Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

Nodin wrote: »

Overthrow of a colonial regime. Perfectly valid use of force there.

Perhaps, but only if it is successful ? And when you look at what we have today both north and south how successful are we ?

I think Oscarbravo's point is that we would be farther along the independence road if we has not resorted to violence. And there is a case to be made for that, but to even raise that possibility is seen as betrayal.

Nodin wrote: »

This ignores the motivation behind the violence, which really is the primary concern. Violence to prop up a sectarian statelet cannot be justified, while violence to overthrow one can.

Anything can be justified. Some people see the primacy of the state of vital importance. "Anything beats anarchy"

Some others feel that any means are legitimate in combating sectarianism... including the use of sectarianism.

Since when has 'motivation' been a primary concern?
Rejection of the November criminals, power to the proletariat, freedom of the branch Davidian, the Pacific war against European colonialists, etc. etc.

Nodin wrote: »

Overthrow of a colonial regime. Perfectly valid use of force there.

The former is questionable, the latter highly unlikely.

Despite Chuck Stone's apathy for criticism of Irish Republicanism as if it were a single, contiguous block (and I mean, he has a point), I still think that there isn't a single Republican who would say that the 1916 Rising was 'wrong'. The distinction between Republicans is generally in relation to what side they fall down on concerning various splits.

Norwesterner wrote: »

And today?

A rather different situation.

marienbad wrote:

Perhaps, but only if it is successful ? And when you look at what we have today both north and south how successful are we ?

I think Oscarbravo's point is that we would be farther along the independence road if we has not resorted to violence. And there is a case to be made for that, but to even raise that possibility is seen as betrayal.

If you look at the first hundred years of any state post independence, they aren't going to look too good. Greece has been a financial basket case since the get-go, even back as far as Byrons day, and has had far more internal conflict. Algeria had a particularily violent period soon after the French departure and again more recently. Australia became remarkably racist, America had rebellion, wars, a ferocious civil conflict, racial issues.....

RandomName2 wrote: »

Anything can be justified. Some people see the primacy of the state of vital importance. "Anything beats anarchy"

Some others feel that any means are legitimate in combating sectarianism... including the use of sectarianism.

Since when has 'motivation' been a primary concern?
Rejection of the November criminals, power to the proletariat, freedom of the branch Davidian, the Pacific war against European colonialists, etc. etc.
.

I've genuinely no idea what point you're trying to make there.

Nodin wrote: »

I've genuinely no idea what point you're trying to make there.

Violence against the state can be justified if the state is sectarian?

You mean, regardless of what form that violence takes? Is that some sort of blanket justification?

Violence by a sectarian state can never be justified?

There would be many who'd disagree with you there. Many who would, in fact, justify such violence by the state.

People can justify anything they like. It doesn't make them right.

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

It doesn't make them right....

...within your moral framework, if they can justify it within theirs, (and they can, just like a 'state soldier can morally justify what he/she does) where are you then? As I say, it's pointless going down the moral judgement road.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This creed exists only in your mind.

How many Irish republicans have you met who disagree with the Easter rising?

Nodin wrote: »

Overthrow of a colonial regime. Perfectly valid use of force there.

That's three tenets of the creed right there: that Ireland was a colony; that overthrowing the regime (as opposed to negotiating for secession) was the right thing to do; and that killing people to do so was the right way to go about it.

Those aren't Euclidean axioms; they are articles of faith. Every argument I've been presented with is derived from those premises, and I'm rejecting the idea that they are objectively and incontrovertibly true.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

...within your moral framework, if they can justify it within theirs, (and they can, just like a 'state soldier can morally justify what he/she does) where are you then? As I say, it's pointless going down the moral judgement road.

So Timothy McVeigh shouldn't have been convicted, because he could justify his actions within his own moral framework?

Happyman42 wrote: »

...within your moral framework, if they can justify it within theirs, (and they can, just like a 'state soldier can morally justify what he/she does) where are you then? As I say, it's pointless going down the moral judgement road.

You are left with the futility of sweeping statements. "Violence agianst the state is justified if the state is sectarian." "The state is justified in persecuting people who are against the state", "internment without trial is legitimate during war", "civilian casualties are tolerable in war", violence is a legitimate avenue if politics have failed.

They sound as if they has meaning ... but they don't. These statements are too abstract; they are a moralistic whitewash, and anyone who adheres to any of these perspectives without question is tending towards absolutism.

I didn't say "violence in the stead of political dialogue is wrong". I said "the 1916 Rising was wrong: and here is why".

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many Irish republicans have you met who disagree with the Easter rising?

Are you assuming from that then that all Irish republicans agree with the Easter Rising?

That's three tenets of the creed right there

Merely opinions.

that Ireland was a colony

Yes, in my opinion it was. If you believe that the British colonial presence here was illegal, it’s impossible to argue on the basis of legality how a colony can become part of somebody else’s country. And merely stating that it was a historical fact that we were integrated into the “UK of Britain and Ireland” is not a convincing argument to argue in favour of the legality of that event. You said in a previous thread on “Irish Unity” that Ireland was a colony up to 1800. Was the British colonial presence up to that point legal or illegal in your opinion?

that overthrowing the regime (as opposed to negotiating for secession) was the right thing to do; and that killing people to do so was the right way to go about it.

You continue to argue against the Rising on the basis that that an alternative route to independence was available, yet you won’t say what your position is when such an alternative may not be available.

Those aren't Euclidean axioms; they are articles of faith. Every argument I've been presented with is derived from those premises, and I'm rejecting the idea that they are objectively and incontrovertibly true.

I never said myself they were incontrovertibly true. You’re engaging in an exercise of counterfactual speculation which obviously can never have an endgame.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

If you believe that the British colonial presence here was illegal...

...you have to explain what your basis in law for declaring it "illegal" is.

And merely stating that it was a historical fact that we were integrated into the “UK of Britain and Ireland” is not a convincing argument to argue in favour of the legality of that event.

But merely stating as a historical opinion that the British presence in Ireland was illegal is enough to base an entire political movement on?

Was the British presence in Australia "legal"? Is the Australian presence in Australia "legal"? Is the presence of anyone other than Mapuche in Chile "illegal"?

You said in a previous thread on “Irish Unity” that Ireland was a colony up to 1800. Was the British colonial presence up to that point legal or illegal in your opinion?

Was the Norman presence in England up to that point legal or illegal in your opinion?

(Cue dismissal of that parallel on the grounds of "irrelevance".)

You continue to argue against the Rising on the basis that that an alternative route to independence was available, yet you won’t say what your position is when such an alternative may not be available.

Are you claiming that no alternative was available; that without the Easter rising, Ireland would never have gained independence? Or is it, as I've already pointed out, a rhetorical question?

If the only way to avoid Ireland being hit by a meteor was to rejoin the UK, would you be happy to do so?

I never said myself they were incontrovertibly true. You’re engaging in an exercise of counterfactual speculation which obviously can never have an endgame.

They are generally presented as axioms in discussions such as these, and those of us who disagree with them are frequently told how naive and ignorant we are, and instructed to "educate" ourselves on Irish history.

Nodin wrote: »

A rather different situation.

If you look at the first hundred years of any state post independence, they aren't going to look too good. Greece has been a financial basket case since the get-go, even back as far as Byrons day, and has had far more internal conflict. Algeria had a particularily violent period soon after the French departure and again more recently. Australia became remarkably racist, America had rebellion, wars, a ferocious civil conflict, racial issues.....

Quite possibly true, but times and conditions do move on. Does anyone doubt that if Scotland wishes it can now have complete and absolute independence from London and without a shot being fired and the country partitioned ?

Most of those examples are not comparable to ours, I could just as easily posit New Zealand and Canada.

And just as with civil rights in the USA , due to changing times an argument can be made that all those ills in the North could have and would have been corrected without the use of force.

oscarBravo wrote: »

...you have to explain what your basis in law for declaring it "illegal" is.

Erm, the invasion and colonisation of countries by other countries?

But merely stating as a historical opinion that the British presence in Ireland was illegal is enough to base an entire political movement on?

Yes. The founders of this state based their actions on this idea.

Was the British presence in Australia "legal"? Is the Australian presence in Australia "legal"? Is the presence of anyone other than Mapuche in Chile "illegal"? Was the Norman presence in England up to that point legal or illegal in your opinion?

So you wont even discuss the possibility that the process of colonisation can be considered illegal around the world?

(Cue dismissal of that parallel on the grounds of "irrelevance".)

Nah, thats a ruse used by you to avoid discussing that the process of colonisation can ever be considered illegal.

Are you claiming that no alternative was available; that without the Easter rising, Ireland would never have gained independence? Or is it, as I've already pointed out, a rhetorical question?

How can I have a full discussion with you on this when you wont reveal your position on a point that I (and others) have raised previously?

If the only way to avoid Ireland being hit by a meteor was to rejoin the UK, would you be happy to do so?

Oh dear.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Erm, the invasion and colonisation of countries by other countries?

Yes. The founders of this state based their actions on this idea.

So you wont even discuss the possibility that the process of colonisation can be considered illegal around the world?

Nah, thats a ruse used by you to avoid discussing that the process of colonisation can ever be considered illegal.

How can I have a full discussion with you on this when you wont reveal your position on a point that I (and others) have raised previously?

Oh dear.

Why are you insisting on a definition of whether colonising was legal or illegal ? Of course it was legal, was it moral no , but legal yes. If not before the event it certainly was after.

The whole world as we know it is shaped by colonisation and empire . That dos'nt make it right but the passage of time does make it legal.

And if in doubt ask the UN , we are all members together there and the biggest 'offenders' run the security council.

R P McMurphy

marienbad wrote: »

Quite possibly true, but times and conditions do move on. Does anyone doubt that if Scotland wishes it can now have complete and absolute independence from London and without a shot being fired and the country partitioned ?

Most of those examples are not comparable to ours, I could just as easily posit New Zealand and Canada.

And just as with civil rights in the USA , due to changing times an argument can be made that all those ills in the North could have and would have been corrected without the use of force.

Hmmm it was those ills that led to the regrowth of armed nationalism though. If they had been addressed then we would not have faced into 30 years of conflict. The unionist state as it existed would never have agreed to equal rights. The british government effectively killed the civil rights movement by deploying their armed forces into a march and shooting civilians to death. It was however how they handled the aftermath that convinced nationalist communities that the british state was a corrupt entity not to be trusted and the best option was to remove it. If you reside in a state where its armed representatives can effectively kill civilians without repurcussions then you are going to look for alternatives. Or should you wait to be treated as an equal citizen but how long, 5 year, 10, 15, 50

marienbad wrote: »

If not before the event it certainly was after.

?

Explain the transition from illegality to legality.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

?

Explain the transition from illegality to legality.

With all due respect you're going up the garden path with invasion and colonisation, particularly in relation to Ireland. Perhaps what you are looking for is the Act of Union? If you persist in talking in this vain you will need to elaborate on what you mean by "invasion", by "country", and by "illegal".

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

yet you won’t say what your position is when such an alternative may not be available.

Yet an alternative was available. That makes this a very difficult point to discuss; because the supposition is that there wasn't any alternative at the time of the Rising. This has been demonstrated to not be true. So while your question sounds hypothetical it is still framed within the discussion of the Rising. It is making the discussion go around in circles.

Either say "violence was right DESPITE the availability of alternative means" or say "no I'm not talking about this event at all, but am talking from an entirely hypothetical point of view"

walshb

KyussBishop wrote: »

Starvation is a pretty horrible way to go, and it takes enormous effort to force yourself through it; so, whatever personal/political criticisms people may have of Bobby Sands, it has to be admired, the sheer determination, integrity of personal principles, and incredible willpower that it takes, to tortuously starve yourself to death over two months, in protest.
.

I would have admired him even more if he chose to live for the cause!

RandomName2 wrote: »

Act of Union?

Already touched on in the concept that oscarBravo believes that Ireland was a colony pre 1800.

"invasion", by "country", and by "illegal"

Are they not self-explanatory even in Ireland's case?

Yet an alternative was available. That makes this a very difficult point to discuss;

Counterfactual speculation is this by its very nature. Yes?

because the supposition is that there wasn't any alternative at the time of the Rising. This has been demonstrated to not be true.

But as already stated it's a counterfactual theme which you quite rightly say makes it very difficult to discuss. How do you cover all the variables available?

So while your question sounds hypothetical it is still framed within the discussion of the Rising.

So its not possible to give an answer based on the question asked as a generic concept?

It is making the discussion go around in circles.

I think you need to look elsewhere for who to blame for that.

Either say "violence was right DESPITE the availability of alternative means" or say "no I'm not talking about this event at all, but am talking from an entirely hypothetical point of view"

I can't express an opinion in the way I wish?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Already touched on in the concept that oscarBravo believes that Ireland was a colony pre 1800.

Depends what you mean by colony.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Are they not self-explanatory even in Ireland's case?

Well, first off, Ireland wasn't a country until the early 1920s.

The word 'invasion' is problematic when talking about Vikings, Normans, etc

The word 'illegal' has no context at all. You could call it legal, illegal, it has no meaning within this discourse. You... kind of needs laws before something can break them.

Jupiter is illegal!

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But as already stated it's a counterfactual theme which you quite rightly say makes it very difficult to discuss. How do you cover all the variables available?

By either discussing it or not discussing it. Go ahead: what are you talking about? That is, what subject are you attempting to discuss?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I can't express an opinion in the way I wish?

The problem is, you aren't expressing it.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Violence against the state can be justified if the state is sectarian?

You mean, regardless of what form that violence takes? Is that some sort of blanket justification?

Violence by a sectarian state can never be justified?

There would be many who'd disagree with you there. Many who would, in fact, justify such violence by the state.

People can justify anything they like. It doesn't make them right.

Rather stating the obvious there.

marienbad wrote: »

Quite possibly true, but times and conditions do move on. Does anyone doubt that if Scotland wishes it can now have complete and absolute independence from London and without a shot being fired and the country partitioned ?

Most of those examples are not comparable to ours, I could just as easily posit New Zealand and Canada.

And just as with civil rights in the USA , due to changing times an argument can be made that all those ills in the North could have and would have been corrected without the use of force.

Thats speculation and hindsight in action there, tbh.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

?

Explain the transition from illegality to legality.

You are projecting modern concepts back in time . Which invasions was illegal and why ? The Gaelic raids that brought St.Patrick to Ireland ? The Viking invasions ? The Norman invasions ?

Generally speaking if something persists long enough it becomes legal, that is if it was ever illegal in the first place. Thus the colonisation of the New World or Australia or Africa . Or the Roman invasion of Britain .

By the late 19th century and particularly after the land reforms Ireland was part of the UK and legally so . I am just raising the question of transitioning to a modern democracy without the use of violence, just like New Zealand Australia or Canada and as Scotland now can if they so choose..

Nodin wrote: »

Thats speculation and hindsight in action there, tbh.

Indeed , but we can still compare with what happened in other countries in similar circumstances.

And even more so compare what we have achieved with the original goals of the men of 1916., or better still with the principles of Wolf Tone .

IMHO opinion it has been the most abject failure .

RandomName2 wrote: »

Depends what you mean by colony.

When the organs of government of a country/state etc occupy and govern another without that populations consent.

Well, first off, Ireland wasn't a country until the early 1920s.

So before it was......?

The word 'invasion' is problematic when talking about Vikings, Normans, etc

How?

The word 'illegal' has no context at all. You could call it legal, illegal, it has no meaning within this discourse. You... kind of needs laws before something can break them.

Even within the context of right and wrong? Is law not an attempt at the codification of these supposed pre-existing concepts? If murder wasn't codified into law until 1946 for example how would you address the issue of the Jewish Holocaust?

Jupiter is illegal!

? Jupiter is an inanimate body incapable of thought or action.

That is, what subject are you attempting to discuss?

This: If peaceful negotiations have totally failed with absolutely no prospect of them starting again, does the population of an occupied country/colony etc have the right to use force to eject its occupier?

The problem is, you aren't expressing it.

I disagree.

Originally posted by marienbad: You are projecting modern concepts back in time

Project it forward in time and its an excuse for it to continue.

No Mr Cumulonimbus. your final statement re projecting forward in time is hard to comprehend. You are treating history as static. How far back do you actually want to go ?

Going by what you are saying the jews are entitled to Palestine , The native americans to America and the aborigines to Australia and New Zealand and Ulster Unionists should just pack up a f%&k off home ( where ever that is ) ?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

When the organs of government of a country/state etc occupy and govern another without that populations consent.

Does Dublin govern Cork without that population's consent?

Oh Cork has consented to being governed by Dublin?

Prove it.

A colony doesn't have to be a case of subjugation at all. Technically all a colony is is a place that is under the direct administration of a government. Colonies can be set up where nobody lives. The colonies of the 13 US States weren't provinces of Native Americans under the control of the United Kingdom, but rather the direct administration of land that had been settled by... well.. colonisers.

I think the work you mind be looking for is annexation...? Certainly not colony.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So before it was......?

Part of the United Kingdom.

Okay, that's a bit glib... but it was never codified into a single state prior to 1920. It had been lots of little competing kingdoms from before Ireland had a history. Territory owned by the English crown eventually became the most dominant possession within the island.

Your narrow definitions don't really work in this general context. Ireland invaded Ireland several times and subjected Ireland to the rule of Ireland. There wasn't even a notion of 'Ireland' until the eighteenth century at all. During the Reformation there was a notion of Catholicsm vs Protestantism; so the 'Irish' were willing to hand land over to the Hapsburgs on the grounds that the Hapsburgs practised the one true religion...

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How?

Because they didn't really invade. The Vikings pillaged, or settled, not in any real organised fashion. The Normans invaded England and subjugated it with an iron fist. The Normans at least made a proper invasion of the island of Ireland, bringing a good deal of land under the direct control of the English crown, and strengthening the position of the Papacy. Of course, the Papacy ruled all of Christendom, de jure.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Even within the context of right and wrong? Is law not an attempt at the codification of these supposed pre-existing concepts? If murder wasn't codified into law until 1946 for example how would you address the issue of the Jewish Holocaust?

Well it would be quite difficult to convict someone of having broken a law that does not exist.

You can still say things are 'right' and 'wrong' though.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

This: If peaceful negotiations have totally failed with absolutely no prospect of them starting again, does the population of an occupied country/colony etc have the right to use force to eject its occupier?

Depends on the ramifications of political failure, both local and long term. Depends on what sort of occupier you are talking about: are they like the United States with Puerto Rico or more like Nazi Germany with Lithuania? Depends on what sort of force you are talking about, at whom it would be aimed, and what likelihood it would have of success. It would also depend on whether there was a general consensus whether this was the right thing to do, among the people who have been occupied.

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed , but we can still compare with what happened in other countries in similar circumstances. .

Yes. Some have had a rough ride, some have not.

marienbad wrote: »

And even more so compare what we have achieved with the original goals of the men of 1916., or better still with the principles of Wolf Tone .

IMHO opinion it has been the most abject failure .

I wasn't aware the project had been abandoned. The fact is that the "mainstream" co-opted the revolutionary aspect and subverted it. This is not a uniquely Irish phenomena by any manner of means.

Nodin wrote: »

Yes. Some have had a rough ride, some have not.

I wasn't aware the project had been abandoned. The fact is that the "mainstream" co-opted the revolutionary aspect and subverted it. This is not a uniquely Irish phenomena by any manner of means.

The countries most similar to us have anything but rough transition, there is definately a race/religion element at play in this but nonetheless they are all now prosperous united functioning democracies

Well it is the nature of history that nothing is ever abandoned but after 100 years it hard to see it as anything other that a major disappointment .

On the point you raise on the ''mainstream'' co-opting the revolution. Did they though ? Particularly in the republic ? It is hard to see the men of 1916 ( obviously with some major exceptions) as anything other essentially right wing revolutionaries and that is exactly the state that was founded.