Thursday, May 22, 2008
Ireland: land of hard knocks and long held grudges…
I’ve not managed to get hold of a copy of the latest version of LIves Entwined
He notes at the outset:
....we already know what the British think of us: they have only positive things to say. The real question is whether this friendliness is now being reciprocated. I’m afraid the answer is, no.
He continues:
Self-evidently, relations are a lot better than they were, but genuine goodwill seems still to be flowing largely in only one direction. On this side of the Irish Sea, the past is not so much being put behind us, as being put to different use.
Forgiveness rather than outright hostility is now the official Irish attitude to Britain, and this is reflected throughout the Lives Entwined series. But it is forgiveness of the self-serving kind.
That may(or indeed may not, I haven’t read had the opportunity to read the latest volume in full) be true, but he goes on to make a point about the past that usefully bears repetition. Particularly now at a time when the Republic is adopting a foreign policy of what some have called ‘active neutrality’ through the agency of the EU:
The hard historical truth is that Ireland was, at best, every bit as much coloniser as colonised, it being part of the then United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland) on whose behalf the British Empire was founded and maintained. Whether it suits or not, it is nonetheless indisputable fact that it wasn’t only the English who sailed around the world laying claim on behalf of the UK to wherever and whatever took their fancy, but the Scottish, Welsh and, yes, the Irish as well.
It should hardly need pointing out that, unlike elected representatives from Ireland, there were no gentlemen from India or Africa or any other colony able to take seats in the British House of Commons.
Does anyone truly believe that Ireland would not have created, just as anyone with enough military muscle did, an empire in its own right had it been able? Ireland is indeed exceptional, though, in at least one sense.
It is somewhat ironic that most of the nations who were former British colonies long ago discarded the comfort blanket of colonial victimhood (though God knows they had every right to cling to it).
Although some have been independent for less than 50 years, virtually all now welcome with open arms periodic visits by British dignitaries of every kind, including royalty.
Compare that with the situation here.
After almost a century of independence, Ireland is congratulating itself no end on now being mature enough to stage a rugby game against England at Croke Park for the first time, with the British national anthem played without fuss. By any standards, hardly the mark of maturity.
It’s a typically robust analysis from Adams. Although it’s interesting to note that the research that kicked all of this activity off was a survey amongst the under forties in the Republic. The de facto truth about the East West relationship amongst the mass of ordinary Irish citizens of the Republic, is that the relationship between the two is unremittingly positive.
It may take a little time before our ‘intelligensia’ catch up with Myles na gCopaleen’s ineluctable Greek chorus, ‘the plain people of Ireland’.
Mick Fealty @ 07:19 AM
Mick, is the ‘Ireland’ in the title mainly the Republic of Ireland? Is the book essentially an Irish perspective on the relationship between London and Dublin?
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 08:07 AMThe hard historical truth is that Ireland was, at best, every bit as much coloniser as colonised
Being disenfranchised from enriching their own country, the Irish became essentially mercenaries. A great number joined the British Army, yes, but more by virtue of proximity. There were Irish, sometimes in significant numbers and in import positions in the Armies of France, Spain, Germany, the USA and in South America. In a sense what he says is true, but not in the way he means. Irish men fought a lot of wars, on a lot of different sides.
Does anyone truly believe that Ireland would not have created, just as anyone with enough military muscle did, an empire in its own right had it been able? Ireland is indeed exceptional, though, in at least one sense.
He is probably right. But the truth is that we couldn’t, didn’t, and are therefore spared the historical guilt.
It is somewhat ironic that most of the nations who were former British colonies long ago discarded the comfort blanket of colonial victimhood (though God knows they had every right to cling to it).
I believe that most also had all British presence removed about 50 years ago, so it isn’t quite the same, is it?
Although some have been independent for less than 50 years, virtually all now welcome with open arms periodic visits by British dignitaries of every kind, including royalty.
I don’t recall British politicians visiting drawing much particular ire. Monarcy tends to draw out the worst venom; perhaps Ireland is simply more republican.
After almost a century of independence, Ireland is congratulating itself no end on now being mature enough to stage a rugby game against England at Croke Park for the first time, with the British national anthem played without fuss. By any standards, hardly the mark of maturity.
Which was to miss the significance. England has played Ireland in football many times. The anthem was typically respected, and ti wasn’t us that ripped up the stadium at the last football match.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 08:30 AMwe already know what the British think of us: they have only positive things to say
Has this man ever lived in England?
I see the title of his piece is: “Perhaps it is time Ireland apologised to the British”.
Perhaps Mr Adams should apologise for his stomach-turning sycophancy.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 08:56 AM“It should hardly need pointing out that, unlike elected representatives from Ireland, there were no gentlemen from India or Africa or any other colony able to take seats in the British House of Commons.”
what? does he think the average irish peasant could have stood for parliment. He wouldn’t even have been able to vote for himself!
“The hard historical truth is that Ireland was, at best, every bit as much coloniser as colonised, it being part of the then United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland) “
The average irish person was bearly able to make ends meet, and from time to time suffering actually starvation. I shouldn’t think he was spending much time considering investment oportunities in sugar plantations in Jamaca.
“Does anyone truly believe that Ireland would not have created, just as anyone with enough military muscle did, an empire in its own right had it been able? Ireland is indeed exceptional, though, in at least one sense”
well indeed, just as kenya would have created an empire if it could have, or the cook islands. There is a very significant difference between would have and did.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 09:00 AMIt’s a pity that the British Council never considers including an article in Irish (with an accompanying translation) to get a perspective different to that of the usual suspects - those mentioned in intro above. Perhaps a piece about Britain’s attitude to the Irish language would be in order if ever there’s a fourth edition of Lives Entwined?
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 09:00 AMIf British lives are that “entwined” with Irish lives, then they’re more than welcome to abandon their monarchy and join the Republic of Ireland, swearing allegiance to our president as Head of State.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 09:06 AM“England has played Ireland in football many times”
Prior to 1921.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 09:09 AMThe fact of the EU seems over time to dissolve these issues. Many people move around and integrate well where they live - it is well past time for moving on.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 09:13 AMHe also misses out on the negative effect that Unionsim has on the perception of Britishness. For example, when Irish people see their national flag being burned every July (sometimes at events that have received some financial support from the British taxpayer), it doesn’t make them feel better about Britishness.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 09:39 AMWhat is your argument, Lesie? That all nations should devolve sovereignty, independence, democracy to the EU, and that the citizens of those nations should transfer their sense of nationality to ‘European’ as opposed to French, German, or Italian. Not likely to happen, is it? And besides, that only removes 22 nation states from the equation (with 23 member states merging into one nation state), so what do you do about the 172 nation states in the world?
I’ve a better idea: instead of all this infantile surrendermongering, be it in the form of propaganda campaigns aimed at promoting re-entry into the Commonwealth or the surrender of the nation state to the EU, why don’t we hold onto our sovereignty, independence, democracy, and right to self-determination? Ireland for the Irish, kid - it’s nothing to be ashamed about. ;)
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 09:40 AM“We already know what the British think of us: they have only positive things to say.”
Adams must be unfamiliar with the writings of Michael Burleigh and Andrew Roberts. Conservative Paddy bashing is still been practiced by those English writers.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 10:31 AMThe British Council is an MI5 front. The Russians were right to clip their wings. Meanwhile, John Bull’s other island cocks an ear to the killers and their stooges.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 10:32 AMIf British lives are that “entwined” with Irish lives..
Are you denying that Dave? There’s an awful lot of British people with Irish ancestors. I have quite a few English and Scottish relatives.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 11:09 AMA writer sponsored by the British Council and writing in a British Council showpiece publication encourages us all to find Britain and all things British loveable.
Well isn’t that just lovely? But hardly remarkable.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 11:13 AMBah. These British Council publications have more than a hint of ‘but enough about us. What do you think of us?’ about them.
Davy Adams’s ‘We are all colonisers at heart so don’t let’s be beastly to the British’ won’t wash. It’s a bit like saying, African Americans are responsible for the slave trade because Africans also profited, so why are they complaining so much? He sees the exploiter and the exploited as equals and then expects the exploited to say, fair cop guv, I’d have done the same if I was in your place.
That is not to deny that some Irish people would be better off if they didn’t come out in a rash every time they hear an English accent. But I get sick of the ‘when will we all grow up?’ articles with their emphasis on ‘maturity’. I don’t see the need to speak of British people as if they were recalcitrant children, so I don’t see why other people should persist in doing the same about Irish people (representation of the colonized as children being a feature of colonialist discourse). Especially when they’re getting funded by the British Council to so do.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 11:20 AMI wonder does David Adams ever ponder why millions of Americans claim Irish ancestry and describe themselves as Irish Americans yet, despite the ‘special relationship’, I have never heard anyone describe him or her as ‘British American’.
It’s perhaps because the Irish Empire, to which DA refers, does exist but does so in a far more enduring way than the ‘empire’ brought about by violence and oppression, the British way. It’s an empire of the imagination and, thus, is far more powerful than the British Empire ever was. Was being the operative word.
It seems that the British Council is an attempt to project a more positive view of Britain abroad but its careful selection of commentators inclined to be apologists for Irish attitudes towards Britain, as exemplified by David Adams, leads me to believe that the BC is little more than a comfort blanket for Britain rather than a more positive agent of changing attitudes.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 11:34 AM“The British Council is an MI5 front. The Russians were right to clip their wings.”
“If someone allows you in their home, act decently. After all, it is known that state-financed structures like the British Council conduct a mass of other activities that are not so widely publicised. Among other things, they are involved in gathering information and conducting espionage activities.” - Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev
There is a lot of British manipulation of the Irish media, intended to form public opinion that is favourable to British interests. I think we are far too innocent about how much of this goes on and how organised it is:
http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/apr2004/irtimesmcdowell.gif
That is a letter from the British Ambassador to Ireland detailing a meeting he had with the chief executive of The Irish Times, Major McDowell, wherein McDowell asks Downing Street for “guidance” on how he could control the paper’s editor, Douglas Gageby, who had a terrible habit of omitting “authorised” pro-British propaganda from the Irish Times and including “unauthorised” material in it, specifically related to the practice and policy of the British government in Northern Ireland. It shows that the principle shareholder of The Irish Times was very keen that his newspaper should be used as a vehicle to disseminate pro-British propaganda. The British Ambassador was equally keen to “exploit this opening.”
“Are you denying that Dave? There’s an awful lot of British people with Irish ancestors.”
Not at all - merely making the point that it isn’t a pretext to subvert Irish independence in any shape or form. Incidentally, the 2006 Irish census puts the number of people living in Ireland who were born in England and Wales at 204,746 and the number of Scottish people living in Ireland at 16,863. So, you may take from that what you will. What I take from it is that British people have chosen to live within an Irish nation state, so there is no need to modify the state in any way to accommodate other British people, is there? If Ireland was anti-British as the propaganda merchants will tell you, then why do so many British people choose to live here? Hmmmm?
http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/PDR 2006 Tables 19-30.pdf
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 11:42 AMI just have a problem with this man being labelled ‘intelligentsia’. The argument that the subjugated are responsible for the crimes of the subjugator is just pure crazy! After all, its a historical fact that the jews had to walk into the gas chambers to be gassed! Pathetic!
Remarks as facile as that are hardly a contribution to any mutual understanding. The ‘plain people of Ireland’ know the score, both in the historical and present-day sense (where much mutual admiration exists). This man is just an idiot.
Ireland is not unique in its attitude to a former coloniser. The exact situation pertains with Norway and Sweden. In both cases, its based 99% on healthy banter.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 11:44 AMDave: “There is a lot of British manipulation of the Irish media, intended to form public opinion that is favourable to British interests.”
Reminds me of a line from the brilliant “McCarthy’s Bar”. On seeing a copy of the Irish Sun (or something similar)the autor says. “There’s more than one way of being invaded.” (Paraphrased). ;)
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 11:48 AMIf a student on any other island in the world wrote a paper on any other island in the world in which the student failed not only to consider but even to ackowledge the partition of the island and possible effects it might have on lingering, or indeed simmering, attitudes of the islanders, the student would be asked to submit another draft. In Ireland it is a mark of an evolved sensibility. Hugh Green and the rest are quite right—“Bah.”
Does that mean individuals should be subjected to discrimination or abuse because of their accents or ancestry? No, no, and no. I’m sure we all agree on that. The average Englishman of centuries passed was at least as likely to be raised, and treated, as chattel or cannon fodder by the Empire as the Irish, the Scots or Welsh.
On a side note, I wonder what Davy Adams would make of the depth of oftentimes blatant anti-English feeling you often encounter in many parts of Wales or Scotland? In terms of how “welcome” newcomers with English accents are made to feel, etc., it is not an exaggeration to compare it to sectarianism.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 12:04 PMWe’re all europeans now.
And the generation of people under 30 increasingly see little difference between people anywhere in the British Isles. We all speak English, just with different accents.As for history, there are only opinions based on prejudices.
Most southern Irish (Paddies) were as interested in Man Utd v Chelsea last night as Geordies or Scousers. Terry Wogan is Irish.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 12:12 PMDave: What I take from it is that British people have chosen to live within an Irish nation state, so there is no need to modify the state in any way to accommodate other British people, is there?
But the vast majority of British people have chosen not to live within an Irish nation state, as have many of the subset living in Northern Ireland.
There are also, after all, many, many Irish people who have chosen to live within the British nation state, by, e.g. moving to England. What is your generalisation from that? No need to change the Act of Succession after all...?
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 12:22 PM“There are also, after all, many, many Irish people who have chosen to live within the British nation state, by, e.g. moving to England.”
Like Rory, for example. Who purports to hate Britain and love Ireland, but obviously not enough to leave the former and live in the latter.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 12:27 PMbritish isles! How can you speak for people who live somewhere else DW?
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 12:27 PMTodd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_IslesPosted by on May 22, 2008 @ 12:35 PM
