Talk:Irish nationalism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Earlier origin of Irish nationalism?

One could most certainly make a case that the Irish nationalist movement originated in the 1640s when the specious nomenclatures, Gaeil and Gaill, united (albeit fractiously) to defend their position in Ireland. Some historians have gone farther and argued that the literature of the latter half of the sixteenth century sees such a nascent unity in political terms. Reaching for the extent of this nationalism, Tomás Ó Fiaich (future Cardinal) did a very interesting study in 1971 entitled 'Republicanism and Separatism in the Seventeenth Century'. It can now be found here (see [[1]]).

Good point. You can see the wiki article on the 1640s at Confederate Ireland. However whether this was "nationalism" in the modern snse is open to question. For one thing, the Confederates never explicitly rejected the authority of the King of England in fact they stressed their loyalty to him, the same is true of the Jacobites of the 1690s. This was a common element of "proto-nationalist" revolts at the time, for example in the Netherlands, Catalonia and elsewhere. Still, I think this should go into this article.

On a broader point, I think this whole article needs amajor overhaul. The article on Irish Republicanism is much bigger despite the fact that republicanism is a derivative of Irish nationalism and not vice versa. I think this article should have descriptions of nationalist movements in Ireland - their aims and ideologies and the public support they recieved, from 19thC to the present. Jdorney 17:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Irish nationalism and the EU

I think the relationship between Irish nationalism and the European project is very interesting. Irish nationalism has never felt threatened by the EU in the way that other nationalisms have, particular Britain and the Scandinavian countries. I'm not sure why this is, but I'd be interested in an explaination in this article! Seabhcán 16:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think part of it was the idea that somehow North and South being in the EU together would help create a United Ireland through harmonisations e.g. single currency. However I think some of us are questioning that now as it hasn't happened and it's 30 years since we signed up. (Eamonn)

Only the extremely uneducated mouth breather types and traitors such as the libertas stooges question the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


This page isn't a stub it may be in need of expansion though. I will change it just now. --Chazz88 11:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done all I can with this article now. Can someone remove the expansion notice? Jdorney 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Biting the newbie

I don't understand why Demiurge continues to attack me; I don't know who he or she is. I have always acted in accordance with the dictates of my conscience and have nothing with which to reproach myself.

My edits and additions are there for anyone to read; I believe they have improved the page, and as an Irishman I have my own insights, but obviously there must be consensus.

Why does Demiurge say I am "blocked"???

I do not understand??

Brandubh Blathmac 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert, you are obviously knowledgeable about actors and actresses, but I'm afraid you're not a very good actor! Camillus (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cam- Tisn't my fault that there are other sane people out there in the world, beside me, who agree with me on occasion. Someday the same will happen to you once you leave your cave in Clydebank, from whence you evidently cannot hear anything that I am reading about a continent away. Brandubh Blathmac 17:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am readding the following:

The GAA, the Gaelic League (forcing the ouster of Unionist Douglas Hyde as the League's head) and the Irish Volunteers were all infiltrated by the IRB following Parnell's death, and this would play a large role in the Easter Rising.

Curiously, most of the Cultural nationalists were actually English speakers and their organisations had little impact in the Irish speaking areas or Gaeltachts, where the language continued to decline. This is because the politically irredentist nationalism that flared in the late 19th and 20th centuries was Catholic and middle-class, with even some wealthy patrons (Count Plunkett). There was no cry from the poor for Irish language classes.


Glad you're talking to me again. Brandubh Blathmac 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-immigrant section

The new edits regarding this are grossly POV. The statement that the Irish state was "anti-foreign" is not backed up by evidence. Films were banned not becaue they were "foreign" but because they were deemded immoral by the strict standards of pre 1960s Ireland. Irish films plays and books were also banned. The issue may have been small mindedness, but it was not xenophobia.

A certain amount of refugees were admitted bythe de Valera govt in the 1940s and an area of Dublin around the South Circular Road even became known as "Little Jerusalem". It could certainly be argue tha the Irish government should have been more generous to the Jews, but they were not the only government who are guitly of this at thetime.

Re "Bombing German fishing boats" whats that about? Reports of a man from Wales being beaten up are wholly irrelevant, as there are many such incidents in both Britain and Irlenad every weekend and nothing to do with nationalism.

The Irish state does not have a more draconian policy towards deporting refugees than any other EU state. Asylum requests are processed and if they fail, the person is deported. Maybe this is harsh in many cases, but its is not an instance of nationalist bigotry. In fact Ireland was one of only two EU countries (the UK was the other one) not to put any restrictions on immiggration from the new EU accession states.

Jdorney 14:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See the above cited RfC. This user, who has been adding highly POV "stuff" into articles, particularly anything to do with Ireland and catholics, with never a single source ever mentioned, and a penchant for quite disgusting personal attacks, really has to be stopped. The RfC is unlikely to lead to any change in his behaviour, but is a necessary first-step on the way to an ArbCom decision. Camillus (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I read in Tim Pat Coogan's book about how cinemas showing films about WWI (Zebrugges, Ypres) were shut down by the IRA during and after the 1920s violence.

Even archcensor Demiurge was forced to admit that no more than possibly 30 Jews got into Eire (and likely through human smuggling). It certainly did not merit Eire's receiving 100 million US dollars in Marshall Plan monies (in the form of loans which of course were never repaid, to our discredit).

To tout Eire's refugee policy during WWII is a very stupid thing to do, Dorney, there are some things not even our impressive Irish propaganda machine can justify. We Irish need to acknowledge our failings during that seminal time of good vs. evil.

As far as the current treatment of immigrants, refugees, etc. (especially those who are not white), come on, grow up. I live in the States (although I hold an Irish passport), and I have read about the attacks on blacks, Chinese, etc.; the ruthless deportations of African parents while their children were at school; the Roma, the Moldovans, etc., and the abysmal working conditions for those who are "allowed" to remain (like the Latvians in the mushroom bogs), but cannot leave to see their families for fear of not being allowed to return. And the Irish unions are surprisingly silent about it.

Not to mention the pitiful sight of impoverished Russian women becoming trophy brides, mail-order brides or much worse to escape the poverty of the former USSR b/c of Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II's joint "jihad" against communism.

Spare me the mile cead failte b/s.

You should know at least as much as I do, considering I am "across the pond".

Brandubh Blathmac 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Robert, would you not be better off discussing your own edits rather than having a general-purpose rant about User:Demiurge and various other things. Explain the rationale behind your recent reversions and work *with* other editors instead. Hmmm? - Ali-oops 07:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well since you raised these points, lets deal with them in detail. The IRA was not in power in 1920s Ireland -read the Irish Civil War page if you don't know why. It is true they did things like disrupting remembrance day parades and orange parades in the free state, which they saw as "imperialist". I would not be that surpised if they also disrupted films about WWI for these reasons. But a, this is an illegal and not too popular group. B this is not a case of shutting down any foreign film, but shutting down ones that they were specifically opposed to. I'm not dfending this, but this minor anecdotal detail does not show us anything about Irish nationalism in general being xenophobic.

Secondly,I don't know any specific figures about how many Jewish refugees were accomodated in Ireland in WWII. I don know however, that from the 1930s there was a substantial Jewish community in south central Dublin. I know this incidentally because my dad grew up in this area. I assume you knw that the US government and British governments also, shamefully tried to limit Jewish immigration in the 1930s and 40s? If Irish nationalism was anti-semetic then how come Ireland had no major anti-semetic movement? The blueshirts were a joke -far less influential than, for example the French Action Francaise. the British Blackshirts or the Ametican populist Linbergh. so if you are suggesting that Irleand was uniquely, or even notably anti-semetic, this does not stand up to scrutiny. You might also be intersteed to know that Dublin has had Jewish lord mayors, eg Ben Briscoe, TDs, eg Alan Shatter and was even the birthplace of a former prsient of Israel Chaim Hertzog.

Re the Marsall Plan, Ireland got a relatively small $36million, which was a loan, not a grant, and which was repaid. (Collins, Ireland 1866-199 p392).

Now re present day immigration, you grow up. Number 1, Ireland has had the lragest per capita immigration anywhere in the EU in tha last decade. Since you live in America and your only source is a far left anarchist website, with reports from 7 years ago, I think, in answer to your question, that I do know mor than you. For instance, there have been isolated, un-orgainsed individual attacks on a small number of immigratns. Of curse this is regretable, but it certainly doesn't make Ireland any worse than other EU countries. The only part of Ireland that has seen widespread and organised intimidation against foreign immigrants is those parts of Northern Ireland controlled by loyalist paramilitaries (your friends?).

Re deportations, here is the situation. A person claiming asylum in Irleand is entitled to free housing and social welfare while their claim is being processed. If their claim is rejected they ca nthen be deported or leave voluntarily. Ireland is no more "ruthless" in this regard than any other country. Certainly Ireland's policies are no different from Britains's in this regard. In France several years ago riot police stormed a church to deport asylum seekers. In Australia, asylum seekers are kept in camps in the desert behind barbed wire until their claims are processed. So in what way is Ireland a notably racist country or Irish nationalism a racist phenomenon?

Re exploitation of workers, yes, this does happen. But not only in Ireland. I presume you have heard about the Morcambe bay tragedy in England when 20 Chinese cockle pickers were drowned? I also think yo'll find that Irish unions, eg SIPTU have taken a major interst in this rcently. Many immigrants in Irleand also have well paid high status jobs.

Re Ronald Reagan and the Pope and Russian mail order brides, that has absolutely nothing to do with Irish nationalism one way or the other.


Jdorney 11:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, what about answering the points I actually did make:

The GAA, the Gaelic League (forcing the ouster of Unionist Douglas Hyde as the League's head) and the Irish Volunteers were all infiltrated by the IRB following Parnell's death, and this would play a large role in the Easter Rising.

Curiously, most of the Cultural nationalists were actually English speakers and their organisations had little impact in the Irish speaking areas or Gaeltachts, where the language continued to decline. This is because the politically irredentist nationalism that flared in the late 19th and 20th centuries was Catholic and middle-class, with even some wealthy patrons (Count Plunkett). There was no cry from the poor for Irish language classes.

Also, the fact that the Irish government is more effective at deporting those it chooses than most other European countries, English-speaking countries and the US because of the ethnic homogeneity of most of Southern Ireland (another point I made which was deleted). You simply cannot argue that that is not the truth. As far as the IRA being a "not too popular group" (your words); they were awfully popular in 1966, especially on RTE, when Tom Barry and Vinnie Byrne were the elder statesmen.

Cheers!! Brandubh Blathmac 17:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of ll re the cultural nationalism thing , I wrote most of that section. Dealing with what you wrote, irredentism means the claiming of territory by one state that is currently in another state. You could characterise mid 20th century Irish nationalism in this way, but not 19th century nationalism, as a from of words it just doesn't make sense. Secondly, I have no problem really with the actual sentiments. Its true, the Gaelic revival was a middle class movement. the Irish speakers were porr and needed to learn English if they wanted to better their lott. I don't feel that this is inconsistent withwhat was already written however.

Re the GAA, are you seriously suggesting that the GAA planned the Easter Rising? Seriously now, really? Certainly the GAA was nationalist organisastion and yes the IRB didd use it to recruit members etc, but again, this is already icorporated into the existing text.

I would love to see figures showing that the Irish government is "more successful at deporting asylum seekers", I strongly suspect that this is not true. You seem to be speculating about why this must be true because "Southern Ireland" is so ethnicly homogenous. You obviously haven't been here in a long time. The major cities in Ireland are verry far from being ethnicly homogenous these days. Do you have any actual evidence for your claims? Incidentally, figures published in last sunday's Sunday Tribune showed that of all imported asylum seekers, the biggest proportion came from Romania, not Nigeria or any African country. In any case, what has this got to do with Irish nationalism exactly? The Minister responsable for immigration policy is Michael McDowell who is very anti-nationalist in his views. Sinn Fein, the most nationalist/republican party advocate a very liberal immigation policy. the issue here is about application of the laws of the state, not nationalism.

Finally, re the IRA. The IRA of the 1930s was an outlawed group, armed and dedicated to the overthrow of the Irish Free State. While they had some support, they were a fairly marginal group. The IRA of the 1960s was even less popular. Tom Barry and Vinny Byrne were members of the "Old IRA" of the War of Independence. Not the same thing. (Albeit Barry was also in the subsequent IRA until the 1940s)

Cheers a chara, is mise: Jdorney 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)  ;)

Several IRA Men elected to British Parliament during Hunger Strikes?

Several during the Hunger Strikes? What were the names of these IRA Men?

To be precise, one IRA man, Boobby Sands and his election agent, Owen Carron. Jdorney 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Do you know a link or reference to the information online?--Kuifjeenbobbie 09:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • [2] "In the Fermanagh / South Tyrone by-election Bobby Sands, then on hunger strike in the Maze Prison, was elected (following the final count on 11 April 1981) as Member of Parliament for the constituency. The turnout for the contest was 86.9 per cent and Sands obtained 30,492 votes and Harry West, the Unionist candidate, obtained 29,046 votes." "A by-election was held in Fermanagh / South Tyrone to elect a Member of Parliament (MP) to Westminster to the seat that became vacant on the death of Bobby Sands. Owen Carron, who had been Sands' campaign manager, was proposed by Sinn Féin (SF). Carron won the by-election with an increased number of votes over the total achieved by Sands."Demiurge 09:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes to 1916-23 section

Explaining my changes;

  • Sinn Fein (1917-22) was never a vehicle for physical force. Many of its members in 1919-21, notably Arthur Griffith, believed in passive resistance rather than armed struggle. The Dail actually did not assume responsability for IRA actions until April 1921. In any case it was the political side of the movement, not the military.
  • The Treaty negotiations did not "recognise the reality" of the Government of Ireland Act. Partition was already decided, yes, but the other substantial aspects of sovereignty were all up for discussion. In addition, the Treaty ended up giving a lot more than than the Fourth Home Rule Bill, as elaborated on in the text.
  • Eamon de Valera did not lead the anti-treaty side in the civil war. The Republican side were led by Liam Lynch, Chief of Staff of the IRA, and when he was killed by Frank Aiken. De Valera supported them yes and, at Lynch's request, set up a "Republican cabinet" in October 1922. However Lynch gave the orders. When the Army Executive, the anti-treaty high command, met in March 1923 to decide on the future of the war, they narrowly voted to let EdV attend but gave him no voting rights in their decisions. (Incidentally they decided to continue the war by 6 votes to 5. They eventually called it off a month later).

Jdorney 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish regiments

A misconception seems to exist about the role played by former British Army servicemen in the Free State National Army during the civil war. It was certainly not the case that the disbanded Irish regiments of the British army were recruited en block into the Irish one. Nor is it true that the National Army was built around them. Noel Harrington, a veteran of the pre-split IRA and the National Army wrote, "It was charged... that the authorities accepted into army service men who had served in the British forces. This is true of course and such men were entitled to join and serve in the National Army...It would be totally untrue to charge that recruits were accepted from the British forces" (Kerry Landings p 37)

The sequence of events surrounding the formation of the Irish Army are as follows; January 1922, the Provisional Government establishes the new force (composed of pro-treaty IRA units, especially the Dublin Guard) and takes over Beggars Bush barracks. Recruitment then starts for an army of 25,000 men. By the outbreak of the civil war, there were roughly 7-8000 men, mostly pro-treaty IRA in this force. This was expanded to 38,000 by the end of the year and 55,000 by the end of the civil war. (Michael Hopkinson, Green against Green, p61, 127, etc)

Among the new recruits were many ex servicemen, including officers, on whom the Free State relied for military expertise. However, the bulk of these people joined not for ideological reasons, but simply because they had returned from the first world war and were unemployed. At the Army Enquiry of 1924, Gen. Richard Mulcahy stated of these people, "Old soldiers, experienced in every kind of military wrong-doing, were placed under the command of officers necessarily inexperienced and the resulting state of discipline is not to be wondered at [3]."

Moreover, there were also British Army veterans on the other side. Tom Barry served in the British Army in WWI, David Robinson, anti-treaty gfighter from Kerry is another example.

Jdorney 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts can be presented in different ways depending on intentions. The IRA were equally "unemployed" since the Treaty. Motive to join the new Force (it was initially called the Free State Force) would have been similar. To highlight "unemployment" as the singular motives of ex-servicemen is the more likely misconception.

Side-tracked is that the Irish regiments were intentionally disbanded under the Treaty, an historical fact. The reasons on both sides were numerous. Civil war was not an issue, simply the need to assure a future core Free State Force. Why should this be hushed up ??

Ex-Servicemen were not surprisingly prominent in the ranks of the new Free State Force during the Civil War that followed. Tom Barry, himself an ex-British serviceman, was later in an interview in 1980 to say that their role had been decisive in defeating the anti-Treaty forces with which he sided:

“Another thing that made our position impossible was the build-up of the Free State Army from the Irish regiments of the British army. They had been disbanded as part of the Treaty arrangements and sent back to Ireland. The Royal Munster Fusiliers, the Leinsters, the Dublins , the Connaught Rangers, all these regiments were disbanded at Oswestry in Wales , they were put into civvies and sent across from Holyhead to Ireland, where they were met by Free State lorries and brought to Beggar’s Bush barracks and put into green uniforms. Now some of these were probably decent men driven by hardship to join the British army. But others were violently anti-Irish and some had left Ireland in very unfavourable conditions: they were driven out because of their having done things against the Republican movement. We might well have been able to defeat the Free State until this lot came over, but after that it was impossible”.

From: Kenneth Griffith and Timothy O’Grady, “Curious Journey: an oral history of Ireland’s unfinished revolution” (London 1982), pp. 299-300.

May I include this in the main article ?Osioni 11:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try again. In simple points.

  • The Irish regiments were not disbanded to provide a core for the Free State Army. They were never used in this way. This is not "hushing anything up". Once again, the core of the National Army was the pro-treaty IRA. Other recruits were obtained from wherever it was possible to get them once the civil war had broken out. Ex servicemen were naturally highly valued for their experience, but they were NOT recruited en bloc or in units from the British army.
  • The IRA was not unemployed after the Truce, it was massively expanded, beyond what its structures could handle in fact.It was intended that it would be the new Free State Army, but events, as we know went another way. IRA volunteers were not paid in this period, so unemployment was nota factor. The National Army, on th other hand, was a regular, paid force and it explicitly recruited on the basis that it could provide a steady income during hard times.
  • Barry's quote is anti-treaty propaganda and is simply untrue. Republicans made these accusations at the time to empahsise their point that the "Staters" were really only proxies for Britain.
  • Another point, you edit implies that the servicment recruited were regulars from the British Army in 1922. Perhaps some were, but a greater number would have been the from the far greater number who served in WWI and were then disbanded.

Jdorney 12:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The wording in the article had impled that thousands of ex-servicemen were standing around in Ireland unemployed since WWI. This was not the case, any who previously tried to return had been hounded out of the country in 1919/20 as alleged "spies and traitors", those who tried to take up employment got themselves shot (an estimated 200). So where did the thousands come from after June 1922 ??.
The wording in the article implied that as ex-British Army servicemen they were "British". The Irish regiments were largely Irish manned, were an integral part of the British Army yes, Ireland being part of the UK, but they had an Irish base, Tralee, Fermoy etc. as the case may have been. When these Irish manned batallions were disbanded under the Treaty, the then "unemployed" "regular" Irish WWI veterans' obvious option was to immediately seek army employment in their Free State Force. Other nationalities may have also joined, but the bulk were local Irish from the 1922 disbanded Irish regiments. This point needed to be made clear.
Osioni 19:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be abrupt but that is absolute rubbish. Around 200,000 Irishmen served in WWI, of whom roughly 38,000 were killed. The vast majority of the remainder returned to Ireland. Many of them were indeed unemployed in the period of 1922, as were thousands of other people. Re 200 being shot, again, nonsense. Around 220 civilians were killed in total during the War of the Independence in the south, by both sides. Nowhere near that number of alleged infomrers were shot by the IRA.

Nowhere did I ever imply that the sldiers were British. They were Irish ex-servicemen. Once again, while they may have served in "Kitcheners army", or the regular British army, (stitsically much mroe likely to have been the former) they joined the National Army as individual recruits, not as units.

Jdorney 20:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest changes

Osioni, your most recent changes are very hard to integrate into the text of the article. This is an article on the development of Irish nationalism, not a history of Ireland. It is also getting far too long. ection on the land reform and local government reform would be far better placed in the History of Ireland (1801-1922) article. Also, can you please drop the pov tone, please? "The war against tyranny in Europe" is not npov. Also, statements like "Ireland was trnaformed from rural squalor to one of hte most prosperous rural communities in Europe are not true, and are in any case badly phrased. Likewise, the para on socialism is badly put together.

I'm gping to leave it up to you to remove the rest or switch it elsehwere.

Jdorney 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jdorney, hello. thank you for the contact. I was intending to touch base with you as I also found your entries and censorship of my edits in line with your critcism of mine: much of the article is not a history of the development of Irish nationalism. I will gladly tail down some of my edits, but ask your co-operation in doing likewise with yours, such as highlighting the need to discuss treating SF internees as prisioners of war during the Irish Convention on Home Rule, or ommitting Connollys' part in the Rising but listing all leading IRA names and finding excuses for the fact that "They took their orders from the leaders they elected themselves, not from the Dail government", "They paid little attention to the Dail and its government, which were supposed to be their political masters". Both lines from "Sovereignty and partition" (2004) M.E. Collins. You wrongly obliterated my similar quote from Tom Garvin. Facts are simply facts, why side-track issues which eventually led to civil war? The first decade of the century indeed saw an upsurge of prosperity in nationalist rural (not urban) Ireland, a fact not POV. The article contained a 20 year gap 1894 to 1914 which was not correct. Why blame me if the article is admittedly too long when the War of Independence, Treaty etc, for example are duplicated in considerable detail already existing on other pages? My feeling is the page should be halved where Irish nationalism changes to Irish republicanism just as Patrick Maume ends his history of Nationalist life with 1918 (The Long Gestation). Hope I am found helpful and constructive in resolving the issues.
Osioni 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are confusing facts with POV. You ae also the persaon who has expanded this article to include your pov, which is why I raised the issue. Lets deal with the points one by one. The Irish Convention had a very small chance of finding a solution because it excluded SF. I included the reason SF would not take part because it is important. The British recused to discuss full independence, SF represented a growing opinion that was looking for this. Connolly's part in the Eater Rising was not omitted, but there is not space here for the discussion of the development of socialist republicanism and c.90% of the 1916 rebels were Volunteers.

Re the IRA/Dail relationship. What you had was not facts, it was your interpretation of Tom Garvin's opinion (a pov on a pov if you like), with no facts mentioned. The argument here is that the IRA did what they wanted, wouldn't obey the civil power (The Dail) and eventually rebelled against it over the Treaty. Garvin (once a lecturer of mine btw), who argues that this show a deeply undemocratic elemnt in republican thinking, traces this attitude through the war of independence to the civil war. However, the facts don't quite bear this argument out. Its more complex than that. Collins and Mulcahy were the leaders of the IRA. In 1919-21, they had a somewhat fraught relationship with their "political" masters such as Cathal Brugha and Eamon de Valera. However, it was not Collins and Mulcahy who rebelled against the Treaty, but Brugha and De Valera. In turn, Collins and Mulcahy had trouble controlling the actions of the IRA from Dublin. In April 1921, the instituted a Division structure, appointing leaders from the centre. If the arguement about IRA v government is correct, then you would expect to find the Divisional commanders being pro-treaty and the local commanders going anti-treaty. However, people like Ernie O'Malley and Liam Lynch, who were most infavour of centralisation, went anti-treaty. Previous hardliners like Sean Moylan and Florence O'Donoghue stayed neutral. Militant IRA men from 1921 - Sean MacEoin, Paddy Daly, Eoin O'Duffy all went pro-treaty. The point is that the split over the civil war is very complex and can't be reduced to a single interpretation. Especially not one that is not supported by accompanying evidence.

Stating that "rural Ireland got prosperous, urban Ireland didn't" is similarly, not a fact, it is a sweeping statement. The poorest parts of Ireland remained the rural south and west, where land holding was small, population too big and emmigration high. Dublin had terrible slums and chronic unemployment, but was far from "stagnant". New industries there included Guiness, Jacobs biscuits, the Tramway company, Independent newspapers etc. Belfast and north east was, very far from being stagnant, trhe richest place on the island at the time and one of the major industrial cities in Britain if not europe at the time. This does not mean that conditions for working class people there were not hard, but that was a feature of industrial revolution society.

Finally, I don't agree that the page should be split in 1918. Irish Republicanism is a part of a broader phenomenon called Irish nationalism, not a different ideology.

Jdorney 07:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs References added tag

This article needs to be referenced! While my knowledge would be confined to certain periods, I have enough to know that a lot of the information is factually incorrect. I do not think it right to remove un-referenced material without giving editors the opportunity the chance to reference their material, but it must have some time frame. Regards --Domer48 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ISBN 085221-121-X added

Grattan's nationalism wasn't Tone's version, and not quite O'Connell's, and its wasn't republican, but it was nationalistic given the times he lived in. Had Tone succeeded in 1798 I suspect Ireland would have developed an anti-French nationalism like the rest of Europe in 1813. Someone could ref O'Connell on 'the Irish nation is Catholic', which didn't help. Section needed on practical and/or emotional aspects of nationalism?Red Hurley 11:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New Section added

I have mentioned before about this article needing to be referenced, and still nothing. An article on Irish Nationalism, which dose not mention either Thomas Davis or the The Nation newspaper is lacking the most basic understanding of the subject. A quick look at the prospectus of The Nation would illustrate my point much better than I could.[[4]]Regards--Domer48 19:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add the relevant details then? Jdorney 12:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am working on a number of articles at the moment, and have not done much on this one. With the number of editors on this article, it would not be much to add references. There seems to be a lot of minor changes, but no thought to referencing. --Domer48 13:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section has a hint of POV.A clean up might be in order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the unsigned comment. As of now the section is a couple of polls of Northern Irish protestants saying they feel more British than Irish. How is that criticism? The only criticism is the last POV opinion sentence which reads, "The inability and/or refusal of Irish nationalists to accept the British and non-Irish identity of many unionists has been a contributing factor in alienating them from the idea of a United Ireland." That's 100% POV. No sources to back it up at all. This criticism section is not only flawed... in fact, I would go one step farther.... there's no need for the section at all. Look at the British nationalism article. Is there a "Criticism of British nationalism" section? Nope... despite that you could probably write a thousand paragraphs about the crimes of the British Empire, British monarchy, and British people. --Tocino 01:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What is open to criticism is the following aspect of Irish nationalist ideology mentioned in the "ideology of Irish nationalism" section:

"the ideology of Irish nationalism and particularly Irish republicanism has always expressed the view that it is not hostile to Protestantism or Protestants in Ireland as such and that it recognises them as fellow Irishmen".

This attitude can be critised for the following reasons, already stated in the criticism section:

1) Protestants in general consider themselves British, not Irish at all or only weakly Irish (see results of polls)

2) "most nationalists have extreme difficulty in accepting unionists' Britishness or, even if they do, the idea that unionists do not constitute an Irish ethnic minority which can ultimately be accommodated within the Irish nation...." as documented in a report financed by the Central Community Relations Unit of the Northern Ireland Office

There is nothing wrong in having a criticism section of political movements/ideologies. For instance, in the "Communism", "Labour Party (UK)" articles there are criticism sections.

I would suggest renaming the section "Criticism of ideology of Irish nationalism" or merging it into the "ideology of Irish nationalism" section under the sentence.

"the ideology of Irish nationalism and particularly Irish republicanism has always expressed the view that it is not hostile to Protestantism or Protestants in Ireland as such and that it recognises them as fellow Irishmen". Kuifjeenbobbie 11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

Reading this page and its content: would anyone agree that rather than call the article "Irish nationalism", it would stand better as "Irish patriotism"? It is a plain fact that patriotism and nationalism are two separate contexts. They may at times go hand in hand but can also go adrift. The idea about consciousness with regards art, music and culture; embracing these phenomena and celebrating them are all forms of patriotism, where-as nationalism reflects the darker side of any nation's aspirations. With my Balkan background, I am only too familiar with this. At present, you have a page called United Ireland; Irish scholars will know that a unified Ireland is the aim of Irish nationalists. That is however you choose to look at it: most obviously, that means Northern Ireland's catholic masses and some others opting for unity with Dublin; but this also includes unionists who believe that Ireland, Irish people and Irish interest, is all an integral park of the United Kingdom as their nationalist aims would still unify Ireland even though the latter has not looked likely since the 1920's. So long as one considers himself Irish (not specificly British only), he will embrace all Irish from across the island, and regardless of religion. My point is that most of the details on this article talk of what it means to rally around the Irish nation's flag; and that is all innocent, not at all threatening. Nationalism in all cases leads to irredentism, and often with little regard for the beauties of a nation, except when using them as a political instrument to differentiate. --Evlekis (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I would disagree with the proposed move your suggesting. Irish Nationalism is a political position same as Unionism.--Padraig (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose the move - per Padraig. The common name is "Irish nationalism". Yes, it's true that unionism can be seen as a nationalism too, but that's not what is meant in this context. Neither does "nationalism" in the Irish context mean the irredentist or supremacist kind of nationalism. That's a different context and Irish nationalism has never gone there. --sony-youthpléigh 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well you say that Irish nationalism has never gone there but I assure you that before independence, the plan was for a unified Ireland; not to exclude most of Ulster. Perhaps neither of you fully grasped my point; the first line speaks of "love for Irish culture and sense of pride in the island", although most of the article speaks about the political aspect, these features denote patriotism. The point being that one can be a nationalist of any kind without love for such phenomena. For instance, I may detest Irish music, find the language repulsive, be a Presbytarian from Armagh and still entertain radical views on one Ireland, independent of Westminster. Likewse, tomorrow the south of the island may be invaded by Spain and the north by Iceland; and despite the new subjugation, I may be a proud Irishman, proud of the homeland yet have no aspirations to restore independence; doesn't make me less Irish than Bertie Ahern. It is common for many people to confuse patriotism with nationalism, not knowing which area of consciousnss belongs to which. The only connection between the two is that nationalists (mostly biggots, but in every society) will often be seen to embrace the "artistic culture" of the nation, but this they will do with no regard to whether the song/dance/painting etc. is good or bad...they'll like it purely for being "theirs", and they will reject what is not theirs, especially when produced by an opponent nation. As for the polititians, they too play it "patriotic", especially on national holidays or special occasions. But take it from me, it is symbolic: you don't get "polititians" with aesthetic appreciation, art is foreign to their nature. Polititians are cowboys whose only passion is for themselves; they live by an "us and them" basis where-as music unites all people, except when used for political purposes. I would suggest rewriting the opening lines, though not a move for sure. Evlekis (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be comparing Irish nationalism, with nationalism in other countries that is a big mistake on your part, same as many people think Irish Nationalism is the same as Irish Republicanism they are similar but not the same. Please don't make any changes to the article before discussing them here first and getting agreement.--Padraig (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I compare them to what goes on elsewhere but if you are aware of what goes on elsewhere yourself, you'll see that the principle is the same, and why wouldn't it be? My family is from the Republic of Macedonia whereby the nationalism has no fewer than three separate facets, that is a three-way war among the radical adherents. Obviously a unified Republic of Ireland is one example of Irish nationalism, and an Ireland within the UK is another. Can you list me some of the other things which constitute Irish nationalism? Evlekis (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In the context of the UK and Ireland, nationalism means expressions of and desire for autonomy or independence (see also Scottish nationalism, Welsh nationalism, Manx nationalism and English nationalism). This is contrasted with unionism, which seeks to maintain the association between the home countries of the United Kingdom (and the wider British Isles). Part of that struggle between the two political ideologies is the cultural aspect, the nationalist side emphasizing the difference, the unionist side emphasizing the commonalities. In the "international" sense both are nationalists, but the term used in the UK and Ireland is for the separatist nationalist to be called "nationalists" and the anti-separatist nationalists to be called "unionists". Is this what you mean? --sony-youthpléigh 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That is precisely what I meant, thank you. But you will find that nationalism of this kind is all over the world; what vary are the circumstances and the actions taken by parties involved. Even so, I see now how the cultral context falls into place, so I shall say no more about it. I have no reason now to edit the article. Regards. Evlekis (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)