What defines an 'Irishman' in context of upcoming centenaries

P. Breathnach

deirdremf wrote: »

... I think there might be a jewsih school too, and soon I imagine we will have a muslim one, if the muslim community becomes well established....

There are Jewish primary and post-primary schools on the appropriately-named Zion Road in Terenure.

There is a Muslim National School attached to the mosque in Clonskeagh.

dubhthach

wasislos wrote: »

Well well well lets see now 100years since 1916 and we have a festival called FORBIDDEN FRUIT down by kilmainham gaol. Says it all really with like gayest age of consent on the planet and a country full of one-third gayers its going to be a mighty battle. But just like before it will still be irishman fighting irishman. And just like before ppl will be slaughtered over something which humans as an advanced species is supposed to ENJOY...well its either love or hatred both will give u release. Enjoy yaselves

Mod

Comments like the above aren't welcome, keep it up and you will be infracted/banned.

Monty Burnz

Happy Monday wrote: »

But also regard them as British.
You become offended by this as well I take it.

What? Why do you think that?

Bannasidhe

deirdremf wrote: »

Statements like this make me see red.
Not because it is untrue, but because it ignores the fact that ALL MAIN RELIGIONS have their own schools, and because they are used to keep various entrenched groups separate. Separate from the hoi polloi, that is.
Of much greater importance, in my mind is state support for private, fee-paying education which keeps the general populace apart from the well off and the fairly well off. The vast majority of fee-paying schools are religious in nature. And many of these schools are not catholic schools - in Dublin, IIRC, there are loads of protestant fee-paying schools, and only two non-feepaying protestant schools. I think there might be a jewsih school too, and soon I imagine we will have a muslim one, if the muslim community becomes well established.
One of the few things I hope for from Ruairi Quinn is the setting up of a non-denominational education system.

What about outside Dublin?
In rural areas there is generally no choice but to sent one's child to a State funded National School which is under the 'Patronage' of the local Catholic bishop. They may not technically be 'Catholic' schools simply schools whose ethos is determined by the Catholic Church.
When I returned to Ireland in the 1990s I had no choice but to send my un-baptised son to the local (not) Catholic School as the nearest alternative was a 20 minute drive away. Every single day an issue was made of him not being a Catholic - by the vice-principle, who made my son an outcast. This was in Cork City. Where was my son's right to 'religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens' advocated by the Proclamation?

I agree completely about hopes for Quinn.

In the interests of fair disclosure I should say that I am the product of a private education - it was the only way my parents could ensure I had a non-denominational education and the school in question received zero State funding. My father was a baker so we were hardly 'Separate from the hoi polloi...'

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

The use of the word Children in the proclamation is clearly allegorical to describe the people of Ireland (Children of Ireland)

I think you are splitting hairs to be honest - were children not among the people of Ireland? Did the State protect them?

It is 2012 and we are only now talking about a referendum to include children's rights in the Constitution. Perhaps we will have managed to actually achieve this by 2016....

Happy Monday

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What? Why do you think that?

In my experience people down here resent the notion that northern Protestants would regard themselves as British.

Just because an Englishman calls an Irishman a Paddy doesn't mean he doesn't view him as British as well.

Scouser, Geordie, Cockney, Jock or Taffey are regional names used all across the UK.

jonniebgood1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What exactly was achieved? If any of those who signed the Proclamation went through a check list of tasks accomplished how would they rate the success or failure of the Irish State?
Did we achieve:
...............
The Ireland people died for in 1916 never came into existence. IMHO what we should be doing to celebrate their sacrifice it trying to ensure it does.

But things are never perfect. Even the posts on this thread show that people have intolerance to others so the aspirations laid down in the proclamation were simply that, aspirations. I would object to bringing the modern corrupt batch of politicians into the discussion on celebrating 1916 or other upcoming centenaries. Of course when broken down arguments can be made both ways on each of the questions you answered. For example whilst I would agree with your points on education there are also positives in relation to education.

Bannasidhe

Happy Monday wrote: »

In my experience people down here resent the notion that northern Protestants would regard themselves as British.

Just because an Englishman calls an Irishman a Paddy doesn't mean he doesn't view him as British as well.

Scouser, Geordie, Cockney, Jock or Taffey are regional names used all across the UK.

In my experience some Northern Protestants consider themselves British and some consider themselves Irish. Friends of mine among the former category have told me of their surprise that in England they are generally considered to be Irish.

Reminds me of my rugby playing days many, many years ago. It was just after the discussions about the playing of the National Anthem at Internationals. The then WIRFU decided to leave the decision up to the squad - and we all forgot about it til the changing room when a show of hands was called for. The squad was a mix of 'exiles' (English born players who qualified for Ireland),
Ulster (mainly Cooke from East Belfast) being the majority with Munster (a combination of Old Crescent and Shannon) and Leinster (Blackrock) making up the rest. The vote to sing the Anthem was unanimous. However, it became apparent about 4 lines in that the only players who knew all of the words were the Protestants from East Belfast....:o

I also know Irish Catholics (from North and South) who are Unionist...

deirdremf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What about outside Dublin?
In rural areas there is generally no choice but to sent one's child to a State funded National School which is under the 'Patronage' of the local Catholic bishop.

In many places you would have the alternative of sending your child to a National School which is under the 'Patronage' of the local Protestant bishop instead.

When I returned to Ireland in the 1990s I had no choice but to send my un-baptised son to the local (not) Catholic School as the nearest alternative was a 20 minute drive away. Every single day an issue was made of him not being a Catholic - by the vice-principle, who made my son an outcast. This was in Cork City. Where was my son's right to 'religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens' advocated by the Proclamation?

My children went to a Gaelscoil. There are two in the town, one under the patronage of the Bishop, the other under the patronage An Foras Pátrúnachta - both with a catholic ethos.
There was, of course, constant pressure on us as parents to take part in the religious life of the school.
I won't go into the amount of time spent on religious education, particularly in 2nd class (communion) and 6th (confirmation).
A dreadful system; however, it does good to bear in mind that the system is not just a catholic one - it's across the board, and if there are areas where the only school available has a catholic ethos, it is down to numbers. I feel no sorrow that protestants do not have a protestant school available to them in a given area: I feel anger that our children are divided on the basis of religion, and that this is apparently encouraged on all sides.
I feel that schools should be non-denominational, and that parents should be free to set up religious schools out of their own pocket, and without state handouts, when there is a non-denominational school already available.

Bannasidhe

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

But things are never perfect. Even the posts on this thread show that people have intolerance to others so the aspirations laid down in the proclamation were simply that, aspirations. I would object to bringing the modern corrupt batch of politicians into the discussion on celebrating 1916 or other upcoming centenaries. Of course when broken down arguments can be made both ways on each of the questions you answered. For example whilst I would agree with your points on education there are also positives in relation to education.

Surely this is the precise time to debate how the aspirations expressed in 1916 equate with what we actually got?

They declared the Irish Republic - we live in the Irish Republic. I would think discussing if the republic they died for is the republic we got is highly pertinent

Do U.S citizens say - ah well, the Declaration of Independence was aspirational and we really shouldn't judge current politics according to what it says or do most see it was the very essence and foundation of their State?

Reekwind

Personally I see nothing wrong with questioning the legacy of the independence struggle. Obviously independence itself is a massive 'plus' but, setting this aside, it's hard to argue that the post-independence state performed well. We talk about "the modern corrupt batch of politicians" as if these were somehow distinct from the heroes of a bygone age, instead of, as in reality, the products of structural flaws that have marred the Irish state since its inception

Bannasidhe

deirdremf wrote: »

In many places you would have the alternative of sending your child to a National School which is under the 'Patronage' of the local Protestant bishop instead.
My children went to a Gaelscoil. There are two in the town, one under the patronage of the Bishop, the other under the patronage An Foras Pátrúnachta - both with a catholic ethos.
There was, of course, constant pressure on us as parents to take part in the religious life of the school.
I won't go into the amount of time spent on religious education, particularly in 2nd class (communion) and 6th (confirmation).
A dreadful system; however, it does good to bear in mind that the system is not just a catholic one - it's across the board, and if there are areas where the only school available has a catholic ethos, it is down to numbers. I feel no sorrow that protestants do not have a protestant school available to them in a given area: I feel anger that our children are divided on the basis of religion, and that this is apparently encouraged on all sides.
I feel that schools should be non-denominational, and that parents should be free to set up religious schools out of their own pocket, and without state handouts, when there is a non-denominational school already available.

I agree.

I did actually try the COI school but it was full of Catholics...:p

Happy Monday

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In my experience some Northern Protestants consider themselves British and some consider themselves Irish. Friends of mine among the former category have told me of their surprise that in England they are generally considered to be Irish.

Reminds me of my rugby playing days many, many years ago. It was just after the discussions about the playing of the National Anthem at Internationals. The then WIRFU decided to leave the decision up to the squad - and we all forgot about it til the changing room when a show of hands was called for. The squad was a mix of 'exiles' (English born players who qualified for Ireland),
Ulster (mainly Cooke from East Belfast) being the majority with Munster (a combination of Old Crescent and Shannon) and Leinster (Blackrock) making up the rest. The vote to sing the Anthem was unanimous. However, it became apparent about 4 lines in that the only players who knew all of the words were the Protestants from East Belfast....:o

I also know Irish Catholics (from North and South) who are Unionist...

People in England - I have lived there too - consider people on this island to be Irish and British as well.

I have to come across one Ulster Protestant yet who considers himself Irish and not British. They see themselves as Irish and British or Northern Irish and British but never as just Irish.

Bannasidhe

Happy Monday wrote: »

People in England - I have lived there too - consider people on this island to be Irish and British as well.

I have to come across one Ulster Protestant yet who considers himself Irish and not British. They see themselves as Irish and British or Northern Irish and British but never as just Irish.

I know a well known Dublin based actress (soon to appear with Derek Jacobi in a Titanic themed TV series) who is a Protestant from East Belfast who 100% considers herself Irish.

Oh - there's Dr Hiram Morgan - history lecturer in UCC and world expert on Hugh O'Neill - another Protestant Irishman from East Belfast.

jonniebgood1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Surely this is the precise time to debate how the aspirations expressed in 1916 equate with what we actually got?

They declared the Irish Republic - we live in the Irish Republic. I would think discussing if the republic they died for is the republic we got is highly pertinent

Point take- It can do no harm so Ill have a go then;)

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What exactly was achieved? If any of those who signed the Proclamation went through a check list of tasks accomplished how would they rate the success or failure of the Irish State?
Did we achieve:

'the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible'?

Largely yes, the biggest difference being partition which is a whole other issue. Look at our independence in WWII for example. In more recent times look at our roles in Iraq and Afganistan in contrast to that of the UK (which we would have been directly associated with without our independence). Look at Irish peacekeepers from the Congo to the present day. Ownership of this type of internationally profiled image is very real and without ownership of Irish destiny it would not have been possible.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens'

For this we need to look at the context before 1916 and compare with what we got after independence. I would also point out that the quoted description is aspirational, I know of no country where this ideal scenario exists. So the answer to this (as with many of these questions) is a matter of balance and if we look across the wider world I would say Irish citizens generally speaking are well placed in each of the mentioned items. We can go into individual situations and find tough cases but in general progress and success have been had and continue to be had on all of the above.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts'?'

Again where is this existing? Its an aspiration to allow this and further it is a positive aspiration.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'cherishing all the children of the nation equally'?

If you take it literally you have commented on the treatment of children mainly in the era following independence. It is quite obvious though that if we compare now with 100 years ago that the children of Ireland have never had better prospects in terms of survival and treatment, now than then. On that basis it could be argued that this is now a success.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

' oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government'?

The influence of the Catholic church which you mention in reply to this is clearly now dissipated. I would grant that the influence of the EU may be argued against this but ultimately decisions are still taken by our sovereign government. That they may pander to outside influence is thus their right.

My points here are made to demonstrate that a counter argument can be made that the end result of the proclamation is a vindication of the men behind it. All of the above can be argued differently in different cases and I appreciate that. In the end though I go back to the centenaries being a celebration of the aspiration people had for future generations, and that is well worth celebrating despite err's that may have occured along the way.

Reekwind

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Largely yes, the biggest difference being partition which is a whole other issue. Look at our independence in WWII for example. In more recent times look at our roles in Iraq and Afganistan in contrast to that of the UK (which we would have been directly associated with without our independence). Look at Irish peacekeepers from the Congo to the present day. Ownership of this type of internationally profiled image is very real and without ownership of Irish destiny it would not have been possible

That clause ("ownership of Ireland") was actually inserted at the insistence of Connolly who meant much more than staying out of foreign wars. In one of his more prophetic, and famous, moments he had earlier declared that:
If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs

Frankly, it's hard to argue that he was wrong. Certainly not in an age when Ireland's finances, as a nominally independent state, have never been so dependent on foreign whims. But then this notion of "the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland", which people did fight and die for, was never paid more than lip service by the post-independence regimes. Instead we got yawning inequality and a crony capitalism. That is impossible to reconcile with the aspirations expressed, and then quickly forgotten, during the struggle for independence

LordSutch

Irish/British, from the Republic, unionist heritage.

Will commemorate the Irish dead (in a somber fashion) from the Great War in 2016, however I will not be commemorating the 1916 rising or those who perpetrated it, although I will respect those who do so in 2016, no doubt I will be on holiday that week with the kids.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What about outside Dublin?
In rural areas there is generally no choice but to sent one's child to a State funded National School which is under the 'Patronage' of the local Catholic bishop. They may not technically be 'Catholic' schools simply schools whose ethos is determined by the Catholic Church.

In fairness, whenever the local communities wanted a school the Department of Education forced the situation that you had to have a Bishop as Patron.

The same Dept of Education who knew about child abuse since 1930

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30095398?uid=3738232&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698825456587

Under the Constitution Art 42 the parents are the primary educators of the children.

If there was one Centenary I would re-enact its the Titanic and there is a bunch of civil & public servants etc I would put on it.


*rant over*

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

In fairness, whenever the local communities wanted a school the Department of Education forced the situation that you had to have a Bishop as Patron.

The same Dept of Education who knew about child abuse since 1930

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30095398?uid=3738232&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698825456587

Exactly my point - from the word go we were denied freedom of religion but forced into a situation where our education system was (still is) dominated by one religion whose primary concerns are not necessarily the same as those of the Civil State.

Under the Constitution Art 42 the parents are the primary educators of the children.

School told me to stop 'educating' son - apparently I was 'confusing' him with my notions about literacy, history and theology. I told school to go take a running jump.

If there was one Centenary I would re-enact its the Titanic and there is a bunch of civil & public servants etc I would put on it.

I'll help you herd them in to Steerage Class.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'll help you herd them in to Steerage Class.

Here goes.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

Here goes.

We can only dream.:(

Wild Bill

Why complicate things and bring in racist/religious arguments when the obvious definition of an Irishman in 2012 is

"A citizen of Ireland or Northern Ireland whose core values include Irish sovereignty - a country politically independent of Britain (or such a person who has emigrated)" :cool:

Occam's razor.

Bannasidhe

Wild Bill wrote: »

Why complicate things and bring in racist/religious arguments when the obvious definition of an Irishman in 2012 is

"A citizen of Ireland or Northern Ireland whose core values include Irish sovereignty - a country politically independent of Britain (or such a person who has emigrated)" :cool:

Occam's razor.

Just to play Devil's Advocate - what about those who are technically not citizen's - I'm thinking of some of my neighbour's kids - 1 is a 5 year old boy whose family moved here from Sri Lanka when he was 3 months old. This kid has an Eddie Hobbesque accent and will proudly inform you 'I'm from Cork, like'. Or the 9 year old Polish boy who lives next door to him - I have my eye on him as a future Munster/ Ireland prop forward, he's been here since he was 2. Neither of them are Irish citizens...

Wild Bill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just to play Devil's Advocate - what about those who are technically not citizen's - I'm thinking of some of my neighbour's kids - 1 is a 5 year old boy whose family moved here from Sri Lanka when he was 3 months old. This kid has an Eddie Hobbesque accent and will proudly inform you 'I'm from Cork, like'. Or the 9 year old Polish boy who lives next door to him - I have my eye on him as a future Munster/ Ireland prop forward, he's been here since he was 2. Neither of them are Irish citizens...

I assume their citizenship is only a matter of time if they stay here??

Since we abolished birthright in a racially inspired (imho) referendum we have created some lack of clarity around immigrant kids.

Bannasidhe

Wild Bill wrote: »

I assume their citizenship is only a matter of time if they stay here??

Since we abolished birthrate in a racially inspired (imho) referendum we have created some lack of clarity around immigrant kids.

They would need to fulfil certain requirements - residency, I think an exam, and take an oath.
My point is that there are Irish people who are not Irish citizens but have spent their entire lives here.

A good friend of mine is a case in point, as she is mixed race and 'illegitimate' her mother was packed off to the UK in the early 70s to give birth - and get rid of shameful 'black baby' via adoption. So friend was born in the UK where her mother refused to give up her child, married a guy she had known all her life and they moved back to Limerick.
Trying to get an Irish passport was a pain for friend as they insist on full details about father. Details she doesn't have - so she got a UK passport.

Now this person was the not just the first blackwoman capped for Ireland in both Rugby and soccer but also the first person ever to win full international caps in both codes but, until the IRFU insisted (this was a rule applied to all international player-not just her) she technically never held Irish citizenship. Given she was a British subject, born in England - did she only become Irish when she applied for an Irish passport?

Many of those who played for Ireland in Italia 90 were not, technically, Irish citizens either....

CDfm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Why complicate things and bring in racist/religious arguments when the obvious definition of an Irishman in 2012 is

"A citizen of Ireland or Northern Ireland whose core values include Irish sovereignty - a country politically independent of Britain (or such a person who has emigrated)" :cool:

Occam's razor.

That presume's a value system that some people may not hold.

Currently ,mostly it is aquired thru birth or descent

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They would need to fulfil certain requirements - residency, I think an exam, and take an oath.
My point is that there are Irish people who are not Irish citizens but have spent their entire lives here.

.

Here are the rules for naturalisation

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/becoming_an_irish_citizen_through_naturalisation.html

Wild Bill

CDfm wrote: »

That presume's a value system that some people may not hold.

Now that birthright is abolished there is no better measure than holding that value - citizenship has serious issues since then, as discussed above.

If you don't hold that core value you may be living in Ireland but you are identifying primarily as British.

And I don't buy the notion you can be both.

P. Breathnach

Wild Bill wrote: »

... the obvious definition of an Irishman in 2012 is

"A citizen of Ireland or Northern Ireland whose core values include Irish sovereignty - a country politically independent of Britain (or such a person who has emigrated)" ....

Why the bit I have bolded? Are we not also politically independent of Sri Lanka and Peru?

I really dislike any definition of Irishness that involves any mention of Britain or England.

[And, by the way, how do we define an Irishwoman? Or is that unimportant?]

Wild Bill

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why the bit I have bolded? Are we not also politically independent of Sri Lanka and Peru?

I think, in the context of our history that remark is facetious.

I really dislike any definition of Irishness that involves any mention of Britain or England.

I dislike shellfish - folk differ.

And, by the way, how do we define an Irishwoman? Or is that unimportant?

:rolleyes: