Another thought-full report from Hearts and Minds‘ Julia Paul. This time the starting point is the recent Northern Ireland Life and Times report – as noted here – with contributions from Malachi O’Doherty and Chris McGimpsey, and a more interesting than usual vox-pop. [Was Michael Longley unavailable? - Ed]
Which reminds me…. Platform for Change’s driving force Robin Wilson has produced a corrective to the notion that the lessons of the NI conflict are easily exportable. Like myself, Robin is associated with the Constitution Unit. He introduced his new book in a CU blog which I here reproduce. The water crisis in Northern Ireland [...] read our review »
Here’s a great review of a fascinating book (H/T reader Rory) on how the Internet is destroying our capacity for intelligent, focused and critical thought. It opens thus: …here is the news that Ulin brings in this slim, meandering book: that reading is “an act of contemplation”; that such an act becomes more difficult in [...] read our review »
Is the best way to overcome the legacy of conflict simply to forget about it? Author and journalist David Rieff spoke on this subject last week in a seminar at the Institute for International Integration Studies (IIIS) at Trinity College Dublin. Rieff has recently written a book titled, Against Remembrance (published in Ireland by Liffey [...] read our review »
Alan, contrary to their spin, the Provos were not republicans. Central to republican democracy is the principle of self-determination. Since that is a collective and not an individual right, you enter into a contract with your fellow countrymen to be bound by the democratically expressed will of majority of the people. If you do not abide by that which is determined by self-determination, then you cannot be a republican. There is no way around that. Provos calling themselves republicans is as asinine as polygamists calling themselves monogamists. They never respected the will of the Irish people to unite the island by exclusively peaceful means, nor did they even accept the right of the people to freely elect their own government (self-government = self-determination) or to make laws proscribing criminal gangs such as the Provos. Because their claim to self-determination was based on being a part of the Irish nation, the fact that they refused to be bound by the will of that nation shows irrefutably that they were not republicans.
The Irish republican nation and its nation-state embraces those of other nationalities and ethnicities who wish to join it. The Republic of Ireland practices liberal and not ethnic nationalism that requires only loyalty to the state. Ben Briscoe, for example, was not ethnically Irish, but he was a member of Dáil Éireann for 37 years in addition to being a former Lord Mayor of the capital city (like his father before him). The only requirement on those who seek public office is that they are loyal to the state and seek to make a contribution to public life and the prosperity of the state. You can’t, of course, have someone in the Irish government (or any other government) who is loyal to a foreign state and not loyal to Ireland. So that pretty much rules out ardent British nationalists, doesn’t it? A common nationalism the cornerstone of the whole enterprise.
As a result you don’t seem to have followed the conversation at all clearly. Nor Dec for that matter.
How so, Mick?
@EyeOnTheNorth
No, despite pedantric lexicography it’s a legitimate position. Just as it’s legitimate for a Mexican to say that they’re not an American but that they’re proud to be Latin American. Or for a Scottish nationalist to say they’re not British.
Dec
Your question in post 16 perfectly valid. I can only apologise to my fellow countrymen/women who are not unionist and have suffered at the hands of these people. They have done much damage to the reputation of N.I. and have made it difficult for decent unionist’s who want to reach out the hand of friendship to our nationlist islanders. What they did was not done in my name and there are many people who think the same. That is why they have very little political support in the unionist community.
I can understand why republican’s don’t give their allegiance to N.I. and to be honest thst’s fine by me but I personally am loyal to the place I live for reason’s which are more or less the same as yours to the Republic. I’ve traced my family back as far as King Charles 11 when he knighted an ancestor of mine and I believe that I would be throwing all this history away if I lived in a Republic.
I also believe ( yes I have rambled on a bit)that the U.K is a pluralist society which while not perfect offers me the freedom to live my life in the way I want, unlike the present Republic which I believe would not respect my political beliefs.
The thread is getting quite long – to the point where most people probably aren’t reading this far. However, there are several open-ended comments that I feel compelled to respond to, so I’ll be as brief as I can:
1) “Can anyone tell me, is it possible to be Irish without being loyal to the Republic or without being a republican?” (Alan).
YES, emphatically, YES. There have been Irish people for millenia, there has been a Republic for less than a century. You are Irish if you think you’re Irish, don’t wait for somebody else to give you permission. Engage with your Irish identity on your own terms. There is no litmus test for Irishness. (Take Rory’s post above for instance.)
2) “Their flag only represent(s) one section . . .” (Alan).
I think you must have missed the symbolism of the tricolour. The green is for one community, the orange is for another, the white is for peace between the two. The flag overtly and deliberately represents both sections. I know that accepting the tricolour is difficult for a lot of people, (just as accepting the wearing of poppies is difficult for another group) but if you can put aside your own bias and just reflect on the original intended meaning, the tricolour (and the poppy) is not a sectarian symbol.
3) “[It is] superficial and a con to emblemise. . . Ireland in three colours.” (malachi)
You’re right, of course, but at the end of the day, it’s just a flag. You can’t emblemize anything in three colours. There is no symbol that will bestow a complete understanding of the totality of the Irish experience just by viewing it. That’s why we read books and go to univeristy and talk bollocks at sluggerotoole.com.
4) ” . . . the Provos were not republicans . . . ” (dave)
I think you need to review this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_republican_legitimatism
5) “[I]t’s legitimate for a Mexican to say that they’re not an American but that they’re proud to be Latin American.” (EagleEyes)
I think you’ll find that most Mexicans (and Canadians, Argentinians, et cetera) would argue that the terms “America” and “American” do not belong exclusively to the United States. In fact, the preferred Spanish language term for somebody from the USA is “estadounidense” meaning roughly “United States-ian”.
OK – I’ll stop writing now.
@Plastic Paddy
Even if true (and I don’t think it is, it’s entirely context dependant and Canadians call USAians “Americans” all the time) that’s not a counterargument. What most people think and what is legitimate or logically consistent are not the same.
The semantic content of the position “Northern Irish but not Irish” is perfectly clear in context and logically consistent. Some may find it annoying, perhaps even some who even hold to the position or use the phrase, but there is no inherent contradiction / self refute within the position. That’s my point really. Even if “Irish” is used in the phrase to denote “island of” rather than “Republic of”.
The examples were only examples.
runciter – “But regarding Northern Irishness as a politically neutral identity is ok by me
But it is not considered politically neutral by most nationalists. ”
That’s true, but it’s merely a matter of perception. I know a lot of people who call themselves Northern Irish but would still regard themselves as Irish.
Across the Irish nation as a whole I don’t think the term Northern Irish is regarded as something distinct from Irishness. Any more than a labrador is something distinct from a dog. Though obviously, by using the term you are being more specific.
You could make similar claims about Northern Irish and Britishness, and it’s probably mostly different Northern Irish people that feel British.
The only reasons it’s not widely regarded as politically neutral is probably due to nationalists long standing opposition to NI independence (and for good historical reason too), and partition (the existence of the state). I don’t think there is anything to fear from the former (demographic growth), and The Agreement accepts and makes some degree of amends for the later.
Sorry, EagleEyes, but it is true. In Spanish (the dominant language of the western hemisphere) “América” refers to the region we would call “the Americas” in English (nó “Mheiriceá” as gaelige). Don’t believe me? See:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/América
But America is not the issue and I won’t belabour the point.
The heart of what we’re discussing (and I am well aware that we won’t be reaching any consensus here) are the three questions “What is Ireland? Who are the Irish? How does Northern Ireland fit in?”
The fact that Northern Ireland is part of an island called Ireland seems like it should go without saying. [It is northern (or more accurately northeastern) Ireland.] It is a geographic fact that is pretty difficult (never say impossible) to refute. In this sense, as a geographic reality apart from the people who inhabit it, of course Northern Ireland is as Irish as Connemara or Dublin.
The fact that Northern Ireland is a part of a nation-state called “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” is equally self-evident. However, it is not “as British as Finchley.” The reality of the human situation is that political arrangements can be renegotiated.
The issue is humans, not geography. As such, it is not permanent or absolute. The GFA/Belfast Agreement guarantees “birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose.”
“Irish or British, or both”. Perhaps they should have included “neither”?
EagleEyes, Plastic Paddy –
“Northern Irish but not Irish” is a completely different proposition from “Northern Irish”!
To sum up
Northern Irish
Northern Irish but not British
Northern Irish but not Irish
are three entirely different propositions, but only the last two are mutually exclusive.
Run (let me try),
Exclusion is sometimes a good thing. Breakout was especially refreshing because it took the view it was a nationalist story and they told it without worrying overly about balance.
In this case they asked two people who have nuanced as opposed to stereotypical views about identity that cut them out from their respective ‘tribes’ and got them talking. You might not have liked it, but it was genuinely engaging and challenging.
Politics may be conditioned by culture and vice versa, but, and I agree with Malachi on this, they are not the same thing.
Dec,
I’ve a sore head just now (from patching codes I don’t really understand), but I’ll look back on the thread later.
Plastic Paddy
I appreciate your comments @ 3:02, but I would just like to ask, can I still be accepted as an Irishman even though I carry a British passport and have no intention of getting an Irish one in the near future. Regarding the tricolour I do understand the meaning of the flag but I do not know anyone from my community who will ever give allegiance to it. You can thank violent Irish republicans for that. It is also shameful that it took an Irish President 60 odd years to visit an Orange hall in a country which has orange in its flag.
I don’t have any problems with republicans cherishing their flag but I do have a problem with the likes of the I.R.F.U pretending that their team is an island of Ireland team when using emblems and anthems which represents one section only. It doesn’t represent me and I find it insulting that they think it does. I would like to add that I have no problem with a new anthem and flag for N.I.which would include all our cultures.
I’ve a sore head just now (from patching codes I don’t really understand), but I’ll look back on the thread later.
Totally understandable, Mick though I certainly didn’t misquote Malachi if that was the accusation. That being said, it’s safe to assume that the program-makers, if they didn’t deliberately misrepresent his opinion, certainly distorted his true views somewhat through omission and editing (though it’s not up to me to take umbrage on his behalf).
Mack, I like your approach:
Northern Irish (A)
British (B)
Irish (C)
possibilities:
A and B and C
A and B not C
A and C not B
B and C not A
A only, neither B nor C
B only, neither A nor C
C only, neither A nor B
However useful this exercise is, they way a person chooses to self-identify can’t be predicted by an equation or syllogism.
I’m a political scientist, but sometimes it’s more art than science.
Mick
Oh it wasn’t an exaggeration. It was a flagrant misrepresentation of what Malachi actually said. You may have repeated what you wanted him to have said. But that’s not the same thing.
No, Mick, I am pretty sure I knew what my intent was when I wrote the comment much better than you did. As with the general tone of that comment, it exaggerated the negative qualities of the comments in the clip — I note Pete still hasn’t weighed in with what exactly it was he thought important — for the sake of emphasising my point, which is that the piece was wildly unbalanced and the vox pop contained the usual level of utter nonsense.
As a result you don’t seem to have followed the conversation at all clearly. Nor Dec for that matter.
No, Mick, I followed it perfectly fine, but simply had a different perspective on it. I am sorry if Dec or myself do not conform to your preconceived notions of what the point of the piece is. As it is, I think you’ve unfairly dismissed our comments out of hand. But sorry, my mistake, I forgot your comments were always and everywhere a paragon virtue and insight.
Really, you would do us all a favour if you’d give you’re contributions in the comment zone even a fraction of the thought and hard work you put into your posts!
Different intent, and I do so love working off the cuff. Totally worth it for getting a rise of self important nonsense out of Malachi this morning and apparently leaving Pete with no answer to what exactly he thought insightful on the piece was. Oh, and of course putting you back in your box for telling me what I think.
So, you actually got anything or is that it?
kensei,
The way I saw it, Malachi got a rise out of you. He posted a lot of stuff that actually got me thinking. He stayed pretty chilled out, too, while you were only saying the same thing over and over again.
Hbf
The way I saw it, Malachi got a rise out of you. He posted a lot of stuff that actually got me thinking. He stayed pretty chilled out, too, while you were only saying the same thing over and over again.
And you are?
If you enjoyed Malachi’s posted more than mine, then well done! I’m not here to be your dancing monkey and do this solely for my own fun so, uh, I don’t actually give a shit what you think. Don’t confuse that with a rise, though, because I just love swearing [keep it civil - edited moderator]
And getting Malachi to come out with the line that people only have a problem with him because he didn’t support the IRA is the type of jumped up self importance that amuses me absolutely no end.
2/10, keep trying though.
Ken,
“I am pretty sure I knew what my intent was when I wrote the comment much better than you did.”
I am pretty certain you did too. But you cannot win a civil argument by lying about what your opponent actually said.
That is trolling; long and short.
PS, Try take this stuff so personally…
Dec,
I meant that I didn’t think you’d followed the argument; not that you’d been lying. In particular, I didn’t think you were right here:
“…the insinuation that Irishness is just one big homogeneous identity with no discernable difference between Dubliners and Corkonians or Galwegians and because northerners don’t match it exactly, we’re therefore not Irish but clearly something else.”
Rather, and this applies whether you agree with the basis of Malachi’s argument or not, Irishness is far from homogeneous. Irishness is highly individual and came out of an agglomeration of personal experiences and cultural choices.
Besides, how could the piece say he’s something else when Malachi is heard say several times that he is Irish?
I’ve no doubt that Feeney and Vance would have had interesting things to say. And I doubt either would have reinforced the simple binary positions that the Troubles forged the terms British and Irish into taking.
Non warring societies arrive at a more complex understanding than we have. If we are heading for a period of prolonged peace and settlement, the complex is likely to serve us better in the long run than the reductionist shibboleths of the past.
But, I’m not asking this glibly, what exactly did McGimpsey and O’Doherty say that was in least incoherent or unreasonable?
@Plastic Paddy
You seem to be slithering around the point. The point is that is a perfectly logically consistent position to identify with Northern Ireland and not Ireland (island of). Whether that is combined with any British identity or not. It is no different from an SNP supporter saying they are not British. If they say that then I don’t presume to give them a geography lesson, because that is not the context of what they are saying and my reading comprehension understands that. The fact that there is a linguistically superficial contradiction is a pedantic, and not very useful thing to bring up. The English language operates with context. It is not COBOL.
@Eagle Eyes
Yes, I’m slithering, because I didn’t want to get into a republican rant (which this will surely become.)
Let’s remove personal bias from the problem. If I were to say that I’m Polish but not European, Jamaican but not Caribbean, or a Texan but not an American – would that make any sense to you? Of course not. Why is Northern Ireland a special case?
No, the contradiction is not superficial, it is fundamental.
The line between England and Scotland is historic and dates back millenia. Its legitimacy is unquestioned.
The line separating “Northern Ireland” from the “Republic of Ireland” is a modern creation, a gerrymandering of Ulster, caused by a local majority which was a national minority and intended to preserve a situation wherein that minority could be artificially created a majority – and it has caused nothing but misery since it was first drawn in 1921. It was an injustice then and it remains so today.
If the whole island would have become the Free State, the Troubles could have been prevented, Ireland would still be in the Commonwealth, but as a united and independent country.
These endless back-and-forth discussions about identity, the violent history of the Troubles, the broken political apparatus at Stormont – all of it is evidence of the inescapable truth that the partition of Ireland was a terrible mistake.
There, no more slithering, but now I’m ranting. Which is preferable?
I am pretty certain you did too. But you cannot win a civil argument by lying about what your opponent actually said.
That is trolling; long and short.
No, Mick, it isn’t. It is using a rhetorical device to get your point across. That point remains substantively the same whether or not Malachi is saying he doesn’t care for a nationality, or he does not want to be defined by it or if he disproves of everyone who does. He’s that annoying dude you who will start to explain there is no God if you start to get into a discussion about religion with someone else. Perfectly fine position to take, but the one you want to STFU when you actually want to have the debate.
There are times when tight accuracy matters, but not here and I’m justified in a little creative license. I kicked a few things off, had a wee discussion, threw a few rocks and moved on. I can demonstrate effective trolling if you like
And as it happens, I had a wee discussion with Malachi so he had plenty of time to clarify his position, which he did.
PS, Try take this stuff so personally…
Who takes anything personally? It’s either for amusement, or dismissing spurious argument in suitably scathing manner, which is a skill I’m keen to master but need a lot of practice at.
“…the insinuation that Irishness is just one big homogeneous identity with no discernable difference between Dubliners and Corkonians or Galwegians and because northerners don’t match it exactly, we’re therefore not Irish but clearly something else.”
Mick
That was in particular reference to one of the vox pop. That his assertion went unchallenged (why being different makes us necessarily seperate), and that the premise of the piece (that almost a quarter of the population now consider themselves Northern Irish) appeared to turn into 100% judging by those interviewed made the piece deeply dishonent. George made the most pertinent point in skewering the notion that declaring oneself Northern Irish was a neutral position: the response from Pete Baker? Some glib remark about one-liners. I mean, why bother here sometimes?
But, I’m not asking this glibly, what exactly did McGimpsey and O’Doherty say that was in least incoherent or unreasonable?
It wasn’t incoherent (other than the ‘I’m not at home in Cork’ remark which is nonsensical to those of us who don’t live in City States) or that unreasonable and I didn’t claim it was, but based on what was broadcast, I found it rather fanciful.
I meet people here in London all the time who, when asked if they are Irish, reply, “Oh ee, biy, I’m from Kark”, or something like that, often adding, “Clonakilty, biy.”
Aside from the strange phenomenon of the number of people one meets who are from Clonakilty no matter where one happens to be, I don’t for a single moment consider that a fellow from ‘Kark’ is any less or any more of an Irishman than I who am from Down (who has difficulty in attempting to pronounce ‘Kark’ properly).
Alan should really relax rather than stewing over whether or not he could be called an Irishman while carrying a British passport. It didn’t trouble Sir Edward Carson, nor make him less an Irishman. It perhaps troubled Sir Roger Casement latterly, but did not detract from his Irishness.
Irishness – there really isn’t very much to it, “you just sorta git borned that way”, to paraphrase Huck Finn. I mean, if pop songsters like Bono and Sir Bob Geldof can get away with it without being openly attacked by an irate public what’s to worry about?
Couldn’t we leave this sort of disputation where it rightly belongs in these islands – between Yorkshiremen and the rest?
“Who takes anything personally? It’s either for amusement, or dismissing spurious argument in suitably scathing manner..”
Really, Ken?
Abandoning the seeking of ideas already?
Stick with it. It might work out for the better.
Dec
“George made the most pertinent point in skewering the notion that declaring oneself Northern Irish was a neutral position: the response from Pete Baker? Some glib remark about one-liners.”
I’m not sure why you seek to mis-characterise my conversation with George. Perhaps you misconstrued it. But it’s there in the above comments zone. Here’s my response to George’s one-liner again.
“One-liners are not, generally, conducive to productive conversations.”
That’s an inducement to expand, not to withdraw.
If I might suggest, the difference in opinion on the report lies between those who demand certainty in journalism and those who see the ambiguity of reality.
Ken,
“It is using a rhetorical device to get your point across.”
No, it’s lying.
Dec,
I would love to think that every time we posted something here it turned into great conversation. We do have them more often than most, but we have a fair few malfunctions too.
On the net you have people who share little but the notional term Irishman between them. It means profoundly different things to all of us.
My guess is that particular remark on the programme was made in the specific context of the NILT finding of the rise in people calling themselves ‘Northern Irish’; and therefore hardly ‘unqualified’.
Of course it should be open to contention, but the one liners aren’t the best way to achieve that!
Okay, the term is not neutral. Nothing in this context is. I’m guessing from past conversations that we’re of a similar age, so we both remember just how you pronounced a certain letter in the alphabet might save or condemn to death you back in the 70s (and later).
That experience is very difficult to gainsay. But it cannot be the governing principle of the ‘Long Peace’ as it was the ‘Long War’!
Times change. Recently the most indicative of that was that conversation we had about how the Republic now imagines itself (rather than the island) as Ireland, with Northern Ireland (like the afterthought it plainly is in the south these days), becoming some kind of extra territorial Limbo. It crept up on me, if not unawares, then without much concious thought.
For me Malachi’s public value as a writer and a commentator is precisely that he doesn’t fit (‘dissenters’ were once treasured by Irish Republicans, not they are shunned like carrier of the ‘Flu). I used a quote from Edna Longley – from an interview I did about three years ago – in a Fortnight review of Malachi’s book on that most bloody of years 1972:
“…the autobiographical bent of Ireland, mostly seems to say that the usual narratives don’t fit – ‘let me tell you something different, something not been previously brought into account’.”
Although Malachi and I have some things in common: strong familial connections with Donegal; mother an nurse; father a barman, I don’t share his discomforture in Cork (a city that retains many things that seem long lost to Dublin, for instance).
One reason, perhaps, is that I have family there. Another that myself and a friend spent a week with his aunt and uncle from west Belfast (who never lost their accents nor their bluff good nature and generosity) but their growing brood had Cork accents that took me three days to decode.
Yet that has little to do with culture or nationality, and much more with socialisation.
But that’s just my view. I don’t want to squash counter perspectives. To rather embarrassingly echo Pete (perhaps the cardboard villain in some reader’s imaginings?) I’d rather it be viewed as an invitation to expand rather than contract.
But, I’m not asking this glibly, what exactly did McGimpsey and O’Doherty say that was in least incoherent or unreasonable?
Suggesting that “Northern Irish” is a “politically neutral identity” is absurd.
More importantly, for the BBC to present this as an uncontroversial position displays either dishonesty or ignorance on their part.
But how is it absurd? Surely we’re entitled to ask? And entitled to a cogent answer (given I should have gone to bed an hour ago).
Pete
Really, Ken?
Abandoning the seeking of ideas already?
Stick with it. It might work out for the better.
Funny thing Pete, I think if you go back to the post you refer to, I think I said I also like throwing rocks at my betters. And I know this is almost impossible or your brain to handle, but I’m perfectly capable of doing more than one thing at a time. Sometimes – shock! – they can overlap too. Try to keep your head from exploding.
On that point, still waiting for what you found so great about this piece to post it up with minimal comment.
Mick
No, it really, really isn’t. And that is unparliamentary, Mick, and there is decent reason they ban that accusation from being chucked about. Once again – exaggeration for the sake of emphasis, and Malachi’s argument wasn’t even the target of the post. If you object, I’m sorry, but… well actually no I’m not.
If you want to continue this inane yes-you-did/no-I-didn’t line, I don’t really mind. I can easily automate my half of it, and you can continue to your heart’s content or slugger breaks.
Lying is unparliamentary ken.
But how is it absurd?
How can nationalism, which seeks to end partition – and thereby bring about the end of Northern Ireland as a political entity – embrace “Northern Irishness”?
And if only one side can embrace it, how can it be a politically neutral identity?
Run,
But what defines the sides in this cultural question? NILT suggests people are moving towards NI as a useful (whether provisional or not) port in yet another turbulent sea.
Time and tide wait for no man…
But what defines the sides in this cultural question?
Constitutional politics.
Runciter – “Suggesting that “Northern Irish” is a “politically neutral identity” is absurd. ”
Runciter if it is not politically neutral then it should be made so. It exists as an identity, it is not going to go away.
In fairness, I think it is only a portion of the nationalist / republican community that take that view point. All that needs to happen for it to become politically neutral is that those who find not realise there is no conflict between Northern Irish and Irishness.
Opposing it, will only alienate those who identity with it.
” All that needs to happen for it to become politically neutral is that those who find not realise there is no conflict between Northern Irish and Irishness.”
There is a conflict in it since it is not, contrary to what some might proffer, a cultural matter that is devoid of a political context. Nations have rights, so if you make a political decision to engineer a nation, then you engineer a set of rights by default (and, in this case, by stealth). Those rights will then conflict with the rights of other nations by default as they are engineered within a territory that is disputed between two existing nations (but no longer by the respective states to which those nations belong).
There can only ever be one validated claim to self-determination per territory. Where two nations claim one territory, then they must resolve their dispute by one of them renouncing their claim. In the example of Northern Ireland which was disputed between two sovereign states, the dispute was resolved by one of the states renouncing its claim to the territory at the request of political leadership of both of the nations within that territory. One of those nations, however, hasn’t yet grasped that it it has renounced its claim to self-determination based on being a part of the Irish nation and, that as a consequence, it no longer has any claim to a nation-state (the sovereign territorial entity wherein a nation exercises its right to self-determination) in the territory wherein it resides.
Those nations of the world which have never attained the right to self-determination are referred to as stateless nations. The drawback they have by being a ‘cultural’ nation is that they have no state to protect their culture and to promote it. This is why the nations among us today are those nations that have managed to survive under the protection of a nation-state (and 194 of the world’s 197 states are nation-states). Those nations, typically, as displaced people and minority ethnic groups.
The Irish nation will not renounce its claim to self-determination or accept any constraints upon it. Those who regard themselves as British are welcome to join the Irish nation (if they have something worthwhile to offer it), but they are not welcome to insist that it is disbanded and replaced with an entity that is less Irish and therefore more pleasing to the British. They may attach no value to Irishness but they are badly mistaken if they assume that those who are Irish share that view and will dispose of it or amend it accordingly. If they call choose to call themselves Irish as a tactic to insist that Britishness is Irishness and that, ergo, Britishness must have an equal claim to the territory of Ireland, then they need to apologise for demanding a separate claim to self-determination based on being British.
The fact that they refuse to join the Irish nation shows, contrary to the organised political spin that is proffered as a ruse to encourage the Irish nation to renounce control of its state, that they are not a part of the Irish nation. That begs the question of what minority ethnic group they are, and why northern Ireland nationalists felt that the unspecified nation merited a right to self-determination that was greater than their own right (or it would do if that wasn’t the price that the northern Irish nationalists paid in order to persuade the unionists to accept a murder gang in the proposed devoled administration). They remain as British nationalists (with the underlining ‘nation’ being those born in Ireland who remain culturally British). No nation is entitled to two separate claims to self-determination under international law (i.e. to two separate nation-states), so the status of NI remains a bit of an oddball. That is where the nebulous, emergent national identity of Northern Irish comes into semi-redemptive play.
They will always remain as a contrary minority group whose sense of identity is based more on not being Irish than it is based on being British. The only way of dealing with them in the long-term is repartition wherein those who wish to join the nation-state of Ireland can do so and those who refuse to do so can rot in their own little corner of the island.
Dave –
Belgium – is there a Belgian cultural nation? Or are Belgians culturally French and Dutch?
Switzerland – WWII certainly did a lot to alienate German speaking Swiss from Germany, but none the less it is a cultural amalgam.
Austria – On the other hand the Eastern Kingdom is surely culturally connected to the German nation – yet is independent of it.
There are many solutions to this problem – your dogmatism is misplaced.
Besides, Northern Ireland, today is not a nation. There is no conflict between being Northern Irish and Irish. I am both.
In South Africa wasn’t there a big row as to what side they would be on in the second world war?
It exists as an identity, it is not going to go away.
A mechanism has already been set up to end the existence of Northern Ireland.
“Northern Irishness” is not sustainable in the absence of Northern Ireland.
It will soon be a historical artifact – like being an East German.
In fairness, I think it is only a portion of the nationalist / republican community that take that view point.
I have already explained why “Northern Irishness” is fundamentally incompatible with nationalism.
To re-state: it is logically impossible to simultaneously oppose partition and embrace “Northern Irishness”.
Why are you ignoring this basic point?
Opposing it, will only alienate those who identity with it.
Alienating political opponents is not the worst sin in the world.
Runciter – “I have already explained why “Northern Irishness” is fundamentally incompatible with nationalism. ”
Only a sub-set of nationalism. A united Ireland may not end partition, and if not it does Northern Ireland won’t exist. But seeing as it does, why attempt to exclude Northern Irish, Irish nationalists from the fold?
Sorry grammar -
Only a sub-set of nationalism. A united Ireland may not end partition, but if it does Northern Ireland won’t exist (the identity would perish with it).
But seeing as it does for now, why attempt to exclude Northern Irish, Irish nationalists from the fold?
Runciter – “Alienating political opponents is not the worst sin in the world. ”
They’re not political opponents. They’re part of your base!
They’re not political opponents. They’re part of your base!
How are partitionists part of “my base”?
Runciter – Ending partition requires a united Ireland, but a united Ireland could still be partitioned (it most likely would at the start).
One step at a time. The former may not be possible without them.
Also partitionism is pretty much in-grained in the south. If you exclude those with any attitudes that offend anti-partitionist purism from the nationalist base you’d be left with a tiny minority incapable of achieving anything.
It exists, it’s where we are. If you want to retain an influence with people you need to start from where they are not from where you are. Otherwise, you’ll just be angry by yourself.
That’s an inducement to expand, not to withdraw.
Of course it was. Why he would need to expand that point is anyone’s guess. Any chance of you belatedly addressing (George’s) actual point?
One reason, perhaps, is that I have family there. Another that myself and a friend spent a week with his aunt and uncle from west Belfast (who never lost their accents nor their bluff good nature and generosity) but their growing brood had Cork accents that took me three days to decode.
Yet that has little to do with culture or nationality, and much more with socialisation.
Well I think it’s a bit more equal than that but the same point applies to Armagh City or Enniskillen for this Belfast native. That the program presented this as evidence of ‘Northern’ separatism is what irritates (and is plainly wrong).
To rather embarrassingly echo Pete (perhaps the cardboard villain in some reader’s imaginings?)
You verging on insulting people’s intelligence there.
Also partitionism is pretty much in-grained in the south.
“Almost 80 per cent of Irish people would like to see a united Ireland.”
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13121.asp
If you want to retain an influence with people you need to start from where they are not from where you are.
Despite the hype, most nationalists do not consider themselves “Northern Irish”.
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Community_Relations/NINATID.html
Interesting that 9% of catholics consider themselves British. Do they all live in North Down? Or are they immigrants?
Runciter – “Despite the hype, most nationalists do not consider themselves “Northern Irish””
I’m not saying they do. Most don’t, but some do & they shouldn’t be excluded because of that. I think another thread had a survey where 20% or so of Catholics said they were Northern Irish given the choice of Northern Irish, British or Irish. (I think the choice is not realistic because it excludes Northern Irish & Irish for example).
There is no conflict between being Northern Irish and Irish and being an Irish nationalist. It’s those that say there is that are being divisive.
“Almost 80 per cent of Irish people would like to see a united Ireland.”
A united Ireland is a neccessary but not sufficient a prerequisite to end partition (in other words NI could still exist after sovereignty is transferred – I hope this isn’t too subtle).
Read Dave’s comments – he takes a dogmatic view (more extreme than most), but is consistent in his defence of an Irish state for an Irish nation. And thinks repartition is the only option. He’s certainly a nationalist, but also a partitionist.
I live in the south, so my ascertain of partitionism is anecdotal, but it’s my experience here. That does not mean they don’t want a united Ireland. Just that they have “firewalled” the north (as somewhere up there) – and I imagine, many would like to keep it that way.
I’m not trying to beat you in an argument. I’m just trying to ensure that other nationalists aren’t excluded, and people don’t misinterpret NILT surveys and the like.
“Despite the hype, most nationalists do not consider themselves “Northern Irish””
I’m not saying they do.
What you said was that I “need to start from where they are”
But as I have demonstrated, I am starting from where most nationalists are.
You are the one promoting a fringe ideology – albeit one that is popular in the media.
There is no conflict between being Northern Irish and Irish and being an Irish nationalist. It’s those that say there is that are being divisive.
You support the partition of Ireland along sectarian lines and you accuse others of being divisive?
A united Ireland is a neccessary but not sufficient a prerequisite to end partition
You claimed that the south was partitionist. I have demonstrated that this is not the case.
You should stop wriggling now.
Read Dave’s comments
You must be joking.
I’m just trying to ensure that other nationalists aren’t excluded
Excluded from what?
Runciter – we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I’m well aware it’s minority that think that way.
But, at least, I do hope we can agree that they are part of the nationalist base (and the Irish nation), and that attempts to show erosion of that base with identity questionaires that don’t allow responders to express that (Irish and Northern Irish) are flawed.
“You claimed that the south was partitionist. I have demonstrated that this is not the case. ”
No wriggling, I said..
“Also partitionism is pretty much in-grained in the south. If you exclude those with any attitudes that offend anti-partitionist purism from the nationalist base you’d be left with a tiny minority incapable of achieving anything. ”
See Brian Lenihan’s comments re shopping in Newry, a similar slip by his brother on RTE’s Question and Answers, meaning & use of the term “Ireland” (enshrined in constitution), acceptance of partition in the first place, etc.
In fairness, in almost every comment in this debate (with you) I did state that partition may not end with a United Ireland. I apoligise if that wasn’t clear in the earlier comments.
From living here (the south) and talking to people about northern politics I don’t think there is much appetitite for direct involement with truculant Nordie politics. I may be wrong, we’ll see what happens when that day comes
From living here (the south) and talking to people about northern politics I don’t think there is much appetitite for direct involement with truculant Nordie politics.
I have similar experiences of living in the south. Partitionism certainly exists there, and it is can be very hard to swallow. But metropolitan snobbery or establishment propoganda can also make the problem seem much greater than it actually is.