Irish president want the Imperialist Queen of England to visit in 2010

[IrishWorker]

Irish president Mary McAleese last night revealed her hopes that Queen Elizabeth will make an historic visit to Ireland next year.

Speaking on a special Christmas edition of the 'Late Late Show' on RTE last night, Mrs McAleese said she hopes a visit by the British monarch will soon be a reality.

"I'd like to think it could happen. I've long since been on the record as saying I think it could be one of the greatest symbols of where we have moved to as a country if we had that great reconciliation with our neighbour," she said.

"We have seen a huge change in the relationship. It's probably the best it's ever been historically. It's friendly, it's fraternal, it's collegial. We wouldn't have a peace process if it wasn't as collegial and as partnership-driven as it is, so we are very fortunate," she said.

President McAleese also made a veiled reference to the resignation of key bishops cited in the Murphy report into the cover-up of clerical sex abuse in the Dublin archdiocese and the national outrage flowing from the publication of the Ryan report into the institutional abuse of children.

"In a way it's us as a Republic coming into maturity now, dealing very confidently with tough, major issues and being quite comfortable no matter how uncomfortable it makes us," she said during the programme.


Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/irish-president-wants-queen-to-visit-in-2010-14615013.html#ixzz0bBNAf9Ti (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/irish-president-wants-queen-to-visit-in-2010-14615013.html#ixzz0bBNAf9Ti)

[KC]

Edit

[IrishWorker]

How exactly is the Queen of England imperialist? :confused:
The whore is the symbolic figure head of a nation with Imperialist interests in the occupation of Ireland Iraq and Afghanistan.
To be honest I hope she dose make the trip as the word on the street is there will be mass opposition and protests from Republican Socialist and traditional Irish Republicans it will give fragmented Irish Republicanism and Socialism a cause to unite on the picket lines.

["Red Scum"]

"I'd like to think it could happen. I've long since been on the record as saying I think it could be one of the greatest symbols of where we have moved to as a country if we had that great reconciliation with our neighbour"

How is this at all bad news??? :confused:

[Sasha]

euhh, she is the offical head of state of an (in the eyes of replublican irish) occupied part of ireland.

[IrishWorker]

"I'd like to think it could happen. I've long since been on the record as saying I think it could be one of the greatest symbols of where we have moved to as a country if we had that great reconciliation with our neighbour"

How is this at all bad news??? :confused:
The historical significance to Republican of having this abomination of a ruling class whore in Ireland and the mass outrage it will cause far outweighs any "benefits" that could come out of the visit.
Her nation’s army still occupies the North Eastern six counties of Ireland whilst the occupation continues she shall never be welcome.

["Red Scum"]

The historical significance to Republican of having this abomination of a ruling class whore in Ireland and the mass outrage it will cause far outweighs any "benefits" that could come out of the visit.
Her nation’s army still occupies the North Eastern six counties of Ireland whilst the occupation continues she shall never be welcome.

At least the ruling class are acknowledging whats been won for Ireland is Irish, but yeah I see your point. This is a bit of a nationalistic cause so I think I'll take an intellectual retreat here.

[IrishWorker]

At least the ruling class are acknowledging whats been won for Ireland is Irish, but yeah I see your point. This is a bit of a nationalistic cause so I think I'll take an intellectual retreat here.
It is certainly not a "nationalistic cause" it is a struggle for National Liberation from Imperialist occupation.
I would agree with you about the Nationalism if when we finally rid ourselves from foreign interference and continue the way things are at the moment but Republican Socialists want not only to "get the brits out" but to topple the ruling class and establish a Marxist Republic.

IF YOU REMOVE THE ENGLISH ARMY TOMORROW AND HOIST THE GREEN FLAG OVER DUBLIN CASTLE. UNLESS YOU SET ABOUT THE ORGANISATION OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC, YOUR EFFORTS WOULD BE IN VAIN.. ENGLAND WOULD STILL RULE YOU, SHE WOULD RULE YOU THRU HER CAPITALISTS, THRU HER LANDLORDS, THRU HER FINANCIERS, THRU THE WHOLE ARRAY OF COMMERICIALLY AND INDIVIDULIST INSTITUTIONS SHE HAS PLANTED IN THIS COUNTRY.......
James Connolly 1913

[Sasha]

Irish woker, please dont use this kind of sexist language (whore), consider this an verbal warning.

[KC]

Edit

["Red Scum"]

What imperialist interests does Britain have in Ireland?
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Northern Ireland

[KC]

Edit

["Red Scum"]

Yes but what imperialist interests does Britain have in it?

You obviously didn't understand my question.

Its not British territory, why is it governed by the crown?

[Demogorgon]

What imperialist interests does Britain have in Ireland?
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Yeah, I find a lot of talk about Ireland on this board ridiculously old fashioned. The actual reality with regards of Northern Ireland is Britain would love to be shot of it while the Republic could hardly be bothered with the expense of incorporating it.

At the time of partition, Britain had a clear interest in maintaining the North for strategic reasons and also because it wanted the industrialised economic centre that was Belfast to remain within Britain. These days it is just a liability.

Within Britain itself, wanting to keep Northern Ireland is actually a minority position. Most people here, myself included, support a United Ireland. Politically the Labour Party tends to favour a United Ireland while the Conservatives and Lib Dems prefer it to remain part of Britain with its own devolved domestic Government but it is highly unrealistic to think any great effort would be made to hang onto it. Even Thatcher considered dividing it again and giving around half of it to the Republic.

I know it is more romantic to think of it as a struggle against imperialism, but these days it is just an embarrassing hangover. If the UK Government thought a referendum in Northern Ireland would lead to reunification winning, they would hold one. The fact is though that the Unionist Community still need to be convinced.

Again as I say, I would love to see Ireland United Again. Indeed I want to see the end of Britain as a political unit, but some of the stuff people on this board believe about the North is utterly divorced from reality.

[IrishWorker]

What imperialist interests does Britain have in Ireland?
[/FONT][/COLOR]
The English ruling class owns vast amounts of land in Ireland and have huge financial investments here and there is the strategic interests.

[KC]

Edit

[BOZG]

The English ruling class owns vast amounts of land in Ireland and have huge financial investments here and there is the strategic interests.

Both of which they could continue to maintain in a United Ireland, except without the expense of subsidising Northern Ireland each year.

The only imperialist interest that Britiain has in maintaining the North as part of the crown is that it avoids the inevitable sectarian warfare that would occur as a result of the forced unification of Ireland. Conflict isn't good for business.

This isn't a direct imperialist interest in maintaining the North, it's just the outcome of the historical legacy of imperialism. If they could break from it, they would.

[Sean]

Yeah, I find a lot of talk about Ireland on this board ridiculously old fashioned. The actual reality with regards of Northern Ireland is Britain would love to be shot of it while the Republic could hardly be bothered with the expense of incorporating it.

At the time of partition, Britain had a clear interest in maintaining the North for strategic reasons and also because it wanted the industrialised economic centre that was Belfast to remain within Britain. These days it is just a liability.

Within Britain itself, wanting to keep Northern Ireland is actually a minority position. Most people here, myself included, support a United Ireland. Politically the Labour Party tends to favour a United Ireland while the Conservatives and Lib Dems prefer it to remain part of Britain with its own devolved domestic Government but it is highly unrealistic to think any great effort would be made to hang onto it. Even Thatcher considered dividing it again and giving around half of it to the Republic.

I know it is more romantic to think of it as a struggle against imperialism, but these days it is just an embarrassing hangover. If the UK Government thought a referendum in Northern Ireland would lead to reunification winning, they would hold one. The fact is though that the Unionist Community still need to be convinced.

Again as I say, I would love to see Ireland United Again. Indeed I want to see the end of Britain as a political unit, but some of the stuff people on this board believe about the North is utterly divorced from reality.
Its not a matter of whiney jingoism, the British Government. While the north itself may well be an economic liability, its ridiculous to think that 1) The UK has no vested interests in the south both economically and strategically or 2) They keep the north because they're packrats that just can't throw it away for sentimental reasons.
I do agree that some talk about the struggle is overly mawkish but I wouldnt say it is completely removed from reality.

[Hoggy_RS]

Both of which they could continue to maintain in a United Ireland, except without the expense of subsidising Northern Ireland each year.

The only imperialist interest that Britiain has in maintaining the North as part of the crown is that it avoids the inevitable sectarian warfare that would occur as a result of the forced unification of Ireland. Conflict isn't good for business.

This isn't a direct imperialist interest in maintaining the North, it's just the outcome of the historical legacy of imperialism. If they could break from it, they would.

So do you support the British army as some sort of peackeepers in the occupied 6 counties? The only sectarian group exsisting in ireland is the loyalists(who certain left wing parties seem happy to work with rather than republicans). They are the reactionary counter-revolutionaries who need to be wiped out.

[IrishWorker]

[QUOTE=BOZG;1638288]Both of which they could continue to maintain in a United Ireland, except without the expense of subsidising Northern Ireland each year.
Maybe in the United Ireland you want to see certainly not in the United Ireland the INLA fought for I dont think it would be in Imperialist Brittans intrests to have a Marxist Republic in its back garden.

The only imperialist interest that Britiain has in maintaining the North as part of the crown is that it avoids the inevitable sectarian warfare that would occur as a result of the forced unification of Ireland. Conflict isn't good for business.


Catch yourself on lad. There is nothing "sectarian" about our revolution loyalist counter revolutionaries would attack us yes but to call it a sectarian is pandering to the British and Irish ruling classes’ version of what happened.


This isn't a direct imperialist interest in maintaining the North, it's just the outcome of the historical legacy of imperialism. If they could break from it, they would.


If they wanted to break it they would they have economic and strategic vested interests here.

[Demogorgon]

Its not a matter of whiney jingoism, the British Government. While the north itself may well be an economic liability, its ridiculous to think that 1) The UK has no vested interests in the south both economically and strategically or 2) They keep the north because they're packrats that just can't throw it away for sentimental reasons.
I do agree that some talk about the struggle is overly mawkish but I wouldnt say it is completely removed from reality.
It's nothing to do with sentimentality, it is the fact they are bound by various agreements not to turn it over to Ireland without a referendum and also because of fears of sectarian bloodshed should it happen (principally the certainty that loyalists would take up arms).

The blunt reality is that firstly the whole situation is embarrassing for Britain and more importantly from the Government's perspective its economy is weak and has far more spent on it than it generates in taxes.

The principle problem in Northern Ireland has always been the systematic discrimination against the Catholic Minority. Not whether the bourgeoisie politicians the run it are located in London, Dublin or Belfast.

As for British interests in the Republic, well obviously, the two countries are interlinked economically. But Ireland is the richer party these days and the Irish ruling class have plenty of interest in Britain too.

I am getting a little weary of latter day De Valeras here.

[Demogorgon]

Maybe in the United Ireland you want to see certainly not in the United Ireland the INLA fought for I dont think it would be in Imperialist Brittans intrests to have a Marxist Republic in its back garden.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Do you really think Britain is keeping a hold on Ireland to hold off a Marxist Republic? The place isn't exactly a bubbling hotbed of revolutionary activity.

[IrishWorker]

Do you really think Britain is keeping a hold on Ireland to hold off a Marxist Republic? The place isn't exactly a bubbling hotbed of revolutionary activity.
I certainly do and you would be an idiot to think otherwise.

["Red Scum"]

I certainly do and you would be an idiot to think otherwise.


:rolleyes:

[Demogorgon]

Yeah, I was rather taken aback by that post. I honestly hadn't expected such brazen fantasy. Revolution in Ireland is hardly any closer than Revolution in Britain.

[IrishWorker]

We only want the world comrades.

[gorillafuck]

We only want the world comrades.
I take that as "I concede the point"?

[IrishWorker]

I take that as "I concede the point"?
Absolutely not, I would say there is allot of work to do but there are genuine committed revolutionaries in Ireland working night and day to bring about the conditions for the Revolution.

[manic expression]

Well, it clearly is British territory.

Against the express will of the Irish nation....

At any rate, IrishWorker is right, the British occupation of Ireland is clearly a reactionary and counterrevolutionary presence, and the sooner it is ended the closer the Irish workers will be to revolution. Further, in defeating British imperialism (British withdrawal from Ireland would be such a defeat), the Irish workers will strike a blow against international capital, and thus it will be a victory for workers across the world.

[KC]

Edit

[Hoggy_RS]

Do you really think Britain is keeping a hold on Ireland to hold off a Marxist Republic? The place isn't exactly a bubbling hotbed of revolutionary activity.
Well there is at the very least 4 armed groups with revolutionary aims with at least a somewhat socialist outlook in Ireland. They are certainly more worried about us than anything happening in England, Wales or Scotland.

[manic expression]

First, I doubt that the majority of the Irish are that enthusiastic about a united Ireland anymore.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13121.asp

Almost 80 per cent of Irish people would like to see a united Ireland. Almost a quarter of voters - 22 per cent - believe that ‘‘delivering a united Ireland should be the government’s first priority’’.

The flame of the Easter Rising burns as bright as ever.


Second, I find it creepy (but not surprising at all coming from you) that you are discussing the "will of the nation" while claiming to be a Marxist. I don't know how much more ridiculous you could get. But then again we all know that you're not really a Marxist, and that this is just one example of your sophomoric politics coming through.

National self-determination has been a key aspect of Marxism since the contributions of the Bolsheviks (most notably Lenin). In fact, it's one of the central differences that distinguishes what we know as communism from other tendencies.


Also, you and all of your other "anti-imperialist" buddies have yet to show how the British control of Northern Ireland is in any way imperialist, probably because of the fact that you don't even know what imperialism is. Lenin would be ashamed.

If Lenin was here, he would support Irish self-determination. Just as he did in his lifetime.

Anyway, I'm not sure why British occupation of Ireland isn't imperialist. Let's look at the facts: imperialism is the development of monopoly capital (what Lenin termed "gigantic usury"), something that was complete in the industrialized nations by around the turn of the century. So if the UK is an imperialist state, and the UK is occupying Ireland, then it's an imperialist occupation. More to the point, the British occupation of Ireland was continued and strengthened during the Cold War because it was strategically important for British imperialist interests. Since the end of the Cold War, the UK has softened its rhetoric and stance a bit, saying that a referendum within occupied Ireland would be honored (which is BS, because it's ignoring the aforementioned overwhelming pro-unification opinion of the Irish nation), but the occupation has not changed in character just because the British bourgeoisie has put a kinder, gentler face on.

If it's not imperialism, then what would you term it, a friendly sleepover? A vacation for the British military? Target practice? I'm interested to hear your take.

[IrishWorker]

First, I doubt that the majority of the Irish are that enthusiastic about a united Ireland anymore.

Second, I find it creepy (but not surprising at all coming from you) that you are discussing the "will of the nation" while claiming to be a Marxist. I don't know how much more ridiculous you could get. But then again we all know that you're not really a Marxist, and that this is just one example of your sophomoric politics coming through.

Also, you and all of your other "anti-imperialist" buddies have yet to show how the British control of Northern Ireland is in any way imperialist, probably because of the fact that you don't even know what imperialism is. Lenin would be ashamed.

I am ashamed of all you trot bag trendys who pander to the establishment.
Imperialist England has a long history of protecting its overseas investments and occupied Ireland is no different. Finance Capitalism is one of the economic reasons England is interested in keeping Ireland occupied as over the years vast sums of money have been pumped into Ireland and I for one cannot see the Imperialists writing this debt off many companies housing developments big businesses have been financed by English banks many of the elite English ruling class have vast lands in Ireland stolen over hundreds of years of occupation from the native small farmers.
Keeping Ireland occupied militarily and politically is essential for the stability of the Ruling Class in England as if Ireland were to become a Socialist state it would no longer fall under Brittan’s sphere of influence and has the capacity to off set the balance of power in the west by economically and militarily aligning itself with a rival superpower.
New Imperialism is alive in Ireland today as much as old Imperialism was alive here 800 years ago.

[Demogorgon]

Against the express will of the Irish nation....

This is exactly the kind of appalling argument that undermines the whole cause of Irish unification. What does the "Irish nation" matter? If people in one part of Ireland want one thing and people in another part want another, why shouldn't they be allowed to go their separate ways.

The reason Ireland should not have been partitioned was that the Catholic minority was subjected to appalling persecution whereas the Protestant minority in the South were not. A United Ireland would not have had the problems a divided one would have. Concepts of what "the nation" might want are utterly irrelevant. De Valera is dead. Let's leave him in his grave please.

These days of course Britain as a political unit needs to be dissolved for a variety of reasons and an obvious part of that is a United Ireland, but do you seriously think that could go ahead without first convincing a majority of people in the North as to the merits of it?

[manic expression]

This is exactly the kind of appalling argument that undermines the whole cause of Irish unification. What does the "Irish nation" matter? If people in one part of Ireland want one thing and people in another part want another, why shouldn't they be allowed to go their separate ways.

The Irish nation matters just like any other nation: it deserves self-determination and the dignity that should be afforded any people. If the sovereignty of the Irish nation is denied, and moreover if the overwhelming wishes of the Irish nation are ignored, then the workers of Ireland lose.

National self-determination matters because...


The reason Ireland should not have been partitioned was that the Catholic minority was subjected to appalling persecution whereas the Protestant minority in the South were not. A United Ireland would not have had the problems a divided one would have. Concepts of what "the nation" might want are utterly irrelevant. De Valera is dead. Let's leave him in his grave please.Exactly. However, the persecution of Catholics was a function of the denial of their national self-determination. Whereas the Republic of Ireland has always offered solidarity with its Protestant population (just look at its flag), the loyalists in the occupied northern counties have offered nothing but the opposite.

Irish national liberation means a blow against the chauvinistic divisiveness that has haunted Irish history for far too long. That means a step forward for Irish workers. That means progress.


These days of course Britain as a political unit needs to be dissolved for a variety of reasons and an obvious part of that is a United Ireland, but do you seriously think that could go ahead without first convincing a majority of people in the North as to the merits of it?Yes, I think it would be possible, even if its not under the most desirable of conditions. It should have been done 100 years ago, or 200 years ago for that matter. The liberation of Ireland need not wait a second longer.

[Demogorgon]

The Irish nation matters just like any other nation: it deserves self-determination and the dignity that should be afforded any people. If the sovereignty of the Irish nation is denied, and moreover if the overwhelming wishes of the Irish nation are ignored, then the workers of Ireland lose.
This is a load of crap. Nations are not indivisible political units. The fact is the majority of people in the North do not want to be part of the Irish Nation at all. I wish that were not the case. I really do and take every opportunity to convince them otherwise, but to somehow claim they should place their desires subservient to "the nation's" desires is disgusting in my opinion.


Exactly. However, the persecution of Catholics was a function of the denial of their national self-determination. Whereas the Republic of Ireland has always offered solidarity with its Protestant population (just look at its flag), the loyalists in the occupied northern counties have offered nothing but the opposite.Describing the Republic of ireland as offering solidarity to anyone is a bit of a stretch. It never engaged in religious persecution but it has been somewhat less than progressive in other matters to say the least.

Part of the reason I have raised the specter of De Valera is he symbolises what the Republic was for many years. It was good that it was free of British dominance of course, but those who had expected the liberation of the Irish people were sorely disappointed. There are romantic notions of Irish independence meaning freedom, but a new gang of oppressors simply took over.


Yes, I think it would be possible, even if its not under the most desirable of conditions. It should have been done 100 years ago, or 200 years ago for that matter. The liberation of Ireland need not wait a second longer.
Exactly what liberation do you think will be achieved by forcing a large number of people who do not wish to be governed by the Irish Government to be governed by them?

[manic expression]

This is a load of crap. Nations are not indivisible political units. The fact is the majority of people in the North do not want to be part of the Irish Nation at all. I wish that were not the case. I really do and take every opportunity to convince them otherwise, but to somehow claim they should place their desires subservient to "the nation's" desires is disgusting in my opinion.

Nations are concrete units. They consist of a people who share a common history, a common language and a common history. Not everyone in the occupied north is Irish, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it is Ireland, and that the Irish living there deserve recognition.

Any referendum that does is not a pan-Irish referendum is wholly invalid. It would be like having a referendum on Quebec independence and only asking the people in anglophile dominated Hudson.

Plus, the majority of the people in the UK want Irish unification, too.


Describing the Republic of ireland as offering solidarity to anyone is a bit of a stretch. It never engaged in religious persecution but it has been somewhat less than progressive in other matters to say the least.

Of course it has been reactionary in many areas (not the least of which would be the defense of private property and the exploitation of Irish workers), but that does not change the fact that Catholics and Protestants in the Republic have not seen the strife that has plagued the occupied counties. Further, workers in the Republic were not subjected to the murderous policies of the British military and not subjected to routine degradation that accompanied occupation.

Defeating the occupation would be a step forward for the workers because of this.


Part of the reason I have raised the specter of De Valera is he symbolises what the Republic was for many years. It was good that it was free of British dominance of course, but those who had expected the liberation of the Irish people were sorely disappointed. There are romantic notions of Irish independence meaning freedom, but a new gang of oppressors simply took over.

Well, the Irish nation was not liberated because a great many of them are still under the British yoke. Yes, the Irish workers had a new set of oppressors, but they had more rights, more dignity and more confidence as a result of it. That is what we are looking for: a step forward, a step that liberates the nation while aiding the liberation of the class.


Exactly what liberation do you think will be achieved by forcing a large number of people who do not wish to be governed by the Irish Government to be governed by them?

I expect national liberation, and a defeat of British imperialism. I don't expect everyone to like it, but then again that's the last thing I've come to expect.

[Demogorgon]

Nations are concrete units. They consist of a people who share a common history, a common language and a common history. Not everyone in the occupied north is Irish, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it is Ireland, and that the Irish living there deserve recognition.Christ, this is despicable. This is reactionary nationalism through and through. "Ireland for the Irish" pretty much in fact.


Any referendum that does is not a pan-Irish referendum is wholly invalid. It would be like having a referendum on Quebec independence and only asking the people in anglophile dominated Hudson.Actually what you are asking for is akin to a Quebec referendum where all of Canada gets to vote.

People in the Republic of Ireland already have their independence. it may be legitimate to ask them if they wish to incorporate the North, but they must not be allowed to tell other people whose sovereignty they come under.


Plus, the majority of the people in the UK want Irish unification, too.

Yes, I have already said that. I am one of those people. However it is not for British people to tell any part of Ireland what it must do.

Well, the Irish nation was not liberated because a great many of them are still under the British yoke. Yes, the Irish workers had a new set of oppressors, but they had more rights, more dignity and more confidence as a result of it. That is what we are looking for: a step forward, a step that liberates the nation while aiding the liberation of the class.

It is an utter cop out to claim that what happened in the Republic was down to the British presence in the North. You think the Republic fell under a bunch of reactionary Catholic Conservatives despised by the British Government simply because of the British presence in the North?


I expect national liberation, and a defeat of British imperialism. I don't expect everyone to like it, but then again that's the last thing I've come to expect.Frankly I don't think you know what you are talking about. Britain once retained Northern Ireland through imperialism, but these days it can't get rid of it. What blow do you think it would do British Imperialism to not have Northern Ireland any more. The most direct effect would be the removal of a major drain on the exchequer.

What you want is the placement of a large number of people under a Government they do not wish to be ruled by for the sake of your silly national romanticism.

[manic expression]

Christ, this is despicable. This is reactionary nationalism through and through. "Ireland for the Irish" pretty much in fact.

It stops being despicable when you recognize the reality of nationhood, the dynamics of imperialism and the plight of Irish workers under the yoke of occupation. Once you do that, it's quite progressive.


Actually what you are asking for is akin to a Quebec referendum where all of Canada gets to vote.

Wrong. The Quebecois nation is a distinct people, with a common historical experience, a shared historical region and a common language (especially if you ask a Parisian :lol:). A valid referendum on Quebec independence would take all of Quebec into account.


People in the Republic of Ireland already have their independence. it may be legitimate to ask them if they wish to incorporate the North, but they must not be allowed to tell other people whose sovereignty they come under.

The Republic of Ireland is only one part of Ireland. I don't want to see the liberation of only 13/16 counties of Ireland, just as I don't want to liberate 13/16ths of the proletariat and leave the rest to fend for themselves.

Further, not only is the occupied north a creation of British oppression, it is part of Ireland whether or not you or Gordon Brown or the Queen recognizes that fact.


Yes, I have already said that. I am one of those people. However it is not for British people to tell any part of Ireland what it must do.

No, it's not, but both the Irish nation and the peoples of the UK support Irish unification. The loyalist quasi-fascists in the occupied north (along with their imperialist backers) are standing against this strong show of international solidarity. It's very obvious what the situation is.


It is an utter cop out to claim that what happened in the Republic was down to the British presence in the North. You think the Republic fell under a bunch of reactionary Catholic Conservatives despised by the British Government simply because of the British presence in the North?
Frankly I don't think you know what you are talking about. Britain once retained Northern Ireland through imperialism, but these days it can't get rid of it. What blow do you think it would do British Imperialism to not have Northern Ireland any more. The most direct effect would be the removal of a major drain on the exchequer.

That's not my contention, my contention is that the workers of the Republic of Ireland took a large step forward in defeating imperialism and gaining self-determination. It is my contention that national liberation pushes forward the interests of workers, not only in their immediate conditions but in their confidence and ability to challenge capitalism.


What you want is the placement of a large number of people under a Government they do not wish to be ruled by for the sake of your silly national romanticism.

Socialism would do the exact same thing, so I don't find that to be a very persuasive argument.

You can't make everyone happy, welcome to politics. The question is who you stand with, and why.

[Invader Zim]

Nations are concrete units.

On the contrary, nations are social constructs about as concrete as a fart in the wind. In the 10,000 years of human civilisation in the geographical area we call Ireland the nation of Ireland, as a concept, has only been a recent invention. Indeed the irony is that if the Norman's hadn't invaded Ireland, and in doing so effectively dissolved the petty kingdoms that had previously split the island the idea of a united Ireland, and with it an Irish nation, would not have existed (at least as early as it eventually did). They exist only as an idea to consolidate the power of the various rival vying elements of the ruling order over the geographical area currently under their control.

As for the question initially raised in this thread, I couldn't care less. If the Irish president wants to invite our powerless German (to pander to the popular (mis)conceptions regarding 'nationality' being banded around this thread) puppet figure-head, and ghastly tribute to obsene tradition, to Ireland in the name of building bridges then more fool her. I doubt it will work in Ireland and I doubt most people in England, Scotland and Wales will notice or care one little bit even if they did.

[Hoggy_RS]

I tire of this trotskyite too cool for national self-determination shite. They dodge the national question in Ireland in favour of trying to appeal to unionists with their anti-republicanism bullshit. The way to uniting the working class is not through siding with reactionary scum in favour of progressive movements which happen to be supported by the catholic minority in the occupied 6 counties. They fight imperialism, unless it is happening in their own backyard.


This is exactly the kind of appalling argument that undermines the whole cause of Irish unification. What does the "Irish nation" matter? If people in one part of Ireland want one thing and people in another part want another, why shouldn't they be allowed to go their separate ways.

The reason Ireland should not have been partitioned was that the Catholic minority was subjected to appalling persecution whereas the Protestant minority in the South were not. A United Ireland would not have had the problems a divided one would have. Concepts of what "the nation" might want are utterly irrelevant. De Valera is dead. Let's leave him in his grave please.

These days of course Britain as a political unit needs to be dissolved for a variety of reasons and an obvious part of that is a United Ireland, but do you seriously think that could go ahead without first convincing a majority of people in the North as to the merits of it?

you do realise that De Valera is one of the most hated Irish figures by republicans?

[Weezer]

We only want the world comrades.

Stop trying to disguise nationalism as worker friendly.

[IrishWorker]

Stop trying to disguise nationalism as worker friendly.
Stop twisting peoples ideology too suit your bias outlook on the Irish National Liberation struggle.

[Hoggy_RS]

Stop trying to disguise nationalism as worker friendly.

Yawn, we've heard it all before. Nationalist this, anti worker that. We don't give a shit about your obscure views of what it is to be a socialist, we just get on with it.

[Weezer]

Stop twisting peoples ideology too suit your bias outlook on the Irish National Liberation struggle.

While you're looking to unite Ireland, the rest of us will be busy uniting Workingmen of all countries.

[IrishWorker]

Yawn, we've heard it all before. Nationalist this, anti worker that. We don't give a shit about your obscure views of what it is to be a socialist, we just get on with it.
Well said, Hoboman is an "Irrelevant" as they say.

[IrishWorker]

While you're looking to unite Ireland, the rest of us will be busy uniting Workingmen of all countries.
A simple fact that you "Irrelevants" overlook is you cant have Socialism in Ireland whilst part of it is under imperialist occupation.

[Weezer]

A simple fact that you Irrelevants overlook is you cant have Socialism in Ireland whilst part of it is under imperialist occupation.

Maybe if you would stop practicing self-harm on your country, perhaps Ireland would still be one.

[IrishWorker]

Maybe if you would stop practicing self-harm on your country, perhaps Ireland would still be one.
Self Harm??

[Weezer]

Self Harm??

Don't pretend like you don't know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing)

[Invader Zim]

Stop twisting peoples ideology too suit your bias outlook on the Irish National Liberation struggle.
I don't think anyone has; rather they have just pointed out the holes in your thinking. Your obsession with the concept of nation and nationality may have been in vogue several decades ago, but now I think most on the left see it as a reactionary (to employ the common misuse of the term), artifical and unnecessary division of people that serves only to benefit the ruling order (be they British or Irish). I also think your idea of Britain and British imperialism is also sorely outdated. The reality today is that Britain is a pathetic 'n'th rate former power whose major foreign policy consists of doing what it is told by the USA. It has been, for the most part with a few obvious exceptions, shedding its empire (which became an economic burden rather than resource) for the past five decades and, as noted, would doubtless do the same of Northern Ireland if their weren't obvious violent consequences in doing so. But therein lies the problem, Britain probably would have been shot of Northern Ireland a years ago if it weren't for the violence. Few elected politicans, with any instinct for career self-preservation, were going to publically support Irish republicanism when that implied capitulating to violence.

[Hoggy_RS]

Don't pretend like you don't know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing)

what kind of ignorant prick are you? what has the IRSM and republican socialist like Irish Worker and myself got to do with what went on in Omagh. I hope you realise that the group who were behind that, were heavily inflitrated by the Brits who put no stop to it. Disgraceful bombing and nothing to do with us.

You obviously know nothing of the republican socialist movement.

[IrishWorker]

Don't pretend like you don't know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing)
I do not support armed struggle at this moment in time and neither dose the movement I support the INLA have been on ceasefire since 1998.
The conditions for armed struggle do not exist in Ireland today our liberation will come through radical political activism and the building of the Irish class consciousness.
War with England is not a viable strategy the INLA fought a war for 30 years and were militarily defeated by the Imperialists so our struggle has changed and our strategy has changed.
The conditions for our revolution will not come through the barrel of a gun but from the will of the people.

[Weezer]

what kind of ignorant prick are you? what has the IRSM and republican socialist like Irish Worker and myself got to do with what went on in Omagh. I hope you realise that the group who were behind that, were heavily inflitrated by the Brits who put no stop to it. Disgraceful bombing and nothing to do with us.

You obviously know nothing of the republican socialist movement.

Perhaps I don't. I don't dabble into pointless nationalism, socialist or not.

[IrishWorker]

Perhaps I don't. I don't dabble into pointless nationalism, socialist or not.

From the looks of your tendency you don’t seem to dabble in any politics tell me when exactly is the Neon Revolution coming?

[Demogorgon]

It stops being despicable when you recognize the reality of nationhood, the dynamics of imperialism and the plight of Irish workers under the yoke of occupation. Once you do that, it's quite progressive.

I think we can add racism to your long list of flaws right about now. Quite how "Ireland for the Irish" differs from "Britain for the British" is beyond me. The idea that we are somehow attached to nationhood and must accept to be part of that nation even if we do not wish to be is a horrible one.


Wrong. The Quebecois nation is a distinct people, with a common historical experience, a shared historical region and a common language (especially if you ask a Parisian :lol:). A valid referendum on Quebec independence would take all of Quebec into account.Quite apart from the fact that plenty of people regard Canada as a distinct nation. You have utterly contradicted yourself. The anglophone community of Quebec are culturally closer to the rest of Canada than they are to the francophone majority. Do you have any intellectual backflips to grandfather them into your concept of the "Quebec Nation"?

Further, not only is the occupied north a creation of British oppression, it is part of Ireland whether or not you or Gordon Brown or the Queen recognizes that fact.

Well I would like to consider it a part of Ireland, and judging from his outlook before he became silent on the matter, Gordon Brown would too. As for the view of the Queen, who can say?

However the view of the three of us is completely irrelevant. What counts is whether the people in Northern Ireland regard it as part of Ireland. As of yet, the majority do not.


No, it's not, but both the Irish nation and the peoples of the UK support Irish unification. The loyalist quasi-fascists in the occupied north (along with their imperialist backers) are standing against this strong show of international solidarity. It's very obvious what the situation is.

You are just showing your ignorance and stupidity here. You would think after generations of misery, people might learn to stop playing the "us and them" game that has torn up Northern Ireland. Though I suppose from safely across the Atlantic it can be quite fun to play the game.

Protestant people in Northern Ireland largely support remaining part of Britain. That does not make them quasi-fascist or any other stupid insult you want to throw at them.


You can't make everyone happy, welcome to politics. The question is who you stand with, and why.
Yes and who do you stand with? Those who would push an extremely right wing view of nationhood by the looks of things.

[Invader Zim]

what kind of ignorant prick are you? what has the IRSM and republican socialist like Irish Worker and myself got to do with what went on in Omagh. I hope you realise that the group who were behind that, were heavily inflitrated by the Brits who put no stop to it. Disgraceful bombing and nothing to do with us.

You obviously know nothing of the republican socialist movement.
I doubt hoboman was reffering to you personally, rather the morbid legacy of nationalism in Ireland in general. As for Irish Republican "socialists", it is not as if they too do not have a legacy of horribly mis-guided violence.

[Demogorgon]

you do realise that De Valera is one of the most hated Irish figures by republicans?
Which is the great irony of sounding just like him.

[IrishWorker]

I doubt hoboman was reffering to you personally, rather the morbid legacy of nationalism in Ireland in general. As for Irish Republican "socialists", it is not as if they too do not have a legacy of horribly mis-guided violence.
Very true, but when faced with an oppressive aggressive military occupation I’m sure anyone would do the same.
Maybe even you?

[IrishWorker]

Which is the great irony of sounding just like him.
De Valera cannot be compared to Republican Socialists members of the movement I support and my best mate are in prison right now due to legislation that scumbag brought in.

[Demogorgon]

De Valera cannot be compared to Republican Socialists members of the movement I support and my best mate are in prison right now due to legislation that scumbag brought in.
De Valera had precisely the views on nationalism that you spout. The fact is you claim to hate him. And for what he did in Government over the many decades he ruled Ireland, you probably do. But the reality is you are behaving just like he once did.

If you don't mind my asking. What was the legislation?

[Invader Zim]

Very true, but when faced with an oppressive aggressive military occupation I’m sure anyone would do the same.
Maybe even you?

Perhaps, but I should like to think that a third of my victims wouldn't be civilians. It strikes me that killing those I am purportedly attempting to liberate is rather counter productive, no?

[IrishWorker]

De Valera had precisely the views on nationalism that you spout. The fact is you claim to hate him. And for what he did in Government over the many decades he ruled Ireland, you probably do. But the reality is you are behaving just like he once did.

If you don't mind my asking. What was the legislation?
De Valrea never proclaimed to be a socialist quite the opposite.


Offences against the state act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_against_the_State_Acts_1939%E2%80%931998

[IrishWorker]

Perhaps, but I should like to think that a third of my victims wouldn't be civilians. It strikes me that killing those I am purportedly attempting to liberate is rather counter productive, no?
Many mistakes were made.

[Demogorgon]

De Valrea never proclaimed to be a socialist quite the opposite.

Quite so, which is my point. He was a reactionary Conservative with pretty extreme Catholic Fundamentalist views who in hindsight we should count ourselves lucky did not become the Irish Salazar. Which is exactly why I am pointing out that in all the nonsense about nationhood we are hearing, you sound like him.

[Invader Zim]

Many mistakes were made.

Well I am glad to see we agree on that. But I rather think that you have confirmed Hoboman's point, that the violence, often directed (either intentionally or otherwise) at Irish civillians was massively counter productive, and arguably actually sabotaged the cause of national liberation by setting the overwhelming opinion of British voters firmly against Irish republicanism. While in an ideal world their opinion shouldn't have mattered, in reality it did because it meant that few politicians could be seen to agree with the cause.

[IrishWorker]

Quite so, which is my point. He was a reactionary Conservative with pretty extreme Catholic Fundamentalist views who in hindsight we should count ourselves lucky did not become the Irish Salazar. Which is exactly why I am pointing out that in all the nonsense about nationhood we are hearing, you sound like him.
Communism will not just spring up simultaneously across the world overnight each state will have experience a proper socialist society before this happens and the IRSM believe that Ireland will never experience true socialism whilst divided and occupied.
Hence uniting the country under a socialist republic is a step towards a stateless world.

[Demogorgon]

Communism will not just spring up simultaneously across the world overnight each state will have experience a proper socialist society before this happens and the IRSM believe that Ireland will never experience true socialism whilst divided and occupied.
Hence uniting the country under a socialist republic is a step towards a stateless world.
There are some rather big presumptions there. It seems to be somewhat of a stretch to say a United Ireland would bring socialism. If Ireland were united tomorrow, the Government would carry on as before with the added bonus of Ian Paisley in the Dail.

Indeed one of the most dramatic changes you would see would be all the "business friendly" policies the "Celtic Tiger" adopted being brought in in the North.

[IrishWorker]

There are some rather big presumptions there. It seems to be somewhat of a stretch to say a United Ireland would bring socialism. If Ireland were united tomorrow, the Government would carry on as before with the added bonus of Ian Paisley in the Dail.

Indeed one of the most dramatic changes you would see would be all the "business friendly" policies the "Celtic Tiger" adopted being brought in in the North.
That is why the IRSM stands out from the rest of the Republican movements in Ireland as a United Ireland is not enough a Socialist Republic is our end goal and even after that is achieved internationally spreading our revolution will be a forefront policy.
I wish you wouldn’t label us "erps" as Nationalists as it shows how little you actually know about our movement.

[IrishWorker]

Well I am glad to see we agree on that. But I rather think that you have confirmed Hoboman's point, that the violence, often directed (either intentionally or otherwise) at Irish civillians was massively counter productive, and arguably actually sabotaged the cause of national liberation by setting the overwhelming opinion of British voters firmly against Irish republicanism. While in an ideal world their opinion shouldn't have mattered, in reality it did because it meant that few politicians could be seen to agree with the cause.

I know it sounds crude but "war is war" mistakes are made people die it happened and with the benefit of hindsight allot of things might have been different.
Understand that it is all a learning curve and it needed to happen for Republican Socialists to get to the place politically they are in today.
They were dangerous times.
Hoboman had no point he was trying to use the Omagh bombing as a stick to beat our ideology.

[Soldier of life]

Can we keep the far left infantilism out of this thread please, it really does become tiresome. Ye have absolutely no concept of progressiveness, its all or nothing with ye isn't it, and while ye hold that attitude ye will never achieve your aims.

Britain has strategic and economic interests in Ireland, of course it does, but these are somewhat more complex than plain predatory imperialism like it once was in Ireland. England must remain in Ireland because any sort of revolution here would have a huge galvanising effect of workers across western Europe, in Scotland where their struggle for independence is gaining momentum Irish independence would surely be the copper-fastening of Scotish independence also. If this were to happen, Britains presense on the UN security council would be under review aswell as their influences in many other vital bodies like the IMF,WTO etcetc So in effect not only has Britain an interest in the Irish economcy, the ramifications of a revolution here would have a seriously detrimental effect on the ruling class in Britain.

National Liberation in the Irish context is an essential pre-requisite for the establishment of a revolutionary socialist state. People who believe the workers struggle in Britain could sort out Northern Irelands division among the working class obviously have absolutely no understanding of Loyalism or the Belfast Agreement. Sectarian and thus worker division is now a part of the state structure in the North, it is the basis of the stability of the 'peace process'. But this process has not alleviated sectarianism as the facts show, whether it be through increased numbers of peace walls literally dividing workers or through institutional sectarianism with regard to social issues, Unionist dominance is far from shattered.

The only solution to this is a republican socialist movement, a marxist leninist movement in other words. The trotskyite approach in the North of simple economism has made absolutely no headway there, because class politics just doesnt have room to breathe when identity politics and consociationalism is the order of the day. A movement, a revolutionary socialist one, must grow from republican roots. The progressive nature of Irish republicanism and the nationalism of the oppressed against its native and foreign oppressor must be harnessed and moulded into a revolutionary socialist approach, this is what the IRSP will attempt.

Its very easy for the infantiles to just say 'oh just have a revolutionand get rid of the state', but they hhave no understanding of the cauldron that is the North of Ireland. For normal class forces to develop the retardation of it, ie. the preoccupation in Irish politics throughout history with the national question, must be cast aside. A United Ireland is essential to socialism, and socialism to a truly free Ireland.

[IrishWorker]

Can we keep the far left infantilism out of this thread please, it really does become tiresome. Ye have absolutely no concept of progressiveness, its all or nothing with ye isn't it, and while ye hold that attitude ye will never achieve your aims.

Britain has strategic and economic interests in Ireland, of course it does, but these are somewhat more complex than plain predatory imperialism like it once was in Ireland. England must remain in Ireland because any sort of revolution here would have a huge galvanising effect of workers across western Europe, in Scotland where their struggle for independence is gaining momentum Irish independence would surely be the copper-fastening of Scotish independence also. If this were to happen, Britains presense on the UN security council would be under review aswell as their influences in many other vital bodies like the IMF,WTO etcetc So in effect not only has Britain an interest in the Irish economcy, the ramifications of a revolution here would have a seriously detrimental effect on the ruling class in Britain.

National Liberation in the Irish context is an essential pre-requisite for the establishment of a revolutionary socialist state. People who believe the workers struggle in Britain could sort out Northern Irelands division among the working class obviously have absolutely no understanding of Loyalism or the Belfast Agreement. Sectarian and thus worker division is now a part of the state structure in the North, it is the basis of the stability of the 'peace process'. But this process has not alleviated sectarianism as the facts show, whether it be through increased numbers of peace walls literally dividing workers or through institutional sectarianism with regard to social issues, Unionist dominance is far from shattered.

The only solution to this is a republican socialist movement, a marxist leninist movement in other words. The trotskyite approach in the North of simple economism has made absolutely no headway there, because class politics just doesnt have room to breathe when identity politics and consociationalism is the order of the day. A movement, a revolutionary socialist one, must grow from republican roots. The progressive nature of Irish republicanism and the nationalism of the oppressed against its native and foreign oppressor must be harnessed and moulded into a revolutionary socialist approach, this is what the IRSP will attempt.

Its very easy for the infantiles to just say 'oh just have a revolutionand get rid of the state', but they hhave no understanding of the cauldron that is the North of Ireland. For normal class forces to develop the retardation of it, ie. the preoccupation in Irish politics throughout history with the national question, must be cast aside. A United Ireland is essential to socialism, and socialism to a truly free Ireland.
Very well put sol.

[Weezer]

From the looks of your tendency you don’t seem to dabble in any politics tell me when exactly is the Neon Revolution coming?

You are blind. The Neon Revolution has begun.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I'm all for the idea of a United Ireland, but the Queen should not visit. If it involves the monarchy it can't be called progress.

[IrishWorker]

You are blind. The Neon Revolution has begun.
Sorry I must have blinked and missed it.

[Weezer]

Sorry I must have blinked and missed it.

*sigh*

You must have blinked and missed the sarcasm in that post too.

[ponyfang]

I see the points being put out here. whether we liek it or not NI is just the first step in the collective reconstructment of that part of europe. You see we have Ireland (republic), NI, Wales, Scotland, and finally good ol Britin. now. Personally i think that area of the world could be the "United KINGDOMS" in a sense that they are united KINGDOMS not provinces directed by the monarchy/parliment/imperial/whatever but in a sense they are governed by a council of the four each having its own nation's representative who represents under his nations banner. England=flag st. george scotland=st andrews. etc. the fact that those areas Are in fact governed by a directorial government proves the point that Britin is land hungry. Or that fact that "The only problem with Scotland is its full of Scots." if you catch my drift. So why not give (or reclaim for all us Belfast brigadiers) NI for the republic. Why not return Scotland and Wales and from there create a stabel group of societies in which more open trade and economy can be created. four countries with so many members in the represenative council means more opinions and more brains. But right now all we have over there is parlament.

[gorillafuck]

Absolutely not, I would say there is allot of work to do but there are genuine committed revolutionaries in Ireland working night and day to bring about the conditions for the Revolution.
I don't concretely know why Britain is still in Northern Ireland, but I really don't think that it's due to a fear of communist revolution.

[IrishWorker]

I don't concretely know why Britain is still in Northern Ireland, but I really think that it's due to a fear of communist revolution.
I have pointed out why they are still here dont try to be a smart arse as it dosent suit you.

[gorillafuck]

I have pointed out why they are still here dont try to be a smart arse as it dosent suit you.
How the hell was I being a smart-ass right there?

Edit: Oh, I didn't put "don't' in there. Sorry, I see what you mean.

[IrishWorker]

How the hell was I being a smart-ass right there?
I detected a bit of sarcasm, I apologies if I was wrong.

[manic expression]

On the contrary, nations are social constructs about as concrete as a fart in the wind. In the 10,000 years of human civilisation in the geographical area we call Ireland the nation of Ireland, as a concept, has only been a recent invention. Indeed the irony is that if the Norman's hadn't invaded Ireland, and in doing so effectively dissolved the petty kingdoms that had previously split the island the idea of a united Ireland, and with it an Irish nation, would not have existed (at least as early as it eventually did). They exist only as an idea to consolidate the power of the various rival vying elements of the ruling order over the geographical area currently under their control.

None of this contradicts my position.

What, you're telling me history is made by the decisions of mortals? I'm quite aware of that. Those decisions, however, do affect the development of nations as concrete units. To say that the historical experience of the Irish is any less valid just because the Norman Invasion wasn't an inevitable destiny is meaningless: the historical experience is no different because of it. The same can be said of any nation's historical experience.

What's the rest of your argument, that the Irish nation has not always existed? Well gosh golly, I don't remember saying that the Irish nation was eternal and ever-lasting, do you? Right, I thought so. The Irish nation could have developed 15 years or 15 minutes ago and my argument would be the same. Sorry, better luck next time.

Nations share a common history, a common language and a common geographical region. Nothing you've said comes close to refuting this, because nationality is a reality.

[BOZG]

So do you support the British army as some sort of peackeepers in the occupied 6 counties? The only sectarian group exsisting in ireland is the loyalists(who certain left wing parties seem happy to work with rather than republicans). They are the reactionary counter-revolutionaries who need to be wiped out.

Where did I imply that they were some sort of peacekeepers? The historic legacy of British imperialism in Ireland of propping up unionism has meant that they've dug themselves into a quagmire. They can't leave because any attempt to force Northern protestants into a united Ireland would be met with physical resistance and would lead to effective civil war. The only result would either be physical repression of over half the population of the North by the Southern state or a sectarian response by the Catholic community to repress any resistance by Protestants and force them into a united Ireland. That is sectarian whether you believe it is or not.

Yes, loyalism is a reactionary ideology to the core. But the vast majority of Northern Protestants accept some form of Unionist ideology at this point, either out of their heritage or because of the legitimate concerns they have of being scapegoated and treated as a second class citizens in a united Ireland. How exactly do you plan on dealing with that or is just a simple case of wiping them all out?

[BOZG]

Maybe in the United Ireland you want to see certainly not in the United Ireland the INLA fought for I dont think it would be in Imperialist Brittans intrests to have a Marxist Republic in its back garden.

Catch yourself on lad. There is nothing "sectarian" about our revolution loyalist counter revolutionaries would attack us yes but to call it a sectarian is pandering to the British and Irish ruling classes’ version of what happened.

If they wanted to break it they would they have economic and strategic vested interests here.

We're not talking about a socialist united Ireland, we're talking about whether British imperialism could maintain its economic interests if there was a united Ireland tomorrow which it would absolutely be able to do. But more importantly, it could do so without the extra costs of subsidising the North economy each year as well as maintaining the costs of a police force and an army.

If imperialism internationally was able to maintain its economic interests in the neo-colonial world, without maintaining a direct and physical presence, what makes the North so different?

[manic expression]

I think we can add racism to your long list of flaws right about now. Quite how "Ireland for the Irish" differs from "Britain for the British" is beyond me. The idea that we are somehow attached to nationhood and must accept to be part of that nation even if we do not wish to be is a horrible one.

Probably because "British" is not a nationality, and because national liberation would be the end of "Great Britain" as we know it.

You might see nationality as a horrible thing, but feeling remorse over the fact that we do carry the histories of yesterday would be like getting all bent over gravity. It's just a part of the world whether you like it or not.


Quite apart from the fact that plenty of people regard Canada as a distinct nation. You have utterly contradicted yourself. The anglophone community of Quebec are culturally closer to the rest of Canada than they are to the francophone majority. Do you have any intellectual backflips to grandfather them into your concept of the "Quebec Nation"?Anglo (for lack of a better term here) Canadians are certainly a nation. However, Canada is made up of many different nations: in addition to the anglophones, you have the Quebecois and various American Indian nations as well.

In the event of national liberation for Quebec, the rights of anglophones would be paramount, and any infringement upon their rights (denial of their language, etc.) would run contrary to the principles of self-determination. Just as the Republic of Ireland, for all its many faults, has respected Protestants, it is reasonable to assume that a sovereign Quebec could very well respect non-Quebecois communities as well. If it didn't, that would be another issue to tackle within the framework of national self-determination.


Well I would like to consider it a part of Ireland, and judging from his outlook before he became silent on the matter, Gordon Brown would too. As for the view of the Queen, who can say?

However the view of the three of us is completely irrelevant. What counts is whether the people in Northern Ireland regard it as part of Ireland. As of yet, the majority do not.That's a selective pool and we both know it. If you want to know if the Irish people (in effect, really, the Irish workers) want Irish unity, ask the Irish people, not a fraction of them. Such a selective referendum makes no sense. Would you ask the people of Maine and only Maine on an issue that affects the whole of New England (or the US, for that matter)?


You are just showing your ignorance and stupidity here. You would think after generations of misery, people might learn to stop playing the "us and them" game that has torn up Northern Ireland. Though I suppose from safely across the Atlantic it can be quite fun to play the game.

Protestant people in Northern Ireland largely support remaining part of Britain. That does not make them quasi-fascist or any other stupid insult you want to throw at them.The unionists are quasi-fascist, their purposeful attacks on Catholic civilians and their insistence on promoting segregation are proof of this. I didn't call Protestants anything at all, so don't muddle the issue of how reactionary the forces of reaction in occupied Ireland really are.

The Protestant people in occupied Ireland are only one part of Ireland. Why side with the overwhelming minority opinion just because the British imperialists drew a border across Ireland almost a century ago? Do you not view the partition as illegitimate?


Yes and who do you stand with? Those who would push an extremely right wing view of nationhood by the looks of things.The Republican Socialists of Ireland are far from "an extremely right wing view" of anything, and our comrades in Ireland carry on a long tradition of tremendous struggles for progress that have provided inspiration to workers the world over.

[manic expression]

If imperialism internationally was able to maintain its economic interests in the neo-colonial world, without maintaining a direct and physical presence, what makes the North so different?

I think there is quite a direct and physical presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to the 737 American military bases across the globe (they just set up a spanking-new "command center" for Africa a few years ago). Getting the imperialists out of those countries would certainly be a step forward for workers. A lack of a direct imperialist presence in Venezuela, for instance, has allowed the workers to organize and push forward their interests. If US troops were sitting in Venezuela like they are in Colombia, the situation would far less encouraging.

Also, decolonization was an important step for revolutionary working-class struggles in countries like Vietnam, Laos, Angola, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Korea and elsewhere. The value of defeating neo-colonial holdings is well-demonstrated by history.

[Invader Zim]

What, you're telling me history is made by the decisions of mortals? I'm quite aware of that.

No, that isn't what I'm telling you at all. My point regarded the social construction of nationhood and nationality, not the impetus of historical events which is an interesting discussion but not one suited to this thread.

But let us go through your assessment of what defines nationhood and nationality. Firstly 'common geography'. As noted the actual geographic regions occupied by nations fluctuate, what is at one point in one nation on one year can soon be in another. Furthermore how much less is shared in common between two factory workers living either side of a border than a stockbroker living two hundred miles away though in the same nation? I would say that they actually have a lot more in common than they do with the stockbroker.

So let us move onto the idea that nationhood is defined by shared 'common language'. I live Wales, and I don't speak Welsh. My partner was born in Wales and has lived her entire life here, as have her parents and grandparents, she doesn't speak Welsh. Yet I have met Welsh people who, prior to attending university, had never learned English. Furthermore what of the numerous different countries that share the same language?

And finally 'common history'. This is perhaps the most dubious of your suggestions. It is also one that is the most supprising because it happens to be one of the primary argument of fascists, because it automatically excludes migrants from being assimilated within the nationality.

So, I'm sorry, but I don't accept any of your criteria of what defines nationality and nationhood.

Edit: I have removed the comments in which I reply to you in kind; let's try to keep this grown up.

[manic expression]

If that is what you took to be the point of my post then you are sorely in need of improving your grasp of language;

Indeed the irony is that if the Norman's hadn't invaded Ireland, and in doing so effectively dissolved the petty kingdoms that had previously split the island the idea of a united Ireland, and with it an Irish nation, would not have existed (at least as early as it eventually did).

Indeed the irony is that without the development of industry by the bourgeoisie, the proletariat would not have existed. Does that mean we shouldn't promote the interests of the workers?


But let us go through your rather crude assessment of what defines nationhood and nationality. Firstly 'common geography'. As noted the actual geographic regions occupied by nations fluctuate, what is at one point in one nation on one year can soon be in another. Furthermore how much less is shared in common between two factory workers living either side of a border than a stockbroker living two hundred miles away though in the same nation? Not a fucking lot is my guess.Of course they can fluctuate, but the definition is a general one. France's modern borders were not always so, but the geographical area that is now predominately "French" is a congruent one.

The division between classes is of course also present, but that's not the point, living in a shared geographic region forges a common experience and identity within a community. You can deny that all you like, but people do identify with the areas they come from.


So let us move onto the even stupider idea that nationhood is defined by shared 'common language'. I live Wales, and I don't speak Welsh. My partner was born in Wales and has lived her entire life here, as have her parents and grandparents, she doesn't speak Welsh. Yet I have met Welsh people who, prior to attending university, had never learned English. Furthermore what of the numerous different countries that share the same language?Both Welsh and English are used by the Welsh nation, each to varying degrees. This linguistic makeup is a shared one that you will be hard-pressed to find elsewhere. The development of nations is far from uniform, far from clear-cut, and the Welsh nation is a perfect example.

And on countries that share the same language, they oftentimes lack the other qualities that define a nation: Mexico and Argentina, for example, have histories and geographical regions that are very different and unique.


And finally 'common history'. This is perhaps the most laughable of your suggestions, and it also happens to be the argument of fascists, because it automatically excludes migrants.OK, right, the experience of the middle passage and slavery and its legacies are completely negligible, and further it's all an imaginary argument of fascists...is that really the argument you want to make?

[Hoggy_RS]

Perhaps I don't. I don't dabble into pointless nationalism, socialist or not.
Good you admit you don't know shit. Now troll another thread.


Where did I imply that they were some sort of peacekeepers? The historic legacy of British imperialism in Ireland of propping up unionism has meant that they've dug themselves into a quagmire. They can't leave because any attempt to force Northern protestants into a united Ireland would be met with physical resistance and would lead to effective civil war. The only result would either be physical repression of over half the population of the North by the Southern state or a sectarian response by the Catholic community to repress any resistance by Protestants and force them into a united Ireland. That is sectarian whether you believe it is or not.

Yes, loyalism is a reactionary ideology to the core. But the vast majority of Northern Protestants accept some form of Unionist ideology at this point, either out of their heritage or because of the legitimate concerns they have of being scapegoated and treated as a second class citizens in a united Ireland. How exactly do you plan on dealing with that or is just a simple case of wiping them all out?
They should be converted to our way of thinking through class politics and social activism that crosses sectarian borders. I think the SP has alienated those who are from nationalist backgrounds in the O6C. I don't see why the SP can attempt to work with the scum of the PUP but then completley ignore republican socialist groups.

[Demogorgon]

Probably because "British" is not a nationality, and because national liberation would be the end of "Great Britain" as we know it.
Well by your definition of nationality there probably is a British nation. However if you prefer not to use that example, how is it different from "England for the English"?

Incidentally for all your talk of the "Irish Nation" I am pleased to say that in recent years Ireland has become a rather diverse place. There are a large number of immigrants, particularly a large number of people from the Indian Subcontinent and also a fair number of black people.

Silly nationalistic notions of "shared culture and history" fall away when you realise the place has people from all sorts of backgrounds and cultures living side by side.


Anglo (for lack of a better term here) Canadians are certainly a nation. However, Canada is made up of many different nations: in addition to the anglophones, you have the Quebecois and various American Indian nations as well.

In the event of national liberation for Quebec, the rights of anglophones would be paramount, and any infringement upon their rights (denial of their language, etc.) would run contrary to the principles of self-determination. Just as the Republic of Ireland, for all its many faults, has respected Protestants, it is reasonable to assume that a sovereign Quebec could very well respect non-Quebecois communities as well. If it didn't, that would be another issue to tackle within the framework of national self-determination.

You are contradicting yourself here. You are justifying Quebec independence (which for the record I support) with statements that French Canadians form a different nation from anglophone Canadians. However a substantial number of people in Quebec are not French speakers whereas a substantial number outside of Quebec are. It seems to me that if you want to be consistent here, you should actually be arguing for boundaries to be redrawn so that English speaking parts of Quebec remain part of Canada but perhaps other areas, particularly in Newfoundland should become part of a new country?

The same seems to follow from your logic when it comes to Ireland. YOu have told us what constitute the "Irish Nation" in your view, but the majority of people in Northern Ireland don't fall into that definition. It seems to then follow that it should not be considered Irish. You could argue that the minority is sufficient. But there is also a sizeable minority in the West of Scotland (myself included) who fall under your definition of the Irish nation. Should the West of Scotland also become part of Ireland then?

Note that I don't think any of the above, but it seems that your logic is what we need to conclude.


That's a selective pool and we both know it. If you want to know if the Irish people (in effect, really, the Irish workers) want Irish unity, ask the Irish people, not a fraction of them. Such a selective referendum makes no sense. Would you ask the people of Maine and only Maine on an issue that affects the whole of New England (or the US, for that matter)?If the issue was whether Maine wishes to be part of the United States, then yes I would ask them only. In the case of Uniting Ireland it may well be legitimate to ask people in the Republic if they wish to incorporate the North (as doing so would almost certainly mean higher taxes it might be political suicide not to), but that vote could only determine whether or not the Republic accepted the North. Not whether the North would have to join. Like it or not, people in the North also have the right to self determination and nobody should be allowed to vote to expand their borders without the consent of those who will fall under the established borders.


The unionists are quasi-fascist, their purposeful attacks on Catholic civilians and their insistence on promoting segregation are proof of this. I didn't call Protestants anything at all, so don't muddle the issue of how reactionary the forces of reaction in occupied Ireland really are.Here is the pot calling the kettle black. Sectarian attacks have been equally vicious on both sides.. And very often have had very little to do with politics.


The Republican Socialists of Ireland are far from "an extremely right wing view" of anything, and our comrades in Ireland carry on a long tradition of tremendous struggles for progress that have provided inspiration to workers the world over.
I doubt many people are that inspired by the few lunatics who still refuse to observe the ceasefire, that is for sure. As for the rest, people seem to misunderstand what a lot of it was about.

The principal problem in Northern Ireland until the early seventies was the appalling behaviour of the Government in Stormont, not the one in London whose chief crime was turning a blind eye. The Stormont Government was not composed of officials from Britain and indeed operated almost like a quasi-independent state at times. Anyway, the said Government operated what can only be called an apartheid state. Catholics were effectively disenfranchised and systematically discriminated against. But the thing is, this was done by what you term Irish Protestants. Not by the British who were clearly very discomforted by this but put in a position where it was impossible to intervene until the troubles broke out.

So you see what was actually happening was inter-Irish oppression. Its existence is why we can say with certainty now that Ireland should not have been partitioned, because it probably couldn't have happened in a United Ireland, but the fact is that time has passed and we are left with two political units. What matters now above all else is undoing the injustice that was done in the North and making sure it can't happen again. The question of a single Government is much less important.

[Revy]

The breakup of Britain is probably inevitable as well, in fact, a majority of English apparently support the idea. 2010 will be the year when the issue of Scottish independence is voted on in a referendum.

[Invader Zim]

ME: quoting yours truly:

Indeed the irony is that if the Norman's hadn't invaded Ireland, and in doing so effectively dissolved the petty kingdoms that had previously split the island the idea of a united Ireland, and with it an Irish nation, would not have existed (at least as early as it eventually did).

Indeed, that was a piece of trivia to go with the point that the geographic region that defines the location of national borders are the subject to the whims of the ruling classes, and that the 'nations' and 'nationalities' created by these groups bear no actual physical reflection on the individuals living within them.



Indeed the irony is that without the development of industry by the bourgeoisie, the proletariat would not have existed. Does that mean we shouldn't promote the interests of the workers?

Again, you seem to have missed the point.


"French" is a congruent one.

Well nobody seems to have told that to certain elements of Corsican society.


living in a shared geographic region forges a common experience and identity within a community.

But by your own admission the actual boundries of the regions in question are subject to shift and change, and as also noted there is no 'common experience' held by all members within the region. Individuals living in the same class circumstances a few hundred yards - yet in different nations - from each other have far more of a common experience with each other than they do with those of a different class, and therefore culture, hundreds of miles away yet still within the same nation. The destinction you are trying to make is an arbitrary one, and more importantly one that benefits the ruling class and needs to be exposed and pulled down.


but people do identify with the areas they come from.

Sure they do, many also dispise those who don't come from that same region; a prime reason why the construct needs to be deconstructed both publically and swiftly.


Both Welsh and English are used by the Welsh nation, each to varying degrees. This linguistic makeup is a shared one that you will be hard-pressed to find elsewhere. The development of nations is far from uniform, far from clear-cut, and the Welsh nation is a perfect example.

And it is also a prime example that yopu are talking out of your ass if you think that 'common language' defines nationality. Quite simply it doesn't. People speak all manner of different languages within a single geographic area yet may, or may not consider themselves to be of the relevent nationality, and therefore the idea of a shared 'common language' is obvious nonsense.


OK, right, the experience of the middle passage and slavery and its legacies are completely negligible,

What a ludicrous point, the experience of slaves on the Middle Passage is not unique to any one single nation and has nothing to do, what so ever, with nationality. It certainly is a factor in defining individual identity, but that is not the same thing.


and further it's all an imaginary argument of fascists...is that really the argument you want to make?

Well as it isn't the argument I did make, that is something of a foolish question. Drop the strawman and try again.

[Demogorgon]

The breakup of Britain is probably inevitable as well, in fact, a majority of English apparently support the idea. 2010 will be the year when the issue of Scottish independence is voted on in a referendum.
It probably won't be actually. It has to go through parliament first and the opposition parties have enough votes to block it. I suspect that particular issue will drag on for years, if not decades yet. Scotland will probably become semi-independent (a bit like the new relationship Greenland has to Denmark) in a while, but the actual process of independence will drag on a long time.

[Demogorgon]

And it is also a prime example that yopu are talking out of your ass if you think that 'common language' defines nationality. Quite simply it doesn't. People speak all manner of different languages within a single geographic area yet may, or may not consider themselves to be of the relevent nationality, and therefore the idea of a shared 'common language' is obvious nonsense.

Yeah, that was a strange one indeed. I can think of many countries with several languages and while in some, like Canada and Belgium that leads to political friction, in others such as Finland, Switzerland, Singapore, China and so on, there has been no significant trouble.

[BOZG]

I think there is quite a direct and physical presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to the 737 American military bases across the globe (they just set up a spanking-new "command center" for Africa a few years ago). Getting the imperialists out of those countries would certainly be a step forward for workers. A lack of a direct imperialist presence in Venezuela, for instance, has allowed the workers to organize and push forward their interests. If US troops were sitting in Venezuela like they are in Colombia, the situation would far less encouraging.

Also, decolonization was an important step for revolutionary working-class struggles in countries like Vietnam, Laos, Angola, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Korea and elsewhere. The value of defeating neo-colonial holdings is well-demonstrated by history.

Because there's a need for a physical presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, without which, imperialism economic interests could not be sustained. There's also the issue of strategic military interests in having a great military presence in the region. Neither of these apply to the North. The Southern bourgeoisie is not going to attack whatever economic interests the British ruling class has in the North and the economic importance of the UK to trade in the South means that whatever economic links exist today in the North are unlikely to be touched. There is also no real strategic military importance of staying in the North either.

As for the military bases, yes they're still there but imperialism has still been able to relinquish direct administrative control because it can economically control and dominate those countries, without the overhead costs of occupying them. Such would be the case in the North. Those military bases do serve a strategic purpose which I accept but they're not comparable to the North.

And yes, the colonial struggles were of huge importance and were a defeat to imperialism but the removal of the British state from the North would not have the same impact as it did in the colonial countries. The British ruling class would already like to leave the North. It would not be a defeat for them.

[BOZG]

They should be converted to our way of thinking through class politics and social activism that crosses sectarian borders. I think the SP has alienated those who are from nationalist backgrounds in the O6C. I don't see why the SP can attempt to work with the scum of the PUP but then completley ignore republican socialist groups.

At a certain point, the PUP were making certain moves towards left positions and gaining a minor echo amongst working class Protestants for those positions. Was that a contradiction with loyalism? Absolutely. But such is capitalism and such is consciousness. Contradictions exist! The point we made at the time was that those contradictions could not exist forever. Either the PUP would move to the left and break with loyalism or it would turn back towards loyalism. But while they were moving to the left, it was important to take steps towards loyalist workers who might be moving to the left, which is what we did. Was it about making links with David Irvine? No. It was about making links with people who might be turning towards the PUP because they were talking some left rhetoric and about using it as a platform to raise class politics with those workers. Whereas the position of Republicanism of all colours and hues has been to write off all Loyalist or Unionist workers as reactionary or counter-revolutionary until the moment they break with Loyalism and Unionism. They ignore the fact that contradictions exist in those communities as they do in any community.

We don't ignore republican socialist groups. They're too busy writing us off as Her Majesty's Socialists or in some cases, we've felt that we couldn't even them to debate with us because of their involvement in intimidating our members.

[ls]

They are certainly more worried about us than anything happening in England, Wales or Scotland.

There is hardly anything about them on the news here, except for the news in NI and in the ROI. Furthermore, I've never seen Brown or any other member of government express 'worry' about republican socialists. I have however seen them squirm when workers' struggles like the 2006 postal strike in NI happened. Large important strikes in southern Ireland have been on the news when they've happened too.

Even during the 80s, I doubt you could say they usurped the amount of attention the miners got, nonetheless they obviously got a lot of attention and were certainly more than "worried" about, but basically your initial claim is absolutely not true.

[Pogue]

And I suppose the Trotskyist revolution in Ireland would happilly sidestep that minor issue of Loyalism, sectarianism and the British fucking Army in the north.

[manic expression]

Indeed, that was a piece of trivia to go with the point that the geographic region that defines the location of national borders are the subject to the whims of the ruling classes, and that the 'nations' and 'nationalities' created by these groups bear no actual physical reflection on the individuals living within them.

Not true. Germany is one nation, and yet for almost a century it was two countries. The same goes for Ireland today: one nation divided by political borders.

Oh, and while you're addressing this point, perhaps you could touch on the fact that your line of logic would lead us to abandon recognition of the proletariat. After all, it is a relatively modern result of human actions. That's precisely your argument for denying the Irish nation?


Well nobody seems to have told that to certain elements of Corsican society.

That's because Corsica is not French. Nowhere did I imply as much, as I wasn't talking about political borders but nationality.


But by your own admission the actual boundries of the regions in question are subject to shift and change, and as also noted there is no 'common experience' held by all members within the region.

It is my argument that individuals from the same nation do share common experiences. I showed as much above. Just because they don't live all exactly the same doesn't change this, although you're trying to convince yourself that this is the case.


Sure they do, many also dispise those who don't come from that same region; a prime reason why the construct needs to be deconstructed both publically and swiftly.

Great logic. We should do away with identification with locale because some use it for reactionary ends. Has it ever occurred to you that this is not the only way of applying such a sentiment? You might as well promote the abolition of belief in divinity, since religious conflict has caused hatred throughout history. Hell, you might as well abolish clothes and music, since I've met individuals who dislike people who listen to x style of music or wear y brand of clothing.


And it is also a prime example that yopu are talking out of your ass if you think that 'common language' defines nationality. Quite simply it doesn't. People speak all manner of different languages within a single geographic area yet may, or may not consider themselves to be of the relevent nationality, and therefore the idea of a shared 'common language' is obvious nonsense.

So you're not going to pursue the point you yourself initially raised. I see.


What a ludicrous point, the experience of slaves on the Middle Passage is not unique to any one single nation and has nothing to do, what so ever, with nationality. It certainly is a factor in defining individual identity, but that is not the same thing.

Of course it is, the experience of American slavery and of American abolition and its legacies is unique to the Black nation, and it defines that nation to a great extent.

"We are Africans, and we happen to be in America..." - Malcolm X

This historical experience has been central for the lives of Blacks. Your problem is that you deny the possibility of a collective identity, an identity shared by people due to commonalities. This would argue against class consciousness as well as nationality.


Well as it isn't the argument I did make, that is something of a foolish question. Drop the strawman and try again.

And finally 'common history'. This is perhaps the most laughable of your suggestions, and it also happens to be the argument of fascists, because it automatically excludes migrants.

All I did was apply your words to the common history of the Black nation.

[manic expression]

Yeah, that was a strange one indeed. I can think of many countries with several languages and while in some, like Canada and Belgium that leads to political friction, in others such as Finland, Switzerland, Singapore, China and so on, there has been no significant trouble.

I believe you're confusing "country" with "nationality". They are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

The Quebecois of Canada, who primarily speak French (or a unique dialect of it, depending on whom you ask) are a separate nation from those who would primarily call themselves Canadian. The historical experiences of the Quebecois, their language and their geographic region all mark them out as distinct from the rest of Canada.

Belgium is a very clear-cut example of a multinational country (like Canada). The Walloons and the Flemish speak different languages (all Belgians learn both, but there is no question the two nations speak different languages at home and usually in their home communities as well), have different histories and inhabit distinct geographical regions. Thus, they are two distinct nations that make up one multinational country.

The same can be said for Finland (Finns, Sami, etc.), Switzerland (German Swiss, French Swiss and Italian Swiss), China (too many nations to name) and other multinational countries.

[Demogorgon]

I believe you're confusing "country" with "nationality". They are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

The Quebecois of Canada, who primarily speak French (with a unique dialect) are a separate nation from those who would primarily call themselves Canadian. The historical experiences of the Quebecois, their language and their geographic region all mark them out as distinct from the rest of Canada.

Belgium is a very clear-cut example of a multinational country (like Canada). The Walloons and the Flemish speak different languages (all Belgians learn both, but there is no question the two nations speak different languages at home and usually in their home communities as well), have different histories and inhabit distinct geographical regions. Thus, they are two distinct nations that make up one multinational country.

The same can be said for Finland (Finns, Sami, etc.), Switzerland (German Swiss, French Swiss and Italian Swiss), China (too many nations to name) and other multinational countries.
You are just making it up as you go along now. Belgium might be an example of a multi-national country, but it is ridiculous to claim Switzerland for instance is. Indeed you are playing a very dangerous game trying to identify nationality with language (not least because it will soon trip you up, Northern Ireland speaks the same language as Britain after). If we are going to look too much at language then we are going to have to ask some difficult questions, like what constitutes the German nation? Specifically whether it contains Austria. After all German came about through the joining of a number of different German speaking states and it was largely historical accident that Austria did not become part of that. I mean it wasn't as if Bavaria for instance had a shared experience with Prussia, that it lacked with Austria, so are you going to claim Austria is in reality part of the German nation? If you are, I need hardly tell you who that puts you in bed with. If not, how does it fit in with what you are saying?

Or another difficult one. What about the Afrikaner nation? Where do you stand on all the rhetoric that has come from that direction?

Let's turn to Finland now. Are Swedish speaking Finns not really proper Finns at all, do they belong to the Swedish nation? Should Sweden annex Swedish speaking parts of Finland then?

Moving beyond just language, was much of what happened in Bosnia and related problems stemming from a desire for a "greater Serbia" founded in a legitimate desire to unite the "Serb nation"?

You are playing an extremely dangerous game here. You are not approaching this from the same direction as some of the specters I have raised here, or at least I hope not. But you are on the very verge of agreeing with them.

[manic expression]

You are just making it up as you go along now. Belgium might be an example of a multi-national country, but it is ridiculous to claim Switzerland for instance is. Indeed you are playing a very dangerous game trying to identify nationality with language (not least because it will soon trip you up, Northern Ireland speaks the same language as Britain after). If we are going to look too much at language then we are going to have to ask some difficult questions, like what constitutes the German nation? Specifically whether it contains Austria. After all German came about through the joining of a number of different German speaking states and it was largely historical accident that Austria did not become part of that. I mean it wasn't as if Bavaria for instance had a shared experience with Prussia, that it lacked with Austria, so are you going to claim Austria is in reality part of the German nation? If you are, I need hardly tell you who that puts you in bed with. If not, how does it fit in with what you are saying?
The misconception you have is that any definition of nationality assumes that nations are eternal and unchanging. This is not the case. "Germany" is not an ancient concept, as with "Italy" and others. That being said, I hold that Bavaria is a distinct nation within the country of Germany, just as Baltic Germans (who can be found all over Germany today) are. The same goes for Austria.

If we assume that all German speakers are part of a German nation, then the Volga Germans would be no different from the German speakers of Saarbrucken or Schleswig. That's obviously untrue due to the criteria I specified earlier.


Or another difficult one. What about the Afrikaner nation? Where do you stand on all the rhetoric that has come from that direction?
That's not a difficult one at all. The Afrikaners are a distinct nation. The fact that the Afrikaner bourgeoisie denied national self-determination to the Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana and other Black African nations of South Africa doesn't change this at all.


Let's turn to Finland now. Are Swedish speaking Finns not really proper Finns at all, do they belong to the Swedish nation? Should Sweden annex Swedish speaking parts of Finland then?
It's not about "proper Finns" (a subjective judgment), it's just about the nationality of an individual. Someone who lives in Finland but speaks Swedish at home, has a Swedish family and so on and so forth can definitely be a citizen of the country of Finland, but they are still Swedish. Just like Russians in the Baltic states, citizenship and nationality are not the same thing.


Moving beyond just language, was much of what happened in Bosnia and related problems stemming from a desire for a "greater Serbia" founded in a legitimate desire to unite the "Serb nation"?
Right, just like Nazism was based on rhetoric about strengthening and defending the German nation from a variety of conspiracies. But that has nothing to do with my argument. What you're trying to do is equate recognition of nationality with right-wing suppression of nations they hate.

It would be like equating the recognition of religion with the Crusades, or the recognition of language with the proscription of minority languages by reactionary regimes.

[Demogorgon]

The misconception you have is that any definition of nationality assumes that nations are eternal and unchanging. This is not the case. "Germany" is not an ancient concept, as with "Italy" and others. That being said, I hold that Bavaria is a distinct nation within the country of Germany, just as Baltic Germans (who can be found all over Germany today) are. The same goes for Austria.You are tripping over your own logic here and bringing up Italy is a case in point because historically Italy was politically highly fragmented but not so much culturally. Indeed Italian Unification was precisely what should have happened by your logic because it did away with artificial fragmentation of a united nationality.

The difference between Italian and German Unification was that Italian Unification was more or less neatly finished (with only little things like San Marino left out) whereas Germany left a big bit out. You are going to struggle to find a clear reason by your logic to keep Austria separate (again note, these are not my own views). Of course you could say-as you seem to be doing-that Germany itself is an artificial unit, but that certainly isn't the feeling in Germany. Unlike many other European countries, there is no significant political movement in any particular region asking for independence.


If we assume that all German speakers are part of a German nation, then the Volga Germans would be no different from the German speakers of Saarbrucken or Schleswig. That's obviously untrue due to the criteria I specified earlier.
Sure there are differences, but they are probably less so than the differences between majority Irish culture and the culture of the Ulster Protestants who form the majority in Northern Ireland.

Also to take another example-Scotland. I presume you think Scotland should be considered a national unit? Thing is there is a vast difference between the highlands and lowlands. The central belt where I live is far more like the North of England than it is the Scottish Highlands, but I have never heard anyone claim that Scotland should be considered to be more than one nation.


That's not a difficult one at all. The Afrikaners are a distinct nation. The fact that the Afrikaner bourgeoisie denied national self-determination to the Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana and other Black African nations of South Africa doesn't change this at all.
Oh boy, you have struck a nasty one here. I was originally going to challenge you on whether you support a Volkstaat, but you have raised something even more sinister. See, the anti-apartheid struggle was broadly about South African Unity, but there was also a very particular and strong push for black unity and rejection of the apartheid doctrine that black people should be divided up into different "nations". You seem to think that Zulus, Xhosa and so on should be viewed as separate nations when millions fought for liberation against that very idea. This is precisely why I am calling your views highly reactionary.


It's not about "proper Finns" (a subjective judgment), it's just about the nationality of an individual. Someone who lives in Finland but speaks Swedish at home, has a Swedish family and so on and so forth can definitely be a citizen of the country of Finland, but they are still Swedish. Just like Russians in the Baltic states, citizenship and nationality are not the same thing.
What? It might simply be that you don't know much about this particular example, which is understandable, but you have drawn a silly comparison. Russians in the Baltic states are generally regarded as Russian that is true, largely because they see themselves that way, but Swedish speaking Finns are just that, Swedish speaking Finns, not Swedes. That's why Finland defines itself clearly as a bilingual nation and indeed the outside view of Finland is clearly informed by that with even the name we use for it being the Swedish language name, not the Finnish one.

Yet you seem to think Swedish speaking Finns should be regarded differently. Why? That is the exact opposite of what we should be arguing.


Right, just like Nazism was based on rhetoric about strengthening and defending the German nation from a variety of conspiracies. But that has nothing to do with my argument. What you're trying to do is equate recognition of nationality with right-wing suppression of nations they hate.

It would be like equating the recognition of religion with the Crusades, or the recognition of language with the proscription of minority languages by reactionary regimes.No, there is a clearly Serbian part of Bosnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republika_Srpska) that by your argument should be split from Bosnia and made part of an enlarged Serbia. Is that what you support? If not, why not?

[manic expression]

You are tripping over your own logic here and bringing up Italy is a case in point because historically Italy was politically highly fragmented but not so much culturally.
I wasn't comparing Italy to Germany directly, I was using it as an example of a concept that is quite recent.


The difference between Italian and German Unification was that Italian Unification was more or less neatly finished (with only little things like San Marino left out) whereas Germany left a big bit out. You are going to struggle to find a clear reason by your logic to keep Austria separate (again note, these are not my own views). Of course you could say-as you seem to be doing-that Germany itself is an artificial unit, but that certainly isn't the feeling in Germany. Unlike many other European countries, there is no significant political movement in any particular region asking for independence.

Germany isn't an "artificial unit", but there are multiple Germanic-speaking nations. I've explained this point before in relation to Bavaria.


Also to take another example-Scotland. I presume you think Scotland should be considered a national unit? Thing is there is a vast difference between the highlands and lowlands.

That's not necessarily a national division. For example, there is a big difference in culture between the norten~os and suden~os in Mexico. Differences in culture do not automatically translate into distinct nations.


Oh boy, you have struck a nasty one here. I was originally going to challenge you on whether you support a Volkstaat, but you have raised something even more sinister. See, the anti-apartheid struggle was broadly about South African Unity, but there was also a very particular and strong push for black unity and rejection of the apartheid doctrine that black people should be divided up into different "nations". You seem to think that Zulus, Xhosa and so on should be viewed as separate nations when millions fought for liberation against that very idea. This is precisely why I am calling your views highly reactionary.

South African unity was a progressive step. What was "united", however? "Unity" implies a previous state of disunity along certain lines. The various nations of South Africa were united. The Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana and other Black African peoples are distinct nations, but the problem is dividing them against one another, which is what the apartheid state tried to do (especially when it allowed right-wing Zulu parties to carry "traditional weapons" into protests). Progressives promote the self-determination of South African nations, which meant specifically the enfranchisement of all nations within South Africa.

Basically, what the anti-apartheid movement was fighting for was the RIGHTS of all nations of South Africa. If you actually think the thinkers of the movement saw all South Africans as the same, you need to read some Steve Biko...really, really badly.

Again, you're trying to equate recognition of nationality with whatever fits your agenda, which is dishonest. You call my views reactionary, but you consistently show that your conception of my views is based largely on what you're falsely ascribing to them instead of what I've written.


What? It might simply be that you don't know much about this particular example, which is understandable, but you have drawn a silly comparison. Russians in the Baltic states are generally regarded as Russian that is true, largely because they see themselves that way, but Swedish speaking Finns are just that, Swedish speaking Finns, not Swedes. That's why Finland defines itself clearly as a bilingual nation and indeed the outside view of Finland is clearly informed by that with even the name we use for it being the Swedish language name, not the Finnish one.

Nationality is not necessarily determined by what country they are identified with. Do you see the Sami as "Sami speaking Finns"? Do you see Blacks as "African-Americans"? Do you see Quebecois as "French speaking Canadians"? Nationality goes beyond the country of residence, it is about the criteria I have spoken of earlier.


No, there is a clearly Serbian part of Bosnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republika_Srpska) that by your argument should be split from Bosnia and made part of an enlarged Serbia. Is that what you support? If not, why not?
I'm aware of that, but it's no justification for the right-wing Serbian denial of Bosnian (and Croatian, and...) national self-determination. You're saying that since right-wing Serbs rejected national self-determination...so should we. The progressive step would be the recognition of the rights of all nations in the region, as well as enfranchisement for all peoples. This is what happened in South Africa.

[Demogorgon]

That's not necessarily a national division. For example, there is a big difference in culture between the norten~os and suden~os in Mexico. Differences in culture do not automatically translate into distinct nations.

You are contradicting yourself over and over. I don't think you are even arguing the same position you were a few days ago. You told us a nation was defined by shared language, culture history and so on and now you are saying they don't necessarily define a nation after all. Well what is a nation, what you want it to be?

To come back to the original topic, your definition of a nation would clearly define Ulster Protestants as highly distinct nationally speaking from the rest of Ireland, yet you started this silly line of argument in an effort to prove that they should not be allowed to separate themselves from the rest of Ireland. Which is it?


South African unity was a progressive step. What was "united", however? "Unity" implies a previous state of disunity along certain lines. The various nations of South Africa were united. The Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana and other Black African peoples are distinct nations, but the problem is dividing them against one another, which is what the apartheid state tried to do (especially when it allowed right-wing Zulu parties to carry "traditional weapons" into protests). Progressives promote the self-determination of South African nations, which meant specifically the enfranchisement of all nations within South Africa.

Basically, what the anti-apartheid movement was fighting for was the RIGHTS of all nations of South Africa. If you actually think the thinkers of the movement saw all South Africans as the same, you need to read some Steve Biko...really, really badly.No, you are confusing the highly diverse culture of South Africa with it being different nations. If we follow your logic through, the ideal South Africa would have looked something like the model De Klerk wanted of a dozen or so semi-independent states grouped in a federation with multi-racial leadership (a system designed to let the whites keep as much of what they had out of black hands as possible). That was very clearly against what the liberation struggle in South Africa was about.


Again, you're trying to equate recognition of nationality with whatever fits your agenda, which is dishonest. You call my views reactionary, but you consistently show that your conception of my views is based largely on what you're falsely ascribing to them instead of what I've written.

I think you would like to think your views are progressive, but are a mere hair's breadth from what I have been alluding to here. I think the best description I could use for your views is "confused" and I dearly hope that is the correct one. But they are anathema to the left certainly.


Nationality is not necessarily determined by what country they are identified with. Do you see the Sami as "Sami speaking Finns"? Do you see Blacks as "African-Americans"? Do you see Quebecois as "French speaking Canadians"? Nationality goes beyond the country of residence, it is about the criteria I have spoken of earlier.
I see people as being people and think they should be allowed to associate with whomever they please. You are determined to separate people, to look for divisions. And the irony is as I have said, you have given as fierce an argument as could possibly be given for keeping Ireland separate!

I hope you do see the inconsistency in your views and try to amend them accordingly. Despite having seen a fair bit of social conservatism from you on other matters lately, you probably genuinely are progressive, but this confused view of nationality you have will certainly undermine all that.


I'm aware of that, but it's no justification for the right-wing Serbian denial of Bosnian (and Croatian, and...) national self-determination. You're saying that since right-wing Serbs rejected national self-determination...so should we. The progressive step would be the recognition of the rights of all nations in the region, as well as enfranchisement for all peoples. This is what happened in South Africa.
Do you think the Serbian Republic should be incorporated into Serbia or not?

[manic expression]

You are contradicting yourself over and over. I don't think you are even arguing the same position you were a few days ago. You told us a nation was defined by shared language, culture history and so on and now you are saying they don't necessarily define a nation after all. Well what is a nation, what you want it to be?

I've applied the same definition to all the examples you've brought up. I've explained the existence of multiple nations with the same language, I've explained the fact that nationality does not correspond to political borders. Keep ignoring that, though.


To come back to the original topic, your definition of a nation would clearly define Ulster Protestants as highly distinct nationally speaking from the rest of Ireland, yet you started this silly line of argument in an effort to prove that they should not be allowed to separate themselves from the rest of Ireland. Which is it?

No, it wouldn't, you haven't supported this because it's a false claim.


No, you are confusing the highly diverse culture of South Africa with it being different nations. If we follow your logic through, the ideal South Africa would have looked something like the model De Klerk wanted of a dozen or so semi-independent states grouped in a federation with multi-racial leadership (a system designed to let the whites keep as much of what they had out of black hands as possible). That was very clearly against what the liberation struggle in South Africa was about.

Another example of misrepresentation and historical naivete on your part. The "Bantustans" were simply a way for apartheid to suppress Black African nations while cleaning their hands of directly administrating those areas. Israel does the same thing when they give Palestinians "sovereignty" in areas that are inherently economically insufficient, which makes the Palestinian Authority hamstrung at best. It's an old trick to deny national self-determination.

National self-determination in South Africa meant one South African state with all its nations enfranchised. That's what the anti-apartheid movement wanted.

And I see that you're still ignoring Steve Biko, so I suggest you stop disrespecting the ideas of anti-apartheid fighters when you can't understand what they are.


And the irony is as I have said, you have given as fierce an argument as could possibly be given for keeping Ireland separate!

Have fun trying to explain that with a modicum of logic. Oh wait, you won't, because you can't. Have fun, though.


I hope you do see the inconsistency in your views and try to amend them accordingly. Despite having seen a fair bit of social conservatism from you on other matters lately, you probably genuinely are progressive, but this confused view of nationality you have will certainly undermine all that.

See previous challenge.


Do you think the Serbian Republic should be incorporated into Serbia or not?

The real question is whether or not Serbians living outside of Serbia deserve self-determination. Yes, they do. By the same token, do Bosnians deserve self-determination? Yes, they do. The Serbian right-wing tried to deny that nation self-determination, which is what you're trying to do by denying Bosnia even exists! :lol: Progressive oppose both in favor of national liberation.

[robbo203]

Or another difficult one. What about the Afrikaner nation? Where do you stand on all the rhetoric that has come from that direction?

.

Good point. There were many on the British left whose sympathies clearly lay with the Boers in the Anglo-Boer war. Indeed, much of their oppostion to British imperialism was based on crude anti-semitism. Keir Hardie wrote in 1900 that "The war is a capitalist' war, begotten by capitalists' money, lied into being by a perjured mercenary capitalist press, and fathered by unscrupulous politicians, themselves the merest tools of the capitalists ... As Socialists, our sympathies are bound to be with the Boers. Their Republican form of Government bespeaks freedom, and is thus hateful to tyrants ..."

The enemy of an enemy is not necessarily friend. The naive leftist view that we must "fight imperialism" - rather than oppose global capitalism -and side with the "oppressed nations" can all too often trip itself up and the Boer war was a good example of this. In contrast , the forthright socialist position on war is that we do not take sides in capitalist wars or sanction the killing of one group of workers by another.

I do wonder what the position would be of those leftists who support nationalism in relation to the modern Afrikaners today. Presumably they would be joining hands with the far right Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (does the AWB still exist?) in calling for the restoration of the Boer republics! That would seem to follow if you talk about the Afrikaners as being a distinct nation

Whatever happened to the idea that the "workers of the world have no country"

[Demogorgon]

I just lost the reply I wrote so I will make this one very brief as I am not writing this again

No, it wouldn't, you haven't supported this because it's a false claim.
Your definition of nation "Nations are concrete units. They consist of a people who share a common history, a common language and a common history[sic]"

There is no way you can use that (silly) definition and not define Ulster Protestants as their own nation. After sanctimoniously telling us how "national self determination" is the goal, you seem awfully keen to ignore it when your logic comes round to bite you


Another example of misrepresentation and historical naivete on your part. The "Bantustans" were simply a way for apartheid to suppress Black African nations while cleaning their hands of directly administrating those areas. Israel does the same thing when they give Palestinians "sovereignty" in areas that are inherently economically insufficient, which makes the Palestinian Authority hamstrung at best. It's an old trick to deny national self-determination.You don't know enough history, only little bits and pieces that seem romantic. See I wasn't talking about the Bantustans but rather the negotiations in the early nineties (much too dull I am sure) and the position De Klerk initially pushed there. Seems to me that position was the logical one according to your argument.


The real question is whether or not Serbians living outside of Serbia deserve self-determination. Yes, they do. By the same token, do Bosnians deserve self-determination? Yes, they do. The Serbian right-wing tried to deny that nation self-determination, which is what you're trying to do by denying Bosnia even exists! :lol: Progressive oppose both in favor of national liberation.
It isn't me denying Bosnia exists. You are the one squirming here, once again trying to make your position consistent with the silly things you have already argued.

[manic expression]

Your definition of nation "Nations are concrete units. They consist of a people who share a common history, a common language and a common history[sic]"

There is no way you can use that (silly) definition and not define Ulster Protestants as their own nation. After sanctimoniously telling us how "national self determination" is the goal, you seem awfully keen to ignore it when your logic comes round to bite you

Why would the Ulster Protestants compose their own nation? Is their language, history and geographical region different from the rest of Ireland? Is Ireland defined by a border drawn by British imperialists after the Irish War of Independence? What divides them from the rest of Ireland? The fact is that the occupied counties of Ireland share the linguistic makeup of the rest of Ireland, the common history of Ireland and the congruent geographical region that is the island of Ireland. So no, my argument holds true in this case.

So until you provide some reasoning for this little claim of yours, it's just hot air. Have fun with that.

Moreover, if you do end up showing that Irish Protestants are somehow their own nation, then you are endorsing the validity of nationality, and thus you're endorsing my fundamental argument. Funny how that works out.


You don't know enough history, only little bits and pieces that seem romantic. See I wasn't talking about the Bantustans but rather the negotiations in the early nineties (much too dull I am sure) and the position De Klerk initially pushed there. Seems to me that position was the logical one according to your argument.Not really, the nations of South Africa overwhelmingly were in support of what ended up happening.


It isn't me denying Bosnia exists.So if they're not a nation, what are they? Just something made up? An imaginary people?

Of course you're denying Bosnia exists, it's the basis of your entire argument. Nationality doesn't exist, according to you. As always, have fun with that.

[Demogorgon]

Why would the Ulster Protestants compose their own nation? Is their language, history and geographical region different from the rest of Ireland? Is Ireland defined by a border drawn by British imperialists after the Irish War of Independence? What divides them from the rest of Ireland?

So until you provide some reasoning for this claim of yours, it's just hot air. Have fun with that.
Of course they have their own culture history and so on. Indeed even their language is far more tied to Scotland than it is to the rest of Ireland. (See Ulster Scots).

Now, just to be clear, because I am sure you are trying to misrepresent me, I don't think that they should be defined as a nationally distinct unit. I think that sort of division is ridiculous. But you have told us all about National Self Determination and so forth. But here we have a clearly defined group that you are screaming bloody murder shouldn't be given self determination.

Why? Because you have decided to wax lyrical about a conflict you never really understood.


Not really, the nations of South Africa overwhelmingly were in support of what ended up happening.

No the people were. (Although that is debatable itself, if you look at South Africa today it isn't exactly a shining beacon of equality, a new black elite joined the old white elite but inequality is as pronounced as ever, though that is a story for another thread.)

Talking about "the nations" of South Africa was always pretty problematic anyway as Black people in Urban Areas often felt no connection to the "nations" others seemed to think they should be part of. And that's before you get into all the other thorny problems like whether there was a "Coloured Nation" or if it were just an aspect of the "Afrikaner Nation" and so forth.

If you are going to claim there are distinct nations, it helps if the people involved actually know what they are.


Of course you're denying Bosnia exists, it's the basis of your entire argument. Nationality doesn't exist, according to you. As always, have fun with that.
Naturally Bosnia exists. It is a country recognised by just about everyone and without external border disputes. The question of whether there is some "Bosnian Nationality" is a question I will leave for you to grapple with.

[manic expression]

Of course they have their own culture history and so on. Indeed even their language is far more tied to Scotland than it is to the rest of Ireland. (See Ulster Scots).

Culture isn't necessarily the issue: I have previously cited northern and southern Mexico as an example. Further, are you denying that English is the predominate language of occupied Ireland? Is this your argument?


Now, just to be clear, because I am sure you are trying to misrepresent me, I don't think that they should be defined as a nationally distinct unit. I think that sort of division is ridiculous. But you have told us all about National Self Determination and so forth. But here we have a clearly defined group that you are screaming bloody murder shouldn't be given self determination.I've shown time and again why Irish Protestants are not a distinct nation, unless you think that religion automatically determines nationality (:lol:). But OK, I'll play long. As you can see, if you define the Protestants of Ireland as their own nation, then you're endorsing the concept of nationality, and thus you're endorsing my argument.


No the people were.The people of what...the various nations of South Africa. Thanks for playing.


Talking about "the nations" of South Africa was always pretty problematic anyway as Black people in Urban Areas often felt no connection to the "nations" others seemed to think they should be part of. And that's before you get into all the other thorny problems like whether there was a "Coloured Nation" or if it were just an aspect of the "Afrikaner Nation" and so forth.That's because urban life is different than rural life. You could say the same thing about Mexico City and various rural areas in Mexico, or any city and its corresponding countryside for that matter. It's a function of industry and of urbanization.


If you are going to claim there are distinct nations, it helps if the people involved actually know what they are.They do. Zulus know they're not Tswana. Afrikaners know they're not Xhosa. Sorry.


Naturally Bosnia exists. It is a country recognised by just about everyone and without external border disputes.So North Koreans are fundamentally different from South Koreans, no? :lol:

[Demogorgon]

Culture isn't necessarily the issue: I have previously cited northern and southern Mexico as an example. Further, are you denying that English is the predominate language of occupied Ireland? Is this your argument?Well if sharing the English language were enough of an argument for Ireland to be one nation...

At any rate if you define Scots as its own language (as is the fashion these days) then Northern Ireland is mixed English/Scots. Whatever way you look at it though, the linguistics of Ulster Protestants have more in common with Scotland than they do with the rest of Ireland.


I've shown time and again why Irish Protestants are not a distinct nation, unless you think that religion automatically determines nationality (:lol:). But OK, I'll play long. As you can see, if you define the Protestants of Ireland as their own nation, then you're endorsing the concept of nationality, and thus you're endorsing my argument.No, what you have shown is that you don't know anything about the culture of Ulster Protestants. To try and put it as simply as possible for you (and risk ignoring the nuances) it should best be understood as a derivation of Scottish (and to a lesser extent English) culture, not Irish culture.

Of course the whole thing rapidly becomes something of a joke as you realise that in Scotland itself the culture has been fundamentally changed by all the Irish Catholics that came here and so on. But the idea of a melting pot of culture and nationality doesn't really tie in with your views.

Anyway, if we are going to define people by nationality, surely we should take into account their own feelings? The majority of those we are discussing do not regard themselves as being Irish. What possible justification do you have for forcing an identity upon them that they do not want?


They do. Zulus know they're not Tswana. Afrikaners know they're not Xhosa. Sorry.Oh? And what about the people who do not choose to identify with these labels?

And what are the Cape Coloureds? Go on, I dare you to answer that one.


So North Koreans are fundamentally different from South Koreans, no? :lol:
Well I don't define people by nationality, so no.

[manic expression]

Well if sharing the English language were enough of an argument for Ireland to be one nation...

It's one point of commonality among three. The other two check out, as I've explained before.


At any rate if you define Scots as its own language (as is the fashion these days) then Northern Ireland is mixed English/Scots. Whatever way you look at it though, the linguistics of Ulster Protestants have more in common with Scotland than they do with the rest of Ireland.

So you're still denying that English is predominately used in occupied Ireland. Interesting.


No, what you have shown is that you don't know anything about the culture of Ulster Protestants. To try and put it as simply as possible for you (and risk ignoring the nuances) it should best be understood as a derivation of Scottish (and to a lesser extent English) culture, not Irish culture.

That's because Irish culture is derived from different influences. I've already explained why this is not a decisive factor in nationality. Were that the case, then Mexicans, Bolivians and Cubans would all be Spanish. Obviously you're still making stuff up as you go along.


Of course the whole thing rapidly becomes something of a joke as you realise that in Scotland itself the culture has been fundamentally changed by all the Irish Catholics that came here and so on. But the idea of a melting pot of culture and nationality doesn't really tie in with your views.

Exactly, culture is influenced by interaction between different peoples. That doesn't mean, however, that Scots are Irish because of the influence of the Irish living in Glasgow or elsewhere. It simply means that Scotland has been influenced by interaction with another distinct nation, which is natural in the course of history.


Oh? And what about the people who do not choose to identify with these labels?

Doesn't make any difference. What if workers identify with the "middle class" and not the "working class"? I thought so.


And what are the Cape Coloureds? Go on, I dare you to answer that one.

They are a distinct nation as well.

Go on, I dare you to make something up about my position. That's all you've done so far.


Well I don't define people by nationality, so no.

So there's no difference between Koreans and Russians and Filipinos, apparently. Any distinguishing between the three groups is just imaginary and reactionary, right? :lol:

[redflag32]

While you're looking to unite Ireland, the rest of us will be busy uniting Workingmen of all countries.

I think it's important for socialists to begin their activism at the standpoint of what the consciousness of the people actually is at that time, and not what they would like it to be.

Cultural traditions exist.Competitive sports between working people exist. Divided unions exist.Reactionary and racist opinions within the working class exist.NATIONS exist.

The reality of the situation is that the working person DOES put him/herself into various little boxes. Liverpool supporter, punk rocker, irish man, english woman, breakdancer, musician etc... It the reality of the society we live in today. While struggling for a society which is borderless is a good thing, i dont think ignoring the reality of the consciousness of the people is a good way to go about it.

People ARE individuals. What we have to do as Marxists is accept these differences ( in how they define their own identity ie irish man, religious, etc..) but also try to show and explain the one main thing we have in common. That we are workers. That can bind us, even in a world with borders and nations. There is nothing particularly wrong with workers identifying with their own culture. How can it be?

The above remark shows contempt for the consciousness reality of today. It is Irish Republicans who are constantly re-assesing the situation and chaging tactics to suit the consciousness realities of the day. A certain section of leftists seem to just ignore reality and shout about the utopian nationless communist society. I fail to see how that is productive.

[Redmau5]

Of course they have their own culture history and so on. Indeed even their language is far more tied to Scotland than it is to the rest of Ireland. (See Ulster Scots).

Ulster Scots isn't a language. And "Ulster Scot" history and cultural usually boils down to little more than lording it over their catholic neighbours.

[redflag32]

I think this explains the Left Republican position on the 'British-Irish' and their historical position very well.

http://irsm.org/history/leftrepublicanism.html

[redflag32]

Ulster Scots isn't a language. And "Ulster Scot" history and cultural usually boils down to little more than lording it over their catholic neighbours.

I dont think thats the burning issue. If they want to identify with that then they are entitled to,and we should be encouraging them to have an identity that isnt based solely around religious sectarianism and imperialism. If that means accepting and encouraging 'ulster-scots' as a language then so be it.

[Demogorgon]

Ulster Scots isn't a language. And "Ulster Scot" history and cultural usually boils down to little more than lording it over their catholic neighbours.
Scots is a language and is recognised as such in Scotland. Ulster Scots probably isn't different enough to identify it as a separate language from the Scots spoken in Scotland, but it is different from standard English.

[Demogorgon]

So you're still denying that English is predominately used in occupied Ireland. Interesting.

No, but I am pointing out that it is coexisting with Scots just as it does in Scotland and also that linguistically Ulster is very close to Scotland.

You can hardly claim that it should be seen as the same unit as Ireland because English is spoken in both seeing as English is also spoken in Britain.


Doesn't make any difference. What if workers identify with the "middle class" and not the "working class"? I thought so.

Class can be defined pretty objectively by looking at economic relations. "Nationality" is an entirely subjective thing. I find it very strange that you want to distinguish every group I throw up as being a separate nation, but uniquely you won't define Ulster Protestants as their own nation. Seems to me you have absorbed some of the rubbish that is posted here about Ireland and actually carry on with it despite it being inconsistent with your other silly views.

Again note, I don't think Ulster Protestants are a separate nation. I am demanding to know why you are applying different rules to them than you do to everyone else.


They are a distinct nation as well.

Go on, I dare you to make something up about my position. That's all you've done so far.

Make something up? You have just damned yourself with your own words. The only people who tried to define Cape Coloureds as a separate nation was the Verweordian faction of the National Party and later the split away Conservative Party. The fact that you throw your lot in with racists for the sake oh upholding your silly views (which again you will not for some reason apply to Ulster Protestants) says far more than I ever could.


So there's no difference between Koreans and Russians and Filipinos, apparently. Any distinguishing between the three groups is just imaginary and reactionary, right? :lol:
There are differences in how they identify themselves, but these are subjective.

[Hoggy_RS]

Scots is a language and is recognised as such in Scotland. Ulster Scots probably isn't different enough to identify it as a separate language from the Scots spoken in Scotland, but it is different from standard English.
It is as much a language as some speaking corkonian. I suppose that kind of example would only make seen to an Irish person feen.:lol:

[Demogorgon]

It is as much a language as some speaking corkonian. I suppose that kind of example would only make seen to an Irish person feen.:lol:
I think I know what you are getting at, but in Scotland in the last few years it has been resolved to treat them as two different languages. At any rate, the difference between the two languages is about the same as between Danish and Norwegian and while it is true that not everyone thinks they are separate either, they usually are defined as such.

This might not be the best thread to get into a linguistics debate though.

[ls]

It is as much a language as some speaking corkonian. I suppose that kind of example would only make seen to an Irish person feen.:lol:

I thought that ulster scots gaelic was an important variant myself, perhaps not directly a language but a vastly different dialect at the very least surely?

[manic expression]

No, but I am pointing out that it is coexisting with Scots just as it does in Scotland and also that linguistically Ulster is very close to Scotland.

Really? With 2% of the population speaking it? Its linguistic makeup is extremely close to the rest of Ireland's, stop dodging the issue.


You can hardly claim that it should be seen as the same unit as Ireland because English is spoken in both seeing as English is also spoken in Britain.Which makes it a good thing that language is only one of three indicators.


Class can be defined pretty objectively by looking at economic relations. "Nationality" is an entirely subjective thing.My posts have shown you otherwise, even if you persist in ignoring them.


Again note, I don't think Ulster Protestants are a separate nation. I am demanding to know why you are applying different rules to them than you do to everyone else.If you don't think they're a separate nation, then what are you doing falling over yourself to try to define them as such? Even if you succeed in this line of reasoning (which you won't), you will embrace nationality as a matter of course.

So really, your only issue here is my application of my definition, not the definition itself.


Make something up? You have just damned yourself with your own words. The only people who tried to define Cape Coloureds as a separate nation was the Verweordian faction of the National Party and later the split away Conservative Party.Ask a Zulu if they think Coloured people are Zulu; ask a Xhosa, ask a Tswana (and I have), ask anyone from South Africa and they'll tell you Coloured people are distinct. Try telling a Zulu there's no difference between Zulus and Coloured people and you'll get laughed out of the room.


There are differences in how they identify themselves, but these are subjective.So according to you, there's NO difference between Russians, Koreans and Filipinos? The only difference is just imaginary and "subjective"? :lol:

[Demogorgon]

My posts have shown you otherwise, even if you persist in ignoring them.
No, your posts have shown you have a confused right wing view of nationality. Asserting nonsense does not make the nonsense true. But let's try an example. Let's try me. I have been variously described as Glaswegian, from the West of Scotland, a Lowlander, Scots Irish, Scottish, British, Western European, Northern European and European. In you infinite wisdom, which must I be defined as and why?


If you don't think they're a separate nation, then what are you doing falling over yourself to try to define them as such? Even if you succeed in this line of reasoning (which you won't), you will embrace nationality as a matter of course.

So really, your only issue here is my application of my definition, not the definition itself.I have a problem with both. Your definition is crap, as is your application. You have defined everyone under the sun as being a separate nation, even when it is laughable to do so, but for one group and one group alone you will not do so. I smell hypocrisy.


Ask a Zulu if they think Coloured people are Zulu; ask a Xhosa, ask a Tswana (and I have), ask anyone from South Africa and they'll tell you Coloured people are distinct. Try telling a Zulu there's no difference between Zulus and Coloured people and you'll get laughed out of the room.They'll tell you they are distinct, but they won't tell you they are their own nation. Not unless they vote Freedom Front anyway...

But you forgot the most important group of all to ask. Cape Coloureds. What would they define themselves as? Certainly not as a nation. In my experience most simply want to be "South African" whereas others define themselves as Afrikaners and so on.

Speaking of which, why do you not think they are Afrikaners?


So according to you, there's NO difference between Russians, Koreans and Filipinos? The only difference is just imaginary and "subjective"? :lol:
The differences are a matter of identity which is ultimately a subjective thing.

Let's go back to using me as an example. What makes me distinct from an English person?

[Hoggy_RS]

I thought that ulster scots gaelic was an important variant myself, perhaps not directly a language but a vastly different dialect at the very least surely?
it is not a gaelic language. It is english written as it is spoke by those with a northern accent. Look it up online man. Id be happy for anyone to embrace it within in a united ireland, i just dont think it is an actual language. It is certianly not like gaeilge, the native language of ireland.

[ls]

it is not a gaelic language. It is english written as it is spoke by those with a northern accent. Look it up online man. Id be happy for anyone to embrace it within in a united ireland, i just dont think it is an actual language. It is certianly not like gaeilge, the native language of ireland.

Fair enough, I think it's more than just an accent though, even wikipedia says
Scots in Ulster has been influenced by contact with Mid Ulster English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_Ulster_English), Hiberno-English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-English) and Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language); the relationship has been two-way, with for example craic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic) being a late 20th century Gaelicisation. Mid Ulster English, the dialect of most people in Ulster, including those in the two main cities of Belfast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast) and Derry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derry), represents a cross-over area between Ulster Scots and Hiberno-English; it is currently encroaching on the Ulster Scots area, especially in the Belfast commuter belt, and may eventually consume it.

There are a number of other phrases commonly used which sound very influenced by gaelic to me as well, but yeah I think it's all a fairly moot point anyway.

[robbo203]

But you forgot the most important group of all to ask. Cape Coloureds. What would they define themselves as? Certainly not as a nation. In my experience most simply want to be "South African" whereas others define themselves as Afrikaners and so on.

Speaking of which, why do you not think they are Afrikaners?


Speaking as someone who was born in South Africa, Demogorgon is correct in this debate. The position of the Cape Coloured or mixed race was always a problematic one under Apartheid. They did not see themselves as a separate "nation" nor did the aspire to be one. In fact, if they aspired to anything it was to be accorded the same rights as whites. Most spoke Afrikaans and had a degree of cultural affinity with Afrikaners. It has to be remembered that, unlike the British settlers (my ancestors were 1820 settlers from Britain), the Boers from the early days of the Dutch East India company practised miscegenation to a signicant extent with Malay slaves and indigenous peoples like the Khoisan. There have been several studies made which have revealed that proportion of "black blood" amongst white Afrikaners to be something in the region of 18% if I remember correctly. Sometimes under apartheid you would have families tragically split up according to racial classification. Something called the "pencil test" was applied to determine your so called racial membership. Quite surreal. A pencil was stuck in your hair and if you bent down and it didnt fall out you were judged to be of cape coloured stock, cape coloured being deemed to have curly hair as part of their phenotypical make up. This would result in one child having to be sent to one school and another to some other school. There was also of course the whole business of the so called Immorality Act which forbade sexual relationships between the 4 main population groups - whites, black-bantu, asiatics and mixed race which could cause huge problems in borderline cases.

You have to remember also that the demographics was always an important consideration in apartheid policy. I cant exact recall the figures but at the time I was in South Africa there were something like 4-5 millions whites (mostly Afrikaners), 2-3 million mixed race, 1-2 million Asiatics (mainly in Natal) and around 40 million blacks. Increasingly the Aparthied regime sought to incorporate the Mixed Race and Asiatics as a bulwark against the Black majority and if I remember correctly what was proposed towards the end of apartheid was a kind of tricameral parliament which would ideally apply for the two population groups above plus the whites while in theory the blacks would persuaded to seek their political emancipation through independence being granted to the black homelands constituting some 13% of the total land area of South Africa. Its a bit ironic that those leftists who loosely talk about the "black nations" of South Africa should be promoting a view that was also being assiduously promoted by the Apartheid regime as part of their divide and rule strategy

[PRC-UTE]

Scots is a language and is recognised as such in Scotland. Ulster Scots probably isn't different enough to identify it as a separate language from the Scots spoken in Scotland, but it is different from standard English.

it's a bit of a farce, though. the proponents of Ulster Scots don't seriously attempt to live through the language the way Irish, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic speakers do. Theres something like 80 Gaelscoileanna (schools that teach students through the Irish language) in Dublin alone- where are the Ulster Scots schools? lol

I dont' oppose it in principle, there's nothing wrong with a bit of regional pride and all that and some of it's even entertaining. It's just that the whole fuss over Ulster Scots came up at the same time that Irish language was finally being legalised and there were efforts made to get it funding in the north. a lot of the Ulster Scots demands came about literally as a reaction to that, even saying 'if you fund the Irish you should fund Ulster Scots' lol

[PRC-UTE]

I thought that ulster scots gaelic was an important variant myself, perhaps not directly a language but a vastly different dialect at the very least surely?

Ulster Scots isn't Gaelic. I can actually understand Scottish Gaelic okay with the Irish I know. But anyway, Ulster Scots is a dialect of English, but many English speakers can understand it, which makes it difficult to consider it a separate language.

[PRC-UTE]

Yes, loyalism is a reactionary ideology to the core. But the vast majority of Northern Protestants accept some form of Unionist ideology at this point, either out of their heritage or because of the legitimate concerns they have of being scapegoated and treated as a second class citizens in a united Ireland. How exactly do you plan on dealing with that or is just a simple case of wiping them all out?

I'm glad we agree that Loyalism is reactionary to the core. Because that is the decisive question here- not the fact that there is a British presence in Ireland (which is not inherently bad, tbh, the British presence has been at times progressive) but which political trend and form of class rule the British are propping up. This has always been the Marxist analysis of the situation. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/12.htm) In this case, it's the most reactionary party of any western government. Unionism has been very adept at keeping the working class divided and at each others throats.

Despite what some say about republican bombs causing a sectarian backlash, the worst sectarian backlashes from the loyalists were in responce to the Civil Rights campaign and the IRA truce in the mid-seventies- when Loyalists feared Catholics would make some gains towards equality and democracy.


We're not talking about a socialist united Ireland, we're talking about whether British imperialism could maintain its economic interests if there was a united Ireland tomorrow which it would absolutely be able to do. But more importantly, it could do so without the extra costs of subsidising the North economy each year as well as maintaining the costs of a police force and an army.

This is like saying the October Revolution couldn't happen because the February Revolution was bourgeois.

If it was necessary to unite the entire proletariat before making any steps towards overthrowing the bourgeoisie, there'd never be a revolution anywhere. As it happens this particular regime is a system of managed sectarian privileges that makes working class unity highly unlikely. there's a reason the north doesn't have a successful labour party.



If imperialism internationally was able to maintain its economic interests in the neo-colonial world, without maintaining a direct and physical presence, what makes the North so different?

That's a good question. I don't believe that the north can be called a purely colonial situation anymore, or if that even matters. What I know is that unlike Britain the proletariat in the north can't confront their own bourgeoisie without coming into conflict with the British ruling class who are backing them.

What I am also certain of is that there will not be more working class unity until Ireland is unified. In a unified Ireland all reactionary ethnic nationalism's can be transcended, and the managed system of sectarian privileges would also come to an end. Surely that would be an improvement over political ideologies whose core ideas are essentially blood n soil British nationalism.

[manic expression]

No, your posts have shown you have a confused right wing view of nationality. Asserting nonsense does not make the nonsense true. But let's try an example. Let's try me. I have been variously described as Glaswegian, from the West of Scotland, a Lowlander, Scots Irish, Scottish, British, Western European, Northern European and European. In you infinite wisdom, which must I be defined as and why?
Listing what you've been described as doesn't give me enough information, and further you've brought up countless examples that you're now trying to avoid. Citing yourself is ridiculous because I don't have nearly enough information, and moreover the source of information is obviously biased, so it's just a sign of you running out of ideas.


I have a problem with both. Your definition is crap, as is your application. You have defined everyone under the sun as being a separate nation, even when it is laughable to do so, but for one group and one group alone you will not do so. I smell hypocrisy.

That's a nice rant, but it's not an argument. How have I defined "everyone under the sun as being a separate nation", and what does that even mean? "Everyone under the sun" is part of a nation, yes, but the definition of nations is both concrete and consistent. Again, your problem is with my application, not my definition. You haven't argued against the definition so far, you've just brought up a number of examples that I've answered one by one. That you've abandoned the vast majority of those same examples simply shows that you're grasping at straws.


They'll tell you they are distinct, but they won't tell you they are their own nation. Not unless they vote Freedom Front anyway...That's because not everyone understands what makes a nation. You implied that South Africa has no real divisions between its peoples, but this is obviously false.


But you forgot the most important group of all to ask. Cape Coloureds. What would they define themselves as? Certainly not as a nation. In my experience most simply want to be "South African" whereas others define themselves as Afrikaners and so on.And many Blacks want to be "Americans". It doesn't change the issue. The question is if they're a distinct people and why. You might as well say that since many workers call themselves "middle class", class is subjective. That's your logic, though, not mine.

However, if you can show us how Coloureds are part of the Afrikaner nation, then I'd be quite interested in seeing as much.


Speaking of which, why do you not think they are Afrikaners?It's a matter of application, once more. Why would they be Afrikaners according to my definition of nationality? If you can show why they would be part of that nation, then I'll concede that I was mistaken.

By the way, Robbo's post is informative, but fails to entirely explain why Coloureds aren't a distinct people. They were used by apartheid as a bulwark, yes I've heard this, and they share cultural affinity to Afrikaners, I've heard this as well, but their historical experience is unique IIRC. Remember, even if a people clings to a certain identity (Blacks as "Americans", for example), they're nationality is independent of this. Again, perhaps Coloureds can be characterized as Afrikaners, I'd just like to see some more consideration put on the common history between Afrikaners and Coloureds.


The differences are a matter of identity which is ultimately a subjective thing.So anyone can choose to be Korean whenever they want...since it's subjective, right?


Let's go back to using me as an example. What makes me distinct from an English person?More desperation from someone who can't deal with my arguments.

[Demogorgon]

That's a nice rant, but it's not an argument. How have I defined "everyone under the sun as being a separate nation", and what does that even mean? "Everyone under the sun" is part of a nation, yes, but the definition of nations is both concrete and consistent. Again, your problem is with my application, not my definition. You haven't argued against the definition so far, you've just brought up a number of examples that I've answered one by one. That you've abandoned the vast majority of those same examples simply shows that you're grasping at straws.I have brought up numerous examples in an effort to show that you side with the right in each one. Sometimes to a breathtaking degree (the various South African examples). You could always say "yes I am a right winger, prove your leftist views are better" and I would have to take a different tact, as I would if I were arguing this in OI, but as you are not a right winger, or so I hope anyway, the course of argument I am taking is to show you that you are arguing from a right wing perspective.

Anyway again, suppose we accept your definition.


That's because not everyone understands what makes a nation.
Thank goodness for the likes of the Freedom Front keeping the truth alive then.

You implied that South Africa has no real divisions between its peoples, but this is obviously false.Where did I say that? Everybody knows it is a multicultural society. What I am attacking is your defence of what is-no matter how much you deny it-the apartheid notion of separate nations.


And many Blacks want to be "Americans". It doesn't change the issue. The question is if they're a distinct people and why. You might as well say that since many workers call themselves "middle class", class is subjective. That's your logic, though, not mine.Well middle class is one of these silly phrases that doesn't mean much so it is pretty irrelevant. Your wish to deny that black people in America are Americans though is ridiculous.


However, if you can show us how Coloureds are part of the Afrikaner nation, then I'd be quite interested in seeing as much.

It's a matter of application, once more. Why would they be Afrikaners according to my definition of nationality? If you can show why they would be part of that nation, then I'll concede that I was mistaken.Well if we are going to use your silly definition then they share the language obviously, much of the culture is much the same and of course there is the shared history given both are of Dutch decent, the Cape Coloureds also having black ancestors as well.

If we want to talk about normal notions however, the reason is that Cape Coloureds and White Afrikaners (excluding the right) clearly identify with one another. The only excuse that has ever been given for not calling them Afrikaners has been skin colour.


So anyone can choose to be Korean whenever they want...since it's subjective, right?

Of course. Though they would obviously have to move to Korea for it to be sincere or realistic. People change nationalities all the time, in this country for instance we have plenty of people whose parents were Pakistani but they are Scottish. Or should we deny them that right and see them as different?

And to repeat my question, what differentiates me from the English. If you don't want to answer that the way it is phrased, change it to what differentiates Scottish people from the English?

[Invader Zim]

Well, I left this debate a couple of days ago and upon my return it seems to have enlarged quite considerably. Suffice to say, I hope you will forgive me ME, if I don't try to wade in from where we were and repeat many of the issues raised in the meantime. However I did find this, from your latest post worthy of comment:


So anyone can choose to be Korean whenever they want...since it's subjective, right?

Certainly, just as anybody can theoretically move to Britain, live here and identify with the culture here and eventually make the move of obtaining British citizenship. At that stage not only do they identify as being British but the state recognises it as fact.

[manic expression]

I have brought up numerous examples in an effort to show that you side with the right in each one.
Yeah, OK, that must be why you've abandoned the majority of what you've brought up. The Quebecois? Blacks? Mexico? Finland? Ireland? Belgium? Switzerland? China? How many examples are you going to run away from? That's eight by my count, let's see how many more you'll ignore.


Sometimes to a breathtaking degree (the various South African examples). You could always say "yes I am a right winger, prove your leftist views are better" and I would have to take a different tact, as I would if I were arguing this in OI, but as you are not a right winger, or so I hope anyway, the course of argument I am taking is to show you that you are arguing from a right wing perspective.
More ranting, but no argument here.


Anyway again, suppose we accept your definition.
The point of your argument is that you don't agree with the definition, and yet you haven't said a single word about that, probably because it's a futile argument and you know that as well as I do.

So all you've done is object to my application of my position to various examples, and even then you've been unable to sustain any argument on those same examples you brought up.


Thank goodness for the likes of the Freedom Front keeping the truth alive then.
That's not an argument, once more.


Where did I say that? Everybody knows it is a multicultural society.
So if the difference between people is their culture, how do you define those divisions? What, exactly, makes Korean culture not Zulu culture? Do people have a right to their culture? Why or why not?

You babble about "culture", and yet you're so oblivious to the fact that you're just trying to come up with vaguely-defined synonyms to the true underlining distinctions: nationality. Have fun with the above questions.


Well middle class is one of these silly phrases that doesn't mean much so it is pretty irrelevant.
:lol::lol::lol: So what happened to your little argument that we should agree with whatever identity an individual comes up with? Why should you not listen to workers who call themselves "middle class" and then spin around and take the same reasoning to try to disprove objective nationality?

If class isn't subjective, and remains the same regardless of what this or that worker says, then how is nationality different when we have a similarly objective definition for it?

Once more: you haven't disputed the definition, because you're wasting time and getting more and more desperate with every post.


Your wish to deny that black people in America are Americans though is ridiculous.
"Ridiculous", because you said so? Blacks have a completely different historical experience than "white" Americans do. Actually, theirs is unique among the world. They are marked out as a separate nation by this fact, which even today continues to be perpetuated through various legacies.

"We are not Americans, and we happen to be in America..." - Malcolm X


Well if we are going to use your silly definition then they share the language obviously, much of the culture is much the same and of course there is the shared history given both are of Dutch decent, the Cape Coloureds also having black ancestors as well.
Well of course you'd use my definition, because you're unable or unwilling to contend with it directly.

Nevertheless, as I said, culture is not decisive. The language is there, but Coloureds do have a separate history stemming from the divisions imposed by various regimes in South Africa. Do Coloureds share with Afrikaners their experiences of apartheid? I don't think so, so that's why I call them distinct.

However, if you make a more persuasive and more reasoned argument for them being Afrikaners, I will admit I was incorrect.


If we want to talk about normal notions however, the reason is that Cape Coloureds and White Afrikaners (excluding the right) clearly identify with one another. The only excuse that has ever been given for not calling them Afrikaners has been skin colour.
Do you have any evidence for this?


Of course. Though they would obviously have to move to Korea for it to be sincere or realistic. People change nationalities all the time, in this country for instance we have plenty of people whose parents were Pakistani but they are Scottish. Or should we deny them that right and see them as different?

So someone is defined by where they live? Does that make Paul Robeson a Russian or Richard Wright a Parisian? No, it doesn't, because both were Black, they were defined by the communities they came from and grew up in, not the communities they lived in later. Nationality, concretely defined as I have laid out previously, cannot be changed like an outfit.

Pakistani immigrants to Scotland should have the same rights as any Scotsman, including the right to have their nationality recognized and respected. Their citizenship in the Scottish/British state does not change anything except for that. The point is that they ARE different, whether or not you're too naive to admit this, but your mistake is automatically equating difference with inferiority/superiority; difference only indicates difference, and anything else is just immaturity.


And to repeat my question, what differentiates me from the English. If you don't want to answer that the way it is phrased, change it to what differentiates Scottish people from the English?
Assuming you're Scottish as you say, the historical experience of your family and the congruent region of your ancestors mark you as being part of a nation distinct from the English nation.

Of course, I don't know everything about you, so you're asking me to go out on a limb simply because you've been frustrated with the majority of examples that have been brought up. Remember, you've run away from eight examples, by my count.

[manic expression]

Well, I left this debate a couple of days ago and upon my return it seems to have enlarged quite considerably. Suffice to say, I hope you will forgive me ME, if I don't try to wade in from where we were and repeat many of the issues raised in the meantime. However I did find this, from your latest post worthy of comment:
No worries, IZ. I'll be out of touch for a few days starting tomorrow as well, so I'll likely have to ask you the same thing.


Certainly, just as anybody can theoretically move to Britain, live here and identify with the culture here and eventually make the move of obtaining British citizenship. At that stage not only do they identify as being British but the state recognises it as fact.

But this brings up the quandary of nationality as defined by citizenship. According to this (IMO), North Koreans would fundamentally be different from South Koreans, even though Korea shares not only the commonalities I listed earlier (congruent historical region, historical experiences, common language), but a very strong identity that stems precisely from that. Every Korean will tell you that Koreans are Korean both north and south of the DMZ, but if we rely solely on citizenship and self-proclaimed identity as our guide in this issue, then we would be forced to conclude that this is not the case.

Remember, Blacks are distinct from the rest of America, as are American Indians. Should we deny this simply because both hold American citizenship and oftentimes present themselves with that identity? No, I don't find this to be sufficient, as materialists we must establish a more concrete way of seeing the world based on concrete things.

The most difficult question, I think, is how to determine when an immigrant family ceases to be one nationality and takes on a new one. My argument is not that nationality is an unending line that stretches to the end of time and space, I've repeatedly said how nationality changes and responds to the concrete developments of history. The experience of immigration is part of this: I grew up around a lot of second-generation Indian families, and their kids spoke American English just like I did, knew American history as well as their classmates and so on and so forth. Most of them could understand Hindi/Tamil/etc but could not speak it at all well. Are they American? Indian? Both? Admittedly, I don't know the answer, but I think a concrete definition of nationality should provide at least some insight to this, at least more effectively and reliably than the definition of nationality by citizenship alone.

Lastly, "assimilation", from my experience, is a two-way street. As much as Indian families have to get accustomed to the US, the US has to get accustomed to Indian influences. It's both chauvinistic and impossible to expect one community to change everything and the majority community to change nothing, and in practice both change almost by necessity. National interaction is an extremely dynamic thing, this is important to bear in mind at all times.

[Demogorgon]

I'm not going to go through all of this, because a lot of it is just ranting. Also at this stage I get the impression you don't really think what you are saying, but are holding to it out of sheer bloody mindedness. I am obliged to be charitable and on that basis I will presume you don't really think people's identities are bound by their skin colour for instance.
Yeah, OK, that must be why you've abandoned the majority of what you've brought up. The Quebecois? Blacks? Mexico? Finland? Ireland? Belgium? Switzerland? China? How many examples are you going to run away from? That's eight by my count, let's see how many more you'll ignore.The importance of those examples was that in many cases you said things utterly divorced from what anyone in those countries would think. Nobody thinks that Swiss people are divided into different nations for instance. Yet from your pedestal you feel the need to claim they are.



You babble about "culture", and yet you're so oblivious to the fact that you're just trying to come up with vaguely-defined synonyms to the true underlining distinctions: nationality. Have fun with the above questions.
I'll keep this one in, in case I need to come back to it later. Suffice to say it is extremely creepy and identifies you with groups you would be best not to identify with.



"Ridiculous", because you said so? Blacks have a completely different historical experience than "white" Americans do. Actually, theirs is unique among the world. They are marked out as a separate nation by this fact, which even today continues to be perpetuated through various legacies.Yes, well you have a bit of a problem here given that you feel the need to stick to your silly definition. Take a survey of black people in America on the subject and see how many don't think they are America. As I said before, I think you are simply saying this out of sheer bloody mindedness. The implications of your views should you be sincere are extremely troubling after all.



Pakistani immigrants to Scotland should have the same rights as any Scotsman, including the right to have their nationality recognized and respected. Their citizenship in the Scottish/British state does not change anything except for that. The point is that they ARE different, whether or not you're too naive to admit this, but your mistake is automatically equating difference with inferiority/superiority; difference only indicates difference, and anything else is just immaturity.Oh? And what is the difference? Skin Colour? Why don't you ask them whether they feel Scottish or not rather than telling them they have to consider themselves different.


Assuming you're Scottish as you say, the historical experience of your family and the congruent region of your ancestors mark you as being part of a nation distinct from the English nation.

Well given everyone here (as in nearly all countries) comes from a vast number of different ancestral backgrounds you have picked a rather poor argument. All this talk of "ancestors" and so forth makes you sound like one of these "blood and soil" lunatics rather than someone with any realistic view of us all having ancestors from all over the place.

[manic expression]

I am obliged to be charitable and on that basis I will presume you don't really think people's identities are bound by their skin colour for instance.
That's not charity, that's the fact of the matter. Re-read my posts and find where I define nationality as skin color. You won't.


The importance of those examples was that in many cases you said things utterly divorced from what anyone in those countries would think. Nobody thinks that Swiss people are divided into different nations for instance. Yet from your pedestal you feel the need to claim they are.
You could say the same thing about the majority of leftist thought. What's your point?


I'll keep this one in, in case I need to come back to it later. Suffice to say it is extremely creepy and identifies you with groups you would be best not to identify with.
That's not an argument.


Yes, well you have a bit of a problem here given that you feel the need to stick to your silly definition. Take a survey of black people in America on the subject and see how many don't think they are America. As I said before, I think you are simply saying this out of sheer bloody mindedness. The implications of your views should you be sincere are extremely troubling after all.
Take a survey of Black communists and you'll get a different result. That much I can essentially promise.

Oh, and if you phrased the question that included my definition of nationality, I think you'd be surprised. Blacks overwhelmingly know that their history is that of a people being enslaved and brought in chains to the Americas, Blacks recognize that they are not whites. Your position, that they're the same because they hold the same citizenship runs directly contrary to the daily experiences of Blacks.


Oh? And what is the difference? Skin Colour? Why don't you ask them whether they feel Scottish or not rather than telling them they have to consider themselves different.
See my above post about second and third-generation progeny of immigrants. Thanks.

Oh, and it's not about skin color, it's about their nationality: do they come from a community with a distinct first language, historical experience and historical region? That's the question. If it was about skin color at all, then I'd say that light-skinned Blacks are different from dark-skinned Blacks, but I don't because your assumption is just desperate hot air.


Well given everyone here (as in nearly all countries) comes from a vast number of different ancestral backgrounds you have picked a rather poor argument. All this talk of "ancestors" and so forth makes you sound like one of these "blood and soil" lunatics rather than someone with any realistic view of us all having ancestors from all over the place.
Yes, of course, most people have very diverse backgrounds, but that's where the specifics come into play. For instance, many Black families who had the ability "passed", that is they moved into white areas and raised their kids as white; the biggest wave came after WWII. In this way, families do move from one nation to another upon various waves of history, but it's not so simple as changing citizenship. The same can be said of German or Italian immigrants to the US: those families are now white American.

When, exactly, does this happen? I think this depends on each individual case. I refer you to my above post to Invader Zim.

[KC]

Edit

[manic expression]

I think Manic has shown quite well that he doesn't understand the concept of the nation and nationality and needs to go read Imagined Communities.
Good to hear from you again, KC, I was wondering where you ran off to after I answered your criticisms in turn. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to expand on that little piece of conjecture, or why you think Ireland is just a piece of land with an imaginary group of people living on it.

[Demogorgon]

It is getting pointless to go through this point to point, so let's get back to the topic of Ireland and view it in light of other things we have discussed. We are informed we should count every community we can think of as a separate nation except for Ulster Protestants who must not be counted as separate no matter what.

This logic has been used to tell us that the "Irish Nation" as a whole should decide whether Ireland should be in one, two or however many parts. Where does that leave the substantial number of people in Ireland who do not fit under your definition of the "Irish Nation", that is to say the large number of Pakistanis for instance, or the various other ethnic minorities? If it is about "The Irish Nation" as a whole (which must include Ulster Protestants no matter what the facts might be) deciding. Does that mean the various people in Ireland who don't fall under your definition should not get to decide?

[KC]

Edit

[ComradeMan]

It makes me laugh when certain Irish republicans bang on about Imperialism when Ireland has benefitted economically from her big Yankee cousin over the water and the EU- directly from imperialism. Added to which, the fact that certain sections of the Irish republican movement were Nazi sympathisers and anti-Semites who actively colluded with the Nazis, makes me view the whole issue of Irish republicanism rather differently.

It also makes me laugh that the whole issue of the Queen of England visiting the republic should be taken in such vein when hundreds of thousands of Irishmen worked and word still in the hated country of huns over the water. Perhaps, from the Irish government's point of view, it is a sign of Ireland moving on. Perhaps it's all a sign of that two tin-pot little islands north of France might actually have to get on with each other as part of the EU anyway.

As for the matter of the troubles, I seem to recall that the British Army was sent to Northern Ireland to protect the catholics from attacks by the loyalists, the Protestant Irish. The same protestant Irish who did not want to be part of De Valera's catholic theocratic state i.e. the Republic and because of whom the Laughing Boy Michael Collins himself agreed to partition with the British Government- of course Michael Collins was "dealt with"..... by whom remains a mystery.

[Hoggy_RS]

It makes me laugh when certain Irish republicans bang on about Imperialism when Ireland has benefitted economically from her big Yankee cousin over the water and the EU- directly from imperialism. Added to which, the fact that certain sections of the Irish republican movement were Nazi sympathisers and anti-Semites who actively colluded with the Nazis, makes me view the whole issue of Irish republicanism rather differently.

It also makes me laugh that the whole issue of the Queen of England visiting the republic should be taken in such vein when hundreds of thousands of Irishmen worked and word still in the hated country of huns over the water. Perhaps, from the Irish government's point of view, it is a sign of Ireland moving on. Perhaps it's all a sign of that two tin-pot little islands north of France might actually have to get on with each other as part of the EU anyway.

As for the matter of the troubles, I seem to recall that the British Army was sent to Northern Ireland to protect the catholics from attacks by the loyalists, the Protestant Irish. The same protestant Irish who did not want to be part of De Valera's catholic theocratic state i.e. the Republic and because of whom the Laughing Boy Michael Collins himself agreed to partition with the British Government- of course Michael Collins was "dealt with"..... by whom remains a mystery.
When you talk about nazi sympathisers and anti-semite are you referring to the blueshirts and eoin o'duffy? They were not republicans, this is clear. The IRA mistakenly sought out help from Britians enemy, Nazi Germany, and this can't be defended but it does not make republicans nazis or anything.(as someone mentioned in some thread, the Czech Anarchist Federation also colluded with the Nazis, mistakes happen).

If you think that the british army is in Ireland to protect catholics, then you are quite ignorant of their activites. They are in place to supress any kind of movement for change(notably republican movements). Were they trying to protect catholics when they shot 27 protestors on Bloody Sunday?

[ComradeMan]

De Valera was the last European head of state to send Hitler birthday greetings in 1945, I have been led to believe.

As for the British army's activities in N.Ireland, once again the British find themselves in a no-win situation caught between two warring tribes of rabid nationalists.

[Philosophical Materialist]

As for the matter of the troubles, I seem to recall that the British Army was sent to Northern Ireland to protect the catholics from attacks by the loyalists, the Protestant Irish.

That was official British government and British media line on it, and it was a pack of lies. This was illustrated in the lengths of which the British military and intelligence services colluded with Loyalist terrorist groups.


The same protestant Irish who did not want to be part of De Valera's catholic theocratic state i.e. the Republic

The Free State was bourgeois and reactionary, but it was in no sense theocratic. Due to the historical suppression of the Roman Catholic Church by the British Empire, the church was closely associated with Irish resistance. The Free State constitution held that the Roman Catholic Church had a "special position" with Ireland, and guaranteed the freedom of religion for other sects. England has an established church but it would be foolish to say that it was theocratic.

Why did these protestant British-Irish not want to be a part of the Free State? It was because they would have had to give up socio-political and economic advantages that they held under British rule, where they benefited from institutionalised anti-catholic bigotry. Protestants in the Free State were not marginalised and one of their own even became President early on. The same cannot be said of the British colony in the North.

After 50 years of imperialist partition, catholics in the northern 6-counties were willing to accept British rule as long as they had civil rights and enjoyed the same access to jobs, housing and administration that collaborationist protestants enjoyed. For this, they were shot at by UK-backed terrorist groups and other arms of the British state. For civil rights would strike at the very basis of support for British rule by protestants in Ireland.


of course Michael Collins was "dealt with"..... by whom remains a mystery.

Anti-Treaty IRA.

[Hoggy_RS]

De Valera was the last European head of state to send Hitler birthday greetings in 1945, I have been led to believe.

As for the British army's activities in N.Ireland, once again the British find themselves in a no-win situation caught between two warring tribes of rabid nationalists.
He signed a book of condolences when Hitlers death was reported. He was following his policy of neutrality. Anyways I have no interest in what De Valera did, modern day republicans have nothing in common with him.

I'm sorry but I won't shed a tear for the poor British forces who are stuck in such an awful position. Ah yes we are all nationalists, the go to argument for the ultra left idiots on here. Come back when you know what your on about.

[manic expression]

This post conclusively shows that you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about and why I decided not to waste my time responding to you. "Imaginary group of people?" Good job making yourself look like an idiot.
You're the one refusing to acknowledge the Irish as a nation. If they're not a nation, what are they? Good job running away from your own position.


Let me know when you've read the book and/or when you've discovered that ultranationalism isn't exactly in line with Marxism and perhaps then I will take you seriously enough to respond.
Let me know when you read Lenin's writings on the national question. Let me know when you make a contribution to this thread other than your anti-Irish ranting. Until then, you can take solace in the fact that a Zionist agrees with you.

[manic expression]

We are informed we should count every community we can think of as a separate nation except for Ulster Protestants who must not be counted as separate no matter what.
That's only because no one's satisfactorily shown that they are a distinct nation. Having a different religion and dialect does not qualify a community as a nation.


This logic has been used to tell us that the "Irish Nation" as a whole should decide whether Ireland should be in one, two or however many parts. Where does that leave the substantial number of people in Ireland who do not fit under your definition of the "Irish Nation", that is to say the large number of Pakistanis for instance, or the various other ethnic minorities? If it is about "The Irish Nation" as a whole (which must include Ulster Protestants no matter what the facts might be) deciding. Does that mean the various people in Ireland who don't fall under your definition should not get to decide?
The rights of Pakistanis as a minority nationality in Ireland must be guarded without exception. Should non-Irish residents be able to vote in a referendum on Irish unification? Yes, it is my opinion that they should, just as Anglophones living in Quebec should be able to vote in a referendum on Quebecois independence. But again, what matters first and foremost is the self-determination of the Irish nation, which has heretofore been denied and wholly disrespected by imperialism and its allies. This is why socialists support the right to self-determination for all nations.

[Demogorgon]

That's only because no one's satisfactorily shown that they are a distinct nation. Having a different religion and dialect does not qualify a community as a nation.
Well I don't play the different nations game as you know. But the fact is you gave us a definition of nation and said all nations deserve self determination no matter what, yet you definition specifically states their own culture and their own history (later expanded to included being descended from a certain group). So what are you uniquely excluding them from your definition? I fancy that you have simply bought the rhetoric that certain idiots here spout and refuse to renounce it regardless of your other beliefs.

One or both of your silly views will have to go for you to be consistent. I recommend getting rid of both, but if you want to hang on to one you best pick it now. So which one are you going to retain?


The rights of Pakistanis as a minority nationality in Ireland must be guarded without exception. Should non-Irish residents be able to vote in a referendum on Irish unification? Yes, it is my opinion that they should, just as Anglophones living in Quebec should be able to vote in a referendum on Quebecois independence. But again, what matters first and foremost is the self-determination of the Irish nation, which has heretofore been denied and wholly disrespected by imperialism and its allies. This is why socialists support the right to self-determination for all nations.
What matters most is the nation? In other words the "rights of a nation" are taking precedence over all else. It amazes me that you still don't see the implications of this.

And at any rate as has been pointed out to you on several occasions, whatever British interests in the past were, in 2010 Northern Ireland is an expensive liability the Government would just love to be shot of. Don't forget that the Government has as official policy holding a referendum on reuniting with Ireland as soon as it believes one might succeed.

Britain isn't gaining anything at all by its presence there-even Britsih business functioning in Ireland is making the vast majority of profit in the Republic and indeed it regularly lobbies for the Republic's economic policies to be implemented in Northern Ireland. Do you really think that when Britain is suffering from a severe budget crises, anyone in Government wants to be spending money on this?

I recommend you stop listening to certain idiots here who spout ultra-Republican nonsense. There are good arguments for Irish unification, I support it myself, though it takes a distinct second place to the importance of equal rights for all and the end of Sectarian discrimination and violence, but some of the stuff here is ridiculous. Not to mention the terms a lot of them use just make them look ignorant. It amazes me they still use the term "free state" when the Free State ceased to exist precisely seventy two years ago last Tuesday.

[manic expression]

Well I don't play the different nations game as you know. But the fact is you gave us a definition of nation and said all nations deserve self determination no matter what, yet you definition specifically states their own culture and their own history (later expanded to included being descended from a certain group). So what are you uniquely excluding them from your definition? I fancy that you have simply bought the rhetoric that certain idiots here spout and refuse to renounce it regardless of your other beliefs.
Go back and read my posts. I have repeatedly said that cultural differences do not translate to distinct nationalities. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.


One or both of your silly views will have to go for you to be consistent. I recommend getting rid of both, but if you want to hang on to one you best pick it now. So which one are you going to retain?
You've pointed out no such contradiction.


What matters most is the nation? In other words the "rights of a nation" are taking precedence over all else. It amazes me that you still don't see the implications of this.
The rights of all nations take precedence over imperialism, over chauvinism, yes. However, if you had read my posts or the posts of Republican Socialists here, you'd see that the liberation of the nation is done in order to bring the workers one more valuable step closer to making revolution. Liberating Irish workers from imperialist domination is a progressive step in the march of history towards communism. This has been explained many times before.


And at any rate as has been pointed out to you on several occasions, whatever British interests in the past were, in 2010 Northern Ireland is an expensive liability the Government would just love to be shot of. Don't forget that the Government has as official policy holding a referendum on reuniting with Ireland as soon as it believes one might succeed.
Not really, or else it would have gotten rid of the liability already. You're acting as though those poor British imperialists are just lost in occupied Ireland because they forgot a map. The fact is that until the imperialists cease their occupation of Ireland, I couldn't care less what their intentions are or what their motivations are; it's still an imperialist occupation that needs to be defeated at all costs.


Britain isn't gaining anything at all by its presence there-even Britsih business functioning in Ireland is making the vast majority of profit in the Republic and indeed it regularly lobbies for the Republic's economic policies to be implemented in Northern Ireland. Do you really think that when Britain is suffering from a severe budget crises, anyone in Government wants to be spending money on this?
I'm not a mind-reader, I simply see an imperialist occupation that needs to be defeated. If you can't think of any reasons why the British bourgeoisie would want to continue the occupation, however, I suggest you re-read the posts in this thread, as many reasons have been clearly illustrated.


I recommend you stop listening to certain idiots here who spout ultra-Republican nonsense. There are good arguments for Irish unification, I support it myself, though it takes a distinct second place to the importance of equal rights for all and the end of Sectarian discrimination and violence, but some of the stuff here is ridiculous. Not to mention the terms a lot of them use just make them look ignorant. It amazes me they still use the term "free state" when the Free State ceased to exist precisely seventy two years ago last Tuesday.
I think I'll listen to those who have consistently promoted the interests of Irish workers, against the most difficult challenges, from before the Easter Rising to today. That's what matters here.

[Demogorgon]

Not really, or else it would have gotten rid of the liability already. You're acting as though those poor British imperialists are just lost in occupied Ireland because they forgot a map. The fact is that until the imperialists cease their occupation of Ireland, I couldn't care less what their intentions are or what their motivations are; it's still an imperialist occupation that needs to be defeated at all costs.

You are starting to annoy me now with this childish rhetoric about something you know nothing about. Despite the claims of people here, nobody has identified the actual imperialist interest in Northern Ireland. The presence of Britain there is an anachronistic hangover, not some imperialist venture to absolutely no purpose despite what some silly romantics with their minds stuck in the twenties might think.

The reason Britain will not go without a referendum is because to do so would mean a civil war where thousands of innocent people would die, where Britain would receive international condemnation for allowing it to happen over the will of the people there. Where Britain and Ireland would both be expelled from the EU for setting in motion events that led to senseless slaughter and so on.

You might say the reputations and economic interests of Britain and Ireland don't matter, but can you so brazenly ignore the lives of all the people who would die for no purpose whatsoever? What possible liberation is there for slaughter that would serve only to transfer Northern Ireland under Dublin's control. I struggle to comprehend the brazen naivete of anyone who could possibly think that would be worthwhile for some ill defined part of the working class. Please enlighten me, where is it? The Republic of Ireland is no longer under any kind of British control, so it must already be considered free and on the road to socialist revolution and as for Northern Ireland, how is creating a situation where worker kills worker for the sake of stupid nationalism going to advance any cause at all?

We are finally getting to the point in Northern Ireland where it is possible for some kind of cross community class consciousness to emerge now that people are finally emerging from the Sectarian poison the clouded the place for the best part of a century and you want to take it back to the worst of those times, indeed to even worse than that?

Honestly I think you should stop pontificating on matters you don't understand. Anyone with any understanding of Ireland these days not stuck a century ago would see that far from being some oppressed colony, Ireland is the richer party. It is true that Northern Ireland is much poorer and that is a good reason to thin the Union has failed, and that is a reason to argue for reuniting the country, not naive nationalism.

I think you honestly believe that Britain sits in Northern Ireland holding down a population that desperately wants it gone and it is that which makes it so hard for me to take you seriously. Opinion polls consistently show about 70% support for remaining part of Britain. I wish that were not the case, but there it is. Any sane supporter of Irish Unification attempts to argue the case for ending partition, tries to convince those 70% to change their mind. And that is what serious Republican activity in Northern Ireland consists of these days. Your hideous ultra-nationalism however makes you believe that the wishes of the people shouldn't matter. That death and misery is a worthwhile price to pay for placating nationalistic fantasies. Maybe its time for you to stop and think that nobody actually wants that. Only a few thugs who miss the days when they could terrorise their own communities. It might come to a great shock to you, but living in Northern Ireland in the days when having friends on the other side of the divide could land you in hospital or expressing the wrong opinion in the wrong place could be a death sentence was not much fun.

Honestly, at this stage you disgust me.

[Demogorgon]

Incidentally, for anyone who thinks I might have overreacted in the above post, I should point out I have plenty of friends who suffered a great deal through the bitterness that infected Northern Ireland for so long.

To see idiots who know nothing about it want to reignite it for the sake of silly fantasies is quite upsetting. Not to mention it is disgusting to see from self proclaimed workers. We are supposed to call for international unity of the working class. Yet some people here want to tell workers at gunpoint that they must be Irish and Irish alone and that killing them if they refuse is worth it because somehow it will bring the goal of socialism closer rather than set it back by decades.

[KC]

Edit

[manic expression]

You are starting to annoy me now with this childish rhetoric about something you know nothing about. Despite the claims of people here, nobody has identified the actual imperialist interest in Northern Ireland.
Again, it seems you haven't been paying attention:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1638540&postcount=71

[Invader Zim]

Again, it seems you haven't been paying attention:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1638540&postcount=71

On the contrary, nothing in that post outlines a real British imperialist interest in Ireland. Soldier for Life informs us that Britian has economic interests in Ireland but in no way explains how these are actually aided by the continued presence of British troops in Northern Ireland and Britains continued political control of Northern Ireland. As pointed out earlier if anything it would be easier and cheaper for Britain to withdraw completely from Ireland and still maintain its economic interests.

In terms of Britians alleged 'stratigic' interests these are put down to a need to 'prevent' a revolution that purportedly would "have a huge galvanising effect of workers across western Europe". Yet any realistic commentator would immidiately point out that such a 'revolution' is hardly the most pressing concern to Britian when it comes to Ireland. Sorry, but if Soldier for Life actually believes that the reason Britain has not washed its hands of Northern Ireland is to prevent a revolution - which presumably must be just on the horizon - then s/he is living in a fantasy.

The argument that Irish independence would grant impetus to the movement for Scottish independence is an argument that holds more weight. But the policy of devolution suggests to me that the break up of the union is the log term political future of Britain anyway, and you can rest assured that if and when Scotland does break from the union part of the deal will be that England gets the North Sea drilling rights, not Scotland.

[manic expression]

So I'll be away for a few days at least, but I can't wait to see what kind of anti-Irish arguments I'll find when I get back.


Really? Where did I do that? That's like saying because I believe that race is a social construct that black people aren't really a race. Doesn't make much sense.
Well, "black people" aren't a race. It's a useless concept that materialists have little time for. Nationality, on the other hand, is not a social construct, they are determined by a number of concrete factors that I've described many times. You've ignored these concrete factors many times.

So again, are you saying that the Irish nation is just made up? Is it simply a constructed identity that would disappear tomorrow if "we" called them something else? Looks like you're trying to run away from the consequences of your argument yet again.


I've read them all and understand them much better than you, which is proven by your ridiculous use of the term "imperialism" in this instance when you don't even know what imperialism is.

Hint: Imperialism as defined by the classical Marxists hasn't existed for 70 years.
I'm using "imperialism" the way Lenin did. You, apparently, keep saying no one understands it but you, and yet you're either too lazy or too bankrupt to tell us why. The FACT of the matter is that the UK is imperialist, and the occupation of Ireland is imperialist because it's an imperialist force doing the occupation.

Like I said before, if the occupation of Ireland isn't imperialist, then what is it? I asked you this a few pages back and you're still too dishonest to give a straight answer.


Ah yes; anything other than bowing to ultranationalist violence must mean that I support some kind of ethnic cleansing against them. Kudos on digging yourself an even deeper hole.
So supporting Irish national self-determination, in line with the arguments of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, is "bowing to ultranationalist violence". Obviously, you don't comprehend the situation: Republican Socialists have been committed to stopping sectarian violence at every turn. Unity between Protestant workers and Catholic workers is at the center of their program. It's a shame you're too busy kicking the kind of rhetoric that a Zionist could agree with to notice.


You could have said the same thing to the Bolsheviks.
The Bolsheviks opposed Zionism throughout Eastern Europe, and quite effectively, too. For their part, Zionists have always despised the Soviet Union for a variety of reasons. So no, I couldn't say the same thing to the Bolsheviks.


"OMG German imperialism agrees with you; that must mean you're wrong!"
German imperialism doesn't agree with the goal of a united, socialist Ireland. Not one bit. Nice try, though.


"Spare me the details; it is clearly imperialism and imperialism must be opposed, because I said so! No need to nit pick about the actual circumstances involved!"
Your unwillingness to support the liberation of Ireland from imperialist occupation is noted. Looks like you're more interested in concocting excuses for her majesty's royal army than in promoting the interests of Irish workers. Which is OK, because if your posts are any indication, you're a friend of Zionists and Tories before anyone else. Details, details, indeed.

[manic expression]

The argument that Irish independence would grant impetus to the movement for Scottish independence is an argument that holds more weight. But the policy of devolution suggests to me that the break up of the union is the log term political future of Britain anyway, and you can rest assured that if and when Scotland does break from the union part of the deal will be that England gets the North Sea drilling rights, not Scotland.
Actually, this was what I was referring to the most, and I think it deserves a great deal of consideration. It goes without saying that sped-up devolution and a united Ireland would greatly change the equation for the UK, likely to the detriment of British bourgeois influence. Further, while it can be said that devolution does suggest that a break-up is in Britain's future, that doesn't mean that the British bourgeoisie is any more eager to bring it closer. The break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was almost an inevitability after a certain point, and yet the ruling class there still clung to it (basically lighting the fuse of WWI in the process).

As far as the occupation being expensive goes (which has been cited over and over), imperialism has never been cheap. The occupation of Iraq has been an unparalleled expense for the American bourgeoisie, and yet one would have to be insane to argue that the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq isn't imperialist. Saying that the imperialists don't want to be occupying Ireland just because it costs a lot is far from a persuasive argument.

And lastly, it begs the question: if imperialism really, really wanted to leave Ireland (as has been implied here), would they not leave? Obviously, the imperialists have calculated that it is in their interests to continue the occupation.

[Demogorgon]

The argument that Irish independence would grant impetus to the movement for Scottish independence is an argument that holds more weight. But the policy of devolution suggests to me that the break up of the union is the log term political future of Britain anyway, and you can rest assured that if and when Scotland does break from the union part of the deal will be that England gets the North Sea drilling rights, not Scotland.
This is a good post as a whole, but this bit is incorrect. First of all I would be amazed in Ireland is united before Scotland becomes independent and also the notion that a Scottish Government would agree to give all North Sea drilling rights to England is impossible. I suspect the final deal would involve splitting them between the two, but to give them entirely to England would be politically impossible for a Scottish Government.

As to Manic Expression, it amazes me that you still think you have given a good definition of nation when after going through several examples we found that in most cases your definition is utterly absurd compared to the actual situation and attitude in those places. You should learn your facts before you hold forth on them.

And again, to think that reasonable explanations of how British involvement in Northern Ireland is imperialism has been given is simply to invite ridicule. The notion particularly that it is to stop Socialist revolution is naive to the point of absurdity, as is the notion that it would have a galvanising effect on workers across Europe. Likely the effect would be that Northern Irish workers would find they are now under a Government that grants them even fewer rights than the previous ones and workers elsewhere would take that as a lesson not to bother in future.

But hey, pretending it is still the Nineteen Twenties, that there is a glorious struggle going on and that the Irish Free State still exists* is much more romantic isn't it? After all Roleplaying is quite fun for a lot of people.

*Again the Free State thing almost makes me want to role my eyes the most. It ceased to exist precisely seventy two years and six days ago.

[BobKKKindle$]

Nationality, on the other hand, is not a social construct, they are determined by a number of concrete factors that I've described many times

I'm not getting into this debate but I will point out that there is a considerable academic literature on the origins of nationalism - the point there is this debate in the first place is that there is a consensus amongst historians and students of ideology that nationalism is a comparatively recent development and only emerged, first in Europe, and then in other parts of the world as well, from the early 18th century onwards, and debates tend to focus around what led to the growth of nationalist ideas during this period when they had not existed before, nationalism being fundamentally characterized by a sense of territorial loyalty to something other than the immediate community. The classical argument of Anderson in 'Imagined Communities' (which has subsequently influenced Marxist accounts) is that the printing press had a central role, as this invention enabled ideas and knowledge to be circulated across large areas, and facilitated the development of shared languages. Marxists have also touched on the importance of trading links between towns, as this had much the same impact as the printing press, and also enables us to understand nationalism as a consequence of capitalism, due to trading links becoming more intense (and urban populations growing) during the early stages of capitalist development, or when feudal relations of production were being weakened. The point here is that there is nothing eternal about nationalism and so it's hard to see how there could be anything eternal about nationality either. I don't deny that nationalism has a material basis, as with all other kinds of ideologies, but to me you seem confused on this issue.

[khad]

^Doesn't Anderson also argue that the first stirrings of "nation-ness" occurred in the colonies with what he termed "creoles" (mostly white settlers but also mestizos)? It's been a long time since I've read it, but he had some argument about the increased social strife that came about through tensions between local needs and the needs of the royal state since the colonies were much more tightly regulated than home provinces.

[KC]

Edit

[PRC-UTE]

It makes me laugh when certain Irish republicans bang on about Imperialism when Ireland has benefitted economically from her big Yankee cousin over the water and the EU- directly from imperialism.

You've obviously not read the news in a while. The Irish economy collapsed the furthest of any during this latest crisis. For all the benefits you've mentioned, Ireland failed to develop Irish capitalism. 91.54 percent of the 26 county's exports weren't Irish capital (source: Irish Exporters Association). Meaning any kind of recovery will be fairly unlikely soon and emigration will once again be the order of the day.

Actually examining economic relations via facts is slightly more worthwhile than oddball, bitter race-baiting.



Added to which, the fact that certain sections of the Irish republican movement were Nazi sympathisers and anti-Semites who actively colluded with the Nazis, makes me view the whole issue of Irish republicanism rather differently.

Anti-semites like the Jewish Quartermaster of the Dublin Brigade, IRA, Vol Robert Briscoe?



As for the matter of the troubles, I seem to recall that the British Army was sent to Northern Ireland to protect the catholics from attacks by the loyalists, the Protestant Irish.

Yeah, but those uppity catholics kept marching for their civil rights and equal access to housing and jobs. They also insisted on marching against the British Army-enforced policy of interning Catholic males without trial. Something the British Army, "defenders of the Catholics" massacred unarmed Irish protestors for. Repeatedly.



The same protestant Irish who did not want to be part of De Valera's catholic theocratic state i.e. the Republic and because of whom the Laughing Boy Michael Collins himself agreed to partition with the British Government-

If Ireland was a Catholic theocracy, they did a pretty poor job at it, since the first president of the Irish Republic was a Protestant. And that former Jewish IRA Volunteer I mentioned was elected Lord Mayor of Dublin in the fifties. I guess he somehow slipped past the Inquisition :rolleyes:

The Irish State has never had an official established religion such as the Church of Ireland prior to independence. The "special" role of the Catholic Church is essentially meaningless in legal terms (Catholic control of education was another story of course). The Irish Constitution DeValera introduced recognised all the Christian sects in Ireland and Judaism. For this rightist Catholic groups despised DeValera.

That was the Unionist excuse- "Rome Rule". Really they just didn't want to give up their privileges they had under British rule. Unionists are still pretty honest about that even today.



of course Michael Collins was "dealt with"..... by whom remains a mystery.

No, it's not a mystery at all lol

Now why don't you run along and play while us grown ups talk.

[Iskra1916]

keep the inbred imperialist ***** out of ireland !

FTQ

[Woyzeck]

What imperialist interests does Britain have in Ireland?

Christ on a stick. I suppose they're just here for a spot of cricket & cucumber sandwiches, eh? Sure wasn't India conquered for its warm climate? If the British state had no interest in remaining in Ireland it would leave, just as it will 'leave' Afghanistan as soon as it achieves its objectives there or the situation becomes 'unwinnable', from an imperialist perspective. The British state has engaged in campaigns of terror against the civilian population both north and south of the Irish border over the past 40 years to maintain a firm grip on the Irish territory it still occupies so please don't play dumb.

Opposing a visit by a British royal is a tricky one in my view. A lot of the hot air coming from Republicans seems to stem from a potential visit to the south of Ireland as the Queen has in fact visited Ireland many times, just not the 26 counties. There's also the problem with how easily the establishment media will make Republicans look quite reactionary for opposing any such visit.

At a time like this I think our energies would be better focused elsewhere.

[Woyzeck]

Politically the Labour Party tends to favour a United Ireland

Is that a joke?

Labour has proven itself to be just as chauvinistic as the Conservatives regarding the "Irish Question".

[Woyzeck]

As for the British army's activities in N.Ireland, once again the British find themselves in a no-win situation caught between two warring tribes of rabid nationalists.

As far as I'm aware there haven't been any tribes in Ireland for a number of centuries and the British (or "English" before them) certainly never discouraged infighting between the indigenous populations. The role of Unionism is of course a completely different scenario. And funnily enough the outgoing of the old tribal system coincided with the arrival of Scottish and English planters whose descendents still largely oppose Irish independence…what a coincidence.

At least you're consistent in your racist views.

[KC]

Edit

[Demogorgon]

Is that a joke?

Labour has proven itself to be just as chauvinistic as the Conservatives regarding the "Irish Question".
Labour only dropped a commitment to a United Ireland from their programme because a deal between the British and Irish Governments requires the British Government not to state an opinion on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

Going further back, the Attlee Government was forced into having to do a compromise deal not to unilaterally declare British jurisdiction over Northern Ireland over and even the Wilson Government which was least enthusiastic to the idea still planned to turn about half of Northern Ireland over to the republic without a referendum.

I know conspiracy theories sound better, but the actual historical actions of the party speak more clearly.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Labour only dropped a commitment to a United Ireland from their programme because a deal between the British and Irish Governments requires the British Government not to state an opinion on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

The Labour Party's policy of "unity by consent" was very short-lived, only being implemented during the post-1981 left-turn of the Party. It was not an effective policy as it still recognised the unionist veto. Even this policy was scrapped as the Party moved to the right in the 1990s.


Going further back, the Attlee Government was forced into having to do a compromise deal not to unilaterally declare British jurisdiction over Northern Ireland over

In the Cold War, the British weren't interested in losing their military bases in Ireland or allow Marxist-influenced republicans to gain a foothold in Ireland.


even the Wilson Government which was least enthusiastic to the idea still planned to turn about half of Northern Ireland over to the republic without a referendum.

Britain in the 1970s considered a transfer of highly-nationalist territory to the Republic when they feared losing their foothold in Ireland. It is contrary to a pro-nationalist agenda, if anything it would have increased the demographic base for a unionist veto via a second gerrymandered partition.


I know conspiracy theories sound better, but the actual historical actions of the party speak more clearly.

Yes, those actions speak very clearly indeed.

[Woyzeck]

I know conspiracy theories sound better, but the actual historical actions of the party speak more clearly.

What conspiracy theories?

Labour's actions speak very clearly indeed. Their position has always been based on the Unionist veto i.e. the same lame excuse that has been used by the British establishment to justify the partition of Ireland since the early 1920s.

Support for Irish independence has to mean the rejection of Unionism. Supporting socialist revolution has to mean the rejection of capitalism. "Unity by consent" is nonsense. Should we wait for "socialism by consent"? When the capitalists feel like relinquishing their power we can go about the business of changing society, but not before then, right? :rolleyes:

[Woyzeck]

I asked because I want to hear Manic's take on it.

Fair enough.

[PRC-UTE]

Britain in the 1970s considered a transfer of highly-nationalist territory to the Republic when they feared losing their foothold in Ireland. It is contrary to a pro-nationalist agenda, if anything it would have increased the demographic base for a unionist veto via a second gerrymandered partition.

Yeah they were contemplating trading South Armagh to the ROI in exchange for some land in the ROI.

[Invader Zim]

This is a good post as a whole, but this bit is incorrect. First of all I would be amazed in Ireland is united before Scotland becomes independent and also the notion that a Scottish Government would agree to give all North Sea drilling rights to England is impossible. I suspect the final deal would involve splitting them between the two, but to give them entirely to England would be politically impossible for a Scottish Government.

As to Manic Expression, it amazes me that you still think you have given a good definition of nation when after going through several examples we found that in most cases your definition is utterly absurd compared to the actual situation and attitude in those places. You should learn your facts before you hold forth on them.

And again, to think that reasonable explanations of how British involvement in Northern Ireland is imperialism has been given is simply to invite ridicule. The notion particularly that it is to stop Socialist revolution is naive to the point of absurdity, as is the notion that it would have a galvanising effect on workers across Europe. Likely the effect would be that Northern Irish workers would find they are now under a Government that grants them even fewer rights than the previous ones and workers elsewhere would take that as a lesson not to bother in future.

But hey, pretending it is still the Nineteen Twenties, that there is a glorious struggle going on and that the Irish Free State still exists* is much more romantic isn't it? After all Roleplaying is quite fun for a lot of people.

*Again the Free State thing almost makes me want to role my eyes the most. It ceased to exist precisely seventy two years and six days ago.


First of all I would be amazed in Ireland is united before Scotland becomes independent

I agree entirely, however the argument was that Northern Irish independence would trigger a domino effect upon Scotland. While this isn't going to happen, because it is hugely unlikely that Ireland will ceceed the union before Scotland, I think if it did it probably would lead to the abolition of the entire union.


and also the notion that a Scottish Government would agree to give all North Sea drilling rights to England is impossible.

I'm not so sure, I suspect that Scotland, should it become independent, would still have to be reliant in many ways upon England, and that would be exploited. But I guess we will see when it actually happens, which I think is likely a certainty at some point in the next few decades.


I suspect the final deal would involve splitting them between the two, but to give them entirely to England would be politically impossible for a Scottish Government.

Given that around 70% of the British region has been depleted already, it may be an academic point anyway.

[Demogorgon]

What conspiracy theories?

Labour's actions speak very clearly indeed. Their position has always been based on the Unionist veto i.e. the same lame excuse that has been used by the British establishment to justify the partition of Ireland since the early 1920s.

Support for Irish independence has to mean the rejection of Unionism. Supporting socialist revolution has to mean the rejection of capitalism. "Unity by consent" is nonsense. Should we wait for "socialism by consent"? When the capitalists feel like relinquishing their power we can go about the business of changing society, but not before then, right? :rolleyes:
Here we go again. There seems to be a point of dogma that keeps being brought up here, that the wishes of the population of Northern ireland is of no consequence here. If you want to see a United Ireland you are going to have to persuade unionists to change their mind. Telling them that you will not take account of their views and force will be used to make them acquiesce is neither a convincing argument nor a realistic one.

[Demogorgon]

I agree entirely, however the argument was that Northern Irish independence would trigger a domino effect upon Scotland. While this isn't going to happen, because it is hugely unlikely that Ireland will ceceed the union before Scotland, I think if it did it probably would lead to the abolition of the entire union.

I'm not so sure, I suspect that Scotland, should it become independent, would still have to be reliant in many ways upon England, and that would be exploited. But I guess we will see when it actually happens, which I think is likely a certainty at some point in the next few decades.

Given that around 70% of the British region has been depleted already, it may be an academic point anyway.
You have to remember that Scotland will hold a lot of the cards when it comes to negotiating independence. As well as the oil being in Scottish water, a lot of military bases are in Scotland, including the entire nuclear arsenal. On top of that Scotland is regularly relied upon when there are droughts and of course, Scotland has to be agreeable when it comes to taking a share of the national debt. Comparatively Scotland is a lot less dependent on Britain in terms of Government actions anyway. With that in mind and public opinion being what it is, a Scottish Government surrendering all drilling rights to England simply isn't thinkable, they would literally be putting their lives at risk, given the backlash that would follow.

Still, time will indeed tell.

[Woyzeck]

Here we go again. There seems to be a point of dogma that keeps being brought up here, that the wishes of the population of Northern ireland is of no consequence here. If you want to see a United Ireland you are going to have to persuade unionists to change their mind. Telling them that you will not take account of their views and force will be used to make them acquiesce is neither a convincing argument nor a realistic one.

The prospects of the Palestinian workers overthrowing the state of Israel aren't exactly fantastic either; does that mean they should recognise Israel or, as some on here believe, wait for (Zionist) Israeli workers to liberate them? Granted the situation in occupied Ireland is no longer as drastic as that in occupied Palestine, but the point still stands.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Can't we all just agree that Religion and Nations are creations of the ruling classes, and a united Ireland would not acctually achive much in the way of emancipating the working classes.

[Woyzeck]

Can't we all just agree that Religion and Nations are creations of the ruling classes, and a united Ireland would not acctually achive much in the way of emancipating the working classes.

Well it's a united socialist Ireland I'm interested in.

[Zanthorus]

Forgive my ignorance but why couldn't people just try for the Republic of Ireland to go socialist right now instead of waiting for unification?

I don't know much about the whole Irish thing so it's very possible I'm talking out of my arse here.

[PRC-UTE]

Can't we all just agree that Religion and Nations are creations of the ruling classes, and a united Ireland would not acctually achive much in the way of emancipating the working classes.

While your point about religion and nations are mostly accurate, your second point doesn't logically follow.

Viewing such issues purely in the abstract is rarely very useful.

[Woyzeck]

Forgive my ignorance but why couldn't people just try for the Republic of Ireland to go socialist right now instead of waiting for unification?

I don't know much about the whole Irish thing so it's very possible I'm talking out of my arse here.

Because an imperialist occupation tends to hinder the prospects for socialist revolution in any particular country. There's also the added problem of Unionism which acts as a bulwark against said revolution in favour of said occupation as Unionists (of all classes) see their loyalty to British imperialism as being worthwhile. Historically this was very much the case. They had their own little sectarian statelet that unfairly allocated employment, housing, education etc. a long sectarian lines i.e. always in the favour of Protestants. This discrimination has been some what curtailed in recent times but you're still more likely to have a job and to be allocated adequate housing, and so forth, if you are a Protestant.

Organisations have tried to ignore the national question in favour of the social one and vice versa and neither has worked. It's about time the two were effectively combined and the leadership of this struggle becomes proletariat as it never really has been in the case of national liberation.

[Demogorgon]

Because an imperialist occupation tends to hinder the prospects for socialist revolution in any particular country.
The thing is, even if we accept there is an imperialist occupation (ignoring what the term actually means and pretending the relationship is still as it was a hundred years ago) there is the problem that Britain is not doing anything to keep down the impending revolutionary movement in Ireland, because there isn't one of any significance. The way people talk here about Britain occupying Northern ireland in an attempt to fend off a socialist revolution on their doorstep, leaves me wondering if there might be a second ireland out there that I don't know of, because the one I know doesn't remotely match some of the stuff I see here.

[Invader Zim]

The prospects of the Palestinian workers overthrowing the state of Israel aren't exactly fantastic either; does that mean they should recognise Israel or, as some on here believe, wait for (Zionist) Israeli workers to liberate them? Granted the situation in occupied Ireland is no longer as drastic as that in occupied Palestine, but the point still stands.

Recognise Israel in what context? The context that Israel and Israeli's are there in the region, and that the latter hold poltiical, military and economic domination over the region whether we, or anybody else likes it or not? Or recognise Israel in the context of actually supporting the Israeli state as a legitimate political entity, and all its racist policies? In the case of the latter then no obviously not, but the same can be said of any capitalist state.