Should this republic commemorate the RIC/Black and Tans/all British imperial forces?

Rebelheart

This article by Stephen Collins, a former Indepedent Newspapers journalist (and brother of Liam Collins, the Sunday Independent News Editor), must surely rank as the most contrived and dishonest for a long time. The rampant institutional sectarianism and sheer brutality of the RIC, and its refusal to recognise the democratic wishes of the Irish population after the 1918 election are totally ignored. For Collins, we should commemorate them for a tribal reason, namely the RIC included Irish-born people. This tribal commemoration would be, for Collins, a sign of our "enlightenment". There is no rational moral reason presented by Collins for commemorating these upholders of the British Empire in Ireland. We should do it, he tritely claims, to be "inclusive". He does not, of course, elaborate on his understanding of inclusivity.

---

So, should the Irish state commemorate the RIC/Black and Tans/Auxies and all British imperial forces in Ireland who fought against Irish freedom and imposed British rule here?

If so, why?

If it's because they contained Irish-born people, should we also commemorate every other Irish-born thug, murderer, bully, evictor, etc simply because they were born here? In this new "commemoration" culture, should we just simply commemorate all people, bad and good, in Irish history? Is that the idea? Or is it that because history is not black and white, in this proposed commemoration culture Oliver Cromwell is now just as good/bad as James Connolly and therefore worthy of being commemorated by Irish people?

What, precisely, are they saying with their demand that this sovereign Irish republican state publicly and officially honour the enemies of this state's foundation and existence? This is not, of course, a matter of these people being unable to privately commemorate their family: they can.

---

As these ideas are all emanating from people with sympathies for the British imperial tradition, perhaps the apologists of that tradition will show how over in Britain that state is, for example, honouring British-born people who were enemies of the British Empire/fought for freedom movements across the world as part of the same "inclusive" commemoration culture?

Last time I looked, Britain's poppy day only recognised the "sacrifices" of those who fought for the British Empire and Commonwealth forces. It doesn't recognise even its USSR allies in WWII who gave a far greater sacrifice in, for instance, defeating Nazism. In this new "the past is not black and white", can we expect the British poppy advocates to commemorate the Nazis because there were good people in it? Or does this logic only apply to commemorations in Ireland? Of course, in Britain their commemorations don't even mention any of the victims of that imperial tradition which they officially commemorate. That's how backward, tribal and exclusive things are there.
For the promoters of this campaign, is this a matter of one rule for commemorations by the British state and another for the Irish state?

Rebelheart

Yes (I'm British/not Irish)

'Police and military will patrol the country roads at least five nights a week. They are not to confine themselves to the main roads but make across the country, lie in ambush, take cover behind fences near roads, and when civilians are seen approaching shout: 'Hands up!' Should the order be not obeyed, shoot, and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching carry their hands in their pockets or are in any way suspicious looking, shoot them down.
You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped and you are bound to get the right persons sometimes. The more you shoot the better I will like you; and I assure you that no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man and I will guarantee that your names will not be given at the inquest. Hunger strikers will be allowed to die in jail, the more the merrier. An emigrant ship will be leaving an Irish port with lots of Sinn Feiners on board. I assure you, men it will never land. That is nearly all I have to say to you.'

- Lieutenant-Colonel Gerald Bryce Ferguson Smyth, Royal Irish Constabulary Divisional Commissioner of Police for the Munster Area, summer 1920
(Peter Beresford Ellis, Eyewitness to Irish History, p. 240).

---

Why should this sovereign Irish republic now commemorate enemies of its foundation like that individual?

jonniebgood1

Can you point out to me where Collins in that article even suggests honouring black and tans or British imperial forces? The OP and thread title implies this.

It is not always popular to point out the clear difference between the RIC (a law and order native police force in most instances) and the likes of the Black and Tans or Auxiliaries who were in their make up forces of occupation. The article (which I would'nt fully aggree with) specifically refers to the problems of a narrow definition of our history as it does not recognise the many nuanced areas. I don't mean to offend but it ironic that this description from the referenced article is so apt for the OP:

In his groundbreaking essay for the magazine Studies written in advance of the 50th anniversary of the 1916 Rising in 1966, but not published until 1972, Fr Francis Shaw SJ addressed some of the key problems created by a narrow nationalistic interpretation of the past. One of the difficulties he identified was that the dominant nationalist interpretation of history in the 1960s required the Irish people of that decade to disown their past and censure as unpatriotic the majority of their grandparents’ generation who were not attracted by new revolutionary ideas in 1916.

The then professor of early and medieval Irish at UCD summed it up by suggesting that the accepted canon of Irish history “asks us to praise in others what we do not esteem or accept in ourselves”.

In other words the majority of law-abiding people who live by democratic standards are required to despise those in earlier generations who adhered to the same values while honouring those who rejected them.

In political terms it means that political leaders from Daniel O’Connell to John Redmond are airbrushed out of popular history while revolutionaries such as Pádraig Pearse and Michael Collins are elevated to iconic status.

The reality is that most of our modern political leaders have far more in common with the values of the old Irish Parliamentary Party and its leader than they have with those who directed the activities of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Yet our current generation of politicians still finds it difficult to acknowledge their political predecessors while falling over themselves to pay obeisance to revolutionary leaders whose values they don’t actually share.

This approach to our past means that those who served as policemen before 1922 are either denigrated or ignored, while those who killed them are accepted as heroes. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0825/1224322962420.html

Simply lumping the RIC together with the Auxiliaries and Tans does not recognise the reality of these organisations and their roles in Irish history.

RGM

Hardly a scientific poll question.

SaoriseBiker

Yes (I'm British/not Irish)

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Simply lumping the RIC together with the Auxiliaries and Tans does not recognise the reality of these organisations and their roles in Irish history.

Most of the RIC would probably have been described as supporters of Redmond's IPP, call them mild nationalists or whatever. And also their is no doubt that the membership in general very strongly disapproved of the murder and looting campaigns of not nessicearliy the Tans and Auxiliaries but also regiments such as the Essex in Cork who were often little more than drunken cowardly mobs. While agreeing that lumping the RIC in with the Auxiliaries and Tans is misleading, nevertheless the Dublin Met Police contained the special branch of their day, especially the G Division who were as able as the Tans or Auxies to murder and torture with many of them paying the ultimate price for their behavior it should be said.

I am against commemorating the RIC, they were part of the armed forces of occupation and indeed many individual members of it were like the G division were let's say, more than eager about carrying out there duty around the country and paid accordingly.

P. Breathnach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

...
Simply lumping the RIC together with the Auxiliaries and Tans does not recognise the reality of these organisations and their roles in Irish history.

I would say that it is so wrong-headed that the poll should be dumped.

dubhthach

Yes (I'm British/not Irish)

I've moved the last couple posts to a thread specifically about the RIC history. Ideally I would prefer if people would at least provide historical sources (including photos etc) regarding the RIC. I'm closing this thread as tbh I would think a poll on the merits of any commemoration is probably better suited to Politics forum.

-Mod