Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is the difference between an Irish Republican and an Irish Nationalist?

Options
2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    They have both been criminalised by Independent Newspapers?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Myth. The UVF had more than enough to pull off such a bombing.

    Seems that you are glorifying them and their "achievements" Keith.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    I would disagree with that statement,we would have the flag of the four provinces,nothing wrong with that,there are plenty of Irish songs that would be worthy of a national anthem,and they would not threaten our culture,only enhance it given the right management.

    I don't like the four provinces flag. The tricolour is part and parcel of our country and has been around for a couple of centuries so has a lot a lot of history to it. As for the anthem i think some song like Irelands Call makes me cringe. Amhrán Na bhFiann is a much more inspiring anthem for me anyway.

    And while i would agree Unionist culture would add to our culture overall they have also shown a lot of hostility towards our own culture which would be problematic if there was a UI.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    So you don't want anything to do with Unionists? Ok.

    I wouldn't go that far. I'd just rather keep the status quo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Seems that you are glorifying them and their "achievements" Keith.
    Nope. Wrong. I just think people should not underestimate what the UVF could do during the Troubles.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    The tricolour is part and parcel of our country and has been around for a couple of centuries

    That is not correct,they only started using it 1848, and up until 1916 it was barely used at all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Nope. Wrong. I just think people should not underestimate what the UVF could do during the Troubles.

    There was collusion between loyalists and security forces that was the reason they succeeded in doing anything remotely "professional".

    That is fact, if anything they were overestimated.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    There was collusion between loyalists and security forces that was the reason they succeeded in doing anything remotely "professional".

    That is fact, if anything they were overestimated.
    No there wasn't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    That is not correct,they only started using it 1848, and up until 1916 it was barely used at all.

    It still has been the state flag since independence in 1922 thus the only flag we've had.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    The men involved in the Dublin bombings denied that the British forces helped them out. I don't see why they would need the help of British forces anyway. We all know who did the dublin bombings who were in the UVF.

    Of course they denied it, imagine what kind of publicity the British government would have received if they said they did help,the thugs involved were either compensated or intimidated into denying British involvment despite the overwhelming evidence.

    Wake up and smell the coffee Keith.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    It still has been the state flag since independence in 1922 thus the only flag we've had.

    True, but the fact remains a piece of cloth is irrelevant when it comes to Irish reunification no matter what colour it is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    Instead of being a coward and ignoring the points I made, do you mind addressing the last point I mentioned.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Republicanism and Nationalism with regard to Ireland are sort of one and the same.

    However, I'd nearly view Republicans as a subset of Nationalists - Nationalists that want 32 counties by any means.

    IMO Nationalists want 32 counties, but only by political recourse.

    At least that's how I view it.

    You can't be a Republican without being a Nationalist first.

    (as stated, this refers only to those in Ireland).

    I could be miles off the mark, but that's my view on it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    You can't be a Republican without being a Nationalist first.

    Disagree, real nationalists take everything into account when it comes to irish nationalism from language,culture,heritage etc, all that qualifies you to be a republican is to be one of those people who go aroiund saying "Eire 32", brits out,**** the prods,up the ra,all that tripe, and when I hear people bringing religion into it, where it has no place,really bugs me.

    Especially when you take into account most of these "republicans" have no concept of Irish history and the figures involved, you ask them the major figures and all they will say is,James Connolly,Padraig Pearse,Michael Collins,Wolfe Tone and Bobby Sands.

    Just shows how shallow they are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Disagree, real nationalists take everything into account when it comes to irish nationalism from language,culture,heritage etc, all that qualifies you to be a republican is to be one of those people who go aroiund saying "Eire 32", brits out,**** the prods,up the ra,all that tripe, and when I hear people bringing religion into it, where it has no place,really bugs me.

    Especially when you take into account most of these "republicans" have no concept of Irish history and the figures involved, you ask them the major figures and all they will say is,James Connolly,Padraig Pearse,Michael Collins,Wolfe Tone and Bobby Sands.

    Just shows how shallow they are.


    As I said, it mostly my (admittedly simplified) view of things. No offence meant to anyone. Everyone has their own agenda, and their own reasons for thinking one way or another.

    I would however assume, that to be considered either, you would surely have to have heritage and culture etc as part of your agenda?? To not would leave it meaningless imo.

    Also, I would believe that to 'call' yourself a republican, and to actually 'be' a republican are two totally different things. Plenty of little scumbag muppets spoil the basket for real republicans with the exact tripe you just stated. Very simple to 'say' you're a republican.

    I'm not really sure what I'd consider myself TBH. Considering the media farce it has all become over the years, probably best to avoid either tag.

    Media: nationalist / republican = terrorist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Republicanism and Nationalism with regard to Ireland are sort of one and the same.

    However, I'd nearly view Republicans as a subset of Nationalists - Nationalists that want 32 counties by any means.

    IMO Nationalists want 32 counties, but only by political recourse.
    At least that's how I view it.

    You can't be a Republican without being a Nationalist first.

    (as stated, this refers only to those in Ireland).

    I could be miles off the mark, but that's my view on it.

    I think its off the mark because there are plenty of republicans who only accept political recourse. In fact most republicans these days.

    Usually tied into republicanism are hall marks such as secular policy and equality, which wouldn't be neccesities for a nationalist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Disagree, real nationalists take everything into account when it comes to irish nationalism from language,culture,heritage etc, all that qualifies you to be a republican is to be one of those people who go aroiund saying "Eire 32", brits out,**** the prods,up the ra,all that tripe, and when I hear people bringing religion into it, where it has no place,really bugs me.

    Especially when you take into account most of these "republicans" have no concept of Irish history and the figures involved, you ask them the major figures and all they will say is,James Connolly,Padraig Pearse,Michael Collins,Wolfe Tone and Bobby Sands.

    Just shows how shallow they are.

    Republicanism is a secular ideology. I am a republican, Im not like what you describe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Disagree, real nationalists take everything into account when it comes to irish nationalism from language,culture,heritage etc, all that qualifies you to be a republican is to be one of those people who go aroiund saying "Eire 32", brits out,**** the prods,up the ra,all that tripe, and when I hear people bringing religion into it, where it has no place,really bugs me.

    Especially when you take into account most of these "republicans" have no concept of Irish history and the figures involved, you ask them the major figures and all they will say is,James Connolly,Padraig Pearse,Michael Collins,Wolfe Tone and Bobby Sands.

    Just shows how shallow they are.

    Nonsense to be honest. If you come out with "**** the prods" you are anti-republican by definition


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Nonsense to be honest. If you come out with "**** the prods" you are anti-republican by definition


    Unfortunately the exact people who would come out with that tripe, are the exact ones who would 'say' they're republican. And know next to nothing about what it really means.


  • Registered Users Posts: 865 ✭✭✭MajorMax


    I consider myself both a Nationalist and a Republican. I believe in the Republic in it's current and future status and I am a Nationalist in that I support the irish people and culture.
    I resent that both words have been hijacked and used incorrectly


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    Nonsense to be honest. If you come out with "**** the prods" you are anti-republican by definition

    Not in their definition unfortunately, liitle do they realise some of the most important historical figures in the movement for Irish independence were Protestant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Not in their definition unfortunately, liitle do they realise some of the most important historical figures in the movement for Irish independence were Protestant.

    They're just bigots trying to justify their sectarianism by tying it in with republicanism. Their incorrect beliefs about republicanism do not change what republicanism means.

    Think of those in America who call themselves republicans despite wanting legal status for their sexist, anti-secular and homophobic views. Again their definition doesn't change what republicanism is.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Maybe but theres also the financial damage as well as the inevitable concessions on our culture, flag and anthem being made to Unionists which i don't want to see.

    Concessions? What Concessions, its the Unionists and Loyalists who would be making the biggest concessions

    culture
    I am sure that (deary) Ulster Scot music and folklore is not too different to Irish music and folklore. Our Irish Language is, sadly, dying.Both areas are suppose to be a bit god fearing (well the old crowd) but we don't mind playing games on Sunday he he he. St Patrick's Day can be easily shared as he was an honoury Nordie. I can't see how our gaelic games will die a death by renaming clubs, stands, and stadiums to more modern people or things as oppose to our republican and nationalist hero's. (somehow the notion of all the people in an united ireland playing the games, who have made them delighted that their cause was worth it). Religion? please, there is not a huge amount difference between Presbetryaianism and Catholicism, in attitudes or morals. No religion should have an interest in the State. It won't stop us still loving our theatres, music, arts etc. Both communities believe in family values. It would not kill us to remember all those who died in WW1 and WW2. Would there really be a need to go all out on 1916 & War of Independence celebrations or cemorations in the sense that it would been achieved..... why rub a sore point of time in the loyalist faces. 1798 is not always paraded about (a true united Ireland fight, well Tone and Co fought against Catholic & Protestants in the British armies, not to mention the traitor spies)

    It still makes me rather laugh when you say culture, common in supporting English/Scottish football teams, watching British tv arts music etc, wear pretty much the same clothes we all eat similar food, oh yes and lets remeber the fact that Europe is or has been Americanised.

    Did you really mean, concessions in political power, the odd parliament visit to belfast, good forbid some mature acceptance of that shower in the tango orange saffrons?

    Hardly going to forbid them to recongise their actual British culture? Belgium seems to survive with its two peoples

    Our Flag
    I agree, the tricolour is a great flag, with genuine and decent meaning to it. the unionist/loyalist have nothing to fear (but they would anyway)its a very very very small price to pay and no excuse for not wanting a UI.Considering our Four Fathers accepted an Oath of Allegiance to the King, this objection is trival

    Anthem
    Dry the hell up. As good as it sounds, I doubt it was ever really intended to be the national anthem. Quite a few people don't even know what it means never mind sing it without mumbling. Again, I like it as much as you but its a very very very small price to pay and no excuse for not wanting a UI.


    You make it sound like Northern Ireland was always an economic basket case. Belfast was once bigger than Dublin, you know. The amount of investment from Ulster Scots and Northern Irish in America, so the South don't have monopoly. With peace i will expand if allowed. (replacing the NHS would be tough going on them)

    Anyway, it would decades before its realistic to even have a poll/referendum. The southerners seem to have a bit of distain from our friends in the north. The two communities barely trust each other and the northerns have chips on their shoulders towards the south. lovely, you won't have to fear anything


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Concessions? What Concessions, its the Unionists and Loyalists who would be making the biggest concessions

    culture
    I am sure that (deary) Ulster Scot music and folklore is not too different to Irish music and folklore. Our Irish Language is, sadly, dying.Both areas are suppose to be a bit god fearing (well the old crowd) but we don't mind playing games on Sunday he he he. St Patrick's Day can be easily shared as he was an honoury Nordie. I can't see how our gaelic games will die a death by renaming clubs, stands, and stadiums to more modern people or things as oppose to our republican and nationalist hero's. (somehow the notion of all the people in an united ireland playing the games, who have made them delighted that their cause was worth it). Religion? please, there is not a huge amount difference between Presbetryaianism and Catholicism, in attitudes or morals. No religion should have an interest in the State. It won't stop us still loving our theatres, music, arts etc. Both communities believe in family values. It would not kill us to remember all those who died in WW1 and WW2. Would there really be a need to go all out on 1916 & War of Independence celebrations or cemorations in the sense that it would been achieved..... why rub a sore point of time in the loyalist faces. 1798 is not always paraded about (a true united Ireland fight, well Tone and Co fought against Catholic & Protestants in the British armies, not to mention the traitor spies)

    It still makes me rather laugh when you say culture, common in supporting English/Scottish football teams, watching British tv arts music etc, wear pretty much the same clothes we all eat similar food, oh yes and lets remeber the fact that Europe is or has been Americanised.

    Did you really mean, concessions in political power, the odd parliament visit to belfast, good forbid some mature acceptance of that shower in the tango orange saffrons?

    Hardly going to forbid them to recongise their actual British culture? Belgium seems to survive with its two peoples

    Our Flag
    I agree, the tricolour is a great flag, with genuine and decent meaning to it. the unionist/loyalist have nothing to fear (but they would anyway)its a very very very small price to pay and no excuse for not wanting a UI.Considering our Four Fathers accepted an Oath of Allegiance to the King, this objection is trival

    Anthem
    Dry the hell up. As good as it sounds, I doubt it was ever really intended to be the national anthem. Quite a few people don't even know what it means never mind sing it without mumbling. Again, I like it as much as you but its a very very very small price to pay and no excuse for not wanting a UI.


    You make it sound like Northern Ireland was always an economic basket case. Belfast was once bigger than Dublin, you know. The amount of investment from Ulster Scots and Northern Irish in America, so the South don't have monopoly. With peace i will expand if allowed. (replacing the NHS would be tough going on them)

    Anyway, it would decades before its realistic to even have a poll/referendum. The southerners seem to have a bit of distain from our friends in the north. The two communities barely trust each other and the northerns have chips on their shoulders towards the south. lovely, you won't have to fear anything

    Ok how about this? Tell me what the benefits of a UI are over the current situation. How will it improve my life or the life of anyone else on the island over things now?

    Also Belgium is a very bad example to use for your argument. They haven't been able to form a government for the better part of a year because the walloons and flemish can't agree on one.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Ok how about this? Tell me what the benefits of a UI are over the current situation. How will it improve my life or the life of anyone else on the island over things now?

    Also Belgium is a very bad example to use for your argument. They haven't been able to form a government for the better part of a year because the walloons and flemish can't agree on one.

    Its a political, social and historic aspiration. No more no less. I won't say it will improve any more the lives of Irish people. But it couldn't worsen it. I accept we in the South need to sort out our house first.

    The fact that we have a substantial amount of people in the North that looks to Dublin (while Dublin ignores places like Donegal, Monahan & Cavan, never mind Belfast & co) justifies consideration for a United Ireland. This of course, does not justify violence today, nor was an united ireland ever originally intended to be the cause when the troubles started.

    I accept that Belgium is a very bad example, now, that does not mean there never will be another one (though its not looking good) Ireland should (it won't though) learn from mistakes of others. With good people like yourself and attitudes towards "concessions", we would be like Belgium, so hence, the notion of a united Ireland is decades away. It does not mean debate should be ignored.

    With regard to you, well, I would imagine you know what the interest of the country and the common good means. It's more than just economic well being. (important as it is). With an United Ireland, boarder counties will feel more at home with eachother, trade better (the same could be said if we had the same currency)

    Now that I have replied to you on brief pointers (regardless of whether you agree) please have the decency to point out what concessions you would not want to give to the Unionists? I would imagine that this country has moved on from the De Valera years when he knew why the country in the 1940's could never be united.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Usually tied into republicanism are hall marks such as secular policy and equality, which wouldn't be neccesities for a nationalist.
    Why would you single out religion or equality in the difference? Nationalism usually means wanting the best for your country, would that not include a secular system with equality for all?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Its a political, social and historic aspiration. No more no less. I won't say it will improve any more the lives of Irish people. But it couldn't worsen it. I accept we in the South need to sort out our house first.

    The fact that we have a substantial amount of people in the North that looks to Dublin (while Dublin ignores places like Donegal, Monahan & Cavan, never mind Belfast & co) justifies consideration for a United Ireland. This of course, does not justify violence today, nor was an united ireland ever originally intended to be the cause when the troubles started.

    I accept that Belgium is a very bad example, now, that does not mean there never will be another one (though its not looking good) Ireland should (it won't though) learn from mistakes of others. With good people like yourself and attitudes towards "concessions", we would be like Belgium, so hence, the notion of a united Ireland is decades away. It does not mean debate should be ignored.

    With regard to you, well, I would imagine you know what the interest of the country and the common good means. It's more than just economic well being. (important as it is). With an United Ireland, boarder counties will feel more at home with eachother, trade better (the same could be said if we had the same currency)

    Now that I have replied to you on brief pointers (regardless of whether you agree) please have the decency to point out what concessions you would not want to give to the Unionists? I would imagine that this country has moved on from the De Valera years when he knew why the country in the 1940's could never be united.

    None of your reasons have convinced me that theres any real benefit to a UI. These days a UI only seems to have symbolic value and little else. Symbolism isn't enough to merit a UI.

    Also if you think a UI is a unachievable for a few decades it's further proof that it won't happen. The longer the NI and the ROI are apart the less likely there'll be a UI. Countries rarely reunite anymore. We've seen more countries split than unify in the last 60 years.

    As for concessions i have already mentioned some of them. But i would imagine in a UI the minority unionists would demand to be on almost equal footing with the majority. You mentioned in your earlier post that the unionist will have to make the biggest concessions for a UI but why should they?. They are the ones that have to be convinced of a UI and it will be the rest of us that will have to make concessions to accomadate them. These concessions could come in political structure, maybe having to give Belfast equal standing with Dublin etc.

    And finally what happens if the unionists decide the UI isn't working out for them and want to rejoin the UK or go it alone. What happens then?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    None of your reasons have convinced me that theres any real benefit to a UI. These days a UI only seems to have symbolic value and little else. Symbolism isn't enough to merit a UI.

    Also if you think a UI is a unachievable for a few decades it's further proof that it won't happen. The longer the NI and the ROI are apart the less likely there'll be a UI. Countries rarely reunite anymore. We've seen more countries split than unify in the last 60 years.

    As for concessions i have already mentioned some of them. But i would imagine in a UI the minority unionists would demand to be on almost equal footing with the majority. You mentioned in your earlier post that the unionist will have to make the biggest concessions for a UI but why should they?. They are the ones that have to be convinced of a UI and it will be the rest of us that will have to make concessions to accomadate them. These concessions could come in political structure, maybe having to give Belfast equal standing with Dublin etc.

    And finally what happens if the unionists decide the UI isn't working out for them and want to rejoin the UK or go it alone. What happens then?

    First off, any argument made by me as to why there should be a United Ireland was never an attempt to convince you. It would be a waste of time.I simply responded to your specific reasons for not wanting one, because, respectively, in my opinion, are unfounded

    THe reason that it is unachievable now or until the next few decades is because of attitudes like your good self. I don't mean to be disrespectful, it's your view and I accept that and you are not the only one with this view, but it's based on self interest. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way suggesting that you don't care about your country etc. "What we have we hold" or "not an inch" mantra is not alien to the south as it was/is in the north You see what's going on in the North now with the forthcoming elections; the main unionist parties are trying to join together, despite decades of bitching and sniping at each other soley to make sure that a Republican, who represents or claims to represent a substantial amount of people, never becomes the First Minister. The "terrorist" tag is obviously one reason, but it is also the fact that the Unionist fears that their lot will loose the prestige and power, despite the fact that all decisions must be made together. It nearly happened during the last Westminister elections. This, without any consideration that a Republican will also want what's best for his region first regardless of whether he/she is in the UK or Ireland, maybe no different to Craigavon's idea of Northern Ireland's place in the Empire. You really have to feel sorry for the Alliance party.

    With regard to the concessions, the biggest concession for Unionists would have been the fact that they agreed leaving the UK and uniting with this country. This then completely gets rid of the whole reason for their existence, ie Unionism and Loyality to the Crown. Think of their priviledge positions in society, all gone. Their is, like for example the reason the FAI and IFA will never agree to an United Soccer team; too much loss of power, votes etc. Despite the fact that one team may achieve more. Assumingly, the Unionist would then pledge full allegiance to an All Ireland and want whats best for the country as a whole. Tag lines of Republicanism etc would be then irrelevant. I say a united Ireland would give the people in the North far more say on how their community works than by sending them to Westminister, where they are no bigger than say Manchester, London etc.

    I am not one bit surprised, as I pointed out in my first post, that your real concern (just a sham you wrong in things like culture etc) is possibly the loss of seats in parliament to cater for the north (not just the unionists) and possible more Belfast influence. The good people in the People's Republic of Cork won't like that. Has anyone wondered whether it would be a good thing for the whole country? Sending the TD's on an oul spin up the M1 might be novel, the Ivor Calley's of this world will have no qualms putting in the expenses. Naturally, there would hardly be a complete system of one country one parliament straight away, maybe some kind of federal, or maybe all provinces would have some kind of parliament/provincial country county with three-four representative going to the National Parliament.

    This is always the big problem with the likes of Sinn Féin. They talk of a united ireland and their assumption it just right, but never talk specifically about the valid concerns you have raised and more importantly their vison as to how it will work. It should not really matter a damn where in the country our parliament should sit. It could be in a Halting site for all I care, so long as it is getting out proper provisions and running the country properly, on behalf of the people. Anyway, its Brussels where alot of swing is coming from. On the other hand, does small counties really need 3-4 TD's. As big as say Dun Laoighre is, is it justified that we have 4-5 TD's for that area for a National Parliament?Would Ireland then get an extra vote for European Council & Parliament , taking away NI's proportion from the UK (Oh how they would llllloooooooveeeee it) Would their be more justificiation to hold onto our Commissioner with nearly 2 million extra people? How will Dublin loose it sature? Its an established European City and provided the business heads work hard, it will succeed in competition. Whilst some Dubliners will suggest the contrary, people outside the "pale" might suggests that it gets too much attention in national matters and funds and jobs, and obviously infrastructure needs to be spread out more (ah yes decentralisation, oh dear, very badly planned out, well done Charlie Mc)

    Returning to your concessions, do you still hold on the anthem and flag ( i have to admit, that is one that I would want to keep, but it would not be a deal breaker). Will "Irish" (aren't Unionist also Irish?) culture suffer more attacks than it does now, with an United Ireland?


Advertisement