It's not that he's right or wrong, it's that he has an opinion. I don't agree with his or your opinion. I have a different opinion. You have your political opinions, I have mine, I don't share your outrage and quite frankly I find the censorious list of what's acceptable, as narrow minded judgemental and riddled with glaring contradictions.Originally Posted by GypsyBlackCat
What are you on about, killing 4 innocent people? For unrepentant Gerry Kelly, ira activist, hunger striker, political status prisoner, elected representative, you could read Joe McDonnell. The context of Gerry Kelly's republican activity stretches over a 50 year period to a constitutional position of power sharing. That's the modern era of republicanism in complete context. The birth of our state is another era of militant and constitutional republicanism. People have always seen that as bad taste, however,modern era republicanism, the whole context, has gained constitutional political status whether you or others, approve of it or not, are offended by it or not.Joe McDonnell is seen as a terrorist to some people. So people do feel songs like that are bad taste as they support a man involved in a terrorist organisation who killed four people innocent people.
Yes indeed, move on past the declaring subjective acceptable merits about songs, whether it's a Christy Moore version, or a Wolf Tone version, or a song celebrating anarchy, terror and mayhem in 1920.To get back on track, regardless of his sing song, any other CEO of a football association would have been sacked long before now if they had Delaney's record. Not given a massive six year contract. I posted a list of problems that most Irish football fans have will John the Baptist on a Sunderland forum and people were laughing that a man like that is charge of anything nevermind the CEO of FAI!
The way he has acted this week is the most sickening!
As I said, one man's freedom fighter is anothers terrorist. McDonnell and Bobby Sands planned the attack on the Balmoral Furniture Company killing two men (70, 26) and two babies (2 and 17months).
It's not the song as much but how Delaney and the FAI have acted over the whole thing. It's a funsize portion of the whole Delaney era.
Just moving the more political material from a post in the Delaney thread to here:
Something is either intrinsic to another thing or it isn't, and anti-Protestantism is not intrinsic to Irish republicanism. There have been many Protestant Irish republicans down through the years and their memory is still celebrated by most, if not all, modern-day republicans, "official" or "dissident". Most active and educated republicans who know anything about their politics are very proud of the secular nature of their ideology. (Even Delaney might have an appreciation of that.) If they also happen to be religious, it is a separate and private matter for them, which is rather different to how Protestantism and anti-Catholicism are actually intrinsic to Ulster loyalism.
In practice, religion became intertwined in the conflict between republicanism and unionism in Ireland and came to be a sort of social marker, but that wasn't because Irish republicanism is or was a sectarian ideology. Ireland was Britain's imperial laboratory; it was the first and model example of how to employ the cynical divide-and-rule tactics that it later utilised so effectively in its imperial quest for further power and control around the globe. Religious difference was exploited in Ireland as Britain's hold came under serious threat from the Catholics, Protestants and dissenters of the United Irishmen. With the wind taken out of the sails of their revolt, over time, Catholics and Protestants (in Ulster especially) became more-and-more entrenched in the respective ideologies of republicanism and unionism and the respective identities of Irish and British.
Rogue republicans-in-name and those from republican backgrounds might engage or have engaged in anti-Protestant activities (for example, the killing of Protestants unconnected to unionist/loyalist organisations or British state forces and the attacking or burning of Orange halls simply as symbols of Protestantism*), but they'd be very much misguided if they think an aspiration intrinsic to republicanism is the suppression of Protestantism. One's religion is completely irrelevant to republicanism. As AB says, most republicans aren't that ignorant.
By the way, the book in the link there is by Peter Hadden, who was a Strabane-born Marxist from a Protestant background.
*Although, I don't think you could deny they're also explicit symbols of loyalism. (Not that attacking them for that reason would engender greater justification or anything. Such attacks are imbecilic and deplorable regardless.)
I'd use different terms, to make sure we're comparing like with like. The long-term often violent conflict and resulting mutual mistrust is between two nationality-based political traditions, Irish Nationalism and Ulster Unionism. Other labels (Protestant/ Catholic, British/Irish, Republican/Loyalist etc) are largely a shorthand and often not entirely inaccurate.
I've been a 'PIR' myself, although not at the same time
Can you really be confident about that? Their 'ideology' has been largely confined to one main nationality group in Ireland, failing to attract any significant support from the other. While many active and educated Nationalists still cling to the 'tick-tock' theory: basically that the immediately above doesn't matter, a 50% + 1 Nat majority is inevitable given time. Even though electoral evidence doesn't support it and they're relying on a head-count of nominal Catholics...Most active and educated republicans who know anything about their politics are very proud of the secular nature of their ideology)
See above. Neither the Free Presbyterianism, the DUP, the Monarchy, the Orange Order freemasonry nor the Rangers FC are intinsic to Unionism. I don't follow any of them: most or all are in clear long-term decline. Yet SF and SDLP could only limp to 38% in the May Council elections.If they also happen to be religious, it is a separate and private matter for them, which is rather different to how Protestantism and anti-Catholicism are actually intrinsic to Ulster loyalism
Last edited by Gather round; 30/11/2014 at 12:29 PM.
Had the misfortune to tune into the Wolftone guy on the Joe Duffy show. If thats what passes for republicanism these days, oh my god! All twee and gombeen stuff, and totaling missing the point set out by the Times. Reminds me of the scene in the Savage Eye when the Irish go into battle against the English by singing songs. If we cant even sing our songs..........
I suppose it's difficult to prove. It was my impression, but could be misguided somewhere between personal bias and fanciful hope. I'd thought the celebration and memory of Protestant republicans would be indicative of a sort of secular pride, if you could call it that. "The founders of republicanism were Protestant" is also a familiar declaration you'll hear from republicans fondly reminiscing over the roots of the ideology. It is often stated with a sense of pride (maybe even perceived moral superiority) in how the ideology (at least theoretically) transcends petty sectarianism.
I agree with you. I acknowledge the existence of a secular and civic unionism (as opposed to a more ethnic type) that has nothing to do with Protestantism. Indeed, as you say (PIR; Protestant Irish Republican?) and have made clear before, you are a republican (anti-monarchist) unionist yourself. I was careful to refer to Ulster loyalism, which is wrapped up in notions of Protestant supremacy and ideologically rooted in the protection of biblical Protestantism.See above. Neither the Free Presbyterianism, the DUP, the Monarchy, the Orange Order freemasonry nor the Rangers FC are intinsic to Unionism. I don't follow any of them: most or all are in clear long-term decline.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks