If the UK asked Ireland to rejoin the Union, how would you vote?

Jawgap

kingchess wrote: »

you seem to have a pretty strong case of the "cultural cringe".a clear case of cultural alienation

Y'reckon.......

Jawgap wrote: »

........
Would the genius of the vast majority of Irish cultural icons have been recognised if they were confined to a narrow backwater of a wet North Atlantic island?

Put it another way, would Heaney, Yeats, Beckett, Joyce, Wilde, Casey et al have been recognised if they confined themselves to writing in Irish as opposed to English?

We have about half as many Nobel Literature laureates as the UK and they have about 10 times our population - and if you strip out the foreign born authors domiciled there, we have about the same. Take out Churchill and the philosopher Russel and we've more.

By the way which is it you are accusing me of - cultural cringe or cultural alienation - just because they are related doesn't mean they are the same.

It's also a bit strange that because I've studied the history of our country I'm accused of cultural cringe or cultural alienation (or both) - simply because I'm articulating the academic themes from the research rather than one narrative so beloved of certain 'constituencies' in this country.......

......if you disagree with me why not post up a legitimate source or two to counter what I'm saying rather than throw concepts you seem confused about around?

kingchess

marienbad wrote: »

I don't get the relevance of this post . Are you saying the Ireland of today would still be the same if we never had The Plantations ,Cromwell , The Penal Laws etc ?

your answer to this question was a lot of waffle about the penal laws but did not answer the question"are you saying the Ireland of today would still be the same...."?? and now you post about wondering if the genius of Beckett,Joyce ,Casey etc would have been recognised if they were confined to a narrow backwater of an Island in the North Atlantic.why would they have been confined to, as you call it" a narrow backwater"???why would it be NARROW BACKWATER???.Genius is usually recognised-the likes of Robbie Burns wrote mostly in the Scots language and he is well known-

Jawgap

kingchess wrote: »

your answer to this question was a lot of waffle about the penal laws but did not answer the question"are you saying the Ireland of today would still be the same...."?? and now you post about wondering if the genius of Beckett,Joyce ,Casey etc would have been recognised if they were confined to a narrow backwater of an Island in the North Atlantic.why would they have been confined to, as you call it" a narrow backwater"???why would it be NARROW BACKWATER???.Genius is usually recognised-the likes of Robbie Burns wrote mostly in the Scots language and he is well known-

The question - "are you saying the Ireland of today would still be the same...."?? - requires counter-factual speculation; not something I'm prone to engaging in with respect to something as complicated as the application of the Penal Laws over the course of the 130 or so years they were in existence.

All I can really do is point towards someone like Walter Fales as another source to dismiss.....

Unfortunately, historians are unable to formulate universal laws which could give support to historical counterfactuals. They can not reliably figure out what would have happened if Hannibal had conquered Rome, and all they venture to say is that history would have taken a different course.

Historical counterfactuals are utterly vague, yet neither meaningless nor pointless. In fact, historical sense is nothing better than sensitivity to the suggestive power of vague "what-if" and “what-if-not” judgments. But the hypothetical facts they point at are not historical facts because they have never taken place.

Jawgap

kingchess wrote: »

your answer to this question was a lot of waffle about the penal laws but did not answer the question"are you saying the Ireland of today would still be the same...."?? and now you post about wondering if the genius of Beckett,Joyce ,Casey etc would have been recognised if they were confined to a narrow backwater of an Island in the North Atlantic.why would they have been confined to, as you call it" a narrow backwater"???why would it be NARROW BACKWATER???.Genius is usually recognised-the likes of Robbie Burns wrote mostly in the Scots language and he is well known-

Incidentally, if "genius is usually recognised" - how do you know there are no unrecognised geniuses?

kingchess

fair enough but then why conclude that Ireland would have been "a narrow backwater"and the likes of Beckett etc might not have made the impact on Literature etc?

housetypeb

Jawgap wrote: »

Incidentally, if "genius is usually recognised" - how do you know there are no unrecognised geniuses?

The clue might be in the use of the word "usually" rather than "always".

Jawgap

kingchess wrote: »

fair enough but then why conclude that Ireland would have been "a narrow backwater"and the likes of Beckett etc might not have made the impact on Literature etc?

I think if you read the rest of the post I was saying that might have been the case if they confined themselves to writing in Irish - would Beckett (seen as you have cited him) been able to achieve what he achieved if he switched from English to Irish instead of English to French?

I'm all for the language and I've learned to speak it fairly competently (and enjoyed using it in work) but lets not pretend it's anything more than it is - if the writers I mentioned had confined themselves to working in Irish then we'd be - probably - raving at the world for overlooking them......the same if the great actors we've produced only worked in Irish and the same with a lot of the musicians that count themselves as Irish.

Would people like Enda Walsh, Roddy Doyle, Paul Mercier, Colm Tóibín, Iris Murdoch, John Banville, etc etc be as lauded as they are if they didn't operate in English?

Do you think McGahern's "The Barracks" or "Amongst Women" would be as widely read if they were in Irish?

......and that's even before we go on to consider Flann O'Brien - which do you think might be wider read and therefore bring more people into contact with Irish culture and our literary traditions - The Third Policeman or An Béal Bocht?

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'm saying some things as complicated as the various Plantations, Cromwellian Ireland (including the Confederate Wars) and the Penal Laws cannot be reduced to a single simplistic statement of causation and outcome.

The Penal Laws, for example, differed in their impact depending on a whole range of factors, for example whether you were a northern or Munster Catholic or Wexford catholic (or even an English catholic); whether the family conformed before the 1640s or after; whether they converted to Anglicism or not (and when); whether the Lord Lieutenant was a 'mediator' (like Chesterfield) or an 'advocate' (like Rutland); whether the land was held 'in fee' or in leasehold; etc etc etc.

Yes, the Penal Laws were sectarian, and they were, at times viciously enforced in different parts of the country at different times, but to suggest that there was uniform application at all times they were in force just shows a complete ignorance of the country's history.

That's even before you get to the point where you realise they were repealed 185 years ago..........

I think we all understand that history is complicated . But without saying it was a good thing or a bad thing do you accept that if those things had not happened then Ireland today would be a different place .

And to answer yes or no is not being really counterfactual .Counterfactual history is when we start to speculate what kind of Ireland would have transpired .

TheEnigma

Donegal may as well just join the union in my opinion, they would get the benefits of it whilst not having any loyalist residents like other counties

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

I think we all understand that history is complicated . But without saying it was a good thing or a bad thing do you accept that if those things had not happened then Ireland today would be a different place .

And to answer yes or no is not being really counterfactual .Counterfactual history is when we start to speculate what kind of Ireland would have transpired .

Yes, of course it would be different, but in what way no one can know.

Btw - assuming A caused B (Carr, after all, tells us history is the study of causes), then the counterfactual idea that if A had not occurred then B would not have been caused (as in no Penal Laws then things would be substantially different) is usually classed as 'unconsidered counterfactualism' - and the product of 'scholarly sloppiness.'

Nodin

TheEnigma wrote: »

Donegal may as well just join the union in my opinion, they would get the benefits of it whilst not having any loyalist residents like other counties

yeah, just pissed off Republicans. And sure what would they do?

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, of course it would be different, but in what way no one can know.

Btw - assuming A caused B (Carr, after all, tells us history is the study of causes), then the counterfactual idea that if A had not occurred then B would not have been caused (as in no Penal Laws then things would be substantially different) is usually classed as 'unconsidered counterfactualism' - and the product of 'scholarly sloppiness.'

A little learning is a terrible thing.

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

A little learning is a terrible thing.

Actually - it's a lot of learning

And the quote from Carr is pretty much what you get on about day two of your history degree at undergrad level - What is History? - pg 87 for the full quote.

TheEnigma

Nodin wrote: »

yeah, just pissed off Republicans. And sure what would they do?

Yes donegal men have a history of terrorism , eg Hyde park but it's always nordies who get the terrorism stigma attached to them and never wee donegal

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

A little learning is a terrible thing.

Out of interest, given you're not so keen on any consideration of any kind of 'union' or federation with the other countries that currently make up the UK.......do you see any irony in quoting an English poet - Alexander Pope?:D

A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fir'd at first Sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless Youth we tempt the Heights of Arts,
While from the bounded Level of our Mind,
Short Views we take, nor see the lengths behind,
But more advanc'd, behold with strange Surprize
New, distant Scenes of endless Science rise!
So pleas'd at first, the towring Alps we try,
Mount o'er the Vales, and seem to tread the Sky;
Th' Eternal Snows appear already past,
And the first Clouds and Mountains seem the last:
But those attain'd, we tremble to survey
The growing Labours of the lengthen'd Way,
Th' increasing Prospect tires our wandering Eyes,
Hills peep o'er Hills, and Alps on Alps arise!

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, of course it would be different, but in what way no one can know.

Btw - assuming A caused B (Carr, after all, tells us history is the study of causes), then the counterfactual idea that if A had not occurred then B would not have been caused (as in no Penal Laws then things would be substantially different) is usually classed as 'unconsidered counterfactualism' - and the product of 'scholarly sloppiness.'

And that is all posters are saying - that the Ireland that was ,was changed and by outside forces .

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

And that is all posters are saying - that the Ireland that was ,was changed and by outside forces .

Now, I think they're saying a bit more than that...... for example.....

Nodin wrote: »

The systematic destruction of irish culture by an imperial power, with a certain smugness that makes me presume a WUM is operating.

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

Now, I think they're saying a bit more than that...... for example.....

Well we can discuss that next if you like. What do you find objectionable about that sentence or inaccurate ? After all change is both destructive and creative .

Would you disagree that one culture was supplanted and subsumed into another ?

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

Well we can discuss that next if you like. What do you find objectionable about that sentence or inaccurate ? After all change is both destructive and creative .

Would you disagree that one culture was supplanted and subsumed into another ?

Well, seen as your asking - I find it amusing that there is no attempt to back up what is being said with anything.

Now, if you want you can bring economics and Schumpeter's Gale into this but you are mixing concepts - creative-destructionism is an economic concept written about in the context of capitalism and socialism.

Thus far the discussion has related to the cultural and the sectarian nature of the Penal Laws.

So what is it you think needs discussing?

And for clarity - I don't think one 'culture' supplanted another - I think each subsumed elements from the other.

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, seen as your asking - I find it amusing that there is no attempt to back up what is being said with anything.

Now, if you want you can bring economics and Schumpeter's Gale into this but you are mixing concepts - creative-destructionism is an economic concept written about in the context of capitalism and socialism.

Thus far the discussion has related to the cultural and the sectarian nature of the Penal Laws.

So what is it you think needs discussing?

And for clarity - I don't think one 'culture' supplanted another - I think each subsumed elements from the other.

Of course , but it was not an equal exchange and not voluntary , would you agree ?

tipptom

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, seen as your asking - I find it amusing that there is no attempt to back up what is being said with anything.

Now, if you want you can bring economics and Schumpeter's Gale into this but you are mixing concepts - creative-destructionism is an economic concept written about in the context of capitalism and socialism.

Thus far the discussion has related to the cultural and the sectarian nature of the Penal Laws.

So what is it you think needs discussing?

And for clarity - I don't think one 'culture' supplanted another - I think each subsumed elements from the other.

Ha Ha,your priceless,Fuc*kin "subsumed"!!!
Here was I thinking Hitler invaded France,but no,he went over to "Subsume" their culture with each other,nice one.

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

Of course , but it was not an equal exchange and not voluntary , would you agree ?

No, because the research does not indicate an involuntary exchange and is inconclusive as to the equality of the exchange......

In "The Dynamics of Cultural Nationalism" - John Hutchinson distinguishes cultural from political nationalism in Ireland: the latter seeks to rationalise the state through law, whereas the former delineates the customs and culture of the historic moral community.

Hutchinson's argument is that secular intellectuals- scholars, literary men, and artists-act as moral innovators to create cultural nationalism, which is adopted and disseminated by the intelligentsia- barristers, doctors, journalists, schoolteachers, and minor civil servants.

A product of the British state in nineteenth-century Ireland, the intelligentsia found cultural nationalism attractive because of an identity crisis (Irish Catholics working for Protestant Britain) and blocked mobility (severe competition for employment).

He looks at the three acknowledged cultural revivals (from 1780 to 1798, 1830 to 1848, and 1890 to 1892) but it was only the last of the three, the 'rural Gaelic revival,' where there was a rejection of British materialism and secularism and this, he suggests, prepared the way for the creation of the Irish nation state.

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Out of interest, given you're not so keen on any consideration of any kind of 'union' or federation with the other countries that currently make up the UK.......do you see any irony in quoting an English poet - Alexander Pope?

You seem to be confusing me with some sort of Taleban-esque organisation.

Jawgap

tipptom wrote: »

Ha Ha,your priceless,Fuc*kin "subsumed"!!!
Here was I thinking Hitler invaded France,but no,he went over to "Subsume" their culture with each other,nice one.

Well the option was 'supplanted' or 'subsumed' - and Hitler invaded France to subsume their economy - he was no more interested in their culture than he was ours because in his view there was no French culture, or Irish culture because only the Aryans were capable of 'producing culture' - other nationalities could be 'culture bearing' (he offered only the Japanese as an example) or 'culture destroying.'

But what am I saying - your statement above indicates you already know this;)

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be confusing me with some sort of Taleban-esque organisation.

Oh dear! Did we not realise that quote you threw out came from Pope

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

No, because the research does not indicate an involuntary exchange and is inconclusive as to the equality of the exchange......

In "The Dynamics of Cultural Nationalism" - John Hutchinson distinguishes cultural from political nationalism in Ireland: the latter seeks to rationalise the state through law, whereas the former delineates the customs and culture of the historic moral community.

Hutchinson's argument is that secular intellectuals- scholars, literary men, and artists-act as moral innovators to create cultural nationalism, which is adopted and disseminated by the intelligentsia- barristers, doctors, journalists, schoolteachers, and minor civil servants.

A product of the British state in nineteenth-century Ireland, the intelligentsia found cultural nationalism attractive because of an identity crisis (Irish Catholics working for Protestant Britain) and blocked mobility (severe competition for employment).

He looks at the three acknowledged cultural revivals (from 1780 to 1798, 1830 to 1848, and 1890 to 1892) but it was only the last of the three, the 'rural Gaelic revival,' where there was a rejection of British materialism and secularism and this, he suggests, prepared the way for the creation of the Irish nation state.

None of the above , which is fascinating in its own right , has any relevance to the subject in hand .

What we are discussing is that you had two separate and distinct cultures and the question did one 'subsume' the other . You have already accepted that it did and that it was not voluntary.

In a sense whether it was a good or a bad thing is also irrelevant , the fact is the Ireland that existed was changed irrevocably .

Now if you like we can discuss was it inevitable , or a good or bad thing or a fair exchange or were there winners and losers or whatever , but lets not pretend it never happened .

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually - it's a lot of learning

And the quote from Carr is pretty much what you get on about day two of your history degree at undergrad level - What is History? - pg 87 for the full quote.

I'd say you could be a few hundred days into it and still have learnt SFA at the rate you're going.

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh dear! Did we not realise that quote you threw out came from Pope

You seem in a hurry to try and provoke people. Tell me, what about that statement made you think that I didn't know where the quote came from?

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh dear! Did we not realise that quote you threw out came from Pope

Ah come on will you, and give people some credit !

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

None of the above , which is fascinating in its own right , has any relevance to the subject in hand .

What we are discussing is that you had two separate and distinct cultures and the question did one 'subsume' the other . You have already accepted that it did and that it was not voluntary.

In a sense whether it was a good or a bad thing is also irrelevant , the fact is the Ireland that existed was changed irrevocably .

Now if you like we can discuss was it inevitable , or a good or bad thing or a fair exchange or were there winners and losers or whatever , but lets not pretend it never happened .

Well if you want to dismiss a book that inquires into the origins of Irish cultural nationalism - go ahead.

Second, if you are going to persist - as other do in this thread - in not reading what I post then there's not much point in proceeding with the discussion.

What I said was that each subsumed elements from the other......not that one subsumed the other.....

Jawgap wrote: »

........

And for clarity - I don't think one 'culture' supplanted another - I think each subsumed elements from the other.

and that the nature of the exchange was not indicated as involuntary by the research (which you dismiss as irrelevant)....

Jawgap wrote: »

No, because the research does not indicate an involuntary exchange and is inconclusive as to the equality of the exchange......

...........