News


Uniting Ireland and the role that the United States can play in achieving this

Partition has not worked and it is time for a completely new structure


American march in support of a United Ireland
American march in support of a United Ireland
Photo by Google Images

Guinness PubFinder Ad

Another formidable argument against partition is that fact that it was forced on the Irish people without their views being taken into account forcing a bloody civil war as a result. This was an undemocratic, foolish and oppressive decision on the part of negotiators and one that many Irish people have refused to accept as legitimate on this basis. It’s time everyone had their voices heard and the issue left in the hands of the Irish people themselves.

Unionists sought the maintenance of British rule with the threat of war in order to protect their own interests- their privileged status in society. They felt that this privilege was sure to disappear in a united Ireland and they resisted equality at all costs. The rights of the Irish nation to self determination has been held hostage since 1922 by a power hungry minority aimed at maintaining their own selfish privileges rather than legitimately becoming a minority in a society based on equality and rights.

This privilege has been facilitated and encouraged by countless British administrations a ruthless colonial force who ravaged the nation and its people for centuries and who ensure Protestantism is a basis for undue privilege. In the 21st century should this be accepted?

The state of Northern Ireland under British rule was the only way that Protestant unionists could guarantee the superior position that they had been granted since plantation. However prior to this realization Unionists had begun the pursuit of an Independent state of Northern Ireland. This leads to the question how strong are the links with Britain? Or are they merely an act of self preservation to ensure the position of one sector of society? What are these so called links to Britain? The British culture that many in the north claim to belong to is nonexistent, these people in fact have their own distinctive culture often a variation of the wider Irish culture. British people have no marching tradition, do not celebrate the 12th July, do not partake in Ulster Scots dancing or any of the other cultural traits some people associate with. Therefore the imagined threat to this culture outside a British jurisdiction is irrelevant and it could assimilate without difficulty into a new political landscape.

We are closer to a united Ireland now than we have ever been and this has proved a success with the DOE, DHSS, tourist’s boards and also the police among others benefiting highly from this increased co-operation.

A clear benefit of re-uniting Ireland would be that the need for planned interaction would subside and the duplications of structures and services would be irradiated this would be more beneficial economically and would save immense time and resources.

British influence in Ireland has been overwhelmingly negative. The brutal colonial force that Britain asserted over hundreds of years on the people of Ireland has had a lasting impact and these policies have caused devastating conflict on its shores. We now have the opportunity to break free from this legacy and create a country where each individual stands on an equal footing sure that they and their input are safeguarded within society. Every Irish person can then experience inclusion and diversity can be a valued asset and safeguard of democracy rather than a dividing force.


Nster.com


186 Comments

15 - 186 | See all comments

CurtisJ..so you claim to have read ALL the contemporary sources? I don't think so...
Daniel O'Connell was at least a contemporary figure and Arthur Young was the most direct and primary source we have for the conditions under which the indigenous population suffered. You're making some ridiculous extrapolation to impute moral culpability on a people who were shattered and oppressed in an extreme sense based upon all of the contemporary BRITISH sources. Moreover, tithing was a religous obligation and the Irish people clung to Catholicism as the last vestige of an independent identity.
Danielle O'Connell?? Sums it up really...I have quoted an author and his sources...sadly you seem unable to accept anything that does not fit wth your Anglophobic take on 19th century Ireland...
You haven't established any foundation for your silly premise, including the timeframe over which funding for these structures was established as well as excluding the possiblity of external fundings. Moreover, an upper echelon of Catholic landowners held on to their wealth and could have provided the funding (for instance, Danielle O'Connell). Furthermore, the attempt at character assassination falls flat in light of the fact that Irish morale, culture, and unity had been destroyed by centuries of occupation (even education was a felony). That post colonial self hatred is still successfully exploited today by the Dublin establishment evidences the level of oppression. It is not unreasonable to conclude that tithing was one of the if not the only communable obligation which remained cognizable to the population at large.
Though strangely for such a 'small' group, they managed to raise plenty of funds for many churches, cathedrals, and religious buildings??? While their countrymen starved??? And that's hardly irrelevant...
The "middle class," whatever this ill defined terms means in the context of penal Ireland, was so small as to make the point largely irrelevant.
My point remains that the Irish, or indigenous Irish, Catholic middle classes preferred putting their spare cash into building churches and cathedrals, while many of their countrymen starved...this is the nub of the authors article...
I'm referring to primary sources such as eyewitness accounts and data - the best example being Arthur Young who provides an unbiased eyewitness account based upon his travels all over penal Ireland.
I am NOT quote mining, as you call it. I am citing this article, and the conclusions drawn…The author cites his sources, here are some more that he cites; Famine, Land and Politics by Peter Gray - Modern Ireland 1600-1972 by Roy Foster - The Great Irish Famine by Cormac O Grada - Landlords and Tenants in Mid-Victorian Ireland by W.E. Black ’47: Britain and the Famine Irish by Frank Neal - Strange Country: Modernity and Nationhood in Irish Writing since 1790 by Seamus Deane - Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy 1800-50 by Joel Mokyr - This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52 by Christine Kinealy Oceans of Consolation: Personal Accounts of Migration to Australia by David Fitzpatrick - The End of the Hidden Ireland: Rebellion, Famine and Emigration by Robert James - Irish Hunger: Personal Reflections on the Legacy of the Famine, edited by Tom Annals of the Famine in Ireland by Asenath Nicholson - The Making of Modern Irish History: Revisionism and the Revisionist Controversy, edited by George Boyce and Alan O’Day.
In order to master a subject you must rigorously study the primary sources rather than gratuitously quote mine (see, for instance, Arthur Young, an Englishmen who travelled througout Ireland for agrarian studies but incidentally documented the widespread abuse and subjugation of the indigenous population). Even the quote does not establish that the vast majority of Irish people did not live in squalor and subjugation during penal Ireland.
I don't have a deinition...I am merely quoting the well-researched opinion of the author...as to how the population of NI lived...where both sides lived in similar standard housing...you're giving a very partial opinion, without evidence...and you need to compare with eg Dublin, where slum housing was also much in evidence...
I'm not debating the author but asking you what your definition was of "middle class" in the context in which you used it. Even taking the quotes at face value, they do not refute that the vast majority of the indigenous population, on balance, lived under appalling conditions throughout the penal period - based upon the accounts of the british themselves. Incidentally, many lived in hovels after 1916-1920. I had friends that visited the occupied statelet as late as the 1960s and observed that the usual standard of living for the indigenous population was below the worst American ghetto.
CurtisJ; I’ve quoted both the article, the author and some of his sources…now you can either do some legwork and enlighten yourself on the real facts of the nuanced, complex society that was 19th century Ireland, or carry on with your stereotypical Irish-American take where all the Catholics lived in mud-floored hovels up until 1916-1920 …it’s up to you?
What then do you mean by "middle class"? What does "substantial" group mean - there are always collaborators in every major historical occupation, particularly when they're as savage and deadly as the british occupation. Moreoever, the fabric of Irish society had long since been shattered.
The author, Colm Tóibín, does not contend that the majority were middle class, and this is never stated, either by him or me…so I don’t know where that came from? Accusations of ‘post-colonial pro-British revisionism’ about someone you seem to know little about, smacks of a typical Pavlovian response to unwelcome assertions…His grandfather, Patrick Tobin (and his grand-uncle Michael Tobin) were IRA men (interned in Wales after the rising)…his contention is that a substantial group of ‘indigenous Irish’ as you call them, were culpable by omission in the suffering of their co-religionists…and that uncomfortable fact has been conveniently ‘air brushed’ out of the historical record…he quotes many sources…the piece is called ‘Erasures’, I suggest you read it, note the sources, and then come back and comment…




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail