Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

bobbysands81

We seem to have this amazing concept in Ireland where we completely absolve the Brits for their part in our troubled history, after all if they hadn't invaded and oppressed the Irish people in the most violent of ways then there would have been no resistance and fight back from Republicans.

We were never the aggressors, our violence was always reactionary, we never asked for it to happen but to many within this State we're the sole ones responsible for the horrors that have taken place.

It's like a post colonial post traumatic stress disorder.

oscarBravo

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The 'warmongers' were the people that invaded this country and oppressed, starved and murdered it's inhabitants, not the people who had the awful cheek to dare fight back against them.

Once again you're blaming the symptom and not the disease.

On the contrary, I'm blaming those who attempted to treat the "disease" by inflicting two bloody wars and a legacy of violent nationalism on the country.

bobbysands81

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll sit back now and wait to be told how naive and ignorant I am, because everyone knows for an incontrovertible fact that it was a physical impossibility for Ireland to achieve independence without bloodshed.

The only fact that we know, and you've even admitted it in your post, was that by the time that Republicans reacted with violence to violence democratic ways hadn't worked.

bobbysands81

oscarBravo wrote: »

On the contrary, I'm blaming those who attempted to treat the "disease" by inflicting two bloody wars and a legacy of violent nationalism on the country.

Going by your logic then it's our fault that Britain invaded us!

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

On the contrary, I'm blaming those who attempted to treat the "disease" by inflicting two bloody wars and a legacy of violent nationalism on the country.

...yet I feel its not the British state you're talking about.

dulpit

Out of curiosity, why do Republicans view Bobby Sands in particular as a hero? I won't claim to know a whole lot about him (I was -4 when he died), but as far as I can tell he was imprisoned, went on hunger strike, got elected as MP and died. He didn't (did he?) take part in any huge IRA actions, and it was only after more died that the British gave political prisoner status to the IRA men.

So why the big fuss about Sands specifically? I couldn't name 1 other hunger striker, but have always been aware of the name Bobby Sands...

Nodin

dulpit wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why do Republicans view Bobby Sands in particular as a hero? I won't claim to know a whole lot about him (I was -4 when he died), but as far as I can tell he was imprisoned, went on hunger strike, got elected as MP and died. He didn't (did he?) take part in any huge IRA actions, and it was only after more died that the British gave political prisoner status to the IRA men.

So why the big fuss about Sands specifically? I couldn't name 1 other hunger striker, but have always been aware of the name Bobby Sands...

All the Hunger strikers were viewed as heroes, but Sands became the figurehead of the strike.

oscarBravo

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The only fact that we know, and you've even admitted it in your post, was that by the time that Republicans reacted with violence to violence democratic ways hadn't worked.

That's precisely the justification that dissident republicans today will use for their actions: democracy hasn't worked, in that Ireland is still partitioned. Therefore they are justified in taking up arms.

Nodin wrote: »

...yet I feel its not the British state you're talking about.

Correct.

dulpit

Nodin wrote: »

All the Hunger strikers were viewed as heroes, but Sands became the figurehead of the strike.

Were they heroes for Nationlists as a whole or just those that supported the armed conflict of the IRA? (again, I am genuinely curious, and am not looking to troll/etc).

From my (extremely distant) point of view, I can't see how I could support Sands and the hunger strikers unless I was already supporting the armed conflict.

RandomName2

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The only fact that we know, and you've even admitted it in your post, was that by the time that Republicans reacted with violence to violence democratic ways hadn't worked.

Democratic ways had worked! We had got exactly what we had been campaigning for for decades - the only sticking point was Unionist intransigence and Westminster was predominantly on the side of Irish Nationalists in that regard... until revolutionaries threw the democratic process out the window.



Some, like Pearse, thought that death and suffering was a morally superior option to political resolution. Some felt that a better deal could be achieved through a quick revolution. Others, like Connolly were desperately concerned that the civil liberties and rights of workers were being abandoned, and that the workers should wrest control of the revolutionary process by force. Some wanted merely to damage Britain's war effort; a sort-of revenge for something or other.

It was a mess of ambitions and psychologies of its leaders; and no wonder that the organisation of the rising itself was an unholy mess with orders and counterorders and confusion confounding its already unlikely chances.

To a large extent many people (ridiculous as it sounds) felt that war was... in vogue. There was a militaristic atmosphere both at home and abroad. Countess Markievicz found nothing insane about digging trenches in the middle of St. Stephen's Green to be manned by men with rifles because something similar was happening in France.

It was a sad conclusion to the peaceful generation of an Irish national politic and cultural national movement. The former was destroyed and the latter subsumed by ultra-right wing nationalists who helped found a country dominated by the Catholic Church, that was xenophobic and isolationist, where the only language considered of value was Irish, and aspects of British culture viewed with fear and hatred. It was a long time before football and rugby were considered anything other than the cultural imposition of a colonialist invader.

After Irishman killed Irishman, when fatigue of civil strife and rural outrages made them abandon such endeavours, the same dry politics that had once been scored, achieved everything that had been demanded. Everything bar the North, which was largely denied because, while Nationalists abandoned the political sphere that was about to serve them, Unionists had adopted the political sphere that was about to abandon them. The only people who accepted Home Rule when it was offered to Ireland were those who had fought so ardently against it.

R P McMurphy

dulpit wrote: »

Were they heroes for Nationlists as a whole or just those that supported the armed conflict of the IRA? (again, I am genuinely curious, and am not looking to troll/etc).

From my (extremely distant) point of view, I can't see how I could support Sands and the hunger strikers unless I was already supporting the armed conflict.

If you want to know a little about the prison protests I would suggest looking into the H-Block/Armagh Committee that was active at the time on prisoners rights. As an organisation they were prominent in addressing the question of prisoners in the North and attracted support from a wide variety of people and a large swathe of the nationalist population as the conditions in the prisons were horrific.

Prisoners that stood for election did not do so under the SF banner but under Anti-HBlock

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

An alternative perspective is that democracy was still in the process of working towards a peaceful outcome

Ah, but you appear to be selective in who to blame when democracy wasn't apparently allowed to take its course. In 1885, Parnell's home rule party took a majority of the Irish seats including 17 of 33 seats in Ulster. Britain could have granted independence then, couldn't it? Also, what about the November 1918 election result? Another chance lost.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ah, but you appear to be selective in who to blame when democracy wasn't apparently allowed to take its course. In 1885, Parnell's home rule party took a majority of the Irish seats including 17 of 33 seats in Ulster. Britain could have granted independence then, couldn't it? Also, what about the November 1918 election result? Another chance lost.

So your argument is that, because democratic means hadn't achieved the desired outcome within an arbitrary timescale, it became acceptable to start a war to achieve that outcome?

Once again, that's the dissident justification.

Or is it your assertion that, because peaceful means hadn't been successful up to that point, it is therefore incontrovertible fact that peaceful means could not possibly have succeeded thereafter?

Because that's just begging the question.

Nodin

dulpit wrote: »

Were they heroes for Nationlists as a whole or just those that supported the armed conflict of the IRA? (again, I am genuinely curious, and am not looking to troll/etc).

From my (extremely distant) point of view, I can't see how I could support Sands and the hunger strikers unless I was already supporting the armed conflict.

Nationalists generally, as I recall. There were black flags all over dublin, southside and northside.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your argument is that, because democratic means hadn't achieved the desired outcome within an arbitrary timescale, it became acceptable to start a war to achieve that outcome?

Depending on what the stituation is, of course.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your argument is that, because democratic means hadn't achieved the desired outcome within an arbitrary timescale, it became acceptable to start a war to achieve that outcome?

Yes, if you believed the British presence in the past to be illegal. The founders of this state thought this too I'd say.

Once again, that's the dissident justification.

If you're a dissident supporter. You appear to be pursuing a black or white absolutist line here. "Dissident violence is bad, therefore all Irish republican violence in the historical past is bad."

Or is it your assertion that, because peaceful means hadn't been successful up to that point, it is therefore incontrovertible fact that peaceful means could not possibly have succeeded thereafter?

No. You can't assume that line of reasoning from my post.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ah, but you appear to be selective in who to blame when democracy wasn't apparently allowed to take its course. In 1885, Parnell's home rule party took a majority of the Irish seats including 17 of 33 seats in Ulster. Britain could have granted independence then, couldn't it?

You mean the Government of Ireland Bill of 1886?

Or did you forget?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Also, what about the November 1918 election result? Another chance lost.

This requires elaboration.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

You mean the Government of Ireland Bill of 1886?

Or did you forget?

No, didn't forget. I'm talking about the result of the November 1885 general election. That bill wasn't passed, therefore denying what most of the Irish people wanted, i.e. independence.

This requires elaboration.

Does it?

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

No, didn't forget. I'm talking about the result of the November 1885 general election. That bill wasn't passed, therefore denying what most of the Irish people wanted, i.e. independence.

And was it not passing the fault of the Gladstone government?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Does it?

Yes, it does. The 1918 election was a defeat for the party campaigning for the enactment of the 3rd Home Rule Bill. We were granted Home Rule anyway in the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 but only Unionists took up the offer. We fought a war of independence, which we won, and then accepted virtually the same thing. Then we fought a civil war for accepting it.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Depending on what the stituation is, of course.

Yes, depending on the situation. I don't believe the situation in Ireland in 1916 warranted an insurrection.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes, if you believed the British presence in the past to be illegal. The founders of this state thought this too I'd say.

For carefully chosen values of "illegal", you could argue that the British (and Irish) presence in Australia in the past was illegal. This doesn't (in my view) justify the Aborigine population starting a war today.

If you're a dissident supporter. You appear to be pursuing a black or white absolutist line here. "Dissident violence is bad, therefore all Irish republican violence in the historical past is bad."

More accurately, I'm pursuing (mostly in vain) a logical distinction between a tiny group shunning democracy to pursue a violent path in 1916, and a tiny group shunning democracy to pursue a violent path in 2013.

I'm not following the rather simplistic line of reasoning that you're attempting to foist on me. I'm arguing from first principles that Irish republican violence in 1916 was wrong for the same reason that Irish republican violence in 2103 is wrong.

No. You can't assume that line of reasoning from my post.

I'm glad to hear it. So we're back to the argument that it's acceptable to start a war if you haven't achieved a political objective within a timeframe that you personally deem acceptable.

We'll have to agree to differ on that one.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, depending on the situation. I don't believe the situation in Ireland in 1916 warranted an insurrection.
.....

Well they did and some of us agree.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Well they did and some of us agree.

Agree with what, though? That it was the only way that independence would ever be achieved, or that the bloodshed involved was an acceptable price to pay for - possibly - accelerating the process (and I have yet to see a compelling argument that such an acceleration was, indeed, achieved)?

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Agree with what, though? That it was the only way that independence would ever be achieved, or that the bloodshed involved was an acceptable price to pay for - possibly - accelerating the process (and I have yet to see a compelling argument that such an acceleration was, indeed, achieved)?

..both, as hashed out on various threads numerous times.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

..both, as hashed out on various threads numerous times.

Fair enough. Every argument I've seen in favour of either position has boiled down to "I couldn't possibly support violence that wasn't absolutely necessary, and I support 1916, therefore 1916 was absolutely necessary." I'm sure you see it differently, and we're not going to change each other's minds.

Iwasfrozen

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough. Every argument I've seen in favour of either position has boiled down to "I couldn't possibly support violence that wasn't absolutely necessary, and I support 1916, therefore 1916 was absolutely necessary." I'm sure you see it differently, and we're not going to change each other's minds.

Don't forget "If you disagree with me you must be ignorant. Here's a link to read up on it." :rolleyes:

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

For carefully chosen values of "illegal", you could argue that the British (and Irish) presence in Australia in the past was illegal.

Yes.

Irish? Irish individuals as part of British colonial apparatus in Australia?

What do you define as "illegal" in your view though?

I'm arguing from first principles that Irish republican violence in 1916 was wrong

Why first principles? You've conveniently chosen Home Rule as a starting point to do this. Not everyone else will. It's also justified to argue from first principles that colonisation of countries by other countries is wrong.

for the same reason that Irish republican violence in 2103

God, I hope Ireland is peaceful in 2103!

So we're back to the argument that it's acceptable to start a war if you haven't achieved a political objective within a timeframe that you personally deem acceptable.

So it's acceptable then to maintain a colonial occupation (of any country, not just Ireland), thats for arguments sake is deemed to be illegal on the basis that peaceful negotiations between occupiers and occupied can go on ad infinitum?

We'll have to agree to differ on that one.

Yes.

Fr Tod Umptious

michael999999 wrote: »

No it is clearly visible from the main road and the bypass. Have you even seen it?

I have seen it loads of times.
Prior to the bypass you had to stop right beside it when getting on to the Listowel road from the ITT, you could not miss it.

Now that junction has been moved at least fifty yards to the north and is a rounend of a dead end that you would have no business going down unless you wished to visit the last house on the road.

michael999999

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I have seen it loads of times.
Prior to the bypass you had to stop right beside it when getting on to the Listowel road from the ITT, you could not miss it.

Now that junction has been moved at least fifty yards to the north and is a rounend of a dead end that you would have no business going down unless you wished to visit the last house on the road.

When was the last time you were actually there?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes.

So you would applaud Aborigine terrorism?

What do you define as "illegal" in your view though?

I'm not the one trying to justify insurrection, particularly insurrection designed to thwart a democratic process.

Why first principles? You've conveniently chosen Home Rule as a starting point to do this. Not everyone else will.

I haven't chosen a starting point. I've pointed out that, given the circumstances of 1916, there was no justification for immediate aggression, unless you take the position that violence is always and unquestionably justified if there's a dispute over sovereignty.

It's also justified to argue from first principles that colonisation of countries by other countries is wrong.

Fair enough, but that's not a convincing argument for starting a war to subvert a democratic process.

God, I hope Ireland is peaceful in 2103!

As long as people can convince themselves that they have a god-given right to kill others to further their political aims, I wouldn't count on it.

So it's acceptable then to maintain a colonial occupation (of any country, not just Ireland), thats for arguments sake is deemed to be illegal on the basis that peaceful negotiations between occupiers and occupied can go on ad infinitum?

That's the assertion you explicitly rejected earlier: that the democratic process would never have been successful. Now you're adopting it as a justification.

My view is that if there is a possibility of a peaceful resolution, then violence is not morally justifiable. Others' is that violence is acceptable if a peaceful resolution will take longer than a given arbitrary attention span. I'm more comfortable with my view, frankly.

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

Nationalists generally, as I recall. There were black flags all over dublin, southside and northside.

I certainly wouldn't say 'all over' Dublin > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84477521&postcount=123