An Irish Ireland?

"An Irish Ireland" is a phrase you will find oft-repeated throughout early 20th century Irish publications such as An Claíomh Solais and other periodicals of the time. In articles, opinion pieces, news reportage, and even in advertising, the Gael was urged to stand united for an Irish Ireland.

Further, there are calls for nationalists to join the cause, and for the invigoration and encouragement of Irish nationalism among people of all ages.

This language may sound concerning to the contemporary ear; it might be subjected to pejoratives from certain corners – words like racism and hate speech might be flung, along with who knows what else, white supremacy? Patriarchy?

This writer has even been accused of being “English” by a rather confused individual who apparently missed the irony of conflating a nationality with endemic racism. One might have imagined that with the variety of -isms on the menu they might have selected something a little less self-defeating, but such are the mysteries of the mysterious.

In such a heated and confused debate it pays dividends to examine what the people of the time actually meant when they spoke of an Irish Ireland, what they intended for Ireland’s future – a future many of them gave their lives for, so strongly did they believe in it – and what it means for us today.

WHAT DID THEY MEAN?

By an “Irish Ireland” there were no suggestions that protestantism or other such existing traditions should be disenfranchised, persecuted or driven off the island entirely. As Father O’Flanagan put it in New York,

“The Gaelic League counts among its supporters men of all shades of political opinion, Unionist, Federalist, Home Ruler and Separatist.

It is all of these things, but it is first and foremost and above all other things, an Irish national movement. It is not, however, a national movement in that its business is to claim for Ireland that political standard which is the God-given birthright of each separate national entity.

Its task is the more fundamental one of rehabilitating and preserving those elements that go to make up the nationhood of Ireland. It is the tide that carries down from past age; the energy and the glow of Ireland's heroic past. It is the main artery that carries from the heart of Ireland to brain and muscle the rich red blood of Ireland's distinctive life.”

https://anclaiomhsolais.com/the-new-york-meeting

As such we may dispense with any ideas that they envisioned an exclusionary monoculture entire, at least in certain senses. However in other senses the idea was most explicitly to create a Gaelic Ireland, as Michael Collins put it, “we can fill our minds with Gaelic ideas, and our lives with Gaelic customs, until there is no room for any other.”

The prominence of Irish native culture over foreign cultures was paramount for him, although he did not consider for example Irish protestants, among them Gaelic League president Douglas Hyde, or atheists such as James Connolly, exemplars of a foreign culture. On the contrary, he swore he would follow Connolly into hell.

WARNINGS AGAINST INTERNATIONALISM

Writers, thinkers and opinion-formers of the time were, however, most strident in their warnings against internationalism. As Máire de Buitléir put it,

“But when these aliens, now hailed as comrades and "brethren" propagate their anti-national doctrines broadcast among us, it becomes a matter of public concern.

It is not only Dublin workmen who are then concerned. The future of the race is at stake. Our National integrity is being undermined. For fifteen years the Gaelic League has been building up National character.

We now see it crumbling away before our eyes as we walk through the streets of Ireland's Capital. It is a heartbreaking sight, sufficient to discourage the most untiring and optimistic worker in the movement. Yet we must not despair—"We must not weep for you, dear land, we must not weep for you."

No, we must work for her, fight for her still, in order to save her from this new danger. Those of us who wish for political independence think of the dead who died for Ireland, and those of us who long for intellectual independence think too of our vanished comrades who gave their life's work to the cause; men and women of noble souls and exquisitely gifted natures, and we ask, can such lives have been lived in vain?

As Parnell said he would never have taken off his coat for the land war if he had not the national idea in the background, so the Craoibhin and his followers might say they would not have taken off their coats for the language revival if they had not the resurgence of the Gaelic nation as their ultimate ideal.

The attainment of this end is threatened now with a serious set back by the menace of Internationalism. If Ireland had been thoroughly re-Gaelicised from the centre to the sea there would have been nothing to fear from this new enemy.”

https://anclaiomhsolais.com/internationalism-the-new-danger

JAMES CONNOLLY SPEAKS

James Connolly himself, beloved father figure, mentor, and yardstick of the Irish left, was most clearly and vocally opposed to mass immigration – and this with reference to refugees fleeing war, not merely economic migrants!

“Mr. Connolly thought Mr. Farren's resolution a very dangerous one, as it involved that if the refugees complied with what was laid down in the resolution they (the Council) had nothing more to complain of. Provided the position was an ordinary one, with no war in question, and these people came to this country they ought to be welcomed no matter what their nationality might be. But the present position was an extraordinary one. It was not a case of a man or two men, but a possible case of a whole army being dumped down here.

He was opposed to the resolution because it implied that no matter what number was dumped down they accepted them and undertook to work harmoniously along with them. This was no war of theirs and the people of this country had no interest in it or in the Allies. He believed the Belgian people had been dragged into it by the machinations of their Government, and the Government having brought them into it should look after them.

The British had called on them to preserve their neutrality—which was not threatened for a moment—and said they would stand behind them. They did stand behind them—so much so that the Belgians did not know they were there (laughter). The Belgian people, he believed, had been sold by their Government for something which they could only guess at. While carefully avoiding saying anything against the Belgians, they ought not to do anything that would give the employers in this country a chance to "sack" Irish workers and take on Belgian employees.

They ought not to give any loophole to the employers.”

https://anclaiomhsolais.com/dublin-trades-council-and-belgian-refugees-

He was, as usual, not simply right but in fact prophetic, as we are today treated to the spectacle of banks and politicians openly calling for more immigration to keep wages down, and it is a testament to the degree to which public consciousness has been beaten down that scarcely a voice is raised in protest – least of all among the self-proclaimed leaders of the Irish left.

There can be little doubt how any of the founders of the country, the 1916 rebels or the visionaries who fought and died for the people of Ireland would respond to a modern mass immigrationist.

But let us lastly address the question of nationalism.

NATIONALISM

Nationalism is a word which readers will find over and over in the original articles which comprise An Claíomh Solais, and this may lead to some confusion, since great efforts have been made of late to redefine the word “nationalism” and transform its meaning into a negative and undesirable one.

The interpretation certain parties have tried to impose upon the word nationalism is that of an aggressive and xenophobic tribal instinct, opposed to any culture not its own, and which defines itself and measures its success only by the harm it can cause to others.

Those who would have otherwise described themselves as nationalists have recently fallen back on the somewhat milder term of “patriot”, although they are hard-pressed to explain the difference when asked.

It is thus worth taking a moment to correctly define nationalism, both in its historical sense and in the sense it still has today, despite the best efforts of those who would have difficulty finding gainful employment beyond the ill use to which they put their limited faculties.

Nationalism in the only correct sense is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state. As a movement, it tends to promote the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state.

It holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power.

It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity.

Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture.

The opposite or opposing force to nationalism can only be colonialist hegemonic imperialism, the aggressive imposition of hostile overt or subversive exterior forces upon a nation with the intent to disrupt and destroy that nation, invariably for the purposes of gross profit.

A few thoughts for the politically-minded reader to turn over on this most Irish of days!

Le meas