Originally Posted By: TottiNotGotti
Originally Posted By: slumpy
I can understand sympathizing with irish republicanism. People often forget that most of the UK are not a member by choice per se. Ireland has technically been an occupied nation for hundreds of years, yet, they have never become fully integrated Brits. Their cultural identity has never really waned as is typical of nations that are occupied for long lengths of time by a people that share some cultural affinities. So I can totally understand why half the country is not enough for Irish repubs.

That said, The IRA "died" when the South was founded and was amalgamated as the official republic army. PIRA was the only real successor to the cause and they put down their guns back in '05.

Remaining remnants of the republican movement(such as RIRA) militant arm are mostly low brow thugs who are looking to earn a buck rather than unification with the south.

HOWEVER, honestly, the IRA (every incarnation), has often employed some shamefully cowardly tactics and have littered history with the corpses of hundreds of civilians. there is also a whole other side to republicanism in North Ireland, it's really such a difficult situation, I don't think there will ever be a compromise that will satisfy the republicans, short of England completely removing any and all presence there, which isn't a feasible expectation for several reasons.

Another important thing to understand about the IRA's conflict with the British government is that there actually is SOME altruistic logic behind their staying and occupying North Ireland. Hundreds of years ago when the british first invaded and annexed Ireland to make way for British colonists, nobody could have guessed eventually Henvry VII(I?) would come a long and reform the religious institutions from the ground up, vis-a-vis bodily ejecting the papacy and Catholicism and creating Protestantism. Now, for a nation that has historically been extremely vested in the Catholic religion, this came as something of a blow to Ireland.

let me elaborate, it easy to overlook King Henry's reformations as something that influences the more modern conflict between the IRA and the UK, but it has to be a major part of the sectarian violence that occurs in ireland today. The colonists that settled Ireland were mainly english protestants, so, hundreds of years later we develop a unique situation wherein half the people of the Northern districts are the ancestors of people that technically have no right to settle where they did, yet, have been there for generations and are as much Irish as any catholic.

One of the big reasons the Uk chose to stay in N. Ireland is because of those people, the loyalists/protestants who come from an ethnically English background but have been in Ireland since the time of their grandparents grandparents grandparents. At the time of the original Easter Rising in 1916 we are emerging from a period where many Catholics felt religiously suppressed, to make matters worse, Catholics were also socially repressed by the minority of protestants. Nepotism among protestant transplantees was rampant, to the point where it didn't matter how much money you had as a Catholic, you were forced to live in run down ghettos, your Republican, catholic government candidates had no chance of achieving real political status as the Protestants, whom (again), despite their minority status, rule a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.

So, I suppose these descendants of English settlers are not seen as truly Irish (by the repubs) despite their having been there for generations. I mean honestly I can understand both sides of this conflict. it really just goes to show how nothing in this world is black and white.

SO ALL THAT SAID, I don't see how an IRA presence in America would be at all good for anyone. HOWEVER, there WAS IRA presence in Boston for many years. Usually there to garner support from (then) recent Irish immigrants (whom no doubt became migrant because of the suppression of Catholics)in form of money, weapons, etc..

Now there would really be no reason for them to be in America. What would they get out of it? Anyone claiming to be "irish" is probably several generations removed from the Irish ancestor that originally settled in the US.


There's a lot wrong with that post, so I've taken it in bitesize chunks...

Quote:
I can understand sympathizing with irish republicanism. People often forget that most of the UK are not a member by choice per se. Ireland has technically been an occupied nation for hundreds of years, yet, they have never become fully integrated Brits. Their cultural identity has never really waned as is typical of nations that are occupied for long lengths of time by a people that share some cultural affinities. So I can totally understand why half the country is not enough for Irish repubs.


It's not half the country, it's six counties from 32 - only three of which have a Unionist majority. And it's not about getting enough of the country to satisfy Republicans or getting only areas with a Nationalist/Republican majority, it's about achieving the Irish Republic as proclaimed in 1916 and ratified overwhelmingly by Irish people in the 1918 elections.

Quote:
That said, The IRA "died" when the South was founded and was amalgamated as the official republic army. PIRA was the only real successor to the cause and they put down their guns back in '05.


The IRA never became the Free State Army. Elements of the IRA broke their oaths to the Irish Republic and the Irish people and formed the Free State Army. The IRA as it existed at the time technically still exists today as the Continuity IRA. The Provisionals were recognised as the legitimate IRA by General Tom Barry in 1969/1970, who conferred legitimacy on the Continuity IRA in 1986 despite efforts by the Provos to the contrary.

Quote:
Remaining remnants of the republican movement(such as RIRA) militant arm are mostly low brow thugs who are looking to earn a buck rather than unification with the south.


The fact that there are many 'dissident' Republicans sitting in British gaols as political prisoners today suggests that they are concerned with something other than making a buck.

Quote:
HOWEVER, honestly, the IRA (every incarnation), has often employed some shamefully cowardly tactics and have littered history with the corpses of hundreds of civilians. there is also a whole other side to republicanism in North Ireland, it's really such a difficult situation, I don't think there will ever be a compromise that will satisfy the republicans, short of England completely removing any and all presence there, which isn't a feasible expectation for several reasons.


The IRA even in the actions it carried out which I disagree strongly with (La Mon, Warrington, etc) was never a cowardly force. It consistently took on a stronger and better equipped enemy in combat and never complained when its volunteers were killed, brutalised, wounded or beaten by its enemy. Throughout the conflict its volunteers showed themselves to be brave and dedicated soldiers - as the British Army has stated many times since.

Why can England never leave? It left the 26 counties, and there were many loyalists and unionists there then. That can be the only just solution and it will one day come to pass. I only hope I am alive to see it.

If the IRA has 'littered history with the corpses of hundreds of civilians' then they will have bucked the trend of armies the world over who have left thousands upon thousands of civilians dead from their skirmishes. If it was left to the so called 'legitimate' western armies who have perpetrated wars in the last decade to carry out military actions for over thirty years then the civilian death toll would be counted in the millions, and you can take that to the bank.

Quote:
Another important thing to understand about the IRA's conflict with the British government is that there actually is SOME altruistic logic behind their staying and occupying North Ireland. Hundreds of years ago when the british first invaded and annexed Ireland to make way for British colonists, nobody could have guessed eventually Henvry VII(I?) would come a long and reform the religious institutions from the ground up, vis-a-vis bodily ejecting the papacy and Catholicism and creating Protestantism. Now, for a nation that has historically been extremely vested in the Catholic religion, this came as something of a blow to Ireland.

let me elaborate, it easy to overlook King Henry's reformations as something that influences the more modern conflict between the IRA and the UK, but it has to be a major part of the sectarian violence that occurs in ireland today. The colonists that settled Ireland were mainly english protestants, so, hundreds of years later we develop a unique situation wherein half the people of the Northern districts are the ancestors of people that technically have no right to settle where they did, yet, have been there for generations and are as much Irish as any catholic.


You have misunderstood the plantation of Ulster completely.

The English who colonised Ireland were Catholic. They were Norman Catholics. They formed part of the Ascendency in Ireland, where they were granted the best lands, most of the wealth, the power and so on. But they were Catholic.

After the Reformation this English community in Ireland found itself in a similar position to the recusant Catholics of England.

The plantation of Ulster was something quite different and had nothing to do with King Henry VIII. Ulster was planted by Presbyterian Scots, not Anglican English - whose faith is quite different. Even then many of them went on to become Republican - which is after all the important part of this debate, Republicans and Unionists/Loyalists, not Catholics and Protestants.

Quote:
One of the big reasons the Uk chose to stay in N. Ireland is because of those people, the loyalists/protestants who come from an ethnically English background but have been in Ireland since the time of their grandparents grandparents grandparents. At the time of the original Easter Rising in 1916 we are emerging from a period where many Catholics felt religiously suppressed, to make matters worse, Catholics were also socially repressed by the minority of protestants.


Again, Loyalists are ethnically Scottish.

The repression in Ireland in the 19th and early 20th century in general was by English land-owning and ruling classes, not by Ulster-Scots Protestants.

Quote:
So, I suppose these descendants of English settlers are not seen as truly Irish (by the repubs) despite their having been there for generations. I mean honestly I can understand both sides of this conflict. it really just goes to show how nothing in this world is black and white.


I am an Irish Republican and I see them as Irish citizens, as mentioned in the Proclamation of the Irish Republic in 1916 - the document which has sat on my wall since my childhood and which is the first place I look to for guidance on issues related to Irish Republicanism.

"The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic 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 of 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."

It was also said in the Democratic Programme of the First Dail...

"...we declare that the Nation’s sovereignty extends not only to all men and women of the Nation, but to all its material possessions, the Nation’s soil and all its resources, all the wealth and all the wealth-producing processes within the Nation..."


It's a long post but I hope it challenges some of the things you stated and helps change you perception of Irish Republicanism.


Not 100% sure, but, it seems like my ignorance may have offended you, if I have, sorry. Yeah, i don't have a complete understanding of irish history, and its cultural impacts. I'm not Irish, so obviously some of the social details escape me or the implications of them are subtly different than I might surmise.

I agree with you that the Loyalists are irish insofar as their families have (probably) been living there in the six counties (I realize its not literally "half" the country, that was just a bit of artistic license :P) for generations. But what constitutes an ethnic irish person to you? As you pointed out, ireland has been settled by many different peoples over the centuries, Gaels, Normans, Vikings, etc. I also realize that it's not really a religious conflict, although I think it is often seen as one and an argument could be made for it being one.

I think I have the general gist of the issues down, for a third person perspective whose never been to the UK and hasn't studied that particular period of history in great detail. I appreciate the corrections, though, as a student of history (I majored in medieval history back when I was still in university)I know the value of accurate information.

I wasn't trying to condemn the IRA for the civilians casualties they have inflicted, I realize that the English government is no more innocent than the political prisoners they have jailed and that every war has unfortunate fallout.

You know, as a citizen of canada - and this might seem a little empty to someone whose Irish - I can empathize with Irish republicanism. As much sovereignty as we have gained as democratic nation we are still subject to the queen in many respects and the house of lords/commons over in the UK, and there is an overarching royalist culture here. Even the small influences are easy to be resentful of; I'm tired of seeing a foreign ruler on my nations coins, for example.

Help me figure out something. So, I know PIRA (which seemed like the true successor to the early 1900's IRA to me, am I wrong?), but, what's the deal with CIRA and RIRA? Are they both break offs of PIRA? If so, what are the ideological differences that separated them into different camps? It seems like it would be more effective for militant republicans to operate under one banner.

I've seen a lot of opinion pieces of the newer incarnations of the IRA, and for the most part, they try to make them out to mostly criminals with out much conviction in a free and unified Ireland, how true is this? Most of the information I've seen on the subject has come from BBC which (for obvious reasons) should be taken with a grain of salt. Unfortunately you don'tr often get to hear the other side of the story.