Optimum handling of Irish nationalism

[Gordy]

The question OP asked was could it have been handled better. Yes, the obvious best handling would be to allow the Irish to go independent after 1918 Election; no bloodshed and a just solution. Of course, we knew the British would never do such a thing. The British didn't respect the will of majority of Irish people, so what could i say here, "the better handling" would be to RESPECT it.

Except you are overlooking the Ulster and Southern Unionist elements to the question. We can all agree that by the standards of 2014 morality, the British government position wasn't a good one but it is also the case that the Irish nationalist and Ulster unionist positions weren't good by 2014 morality either. There was no chance of a just solution and no bloodshed without all parties behaving rather better than they did.

 

[makif130289]

Yes, the British were behind both Catholicism and Martin Luther's protest. True story.

If you want a ultimate cause of sectarianism, try looking at the way that the Catholic church dealt with those with a different opinion. Not met any Cathars recently, I'd imagine. The conflict in Ireland was a microcosm of the religious wars in Europe between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants had no choice but to be anti-Catholic because Catholicism viewed them as heretics that needed to be stamped out much as they had with previous heresies.

I didn't say Catholics were very tolerant. AFAIK, Protestantism was brought by the British colonists and most of the Protestants of the North were descendants of them. So, I am not an Irish but let's assume i am one; why should i agree to the partition of my home island based on sectarian division ? An Irish nationalist would rightfully favor union based on nationality, not religion. Sectarianism benefited only the British by enabling them to grab the North of the island. My opinion is that without the British, North-South sectarian conflict wouldn't have been that harsh. Politics was also important factor that futher fed sectarian conflict.

 

[makif130289]

Except you are overlooking the Ulster and Southern Unionist elements to the question. We can all agree that by the standards of 2014 morality, the British government position wasn't a good one but it is also the case that the Irish nationalist and Ulster unionist positions weren't good by 2014 morality either. There was no chance of a just solution and no bloodshed without all parties behaving rather better than they did.

1918 Election would be something like a referandum in today's standards. The Irish wanted to go free and the British responded with war and division of the island. The British had no right to divide Irish island as they were merely occupiers at that point.

Of course i am not that naive to expect the British letting all of the island goes independent. It is just the answer to OP's question; doing so would be JUST and "better handling". The British did just what they did everywhere around the world.

 

[LordTempest]

1918 Election would be something like a referandum in today's standards.

It wasn't a referendum and Ireland wasn't a country. Facts are facts.

The Irish wanted to go free

The Southern Irish voted for Sinn Fein; the Northern Irish did not.

and the British responded with war and division of the island. Of course i am not that naive to expect the British letting all of the island goes independent. It is just the answer to OP's question; doing so would be JUST and "better handling". The British did just what they did everywhere around the world.

Nah they didn't. The situation had escalated to the point whereby either the parts of Southern Ireland who voted for SF would have to go to war to gain independence from Britain or the parts of Northern Ireland who voted Unionist would have to go to war to gain independence from Ireland. Given that the latter were prepared to go to war over something as minor as an Irish Parliament back in 1914, it shouldn't be assumed that the people of Ulster would simply roll over and become part of Ireland because Lloyd George told them to. How you can argue that forcing Southern Ireland to remain part of the UK after 1918 on the basis of one General Election would be unjust yet argue that Northern Ireland should not remain part of the UK on the basis of multiple general elections is beyond me.

The problem is that the First World War delayed Liberal attempts to give Ireland - or at least Southern Ireland - the Parliament it voted for, therefore, some Irish perhaps understandably grew impatient and decided to escalate the situation.

 

[StephenT]

Something I've always wondered about is why the people of Ireland never converted to Protestantism back in the 16th century, when the people of England, Scotland and Wales all did. Subsequent history would have been very different if they had.

The best theory I've heard is because nobody bothered to translate the Bible into Irish Gaelic during the Reformation, but there surely must be more to it than that. It can't be because the Crown of Ireland didn't want them to convert, because it surely did?

 

[makif130289]

It wasn't a referendum and Ireland wasn't a country. Facts are facts.



The Southern Irish voted for Sinn Fein; the Northern Irish did not.



Nah they didn't. The situation had escalated to the point whereby either the parts of Southern Ireland who voted for SF would have to go to war to gain independence from Britain or the parts of Northern Ireland who voted Unionist would have to go to war to gain independence from Ireland. Given that the latter were prepared to go to war over something as minor as an Irish Parliament back in 1914, it shouldn't be assumed that the people of Ulster would simply roll over and become part of Ireland because Lloyd George told them to. How you can argue that forcing Southern Ireland to remain part of the UK after 1918 on the basis of one General Election would be unjust yet argue that Northern Ireland should not remain part of the UK on the basis of multiple general elections is beyond me.

The problem is that the First World War delayed Liberal attempts to give Ireland - or at least Southern Ireland - the Parliament it voted for, therefore, some Irish perhaps understandably grew impatient and decided to escalate the situation.

From the viewpoint of either Wilson Principles (the British accepted Wilson's 14 on paper ) or Lenin's self-determination, The Irish are one nation and both the North and the South are Irish. Dividing them according to different voting choices was clearly British policy to continue their hold on the island. Ireland is one nation and the majority voted for independence way, it doesn't matter if Sinn Fein was majority in the North or not. The British has no right to classify the Irish as Southerners or Northerners. But we know it is just a tool for British foreign policy; if religious differences benefit UK, then they divide according to religious lines, if ethnicities benefit UK, then they divide according to ethnic groups especially citing the importance of national self-determination and if nothing benefits UK, then they just draw borders with a ruler just like in Middle East. If UK was so keen on protecting the rights of Protestant minority of Ireland, they could always had some kind of guarantee agreement with Irish republic.

Ireland may not be official state back then, who cares ? ESTABLISHMENT always changes. Irish people own that island and they manifested their choice in 1918 Election. I wouldn't care even if it was not offical UK election but just a poll with high voting ratio from all parts of the country and reliable results. Important thing would be to know the will of Irish people. Should the Irish people seek approval of UK Parliament to conduct war of independence so as to be seen as a legitimate movement ? Legitimacy comes from people, not from London.

 

[Harpsichord]

From the viewpoint of either Wilson Principles (the British accepted Wilson's 14 on paper ) or Lenin's self-determination, The Irish are one nation and both the North and the South are Irish. Dividing them according to different voting choices was clearly British policy to continue their hold on the island. Ireland is one nation and the majority voted for independence way, it doesn't matter if Sinn Fein was majority in the North or not. The British has no right to classify the Irish as Southerners or Northerners. But we know it is just a tool for British foreign policy; if religious differences benefit UK, then they divide according to religious lines, if ethnicities benefit UK, then they divide according to ethnic groups especially citing the importance of national self-determination and if nothing benefits UK, then they just draw borders with a ruler just like in Middle East. If UK was so keen on protecting the rights of Protestant minority of Ireland, they could always had some kind of guarantee agreement with Irish republic.

Ireland may not be official state back then, who cares ? ESTABLISHMENT always changes. Irish people own that island and they manifested their choice in 1918 Election. I wouldn't care even if it was not offical UK election but just a poll with high voting ratio from all parts of the country and reliable results. Important thing would be to know the will of Irish people. Should the Irish people seek approval of UK Parliament to conduct war of independence so as to be seen as a legitimate movement ? Legitimacy comes from people, not from London.

Let's hope you never have the chance to weild any power eh?

 

[makif130289]

Let's hope you never have the chance to weild any power eh?

No.

 

[LordTempest]

From the viewpoint of either Wilson Principles (the British accepted Wilson's 14 on paper ) or Lenin's self-determination, The Irish are one nation and both the North and the South are Irish. Dividing them according to different voting choices was clearly British policy to continue their hold on the island. Ireland is one nation and the majority voted for independence way, it doesn't matter if Sinn Fein was majority in the North or not. The British has no right to classify the Irish as Southerners or Northerners. But we know it is just a tool for British foreign policy; if religious differences benefit UK, then they divide according to religious lines, if ethnicities benefit UK, then they divide according to ethnic groups especially citing the importance of national self-determination and if nothing benefits UK, then they just draw borders with a ruler just like in Middle East. If UK was so keen on protecting the rights of Protestant minority of Ireland, they could always had some kind of guarantee agreement with Irish republic.

Ireland may not be official state back then, who cares ? ESTABLISHMENT always changes. Irish people own that island and they manifested their choice in 1918 Election. I wouldn't care even if it was not offical UK election but just a poll with high voting ratio from all parts of the country and reliable results. Important thing would be to know the will of Irish people. Should the Irish people seek approval of UK Parliament to conduct war of independence so as to be seen as a legitimate movement ? Legitimacy comes from people, not from London.

Right, so let me get this straight.

Ireland is one and indivisible because you arbitrarily claim that the Irish are one nation and one people.
This Ireland has the right to self-determination because of Wilson's fifth point, and that the 1918 Election was a de facto expression of Ireland's will to become independence.
All tensions in Ireland, be they religious, ethnic or class-based, are all because of British foreign policy.
Government policy should be directed on the basis of opinion polls, because that is how sensible, stable policy is formulated.
Legitimacy comes from people, and not from London.

The people of Northern Ireland have no right to self determination whatsoever because Ireland is one and indivisible.
Northern Ireland does not have the right to self determination according to Wilson's fifth point: in spite of having its own separate language, culture and religion from Southern Ireland, and voting in favour of remaining in the UK, even though 1918 was a de facto referendum on the issue according to yourself.
Legitimacy comes from Dublin, not the people of Northern Ireland.

 

[Avernite]

This would all be so much better if we wholely gave up the principle of 'oneness' for states. If the neighbourhood of north-west-sheeptown wants to declare independence, let them, and let west-north-west-sheeptown choose to remain. If the resulting barriers annoy people they can always try to reconsider and go back to the prior status (but that, of course, requires consent of the country they're joining). It seems to me to be the option that most harms those who ask for it themselves without harming those who don't. It might be hard to administrate, but such is the price of freedom.

 

[LordTempest]

This would all be so much better if we wholely gave up the principle of 'oneness' for states. If the neighbourhood of north-west-sheeptown wants to declare independence, let them, and let west-north-west-sheeptown choose to remain. If the resulting barriers annoy people they can always try to reconsider and go back to the prior status (but that, of course, requires consent of the country they're joining). It seems to me to be the option that most harms those who ask for it themselves without harming those who don't. It might be hard to administrate, but such is the price of freedom.

Trinity College can haz self-determination? :huh:

 

[Amallric]

This would all be so much better if we wholely gave up the principle of 'oneness' for states. If the neighbourhood of north-west-sheeptown wants to declare independence, let them, and let west-north-west-sheeptown choose to remain. If the resulting barriers annoy people they can always try to reconsider and go back to the prior status (but that, of course, requires consent of the country they're joining). It seems to me to be the option that most harms those who ask for it themselves without harming those who don't. It might be hard to administrate, but such is the price of freedom.

The logical consequence of this is the Hobbesian war of everyone against everyone. Maybe this is the price of freedom, but few would follow you in such a "free" world. I think it is much better to drop this idea of "self-determination" alltogether, accept the current arbitrary reality of set borders, and try to work out ways to make them matter less for the everyday life.

 

[Gordy]

I didn't say Catholics were very tolerant. AFAIK, Protestantism was brought by the British colonists and most of the Protestants of the North were descendants of them. So, I am not an Irish but let's assume i am one; why should i agree to the partition of my home island based on sectarian division ? An Irish nationalist would rightfully favor union based on nationality, not religion. Sectarianism benefited only the British by enabling them to grab the North of the island. My opinion is that without the British, North-South sectarian conflict wouldn't have been that harsh. Politics was also important factor that futher fed sectarian conflict.

If you are not even sure how Protestantism arrived in Ireland then you probably shouldn't comment at all. There are very many statements above that just make no sense at all.

 

[Gordy]

1918 Election would be something like a referandum in today's standards. The Irish wanted to go free and the British responded with war and division of the island. The British had no right to divide Irish island as they were merely occupiers at that point.

Of course i am not that naive to expect the British letting all of the island goes independent. It is just the answer to OP's question; doing so would be JUST and "better handling". The British did just what they did everywhere around the world.

You are naive enough that you don't realise that an Irish civil war would have been inevitable if the British had done what you wanted. One happened anyway but this one would have involved the whole island. Oh and there probably would not be very many Protestants left in Ulster. But you don't seem overly concerned about them. Or at all.

 

[Avernite]

The logical consequence of this is the Hobbesian war of everyone against everyone. Maybe this is the price of freedom, but few would follow you in such a "free" world. I think it is much better to drop this idea of "self-determination" alltogether, accept the current arbitrary reality of set borders, and try to work out ways to make them matter less for the everyday life.

Doesn't Scotland kind of prove that people CAN voluntarily associate with eachother? They got the choice to secede, they chose not to, nooone was harmed.

 

[Amallric]

It doesn't prove there is an inalienable right for everybody to secede from everything. The Scottish referendum was negotiated and accepted by both sides. Which is a good thing imho, but this thread is about what to do when there is no such agreement.

 

[Avernite]

It doesn't prove there is an inalienable right for everybody to secede from everything. The Scottish referendum was negotiated and accepted by both sides. Which is a good thing imho, but this thread is about what to do when there is no such agreement.

You will note I was arguing for allowing and accepting all such referenda no matter how small. Ergo, if my suggestion was adopted, it would allow all such referenda to be in the Scottish mold - accepted by both sides, and each side campaigning by means fair and foul (but legal). The whole problem for Ireland occurred because Britain didn't want to do so (or at least, the 1915 equivalent), while the Irish (seemingly) did.

 

[Gordy]

You will note I was arguing for allowing and accepting all such referenda no matter how small. Ergo, if my suggestion was adopted, it would allow all such referenda to be in the Scottish mold - accepted by both sides, and each side campaigning by means fair and foul (but legal). The whole problem for Ireland occurred because Britain didn't want to do so (or at least, the 1915 equivalent), while the Irish (seemingly) did.

The problem with this analysis is that in 1918 the Irish were British. And of course the Protestant Irish were and still are Irish.

To borrow the analysis of an Irish forumite (hinklar).

There was a majority of people in NI for continued union with Britain.
There was a majority of people across Ireland in favour of an independent, united Ireland.
There was probably a majority of people across the UK (which at the time included the ROI) for Ireland to remain part of the UK.

Any of the above could be argued to be "democratic".

The Irish Catholics, of course, wanted an option where only the Irish votes counted and the results were applied across Ireland (the Scottish model) - it suited their interests to do so.

The Irish Protestants, particularly those in Ulster, did not. And let us not forget that they were also Irish. So no consensus among the Irish.

 

[Avernite]

The Irish Catholics, of course, wanted an option where only the Irish votes counted and the results were applied across Ireland (the Scottish model) - it suited their interests to do so.

The Irish Protestants, particularly those in Ulster, did not. And let us not forget that they were also Irish. So no consensus among the Irish.

Ah, but my response would be: fine, then Ulster can do what it wants, like stay with Ireland or the UK (or go independent, but noone seemingly wanted that), and rump Ireland can do what it wants, go independent without Ulster (and Trinity college?) or stay with the UK.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

The problem with this analysis is that in 1918 the Irish were British. And of course the Protestant Irish were and still are Irish.

To borrow the analysis of an Irish forumite (hinklar).

There was a majority of people in NI for continued union with Britain.
There was a majority of people across Ireland in favour of an independent, united Ireland.
There was probably a majority of people across the UK (which at the time included the ROI) for Ireland to remain part of the UK.

Any of the above could be argued to be "democratic".

The Irish Catholics, of course, wanted an option where only the Irish votes counted and the results were applied across Ireland (the Scottish model) - it suited their interests to do so.

The Irish Protestants, particularly those in Ulster, did not. And let us not forget that they were also Irish. So no consensus among the Irish.

By this standard there has never been a consensus on any political issue ever. What do you mean the Irish were British in 1918?