Ireland's Political Identity Crisis

paky · 07-04-2012 1:39pm #1

It's that times of year again, when the anniversary of 1916 Rising is upon us and there hasn't been the slightest mention of it in the media and the government, shamefully, hasn't even publicised it (even though there seems to be a commemoration most years outside the GPO). Ireland, in all fairness, seems to be lacking in some sort of political identity. Most countries around the world acknowledge some day as their independance day but in good aul Ireland, we only have 'st. paddy's day' which lets face it, is only a christian feast day where people get sh.it faced and celebrate racist steroetypes of the 19th century 'Irish'. Yet there seems to be no celebration here of our nationhood, our patriots and essentially our freedom. Perhaps this is one element that seems to be missing in Irish society, the lack of genuine political figures which the youth can aspire to. The Irish people, with the exception of a minority, seem to be in denial about our violent past in case we somehow upset our british neighbours who are sensitive to our past. This country makes me sick to the stomach when it comes to easter.
I for one am glad of the contribution Padraig Pearse and James Connolly have made in establishing this country of ours, and when I look at the news today where peope around the world lack the same politcal freedoms as we do, I sometimes think had it not been for 1916 we may still be treated as second class citizens in our country. I think its time this country stopped buring its head in the sand and begin to acknowledge 1916 fo what it is. The British have no quams when in comes to honouring their dead, why the hell should we? I haven't seen one person in rte wearing an easter lilly yet BBC presenters always wear the poppy? Whats wrong with this country?

Mr.Micro · 07-04-2012 1:44pm

paky wrote: »

It's that times of year again, when the anniversary of 1916 Rising is upon us and there hasn't been the slightest mention of it in the media and the government, shamefully, hasn't even publicised it (even though there seems to be a commemoration most years outside the GPO). Ireland, in all fairness, seems to be lacking in some sort of political identity. Most countries around the world acknowledge some day as their independance day but in good aul Ireland, we only have 'st. paddy's day' which lets face it, is only a christian feast day where people get sh.it faced and celebrate racist steroetypes of the 19th century 'Irish'. Yet there seems to be no celebration here of our nationhood, our patriots and essentially our freedom. Perhaps this is one element that seems to be missing in Irish society, the lack of genuine political figures which the youth can aspire to. The Irish people, with the exception of a minority, seem to be in denial about our violent past in case we somehow upset our british neighbours who are sensitive to our past. This country makes me sick to the stomach when it comes to easter.
I for one am glad of the contribution Padraig Pearse and James Connolly have made in establishing this country of ours, and when I look at the news today where peope around the world lack the same politcal freedoms as we do, I sometimes think had it not been for 1916 we may still be treated as second class citizens in our country. I think its time this country stopped buring its head in the sand and begin to acknowledge 1916 fo what it is. The British have no quams when in comes to honouring their dead, why the hell should we? I haven't seen one person in rte wearing an easter lilly yet BBC presenters always wear the poppy? Whats wrong with this country?

I think that we have more pressing problems at the minute than to go raking up the past. Its about time that we move on. The Wind in the barley is on TV over the weekend though if you are feeling nostalgic.

paky · 07-04-2012 1:48pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think that we have more pressing problems at the minute than to go raking up the past.

how do you mean raking up the past? you say that as though there is something to be ashamed about. is the 4th of july in the US something to be ahamed about? no i think not. its quite strange that 1916 seems to be here.

StudentDad · 07-04-2012 1:52pm

The less said about 1916 the better.

SD

Mr.Micro · 07-04-2012 1:52pm

paky wrote: »

how do you mean raking up the past? you say that as though there is something to be ashamed about. is the 4th of july in the US something to be ahamed about? no i think not. its quite strange that 1916 seems to be here.

We all know about 1916 and the aftermath. We do not need IMO, a big ceremony about it each year. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since and 1916 is in another century and we need to look forward and not be constantly stuck in the past.

matthew8 · 07-04-2012 1:54pm

paky wrote: »

how do you mean raking up the past? you say that as though there is something to be ashamed about. is the 4th of july in the US something to be ahamed about? no i think not. its quite strange that 1916 seems to be here.

What the fk are you talking about? The rising was a massive failure, yet still it's glorified, there's a big event every easter at the GPO for it. There'll be a huge event in 2016. If any event is celebrated annually, it's the easter rising.

Amirani · 07-04-2012 1:56pm

1916 can hardly be considered our independence day. I'm not sure the particular actions that took place were necessary for the achievement of home rule. A lot of the underlying motives of the belligerency weren't altogether noble. The rising itself lacked the support of the majority of Irish people and caused the deaths of many Irish people. Hardly a cause for celebration. The Brits don't celebrate the Somme, they mourn it.

benway · 07-04-2012 2:01pm

NiallSparky wrote: »

1916 can hardly be considered our independence day. I'm not sure the particular actions that took place were necessary for the achievement of home rule. A lot of the underlying motives of the belligerency weren't altogether noble.

And of course the underlying motives on the British side were entirely noble? No belligerency there, or a tendency to turn to force in order to maintain their political position, oh no.

I think it was a turning point in the independence struggle, and I am certain that we, as a nation, are better off independent than we would have been had we remained under British rule. Definitely cause for celebration.

As for "digging up the past", since when did a acknowledging our history and where we've come from turn in to A Bad Thing?

Galwayguy35 · 07-04-2012 2:14pm

paky wrote: »

It's that times of year again, when the anniversary of 1916 Rising is upon us and there hasn't been the slightest mention of it in the media and the government, shamefully, hasn't even publicised it (even though there seems to be a commemoration most years outside the GPO). Ireland, in all fairness, seems to be lacking in some sort of political identity. Most countries around the world acknowledge some day as their independance day but in good aul Ireland, we only have 'st. paddy's day' which lets face it, is only a christian feast day where people get sh.it faced and celebrate racist steroetypes of the 19th century 'Irish'. Yet there seems to be no celebration here of our nationhood, our patriots and essentially our freedom. Perhaps this is one element that seems to be missing in Irish society, the lack of genuine political figures which the youth can aspire to. The Irish people, with the exception of a minority, seem to be in denial about our violent past in case we somehow upset our british neighbours who are sensitive to our past. This country makes me sick to the stomach when it comes to easter.
I for one am glad of the contribution Padraig Pearse and James Connolly have made in establishing this country of ours, and when I look at the news today where peope around the world lack the same politcal freedoms as we do, I sometimes think had it not been for 1916 we may still be treated as second class citizens in our country. I think its time this country stopped buring its head in the sand and begin to acknowledge 1916 fo what it is. The British have no quams when in comes to honouring their dead, why the hell should we? I haven't seen one person in rte wearing an easter lilly yet BBC presenters always wear the poppy? Whats wrong with this country?

You are right OP, i said this on another forum a last year and was attacked left right and centre that i was living in the past etc. I think the people who died for this countries freedom should be honoured. The Americans got their Independence in 1776 and have a day set aside for this. Try telling a yank that they shouldnt do this and you would be a brave person. Even the orangemen have a holiday for king billy. Why shouldnt we?

kingofthenerds · 07-04-2012 2:21pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You are right OP, i said this on another forum a last year and was attacked left right and centre that i was living in the past etc. I think the people who died for this countries freedom should be honoured. The Americans got their Independence in 1776 and have a day set aside for this. Try telling a yank that they shouldnt do this and you would be a brave person. Even the orangemen have a holiday for king billy. Why shouldnt we?

totally agree with the OP. the orangemen in the north parade the entire summer and even have the 12th as a national holiday.
and lets not mention the French and Bastille Day

Bastille%20Day%20Fireworks.jpg

bwatson · 07-04-2012 2:22pm

paky wrote: »

Yet there seems to be no celebration here of our nationhood, our patriots and essentially our freedom. The Irish people, with the exception of a minority, seem to be in denial about our violent past in case we somehow upset our british neighbours who are sensitive to our past.

The British have no quams when in comes to honouring their dead, why the hell should we? I haven't seen one person in rte wearing an easter lilly yet BBC presenters always wear the poppy? Whats wrong with this country?

The wearing of the poppy and the ceremonies held over the remembrance period in Britain are nothing to do with celebrating nationhood. The period remembers, mourns and pays tribute to those who have died fighting for the country so that it may now be free. Its very different to what you are suggesting.

I'm not from the republic but from what I've seen, the events at easter seem to be pretty much along the same lines, although obviously on a smaller scale as they primarily remember one particular event. What you are suggesting would escalate the events you talk of far beyond their British equivalent.

Moreover, I don't think the people of Ireland refrain from hanging out the flags for fear of upsetting British people so maybe you have to look closer at the event being remembered. If you consider that half a million soldiers died in British uniform in the first world war, the violence enacted upon the British forces in Dublin in 1916 would appear almost irrelevant from a British perspective.

Coillte_Bhoy · 07-04-2012 2:31pm

paky wrote: »

It's that times of year again, when the anniversary of 1916 Rising is upon us and there hasn't been the slightest mention of it in the media and the government, shamefully, hasn't even publicised it (even though there seems to be a commemoration most years outside the GPO).

wtf are you on about? It's constantly referred to in all media and im sure the Govt will have an event to mark it, but why go hyping it up 4 years in advance.

paky · 07-04-2012 2:35pm

bwatson wrote: »

The wearing of the poppy and the ceremonies held over the remembrance period in Britain are nothing to do with celebrating nationhood. The period remembers, mourns and pays tribute to those who have died fighting for the country so that it may now be free. Its very different to what you are suggesting.

I'm not from the republic but from what I've seen, the events at easter seem to be pretty much along the same lines, although obviously on a smaller scale as they primarily remember one particular event. What you are suggesting would escalate the events you talk of far beyond their British equivalent.

Moreover, I don't think the people of Ireland refrain from hanging out the flags for fear of upsetting British people so maybe you have to look closer at the event being remembered. If you consider that half a million soldiers died in British uniform in the first world war, the violence enacted upon the British forces in Dublin in 1916 would appear almost irrelevant from a British perspective.

the 1916 Rising encapsulated the entire struggle for Irish freedom in that it was the turning point of a 700 year struggle. it was not just a week of fighting, it was the pinacle of a 700 year struggle against english/british imperialism, to list the casualties as being insignificant is missing the point entirely.

later12 · 07-04-2012 2:45pm

paky wrote: »

Yet there seems to be no celebration here of our nationhood, our patriots and essentially our freedom.

Perhaps the reason for that is because some people seriously question the extent to which regime change in Ireland gave Irish people "freedom".

For one thing, I'm not convinced that a man in Tipperary in the 1910s enjoyed any less freedom than a man of the same situation in Tewkesbury.

For another thing, the degree to which independence actually benefited Ireland is itself questionable. A study of the economic history of Ireland finds the country's economy in a tremendously poor state until some long awaited (slow) reform in the late 1950s, and again in the late 1980s. The last people to die of starvation died under an Irish government in Dublin, and there has been an exasperatingly poor quality of governance in Ireland well into the 20th century (if not, for the most of that century)

So before we break out in the celebrations, lets ask ourselves what we actually want to be celebrating? Celebrating the simple handover of power, despite the lack of reform that accompanied it, hardly seems adequate.

bwatson · 07-04-2012 2:52pm

paky wrote: »

the 1916 Rising encapsulated the entire struggle for Irish freedom in that it was the turning point of a 700 year struggle. it was not just a week of fighting, it was the pinacle of a 700 year struggle against english/british imperialism, to list the casualties as being insignificant is missing the point entirely.

No it isn't missing the point at all.

You were talking about the way the British people would view the Irish celebration of the Easter Rising. You suggested that maybe people refrain from showing jubilation in order to avoid being offensive.

However, I said and I maintain that it wouldn't really have any effect on Britain, certainly not a negative one. Nearly half a million British soldiers died on the Battlefields of Europe and the Middle East between 1914 and 1918 so the events in Ireland would seem fairly irrelevant to the British as a whole.

From your personal viewpoint, and that of other Irish nationalists, I'm sure the opposite is true. I don't think that you would in any way be frowned upon by sensible, mature people from the North or the mainland a more jubilant atmosphere at the ceremonies if it was the wish of those who attended.

StudentDad · 07-04-2012 2:53pm

The 1916 rising - abridged version - bunch of looneys take over the GPO and other important buildings - run up a flag - read out a proclamation - rest of the country goes - wtf??!! -

Todays equivalent would be if the Rabid Looney Residual Ira Moron Brigade took over Leinster House and declared a 'New Irish Republic.'

Breaking from the UK was patriotically interesting and naieve.
We put the rc church and a small clique of people in charge for donkeys years who ran the country into the ground.

Where has 'independence' gotten us?

Thank god we joined the EC when we did!

SD

Mr.Micro · 07-04-2012 2:57pm

later12 wrote: »

Perhaps the reason for that is because some people seriously question the extent to which regime change in Ireland gave Irish people "freedom".

For one thing, I'm not convinced that a man in Tipperary in the 1910s enjoyed any less freedom than a man of the same situation in Tewkesbury.

For another thing, the degree to which independence actually benefited Ireland is itself questionable. A study of the economic history of Ireland finds the country's economy in a tremendously poor state until some long awaited (slow) reform in the late 1950s, and again in the late 1980s. The last people to die of starvation died under an Irish government in Dublin, and there has been an exasperatingly poor quality of governance in Ireland well into the 20th century (if not, for the most of that century)

So before we break out in the celebrations, lets ask ourselves what we actually want to be celebrating? Celebrating the simple handover of power, despite the lack of reform that accompanied it, hardly seems adequate.

Indeed, and like it or not shortly after we plunged straight back into "the dark ages" under de Valera et al. It is only in the latter part of the 20th century and now in the 21st century that we are coming out of it. Think how backward and repressive Ireland was during that era. We exchanged one yoke for a bigger one. Huge numbers of Irish people having to live in other countries because our country was in constant recession/poverty.

Galwayguy35 · 07-04-2012 3:00pm

StudentDad wrote: »

The 1916 rising - abridged version - bunch of looneys take over the GPO and other important buildings - run up a flag - read out a proclamation - rest of the country goes - wtf??!! -

Todays equivalent would be if the Rabid Looney Residual Ira Moron Brigade took over Leinster House and declared a 'New Irish Republic.'

Breaking from the UK was patriotically interesting and naieve.
We put the rc church and a small clique of people in charge for donkeys years who ran the country into the ground.

Where has 'independence' gotten us?

Thank god we joined the EC when we did!

SD

It got us away from being ruled by the British for a start. Home Rule was never going to be the same as having Independence, if in the end it was even going to really granted. Or maybe you are one of these people who would still like our country occupied by a foreign power.

later12 · 07-04-2012 3:10pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It got us away from being ruled by the British for a start. Home Rule was never going to be the same as having Independence, if in the end it was even going to really granted. Or maybe you are one of these people who would still like our country occupied by a foreign power.

This is an emotional argument.

"It got us away from being ruled by the British" -- so what?

Did life materially improve for Irish people? Did they enjoy 'freedom'? Did they thrive as a society or as an economy? I would suggest that the answer to all of these questions is that no, the above did not arise. In fact, I would suggest we took a good many steps backwards. Before Lemass came to power, which began the reforms that led to EEC membership, Ireland was little more than a peasant economy with high capital flight and low inward investment being overseen by a small governing class - bizarrely similar to Ireland before independence, and a good deal worse off than our British neighbours.

This isn't an argument against independence by the way. I'm just saying that the changing of the guard was a very inconsequential change. If we want to celebrate anything, I would tentatively suggest we celebrate our membership of the EEC which, gestated by the reforms of Sean Lemass, was to represent the birth of a modern Ireland.

StudentDad · 07-04-2012 3:21pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It got us away from being ruled by the British for a start. Home Rule was never going to be the same as having Independence, if in the end it was even going to really granted. Or maybe you are one of these people who would still like our country occupied by a foreign power.

An interesting stance to take - occupied by a foreign power indeed - how many men were fighting and dying in the trenches when these loonies were doing their thing in the GPO? Not to mention all the women who provided support as nurses etc etc.

It took joining the EEC in the 1970's to drag this country out of the mess our independence had gotten us into. We were and frankly still are an economic and social backwater.

Even with the availability of massive structural funds from our membership of the EEC we still managed to run the country into the ground. We have until recently have had a single party govt. who have proven to be so incompetent and corrupt we have to be bailed out because, frankly we have shown that we couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery!

SD

Galwayguy35 · 07-04-2012 3:29pm

later12 wrote: »

This is an emotional argument.

"It got us away from being ruled by the British" -- so what?

Did life materially improve for Irish people? Did they enjoy 'freedom'? Did they thrive as a society or as an economy? I would suggest that the answer to all of these questions is that no, the above did not arise. In fact, I would suggest we took a good many steps backwards. Before Lemass came to power, which began the reforms that led to EEC membership, Ireland was little more than a peasant economy with high capital flight and low inward investment being overseen by a small governing class - bizarrely similar to Ireland before independence, and a good deal worse off than our British neighbours.

This isn't an argument against independence by the way. I'm just saying that the changing of the guard was a very inconsequential change. If we want to celebrate anything, I would tentatively suggest we celebrate our membership of the EEC which, gestated by the reforms of Sean Lemass, was to represent the birth of a modern Ireland.

Look, you will get no arguement from me that the economic policies in the 1930s and 40s did Ireland no favours at all. But the topic we are discussing today is slightly different. It is about recognising the people who fought and died for Irish freedom.

Galwayguy35 · 07-04-2012 3:30pm

StudentDad wrote: »

An interesting stance to take - occupied by a foreign power indeed - how many men were fighting and dying in the trenches when these loonies were doing their thing in the GPO? Not to mention all the women who provided support as nurses etc etc.

It took joining the EEC in the 1970's to drag this country out of the mess our independence had gotten us into. We were and frankly still are an economic and social backwater.

Even with the availability of massive structural funds from our membership of the EEC we still managed to run the country into the ground. We have until recently have had a single party govt. who have proven to be so incompetent and corrupt we have to be bailed out because, frankly we have shown that we couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery!

SD

"Loonies", harsh words indeed.

benway · 07-04-2012 3:33pm

StudentDad wrote: »

An interesting stance to take - occupied by a foreign power indeed - how many men were fighting and dying in the trenches when these loonies were doing their thing in the GPO? Not to mention all the women who provided support as nurses etc etc.

Sorry, so those poor fools dying face down in the mud for the glory of the King weren't loonies? Take off the blinkers, kiddo.

As for the benefits of independence, I'd take the history of Northern Ireland, particularly in the 50s, 60s and 70s as evidence that we're better off.

StudentDad · 07-04-2012 3:40pm

benway wrote: »

I'd take the history of Northern Ireland, particularly in the 50s, 60s and 70s as evidence that we're better off.

Now that's funny. Here in the Republic we had Social and cultural stagnation. Censorship. The utter dominance of the RC Church in political and social matters. Mass emigration. The list goes on.

Independence merely brought the 26 counties a period of Irish history that frankly I'd rather forget.

SD

benway · 07-04-2012 3:44pm

And in the north they had institutionalised sectarianism, gerrymandering, a two tier society, and peaceful civil rights campaigners were shot down in cold blood. Much preferable.

later12 · 07-04-2012 3:47pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

for Irish freedom.

What freedom?

This suggests that Irish people were treated some sort of enslaved people in the run up to independence. That is clearly untrue.

I don't mind people honouring the rebels if they want to, but they did not achieve "freedom". Ireland of the 1910s was an enormously different country to the Ireland of the 1850s and 60s. There was very little freedom left to implement, if any, relative to elsewhere in Britain.

Galwayguy35 · 07-04-2012 3:47pm

StudentDad wrote: »

Now that's funny. Here in the Republic we had Social and cultural stagnation. Censorship. The utter dominance of the RC Church in political and social matters. Mass emigration. The list goes on.

Independence merely brought the 26 counties a period of Irish history that frankly I'd rather forget.

SD

Ok thats your opinion and if thats how you feel then fair enough. So what would you have liked to see happen then that would have been better for the country? Home Rule? Remain in the Commenwealth? Just curious.

StudentDad · 07-04-2012 3:48pm

Ah yeah we had that for years down here - only those who didn't agree with the system just said feck this and left - usually to go live in the UK.

Especially expectant mothers who found the idea of living as a single mother in such a socially backward little country too terrifying to consider.

SD

Mr.Micro · 07-04-2012 3:49pm

StudentDad wrote: »

Now that's funny. Here in the Republic we had Social and cultural stagnation. Censorship. The utter dominance of the RC Church in political and social matters. Mass emigration. The list goes on.

Independence merely brought the 26 counties a period of Irish history that frankly I'd rather forget.

SD

Dont forget corruption and cronyism.

Galwayguy35 · 07-04-2012 3:52pm

later12 wrote: »

What freedom?

This suggests that Irish people were treated some sort of enslaved people in the run up to independence. That is clearly untrue.

I don't mind people honouring the rebels if they want to, but they did not achieve "freedom". Ireland of the 1910s was an enormously different country to the Ireland of the 1850s and 60s. There was very little freedom left to implement, if any, relative to elsewhere in Britain.

My god can you not see that people wanted their country back to be ruled by the Irish themselves? IMO Home Rule was only a pipe dream at best, a sop to keep the people happy.

later12 · 07-04-2012 3:57pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

My god can you not see that people wanted their country back

I don't want to get into this sort of emotional argument, i'm just interested in your use of the word "freedom". These sorts of vague terms are a little suspect when you're asking about the dramatic lengths that were taken to achieve the goals of the rebels,and the cost to human life that followed.

Especially when one considers that giving the country back a sense of solidarity, freedom or prosperity were not exactly what the rebels did when they acquired independence.

Again, I'm not criticising independence in itself. I just question what exactly we are supposed to be celebrating by celebrating the 1916 rising. The men who partook in it were many of the same men that compounded and aggravated Ireland's social and economic destitution when in power.

Happy Monday · 07-04-2012 4:03pm

paky wrote: »

Padraig Pearse and James Connolly

Did you mean Patrick Pearse?
Who is this Padraig you speak of?

Nodin · 07-04-2012 5:38pm

later12 wrote: »

I don't want to get into this sort of emotional argument, i'm just interested in your use of the word "freedom". These sorts of vague terms are a little suspect when you're asking about the dramatic lengths that were taken to achieve the goals of the rebels,and the cost to human life that followed.

Especially when one considers that giving the country back a sense of solidarity, freedom or prosperity were not exactly what the rebels did when they acquired independence.

.........

Those who led that Rebellion were in the main dead by independence, if you might recall.

07-04-2012 5:44pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

My god can you not see that people wanted their country back to be ruled by the Irish themselves? IMO Home Rule was only a pipe dream at best, a sop to keep the people happy.

This is a very simplistic argument to make. I'm not saying that they were right or wrong, but we were still engaged in a democracy where we voted for our leaders.

Have you studied much of the period?

Nodin · 07-04-2012 5:47pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

This is a very simplistic argument to make. I'm not saying that they were right or wrong, but we were still engaged in a democracy where we voted for our leaders.

Have you studied much of the period?

.......engaged in a democracy that was never willingly joined, in which the Irish representation could never form a majority.

07-04-2012 5:52pm

Nodin wrote: »

.......engaged in a democracy that was never willingly joined, in which the Irish representation could never form a majority.

That opinion disregards international pressures on the UK&I at the time from mainland Europe.

Also, Ireland wasn't seen as it's own state until 1921 - the very ideas of what defined a nation were still being written. We were just a part of a Union, why would we possess an ability to hold a majority over the majority of people of said Union?

benway · 07-04-2012 5:57pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

the UK&I

The British Empire, don't you mean?

Personally, being a citizen of a republic, however imperfect it may be, is preferable to being the subject of a queen, irrespective of other considerations.

Nodin · 07-04-2012 5:58pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

That opinion disregards international pressures on the UK&I at the time from mainland Europe.

Also, Ireland wasn't seen as it's own state until 1921 - the very ideas of what defined a nation were still being written. We were just a part of a Union, why would we possess an ability to hold a majority over the majority of people of said Union?

Ireland wasn't seen as its own state by whom, exactly? The first attempt at a democratic non-sectarian republic was in 1798.

In a true democracy the Irish people would have full governance over themselves. In the union no such position was possible.

07-04-2012 6:10pm

But then who deserves independence? Who decides who deserves independence? Do we apply the same rules to every independence movement in the world?

The modern ideal of Ireland, and Irish people for that matter, as an identity in itself can be traced back a few hundred years, perhaps to the arrival of the counter-reformation in Ireland. We're not exactly Egyptian in the culture stakes, are we?

Now I'm not some pro-union lunatic who salutes the Union Jack every morning, I'm just pointing out that we should view the events of our own history through unbiased eyes. Which is difficult, as an Irish person I suppose.

Nodin · 07-04-2012 6:19pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

But then who deserves independence? Who decides who deserves independence? Do we apply the same rules to every independence movement in the world?

The modern ideal of Ireland, and Irish people for that matter, as an identity in itself can be traced back a few hundred years, perhaps to the arrival of the counter-reformation in Ireland. We're not exactly Egyptian in the culture stakes, are we?

..................

O - it was the 1920's a minute ago.

So that means what, exactly? There's some form of 'time served' box to be ticked in order to qualify to be a nationality or state?

07-04-2012 6:51pm

Nodin wrote: »

O - it was the 1920's a minute ago.

So that means what, exactly? There's some form of 'time served' box to be ticked in order to qualify to be a nationality or state?

You can't see where I'm coming from at all? Nothing?

edit: And in that last post I was referring specifically to 'State' and not 'nation' or 'nationality' or 'ethnic identity'. No need for tying to get all pedantic.

Nodin · 07-04-2012 6:54pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

You can't see where I'm coming from at all? Nothing?

.

Not really, no.

07-04-2012 7:13pm

Would you consider yourself to be a diehard nationalist, or have you come to your conclusions based on any particular reasoning? I'd love to hear the explanation behind such an inflexible position?

Nodin · 07-04-2012 8:21pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Would you consider yourself to be a diehard nationalist, or have you come to your conclusions based on any particular reasoning? I'd love to hear the explanation behind such an inflexible position?

A republican. I've aways oppossed imperialism and supported self determination. I didn't think what was done here in its name was justifiable, nor what was done elsewhere, regardless of who did it.

What is my position supposed to be, by the way?

Eliot Rosewater · 07-04-2012 8:34pm

benway wrote: »

Personally, being a citizen of a republic, however imperfect it may be, is preferable to being the subject of a queen, irrespective of other considerations.

You'd prefer to be a citizen of the Republic of Zimbabwe than the United Kingdom then?

That's extreme, but the point is that there are other important factors in deciding one's preferred government than nominal place of loyalty. In particular, there's far more important practice issues. It seems to me that those in favor of the Irish independence we got support it almost exclusively using vague emotional arguments or broad political arguments that don't have any practical repercussions.

For example, to a "man on the street", what was the actual benefit of being "ruled by the Irish themselves"?

Galwayguy35 · 07-04-2012 9:14pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Have you studied much of the period?

I remember it from school, i was only giving an opinion so i dont see what difference it makes when i studied it TBH.

benway · 07-04-2012 11:35pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You'd prefer to be a citizen of the Republic of Zimbabwe than the United Kingdom then?

Funny you should mention it, but didn't the British Empire have a lot to do with how Rhodesia / Zimbabwe turned out?

Point remains, a republic, even an underdeveloped one like ours, is an infinitely preferable form of political organisation to a primitive monarchy, for many many reasons. For example, in general terms, our scheme of constitutional rights and liberties is infinitely more developed and sophisticated to that found in the UK.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

For example, to a "man on the street", what was the actual benefit of being "ruled by the Irish themselves"?

Well, for one thing, he or his son weren't conscripted and sent off to die overseas.

For another, he didn't have to wait 'till 1969 for an equal franchise ... and people weren't shot down in cold blood for daring to demand equal rights:

http://campaignforcivilrights.org/northernirelandarticles.php?id=158

K-9 · 08-04-2012 1:26am

benway wrote: »

Well, for one thing, he or his son weren't conscripted and sent off to die overseas.

We had conscription?

KeithAFC · 08-04-2012 2:06am

This thread is very interesting for a number of reasons.

A lot of talk about Irish freedom but I thought the people in 1916 fought for a 32 county Irish Republic? That didn't happen. So what is this freedom people talk about? If you are a Irish Republican, you can't say you are free because you don't believe that the 26 counties are legit.

So these vague terms in terms of 1916 don't have a lot of reality behind them because the true meaning of freedom for the 1916 rebels wasn't achieved. So why do the Irish government celebrate it?

benway · 08-04-2012 2:25am

K-9 wrote: »

We had conscription?

They had it in the UK during WWII. That's one advantage for the man in the streets of independent Ireland.

K-9 · 08-04-2012 2:34am

benway wrote: »

They had it in the UK during WWII. That's one advantage for the man in the streets of independent Ireland.

They had it in WW1 too, never quite got here though.

The quote you responded to was:

For example, to a "man on the street", what was the actual benefit of being "ruled by the Irish themselves"?

WW11 is completely irrelevant.

Ireland's Political Identity Crisis

Comments