MarchDub wrote: » I for one, was glad to be born into a free Irish Republic. I take it any day over what had gone before, and that's the only reference that can be used. As was said before on this forum, we don't have a parallel universe to compare with how things could have been better - we can only reference what went before. And before was not better IMO.
Manic Moran wrote: » It's all well and good to eschew violence. But eschewing it to the point of helplessness in the face of those less civilised than you is foolish. There is no dishonour in defending yourself. Being morally correct and dead seems a bit pointless. NTM
Data_Quest wrote: » Good one. I had not seen that quote before about equipping yourself with a sword. Just goes to prove that the Bible is full of inconsistencies as Jesus also is reported to have said something like: those you live by the sword die by the sword.
However, I also believe that deliberately going out to shoot some police men is not an act of self defence.
Manic Moran wrote: » But how about if the police shoot first? You go and have your peaceful protest, and as you're sitting there peacefully, the police attack. Maybe they shoot a couple of protestors to make a point and try to get them to disperse. Is it not acceptable to attack the police in such a case? NTM
If you are on a peaceful protest (therefore unarmed) and the police start shooting then you are unlikely to attack them as they are likely to start shooting again.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Non-violent protest works well in a democracy or when you need to keep your democratic trading partners happy. You could even argue that violent protest in a democracy is morally wrong as you should be able to achieve your aims peacefully if you have a resonably level of support, and if you don't have that support you are forcing your will on them. It's interesting to speculate how far the Palestinans would have gotten on had they just used non-violent protests.
Eoinp wrote: » Fascinating thread. A number of points. Starting from the original premise I thought I'd state some baseline observations. 1) Violence achieves results. If it didn't no-one would employ it as a tool. 2) Violence can be put to good and bad ends 3) On an amoral basis the use of violence may seem the most effective way to a goal for a given faction 4) Violence may not be the correct tool for a specific stated goal 5) The consequences of violence is a tendency to lead to more violence especially where the attacked/attacker is defeated but not beyond the capacity to reboot/rebuild/reorganize I've always felt that in the Irish case, the use of violence was in fact the wrong tool applied at the wrong time to a poor if not disastrous result. There was significant room within the British Empire to envisage an alternate structure to the Free State violence actually achieved, especially because, like the Other White Settler Elements of the Empire, there was local democracy and quite uniquely in Ireland, national (UKOGBI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) democracy. As the Empire evolved (with significant Irish engagement up to 1932 and culminating in the 1931 Statue of Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster,_1931) it took on the form of a much looser alliance of nations, something that may well, if not completely, have suited a small nation like our own better. Still, the end result was not completely without merit. In summary the use of force to achieve ends depends on the ends in a moral sense but in practical terms it is unavoidable. When you bring morality into the equation it becomes difficult to defend the causes that apply violence and often times as above the timing of violence, but then in both regards the fallibility of man comes into play. Eoin
Eoinp wrote: » There was significant room within the British Empire to envisage an alternate structure to the Free State violence actually achieved, especially because, like the Other White Settler Elements of the Empire, there was local democracy and quite uniquely in Ireland, national (UKOGBI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) democracy. As the Empire evolved (with significant Irish engagement up to 1932 and culminating in the 1931 Statue of Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster,_1931) it took on the form of a much looser alliance of nations, something that may well, if not completely, have suited a small nation like our own better. Still, the end result was not completely without merit.
MarchDub wrote: » Your use of a Wiki article to forward your point is exactly why Wiki should never be used for this – or anything else for that matter. [See previous rants against Wiki on this forum]. This Wiki article is ignorant of the true nature of the Irish Parliament which was not at all independent of England - but the article suggests this. The Irish Parliament dates from the thirteenth century and was originally formed for the Norman invaders to deal with the issue of native Irish incursions back across land seized by the Norman settlers. The first parliament was convened to deal with this native Irish “lawlessness” as they called it. It was also organized to consolidate the establishment of English law, especially that pertaining to the English succession system, and eradicate Irish Brehon Law - which it initially failed to do beyond the Pale. The Irish Parliament ceased to have any power at all when Poynings Law was imposed in 1494. From this date the Irish Parliament was essentially a puppet parliament under Westminster without power of autonomy to pass independent laws. The struggle for wrestling power from England - especially to do with trade regulations that favoured English trade over Irish trade - - came to a head under Henry Grattan in the late eighteenth century. But this ultimately resulted in the entire body - upper and lower houses- being abolished and Ireland put formally under the Westminster Parliament. To therefore suggest that Ireland was "unique" in having local democracy within the British Empire - i.e. any real control over Irish affairs - is historically incorrect.
Morlar wrote: » I think that is an interesting post. I think how the empire developed after Ireland is perhaps not the same path it would have taken without the element of armed Irish republicanism and it's results. I think another interesting question is how moral were the british establishment in their collective approach to the issue of Ireland ? Would it be an intelligent proposition as an Irishman/Irishwoman in pre - Independence Ireland to have held yourself to a higher moral standard than the people who are occupying your country and through violence denying you the right to self determination ?
Eoinp wrote: » As regards the pre-1801 parliament in all its forms (which I should note I did not intend to use as a supporting of my case) I would agree that its powers were limited by certain factors inherent in its basis and that those flaws were at the very least undesirable. However Poynings law was all but repealed in 1782 and although the resulting parliament hardly represented a universal one, it did at least embody the concept of an Irish body politic.
Eoinp wrote: » Further to the point of the origin of the parliament it is correct to say that it originated from the colonisers, but there was no reason to believe that something more inclusive could not, at a future date have been created from this. However, I'm not making this part of my case, nor do I think it would further it.
Eoinp wrote: » To restate what I meant by the above, Irish people has access to a parliament (witness the large IPP representation in Westminster). This route had the potential to deliver results and had done so on some issues in the past, land reform and local government most obviously. My prime case is that violence was not really the best choice to achieve the goals of the Irish people in 1916-1921 especially as a long struggle resulted in something not materially different from that which had been proffered in the many versions of Home Rule thrown about by various sides.
Eoinp wrote: » My prime case is that violence was not really the best choice to achieve the goals of the Irish people in 1916-1921 especially as a long struggle resulted in something not materially different from that which had been proffered in the many versions of Home Rule thrown about by various sides. That is not to say that morally those who engaged in violence were wrong or right, just that alternative routes to the same goal were possible and might have yielded better results. Eoin
brianthebard wrote: » Hi Eoin, you make some very good points but I think the above is not quite true. The Third home rule bill was well known to not grant Ireland the same freedoms as Canada of South Africa had, it was quite a watered down proposal in comparison to the other dominions. As well as that, the people who fought between 1916-1921 were by and large republicans of some sort, and/or nationalists, and obviously believed that Home Rule was not the right thing for Ireland. The Free State that arrived was not what they had hoped for but was also a much better deal than Home Rule.
MarchDub wrote: » Poynings Law’s repeal was a brief interlude and it occurred primarily because of the pressure that the British felt in the American colonies; the direct result being the withdrawal of just about all British troops from Ireland. Ireland was given permission to form "Volunteer" corps but the Brits came to distrust these and there was a real fear of rebellion in Ireland. Hence, the prudent thing seemed to be – at that time - for the British to give power to the Irish Parliament. The old landlord system of aristocratic power came under attack from the ’98 rebels who formed out of the volunteer militia but they were easily dealt with. However as soon as the American situation was resolved and war with France began, Pitt stood up in the Westminster Parliament in January 1799 and denounced the 1782 Act that gave legislative freedom to Dublin and declared that it was a “demolition of the system which before held the two countries together”. i.e. with English control of Irish affairs. He further explained that Britain had an ongoing war with France which was a concern and then he stated his fear that the Irish institution would not be loyal to British interests but would put its own interests first. This was the key to the whole issue. Pitt wanted Ireland back under British legislative control and the only way to do this was by abolishing the Irish Parliament and creating a tiered "union". Which he eventually got. In Pitt’s defence I would say that he promised Catholic Emancipation and was disappointed when it did not happen. But this failure of Catholic Emancipation at that time is an example of failed constitutional politics. But the record indicates that that there was reason to believe this. When was this to happen? - no inclusive parliament had evolved after 500 years so how long would it have taken? And the constitutional path had failed in any attempt to bring it about. I read the record differently – that the violence grew out of the failure of British constitutional politics. I believe there was inevitability about 1916 given the repeated tragic failure of constitutional politics especially under Parnell but also before his time. Remember the constitutional route had been tried throughout the nineteenth century and had failed to bring Home Rule. O’Connell had hopes for a “repeal of the union” in the 1830s and 40s -his monster meetings were banned and short shrift given to his hopes. Even Catholic Emancipation was a long drawn out affair before success – and final achievement then came with the price of many Irish Catholic farmers losing the right to vote. This experience left a bad taste in the collective memory of many Irish - so much for constitutional "success". But the real tragedy of the failure of constitution politics came with Parnell and the Home Rule movement of the mid to late nineteenth century. The Land War only achieved success as the “lesser of two evils” – or “killing Home Rule with kindness” as it was known. Had Parnell been allowed to succeed with his constitutional dream of a Dublin Parliament we would not have had the tragic century that was 20th century Ireland IMO. Shortly after the 1916 Rising Eoin MacNeil [who had refused to participate] said lamentably “Home Rule was a cheque that was constantly being post-dated”. In the end few in Ireland believed the cheque was ever going to be in the mail.
Eoinp wrote: » As I said, I'm not going to defend the pre-1801 parliament (at least not in this thread). I will say on your reading that it is as valid as my own. I tend to disagree with your version and for several reasons. The problem with the "never posted cheque" argument is that the cheque had been mailed however short of our desired amount it was. It might have failed drastically, been of little real effect or it might just have been an amazing change that led to real progress for Ireland and 1916 derailed any chance of it ever had of working post Still you can't spend too long crying over spilled milk and as I said I think the final outcomes would ultimately have been pretty similar had the route been violent or peaceful. Eoin
MarchDub wrote: » Well as you say it "might have been anything" but that is fantasy land. My interest is in learning why and how things happened not developing a fantasy universe about what might have been if...I leave that to fiction writers.
Eoinp wrote: » 90 years of propaganda and hero stories will not change the fact that the Rising was a radical break with 50 years of successful if not perfect and certainly frustrating peaceful development towards a freer Ireland. Eoin
Eoinp wrote: » Regardless the point remains valid. The outcome of violence was largely (if better in some senses) the same as the outcome without violence. I doubt the destruction wrought by the 1916-1924 period was worth a better deal on tax! Given the progress made even in the 10 years post treaty, pre-FF's arrival in power I put it to you that even Home Rule presented opportunities for peaceful increases in Irish independence. I'm not saying that the route of violence was not moral, simply that I believe more could have been achieved had 1916 not happened and the subsequent war of Independence been avoided in favour of a peaceful route, but we will as I have noted before, never know. Eoin
Eoinp wrote: » While in general I agree with you on that avenue of thinking, there is room for a little counter factual thinking, if only to allow the power of the imagined end for comparison. It gives you an understanding that decisions made at a certain point need not have been made, and that other choices could conceivable have been made. If we understand than then we begin to understand too that History is not predetermined but random and DECISIONS are critical to outcomes. You can pick at my case but I'm not sure the central thesis can be undermined. 90 years of propaganda and hero stories will not change the fact that the Rising was a radical break with 50 years of successful if not perfect and certainly frustrating peaceful development towards a freer Ireland. In this situation I contest that violent resistance was not the best option and other options were likely to have yielded effectively the same outcome. Eoin
Data_Quest wrote: » I would speculate further that without the violence the outcome might have been even better over the last 90 years as we would have escaped at least some of the following:1000s of violent deaths a ruinous civil war the economic nightmare of partition that impacts us even today the dominance of the Catholic Church
Data_Quest wrote: » 1000s of violent deaths a ruinous civil war the economic nightmare of partition that impacts us even today the dominance of the Catholic Church
MarchDub wrote: » I mean this in all sincerity - you really need to get in touch with what has been written by Irish scholars in the field of historiography within the past 40 years. To lump it all together as "propaganda" is a great disservice to the field and displays perhaps a narrow reading of the published record of what has been a lively discussion on the events.
brianthebard wrote: » Under Home rule Ireland would have no say on international issues, would've been beholden to the Imperial parliament for defence and other issues, and would not have been anywhere near independent, not even having the same level of autonomy as Canada, as I already pointed out. I can see what you are saying, but I think its clear that the treaty that came from the war of independence achieved much more than had been offered in the 1912 HR Bill. I think what you are referring to really is the benefits derived from the Statute of Westminster of 1931, which gave DeValera the opportunity to dismantle the treaty, something which isn't often referred to in history books. However it is impossible to say that that Statute would have happened without the Irish War of Independence, or that Ireland would have been included in it where it not for the same war.
Eoinp wrote: » You can pick at my case but I'm not sure the central thesis can be undermined. 90 years of propaganda and hero stories will not change the fact that the Rising was a radical break with 50 years of successful if not perfect and certainly frustrating peaceful development towards a freer Ireland.
Eoinp wrote: » You are correct, I was referring to the results of nearly ten years of diplomacy by Free State politicians and officials and the positive results if such. And example if you will of when violence is not the best option to achieve a goal! Something Dev showed in his subsequent machinations. It is totally implausible to suggest that some kind of change would not have happened in the Empire in the years following WWI, but I'll not try and guess what that would have looked like. I think it is plausible to suggest however that Ireland might have done well out of it one way or the other had she not fought a nasty of short war with Britain for freedom! Eoin
Data_Quest wrote: » On another thread someone suggested I start a new one based on my opinion that it is rarely worth it to kill anyone in the hope of achieving a political goal. At one extreme we have a Gandhi Quote:When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS. And at the other extreme we have a quote from Dan Breen:I'll make no apoligies for killing. The only thing I have ever been sorry about is the number that escaped !! Anyman that comes into my house or country and tries to take over, I'm going to kill him, by any means. I will openly admit that I would lean towards a Gandhi-like way of thinking and find the Dan Breen view abhorrent. To start the ball rolling I will use a few examples: 1. Was the Irish War of Independance worth all the killing of Irish and British to achieve a 26 county "Free" state? If we had adopted a Gandhi like approach would we have achieved a 32 county independence (or at least a devolved government similar to that of Scotland & Wales) without all the killing of the last 90 years. 2. Was the Spanish Civil War worth all the killing of 100,000s. The facist forces under Franco won out in the end but when Franco died in 1975 democracy was eventually restored. I would be interested in your thoughts if you think there are situations when killing is justified.
brianthebard wrote: » But you have to realise that what DeValera achieved through diplomacy was only possible because of the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which itself may not have been possible if it were not for the Irish war of independence. Furthermore, if Ireland had been granted Home Rule and had not fought for independence the statute would almost certainly not have applied to Ireland in the same way it did not apply to Scotland or Wales. http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/StatuteofWestminster.html
