're not a true republican unless you accept the right of Irishman to resist foreign rule with with armed struggle. Others would even say you're not a republican unless you aspire to a socialist republic envisaged by James Connolly

Wolfe Tone · 14-02-2011 04:24PM

In reality a nationalist would be someone who would not be as motivated to get a UI as a republican(ie no violence) although they are pretty similar.

Although its hard to really say what a republican is, someone who wants a 32 county republic? Someone who wants a 32 county socialist republic? Someone who is willing to use violence?

Huge pissing contests on certain republican sites as to what is a republican(Im a bigger republican than you! How can you call yourself a republican?) Awful stench of elitism from some. Personally I would share the same view as Bottle of Smoke, you want a UI, you are a republican.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 04:28PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

In reality a nationalist would be someone who would not be as motivated to get a UI as a republican(ie no violence) although they are pretty similar.

Although its hard to really say what a republican is, someone who wants a 32 county republic? Someone who wants a 32 county socialist republic? Someone who is willing to use violence?

Huge pissing contests on certain republican sites as to what is a republican(Im a bigger republican than you! How can you call yourself a republican?) Awful stench of elitism from some. Personally I would share the same view as Bottle of Smoke, you want a UI, you are a republican.

People seem to think that being a nationalist makes you a republican, and vice versa.Not true whatsoever.Nationalists who want to see a united Ireland does not make them a republican by default.

Wolfe Tone · 14-02-2011 04:29PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

People seem to think that being a nationalist makes you a republican, and vice versa.Not true whatsoever.Nationalists who want to see a united Ireland does not make them a republican by default.

Ok, define the two then.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 04:40PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Ok, define the two then.

Irish Nationalism refers to any manifestation whatsoever of national sentiment,culturally;demanding autonomy from Britain but be it complete independence or less; and sometimes for secessionist movements committed to constitutional methods.To put it bluntly, nationalists support any means to promote and bolster all aspects of Irish heritage,from language,culture to political movements.

Irish Republicanism only refers to the belief that Ireland should be a republic.

So ,being a republican does not equate to being a nationalist, and it is irritating when I hear these self-proclaimed and "bar-stool" republicans,(for example) preaching about violence/f**k the brits/prods/up the ra describing themselves as "nationalists" or "patriots".

KeithAFC · 14-02-2011 04:41PM

They are all the same to me. I don't see any difference.

chughes · 14-02-2011 04:42PM

I'm Irish and I would consider myself a republican but not in the narrow sense of "Irish Republican" as it has become accepted.

To me a republican is someone who does not believe in a monarchy or any sort of hereditary ruling title. In theory, anyone born in this country should be able to aspire to the highest political offices. A true republic should be able to cater for people of various ideologies and not be dominated by one.

To me, Irish Republicanism has become associated with a particular mindset of which the dominant one is Brits Out. Other traits would include being associated with Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein, The GAA, and paying lipservice to the Catholic church. This form of "republicanism" is, in my opinion, a corruption of what true republicanism is.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 14-02-2011 04:42PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

People seem to think that being a nationalist makes you a republican, and vice versa.Not true whatsoever.Nationalists who want to see a united Ireland does not make them a republican by default.

Nationalist no, Irish nationalist yes.

Nick Griffin of the BNP is a UK nationalist, but not a republican because he's happy with the UK being a monarchy.

Richard Dawkins is a UK republican because he wants to see the end of the monarchy,

So I really can't see how you could be an Irish nationalist and not an Irish republican.

To really mess things up there's a unionist journalist for the newsletter who is actually a "unionist republican" - he wants Northern Ireland to remain in the UK but wants the monarchy status removed!

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 04:44PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

They are all the same to me. I don't see any difference.

If that is the case, kindly remove your head from your colon.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 04:47PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Nationalist no, Irish nationalist yes.

Nick Griffin of the BNP is a UK nationalist, but not a republican because he's happy with the UK being a monarchy.

Richard Dawkins is a UK republican because he wants to see the end of the monarchy,

So I really can't see how you could be an Irish nationalist and not an Irish republican.

To really mess things up there's a unionist journalist for the newsletter who is actually a "unionist republican" - he wants Northern Ireland to remain in the UK but wants the monarchy status removed!

I would love to see the Gaelic nobility prior to the plantations restored,can't see it happening though.

KeithAFC · 14-02-2011 04:51PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

If that is the case, kindly remove your head from your colon.

They are one in the same. Both have the same goals and so on.

chughes · 14-02-2011 04:56PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I would love to see the Gaelic nobility prior to the plantations restored,can't see it happening though.

With all due respect, RepublicanEagle, I really don't see the point of reintroducing a ruling elite to this country.

A hereditary ruling class would prevent people of talent and aspiration maximising their potential as their route to the top would be blocked because of being born into the wrong class of people.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 04:59PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

They are one in the same. Both have the same goals and so on.

No they don't Keith, that has already been clarified, feel free delve more into the subject, there is plenty of material out there.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 05:04PM

chughes wrote: »

With all due respect, RepublicanEagle, I really don't see the point of reintroducing a ruling elite to this country.

A hereditary ruling class would prevent people of talent and aspiration maximising their potential as their route to the top would be blocked because of being born into the wrong class of people.

I would disagree, it hasn't stopped people of talent and aspiration in constitutional monarchies. The Brehon system was actually more fairer compared to English law before the conquest.

pablomakaveli · 14-02-2011 05:11PM

I'd consider myself a nationalist but i'm against a UI because i think it would do more damage to this country than good.

I don't see why people think wanting a UI needs to be a requisite to being a nationalist.

Wolfe Tone · 14-02-2011 05:12PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'd consider myself a nationalist but i'm against a UI because i think it would do more damage to this country than good.

I don't see why people think wanting a UI needs to be a requisite to being a nationalist.

I suppose, I would more readily associate nationalists with the north, they would want a UI.

pablomakaveli · 14-02-2011 05:18PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I suppose, I would more readily associate nationalists with the north, they would want a UI.

A nationalist in the North would want a UI but they are in a different situation.

Being a nationalist in the republic doesn't necessarily mean wanting a UI.

But if we're talking about nationalists and republicans in NI than i'd usually view the republican as more extremist in their beliefs and nationalists as more moderate.

maccored · 14-02-2011 05:23PM

it complicates even more when the UI side is brought in, considering many people dont seem to have a grasp of what people mean when they express a wish for a united ireland.

the usual reply is 'the south cant look after the north' rather than the more realistic timescale of a few hundred years turnaround time and a completely new organised government for the whole country.

deise go deo · 14-02-2011 05:47PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'd consider myself a nationalist but i'm against a UI because i think it would do more damage to this country than good.

I don't see why people think wanting a UI needs to be a requisite to being a nationalist.

You would be a 26 county Nationalist then, Which is the modern day lead on from 'Free Stater'

Most Nationalist's would consider the whole Island as the 'Nation' and as such a UI is one of the main aims of nationalism.

KeithAFC · 14-02-2011 06:01PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'd consider myself a nationalist but i'm against a UI because i think it would do more damage to this country than good.

I don't see why people think wanting a UI needs to be a requisite to being a nationalist.

You think the UVF would strike again in a UI?

pablomakaveli · 14-02-2011 06:07PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

You think the UVF would strike again in a UI?

Maybe but theres also the financial damage as well as the inevitable concessions on our culture, flag and anthem being made to Unionists which i don't want to see.

Wolfe Tone · 14-02-2011 06:10PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

You think the UVF would strike again in a UI?

No one is afraid of the UVF or any gang of sectarian murderers Keith, no matter how much you try to big them up.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 06:11PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

You think the UVF would strike again in a UI?

The Dublin-Monaghan bombings because of British collaboration,so even with reunification, they would not be able to pull such a thing off as no one would collaborate them plus the fact that they did have the level of organisation and professionalism the PIRA had, I would see a joint-security effort with British intelligence to prevent anything, as we have seen with the lockdown of dissident republican activity.

Nobody cares for the UVF/UDA anyway.They have never proven themselves to be capable of anything "sophisticated"...only sectarian violence., however I am not condoning what the other side did either.

KeithAFC · 14-02-2011 06:12PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Maybe but theres also the financial damage as well as the inevitable concessions on our culture, flag and anthem being made to Unionists which i don't want to see.

So you don't want anything to do with Unionists? Ok.

Wolfe Tone, i think many people would be afraid actually.

KeithAFC · 14-02-2011 06:13PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

The Dublin-Monaghan bombings because of British collaboration,so even with reunification, they would not be able to pull such a thing off as no one would collaborate them, I would see a joint-security effort with British intelligence to prevent anything, as we have seen with the lockdown of dissident republican activity.

Myth. The UVF had more than enough to pull off such a bombing.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 06:16PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Maybe but theres also the financial damage as well as the inevitable concessions on our culture, flag and anthem being made to Unionists which i don't want to see.

I would disagree with that statement,we would have the flag of the four provinces,nothing wrong with that,there are plenty of Irish songs that would be worthy of a national anthem,and they would not threaten our culture,only enhance it given the right management.

PeterIanStaker · 14-02-2011 06:18PM

They have both been criminalised by Independent Newspapers?

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 06:22PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Myth. The UVF had more than enough to pull off such a bombing.

Seems that you are glorifying them and their "achievements" Keith.

pablomakaveli · 14-02-2011 06:27PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I would disagree with that statement,we would have the flag of the four provinces,nothing wrong with that,there are plenty of Irish songs that would be worthy of a national anthem,and they would not threaten our culture,only enhance it given the right management.

I don't like the four provinces flag. The tricolour is part and parcel of our country and has been around for a couple of centuries so has a lot a lot of history to it. As for the anthem i think some song like Irelands Call makes me cringe. Amhrán Na bhFiann is a much more inspiring anthem for me anyway.

And while i would agree Unionist culture would add to our culture overall they have also shown a lot of hostility towards our own culture which would be problematic if there was a UI.

pablomakaveli · 14-02-2011 06:28PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

So you don't want anything to do with Unionists? Ok.

I wouldn't go that far. I'd just rather keep the status quo.

KeithAFC · 14-02-2011 06:29PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Seems that you are glorifying them and their "achievements" Keith.

Nope. Wrong. I just think people should not underestimate what the UVF could do during the Troubles.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 06:34PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The tricolour is part and parcel of our country and has been around for a couple of centuries

That is not correct,they only started using it 1848, and up until 1916 it was barely used at all.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 06:38PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Nope. Wrong. I just think people should not underestimate what the UVF could do during the Troubles.

There was collusion between loyalists and security forces that was the reason they succeeded in doing anything remotely "professional".

That is fact, if anything they were overestimated.

KeithAFC · 14-02-2011 06:40PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

There was collusion between loyalists and security forces that was the reason they succeeded in doing anything remotely "professional".

That is fact, if anything they were overestimated.

No there wasn't.

pablomakaveli · 14-02-2011 06:41PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

That is not correct,they only started using it 1848, and up until 1916 it was barely used at all.

It still has been the state flag since independence in 1922 thus the only flag we've had.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 06:49PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

No there wasn't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6157379.stm

http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2006/may2_subversion_colluson_UDR.php

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/publicrecords/1973/subversion_in_the_udr.htm

http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/766926.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_01_07_ballast.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286695.stm

BBC would beg to differ.

KeithAFC · 14-02-2011 06:52PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6157379.stm

http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2006/may2_subversion_colluson_UDR.php

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/publicrecords/1973/subversion_in_the_udr.htm

http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/766926.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_01_07_ballast.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286695.stm

BBC would beg to differ.

The men involved in the Dublin bombings denied that the British forces helped them out. I don't see why they would need the help of British forces anyway. We all know who did the dublin bombings who were in the UVF.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 06:56PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The men involved in the Dublin bombings denied that the British forces helped them out. I don't see why they would need the help of British forces anyway. We all know who did the dublin bombings who were in the UVF.

Of course they denied it, imagine what kind of publicity the British government would have received if they said they did help,the thugs involved were either compensated or intimidated into denying British involvment despite the overwhelming evidence.

Wake up and smell the coffee Keith.

RepublicanEagle · 14-02-2011 07:02PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It still has been the state flag since independence in 1922 thus the only flag we've had.

True, but the fact remains a piece of cloth is irrelevant when it comes to Irish reunification no matter what colour it is.

RepublicanEagle · 15-02-2011 01:28PM

Instead of being a coward and ignoring the points I made, do you mind addressing the last point I mentioned.

Dublin_Gunner · 15-02-2011 01:34PM

Republicanism and Nationalism with regard to Ireland are sort of one and the same.

However, I'd nearly view Republicans as a subset of Nationalists - Nationalists that want 32 counties by any means.

IMO Nationalists want 32 counties, but only by political recourse.

At least that's how I view it.

You can't be a Republican without being a Nationalist first.

(as stated, this refers only to those in Ireland).

I could be miles off the mark, but that's my view on it.

RepublicanEagle · 15-02-2011 01:48PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

You can't be a Republican without being a Nationalist first.

Disagree, real nationalists take everything into account when it comes to irish nationalism from language,culture,heritage etc, all that qualifies you to be a republican is to be one of those people who go aroiund saying "Eire 32", brits out,**** the prods,up the ra,all that tripe, and when I hear people bringing religion into it, where it has no place,really bugs me.

Especially when you take into account most of these "republicans" have no concept of Irish history and the figures involved, you ask them the major figures and all they will say is,James Connolly,Padraig Pearse,Michael Collins,Wolfe Tone and Bobby Sands.

Just shows how shallow they are.

Dublin_Gunner · 15-02-2011 02:03PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Disagree, real nationalists take everything into account when it comes to irish nationalism from language,culture,heritage etc, all that qualifies you to be a republican is to be one of those people who go aroiund saying "Eire 32", brits out,**** the prods,up the ra,all that tripe, and when I hear people bringing religion into it, where it has no place,really bugs me.

Especially when you take into account most of these "republicans" have no concept of Irish history and the figures involved, you ask them the major figures and all they will say is,James Connolly,Padraig Pearse,Michael Collins,Wolfe Tone and Bobby Sands.

Just shows how shallow they are.

As I said, it mostly my (admittedly simplified) view of things. No offence meant to anyone. Everyone has their own agenda, and their own reasons for thinking one way or another.

I would however assume, that to be considered either, you would surely have to have heritage and culture etc as part of your agenda?? To not would leave it meaningless imo.

Also, I would believe that to 'call' yourself a republican, and to actually 'be' a republican are two totally different things. Plenty of little scumbag muppets spoil the basket for real republicans with the exact tripe you just stated. Very simple to 'say' you're a republican.

I'm not really sure what I'd consider myself TBH. Considering the media farce it has all become over the years, probably best to avoid either tag.

Media: nationalist / republican = terrorist.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 15-02-2011 02:07PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Republicanism and Nationalism with regard to Ireland are sort of one and the same.

However, I'd nearly view Republicans as a subset of Nationalists - Nationalists that want 32 counties by any means.

IMO Nationalists want 32 counties, but only by political recourse.
At least that's how I view it.

You can't be a Republican without being a Nationalist first.

(as stated, this refers only to those in Ireland).

I could be miles off the mark, but that's my view on it.

I think its off the mark because there are plenty of republicans who only accept political recourse. In fact most republicans these days.

Usually tied into republicanism are hall marks such as secular policy and equality, which wouldn't be neccesities for a nationalist.

Wolfe Tone · 15-02-2011 02:07PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Disagree, real nationalists take everything into account when it comes to irish nationalism from language,culture,heritage etc, all that qualifies you to be a republican is to be one of those people who go aroiund saying "Eire 32", brits out,**** the prods,up the ra,all that tripe, and when I hear people bringing religion into it, where it has no place,really bugs me.

Especially when you take into account most of these "republicans" have no concept of Irish history and the figures involved, you ask them the major figures and all they will say is,James Connolly,Padraig Pearse,Michael Collins,Wolfe Tone and Bobby Sands.

Just shows how shallow they are.

Republicanism is a secular ideology. I am a republican, Im not like what you describe.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 15-02-2011 02:09PM

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Disagree, real nationalists take everything into account when it comes to irish nationalism from language,culture,heritage etc, all that qualifies you to be a republican is to be one of those people who go aroiund saying "Eire 32", brits out,**** the prods,up the ra,all that tripe, and when I hear people bringing religion into it, where it has no place,really bugs me.

Especially when you take into account most of these "republicans" have no concept of Irish history and the figures involved, you ask them the major figures and all they will say is,James Connolly,Padraig Pearse,Michael Collins,Wolfe Tone and Bobby Sands.

Just shows how shallow they are.

Nonsense to be honest. If you come out with "**** the prods" you are anti-republican by definition

What is the difference between an Irish Republican and an Irish Nationalist?

Comments