What defines an 'Irishman' in context of upcoming centenaries

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Thread closed as per bottom line of post no. 60.

Moderator.

EDIT>>> Forum users have requested that this thread be re-opened.

The thread as pointed out already has contained much opinion, much of it without basis on historical fact. Users should ensure that they are able to provide a basis or a source that leads to their particular opinion, in line with forum charter. If this does not happen I will delete or edit posts, or close thread again.

If there is a problem with this then please PM me.

Moderator.

Jonnie - thanks for reopening. As I said in my PM I think this is a valuable and important discussion and, although it will inevitably lead to disagreement between those who would hold a (for want of a better word) 'traditional' view of what constitutes 'Irish' and those who have a broader definition I see no reason why it needs to descend into name-calling and rhetoric.

Whether people like it or not - the demographic is changing, the latest CSO figures published today show that we now have 544,357 'non-nationals' out of a population of 4,588,252: 17 per cent of the population was born outside Ireland – that’s an increase of 25 per cent on 2006. Half a million people living in Ireland speak a foreign language at home – the most popular were Polish, followed by French, then Lithuanian and German.
http://www.thejournal.ie/here-are-the-highlights-of-census-2011-400186-Mar2012/?utm_source=facebook_self&utm_medium=thejournal&utm_campaign=from_page

So, will the children who speak German, Polish, Lithuanian at home but English outside and learn Irish in school become 'Irish' or will they forever remain 'foreign'? These are important questions - do we create an inclusive society or foster the creation of ethnic ghettos?

Anyway - just before (I mean that literally) the thread was closed I had written the following lengthy post discussing what it means to be Irish. I did use some of it re: the involvement of the Catholic Church in another thread - us academics like to repeat ourselves and hate the thought that a piece of writing may be wasted (:p) so apologies for some repetition.

In my opinion - based on extensive reading of historical sources - our current concepts of what constitutes 'Irish' is a construct based on a series of false premises. The main two being religion and the notion that there is such a thing as an Irish 'Race'.

One of the most insidious and destructive of these false premises, IMHO, is that Irish = Catholic - I certainly would not be the only historian to view this falsehood as a serious and divisive 'flaw' at the heart of our constructed national identity.

Diarmaid Ferriter hit the nail on the head when he wrote in the Irish Timesabout the creation of an Irish State with

society so homogeneously Catholic, abrogating responsibility to the Catholic church in too many crucial areas, including education

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0326/1224313893518.html?via=mr

By allowing the Catholic Church to control education, the State allowed that organisation to define what it means to be 'Irish' and to ignore or downplay it's own role in the conquest of Ireland and the role played by non-Catholics in the centuries of struggle for Irish independence.

Lets look briefly at the facts of the conquest - although Pope Adrian's 1155 Papal Bull Laudabilitor is now believed to have been a forgery - Pope Alexander III did confirm it in 1172 - so in effect the Papacy granted legitimacy to the overlordship of Ireland by the Monarch of England http://www.libraryireland.com/HullHistory/Appendix1a.php.

Why? Because the Gaelic Church was not following the rules as laid down by Rome - it existed as a quasi-independent rival power base and was therefore a threat to the holy grail of religious homogenisation.


In Gaelic Christian Europe (Ireland, Scotland and parts of northern England) the church was content to let people come to it ( vocations)- rather then go out and 'get' them (you are whatever religion your prince is/forced baptisms count).

The result in Ireland was that Gaelic society was secular. Brehon Law was the dominant legal code and even a cursory read of Kelly's Guide to Early Irish Law shows that Gaelic Ireland was sexually liberal, granted extensive rights to women, and was based completely on civil, not religious, imperatives.
For some strange reason we are not taught about this thing we should be boasting about in school....

Conflict had existed between Ireland and Rome from the beginning -in the 7th century the Synod of Whitby brought Rome and the Gaelic Church into direct opposition. In the 12th century there was a potential schism within Ireland between the Roman 'reformers' such as St Malachy and the Gaelic traditionalists. In was within this context that the Papacy moved against the Gaelic Church traditionalists in an effort to bring it into line with Rome.

Although political events - the possibility that Strongbow, de Lacy etc may create 'kingdoms' in Ireland was considered a real possibility - forced Henry II to come here and impose his authority upon his feudal subjects, the fact remains that the Papacy gave legitimacy to the Norman conquest after the creation of the Lordship of Ireland.

Rome gave us to England. Not once, not twice, but three times:
When Henry VIII broke with Rome that undermined this legitimacy forcing Henry to create the Kingdom of Ireland - Henry declared himself king of the entire island, including areas that had never been under English control such as Tir Connell, Umhall, Iar Chonnacht, Beara, etc it must be noted that this was the first time in history that Ireland was united as a single kingdom under a central authority.


In the 1550s the Papacy regranted and relegitimised this control during the reign of Mary I - the same Catholic Mary Tudor who introduced Plantations to Ireland.

This policy was continued by her sister Elizabeth and her cousin James Stuart - who oversaw the Plantation of Ulster and the influx of Scots Presbyterians - whose descendants invented Irish Republicanism.

The events of 1798 were inspired by the French Revolution - not religion. Westminster responded with the Act of Union - with the full support of the RCC.

Events in 1848 grew out of the Famine and the Revolutions spreading across Europe. In both '98 and '48 most of the leaders were from Protestant backgrounds. In both cases Rome utterly condemned these 'anarchists'.

The impetus behind the 1916 Rising was the Socialist Connolly and the Citizen's Army. What was the response of the RCC to the war for Irish independence? It excommunicated republicans.

But - because the RCC is allowed to control education it is able to spin history and portray itself as the driving force behind Irish Independence - it rebranded it as a war of Religious freedom (non-Catholics need not apply)- not the desire for political self-determination. The RCC did not want self-determination - it wanted us to be controlled by Rome rather then Westminster.

In our 'under the patronage of the Bishop' National schools we are instructed in fidelity to the RCC not the State. IMHO our State schools should be teaching civics and ethics not religion -perhaps then we might breed a generation of politicos who understand duty to the State and what it means to serve the people.


A united Ireland is both a Tudor concept and an enforced English imposition. The idea that there is an Irish 'Race' is also a Tudor concept - the Gaelic Irish had a completely different interpretation. We, as a people, have taken the Tudor's view to heart and abandoned the definitions of our Gaelic ancestors.

I find it ironic that many of those who bang the nationalist drum the loudest are using the same definitions of us as a people which were imposed upon us by our conquers and the destroyers of Gaelic Ireland.

The Tudors went into over-drive to impose Anglicisation and utterly destroy Gaelic culture and identity. The were absolutely successful. Ireland is an Anglo-(Catholic) country - whether we like it or not. I like it not. Not because I am anti-Anglo, there are a great many things I admire about England - but I do not live in England. I would prefer to live in an Ireland which has developed a way of life based on our own culture and ethos rather then the bastardised pseudo-England we currently have. A dysfunctional marriage of the worst of both cultures - the clientism and parochialism of the Gaelic world flowing as a subversive undercurrent in the centralised Anglo structure of the State.

Our native language is sneered at and deemed 'useless', most of us of Gaelic descent have no idea what our name means in Irish - yet it tells us who we are and where we come from; our institutions are essentially the same as those that existed when we were a colony; our system of government is based entirely on Westminster; our main streets could be in any English town; we 'support' teams in the Premier League to the tune of millions; we subscribe to Sky; we read the Sunday Times, the Sun, the Mirror, the Observer, The Guardian; our education system was devised by the Victorians and adapted by the RCC; our heritage has been systematically destroyed by State neglect, we, as my Nana would have said, 'have no mass on it'.

If the facts and figures cited during an hour long rant I was recently subjected to by Professor Donnchadh Ó Corráin are correct (and I would bet my house they are - and I deeply regret popping out for a coffee at the particular moment) in the last 10 years German universities have devoted more time, energy and money to the study of Gaelic Ireland then the entire Irish State has as since its foundation. In Continental Europe, Gaelic Ireland is of endless academic fascination - not because of any nonsense about Saints but because of its scholars, it's sophistication, it's legal code, it's structure, it's literature, it's art and its self-confidence.

Gaelic Ireland was not an isolated backwater - far from it - it had enough confidence in itself to decide what it would adopt or discard from Europe and it usually decided that it liked things the way they were:

Books? great idea, we'll have those and while we're about it we'll make them readable.

Centralisation - hmmm - seems like a recipe for too much power concentrated in too few hands - no thanks.

Heavy Armour - are you mad?? Have you seen how many bogs we have???

Wine??? - I'll have a claret thanks.

In 21st century Ireland our remaining monuments are viewed as obstacles to road building and pond filling. Those who try and protect this priceless heritage are dismissed as crusties, the 'usual' protesters, tree-huggers, academics from Ivory Towers and anti-progress Luddites.

The founders of the Irish State made no effort whatsoever to counter the anti-Gaelic propaganda that emanated from English Anglicisation policies - in fact, they appear to have agreed with it. They grafted a faux-history onto an Anglo structure - selling us nonsense about saints and Celtic twilights leaving us fatally divorced from our actual past which still bubbles and surfaces in legends, folklore and local histories. It's like an itch on the national psyche. We have been fashioned into a people who do not know where we come from and how we got to this point. Is it any wonder we can't agree on who we are?

How can we face the world with confidence when we don't know who we are? We have taken the propaganda of our oppressors to heart and believe our ancestors were uncivilised barbarians. We see them as lesser so we see our culture as lesser.

We judge ourselves by the imposed standards of the Anglo world and come up short - not because we are lesser, but because they are not our standards. They are the standards of our conquerors and colonial masters. They told us we were barbarians who spent thousands of years beating the living crap out of each other and living in bogs until we had civilisation shoved down our throats. The Irish State has continued to perpetuate that view through our education system.

But - We built Newgrange, we made the Ardagha Chalice, we built Crannoigs, we built settlements - we just didn't bother with cities - and that is all that 'civilisation' means - living in cities. We wrote a Latin Primer that is still in use over 1000 years after it was devised. We prevented the Vikings from taking over large swathes of our land- something the English and French failed to do.

We created a legal code that contained extensive rights for every man, woman and child on the island. We insisted our leaders be elected and accountable.

But, apparently because we didn't unify and centralise we were barbarians, really? Neither did the Germans or Italians until the late 19th century - were they barbarians before that? The English needed French Normans to impose unification on them - did the French civilise the English?

I know that most of the inhabitants of this island have no idea whatsoever what life on this island was like before the 'English' came - just a lot of nonsense soundbites about 800 years, the Penal Laws and the Famine.I know this because I am at the coal face of trying to explain it to university students. These are our best and our brightest and they haven't a clue about their history. I think it is an absolute disgrace.

In popular culture 'our' history goes something like:

Before Patrick = Queen Meab, a Bull, Cú Culainn, Fionn McCool and the Fianna, Oisín and Tir na Óg and the Children of Lír....oh...and something about fairy forts....and the Celts...mustn't forget the Celts.

Reality : Before Patrick = an Island composed of independent kingdoms based on patriliniar bloodlines with a rich oral tradition of heroic tales featuring a pantheon of gods and goddess - Meab etc - who could rival anything from Ancient Greece or the Nordic countries. We all know who Zeus, Apollo, Oden and Thor are - how many of us know about the Dagda, The Mórrigan, Briget, etc?

We constructed not just Raths (aka fairy forts) and Dúns but Newgrange.

There is no evidence of a largescale Celtic invasion - our very DNA suggests antecedents in pre-Celtic Iberia. The archaeological record demonstrates Ireland was populated by people who were aware of technological advances being made in Celtic Europe - ideas which were brought back and 'worked out'.

We traded copper from Kerry with continental Europe. We were not a backward people - we had the ability to mine copper, export it, import domesticated animals, construct marvels of engineering such as Knowth, Dowth and Newgrange, engage in astronomy, we had, at the very least, seasonal calendars, we had laws. We had a sophisticated culture. We had a pantheon of gods.

After Patrick = Ireland was not just completely Christian - but Roman Catholic.
Literacy came to Ireland with Christianity.

Reality = Christianity existed in Ireland before Patrick. The Church in Ireland appears to have taken it's lead from Egypt not Rome. Christianity had no impact on the structure of Gaelic civil society. Christianity was not as widespread as we have been lead to believe. (see Dáibhí Ó Cróinín Early Medieval Ireland, 400–1200(London and New York, 1995.) ) In the 12th Century Gerald of Wales noted that there were regions in Ireland that had never even heard of Christianity.

As for literacy - what is that exactly? The existence of an 'alphabet' or series of glyphs each of which has a universally agreed meaning. This enables the 'reader' to understand what 'writer' has written. So what was Ogham? Chopped liver????

For a people who were meant to be completely illiterate the Gaelic Irish managed to quickly invent upper and lower case letters and punctuation - turning SENTENCESLIKETHISWHICHWHENWRITTENINLATINWEREALLUPPERCASEWITHNOBREAKSCAUSINGCONFUSIONTOREADERSACROSSEUROPE into Sentences like this, which by employing upper and lower case letters and punctuation, enabled the reader to clearly comprehend the intention of the writer.

Perhaps they were very, very clever and picked it up amazingly quickly, or perhaps they were not as illiterate as we have been lead to believe - or maybe - they were very, very clever and not as illiterate as we have been lead to believe...

'After' Strongbow = we were conquered. England controlled us. Ireland became an island of two races - locked into eternal (initially racial but later religious) conflict while, bizarrely, at the same time we managed to turn the 'English' more 'Irish' then the actual Irish.

Reality = Strongbow and the lads were mercenaries employed by one side during an extended conflict where various regional kings were making a bid for the highkingship - a largely ceremonial title which brought prestige, wealth and increased status but little actual power. Strongbow and the lads were Norman/Welsh - not English but they were subjects of the King of England (and Duke of Normandy). There were members of the most efficiently organised and technologically advanced military machine in the world. Initially they were successful but their opposition quickly organised and the Normans began to suffer serious defeats. Strongbow offered fealty to the High King Ruadhrí Ua Conchobhair - Ua Conchobhair refused as he believed victory was imminent. Strongbow managed to regroup - the Cambro-Normans and their Gaelic Irish allies held 1/4 of the island against Ua Conchobhair and his allies. Henry II of England feared the creation of independent Norman kingdoms - so stepped in to impose his authority on his subjects - in 1175 Henry and Ruadhrí signed the Treaty of Windsor - Leinster, Dublin, Meath and Waterford became the Lordship of Ireland - granted by Henry to his son John in 1177. The rest of the island remained Gaelic and independent. John brought English/ Normans (most notable being the Butlers and the de Burghs) as a counter-balance to the Welsh/Normans. De Lacy broke the Treaty of Windsor and invaded Ulaid.

The Uí Conchobhairs began two centuries of internecine war - with the de Burghs, de Lacy's etc working as mercenaries for which ever side was winning at the time. During this period, the de Lacys died out and the de Burgh's split in two - the main de Burgh line ended when the Gaelicised á Búrc line declared itself independent in Connacht, killed the earl before he could produce a son and really did become 'more Irish then the Irish themselves' - they were joined by the Stauntons (MacEvilly) and Costellos (MacOisdealb) among others.

The Normans and the Gaelic Irish intermarried, despite legislation imposed down the centuries (including by Henry VIII) they continued to intermingle. Some Gaelic Irish 'became' English - MacGoilla Padraig became Fitzpatrick. Some English became 'Irish' - the Burkes of Mayo. It really depended on geography - those on the east coast looked to England and the Anglo world, those on the west coast looked to Gaelic Ireland. Those in the middle and south developed a Marcher lord zone and cherry picked which ever culture suited their purpose at the time - creating an Anglo-Hibernian identity in the process But - and this is the important part - this was a cultural statement not a racial one. It was never about race but which language, culture, legal code one lived by.

So who are the Irish? Are the descendants of the Welsh-Norman's Irish? The Fitzgeralds, Roches, Walshs etc? What about the English-Normans? The Butlers and the Burkes - are they Irish? What about the Adams of Belfast? Are those named McAuliffe really Norse? Are the MacSweeny's Scots?

In 50 years will those named Kowalski and Zielinski still be Polish? What about the Varadkars?

It we adhere to a racial definition - no. But if we broaden our outlook and seek an alternate cultural definition then yes.

If being Irish is defined by race what about the Gaelic-Scots? The Kingdom of Dál Riada straddled the Irish sea between Ulster and Scotland - it came into existence in the 5th century when Scots from Scotia (aka the 'Irish' of Ulster) invaded across the sea and created 'Scotland'...are they Irish or Scots? Does it depend on which side of the sea one's ancestors ended up on?

The Gaelic Irish did not recognise the term 'Irish' as a racial term - it was a cultural umbrella to describe a group of people who were of Gaelic origin and who shared a common culture, language, history and legal code. They were the descendent of the Gaels whose arrival in Ireland is described in the 12th century Book of Invasions. The classification was simple - there were Gael and Gall. Anybody not a Gael was a Gall.

One's 'race' was one's Clan - that was always the context the term was used in the Annals. One's 'race' was determined by one's father - for example take two of the sons of Gráinne Ní Mháille -Murrough na Moar Ua Flaibhertaigh was an 'Gael' of the Uí Flaithbhertaigh 'race' as his father was Domhnall na Chogaid Ua Flaithbhertaigh. Her youngest son - Tibbóid na Long á Búrc - was 'English' as his father Ristead An Iarainn á Búrc (whose mother was Fionnula Ní Fhlaithbhertaigh - sister of Gráinne's first husband) was descended in the male line from a Norman. So Iron Dick Burke considered himself 'English' - he could not speak English, had never been to England, lived as a Gaelic chieftain, went through a Gaelic inauguration ritual, married a Gaelic woman,had several sons with concubines all off whom were of equal legal status to his legitimate son, dressed like a Gaelic man, didn't use a saddle or stirrups, fought against Anglicisation all his life and his mother was Gaelic Irish - was he actually 'Irish'? He didn't think so.

Personally, I think we need to move away from racial definitions of what constitutes being Irish - it's a cultural thing and we also need to allow for sub-categories and variations. It should be an inclusive thing rather then an absolutist thing. 'Irish' people share a culture, a language (Hiberno-English) and a legal code - we differ in religion, politics, colour and ethnic/racial origin. One can be a Unionist and be proud to be Irish (my own great-grandfather was), one can be a Protestant and be Irish - one can even be Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist and still be Irish. One can be Black and be Irish.

However, my 2 nieces - despite their Irish passports - are not Irish - they are Swiss. The fact that their father was born in Cork does not make them 'Irish' when their every cultural touchstone is from the country of their birth and education - Switzerland. They are Swiss/ Irish. As my 9 million cousins in Massachusetts are American/ Irish....My nieces are still Gaels

CDfm wrote: »

You put it so well Bannasidhe, I read a post by you on how the Irish Clan Chiefs and Gaelic Lords had become more English than the English themselves and appropriated clan lands becoming Anglo-Irish landlords. You tell that one lovely , you do.;)

I should have written my thesis on the O'Briens of Thomond...:( I could have called it The h'Inglish Irishmen or An Objective Analysis of how the Turncoat O'Briens of Thomond betrayed their Culture, Clan and Country and took the Queen's Schilling