If Ireland only got independence now, what would it be like?

lazygal

Would we have let the Church have such a sway over us? Would we have the same anthem? Would the Irish language brigade succeed in making children learn Irish in school? Would we keep the same British legal system?

Allyall

We'd probably have corrupt politicians, be supporting English Football, and be speaking English.

Seanchai

lazygal wrote: »

Would the Irish language brigade succeed in making children learn Irish in school?

:rolleyes: The ignorance. Jesus wept.

mikemac1

Dublin had its chance at being capital

Time for somewhere new

I say Cashel as used by Brian Boru :cool:

lazygal

Seanchai wrote: »

:rolleyes: The ignorance. Jesus wept.

No. I liked Irish in school, I would have chosen to study it. But it would have been a far greater use of time to teach a modern European or Asian language. How many fluent Irish speakers are there, outside Gaeltacht areas, who speak it on a daily basis because they learned it in school?

And Jesus would be cool with me not being into compulsory Irish I think.

Orizio

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over, with their silly 'sports', their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat, would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

Fuinseog

lazygal wrote: »

Would we have let the Church have such a sway over us? Would we have the same anthem? Would the Irish language brigade succeed in making children learn Irish in school? Would we keep the same British legal system?

we would still be paying a tithe to the the church of ireland.

we did keep the british legal system. barristers wear black cos they are still in mourning for queen Anne.

as regards the Irish language, it would probably be like the welsh language brigade. bloody celts just refuse to be english

Sindri

We'd be poorer and insecure about our nationality. We'd probably go to war with some neutral country to show we aren't to be messed with or stage a mock invasion of ourselves and fight those Irish bastards out of here.

Fuinseog

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over, with their silly 'sports', their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat, would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

the Godless sasannaigh are as much afraid of sex as the irish.

mikemac1

Orizio wrote: »

The culchie brigade that took over,

WT Cosgrave was a Dub

Chuck Stone

We'd be akin to an impoverished Scotland.

Ms.M

I doubt we'd have the same anthem if 1916 never happened. Would we have taken the non-violent root to independence so? All brought about by John Hume and Michael D.Higgins I'd say. I don't think we'd bother getting independence without some kind of Gaelic revival though, it would just be delayed by a hundred years and by then it might have been too late for the language anyway. If the Gaelic revival happened just as it did when it did but we still remained part of the UK until now, I'd guess more people would support the language than do now. Like the Nationalist community in the North do. The church wouldn't have such an influence on the state but people would possibly be more likely to go to Mass if they feel they're discriminated against or need to keep their identity or whatever.
So it depends on how the British treated us in the hypothetical interim I suppose!

Fuinseog

mikemac1 wrote: »

WT Cosgrave was a Dub

as indeed was bertie

kowloon

Spice Burgers might not exist.

I wouldn't want to live in such a world.

Seanchai

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over, with their silly 'sports', their hordes of fascist priests...[blah,blah,blah]

Oh that would be the Freestaters/Fine Gaelers/Blueshirts and their hordes of pro-British Roman Catholic shopkeepers, wigged English lawyers, TCD and UCD graduates, urban dwellers, pro-British big farmers and counter-revolutionary rightwingers generally who wanted to get back to business and play ball with the Brits asap in 1921/22 and once they had done that, through executing Irish revolutionaries and genuine radicals, they proceeded to bring the fight to Spain and, with funding form the same uber conservative pro-British RC shopkeepers and big farmers, fight the democratically-elected revolutionaries in Spain.

But typical of a West Brit to blame "culchies" for the sins of, well, counter-revolutionary Jackeens/Blueshirts/Big farmers/shopkeepers.

Orizio wrote: »

Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

Better still, imagine Ireland without people who still think as you do.

Fuinseog

Ms.M wrote: »

I doubt we'd have the same anthem if 1916 never happened. Would we have taken the non-violent root to independence so? All brought about by John Hume and Michael D.Higgins I'd say. I don't think we'd bother getting independence without some kind of Gaelic revival though, it would just be delayed by a hundred years and by then it might have been too late for the language anyway. If the Gaelic revival happened just as it did when it did but we still remained part of the UK until now, I'd guess more people would support the language than do now. Like the Nationalist community in the North do. The church wouldn't have such an influence on the state but people would possibly be more likely to go to Mass if they feel they're discriminated against or need to keep their identity or whatever.
So it depends on how the British treated us in the hypothetical interim I suppose!

scots Gaelic is permitted in Scotland. the welsh have their own culture and language. what makes you think we would be less Gaelic under british rule?

Notorious97

I can safely say if we were still occupied to this day, we would still be occupied tomorrow. Who in our government would actually stand up and fight for us? There is so much anti irish sentiment in this country lately, largely reflected on this site also, nobody would give a rats in standing up and fighting.

I am glad there was brave men and women years ago who done something about it.

God fuc*ing knows this shower today wouldnt.

Fuinseog

Notorious97 wrote: »

I can safely say if we were still occupied to this day, we would still be occupied tomorrow. Who in our government would actually stand up and fight for us? There is so much anti irish sentiment in this country lately, largely reflected on this site also, nobody would give a rats in standing up and fighting.

I am glad there was brave men and women years ago who done something about it.

God fuc*ing knows this shower today wouldnt.

there are still people willing to fight for Irish freedom. Take Marian Price for example. her heroic shooting of an evil Brit collecting a pizza in 2009 won our hearts and minds.

Notorious97

Fuinseog wrote: »

there are still people willing to fight for Irish freedom. Take Marian Price for example. her heroic shooting of an evil Brit collecting a pizza in 2009 won our hearts and minds.

Since when does that act have support from me? Im republican but not an idiot.

ChunkyLover_53

I saw a documentary before about this, the British Govt. at the time had drafted plans to build a big ass avenue from O'Connell St. all the way up to the Phoenix Park, effectively wiping out the Smithfield/Stoneybatter area with a grand Champs-Elysees style parade.

We on the other hand ripped up all the tram lines in Dublin only to put them back down again years later.

We somehow made cycling to work socially unacceptable, then changed our minds & made a b*ll*x of the cycle lanes

Ms.M

Fuinseog wrote: »

scots Gaelic is permitted in Scotland. the welsh have their own culture and language. what makes you think we would be less Gaelic under british rule?

I don't. I said it depends on whether the Gaelic revival happened. If it hadn't happened, we'd probably consider ourselves British by now. We're so similar in culture anyway (providing the British treated us well and of course, political leaders gave us grounds why it would be better for us). Whereas if it did happen, but we remained part of the UK, more people would possibly want to differ themselves culturally from the British; like the Nationalist community does in the North. So we might indeed be more Gaelic under British rule. I don't know? :pac:

Fuinseog

Notorious97 wrote: »

Since when does that act have support from me? Im republican but not an idiot.

so is she, and she is fighting for your freedom.

Fuinseog

Ms.M wrote: »

I don't. I said it depends on whether the Gaelic revival happened. If it hadn't happened, we'd probably consider ourselves British by now. We're so similar in culture anyway (providing the British treated us well and of course, political leaders gave us grounds why it would be better for us). Whereas if it did happen, but we remained part of the UK, more people would possibly want to differ themselves culturally from the British; like the Nationalist community does in the North. So we might indeed be more Gaelic under British rule. I don't know? :pac:

when the banquet was held for the queen in Dublin castle I think a lot of our native betters considered themselves british.

the Gaelic revival took place under British rule. If we were still under british rule it would change little. wales is British yet they have welsh school and signage.

Seanchai

Fuinseog wrote: »

when the banquet was held for the queen in Dublin castle I think a lot of our native betters considered themselves british.

Names? (Brian Hayes and John Bruton excepted)

"the queen", as if you're talking about Ireland's head of state rather than about a foreign monarch, the British queen.

Sappa

Would there be as Many naggers claiming nagger rights.

Sappa

Sappa wrote: »

Would there be as Many naggers claiming nagger rights.

Meant knackers

Ms.M

Settled folk and Travellers used to get on better, bring them in to sing a few tunes and give them a bit of grub and all that. I might be wrong. Maybe that was only some rural communities.
So it depends how the British being around and Ireland gaining independence influenced these relations.

Ms.M

Sappa wrote: »

Would there be as Many "travellers" claiming "human/civil" rights.

might be more acceptable for the Mods.

mikemac1

The Corkonians would still be moaning :rolleyes:

Riddle101

Ireland would be a lot more screwed up today if we had not gotten our Independence when we did. Assuming of course that the 1916 Rising still occurred and the War for Independence didn't get Ireland the boost we need. There would still be a lot of fighting going on. I mean the IRA are still active in Northern Ireland, so I can only imagine the IRA would still be around but a much larger organisation that extends across the entire island.

LightningBolt

Seanchai wrote: »

Names? (Brian Hayes and John Bruton excepted)

"the queen", as if you're talking about Ireland's head of state rather than about a foreign monarch, the British queen.

Given the thread title nybody with half a brain would know that the queen the poster was referring to was the British queen.

:rolleyes:

Rocket19

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over, with their silly 'sports', their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat, would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

Is it not a language? Am I missing something? It doesn't cease to be a language just because you (for whatever reason) don't value it.
Foreign languages ARE of course taught in schools (I started Spanish at 10), so it's not like we're depriving kids of learning or being insular in any way. We're Irish, it's not that far-fetched a notion that we should learn and preserve our own language (which btw, is important historically and archaeologically). There are thousands of languages worldwide, with only a handful deemed 'useful' internationally. Should we therefore abolish all languages that aren't French/English/Mandarin?

By "culchie brigade", I'm assuming you mean the GAA? How ridiculous. While I, of course don't agree with many of their actions in the past, their main purpose was to preserve our culture and language, something which I whole-heartedly agree with. What is it wth certain people's opposition to preserving some culture and uniqueness in our country. Sexual repression was a symptom of the times. I don't think England was very liberal at the time either, so I don't really 'get' the finger-pointing.

Also, what do you mean by "culchie subversiveness"? How does that even apply in a modern context? Seems you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding "Culchies". Why? Asking as a Dub...

later12

Riddle101 wrote: »

Ireland would be a lot more screwed up today if we had not gotten our Independence when we did. Assuming of course that the 1916 Rising still occurred and the War for Independence didn't get Ireland the boost we need. There would still be a lot of fighting going on. I mean the IRA are still active in Northern Ireland, so I can only imagine the IRA would still be around but a much larger organisation that extends across the entire island.

Ah, well if the question is "what if the pressure for independence was maintained post 1918, but no independence was forthcoming", then that's probably a legitimate observation.

But generally, if the 1918 movement had not arisen until 2012, I think it's reasonable to argue that we would be no less Irish than the Scots are Scottish, and no more persecuted for our "identity" than the Scots or the Welsh are.

Not only does that raise questions of the legitimacy of the Irish independence movement in the early 20th century, but indeed of whether or not Ireland became independent too early.

Indeed, it is my personal belief that the cruellest act that the United Kindgdom exacted upon the island of Ireland in the past 250 years was to grant independence when Ireland's institutions were poorly equipped to handle it. It was the last cruel blow, and locked Ireland into perhaps sixty years of social and economic stagnation.

It was to be a mistake that the United Kingdom didn't learn from, and was repeated widely across Africa and the colonies with far deeper, even more disastrous consequences.

Ms.M

^^^^ Partial thanks, not sure if "legitimacy" here is a loaded comment or not.

later12 wrote: »

Not only does that raise questions of the legitimacy of the Irish independence movement in the early 20th century,.

later12

If a man can walk up to another man, pull a gun out of his overcoat and shoot that man dead, I think we should be able to raise the legitimacy of that act.

So I didn't mean it in a loaded or inflammatory way, and I was not intending to answer my own question.

But if we can look back and say "in 1920, we were similar to Scotland, and if there were no war of independence, we would still be similar to Scotland", then that does raise some rather uncomfortable questions about the legitimacy of the independence movement.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over,

Seven of Ireland's heads of government were from Dublin, including the two most corrupt ones.

with their silly 'sports',

I presume you're referring to the GAA. What, might I ask, do you have against it so much? The GAA weren't unique in being part of the ruling Catholic establishment- Dev himself was a lifelong rugby fan for example.

their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and

I agree. But its not limited to rural Ireland, you'd have found plenty of this in Dublin as well.

their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat,

Will you stop with this nonsense. The majority of rural people in Ireland don't speak a word of Irish, while many in Dublin are enthusiastic supporters of it. Its not as black and white as you make out.

would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

Actually the power of the reactionary Catholic middle-class had been continaully on the rise under British rule, having been non-existent prior to the mid nineteenth century so you've no reason to assume this would happen. And, as I've already said, many of the biggest gombeens come from Dublin.

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

Not only does that raise questions of the legitimacy of the Irish independence movement in the early 20th century, but indeed of whether or not Ireland became independent too early.

Ireland became independent because the people wanted it.
How can the desire of a people for the right to govern themselves be illegitimate?
From looking at what you have for your "location" it seems odd that you can question the legitimacy of a peoples desire to live as they want and not be forced to live as others insist they do.

Ms.M

later12 wrote: »

If a man can walk up to another man, pull a gun out of his overcoat and shoot that man dead, I think we should be able to raise the legitimacy of that act.

So I didn't mean it in a loaded or inflammatory way, and I was not intending to answer my own question.

But if we can look back and say "in 1920, we were similar to Scotland, and if there were no war of independence, we would still be similar to Scotland", then that does raise some rather uncomfortable questions about the legitimacy of the independence movement.

That's a good point. I suppose they didn't anticipate we'd be so similar to Scotland. Aswell as their greivances against the British Government, a good deal of their justification came in the hope of an Ireland "not merely free but Gaelic aswell." It might have been disingenuous but the Gaelic Revival would have seemed to be a wheel gathering momentum at that time. I rather think that we've been eejits since than that they were eejits then. Mind you a John Hume and Michael D.Higgins peaceful movement for independance might have been very sucessful and saved us and the British a lot of heartache.

woodoo

Rocket19 wrote: »

Seems you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding "Culchies". Why? Asking as a Dub...

Because they probably can't understand his nasally accent and don't like his bright white tracksuits.

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

But if we can look back and say "in 1920, we were similar to Scotland, and if there were no war of independence, we would still be similar to Scotland", then that does raise some rather uncomfortable questions about the legitimacy of the independence movement.

It is impossible to know the future and for people in 1916/20 the only reference they would have had as to how a London government would treat Ireland in the future was from how things had been in the past, and that would not have been a very bright future from their perspective. They wanted no more of "that" treatment and wanted to take things into their own hands, as any right minded human being would.

later12

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Ireland became independent because the people wanted it.
How can the desire of a people for the right to govern themselves be illegitimate?

I didn't say the desire can be illegitimate, I was saying that a movement can be illegitimate depending on the methods it employs.

If Alex Salmond shot a policeman in the name of self-governance, and a band of extremists supported him, it would most likely be construed as an illegitimate act by most people.

And no, I'm not trying to compare 21st century Scotland to 20th century Ireland. I'm just saying means of securing self governance can be illegitimate. Nationalism is not a movement beyond question, and asking questions like that posed by the OP is a worthwhile endeavour.

From looking at what you have for your "location" it seems odd that you can question the legitimacy of a peoples desire to live as they want and not be forced to live as others insist they do.

Just to clarify, Queer Street usually relates to financial embarrassment. I'm not gay. Nevertheless, I would be very cautious in relating the gay rights movement to nationalistic aspirations. Nobody was actually criminalising Irishness or procluding Irish people from the normal rights of citizenship like marriage or raising children.

Rocket19

woodoo wrote: »

Because they probably can't understand his nasally accent and don't like his bright white tracksuits.

Oh the irony.

Cú Giobach

later12 wrote: »

I didn't say the desire can be illegitimate, I was saying that a movement can be illegitimate depending on the methods it employs.

No you certainly didn't. Not in the post I replied to.

If Alex Salmond shot a policeman in the name of self-governance, and a band of extremists supported him, it would most likely be construed as an illegitimate act by most people.

Indeed but we are talking about a different time and don't forget a different time means a different place, you are again looking at the actions of people in the past from the perspective of the present.
The history of British rule here was violent, violence breeds violence.

And no, I'm not trying to compare 21st century Scotland to 20th century Ireland. I'm just saying means of securing self governance can be illegitimate. Nationalism is not a movement beyond question, and asking questions like that posed by the OP is a worthwhile endeavour.

Yes it is an interesting question and one that will create debate, don't expect to post and not be challenged.

Just to clarify, Queer Street usually relates to financial embarrassment. I'm not gay. Nevertheless, I would be very cautious in relating the gay rights movement to nationalistic aspirations. Nobody was actually criminalising Irishness or procluding Irish people from the normal rights of citizenship like marriage or raising children.

Not down here it isn't, to me it sounds like a double entente worthy of a carry on film. Oooh matron I'm feeling a bit up queer street today.
Sorry for the error though.
And no they weren't criminalising Irishness, but one of the most basic human rights is the right to self determination, and that one had been barbarically trodden on for quite a while.
You say nationalistic aspirations but I am talking about the right to self determination and yes gay rights are in a similar vein to that.

charlemont

later12 wrote: »

Ah, well if the question is "what if the pressure for independence was maintained post 1918, but no independence was forthcoming", then that's probably a legitimate observation.

But generally, if the 1918 movement had not arisen until 2012, I think it's reasonable to argue that we would be no less Irish than the Scots are Scottish, and no more persecuted for our "identity" than the Scots or the Welsh are.

Not only does that raise questions of the legitimacy of the Irish independence movement in the early 20th century, but indeed of whether or not Ireland became independent too early.

Indeed, it is my personal belief that the cruellest act that the United Kindgdom exacted upon the island of Ireland in the past 250 years was to grant independence when Ireland's institutions were poorly equipped to handle it. It was the last cruel blow, and locked Ireland into perhaps sixty years of social and economic stagnation.

It was to be a mistake that the United Kingdom didn't learn from, and was repeated widely across Africa and the colonies with far deeper, even more disastrous consequences.

Did you ever hear of the famine ? Act of Union perhaps !! Kilmainham maybe ?

dttq

Seanchai wrote: »

Better still, imagine Ireland without people who still think as you do.

Even better still, imagine Ireland without people who still think like the Seanchai's of this country do. Utopian possibly.

Shryke

I imagine we would have better infrastructure and planning. The state of Galway on the planning side of things is awful. I can't imagine that a bloated mess like eircom was/is could get away with existing as it did without any investment in infrastructure for example.
More multiculturalism I suppose which would have been nice.
The grip of the catholic church isn't something that can be rightly blamed on anyone except for the evil and cruel perpetrators of oppression and abuse but things couldn't have been as bad as they were.

Seanchai

later12 wrote: »

If Alex Salmond shot a policeman in the name of self-governance, and a band of extremists supported him, it would most likely be construed as an illegitimate act by most people.

That's a logical fallacy. Clearly, if Alex Salmond shot a policeman of the British state in Scotland it would be that policeman, state and its supporters which were the "band of extremists".

See, two can play at your "Here's my cognitively biased analogy" game.


Why you assume that the Scot fighting for freedom is the "extremist" while the British unionist and his state's military opposing it is not is indicative of your prejudices alone.

Seanchai

dttq wrote: »

Even better still, imagine Ireland without people who still think like the Seanchai's of this country do.

That was an embarrassingly unoriginal comeback. Must try harder.

dttq

Seanchai wrote: »

That was an embarrassingly unoriginal comeback. Must try harder.

As original as the types who wear Celtic jerseys and get their news from the Irish Sun, yet call others west brits etc.

dttq

Seanchai wrote: »

That was an embarrassingly unoriginal comeback. Must try harder.

As original as the types who wear Celtic jerseys and get their news from the Irish Sun, yet call others unIrish etc.

Duckworth_Luas

Orizio wrote: »

Things would be far far far superior. The culchie brigade that took over, with their silly 'sports', their hordes of fascist priests, their loathing of sex and massive guilt complexes, their anti-intellectualism and their determination to stomp the Irish 'language' down urban Ireland's throat, would have been powerless and further assimilated into proper society. Imagine an Ireland without parochialism, without gombeenism, without culchie subversiveness...

Oh FFS! This is on a whole new level of ignorant stupidity, even for AH!