A Pan-celtic Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization...Anyone interested?

[Palingenisis]

Is there anyone out there interested in forming a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist group dedicated to the liberation of the celtic nations?

[Q]

"Liberation", how? By following a left-nationalist route? This is the opposite direction in which we should be going, which is the unification of workers across Europe and the world.

[RedAnarchist]

What are the Celtic Nations? Do you mean just those of the British Isles or do you also include those in the Iberian region and Brittany? Celtic, by the way, is only a linguistic term and there's quite a few differences nowadays between such countries that could be considered "Celtic".

[Palingenisis]

What are the Celtic Nations? Do you mean just those of the British Isles or do you also include those in the Iberian region and Brittany? Celtic, by the way, is only a linguistic term and there's quite a few differences nowadays between such countries that could be considered "Celtic".

Yes including Britanny and Iberia.

[which doctor]

This is a troll, right?

[Palingenisis]

No Im being serious.

[Chimurenga.]

Celtic People's War?

[RedAnarchist]

Many of the "Celtic" peoples of ancient Europe lived throughout the continent, so in a way almost every European country could be considered partly "Celtic".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

It gets down to debates around the "national question".

First-what is a "Celt"? Historically the Celtic peoples are supposed to be the Irish, Welsh Scottish,and the people of Brittany.Okay but it gets more complicated.

A lot of people in France could be Celts, the "Gauls". On the other hand a lot of people in France could be Norse, Germanic, or Basque.There are 3 areas in Europe called "Galicia"; in Spain, Poland, and eastern Turkey. Is Walloonia or much of the Netherlands Celtic? The Rhineland and I guess much of Austria may be "Celtic".

The Scottish lowlands may be more "Sasenach" than Celtic. Northumbria in England may be more celtic.

Do you judge on the basis of language? My understanding except for Brittany and western Scotland the Celtic tongues are not spoken languages. Facial features or DNA? That gets problematical.

There's a theory the Celts as such never existed. Celtic speaking peoples could be seen as more of a cultural sphere.

It is tragic for folk cultures to become marginalized, commodified or totally destroyed.Celtic speaking peoples did have more of a communal, collectivist culture than capitalism. Nationalist movements however rapidly become bourgeoise-the SNP, the mainstream Quebec independance movement, etc. The way forward is international working class solidarity.

I don't think its possible or desirable to create a Pan Celtic Communist Party.

What did Connolly say? You probably know this a lot better than I do.

[Dr Mindbender]

i for one, think the left of the british isles would be stronger if we had a union between ireland, scotland, wales and cornwall as opposed to the current set up.

Where should the capital be though, that is the question.

[Dimentio]

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/6328/celticsocialiststate.png

Only me that is seeing a few... hrrm... logistical problems with this?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

How about the Isle of Man? Again though, how do you define a Celt?

[Dimentio]

Isle of Man is so small its basically not marked on said map :(

[Dr Mindbender]

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/6328/celticsocialiststate.png

Only me that is seeing a few... hrrm... logistical problems with this?

Not really, the Philippines and Japan covers a similar area and is spread across even more landmasses.

Anyway, if you were to build a tunnel or bridge from the antrim coast to galloway (a mere 15 miles) you could theoretically drive a car straight from the west of ireland to the north west of spain in a single haul.



Isle of Man is so small its basically not marked on said map :(

you can see it if you squint, its the tiny red dot between wales and scotland. But thats hardly a fantastic map in the first instance.

[No pasarán]

How about the Isle of Man? Again though, how do you define a Celt?

The world Celt is a later invention, but there were gaelic peoples who shared a culture and language. The last remanants are marked on that map, the culture and language only really exists in the marked areas now.

I don't know if we need a political union, but its certainly important to keep the culture alive.

[Dimentio]

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3228/celticworld.png

This was how large Celtic influence was when it was at its peak, 2300 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLX3c0do7Kg

A pretty good documentary about the Celtic civilisation, and how "progressive" it was for its time.

[No pasarán]

It wasn't really a civilisation in the sense of an empire though, more a shared langue and culture. But yeah its fucking fascinating, I really enjoy exploring my roots.

[Devrim]

but its certainly important to keep the culture alive.

Why?

Devrim

[Andropov]

Is there anyone out there interested in forming a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist group dedicated to the liberation of the celtic nations?
No.
This is ridiculous IMO.

[Palingenisis]

No.
This is ridiculous IMO.

Yeah much better pan-"socialism"....Let's just support anything that waves a red flag...

[No pasarán]

Why?

Devrim

Why not? Why should people give up there language, stories, sports and music? Because lets be honest thats all that is really left of gaelic culture. I don't really see it as a threat to bringing about positive world change.

[Devrim]

Why not? Why should people give up there language, stories, sports and music?

People give things up for all sorts of reasons. People have given up Celtic languages for various reasons, but given them up they have. Irish and Scots Gaelic are moribund and will be effectively dead within a couple of generations, Manx and Cornish are dead despite a few hobbyists pretending otherwise. Welsh seems to be quite safe, and so possibly does Breton though transmission within the family is down to 3%, which if it continues will be terminal.

Some people think that languages have an intrinsic value in themselves. Personally I don't. To me they are tools for communication, and people use and discard whichever are useful to them. I certainly don't think that it is 'important to keep the culture alive'.

The Irish government has, however, been trying to. The results of its success can be seen in the pictures below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0d/Gaeltacht_1926.jpg/220px-Gaeltacht_1926.jpg

Gaeltacht 1926

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5b/Gaeltacht_1956.jpg/220px-Gaeltacht_1956.jpg
Gaeltacht 1956

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/03/Gaeltacht_2007.jpg/220px-Gaeltacht_2007.jpg
Gaeltacht (category A-Irish dominant as community language) 2007

As for the sports, Hurling, Camogie, Gaelic football are basically sports invented in the late 19th century in an attempt to recreate a historic tradition. They are certainly not in danger of dying out though as a packed Croke Park continues to demonstrate year after year, and don't in anyway need 'keeping alive'.

The stories will survive if written and read mostly in English, and the music is in no danger. I heard Irish music sung in Gaelic being played whilst I was shopping in the supermarket here in Ankara the other day.

So why is it 'important to keep the culture alive'?

Devrim

[No pasarán]

Ok thanks for for expanding on your question and I don't see it as an attack, more you debating the usefulness of people holding onto cultural heritage.

A 2002 census in the ROI had "185,838 people who spoke Irish "daily" and 1,570,894 who were "able" to speak it"*.. I'll try and find a more up to date survery later, but that means 1,756,732 people out of a country of 4,459,300. In the north, "75,125 speak it fluently", with a further 92 362 understanding it meaning around out of 167 487 out of 1,685,267 in an area where it has not really been encouraged as much.

And you are right about the sports, they are modern interpritations. I certainly don't agree with the way GAA is still closely linked to the church. But why should I not try to learn more gaelic, play the music, play the sports or encourage other people to do so... this is the part I don't quite understand in your response?

* I'll admit that statistic doesn't state how fluently they speak it.. as I said I need to expand on my point with a more up to date census, although I doubt I'll be online at all this weekend, so it maybe a little while before I come back with a better response

[Devrim]

* I'll admit that statistic doesn't state how fluently they speak it.. as I said I need to expand on my point with a more up to date census, although I doubt I'll be online at all this weekend, so it maybe a little while before I come back with a better response

I'd think that a lot of them barely speak it at all:


Irish is the main community and household language of 3% of the Republic's population[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language#cite_note-1) (which was estimated at 4,422,100 in 2008).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language#cite_note-2) Estimates of fully native speakers range from 40,000 up to 80,000 people.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language#cite_note-6)


But why should I not try to learn more gaelic, play the music, play the sports or encourage other people to do so... this is the part I don't quite understand in your response?

Why not indeed? If you enjoy it there is no reason that you shouldn't.

That isn't what you you seemed to be putting forward earlier though:


its certainly important to keep the culture alive.

And again I ask 'Why?'. If you enjoy doing those sort of things in your spare time, that is your choice. It doesn't mean that keeping 'cultures alive' is important.


I don't see it as an attack, more you debating the usefulness of people holding onto cultural heritage.

I didn't mean it as one.

Devrim

[Dr Mindbender]

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3228/celticworld.png

This was how large Celtic influence was when it was at its peak, 2300 years ago.


What is with the island in Turkey?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I believe the Celtic island in Turkey is or was an area called Galatea.There was a famous Roman statue, The Dying Gaul, of a Celtic warrior from this area. This region is referred to in the Xtian bible, "Paul's letter to the Galateans". I have no idea if people in this region today have any idenity as "Celts". Probably Kurdish or even Armenian "ethnicity" might be more significant today. Overall I think its more productive to think in terms of working class solidarity. "Ethnicities" are largely cultural/social constructs. This is not to say that interest or prude in one's culture or the culture of one's ancestors isn't important but we have to be very careful of the political implications.

[Wanted Man]

Ooh yeah, maoism + cultural nationalism ftw! I'm sure that'll work out great. In fact, let's have maoist people's wars for all kinds of cultural identities, just for the hell of it. Once we're done with the Celtic nations, it's time to start a Frisian Liberation Army. The possibilities are literally endless. I've heard that there are still some Cascadians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29) as well...

[Devrim]

I believe the Celtic island in Turkey is or was an area called Galatea.There was a famous Roman statue, The Dying Gaul, of a Celtic warrior from this area. This region is referred to in the Xtian bible, "Paul's letter to the Galateans". I have no idea if people in this region today have any idenity as "Celts". Probably Kurdish or even Armenian "ethnicity" might be more significant today.

The area was once called 'Galatia'. They were original invited in as mercenaries in a civil war about 280 BC, and, probably to the annoyance of their hosts ended up setting up their own state, which survived until it was incorporated into the Roman Empire in 64 BC.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2e/Ankara_Castle_walls.JPG/200px-Ankara_Castle_walls.JPG
Ankara Castle was originally built by Celts.

People in this region don't identify as Celts today. The Kurdish region is a little further South-East, though of course many Kurds live in Ankara today. There are extremely few Armenians left outside of Istanbul.

Of course, for those interested in football the name lives on in Galatasaray (saray means palace).

Devrim

[JacobVardy]

People in this region don't identify as Celts today.

Devrim

That's interesting. I know a couple of blond Turks here in Sydney who call themselves Celts. I might call them on it.

[Red Lion]

The workers have no race. Are you in with the Nazbol or something?

[Palingenisis]

The workers have no race. Are you in with the Nazbol or something?

No but they have cultures...The whole concept of biological race is not something I buy into...We are talking about a group of oppressed nations.

[Red Lion]

No but they have cultures...The whole concept of biological race is not something I buy into...We are talking about a group of oppressed nations.

Loosely veiled nationalism. And what do you suggest happens to our comrades who aren't part of this "celtic" culture? Fuck off back to Stormfront.

[Honggweilo]

according to this definition im 100% celtic (alto douro portuguese, and dutch) , my portuguese grandfather even played bagpipes. Nobody in Portugal sees themselves as culturally oppresed (native portuguese), in contrast to the Galicians (not the Basques, since its a unique cultural group). Its not national liberation when your not economically opressed, your culture is actively opressed by a larger national entity, and the people dont really care for a dying culture.

[Palingenisis]

according to this definition im 100% celtic (alto douro portuguese, and dutch) , my portuguese grandfather even played bagpipes. Nobody in Portugal sees themselves as culturally oppresed (native portuguese), in contrast to the Galicians (not the Basques, since its a unique cultural group). Its not national liberation when your not economically opressed, your culture is actively opressed by a larger national entity, and the people dont really care for a dying culture.

Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall and Brittany are politically and economically oppressed.

And before you start laughing at the idea of Cornwall being an oppressed nation English comrades researched the question and came to the conclusion that of all the celtic nations it is probably the most oppressed.

[Ravachol]

Whilst I personally enjoy 'Celtic Culture' (If there even is such a homogenous entity) I think the idea of perserving it for it's own sake is pretty ridiculous.
I admire cultural phenomena as diverse as Pre-Raphaelite and Futurist art, Surrealist poetry and Jugendstil architecture but I don't see why any movement dedicated to achieving Communism should strive to perserve or promote these things.

Personally I'm rather iconoclastic when it comes to culture. One should realise that all culture, tradition and discours is developed under particular historic material conditions and reflects the dominant hegemony of that time. Reproducing 'culture' reproduces these structures and discours which serves the cause of communism no good. If we are to achieve Communism we ought to struggle against every aspect of Capital in our daily lives, wherever it manifests on the social terrain and tear through it like a firestorm if necessary.

[Palingenisis]

Loosely veiled nationalism. And what do you suggest happens to our comrades who aren't part of this "celtic" culture? Fuck off back to Stormfront.

The fact that you claim to be "Old Labour" which was a viciously Imperialist party and indeed a "British nationalist" one on that and you are proud of the fact suggests that you might be better suited over there...Take your English colonialism and go elsewhere.

[Red Lion]

The fact that you claim to be "Old Labour" which was a viciously Imperialist party and indeed a "British nationalist" one on that and you are proud of the fact suggests that you might be better suited over there...Take your English colonialism and go elsewhere.

LOL

1.) Check your facts mate
2.) Where the fuck does it say I'm a British nationalist?

Shut your fascist mouth, you just suggested a race based political party and no amount of spin onto someone else is going to hide that.

[Palingenisis]

LOL

1.) Check your facts mate
2.) Where the fuck does it say I'm a British nationalist?

Shut your fascist mouth, you just suggested a race based political party and no amount of spin onto someone else is going to hide that.

Celtic is now used to describe a set of nations...Just like the word Slavic is...And the Celtic nations are suffering under the Jackboot of English colonialism (aswell as French).

Given that you support proudly a British Nationalist party that waged dirty wars from Ireland to Africa to India I really think you should shut up now...

[Red Lion]

Celtic is now used to describe a set of nations...Just like the word Slavic is...And the Celtic nations are suffering under the Jackboot of English colonialism (aswell as French).

Given that you support proudly a British Nationalist party that waged dirty wars from Ireland to Africa to India I really think you should shut up now...

What in the hell are you talking about? Old Labour waged dirty wars in Ireland and Africa and India? Dude, I don't know what the fuck you've been smoking but where can I get some?

[Palingenisis]

What in the hell are you talking about? Old Labour waged dirty wars in Ireland and Africa and India? Dude, I don't know what the fuck you've been smoking but where can I get some?

Members of my family were killed and tortured under a Labour goverment in Ireland (some were more or less completely unpolitical).

Are you denying that the Labour Party fought against seperatist insurgents in Africa? Are you denying that it was part of the national goverment during the 1940s?

[Red Lion]

Members of my family were killed and tortured under a Labour goverment in Ireland (some were more or less completely unpolitical).


Oh yes, we're very sorry for saving your arses from the IRA. Torturing people wasn't in Labour's constitution last time I checked, and last time I checked it wasn't politicians who tortured people, it was the police. Who are independent of the party in power.

Dipshit.

[Zanthorus]

What in the hell are you talking about? Old Labour waged dirty wars in Ireland and Africa and India? Dude, I don't know what the fuck you've been smoking but where can I get some?

In "The Liberal Defence of Murder" Richard Seymour provides some evidence that the Labour party had colonialist tendencies right from the beggining. It's at the local library so you'll have to wait till tomorrow before I can provide anything from it.

[Palingenisis]

Oh yes, we're very sorry for saving your arses from the IRA. Torturing people wasn't in Labour's constitution last time I checked, and last time I checked it wasn't politicians who tortured people, it was the police. Who are independent of the party in power.

Dipshit.

"The war wage is not a war
Of bigotery or greed
The struggle a workers' one
That every man might lead
The life that he was born to live
In a land where he can say
Up the Army of the People!
The heroic IRA!"

[Red Lion]

"The war wage is not a war
Of bigotery or greed
The struggle a workers' one
That every man might lead
The life that he was born to live
In a land where he can say
Up the Army of the People!
The heroic IRA!"

So now you're a fundamentalist republican terrorist who thinks its a good idea to blow up pubs full of innocent people just to prove a point?

[Palingenisis]

Oh yes, we're very sorry for saving your arses from the IRA. .

Actually it was the IRA saving our arses from the Toms and the loyalist death squads.

[Palingenisis]

So now you're a fundamentalist republican terrorist who thinks its a good idea to blow up pubs full of innocent people just to prove a point?

Your refering to the Birmingham Pub bombings?

War is never nice (look the Dresden bombings ;)).

The fact is that Pub was one filled with British soldiers.

What about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings...The worse of the Troubles...That was carried out by British intelligence under I think a Labour goverment (but I will have to check that).

[Red Lion]

Your refering to the Birmingham Pub bombings?

War is never nice (look the Dresden bombings ;)).

The fact is that Pub was one filled with British soldiers.

What about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings...The worse of the Troubles...That was carried out by British intelligence under I think a Labour goverment (but I will have to check that).

The IRA killed innocent people who had nothing to do with their political agenda, to try and push a nationalist agenda. I'm not saying the Dresden bombings were good either (and that was done by a Tory government by the way) but at least they were part of a internationally sanctioned war on fascism. Bombing innocent people while they drink with their families and friends, destroying an innocent person's livelihood (the pub) in the process, is appalling and a disgrace to any political group.

[Palingenisis]

So now you're a fundamentalist republican terrorist who thinks its a good idea to blow up pubs full of innocent people just to prove a point?


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeATzprgCgs)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeATzprgCgs
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeATzprgCgs)

This a brillant documentary made by a French television company...Watch it and learn something about Ireland and your precious Labour Party.

[Red Lion]

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeATzprgCgs)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeATzprgCgs
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeATzprgCgs)

This a brillant documentary made by a French television company...Watch it and learn something about Ireland and your precious Labour Party.

I don't have time to watch pro-terrorist propaganda. If I wanted to do that I'd switch on Al Jazeera.

[Palingenisis]

The IRA killed innocent people who had nothing to do with their political agenda, to try and push a nationalist agenda. I'm not saying the Dresden bombings were good either (and that was done by a Tory government by the way) but at least they were part of a internationally sanctioned war on fascism. Bombing innocent people while they drink with their families and friends, destroying an innocent person's livelihood (the pub) in the process, is appalling and a disgrace to any political group.


The IRA never set out to kill innocent people....Infact the percentage of civilians killed by the IRA is much lower than those killed by the British State which was operating under easier circumstances where it could easily have avoided those deaths.

Plus the fact that your Loyalist death squads set out to target the civilian Nationalist population. So spare me.

[Palingenisis]

I don't have time to watch pro-terrorist propaganda. If I wanted to do that I'd switch on Al Jazeera.

Says it all.

[Red Lion]

The IRA never set out to kill innocent people....

SO WHY DID THEY BOMB A FUCKING PUB THEN? The center of British social life.

[Red Lion]

You do realize Loveschach is going to trash this thread too right? I'm going to drop out of this debate because I'm above petty bickering with idiots like you.

[Palingenisis]

SO WHY DID THEY BOMB A FUCKING PUB THEN? The center of British social life.

Because it was filled by British soldiers in one of the most brutal parts of the war...To let them know to behave otherwise they wouldnt even be safe in the "center of British social life". Funny how though bombs on the "mainland" seemed to be much more effective than bombs in Ireland...

I remember when I was a little girl about six or seven years old being stopped with my mum in the occupied six counties by British soldiers and one pointed a gun at my mum and told her to shut up and one pointed a gun into my face until I pissed myself from fear and they started laughing....That was the early 90s...Things were a lot uglier in the 70s..Saving our arses from the IRA...Yeah right!

[FriendlyLocalViking]

Members of my family were killed and tortured under a Labour goverment in Ireland (some were more or less completely unpolitical).

Are you denying that the Labour Party fought against seperatist insurgents in Africa? Are you denying that it was part of the national goverment during the 1940s?

Proof please.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

Because it was filled by British soldiers in one of the most brutal parts of the war...To let them know to behave otherwise they wouldnt even be safe in the "center of British social life". Funny how though bombs on the "mainland" seemed to be much more effective than bombs in Ireland...

I remember when I was a little girl about six or seven years old being stopped with my mum in the occupied six counties by British soldiers and one pointed a gun at my mum and told her to shut up and one pointed a gun into my face until I pissed myself from fear and they started laughing....That was the early 90s...Things were a lot uglier in the 70s..Saving our arses from the IRA...Yeah right!

British soldiers..... IRA....

Rock and a hard place, man.

[Palingenisis]

British soldiers..... IRA....

Rock and a hard place, man.

Really?

Who made up the IRA? Our brothers, mums, sisters, uncles, dads, friends....

[Palingenisis]

Proof please.

Proof of what exactly?

All this is old news....Maybe you should actually read something instead of presuming that the British State is basically made of good old chaps...

[Red Lion]

Really?

Who made up the IRA? Our brothers, mums, sisters, uncles, dads, friends....

Who makes up the Army? Our brothers, mums, sisters, uncles, dads, friends....

[Zanthorus]

You do realize Loveschach is going to trash this thread too right? I'm going to drop out of this debate because I'm above petty bickering with idiots like you.

Guess what? I take notes when I read things that catch my attention.


With regard to that great commonwealth of all races, all colours, all religions and all degrees of civilisation, that we call the British Empire, the Labour Party stands for its maintenance and its progressive development.

- Labour and the New Social Order

The book "Fabianism and the Empire" by George Bernard Shaw is also notable for being an open support of Imperialism produced by a think tank which can count many prominent labour leaders and prime ministers in it's ranks.

[Palingenisis]

Who makes up the Army? Our brothers, mums, sisters, uncles, dads, friends....

Yes but we arent talking about an Imperialist Army that exists to defend the British State...We are talking about an army that arose from the people..from the working class and small farmers to take back their own country...The IRA hardly existed in 1969...Why did it suddenly mushroom?

[Proletarian Ultra]

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/6328/celticsocialiststate.png

Only me that is seeing a few... hrrm... logistical problems with this?

"Sea unites, land divides." Old Norwegian saying. That's why the Celtic world looks like it does. And Malay. And Scandinavian. And overseas Chinese. And Greek, before WWI or so. It's why practically every single old seaport on the Atlantic looks the same. Political geography without the state is a network of free cities connected by sea lanes or caravan routes. Land-based unitary and federal nations are the creation of capitalism.

Britain without the state is the East connected with Denmark, the South with France and the West with Ireland and the Isles.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I'm reminded of an Albanian story.

Foreign Diplomat: Mr. Hoxha, I hear you collect political jokes.
Enver Hoxha: Why yes in fact I do.
Foreign Diplomat: Well how many have you collected?
Enver Hoxha: About three and half labor camps' worth.

By that standard, this thread is full of hilarity.

[Dimentio]

"Sea unites, land divides." Old Norwegian saying. That's why the Celtic world looks like it does. And Malay. And Scandinavian. And overseas Chinese. And Greek, before WWI or so. It's why practically every single old seaport on the Atlantic looks the same. Political geography without the state is a network of free cities connected by sea lanes or caravan routes. Land-based unitary and federal nations are the creation of capitalism.

Britain without the state is the East connected with Denmark, the South with France and the West with Ireland and the Isles.

That is an interesting statement, but it doesn't have anything to do with how to defend the independence of a region.

[Red Lion]

That is an interesting statement, but it doesn't have anything to do with how to defend the independence of a region.

I think what it actually means is that diplomatic tensions between groups of marauding vikings are relaxed when they're not on each other's doorsteps :cool:

[scarletghoul]

"Red Lion" - why the fucking Hell are you on a forum for revolutionary leftists, when you admit to being 'Old Labour and proud of it'. As has been pointed out previously, Labour were always a bourgeois imperialist party. They were/are responsable for repression of countless freedom struggles, and have massacred god knows how many innocent people.

You just regurgitate all the disgusting bourgeois shit about the occupation of Ireland. You buy the indescribably reactionary view that those who fight for the freedom of Ireland, or indeed any oppressed celtic community, are some kind of racist nationalist with their 'identity politics' and whatnot. In fact you are being a racist imperialist piece of shit yourself because this all stems from your comfortable middleclass cambridge lifestyle and love for your glorious civilised England, with it's supplementary fear of the undermining of bourgeois-English hegemony. The fact is the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Cornish peoples (not to mention all the other millions of victims of imperialism which you seem to not know exist) are oppressed by the English bourgeoisie, of which your party is a leading political force.

And have no illusions, the IRA are not terrorists, they are fighting for the freedom of the Irish people who have been subjected to English terrorism, racism, exploitation, ethnic cleansing, robbery, genocide, and so on, for near a thousand years. The IRA are fucking heroes to many Irish people. Why do you think the IRA has been so successful ? I would argue that the IRA has fought history's most successful example of urban guerilla war; even the british government admits that it was a stalemate. It would have been impossible for an urban guerilla force to fight one of the world's most powerful imperialist armies to a stalemate unless they have mass support.

But noooo, they are just Irish terrorists who want to destroy the peace and serenity of good old england .. You make me fucking sick.

[Universal Struggle]

Red Lion also thinks that Al Jazera is a terrorist Propoganda news agency... He is the type of person who backs the invasion of Iraq and Afganistan and thinks that the Falkland islanders were always British.

Go die in your posh digs you hegemonic Demon!

[We Shall Rise Again]

Red Lion, you are nothing more than your typical british imperialist.

One cannot be a socialist while supporting the colonial exploitation of another country.

The british labour party has always been an imperial unionist party, that has presided over the explotation of the Irish working class many times during its history.

In the most recent years of its rule, its naked imperialism was in plain sught for all to see with its explotitive policies in Ireland, Iraq and afganistan, not to mention other areas.

The Struggle in Ireland is not a nationalist struggle, it is a struggle for national liberation and socialism.

As marx said, while english workers such as yourself continue to hold ireland (or indeed any other country) in subjection, then england can never have a succesful socialist revolution, and the english working class can never be free.

If indeed you consider yourself a socialist, i urge you to to reconsider your postion on irish national liberation, and begin to wor activly for it.

It is the only way socialism can be succesful in my country and yours.

As for the IRA being terrorists, you are sadly mistaken. the IRA were a peoples army, and never set out to kill civillians.

The only terrorist in Ireland are in the pay of the British Crown.

[Universal Struggle]

No the terrorist is the crown, the soldiers are just pawns in the 800 year old game of divide and conquer

[We Shall Rise Again]

I don't have time to watch pro-terrorist propaganda. If I wanted to do that I'd switch on Al Jazeera.


Aswell as being a british nationalist, are you also a zionist?

Its funny I heard al jazeera being called terroist recently, and it was by the zionist state in response to journalists covering the zionist massacre on board the free gaza flotilla.

is this a postion you support?

I think its clear that you are posting on the wrong forum.

Away to the opposing ideology section and dont come back you imperialist appoligist!

[Wanted Man]

Oh yes, we're very sorry for saving your arses from the IRA.

:lol: I'm sure they're grateful.

[ed miliband]

Hmmmm. The last time a Labour supporter posted on here they disappeared without answering any of the points raised by people who disagreed with them (after calling us all ultra-leftists). I do hope that won't be the case this time.

[A.J.]

Is there anyone out there interested in forming a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist group dedicated to the liberation of the celtic nations?

Were the Picts Celts?

[28350]

Were the Picts Celts?

Damn, beat me to it.

[Ravachol]

Whoa, you don't post for a day or two and the entire thread gets derailed by a social-democrat (on revleft lol :laugh:) whaddayaknow :rolleyes:

[Palingenisis]

Whoa, you don't post for a day or two and the entire thread gets derailed by a social-democrat (on revleft lol :laugh:) whaddayaknow :rolleyes:

Actually its the continuation of a scrap on another thread that got trashed....What weirded me out though was finding out on that other tread that there are still Trots trying to "reclaim" the Labour Party in England...Which to me seems as stupid as reclaiming Fianna Fail or Fine Gael for physical force Republicanism.

[Zanthorus]

Actually its the continuation of a scrap on another thread that got trashed....What weirded me out though was finding out on that other tread that there are still Trots trying to "reclaim" the Labour Party in England...Which to me seems as stupid as reclaiming Fianna Fail or Fine Gael for physical force Republicanism.

Ugh, yes. They even roll out the "communists do not form a seperate party opposed to other working-class parties" line from the Manifesto to defend themselves. And anyone who remains outside the labour party is a "sectarian" or some shit like that. Or sometimes even the reason we won't join the labour party is because we're "self-important petty-bourgeois academics" :laugh:

I love hypocrisy.

[Palingenisis]

Ugh, yes. They even roll out the "communists do not form a seperate party opposed to other working-class parties" line from the Manifesto to defend themselves. And anyone who remains outside the labour party is a "sectarian" or some shit like that. Or sometimes even the reason we won't join the labour party is because we're "self-important petty-bourgeois academics" :laugh:

I love hypocrisy.

For various domestic and international reasons viewing the Labour Party as an expression of working class independence in the 1960s was pretty mental...But now after they finally dropped "clause four" and the whole Blair thing....Its weird...A bit like supporting the Peronists in Argentina or Fianna Fail in Ireland (who in some ways are to the "left" of New Labour).

[Zanthorus]

The labour party has never been an expression of working class independence. It was founded by trade union beuracrats and even in it's early years it's comittment to socialism was purely on a national level.

The problem is it's not a wholly bourgeois party though. It still represents for some the idea of working class political independence even if the reality is the exact opposite. And all the alternatives formed by the "far-left" like TUSC seem to be just aping old labour, so no-one sees any point in flocking to them.

Now if we could have a proper working class party which aimed to make the workers into a class for themselves, conquer political power and break bourgeois hegemony then maybe we'd have a fighting chance at breaking labourism.

[ed miliband]

Bloody typical though! Some good points were raised that needed addressing and Red Lion is now nowhere to be seen.

One publication before the election had the headline 'Vote Labour - Join The Resistance!' - you couldn't make it up.

As Zanthorus said, Labour are still not a wholly bourgeois party, but it's only a matter of time. It's quite interesting to think that Gordon Brown joined the Labour party a fan of Gramsci and Marx, and Tony Blair once spoke of finding Marx 'illuminating' (or something). If you look at the people now entering the Labour party they all seem to be inspired by JFK, Obama, the Clintons, etc. I'd say New Labour's lasting impact was to turn the party away from any shred of social democracy, and to make the party a British Democratic party (and indeed, they do speak of the Democrats as their sister party).

[Palingenisis]

As Zanthorus said, Labour are still not a wholly bourgeois party, but it's only a matter of time.

What do you mean though by not wholly bourgeois? You mean sociologically?

Provisionial Sinn Fein is almost entiely at least in the 26 counties sociologically working class but I wouldnt call them a working class party as such. Economically the BNP is pretty far to the left of "New Labour" and probably has a much bigger percentage of working class people in it.

[ed miliband]

Ah yeah, I mean sociologically, and you're right.

This is quite interesting for a sociological take on the BNP:

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/who-votes-for-the-bnp/

This is also quite interesting:

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/what-use-an-abbott-in-a-broad-church/

btw are you Irish? What part of Ireland do you live in, if so.

[Zanthorus]

Economically the BNP is pretty far to the left of "New Labour" and probably has a much bigger percentage of working class people in it.

"New Labour" is not the labour party as a whole though. The labour party, like most major bourgeois parties, isn't a party with a single ideological line and platform. There are MP's on the "Labour Left" who still get major support from the industrial working class (And whose votes actually went up in the last election, although they didn't get any new seats).

[Palingenisis]

btw are you Irish? What part of Ireland do you live in, if so.

Dublin but most of my family is from the north so Im more a nordie than a Dub.

[A.J.]

So were the Picts Celts or what? :confused:

[Proletarian Ultra]

Were the Picts Celts?

The current consensus is that they were; language probably related to Welsh and Cornish. Early in the 20th century the theory they were related to Basques or something was popular, but Brythonic Celtic is well-established now.

PS: Is this thread still going on? Red Lion degenerates further and further. Maybe this pan-Celtic Maoist party is an even better idea than I thought.

[A.J.]

Ah yeah, I mean sociologically, and you're right.

This is quite interesting for a sociological take on the BNP:

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/who-votes-for-the-bnp/

This is also quite interesting:

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/what-use-an-abbott-in-a-broad-church/

btw are you Irish? What part of Ireland do you live in, if so.

The first piece of writing you link to says the opposite, that BNP voters are mostly middle class(more specifically lower middle class) rather than working class. Also, that they are more likely to be former tory voters rather than Labour.

Moreover, when the BNP membership list was leaked on the internet a couple of years ago it revealed that petty-bourgeois occupations featured most heavily.

Makes you wonder. Why is it that the bourgeois media(both conservative and liberal) are so insistent that BNP supporters are predominantly working class disillusioned former Labour voters despite hard evidence to the contrary?

[Devrim]

Makes you wonder. Why is it that the bourgeois media(both conservative and liberal) are so insistent that BNP supporters are predominantly working class disillusioned former Labour voters despite hard evidence to the contrary?

Perhaps because they don't have a Marxist understanding of class. It is like how the UK soap opera 'Eastenders' is supposed to be about 'working class life', yet when I saw it nobody had a job even. Nearly everybody worked for themselves and was self employed. The media sees lots of the lower strata of the petit bourgeoisie as being working class.

Devrim

[A.J.]

Perhaps because they don't have a Marxist understanding of class. It is like how the UK soap opera 'Eastenders' is supposed to be about 'working class life', yet when I saw it nobody had a job even. Nearly everybody worked for themselves and was self employed. The media sees lots of the lower strata of the petit bourgeoisie as being working class.

Devrim

A very good point. Coronation Street is like that also. It's claimed to be a "typical working class community" yet most of the central characters seem to petty-bourgeois small proprieters(with the exception of the revolutionary knicker factory workers :lol: )

I think it stems from that AB/C1/C2/DE non-Marxist conception of class.

[Palingenisis]

PS: Is this thread still going on? Red Lion degenerates further and further. Maybe this pan-Celtic Maoist party is an even better idea than I thought.

Its still going...Going all over the place! :laugh:

[Devrim]

A very good point. Coronation Street is like that also. It's claimed to be a "typical working class community" yet most of the central characters seem to petty-bourgeois small proprieters(with the exception of the revolutionary knicker factory workers :lol: )

I think it stems from that AB/C1/C2/DE non-Marxist conception of class.

I don't watch 'Corrie' now, but I used to when I lived in the UK. As I remember itmany of the characters were working class. Of course there were the factory workers, Stan and Eddie, the binmen...in those days the idea of middle class on 'Corrie' was Ken Barlow, who was actually a teacher. Of course there were members of the real petit bourgeoisie too, Alf Roberts, and Annie Walker, but no more than you would expect in any working class community.

I have no idea how it is today.

Devrim

[Leo]

Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall and Brittany are politically and economically oppressed.

I think it would be very foolish to even begin to compare the national oppression in Ireland to that in Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, Brittany etc.

Unless, of course, death squads we haven't heard about in this part of the world have been roaming the cities of these countries.

[Palingenisis]

I think it would be very foolish to even begin to compare the national oppression in Ireland to that in Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, Brittany etc.

.

Scotland and Cornwall are much more economically bled by England than Ireland is.

[scarletghoul]

True the repression in Ireland is much more brutal and severe than in other celtic lands, however yes they are still 'economically bled', and if you look into history you can see severe exploitation, colonialism and racism. One example that springs to minnd is the flooding of Capel Celyn in Wales, to give water to English industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capel_Celyn

[No pasarán]

This thread has become fascinating... it was nice to see people unite against the bollox being spewed by the 'old labour' supporter and a good exposition of what new labour is. I still don't see the need for a Pan-celtic Marxist-leninist-Maoist group, since I don't subscribe to the views of the above (although I can agree with some of their major points), but it would be good to see a discussion group/forum on here related to it?

[this is an invasion]

I don't see how this would amount to anything more than a further division of the working class in that area.


Which is totally fine if you're not a communist.

[scarletghoul]

There is some truth in the above 2 comments.. In many areas there is a mixture of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon people, both working class, and it would be bad to make an organisation that alienates some of them. IMHO what would be best would be an intercommunal type of organisation that works across Ireland, England, Wales, etc within the differant communities, taking into account their needs (including self-determination for the celtic peoples) and putting forward a platform and program to address these in a revolutionary way. So it would be kinda like a communist party, but working across 'national' borders and with celtic selfdetermination high on its agenda but paying attention to the needs of anglosaxon workers too...
just an idea

And yeah a discussion group may be cool

[Crimson Commissar]

This idea sounds ridiculous in my opinion. I'm honestly tired of this Anti-Angloism that people of Celtic descent seem to be directing towards us. Personally, I think there should be a union of all BRITISH people, including Ireland for you nationalists out there who seem to think it doesn't count as being British. Really, I couldn't care less if us English guys aren't native to the British Isles, what matters is that we're here now, and we've been living here for hundreds of years. It's likely that most English people still have some Celtic blood in them anyway.

[Unis]

Most of the United Kingdom is economically oppressed by the little Nation state known as London - power and wealth is ridiculously centred around it, and it operates mainly by opposing the development of all industry in the rest of the Country.

So when people talk about 'England' oppressing Wales et al, they're talking rubbish.

The reason there isn't an English parliament is simple - the Londoners already have one, and are excluded from many laws and establishments enforced throughout the rest of England - like Transport for instance.

The North and the West are just as oppressed as Scotland, for example. If you are not London - you are not important and nothing ever changes.

[Crimson Commissar]

Most of the United Kingdom is economically oppressed by the little Nation state known as London - power and wealth is ridiculously centred around it, and it operates mainly by opposing the development of all industry in the rest of the Country.

So when people talk about 'England' oppressing Wales et al, they're talking rubbish.

The reason there isn't an English parliament is simple - the Londoners already have one, and are excluded from many laws and establishments enforced throughout the rest of England - like Transport for instance.

The North and the West are just as oppressed as Scotland, for example. If you are not London - you are not important and nothing ever changes.
Yep, gotta agree with this. Us Londoners have it far easier compared to those in Northern England. Dividing the isles into silly little nationalist states isn't going to help the working class at all, though. The people of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland will need to unite together if we want to bring about any real change.

[Bulwark]

Who makes up the Army? Our brothers, mums, sisters, uncles, dads, friends....

Enlisting in the British army is optional. The British Government and BA created a situation in which a violent backlash was inevitable (bloody sunday and discrimination enshrined in legislation are two examples). People have a right to resist armed occupation and discrimination and obviously the death of civilians is regrettable but please bear in mind that by this point Ireland had been occupied for almost 800 years. I would also like to remind you that the British establishment colluded with Loyalist groups who murdered Catholics (or anyone who appeared to be Catholic) at random. The republicans are the progressives in this conflict because they are resisting imperialism.

[Zoid]

Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall and Brittany are politically and economically oppressed.

:laugh: Cornwall is not now, nor has it ever been a nation; the overwhelming majority of people there regard themselves as English. Unlike Ulster, where contrary to Irish/fascist irridentist attempts, the majority do not want to be part of the borgeiouse Free State under the yoke of Dublin.

The only "opressed" cultures in the British Isles are that of the Ulster-Scots and the Lowland Scots, by romantic nationalist/semi-fascist, Irish cultural imperialists financially and politically backed by the United States Government. Your esoteric and particularist pseudo-culture is based on similar 19th century fantasies such as Ariosophy and Thule Society. Using your logic, are we going to have the decolonisation of the Highlands from Erse imperialists and the decolonisation of Glasgow to stop the Irish campaign of cultural oppression and colonialsm against Picts and Lowland Scots?

Your ill informed nonsense about the formation of Great Britain, describing it as "English imperialism", unmasks only your reactionary racist views of English people, rather than objective history. Being that it was a Welsh king that unified England and Wales after an ethnic Welsh family invaded England, killing its monarch and taking the throne (Tudors) and a Scottish royal family which came to the English throne (Stuarts), before the parliaments of each country mutually voted to unify.


take back their own country.

Ireland never existed as a whole island country before the Welsh Tudors invaded and created the state in the 16th century. That is when your precious 32 counties were invented. The IRA is a semi-fascist militia, which attempted to oppress the Ulster-Scot nation through a campaign of murder and terrorism, at the behest of the United States. The reactionary views of Republicans against Ulster workers are similar to Nazi Germany's position on Poland or Fascist Italy's fanatical irridentist position on Dalmatia and Istria.

Also an important point, a significant proportion of pseudo-"Celts" in the Republican movement, are not "Celts" at all. Bobby Sands, Gerry Adams, Patrick Pearse and others are descended from Lowland Scots and English people. The ultra nationalist tome of "800 years!" and their big slice of "my ancestors were oppressed" cake, thus falls flat on its face. The country is no more "theirs" than it is people identifying as Ulster-Scots. While also around 14 million of today's English people (far more than in modern Ireland itself, which mostly consists of people who were wealthy enough to stay) are descended from Gaelic people, living in Ireland just after the Famine.


And have no illusions, the IRA are not terrorists, they are fighting for the freedom of the Irish people who have been subjected to English terrorism, racism, exploitation, ethnic cleansing, robbery, genocide, and so on, for near a thousand years.

This is a racist and revisionist presentation of English people. It was a group of Norman barons such as Strongbow, who invaded Ireland not long after they had conquered South Wales and England post-1066. During that time the English were under the "Norman yoke". For hundreds of years the Irish commited a campaign of kidnapping, raids, piracy and enslavement against peoples living in the what is today Cumbria, Lancashire and Wales, so a group of Norman barons put an end to it.

As for the Labour Party, this was founded by a Scotsman. Yes, the Lowland Scots are "filthy" Sassenach untermench too, not romanticised "opwessed" Roman Catholic, Celtic Highlanders from nationalist movies like Braveheart.


while english workers such as yourself continue to hold ireland (or indeed any other country) in subjection

The English workers have no relevence in the matter either way, since they are not a party in the conflict. The local Ulster-Scots people have decided that they don't want to join the reactionary borgeiouse Irish Free State, because they know that the semi-fascist militia, the IRA, would launch a campaign of genocide and racial extermination against them because they do not fit their fantasist pseudo-"Gaelic" Roman Catholic criteria. The Irish irridentists, with the backing of the United States Government, want to deny the Ulster-Scots people their right to self-determination.

[Sam_b]

This is a racist

How are English people a 'race'?

[scarletghoul]

:laugh: Cornwall is not now, nor has it ever been a nation; the overwhelming majority of people there regard themselves as English. Unlike Ulster, where contrary to Irish/fascist irridentist attempts, the majority do not want to be part of the borgeiouse Free State under the yoke of Dublin.

The only "opressed" cultures in the British Isles are that of the Ulster-Scots and the Lowland Scots, by romantic nationalist/semi-fascist, Irish cultural imperialists financially and politically backed by the United States Government. Your esoteric and particularist pseudo-culture is based on similar 19th century fantasies such as Ariosophy and Thule Society. Using your logic, are we going to have the decolonisation of the Highlands from Erse imperialists and the decolonisation of Glasgow to stop the Irish campaign of cultural oppression and colonialsm against Picts and Lowland Scots?

Your ill informed nonsense about the formation of Great Britain, describing it as "English imperialism", unmasks only your reactionary racist views of English people, rather than objective history. Being that it was a Welsh king that unified England and Wales after an ethnic Welsh family invaded England, killing its monarch and taking the throne (Tudors) and a Scottish royal family which came to the English throne (Stuarts), before the parliaments of each country mutually voted to unify.



Ireland never existed as a whole island country before the Welsh Tudors invaded and created the state in the 16th century. That is when your precious 32 counties were invented. The IRA is a semi-fascist militia, which attempted to oppress the Ulster-Scot nation through a campaign of murder and terrorism, at the behest of the United States. The reactionary views of Republicans against Ulster workers are similar to Nazi Germany's position on Poland or Fascist Italy's fanatical irridentist position on Dalmatia and Istria.

Also an important point, a significant proportion of pseudo-"Celts" in the Republican movement, are not "Celts" at all. Bobby Sands, Gerry Adams, Patrick Pearse and others are descended from Lowland Scots and English people. The ultra nationalist tome of "800 years!" and their big slice of "my ancestors were oppressed" cake, thus falls flat on its face. The country is no more "theirs" than it is people identifying as Ulster-Scots. While also around 14 million of today's English people (far more than in modern Ireland itself, which mostly consists of people who were wealthy enough to stay) are descended from Gaelic people, living in Ireland just after the Famine.



This is a racist and revisionist presentation of English people. It was a group of Norman barons such as Strongbow, who invaded Ireland not long after they had conquered South Wales and England post-1066. During that time the English were under the "Norman yoke". For hundreds of years the Irish commited a campaign of kidnapping, raids, piracy and enslavement against peoples living in the what is today Cumbria, Lancashire and Wales, so a group of Norman barons put an end to it.

As for the Labour Party, this was founded by a Scotsman. Yes, the Lowland Scots are "filthy" Sassenach untermench too, not romanticised "opwessed" Roman Catholic, Celtic Highlanders from nationalist movies like Braveheart.



The English workers have no relevence in the matter either way, since they are not a party in the conflict. The local Ulster-Scots people have decided that they don't want to join the reactionary borgeiouse Irish Free State, because they know that the semi-fascist militia, the IRA, would launch a campaign of genocide and racial extermination against them because they do not fit their fantasist pseudo-"Gaelic" Roman Catholic criteria. The Irish irridentists, with the backing of the United States Government, want to deny the Ulster-Scots people their right to self-determination.
So let me get this straight.. England is the victim of Irish fascism and colonialism ?? uhh

[Sam_b]

Load of bullshit about the RA and bigotry against Irish people as well.

[Red Saxon]

The idea just perpetuates nationalism.

[Crimson Commissar]

Load of bullshit about the RA and bigotry against Irish people as well.
Excuse me? It seems that the IRA and Irish people are the ones discriminating against us. This Celtic nationalism bullshit NEEDS to end. The English PEOPLE and WORKERS have done NOTHING to support the imperialism of the British Empire, whether it be in Ireland or overseas in India and America. The IRA's actions, while somewhat justified, are completely out of line and show that they have such a complete disregard for the lives of English people. The IRA's only interest is to ensure Irish Catholic dominance, and they do not give two shits about how many Anglos they kill along the way.

[Zoid]

How are English people a 'race'?

If it is possible to be racist against Irish people, then it is possible to be racist against English people. The original poster, specifically expouses a racial differentialist line in which somehow the Irish are more worthy as human beings, because they identify as pseudo-"Gaels" and not "Anglo-Saxons". That is racism, or at the least a primitive and reactionary tribalism.

The Irish are the most reactionary nation in all of Western Europe. Its as if they have a biological disposition towards fascism. Since they have become independent, the only parties they have voted into power are the Blueshirts and Fianna "Sorry to hear about Hitler's death" Fash. People can say what they want about democratic socialism, but at least Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal have attempted to build some semblance of a workers movement. The Irish attempt has been pathetic, the idea that they should be a model for anybody, is laughable.

The fact that the IRA and the Republican movement in general, was and to some extent still is backed by powers in the White House is undeniable. At least Britain's servility to the United States is on a non-voluntary basis-ie, primarily revolves around being in dept for decades due to fighting against Nazism. The republican complicity to American imperialist/interfearing in modern day Europe, is completely voluntary and based on their tribal and arcane nationalism which seeks to supress the rights of Ulster-Scots. Supposed "untermench" who republican folkish nationalists demean as almost sub-human "Huns".

[Zoid]

So let me get this straight.. England is the victim of Irish fascism and colonialism ?? uhh

Not going to attempt to tackle the points one by one? Prefer your nationalist myths?

If the IRA world-view is legitimate, then the Picts and the Lowland Scots are victims of Irish colonialism and cultural imperialism. The original post is even suggesting that somehow Lowland Scots culture should be supressed and their country should be reformed into "noble Gaels", based on the glorious Irish model, instead of being Hunnish Saxon untermench.

Ulster Scots are victims of Irish fascism, which seeks to exterminate them and take away their right to self-determination, with tribal nationalism and pseudo-racialism as its calling card, loosely based around religious affiliation. English people (including children), who have little choice in the matter either way and are mostly indifferent, have also been victims in such murderous Hibernofascist attacks, by exponents of this ultranationalist ideology.

Perhaps there needs to be a Saxon Republican Army, to liberate the people in Ulster, Scotland and England from Irish irridentist machinations, US imperialism, Gaelic folkish nationalism and racist exterminationism.

[ComradeOm]

This idea sounds ridiculous in my opinion. I'm honestly tired of this Anti-Angloism that people of Celtic descent seem to be directing towards usAll of which is entirely harmless. Unlike past English prejudices towards the other inhabitants of these isles. Did you ever pause to wonder why there is a latent wariness, or even hostility, towards English rule in many quarters?


Personally, I think there should be a union of all BRITISH people, including Ireland for you nationalists out there who seem to think it doesn't count as being BritishThat's because there is no British people. The closest you will come is British citizenship - an entirely political construct that certainly does not encompass all of Britain and Ireland


Really, I couldn't care less if us English guys aren't native to the British Isles, what matters is that we're here now, and we've been living here for hundreds of yearsA fact that is impossible to escape


It seems that the IRA and Irish people are the ones discriminating against usAre you really as ignorant as to the history of Anglo-Irish relations, and indeed the current state of affairs, to claim that Ireland is in a position to discriminate or oppress the "English PEOPLE" [sic]? Or do you really want to compare cheering on the German football team with the crimes of British imperialism?


The IRA's only interest is to ensure Irish Catholic dominance, and they do not give two shits about how many Anglos they kill along the way. Do you have even the faintest knowledge as to the IRA, its programme, and its origins? I can only assume, given such a moronic assertion, that the answer is negative. Whatever the IRA's relation with nationalism, the idea that it aspired to enforce a state of "Irish Catholic dominance", or indeed that there is such a conspiracy, is absolute nonsense

No, its worse than nonsense. Its perpetrating bigoted and baseless myths typically peddled by either Ulster Loyalists or the more reactionary elements of the British establishment


Not going to attempt to tackle the points one by one?I know I'm not even going to try. Nitpicking historical facts is, as most posters here will testify to, sometime of a past-time for me but this particular web of fiction/myth/lies that you've woven is too dense (pun intended). Sometimes you lose an argument just by sitting down at the same table

[Sam_b]

If it is possible to be racist against Irish people, then it is possible to be racist against English people

You'll notice I didn't say 'racism'.

The rest of your post is idiotic nonsense so don't be offended if I don't respond to thus 'Ulster Scots' pish.

[Zoid]

I know I'm not even going to try. Nitpicking historical facts is, as most posters here will testify to, sometime of a past-time for me but this particular web of fiction/myth/lies that you've woven is too dense (pun intended). Sometimes you lose an argument just by sitting down at the same table

So what you're trying to say is, you're completely unable to explain away the empirical facts presented above, so you will just negate them, because it is easier for you to escape into your 19th century, romantic nationalist mythological worldview? The mark of intellectual cowardice.

If only the Ulster Scots were more enlightened and learned to speak Gaelic, sent their children to be tortured and raped by a medieval institution, played Gaelic football and voted for FF. Then they would be good Irishmen and the purity of the Irish folk-nation would be assured. So long as the Africans and Slavs don't step out of line that is. But no, the Sassenach Hunnish untermench resist us! So we the IRA, must bomb their local communities and wade through the blood of their dirty Scots-Protestant children.

Heil the Roman church! Heil Greater Éire! Heil the racial purity of the noble Gaelic folk!


You'll notice I didn't say 'racism'.

The rest of your post is idiotic nonsense so don't be offended if I don't respond to thus 'Ulster Scots' pish.

Of course, as an Irish ultranationalist and cultural imperialist in Glasgow, it hardly comes as a surprise that you would advocate the racist opression and denial of the Ulster Scots people. The green tribe comes first, eh? The Hunnish Orcs are barely human afterall so there can't really be considered a worker amongst them.

[Sam_b]

If only the Ulster Scots were more enlightened and learned to speak Gaelic

Wasn't that the language imperialist powers tried to wipe out entirely?


played Gaelic football

A relatviely new invention, that to my knowledge is popular in Northern Ireland.

[ComradeOm]

So what you're trying to say is, you're completely unable to explain away the empirical facts presented above, so you will just negate them, because it is easier for you to escape into your 19th century, romantic nationalist mythological worldview? The mark of intellectual cowardiceWhat do you want me to do? Point out the complete baselessness of your "Greater Éire" theory? Demonstrate the complete fabrication of your "the racial purity of the noble Gaelic folk" strawman? Subject my "biological disposition towards fascism" to the microscope? I can't punch holes in your crackpot notions because they are nothing but hot air

So the answer is no. I'm saying that you and your ridiculous notions are simply not worth my time. Even if I did have the time and patience to painstakingly wade through this nonsense line by line, which I assuredly don't, I honestly don't think that you would be capable of accepting any rational logic. Anyone who can assume such a bewildering array of bullshit is, much like neo-Nazis, generally impervious to reason. At best you'd just take it as proof of the hidden Gaelic Catholic conspiracy to finally eradicate the 'Ulster Scots'

[Zoid]

What do you want me to do? Point out the complete baselessness of your "Greater Éire" theory? Demonstrate the complete fabrication of your "the racial purity of the noble Gaelic folk" strawman? Subject my "biological disposition towards fascism" to the microscope? I can't punch holes in your crackpot notions because they are nothing but hot air

The fact is, that the Irish are not the "great proletariat nation" that their Gaelic master race theorists purport them to be. This is readily observable. Since the overwhelming majority of them gained independence almost a century ago, being free to decide which parties they would like to govern them, they have voted for two ultra-conservative, folkish nationalists groups, not a workers or labour party. You are so reactionary that women can't even have an abortion in Ireland and there are laws against commiting blasphemy. How progressive of the noble Gaels.

Fine Gael have explicitly fascist roots in their originaters the Blueshirts. Fianna Fail under De Valera was very similar to fascism; "traditional values", based on reactionary Gaelic and Roman Catholic lore and a corporatist style economy. He sent a message after the death of Hitler, saying how sorry he was to hear of the nazi demise. The IRA even planned to collaborate with the SS. This is undeniable, not myths, lies or fiction. The reason you refuse to approach it, is because you dislike the hearty truth of it. These are the only two parties that the Irish have ever voted into power; out and out fascists. While their so-called "radical" movement, consists of more ultranationalism and slaughtering people belong to ethnic groups and religions, who do not fit into their pseudo-Gaelic ethno-nationalist worldview.

Name me a more reactionary nation in all of Western Europe. Just one. Even people in England, particularly the North, managed to play a significant part in creating a labour movement, although it has its faults, divorced from nationalism.

[ComradeOm]

The fact is, that the Irish are not the "great proletariat nation" that their Gaelic master race theorists purport them to beWhich is really the problem here - there are no "Gaelic master race theorists". You've conjured up some racial boogeyman who simply does not exist. I might as well try to engage with someone who sincerely holds that the strings are being pulled by the Judeo-Bolshevik financiers. Its nonsensical and not something I'm going to bother with


Name me a more reactionary nation in all of Western EuropeStates are reactionary; classes are reactionary. Nations and peoples are not. Which is a point I make because it has wider application then just yourself. The likes of Draconid, and others, who bemoan Irish nationalism out of some pseudo-internationalist viewpoint are either speaking out of ignorance or merely applying the broadbrush nationalist arguments that they condemn. Its little more than social-chauvinism

Which is not something that I would credit yourself with of course. That's just pure anti-Irish bigotry... unfortunately not yet eradicated in this day and age

[Wanted Man]

This idea sounds ridiculous in my opinion. I'm honestly tired of this Anti-Angloism that people of Celtic descent seem to be directing towards us. Personally, I think there should be a union of all BRITISH people, including Ireland for you nationalists out there who seem to think it doesn't count as being British. Really, I couldn't care less if us English guys aren't native to the British Isles, what matters is that we're here now, and we've been living here for hundreds of years. It's likely that most English people still have some Celtic blood in them anyway.


Excuse me? It seems that the IRA and Irish people are the ones discriminating against us. This Celtic nationalism bullshit NEEDS to end. The English PEOPLE and WORKERS have done NOTHING to support the imperialism of the British Empire, whether it be in Ireland or overseas in India and America. The IRA's actions, while somewhat justified, are completely out of line and show that they have such a complete disregard for the lives of English people. The IRA's only interest is to ensure Irish Catholic dominance, and they do not give two shits about how many Anglos they kill along the way.
(emphases mine)

The hypocrisy here is quite astonishing. It takes a lot of chutzpah to pretend to support internationalism and unity between all workers of Britain and Ireland while simultaneously making bigoted claims about the Irish and "people of Celtic descent" on two occasions (first two emphases), as well as one count of sectarianism with regards to Catholics (final emphasis).

Basically, everything that I emphasised above reeks of the kind of arrogance that is probably most common among the British upper-class. As in, "why do these ingrates dislike us? All we've ever done is bringing British civilisation, saving these poor, dumb Irish from their own savage nature!" I don't really know how to characterise your line on this; what I wrote just now already reads like a caricature, yet it is basically your belief taken to its logical conclusion.

What if an Irish nationalist said something like, "I'm tired of the fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent take such a condescending attitude towards us", or "I want a union of IRISH people in Ireland, which includes Ulster for you unionists out there"? You would be in this thread screaming bloody murder, foaming at the mouth; yet you have no qualms with making generalisations about an entire group of people whom you know nothing about. Indeed, if this scenario happened, you'd probably be suggesting that this proves that Irish people are generally anti-British bigots.

What really seals the deal in my opinion is that you want "a union of BRITISH people, including Ireland", while casually dismissing "you nationalists" who don't support the claim that Ireland is "British" (a nationalist and irredentist claim if I ever saw one!). Hey, get this: there probably aren't many "people of Celtic descent" who have a problem with you for being English; but you will obviously not be making many friends among them by spouting this kind of bullshit that you'd expect in the opinion section of the Daily Mail. EDIT: in fact, a quick Wikipedia search reveals that this kind of reactionary thinking is called "neo-unionism", which has negligible support in both Britain and Ireland, and organisations supporting it are currently defunct. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionism_in_Ireland#The_present_day)

Another thing that really surprises me is that the users Q and Comrade Gwydion both thanked the first post that I quoted, considering that it explicitly claims all of Ireland as "British" and contains bigoted statements about "people of Celtic descent". With regards to Q, who is a CWI member, it's especially remarkable; the CWI have one of the worst "left" lines on Ireland, so I really did not expect a CWI member to endorse an even worse line, including pure and unadulterated bigotry.

[Crimson Commissar]

Alright, I did use a poor choice of words there. I DO want to see a union of all of Britain, but it MUST be one in which all people have a say, rather than it being a useless, unorganised pile of shit dominated by the English upper-class. What people need to realise is that England is not oppressing the Celtic peoples of the isles, if we were we'd be seeing a "Scottish Republican Army" or "Welsh Republican Army" rising up in Scotland and Wales, wouldn't we? Creating some ridiculous "Pan-Celtic state" would just cause more seperation amongst the people of Britain. We need to be UNIFYING, not seperating.

[Wanted Man]

Sorry, but this back-pedalling doesn't change the apparent arrogance of your line on this. Of course there needs to be unity between workers on the isles (and everywhere else); but why should this unity necessarily consist of a union? Why are those other workers only good enough for you if they accept their "Britishness"?

Perhaps they have different ideas. I don't think there should be a "pan-Celtic state", and this idea is rightly considered incredibly marginal; but how is it any worse than making the Scots, Welsh, and Irish workers accept a "British identity" that a large amount of them (majority in Ireland, increasingly large amount in Scotland) clearly reject? How does this give you the right to generalise them as petty nationalists and anti-English bigots? Why is this "unity" not possible when some groups prefer Irish, Welsh, or Scottish identity to Britishness?

And even when we frame everything within a capitalist system, rather than socialism: why would independence of certain countries be somehow "worse"? What benefit would there be for us socialists to argue for maintaining or expanding the union in the face of growing disenchantment with it? It would not increase working-class unity, but it would probably give the bourgeoisie the opportunity to whip up actual resentment between the workers of Britain and Ireland: stuff about "IRA terrorists", "We put in way more money than we earn from those ungrateful Scots", etc.

Why would it suddenly become impossible for socialists to push for working-class unity when all of Ireland is united, Scotland is independent and Wales gets more autonomy, leaving a kind of "rump" England? I'm not saying we should necessarily support that either (Scots and Welsh independence definitely seem like pipe dreams to me), but why painstakingly try to maintain a union regardless of the facts?

[Sam_b]

Why do we need to 'unify Britain' when the struggle is international?

[Zoid]

but how is it any worse than making the Scots, Welsh, and Irish workers accept a "British identity" that a large amount of them (majority in Ireland, increasingly large amount in Scotland) clearly reject? How does this give you the right to generalise them as petty nationalists and anti-English bigots? Why is this "unity" not possible when some groups prefer Irish, Welsh, or Scottish identity to Britishness?

Who is "making them", the majority of native Scots and Ulster Scots have the most rooted British identity in the entire British Isles, even more so than the English. Nobody is "forcing" them to do anything. You see red-white-blue bunting in Shankill Road, Belfast and Union Jack flags flown by the native Scots in Glasgow... rarely do you find this sort of enthusiasm in England, where mostly St George's Flags are flown by people. The only real world, ethnic coercion in these islands, is from the Irish ultranationalists who despise the fact that the Ulster Scots consider themselves British and want to force them (through force of arms if they think they could do it) against their democratic will under the Dublin-yoke.

You would be hard pressed to find many people who think the Irish should be British. De facto, they act as a lobby group for a medieval, anti-progressive, anti-secular institution which they have bound up into their ethnic-identity; the Roman Church. The British workers don't need dragging back to the Middle Ages, so until the Irish develop a more fraternal identity, more international and less fanatical ethnic elitism, I can't imagine anybody would want them in this or any other Union.

The most constructive thing the Irish could do in the meantime, is to not spread their reactionary ultranationalist, fascism out of that island. They have already damaged working-class unity in Glasgow and across the central belt of Scotland, through their pseudo-Gaelic ethnic chauvinism.

[Wanted Man]

Right. :lol:

[Sam_b]

Aye. Every time I hear the lodge flute band go past my window I think of the brave and noble "Ulster Scots" and how much better they are than the immigrant Republican navvy scum that built much of this city.

[Sam_b]

ps can we start restricting people yet?

[Bud Struggle]

A thread on Irish shop talk.

[Dimentio]

Europe Europe Europe... :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

ps can we start restricting people yet?

I restricted Zoid a couple of hours ago.

[Sam_b]

Only showed up recently. But good.

[Zoid]

Right. :lol:

Yeah, the republicans are pretty far-right. If only Mein Fuhrer Gerry Adams and an army of child-molesting priests could lord it over the Ulster workers. I'm sure they would be ever so greatful for their "liberation" from "British imperialism", especially if the RA manage to kill a few Protestant babies along the way. Ein Gaelic-volk, ein Irishstate, ein Taoiseach. Is it any wonder that the symbol of the neo-Nazis is an Irish Sun Cross? Speaks for itself.

[RedAnarchist]

The Sun Cross is found all over Europe, it isn't just Irish.

[Sam_b]

All rings a bit hollow when your fellow 'Ulster-Scots' trot off not fifteen minutes past my door to sing that they're 'up to their knees in Fenian blood' and that they're glad Bobby Sands starved to death.

Or indeed, when they form paramilitary organisations and go picking fights in Derry.

[Q]

Another thing that really surprises me is that the users Q and Comrade Gwydion both thanked the first post that I quoted, considering that it explicitly claims all of Ireland as "British" and contains bigoted statements about "people of Celtic descent". With regards to Q, who is a CWI member, it's especially remarkable; the CWI have one of the worst "left" lines on Ireland, so I really did not expect a CWI member to endorse an even worse line, including pure and unadulterated bigotry.

1. Don't see everything everyone ever does as representing their organisation, it's quite silly.

2. As for my Thanks, I was also pm'ed by ComradeOm about it which had a similar message to yours. I think you both have a much to nationalistic stance on this matter, be it from the point of the Irish, Scots, Wales and whatnot. I think Draconid made a valid point, that is: unity of the "British" (that includes Ireland) isles across the nationalities is a progressive step. I don't think he expresses British chauvinism or perhaps that he's ambiguous in the way he's posting about it and perhaps it was right to engage with him to clarify on this. But more people should leave the narrow nationalism that is so apparent on the far left. What we should be fighting for is not "national independence" but radical democracy.

3. The statelet in Northern Ireland is an exception to this as there certainly is a national question here, one that was carefully nurished by the British rulers to maintain a foothold on the island. Here I would argue for the approach by Lenin who argued for the communists in the "oppressor" nation to argue for independence and for the communists in the "oppressed" nation to argue for unity. The overall goal should be the greatest possible unity of the working class, by voluntary federation. I think this podcast has an interesting analysis on the matter (http://cpgb.podbean.com/2010/06/21/bloody-sunday-inquiry/) (from 3:00 he talks about the N-Ireland background).

[Wanted Man]

1. Don't see everything everyone ever does as representing their organisation, it's quite silly.

I didn't say that. I said that your line is worse than your organisation's. Of course you don't represent your organisation in most of your posts on Revleft.


2. As for my Thanks, I was also pm'ed by ComradeOm about it which had a similar message to yours. I think you both have a much to nationalistic stance on this matter, be it from the point of the Irish, Scots, Wales and whatnot. I think Draconid made a valid point, that is: unity of the "British" (that includes Ireland) isles across the nationalities is a progressive step. I don't think he expresses British chauvinism or perhaps that he's ambiguous in the way he's posting about it and perhaps it was right to engage with him to clarify on this. But more people should leave the narrow nationalism that is so apparent on the far left. What we should be fighting for is not "national independence" but radical democracy.

Okay. What if he said: "Unity of the Netherlands (that includes Flanders) is a progressive step; Flanders needs to be united with the Netherlands, and Flemish people are Dutch."

I don't think it's "ambiguous" at all when you say that Irish people have to become "British". In fact, referring to the isles as "British isles" is a political statement. See this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article658099.ece), this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mind-your-language/2010/may/11/snooker-british-isles-mind-your-language?showallcomments=true) and this (http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0606/D.0606.200509280360.html). It is a kind of anachronism from the British Empire, so I'm really surprised so see socialists using this nomenclature. It's like socialists going on about "Dietsland", only more recent and more accepted amongst the upper-class in England (after all, social being determined consciousness).

The "unity" you and Draconid claim to support is actually a kind of British nationalism, poorly disguised as internationalism. As in, "workers' unity, okay, but only within the context of Britishness - workers who don't want to be part of 'Britain' are shallow nationalists." I agree with you that shallow nationalism is a problem on the left, but it's most common amongst a few British socialist groups who disguise British nationalism as internationalism.

I also don't think it's "ambiguous" to state that "people of Celtic descent" are somehow predisposed to anti-English racism, or to whip up fears of "Irish Catholic dominance". It's not ambiguous at all; it's full-on bigotry and sectarianism. I honestly can't imagine you or any other comrade reading that and thanking the post where it was included. I can understand if people skim over it and miss it, but it's utterly ridiculous to think that socialists could sign their name to something like that.


3. The statelet in Northern Ireland is an exception to this as there certainly is a national question here, one that was carefully nurished by the British rulers to maintain a foothold on the island. Here I would argue for the approach by Lenin who argued for the communists in the "oppressor" nation to argue for independence and for the communists in the "oppressed" nation to argue for unity. The overall goal should be the greatest possible unity of the working class, by voluntary federation. I think this podcast has an interesting analysis on the matter (http://cpgb.podbean.com/2010/06/21/bloody-sunday-inquiry/) (from 3:00 he talks about the N-Ireland background).

I don't have the opportunity to listen to the podcast right now, unfortunately. But I doubt that Lenin's line was what you and Draconid are doing: communists in oppressor nations supporting further absorption of oppressed nations in the name of "unity".

[Havet]

Why are celts more important than everyone else, to be listed as top priority?

[Q]

Okay. What if he said: "Unity of the Netherlands (that includes Flanders) is a progressive step; Flanders needs to be united with the Netherlands, and Flemish people are Dutch."
Yes please! Although I find it a bit odd that you say Flanders instead of Belgium (perhaps a silly attempt to link workers unity with far right ideals? :rolleyes:), I do fully support a republic of the Benelux and in fact a European republic in the longer term. That such unity of the state system is a progressive thing as it means unity of the working class, is a very elementary Marxist position. Marx and Engels argued in their time consistently for the unification of Germany (including Austria). Of course such unification won't happen under capitalism but should be part of our struggle for complete democracy, working class rule and international unification. A nationalist position is directly opposited to all this and maintains the capitalist state system.


I don't think it's "ambiguous" at all when you say that Irish people have to become "British". In fact, referring to the isles as "British isles" is a political statement. See this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article658099.ece), this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mind-your-language/2010/may/11/snooker-british-isles-mind-your-language?showallcomments=true) and this (http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0606/D.0606.200509280360.html). It is a kind of anachronism from the British Empire, so I'm really surprised so see socialists using this nomenclature. It's like socialists going on about "Dietsland", only more recent and more accepted amongst the upper-class in England (after all, social being determined consciousness).
You're reacting very allergically to normal discourse. The Isles are, as far as I'm aware, broadly known as the "British" Isles, there is no alternative term. I'm open to suggestions however.


The "unity" you and Draconid claim to support is actually a kind of British nationalism, poorly disguised as internationalism. As in, "workers' unity, okay, but only within the context of Britishness - workers who don't want to be part of 'Britain' are shallow nationalists."
A British socialist federation would have to exist within the context of a European project of workers unity, this much is true. You're reading something that isn't there though as I didn't argue for a "British nation", i.e. the construction of yet another "national identity", but for a British federation on a voluntary and democratic basis.


I agree with you that shallow nationalism is a problem on the left, but it's most common amongst a few British socialist groups who disguise British nationalism as internationalism.
That is one side, of which you are accusing me (which is a wrong accusation), the other extreme, to which you seem to be tending, is that of nationalists argueing that the oppressed nations can only be free if they are independent. This is a wrong approach as I explain above. Another argument to be added is that such a stance feeds the bourgeois myth of national identity as opposed to class society.


I also don't think it's "ambiguous" to state that "people of Celtic descent" are somehow predisposed to anti-English racism, or to whip up fears of "Irish Catholic dominance". It's not ambiguous at all; it's full-on bigotry and sectarianism. I honestly can't imagine you or any other comrade reading that and thanking the post where it was included. I can understand if people skim over it and miss it, but it's utterly ridiculous to think that socialists could sign their name to something like that.
It is true that Draconid himself follows the idea of having a national identity and from that concludes that Celts, as a people, hate the Anglish. This is indeed a hopelessly wrong analysis. I explained my reasoning for the Thanks in my previous post though and it isn't linked to this idea.


I don't have the opportunity to listen to the podcast right now, unfortunately. But I doubt that Lenin's line was what you and Draconid are doing: communists in oppressor nations supporting further absorption of oppressed nations in the name of "unity".
You're twisting my words.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Another thing that really surprises me is that the users Q and Comrade Gwydion both thanked the first post that I quoted, considering that it explicitly claims all of Ireland as "British" and contains bigoted statements about "people of Celtic descent". With regards to Q, who is a CWI member, it's especially remarkable; the CWI have one of the worst "left" lines on Ireland, so I really did not expect a CWI member to endorse an even worse line, including pure and unadulterated bigotry.

Scientifically speaking, Ireland is one of the British Isles. There's nothing wrong with advocating a new British unity based on scientific lines and not on the "Great Britain" bigotry of the old "British" empire.

[Andropov]

Who is "making them", the majority of native Scots and Ulster Scots have the most rooted British identity in the entire British Isles, even more so than the English. Nobody is "forcing" them to do anything. You see red-white-blue bunting in Shankill Road, Belfast and Union Jack flags flown by the native Scots in Glasgow... rarely do you find this sort of enthusiasm in England, where mostly St George's Flags are flown by people. The only real world, ethnic coercion in these islands, is from the Irish ultranationalists who despise the fact that the Ulster Scots consider themselves British and want to force them (through force of arms if they think they could do it) against their democratic will under the Dublin-yoke.

You would be hard pressed to find many people who think the Irish should be British. De facto, they act as a lobby group for a medieval, anti-progressive, anti-secular institution which they have bound up into their ethnic-identity; the Roman Church. The British workers don't need dragging back to the Middle Ages, so until the Irish develop a more fraternal identity, more international and less fanatical ethnic elitism, I can't imagine anybody would want them in this or any other Union.

The most constructive thing the Irish could do in the meantime, is to not spread their reactionary ultranationalist, fascism out of that island. They have already damaged working-class unity in Glasgow and across the central belt of Scotland, through their pseudo-Gaelic ethnic chauvinism.
Give this man a medal, balls like bloody melons.

[Wanted Man]

Yes please! Although I find it a bit odd that you say Flanders instead of Belgium (perhaps a silly attempt to link workers unity with far right ideals? :rolleyes:), I do fully support a republic of the Benelux and in fact a European republic in the longer term. That such unity of the state system is a progressive thing as it means unity of the working class, is a very elementary Marxist position. Marx and Engels argued in their time consistently for the unification of Germany (including Austria). Of course such unification won't happen under capitalism but should be part of our struggle for complete democracy, working class rule and international unification. A nationalist position is directly opposited to all this and maintains the capitalist state system.

I said Flanders because it's typically claimed as part of the Netherlands by marginal right-wingers in the Netherlands, just like marginal right-wingers in Britain want to add the Republic of Ireland back into the UK. It is considered utterly unrealistic by anyone else.

Anyway, remarkable "elementary Marxist positions", considering that Marx and Engels also backed the independence of Poland (which had previously been partitioned). Marx further believed that Ireland should be independent, and that workers from oppressor nations like Britain should break with their ruling-class and support the independence of oppressed nations. Lenin was also well aware that a nation that oppresses another nation cannot be free itself. For sure, Marxism does not back separatism in each and every case of the national question, but that is not what I am arguing.

In consideration of this, it is very difficult to maintain that "Marxists" should support territorial expansion by oppressor nations and "should be part of our struggle". I realise that's not what you're saying, and that you support a European socialist republic in which there are no oppressor nations. But then why do you pretend that that is the same thing as a "united" Britain? The very name implies that in this case, the leading role lies with only one of its constituent nations. That's completely different from any Marxist positions, elementary or otherwise.


You're reacting very allergically to normal discourse. The Isles are, as far as I'm aware, broadly known as the "British" Isles, there is no alternative term. I'm open to suggestions however.

They are broadly known as the "British Isles" in the UK (which does not include Ireland, just to make sure). Obviously the Irish would beg to differ, as they don't consider themselves British. Alternative names are "Great Britain and Ireland", "these islands", "British Isles and Ireland", etc.

I realise that a lot of people use "British Isles" as a politically neutral geographical term, but what's "neutral" for group X is not necessarily "neutral" for group Y. Even terms used "neutrally" have a political background.


A British socialist federation would have to exist within the context of a European project of workers unity, this much is true. You're reading something that isn't there though as I didn't argue for a "British nation", i.e. the construction of yet another "national identity", but for a British federation on a voluntary and democratic basis.

I can sympathise with most of that, but why does it have to be "British"? Can there be a socialist federation of Britain and Ireland within the context of a European project of workers' unity that is not "British"? I think this would be a much closer projection of what we probably both support: that neither of the nations involved is privileged or empowered over the other.

I really think we should avoid any strong insistence on "Britishness" in what you propose. I mean, how would you concretely argue such a thing in front of your Irish comrades, who are active in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland? Surely you'll agree with me that you would not correct them and say, "You mean Britain. You people are British, and you should fight for a British socialist federation. Stop talking like nationalists."

By the way, here is how they word it: "We are for a socialist solution - working class unity to bring about a socialist Ireland as a free and voluntary part of a socialist federation of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales and, on a wider scale, of a socialist European federation." (http://www.socialistparty.net/home/about-us)


That is one side, of which you are accusing me (which is a wrong accusation), the other extreme, to which you seem to be tending, is that of nationalists argueing that the oppressed nations can only be free if they are independent. This is a wrong approach as I explain above. Another argument to be added is that such a stance feeds the bourgeois myth of national identity as opposed to class society.

It is true that the right to self-determination does not necessarily mean insisting on separate states in every case. Only hardcore separatists would argue for a "socialist" Europe full of little ethnic states, without analysing the reality of the situation there. Otherwise, one would also have to back the "self-determination" of the Afrikaner far-right, Northern Irish unionists, the Flemish Bloc, etc. That is not what I am arguing at all, and I doubt any Irish Republicans would do so either.

But I think we are in agreement that, in the idea of a "socialist federation", there should be no privilege for nations that happen to be privileged today. Otherwise, what we would get would be kind of similar to the Israeli-Palestinian "two-state solution".


It is true that Draconid himself follows the idea of having a national identity and from that concludes that Celts, as a people, hate the Anglish. This is indeed a hopelessly wrong analysis. I explained my reasoning for the Thanks in my previous post though and it isn't linked to this idea.

Fair enough.


You're twisting my words.

My assumption was that you supported Draconid's argument, but apparently this is not the case. I did not intend to misrepresent you, just as I'm sure you did not deliberately misrepresent me two quotes above this one ("the other extreme").

[Che a chara]

Zoid, just one look at your comments and one can come to the sane conclusion that you are ignorant of Irish history, the facts and are a totally reactionary loyalist apologist, with a severe anti-Irish freedom agenda.

Your propaganda doesn't work work here.

Ireland was united under King Brian Boru for over 10 years in the early 1000's.

Ireland was never partitioned or divided into 2 different countries until the North was split into a sectarian headcount in 1921, which cut up the 9 county province of Ulster, from a majority of nationalists/republicans to make them a minority, in a undemocratic fake 6 county state. IT WAS ALWAYS ONE IRELAND.

The British government along with loyalists/unionists, the RUC, the British Army, B-Specials, UDR, loyalist death squad terrorists conducted a campaign of ethinc cleansing of Catholics and the Irish people, denying their right to national self determination in their own homeland. The British government has never had any right to be on the island of Ireland. Why do you think you call it the plantation for ? It's because the 'British' or 'Northern Irish' people where planted in Ireland from Scotland and England. Not now that it matters as Irish republicans and socialists see these planters/settlers as integral part of the community and as Irish people who now have more right than anyone to live there. But the fact is that it's always been the will of the majority of the people on this island to be united under their own rule, but this was always denied and met with massacres and oppression. As I say, Ulster is 9 counties and was cut down into 6 denying the will of the people.

It's the British government and the British military that is not wanted. It's British imperialism that is opposed.

No-one on here supports FF, FG, or any of them capitalist gombeens.

I also see you fail to mention the denial for the Irish language to be spoke in the occupied 6 counties of Ireland. The Irish culture has been erased and deleted from history by loyalist apologists like yourself. Not that 'British' is a culture anyway ....

[ed miliband]

Europe Europe Europe... :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDKiPtBbBQY

[Spanishleft]

Nice! :thumbup1:

[Zoid]

Zoid, just one look at your comments and one can come to the sane conclusion that you are ignorant of Irish history, the facts and are a totally reactionary loyalist apologist, with a severe anti-Irish freedom agenda.

Your propaganda doesn't work work here.

Ireland was united under King Brian Boru for over 10 years in the early 1000's.

Ireland was never partitioned or divided into 2 different countries until the North was split into a sectarian headcount in 1921, which cut up the 9 county province of Ulster, from a majority of nationalists/republicans to make them a minority, in a undemocratic fake 6 county state. IT WAS ALWAYS ONE IRELAND.

The British government along with loyalists/unionists, the RUC, the British Army, B-Specials, UDR, loyalist death squad terrorists conducted a campaign of ethinc cleansing of Catholics and the Irish people, denying their right to national self determination in their own homeland. The British government has never had any right to be on the island of Ireland. Why do you think you call it the plantation for ? It's because the 'British' or 'Northern Irish' people where planted in Ireland from Scotland and England. Not now that it matters as Irish republicans and socialists see these planters/settlers as integral part of the community and as Irish people who now have more right than anyone to live there. But the fact is that it's always been the will of the majority of the people on this island to be united under their own rule, but this was always denied and met with massacres and oppression. As I say, Ulster is 9 counties and was cut down into 6 denying the will of the people.

It's the British government and the British military that is not wanted. It's British imperialism that is opposed.

No-one on here supports FF, FG, or any of them capitalist gombeens.

I also see you fail to mention the denial for the Irish language to be spoke in the occupied 6 counties of Ireland. The Irish culture has been erased and deleted from history by loyalist apologists like yourself. Not that 'British' is a culture anyway ....

One look at your comment, shows you to be a reactionary Hibernofascist with a primitive grasp of history, a long line of tradition which the Irish show themselves at every turn to be the staunchest defenders of reaction, fascism, absolutism, ethnocentrism and anti-progressive forces. The most provincial and ethno-chauvanist tribe in all of Europe.

If the Irish were in the driving seat of history, the world would never have escaped from the shackles of feudalism at the behest of their priestly Roman legion. The Irish; ever the staunchest defenders of absolutism, reaction and depostism, as the Jacobites against the Ulster-Scots were monarchial absolutists and theocrats, in league with the Carlists, Tsarists and Bourbonists. Their seemless shift from monarchial-absolutism, to the Gaelic fascist, xenophobic ethno-chauvinism which they currently exhibit under the mask of "republicanism" only goes to further the point. Everywhere they dwell, bringing along with them their child-abusing priestly legion, far from the Romanticised happy-go-lucky "egalitarianists" they purport to be, have de facto being the standard bearers of racism, murder, fascism and turmoil, sowing seeds of discontent amongst the workers. Whether it is in Ulster and Scotland, with the pseudo-Gaelic ethnocentric xenophobia, or in the United States similarly in conflict with Italians, Africans, WASPs and any other community.

Before the Welsh Tudor conquest, Ireland was a patchwork of around twenty-six warring kingdoms. What Hibernofascists now call "provinces" as part of their irridentist agenda to supress democracy, Munster, Ulster, Leinster and Connacht, were kingdoms in the Early Middle Ages which the Tudors decided to use as a framework for a provincial organisation of counties (former kingdoms). Before that, roughly between the 5th century and 16th century, Ulster, or the Ulaid covered only a region of Antrim, Down and Louth. Geography is not set in stone, the term now usually applies to Northern Ireland. And you want to talk about "colonialism" and "imperialism", the Irish Gaelic fascists colonised and invaded the Scottish Highlands and Hebrides (Imperial Erse is still the colonial tongue there), commiting a Holocaust against the Picts. Unlike the so-called "British attacks on Ireland", the Irish have well and truely exterminated any trace of the Picts and their culture. Just like they exterminated the Norsemen in Ireland who founded the cities including Dublin and just like they exterminated the Protestants in the South. No wonder the Ulster-Scots workers defend themselves and their local communites through arms against the most xenophobic tribe in Europe.

[Zoid]

All rings a bit hollow when your fellow 'Ulster-Scots' trot off not fifteen minutes past my door to sing that they're 'up to their knees in Fenian blood'

While the term Fenianism has negative connotations, the actual event which they are singing about, is the victory of progressive forces over monarchial absolutism of the Jacobites, whom the Irish Catholics formed the shock troops of in Ireland. During the Williamite War, the Ulster Scots, along with international forces including Germans, Dutch, Danish, English, Scottish and others, joined in solidarity to defeat the Irish Catholic Jacobites who were backing James II, a monarchial absolutist despot. I see this as no different to commemorating the French Revolution and the overthrow of Old Bourbon or the Russian Revolution and the overthrow of the Tsar and his defenders. I bet you are not so sensitive when it comes to wading through the blood of reaction in the latter two cases?

[Bud Struggle]

One look at your comment, shows you to be a reactionary Hibernofascist with a primitive grasp of history, a long line of tradition which the Irish show themselves at every turn to be the staunchest defenders of reaction, fascism, absolutism, ethnocentrism and anti-progressive forces. The most provincial and ethno-chauvanist tribe in all of Europe.

In the "day" of the Middle ages most people were rather "reactionary" in their outlook--the point of history isn't pointing fingers at people 1000 years ago and saying they were idiots because they didn't profess Communism. History moves on at its own time and pace and the gradual awakening of people to freedom and equality moves sometimes in starts and stops.

Because different people are subject to different conditions they sometimes progress more or less slowly. The problem is not with the "people" it's with the conditions the people have to put up with.

[Che a chara]

One look at your comment, shows you to be a reactionary Hibernofascist with a primitive grasp of history, a long line of tradition which the Irish show themselves at every turn to be the staunchest defenders of reaction, fascism, absolutism, ethnocentrism and anti-progressive forces. The most provincial and ethno-chauvanist tribe in all of Europe.

If the Irish were in the driving seat of history, the world would never have escaped from the shackles of feudalism at the behest of their priestly Roman legion. The Irish; ever the staunchest defenders of absolutism, reaction and depostism, as the Jacobites against the Ulster-Scots were monarchial absolutists and theocrats, in league with the Carlists, Tsarists and Bourbonists. Their seemless shift from monarchial-absolutism, to the Gaelic fascist, xenophobic ethno-chauvinism which they currently exhibit under the mask of "republicanism" only goes to further the point. Everywhere they dwell, bringing along with them their child-abusing priestly legion, far from the Romanticised happy-go-lucky "egalitarianists" they purport to be, have de facto being the standard bearers of racism, murder, fascism and turmoil, sowing seeds of discontent amongst the workers. Whether it is in Ulster and Scotland, with the pseudo-Gaelic ethnocentric xenophobia, or in the United States similarly in conflict with Italians, Africans, WASPs and any other community.

Before the Welsh Tudor conquest, Ireland was a patchwork of around twenty-six warring kingdoms. What Hibernofascists now call "provinces" as part of their irridentist agenda to supress democracy, Munster, Ulster, Leinster and Connacht, were kingdoms in the Early Middle Ages which the Tudors decided to use as a framework for a provincial organisation of counties (former kingdoms). Before that, roughly between the 5th century and 16th century, Ulster, or the Ulaid covered only a region of Antrim, Down and Louth. Geography is not set in stone, the term now usually applies to Northern Ireland. And you want to talk about "colonialism" and "imperialism", the Irish Gaelic fascists colonised and invaded the Scottish Highlands and Hebrides (Imperial Erse is still the colonial tongue there), commiting a Holocaust against the Picts. Unlike the so-called "British attacks on Ireland", the Irish have well and truely exterminated any trace of the Picts and their culture. Just like they exterminated the Norsemen in Ireland who founded the cities including Dublin and just like they exterminated the Protestants in the South. No wonder the Ulster-Scots workers defend themselves and their local communites through arms against the most xenophobic tribe in Europe.

:lol: What vomit.

I don't think anyone, even yourself believes that bullshit, lies and slander, which is so typical of British/loyalist terrorist apologists who rewrite history to try and excuse and justify their barbaric atrocities. Do I really need to mention Britain's past imperialist massacres not including the invasion, occupation and rape of Ireland and the Irish holocaust/genocide - (not famine) ?? What about India with your slaughter of millions and starving children to death.

Your government and your royal family oversaw millions and million of murders, massacres and travesties.
(http://www.johannhari.com/2006/06/17/the-truth-our-empire-killed-millions)

You try and distinguish yourself as Ulster-Scots (doesn't bother me in the slightest) from British, just because you want be in denial about Britain's terrorism. You want to be separate. Its the usual loyalist ploy.

I'm not denying that republicanism has had it's fair share of reactionary nationalism, but for the most part, its about uniting catholic, protestant and dissenter. We here are in favour of creating a 32county socialist republic, where there is no distinction between any citizen, where there is a separation of church and state and equality for all, which is in complete opposition to your right-wing comrades in the DUP, and the rest of the loyalist reactionaries, who want all taigs out, and recreate the bastard Orange state, against the wishes of the majority of Ulster.

Ironic too that the religion of protestantism was pushed through in order for the Roman Catholic reformists who wanted to cheat on their wives with their under-age maids. But that truth and fact is easily wiped from your mind and unionist minds, yet they have no problem when bringing up paedophile scum priests. No-one is excusing paedophile priests, yet you're looking to troll and provoke by bringing it up. I don't give a flying fuck about religion. People can believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe or hurt or oppress anyone or make somebody approach others differently. You on the other hand do want this.

I can't help but think what you want on this forum except attack Irish republicans and socialists in their righteous and just cause for class struggle and national liberation.

[Che a chara]

While the term Fenianism has negative connotations, the actual event which they are singing about, is the victory of progressive forces over monarchial absolutism of the Jacobites, whom the Irish Catholics formed the shock troops of in Ireland. During the Williamite War, the Ulster Scots, along with international forces including Germans, Dutch, Danish, English, Scottish and others, joined in solidarity to defeat the Irish Catholic Jacobites who were backing James II, a monarchial absolutist despot. I see this as no different to commemorating the French Revolution and the overthrow of Old Bourbon or the Russian Revolution and the overthrow of the Tsar and his defenders. I bet you are not so sensitive when it comes to wading through the blood of reaction in the latter two cases?

The Pope was against James II. He funded and gave troops to William of Orange. Why did you leave this out for ?

Catholics wanted civil liberties, which was denied. They were persecuated and murdered, had no rights and had their land stolen off them, so of course they rebelled against your murdering, thieving, bloodthirsty cut-throats.

[Zoid]

I also see you fail to mention the denial for the Irish language to be spoke in the occupied 6 counties of Ireland. The Irish culture has been erased and deleted from history by loyalist apologists like yourself. Not that 'British' is a culture anyway .... Unlike the xenophobia of republican Little Irelanders today and their "join the GAA and learn Gaelic or the IRA will knee-cap you" crypto-nazism. Britain and the concept of British exists as a pluralistic ethno-cultural concept and allows for subgroups to exist in parity of esteem. Today in Britain the national subcultures of English, Scottish, Welsh and Ulster all exist together in a diverse unity. There are even more recently arrived subcultures such as West Indians, Pakistanis and others which fit and thrive under the British identity

[Bud Struggle]

^^^ You wouldn't be David Cameron would you? :D

[Che a chara]

Unlike the xenophobia of republican Little Irelanders today and their "join the GAA and learn Gaelic or the IRA will knee-cap you" crypto-nazism. Britain and the concept of British exists as a pluralistic ethno-cultural concept and allows for subgroups to exist in parity of esteem. Today in Britain the national subcultures of English, Scottish, Welsh and Ulster all exist together in a diverse unity. There are even more recently arrived subcultures such as West Indians, Pakistanis and others which fit and thrive under the British identity

You what ? haha, ethnic minorities are under attack from fascists such as yourself. Not a day goes by where you don't hear of Pakistanis, Roman gypsies or Chinese etc getting petrol or paint bombed in loyalist areas, with swastikas painted and Combat 18, and "White and Prods only" gratified on the walls.

Ireland has a massive culture in the occupied 6 counties, yet it is denied by the fascist and bigoted pro-union politicians.



"join the GAA and learn Gaelic or the IRA will knee-cap you"

Where are you getting this crap from: ?

Where in the universe does this happen, never mind Ireland ? Your scaremongering and attempt to criminalise republicanism is sick and so obvious. No-one is going to believe that shite.

[Sam_b]

Awesome amount of chaunvenism and bigotry coming from Zoig of Orange on this one.

Hibernoascists versus the Ulster Scots eh? Can't wait for your alternative commentary on the next Old Firm.

[Zoid]

You what ? haha, ethnic minorities are under attack from fascists such as yourself. Not a day goes by where you don't hear of Pakistanis, Roman gypsies or Chinese etc getting petrol or paint bombed in loyalist areas, with swastikas painted and Combat 18, and "White and Prods only" gratified on the walls.

You're not really helping your argument. Groups like Combat 18 are marginal fascist lunatics, which no serious socialist supports. Republicans on the other hand, who hold the exact same ideological positions, with the term "Aryan" replaced with "Gaelic", fraudulently claim to be "progressive", "egalitarian" and "radicals". Combat 18 and the Republican movement are two sides of the same coin; ethnocentrism and xenophobia, you are both so-called "national socialists" (a parodoxical concept).

[Sam_b]

"join the GAA and learn Gaelic or the IRA will knee-cap you"

"Don't drink in McGurk's bar tonight because me and my Ulster-Scots mates are gonnae bomb the fuck out of it"

[Che a chara]

You're not really helping your argument. Groups like Combat 18 are marginal fascist lunatics, which no serious socialist supports. Republicans on the other hand, who hold the exact same ideological positions, with the term "Aryan" replaced with "Gaelic", fraudulently claim to be "progressive", "egalitarian" and "radicals". Combat 18 and the Republican movement are two sides of the same coin; ethnocentrism and xenophobia.

Really, you've lost the plot. Fascism and sectarianism go hand in hand with loyalism. This is fact as evidenced on a daily basis

Every republican is anti-fascist. I can point you to hundreds of protests, demo's that Irish republicans have attended in support for rights for the LGBT community and for ethnic minorities and opposition to racism and fascism. Your site redwatch does a good job in pointing that out for us.

do you ever look at http://www.irish-nationalism.net/ (i think it is) They are Irish and gaelic only and they abhor Irish republicans because they are the opposite.

Can you show me a document or a link where Irish republicans want a Gaelic, catholic only Ireland ? cheers a chara.

[Che a chara]

Zoid my man, just looking over your posts there again. Can I ask where did you get all this from ? I really hope this isn't the stuff loyalists/unionists are taught. It's total brainwashing bullshit.

And also, I'm fairly certain that ALL Irish republican groups near enough support an open door policy. Republican Sinn Fein are probably the only one that would at the moment support some sort of cap.

[Crimson Commissar]

I find it a bit worrying that Irish leftists are supporting the nationalist IRA. It's fine to support Irish independence, but when you go calling the IRA "heroes" and "liberators of the oppressed celtic peoples" it gets a bit ridiculous, especially for Socialists and Anarchists such as ourselves.

[Bud Struggle]

Not having a dog in this fight (American with non British/Irish origins) I look over this thread and really see that it's going to take a lot of effort for Communism to overcome the residue of some Nationalistic feelings.

[No pasarán]

I find it a bit worrying that Irish leftists are supporting the nationalist IRA. It's fine to support Irish independence, but when you go calling the IRA "heroes" and "liberators of the oppressed celtic peoples" it gets a bit ridiculous, especially for Socialists and Anarchists such as ourselves.

Ok first very few of the irish republicans on here go around going "THE I, THE I, THE I R A". The PIRA did many things that disgust me, and the first IRA was a much more dived organisation than is often remembered. Both organisations have contained honest commrades and a smaller element of sectarian, nationalist bigots. And I'm not a Fan of the RIRA or CIRA either. I have more sympathy for the INLA but they also carried out actions I tottally disagree with, despite having a more leftist view of the struggle than the PIRA .

However the troubles were to some extent an unfourtunately unavoidable reaction to the way that the republican community (which is not just catholics) were being treated. If they had not happened, those in the republican communities in the north would still be in the same position and the unionists would still have full control over them. The PIRA were a very effective fighting force, if at times very flawed. The INLA were effective at times, but were suppressed by infighting and to a lesser extent the PIRA despite there calls for solidarity. But what is needed now, is not more bombs or guns but wider attempts to win over the working class of the unionist community and to create an equal, fairly run country where the people truley rule themselves, not either of the imperalist, capitalist goverments that run the country right now.

[ComradeOm]

I find it a bit worrying that Irish leftists are supporting the nationalist IRA. It's fine to support Irish independence, but when you go calling the IRA "heroes" and "liberators of the oppressed celtic peoples" it gets a bit ridiculous, especially for Socialists and Anarchists such as ourselves.And who here has suggested that the PIRA, which no longer exists as a paramilitary force, are the "liberators of the oppressed celtic peoples"? No one. Its a complete strawman on par with Zoid's ranting about "Gaelic master race theorists" and its only purpose is to excuse your own social-imperialism

[Andropov]

I find it a bit worrying that Irish leftists are supporting the nationalist IRA. It's fine to support Irish independence, but when you go calling the IRA "heroes" and "liberators of the oppressed celtic peoples" it gets a bit ridiculous, especially for Socialists and Anarchists such as ourselves.
Yet another Chauvanistic fuckwit who uses a thin veneer of bastardised "Socialism" to excuse your blatantly obvious Loyalist sympathising degeneracy.
But mind you its not the first time ive come across you getting down on your knees and opening wide for auld Britannia.

[scarletghoul]

Not having a dog in this fight (American with non British/Irish origins) I look over this thread and really see that it's going to take a lot of effort for Communism to overcome the residue of some Nationalistic feelings.
Err, you shouldn't make decisions on things like this based one whether you're Irish or English. This isn't just some conflict between nations where 'both sides are just as bad'; this is a case of imperialist oppression which we should all oppose whole heartedly. Many English leftists support Irish independance for this reason, and so should you.

The fact that you think opinions on these things should be based on one's own ethnic background suggests that the problem of nationalistic reasoning lies with you, Bud.

[Dean]

You would be hard pressed to find many people who think the Irish should be British. De facto, they act as a lobby group for a medieval, anti-progressive, anti-secular institution which they have bound up into their ethnic-identity; the Roman Church. The British workers don't need dragging back to the Middle Ages, so until the Irish develop a more fraternal identity, more international and less fanatical ethnic elitism, I can't imagine anybody would want them in this or any other Union.

Strategy of the technologically superior imperial regimes:
-dominate foreign nationals
-maintain technological and economic hegemony
-point to their relative "savagery," "barbarism" and "racism" - after all, the actual conditions of economic exploitation don't matter. All that matters is that sufficiently palatable media and public relations can be extracted from the conflict and shaped by - who else? The authority in the given region - the British, Israeli and French client broadcasting and media corporations.
-Point out that they'd rather live in your preferred state (who wouldn't rather live in a colonial village than a native camp? an Israeli settlement versus a walled-in ghetto?)
-Point out their racist rhetoric - Native Americans are to blame since they treat the European encroachment as war!

Sorry, kid, you and your imperial apologism is nothing but a big joke. Nobody here will take you seriously since you're obsessed with childish anti-Irish games. You search for a myriad of excuses to justify British exploitation, but it will never be enough - you know its fundamentally exploitative, and you know you can't escape that fact.

[Bud Struggle]

Err, you shouldn't make decisions on things like this based one whether you're Irish or English. This isn't just some conflict between nations where 'both sides are just as bad'; this is a case of imperialist oppression which we should all oppose whole heartedly. Many English leftists support Irish independance for this reason, and so should you. I understand that England's imperialist aggression was evil--I read Cecil Woodham-Smith's book The Great Hungar a while ago it it was an unbelieveable atrocity. My point is that those sort of things are remembered for centuries after they occur. England is certainly no longer the England of 150 years ago--but those memories linger and fester.


The fact that you think opinions on these things should be based on one's own ethnic background suggests that the problem of nationalistic reasoning lies with you, Bud. That reason lies with us all. My personal belief on ethnicity is that it's good for street festivals, food recipes and maybe some old fashioned dancing in colorful costumes. After that it's usefulness goes into a steep decline.

[scarletghoul]

I understand that England's imperialist aggression was evil--I read Cecil Woodham-Smith's book The Great Hungar a while ago it it was an unbelieveable atrocity. My point is that those sort of things are remembered for centuries after they occur. England is certainly no longer the England of 150 years ago--but those memories linger and fester.
It's not just a 'lingering memory'; there are still 6 counties under British occupation.

[Bud Struggle]

It's not just a 'lingering memory'; there are still 6 counties under British occupation.

I agree. Really it's not much different than the Israeli settelments on the West Bank--a few years hence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/6328/celticsocialiststate.png

Only me that is seeing a few... hrrm... logistical problems with this?

The parts outside the British Isles are a stretch, but I don't see much of a problem with Welsh, Scottish, and Irish workers uniting as a new pan-nation within the EU and prodding Anglo-Saxon workers in their diminished nation-state to smarten up class-wise against their age-old conservatism.

[Q]

The parts outside the British Isles are a stretch, but I don't see much of a problem with Welsh, Scottish, and Irish workers uniting as a new pan-nation within the EU and prodding Anglo-Saxon workers in their diminished nation-state to smarten up class-wise against their age-old conservatism.

Their age old conservatism is a nurtured product of their ruling class. It is absurd to "punish" English workers for being, well, English. It'll nurture a sense of new nationalism and simply rearrange the capitalist state system, what it won't do however is "smarten them up class-wise".

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm referring to their conservatism even in feudal times. There wasn't a major follow-up to the short-lived Chartism, and British tred-iunion Economism, "cooperative movement" Economism twin, and their Labour Party love-child-for-a-result don't count.

[hardlinecommunist]

Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall and Brittany are politically and economically oppressed.

And before you start laughing at the idea of Cornwall being an oppressed nation English comrades researched the question and came to the conclusion that of all the celtic nations it is probably the most oppressed. Yes this is true Cornwall is the most Oppressed of the Celtic Nations.

[sleeper1]

And what exactly defines a Celtic Nation? Surely acknowledging the Ethnicity of Indo European people means your a nazi? Is Celtic defined by ancestry, history or blood? Or is it just the rough area where those peoples used to be before they disapeared when we entered the Era of Multiculturism.

How can you call yourself Irish and jusitfy it if you are a Communist?

[Jack]

And what exactly defines a Celtic Nation? Surely acknowledging the Ethnicity of Indo European people means your a nazi? Is Celtic defined by ancestry, history or blood? Or is it just the rough area where those peoples used to be before they disapeared when we entered the Era of Multiculturism.

How can you call yourself Irish and jusitfy it if you are a Communist?

You're dumb.

[Lt. Ferret]

i will crush this revolution.

[ComradeOm]

How can you call yourself Irish and jusitfy it if you are a Communist?Because a national identity is not necessarily based on ethnicity. Muppet

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I love the idea of a big Celtic Yugoslavia (non-revisonist of course though). Sign me up!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What's so great about being ruled by Dublin as opposed to London? Both are bourgeois states.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Read the title. It say "A Pan-Celtic Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization". Swapping London bourgeois rule for Dublin bourgeois role isn't what's being advocated here.

[sleeper1]

Because a national identity is not necessarily based on ethnicity. Muppet

Not in any European Nations no, maybe in Japan. Again why would National Identity, ancestry or Ethnicty matter if you are a Communist? Why the need for "Pan-Celtic"? Surely all this things are just "social contructions" and Irish or Scottish people don't exist - or is that not the party line anymore?

[hatzel]

Well, it might not be the strict party line for these types (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Quebec), and is a lot closer to what we'd consider Communism than this lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party). In fact, there are a decent number of non-internationalist communists, so I hardly view this whole suggestion as totally unheard of...except for maybe the whole merging of everything and so on. I'd need to see their manifesto before I can decide whether or not is makes sense...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Read the title. It say "A Pan-Celtic Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization". Swapping London bourgeois rule for Dublin bourgeois role isn't what's being advocated here.

Because as we all know, what something is called and what something actually is are one and the same, right?

Of course, if one's socialist ambitions truly are sincere, and not just a veneer for populist nationalism, then why the focus on Celtic "nations"? Are not the rest of the world's proletariat just as deserving and capable of establishing a free and fair socialist society as the "Celtic" proletariat?

[ComradeOm]

Both are bourgeois states.Unless they're not :rolleyes:


Of course, if one's socialist ambitions truly are sincere, and not just a veneer for populist nationalism, then why the focus on Celtic "nations"? Are not the rest of the world's proletariat just as deserving and capable of establishing a free and fair socialist society as the "Celtic" proletariat? No one in this thread, or elsewhere, has suggested that the "Celtic proletariat" has a monopoly on 'liberation' struggles or these should not spread to the ROTW should not wage. In fact, its a typical characteristic of Maoists to see 'liberation' struggles anywhere and everywhere. Its much more likely that the OP, no matter how deranged, was making a sincere proposal to build a new socialist organisation in the 'Celtic nations'

Now I may not agree with the emphasis on the latter but I refuse to believe that anyone could spend years on this site without picking up even the most basic knowledge as to the role of nationality in Marxist analysis. Hence I'm assuming that you're deliberately being ridiculously obtuse


Again why would National Identity, ancestry or Ethnicty matter if you are a Communist?For the same reason they matter to anyone - they exist and therefore must be factored into any analysis

[sleeper1]

For the same reason they matter to anyone - they exist and therefore must be factored into any analysis

A startling admission!

I think some Celtic fans are going to be tearing their Che Guevara poster down if the read this thread, when they realise that Ethnic self-determination is not on the cards. :D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Unless they're not :rolleyes:

But they are. I prefer to consider nations as they behave in reality, as opposed to some nationalist's feverish wank-dream.


Now I may not agree with the emphasis on the latter but I refuse to believe that anyone could spend years on this site without picking up even the most basic knowledge as to the role of nationality in Marxist analysis.

Nationality may very well be an important datum in a Marxist analysis, but that is hardly an endorsement of any kind of nationalism; certainly no more than a medical diagnosis that includes the smoking habits of the patient is an endorsement of cigarettes.

[ComradeOm]

But they are. I prefer to consider nations as they behave in reality, as opposed to some nationalist's feverish wank-dreamNo, you're confusing nations and the bourgeois nationstate

I do love the irony of a "wank-dream" comment from a transhumanist though


Nationality may very well be an important datum in a Marxist analysis, but that is hardly an endorsement of any kind of nationalism; certainly no more than a medical diagnosis that includes the smoking habits of the patient is an endorsement of cigarettes.Some would disagree. In fact many would disagree. That's not to say that they are correct but given that their ranks include the likes of Lenin and Connolly you could at least make the effort to be familiar with their arguments


I think some Celtic fans are going to be tearing their Che Guevara poster down if the read this thread, when they realise that Ethnic self-determination is not on the cards.No, national self-determination (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm). Again, you insist on conflating ethnicity and nationality

[AK]

Yes this is true Cornwall is the most Oppressed of the Celtic Nations.
Why the fuck did you necro this troll-bait thread? Fucking why?

[Bud Struggle]

Why the fuck did you necro this troll-bait thread? Fucking why?


Maybe it's a European/World thing--but as an American I really don't have a clue what this thread is really all about.

[AK]

Maybe it's a European/World thing--but as an American I really don't have a clue what this thread is really all about.
It's about the single most obscure idea for an organisation I've ever heard of.

[ComradeOm]

Maybe it's a European/World thing--but as an American I really don't have a clue what this thread is really all about.You'd be amazed how rarely citizens of imperialist nations see anything wrong with imperialism. Those who have lived under foreign rule tend to have a rather different perspective

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, you're confusing nations and the bourgeois nationstate

Sure, the existence of distinct nationalities precedes modern nation-states, but so what? Since when are Marxists in the business of preserving pre-capitalist forms that arbitrarily divide the human species by birthplace?


I do love the irony of a "wank-dream" comment from a transhumanist though

You know, if I had any chance of being able to follow it up I would be prepared to make a bet with you; if working molecular nanotechnology/uploading/Strong AI appears first, I win. If an "oppressed nation" of your choosing gains socialist independence before any of those technologies reach a workable stage, you win.

I'm confident of history's impartiality on the matter.


Some would disagree. In fact many would disagree. That's not to say that they are correct but given that their ranks include the likes of Lenin and Connolly you could at least make the effort to be familiar with their arguments

Maybe I missed something, but Lenin HERE (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch01.htm) appears to be supporting the thesis that the formation of politically, economically and linguistically unified "national states" are an essential part of the development of modern capitalism. I have no real objections to such a thesis, but I fail to see the relevance. The world is a fuck of a lot more integrated in economic and cultural terms than it was 96 years ago. Capitalism has long gone global, with the possible exception of Antarctica, which is unsurprising considering there's no permanent human habitation there and it's effectively a giant nature reserve at the moment.

Face it, the world as a balkanised collection of individually unified nations would be a step backward, even by capitalist standards. Whether it be communist or capitalist, the future is looking pretty international at the moment, and rightly so. The last thing we need as a species is more lame excuses to squabble with each other.

[ComradeOm]

Sure, the existence of distinct nationalities precedes modern nation-states, but so what? Since when are Marxists in the business of preserving pre-capitalist forms that arbitrarily divide the human species by birthplace?National identities, in various forms, have always existed. I see no reason to suggest that they will not always exist. I see no reason as to why this should be a bad thing. A worker born in Dublin will always be different from a worker born in Paris. A world in which this is not the case, in which all cultural differences have been stripped away, is not worth imagining


You know, if I had any chance of being able to follow it up I would be prepared to make a bet with you; if working molecular nanotechnology/uploading/Strong AI appears first, I win. If an "oppressed nation" of your choosing gains socialist independence before any of those technologies reach a workable stage, you win.That's rather defeatist of you


Maybe I missed something, but Lenin HERE (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch01.htm) appears to be supporting the thesis that the formation of politically, economically and linguistically unified "national states" are an essential part of the development of modern capitalism. I have no real objections to such a thesis, but I fail to see the relevance. The world is a fuck of a lot more integrated in economic and cultural terms than it was 96 years ago. Capitalism has long gone global, with the possible exception of Antarctica, which is unsurprising considering there's no permanent human habitation there and it's effectively a giant nature reserve at the momentHmmmm? You mention Lenin, who was merely stating the obvious, and then dismiss him in the same paragraph?* But then what sort of debate can be had about nationalities and nationalism when you dismiss the historic growth and spread of nationstates, hand in hand with capitalism, as "irrelevant"?

I suggest you read the rest of the pamphlet

*Ridiculously so at that. Marx began writing over 150 years ago... should we simply throw him, his theories, and his politics into the dustbin of history? Of course not. A lot of the specifics of that particular Lenin pamphlet - such as the Norway question, Great Russian chauvinism, etc - has been superseded by events but the core principles and conclusions remain perfectly sound


Face it, the world as a balkanised collection of individually unified nations would be a step backward, even by capitalist standards. Whether it be communist or capitalist, the future is looking pretty international at the moment, and rightly soThe bourgeois nationstate is breaking down, no question about it. But then its a good thing that I've never advocated the continuation of the nationstate. Frankly, accusations of "Balkanisation"* betray a gross misunderstanding of socialist self-determination

*Its actually worth noting of course that the world today is infinitely more sympathetic to small nations than it was during the 19th C. Even Mazzini, that prototype democratic nationalist, only envisaged a Europe with half a dozen nations. Today, thanks in part to super-national regional entities such as the EU, size is no longer a determinant for self-determination


The last thing we need as a species is more lame excuses to squabble with each other.So much for the pretence of Marxist analysis. National or cultural borders do not cause conflict in themselves. Why is it you assume that everyone who has the temerity to label themselves as Irish or French or Brazilian or whatever is a raving irredentist?

[Bud Struggle]

You'd be amazed how rarely citizens of imperialist nations see anything wrong with imperialism. Those who have lived under foreign rule tend to have a rather different perspective

I honestly don't know what you are getting at. Please explain a bit more.

[RGacky3]

What he's trying to say is you in an imperialist country, have a different viewpoint on imperialism than those that suffer from it, its not that difficult.

[Bud Struggle]

What he's trying to say is you in an imperialist country, have a different viewpoint on imperialism than those that suffer from it, its not that difficult.

READ THE OP. That's always a good start to an intelligent conversation. :)

[RGacky3]

Yeah, I did, thats what he's talking about.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, I did, thats what he's talking about.

Brother--as I posted in other places--you don't even know what you are talking about. :(

[RGacky3]

Maybe it's a European/World thing--but as an American I really don't have a clue what this thread is really all about.

Aparently you don'nt know what your talking about, but ok, I'll let ComradeON reply, and if I'm wrong I'll admit I was wrong, if not, I guess I do know what I'm talking about.

[Bud Struggle]

Aparently you don'nt know what your talking about, but ok, I'll let ComradeON reply, and if I'm wrong I'll admit I was wrong, if not, I guess I do know what I'm talking about.

HELLO!!!!! Palingenisis was the OP. :lol:

[RGacky3]

Yeah I know, but you were talking about ComradeONs post.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah I know, but you were talking about ComradeONs post.

When did he become the OP?

Comrade ON! Pretty good joke there. You are funnier than you know.

[RGacky3]

Comrade ON! Pretty good joke there. You are funnier than you know.

Either I'm totally retarded, or your a really bad comedian.

[sleeper1]

No, national self-determination. Again, you insist on conflating ethnicity and nationality


And when there is an Old firm match, and those Celtic FC fans wave Ireland flags - do you think they are standing in solidarity with their National Identity or Ethnicity... cause last time I checked anyone born in Scotland would be a British Citizen. National Self-Determination is due to competing Ethnic or Religious groups, that's what a vast majority of people are loyal to; their kin.

[Wanted Man]

And what exactly defines a Celtic Nation? Surely acknowledging the Ethnicity of Indo European people means your a nazi? Is Celtic defined by ancestry, history or blood? Or is it just the rough area where those peoples used to be before they disapeared when we entered the Era of Multiculturism.

How can you call yourself Irish and jusitfy it if you are a Communist?

Eh? :confused:


What's so great about being ruled by Dublin as opposed to London? Both are bourgeois states.

I dunno. What's so great about being ruled by London?

Anyway, the "Pan-Celtic Maoist" thing from the OP is a bit of a caricature, but why are people extending this caricature to all advocacy for self-determination of Ireland, Scotland, etc.? It's a complete straw man to accuse people of wanting to have "a Europe full of little Balkanised capitalist states" or some shite like that. Self-determination can take different forms, not just ethnic separatism and the like. It does not necessarily contradict internationalism.

In a hypothetical socialist Britain & Ireland, what would be wrong with a part of it being (a united) "Ireland" and part of it being "Scotland", with their own identity and autonomous structures, but with complete freedom of movement, culture, etc., within the context of a larger socialist state? I can't look into the future, but I can imagine that such a structure would actually give us a better chance of having nationalism "wither away" than insisting on some kind of socialist version of the existing union.

Also, what else should Irish, Scots, etc. call themselves? Airstrip One? North Britain? It seems to me completely ridiculous to say that anyone who doesn't want to fly the butcher's apron in Scotland or Ireland is a narrow-minded bourgeois nationalist. I'm not saying that you're necessarily doing this, but it's more of a general tendency. It sounds to me like people are seriously applying the conservative caricature of "Cultural Marxism".

Anyway, a lot of this is about hypothetical socialist or communist futures, which complicates the issue a bit more. What can we say about this in regards to current events? Well, firstly that socialists should obviously continue to support a united Ireland. As for the other Celtic nations, I think full independence for Scotland and Wales may be a bridge too far, but they should certainly have the chance to decide. In Scotland, at the moment, Labour and the Tories are determined to block a referendum on independence. Along with this we get the usual ugly arguments about "lazy Scots profiting from England". If they're so convinced of that, why are they afraid of having a referendum? Sorry about this rant, but it's disgraceful even by the standards of bourgeois politics.

[ComradeOm]

I honestly don't know what you are getting at. Please explain a bit more.I don't entirely ascribe to Eden's comment that, "it would be impertinent for a country that has not suffered occupation to pass judgement on one that did" but there is more than a kernel of truth there. Traditionally, even within Marxism, proponents of national self-determination have first and foremost come from subject nations while their detractors have been based in those with active imperialist agendas


And when there is an Old firm match, and those Celtic FC fans wave Ireland flags - do you think they are standing in solidarity with their National Identity or Ethnicity... cause last time I checked anyone born in Scotland would be a British Citizen. National Self-Determination is due to competing Ethnic or Religious groups, that's what a vast majority of people are loyal to; their kin. This is getting ridiculous. Where on earth did
you get the idea that national identify equals citizenship? Frankly you seem determined to buttress this strawman at all costs

[Plagueround]

As I delve more into my own culture, I think those who's culture is under constant threat and attack do not need to justify themselves to anyone who's culture is secure and protected...nor should they really be concerned at the sneering and misunderstood contempt from those that don't realize this is the case. Wait until the day the state or some other entity decides your way of life needs to be destroyed and get back to me...or perhaps those in my community who can show you their boarding school scars.

I don't know that any of what I said applies to this bizarre ass thread though.

[Jack]

What's so great about being ruled by Dublin as opposed to London? Both are bourgeois states.

The Provos are the only IRA sect to recognize the government in Dublin as the legitimate government of Ireland, and they only did that in the 80's.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah much better pan-"socialism"....Let's just support anything that waves a red flag...


This is an interesting development- but it's going to get a lot of flack too because of the nationalism some people might read into it.

I do feel that the "Celtic" situation is a little bit like the Third World situation in that historically speaking the Celtic nations have been oppressed by a foreign power exploiting them economically and creating an ethno-proletariat.

[ComradeMan]

.

There's a theory the Celts as such never existed. Celtic speaking peoples could be seen as more of a cultural sphere.



... usually put forward by hacks with vested interests in Anglo cultural and economic supremacy.

Whilst it is true that Celtic, just like any other ethnomen is to an extent subjective there are currently Six "Nations" in the Celtic League- namely, Ireland, Mann, Scotland- the "Gaelic" nations and Wales, Cornwall and Brittany, the Brythonic nations.

Detractors, strangely they seem to be English or French usually commence with genetic arguments and rantings about all kinds of things. The fact of the matter is that genetics and language don't form a sense of identity alone although they may contribute to it.

[Palingenisis]

I love the idea of a big Celtic Yugoslavia (non-revisonist of course though). Sign me up!

That was the idea....Not some sort of deranged cultural nationalism.

Infact a comrade was in contact with someone who seemed enthusiastic about the people's wars being waged at the moment and Maoism in general...However they started to speak about "Irish genetic hertitage" and so we decided to cut them off completely (this psycho was also it turned out a fan of MonkeySmashesHeaven:rolleyes:...and filled with anti-English racism).

[ComradeMan]

That was the idea....Not some sort of deranged cultural nationalism.

Infact a comrade was in contact with someone who seemed enthusiastic about the people's wars being waged at the moment and Maoism in general...However they started to speak about "Irish genetic hertitage" and so we decided to cut them off completely (this psycho was also it turned out a fan of MonkeySmashesHeaven:rolleyes:...and filled with anti-English racism).


Yeah that's the trouble, Celtic Nationalism in Brittany got a bad rep too- they collaborated with the Nazis during the occupation. As soon as genetics and race and stuff get involved, good advice- get out!

[Marxach-Léinínach]

However they started to speak about "Irish genetic hertitage" and so we decided to cut them off completely (this psycho was also it turned out a fan of MonkeySmashesHeaven:rolleyes:...and filled with anti-English racism).

Genetic heritage? Some leftist that guy is. I support cultural self-determination for the celtic nations, but the whole idea of "ethnically pure races" is bullshit IMO. I'd love to see the day when Welsh, Scots, Irish and Cornish can unite with our English brothers as equals.

[Palingenisis]

Genetic heritage? Some leftist that guy is. I support cultural self-determination for the celtic nations, but the whole idea of "ethnically pure races" is bullshit IMO. I'd love to see the day when Welsh, Scots, Irish and Cornish can unite with our English brothers as equals.

Well hed come from "Republican Sinn Fein" which is basically a society for re-enacting the more derranged element of 1950s Irish Republicanism (there was a lot progressive and indeed Communist about Irish Republicanism in the 20s and 30s...but the 1950s was a bad time for it) which is made up of space cadet neo-pagans and traditionalist Roman Catholics in the 26 counties and lumpen psychoes in the 6. They believe that their "Continuity Army Council" is the legitimate goverment of the country and make a very big deal out of it. They wont work with other Republicans either.

So the poor baby didnt get the best start in political life.

[Palingenisis]

Genetic heritage? Some leftist that guy is. I support cultural self-determination for the celtic nations, but the whole idea of "ethnically pure races" is bullshit IMO. I'd love to see the day when Welsh, Scots, Irish and Cornish can unite with our English brothers as equals.

Not just in your opinion but its also cold hard fact.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Well hed come from "Republican Sinn Fein" which is basically a society for re-enacting the more derranged element of 1950s Irish Republicanism (there was a lot progressive and indeed Communist about Irish Republicanism in the 20s and 30s...but the 1950s was a bad time for it) which is made up of space cadet neo-pagans and traditionalist Roman Catholics in the 26 counties and lumpen psychoes in the 6. They believe that their "Continuity Army Council" is the legitimate goverment of the country and make a very big deal out of it. They wont work with other Republicans either.

So the poor baby didnt get the best start in political life.

Hold on, I think I might know who you're talking about. He doesn't happen to post on irishrepublican.net by any chance does he?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Not just in your opinion but its also cold hard fact.

True dat

[Palingenisis]

Hold on, I think I might know who you're talking about. He doesn't happen to post on irishrepublican.net by any chance does he?

Cael ring any bells? Thats what he posts as on Politics.ie .

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Cael ring any bells? Thats what he posts as on Politics.ie .

"Cael Dubh" rings bells

[Ele'ill]

Oh my god- this thread is back from the dead.


http://zombietools.net/images/site_design/ZombieKillerFP.jpg

[ComradeMan]

Your going to have problems though.

The areas that seem to have a strong Celtic identity are usually quite conservative/traditionalist- with the exception of the wrecked industrial centres like Glasgow, Cardiff etc. They are also quite religious and much of their "national" identity is tied strongly to their forms of "Celtic Christianity" from what I see. These peoples are not tied together by a common language much either- it seems more of a common historical enemy and antagonism, primarily towards the "English" or "British/UK" establishment or the French.

What you'd have to do is to see how an ethno-proletariat had been oppressed by another ethno-bourgeoisie- if possible, and I do think there are some indicators with that, for instance the persecution and stigmatisation of the Celtic languages in favour of predominant languages such as English and French.

It doesn't help that Engels made some comment about Bretons and Gaelic people being like refuse on the dump of history along with the Slavs! :(

There would be a lot of challenges.

[El Chuncho]

As I delve more into my own culture, I think those who's culture is under constant threat and attack do not need to justify themselves to anyone who's culture is secure and protected...nor should they really be concerned at the sneering and misunderstood contempt from those that don't realize this is the case. Wait until the day the state or some other entity decides your way of life needs to be destroyed and get back to me...or perhaps those in my community who can show you their boarding school scars.

I don't know that any of what I said applies to this bizarre ass thread though.

I want to give you thumbs up, but can't. Yeah, I agree and I find it very appalling that not only was genocide committed against Native Americans, but cultural genocide is still continuing. Regardless of what we believe about internationalism (which should happen), the destruction of the culture of any people is wrong and quite backwards.

I am very interested in the cultures of the Guarani, the Ute-Aztecan people and many other native cultures and I find it said to see that their culture is in constant threat. There is no way to justify it.

Antagonist towards the British establishment, or the UK, is a great thing. However, antagonism to an English establishment is impossible. Regardless of where most of the establishment lives, ''England'' does not own the UK because it is a union, when people stop blaming the English for the continuation of the UK, I think their movement will get a lot more support from English workers. The UK should be devolved too, I think it will cause more friendship between the peasants and workers in the countries in the union for the long run.

And indeed, the fact that Gaelic identity is tied with Catholicism is really worrying. Catholicism has nothing really to do with the Gaelic cultures of Ireland and Scotland, it is merely a religion imposed on them by the rich and the church. It is why I support the Arm Saoirse Náisiúnta na hÉireann over the groups that now call themselves the IRA.


Genetic heritage? Some leftist that guy is. I support cultural self-determination for the celtic nations, but the whole idea of "ethnically pure races" is bullshit IMO. I'd love to see the day when Welsh, Scots, Irish and Cornish can unite with our English brothers as equals.

Agree, culture self-determination for any nation should not be sneered at but the idea of ethnically pure races is bullshit for two reasons, 1) EVERYONE is mixed, 2) races DO NOT exist. I would love to see the day when all people will be able to look at each other as equals and brothers. We all, after all, inhabit the same earth, we all descend from the same ancestors, we are all humans, far enough back.


National identities, in various forms, have always existed. I see no reason to suggest that they will not always exist. I see no reason as to why this should be a bad thing. A worker born in Dublin will always be different from a worker born in Paris. A world in which this is not the case, in which all cultural differences have been stripped away, is not worth imagining

As I have said a few times recently, I think an internationalist world based on a monoculture (one culture force on everyone, with the same language forced on everyone) rather than a multiculture (many cultures living together, sharing together and living as brothers and equals) would be boring, unrealistic, cruel and dangerous. To deny groups the right to have a defined, and I am not talking about ethnicity here, culture is to deprive them of any sense of real individuality as a commune, he wouldn't be able to visit countries to try new things, he would visit Japan only to be greeted by the same exact, carbon copy of his own neighbours. This would cause mass-unrest, and a counter-revolution on a worldwide scale will be really hard to put down. In short, the idea of a monocultural world is absurd, and possibly tyrannical.

[Viet Minh]

Its funny how all these 'pan-celtic' movements ignore England, which is as 'celtic' as any geographical area can be. Granted they were impurified by the Roman, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon invasions, but still they have equal claim to celtic culture as Britanny for example, who incidentally are also of the Brythonic culture.

Similiarly the Irish invaded Scotland many eons ago, and it was their descendants who returned to the plantation of Ulster, so why are they not included in this 'pan-celtic' movement?

And how do you prove your 'celticness' to be accepted by the pan-celtic Marxist leninist movement? Haplogene R1B is associated with stereotypes of 'celticness' (blue eyes, blond sometimes ginger hair) but its hardly a cut-and-dry litmus test for suitable candidates. So sorry but I just don't see the value in attaching ethnic identity to Marxist politics.

[Dimentio]

Necromancy! :lol:

[El Chuncho]

Its funny how all these 'pan-celtic' movements ignore England, which is as 'celtic' as any geographical area can be. Granted they were impurified by the Roman, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon invasions, but still they have equal claim to celtic culture as Britanny for example, who incidentally are also of the Brythonic culture.

That is more an ''ethnic'', genetically argument, culture doesn't back that up, which is why English speak an Anglo-Frisian language and are not part of the Celtic league. Bretons speak a language related to Welsh and are in the Celtic league, the same with Cornwall who also speak a language related to Welsh. I do not think the Celtic league cares about what genetics the English are.


Similiarly the Irish invaded Scotland many eons ago, and it was their descendants who returned to the plantation of Ulster, so why are they not included in this 'pan-celtic' movement?

N. Ireland is with most pan-Celticists.


And how do you prove your 'celticness' to be accepted by the pan-celtic Marxist leninist movement? Haplogene R1B is associated with stereotypes of 'celticness' (blue eyes, blond sometimes ginger hair) but its hardly a cut-and-dry litmus test for suitable candidates. So sorry but I just don't see the value in attaching ethnic identity to Marxist politics.

I think you have to belong to a Celtic linguistic culture, but I agree that ethnicity, or culture, do not need to be attached to Marxist politics.

[El Chuncho]

Necromancy! :lol:

Abracadaver.

[Viet Minh]

This is quite an old thread, looks like many were happy to let it die, but briefly..


That is more an ''ethnic'', genetically argument, culture doesn't back that up, which is why English speak an Anglo-Frisian language and are not part of the Celtic league. Bretons speak a language related to Welsh and are in the Celtic league, the same with Cornwall who also speak a language related to Welsh. I do not think the Celtic league cares about what genetics the English are.

The majority of Ireland, Scotland and Wales also speak English, the pan-celtic league extends beyond the actual gaelic-speaking regions (North Wales, the Scottish Highlands, parts of Western Ireland)


N. Ireland is with most pan-Celticists.

Yes I'm sure OP will be very welcoming of Ulster Unionists in his organisation.


I think you have to belong to a Celtic linguistic culture, but I agree that ethnicity, or culture, do not need to be attached to Marxist politics.

Again that rules out the majority of people in the areas he specified. This is the ultimate in Conservatism, like trying to recreate the Assyrian Empire. I am all for preserving celtic/ gaelic culture (my fathers side of the family are highland gaelic-speakers, although my mum is a sassenach) but to combine it with politics, especially leftist politics, is just pointless.

[El Chuncho]

The majority of Ireland, Scotland and Wales also speak English, the pan-celtic league extends beyond the actual gaelic-speaking regions (North Wales, the Scottish Highlands, parts of Western Ireland)

England and ''English'' only came into existence following the Anglo-Saxon settlement, which is why no official Celtic languages have existed in the area o England for centuries, it is different in the ''Celtic nations''.




Yes I'm sure OP will be very welcoming of Ulster Unionists in his organisation.

Probably not, but the IRA and the INLA are from Ulster, they are just not unionists. ;)



Again that rules out the majority of people in the areas he specified. This is the ultimate in Conservatism, like trying to recreate the Assyrian Empire. I am all for preserving celtic/ gaelic culture (my fathers side of the family are highland gaelic-speakers, although my mum is a sassenach) but to combine it with politics, especially leftist politics, is just pointless.

Yes, I am certainly in agreement, especially in regards to Iberia which has been ''Latin'' for centuries. Again he is basing culture on genetic grounds, it is quite unfortunate. But he is banned, so no worries. ;)

And most of my family is Highland Gaelic too, but I am not part of that culture, despite my genetics, because I am from England. I can speak a modicum of Gaelic...I can say things like ''na-gaff coos'' but I am not sure how to spell them. :laugh: I want to preserve as many cultures as possible, because it makes the world more fun. My partner is Japanese so when I visit I like to enjoy aspects of the culture, she enjoys aspects of English culture. The good thing about international multiculturalism is that people would be more like regional inhabitants and thus it would be easier and friendly to experience the regional cultures in what is effectively your own country.:)

[Viet Minh]

England and ''English'' only came into existence following the Anglo-Saxon settlement, which is why no official Celtic languages have existed in the area o England for centuries, it is different in the ''Celtic nations''.

My (limited) understanding is it evolved, there are still loanwoards or etymologies in English directly form celtic languages. Generally though my point was that in lowlands scotland very few speak celtic languages, and it has been the case for a long time, yet they are included in the pan-celtic league, and England is not, why?


Probably not, but the IRA and the INLA are from Ulster, they are just not unionists. ;)

Why exclude anybody though? Why not just a generic ML movement, that could include the PUP for example? Or the whole of the UK, or the whole of Europe, or the World? :)


Yes, I am certainly in agreement, especially in regards to Iberia which has been ''Latin'' for centuries. Again he is basing culture on genetic grounds, it is quite unfortunate. But he is banned, so no worries. ;)

And most of my family is Highland Gaelic too, but I am not part of that culture, despite my genetics, because I am from England. I can speak a modicum of Gaelic...I can say things like ''na-gaff coos'' but I am not sure how to spell them. :laugh: I want to preserve as many cultures as possible, because it makes the world more fun. My partner is Japanese so when I visit I like to enjoy aspects of the culture, she enjoys aspects of English culture. The good thing about international multiculturalism is that people would be more like regional inhabitants and thus it would be easier and friendly to experience the regional cultures in what is effectively your own country.:)

The way to preserve culture is to preserve culture, in books, schools, museums.. The op appeared to be espousing national seperatism, and a certain amount of historical revisionism imo.

[El Chuncho]

My (limited) understanding is it evolved, there are still loanwoards or etymologies in English directly form celtic languages. Generally though my point was that in lowlands scotland very few speak celtic languages, and it has been the case for a long time, yet they are included in the pan-celtic league, and England is not, why?

True, but there are even more Celtic loanwards in German. The East lowlands is a strange case because it is the same culture as northern England, so I cannot answer that question other than by suggesting that the Celtic league thought it was too small enough to care about.




Why exclude anybody though? Why not just a generic ML movement, that could include the PUP for example? Or the whole of the UK, or the whole of Europe, or the World? :)

I agree, I am not defending the OP.




The way to preserve culture is to preserve culture, in books, schools, museums.. The op appeared to be espousing national seperatism, and a certain amount of historical revisionism imo.

Again, I agree, although I do support national liberation struggles and a non-racial awareness of culture (like with William Morris...I would say Hoxha but many would argue he went overboard) the OP's idea seemed to be along a racial line (hence going on about Iberia etc.) which is abhorrent and frightening. The books, schools and museums should indeed be used to preserve culture, especially if they teach people that culture is just a product of a sort of civic communalism and not because of race or genetics. It is why the history of the culture should always be taught alongside world history. :)

[Tim Finnegan]

Its funny how all these 'pan-celtic' movements ignore England, which is as 'celtic' as any geographical area can be. Granted they were impurified by the Roman, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon invasions, but still they have equal claim to celtic culture as Britanny for example, who incidentally are also of the Brythonic culture.
"Celtic", in this usage, isn't necessarily about direct ancestral or cultural lineage as such, but more about stating a concious resistance to the normalisation of a certain set of dominant political cultures, which in the UK is English culture. In this sense, it's comparable to concepts such as "queer" or "people of colour"; it's not about affirming a single, homogeneous identity, but of asserting a solidarity in exclusion. The problem, I would say, is that by making such a movement explicitly "Celtic", one clouds this propelling force by dressing it in an unhelpful romantic garb. What I would prefer to see is a broader movement of "minority nations of Europe", including non-"Celtic" peoples such as the Basque, the Catalans, and the Shetlanders & Orcadians. That would allow for the emergence of a more cohesive and less romantic set of politics in opposition to inter-European cultural imperialism.

(Also, it might help shake the Scots of their silly fetishisation of Gaelic, a language most of them can't speak and have no intention of ever learning to speak, and help stir up an interest in the Scots language, which most of them do speak to some degree, but goes largely ignored because it is seen as "bad English".)


Similiarly the Irish invaded Scotland many eons ago, and it was their descendants who returned to the plantation of Ulster, so why are they not included in this 'pan-celtic' movement?Some do include the Ulstermen among the Celtic peoples; the lack of popular acceptance is a product of their own collective Anglophilia and their complicity in British imperialism.

[El Chuncho]

What I would prefer to see is a broader movement of "minority nations of Europe", including non-"Celtic" peoples such as the Basque, the Catalans, and the Shetlanders & Orcadians.

I definitely agree with that, especially when it comes to the Setlanders and Orcadians. Many Shetlanders and Orcadians feel that their culture is being squashed by both Scottish and English, which is quite sad to see. I am not sure if there are national liberation movements in these places, though, so I would be interested if I could find them.

The Basques have a good resistance movement, and I remember their activities when I visited Spain one year.

[Tim Finnegan]

I definitely agree with that, especially when it comes to the Setlanders and Orcadians. Many Shetlanders and Orcadians feel that their culture is being squashed by both Scottish and English, which is quite sad to see. I am not sure if there are national liberation movements in these places, though, so I would be interested if I could find them.
I think that there's been some attempts to form a separatist movement- usually, the idea is to have the isles established as crown dependencies, like the Isle of Man- but they've never really gotten off the ground. I know that the SNP has leant at least nominal support to native independence movements- it would be hard for them to justify doing otherwise- but the party is often viewed by the locals as representing the interests of the Central Belt at the expense of the Northern Isles, and so doesn't tend to be successful. In particular, there's a lot of resentment in the Shetlands towards SNP chest-thumping about "Scottish oil", because a good portion of it falls under purview of the Shetland council, whose public services are largely funded by its revenues. This article (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/malachy-tallack/2007/04/shetland-scotland-independence) goes into more detail.

[Bud Struggle]

Abracadaver.

Now THAT is a first rate pun.

[El Chuncho]

Now THAT is a first rate pun.

Thank you very much. *bows* :laugh:

[agnixie]

Its funny how all these 'pan-celtic' movements ignore England, which is as 'celtic' as any geographical area can be. Granted they were impurified by the Roman, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon invasions, but still they have equal claim to celtic culture as Britanny for example, who incidentally are also of the Brythonic culture.


The only source supporting this is Stephen Oppenheimer, an idiot who thinks that english was spoken 3000 years ago on the island of Great Britain.

And no, the saoznaj are most certainly not more celtic than a people that's actually culturally brythonic.

That said, I prefer the european minorities group than going off our merry way.

[ComradeMan]

Celtic is a made-up term in many senses and only used in it's current sense for about 200 years to describe a language family. Historically there was never any Celtic unity nor anyone, I believe, who called themselves "Celts"- except for one tribe in Iberia.:rolleyes:

[agnixie]

Celtic is a made-up term in many senses and only used in it's current sense for about 200 years to describe a language family. Historically there was never any Celtic unity nor anyone, I believe, who called themselves "Celts"- except for one tribe in Iberia.:rolleyes:

I'd like a source that's not a "british" unionist, because the fake "celtic myth" debate has largely been pushed by english academia.

Besides, there were indeed contacts between Gaul and Britain and a certain conscience of being related, at least in religious terms. The peoples on both sides of the channel were largely the same, and the fact is that cornish, welsh and breton were the same language until the modern era. There is such a thing as going too far on the other side. The linguistic and cultural links are pretty solidly attested.

[El Chuncho]

The only source supporting this is Stephen Oppenheimer, an idiot who thinks that english was spoken 3000 years ago on the island of Great Britain.

I was going to bring that up, but genetics (and especially opinions on it by the pediatricians) is so pointless in a way. Oppenheimer is stupid and their is no evidence that most Europeans are descended from the Basques at all.


And no, the saoznaj are most certainly not more celtic than a people that's actually culturally brythonic.

That said, I prefer the european minorities group than going off our merry way.

Indeed.

[agnixie]

I was going to bring that up, but genetics (and especially opinions on it by the pediatricians) is so pointless in a way. Oppenheimer is stupid and their is no evidence that most Europeans are descended from the Basques at all..

And yeah, genetic nationalism is largely bullshit. Not that that fact will stop the racists, but yeah. Of course people on either side love to resort to it. There's a difference between cultural autonomy and nationalism. I'm sure the anti-imperialists can appreciate it.

[El Chuncho]

And yeah, genetic nationalism is largely bullshit. Not that that fact will stop the racists, but yeah.

You see it in the UK all the time, with many people championing the idea that all the cultures in Britain are part of this massive race. Already the ''British race'' was just pre-Indo-European but now they are claiming that this ''British race'' are more descended from Neanderthals than most Europeans (despite the fact Neanderthals were more common on the mainland) to differentiate them even more. Soon this ''British race'' will just be descended from bloody dinosaurs! :confused:

[Viet Minh]

Again, I agree, although I do support national liberation struggles and a non-racial awareness of culture (like with William Morris...I would say Hoxha but many would argue he went overboard) the OP's idea seemed to be along a racial line (hence going on about Iberia etc.) which is abhorrent and frightening. The books, schools and museums should indeed be used to preserve culture, especially if they teach people that culture is just a product of a sort of civic communalism and not because of race or genetics. It is why the history of the culture should always be taught alongside world history. :)

Regional liberation struggles are very different from National struggles.


"Celtic", in this usage, isn't necessarily about direct ancestral or cultural lineage as such, but more about stating a concious resistance to the normalisation of a certain set of dominant political cultures, which in the UK is English culture. In this sense, it's comparable to concepts such as "queer" or "people of colour"; it's not about affirming a single, homogeneous identity, but of asserting a solidarity in exclusion. The problem, I would say, is that by making such a movement explicitly "Celtic", one clouds this propelling force by dressing it in an unhelpful romantic garb. What I would prefer to see is a broader movement of "minority nations of Europe", including non-"Celtic" peoples such as the Basque, the Catalans, and the Shetlanders & Orcadians. That would allow for the emergence of a more cohesive and less romantic set of politics in opposition to inter-European cultural imperialism.

(Also, it might help shake the Scots of their silly fetishisation of Gaelic, a language most of them can't speak and have no intention of ever learning to speak, and help stir up an interest in the Scots language, which most of them do speak to some degree, but goes largely ignored because it is seen as "bad English".)

Some do include the Ulstermen among the Celtic peoples; the lack of popular acceptance is a product of their own collective Anglophilia and their complicity in British imperialism.

One of my main concerns with ideas of celtic culture is that they are by the definition of those who use the term, exclusive. Even worse perhaps is that they exclude a great many of the Irish Republican movement, whom I assume this is intended to promote. For one thing, many members of the United Irelanders and Fenian Brotherhood were of English origin (and therefore not celtic) add to that list Eamonn De Valera (of Spanish or Basque origin, again, not celtic) Roger Casement, GK Chesterton, and others who contributed some part to the cause. Even the names 'Adams' and 'Sands' (as in Gerry and Bobby) are of English origin, not to mention the many 'Irish' names to be found among loyalists, eg Adair, Duddy, Murphy.. So to represent or to even give the impression of the Irish struggle as an ethnic one or even a National one is innacurate in my opinion.
In regards to 'Anglophilia' again this has not been my experience, by a long way. I first came to the fringes of Loyalism because of Glasgow Rangers fans wearing England shirts, this was the first time in my life I had seen any 'positive' attitude to england, although I was later to realise much of it was equivalent to trolling. 'Complicity in British Imperialism' - from their perspective they are the victims, surviving hunderds of years of attacks and aggression by the Nationalists. The ultimate representation of this is at the Boyne, where they felt they would be wiped out but were 'saved' by William of Orange. I'm not necessarily agreeing with this overly simplisitic view, just giving their perspective to those who aren't familiar with loyalist culture.


I definitely agree with that, especially when it comes to the Setlanders and Orcadians. Many Shetlanders and Orcadians feel that their culture is being squashed by both Scottish and English, which is quite sad to see. I am not sure if there are national liberation movements in these places, though, so I would be interested if I could find them.

The Basques have a good resistance movement, and I remember their activities when I visited Spain one year.

I vaguely remember a Highlands and Islands independence thing, I'm not sure if it was a joke though.. Orkney and Shetland see themselves as being half Scottish and half Nordic, the accent up there is very difficult to understand! There is a semi-official local parliament in Shetland.


I think that there's been some attempts to form a separatist movement- usually, the idea is to have the isles established as crown dependencies, like the Isle of Man- but they've never really gotten off the ground. I know that the SNP has leant at least nominal support to native independence movements- it would be hard for them to justify doing otherwise- but the party is often viewed by the locals as representing the interests of the Central Belt at the expense of the Northern Isles, and so doesn't tend to be successful. In particular, there's a lot of resentment in the Shetlands towards SNP chest-thumping about "Scottish oil", because a good portion of it falls under purview of the Shetland council, whose public services are largely funded by its revenues. This article (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/malachy-tallack/2007/04/shetland-scotland-independence) goes into more detail.

The international waters vary depending on the size of a nation as well, so that further complicates matters. But anyone claiming 'our oil' should be treated with scepticism by leftists.


The only source supporting this is Stephen Oppenheimer, an idiot who thinks that english was spoken 3000 years ago on the island of Great Britain.

And no, the saoznaj are most certainly not more celtic than a people that's actually culturally brythonic.

That said, I prefer the european minorities group than going off our merry way.

Tribes like the Iceni were Celtic according to most historians, but to be honest I really don't care. What big jimmy had for tea last week is more relevant today politically.

Its relatively easy to claim minority status, especially when you include arbitrary concepts like ethnicity. Thats not to say they aren't valid concepts when groups are victimised on that basis, but the answer is integration not seperatism.


I'd like a source that's not a "british" unionist, because the fake "celtic myth" debate has largely been pushed by english academia.

Do you have any sources for that? Because I'm sure I saw a documentary debunking many myths of 'celticness' which was presented by a historian from Dublin. Certainly the genetics of Scotland and Ireland are largely R1B, wheras in England there is a huge mix of cultures, but its ridiculous to suggest either nation are one race either. Its not a conspiracy to discredit irish nationalism, its just scientific study. Ironically they actually found a huge Nordic influence in Ireland and Scotland, as in the South of England.


Besides, there were indeed contacts between Gaul and Britain and a certain conscience of being related, at least in religious terms. The peoples on both sides of the channel were largely the same, and the fact is that cornish, welsh and breton were the same language until the modern era. There is such a thing as going too far on the other side. The linguistic and cultural links are pretty solidly attested.

You forgot Cumbric. They are relatively similar, more so than they are to Irish and Scottish Gaelic and Manx, but they are not exactly the same. They were definately seperate tribes, and more likely to be at war with each other than some massive communal Utopia, living in peace until the Anglo-Saxons invaded England (which was presumably completely empty since there were no romans left and no celts in England) :D


I was going to bring that up, but genetics (and especially opinions on it by the pediatricians) is so pointless in a way. Oppenheimer is stupid and their is no evidence that most Europeans are descended from the Basques at all.

Indeed.

Pediatricians? :confused:


And yeah, genetic nationalism is largely bullshit. Not that that fact will stop the racists, but yeah. Of course people on either side love to resort to it. There's a difference between cultural autonomy and nationalism. I'm sure the anti-imperialists can appreciate it.

Very true, people actually still use the term 'Aryan', unbelievable! :laugh:


You see it in the UK all the time, with many people championing the idea that all the cultures in Britain are part of this massive race. Already the ''British race'' was just pre-Indo-European but now they are claiming that this ''British race'' are more descended from Neanderthals than most Europeans (despite the fact Neanderthals were more common on the mainland) to differentiate them even more. Soon this ''British race'' will just be descended from bloody dinosaurs! :confused:

Many people?! :confused: The prevailing idea in England is that they were colonised by Romans, then Normans, then Angles, then Saxons or something, not to mention jewish, irish 'celtic' influx etc. Even the BNP seem to grasp the concept of some racial mixing in England, although of course were all 'white'. By the way, the BNP I can believe are evolved from neanderthals, and I use the term evolved loosely! :D
Actually there was some theory I heard that neanderthals gave us the ginger hair gene, which is fairly common in Britain, so there might be something to that theory.

[agnixie]

Its relatively easy to claim minority status, especially when you include arbitrary concepts like ethnicity. Thats not to say they aren't valid concepts when groups are victimised on that basis, but the answer is integration not seperatism.

Beautiful codeword for assimilation.
I'm not advocating separatism, but cultural autonomy. Integration has, historically, just been a way to say "learn the language of your masters."



Do you have any sources for that? Because I'm sure I saw a documentary debunking many myths of 'celticness' which was presented by a historian from Dublin. Certainly the genetics of Scotland and Ireland are largely R1B, wheras in England there is a huge mix of cultures, but its ridiculous to suggest either nation are one race either. Its not a conspiracy to discredit irish nationalism, its just scientific study. Ironically they actually found a huge Nordic influence in Ireland and Scotland, as in the South of England.

The only academics I've seen involved in this debate are english archaeologists like Renfrew, some of whom are not even remotely involved in the subject matter (Renfrew is at least tangentially aware of things, being that he is an indo-europeanist)



You forgot Cumbric. They are relatively similar, more so than they are to Irish and Scottish Gaelic and Manx, but they are not exactly the same. They were definately seperate tribes, and more likely to be at war with each other than some massive communal Utopia, living in peace until the Anglo-Saxons invaded England (which was presumably completely empty since there were no romans left and no celts in England)

Archaeology actually says that large parts of eastern England were indeed largely depopulated after raids, plagues and the 6th century cold period had destroyed much of british civilization. The middle of England is far more complicated, and large parts of England, especially the welsh marches and Devon, were still welsh and cornish speaking in the middle ages. The fact that you had to rely on a strawman version of what british archaeology actually says about the invasions tells a lot about the strength of your arguments. There's a fun fact that we see; germanic settlements tended to largely avoid the old cities. They also show no sign of trade with the british apart from a few exceptions. They also seem to have avoided most of the effects of the Justinian plague as their trade links were back to germany, rather than with the mediterranean. That's about how segregated the early anglo-saxons seem to have been. The western midlands, the southwest and the northwest were far more mixed between both because they were a) conquered later, b) had not lost as much population and c) hey, they actually didn't speak english until the middle ages, and in fact until the 20th century for some of these places.

Also, the cornish, welsh, cumbric and bretons did have the same language until the middle ages, largely, and most of the major differences are early modern. I also don't see how your description is anything but a strawman, besides not being particularly grounded in historical fact. Should we assume that there is no english people because there were feudal civil wars? Do you realize how fucking stupid this argument is?




Pediatricians? :confused:

Oppenheimer is a paediatrician



Very true, people actually still use the term 'Aryan', unbelievable! :laugh:

Aryans: the linguistic group which includes the Sinhala, Bihari, Bengali, Oriya, Assaimya, Sindhi, Punjabi, Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Bhili, Rajasthani, Nepali, Pahari, Dogri, Kashmiri, Divehi, etc.

It's also commonly used as a linguistic term for either Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, or less frequently, Indo-European languages. In short, it was a weak gotcha, not all uses of the term aryan are references to a mythical indo-european race.



Many people?! :confused: The prevailing idea in England is that they were colonised by Romans, then Normans, then Angles, then Saxons or something, not to mention jewish, irish 'celtic' influx etc. Even the BNP seem to grasp the concept of some racial mixing in England, although of course were all 'white'. By the way, the BNP I can believe are evolved from neanderthals, and I use the term evolved loosely! :D
Actually there was some theory I heard that neanderthals gave us the ginger hair gene, which is fairly common in Britain, so there might be something to that theory.
It's not particularly common, and gingers are found also among germans, persians, berbers, caucasians, etc.

Finally, haplogroups, outside of very isolated populations, are a ridiculous red herring.

[Tim Finnegan]

One of my main concerns with ideas of celtic culture is that they are by the definition of those who use the term, exclusive. Even worse perhaps is that they exclude a great many of the Irish Republican movement, whom I assume this is intended to promote. For one thing, many members of the United Irelanders and Fenian Brotherhood were of English origin (and therefore not celtic) add to that list Eamonn De Valera (of Spanish or Basque origin, again, not celtic) Roger Casement, GK Chesterton, and others who contributed some part to the cause. Even the names 'Adams' and 'Sands' (as in Gerry and Bobby) are of English origin, not to mention the many 'Irish' names to be found among loyalists, eg Adair, Duddy, Murphy.. So to represent or to even give the impression of the Irish struggle as an ethnic one or even a National one is innacurate in my opinion.
Well, in the defence of the Celticists, I think that you're over-simplifying their position; it's not one of racial purity, but of cultural lineage, and it's generally accepted that Protestant Northern Irishman are about as "Celtic" as Lowland Scots. I think that part of the problem is the traditional insistence, generated by the inter-community conflict, that Ulsterman identify as either "Irish" or "British", making the formation of a distinct "Ulsterman" identity difficult, when, really, they have every bit as much a right to identify as a distinct people as the Irish, the Scots or the Welsh have. In part, I think this is because of the dominance of the bourgeois concept of nationhood, which is tied to geopolitical dominance, thus making an "Ulster" nation impossible without marginalising the Irish population of the province. If we can overcome that- and I think we are beginning to, what with the revival of Ulster Scots and so forth- I think that we'd be making significant steps to over-coming that particular conflict. (And, as my sig suggests, I'm all about doing away with that sort of bollocks. ;))

As I said, "Celtic" is a concept more complicated than some romantic harking back to woad-and-tartan. It is, in the British Isles, about setting yourself apart as something other than English- and, as I said, I'm not beyond criticising the practically of "Celticness" as such an avenue, given it's non-inclusion of Shetlanders, Orcadians and, arguably, Northumbrian and South-Western English (who, I think, have a similar history of cultural marginalisation by a culturally-dominant South-West). The movement, at its heart, is an anti-assimilationist one, which is why I very much support stepping it up to a pan-European movement of cultural autonomism, and shedding the bourgeois romance of "pan-Celticism". (I mean, it's nice and all, but if we're honest, the average Scot has more in common- historically and contemporarily- with a Geordie than with a Breton. And, of course, the Geordie with the Scot than a Londoner...)


In regards to 'Anglophilia' again this has not been my experience, by a long way. I first came to the fringes of Loyalism because of Glasgow Rangers fans wearing England shirts, this was the first time in my life I had seen any 'positive' attitude to england, although I was later to realise much of it was equivalent to trolling. 'Complicity in British Imperialism' - from their perspective they are the victims, surviving hunderds of years of attacks and aggression by the Nationalists. The ultimate representation of this is at the Boyne, where they felt they would be wiped out but were 'saved' by William of Orange. I'm not necessarily agreeing with this overly simplisitic view, just giving their perspective to those who aren't familiar with loyalist culture.I see what you mean, but I'm honestly not sure I can lend much credit to a mythology which was constructed very much after the fact, and largely as a disingenuous attempt to redeem a people of their imperialist history. Aside from anything else, it erases the historical oppression of the Ulster Scots people by the Anglo-Irish- a fault of the traditional Nationalist mythology, as well- something which was very much a reality until the Anglo-Irish aristocracy formulated a strategy of co-option (comparable to populist white supremacism in the Southern US) which turned the Ulster Scots against their Irish neighbours. Not for nothing was the bourgeois leadership of the United Irishmen dominated by Presbyterians.

And, admittedly, I may be over-rating the level of "Anglophilia". I suppose what I mean is the strict identification of "British", something which is historically associated with a wilful self-subjection to English political dominance in both Ireland and Scottish, and the reluctance to form a distinct national identity (as suggested above).


The international waters vary depending on the size of a nation as well, so that further complicates matters. But anyone claiming 'our oil' should be treated with scepticism by leftists.Arguably so. The whole tendency to claim oceanic resources is one rather tainted by disingenuous bourgeois chest-thumpers, so it's a tricky issue to address.


Ironically they actually found a huge Nordic influence in Ireland and Scotland, as in the South of England.I would say that the Norse influence on Irish and Scottish history is pretty well-established, it just doesn't tend to enter into the tourist tat that seems to define the nations in the eyes of those beyond its borders. In Scotland, in particular, people often seem to be fairly well aware of their own local history- the Easterners think of themselves as the heirs of the Brythonic Picts as much as any Gaels, for example.

[agnixie]

Well, in the defence of the Celticists, I think that you're over-simplifying their position; it's not one of racial purity, but of cultural lineage, and it's generally accepted that Protestant Northern Irishman are about as "Celtic" as Lowland Scots.
That's exactly the point from which I'm arguing. My family went native in Brittany in the late 19th century to early 20th century, with the oldest traceable ancestor being neither born in Europe, nor white, and with a very mixed family tree.


I see what you mean, but I'm honestly not sure I can lend much credit to a mythology which was constructed very much after the fact, and largely as a disingenuous attempt to redeem a people of their imperialist history. Aside from anything else, it erases the historical oppression of the Ulster Scots people by the Anglo-Irish- a fault of the traditional Nationalist mythology, as well- something which was very much a reality until the Anglo-Irish aristocracy formulated a strategy of co-option (comparable to populist white supremacism in the Southern US) which turned the Ulster Scots against their Irish neighbours. Not for nothing was the bourgeois leadership of the United Irishmen dominated by Presbyterians.

Point agreed on, partially. To be fair, I seem to recall that bourgeois revolutionaries like Wolfe Tone were Ulster Scots as much as they were gaelic irish.

[Viet Minh]

Beautiful codeword for assimilation.
I'm not advocating separatism, but cultural autonomy. Integration has, historically, just been a way to say "learn the language of your masters."

Its not about assimiliation, cultures can live together, no matter how different they may seem. Languages can co-exist within one nation, Northern Ireland and Scotland are good examples, where the main language used is English but there is also Gaelic on roadsigns, official documents etc. A lot of Government pamphlets I get through the door have English, Gaelic, Urdu, Punjabi, Arabic etc. Its beneficial to learn English but not absoultely necessary, there are translators available to immigrants. There was one case of an Indian woman who had been here for 40 years but didn't speak English! My great uncle, growing up in Skye was brought up speaking only Gaelic and learnt English when he was around 10. He later moved down to Glasgow and worked in the shipyards and supported Rangers :D


The only academics I've seen involved in this debate are english archaeologists like Renfrew, some of whom are not even remotely involved in the subject matter (Renfrew is at least tangentially aware of things, being that he is an indo-europeanist)

Again I really couldn't give a fuck, its irrelevant to my interests. My only point was I believe England was at some point largely 'celtic' (so far as celtic has been defined) and I've not seen any substantial proof to the contrary.


Archaeology actually says that large parts of western England were indeed largely depopulated after raids, plagues and the 6th century cold period had destroyed much of british civilization. The middle of England is far more complicated, and large parts of England, especially the welsh marches and Devon, were still welsh and cornish speaking in the middle ages. The fact that you had to rely on a strawman version of what british archaeology actually says about the invasions tells a lot about the strength of your arguments. There's a fun fact that we see; germanic settlements tended to largely avoid the old cities. They also show no sign of trade with the british apart from a few exceptions. They also seem to have avoided most of the effects of the Justinian plague as their trade links were back to germany, rather than with the mediterranean. That's about how segregated the early anglo-saxons seem to have been. The western midlands, the southwest and the northwest were far more mixed between both because they were a) conquered later, b) had not lost as much population and c) hey, they actually didn't speak english until the middle ages, and in fact until the 20th century for some of these places


Also, the cornish, welsh, cumbric and bretons did have the same language until the middle ages, largely, and most of the major differences are early modern. I also don't see how your description is anything but a strawman, besides not being particularly grounded in historical fact. Should we assume that there is no english people because there were feudal civil wars? Do you realize how fucking stupid this argument is?

Do you realise how stupid it is to say John Smith is English, wheras John Smith is Scottish?


Oppenheimer is a paediatrician

So what he should stick to paediatrics? Do you have a degree in history or Archaeology? And furthermore English people have no remit to discuss Irish hostory, and therefore, presumably, vice versa?


Well, in the defence of the Celticists, I think that you're over-simplifying their position; it's not one of racial purity, but of cultural lineage, and it's generally accepted that Protestant Northern Irishman are about as "Celtic" as Lowland Scots. (Robert Burns was a man of overwhelming Anglo-Saxon ancestry, for example, yet is considered to be the national poet of "Celtic" Scotland.) I think that part of the problem is the traditional insistence, generated by the inter-community conflict, that Ulsterman identify as either "Irish" or "British", making the formation of a distinct "Ulsterman" identity difficult, when, really, they have every bit as much a right to identify as a distinct people as the Irish, the Scots or the Welsh have. In part, I think this is because of the dominance of the bourgeois concept of nationhood, which is tied to geopolitical dominance, thus making an "Ulster" nation impossible without marginalising the Irish population of the province. If we can overcome that- and I think we are beginning to, what with the revival of Ulster Scots and so forth- I think that we'd be making significant steps to over-coming that particular conflict. (And, as my sig suggests, I'm all about doing away with that sort of bollocks. ;))

With all due respect, it is they who are over-simplifying their position. I'm not saying its an ideology of supremacy or racial purity, I'm saying its one that must be divorced from politics, for the sake of the politics and culture alike. Whatever value ideas of cultural identity hold they are cheapened by politics, and irrelevant to leftism.
A large number of the Ulster Planters were Highland Scots, Scottish gaelic was fairly common in Ulster in days gone by. Incidentally the Picts are thought by many to be part of the celtic culture, who are also based in the Scottish lowlands.
There is no sense of 'Ulster unity' because on both sides there are flag-waving reactionaries marginalising themselves against a mythological enemy, who has far more in common with them than their perceived allies.


As I said, "Celtic" is a concept more complicated than some romantic harking back to woad-and-tartan. It is, in the British Isles, about setting yourself apart as something other than English- and, as I said, I'm not beyond criticising the practically of "Celticness" as such an avenue, given it's non-inclusion of Shetlanders, Orcadians and, arguably, Northumbrian and South-Western English (who, I think, have a similar history of cultural marginalisation by a culturally-dominant South-West).

And that is where I disagree with Nationalism as a construct. I don't understand the concept of being 'proud' of your nationality, or religion or race, but its harmless, even positive on occasion (ie the African Cup of Nations, Nationalism at its best, bringing people together, black pride, gay pride). That is until it becomes infused with ideas of superiority, antagonism, xenophobia, jingoism or racism. To allign yourself with others on the basis you have a common enemy, politically thats sound, culturally thats a slippery slope.


I see what you mean, but I'm honestly not sure I can lend much credit to a mythology which was constructed very much after the fact, and largely as a disingenuous attempt to redeem a people of their imperialist history. Aside from anything else, it erases the historical oppression of the Ulster Scots people by the Anglo-Irish- a fault of the traditional Nationalist mythology, as well- something which was very much a reality until the Anglo-Irish aristocracy formulated a strategy of co-option (comparable to populist white supremacism in the Southern US) which turned the Ulster Scots against their Irish neighbours. Not for nothing was the bourgeois leadership of the United Irishmen dominated by Presbyterians.

The facts are clear, for a few hundred years the ruling elite (Irish and English, Protestant and yes, Catholic as well) have manipulated the poor into fighting each other tooth and nail so they didn't threaten the landowners. The Irish rulers invited the English to help them supress their own people, how does that fit this popular idea of England bad, Ireland good? In response to your allusion to the Southern US, was the answer to 'Yankee occupation and opression' the KKK bombing schoolbuses and churches? Lets not muddy the issues, the two situations are vastly different.


And, admittedly, I may be over-rating the level of "Anglophilia". I suppose what I mean is the strict identification of "British", something which is historically associated with a wilful self-subjection to English political dominance in both Ireland and Scottish, and the reluctance to form a distinct national identity (as suggested above).

There is very much an 'Ulster identity' which is a huge part of the problem. The idea of Britishness is a term of convenience, it reflects their roots perhaps but not their future. They are not subjects of England, in fact even the RUC (who you have claimed is representative only of Ulster Loyalists) are widely hated and loyalists have done as much injury or more to the various security forces. There is a vast amount of suspicion of British politics, loyalists despise the 'Toraidhs' for the Anglo-Irish agreement, and labour for their previous commitment to a United Ireland. I know it suits republicans to imagine this cosy masonic zionist conspiracy with the queen and ian paisley drawing up plans for the invasion of ireland, but in reality it just isn't like that, the higher echelons of British politics are Republicans (Tony Bliar, John Reid, Gordon Brown at least he used to be Scottish Nationalist).


I would say that the Norse influence on Irish and Scottish history is pretty well-established, it just doesn't tend to enter into the tourist tat that seems to define the nations in the eyes of those beyond its borders. In Scotland, in particular, people often seem to be fairly well aware of their own local history- the Easterners think of themselves as the heirs of the Brythonic Picts as much as any Gaels, for example.

Like I said, I'm a Highlander so fuck the lowlanders (joke!) :P Actually my family was from Lewis, but partially descended from a Moorish ship that was wrecked there, so a lot of the family had very dark hair and eyes etc which was unusual.

Too much history can be a bad thing, Scotland has many great philosophers, poets, scientists, trade unionists, inventors, yet our national hero is a brutal thug who stole from his supposed 'fellow countrymen'.

[agnixie]

Its not about assimiliation, cultures can live together, no matter how different they may seem. Languages can co-exist within one nation, Northern Ireland and Scotland are good examples, where the main language used is English but there is also Gaelic on roadsigns, official documents etc. A lot of Government pamphlets I get through the door have English, Gaelic, Urdu, Punjabi, Arabic etc. Its beneficial to learn English but not absoultely necessary, there are translators available to immigrants. There was one case of an Indian woman who had been here for 40 years but didn't speak English! My great uncle, growing up in Skye was brought up speaking only Gaelic and learnt English when he was around 10. He later moved down to Glasgow and worked in the shipyards and supported Rangers :D

And why would a polity independent from London or Paris not do this? Again, I don't get your point aside from a common strawman.




Again I really couldn't give a fuck, its irrelevant to my interests. My only point was I believe England was at some point largely 'celtic' (so far as celtic has been defined) and I've not seen any substantial proof to the contrary.

Your point was that it was as celtic today as a people of 4 million which despite an active policy of assimilation still has half of its population speaking a celtic language regularly to fluently.



Do you realise how stupid it is to say John Smith is English, wheras John Smith is Scottish?

Present your points to justify it, then I'll see whether I agree. All you give me is a weird circular argument.



So what he should stick to paediatrics? Do you have a degree in history or Archaeology? And furthermore English people have no remit to discuss Irish hostory, and therefore, presumably, vice versa?

That was an even weaker gotcha: I have a degree in anthropology. But nice try. I'm not trying to pretend I know better about paediatrics than a paediatrician, and I'm not insistent on publishing pop-science books despite everyone giving them scathing reviews because they have shit linguistics, shit archaeology, shit population genetics, and only exist to push an english nationalist myth that southeastern Britain has always been anglosaxon, which is what Oppenheimer's thesis is.



And that is where I disagree with Nationalism as a construct. I don't understand the concept of being 'proud' of your nationality, or religion or race, but its harmless, even positive on occasion (ie the African Cup of Nations, Nationalism at its best, bringing people together, black pride, gay pride). That is until it becomes infused with ideas of superiority, antagonism, xenophobia, jingoism or racism. To allign yourself with others on the basis you have a common enemy, politically thats sound, culturally thats a slippery slope.
It's not about pride, but about identity. Your inability to make a difference between both is ridiculous. And besides, as you pointed out, not all sorts of pride lead to feelings of superiority.



Too much history can be a bad thing, Scotland has many great philosophers, poets, scientists, trade unionists, inventors, yet our national hero is a brutal thug who stole from his supposed 'fellow countrymen'.

I couldn't give less of a fuck about national heroes.

[Viet Minh]

And why would a polity independent from London or Paris not do this? Again, I don't get your point aside from a common strawman.

I thought you were arguing against 'British rule' on the basis that they were trying to assimilate or eradicate celtic culture? My mistake.


Your point was that it was as celtic today as a people of 4 million which despite assimilation still has half of its population speaking a celtic language regularly to fluently.

I never said that, read it again I said England was a huge mix of cultures, including celtic.


Present your premise, then I'll see whether I agree. All you give me is a weird version of affirming the consequent.

John Smith was born in region a, therefore he is Scottish, a different John Smith was born 10 miles away from him in region b, therefore he is English. National identities are fucking stupid. End of


That was an even weaker gotcha: I have a degree in anthropology. But nice try. I'm not trying to pretend I know better about paediatrics than a paediatrician, and I'm not insistent on publishing pop-science books despite everyone giving them scathing reviews because they have shit linguistics, shit archaeology, shit population genetics, and only exist to push an english nationalist myth that southeastern Britain has always been anglosaxon, which is what Oppenheimer's thesis is.

Then he's a dick, on that, at the very least, we can agree! ;)


It's not about pride, but about identity. Your inability to make a difference between both is ridiculous.

My point wasn't about pride, though that can be a manifestation of identity. I was talking about the line between Nationalism and Xenophobia.


I couldn't give less of a fuck about national heroes.

I was replying to Tim, but yeah, me neither.

[agnixie]

I never said that, read it again I said England was a huge mix of cultures, including celtic.

Britain, yes. England, no. England has 60 british or gaelic loanwords in all, its mythology and history is almost entirely anglosaxon with the nearly sole exception of the Arthurian myths, which only became part of english tradition because they were convenient for Plantagenet royal propaganda. There are a handful things, but England is English. There is no such thing as celtic genes, it's a cultural identity. The essay "Comment peut-on être breton" is pretty good where it comes to this sort of things.



John Smith was born in region a, therefore he is Scottish, a different John Smith was born 10 miles away from him in region b, therefore he is English. National identities are fucking stupid. End of

Still a circular argument. Which does each John Smith considers himself to be, and which is each John Smith, culturally?



My point wasn't about pride, though that can be a manifestation of identity. I was talking about the line between Nationalism and Xenophobia.

And making enormous assumptions as to where it happens to be.

[Viet Minh]

Britain, yes. England, no. England has 60 british or gaelic loanwords in all, its mythology and history is almost entirely anglosaxon with the nearly sole exception of the Arthurian myths, which only became part of english tradition because they were convenient for Plantagenet royal propaganda. There are a handful things, but England is English.

The point about language was brought up by someone else, to justify the seemingly arbitrary exclusion of England from this celtic league. My question is why the whole of Ireland and not just the Gaeltacht? Why the whole of Scotland and not just the gaedhealtacht? Same for Wales. And as for Cornwall and Brittany, where to my knowledge there are few to no Gaelic-speakers (and arguably even less celtic identity in romanised brittany) why are they included and England not?


Still a circular argument. Which does each John Smith considers himself to be, and which is each John Smith, culturally?

You tell me, what does John Smith have to do to prove himself to be Scottish or English (or any other culture) according to your definition of that culture?


And making enormous assumptions as to where it happens to be.

Its fairly clear cut, going to the previous example loving Scotland (arbitrary as that may seem) is Nationalism, hating England and the English is Xenophobia. Hatred of the 'English' Westminster Government notwithstanding..

[Tim Finnegan]

With all due respect, it is they who are over-simplifying their position. I'm not saying its an ideology of supremacy or racial purity, I'm saying its one that must be divorced from politics, for the sake of the politics and culture alike. Whatever value ideas of cultural identity hold they are cheapened by politics, and irrelevant to leftism.
Is pan-Celticism a political current, as such? I can't say that I've noticed anything like that, beyond the mutual solidarity offered to the various nationalist movements. (And, frankly, it's been a rather feeble solidarity- the Welsh and Scottish nationalist may shake hands with glee, but both have been rather awkward about associating with the Irish nationalists- in the Scottish case, because they're worried about alienating the Tartan Tories who comprised a larger part of their support than they care to admit. The Northern Irish have received far more displays of solidarity from the decidedly non-Celtic Basque and Catalan movements, who at least contain segments with the guts to occasionally raise their politics above a cheap bourgeois regionalism.)


A large number of the Ulster Planters were Highland Scots, Scottish gaelic was fairly common in Ulster in days gone by. Incidentally the Picts are thought by many to be part of the celtic culture, who are also based in the Scottish lowlands....Did I suggest otherwise? :confused:


There is no sense of 'Ulster unity' because on both sides there are flag-waving reactionaries marginalising themselves against a mythological enemy, who has far more in common with them than their perceived allies.My suggestion was not of a cross-community "Ulster identity" (that would only ever be a weak and evidently synthetic construct), but of a distinct Ulsterman identity among what is now the unionist community. That's a very different thing, and the difficulty which it has had in advancing past and embryonic stage is down to more than a handful of reactionaries. It's a complex issue, and it doesn't do to over-simplify things.


And that is where I disagree with Nationalism as a construct. I don't understand the concept of being 'proud' of your nationality, or religion or race, but its harmless, even positive on occasion (ie the African Cup of Nations, Nationalism at its best, bringing people together, black pride, gay pride). That is until it becomes infused with ideas of superiority, antagonism, xenophobia, jingoism or racism. To allign yourself with others on the basis you have a common enemy, politically thats sound, culturally thats a slippery slope.I don't believe that anyone here has offered an endorsement of bourgeois nationalism, or at least not as any more than a means to an end. What we argue for is cultural autonomy and national self-determination, which are very different things. There's the Third Reich and there's the Zapatista Autonomous Communities, and to come so very close to conflating the two simply because they each possessed some sense of themselves as cultural entities is a very silly thing to do.

Also, I notice that cliché of liberal unionism, that any Scottish, Irish, and Welsh nationalism will inevitably become tinged with jingoism, xenophobia and racism, simply as a product of its own self-awareness, while a maintained British state will suffer no such problems- despite the fact that bourgeois Britain has slaughtered countless millions from British Columbia to New Zealand while no Scottish, Welsh or Irish Republic- and, for that matter, no English one!- can make such a claim. There's an absurdity in that, I think.


The facts are clear, for a few hundred years the ruling elite (Irish and English, Protestant and yes, Catholic as well) have manipulated the poor into fighting each other tooth and nail so they didn't threaten the landowners. The Irish rulers invited the English to help them supress their own people, how does that fit this popular idea of England bad, Ireland good?That depends largely on how on constructs "England" and "Ireland". If you do so as Connolly did, then you find that "Ireland" is every working resident of that island, and "England"- England-in-Ireland, that is- is the imperial power that grinds them down. If instead you construct is as the bourgeoisie do, then, well, you certainly run into a few complications.


In response to your allusion to the Southern US, was the answer to 'Yankee occupation and opression' the KKK bombing schoolbuses and churches? Lets not muddy the issues, the two situations are vastly different.Um, yes, actually, they did. There was a prolonged period of paramilitary conflict in the South for many years after the end of the war, including the frequent employment of terrorist tactics by ex-Confederates against African-Americans, Northerners and Southern "collaborators".


There is very much an 'Ulster identity' which is a huge part of the problem. The idea of Britishness is a term of convenience, it reflects their roots perhaps but not their future. They are not subjects of England, in fact even the RUC (who you have claimed is representative only of Ulster Loyalists) are widely hated and loyalists have done as much injury or more to the various security forces. There is a vast amount of suspicion of British politics, loyalists despise the 'Toraidhs' for the Anglo-Irish agreement, and labour for their previous commitment to a United Ireland.I think there's a difference between the sort of distinct, non-British Ulster identity I'm suggesting, and the sort of ultra-British one that you're referring to. The Unionists traditionally see themselves as "true Britons", much as Tea Partiers consider themselves "true Americans", and view the various attempts at reconciliation not as the machinations of the British nation, but of the British state, which is a far less pure quantity. It's not an opposition to the nation-state, but an opposition to the state on behalf of the nation.

And I'm not sure where I claimed that the RUC were representatives of the Unionist community. Evidently, they were agents of the British state.


I know it suits republicans to imagine this cosy masonic zionist conspiracy with the queen and ian paisley drawing up plans for the invasion of ireland, but in reality it just isn't like that, the higher echelons of British politics are Republicans (Tony Bliar, John Reid, Gordon Brown at least he used to be Scottish Nationalist)The upper echelons of contemporary British society are, above all else, bourgeoisie, which at this point means they hold strictly to the less decade or so's worth of peace agreements and power-sharing arrangements. Whatever honest sympathy the Labour establishment may have once had with a united Ireland fizzled some time ago. They still have to talk the talk, because their local wing is the nationalist SDLP, but don't expect them to walk the walk any time soon.


Too much history can be a bad thing, Scotland has many great philosophers, poets, scientists, trade unionists, inventors, yet our national hero is a brutal thug who stole from his supposed 'fellow countrymen'....Who? :confused:


John Smith was born in region a, therefore he is Scottish, a different John Smith was born 10 miles away from him in region b, therefore he is English. National identities are fucking stupid. End of

As a Scotsman born in South Yorkshire, I feel obliged to question your logic. :p


The point about language was brought up by someone else, to justify the seemingly arbitrary exclusion of England from this celtic league. My question is why the whole of Ireland and not just the Gaeltacht? Why the whole of Scotland and not just the gaedhealtacht? Same for Wales. And as for Cornwall and Brittany, where to my knowledge there are few to no Gaelic-speakers (and arguably even less celtic identity in romanised brittany) why are they included and England not?
Because Celticism is, in the UK, an expression of resistance against English cultural domination. (A flawed one, as I've suggested, altogether too attached to bourgeois romanticism, but this is the motivating force.) Inviting England into it would be like inviting the US to join the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas.


Its fairly clear cut, going to the previous example loving Scotland (arbitrary as that may seem) is Nationalism...Patriotism, not nationalism. Nationalism has political implications beyond personal affection.

[agnixie]

The point about language was brought up by someone else, to justify the seemingly arbitrary exclusion of England from this celtic league. My question is why the whole of Ireland and not just the Gaeltacht? Why the whole of Scotland and not just the gaedhealtacht? Same for Wales. And as for Cornwall and Brittany, where to my knowledge there are few to no Gaelic-speakers (and arguably even less celtic identity in romanised brittany) why are they included and England not?

Arguably? You know fuck all about Brittany.
England's culture is anglosaxon with not even a slight veneer of celtic culture outside of one very specific set of stories it appropriated for the purpose of royal politics in the 13th century, and a few regional things in regions it assimilated more recently. Brittany has still a large share of its population speaking a celtic language, and apart from the religious divide between the islands and the mainland, has a largely close culture to the welsh and cornish, and languages that are about as close to each other as serbian and croatian. Also Gaelic is a specific branch of the celtic languages; welsh, cornish and breton are not gaelic.



You tell me, what does John Smith have to do to prove himself to be Scottish or English (or any other culture) according to your definition of that culture?

I told you, you're the one bucking. Funny thing: I wasn't born in Brittany.



Its fairly clear cut, going to the previous example loving Scotland (arbitrary as that may seem) is Nationalism, hating England and the English is Xenophobia. Hatred of the 'English' Westminster Government notwithstanding..
Funny how people become touchy when the imperialism of their own country is attacked. Britain has killed how many millions already? I don't know, I feel your insistence on unionism because somehow the union is better now is inconsistent with your attacks.

Also, no, pan-celticism is largely not a political current except for some degree of solidarity. But as with the irish, breton separatists tend to be closer to the basques, catalans and corsicans, with movements that vary from "left liberal" to outright communism (although one small group of fascists that was subsumed in the french national front sometime in the 00s).

[Viet Minh]

Is pan-Celticism a political current, as such? I can't say that I've noticed anything like that, beyond the mutual solidarity offered to the various nationalist movements. (And, frankly, it's been a rather feeble solidarity- the Welsh and Scottish nationalist may shake hands with glee, but both have been rather awkward about associating with the Irish nationalists- in the Scottish case, because they're worried about alienating the Tartan Tories who comprised a larger part of their support than they care to admit. The Northern Irish have received far more displays of solidarity from the decidedly non-Celtic Basque and Catalan movements, who at least contain segments with the guts to occasionally raise their politics above a cheap bourgeois regionalism.)

The Tartan Tories is a term applied to the party as a whole, the right wing are probably the most pro-Republican, for instance Siol Nan Gaidheal. And yes I believe the idea of celticism is integral to the Irish nationalist history and ideology, its actually most effective in the USA where they have a huge amount of support based on irish heritage.


...Did I suggest otherwise? :confused:

Sorry I perhaps misinterpreted your comment about Northern Irishmen, hey its late..


My suggestion was not of a cross-community "Ulster identity" (that would only ever be a weak and evidently synthetic construct), but of a distinct Ulsterman identity among what is now the unionist community. That's a very different thing, and the difficulty which it has had in advancing past and embryonic stage is down to more than a handful of reactionaries. It's a complex issue, and it doesn't do to over-simplify things.

Any identity can be to an extent synthetic, regardless I don't think an Ulsterman identity would be any more or less progressive than a British or Irish one. To an extent the meaning of Irish could be extended (for instance a Loyalist fluteband were invited to play in the St Patricks day parade) these things might bring the communities together but I don't think people will drop their perceived identities very easily.


I don't believe that anyone here has offered an endorsement of bourgeois nationalism, or at least not as any more than a means to an end. What we argue for is cultural autonomy and national self-determination, which are very different things. There's the Third Reich and there's the Zapatista Autonomous Communities, and to come so very close to conflating the two simply because they each possessed some sense of themselves as cultural entities is a very silly thing to do.

The Zapatistas did not identify themselves by what they opposed, and they do not exclude anyone from their community to my knowledge. Thats very different from the 'Juden Raus' attitude of the Third Reich, and I never implied otherwise, in fact I specified the very clear cut difference, which is why I disagree with the OP's position.


Also, I notice that cliché of liberal unionism, that any Scottish, Irish, and Welsh nationalism will inevitably become tinged with jingoism, xenophobia and racism, simply as a product of its own self-awareness, while a maintained British state will suffer no- despite the fact that bourgeois Britain has slaughtered countless millions from British Columbia to New Zealand while no Scottish, Welsh or Irish Republic- and, for that matter, no English one!- can make such a claim. There's an absurdity in that, I think.

Thats not a cliche I have seen before, in fact there is more often than not the implication that any British-flag waving is by its very nature fascist and any use of the Scottish or Irish flag by default is Socialist and inclusive. Dissolving the Union does not absolve any of their part in history, like saying 'Its Germany now, not the Third Reich, so its nothing to do with us' - that is assuming you support the notion that modern Germans are responsible for their forefathers actions. Incidentally by your definition of Scottish and Irish and Welsh yes, they also played a part in the slaughter.


That depends largely on how on constructs "England" and "Ireland". If you do so as Connolly did, then you find that "Ireland" is every working resident of that island, and "England"- England-in-Ireland, that is- is the imperial power that grinds them down. If instead you construct is as the bourgeoisie do, then, well, you certainly run into a few complications.

Then why not just say the Proletariat versus the Bourgeouis elite? Why do we need to complicate issues with the arbitrary notions of nationhood?


Um, yes, actually, they did. There was a prolonged period of paramilitary conflict in the South for many years after the end of the war, including the frequent employment of terrorist tactics by ex-Confederates against African-Americans, Northerners and Southern "collaborators".

That was my point exactly. ;)


I think there's a difference between the sort of distinct, non-British Ulster identity I'm suggesting, and the sort of ultra-British one that you're referring to. The Unionists traditionally see themselves as "true Britons", much as Tea Partiers consider themselves "true Americans", and view the various attempts at reconciliation not as the machinations of the British nation, but of the British state, which is a far less pure quantity. It's not an opposition to the nation-state, but an opposition to the state on behalf of the nation.

I don't think you necessarily speak for Unionists in this regard, some identify themselves as Irish, some as Ulster loyalists, some as British, some as Ulster Scots. But all these labels are backward, divisive and reactionary. By all means preserve the customs, language and history of the different cultures, but bring down the flags and stop boxing people according to their identity, however that is defined.

And please top randomly conflating Unionists with every right wing group you can think of, they have nothing in common with the tea party, in fact the recent islamophobic lectures were conducted by a prominent IRA supporter.


The upper echelons of contemporary British society are, above all else, bourgeoisie, which at this point means they hold strictly to the less decade or so's worth of peace agreements and power-sharing arrangements. Whatever honest sympathy the Labour establishment may have once had with a united Ireland fizzled some time ago. They still have to talk the talk, because their local wing is the nationalist SDLP, but don't expect them to walk the walk any time soon.

Okay, just as long as nobody is under the false impression loyalists hold any power in the British establishment, because thats just not true.


...Who? :confused:

William Wallace, the epitome of the Scottish psyche :rolleyes:


Because Celticism is, in the UK, an expression of resistance against English cultural domination. (A flawed one, as I've suggested, altogether too attached to bourgeois romanticism, but this is the motivating force.) Inviting England into it would be like inviting the US to join the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas.

England was the bastion of celtic resistance at one point, in the form of Boudicca. 'Britishness' predates English, Scottish or Irish identity, excluding them would be like rejecting Vatican City from the World Catholic council (if there is such a thing)


Patriotism, not nationalism. Nationalism has political implications beyond personal affection.

Fair point! :) Now I'm off to me bed :closedeyes:

[Viet Minh]

Fine, one more.. :D


Arguably? You know fuck all about Brittany.
England's culture is anglosaxon with not even a slight veneer of celtic culture outside of one very specific set of stories it appropriated for the purpose of royal politics in the 13th century, and a few regional things in regions it assimilated more recently. Brittany has still a large share of its population speaking a celtic language, and apart from the religious divide between the islands and the mainland, has a largely close culture to the welsh and cornish, and languages that are about as close to each other as serbian and croatian. Also Gaelic is a specific branch of the celtic languages; welsh, cornish and breton are not gaelic.

Okay fine the English can't be in your club, relax! :lol:


I told you, you're the one bucking. Funny thing: I wasn't born in Brittany.

Who said you were? :confused:


Funny how people become touchy when the imperialism of their own country is attacked. Britain has killed how many millions already? I don't know, I feel your insistence on unionism because somehow the union is better now is inconsistent with your attacks.

What 'attacks' its just a discussion! :ohmy: I'm very happy to discuss the evils of British Imperialism til the cows come home, I have no personal attachment to Britain or the British I don't take comments about Britain personally, I've heard them all my life but I don't imagine they reflect on me as an individual. I support the Union partly because I think it makes sense economically and politically (for the moment).

[Tim Finnegan]

The Tartan Tories is a term applied to the party as a whole, the right wing are probably the most pro-Republican, for instance Siol Nan Gaidheal.
Well, my perhaps inaccurate use of "Tartan Tories" aside (I've heard it used both ways, but I won't pretend to have any definitive say on the matter), my point was that the SNP draw a lot of support from a conservative, very Protestant base which is traditionally hostile to the traditionally left-wing and primarily Catholic traditions of the Irish republican movement. Groups like Siol Nan Gaidheal are the exception, not the rule.


And yes I believe the idea of celticism is integral to the Irish nationalist history and ideology, its actually most effective in the USA where they have a huge amount of support based on irish heritage.You're confusing Irish romanticism with Celticism. The latter implies a specific embrace of a declared "pan-Celtic" heritage, not merely the rhetorical deployment of Gaelic romanticism. If that was the case, then one could accuse every Englishman who makes some reference or other to the England's Anglo-Saxon heritage of being a Nordicist.


Any identity can be to an extent synthetic, regardless I don't think an Ulsterman identity would be any more or less progressive than a British or Irish one. To an extent the meaning of Irish could be extended (for instance a Loyalist fluteband were invited to play in the St Patricks day parade) these things might bring the communities together but I don't think people will drop their perceived identities very easily.Well, the point is really to detach the identity of the current "British" community from the British national project, and to encourage them to foster some sort of independent identity. No people should have to constantly reference a foreign national project (because, let's be frank, Britain is England in its Sunday best) to define itself. (I mean, surely you can understand why I might see this "Ulster banner" sort of nonsense as sycophantic Anglophillia?) If that identity takes the form of a regional/minority Irish identity, then all the better. It would certainly make it easier to have to avoid untangling the bourgeois demand that national entities be manifested as geopolitical ones.


The Zapatistas did not identify themselves by what they opposed, and they do not exclude anyone from their community to my knowledge. Thats very different from the 'Juden Raus' attitude of the Third Reich, and I never implied otherwise, in fact I specified the very clear cut difference, which is why I disagree with the OP's position.Do you really think it's wise to compare the opposition of marginalised entities to a hegemonic one to the opposition of a hegemonic entity to a marginalised one? Scotland is not some great power, like Germany was, nor are the English a beleaguered minority.


Thats not a cliche I have seen before, in fact there is more often than not the implication that any British-flag waving is by its very nature fascist and any use of the Scottish or Irish flag by default is Socialist and inclusive. Dissolving the Union does not absolve any of their part in history, like saying 'Its Germany now, not the Third Reich, so its nothing to do with us' - that is assuming you support the notion that modern Germans are responsible for their forefathers actions. Incidentally by your definition of Scottish and Irish and Welsh yes, they also played a part in the slaughter.I think you make a mistake in blurring the distinction between the inhabitants of the British Isles and the British state itself. While it would be foolish to suggest that the bourgeoisie of Scotland, Ireland or Wales have no historical complicity in the British imperial project, it would be equally foolish to suggest that the modern working classes of these nations are in any need of absolution- and, as my reference to an "English republic" suggests, much the same applies to the English working class.

Anyway, my point was that you seem to suggest that any explicit nationalist project would quite likely take on supremacist tendencies, but avoid acknowledging the same of the existing British nationalistic project, which not has well-established variants of those tendencies, but has employed them to extremely gruesome ends for over three hundred years. That, I think, is hard to contest.


Then why not just say the Proletariat versus the Bourgeouis elite? Why do we need to complicate issues with the arbitrary notions of nationhood?Because these "notions", which are hardly "arbitrary", have very real effects that must be addressed. The British project is an assimilationist one, and must be resisted. The traditional concept of the "nationality" is the imperfect tool which we adopt under imperfect circumstances.


That was my point exactly. ;) ...Wait, what? :confused:


I don't think you necessarily speak for Unionists in this regard, some identify themselves as Irish, some as Ulster loyalists, some as British, some as Ulster Scots. But all these labels are backward, divisive and reactionary. By all means preserve the customs, language and history of the different cultures, but bring down the flags and stop boxing people according to their identity, however that is defined.I'm not talking about "boxing people" in, I'm talking about giving the means to identify in opposition to the cultural hegemon represented by England, and, specifically, the middle-class South-East. (As I said, I'm very much in support of regional identities being fostered within England, and my politics naturally demand that I advocate for the pursuit of a distinct proletarian identity.)

Anyway, you're a British unionist, so you can hardly claim to be above flags-and-identities. What exactly makes your particular choice any better than anyone else's? :confused:


And please top randomly conflating Unionists with every right wing group you can think of, they have nothing in common with the tea party, in fact the recent islamophobic lectures were conducted by a prominent IRA supporter.I was not "conflating" the Unionists with the Tea Party, merely observing that their die-hard core share the same idealist-nationalsit ideology as other far-right nationalist movements do.

And fuck the IRA. Seriously.


Okay, just as long as nobody is under the false impression loyalists hold any power in the British establishment, because thats just not true. Loyalists don't, but that's because their a reactionary fringe-sect. Unionists are a more varied group, and inarguably hold a degree of power.


William Wallace, the epitome of the Scottish psyche :rolleyes:In what sense was Wallace a "thug"- or, at least, any more so than his contemporaries, and any more so than he was obliged to be by circumstance?

'Sides, I'd say that "national heroes" vary depending on where you go. The picture hanging in the Free Hetherington is that of the late great John Maclean, a character altogether more worthy of our respect. ;)


England was the bastion of celtic resistance at one point, in the form of Boudicca. 'Britishness' predates English, Scottish or Irish identity, excluding them would be like rejecting Vatican City from the World Catholic council (if there is such a thing)That was two thousand years ago, it has nothing at all to do with contemporary cultural politics. I'm not sure that you've understand anything I've said about pan-Celticism. :confused: