Why should Ireland be Independant?

An Coilean

This is an issue I have been wondering about for the past few days.


There are those in Ireland who reject any/almost any form of what is considered to be traditional Irish nationalism.

I have seen plenty of threads and posts from various posters where aspects of what is considered to be Irish identity: Irish Language, games, dancing etc have been ridiculed and marginalised, and our similarity to the UK is stressed. I am not looking to argue about this or debate the merits of what is considered to be 'Irish'. We all have our own opinion and arguing about it is unlikely to be fruitfull.
What I am interested in is the perception of those who hold these views on Ireland being an Independant country. (Undoubtadly someone will come out with the line that Ireland is'nt independant due to the economic crisis, so let the question be on the concept of independance as much as the reality.)


One of the things that sparked my cuirosity on the issue was this video where Máirtín Ó Cadhain, the author of Cré na Cille, and one of the leaders of the Gaeltacht Civil Rights movement of the 60's, someone who could be said to have been a leader of Cultural Nationalism in Ireland at the time, expresses the opinion that without these traits of national identity, most specifically the Irish Language, independance does not make sense and that we would be better off being part of a larger nation and living off their economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q91o5WC5plM

Now, I am fully aware that some of those described above do believe that Ireland should not be independant, but I am not sure if their views should be seen as representative of all who hold those views, My question is; do those who reject cultural nationalism and what might be considered the traditional basis for Irish independance believe that Ireland should be Independant, and if so, Why?




--To the Mod: Please move to a different Forum if not suitable for Politics.--

coolhull

Unfortunately, most of us are struggling just to get by, and however much we want to, we dont have the time or inclination to think too long and hard about what some guy might have thought about in the 60's

padma

Ireland, when we think of Ireland we think of the whole Island of Ireland. Unfortunately it is split with a very tiny land mass. One of those few countries in the world with a North/South divide. Wouldn't it be great if the North could be integrated with the South again. The country/land mass is United though the people are divided so the dream is to bring the people together in harmony hence the green, white and Orange on the flag. It is an Island, quite a large enough Island. Most westerly on the European landscape so being Independent is for us to be free to rule ourselves. Not a bad dream and certainly something to be aimed for.

Manach

What independence? Given that Ireland has signed off so much of its sovereignity to allign with various international treaties, such the ECHR and UNCHR and that the EU directives/legislation make up so much of the legal statues. Furthermore given that the other element of Irish identity, Catholicism has been been vilified so much it has become a lazy replacement de-facto word for evil for those importing non-traditional mores without undergoing a stage of understanding what they mean - just a dash to be part of the liberal cosmopolitan mindset, all the while Europe sinks into economic and cultural relevancy on the world stage...

Death and Taxes

The very idea that any country without its own language cannot be independent is facile in the extreme.
Are the Brazillians less than independent because they speak Portugese?
Are The Austrians less than independent because they speak German?
Whatever else independence means it shouldn't mean being insular and defensive.
Pretty scary video, if people like him had his way we might all still be living in thatched cottages without running water!

An Coilean

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The very idea that any country without its own language cannot be independent is facile in the extreme.
Are the Brazillians less than independent because they speak Portugese?
Are The Austrians less than independent because they speak German?
Whatever else independence means it shouldn't mean being insular and defensive.
Pretty scary video, if people like him had his way we might all still be living in thatched cottages without running water!

I think the question for him boiled down to, If Ireland does not have anything to mark it out as a nation, then it is little more than a smaller version of England, and if that is so, why be Independant?
I have seen on this site posters dismiss, play down and denegrate time and again what is considerd to be traditional aspects of 'Irishness'. They also actevily stress our similarity to Britian. There are examples of this all over this forum and others. I am not trying to attack these posters, if they feel like that, thats their own business. What I am interested to know is if people who actievly reject the traditional motivation for Irish Independance, never the less believe that Ireland showld be Independant, and if so, why?


Interesting that you associate an Irish speaking Ireland with a backward Ireland, why is that?

Fr Tod Umptious

An Coilean wrote: »

I think the question for him boiled down to, If Ireland does not have anything to mark it out as a nation, then it is little more than a smaller version of England, and if that is so, why be Independant?
I have seen on this site posters dismiss, play down and denegrate time and again what is considerd to be traditional aspects of 'Irishness'. They also actevily stress our similarity to Britian. There are examples of this all over this forum and others. I am not trying to attack these posters, if they feel like that, thats their own business. What I am interested to know is if people who actievly reject the traditional motivation for Irish Independance, never the less believe that Ireland showld be Independant, and if so, why?


Interesting that you associate an Irish speaking Ireland with a backward Ireland, why is that?

I think you have a very good point.

You may see posts in the GAA and soccer or rugby forms implying that GAA sports are inferior because they do not have an international dimension, like the others do and that more should be spend on soccer and rugby, the the determinant of GAA, because of that international demission.

I think that total B***ix, a sport does not have to have an international dimension to be a good sport, and enjoyable sport of spectators or participants, or a sport worthy of support form government funds.

There seems to be a association with anything that is Irish, and traditionally Irish, as being backward and unsophisticated.

But I also thing it's a generational think, I thought that when way I was 16 or 17, but now in my 40s I see the value of our sports, culture, language etc

And even though I am happy to shop in Tescos and Halfords, I am also happy to see Irish stores like Smyth's toys sponsorting kids TV shows on UK TV

SeanW

An Coilean wrote: »

I think the question for him boiled down to, If Ireland does not have anything to mark it out as a nation, then it is little more than a smaller version of England, and if that is so, why be Independant?
I have seen on this site posters dismiss, play down and denegrate time and again what is considerd to be traditional aspects of 'Irishness'. They also actevily stress our similarity to Britian. There are examples of this all over this forum and others. I am not trying to attack these posters, if they feel like that, thats their own business. What I am interested to know is if people who actievly reject the traditional motivation for Irish Independance, never the less believe that Ireland showld be Independant, and if so, why?

Interesting that you associate an Irish speaking Ireland with a backward Ireland, why is that?

Forgive me if I have misread your post but it seems to me that you're making a case for heavy emphasis on the Irish language, Catholicism, comely maidens dancing at the crossroads etc.

You seem to be primarily after people who aren't big fans of the Irish language in particular.

So let me give you one challenge. Go to Texas, find someone with a stars-and-stripes sticker plastered over his pickup truck, who had just bought a new Country and Western CD in Walmart, and tell him that he'd be as well off being British because he speaks English.

My guess is you'd get a very short answer.

getzls

padma wrote: »

Ireland, when we think of Ireland we think of the whole Island of Ireland. Unfortunately it is split with a very tiny land mass. One of those few countries in the world with a North/South divide. Wouldn't it be great if the North could be integrated with the South again. The country/land mass is United though the people are divided so the dream is to bring the people together in harmony hence the green, white and Orange on the flag. It is an Island, quite a large enough Island. Most westerly on the European landscape so being Independent is for us to be free to rule ourselves. Not a bad dream and certainly something to be aimed for.

It is not one of the few countries that is spilt by a land mass.

The island of Ireland holds two countries.

Wibbs

An Coilean wrote: »

I think the question for him boiled down to, If Ireland does not have anything to mark it out as a nation, then it is little more than a smaller version of England, and if that is so, why be Independant?

You're ignoring WileyCoyote's point re the role of (specifically)language in feelings of cultural association and nationhood. The list is long of countries who don't speak a native language, or never had one, or have multitudes of languages, yet are clearly independent nations.

I have seen on this site posters dismiss, play down and denegrate time and again what is considerd to be traditional aspects of 'Irishness'.

Mostly regarding the language. Support for Irish sports and music is very healthy and growing. Even with the language, while not as actively popular the growth of Gaelscoils shows signs of enhanced interest among many Irish people

They also actevily stress our similarity to Britian. There are examples of this all over this forum and others.

Actively stress similarity to the UK? I dunno which Boards.ie you're reading, but there's an awful lot of "800 years of perfidious Albion" to be seen too.

What I am interested to know is if people who actievly reject the traditional motivation for Irish Independance, never the less believe that Ireland showld be Independant, and if so, why?

They're not actively rejecting motivations for our independence, they may be rejecting one aspect of what you see as a motivation for our independence, the Irish language, which is your particular interest and you're filtering what you see through that. Indeed the language would have come waaaay down the list of practical motivations for independence. As would the music and sport. By the time of the main thrust of the independence movement the GAA was on the go and more people spoke Irish than do today. Independence was driven more by our deep need for deciding our political, economic, legal(and even religious) future for ourselves. Plus for such an important motivation for our independence as a nation, we seem to have turned our backs on the language PDQ, beyond lip service and a minority who feel it's importance(and fair play).

Interesting that you associate an Irish speaking Ireland with a backward Ireland, why is that?

There may be many reasons for that. One would be historically when the Irish language declined and retracted to small rural areas of lower education. The largely urban English speakers would be seen (and likely were on average) as more educated and informed. More "urbane" as it were. It would have been seen as a "rude peasant language" The notion of Irish language = backward would have much to do with that. Go back to say 1500 and that wouldn't be in play at all as the educated class would have been Irish speakers.

I am not looking to argue about this or debate the merits of what is considered to be 'Irish'. We all have our own opinion and arguing about it is unlikely to be fruitfull.

The thing is your original question is all about this point. You have a particular idea of what you consider to be "Irish" and "non-Irish", which informs your opinion on others and their idea of nationhood and independence.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The very idea that any country without its own language cannot be independent is facile in the extreme.
Are the Brazillians less than independent because they speak Portugese?
Are The Austrians less than independent because they speak German?

I think it's only facile in the extreme if you can identify some other positive reason for independence. Maybe Austrians and Brazilians have such a reason; that's for them to figure out.

What's the reason that Ireland (whatever you apply that word to) needs to stay independent?

An Coilean

SeanW wrote: »

Forgive me if I have misread your post but it seems to me that you're making a case for heavy emphasis on the Irish language, Catholicism, comely maidens dancing at the crossroads etc.

You seem to be primarily after people who aren't big fans of the Irish language in particular.

So let me give you one challenge. Go to Texas, find someone with a stars-and-stripes sticker plastered over his pickup truck, who had just bought a new Country and Western CD in Walmart, and tell him that he'd be as well off being British because he speaks English.

My guess is you'd get a very short answer.

It seems you have misread my post entirley.

I am not making a case for emphsis on the Irish Language or anything else, just pointing out that leaders of Cultural Nationalsim believed that these things were the basis of why Ireland should be Independant and without them, there was no reason for Ireland to be Independant, that was their perception. I am not trying to argue that they were right, I am just curious to know if people such as yourself who reject and deride those aspects of Irishness believe Ireland should be Independant? If you don't that's fine, if you do, why?

An Coilean

Wibbs wrote: »

The thing is your original question is all about this point. You have a particular idea of what you consider to be "Irish" and "non-Irish", which informs your opinion on others and their idea of nationhood and independence.

I know, and the point of this thread is that I am curious about what informs the opinion of others on Irish Nationhood and Independance who do not share my idea of what is ''Irish'' and ''Non-Irish''.

Fr Tod Umptious

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think it's only facile in the extreme if you can identify some other positive reason for independence. Maybe Austrians and Brazilians have such a reason; that's for them to figure out.

What's the reason that Ireland (whatever you apply that word to) needs to stay independent?

this is interesting in the fact that the same question, or more like the question of 'What's the reason that Ireland (whatever you apply that word to) becomes independent', came up 100 years ago

Back then the Gaelic League was formed by people who thought that Ireland had in some way lost it'd identity within the Empire.

And it was to a certain extent true, people were comfortable in their existence, thanks to the land league farmers owned their own land and local government was administered by the elected county council system.

Of course the Gaelic league was infiltrated by militants who wanted a complete break from Britain and the rest is history.

I wounder what the founders to the Gaelic League would think of Ireland 2012 with our British chain shops, our Man Utd fans, our British TV dramas.

As for the present why would any one not wish to remain independent, or as independent as possible anyway ?

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

I know, and the point of this thread is that I am curious about what informs the opinion of others on Irish Nationhood and Independance who do not share my idea of what is ''Irish'' and ''Non-Irish''.

I always think any definition of what is and isn't "Irish" is very dangerous. We have to get rid of our narrow notion of what is and isn't considered the norm. For example I was drinking in a pub in sandymount a few weeks ago and cricket was on the tv. Now while this may not be my favourite game in the world I did shock myself as my first thought was that these people were less Irish because they were interested in what is considered an English game. This sort of thinking has to go. Irish is a national identity it has nothing to do with sport, music, language, religion or even political opinion and shouldn't be viewed as such.

Shea O'Meara

In the broadest of terms, the question is a little silly.
Why should 'insert country' be independent? Well because it is its own unique entity. If it wishes to meld with another culture and blend in, giving up it's own identity, then there's no point in being independent I guess.

On a more defined note, the underlying subtext seems to be, 'Sure we're so like the British, sure why not stick with them or re-join in our entirety etc?'.
In my view one should note that nobody joined the British Empire. The Irish fought and by various means still do fight for independence as it was forcefully removed not given up.
So unless you're suffering from a massive form of Stockholm syndrome, Ireland being partially, but seeking to be fully independent makes sense and is our natural chosen state of being.

It's a loaded question really and makes no sense to me that it's even asked.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

As for the present why would any one not wish to remain independent, or as independent as possible anyway ?

I think it depends on the extent to which you see your aspirations as being shared by the people around you, in a way that better secures them. If you wanted to be a Catholic Irish-speaker, then prehaps there wasn't a comfortable place for you within the UK. But if we don't want to be Catholics, and we're not interested in Irish-speaking, the reason becomes a little harder to see.

For the sake of argument, just to pick a topic of the moment, if a woman sees access to abortion as part of the independence she wishes to secure, she can't do it here. She has to travel to the UK. What's her reason to see an independent Ireland as securing her aspirations?

Scofflaw

The only defining requirement for independence in any given territory is that a majority of people in that territory wish to be independent.

As long as that's what we want, it doesn't matter if we become the Greek-speaking baseball-playing igloo-dwelling abortion capital of the world.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ellis Dee

Ireland should be independent because a majority of the people of Ireland, as represented in Dáil Eireann, voted for independence when they declared the Irish Republic back in 1919 (I think). When and if a majority of the Irish people, as represented in Dáil Eireann, vote for our country to have any other status, then we'll see. Anyway, if we didn't want to be independent, what country would want to incorporate us? Sollten wir das 16. Bundesland werden, or the 52nd state of the USA? Would any country want us to be a part of it if we failed to agree unanimously that that was what we wanted?:) Is it not certain that the Brits would never want us? Been there, done that, never again!:rolleyes:

Another reason why Ireland should be independent is that it galls the gizzard out of Kevin Myers, who would prefer us to be British, although his own surname is actually Norwegian and translates as "Bogman".:D:D:D

Godge

An Coilean wrote: »

I know, and the point of this thread is that I am curious about what informs the opinion of others on Irish Nationhood and Independance who do not share my idea of what is ''Irish'' and ''Non-Irish''.

You have a very narrow and defensive view of Irishness and what it means to be Irish. Many of us have a much broader view.

Take one area of cultural expression - music. The traditional view of Irishness would be based around CCE, sean-nos singing, fiddle-playing, O'Carolan. These would fit your definition of Irishness.

To me, it is much broader than that. U2, Sinead O'Connor, The Corrs, The Rubber Bandits all express my Irishness. As would the likes of Planxty, Donal Lunny, Horslips, Thin Lizzy, the Boomtown Rats. They reflect a modern Irishness rather than one clinging on to the distant past.

Language, literature and sport have the same issues. I think your definitions of Irishness have a bigger problem. How do you incorporate a 26 year old Protestant rugby supporter who travels everywhere with the Irish team into your definition of Irishness? How do you incorporate a 15-year-old African-Irish musician who sings traditional Irish songs with "soul" into your definition of Irishness?

I could go on but the funny thing is, if you restrict your sense of who is Irish to those who speak the language and only listen to traditional music, then you are restricting Irishness to a very very small group, and you are the person therefore making an argument that we are like the British. there are too few of your type of Irishness to make up even 10% of the country.

I can see the Irishness in U2 and the Britishness in Oasis, your ilk disdain both and can't see the difference so lump them in together. In rejecting a broad concept of Irishness, you condemn the Irish to dying out.

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

You have a very narrow and defensive view of Irishness and what it means to be Irish. Many of us have a much broader view.

Take one area of cultural expression - music. The traditional view of Irishness would be based around CCE, sean-nos singing, fiddle-playing, O'Carolan. These would fit your definition of Irishness.

To me, it is much broader than that. U2, Sinead O'Connor, The Corrs, The Rubber Bandits all express my Irishness. As would the likes of Planxty, Donal Lunny, Horslips, Thin Lizzy, the Boomtown Rats. They reflect a modern Irishness rather than one clinging on to the distant past.

Language, literature and sport have the same issues. I think your definitions of Irishness have a bigger problem. How do you incorporate a 26 year old Protestant rugby supporter who travels everywhere with the Irish team into your definition of Irishness? How do you incorporate a 15-year-old African-Irish musician who sings traditional Irish songs with "soul" into your definition of Irishness?

I could go on but the funny thing is, if you restrict your sense of who is Irish to those who speak the language and only listen to traditional music, then you are restricting Irishness to a very very small group, and you are the person therefore making an argument that we are like the British. there are too few of your type of Irishness to make up even 10% of the country.

I can see the Irishness in U2 and the Britishness in Oasis, your ilk disdain both and can't see the difference so lump them in together. In rejecting a broad concept of Irishness, you condemn the Irish to dying out.

Who do you think you are to tell me what I believe? How dare you try to tell me what I reject and what I consider to be Irish or not, you are not qualified to tell me what view I have or what I hold to be true.

I have not sought to define what is and what is not Irish, by trying to speak my mind for me, you have only projected your own prejudice of what you expect people of my 'ilk' to believe on to me.

You have set up strawman after strawman in your above post, and I reject each one of them.
Nowhere, in this thread or elsewhere have I voiced the opinions you ascribe to me.

This thread is not about me trying to define what or who is Irish, it is based on my curiosity about the perception of those who reject certain aspects of Irishness on Irish Independance.


Do not try to misrepresent my opinions again!

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

This thread is not about me trying to define what or who is Irish, it is based on my curiosity about the perception of those who reject certain aspects of Irishness on Irish Independance.

The crux of the matter is you don't need a language to be independent. The oft repeated phrase "Ni tir gan teanga" is obviously wrong when you look at the US or Australia but because Patrick Pearse said it gealgoirs think it must be right. Maybe Irish independence is a good thing, maybe not. It's impossible to know because we have no way of knowing what we would be like within the union today. But that's another matter. When we declared our independence we rolled the dice and now we have to live with the results come what may.

Out of interest is that Misneach group still active? I assume that's were you got that video from but their facebook page isn't updated as much as it used to be.

RMD

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think it's only facile in the extreme if you can identify some other positive reason for independence. Maybe Austrians and Brazilians have such a reason; that's for them to figure out.

What's the reason that Ireland (whatever you apply that word to) needs to stay independent?

A country who has the language of another as it's spoken language doesn't show a lack of independence or individual culture, it just shows a nation much stronger at one stage was the dominant power.

Ireland is independent of Britain because we are different nation with a different culture. We don't need to speak a different language to prove that.

Godge

An Coilean wrote: »

Who do you think you are to tell me what I believe? How dare you try to tell me what I reject and what I consider to be Irish or not, you are not qualified to tell me what view I have or what I hold to be true.

I have not sought to define what is and what is not Irish, by trying to speak my mind for me, you have only projected your own prejudice of what you expect people of my 'ilk' to believe on to me.

You have set up strawman after strawman in your above post, and I reject each one of them.
Nowhere, in this thread or elsewhere have I voiced the opinions you ascribe to me.

This thread is not about me trying to define what or who is Irish, it is based on my curiosity about the perception of those who reject certain aspects of Irishness on Irish Independance.


Do not try to misrepresent my opinions again!

But you have tried to define what or who is Irish in a particularly insidious way. See your OP where you post a video in support of your point of view.

Either accept or reject that video. If you reject it, I will apologise, until then, I consider my post as fair comment.

An Coilean wrote: »

This is an issue I have been wondering about for the past few days.


There are those in Ireland who reject any/almost any form of what is considered to be traditional Irish nationalism.

I have seen plenty of threads and posts from various posters where aspects of what is considered to be Irish identity: Irish Language, games, dancing etc have been ridiculed and marginalised, and our similarity to the UK is stressed. I am not looking to argue about this or debate the merits of what is considered to be 'Irish'. We all have our own opinion and arguing about it is unlikely to be fruitfull.
What I am interested in is the perception of those who hold these views on Ireland being an Independant country. (Undoubtadly someone will come out with the line that Ireland is'nt independant due to the economic crisis, so let the question be on the concept of independance as much as the reality.)


One of the things that sparked my cuirosity on the issue was this video where Máirtín Ó Cadhain, the author of Cré na Cille, and one of the leaders of the Gaeltacht Civil Rights movement of the 60's, someone who could be said to have been a leader of Cultural Nationalism in Ireland at the time, expresses the opinion that without these traits of national identity, most specifically the Irish Language, independance does not make sense and that we would be better off being part of a larger nation and living off their economy.


Now, I am fully aware that some of those described above do believe that Ireland should not be independant, but I am not sure if their views should be seen as representative of all who hold those views, My question is; do those who reject cultural nationalism and what might be considered the traditional basis for Irish independance believe that Ireland should be Independant, and if so, Why?

I think those that cling to a clinically dead language and maintain the life support machine for it are misguided. I think those that maintain the Irish dancing traditions who were abhorred by Riverdance are misguided. I think those that see anything other than sean-nos singing as Irish are misguided. You can try and tell me that those aren't your views. But they are the views of those you describe as cultural nationalists, of those who support the traditional basis for Irish independence.

I reject them. I reject their cultural insularity, their focus on the past, their clinging to outdated traditions and their narrow selfish view of Irishness.

I embrace a modern Irish identity, the Irishness of Jack Charlton and Paul McGrath, the Irishness of Roddy Doyle and Alan Parker, the Irishness of the Corrs, U2, Thin Lizzy, The Saw Doctors and the Rubber Bandits, the Irishness of Dublin slang and wit, the Irishness of Andrew Trimble. There are many, many more examples. They are the modern evolution of the cultural nationalism of yesteryear but they are modern, Irish and ours. They make me proud to be Irish. Being proud to be Irish makes me proud that we have this independent country of ours. And for clarity, I am not bothered whether or not the six counties/Ulster/whatever (delete as appropriate) join us. We have our modern independent Ireland and we are proud of it.

Yes, the language was important 100 years ago, yes sean-nos was inmportant 200 years ago, but that was then, this is now. Those that cling to the old cultural nationalism are to be pitied. They are lost in the past, clinging to outdated notions of hatred of the British, to outdated Catholic practices, to outdated musical traditions, to outdated language. If only they could step out of the past and into today, this country could rise above all of that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Scofflaw wrote: »

The only defining requirement for independence in any given territory is that a majority of people in that territory wish to be independent.

As long as that's what we want, it doesn't matter if we become the Greek-speaking baseball-playing igloo-dwelling abortion capital of the world

Oh, I do agree that this is the practical reality. Plus, and move to rejoin the UK (which, I suppose, is the obvious alternative) would need the UK to actually want to reciprocate, as a few have mentioned.

Yet, I wonder if a group of people found themselves in a State without any great sense of common purpose, would you find the institutions of that State floundering because of a lack of any political direction beyond the satisfaction of parochial concerns championed by local patrons? Would you find those institutions gradually lose their capacity to function, because there was nothing in the society or culture of sufficient strength to prevent such decline? Would you find that, despite losing capacity, the State's employees apparently earning more than their equivalents in other States. Could you find that such a State would walk blindly into an economic crisis, without any of its institutions even noticing that trouble was ahead? Could you find that such a State would have strange and incoherent provisions in its Constitution dealing with essentially symbolic issues, like the rights of the unborn, side-by-side with extravagant public reactions whenever the practical effects of the same provisions come to light?

All totally hypothetical questions, you'll understand.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

RMD wrote: »

Ireland is independent of Britain because we are different nation with a different culture. We don't need to speak a different language to prove that.

But what is this difference in nationhood and culture? Sure, there's dedicated phonelines for X Factor, lest we be excluded from the highpoint of the cultural week because of an accident of history. Go to any town, anywhere in Ireland, and you'll see plenty of guys wearing UK soccer jerseys. You'll even notice young women wearing clothes incorporating a Union Jack as a fashion emblem; it just doesn't have the same significance to them that it might have had to an earlier generation.

And how is culture so defining now, anyway? With the Interwebulator, we all turn up at a global cultural banquet and take what we want out of it. I've a fondness for Gillian Welch's bluegrass music; but she's from California, so it's a stranger's music for both of us. Have a look at Gangham Style and you'll see a few Michael Flatley moves thrown in.

Simply asserting nationhood and cultural difference isn't enough. When it was about language and religion, there was some point to it. The religion thing particularly, when being Catholic was a disadvantage within the British State. But what's the obstacle now?

Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, I do agree that this is the practical reality. Plus, and move to rejoin the UK (which, I suppose, is the obvious alternative) would need the UK to actually want to reciprocate, as a few have mentioned.

Yet, I wonder if a group of people found themselves in a State without any great sense of common purpose, would you find the institutions of that State floundering because of a lack of any political direction beyond the satisfaction of parochial concerns championed by local patrons? Would you find those institutions gradually lose their capacity to function, because there was nothing in the society or culture of sufficient strength to prevent such decline? Would you find that, despite losing capacity, the State's employees apparently earning more than their equivalents in other States. Could you find that such a State would walk blindly into an economic crisis, without any of its institutions even noticing that trouble was ahead? Could you find that such a State would have strange and incoherent provisions in its Constitution dealing with essentially symbolic issues, like the rights of the unborn, side-by-side with extravagant public reactions whenever the practical effects of the same provisions come to light?

All totally hypothetical questions, you'll understand.

A shared culture is no guarantee of political direction...and, sadly, it would be possible to argue that quite a few of the things on your list are the result of 'traditional' Irish culture.

cordially,
Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Scofflaw wrote: »

A shared culture is no guarantee of political direction...and, sadly, it would be possible to argue that quite a few of the things on your list are the result of 'traditional' Irish culture.

Oh, I don't disagree. I see the issue as being the lack of shared purpose, rather than lack of shared culture. Culture could theoretically provide a common purpose. But it didn't, innit?

Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, I don't disagree. I see the issue as being the lack of shared purpose, rather than lack of shared culture. Culture could theoretically provide a common purpose. But it didn't, innit?

I'd say you need a culture of having a shared purpose...which I don't think we do, although obviously not everyone will agree. Or perhaps they will, which would be worse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

I'd like to remind folks that we can have - and expect - rational debate here that focuses on the content of posts and not the individuals writing them. Some of these comments are getting too personal - please dial it back a bit.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd say you need a culture of having a shared purpose...which I don't think we do, although obviously not everyone will agree. Or perhaps they will, which would be worse.

Like they say in the Life of Brian, Yes, we are all individuals!

In a way, I think the issue is that the shared purpose has never been shared by all the people encompassed by the political boundary, with the possible exception of the Catholic agenda being shared by a very large majority. But if everyone wanted to revive Irish, we'd be using it now. At the same time, there certainly is a section of society that has a shared purpose of preserving whatever status Irish has (and that's just to pick Irish as one example - I'm not especially having a go at Irish language enthusiasts)

I'd suggest it as lots of different purposes, shared by different groups, but no over-arching purpose. It's like we're all clients seeking favours, but there's no patron. Possibly this is why the whole EU thing was swallowed so easily. It's a bunch of people to seek favours from, no need to ask too deeply about why they're willing to entertain you as a supplicant.

somairle

I think the OP asks a good question, if we are not culturally different to the UK what are the reasons for independence? For Ireland it is about self determination, setting its own laws and living by our own morals, Ireland suffered for a lot of its time in the UK and people making decisions from London, such as shipping food out during the famine, led to Irish people wanting to dictate their own destiny.

We're they right? I am not sure, we let the Catholic Church impose their morals on us all which I think most agree has had negative side affects as had the UK. Our laws are extremely similar to the UK, only less justice (savita) so I'm not convinced independence has worked out for decidin our own fate. We joined the EU with the UK, good decision, we joined the Euro without the UK, bad decision.

Then I look at Wales, in the UK and prospering economically while maintaining its language to a much higher degree than the Ireland. Scotland suffered the Highland clearances similar to Ireland's but stayed in the UK, they have suffered at times but today in 2012 they have a devolved parliament progressing their national needs while having the benefits of being in the UK. Independence for Ireland created partition, the troubles, oppression. If we had if stayed in the UK today we'd have a similar united Ireland parliament within the UK deciding our national laws like Scotland but without the property crash & unemployment.

Ireland was never really a united country anyway before England made it a Kingdom, prior to the 1600s it was a loose federation of Gaelic kingdoms, the concept of Ireland politcally only came about with the Brits.

Ultimately without a distinct culture from the UK, although we do have differences like Scotland does from England , I think we can of course be an independent nation, I just don't think we have done the great things we could have done with independence and we've ballsed it up. For me whether Ireland should be independent or not is a question of what is best for the future of the people, what benefits us rather national pride. The people if Quebec are proud to be from Quebec, the people of Catalan are proud to be from Catalan. You can still be proud of your distinct culture and traditions but take the benefits of being in a larger economic and legal union. Economically and legally having a partitioned Ireland has been terrible, 2 currencies, 2 jurisdictions, 2 police forces, 2 hospital systems the list goes on and on. Our corporation tax rate has been a good thing in attracting investment though.

And besides that we are hardly independent anymore anyway, we are part of the Eurozone, and I ask myself the question would I rather be in the Eurozone right now or the UK? The Brits were bad for us in 1912, but would they be bad for us in 2012?

ps I am aware some of the regions mentioned are currently debating full independence from larger unions. good for them if they decide too, I am sure they can do great things.

RandomName2

An Coilean wrote: »

Now, I am fully aware that some of those described above do believe that Ireland should not be independant, but I am not sure if their views should be seen as representative of all who hold those views, My question is; do those who reject cultural nationalism and what might be considered the traditional basis for Irish independance believe that Ireland should be Independant, and if so, Why?

Any sizeable group of people who see themselves as separate should be independent.

Ireland has been greatly influenced by Britain, in much the same way that Britain has been greatly influenced by the continent (Denmark, Normandy, etc.) Unfortunately the closer you are to your neighbours the trickier the question: why are our countries independent of one another; what makes us separate?

IReland is able to point to aspects such Catholicism, its farming, cultural aspects, and event the humble potato to differentiate itself from England. We all know that most of that is rubbish - many aspects which we use to identify ourself are imported by the Englsih; yes, Catholicism and the potato are no exceptions here. The Irish language and Irish games were 'rediscovered', redeveloped and promoted in a bid to foster clear divisions between Ireland and Britain; to develop a national identity and justify bids for independence.

But interestingly most of this was exclusive to the early twentieth century and its obsession with nationalism and empire - prior to this Irish rebellions and risings were underpinned by a notion of joining with the Catholic European powers - exchanging rule from London to rule by Madrid for instance.

Unfortunately the Troubles have kept up the notion of the promotion of nationalism for the sake of nationalism, long past the point where other European nationas have frankly grown up.

Ireland should be free, but not because of some crap like the DeValera fantasy of making Ireland a weird and isolated backwater, but because the Irish want to be free. Equally if people wish to speak Irish, or engage with old Irish cultural aspects, or become die-hard Catholics, they should be free to do so; but they should not be forced to, nor receive governmental sponsorship for doing so simply because these aspects have become cultural-nationalist sacred cows.

Eggy Baby!

I dislike the Irish language. I had to study it and hated the system for forcing me to do so.

I don't play Gaelic sports and I don't watch Gaelic sports.

I find Irish history boring.

Do these preferences make me less Irish? I don't think so.
Sometimes we have to leave the past behind, and look to the future...

poeticseraphim

An Coilean wrote: »

This is an issue I have been wondering about for the past few days.


There are those in Ireland who reject any/almost any form of what is considered to be traditional Irish nationalism.

I have seen plenty of threads and posts from various posters where aspects of what is considered to be Irish identity: Irish Language, games, dancing etc have been ridiculed and marginalised, and our similarity to the UK is stressed. I am not looking to argue about this or debate the merits of what is considered to be 'Irish'. We all have our own opinion and arguing about it is unlikely to be fruitfull.
What I am interested in is the perception of those who hold these views on Ireland being an Independant country. (Undoubtadly someone will come out with the line that Ireland is'nt independant due to the economic crisis, so let the question be on the concept of independance as much as the reality.)


One of the things that sparked my cuirosity on the issue was this video where Máirtín Ó Cadhain, the author of Cré na Cille, and one of the leaders of the Gaeltacht Civil Rights movement of the 60's, someone who could be said to have been a leader of Cultural Nationalism in Ireland at the time, expresses the opinion that without these traits of national identity, most specifically the Irish Language, independance does not make sense and that we would be better off being part of a larger nation and living off their economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q91o5WC5plM

Now, I am fully aware that some of those described above do believe that Ireland should not be independant, but I am not sure if their views should be seen as representative of all who hold those views, My question is; do those who reject cultural nationalism and what might be considered the traditional basis for Irish independance believe that Ireland should be Independant, and if so, Why?




--To the Mod: Please move to a different Forum if not suitable for Politics.--

I think Ireland should be democratic socially liberal and economically sound. Equality , human rights women's rights they is what is most important to me.


I think those who speak Irish should be allowed to express their identity proudly. As should everyone else.


Some might argue DeValera was socially and politically worse for Ireland in some ways. And Ireland became more repressive when independent.

The state in an effort to secure political independence forgot about FREEDOM.

I think if we lost independence to Britain or the EU through democracy....well we lose independence ...but not freedom ..and in some ways we have gained MORE freedoms through the EU through losing independence.


Catholicism is not really 'Irish' is it?? And if it is I WANT NO PART OF THAT IDENTITY ..thanks:P


If the OP thinks we gained independence in order to speak Irish etc and was the vital issue..er no

In fact it is offensive to think of all that bloodshed for that reason

I do not agree with political violence and Ireland has some great PEACEFUL heroes.

What angers some people is the fact that 'Nationalists' talk about independence and never FREEDOM...religious freedom ..cultural freedom....social and political freedom.

Irish people should want freedom for the Irish people.....which is different from wanting independence for them.
I think many THOUGHT that was what they were fighting for..until Dev started his right wing social engineering programe that we are suffering to some degree still to this day.

Daniel O'Connell wanted freedom for us...DeV wanted something else
I think many THOUGHT that was what they were fighting for..until Dev started his right wing social engineering programe that we are suffering to some degree still to this day.

Living someone's cultural programe is NOT my idea of freedom. I identify with people who share the same values as me. They are usually not nationalists. And Irish people are increasingly not finding their modern values represented by these people. Ireland is divided on the one hand by traditionally right wing nationalists with certain social views as well as cultural. Whereas Dublin culture is traditionally more liberal....and those who want us to look at traditional 'Irish' culture refuse to acknowledge that socially Ireland has moved on...and now other issues divide us and motivate us.

Culture as a uniting force is dated as other issues that are more pressing take precedent.

That man ..on the clip..I know little about him from that clip to know if i would feel a part of this group.

Is he a socialist? Is he a social democrat a conservative ? Is he an environmentalist? Is he pro-choice , pro-life?

I don't want a cultural identity for myself that is not based on some of those values.


So i would rather carve one out.

Anyway...Irish people LIKE foreign culture and have found Irish culture to be repressive at times and boring. Immigration into the country is a breath of air.

What difference does the language make if you don't relate to the people or like what is being said???

Anyway many in Ireland (particularly Dublin) are of British descent or are protestant and we are all probably a mix....so where does that leave us??? Would it not be better to envision and Ireland for all???

And the Jewish community and others .


George Bernard Shaw was proudly Irish. But he saw the main problem with nationalists is that they were concerned with something other than the rights,living standards and freedoms of the people.

Most Irish people are internationalists rather than nationalists.

I appreciate Irish culture all of it..but i don't want a made up version of history where we did not mix it with Anglo culture or have this engineered program espoused...it does not sit well with me.

I don't know why people are still interested in it.

What culture are we talking about??

I kind of like defining myself.


I don't have anything against people speaking Irish....I really don't some really close friends of mine do they are modern liberal and 'my' kind of people....but then they are the ones who don't mind if i speak English though usually.

poeticseraphim

Also the whole argument for Irish as a language seems to be reduced then to Irish nationalism....or we should speak it so we don't become British.

Which is why people found it offensive in the first place.

For a while Irish managed to separate itself from nationalism and in particular that 'Not British' nationalism that I and many others were very uncomfortable with.

I don't reject my culture...'Irish cultural nationalism' is fake

Nationalism, Republicanism and patriotism are different. Many believe/believed in the virtues of a Republic . Of all of us on this island deciding through referendum how are constitution should be as a sovereign nation with the people as it's sovereign.

However well or badly it was achieved or not achieved i think that was the dream for many.

Sierra Oscar

Manach wrote: »

What independence? Given that Ireland has signed off so much of its sovereignity to allign with various international treaties, such the ECHR and UNCHR and that the EU directives/legislation make up so much of the legal statues.

Do you not think that having the choice to join up to such directives and international treaties, alongside having the choice to breakaway if we so chose, is sovereignty in itself?

SeanW

An Coilean wrote: »

It seems you have misread my post entirley.

I am not making a case for emphsis on the Irish Language or anything else, just pointing out that leaders of Cultural Nationalsim believed that these things were the basis of why Ireland should be Independant and without them, there was no reason for Ireland to be Independant, that was their perception. I am not trying to argue that they were right, I am just curious to know if people such as yourself who reject and deride those aspects of Irishness believe Ireland should be Independant? If you don't that's fine, if you do, why?

Nonetheless it appears to me that you have a particular hangup about the Irish language. Quoting someone from the "Gaeltacht Civil Rights Movement" is a joke, considering that you couldn't pass your Leaving Cert without passing an Irish exam (today you can pass with either English or Irish) and fluency in Irish was once a requirement for the civil service. The idea that Geilgoirs ever needed a "Civil Rights movement" is so bizarre that it would be a joke if it was not so obscene.

As I said, one does not need a unique language to have a basis for independence. The Swiss speak mostly French and German, but there isn't much question of them breaking up and joining France/Germany. Neither the U.S. (English speaking), Canada (English/French), Taiwan (Chinese), and all of Latin America (Spanish and Portugese). Much of Africa also speaks the language of the colonial powers.

The only country I can think of that has no basis for independence given language issues (among others) is Belgium, which is evenly split between French (language and culture) and Dutch (language and culture) and as such is (as Nigel Farage would say), "pretty much a non-country".

alongside having the choice to breakaway if we so chose, is sovereignty in itself?

Many of our laws are made in Brussels. Soverignty my hole.

tiny timy

Because men lost their lives seeing that we would get independance! R.I.P

RandomName2

tiny timy wrote: »

Because men lost their lives seeing that we would get independance! R.I.P

I write it down in a verse: Butt and Parnell, Davitt and Redmond. Now and in time to be, whenever green is worn.. wait... em... that's not, it is it?

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Do you not think that having the choice to join up to such directives and international treaties, alongside having the choice to breakaway if we so chose, is sovereignty in itself?

You have to first have sovereignty in order to give it up; that doesn't diminish the fact that we have less independence than that provided by Home Rule.

Nationalism in Europe these days seems to take the form of either reactionary culture by peoples making wild stabs to fashion some form of collective identity, or 'put out more flags' on the part of civic bodies; apparently neither of which can be discussed anywhere really with anything even approaching rationalism. :pac:

Seanchai

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Are the Brazillians less than independent because they speak Portugese?
Are The Austrians less than independent because they speak German?

Because these two peoples have their own ancient distinctive languages of Brazilian and Austrian to fall back on, of course?

SeanW wrote: »

So let me give you one challenge. Go to Texas, find someone with a stars-and-stripes sticker plastered over his pickup truck, who had just bought a new Country and Western CD in Walmart, and tell him that he'd be as well off being British because he speaks English.

Because, when the WASP in question speaks English, of course he has just rejected his own ancient Texan language which his people have spoken for well over a millennium?

Must do better on the analogy front.

Seanchai

RandomName2 wrote: »

Davitt and Redmond. Now and in time to be, whenever green is worn.. wait... em... that's not, it is it?

Definitely not Redmond. He was only good at living it up in London, the centre of the Empire which kept him fattened, giving lipservice to the idea of Irish independence and coming back to Ireland to encourage tens of thousands of Irishmen to fight and die for the latest cause of the British Empire. It's a sign of the intelligence and ethical incoherency of his admirers that they can praise Redmond for his warmongering on an extraordinary scale, but condemn Pearse for his advocacy of a "blood sacrifice" on a much smaller scale.

And Davitt, who (perceptively) believed that private ownership of Irish land would be the fatal cause of making the Irish peasantry conservative, should never be mentioned in the same breath as the average self-serving, overpaid, overfed nouveau riche member of the average Home Rule political dynasty, mé féiners if ever there were ones.

Michael Davitt had more patriotism to the idea of a just and humane society in Ireland in his bones than the lot of them could even give expression to in the week before an election. If he were alive today he would be hate figure number 1 for all the rightwing libertarians, just as he was to the William Martin Murphys of his day.

SeanW

Seanchai wrote: »

Because these two peoples have their own ancient distinctive languages of Brazilian and Austrian to fall back on, of course?

There are no such languages. What the hell are you trying to say here?

Seanchai wrote:

Because, when the WASP in question speaks English, of course he has just rejected his own ancient Texan language which his people have spoken for well over a millennium?

Must do better on the analogy front.

The point was that the OP basically questioned why Ireland should be independent if we don't all speak Irish, go to Mass, listen to Trad music and play/follow GAA games. With a particular hangup about the Irish language, posting an interview from a laughable so-called "Gaeltacht Civil Rights leader" an idea so bizarre as to be beyond comprehension.

My point was that a country doesn't need a language to have reason for independence, to justify one's national identity. Culture, and simple identity is sufficient.

Consider: the average Irish person is likely to follow GAA as well as other games like soccer, is likely to have a few rebel songs in their music collection, or at least hear them in the bar, have an Irish (of some region) accent, and is likely to have no particular fondness for the idea of rule from London. None. Though on average most will have spent 14 years learning Irish and not have more than a cupla focal at most.

the average American is likely to follow American football or baseball, is likely to own large amounts of music made in the United States, in Southern states that likely includes Country and Western. Or, an African American is likely to have a lot of rap/hip-hop music, also made in the U.S. on either the Eastern or Western coasts.
But yet if you asked a Texan if he'd be better off being in a union with Britain, his likely response (if it did not contain 4 letter expletives) would be "id'nt that where they have the Queen and they charge 8 bucks a gallon for gas?" (gasoline).

Noone in the above scenarios speaks a national language.

Noone in Austria speaks an Austrian language. It doesn't stop them from being Austrian. Very few people in Switzerland speak a native Swiss language. Doesn't make them any less Swiss. Very few people in Latin America speak native languages. That doesn't mean they're all just wannabe Spaniards and Portugese.

It is you, my friend, who "must do better."

Seanchai

SeanW wrote: »

There are no such languages. What the hell are you trying to say here?

Very good. So why bother comparing the situation in Ireland, where there is a native language which the vast majority of the population can claim as their linguistic heritage, with the situation in places like Brazil, Texas and Austria where no such indigenous language for the people concerned exists? That's where the silly analogy is.

Now, can you start naming the independent sovereign states where people have their own ancestral language but speak that of their coloniser?

SeanW wrote: »

The point was that...

Actually, the point which I was addressing was specifically and solely the false analogy two people made between the linguistic situation in Ireland and the linguistic situation in the above three areas. That is all.

SeanW wrote: »

posting an interview from a laughable so-called "Gaeltacht Civil Rights leader" an idea so bizarre as to be beyond comprehension.

Incredible. Let's omit to mention that the person in question is Máirtín Ó Cadhain, professor of Irish in TCD, widely regarded as the greatest writer in Irish of the modern era, and universally regarded as being without doubt the most linguistically complex and linguistically challenging writer in Irish.

SeanW

Now, can you start naming the independent sovereign states where people have their own ancestral language but speak that of their coloniser?

Latin Americans are a mix of white Spanish/Portugese descendents AND native Americans, whom I believe to be far more numerous. Yet most of them speak either Spanish or Portugese. Many African countries speak the colonial languages, English, French and Afrikaans (a variant of Dutch). There is also a native language in Switzerland, Rhaetian I believe, that is only spoken by a very small minority.

Now you can explain to me why the Americans would not be better off being British (hint: those that were British explicitly repudiated their heritage in 1776), which was the central contention of the OP that if we don't all start speaking Irish or something we'd be just as well off to rejoin the United Kingdom.

I want to know why the same does not apply to all the other countries that don't speak a national language.

SeanW

Seanchai wrote: »

Incredible. Let's omit to mention that the person in question is Máirtín Ó Cadhain, professor of Irish in TCD, widely regarded as the greatest writer in Irish of the modern era, and universally regarded as being without doubt the most linguistically complex and linguistically challenging writer in Irish.

My insult was not directed at the individual, personally. Frankly I don't give a f*** who he is. Rather my derision is aimed at the idea that Gaeilgoirs have ever needed a civil rights movement, a bizarre idea that would be hilarious if it were not so perverse.

RandomName2

Seanchai wrote: »

Now, can you start naming the independent sovereign states where people have their own ancestral language but speak that of their coloniser?

Oh no, not this.

England speaks the language of the coloniser. Silly English. They should speak Breton or 'Old English' - not the bastard conglomeration brought in by the Norman conquerors. As for the Scotland, they shouldn't speak English, nay they shouldn't speak Scottish either, but Pictish.

But surely the fact that virtually noone in England speaks Old English would mean that that is hardly a basis of their nationality?

Hmm...

Perhaps it doesn't matter if a Welshman comes along and introduces a foreign religion (St. Patrick), or if an English noble introduces a foreign vegetable (Walter Raleigh and the potato), or if the invader redesigns and redevelops native towns (most of the most important sectors of all current Irish cities) and even renames locations (pretty much everywhere) - it still forms part of your identity.

Want to go shopping in Dun Leary?
I know no such place - I know only Dún Laoighre! Don't you dare use the vocabulary of the coloniser!

... what SeanW was trying to say was that there doesn't need to be a separate language to justify separation. And it's not like we have 80% of the population here speaking Irish... or 60%.. or 40% ... or 20% ... or even 10% so I would really say that SeanW's point stands. But nevertheless the Irish language is part of our history and culture - even if its current state is not terribly natural - buoyed up as it is by state subsidisation and constitutional protection, and endlessly providing jobs involved with its promulgation.

Religion is a nice case in point - Protestantism is a major aspect of our culture; even if the Protestant population in Ireland has been consistently in the low single figures. But people have said that it isn't part of our culture, and, moreover, we have had those who have consistently said that Catholicism is a major aspect which defines the Irish. Whilst Catholicism has profund significance in terms of our culture, saying that it defines our nation, and thus that should be the final word on things such as contraception, divorce, or abortion (as the above would make us more like ENGLAND and thus undermine our nationhood) is ridiculous. (There are other more nuanced arguments in relation to the above, but we all know that any sort of coherent rationalisation took a long time to surface in the history of this state due to the entrenched viewpoint of Irish=Tridentine Catholicism).

Which seems a bit of a long-winded way to say: stop going for the knee-jerk Irish cultural nationalist viewpoint and instead accept the general accepted notion that you don't have to prove that you are someway different in order to justify your sovereignty. We even have folk up in Northern Ireland peddling stuff about Scots-Gaelic in order to justify their independence from Ireland. And we have our street signs bilingual. It's embarrassing stuff. At least we don't feel the need to paint all of our public transport green anymore.

laoch na mona

culture is a large part of national identity and language is a key part of culture but basically we have a right to self determination which means we have a right to independence since the majority want it
a lot of people don't seem to understand that you can support traditional and modern culture you can like sean nos speak irish and listen to the rubber bandits or metallica or any other type of music
traditional and modern can work together take folk metal for example
also the catholic church didn't develop a dominant role in Ireland until after the famine

LincolnsBeard

Seanchai wrote: »

Because, when the WASP in question speaks English

Nobody said he was a WASP.

Wibbs

Seanchai wrote: »

Because, when the WASP in question speaks English, of course he has just rejected his own ancient Texan language which his people have spoken for well over a millennium?

As LincolnsBeard points out why is he automatically a WASP? Statistically, he's far more likely to be of German, Scandinavian, African or indeed Irish ancestry than English. Few of them would use their "native" languages, most of all the Irish(though German was once the second language of the US).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

laoch na mona wrote: »

also the catholic church didn't develop a dominant role in Ireland until after the famine

Grand, but did nationalism exist to any substantial degree before the Famine? Surely nationalism, generally, is a relatively recent invention.