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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

What defines an 'Irishman' in context of upcoming centenaries

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I believe that those who willingly risked their lives to establish an Irish nation were committed to the cause in which they believed.

    It does not follow that I am bound to adopt their idea of what an Irish nation should be like, be it Pearse's romantic gaelicism or Connolly's socialist utopia..

    I hope you are not suggesting by addressing my post that I said differently? I did not suggest that anyone is bound to adopt anything of the kind.
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It has long troubled me that people have been conditioned to regard Protestants, especially the more prosperous ones, as being in some way less Irish than the inheritors of the Catholic peasant tradition. There was also an effort to categorise those who did not speak Irish, or who played foreign games, as less Irish than the rest of us; that was less successful (but not entirely unsuccessful).

    In many ways I meet the criteria for the model of Irishness that comes down to us from the time of the war of independence: I am of Catholic background: I have peasant forebears; I am able to speak Irish: I like Irish music, and play it; I was a (very bad) hurler. But I reject the idea that only those who can tick the same boxes that I can should be considered truly Irish.

    I would challenge that notion or 'model' as you call it. Because I would not be able to tick any of those boxes actually - not even purely Catholic background, mixed religious family background but no one in my family ever thought of themselves as anything other than Irish. So I don't think there was ever a time since independence when there was a required or stated criteria of what constituted Irishness, at least I never experienced it.

    The reason I posted what I did was because - as another poster has pointed out- the post I was replying to read like a questioning of Connolly's Irishness. Which made no sense to me at all.


  • Options
    #93
    dave2pvd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭dave2pvd


    RMD wrote: »
    An "Irishman" is one who embraces their heritage, gaelic games

    I hate all sports.

    To whom should I relinquish my passport?


  • Options
    #94
    Augmerson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭Augmerson


    CDfm wrote: »
    Was Connolly Irish ?

    Why the Marxist analysis ?

    Why


    OK, Scots-Irish have a particular heritage.

    Would the "Jackeens" have been as supportive of the rebels if the army hadn't executed civilians.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9gwnKH15Xo


    So heritage is important.



    Ireland historically was not a nation state and even Ireland itself was a loose "federation" of "tuath" (about 150 of them) where the "clan" members had allegience to the "tuath" and not any concept of an Irish nation.

    Some of the national concepts were instilled into the people post independence.

    What really defined us, IMO, is that we live here and were a colony and inferior to our colonial power. That defined us.

    So called "revisionists" get slated for questioning the orthodoxy of "traditional" history when it does not add up.

    0:44...bottom right hand corner. Is that David Norris?

    Do you think that Ireland would have became a nation in the sense of European nations at the time before it was interrupted by foreign presence?


  • Options
    #95
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    What defines an Irishman in context of upcoming centenaries

    It means different things to different people under different circumstances and conditions,I was born in Dublin but have lived in Belfast for good part of my life,Sometimes I think of my self as a strong northern republican :(Other times a very true blue Dub :rolleyes: and for most times just a very proud Irish person who loves the country I was born in,Never called myself a European,It might seem a bit contradictory but at different times & discussions all above seem to fit nicely:)


  • Options
    #96
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    CDfm wrote: »

    Billy Connolly the comedian is Scottish as was the rock singer Brian Connolly. So Connolly is not an uncommon name in Scotland.

    Billy grandfather was an immigrant from Ireland. I'm not sure bout Brian, but I believe Connolly was his biological mother's name. He was adopted and was "Brian McManus" until the age of 18 (McManus another good Irish surname)
    Ó CONGHALAIGH—I—O Connally, O Connolly, O Conely, Connolly, Connelly, &c.; 'descendant of Conghalach' (valorous, derivative of Conghal); the name (1) of a family of the southern Ui Neill who were seated in East Meath until dispossessed soon after the Anglo-Norman invasion, when they settled with the MacMahons in Co. Monaghan, where they became very numerous; (2) of a Dalcassian family in Thomond who are said to be descended from Mahon, the brother of Brian Boru; (3) of a branch of the Ui Maine in Co. Galway, of the same stock as the O'Maddens; and (4) of a Roscommon family. The anglicised forms of this surname cannot always be distinguished from those of Ó Conghaile, Ó Coingheallaigh, Mac Conghaile, &c.

    Mac CONGHALAIGH—IV—M'Conalaye, M'Connally, M'Connolly, Connolly; 'son of Conghalach' (derivative of Conghal, high-valour); a rare surname, formerly in use in Sligo and Leitrim. In Co. Monaghan, it appears to have been sometimes used as an alias for Ó Conghalaigh, which see

    James Connolly's parents were form Monaghan, this would point to the "Southern Uí Néill" sept of Ó Conghalaigh

    You have to remember of course is that there have been strong ties in both directions with Scotland for hundreds of years. After all larges parts of Ireland and Scotland formed part of the one cultural zone (that Bannasidhe has been talking bout) for over a 1000 years.

    If Connolly lived today no doubt there would be people in this country who would fob him off as a "Plastic Paddy" :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    laoch na mona
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭laoch na mona


    in regards to the upcoming centenaries I would view an Irishman as those who wanted a green flag


  • Options
    #98
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    So you don't have to be Catholic to be Irish but you have to love "Gaelic" games - don't you see how alienating that is?
    dave2pvd wrote: »
    I hate all sports.

    To whom should I relinquish my passport?

    OK ok, you don't have to like the games but would ya wear a jersey ?


    Augmerson wrote: »

    Do you think that Ireland would have became a nation in the sense of European nations at the time before it was interrupted by foreign presence?

    I don't really know. Against, what European country could we benchmark ourselves circa 1170 ?


  • Options
    #99
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    So you don't have to be Catholic to be Irish but you have to love "Gaelic" games - don't you see how alienating that is?

    I think I understood and appreciated what he meant. It was an example, he's talking about state of mind.

    :D


  • Options
    #100
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    The replies are interesting for the most part. It is not a simple thing to determine these characteristics. I am surprised that more attention has not focused on the 'context of upcoming centenaries' part of the question. These range widely in terms of who will celebrate them, the Ulster Covenant, WWI, 1916 rising, war of Independence and even the upcoming Titanic celebrations. The different occasions will have different things to celebrate. The values of the people involved in each centenary will be paramount in considering who will celebrate it. I would have an open mind to most of these as they will mean different things to different people. I would expect people celebrating the Ulster covenant to be sensitive to nationalist opinion. Likewise for the other celebrations.

    Looking into these events shows that they all have had influence in different ways. The Ulster covenant was a mass movement that expressed the opinions of up to half a million people. In doing so it expressed objections to Home rule but it declared that this was for the "material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland".
    ulster-covenant-fbs.jpg

    Similarily the 1916 rising was carried out by the combatants for the betterment of Ireland. Pearse talked about his passion for Ireland even after his court martial. And the proclamation described a country where all people were welcome with equal rights and without any unnessesary vitriol against other nations, some of the more 'partisan' posts on this thread could learn alot from this document.
    Proclamation480w.jpg

    The reason for mentioning these 2 specifically is they are contrasting events. I think it is important that the people celebrating both events remember exactly what they are celebrating, as opposed to applying modern party political views to the centenaries.


  • Options
    #101
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    The replies are interesting for the most part. It is not a simple thing to determine these characteristics. I am surprised that more attention has not focused on the 'context of upcoming centenaries' part of the question. These range widely in terms of who will celebrate them, the Ulster Covenant, WWI, 1916 rising, war of Independence and even the upcoming Titanic celebrations. The different occasions will have different things to celebrate. The values of the people involved in each centenary will be paramount in considering who will celebrate it. I would have an open mind to most of these as they will mean different things to different people. I would expect people celebrating the Ulster covenant to be sensitive to nationalist opinion. Likewise for the other celebrations.

    Looking into these events shows that they all have had influence in different ways. The Ulster covenant was a mass movement that expressed the opinions of up to half a million people. In doing so it expressed objections to Home rule but it declared that this was for the "material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland".
    ulster-covenant-fbs.jpg

    Similarily the 1916 rising was carried out by the combatants for the betterment of Ireland. Pearse talked about his passion for Ireland even after his court martial. And the proclamation described a country where all people were welcome with equal rights and without any unnessesary vitriol against other nations, some of the more 'partisan' posts on this thread could learn alot from this document.
    Proclamation480w.jpg

    The reason for mentioning these 2 specifically is they are contrasting events. I think it is important that the people celebrating both events remember exactly what they are celebrating, as opposed to applying modern party political views to the centenaries.
    I have the Ulster covenant framed on my wall. Those two pieces are examples of the divide on this Island.

    It also shows you the two completely different ideologies and views on faith and the whole structured view point of the two peoples.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    I have the Ulster covenant framed on my wall. Those two pieces are examples of the divide on this Island.

    It also shows you the two completely different ideologies and views on faith and the whole structured view point of the two peoples.

    That is one view. I would say you have 2 sets of people who have alot of things in common, alot more than some of them even realise. As I said in my last post I deliberately chose these 2 events. When you read the text of both these documents there are common aspirations and both documents aim to unify their followers. Both documents purport to be for the betterment of Ireland.


  • Options
    #103
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    It also shows you the two completely different ideologies and views on faith and the whole structured view point of the two peoples.
    To my mind it rams home how these two 'ideologies' are entirely artificial and the product of late 19th C tensions. The shackling of Irish nationalism to the Gaelic revival, as opposed to the more pluralistic nationalism of the 18th C, was inherently divisive and constraining. Ditto the concurrent move by the Belfast leadership to cement their authority through Unionist scriptures and exclusively Protestant structures

    To be optimistic, the coming centenaries offer the perfect opportunity to move past these petty restrictions, which have never seemed less relevant than they are today


  • Options
    #104
    wasislos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭wasislos


    Well well well lets see now 100years since 1916 and we have a festival called FORBIDDEN FRUIT down by kilmainham gaol. Says it all really with like gayest age of consent on the planet and a country full of one-third gayers its going to be a mighty battle. But just like before it will still be irishman fighting irishman. And just like before ppl will be slaughtered over something which humans as an advanced species is supposed to ENJOY...well its either love or hatred both will give u release. Enjoy yaselves


  • Options
    #105
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »

    Proclamation480w.jpg

    .

    Personally I'm still waiting for an Irish Republic which
    guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

    When we have that - I'll celebrate :D.


  • Options
    #106
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    That is false. The majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland consider themselves British. I would like to know how you base that opinion?

    Primarily British, yes, but many Protestants consider themselves to be Irish as well. Not of Irish nationality necessarily, but British and Irish (and Northern Irish) in a similar way to how some people are British and Scottish.

    Some people from NI have singular visions of their identity, but most consider themselves to be more than one thing.


  • Options
    #107
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Personally I'm still waiting for an Irish Republic which
    guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

    When we have that - I'll celebrate :D.

    touche.
    That very nicely asks the question of the 1916 centenary: Are we celebrating what they actually achieved, or are we celebrating what they aspired to achieve.

    My answer would be that we are celebrating what they aspired to achieve (and the sacrifices they made in this aim) rather than any perceived shortcomings of those who followed in implementing these aspirations.


  • Options
    #108
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    That is one view. I would say you have 2 sets of people who have alot of things in common, alot more than some of them even realise. As I said in my last post I deliberately chose these 2 events. When you read the text of both these documents there are common aspirations and both documents aim to unify their followers. Both documents purport to be for the betterment of Ireland.

    Absolutely. Nail on head.

    In terms of answering the question, obviously not all people from Ireland consider themselves Irish. Having said that, either commemorate 1912, 1916 etc etc, taking in everything from both nationalist and unionist viewpoint, or do absolutely nothing.

    I'd prefer the latter. Whilst the events of that decade obviously shaped the island I was born in, they have no relevence to me today.


  • Options
    #109
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,218 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    wasislos wrote: »
    Well well well lets see now 100years since 1916 and we have a festival called FORBIDDEN FRUIT down by kilmainham gaol. Says it all really with like gayest age of consent on the planet and a country full of one-third gayers its going to be a mighty battle. But just like before it will still be irishman fighting irishman. And just like before ppl will be slaughtered over something which humans as an advanced species is supposed to ENJOY...well its either love or hatred both will give u release. Enjoy yaselves
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/god-save-the-queen-without-him-thered-have-been-no-easter-rising-507811.html


  • Options
    #110
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    ...
    That very nicely asks the question of the 1916 centenary: Are we celebrating what they actually achieved, or are we celebrating what they aspired to achieve....
    You are presuming that the 1916 Proclamation is a true (and possibly complete) statement of their aspirations. I have my doubts about that. I mentioned above Pearse's romantic gaelicism and Connolly's socialist utopia. It looks to me as if those two significant individuals probably carried those ideas into the battle, and that their type of independent Ireland would embody them.

    I'm not too keen on the invocation of "the Most High God" either.


  • Options
    #111
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    slowburner wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/god-save-the-queen-without-him-thered-have-been-no-easter-rising-507811.html
    Posts like that sustain the ire of some of the history purists here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Where did you hear that? Very few Unionists/Loyalists consider themselves Irish. It is mostly aimed at the Nationalist community who come from a Roman Catholic background.

    Funny thing though is that (regardless of what they think themselves) as soon as their back as turned, the Scots, Welsh and especially the English will regard them as 'Paddies'.


  • Options
    #113
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    RMD wrote: »
    An "Irishman" is one who embraces their heritage, gaelic games, a passion for the nations history and culture, a knowledge of what is that makes us different from our nearby English speaking neighbours.*
    I hate Gaelic games and I'm more interested in the history of other countries (particularly ancient history). I don't speak Irish.

    If you told me I wasn't a proper Irish man, I'd deck you.


  • Options
    #114
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,218 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    wasislos wrote: »
    Well well well lets see now 100years since 1916 and we have a festival called FORBIDDEN FRUIT down by kilmainham gaol. Says it all really with like gayest age of consent on the planet and a country full of one-third gayers its going to be a mighty battle. But just like before it will still be irishman fighting irishman. And just like before ppl will be slaughtered over something which humans as an advanced species is supposed to ENJOY...well its either love or hatred both will give u release. Enjoy yaselves
    Posts like this sustain the ire of rational people here.


  • Options
    #115
    deirdremf
    Registered Users Posts: 1,871 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    Try being born a protestant in a country where nationality is defined by your religion.

    It means I get defined as English. It means I went to a school in Ireland that had an english curriculum and english exams.

    Lunatic really.

    This is an important point, but one that begs a great many questions.

    In my research, I have found that in the 2nd half of the 19th century, there was a fairly hefty amount of immigration into Ireland from England and Scotland, into the cities of Ireland. I do not know if anyone has done serious research into exactly what this immigration consisted of, but I am going to stick my neck out and suggest that it was connected to Britain's imperial and commercial expansion in the Victorian era. I am further going to suggest that it was mainly Protestant in nature.

    As a result, by the time Sinn Féin was founded, we had a well-entrenched, wealthy, relatively newly-arrived colonial population in our cities.
    By way of illustration, in Dublin, this can be clearly seen in the street names of the area from Beggar's Bush to Rathgar:there are roads, streets, squares etc. with names such as Northumberland, Waterloo, Wellington, Dartmouth, Kenilworth, Belgrave, and dozens more. The Dún Laoghaire area is somewhat similar: York, Belgrave, Adelaide, Brighton and so on - not to mention Kingstown! Doubtless this can be seen in most of the other cities. The streets of Belfast, which grew from a town to a large city in the same period, refer even more to Britain's empire than Dublin's do.

    My point here is that this new colony was very much part of the British Empire, they looked to England, or to Scotland, and south of the border, they did not entirely disappear with the British withdrawal in 1921. They were well-off, they controlled much of the country's trade, and were heavily involved in the country's administration. Of course, as Kevin Myarse keeps complaining, many did leave; but many of these people remained, and continued to look to britain. Even in the 1960s, these people could be heard on buses asking for a ticket to Kingstown.
    Like the IRA, they did not go away, you know. Or not all of them.

    My question to protestants such as InTheTrees would be this: growing up as a protestant in this overwhelmingly catholic state, what effect did the umbilical cord that tied this part of the protestant community so strongly to England/Britain have on protestants' outlook? How did that umbilical cord affect their views of their fellow countrymen and women? Did the protestant Irish embrace or reject this British connection? Did they wholeheartedly take part in all parts of the country's life (catholicism apart), or did they reject what was uniquely Irish in favour of what was English/British?

    In other words, did they isolate themselves from the general population, or did they integrate? What part did their separate schools play in all of this?


  • Options
    #116
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    touche.
    That very nicely asks the question of the 1916 centenary: Are we celebrating what they actually achieved, or are we celebrating what they aspired to achieve.

    My answer would be that we are celebrating what they aspired to achieve (and the sacrifices they made in this aim) rather than any perceived shortcomings of those who followed in implementing these aspirations.

    What exactly was achieved? If any of those who signed the Proclamation went through a check list of tasks accomplished how would they rate the success or failure of the Irish State?
    Did we achieve:

    'the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible'?

    No. For a time 26 counties out of 32 gained sovereignty only for it to be thrown away due in no small part by the failure of government to govern.

    'religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens'?
    Only after Ireland joined the E.U. in the 1970s was legislation introduced to give women equal rights.
    It took Ireland being found guilty of contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1988 before homosexuality was decriminalised in 1993.
    The majority of our State funded national Schools are still under the control of the Catholic Church.
    Currently it is not possible to have a non-denominational State funded school - only multi-denominational. This is blatant discrimination against children from families who have no religion.
    Travellers - are they treated equally?

    'the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts'?

    We have seen the creation of a political class found guilty of systemic corruption. We have seen no prosecutions arising from seemingly endless tribunals. The debts of private banks were taken on by the State and the burden placed on taxpayers for generations to come. Those TDs on whose watch this happened have no only escaped censure, but been allowed to retire on large pensions while the State cuts provisions which allow children with disabilities to receive the educations they are guaranteed by the Constitution. It would appear that the happiness and prosperity of some citizens is of more importance then the constitutional rights of other citizens.


    'cherishing all the children of the nation equally'?
    Needs no comment from me on how the State allowed and enabled thousands of children to to be abused.

    ' oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government'?

    Differences such as not being a Catholic for example?

    The Ireland people died for in 1916 never came into existence. IMHO what we should be doing to celebrate their sacrifice it trying to ensure it does.


  • Options
    #117
    deirdremf
    Registered Users Posts: 1,871 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I'm not too keen on the invocation of "the Most High God" either.
    As someone with no religion, I'd agree; however, I'd say that in its day, both catholics and protestants could have accepted the idea of a god.


  • Options
    #118
    deirdremf
    Registered Users Posts: 1,871 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The majority of our State funded national Schools are still under the control of the Catholic Church.
    Statements like this make me see red.
    Not because it is untrue, but because it ignores the fact that ALL MAIN RELIGIONS have their own schools, and because they are used to keep various entrenched groups separate. Separate from the hoi polloi, that is.
    Of much greater importance, in my mind is state support for private, fee-paying education which keeps the general populace apart from the well off and the fairly well off. The vast majority of fee-paying schools are religious in nature. And many of these schools are not catholic schools - in Dublin, IIRC, there are loads of protestant fee-paying schools, and only two non-feepaying protestant schools. I think there might be a jewsih school too, and soon I imagine we will have a muslim one, if the muslim community becomes well established.
    One of the few things I hope for from Ruairi Quinn is the setting up of a non-denominational education system.


  • Options
    #119
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Funny thing though is that (regardless of what they think themselves) as soon as their back as turned, the Scots, Welsh and especially the Englisha will regard them as 'Paddies'.

    But also regard them as British.
    You become offended by this as well I take it.
    Remember the British Army had 30,000 troops in the North defending the rights of Ulstermen when people down here refused to move an inch to defend the Nationalist community.


  • Options
    #120
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    deirdremf wrote: »
    ...
    In other words, did they isolate themselves from the general population, or did they integrate? ...
    Or were they isolated by the general population?

    I suspect that all three things happened, and the interesting question is to gauge the weight of each.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    'cherishing all the children of the nation equally'?
    Needs no comment from me on how the State allowed and enabled thousands of children to to be abused.

    The use of the word Children in the proclamation is clearly allegorical to describe the people of Ireland (Children of Ireland)
    ...Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom. ...
    .. she now seizes that moment, and, supported by her exiled children in America
    ... cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.
    ..in this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good...


Advertisement