Even the Un-Irish are Irish too…
One of the things worth considering before the Christmas season finally swallows us into its (generally) good natured maw, is just why Conor Cruise O’Brien had such a impact on the Unionists he met and worked with. Michael McDowell (no, not that one) was at Trinity thirty six years ago when he first heard the Cruiser speak. A Northern Irish Labour man, he’d joined the Irish Labour party for his time there, and therefore they were in the same party at the time. Then decades later:
In Washington, when I challenged Hume at a think-tank, he remarked to a colleague: “Michael McDowell will always be an Ulsterman and never an Irishman.” The Cruiser taught me that I didn’t have to choose to be one or the other. I could proudly be both.
How could a Prod like me be just simply “Irish”? My family came to the North in the 17th to 19th centuries, were Scottish Calvinists and English non-conformists. Our identity was a hybrid and no harm in that.
The Cruiser knew we didn’t have to choose one identity, or to allow people like Hume to define us. Likewise, I and my family didn’t accept the unionist label either. We were Northern Ireland Labour Party voters, social democrats or democratic socialists, who supported a party which had both Protestant and Catholic voters who eschewed the tribal choices which so many others felt they had to make or made comfortably.
Later he concludes:
I might have differed with the Cruiser in his last years, but not a lot. He fought to keep the gun out of Irish politics, North and South; he created the intellectual space in what was a stifling cesspool of lazy sectarian understandings. He changed the political playing field decades ago but we are still far from the pluralism he sought.
The fact of this ‘intellectual space’ is these days taken for granted, possibly because such ‘spaces’ on create potential, it is down to real politicians to act upon them, often creating realities that fall a long way short of the originating intellectual’s pristine vision.
The Cruiser once set an acid test for the pluralism of individual Irish Nationalists:
Find out how a given person stands on Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Those Articles are a naked claim to territory, irrespective of the wishes of the inhabitants. There is no nonsense, in the wording of the Articles, about the consent of the inhabitants. There is not mention of any inhabitants. It is all about territory and jurisdiction. The territory is ours, because we say it is and we must have it.
Ireland, north and south, passed that test in the 1998 referendum. Although it is clear the zero sum of the previous era still has a broad appeal for many. It was a game that has serially ill served the Irish nation (however one defines that terms) in the past.
Indeed one of its side effects is that Irish nationalism has acquired the rather distasteful habit of lopping off from the nation everyone whose face or politics don’t fit our own highly reductive template of what an Irishman should be. Even ultra right wing Senator Joe McCarthy was bounded by the term ‘un’ (rather than ‘non’) American.
That, it seems to me, is not simply to the effects of polticial partition or the incomplete nature of the historical Irish Republican project, but that project’s inability to concieve of itself as sufficiently large and broad enough to encompass of all of those with a birthright to the name Irishman/woman.
The fault lies in the ideology; not the people.
If living on the hill of Howth, jutting as it does away from the mainland and out towards the other island, the Cruiser was somehow cut a roguishly unIrish figure, he was for all of that an Irishman in the depth of his bones.
And a much greater one than many of his more venal critics.
Interesting, reflective piece from Michael McDowell. Might even be read and considered in Dublin 2, 4 and 6. Therefore probably destined to be either ignored or rubbished, rather than debated, here.
As McDowell notes:
True, and happily, we are not killing one another for our beliefs any more but the Executive is a largely cynical compact which allows the DUP and Sinn Féin to carve up political power and not truly share power. It is not the vision which Conor had in mind.
It is sad that in his latter years, the Cruiser ended up alongside intransigent Unionists because of his concerns about the way that intransigent Nationalists treated Unionists. However, his over-arching legacy is of having successfully challenged the crude simplicity of the Nationalist mythology, to the benefit of all of us on the island.
What rj said.
The anti-republican ideology of Cruiser (and the other Mickey Mc Dowell) if it had prevailed in ROI would have ensured that the GFA which found a compromise between Republicanism and the British would never have come about.
The unpopularity of Cruiser (and the other Mickey Mc Dowell) was at least in part due to the visceral rejection by the plain people of Ireland of their anti-republican ideology which failed to view IRA violence in the conext of the legacy of partition.
Like Tony Benn across the water, he was a hugely gifted politican and always great to listen to – but as an opponent of the anglo-Irsh agreement and the GFA – history shows that just like Tony Benn – on those issues which he made his name – he was by and large simply wrong.
There is nothing but abject nonsense propping up this propaganda. Firstly, there is no such as a state without a nation. The function of a state under international law is that it serves as the sovereign territorial means by which a nation exercises its claim to self-determination. As the UN states it in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
There is no state per nation, and one nation per state. In accepting two states, you are accepting two nations; and in accepting two states, you are accepting two nations.
One validated claim to self-determination under international law mandates one nation-state. Two nations cannot share one validated claim to self-determination.
Ergo, by O’Brien’s own logic, you cannot be both Irish and British: you must be one or the other. If they were the same, there would not be two states and two nations. I’m sure he was intellectually capable of grasping this, but he ignored the contradiction because his function was propaganda, not an intellectual enquiry into the principles of states and nations.
There is a simple test for whether or not an Ulsterman considers himself to be a part of the Irish nation: does he wish to join it? No, and he uses violence to resist joining it. I’d say he fails the test. If he considers himself Irish, let him join the Irish nation. Of course, the actual trick in this is that he considers himself British and not Irish, and that when he calls himself Irish, he actually means that the Irish do not have a separate claim to a nation-state but that they have a regional identity that is based on being British. Naturally, the more British the Irish become, the less repugnant that Irish identity becomes to those who are British. If they could go the whole hog and renounce their right to a nation-state, rejoining the Commonwealth and eventually the UK etc, then there would be little impediment to unity between the two states because both of them would be de jure British with the Irish having being persuaded to revert to the pre 1916 Redmondite option of Home Rule.
There is also an actual test of loyalty in addition to an oath and legislation applying to foreign nationals such as the 1935 Citizenship Act. You might also find that such acts exclude the citizens of Northern Ireland because De Valera did not regard them as foreign citizens and that such acts were not amended along with Articles 2 & 3.
We now have a dismal situation wherein the Irish nation in Northern Ireland were tricked into repudiating their claim to self-determination to live as a part of the Irish in its nation-state believing that they were doing the exact opposite (i.e. believing the Whitehall propaganda by their quisling leadership in the south and similar quislings who proffered it in the south which informed them that accepting the legitimacy of the state and accepting that they had no right to such self-determination but rather had an ‘aspiration’ to it that was legitimately subject to the veto of another nation would simply be a pragmatic expedient or ‘an empty formula of words’ which would deliver their aim and inalienable right to live within an Irish nation-state).
If the unionists actually had a legitimate claim to self-determination, then they could have had it validated via the UN. They had no such legitimate claim. Indeed, they do not exist as a unique nation nor have they claimed to do. Their claim to self-determination is based on being a part of the British nation. An entity called ‘Great Britain’ already exists and there is no basis in international law for one nation to have two validated claims to self-determination (where one validated claim mandates one state). Ergo, the unionists would have been laughed out of the UN had they ever tried to seek such validation.
Now that the territory and ergo the state of Northern Ireland is no longer disputed, the problem they have now is that they went about the process arseways. The standard method is for a nation to make a claim for a state; and if granted, to manage its own state. With NI, the state came before the nation. That leaves them in the laughable position of trying to engineer the nation. This is why you now see the emergent, nebulous ‘national’ identity of Northern Irish being reverse engineered by the mandarins.
[b]Continued[/b]
Likewise, the quislings in the Republic of Ireland are trying to engineer the Irish state back into the UK. Because two nations cannot share one claim to self-determination, there is a farcical attempt (and dear Mick Fealty is engaging in it here) to ‘merge’ two nations into one. In this game, the Irish must be indocrinated with propaganda to inform them that they are actually British or, at the very least, that British is interchangeable with Irish. Ergo, should unity ever occur as a consequence of Whitehall engineering that it will occur on terms which effectively see the British hamlet of Northern Ireland annex the Republic of Ireland rather than the more traditional route of the Republic of Ireland annexing the territory of Northern Ireland under the Irish nation-state.
Contrary to the gibberish that is spewed by the quislings, there isn’t any brave new world here wherein a few Whitehall mandarins (who have used classic black propaganda to make the natives think it was their idea) have rewritten the rules for now nations govern themselves or for what constitutes a nation. That’s why you won’t see the UN studying ‘the process’ with anything other than bemused expressions on their faces.
Err… “There is [b]one[/b] state per nation, and one nation per state. In accepting two states, you are accepting two nations; and in accepting two [b]nations[/b], you are accepting two [b]states[/b].”
Dave proves my point.
I would suggest that these islands are full of people who have mixed and multiple identities and don’t see things in monocultural terms. UK Passport, Ireland at rugby, Fermanagh at Gaelic, Man U at football, England at cricket, .. Both Elgar and traditional Irish folk music.
I rejoice in the fact that many of us (with a variety of skin pigmentation) fail Norman Tebbit’s cricket test, and Irish nationalism’s petty equivalents. (and Ulster nationalism’s too.)
rj,
Republicanism is not about excluding one group or denying the complexity of cultural relations but but rather taking the view that it is far more sensible for historical and cultural reasons to draw that line in the Irish sea which seperates Britain and Ireland rather than across the island of Ireland.
“It is all about territory and jurisdiction. The territory is ours, because we say it is and we must have it.”
Ulster is British, references to the Irish National flag as ‘foreign’ etc. I’d say those statements could fairly summarise unionism’s attitude to the northern state since inception.
It is also somewhat disingenous to argue that people have ‘loped off’ those not fitting the Irish identity, particularly given that unionists have spent generations arguing that they were not Irish but British.
If indeed there is a shift within unionism towards embracing an Irish identity alongside the British identity, than that is indeed to be welcomed; but it must not involve any attempt to distort or suppress the Irish identity of Irish nationalists a la the completely ridiculous ‘banning of the green’ at Belfast’s St Patrick’s Day parade.
Mick, I’d say Irish nationalism has moved considerably further towards developing a space for non-Irish nationalists within the Irish Nation than unionists have regarding a place for nationalists in ‘their’ state.
As I’ve pointed out on many occasions, even Sinn Fein now have a policy of seeking to formally recognise the Britishness of unionists through the ‘Equality or Neutrality’ stance on the display of flags and emblems from public buildings in the Six counties. Would that any strand of unionism would reciprocate…
This is precisely where O’Brien and others fell down so badly. They didn’t have a place for northern nationalists in their worldview; it was back to the ghosts at the table for those upstarts in the north; all the better that they could be silenced through Section 31….
Little wonder, then, that O’Brien would seek election on the platform of anti-Agreement unionists, who couldn’t even stomach any formal recognition of the identity/ place of northern nationalists in the new dispensation.
That part of his legacy shouldn’t be forgotten.
For many cultural and historical reasons the majority of unionists do not define their ‘Irishness’ as any way similar to the definition many republicans adhere to.
Their geographic location adds little weight to human feelings of national identity. Try telling a Vancouver Canadian that they are as American as a Seattle yank because a line on a map means nothing and see how far you get.
Long-winded blinkered arguments, especially the ‘Irish Sea’ proposition are pointless. Otherwise we should expect Rathlin to demand independence.
“There is one state per nation, and one nation per state. In accepting two states, you are accepting two nations; and in accepting two nations, you are accepting two states.”
It reads better in the original German
Bruno
re: “For many cultural and historical reasons the majority of unionists do not define their ‘Irishness’ as any way similar to the definition many republicans adhere to.”
Having repealed the Government of Ireland act and recognised the right of the people of Ireland (North and South) to self detemination in the GFA just about everybody bar the Unionists themselves and cetainly including the Englezes actaully see Unionists “Irishness” in the same way as republicans.
RJ, you would have ‘proved’ your point better by belching. In order to support the propaganda that promotes the suppression of Irish nationalism (the right of the nation to control its state in the sole national interests of the nation) is a process that actually promotes the interests of Irish nationalism (i.e. unity) rather than simply censors its expression with the ulterior aim of disabling it, we are treated to ‘testimonials’ from British nationalists to inform us that the more the Irish nation suppress its nationalism, the less repugnant that nation becomes to British nationalists.
Now this doesn’t take a rocket scientist, does it? It would also be true that the more the British nation in Northern Ireland suppress its nationalism, the less repugnant that nation becomes to Irish nationalists. However, while there is a valid rationale to censor British nationalism within NI, no such rationale applies within the Republic of Ireland; and those who engage in this subversion in order to promote a ‘nationalist’ agenda should be wary of its origin. A minority nation will never hold a veto over the Irish nation, leaving the British nation with a state while placing the Irish nation among the stateless nations of the world. Ireland for the Irish; England for the English, and Wales for the sheep.
P.S. Thanks, Jimmy.
Ireland for the Irish; England for the English, and Wales for the sheep.
And what is your nation based on Dave? Race?
I merely enquire, because it seems to be where your logic is going. Feel free to correct me if I’ve read you wrongly.
As one who didn’t share John Hewitt’s political viewpoint, but did share his Presbyterianism and his Planter stock, I can’t disagree with any of his sentiments as he articulated in an Irish Times article in the early 1970s;
I rest my case:
___________________
I am an Ulsterman of Planter stock. I was born in the island of Ireland, so secondarily I’m an Irishman. I was born in the British archipeligo and English is my native tongue, so I am British. The British archipeligo are offshore islands to the continent of Europe, so I’m European. This is my hierachy of values, and as far as I’m concerned, anyone who omits one step in that sequence of vaulues is falsifying the situation.
John Hewitt [Ulster Presbyterian, poet, Socialist] in 1972
“This is precisely where O’Brien and others fell down so badly. They didn’t have a place for northern nationalists in their worldview; it was back to the ghosts at the table for those upstarts in the north; all the better that they could be silenced through Section 31…. ”
That’s very true. But you have to realise that British propagandists could only validate the veto of the existing British nation, and not the veto of an undefined nation. Neither O’Brien nor the British government could claim that some unspecified nation occupied that territory because that is the role of the UN. There are then arguments about whether or not this unspecified nation has a greater claim to the territory than the indigenous nation, etc. If the nation was British, then it would not have a claim to the territory since one nation cannot have two validated claims to self-determination in international law. They bypassed all of that it an intellectually dishonest manner.
That meant that you had a state that was created without a unique nation to occupy it – and you now have two nations competing with each other for control of that state. What happened when you signed the GFA was that the territory was no longer disputed between two sovereign states. That leaves Whitehall in the position of having to engineer a nation to fill its legitimised state. If they can engineer a new nation of Northern Irish (and I’d guess that it can be done), then in a few decades the problem won’t be there because both of the nations (bar a few remnants) will have merged into the identity. Cultural genocide, maybe, but that is the only outworking that will resolve the problem of two nations competing with each other for control of that state. You should look at how your tribe is celebrating the promotion of the British economy over the Irish economy for an indication of how that economic patriotism shows that there is a basis for a common nationalism (and out of that will come a common nation).
Kathleen, all except 3 of the world’s 197 states are nation-states. See Article 1 of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The nation-state is the sovereign territorial entity by which the nation “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” No vetoes allowed.
Sorry, Kathleen… I missed your silly remark about race. Please see the difference between ‘ethnic nationalism’ and ‘liberal nationalism.’
Sorry, Kathleen… I missed your silly remark about race. Please see the difference between ‘ethnic nationalism’ and ‘liberal nationalism.’
Ireland for the Irish; England for the English, and Wales for the sheep.
This reads ethnic Dave, or was it merely a tongue in cheek remark?
Let’s see if I can give a shorthand version: two nations = equals two states (and vice versa). Because two nations cannot share one state, there cannot be one state if there are two nations. Ergo, the only way that unity can occur is if two nations merge into one nation (i.e. if Irish becomes interchangeable with British). Sorry if this rules out unity, but you should realise that the local political hacks didn’t manage to rewrite international law or the principles that govern nations and their states.
In arguing that two states were needed, O’Brien conceded that there were two nations and that both nations were not compatible. It really doesn’t matter, since the principle in international law (based on universal practice) is that each nation has its own state. I don’t think the Irish nation will ever be stupid enough to dismantle their nation-state or to accept that another nation has a legitimate veto over it or a claim to its sovereign territory. But then again, propaganda is a very powerful tool and those tools are mostly in the hands of Irish-owned but British-controlled media organisations.
No, Kathleen, it wasn’t tongue in cheek. Why would it be? It would be more proper for those who dispute an international principle to do so tongue in cheek.
I am a part of the Irish nation, as are many other Irish Jews who are not ethnically Irish. Read your own constitution. I think you’ll find that it is written with liberal nationalism in mind.
Dave thanks for getting back, and I appreciate the shorthand version, since I know you like to elaborate, but that comment is out of place, it throws everything else you say into a different light. Thats why I’m asking.
It reads better in the original German
And it’s wrong, both morally and factually, in any language.
John Hewitt saying Ireland is part of the British Isles is bad. John Hewitt saying Ireland is part of the British Archipelago is even worse. But John Hewitt saying Ireland is part of the British Archipeligo? Well, that’s just enough to make Santa spit out his cornflakes anytime around……….now.
Kathleen, declaring something to be wrong is simply a vacuous declaration that should not be confused with refuting the argument. The same goes for Sammy Morse. You are also welcome to show all nation-states are ‘racist’ as you hold them to be. I would attribute that to your failure to understand the difference between liberal nationalism and ethnic nationalism, in addition to being the result of your failure to understand the law and dynamics that govern states and nations. Incidentally, a simple clue for how 194 out of 197 nations are inextricably linked to their states is found in the names of them: the name for the nation adorns the state.
In regard to the British nation, the process isn’t about joining the Irish nation; it’s about the British nation having a claim to the territory that is the property of the Irish nation which must be reflected in new structures that require the dismantlement of existing structures. If they wanted to join the Irish nation and to live within its nation-state, they are free to make that request. I’m sure the Irish nation would consider the application with an open mind. They’d probably reject it, however, if it came with a culture of state-dependency and entitlement. The fact that they vociferously and violently refuse to join the Irish nation shows that they do not regard themselves as being a part of the Irish nation. That’s the acid test and they have failed it although history. Perhaps they would consider themselves to be a part of it if the Irish nation remodelled itself in the image of the British nation, but then again, I’d probably consider myself British if the British nation had the good taste to remodel itself in the image of the Irish nation. The Irish nation exists and its nation-state exists. Trying to claim ownership of the definition so as it can be redefined as British or British-Irish is the current dynamic.
You might be interested to know how O’Brien reacted to Haughey’s designation of writers and artists as being entitled to special tax breaks. He utterly detested the idea because the promotion of Irish culture by the Irish state went against his attempt to censor Irish nationalism. Being a bitter little man, he then took to gloating that he wouldn’t have to pay taxes to the hated Irish state. The taxman put a stop to that when O’Brien was forced in 2004 to make a six-figure settlement to the revenue commissioners because his anti-Irish rants in newspaper columns over the previous years didn’t qualify for the exemption scheme.
So, what “nationality” are the Belgians? Certainly, there is one “state”, but it contains two “nations”, the Flemish sharing their “nationality” with the Dutch, rather than the Walloons.
And what of the USA? What “nationality” is that “sovereign state”?
And being an island is not sufficient to claim it one state, else Haiti and Santo Domingo would be a single state, or Timor.
Bloody hell guys! Santa’s just been to our house. I bet he’s not been to yours. Good discussion though. Expect a reply from me in about 4 days!
The problem is that the southern part of the island should never have been allowed to call itself Ireland it should have been Southern Ireland.
Then we would have no confusion as to what Ireland actaully is an island compromrised of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland where people living in either part could be Irish and Southern or Northern Irish as they pleased.
FD
So then someone living in the most northerly counties of Ireland, Donegal, would be classed as ‘Southern Irish’
I’m afraid but that just doesn’t work.
Doh!
The ‘Republic of Ireland’ suffices!
“I am an Ulsterman of Planter stock. I was born in the island of Ireland, so secondarily I’m an Irishman. I was born in the British archipeligo and English is my native tongue, so I am British. The British archipeligo are offshore islands to the continent of Europe, so I’m European. This is my hierachy of values, and as far as I’m concerned, anyone who omits one step in that sequence of vaulues is falsifying the situation.”
Superb piece of location analysis too. If ever lost please return to the address above!
Good to see that you are proud of being from Planter stock (and why not!) which alot of Ulster folk seem rather somewhat ashamed to admit despite declaring being British first and foremost! If your British why not be proud of it!
Me, I’m from the island of Ireland and that suffices for my address and nationality!
BTW, A very Happy Christmas to one and all on Slugger.
Kathleen, declaring something to be wrong
Sammy declared it wrong, I said it read as ethnic, it still reads as ethnic, and a territorial explanation from you does not take away from its ethnic feel. I still think you threw it in there in an unthinking way, and now you are defending it rather than admitting it was one of silly things people say when they rattle on a bit…..
Its an ethnic statement, no getting away from it dave, no matter how many words you bury it under.
ps dave I agree with sammy, it is wrong.
Merry christmas to one and all.
Dave,
An interesting analysis, yet also a very rigid one. You are telling yourself a story which fits into the world you wish to see.
Why should anomalies not exist and why shouldn’t Ireland and Northern Ireland be such an anomaly? OJ makes a good example with Belgium – two nations within one state.
The way in which humans see our identities, our states and our nationalities are simply tales we tell ourselves that make us feel comfortable in our communal existence. The reductivist hypothesis in which you describe this process is too narrow, regardless of your appeal to international norms – again a tale we tell ourselves.
I certainly consider myself Irish and Northern Irish by virtue of being born in the North and British also. That this bothers your hypothesis worries me not a jot. The term Irish was not bought by the Southern Irish during partition, and nor in my eyes have the Northern Irish sundered our right to that distinction.
You may consider the states constitution to be liberal nationalist, yet my perception is that Irish nationalism has some way to go if it is truely to be all-embracing.
You quoted Article 1, ““All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Is it not for the Northern Irish to decide their identity, rather than being lectured by you?
Paddy….yer obviously Oirsh….Had ye listened tae yer Geography teacher at Skool, ye wud know that Oirland is part o’ the Brattish Oiles, wudn’t ye?
O Frainclin ….. Yes I most certainly proud of my Planter stock, who returned to reclaim Ireland from which they were originally driven by the heaten Oirsh….
Do you remember the former First Minister’s one time quip to the late Charles Haughey? – “When my ancestors were helping to open up the new world, your folk were still running around dressed in animal skins and wielding clubs !!!!”
Dave – you and your sheep….
Nadolig Hapus I bawb!!
Do you remember the former First Minister’s one time quip to the late Charles Haughey? – “When my ancestors were helping to open up the new world, your folk were still running around dressed in animal skins and wielding clubs !!!!”
That sounds like a plagiarism of the famous Brendan Behan quote:
”We (the Irish) were a civilised celtic nation when the ancestors of the British were wandering around naked, covered in woad, in the Black Forest of Saxony”
Dave: The function of a state under international law is that it serves as the sovereign territorial means by which a nation exercises its claim to self-determination. As the UN states it in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Wouldn’t your quote be more relevant to your argument if it mentioned the terms “nation” or “state”? Better still – both? Instead you have “political status”. That doesn’t quite have the same ring to it!
The Cruiser taught me that I didn’t have to choose to be one or the other. I could proudly be both.
How could a Prod like me be just simply “Irish”?
I pick and pick at this like a sore. Fundamentally, it’s the wrong question. The important question is “Which master do you serve?”. And as we know:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
You may argue that serving Britain is to serve Ireland, but at the end of the day, you are either helping one primarily to help the other or vice versa. There is a Japanese poem that runs along the lines of
To say it is just a rumour / Will not do/ When your own heart asks / How will you respond?
Discussion of multiple identities and being Irish as well is all very well. You either believe that power should be in Ireland, or you don’t. You believe in an EU superstate, or you don’t. This is a difficult position to take in a world where the BBC proclaims how great it is that people select “British and Irish” as an identity and there are multiple quotes on Slugger on how mutli-metro-cultural we should all be. This forces choices, and choices means division. But these are the questions that Republicanism is concerned with, and these are the questions that matters. Who rules? Where does the buck stop? What rights do we have? Should we be involve din foreign wars, or not?
And your choice cannot be escaped. So you might be Irish and proud, and I will happily acknowledge certain kinship in that. But when your own heart asks, which side do you fall on? And if that is in believing that Irishmen and women should be ruled from elsewhere, or that power should flow from the top down then you creating fissures and divisions between us that no amount of nice talk about shared identity or multiple identity can solve.
This is a hard view, but not one without hope. The endless focus on identity politics is a sidetrack caused by the genuine fear of both traditions here that something important and unique about themselves was going to be lost. It allows room for Republicans to develop an identity that can be big and embracing and focus argument on other things.
“This forces choices,”
Perhaps, but what you fail to grasp is that some will choose A la Carte rather than Table d’Hote.
Being born in Ireland doesn’t make you British….wasn’t it the Duke of Wellington [or someone of similar stock] who remarked, ‘Being born in a stable, doesn’t make you a donkey’.
On that basis, being born in ‘Ireland’ [after all there is no such country **] doesn’t make one Irish.
PS: ** For the unenlightened, there are two countries, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Major typo above….first line should read ‘Being born in Ireland doesn’t make you Irish’
My sincere apologies to all for the error….I didn’t read the blog before sending it…
It’s the use of language that clarifies. State means jurisdiction which is clear in this case.”Country”, “Nation” and “People” different. Was the British Empire a country? No.Was Irlend a country pre 1922? Yes.Are the Navaho a nation? Yes.
Personally I would describe the Ulster Scots as “people” as in my mind the other words have physical boundaries.
William
Actually there is no such country called the Republic of Ireland – that is just slang for the internationally recognised, constitutionally defined state called Ireland, consisting of 26 counties just to your south and west.
Paddy….yer obviously Oirsh….Had ye listened tae yer Geography teacher at Skool, ye wud know that Oirland is part o’ the Brattish Oiles, wudn’t ye?
Could you speak English please?
Bulls**t Mack…..the Republic of Ireland is the internationally accepted form…..’Ireland’ is the slang version……
Jimmy
Perhaps, but what you fail to grasp is that some will choose A la Carte rather than Table d’Hote.
No, I grasp it perfectly well. But in the final analysis you can’t escape choice, and you can’t escape division. Unfortunate, but true. Have an a la carte identity. But you can’t have a la carte governance.
‘Personally I would describe the Ulster Scots as “people” as in my mind the other words have physical boundaries.’
Posted by dewi on Dec 26, 2008 @ 12:22 AM
Are they not part of the Scottish Diaspora, and as such part of a nation?
HAHA: My submit word is “national”!
Kensei,
I can’t think of situation outside of sporting events where I have to make that choice. If governance were as important as you suggest, identity would change every time you cleared customs.
Jimmy
That’s just nonsense. The point I’m trying to get across is – both sides try to play identity or being “Irish” as some kind of common ground for their own political reasons but in the end, identity isn’t really the point, and it isn’t going to stop us lining up on different sides on some fairly fundamental questions.
Those difficulties cannot be swept away by fuzzy talk.