Register to Comment
Page 13 of 28 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 23 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 272
Like Tree59Likes
  1. #121
    Roisin3 Roisin3 is online now
    Roisin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,075

    Quote Originally Posted by statsman View Post
    I read somewhere recently that, for Christians, Lent, which is almost upon us, is more than just a time for giving things up. Apparently it is also a period of reflection on the mysteries of Easter. With that in mind, I though it might be a suitable to reflect on the mysteries of Easter 1916, and its status in the foundational myth of the Irish Republic and, more specifically, on that odd item that is the 1916 Proclamation, a key text of that mythology.

    There is no question that the events of that week are seen by many who describe themselves as Irish Republicans as being fundamental to the very nature of Irishness, and these people tend to look to the Proclamation as a kind of Ur-Constitution. However, my own opinion is that the Easter rising was a Nationalist and not a Republican revolution and the Proclamation a Nationalist manifesto rather than a statement of Republican values. By this I mean that if a Republic is defined in terms of the rights, duties and responsibilities of its citizens and a Nation by its self-definition in contrast to the ‘Other’, then the Proclamation was quite clearly an attempt to insist on National identity, not Republican civic virtues. As such, these events and this document are, in my view, the root cause of much of what has been wrong with Irish social and political life for most of the century that has elapsed since.

    Let me make it clear at this point that I am not interested in the question of whether or not the 1916 leaders were ‘terrorists’ or ‘freedom fighters’, a debate that hinges not on fact but on point of view. I’m not interested in throwing any of the usual Provo/Shinner mud; a childish pastime I’m happy to agree. I’m quite content to call them freedom fighters, with the proviso that the freedom they were fighting for was of the wrong kind; the freedom to be just like them. Equally, I’m about to respond to any name-calling that comes my way.

    The following analysis is, perforce, restricted by limitations of space; this is a P.ie OP, not a book after all. I just want to look at the core point(s) in each paragraph from the perspective of the Nationalist/Republican dichotomy. Even that will be something of an essay. I realise that some will criticise me for judging the language of 1916 by the standards of 2012, but it is precisely the failure of some sections of Irish society to modify their aspirations in the face of changing events that interests me here. The dated language of the Proclamation wouldn’t be an issue of it were never treated like holy writ, an inviolable statement of self-evident truths.

    Immediately, the definition of Irishmen and Irishwomen is circumscribed. They will believe in (the Christian) god and engage in ancestor worship and support (actively or tacitly) armed revolution. These simple verities remained unquestioned throughout most of the history of the resultant state and live on in part in the unfortunate preamble to the Constitution. By extension, those who do not share these views are simply not Irish. The pluralism required of a true republic doesn’t feature.



    One single right is asserted; the atavistic right to the land;. Freedom is effectively defined in terms appropriate to the smallholder. The Nation demands its homeland and the quasi-mystical relationship with the patria that mars every Nationalist state on the planet. None of the duties of the citizen that might be expected to accompany that right are countenanced.

    In the same breath, the definition of Irishness in opposition to the Other is painted in broad brushstrokes; of course, this means that no Irish citizen who self-identifies with that Other can claim true Irishness. The concept of the West Brit as pariah is born.



    Note that the allegiance of the citizen is demanded as an entitlement, not desired as a reward to be earned. Some things don’t change.

    Given the limitations already placed on the definition of Irishmen and Irishwomen in the earlier paragraphs, the claim to wish for unification of the minority and majority populations rings hollow, and quite clearly did become fact until relatively recently. It is assumed that the revolutionaries are self-evidently right and that no sane person of Irish birth could possibly hold any other view unless they had been corrupted by the foreigner. While not wishing to deny that the British did, indeed, foster differences to suit them, we can still reject the implication that the state of Ireland in 1916 was a simple Manichaean duality of the ‘pure’ versus ‘corrupted’ Irish.

    Perhaps the most often quoted phrase from the Proclamation is ‘cherishing all of the children of the nation’, which is, understandably enough, regularly evoked by children’s rights advocates. However, I believe it is a mistake to read it literally. It seems clear enough that the ‘children’ referred to are the same ‘Irishmen and Irishwomen’ that form the refrain of this hymn. We are the children and our gracious leaders will cherish us, once we toe the line. A good Republican attitude.



    A military junta is declared.



    And so we end up where we began, with god and the gun defining who ‘we’ are.



    Perhaps the saddest aspect of the entire sorry document is the fact that a reasonably good socialist like Connolly signed it. He should have known better. As for the rest, we have teachers, an accountant, a journalist, the son of a big landowner and a man with a ‘colourful’ past; the template for future Dails was set down early.

    And now, almost a hundred years on, it is my contention that we need to bin this illiberal, anti-Republican, Nationalist foundation story. As the philosopher George Santayana said ‘Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.’ The history of Ireland since 1916 has been the unfolding of our inability to learn its lessons. There are hopeful signs that a new millennium has begun to see this change; let’s hope a real Republic emerges from our current turmoil.
    This must be a contender for longest assed troll OP in the history of p.ie.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #122
    statsman statsman is offline
    statsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    36,581

    Quote Originally Posted by Roisin3 View Post
    This must be a contender for longest assed troll OP in the history of p.ie.

    Why thank you; you're too, too kind.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #123
    Roisin3 Roisin3 is online now
    Roisin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,075

    Quote Originally Posted by statsman View Post
    Why thank you; you're too, too kind.
    Don't mention it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #124
    Cruimh Cruimh is offline
    Cruimh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    75,028

    Quote Originally Posted by walrusgumble View Post
    Fair enough, but it does not matter, subsequent events and change of personnel changed that. You can't deny that people were not so bothered about lack of mandate in 1920 -1921
    It matters in the discussion of events of 1916.

    I agree that what followed is a different thing entirely and one worthy of discussion.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #125
    Cruimh Cruimh is offline
    Cruimh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    75,028

    Quote Originally Posted by walrusgumble View Post
    The political union of Europe only came around in the 1950's.
    Eh ? Europe as a continent and Europeans didn't exist before the 1950s ?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #126
    statsman statsman is offline
    statsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    36,581

    Quote Originally Posted by walrusgumble View Post
    O'Connell never intended to leave the Union, just a right to a devolved government

    O'Connell was not above threatening violence, or like Parnell, associating with Militants (to be fair to both, they HAD too, to keep the show on the road), and he often in speech had to state that Ireland would go to war (maybe stating a fact he believe others would have to) O'Connell say peaceful means as the most realistic, and he was, then, right. But to suggest (you did not, to be fair) he was some zein like pacifists is a bit wide of the mark

    Which is why we needed another one; a Ghandi figure, if you prefer.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #127
    SeamusNapoleon SeamusNapoleon is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    11,042

    Quote Originally Posted by statsman View Post
    Which is why we needed another one; a Ghandi figure, if you prefer.
    Ghandi figures tend to get shot. Or laughingly pushed out of the way by the bigger boys.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #128
    edifice. edifice. is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    13,120

    Quote Originally Posted by statsman View Post
    Horsedroppings. There is no 'perfect' in human affairs, and those who try to insist that there is are the most dangerous fools of all.
    You should read your own posts so!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #129
    edifice. edifice. is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    13,120

    Quote Originally Posted by Cruimh View Post
    They had no 'democratic' mandate for 1916. Which was why they betrayed the IRB Constitution.
    You just don't want to address the issue do you?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #130
    Cruimh Cruimh is offline
    Cruimh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    75,028

    Quote Originally Posted by walrusgumble View Post
    I am referring, and you know damn well what I was referring too.
    You were talking twaddle. As usual.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 13 of 28 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 23 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment