Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
 RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
Is There a Right to Die? Thu Nov 28, 2024 13:00 | James Alexander
Is there a right to die? As the Assisted Dying Bill vote looms, Prof James Alexander ponders the issues, asking if the whole debate would change if we think of it in terms of duties instead of rights.
The post Is There a Right to Die? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Net Migration Hit Almost One Million Last Year as ONS Revises Figures Thu Nov 28, 2024 11:19 | Will Jones
Net migration?hit a record high of nearly one million in 2023, 170,000 more than previously thought, in an extraordinary indictment of the Tories' post-Brexit record on 'cutting immigration'. No wonder the NHS is overrun.
The post Net Migration Hit Almost One Million Last Year as ONS Revises Figures appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Time for Starmer to Be Honest About What Net Zero Means: Rationing, Blackouts and Travel Restriction... Thu Nov 28, 2024 09:00 | Chris Morrison
Time for Starmer to be honest about what Net Zero means, says Chris Morrison. Rationing, blackouts and travel restrictions in five years. That's according to a Government-funded report that, for a change, says it plain.
The post Time for Starmer to Be Honest About What Net Zero Means: Rationing, Blackouts and Travel Restrictions in the Next Five Years appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
For Britain?s Thought Police the Allison Pearson Fiasco Achieved its Purpose: Turning Up the Fear Thu Nov 28, 2024 07:00 | Steven Tucker
For Britain's Thought Police the Allison Pearson fiasco achieved its purpose, says Steven Tucker: increasing people's fear to speak their mind. The investigation was dropped, but the threat still hangs over us all.
The post For Britain’s Thought Police the Allison Pearson Fiasco Achieved its Purpose: Turning Up the Fear appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
News Round-Up Thu Nov 28, 2024 01:16 | Richard Eldred
A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Russia Prepares to Respond to the Armageddon Wanted by the Biden Administration ... Tue Nov 26, 2024 06:56 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?109 Fri Nov 22, 2024 14:00 | en
Joe Biden and Keir Starmer authorize NATO to guide ATACMS and Storm Shadows mis... Fri Nov 22, 2024 13:41 | en
Donald Trump, an Andrew Jackson 2.0? , by Thierry Meyssan Tue Nov 19, 2024 06:59 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?108 Sat Nov 16, 2024 07:06 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Nationalism, socialism and partition
 national |
history and heritage |
feature
 Saturday May 05, 2007 02:25 by Andrew Flood - WSM - personal capacity
Class struggle in Belfast 1880-1920
UVF training in 1914
Today is the 88th anniversary of the largest 'Mayday' demonstration in Irish history, when what the Belfast Newsletter described as "a little band of disgruntled Red-Socialists" led 100,000 workers through the streets of Belfast. Everywhere else in Ireland in 1919 had also seen massive Mayday demonstrations, with 10,000 demonstrating in Burr Co. Offaly.
Outside of the North East, these had been called for the 1st of May in order "to demonstrate the solidarity of workers and to reaffirm their adhesion to the principles of self-determination". But Belfast marched to a different theme on the 3rd May. Both North and South a massive wave of working class militancy had grown and although these struggles shared a common rhythm they happened in isolation from each other.
The Flood Files:
1916 - Connolly, blood sacrifice and defeating British imperialism |
1916: Just what are we celebrating? |
The 1798 Rebellion |
Robert Emmett and the 1803 Rising |
The Orange Order |
Neither Orange nor Green |
Troops Out!
In the south these were often connected but in the north the sectarian division of the working class necessitated a separation. This means in conventional nationalist histories of the period the north is simply 'missing' - it is absent for most of the history until the sectarian violence of 1920 and partition.
This article, which is a follow up to the two I published on indymedia around the 90th anniversary of 1916, continues the theme of looking at the connections between the struggles of the working class and the nationalist movement. (See end for links to these articles)
The missing north
The period of Irish history from the 1880's to the 1920's defined and divided politics including socialist politics, on the island for the rest of the century. The most militant workers struggles occurred in the second half of that period, north and south, concentrated in the last five years. This was also the period of the 1916 insurrection in Dublin, the 1918-21 War of Independence, the treaty and partition of Ireland in 1921 and then in the south the bloody Civil War ending in 1923.
The year 1919 saw the greatest demonstration of the potential of Irish workers, north and south to take over the running of society but the events of the following years cemented the division that would do much to end workers militancy. In terms of working class struggle the periods of militancy of northern and southern workers coincide. Yet the working class was divided and these struggles remained almost completely isolated from each other.
Events in the north in this period are almost absent from southern nationalist history outside of some key events that had profound effects in the south like the 1914 UVF Larne gun running. Apart from a small number of left academic books the history of working class struggle in the period is almost unknown.
The reason is not hard to understand, the events of those years do not readily fit into the Irish nationalist presentation of history. Irish nationalism like nationalism elsewhere has sought to create a powerful unifying history that combines fact and myth to create a sweeping story leading up to and justifying the actions of the present day. The northeast and in particular the protestant population doesn't fit easily into this history and so is largely ignored.
The mythology of nationalism
The great central theme of Irish nationalism is 800 years of oppression by a foreign crown and a rebellion in every generation against that crown. In reality much of that 800 years is really the story of civil war within Ireland and foreign intervention on one or the other side. Or Irish involvement in British civil wars, which in turn spilled over onto this island. The syndicalist left republican James Connolly (1) writing of the Williamite Wars at the end of the 17th century said "The war between William and James offered a splendid opportunity to the subject people of Ireland to make a bid for freedom while the forces of their oppressors were rent in a civil war. The opportunity was cast aside, and the subject people took sides on behalf of the opposing factions of their enemies."(2 )
In Ireland as elsewhere the imagining of a unified Irish nation was a project of the capitalist period, really only getting underway in the last decades of the 18th century. It was initially a project of a mostly protestant leadership drawn largely from the more privileged classes and radicalised not by the imaginings of a return to a Celtic Ireland but rather by internationalism, in particular the radical republicanism that had seen the French and American revolutions. Independence for Ireland was presented not so much as an end in itself but rather as a way of opening up a political space free of the reactionary British monarchy, a space in which a democratic republican experiment could then be staged.
This culminated in the great rebellion of 1798, which was largely led by radical protestant republicans, and where the blood spilt fighting for the republic was as likely to be presbyterian as catholic. Yet this moment at which the republican project appeared to about to succeed in forging a unified Irish nation was also the moment at which that nation was sundered. The brief and incomplete unity of 'catholic, protestant and dissenter' of that year faded to sectarian division and eventual partition. See my article on the 1798 Rebellion - at http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr4_1798.html - for more detailed analysis of this.
The period immediately after the defeat of the 1798 rebellion is often presented as the point at which any potential for radical northern protestants siding with catholics ended forever. Unionist histories of the rebellion create their own nationalist myth of progressive protestants tricked into a rebellion where they were betrayed by their catholic allies.
By the opening years of the 20th century any mass support for republicanism amongst protestants was extinguished, north and south. There were individual protestant nationalists, Bulmer Hobson editor of 'Irish Freedom' the main journal of the Irish Republican Brotherhood was one of the better known. But there was no mass support amongst Irish protestants for the Irish nationalist project.
Irish speaking Orangemen and the Land League
Yet as late as the 1880's things were not so straightforward. The Orange Order was still very much a self identified Irish cultural-political organisation. When on 12 July 1867 a 30,000 strong parade Orange Order parade from Newtownards to Bangor took place the Belfast Newsletter reported that they marched "without interruption save the cead mille failtes' of hosts of sympathisers".(3) This use of the Irish language by loyalists was to fade as the Irish nationalists sought to solidify the nationalist political agenda through a cultural revival which laid claim to the Irish language. The unionist Ulster Convention of 1892 would be the last time the slogan "Erin-go-Bragh"(4) would be on display.
This same period saw a demonstration that the common interests of the labouring classes could overcome the Irish nationalist and Unionist division. In the years after the famine of the 1840's the fact that most land in Ireland was held by a tiny number of often-absentee landlords became the burning issue of mass mobilisations. The struggle of the Land League spread across Ireland, which often was a struggle that denied the 'right' of ownership to the landlords at all. Michael Davitt, secretary of the Land League insisted "the land question can be definitely settled only by making the cultivators of the soil proprietors". Evictions were met by mass mobilisations and agrarian outrages become commonplace as Irish peasants mobilised in ever increasing numbers.
In 1880 and 1881 "northern protestants as well as catholics thronged to attend Land League meetings".(5) At the time 100,000 tenants were threatened with eviction. The land struggle divided even the Orange Order. On the one hand in October 1880 the Orange Order mobilised 50 labourers from counties Cavan and Monaghan to work the lands of Charles Boycott (whose tenants with the support of the local population were refusing to work his land). On the other in parts of Ulster the Land League was able to use Orange halls as the venues for meetings.
Lord Deramore warned "A weeks since, the Land League invaded Ulster .. men who voted for the Conservatives last April are now openly fraternising with democrats whom six weeks ago they would not have touched with a long pole, and the wave of communism has spread like wildfire". Lord Deramore's fear of communism seems misplaced to those schooled in the conventional rival Irish nationalist and unionist histories of Ireland. However for the next 40 years Ireland would see a now almost forgotten upsurge of worker and farmer militancy, a wave that would really only be ended with and, at least in part, through partition.
Historian David Fitzpatrick observed of this period "Landlords and employers were confronted by ever more formidable combinations of tenants or workers; men became aware that there were women demanding equal rights. All of these oppositions tended to disturb the solidarity of nationalists and loyalists alike, since they cut across communal loyalties and solicited support without regard for religious affiliation". (6)
Davitt addressing 2000 Protestant farmers at Letterkenny, Co Donegal on 21 January 1881 said "You are no longer the tame and superstitious fools who fought for their amusement and profit with your equally foolish and superstitious catholic fellow workers .. No, my friends, the landlords of Ireland are all of one religion - their God is Mammon and rack rents, and evictions their only morality." (7)
The British anarchist paper Freedom had a correspondent in Ireland covering the land struggle. They noted "the effect of the teaching of Michael Davitt is to be traced in many a cottier's hut and small shopkeeper's house and though that teaching is not so sound economically as might be wished, it yet leads by stages to the recognition of the truth that all wealth is produced through the pressure of society, and is the joint property of the community". Reporting on the furious resistance to evictions they reported "At Kilrush the police used their rifles against the men threatened with eviction, and were bravely attached by the crowd, who carried on the fight with stones until the evening. A pity the Irish peasants are so inadequately armed; but, as it is, their brave spirit of revolt is inspiring a glowing sympathy and emulation amongst the Kelts and English of the larger island." (8).
The choices made by nationalism
In the 1790's the United Irishmen were able to use radical democratic demands, including ones that held up the promise of land redistribution, to unite workers and peasants who were previously divided by deep sectarian divisions. In the 1880's those Irish nationalists who claimed to be travelling in the footsteps of the United Irishmen failed to even try to repeat this despite circumstances being in many ways more favourable. Indeed they went in the opposite direction. The Land League was dissolved in favour of the founding of the National League in 1882, which by 1884 even had the public support of the catholic church. This helped build the nationalist Irish Parliamentary Party under Parnell across most of Ireland but in the North East it resulted in protestant land leaguers turning to the Irish Unionist Party. The path chosen by the nationalists at this time led towards eventual partition and the further entrenchment of sectarian reaction.
The choice of the Irish nationalists to move away from popular agitation was not unique, but rather mirrored across Europe. In the 1790's and as late as the 1840's the working class was not well enough organised to demand the implementation of those sections of republican programs that appeared to promise redistribution of wealth as well as equality before the law. Such demands had been raised in Ireland and elsewhere from the 18th century but the bulk of bourgeois republicans did not yet fear that the labouring classes could impose on their new republic such programs of redistribution.
However by the European republican revolts of 1848 distinct working class organisation had started to take shape. For this reason in the Communist Manifesto, published in the aftermath of the 1848 European republican revolts, Marx wrote of the spectre of communism stalking Europe. This spectre was not simply stalking the minds of the old aristocracy. It also stalked the imaginations of the bourgeois republicans who feared that the working class could take advantage of the chaos of republican insurrection to impose a redistribution of property. Over the next 20 years republican ideology and movements would be forced to make choices for or against the possibility of insurrections becoming struggles for economic freedom as well as political liberty.
By the 1860's this conflict within European republicanism were increasingly out in the open. Left republicans like the Russian Michael Bakunin were coming to realise that bourgeois republicans would not risk revolt if there was a danger of the labouring classes coming to power. The production of the initial documents of the anarchist movement happened in these years within a group of former left republicans who in recognising the short coming of left republicanism as a strategy for working class liberation constructed a new strategy, anarchism, based on their experiences. As importantly the foundation of the First International, which the anarchists soon joined, illustrated that the labouring classes were becoming increasingly organised in pursuit of their interests on the international as well as national level. The question of what classes would be in power in the new republics was one that could no longer be avoided by those who claimed to stand for freedom.
The first international in Ireland
Mainstream Irish history of all varieties conceals these new forces and the impact they were having, even in Ireland. In fact these ideas reached Ireland almost immediately, a small section of the First International was founded in 1872 with branches in Dublin, Cork, Belfast and Cootehill. According to Fintan Lane "The Freeman's Journal assessed the Cork membership to be as high as three hundred within a few weeks of the branch's formation in late-February 1872." (9) As elsewhere the International was repressed in the panic that spread though the establishment in the wake of the Paris Commune. In Ireland individual catholic priests played an important part in the suppression of the international, mobilising mobs to attack the internationalists. The last Dublin meeting of the international took place at Chapel lane 7th April 1872. According to an Irish Times report it was attacked and "The defenders of the Communists of Paris were set upon and a hand-to-hand encounter ensured. Chairs and tables were upset, the glass was smashed on the windows, and every strong piece of wood was availed of as a weapon for attack or defence. Several members of the detective force were in the room at the time, but, exercising a wise discretion, allowed the parties to fight it out." (10)
The period from 1880 to 1920 sees members of the British, Unionist and emerging Irish nationalist ruling class worry again and again about the influence of communist ideas on workers in Ireland. Even the left republican Constance Markievicz in a memorandum for cabinet written towards the end of the War Of Independence "forecast violent revolution unless the Dail moved to forestall direct action by 'disaffected' workers".(11) IRA commander Ernie O'Malley noted in the same period that "There was land trouble in the South and West. The Dail, afraid of the spread of land hunger, used the IRA to protect land owners; the IRA .. carried out the orders of the Minister of Defence". (12)
In relation to the earlier struggles of the 1880's Michael Davitt in his book 'The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland' claimed Parnell had warned him that the formation of Trade Unions would "Frighten the capitalist liberals and lead them to believe that a parliament in Dublin might be used for furthering some kind of socialism. You ought to know that neither the Irish priests or the farmers would support such principles." Somewhat later Sinn Fein wrote of the strikes of 1911 that "Against the Red Flag of Communism...we raise the flag of an Irish nation. Under that flag will be protection, safety and freedom for all." (13)
Nationalisms logical hostility to socialism
More confirmation of the fear of all factions of the bourgeois and petit bourgeois of revolution will be found in my other articles on 1916, some more will be provided in this article in relation to the north. For now I want to note that the first reason for the failure of the republican leadership of 1916-20 to appeal to radical northern protestants was that they were indifferent or more often opposed to the radical economic policies that such an appeal would have been required.
Irish nationalism was in fact often hostile to the cause of labour. This was particularly clear during the 1913 Dublin Lockout when the employers led by William Martin Murphy locked out tens of thousands of members of the Syndicalist ITGWU in order to smash the union. During the lockout the Irish Times of the 4th October observed, "Today Mr Murphy's press and the official Nationalist press are at one in condemning Larkinism." (14)
After the 1913 lockout a Sinn Fein paper, Irish Freedom wrote;
"We have seen with anger in our hearts and the flush of shame on our cheeks English alms dumped on the quays of Dublin; we have had to listen to the lying and hypocritical English press as it shouted the news of the starving and begging Irish to the ends of the earth; we have heard Englishmen bellowing on the streets of Dublin the lie that we are the sisters and brothers of the English.. and greatest shame of all, we have seen and heard Irishmen give their approval to all these insults.. God grant that such things may never happen in our land again."
As with republicans elsewhere in Europe, nationalists reacted to the rise of radical working class movements by retreating into a mystical nationalism that sought to deny class differences beneath the fiction of a common nation united by culture and an ancient history. The earlier Irish republican movement of the 1790's was built as part of a common international movement with links to radical British republicans like the United Englishmen. Freedom in previous republican rebellions had been a matter of democratic rights, often with a more radical fringe of property redistribution. From the 1880's the meaning of 'freedom' was much less clear, perhaps no more than the absence of imperialist domination. In this way an ideology of mystic nationalism that sought to maximise differences between populations replaced the earlier republican ideology based on radical democracy.
For this reason 1880's Ireland saw an explosion of cultural nationalism based around creating an image of an Irish nation that was catholic, peasant and Irish speaking. It sought to divide and exclude any other culture, for instance those who continued to play cricket, rugby or other 'foreign' games could not even join the G.A.A., the nationalist sports body. This movement was not confined to a few intellectuals. By 1906 the Gaelic League had 900 branches and 100,000 members.(15) The historian Thomas Hennessey argues that cultural nationalist leaders like D.P. Moran "succeeded in making cultural nationalism the dominant ideological force in Irish society between 1900 and 1906. He wrote that non-catholics who wished to throw in their lot with the Irish nation 'must recognise that the Irish nation is de facto a Catholic nation.'" (16)
In the 1790's the mainly protestant republican leadership made enormous efforts to win over catholic peasants going so far as to provide lawyers to represent Defenders (brought up in court for battling the Orange Order) and housing the catholic refugees of that Orange Order terror in Armagh. In the 1890's the nationalist leadership made no effort to win over the northern protestant working class. Appeals were limited to convincing them they were really Irish, as David Fitzpatrick puts it "Nationalist rhetoric emphasized the racial admixture of the inhabitants, the tendency of successive invaders to become more Irish than the Irish, and the prominence of protestants in previous insurrections and campaigns." (17)
The pope and the nationalists
In his history of the 1916 rising Brennan-Whitmore who commanded the Earl street garrison reproduced a letter Count Plunkett has sent to the press about a meeting he claimed to have had with the Pope in advance of the rising. "The Pope was much moved when I disclosed the fact that the date for the rising was fixed, and the reason for that decision. Finally I stated that the Volunteer Executive pledged the Republic to fidelity to the Holy See and the interests of religion. Then the Pope conferred His Apostolic Benediction on the men who were facing death for Ireland's liberty." (18) Plunkett's claim demonstrates the depth of the connection the nationalists tried to build with catholicism. Quite how publishing such a claim would win over northern protestants who were afraid that Home Rule would be Rome Rule is not clear!
Another more trivial but still telling illustration of the depth of the catholic element of Irish nationalism was the number of left republican protestants and widows of republicans who converted to catholicism in the period after 1916. These included Constance Markievicz, Grace Gifford and Lillie Connolly, the widow of James Connolly. The American historian George Dangerfield observed of her husband that "Connolly died a 'convinced' catholic, because catholicism had become the religion of Irish nationalism" (19) Lille Connolly told Annie M.P. Smithson that Connolly had asked her to convert on her last visit before his execution (20).
In the 1918 elections the nationalist leader de Valera ran in Belfast for Sinn Fein. The Sinn Fein manifesto declared "As Irish Catholics we will .. urge the Church and Nation to oppose .. a demoralizing and Godless educational system which a Foreign Parliament would impose upon a partitioned North-East corner." (21) This manifesto was distributed in protestant areas of Belfast including St Annes, Woodvale and Ormeau (22) Ironically Devlin, his opponent, who was the leader of the sectarian Ancient Order of Hibernian's in the city, was able to attack the republicans from the left in this election in the competition for the catholic vote. Devlin declared "I decline to tell the shipwrights and mill workers, the street sweepers or any section of the working people that they must wait 50 years on a republic before their grievances are addressed."(23)
Far from any attempt to reach the protestant working class on the grounds of an improved life for all some republicans simply issued threats that would have been seen to be directed against protestants in general. In the earlier February 1918 Co Armagh by-election deValera speaking at the rally at Bessbrook described unionists as "a rock in the road" "which must if necessary blast it out of our path".(24) In January of 1920 when Unionists lost control of Derry corporation, Hugh O'Doherty the cities first catholic mayor said in his inaugural speech "Ireland's right to determine her own destiny will come about whether the protestants of Ulster like it or not". In September 1921 Eoin O'Duffy Treasurer of the IRB Supreme Council, who was later to found the fascist blue shirts, declared that if the population of Belfast would not accept being part of the Irish nation "they would have to use the lead against them." This was during a speech in Armagh where he was accompanied by Michael Collins.(25)
It is little wonder that earlier James Stephens in his eyewitness account of the 1916 rising had asked "What has the Irish party ever done to allay Northern prejudice, or bring the discontented section into line with the rest of Ireland? The answer is pathetically complete. They have done nothing. Or, if they have done anything, it was only that which would set every Northerner grinding his teeth in anger." (26) The success of the unionist leadership in mobilising in arms tens of thousands of northern protestant workers can be explained in part by the political positions and rhetoric of the Irish nationalists.
Socialism and sectarianism
The left in the south also offered little resistance to these catholic nationalist arguments. Indeed because the left often came under attack by the Catholic church they sometimes responded by trying to prove the solidness of their catholicism. In 1899 the minutes of the Irish Socialist Republican Party (ISRP) recorded that "Connolly suggested that the secretary should enter on minutes for the benefit of posterity that the ISRP instructed all its members to attend Mass on Sunday, Jan 8 1899." (27). James Connolly also put much effort into trying to prove the compatibility of catholicism and socialism in his writings. Yet even Dublin at the time had a substantial protestant working class likely to be alienated by such appeals.
Connolly did however also argue for a separation of nationalism from catholicism on occasion. For instance in 1898 Connolly complained that date of laying for the foundation stone for the Wolfe Tone monument was "a festival of the Catholic Church, and therefore, if not absolutely prohibition to, at least bound to raise grave suspicions in the minds of our non-Catholic fellow-countrymen." (28) And as we shall see both Connolly and Larkin tried to unite catholic and protestant workers in Belfast.
If the republican movement did little to try to attract protestant workers the same is not true of the unionist bosses. Historian David Fitzpatrick notes that in particular after 1903 "The Ulster Unionist leaders, though conservative to a fault on social and sexual issues, took care to provide separate loyalist bodies within which radical murmurings could be uttered, heard and placated."(29) They even formed a Ulster Unionist Labour Association (UULA)in 1918. Which is not to suggest protestant workers were in control, the UULA had Edward Carson as president and John Millar Andrews, a linen manufacturer as Chairman. (30)
The general approach of the unionist leadership was to elevate the common bond of Orangeism above any suggestion of class struggle as the following rhyme demonstrates
Let not the poor man hate the rich
Nor rich on poor look down
But each join each true Orange Order
For God and the Crown. (31)
So it would be very wrong to simply lay the blame for the sectarian division at the door of the nationalists or the Dublin based left. Nationalism as we have seen was not after all about class politics but about the opposite, creating an all class alliance of Irishmen. Berating the nationalists for not modifying their nationalism to facilitate workers unity would be rather missing the point.
The Dublin left was tiny in number and faced with both a low level of working class political consciousness and high level of hostility from the catholic church. The two in fact went hand in hand, the mobilisation of the catholic church against the starving children of strikers during the 1913 lockout played a key part in the defeat of the locked out workers. The church could only risk alienating such a large number of its own members in this way because of the low level of political consciousness of most union members.
The diffusion of the land struggle
The British and Unionist establishment were also taking care to mend the gaps that the Land League struggle had opened up. From the 1880's the British government introduced some very real land reforms in Ireland that would transform the land issue during this period. Landlords were first persuaded and then from 1909 forced to sell out to their tenants. This shifted the class struggle in the countryside from one between the great mass of the population and a few often-absentee landlords to one between a large but smaller number of landless labourers and a sizeable minority of farmers living on the land.
Alongside these reforms the unionist ruling class were using the Orange Order to once more divide the movement in the countryside. The Orange Order established the Orange Emergency Committee in 1881 to oppose the Land league and to aid landlords. An Orange appeal of 1883 asked "Are you prepared to allow Parnell, the leader of the enemies of our united empire, the champion of the principle, Ireland for the Irish .. meaning Ireland for the Romanists .. Are you prepared to accept the doctrine of the English radicals that the Protestants of Ireland are aliens in their land and should be swept out of it by fair means or foul?"(32)
This propaganda could be credible because as we have seen the growing wave of cultural nationalism did seem to mean 'Ireland for the Romanists'. As cultural nationalism advanced in the north so the use of the Irish language by the unionist Irish organisations came to an end.
Politics was dominated for most of this period by the attempts to win Home Rule. Home Rule bills were prepared in 1886, 1893 and 1912-14. The first two were defeated but the 1912-14 bill passed on its third reading as the Lords could no longer veto a bill passed by the Commons twice. It was to have been implemented in 1914 but the start of the First World War saw implementation postponed. But each Home Rule attempt was used by the northern protestant ruling class to bind protestant workers ever closer to them. As we shall see this culminated in 1920 with a bloody pogrom in Belfast when protestant workers encouraged by their employers were used to smash the left and the union movement.
As the Home Rule crisis dragged on the Unionist elite staged larger and larger popular mobilisations culminating in 1912. On Easter Tuesday 70 British MP's attended a demonstration of 100,000 loyalists in south Belfast. The 28th September was proclaimed as 'Ulster Day' and the Unionist elite launched the Ulster Solemn League and Covenant on that day, signed by them and by 218,206 Ulstermen of all classes, three quarters of all Ulster protestant males. Women were not allowed to sign it but 229,000 signed a parallel women's declaration expressing "desire to associate ourselves with the men of Ulster in their uncompromising opposition to the Home Rule bill." (33) By the end of that year the UVF had 90,000 members, a large percentage of the protestant population of Ulster.
The first and second expulsions
Alongside these land reforms and the building of all class Unionist institutions like the UVF, sectarianism was being encouraged or at least given a wink by the employers in many workplaces . In the year of the first Home Rule bill, 1886, a mob of unskilled protestant workers in the giant shipbuilders Harland and Wolff attacked and expelled from the shipyard almost all of the 8% of workers employed there who were catholic. Harland not only claimed to be powerless to stop such expulsions he actually denied that "the taking of 'Belfast confetti', rivets, bolts, etc. for use in street rioting, was theft." (34) Yet in the previous two years he had closed the yard twice to impose wage cuts.
A second round of expulsions happened in 1912 as the third Home Rule got underway. This set of expulsions as we shall see followed a period where labour struggles saw workers unity across the sectarian divide so those targeted this time included protestant socialists as well as catholics. Once again these expulsions were not spontaneous events beyond the control of the unionist bosses. Before the sequence of events that led to the 1912 expulsions it was reported that "All Fenian's clear out" was painted up in the Workman, Clark shipyard (35) Drilling for the massive unionist show of force at Balmoral Easter 1912 when Carson reviewed 100,000 loyalist demonstrators had been allowed to take place in the yard and Sir George Clark of Workman, Clarke was "one of the most militant leaders of the unionist mobilisations. He later chaired the committee responsible for gun-running and even landed arms at his yard." (36) Those targeted in the 1912 expulsions were not just the catholic workers but also included "English and Scottish workers, trade union and labour men and all protest and dissidents of the Edwardian years, such as liberals and independent orangemen." These totalled 20% or 600 of those expelled. (37)
It's important to understand that the various round of expulsions were neither spontaneous acts of the protestant working class as a whole or simply occurring in reaction to events. Rather they involved a minority of protestant workers as active participants and were often orchestrated or at the very least encouraged by unionist employers. By 1920 such encouragement was coming from the tops ranks of unionism and the British cabinet.
"bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing"
It is not surprizing that looking at these historical facts and the depth of popular unionist mobilisation that many left republicans simply wrote off the protestant working class. The nationalists also tended not to take the threat of the unionist mobilisation very seriously, the more militant nationalists instead seeing them as useful in encouraging their side to arm as well. When the UVF ran guns ashore in Larne in 1914 one of the northern leaders of the IRB went so far as to lend them his car to help transport the weapons to local hiding places. (38)
The nationalist mystic Padraic Pearse who would declare himself president during the Easter rising said of the Larne gun running "I am glad that the Orangemen are armed, for it is a goodly thing to see arms in Irish hands .. We must accustom ourselves to the thought of arms, to the sight of arms, to the use of arms. We may make mistakes in the beginning and shoot the wrong people; but bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing." (39)
Nationalist thinking on the north was at best based around the hope that northern protestants would see the light when faced with the reality of British withdrawal or that they would be forced into a united Ireland by the collapse of the northern economy after partition. This is probably the reason why partition hardly appeared in the bitter debates on the treaty in the south that were to lead to civil war. Of the 338 page official Dail report only a handful of pages dealt with partition. De Valeras alternative to the treaty, 'Document Number 2' simply endorsed the existing Ulster clauses of the treaty. (40)
Could things have been different?
At the turn of the century Belfast was the centre of industry on the island and hence important in both union and left organisation in Ireland. In 1899 half the affiliated trade unionists of the Irish Trade Union Congress were working in and around Belfast.(41) At the outbreak of world war one Belfast had both the worlds largest shipbuilder and the worlds largest linen mill. The working class was already divided along sectarian lines. As we have seen the first mass expulsion of catholics from the shipyards had happened in 1886 when 190 of the 225 catholics working there were expelled. It would happen again in 1912 before the culmination in the 1920 pogrom.
But there was also a socialist movement and from time to time workers came together to struggle for better conditions. Although the socialist movement reflected the sectarian reality of the divided working class at times it could rise above this reality. There were significant strikes in 1907 and 1919 - some have argued the 1919 strike was "the greatest industrial struggle in Irish history." (42).
The socialist movement in Belfast dates from the same period as that in Dublin. A Christian socialist Revd. J. Bruce Wallace was active in the 1880's and brought the radical USA flat taxer Henry George to the Ulster Hall in 1884. The Independent Labour Party (ILP) was active from 1893 although trouble at a trade's council demonstration that year showed how close to the surface sectarianism was. It apparently started when a gasworker was seen wearing a union sash, which happened to contain the colour green.(43) In the 1897 local election 6 Trades Councils candidates were elected, the first leftists to be elected in Ireland.
One of the more prominent of these early socialists was William Walker, mostly remembered today as being the other pole of the Walker - Connolly controversy (44). In 1894-5 "Walker had to be almost continuously under police protection, because of his advocacy of the principles of socialism". (45) By 1904 he had been elected to the city council as a trades council candidate and he ran unsuccessfully in the 1905 and 1907 elections. But in these elections he also reflected the sectarian domination of politics, saying in 1905 "that he was against transubstantiation, for the inspection of convents and monasteries and for the exclusion of catholics from the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland" (46) and in 1907 "that I must again declare that I am, as I always have been, a supporter of the legislative union." (47)
This highlighted a problem that remained throughout the period. To a considerable extent both the left and the union movement tended to be divided along sectarian lines. Even where workers appeared to be in the same industry the reality was often that internally they would be divided into different areas as was found with the division on the Belfast dock into catholic deep sea dockers and protestant cross channel dockers. The organised left reproduced this division, the ILP was mostly composed of protestants, the Socialist Party of Ireland (SPI) and later the Independent Labour Party (Ireland) was mostly composed of catholics.
The degree of separation is suggested in the recollections of one ILP member of that period, William McMullen, who said "Our school of socialist thought had no nationalist tradition, and was not conscious of, and even if it had been would have been contemptuous of, a Socialist movement any other part of this country .. The members of the Socialist movement in the City were Protestants, as the Catholics were in the main followers of .. Devlin." (48)
Barriers to left unity
The sectarian politics of the period tripped up efforts at workers unity on an all island basis. In 1912 Connolly got four of the five branches of the Belfast Independent Labour Party and the Belfast branch of the British Socialist Party to go to Dublin for a Socialist unity conference with the SPI. But when they travelled down in Easter 1912 for the first all Ireland socialist conference "Some Dublin members, in what they may have taken to be a joke, placed a Union Jack on the doormat of the conference room, thereby driving back to Belfast some members of the British Socialist Party." (49) Those who remained set up the Independent Labour Party (Ireland) but its Belfast members mostly consisted of just the existing Belfast SPI members. The Independent Labour Party not only continued its separate existence but also went from strength to strength.
This was not the only attempt at unity that collapsed over such a seemingly trivial matter. Earlier Belfast Trades Council had initially "welcomed an Irish attempt to set up a trade-union centre, until its Dublin advocates held a sports day on the Sabbath." (50)
James Connolly may have argued for a fusion of the ILP and SPI but the barriers even he erected to such unity become obvious when you read his article 'Socialist Unity in Ireland' written in 1911 in which he declares "I have a great admiration for Comrade Walker, of Belfast .. but I am glad that he was defeated in North Belfast. This victory would have killed the hopes of Socialism among Irish Nationalists the world over. Not only in Ireland, but also all over the continent of America and Australia, wherever Irishmen live and work, a vote given by Comrade Walker in the House of Commons against Home Rule would have filled the Irish with such an unreasoning and inveterate hatred of the cause that they would be lost to it for a generation. But imagine what our situation would have been in the rest of Ireland if the only Irish Socialist M.P. had voted against Home Rule."(51)
McMullen a protestant Harland & Woolf worker who did cross the sectarian divide to join the ILP observed "In those times it was difficult enough for one to break with the Unionist family tradition and embrace socialism, but much more difficult to swallow the hook, line and sinker of Irish Republicanism as well." (52) Both parties in other words tended to define their attitude to the constitutional question around what would be acceptable to their constituency. There seems to have been very little discussion of developing, from scratch, a socialist position on this question independent of the nationalist / unionist divide.
This sectarian division in the politics of the left in Belfast was further exasperated by the fact that the electoral representative for much of the catholic population throughout this period was Joe Devlin. In 1905 Devlin had become the president of the Ancient Order of Hibernians (53) a catholic version of the Orange Order that like the Orange Order was also opposed to socialism. Despite this in 1906 Devlin narrowly received the Trades Council endorsement (54) and was able to run as the "Irish Nationalist and Labour Candidate".
In this same period the AOH was involved in anti-trade union activity in Dublin and Cork where it drove Connolly out of Cobh/Queenstown. It published the pamphlets 'Socialism: A warning to the workers' and 'Larkinism: What it is and what it stands for'. Despite this a good parts of Devlins electoral success was down to his successful portrayal of himself as a friend of the workers, in particular the catholic worker. In the 1910 election he staged a rally of 3000 female workers in St Marys Hall, many wearing cards bearing the slogan "Vote for Devlin and Labour" surrounded by green and orange flags.(55) In the December 1910 election he was even reported by the Irish News to have had a rally of protestants in St Mary's Hall. The Irish News claimed 5/6 of the audience were "Protestant artisans and labourers" although the accuracy of this claims has been questioned. (56)
Class struggle in the Orange Order
From the account so far it should be easy to see why many saw a monolithic unionist / nationalist divide which made class unity an illusory demand. But up close many fractures can be seen in the supposed unity of both unionist and nationalist blocks, fractures that ran along class lines.
Within the Orange Order the class forces woken by the Land League continued to come to the fore but this time contained within loyalism. Official unionist opposition to the 1903 Land act had the effect of radicalising the rural lodges of the Independent Orange Order (IOO) set up after a row in 1903. This radicalisation allowed the adoption of the 'Magheranorne Manifesto' in 1905 which not only called for ultimate ownership of houses and plots of land by the rural labourers but also for the ending of clerical control of education and the ending of protestant control of Trinity college. Some of the leadership, Lindsay Crawford in particular, quite clearly moved to the left. In 1907 along with another leader Alex Boyd he had an "active involvement in the strike.. when he became a regular speaker on strike platforms" (57) After the collapse of the IOO, Boyd would appear again as a Independent Labour Councillor in 1920 but would also be a supporter of the shipyard pogroms of that year. Crawford on the other hand migrated to Canada where he founded "the protestant friends of Irish freedom" and become president of the Self Determination for Ireland League of Canada. (58)
Larkin and the 1907 strike
Although the working class in Belfast was often segregated into workplaces and even section of industry that were overwhelmingly Catholic or Protestant this segregation was not absolute. And the needs of struggle could cause workers to unite in solidarity across several industries, breaking down the effect of the segregation found in individual workplaces
The nature of industry in Belfast meant that early on it developed a large industrial working class, which was driven from quite early times to organise and take action in defence of its interests. So there were significant engineering strikes in 1895-6 and again in 1897-8 along with linen strikes in 1897 and 1906. But it was the 1907 strike, which started on the docks that seemed to hold out the promise of workers unity.
At the time there were 4600 dockers, quay labourers and dock working carters in Belfast (59). This was an example of an industry where individual workplaces were segregated. As we have seen catholic and protestants tended to be employed in different firms, and even in different sections of the docks. Cross channel dockers were mostly protestant, deep-sea dockers were mostly catholic.
James Larkin was sent from Liverpool to Belfast as an organiser for the National Union of Dock Labourers. Larkin brought new ideas with him, historian Emmet O'Connor even points out that "As an international port Liverpool stood in the van of new influences; the anarcho-syndicalist Liverpool Direct Action Group was formed in 1907" (60).
Larkin was certainly no anarchist but he was influenced by syndicalism and would become the personification of syndicalism in the history of the Irish union movement. This came to be known simply as Larkinism, defined by O'Connor as having "three salient characteristics; a workerist mentality, a technique in conflict based on sympathetic action, and a broad ambition to promote class solidarity." (61).
Larkin rapidly recruited over 3000 workers on the docks, both Catholic and Protestant. When the bosses Shipping Federation imported scab labour in response to minor strikes Larkin called an all out strike for 26 June 1907. As the strike escalated on July 13 the coal merchants locked out 1,000 labourers and crowds of up to 8,000 attended meetings. By 11 August serious riots had started to break out, on the 12th the army killed two people on the Falls road. On 30 July 1200 troops had been deployed in Belfast in anticipation of a police strike, by early August there may have been 6000 troops in the city. (62)
The workers were defeated with the strike collapsing by mid September. But it did go some way to forging workers unity across the sectarian divide in the working class. Larkin claimed in Derry that 7 out of 10 of the strikers were Orangemen and that these were the 'best men we had'. 23 of 29 members of the strike committee(s) were protestant (63) and when faced with the threat of communal rioting the strike committee issued a leaflet reading "This is not a fight between Protestant and Catholic but between the employers, backed by the authorities, and the workers .. don't be misled by the employers game of dividing Catholic and Protestant." (64)
In what was to become a familiar pattern the unity built up during the strike was not to survive the years ahead. . In the aftermath the "employers moved quickly to reinforce sectarianism by sponsoring a yellow union, the exclusively Protestant Belfast Coalworkers' and Carters' Benefit society." (65) Larkin fell out with the NUDL and as a result formed the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. This only really succeeded in recruiting the catholics workers from the deep sea docks (66) and in 1908 was described by Alex Boyd who was active during the strike as "a Sinn Fein organisation that not even a decent nationalist in Belfast would have anything to do with." (67) Boyds intervention split the Belfast ITGWU with the Protestant dockers going back to the NUDL. (68)
Connolly in Belfast
After returning from a period in the USA where he had organised for the revolutionary syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) James Connolly became Belfast Branch Secretary of the ITGWU from 1911. On the 19 July 1911 Connolly brought out the 300 mostly catholic deep-sea dockers in sympathy with sailors and firemen who were on strike for the same wages as their English equivalents. The deep-sea dockers were also looking for higher pay, shorter hours and less speed up for themselves. Connolly organised members of catholic and Orange bands to form a Non-Sectarian Labour Band, which paraded through the streets while collections, were taken up. When the sailors returned to work Connolly seized on a modest offer from the employers to end the strike and proclaim victory. (69)
In October 1911 there was a spontaneous spinners strike at a mill in Henry street resulting in a company lockout, Connolly had some involvement and was condemned from the pulpit in the local Catholic church on Sunday 15 October for "his syndicalist agitation" The strike was lost but Connolly organised the spinners into the Irish Textile Workers Union which was in effect a section of the ITGWU. This led in 1912 to Mary Galway of the (mostly protestant) Textile Operatives Society of Ireland (TOSI) accusing Connolly at the Clonmel TUC conference of dividing the working class in Belfast along sectarian lines. (70) The ITWU faded away while the TOSI grew to 10,000 members by 1918.
Mary Galway's accusation is worthy of serious consideration. The problem was that an industry that employed catholic and protestant women workers was again internally divided. The spinners whom Connolly organised were mostly catholic while the weavers in the TOSI were mostly protestant.
Some years later in 1919 the left republican Peader O'Donnell was to become an ITGWU organiser in Derry. He showed a willingness to be pragmatic when faced with an employer playing the Orange card during the Fulton mill strike. O'Donnell established a band with Orange and catholic bandsmen, and "was happy to parade behind Union Jacks until they gave way to red flags."(71) All the same years later O'Donnell described the ITGWU entry into Derry in 1919 as mistaken "and ultimately divisive. Unionisation in Derry was already adequate and the ITGWU's identification with Irish nationalism .. only served to heighten divisions between workers of different political and religious persuasions." (72)
At times the ITGWU under Connolly did manage to recruit protestant workers but then its nationalist ethos proved to be a liability. In 1913 in Larne a strike by 300 workers at the British Aluminium Company, who had to work 12 hours a day 7 days a week, ended when after church on Sunday the minister told the protestant workers who comprised the majority to return to work. Connolly reported in Forward that "The fires of sectarian and political bigotry had been let loose, the chief argument used being that as the headquarters of the union are in Dublin it is a 'Fenian' and 'Papist' organisation .. the twin forces of scabism and Carsonism won a glorious victory." (73) Connolly claimed that this happened at a point at which the strike had been almost won on the basis of an 8 rather than 12 hour day.
The Home Rule crisis built up, peaking in 1912 with the mobilisation of a huge percentage of Ulster's protestant population and the expulsion of catholics and radical protestant workers from the docks. Some 20% of those expelled were protestant socialists or those who had been involved in the IOO. The deputation put together at a meeting of the expelled workers was 75% protestant.
The rise of sectarian tensions made it increasingly difficult for the ITGWU to attempt to organise protestant workers. In July 1913 the annual outing of ITGWU and ITWU was attacked by mill and shipyard workers both as it left and returned to Belfast (74) This was at the end of Connolly's period in Belfast.
The sectarian build up was interrupted in 1914 by the start of the First World War. Huge numbers of both nationalist and unionist workers were led into the army, and to the slaughter of the trenches by their respective leaderships. Both nationalist and unionist leaderships saw sacrificing their rank and file supporters as the best way of gaining a position of strength to negotiate from after the war.
The northeast remained quiet during the 1916 rising with the slaughter of the Somme a few weeks later coming to form an alternative mythology of 'blood sacrifice' for loyalists. The UVF had been allowed to form the 36th Ulster Division and they went 'over the top' on the 1st July - the date on which under the old calender the Battle of the Boyne had occurred. Although they were among the most successful at achieving their objectives the slaughter was terrible, in the first two days of the Somme 5,500 men of the Ulster Division were killed or wounded and "Blackers' boys" which consisted of UVF men from Armagh, Monaghan and Cavan returned with only 64 the of 600 who had gone over the top. (75)
The later years of the war saw a significant economic boom as the army required supplies and the navy ships to replace those sunk by U Boats. The fact that large numbers of men were away at the front meant that employers were forced to make concessions to retain workers even if they were also able to use appeals to support those at the front to drive up working hours. It was widely realised that the end of the war was not only likely to see the end of the boom but also tens of thousands of demobbed soldiers seeking work.
The war also saw the Russian revolutions of 1917 and what at first seemed like the constructions of a 'workers' state. Then in 1918 as the slaughter ground on the working class in the German navy mutined, in effect bringing the war to an end. This was a highpoint for socialism around the world - workers were both organised and had what appeared to be concrete examples of it being possible to defeat capitalism and construct socialism. Class struggle had broken out in many of the armies on both sides with significant mutines in both the French and British army.
The 1919 strike
As elsewhere in Ireland and indeed many parts of Europe the high point of working class radicalism in Belfast was in 1919. The director of Intelligence at the Home Office Basil Hugh Thomson wrote of this period in relation to Britain that "During the first three months of 1919 unrest touched its high-water mark. I do not think that at any time in history since the Bristol riots we have been so near revolution"(76) Sir Henry Wilson had walked out of a cabinet meeting in December 1918 when it "refused to consider that either that a state of war existed or that a Bolshevik rising was likely." (77)
The immediate issue of the 1919 strike was the length of the working week. During the war this had been pushed up and up until in some cases it was 65 hours. As the end of the war came in sight a movement for 44 hour week began in Belfast when on 21 August 1918 a rank and file meeting was organised by James Baird, James Freeland and Robert Weir (78) Such a shorter working week would not only be good for the workers themselves it would also open up jobs for demobilised soldiers and lessen the impact of the post war slump.
In Belfast those organizing for the 44-hour week carefully went out of their way to avoid being accused of being disloyal. On December 4th they called a meeting to be addressed by the election candidates. The meeting opened with the singing of the British national anthem 'God save the King' and James Baird introduced the meeting by saying its object was "to assist the workers apart altogether from politics, in obtaining short hours of labour". Neither Devlin nor any of the Sinn Fein candidates were present but Carson was and he spoke without of course really committing himself to anything, when the strike broke he would be part of the behind the scenes move to undermine it. (79)
With the employers only offering a 47-hour week the strike ballot was set for Tuesday 14 Jan 1919. At lunchtime some 30,000 workers marched into the city centre with banners reading "44 hours means no unemployment", "44 means work for demobilised soldiers", "47 be hanged we want 44" (80) 92% of workers voted against the employers offer of a 47 hour week. 97% voted for "drastic action in the way of an unofficial strike".
The strike was set for January 25th and on that day the shipyards and engineering plants in the town shut down. The electricity plant also closed down meaning that trams ground to a halt at 4pm and at midnight the gas works shut down.
Some 40,000 workers were directly involved in the strike and an additional 20,000 indirectly involved. At 3pm on that Saturday a General strike committee of 150 delegates met and elected a 15 strong district committee, which "was heavily protestant" although the president, Charles McKay may have, been a catholic. (81) It included the 3 organisers of the rank and file meeting the previous August.
On the Monday members of this committee met Belfast corporation who agreed in return for the resumption of electric power that only the hospital would be allowed to use power and not businesses or private homes. In this period only the homes of the rich would have had electric power. However some businesses broke this agreement and as a result a mob smashed their windows in. This resulted in the commissioner enrolling 300 strikers as special constables who "actively assisted in the protection of property in the central district of the city." (82)
The strike committee continued to try to demonstrate its loyalty in other ways. When three socialist agitators started to hold public meetings around Belfast the strike committee denounced them. All three were subsequently charged with unlawful assembly and sentenced to 6 months hard labour. When at the start of the 3rd week of the strike James Baird sent a letter to the Northern Whig in which "he advanced, without attribution, some of Connolly's ideas on industrial unionism, and portrayed the strike committee, somewhat romantically, as being engaged in a historic struggle for socialism" it appears he was removed from the strike committee. (83)
When the Glasgow strike which had started at the same time was crushed with the use of troops and machine guns were set up in the centre of Glasgow McKay the president of the Belfast committee presented Glasgow as "a warning to their men of the folly of unconsidered action". Solidarity was limited to a meeting of Belfast strikers calling for the release of the Glasgow arrestees. (84) When on Saturday 8 February Irish Labour Party and Trade Union Congress conference in Dublin offered "Moral and financial support" the Belfast strike committee declined to approach the national exec of the ILPTUC. (85) In turn it should be pointed out that the ILPTUC should have been aware that somewhat more than the sending of a letter would be required to overcome the divisions that had arisen between the northern and southern union movements!
Despite all these precautions and compromises the strike was still attacked as a Sinn Fein plot by the unionist establishment. The Belfast Newsletter of Saturday 25 January proclaimed "The threat to paralyze the public services of the city, if carried out, will rejoice the heart of Sinn Fein and will play most powerfully into its hands" and The Northern Whig claimed that members of the strike committee "spoke with accents not generally associated with the North of Ireland".
The Orange Order tried not to publicly appear to be taking sides for fear of losing influence in the protestant working class but a Grand Lodge document produced in the Belfast Weekly Telegraph on the 8th February claimed "the condition of affairs today had been to a great extent engineered by parties who are neither employers nor employed but have taken advantage of a trade dispute to attempt to bring discredit on the fair fame of Belfast" (86) Unionists also seem to have circulated leaflets claiming the strike was part of Sinn Fein plot to bring about an all-Ireland strike. On Monday 3rd February Col. Wallace the Belfast grandmaster of the Orange Order issued a manifesto described to Carson as designed "to get the decent men to secede from the Sinn Fein Bolshevik element." (87)
On the 7th February the Lord Lieutenant Lord French endorsed the view of GOC Northern command that the strike was organised by Bolsheviks and Sinn Feiners.(88) On Saturday 15 Feb a proclamation was published by the Lord Mayor and fully armed infantry with machine guns and armoured cars moved into gasworks and power station with full services being returned that Monday. The town employers announced they would open Tuesday 18 and the shipyards reopened on the 20th with 80% of workforce, the rest returning by the 24th. After a few short weeks the workers were defeated. (89)
Part of the significance of the way the strike was defeated was that the extreme lengths the strike committee had gone through to demonstrate their loyalty was in the end of the day no protection. Being really careful to not only appear neutral but actually pro-unionist neither protected the strike nor individual committee members.
Speaking after the expulsions of the following year John Hanna who had become the leader of the expelled workers described the protestant workers who were expelled as "the backbone of Trade Unionism in the North". Hannah had been an Orange Lodge master before becoming a syndicalist, he told the ILPTUC "During the strike for 44-hrs week the capitalist classes saw that the Belfast workers were one. That unity had to be broken, it was accomplished by appeals to the basest passions and intense bigotry." (90)
Carson signing the Solemn League and Covenenant on 'Ulster Day'
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (22 of 22)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22Down but not out, the last fling of Belfast radicalism
The militancy that had been born during the strike did not die immediately despite its defeat. On Mayday 1919 Belfast did not take part in the ILPTUC strike of 1st May, probably because it was called "to demonstrate the solidarity of workers and to reaffirm their adhesion to the principles of self-determination". But on Saturday 3rd May the trades council march was the biggest Labour demonstration in the cities history. The Independent Labour Party activists were prominent in the organisation of the demonstration. The Belfast Newsletter estimated 100,000 took part and attributed it to "a little band of disgruntled Red-Socialists .. who figured prominently in the strike". (91)
Sam Kyle believed the Belfast general strike "gave the biggest scare to the Tories they ever had, and probably led to the engineering pogrom of 1920." (92) That January the 1920 council election saw 35 ILP or trade union candidates taking 12 of the 60 seats in Belfast.(93) Sam Kyle who opposed partition topped the poll in the Shankill and in fact a majority of the 22 Belfast Labour Party candidates were anti-partition. (94)
Carson and the northern ruling class were facing a defeat for British imperialism in the south and a radicalized working class in the north. All the effort that had gone into creating a northern protestant nation in the last 40 years looked fragile in the face of class struggle. At a time when the War of Independence was intensifying in the south a large percentage of the protestant working class in Belfast was not only voting for socialist candidates but many of these candidates were known to be anti-partitionist.
The tactic the unionist elite fell back on was one that would be used again and again when faced with working class radicalism. A sectarian mobilization of the most reactionary elements of the protestant working class against both catholic workers and the progressive elements of the protestant working class.
The exact timing for the offensive was dictated by decades of tradition, July 12. Yet it did not occur in July of 1919 in the aftermath of the 44-hour strike and the 100,000 strong May Day parade. The election results of 1920 suggest that in July 1919 a large percentage of protestant workers still held radical ideas. Between that July and the next the war of independence escalated in the south. The unionist establishment was able to use the events of that war and in particular the support of the southern union movement for the nationalists to drive home the idea of the labour movement as little more than a nationalist plot. In some ways the ground had been prepared for them in the portrayal of protestant involvement in the radical democratic rebellion of 1798 as a foolishness in which they had been betrayed by the supposed catholic allies.
Loyalism re-imposed
On the 12 July 1920 Carson set events in motion by declaring that "these men who come forward posing as friends of Labour care no more about Labour that does the man on the moon. Their real object and the real insidious nature of their propaganda is that they mislead and bring disunity amongst our people."(95)
The 20 July was the first full day of work after the July holidays. Notices were posted for 'Protestant and Unionist' workers to meet outside the gates of the shipyard. "The call to drive out 'disloyal' workers was enthusiastically supported.. Sam Kyle later noted that the meeting was "at the shipyard .. though meetings have always been prohibited there .. this one was winked at by the authorities, whom must have known what was coming." (96)
At the end of the meeting hundreds of apprentices and rivet boys from Workman, Clark's marched into Harland & Wolff's yard and ordered out Catholics and socialists. Some were "kicked and beaten, others were pelted with rivets, and some were forced to swim for their lives". There were three days of rioting in the city in which 7 catholics and 6 protestants were killed. Catholics were "driven from the Sirocco Works, Mackie's, McLaughlin and Harvery's, Musgrave's and Combe Barbour's". (97)At the same time Loyalists attacked Catholic owned businesses and homes in Banbridge and Tramore and drove catholics out of mills and factories. The entire catholic population of both these towns was forced to flee.
The shipyard pogrom were followed by the unrolling of huge union jacks in the various workshops and the setting up of vigilance committees to prevent catholics or trade unionists getting back into the shipyards. One of the leaders of the pogramists Alex McKay who was also a UULA councillor for Bangor, while unfurling the largest union jack said "we are all Imperialists. And the reason we meet today is because we believe in imperial authority." (98) According to the Irish News Sir James Craig, at the time still a member of the British Government, was present at an unfurling in Harland and Wolff on the 14 October. He said "Do I approve of the action you boys have taken in the past?. I say yes." (99) Carson in parliament said "I am prouder of my friends in the shipyards than of any other friends I have in the whole world." (100)
A committee estimated 11,000 catholics had been expelled from work and very few were to get their jobs back in later years. Yet there was no contact between the ILPTUC and British TUC on combating the expulsions. In fact the TUC delayed action for months and its delegation to Belfast even criticised the ASCJ, the one union that tried to so something about the expulsions. The ASCJ had blacked the employers who refused to combat the expulsions and then expelled from the union the majority of ACSJ members who continued to work for these employers. (101)
The expulsions devastated the left and the union movement. James Baird said "Every man who was prominently known in the labour movement, who was known as an ILPer was expelled from his work". (102)
An ILPTUC report of 1921 showed that the workers who remained in the shipyards had seen a significant drop (12s) in wages in the shipyards after the pogroms (103) In the two years after the expulsions employment declined from 20,000 to 15,000 at Harland and Wolff and 7,000 to 1,800 at Workman Clarke's (104) If the pogramists had hoped to protect their jobs through their actions they failed.
Conventional left histories of the period often conclude by suggesting that if the republican movement had adopted a left wing program this history could have turned out differently. This alternative history however suffers from a failure to understand why the nationalist movement had moved in the 1880's to a promotion of mystical nationalism over radical republicanism. The nationalist movement of that decade was a movement that rejected a strategy of uniting workers and peasants around a radical program. Its program instead was one of submerging all class differences into the quite successful creation of a cultural nationalism based around 'traditional' values including Catholicism. It was not that it was unaware of a potential for workers unity, rather as we have seen it rejected that path and sections were very hostile to it, precisely because it would have undermined the nationalist all class alliance they sought to create.
If we step back from the specifics of the Irish situation this was part of the same process that saw republican movements across Europe divide on the question of what Freedom meant. Those that saw it in terms of radical democracy including the redistribution of property set up new working class organizations to fight for these demands. This included the anarchist movement. In most cases they didn't reject national liberation as a concept but rather insisted it must be subsidiary to the class struggle.
Those who saw Freedom as meaning the right of local capitalists to make decisions in the interests of the local economy (and themselves) constructed a movement hostile to the left based instead on cultural similarities within a given population. Inevitably this had a mystic tinge due to the need to construct a common history that would culminate in independence or in some cases fusion as the nationalism of this period included 'big nation nationalists' who argued for fusion. In that context the unionists were also nationalists, as one southern unionist argued in a 1912 letter to the Irish Times "The Unionist who thinks that the inhabitants of the two islands should be regarded as forming a single nation is, I think the true Nationalist. .. the name of Nationalist properly belongs to the man who recognises but one nation, and wishes to keep that nation whole and unimpared." (105)
Some, including James Connolly in Ireland, tried to stand on both sides of the socialist / nationalists divide simultaneously. They tried to convince the separatist nationalists that due to imperialism there was no room left for an independent capitalist nation to develop so that real nationalists should throw their lot in with the socialists. Although the nationalists were not convinced by this argument these left nationalists consoled themselves with the idea that the bulk of the mainstream nationalists would learn this lesson in the course of the independence struggle
Unfortunately in Ireland prior to world war one the left under the pressure of events simply divided into a small nation Irish nationalist faction, typified by James Connolly that was mostly based in the south and a big nation Unionist nationalist faction typified by William Walker that was based in Belfast. The weak attempt to overcome this in 1912 failed because it was simply based around a demand to change sides rather than an attempt to develop a new program.
There is a common anecdote in Ireland about a tourist driving in the countryside who gets lost and stops to ask a farmer for directions. On hearing where they want to go the farmer replied "Well if I was going there I wouldn't start from here". This was the problem of the left for much of Irish history, it found itself in a place where class struggle was frequently dominated by the national question and it never really developed either the program or the organization to deal with this. Again and again fragile workers unity won in times of relative quiet fractured as soon as the national question reared its head.
Anarchism contains no magic bullet to overcome that problem. Indeed there were anarchists in Dublin, at least in the 1880's. A Dublin branch of the Socialist League in formed in December 1885 shortly after Michael Gabriel, an anarchist, moved to the North Strand. However they failed to come up with a program on the national question, Fintan Lane writes that they "tried to stand above what was the primary political issue of their day". With the introduction of Gladstone's 1886 Bill they admitted in a report to the Socialist League in London that is was "extremely difficult just now to get people to think of anything but Home Rule". It collapsed in March 1887, this appears to be the last attempt at libertarian organisation in Ireland until the 1960's. (106)
The question of partition continues to divide the working class on the island and like it or not if we want to get to anarchism we have to start from here. In the 130 plus years that have passed since the collapse of the Socialist League no anarchist organization has produced a convincing map, indeed few have even been willing to try to go beyond a set of standard slogans. The most advanced attempt by far has been the work of my own organization, the Workers Solidarity Movement, but even this effort is considered by others on the left to merely reflect either the unionist or nationalist standpoint depending on where they place themselves.
I'd hope these articles in general and this one in particular aid in the debate amongst anarchists and those on the left about how to overcome the sectarian divisions in the working class on the island. These divisions flow from our shared history but that history is also the story of the struggles of ordinary workers overcoming for a time the divisions and opening a view of an alternative politics that promises freedom for all. Some 91 years after 1916 and 88 years after that Belfast Mayday the task of completing that struggle remains before us.
Andrew Flood
3rd May 2007
My other articles on the period
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75643
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75404
WSM position paper on partition
http://www.wsm.ie/story/804
1 The description of James Connolly as a syndicalist should be of no controversy given his writings, see 'The ideas of James Connolly' by Oisin Mac Giollamoir from Red & Black Revolution 8, online at http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr8/connolly.html
2 James Connolly, Labour In Irish History, Chapter II, The Jacobites and the Irish people, 1910, online at http://www.marxist.net/ireland/connolly/labour/lframe.h...2.htm
3 A History of Ulster, Jonathan Bardon, The Blackstaff Press, 1996, p355
4 A History of Ulster, p422
5 A History of Ulster, p367
6 The two Irelands:1912-1939, David Fitzpatrick, Oxford University Press, 1998, p18
7 A History of Ulster, p366
8 Freedom reports from this period archived at http://www.wsm.ie/story/1509
9 Fintan Lane, The Emergence of Modern Irish Socialism 1885-87, Red & Black Revolution 3, online at http://www.wsm.ie/story/1778
10 James Connolly 'A Full life', Donal Nevin, Gill & Macmillan, 2005, p52
11 Syndicalism in Ireland 1917 - 1923 Emmet O' Connor, Cork University press, 1988, p93
12 On another Man's Wound, Ernie O'Malley, p161, Colour Books Limited, 1936
13 Mags Glennon, "Against the Red Flag", Socialism and Irish Nationalism1830 - 1913, online at http://struggle.ws/cc1913/flag.html
14 Mags Glennon,
15 Conor Kostick, Revolution in Ireland: Popular militancy 1917 to 1923, Pluto Press, 1996, p10
16 Dividing Ireland: World War I and Partition, Thomas Hennessey, Routledge, 1998, p30
17 The two Irelands, p34
18 W.J. Brennan-Whitmore, Dublin burning; The Easter rising from Behind the Barricades, Gill & Macmillan, 1996, p30
19 James Connolly 'A Full life', p686
20 James Connolly 'A Full life', p688
21 Revolution in Ireland, p44
22 Labour and partition: The Belfast Working Class 1905 - 23, Austen Morgan, Pluto Press, p210
23 Labour and partition, p210
24 A History of Ulster, p459
25 Eoin O'Duffy - A Cautionary Tale, Irish Political Review, May 2006, online at http://www.geocities.com/irelandSCW/docs-ODMoR.htm
26 The Insurrection in Dublin, James R Stephens, 1916, p107
27 James Connolly 'A Full life', p66
28 James Connolly 'A Full life',p118
29 The two Irelands, p36
30 The two Irelands, p40
31 Revolution in Ireland, p8
32 A History of Ulster, p372
33 The two Irelands, p36
34 Labour and partition, p16
35 Labour and partition, p128
36 Labour and partition, p128
37 Labour and partition, p130
38 Labour and partition, p202
39 The two Irelands, p48
40 Labour and partition, p299
41 A History of Ulster, p417
42 Labour and partition, Preface, pxiv
43 Labour and partition, p61
44 This was an exchange of articles in 1911, see http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1911/connwalk/...x.htm
45 Labour and partition, p61
46 Labour and partition, p74
47 Labour and partition, p82
48 Labour and partition, p147
49 James Connolly 'A Full life', p149
50 The two Irelands, p64
51 James Connolly, Plea For Socialist Unity in Ireland, (1911) online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1911/connwalk/...y.htm
52 James Connolly 'A Full life', p435
53 Labour and partition, p36
54 Labour and partition, p33
55 Labour and partition, p37
56 Labour and partition, p38
57 Labour and partition, p54
58 Labour and partition, p56
59 Labour and partition, p94
60 Syndicalism in Ireland, p. 9
61 Syndicalism in Ireland, p 13
62 Labour and partition, p108
63 Labour and partition, p116
64 Labour and partition, p111
65 Syndicalism in Ireland, p. 12
66 Labour and partition, p118
67 Labour and partition, p118
68 Syndicalism in Ireland, p172
69 James Connolly 'A Full life', p395
70 James Connolly 'A Full life', p399
71 Peadar O'Donnell, Donal O' Drisceoil, Cork University Press, 2001, p14
72 Peadar O'Donnell, p15
73 James Connolly 'A Full life', p406
74 James Connolly 'A Full life', p410
75 A History of Ulster, p455
76 Revolution in Ireland, p55
77 Labour and partition, p237
78 Labour and partition, p230
79 Labour and partition, p231
80 Labour and partition, p231
81 Labour and partition, p233
82 Labour and partition, p235
83 Labour and partition, p235
84 Labour and partition, p237
85 Labour and partition p238
86 Revolution in Ireland, p60
87 Labour and partition, p239
88 Labour and partition, p244
89 Labour and partition, p244
90 Revolution in Ireland, p156
91 Labour and partition, p248
92 Revolution in Ireland, p154
93 Labour and partition, p250
94 Labour and partition, p259
95 Revolution in Ireland, p155
96 Revolution in Ireland, p155
97 A History of Ulster, , p472
98 Labour and partition, p276
99 Labour and partition, p277
100 Revolution in Ireland, p157
101 Labour and partition, p279
102 Labour and partition, p270
103 Revolution in Ireland, p157
104 Labour and partition, p269
105 Dividing Ireland, p9
106 Fintan Lane, The Emergence of Modern Irish Socialism 1885-87, Red & Black Revolution 3, online at http://www.wsm.ie/story/1778
Sorting out the land question
Land League Poster
Michael Davitt
"For this reason 1880's Ireland saw an explosion of cultural nationalism based around creating an image of an Irish nation that was catholic, peasant and Irish speaking. It sought to divide and exclude any other culture, for instance those who continued to play cricket, rugby or other 'foreign' games could not even join the G.A.A., the nationalist sports body. This movement was not confined to a few intellectuals. By 1906 the Gaelic League had 900 branches and 100,000 members.(15) The historian Thomas Hennessey argues that cultural nationalist leaders like D.P.Moran "succeeded in making cultural nationalism the dominant ideological force in Irish society between 1900 and 1906. He wrote that non-catholics who wished to throw in their lot with the Irish nation 'must recognise that the Irish nation is de facto a Catholic nation.'" (16)"
I would probably be a little less wary of the point you're attempting to make here if you could have at least made some reference to people like Dubhghlas de hÍde, Roger Casement and Sam Maguire. De hÍde was more of a cultural nationalist than political nationalist, but it's disingenuous to infer that they were all raving catholics. Also, it doesn't do you any favours to use a notorious revisionist like Hennessey as a source on this issue.
"As with republicans elsewhere in Europe, nationalists reacted to the rise of radical working class movements by retreating into a mystical nationalism that sought to deny class differences beneath the fiction of a common nation united by culture and an ancient history. The earlier Irish republican movement of the 1790's was built as part of a common international movement with links to radical British republicans like the United Englishmen."
The United Irish movement certainly was inspired by an internationalist spirit. Consider Tone's statement though that his means were to "substitute the common name of Irishman in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter".
That's a blatantly nationalist statement if ever there was one. However there's nothing to stipulate that nationalism and internationalism are necessarily mutually exclusive or antagonistic. To quote the Gaelic socialist Pádraic Ó Conaire: "Seasfaidh an mórchumann atá i gceist agam ar a bhonnacha féin, ach go cabhróidh sé agus go ndéanfaidh sé bráithreachas leis an lucht oibre i ngach tír, agus é féin a bheith neamhspleách ar gach dream. Tá an bráithreachas agus an idirnáisiúntacht seo ann cheana... Cuireann caint faoi idirnáisiúntacht eagla ar chuid dár muintir faoi láthair, ach ní call dóibh a bheith faiteach. Caithfidh an dá rud a bheith ann, an náisiúntacht agus an idirnáisiúntacht, agus ní chuireann siad isteach ar a chéile ar aon bhealach." ("Cumannachas Ceard san Am le Teacht", pp 150-3, Aistí Phádraic Uí Chonaire, ed. Gearóid Denvir)
This is a very interesting and informative article. Just one point regarding the use of the Irish language. Some additional information. As late as 1912 Gaelic was commonly used by Protestants. During the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant two large slogans were displayed outside the Ulster Hall in Belfast - 'Erin Go Bragh' and 'God Save the King'.
On the 1919 Belfast May Day march there were banners proclaiming support for socialist Russia and the gains of the revolution.
You can also read about this period of our history by going to the following webpage were you can download the Socialist Party pamphlet written in the 1980s called Divide and Rule.
http://socialistalternative.org/literature/dandr/
I was lucky to catch this just after you published it yesterday and with no small delight downloaded it and switched off the internet and read it all from top to bottom several times. I was really impressed at the timing of the last installments and had wondered when would the next appear. It's been well worth the wait, in fact your very good timing has to be commented on.
Thank You. twice over! - for - "very good writing & very good timing".
First off thanks for the feedback although my 'good timing' is more to do with my need to impose a deadline to force me to finally publish than anything else! This last piece was the most difficult of the three to decide.
"Mystical" Nationalist's comments suggests to me that she has scan read the article and reacted to a section without really understanding the context. Also I'm afraid their closing quote is a bit beyond the cupla focal that I left school with - if anyone with a bit more Irish can understand it they might translate it if it seems relevent. In the meantime I'll try and explain what I think "Mystical" Nationalist has missed.
My object here was to try and understand why the massive workers movements of 1919 in the north and south never linked up but also why there was almost no real opposition from the nationalists to partition outside of the counter-productive military campaign at the end of the war of independence. Likewise in terms of the southern trade union leadership its clear that by 1916 to all intents and purposes they have already accepted partition not just of the island but also of the working class. Conventional left or left republican histories don't deal with this very well, partition is seen as something simply imposed by Britain in line with the needs of northern capitalism. This explains a little but dopesn't really explain how 1/3 of the protestant population of Ulster could be mobilised - to the point of rebellion - against Home Rule in 1912. Hence the title 'The missing north?' (I forgot the question mark while posting here) which was the working title I started with and decided to include.
My interest really started when I was researching my 1798 article- http://www.struggle.ws/rbr/rbr4_1798.html - and realised that the United irishmen has some surprizingly radical ideas about how society could be run but that the nationalist movement of the 1880's and 1890's in celebrating the insurrection had delibretly buried these ideas. An example was the transformation of the portraits of Edward Fitzgerald so that the original red necktie (which in the 1790's signified support for the execution of the King during the French revolution) was painted white. And the fact that he once more became 'Lord' Edward Fitzgerald despite the fact that as a radical democrat he had dropped his title.
The other interesting aspect of that rebellion was the massive role played by protestants not just in the leadership of the United Irishmen but also in the battles in Antrim and Down. Obviously this was not the case in 1916 and I wondered why, the conventional explanation of radical protestants being fooled by the unionist rewriting of the rebellion as consisting of sectarian massacres in the south was unconvincing because it didn't take much investigation to discover that this was largely spin. So what had happened between 1798 and 1916 to strip much of the radical politics of nationalism on the one had and alienate radical northern protestants on the other. We know they were still there, the 100,000 on the Mayday march in 1919 demonstrates this as does the 1920 election result and the 1919 44-hr week strike.
It soon becomes obvious that there are not in fact two seperate questions here, but that the answer to one helps determine the answer to the other. And that what happened was not in some way unique to Ireland but was the Irish version of the process that happened in European republicanism between the revolutions of 1848 and the Paris Commune. That is a retreat into mystical (or cultural) nationalism in the face of the advance of an increasingly organised labouring classes. This becomes most visible with the Paris Commune when the bourgeois nationalists literally massacre the radical republicans while under occupation by a foreign power.
In Ireland the process is quite easy to find once you look for it although initially it is so much at odds with the history that we were taught in school that it seems ludicrous. The period opens with the struggles of the Land League uniting the radical factions of orange and green demonstrating that the approach of the 1790's would still have been viable. But instead the nationalist movement embarks on a path that makes it increasingly difficult to build class unity. The core argument here is not that the United Irishmen were not nationalists - that would be silly. It is that unlike the United Irishmen the nationalist movement of the 1880's on choose to build unity not around radical democracy but a cultural nationalism that as a requirement for unity excluded 20% of the population of the island.
If you put partition to one side - and you should because it was a forseeable outcome of that strategy - then the nationalists were successful in their own terms. Over 60 years they built an increasingly homogenous all class alliance that in the end forced British withdrawal. If your motivation is primarily nationalist there is not much to fault in this victory apart from its more or less inevitable cost, partition. And the Dail treaty debates suggest that much at it might be denied later that cost was accepted at the time. If however your a socialist then the equation is a lot more tricky because of the way the working class movement was divided as part of this strategy and the reactionary nature of the northern and southern states that emerged.
You choose to put this as "Nationalism's bad, m'kay" and while the question is put in such a crude manner by those on both sides the purpose of this piece was to try and move beyond such a crude analysis to the reasons as outline above why history developed in the manner it did. Not for any abstract reason - my primary interest is in building a mass radical democratice movement today capable of organising across the whole island and the entire working class. How this might be done can perhaps become clearer as we unpick the assumptions of 'history' as taught by the state but also by the republican left.
Thanks to indymedia.ie for featuring the article. But at the moment in the listing of my older articles both the Neither Orange nor Green and Troops Out! links line to the 'Neither Orange nor Green' article. I'm guessing the 'Troops Out' was intended to link to http://www.struggle.ws/ws94/troops43.html
Some additional articles of mine that are relevent to this piece include
Bakunin's idea of revolution & revolutionary organisation
More on the development of anarchism out of left republicanism in Europe
http://www.struggle.ws/rbr/rbr6/bakunin.html
Globalisation: the end of the age of imperialism?
Looks at the continued relevancy of imperialism in the age of globalisation
http://www.struggle.ws/ws99/imperialism58.html
Peace deal offers sectarian war or sectarian peace (WS54, June 1998)
Can this agreement get to the root of the sectarian problem and deal with the hatreds, fears and suspicions that have bedevilled our country?
http://www.struggle.ws/ws98/WS54_deal.html
There are additional articles and translations of some of those listed above into other languages at
No mention of Churchill and that seminal event in Ulsters history , playing the orange card and his mass mobilisation of empire loyalism and bigotry in the 19th century, appalling that this be left out of an analysis on the rise and even cementing of division in the north . But not surprising when your attempting to blame Irish nationalists rather than the British for sectarianism and division in Ireland . Not a mention of the fact Ireland was occupied by Britain , the manner of the occupation and how deliberate and methodical British policies of divide and rule directly contributed to division . And no distinction either between republican seperatists and constitutional nationalists ,appalling . Pearse dismissed as a "gaelic mystic" who "proclaimed himself president of Ireland " ?
Balls Andrew !!! .
The provisional government of Ireland elected him to that position , but its handy as a pointer to see where Andrew Flood is coming from . That there was no Irish nation or concept of nationhood prior to the 19th century , that such a concept was artificial - this is often the justification for imperialist and colonialist ventures throughout the world and handy for an attack on the notion of Irish sovereignty . Socialist writers such as Fanon and Sartre , particularly Fanon have pointed to this colonial trait . We were never a nation , we made it up , therefore the occupation of that nation isnt an issue . Certainly not in this analysis.
While the starvation of the 1840s is mentioned , described falsely by Andrew as a famine , the genocidal death toll and emptying of the land isnt . Cultural nationalism in the aftermath of the near annihilation of a nation and its language is dismissed as catholic supremacism rather than a necessary attempt at national revival by a pretty much devastated nation. Other posters have touched upon the fact that those most prominent in this cultural revival were themselves protestant . Missing from Andrews analysis , almost unbelievably , is the catholic churches outright hostility to the language movement as well as a succession of speratist movements in the 19th century ( hell not hot enough , eternity not long enough) . But thts presumably because they arent helpful to the attack on republican seperatism
Im sorry , what I see here is almost justification for the union with Britain from a european metropolitan and in parts even bourgeois perspective . William Martin Murphy and the pre 1916 monarchist Sinn Fein are analysed on a par with the seperatist Pearse and Connolly with no distinction in their politics . Neither sinn fein nor Murphy played any role in 1916 , not even as cheerleaders . Nothing they did remotely contributed to or encouraged insurrection , save perhaps inadvertantly inflaming it by their servility. MacDiarmada described constitutional nationalists as the most degenerate leadership the Irish people had ever produced , there was a chasm between the seperatist analysis and the constitutional analysis ,evidenced in Pearses address on the sovereign people .
Theres a great deal of dishonesty in this analysis Im afraid . If we follow andrews logic then socialism is to blame for its failure to entice the contras of Nicaragua rather than a foreign military and political class propping them up financially , politically and militarily. Socialism surely cant be to blame for the failure of Hugo Chavez governemnt to win round the descendants of Spanish colonists to participate in a national democracy ? Was the coup the fault of the left or the fault of foreign meddling and imperialists sowing the seeds of division ?
Irelands history has been written from a constitutional nationalist and counter revolutionary perspective not from a seperatist one, as history is generally written by the winners . That the north should be written out of the history of a state that wrote the north out of the Irish nations existance is hardly surprising . Whats dismal and depressing is that elements among Irelands left still today seek to dismiss the role of national sovereignty as a progressive element within Irish revolutionary politics . To dismiss the importance of national sovereignty and national consciousness in the face of colonialism , occupation and imperialism in this country is absurd . We cannot as colonised and occupied people adopt the norms of the metropolitan left in modern Europe , their solutions are not our solutions . We are not "the Europeans" , we are still the natives . Its in our nations sovereingty and national consciousness that movement for progressive revolutionary politics in this country will derive itself from . One cannot ignore the occupation , its manner and the political effects of the violation of Irish national sovereignty by pretending either there is no Irish nation to occupy , that there is no occupation or that national sovereignty is irrelevant to a colonial/post colonial society . Sovereignty and national consciousness are integral to the solution , they are not the problem in the first place as this article alludes to . .
I thanked Andrew up the page (anonymously) for this very good article. It's good to see Barry join the debate Andrew invited of all anarchists and leftists. It shows the debate is already happening in circles beyond those of the anarchosyndicalists. I welcome this class based analysis of Irish nationalism in the years which led up to partition of the island. It is an analysis which has long been needed. It can often be difficult for internationalist socialists (as anarchists are) to reconcile their political analysis of root causes of conflict and injustice with those presented by nationalists. One in is an intellectual and philosophically based analysis the other is a heart felt passion which puts patria and love of nation to the centre. I concur with almost everything Andrew has written and in the last years have expressed many of his ideas but with notably less precision or academic style. One of the points made above which excited Barry's response was the reference to blood sacrifice and the words of Pearse. I remember ruefully the reactions on this newswire when I expressed my opinion that 1916 was by documentary proof (the very text of the proclamation) an early 20th century equivalent of a suicide bomber's jihadist video who appeals for an islamic caliphate today. But that interpretation divides and will continue to divide those on the left in Ireland. Too many people read it as an insult to the memory of those who did die in martyrdom so that Ireland would become an independent and sovreign republic.
Of course Ireland didn't become that. We've all noticed that - haven't we?
So of course we need a debate on the left, such as that Andrew has written a core text for - on the question how do we go about re-uniting in common cause the poorest of this island. That is not a European metropolitan justification of British imperialism either in the form represent by Randolph Churchill and son Winston in the period discussed above (1880-1920) or its late "post-imperialist neo-colonialist" period - which is now. The empire which ruled Africa and Scotland, Ireland and Hong Kong with remarkable ideological and cultural consistency is not the super-national structure we treat upon on combatting today.
The much more famous Winston was a rebel son of Randolph. Randolph in my opinion had little idea of how his propaganda visit to Ireland would be seen generations later. The real split (in my opinion between visions of the Irish ruling class on nation began with the Carson / Wilde trial). Winston was clearly a rebel amongst his peers - amongst other things which I may offer as evidence was his lifelong habit of wearing pink silk underwear & particulary dismal reports at school followed by "nothing in particular". His presence as a journalist in the Boer war (where I maintain most of the roots of the Irish rebellion of 1916 are still to be uncovered and assessed properly) also demonstrates his "rebellion" against his family's class & their wishes for him. Perhaps he inherited as much of his father's dynasty the dukes of Marlborough as his mother's Vanderbiltd American arrivista "biollionaire" pragmatism. If Chamberlain had not given Hitler carte blanche to blitzkrieg Europe - we would not today know the name of any Churchill. & I wouldn't have seen an ex-brit soldier serve 6 months for tagging his statue in London during a RTS! event with pro-Kurdish graffiti. I'd go further and suggest such very keen awareness of his own class never saw him in the same terms as the English (& beyond) masses caused him to reject the dukedom offered him by the Queen for "saving the Balmorel and Windsor from Hitler and putting on a chairman mao suit.
As it was - the Ireland of the period (1880-1920) was not the nation we believe it was. Nor had it much in common with any class system we think we would recognise. The forces which saw Winston shunned by others (yet always found good jobs) and led him to change parties were the same forces that saw millions of the ruling class of the British Empire quite thoughtlessly sacrifice themselves and "their men" for duty and crown in the 4 year slaughter of World War One. Their world and values were utterly different to our own today. & never let us forget that.
I propose Randolph had no inkling that the process of Ulster unionism would end in partition. I propose the eventual emergence of the IRB as much as the ending of the Irish Home Rule party or for that matter the 1914 war would have been quite unthinkable for him. I equally propose that neither he nor many other prominent figures on the Irish national stage at that time (excluding the IRB or UVF) had any notion of class consciousness; either of their own "born for duty and only name" or of the people who beat their heather and sold them their daughters for a farthing. Yes, certainly they knew they were on top of the heap, under the crown and had been buggered senseless at school. But they had no consciousness of what that meant. We have no art or writing from that generation to reflect such an awareness. It is one of the reason Orwell and Huxley were so remarkable. I don't think many people in Ireland took Randolph seriously either. He was an entertaining visitor whose gurgling pronouncements were probably taken as seriously as Ronald Reagan's speeches at Ballyporeen. Why else was he and his wife pelted with rotton vegetables as they boarded the boat home? Exactly the same treatment afforded the Chartists with their social theories 2 generations before when they tried to elbow in on O'Connells progress realising before most he was succeeding - not because he had a loud enough voice to speak to a million people - but because his chinese whispers began in the English language.
Ireland is more than flag or the winsome and hobbled reality of partition. If it were not, then surely after more than decade away from the place - I with all my internationalist ideas and passion would have lost that love which is the love of home and weather, geography and smell which is really what patria is about. But patria needs an enemy. Republicans need a crown. Masons need a pope. Muslims need Jews. To keep them "happily unhappy". As I publish this comment, young people of France are burning cars. They are doing so because a woman born in Senegal lost the presidential election (they didn't vote in) by less than 1% to a man who is the son of immigrants. Odd isn't it?
I look forward to reading someone else's contribution to this debate "on how we re-unite the poorest of this island regardless of which Irish nation set up their health care and fire brigade".
Because there's nothing else worthy of comment & exercise of our powerful intellects going on at the moment. I know I checked http://www.politics.ie & all they're going on about is how to help opinion pollsters fix an election in a state none of us would like to recognise. Leave them to it - I say.
Barry you are of course right that there is much left out of this piece just as there was much left out of the two earlier essays. As I think should have been clear from the 3 together I pretty much assume a 'bad attitude' and manipulation on behalf of the British state. That (divide and rule etc) is after all is what imperialist powers do and was not so much interested in a discussion with the few nuts on indymedia.ie who think imperialism is a good thing. At least in terms of history as taught in southern schools Randolph Churchill playing the Orange card is an accepted fact as is the Curragh mutiny so I choose not to repeat these.
What should be of interest to radicals today is not that the British state used the tactics that we might have expected an imperialist power to use. It is that these tactics succeeded. And beyond that they were almost unopposed by republicans. Choices were made and it is the choices made by Irish radicals that shaped the present as well as the manipulations of empire. This is the story I was interested in telling and I do not apologise that it is a much more difficult story.
You can't talk about imperialist ruling classes and the Churchills and Irish class consciousness & then get the family trees wrong. Randolph Churchill's ma was an American Vanderbilt - they needed her money to pay for the roofing on Bleinham palace (their nest)- and she was pretty enough too which got her past being called common. Winston Churchill's ma was daughter of a Wall street "king" and cousin of the Roosevelts. (both Teddy and FD Roosevelt presidents of the USA). He was a closer cousin to FDR than Teddy so it wasn't all sewn up. Like put it this way - he wan't related to Stalin so Yalta wasn't a family affair. I sometimes think in a sloppy way that Churchill (who is overplayed just for being on telly during mr Hitler) did a Bush junior "daddy complex" on Ireland with the partition and dreary steeples thing. Ireland since partition has never had to deal with heriditary political or cultural influence. You won't see the same names popping up all over Easons here. That's because we don't have titles beyond uachtaran. The first thing about building working class consciousness is not talking about them in the third person.
We work. When we don't work : we're in precarity. Give us enough time on precarity and the more adventurous of us end up in jail and the more average of us just fade away with our shorter than theirs' lifespans & our deep fried italian healthy food options lifestyle. The only progress our geneology has made in the last century is women's votes or migration. In our case and the debate above - migration to and from this island. If an editor could add this comment to my last one it would make the page neater and thus help re-unite Ireland's proletariat as well as give our morale and esteem a boost. Or even just leave my mistaken geneological references to the Churchill's as it is and my reputation as bullshiter intact.
Write more Andrew please! I'm sincerely amazed how much I agree with you & have pined to read these thoughts expressed so clearly and soberly. I'd risk being barred from the pub to ask you to continue!
How about an article on the contribution of William Thompson and his collaboration with Anna Doyle Wheeler? Or Davitt's thinking on public ownership of land?
I've long believed that an alternative view of Irish history would have to include socialism. To listen to the nationalists (and the revisionists) you'd think any poor cottier or small farmer or linen-worker who hadn't read Marx couldn't be counted as a socialist. (Linebaugh and Rediker's The Many Headed Hydra puts paid to that idea.) What do they think people talked about during all that patronisingly-named 'agrarian unrest' – Mother Ireland? They talked about land-distribution, poverty, the class system, freedom of expression, freedom of association, solidarity, etc. That they hadn't read Marx or Bakunin is irrelevant. They hadn't read Mill or Adam Smith either, but people have no hesitation claiming them for the Right.
William we have a Thompson page on the WSM site at http://www.wsm.ie/thompson which is well as carry lengthy extracts of his writings also includes an mp3 file of a talk about him given at the recent Dublin anarchist bookfair. I certainly agree that a detailed anarchist examination of the Land League would be very interesting, already on the WSM site are a number of articles published in the London anarchist paper 'Freedom' during the Land League struggle, it appears they either had or sent a correspondent to Ireland. See http://www.wsm.ie/story/1509
In which part of Offaly is Burr?
.
randolph Churchill played the orange card in the 19th century. In the 20th century, Winston arrived in Belfast circa 1912 to tell people that there was to be home rule, like it or lump it, which is why he was a destested figure among loyalists.
Which Churchill was Barry referring to?
Oh, by the way, my "people's government" has just elected me as president of Ireland. So in future, when history is told, both Pearse and myself will be referred to as the president.
I suggest you go back and read my comment again as it clearly refers to the 19th century . As regards your peoples governemnt electing you president congratulations .
Let me again congratulate you on the quality of your writing and depth of research , if only everyone on Indymedia was so diligent in their presentations . But let me again point out the flaws from my perspective . Ive no problem at all with your view that the full history of these events has been hidden , obscured and manipulated . I agree fully that Irelands history cannot be analysed on a serious basis by ignoring the history of social unrest and Irish reaction to the economic aspects of imperism as well as its purely territorial .
But this struggle for economic control of their own affairs cannot in turn be divorced from any other aspect of the struggle for national sovereignty , whether cultural or terroitorial . The major flaws in your article are that you present the 1798 events as mainly protestant led and the 1916 events as mainly catholic led, with precious little analysis of the developments within republican seperatism in between and basically no analysis of Britains role in creating and cementing sectarian division on the island . I dont agree that Britains role in creating and cementing division accross the board has ever been fully understood , therefore it cannot be ignored . There is still much disagreemnt even on whether a deliberate policy of collusion happened in this country , never mind why .
The crucial ideological and indeed chronological link between 1798 and Emmett and the 1916 leaders , the protestant led Young Ireland Movement of the 1840s is absent from your analysis . With this crucial aspect and ideological link missing you then go on to address solely the issue of "nationalism" , blaming it for sectarian division and republican seperatisms failure to complete its objective, without any attempt to address the fundamental difference between "constitutional" nationalism ( a form of politics rooted in and confined within the political straitjacket of a British constitution , politics ultimately shaped and determined by British interests , the practice of British politics in Ireland) and republican seperatism , the politics of Irish sovereignty . You seem completely unable to address or analyse the concept of sovereignty in all its forms as the crucial difference between the 2 distinctly seperate political ideologies . No doubt youd feel I was being deliberately offensive and innacurate to lump yourself in amongst The stickies , BICO, The Labour party etc and describe you all collectively as "the socialists" . Your collective labelling of republican seperatists and constitutional nationalists as "the nationalists" is no different and just as flawed and inaccurate an analysis .
Sovereignty was not and is not a plank of the constitutional nationalist analysis , sovereignty was and is the central ideological plank of republican seperatism . The derogation from the politics of sovereignty by those within the republican seperatist camp has nothing to do with the failures of "nationalism" .In recent decades it was even justified by rejection of nationalism ,reference to Marx , Mao , stages theories , rejection of sectarianism etc . And the political and military structures those derogations from sovereignty ended up propping up were the very same structures constitutional nationalists were propping up , the barriers to Irish sovereignty . Republican seperatisms achilles heel has always been its fundamentally undemocratic internal structures , not its nationalism . Every last derogation within republican seperatism from the politics of sovereignty towards the politics of a British constitution has always come from the top of the structure and never the grass roots of the nationalist movement . It was the fate of the grass roots to be co-erced , threatened , corralled , exiled , imprisoned, whipped and beaten, shot and hung , bamboozled and confused , hence the flawed historical anlysis taught in our schools . The politics , essays and manifestoes of Pearse and Connolly are not taught in our schools just as those histories of of the agrarian and indistrial disputes are mssing too . The confusion mongers , executioners and dictators have alternatively used catholicism , loyalty to the state , non sectarian Marxism and undermining the state from within as justificiation for their derogations from national sovereignty and the supression of dissent from their various imposed and undemocratic programmes .
Your assertion that rejection of foreign sports by people like the gaelic league (protestant led) was something aimed at a purely catholic audience that was designed to alienate protestants is also deeply flawed . This assertion is written from a current GFA perspective , which i described as thoroughly bourgeouis and metropolitan in outlook . The rejection of foreign sports was a rejection of cultural imperialism , just as the banning of members of the constabulary and crown forces from gaelic games was a rejection of military imperialism and the armed wings of British rule in Ireland . The society in which this occured was one in which thousands upon thousands of Irish catholics as well as protestants were happily propping up the British administration in all its forms , catholics being the mainstay of the rotten British constabulary ,proudly partaking in imperialist expolits throughout the world as part of a British army , lining the streets and railway embankments in their millions to cheer a foreign monarch and becoming thoroughly British in outlook and practice . It was a society in which a nation had almost completely abandoned and forgotten its own language iin the space of a few decades . At the urging of the catholic church and constitutional nationalism the vast majority of the national population ( what was left of it) had substituted a foreign language for their own within the space of a single generation , an utterly cataclysmic turn of events . This dramatic shift in something so fundamental as not just changing your everyday language but forgetting how or point blank refusing to speak your own in such a dramatically short period plays no part in your analysis of the social undercurrents at play . Rejection of foreign games and the promotion of the national language was a serious act of rebellion , a direct challenge to the British authorities and a fundamental rejection of their system in Ireland . It was not done to alienate protestants as the current revisionist agenda dictates , but sadly it seems from your comments that type of bourgeois and revisionist thinking plays some role at least in your analysis .
The importance again of the mainly protestant led Young Ireland Movement in the subsequent developments within republican seperatism is again missing from your analysis when it is needed . It was from within this radical and progressive school of thought that the importance of a sovereign Irish republic being a gaelic speaking one originated alongside the radical politics of economic sovereignty as articulated by Fintan Lalor
Ill refer you to this essay analysing the role within republican seperatist history of the Young Ireland Movement and its interpretation by Pearse and Connolly
"" The Young Irelanders are an important grouping , historically and politically , when analysing the ideological motivations of the 1916 insurgents . Two of the leading ideologues of the Easter Rising , Padraig Mac Piarais and James Connolly were deeply influenced by the Young Ireland movement ; Pearse by Thomas Davis and Connolly by James Fintan Lalor . Its therefore not intended here to present to the reader a chronological account of the events of Easter week in Dublin in 1916 . Republicans are well conversant with that epic period in Irish history . Instead we will outline the ideological motivation of the men and women who partook in the insurgency by examining the political philosophies of Pearse and Connolly , identifying the political and economic systems which they confronted and sought to overthrow . We will assess the relevance of their teachings to the Ireland of today and measure the present day strength of the enemies they faced and their continuing influence on Irish society .
It is claimed by many historians and political scientists that when Pearse read out the Proclamation of the Irish Republic in front of the GPO that he drew into the light of day not a single strain of Irish republicanism but the entire tapestry of Irish traditions ; social radicalism in the person of Connolly ; the conspiratorial dedication to physical force personified in the old Fenian , Tom Clarke and the romantic Ireland of the cultural nationalists as represented by Pearse himself , Joseph Plunkett and Tomás Mac Donagh .The various ideological threads threads which permeate the 1916 proclamation trace their roots back to the Young Irelanders and the teachings of Thomas Davis , Fintan Lalor and John Mitchell .
In his pamphlet entitled “ The Sovereign People” Pearse referred to Theobald Wolfe Tone , Davis , Lalor and Mitchell as “the four evangelists” of Irish republicanism . He wrote :
“ Tone is the intellectual ancestor of the whole modern movement of Irish nationalism , of Davis, Lalor , Mitchell and their followers . Davis is the immediate ancestor of the spiritual and imaginative part of the movement , embodied in our day in the Gaelic League . Lalor is the immediate ancestor of the specifically democratic part of the movement embodied today in the more virile labour organisations . Mitchell is the immediate ancestor of Fenianism , the noblest and most terrible manifestation of this unconquered nation”
From the time of the French Revolution , the ideal of an Irish Republic , asserting the principles of Liberty , Equality and Fraternity had motivated generations of young Irish hearts and minds . The writings of many of their leaders reveal what their ultimate objective was - “ Separation from England and her establishment as an independent Republic ” was Tones final ideal for Ireland . “ Our object is to establish a free and independent Republic in Ireland” declared Robert Emmets’ manifesto in 1803 .
“ Freedom can but take one shape among us - a Republic” - Thomas Devin O’Reilly , one of the revolutionaries of 1848 affirmed , and John Mitchell wrote in his Jail Journal “ I have made sure the struggle will become a republican one in the long run” .
The men who led the Young Ireland Movement were a band of gifted and devoted Irish men . They came mainly from a Protestant middle class background . They were very unfortunate in their revolutionary endeavours . Thomas Davis died at the critical moment of preparation . John Mitchell was convicted of treason felony and transported to a penal colony for 14 years . The small armed force led out by Smith O’Brien and Francis Meagher was broken at the first encounter . Their effort failed however , as Tones had failed and Emmets had failed, but it served like theirs as a symbolic gesture and protest . It left a memory , a legacy and literature which never ceased to influence the thoughts of the nation . And it left the Tricolour , the flag of green , white and orange presented to the Young Irelanders by the Republicans of France . It was the survivors of the struggle of 1848 who formed the Irish Republican Brotherhood , led by John O’Mahoney in the United States of America in 1858 . The centre of the IRB organisation remained in the US .It was supported by a large , powerful and virulently anti-British organisation , the Irish American Clan na nGael . James Stephens , in exile since 1848 was entrusted with the task of coming to Ireland , organising the Republican Brotherhood and preparing for a Rising . Among his first comrades was Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa . The strongly anti- British mindset of the IRB was hardly surprising given the historical background and geographical location of its evolution - the Irish communities in the United States in the aftermath of the genocidal Ocras Mhór of 1846-51 . These were people whose personal experiences and abiding memories of the British imperialist ethos and system were horrific in the extreme . They were determined that , despite the overwhelming power of the foe they faced , they would content themselves with nothing less than a sovereign , independent Irish Republic .......
.....And should they have been successful in their struggle what model of state , what type of society did these revolutionaries envisage for their new independent Ireland ? In response Pearse asserts the aims and ideals of the four evangelists ;
“ Whereas Tone had accepted Ireland must be free , Davis , accepting that and developing it , stated the truth in its spiritual aspect , that Ireland must be herself ; not merely a free self governing state but authentically the Irish nation , bearing all the majestic marks of her nationhood . That the nation may live , the Irish life , both the inner life and the outer life must be conserved . Hence the language which is the main repository of the Irish life , the folklore , the literature , the music , the art, the social customs must be conserved “
As Davis had also stated “ A people without a language of its own is only half a nation . A nation should guard its language more than its territories - tis a surer barrier , and more important frontier than fortress or river”
Therefore the Ireland that they envisaged would be “ Ní ach saor amhain , ach Gaelic chomh maith , ní ach Gaelic amhain ach saor chomh maith”
In the Sovereign People written in March 1916 Pearse dealt with Lalor and Mitchell and their social attitudes “ The nations Sovereignty extends not only to all the men and women of the nation but to all the material possessions of the nation , the nations soil and all its resources , all its wealth and all wealth producing processes within in the nation . In other words no private right to property is good against the public right and welfare of the nation” .
Although Pearse embraced no coherent socialist doctrine we can detect a distinct sharp move to the left in his speeches and writings in the period from 1913 to the outbreak of the Rising . He fully supported the Dublin working class in their struggle against the noxious William Martin Murphy and the employers during the Lock-Out . He was appalled at the conditions in which the workers were obliged to toil and the poverty and squalor they and their families had to endure in their daily lives . The brutality meted out to them by the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary angered him deeply . He was determined , that in the Ireland he envisaged , the nations rulers would be truly representative of all the people , not just one dominant class and he asserted that ;
“ It is , in fact, true that the repositories of the Irish tradition , as well as the spiritual tradition of nationality as the kindred tradition of stubborn physical resistance to England have been the great , splendid, faithful common people - that dumb multitudinous throng which sorrowed through the penal night, which bled in 98, which starved in the Famine , and which is here still - what is left of it - unbought and unterrified . Let no man be mistaken as to who will be Lord in Ireland when Ireland is free . The people will be Lord and master”
Fintan Lalor was Pearses’ acknowleged inspiration when he wrote these words, as he also inspired Connolly . A favourite extract from Lalors writings which appealed to both patriots was the passage where he outlined his plans and stated that he sought - “Not to repeal the Union, then, but the conquest - not to disturb and dismantle the empire , but to abolish it forever. Not to resume or restore an old constitution, but to found a new nation and to raise up a free people , and strong as well as free, and secure as well as strong , based on a peasantry rooted like rocks in the soil of their land”
http://www.national1916.com/1916.html
. The abandonment and suppression of the Irish language was driven by the forces of constitutional nationalism , O'Connell and the Catholic church as well as Orangism . It was alongside their onslaught that the orange order followed suit and removed the Irish language from its banners . Both political schools , competing for dominance and British patronage within the British constitituion acted as the very same agent of social control , . The Irish language and gaelic games were seen and used by seperatists as a means of uniting both protestant and catholic in a new and vigorous sovereign nation , not as an instrument of division or to corrall and seperate both religious traditions . Language and custom was viewed as an essential element of sovereignty equal to economic sovereignty . Just as Connolly had pointed out there was no point in hoisting a green flag if England was to rule through her bankers , England could just as easily rule through her cultural imperialism as well as economic . Just because Bakunin , Trotsky or Lenin didnt address this as an essential requirement of a social and national revolution doesnt mean it isnt relevant . The language and cultural aspects of the national movemnt were not there in any manner to promote sectarianism . They were there as an essential element of the attainment and defence of our national sovereignty . Unfortunately your analysis of this element of the history of the period owes more to that of todays metropolitan and bourgeois revisionsists .
Your criticisms of nationalisms determination to overcome Orange and pro imperialist resistance to national democracy by use of armed force as sectarian frankly baffles me also . When faced with a town or region in Spain or Russia that remained true to their religious faith and took up arms against their democratically elected national governemnt I dont remember POUM or the Boslheviks being of the opinion that they should sit down and discuss the matter . Machine guns and artillery was more in line with their resolution of the problem of a facist and capitalist led municipality undermining the concept of a national democracy . Why is it sectarian in Ireland or even an aspect of "nationalism" ?
Barry a lot of your criticisms seem to amount to that I did not cover additional areas either in terms of the development of republicanism after 1798 or the role of the British state in encouraging sectarian division. To an extent I conceed these flaws, my excuse being that in the 10 years that seperated the piece on 1798 from the pieces on this period I simply didn't find the time to research in detail, never mind write, such material. I'm not convinced though that if I had I would have written an essay all that different then what is above, and in relation to Britains role I essentially did the research but not the writing - I may get one last article out on that topic aimed at a rather different audience.
I any case don't think there is anything uniquely Irish in the transformation of nationalism and republicanism across these 210 years. As I argue in the article the same transformation is found in European republicanism. But it is also not unique to Europe, it is also to be found in the republican movement of Latin America and I suspect beyond.
From that perspective when you write of "Your assertion that rejection of foreign sports by people like the gaelic league (protestant led) was something aimed at a purely catholic audience that was designed to alienate protestants is also deeply flawed" I can only say you have not understood the argument being made. It is not that there was a policy "designed to alienate protestants" - the presence of protestants among the nationalist leadership would indeed appear to contradict that. Rather it is that in order to create and preserve an all class nationalist alliance the leadership choose unity around a mystical nationalist return to the past (a past which happened to be peasant , catholic and gaelic) rather than a radical program for the future. So it was a consequence rather than an aim that protestant workers in Belfast were likely to be alienated by the creation of an Irish nation that was everything they were not.
Many of the protestants among the leadership were willing to accept this consequence as they had the hope that an appeal to historic protestant radicalism could overcome this downside. It is probably no coincidence that many of them were from relatively wealthy backgrounds while those protestant radicals who came to doubt this strategy were like O'Casey from the protestant working class.
While I recognise the distinction you draw between constitutional nationalism and republican seperatism in the context of the aspects I'm looking at is has very little relevancy for two reasons
1. For the most part the seperatists went along with the creation of the sort of Irish nation described above.
2. Victory in the War of Independence and then the civil war meant that the leadership fell increasingly to constitutional nationalists (with guns).
'Sovereignty ' is not something I address in itself because to me to talk of 'Sovereignty' rather than Freedom is to enter the terrain of mystical nationalism. I am willing to defend anti-imperialist struggle to the point where it can represent a step forward for the working class -. But 'Sovereignty ' as a goal in itself has no attractions and in particular when we talk of what we are left with at this point in the historical process a blank cheque made out to 'sovereignty' would be a serious mistake.
You illustrate why this is so in your defence of the republican strategy towards the north in 1920/21 which you reduce to a comparison with "the problem of a facist and capitalist led municipality undermining the concept of a national democracy". To me this underlines the problem with fighting for an abstraction like sovereignty / national democracy, you end up justifying tactical methods that have reactionary and indeed counter productive outcomes.
My article demonstrates that northern protestant workers were open to radical politics on a massive scale, even where that radical politics was somewhat anti-partition. But rather than make use of this republicans went after the catholic vote and issued a variety of threats which can only have helped Carson and co mobilise reactionary protestant workers against the left. Even that aside the military strategy in the circumstances of some 100,000 armed protestant ex-soldiers who had been through the dehumanising horror of the trenches and were organised in the UVF was suicidal. It never really materialised so in the end it only went so far as serving as an excuse to give the UVF a legal standing through its re-organisation as the 'specials'. Something that would probably have happened anyway.
The key point these articles pivot around is that while socialists/anarchists and republicans have a certain shared history and shared set of demands there are also sharp contradictions arising out of the two different strategies. Socialist republicanism is an attempt to bridge the unbridgeable in that respect because as we have seen when different tactics are on offer each ideology will have very strong and logical reasons for taking different paths. Doing both is not a realistic option because with most of these examples what might make one work will undermine the other, in particular when it comes to the question of the divided working class.
It is this key point that explains why I have not gone into the role of the British state in any detail. I wrote these to provoke debate between Anarchism and Republicanism, the first essay in the series being an "extended version of the contribution I gave to the Anarchism and Republicanism debate with Tommy McKearney at the Anarchist bookfair." - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75404 In that context I felt safe assuming a common understanding of the negative role to the British state.
Somewhat ironically in British anarchist circles I'm am often denounced as a nationalist because unfortuantly a significant number of English anarchists believe that all defence of anti-imperialism amounts to nationalism and that all it is necessary to say in relation to republicanism is to point out that republican attacks sometimes killed workers. From that point of view I don't at all mind your implication that I am overly influenced by revisionist arguments or your actually rather polite comparison with BICO or the stickies.. As I'm neither interested in being a nationalist not an apologist for imperialism it is if anything comforting that those who are either seek to lump me with the 'other side'.
check out the entry on Eoghan Harris in wikipedia
Thanks Andrew. I'll check it out.