Gerry Adams repeats himself again. But

tdv123

But does he have a valid point & argument?

http://www.sott.net/article/264602-Gerry-Adams-Irish-Republic-was-hijacked-by-conservative-elite-after-1921-partition?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Where they counter-revolutionaries or just realists who opted for what they believed was stability rather than to push the envelope?

I've never agreed with Adams methods but I usually find it hard to point out parts of his statements which are incorrect.

Iwasfrozen

tdv123 wrote: »

But does he have a valid point & argument?

http://www.sott.net/article/264602-Gerry-Adams-Irish-Republic-was-hijacked-by-conservative-elite-after-1921-partition?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Where they counter-revolutionaries or just realists who opted for what they believed was stability rather than to push the envelope?

I've never agreed with Adams methods but I usually find it hard to point out parts of his statements which are incorrect.

I can. He puts too much emphasis on Northern Ireland. Natural I suppose for someone who comes from NI but he should be able to detach his personal feelings from political reality. For example the statement:

"Moreover the institutions of this state, whether media, academia as well as the political elites are very partitionist.

"They have their backs to the border.

"While they are generally benign, policy makers knew little about the north and cared even less.

"Their concern is to protect the interests of the establishment as they understand it."

Well duh. Obviously the institutions of the state are going to be limited to the state's borders. And here is another inconsistency.

"This will only be changed when a genuine national spirit is recreated to replace the nonsense popular in some circles that this state is the nation and that Ireland stops at Dundalk or Lifford."

Here Adams goes from institutions of the state in one sentence to the nation in the other. Which is it, State or Nation? And if the latter how do we define Nation?

Gerry Adams is too insular and detached from political reality. He sees NI as being an integral part of the Republic of Ireland when it is anything but. How deluded must one be to view partition as being the root cause of church abuse?

Manach

Given how much the current elites have persistently push the pro-European line which has gutted the concept of nation and have been silent on their own predecessors lack of regard for human-rights and a policy of emigration to fix economic politics, not the only ones to lack reality.
To image, like certain members of the State, that a wand could be waved at the state's creation to have created a Scandinavian model social-democracy borders on the complete historial incredulity.

Phill Ewinn

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well duh. Obviously the institutions of the state are going to be limited to the state's borders.

He said remained partitionist. Which is fair.

He then seems to put a line through the time of the "trubblez" and starts again with the GFA. Post GFA is a better society on both sides of a border. Media has made more out of the border divide than he can see. That people around him can see. Think thats all hes saying really.

COYW

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Post GFA is a better society on both sides of a border. Media has made more out of the border divide than he can see.

In N.I. yes but down here I would have to say no. The GFA has had little to no impact on our lives, much like the "trubbles".

SF are a strange party. Everyone knows what they are about in NI!! Down here they are a populist party but they change their stance of issues constantly. Last week, the Senate was elitist and must be abolished, end of story. This week, they believe that reform is a definite option. You can find a plethora of articles online to back up the switch above, before anyone shouts.

On Adams, he is grossly pro-NI and his lack of insight into politics in this country when he first arrived was a complete insult to us as a nation, and it will always stick in my mind. He is still a politician of an extremely low calibre, with no apparent area of expertise. He sees no border but the fact remains that a border does exist and will do for many years to come.

I would love to see his explanation as to how partition had a part to play in the church abuse. A disgraceful statement, if I may say so. It is his republican comrades that gave the church power down here.

Banjo String

COYW wrote: »

In N.I. yes but down here I would have to say no. The GFA has had little to no impact on our lives, much like the "trubbles".

SF are a strange party. Everyone knows what they are about in NI!! Down here they are a populist party but they change their stance of issues constantly. Last week, the Senate was elitist and must be abolished, end of story. This week, they believe that reform is a definite option. You can find a plethora of articles online to back up the switch above, before anyone shouts.

On Adams, he is grossly pro-NI and his lack of insight into politics in this country when he first arrived was a complete insult to us as a nation, and it will always stick in my mind. He is still a politician of an extremely low calibre, with no apparent area of expertise. He sees no border but the fact remains that a border does exist and will do for many years to come.

I would love to see his explanation as to how partition had a part to play in the church abuse. A disgraceful statement, if I may say so. It is his republican comrades that gave the church power down here.

Why did you spell 'troubles' The way you did?

OCorcrainn

SamHall wrote: »

Why did you spell 'troubles' The way you did?

Because it is just all a joke to him, just like anyone who does not share his unionist views.

southsiderosie

Funny, I've actually been reading a lot of old Dáil transcripts and speeches from the early 1920s lately, and I think he has things quite backwards.

The first problem, as I see it, is that his comments about the "native elite" aren't framed as such, but they should really be directed at his fellow republicans. The civil war was spurred by republicans who thought they knew better than everyone else what it meant to be Irish and what the 'true' aspirations of the Irish people were. The RCC was empowered by republicans - there was no reference to the primacy of the Catholic Church in the 1922 constitution, but there was in Dev's 1937 re-write. The fact of the matter is, Adams can try to run but he cannot hide from the fact that while it may be politically expedient to dump on Fianna Fáil, Dev & Co. saw themselves as the vanguards of not just the republican movement, but a very narrow view of 'Irishness', and this is a tendency that, not surprisingly, can be seen running through the DNA of Sinn Féin as well.

Second, it is true that many political institutions remained the same, most notably proportional representation. But what Adams doesn't acknowledge is that the PR-STV system allowed for greater political pluralism and the representation of small parties in both the Dáil and in government - something that Sinn Fein currently benefits from, and that Northern Nationalists would have given their eyeteeth for back in the 1950s. Fianna Fáil may have dominated government since the 1930s, but they would have been even more dominant under a British style winner-take-all electoral system, and without PR-STV, the Labour party would have died long ago, the Greens and PDs would likely not have existed, and today Sinn Féin would have few local representatives and one or two at best in the Dáil (whether this is a good thing or not is up to you!).

Norwesterner

tdv123 wrote: »

But does he have a valid point & argument?

http://www.sott.net/article/264602-Gerry-Adams-Irish-Republic-was-hijacked-by-conservative-elite-after-1921-partition?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Where they counter-revolutionaries or just realists who opted for what they believed was stability rather than to push the envelope?

I've never agreed with Adams methods but I usually find it hard to point out parts of his statements which are incorrect.

I can.
He endorsed and rubber-stamped partition and the cosy set up for the elites in 1998.
He's now part of it.

pablomakaveli

Sounds like a load of over the top nonsense evidenced by his claims that the church abuse and inequality for women and gays were a result of partition.

OCorcrainn

southsiderosie wrote: »

Funny, I've actually been reading a lot of old Dáil transcripts and speeches from the early 1920s lately, and I think he has things quite backwards.

The first problem, as I see it, is that his comments about the "native elite" aren't framed as such, but they should really be directed at his fellow republicans. The civil war was spurred by republicans who thought they knew better than everyone else what it meant to be Irish and what the 'true' aspirations of the Irish people were. The RCC was empowered by republicans.

Then you have no idea what republicanism is. Anyone who supports a non-secular system is not a republican. In this context, yes they may have been nationalists but they certainly were not republican.

Nationalist =/= Republican

The power and influence that De Valera handed to the Church and the religious references that he enshrined in the Constitution proves that he never was a republican he was just a nationalist who had this backwards vision of a Catholic dominated Ireland, only speaking Irish with maidens dancing at the crosswords.

He was a hypocrite, a coward, fundamentalist Catholic and an egotistical power-hungry man.

And was one of the worst things that ever happened to this country.

southsiderosie

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Then you have no idea what republicanism is. Anyone who supports a non-secular system is not a republican. In this context, yes they may have been nationalists but they certainly were not republican.

Nationalist =/= Republican

See, this is why these debates are so tiresome. Who gets to decide who a republican is? Technically, the state was secular in that there was no established religion, but Catholicism has always played a role in shaping the 'imagined community' of the Irish nation, if for no other reason that support for republicanism was in part fueled by anti-Catholic policies on the part of the British government.

Adams and others may want to see a republicanism based on Gaelic culture and civic values, but that requires whitewashing Irish political and social history to a degree that is virtually impossible.

OCorcrainn

southsiderosie wrote: »

See, this is why these debates are so tiresome. Who gets to decide who a republican is?

Irish republicanism as it was espoused orginally under the founding father of Irish republicanism, Wolfe Tone, and today. Is to see a United Ireland that emulates the French Republic.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Technically, the state was secular in that there was no established religion, but Catholicism has always played a role in shaping the 'imagined community' of the Irish nation, if for no other reason that support for republicanism was in part fueled by anti-Catholic policies on the part of the British government.

De Valera and the Church's special position

De Valera sought Papal approval for Irish constitution

A picture of De Valera.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Adams and others may want to see a republicanism based on Gaelic culture and civic values, but that requires whitewashing Irish political and social history to a degree that is virtually impossible.

Please don't make such unfounded assertions and sweeping statements without neutral and reliable sources to back it up, otherwise it just undermines your position, I would rather a rationale and intelligent discussion.

FTA69

southsiderosie wrote: »

The first problem, as I see it, is that his comments about the "native elite" aren't framed as such, but they should really be directed at his fellow republicans.

In fairness Fianna Fáil come from a different political tradition than that of Sinn Féin and the IRA and that's firmly been the case since WW2.

The RCC was empowered by republicans - there was no reference to the primacy of the Catholic Church in the 1922 constitution, but there was in Dev's 1937 re-write.

The notion that the church suddenly assumed power after independence or after 1937 is a bit fallacious to be honest. The Catholic Church had inordinate power in Ireland since the late 1800s largely due to the efforts of Cardinal Paul Cullen. The Catholic Church were gifted industrial schools shortly after the Famine and the churches were ceded the national schools a few years after that. The church was a mainstay of Irish society for decades before 1922; a position that was largely facilitated and encouraged by successive British governments.

The fact of the matter is, Adams can try to run but he cannot hide from the fact that while it may be politically expedient to dump on Fianna Fáil, Dev & Co. saw themselves as the vanguards of not just the republican movement,

De Valera imprisoned and executed Republicans, during his tenure the Special Branch was created which was (and still is) specifically tasked with combating militant Republicanism in the south of Ireland. At that time Sinn Féin and the IRA were an insurrectionist movement; they weren't political bedfellows with Fianna Fáil as you seem to be suggesting.

but a very narrow view of 'Irishness', and this is a tendency that, not surprisingly, can be seen running through the DNA of Sinn Féin as well.

Sinn Féin are actually quite inclusive in their definitions of Irishness and Irish culture, they are no more prejudiced or exclusionary than any other party in Ireland. I think you're simply assigning them a label that you preconceived yourself as opposed to looking at the situation objectively.

donegal_road

I was recently watching this documentary which covers this very topic in a balanced way. It is well worth a look.

This unique 3-part series is a history of 20th Century Ireland presented and co-written by historian Diarmaid Ferriter.

The Limits of Liberty is the story of Irish Independence. How governments of the early decades of independence were preoccupied with one overriding issue, power. Power held by small elites in what would become one of the most centralised countries in Europe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wABVOa-BaHE

guinnessdrinker

COYW wrote: »

In N.I. yes but down here I would have to say no. The GFA has had little to no impact on our lives, much like the "trubbles".

Depends on what you mean by down here, how far south? I know in the southern border counties at least that the GFA has definitely made an impact.

Manach

With an organisation as professional, mission oriented and dedicated as the Church it is hard not to be gravitate to a position of power in a society when the alternatives are an privileged elite backed up by an occupying power and the other relatively poorly performance rebels who once finally succeed in achieving power try to export their problems via emigration or engage in economic war with the then greatest empire.

southsiderosie

FTA69 wrote: »

In fairness Fianna Fáil come from a different political tradition than that of Sinn Féin and the IRA and that's firmly been the case since WW2.

Well, like any other political movement, republicanism has split and there are different variants of it, which is why I object to the 'one true church' ideal of republicanism that has been unchanged since 1798.

FTA69 wrote: »

The notion that the church suddenly assumed power after independence or after 1937 is a bit fallacious to be honest. The Catholic Church had inordinate power in Ireland since the late 1800s largely due to the efforts of Cardinal Paul Cullen. The Catholic Church were gifted industrial schools shortly after the Famine and the churches were ceded the national schools a few years after that. The church was a mainstay of Irish society for decades before 1922; a position that was largely facilitated and encouraged by successive British governments.

I am not saying that they assumed power in 1937 - my point is that Adams' comments seem to be directed at CnG elites in the wake of partition, but the 1922 constitution and the 1937 constitution treat the RCC quite differently. While the 1937 constitution may have just put into writing what the dogs on the street already knew, in terms of resetting the institutional and social landscape, this mattered - as many republicans more progressive than De Valera knew quite well, hence their opposition to both the RCC clause and the whole women's "life within the home" clause in Article 41.

FTA69 wrote: »

De Valera imprisoned and executed Republicans, during his tenure the Special Branch was created which was (and still is) specifically tasked with combating militant Republicanism in the south of Ireland. At that time Sinn Féin and the IRA were an insurrectionist movement; they weren't political bedfellows with Fianna Fáil as you seem to be suggesting.

No, I'm simply arguing that republicanism is a bigger house that some people make it out to be, and while I understand the instinct, particularly among SF supporters, to distance themselves from FF, you cannot wish political history away.

FTA69 wrote: »

Sinn Féin are actually quite inclusive in their definitions of Irishness and Irish culture, they are no more prejudiced or exclusionary than any other party in Ireland. I think you're simply assigning them a label that you preconceived yourself as opposed to looking at the situation objectively.

Oh, to be fair, I think Sinn Féin is actually pretty exemplary in its approach to dealing with an increasingly diverse Ireland. Perhaps I should re-state a bit and not label to SF what is a trend among some republicans who happen to support SF.

My broader issue here is that Adams' beef seems to be with past elites who imposed their specific view of the world on Ireland in a way that was detrimental in the long run. However, there is a long history in republicanism of groups of elites imposing their solutions to the Irish problem on the population without a great deal of consensus. To be fair, this isn't just an Irish issue - you see the same strains in Basque nationalism, for example. But in light of this history, and the history of Western nationalist movements in general, I think Adams' comments are a bit disingenuous: there is a deep strain of illiberalism running through Irish republicanism (and French republicanism, and Basque nationalism for that matter!), and the fact that SF's policies today are more liberal than in the past does not negate this history.

COYW

SamHall wrote: »

Why did you spell 'troubles' The way you did?

SamHall, I use that term in response to people using the term "the troubles" to try and put a idealistic gloss on their terrorist acts in decades gone by.

Can anyone supply a rational explanation as to how partition had a part to play in the church abuse, oh and add in something for homosexuality too, please.

Frank Lee Midere

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Irish republicanism as it was espoused orginally under the founding father of Irish republicanism, Wolfe Tone, and today. Is to see a United Ireland that emulates the French Republic.



De Valera and the Church's special position

De Valera sought Papal approval for Irish constitution

A picture of De Valera.





Please don't make such unfounded assertions and sweeping statements without neutral and reliable sources to back it up, otherwise it just undermines your position, I would rather a rationale and intelligent discussion.

The Church was relatively unhappy with the constitution and they were one of many groups consulted, as the recent congress consults different groups.

In theory, if less in practice, the State was secular. Your version of "true republicanism" isn't one that Irish people would have voted for in the early 20th century, the French Revolution was populist and anti-clerical. Churches were closed. That wasn't a model Irish peasants would have been all very comfortable with.

Your "Republicanism" could --like Marxism -- never work in practice so you always get to claim the the theory has never been applied.

OCorcrainn

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Your "Republicanism" could --like Marxism -- never work in practice so you always get to claim the the theory has never been applied.

The French state, its constitution and its system functions on the republican and social democratic principles that Sinn Féin adhere and to which I have described so that fact alone contradicts that it would:

never work in practice so you always get to claim the the theory has never been applied.

OCorcrainn

COYW wrote: »

Can anyone supply a rational explanation as to how partition had a part to play in the church abuse, oh and add in something for homosexuality too, please.

Do you think a non-partitioned Ireland with a sizeable Protestant demographic post 1921 would have allowed for the Catholic Church to wield the same influence and political social agenda and power as it did in post-partitioned Ireland?

Frank Lee Midere

OCorcrainn wrote: »

The French state, its constitution and its system functions on the republican and social democratic principles that Sinn Féin adhere and to which I have described so that fact alone contradicts that it would:

You were talking about the French Revolution not the subsequent French Republic, of which there were 5. However even the existing French Republic has a level of anti-clericalism which wouldn't work, even now, in Ireland or the UK and certainly wouldn't have worked then. Not that we want or need Hijabs to be banned.

I did say that the actual Irish people - who are not French - wouldn't have tolerated it. No point arguing about what the French want or tolerate.

As for the extreme republicans who attacked FF most were sectarian bigots and extreme nationalists.

Frank Lee Midere

Is it SF policy to implement la laïcité ? I doubt it.

Frank Lee Midere

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Do you think a non-partitioned Ireland with a sizeable Protestant demographic post 1921 would have allowed for the Catholic Church to wield the same influence and political social agenda and power as it did in post-partitioned Ireland?

I think there would have been a sectarian civil war.

johnnyskeleton

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Irish republicanism as it was espoused orginally under the founding father of Irish republicanism, Wolfe Tone, and today. Is to see a United Ireland that emulates the French Republic.

The ideals of the (I assume you mean the first) French Republic were classically liberal in the belief that there should be low tax and limited state control over people's lives or business affairs. This contrasts sharply with Sinn Fein'a stated policy of high taxes and high regulation.

Ergo, SF are not true republicans by Wolfe tones standards, and are perhaps more in line with Marx's view of a workers republic - something which traditionally the Irish people have little interest in. Further, since a republic is a representative parliamentary state, it is difficult to see how SF met that definition when they supported sectarian violence because of their electoral minority position. Wolfe Tones idea of justified violence was to rebel against a non represenative parliament and he espoused non-sectarian views. SF's view is, while not the opposite, not exactly in accord with this view.

So if we judge things by a purely 18th century view of republicanism (which I don't believe we should) SF are the least republican and Fine Gael are, in fact, the most republican.

If that is the point you are making it is a most interesting one. However, I suspect that you are not saying that Wolfe Tone's views are the definition of modern republicanism but rather the views of modern Wolfe Toney types. Much like Marxism is a very narrow (possibly incorrect) view of what Karl Marx actually wrote, so too do people who proclaim to follow Wolfe Tone very often don't really care for most of his views, selecting instead those parts which they like eg independent island of Ireland, ignore difficult issues of liberty, equality and fraternity etc.

Cody Pomeray

southsiderosie wrote: »

The first problem, as I see it, is that his comments about the "native elite" aren't framed as such, but they should really be directed at his fellow republicans. The civil war was spurred by republicans who thought they knew better than everyone else what it meant to be Irish and what the 'true' aspirations of the Irish people were. The RCC was empowered by republicans - there was no reference to the primacy of the Catholic Church in the 1922 constitution, but there was in Dev's 1937 re-write.

People get very het up about the religious references in the Irish constitution without acknowledging that in 1937, religious and protection of the family references were the norm in European constitutional law.

This is elaborated upon in The Making of the Irish Constitution (Keogh, McCarthy) where extremely similar (and possibly influential) provisions are found in the German and Greek constitutions.

The religious references to faith in the constitution are quite tamed by having regard to its contemporaneous European counterparts. I think people are wrong to focus on this.

However, what IS different between Irish constitutional law and European constitutional law as regards religious influence is its handling by the courts. This is where Gerry Adams has a point - it was an activist, Catholic judiciary who interpreted Bunreacht na h-Eireann through the prism of their faith and who facilitated the 'hijacking' of Irish Republicanism by an un-deserving elite.

We probably have the most religiously-infused jurisprudence in Europe, or we had up until the early 1990s, despite what ended up as only declaratory references to Catholicism in the Constitution, and again, similar to our neighbours.

So yes, hijacking is an appropriate term, imo.

COYW

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Do you think a non-partitioned Ireland with a sizeable Protestant demographic post 1921 would have allowed for the Catholic Church to wield the same influence and political social agenda and power as it did in post-partitioned Ireland?

Absolutely! There would still have been a significant RC majority on the island and the RC majority would have overwhelmed the Protestant minority. I am sure we can both agree that it was a phenomenally powerful organisation in decades gone by, people power as well. They call still get 50K plus people on a protest march in Dublin in this day and age. Imagine the people power it would have had back then.

I really don't believe that the Protestant churches would have been allowed to question the RC church, judging by the regard that people had for the RC church back then. Church aside, I don't believe that the general RC population would have allowed it.

OCorcrainn

COYW wrote: »

Absolutely! There would still have been a significant RC majority on the island and the RC majority would have overwhelmed the Protestant minority. I am sure we can both agree that it was a phenomenally powerful organisation in decades gone by, people power as well. They call still get 50K plus people on a protest march in Dublin in this day and age. Imagine the people power it would have had back then.

I really don't believe that the Protestant churches would have been allowed to question the RC church, judging by the regard that people had for the RC church back then. Church aside, I don't believe that the general RC population would have allowed it.

I disagree, I think there would have been a possibility of a secular state by nationalists or republicans where no particular religion/denomination would haven been favored in order to appease both sides and quell any unionist and Protestant fears and dissent, in the north in particular.

Although I can understand how some people would think that naive or wishful thinking on my part.

OCorcrainn

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The ideals of the (I assume you mean the first) French Republic were classically liberal in the belief that there should be low tax and limited state control over people's lives or business affairs. This contrasts sharply with Sinn Fein'a stated policy of high taxes and high regulation.

Ergo, SF are not true republicans by Wolfe tones standards, and are perhaps more in line with Marx's view of a workers republic

Not really, that is the Worker's Party not Sinn Féin, we advocate a social democracy that adheres to Irish republicanism, from my perspective, liberal and progressive aspects intertwined with certain aspects of Irish nationalism, such as:

Corporate Nationalism

Liberal nationalism

Social democracy

Democratic Socialism

Public ownership of natural resources

Promotion of Irish and Gaelic Culture. e.g. Féile an Phobail West Belfast

Secularism

Populism (not in the pejorative sense that FG/LB/FF use the term)

This is for me what Irish republicanism is, and what Sinn Féin stands for.

it is difficult to see how SF met that definition when they supported sectarian violence because of their electoral minority position.

But they didn't, I am not denying that there were nationalists in the physical force republican movement with sectarian ethno-religious views and acted upon those, there were nothing more than ultra-nationalistic thugs. Such an ideology is incompatible with Irish republicanism and Sinn Féin.


So if we judge things by a purely 18th century view of republicanism (which I don't believe we should) SF are the least republican and Fine Gael are, in fact, the most republican.

an independent island of Ireland, ignore difficult issues of liberty, equality and fraternity etc.

But Sinn Féin endorse both, it is enshrined in the party's constitution and policy.

Norwesterner

More vacuous soundbites from Adams. This time about elites.
The man who get donations from the Coca Cola company and Lehmann bankers, has MI5 mandarins writing his speeches, and has the Vatican altering his wikipedia page to paint him in a positive light.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Norwesterner wrote: »

More vacuous soundbites from Adams. This time about elites.
The man who get donations from the Coca Cola company and Lehmann bankers, has MI5 mandarins writing his speeches, and has the Vatican altering his wikipedia page to paint him in a positive light.

Thats the funniest thing I have read on boards in a long long time.
Hilarious, probably defamatory, but hilarious.:D

FTA69

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well, like any other political movement, republicanism has split and there are different variants of it, which is why I object to the 'one true church' ideal of republicanism that has been unchanged since 1798.

True, but that doesn't negate the fact Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin are wholly different organisations from a different tradition. The "Irish Republican" tradition that Sinn Féin were part of was a radical, militant and insurrectionist one; a tradition that Cumann na nGaedheal and later Fianna Fáil split away from entirely. To group all of the above under the bracket "Republican" and then go on to thus tie Sinn Féin to the agenda of the government parties is a bit lazy to be honest and ignores the fact that Irish Republicanism was about challenging the state from a revolutionary position while FF/CnG were all about reinforcing the state from a conservative point of view.

my point is that Adams' comments seem to be directed at CnG elites

In fairness, knowing Adams, it's safe to say he was also talking about Fianna Fáil when he mentioned a post-partition elite. While nobody could ever say that the Civil War was fought on a left-right basis, the fact remains that the progressive and revolutionary segment of that movement (Mellowes, O'Donnell, O'Malley, Ryan etc) were overwhelmingly anti-Treaty and had they not been roundly defeated they may have contributed in steering the state in a different direction. Then again they may have been swallowed up by a conservative majority. It's hard to say.

While the 1937 constitution may have just put into writing what the dogs on the street already knew, in terms of resetting the institutional and social landscape, this mattered - as many republicans more progressive than De Valera knew quite well, hence their opposition to both the RCC clause and the whole women's "life within the home" clause in Article 41.

It didn't elevate the church's position in any meaningful sense, it just provided added confirmation of a state-of-affairs that was long entrenched in Irish society. Similarly the notion that it was only De Valera who reinforced the church is bogus, it's safe to say that Fine Gael and even Labour were of a similar disposition.

No, I'm simply arguing that republicanism is a bigger house that some people make it out to be, and while I understand the instinct, particularly among SF supporters, to distance themselves from FF, you cannot wish political history away.

If we follow on your logic then it's also fair to lump Sinn Féin in with the Blueshirts, Fine Gael and whoever else in Irish politics; after the all the latter also called themselves "Irish Republicans." Republicanism in a world sense is indeed a very broad church, but in Ireland it has generally been taken to mean the insurrectionist and radical political tradition; something that you could never lump FF or FG into. I think "Nationalist" would be a better term for the type of thing you're alluding to.

Oh, to be fair, I think Sinn Féin is actually pretty exemplary in its approach to dealing with an increasingly diverse Ireland. Perhaps I should re-state a bit and not label to SF what is a trend among some republicans who happen to support SF.

True, but the whole "conservative nationalist" trend isn't limited to SF supporters by any means.

However, there is a long history in republicanism of groups of elites imposing their solutions to the Irish problem on the population without a great deal of consensus.

A common scenario in nearly every revolutionary situation.

Norwesterner

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Thats the funniest thing I have read on boards in a long long time.
Hilarious, probably defamatory, but hilarious.:D

If only.....
The Lehmann link
http://saoirse32.dreamwidth.org/5399352.html

The MI5 writing Adams speech link. (scroll down)
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/11951

the Vatican sexing up Adams' wiki page link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6949153.stm

The Coca-Cola donation to sinn Fein link:
http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_times/arts2003/aug23_sinn_fein_coke__ODriscoll.php

Only the underaged and naive still think SF is some kind of force for radical change in Ireland.

SoulandForm

Norwesterner wrote: »

More vacuous soundbites from Adams. This time about elites.
The man who get donations from the Coca Cola company and Lehmann bankers, has MI5 mandarins writing his speeches, and has the Vatican altering his wikipedia page to paint him in a positive light.

Sometimes I wonder if Adams and McGuinness were ever Irish Republicans in any real sense; I strongly suspect that for them the PIRA's armed campaign was about ending discrimination in the north east of the country and precious little else. The way that they have abandoned serious anti-imperialist positions on EU membership and the presence of multinationals in Ireland along with the manner in which they have allowed Unionists to constantly block the Irish language bill that they supposedly signed up to in the St Andrews Agreement would strongly suggest this.

FTA69

SoulandForm wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder if Adams and McGuinness were ever Irish Republicans in any real sense; I strongly suspect that for them the PIRA's armed campaign was about ending discrimination in the north east of the country and precious little else. The way that they have abandoned serious anti-imperialist positions on EU membership and the presence of multinationals in Ireland along with the manner in which they have allowed Unionists to constantly block the Irish language bill that they supposedly signed up to in the St Andrews Agreement would strongly suggest this.

Exactly. It was Catholic Defenderism with a bit of socialist window-dressing. They were never really ideologically socialist republicans in a concrete sense.

Cody Pomeray

I think it's difficult to develop a consistent and enduring political philosophy in the midst of an armed upheaval, so their inconsistencies were forgiveable in the run-up to the ceasefires.

Certainly, disappointing socialist republican ideals seems to be the legacy of all Republicans as they move from the front line into Dáil Éireann. SF are moving from the small group of people trying to change Ireland, almost into a wannabe FFxLab hybrid.

SoulandForm

FTA69 wrote: »

Exactly. It was Catholic Defenderism with a bit of socialist window-dressing. They were never really ideologically socialist republicans in a concrete sense.

The problem was that they were not "traditional" Republicans such as General Tom Maguire either. This raises a big question though; can the last armed campaign therefore be justified? Would discrimination have ended quicker without it? Certainly reactionary used the troubles to entrench, justify itself and tighten its grip over the Protestant population in the north east- for instance in 1965 the Presbyterian Church in Ireland issued a very damning report about discrimination against Roman Catholics in the 6 counties and called for its elimination, by the early 80s any such action by them would have been completely unthinkable. Would the likes of Paisley and his thugs have faded into insignificance the way the Klu Klux Klan did in the southern states of the USA by the 80s without the armed campaign? Maybe but than again maybe not. I guess we will never know.

COYW

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Certainly, disappointing socialist republican ideals seems to be the legacy of all Republicans as they move from the front line into Dáil Éireann. SF are moving from the small group of people trying to change Ireland, almost into a wannabe FFxLab hybrid.

That is probably as good a summation as I have come across on them Cody. As time progresses, I see more and more of FF in them, they could possibly merge in years to come but they do have a hint of old Labour (hard left) in them, but that seems to come and go. A stint in coalition will remove the hard left idealism and we will be left with another FF.

FG & SF is about as likely as FF & FG, so FF & SF is the only option. FF claim that this is not an option, as do SF but as we know both will chose power over any party reform. Just to decode that, I don't trust FF or SF in saying that they will not go into coalition with each other.

SoulandForm

COYW wrote: »

That is probably as good a summation as I have come across on them Cody. As time progresses, I see more and more of FF in them, they could possibly merge in years to come but they do have a hint of old Labour (hard left) in them, but that seems to come and go.

They are exactly where FF was in the 1930s give or take a few things.

If they get serious power than we will probably be FF in the 1980s.

southsiderosie

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think it's difficult to develop a consistent and enduring political philosophy in the midst of an armed upheaval, so their inconsistencies were forgiveable in the run-up to the ceasefires.

Certainly, disappointing socialist republican ideals seems to be the legacy of all Republicans as they move from the front line into Dáil Éireann. SF are moving from the small group of people trying to change Ireland, almost into a wannabe FFxLab hybrid.

To be fair, that is the legacy of any movement that shifts from outsider politics to establishment politics. The question for SF in the Republic is whether or not they are willing to trade power for principle - and that is the inevitable trade-off if they go into government with FF or FG. It hasn't worked out too well for Labour (ever), but being stuck in opposition can make it mighty tempting...

Norwesterner

SoulandForm wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder if Adams and McGuinness were ever Irish Republicans in any real sense; I strongly suspect that for them the PIRA's armed campaign was about ending discrimination in the north east of the country and precious little else. The way that they have abandoned serious anti-imperialist positions on EU membership and the presence of multinationals in Ireland along with the manner in which they have allowed Unionists to constantly block the Irish language bill that they supposedly signed up to in the St Andrews Agreement would strongly suggest this.

Seems they were not against British Rule per se, but rather how the British ruled.

Cody Pomeray

southsiderosie wrote: »

To be fair, that is the legacy of any movement that shifts from outsider politics to establishment politics.

I'm not sure what the substance of this point is. By all means, many movements which engage the public outside the political process later join politics and are immediately accused of selling out. After all, disaffection with sell-outs was the ultimate genesis of the modern Sinn Féin movement.

This is all of little relevance. All that's relevant is Sinn Féin supporters' legitimate expectations of Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin was a party with socialist republican ideals, in theory at least, which announced it possible to pursue those ideals within the establishment. I think that was a fatal mistake for Irish republicanism and for the ideological legitimacy of the movement. Small groups of people change Ireland. Big, representative political parties, which apparently Sinn Féin aspire to be, never will. They're too busy being popular.

southsiderosie

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm not sure what the substance of this point is. By all means, many movements which engage the public outside the political process later join politics and are immediately accused of selling out. After all, disaffection with sell-outs was the ultimate genesis of the modern Sinn Féin movement.

This is all of little relevance. All that's relevant is Sinn Féin supporters' legitimate expectations of Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin was a party with socialist republican ideals, in theory at least, which announced it possible to pursue those ideals within the establishment. I think that was a fatal mistake for Irish republicanism and for the ideological legitimacy of the movement. Small groups of people change Ireland. Big, representative political parties, which apparently Sinn Féin aspire to be, never will. They're too busy being popular.

Yes, we can't have political parties being popular, now! However else will they get elected?

The substance of the point is there there is a big difference between being a revolutionary social movement and a political party - only the former can afford to be ideologically pure on all issues big and small. The latter will need to make compromises if they want to get anything done.

Your comment cuts to the heart of one of the consistent issues with the republican movement: is having a small cabal of true believers more important than being a representative political party in a democracy? I'm genuinely curious: what would you have Sinn Fein do?

More broadly, why is ideological legitimacy more important than democratic legitimacy? If SF supporters don't like what they are about, then don't vote for them and give them a mandate. If you really don't like them and thing you can do better, well, go on and form a different party. Given the electoral institutions that exist in Ireland, it isn't actually that difficult.

HansHolzel

Census results in the North in 2012 showed 48% "Protestant" and 45% "Catholic". The "Protestants" were down 5% in ten years. In this context, post-1998, the flag issue and the parades issue remind me of what Parnell thought of the 1881 Land Act. It didn’t abolish landlordism but made landlordism intolerable for the landlords.

Therefore, when an Orange-lite hack like Henry McDonald writes in the Guardian that the South is a charity case that can’t afford the North, as if that fact had any bearing on the flag coming down, he fails to see that the Border isn’t the crux. His world is being turned over from within. But someone should at least tell the loyalist rioters that getting good grades isn’t 'acting like a taig'.

Cody Pomeray

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes, we can't have political parties being popular, now! However else will they get elected?

The substance of the point is there there is a big difference between being a revolutionary social movement and a political party - only the former can afford to be ideologically pure on all issues big and small. The latter will need to make compromises if they want to get anything done.

That's not true.

Question: How has Sinn Féin and the republican movement in the North overcome civil rights violations? And how has it best worked towards social progress?

Answer: From outside of the political system.

Outside the political system, a movement can shout loud enough so the conversation changes. Inside the political system... joining the conversation... a movement can only wait until speaking rights are allotted to him.

In the present Dáil, no opposition politician should be waiting around inside Leinster house for speaking rights. It's a waste of time. It doesn't change the conversation. It is a sell-out on behalf of opposition politicians with specific ideological mandates.

Norwesterner

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not true.

Question: How has Sinn Féin and the republican movement in the North overcome civil rights violations? And how has it best worked towards social progress?

Answer: From outside of the political system.

Outside the political system, a movement can shout loud enough so the conversation changes. Inside the political system... joining the conversation... a movement can only wait until speaking rights are allotted to him.

In the present Dáil, no opposition politician should be waiting around inside Leinster house for speaking rights. It's a waste of time. It doesn't change the conversation. It is a sell-out on behalf of opposition politicians with specific ideological mandates.

Absolutely.
And what I despise most is the dishonest claims of SF people who ask insist "it's the only show in town" and that the only 2 options for Republicans is "parliamentarianism or armed struggle."
I didn't leave SF because of the peace-process or ceasefire, I left when they entered Stormont.
They could've continued with the ceasefire but build an activist popular movement outside of Stormont.
I'd say they'd probably be stronger today if they had.

SoulandForm

Norwesterner wrote: »

Absolutely.
And what I despise most is the dishonest claims of SF people who ask insist "it's the only show in town" and that the only 2 options for Republicans is "parliamentarianism or armed struggle."
I didn't leave SF because of the peace-process or ceasefire, I left when they entered Stormont.
They could've continued with the ceasefire but build an activist popular movement outside of Stormont.
I'd say they'd probably be stronger today if they had.

Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness belittled Ruairí Ó Brádaigh in 1986 for calling a cease fire in the mid-70s and promised posing as hyper militarists that the war would continue unceasingly until the British withdrew. They merrily used slander and violence against both RSF outside of the prisons and the League of Republican Communists within the prisons at this time. Provisional Sinn Fein is and was since the clique took control a highly authoritarian organization- this allowed the Imperialists to buy off the leadership and take most of the membership with them. You can see a lot of the same story with the Workers Party. I hope that the lessons of history will be learnt and in the next round against the enemy people will not be so trusting.

southsiderosie

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not true.

Question: How has Sinn Féin and the republican movement in the North overcome civil rights violations? And how has it best worked towards social progress?

Answer: From outside of the political system.

Outside the political system, a movement can shout loud enough so the conversation changes. Inside the political system... joining the conversation... a movement can only wait until speaking rights are allotted to him.

In the present Dáil, no opposition politician should be waiting around inside Leinster house for speaking rights. It's a waste of time. It doesn't change the conversation. It is a sell-out on behalf of opposition politicians with specific ideological mandates.

Stronger in what sense? The republican movement, like the civil rights movement in the US, highlighted an intolerable political and social situation, and made claims for change that no democracy could willfully oppose forever. But on what issues today do you think they would have more policy leverage on outside of the system rather than inside of it?

Norwesterner wrote: »

Absolutely.
And what I despise most is the dishonest claims of SF people who ask insist "it's the only show in town" and that the only 2 options for Republicans is "parliamentarianism or armed struggle."
I didn't leave SF because of the peace-process or ceasefire, I left when they entered Stormont.
They could've continued with the ceasefire but build an activist popular movement outside of Stormont.
I'd say they'd probably be stronger today if they had.

There is no reason that republican civil society organizations can not or should not put pressure on elected officials to enact the kinds of policies that they want to see or build an 'activist popular movement'. But a party isn't a movement - it is an organization designed to move political positions through a legislative body, and that involves levels of compromise that most activist organizations are unwilling to make - and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they are fundamentally two different animals, and I think it is unreasonable - and, frankly, naive - to see them in any other way.

SoulandForm

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is no reason that republican civil society organizations can not or should not put pressure on elected officials to enact the kinds of policies that they want to see or build an 'activist popular movement'. But a party isn't a movement - it is an organization designed to move political positions through a legislative body, and that involves levels of compromise that most activist organizations are unwilling to make - and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they are fundamentally two different animals, and I think it is unreasonable - and, frankly, naive - to see them in any other way.

The point of Republicanism is not to reform the set up enforced on the Irish people at the point of gun but to abolish both Stormount and Leinster house giving the Irish people a direct as opposed to pseudo-representative say in how the nation is governed. Both legislative bodies have no legitimacy both in their origins and their practices.

southsiderosie

SoulandForm wrote: »

The point of Republicanism is not to reform the set up enforced on the Irish people at the point of gun but to abolish both Stormount and Leinster house giving the Irish people a direct as opposed to pseudo-representative say in how the nation is governed. Both legislative bodies have no legitimacy both in their origins and their practices.

And thus spoketh the People's Front of Judea.

I need my head examined for ever wading into these threads.