Why is it that Irish Republicans identify with the Catholic side of Irish history?

Jacques Mesrine

Why is it that Irish Republicans identify with the Catholic side of Irish history? The Battle of the Boyne for example was a face off between two kings yet the likes of Patrick Sarsfield on the Catholic side is looked upon as a an Irish patriot. Could you not argue that Protestants were actually the revolutionaries in that war and Catholics were in fact the conservatives?

And why is Cromwell so hated in Ireland? He was a republican for Christ sake and had the king beheaded. What more could an Irish republican ask for?

gobnaitolunacy

You're new here, aren't you?

Ravelleman

A simple perusal of basically any Irish history book would answer many of these questions.

Revolution and reaction are both relative terms so you´d really need to be more specific if you wanted to get an answer.

OCorcrainn

You are new to the subject aren't you?

Why is it that Irish Republicans identify with the Catholic side of Irish history?

Since when? Some of the greatest and most celebrated Irish Republicans were Protestants, have you ever heard of Erskine Childers, Henry Joy McCracken, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Robert Emmett, Henry Grattan or Theobald Wolfe tone. Have you ever even heard of the United Irishmen?

Irish Republicanism is not just composed of Irish nationalism it is a secular and social democratic where religion is irrelevant. A minority of people within physical force Irish republicanism, past and present,who deliberately targeted non-Catholics and engaged specifically in sectarian violence throughout the Troubles and beyond do not represent Irish Republicanism or republicans. The Provisional IRA and the Official IRA were not sectarian forces unlike loyalist paramilitaries but there was a small handful of renegades within them who were nothing more than psychopathic sectarian killers who were responsible for murdering people only just because they were Protestant.

The Battle of the Boyne for example was a face off between two kings yet the likes of Patrick Sarsfield on the Catholic side is looked upon as a an Irish patriot.

Could you not argue that Protestants were actually the revolutionaries in that war and Catholics were in fact the conservatives?

The "Glorious Revolution" which saw the Battle of the Boyne was not really a revolution it was a sectarian war initiated by the Williamites and the English Parliament who did not like the policies of religious tolerance that King James II introduced nor the fact that he was a Catholic. So they called on William of Orange to intervene to ensure Protestant supremacy.

And why is Cromwell so hated in Ireland? He was a republican for Christ sake and had the king beheaded. What more could an Irish republican ask for?

Cromwell may have met your definition of republican but he was a religious Puritan fanatic who thought he was Moses and that he was given a mission by God. He was fervently anti-Catholic and anti-Irish and was responsible for numerous massacres against the Irish population. Many were driven off their land and enslaved to work in plantations in the West Indies along with the African slaves.

OCorcrainn

Next time to do some research before you ask a question like that again.

fewor

pretty much all of the rebellions throughout irish history
were lead by protestants,

Zebra3

Jacques Mesrine wrote: »

And why is Cromwell so hated in Ireland?

He scored a goal against us after handling the ball.

The only reason.







Apart from the genocide. :rolleyes:

Jacques Mesrine

Zebra3 wrote: »

He scored a goal against us after handling the ball.

The only reason.







Apart from the genocide. :rolleyes:

Geneocide against Royalists and Catholics, hows that a bad thing?

Manach

Jacques Mesrine wrote: »

Geneocide against Royalists and Catholics, hows that a bad thing?

That my personal life-expectancy is low enough already given the state of the roads?

Judgement Day

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Next time to do some research before you ask a question like that again.

Have you been a Mod for long? :rolleyes:

Jolly Red Giant

OCorcrainn wrote: »

The "Glorious Revolution" which saw the Battle of the Boyne was not really a revolution it was a sectarian war initiated by the Williamites and the English Parliament who did not like the policies of religious tolerance that King James II introduced nor the fact that he was a Catholic. So they called on William of Orange to intervene to ensure Protestant supremacy.

That is one interpretation that could be put on it - I suppose :rolleyes:

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Cromwell may have met your definition of republican but he was a religious Puritan fanatic who thought he was Moses and that he was given a mission by God. He was fervently anti-Catholic and anti-Irish and was responsible for numerous massacres against the Irish population. Many were driven off their land and enslaved to work in plantations in the West Indies along with the African slaves.

Cromwell was actually tolerant of Catholics in Britain - it was the Irish he had a problem with (and that actually related to the possibility of a coutnter-revolution being launched in Ireland).

OCorcrainn

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

That is one interpretation that could be put on it - I suppose :rolleyes:

It is not an interpretation, it is a historical fact.

Cromwell was actually tolerant of Catholics in Britain - it was the Irish he had a problem with (and that actually related to the possibility of a coutnter-revolution being launched in Ireland).

The public practice of Catholicism was banned and Catholic priests were killed when captured. All Catholic-owned land was confiscated and given to Scottish and English settlers who were not Catholic and also the Parliament's financial creditors and Parliamentary soldiers to pay them off. The remaining Catholic landowners were allocated poorer land in the province of Connacht, hence the phrase "To hell or to Connacht". Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth, Catholic landownership dropped from 60% of the total to just 8%. Then you had the Penal Laws, which only applied to Catholics.

Jacques Mesrine wrote: »

Geneocide against Royalists and Catholics, hows that a bad thing?

Run along now back under your bridge.

OCorcrainn

Judgement Day wrote: »

Have you been a Mod for long? :rolleyes:

Do you ever have anything intelligent to say? :rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

Jacques Mesrine wrote: »

Why is it that Irish Republicans identify with the Catholic side of Irish history? The Battle of the Boyne for example was a face off between two kings yet the likes of Patrick Sarsfield on the Catholic side is looked upon as a an Irish patriot. Could you not argue that Protestants were actually the revolutionaries in that war and Catholics were in fact the conservatives?

And why is Cromwell so hated in Ireland? He was a republican for Christ sake and had the king beheaded. What more could an Irish republican ask for?

Jacques Mesrine wrote: »

Geneocide against Royalists and Catholics, hows that a bad thing?

Its your OP, and then you troll the replies?

Your OP suggests to me that you are simply looking to stir the sh1t, a pretty poor attempt IMO.

Any more comment such as the second one quoted and you'll be infracted. If you wish to comment on this then do so by PM.

Moderator.

jonniebgood1

Please keep the bitchy comments to oneselves. The thread is being followed so stick to discussion of the topic, not each other. Also heed the forum charter when posting on topics such as this.

Moderator

Jacques Mesrine

I'm not stirring sh.it. Why is it that Jackie McDonald was invited to Aras an Uachtaran a couple of years ago eh?

jonniebgood1

Jacques Mesrine wrote: »

Why is it that Jackie McDonald was invited to Aras an Uachtaran a couple of years ago eh?

Peace talks. that is why.

Jolly Red Giant

OCorcrainn wrote: »

It is not an interpretation, it is a historical fact.

No - it an interpretation - just one of many and not the one that is regarded as most accurate nor the one with the most evidence to back it up.

OCorcrainn wrote: »

The public practice of Catholicism was banned and Catholic priests were killed when captured. All Catholic-owned land was confiscated and given to Scottish and English settlers who were not Catholic and also the Parliament's financial creditors and Parliamentary soldiers to pay them off. The remaining Catholic landowners were allocated poorer land in the province of Connacht, hence the phrase "To hell or to Connacht". Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth, Catholic landownership dropped from 60% of the total to just 8%. Then you had the Penal Laws, which only applied to Catholics.

Try reading my post - I as talking about the treatment of Catholics by Cromwell's regime in BRITAIN - not Ireland - in fact I specifically stated that his actions in Ireland were different.

gobnaitolunacy

This is a train wreck of a thread, better off putting it out of its misery.

Coles

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Try reading my post - I as talking about the treatment of Catholics by Cromwell's regime in BRITAIN - not Ireland - in fact I specifically stated that his actions in Ireland were different.

Plenty of references to the persecution of Catholics in BRITAIN under the Lord Protector. Try google.

It's always amusing to see Anti-Republicans trying to define everything in sectarian terms. All they have is division and hatred, and when they get their asses handed to them in a discussion they cry to have the thread closed. :rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

This is a train wreck of a thread, better off putting it out of its misery.

Coles wrote: »

It's always amusing to see Anti-Republicans trying to define everything in sectarian terms. All they have is division and hatred, and when they get their asses handed to them in a discussion they cry to have the thread closed. :rolleyes:

If there is a problem with the thread or posts in it you should report it/ them.

The thread has little value thus far but having considered this I am going to let it run. Whilst the OP's intent is not clear the actual title of the thread could develop into something interesting if approached in a different manner. For this reason I will leave it open for the moment. As I see it the discussion could explore the reasons why the conflict in Ireland became so sectarian. The answer to this does go back to Cromwell to some extents but there are many other considerations and variances between then and now. Certain movements in the intervening periods have tried to bridge the sectarian divide, The Land league for example to a large degree saw co-operation. Presbyterians have been moved from one side to the other- why did this happen and was it intentional. Is the divide more a class issue than religion, for example there were many rich Catholic farmers during the famine that behaved poorly towards their neighbours but yet the famine is seen as an attack on 'poor Catholic Ireland'. Also worth considering in the context of the OP title is what Irish republicans are being talked about. Is it the modern interpretation, i.e. 1970's to present or is it the war of independence era and is there a difference in attitudes between these. I feel there is a difference though I would have to look into my books to substantiate this.
There is scope for discussion of these as interesting tangents off the thread title if people wish to choose them.

Coles

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

As I see it the discussion could explore the reasons why the conflict in Ireland became so sectarian.

Because the Head of State of England is also the head of a Church? Because the partition of the State was deliberately sectarian? Because the abuse of power in the Orange State was sectarian?

Of course there was sectarianism on both sides of the conflict, but it's worth bearing in mind that there can be no such thing as a sectarian Republican, and anyone who thinks they can be is fooling themselves. Meanwhile, Loyalism is literally defined by sectarianism. Is it possible to be a non-sectarian Loyalist? Of course not.

Jolly Red Giant

Coles wrote: »

it's worth bearing in mind that there can be no such thing as a sectarian Republican, and anyone who thinks they can be is fooling themselves.

And you call this historical debate :rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

Coles wrote: »

..... but it's worth bearing in mind that there can be no such thing as a sectarian Republican, and anyone who thinks they can be is fooling themselves. Meanwhile, Loyalism is literally defined by sectarianism. Is it possible to be a non-sectarian Loyalist? Of course not.

That is an absurdly one sided view.

If there is no such thing as a sectarian Republican then is noone responsible for sectarian killings by Republicans?

These for the sake of argument-
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/sutton.htm

To have a credible debate you must present opinions that are credible, and back them up where possible with some semblence of factual evidence. You have done neither in your last post.

walrusgumble

Jacques Mesrine wrote: »

Why is it that Irish Republicans identify with the Catholic side of Irish history? The Battle of the Boyne for example was a face off between two kings yet the likes of Patrick Sarsfield on the Catholic side is looked upon as a an Irish patriot. Could you not argue that Protestants were actually the revolutionaries in that war and Catholics were in fact the conservatives?

And why is Cromwell so hated in Ireland? He was a republican for Christ sake and had the king beheaded. What more could an Irish republican ask for?

Are you really that stupid?

To even start with the foundation level of explaining it to you, would be a waste of any person's time. Go and stick to simplier things or do it your self

Coles

You guys have failed to grasp the simple point I was making. That really doesn't bode well for this discussion.

But, no, I won't give up.

This is what I said....

"...it's worth bearing in mind that there can be no such thing as a sectarian Republican, and anyone who thinks they can be is fooling themselves."

Read it again.

Anyone who forms prejudices or biases against their fellow citizen because of their particular religious persuasion is not a Republican. They have completely failed the test. How can they possibly hold the ideals of Equality and 'common good' while also being sectarian (or sexist, or racist etc).

That's what I said the first time.

On the issue of sectarian violence in the Northern Ireland, not all Nationalists were Republicans and no doubt they didn't all see themselves as fighting for Republican (non-sectarian) ideals, but the figures clearly show that Loyalist gangs randomly killed civilians purely out of blind sectarianism, and 'Republicans' less so, being less motivated to kill exclusively because of the victim's religion. Of course every death is a tragedy and a terrible waste, but these facts remain. If anyone would like a game of 'whataboutery' there are plenty of other threads for that childish nonsense.

Coles

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

These for the sake of argument-
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/sutton.htm

From this link.

Purely Sectarian Killings by 'Republicans' - 151

Purely Sectarian Killings by 'Loyalists' - 713


I think the point I was making is pretty clear now, unless anyone would like to try to argue that Loyalism is not defined by sectarianism? Anyone?

Coles

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And you call this historical debate :rolleyes:

No. Political Theory 101.

jonniebgood1

First :

Coles wrote: »

..., but it's worth bearing in mind that there can be no such thing as a sectarian Republican, and anyone who thinks they can be is fooling themselves. ...

and then :

Coles wrote: »

Purely Sectarian Killings by 'Republicans' - 151

...

You clearly contradict yourself. You appear to be talking nonsense but I will ask you none the less to explain the apparent contradiction.

And this certainly doesn't explain it although your final sentence summarises what you are doing quite well:

Coles wrote: »

This is what I said....

"...it's worth bearing in mind that there can be no such thing as a sectarian Republican, and anyone who thinks they can be is fooling themselves."

Read it again.

Anyone who forms prejudices or biases against their fellow citizen because of their particular religious persuasion is not a Republican. They have completely failed the test. How can they possibly hold the ideals of Equality and 'common good' while also being sectarian (or sexist, or racist etc).

That's what I said the first time.

On the issue of sectarian violence in the Northern Ireland, not all Nationalists were Republicans and no doubt they didn't all see themselves as fighting for Republican (non-sectarian) ideals, but the figures clearly show that Loyalist gangs randomly killed civilians purely out of blind sectarianism, and 'Republicans' less so, being less motivated to kill exclusively because of the victim's religion. Of course every death is a tragedy and a terrible waste, but these facts remain. If anyone would like a game of 'whataboutery' there are plenty of other threads for that childish nonsense.

jonniebgood1

walrusgumble wrote: »

Are you really that stupid?

To even start with the foundation level of explaining it to you, would be a waste of any person's time. Go and stick to simplier things or do it your self

This has been dealt with already in this thread. If you have a problem with a post you report it. Consider yourself lucky not to have infraction for this.
Moderator.

Coles

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You clearly contradict yourself. You appear to be talking nonsense but I will ask you none the less to explain the apparent contradiction.

Dude. You need to read my words again. Slowly. One. at. a. time.

Republicanism is non-sectarian by definition. Sectarianism is central to Loyalism. That goes a very long way towards explaining why during a horrific civil conflict 7% of 'Republican' killings were sectarian compared to more than 80% of Loyalist killings.

OCorcrainn

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

First :

and then :

You clearly contradict yourself. You appear to be talking nonsense but I will ask you none the less to explain the apparent contradiction.

And this certainly doesn't explain it although your final sentence summarises what you are doing quite well:

I can understand your argument but I don't think that snide belittling attitude is appropriate from a mod of this forum.

pedroeibar1

Coles wrote: »

Dude. You need to read my words again. Slowly. One. at. a. time.

Republicanism is non-sectarian by definition. Sectarianism is central to Loyalism. That goes a very long way towards explaining why during a horrific civil conflict 7% of 'Republican' killings were sectarian compared to more than 80% of Loyalist killings.

The Mod can reply in his own way.
For my part, go tell that to the people of Omagh, Birmingham, various parts of London and lots of other places in between.

It is because of those events and the s#ite that so-called republicans (lower case ‘r’ deliberately) like you post that both my grandfather and granduncle specifically requested that ‘republicans’ be prevented from attending their burials. Their wishes were honoured.

Coles

Take it elsewhere. We are discussing historic facts and if you can't engage without abuse then please don't bother.

jonniebgood1

OCorcrainn wrote: »

I can understand your argument but I don't think that snide belittling attitude is appropriate from a mod of this forum.

Sometimes comments need to be identified clearly for what they are. If that is seen as snide and belittling by you I cannot help this. I usually try to be fair on the forum but participation in a debate sometimes requires being succinct or 'to the point'. I commented

You appear to be talking nonsense but I will ask you none the less to explain the apparent contradiction.

I gave the poster a second opportunity to explain, they were unable and resorted to playground response:

Dude. You need to read my words again. Slowly. One. at. a. time.

followed by a slightly altered explanation of what I see as a flawed argument.

I am not here to hold someones hand when they are unable to stand over comments as is the case here. Historical debate requires a knowledge of history which I suspect Coles has to some level. However it also requires some semblance of balance otherwise ones opinions are open to ridicule. In this discussion the line of argument that Coles has attempted is lacking in balance. It follows then that it is open to ridicule, thus ridiculous. Identifying this is fair in my opinion.

This is of course open to challenge either on the feedback board or by PM to a c-mod.

Coles

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

...followed by a slightly altered explanation of what I see as a flawed argument.

So then explain why it's a flawed argument.

I'd suggest you carefully read my words first just so that you understand the point I made. Perhaps you should compare what I actually wrote with your initial knee jerk reaction to it.

Coles

Two days later and still no response. That's disappointing.

Coles

And another day has passed and still nothing.

Ok.

Let's develop this discussion a bit. This is a discussion on historic fact, so I'll be happy to be corrected when I'm wrong. I don't care for political whataboutery and the discussion won't benefit from it.



The 'Republic' that was proclaimed in 1916 was very much on the French revolutionary model. Equality, Liberty and Fraternity. It proclaimed that ALL the children of the State would be equal, but it also made a specific reference to the sectarian divisions that were part of British rule in Ireland. It wasn't proclamed by Catholics. It wasn't proclaimed by Protestants. It was proclaimed by men and women who did not want their society divided in that arbitrary way.

"The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past."

This non-sectarianism was at the core of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic, and I would imagine such ideals are very much a cornerstone of proper Republicanism today. After all, you can not have a sectarian Republic. You can not be a sectarian Republican. This was the core point that was clearly misunderstood at the start of this thread.

Of course the Irish Republic we ended up with has been down a long and twisted road. The political strand that would go on to form FG were content to agree to a sectarian division between the Catholic and Protestant populations of Ireland, and in effect the majority of the country became a sectarian 'Catholic' State with social policy controlled by the RCC, while the Northern counties became another deeply sectarian State governed by and for Protestants.

In the southern counties we are finally starting to secularise our society (schools, hospitals etc) and it seems that religious freedom is also being safeguarded as was the intention in the Proclamation. In the northern counties it took a long, bloody and bitter struggle to achieve civil rights and equality, and to ensure that power would be shared in a non sectarian way as it mostly is today. Obviously there are still deep cultural scars after hundreds of years of sectarian division.

If the aim of the struggle was to achieve a 'United Irish Republic', clearly it hasn't succeeded, but when you look back at how both sectarian states utterly failed their people you realise just how far we've come to establishing governance both side of the Irish border that is closer to those Republican ideals than ever before. It might never be a called an Irish Republic, but what of it.