Originally posted by Vrylakas
RNolan wrote:
As I said I regard civilians who calmly work for the enemy as legitimate targets. These people were not merely un-feverent - they actively aided the enemy even if in only small ways. They knew the situation and chose to ignore the sufferings of their countrymen for the sake of a few shillings. They became legitimate. Its sad that they had to suffer but frankly they brought it on themselves. Obviously intimidation is to be prefered to murder but these people where collaboraters. It is not that they even remained neutral (which would be pretty bad but understandable) - they sided with the enemy.
You're making some radical assumptions here, using modern circumstances and imposing them on people in the past. How much of an Irish consciousness really existed in 1916 or 1920? If someone declares an ideology - be it local nationalism, or something else - and they choose to impose it on a nation, they then in your eyes have the right to murder anyone who disagrees with them or perhaps doesn't have the financial luxury of choosing who they work for? These definitions you use, "enemy" and "countrymen" presume that a majority of people understood them in 1916 and agreed with them. That Collins took it upon himself to be allowed the status of a deity, doling out torture and death to those who dared disagree with his dream, really means he is an ideological sibling to Arafat. Arafat today also uses torture and death (in very public executions, like Collins used) to force his idea of Palestinian statehood on his people. Were Sharon bright enough to show some restraint, events in Gaza last week might have removed Arafat anyway as his people are quite fed up with his corruption and despotism. Will Arafat someday end up like Collins, murdered by his own people? Are the Palestinian innocents of today who are murdered for some connection to Israel (real or imagined) really helping the establishment of a free Palestine, any more than the murdered Irish from Collins' terror really proved irrelevant for Irish independence?
Let's say some group in the region you live decides they want to secede from the country, and start using Collins' methods to force the people in the region to become more "patriotic" and not help their (remember their) enemy. Is it OK with you that they may bomb you or your family for using the national postal service, or because your uncle is a taxi driver who occasionally picks up governent employees on his route? Is that legitimate?
For me, murder of non-combatants is murder.
As for the Northern tradition they (unlike the WoI IRA) fought without the consent of the public upon a largely unwilling public. Collins was brutal but had democratic support, P. O'Neill never did. Different wars, different times.
But similar results - terrorism.
You originally mentioned terrorist acts during the AWoI, I was just pointing out how it was possible for the Americans to win without 'terrorist' acts. It was not in Ireland.
Again, I don't think Collins' terrorism really helped the effort much. It was very effective in forcing the Irish to recognize Collins but it is certainly not why the British ultimately left Ireland. Collins effective use of assassinations of British officials, coupled with war-weariness in Britain after World War I, are what pushed London over the edge. Lack of Irish housekeepers and servants caused discomfort for the British but hardly sent them running for the ships. Churchill did not care a iota for Collins' Irish victims; he cared about the British ones.
Those Irish victims essentially died for nothing, other than to solidify Collins' hold on the first post-British government.
Collins certainly scared people to stop working for the British, but I fail to see anything wrong with that. He acted with the approval of the elected representatives of the Irish people with the only weapons in hand. Had the IRA been able too unrepentant collaboraters would simply have been sent to prison. That was not an option in 1920.
There was a self-styled Irish government in Collins' terrorist period but it was certainly not elected. These members were self-appointed and approved by the council; no Irishman voted in that process. I do see much wrong with murdering people to intimidate others, like the mafia. Collins' actions have had a deep impact on Irish history, leading to much bloodshed long after. There is a connection between the modern IRA and its tactics and Collins' IRA.
That was one of the main points of my quiz, that whatever country or culture we come from we all have been taught to revere terrorists from our histories as heroes. Because we sympathize with their goals we rationalize their means, say there was no other way - when usually there was. Look at the 21 groups represented in my quiz - I only have 21 of them - and you see that all of them had their own passionate beliefs, beliefs they thought worthy enough to kill indiscriminately for. Some had causes that were popular, others not so popular - but they all believed in them enough to murder people for. Is the popularity of a cause enough justification for murder? War is bad enough, but terrorism is a special evil that plagues our modern world. I think that if anyone can justify any terrorist act, then they have effectively justified them all, regardless of the cause.
When I first wrote this quiz, a few people had some trouble letting go of their own national myths and heroes, and you can read some of the responses. It got a little touchy a few times, but I kept the theme going - murder is murder and there is no justification. I have no mystical beliefs about nationhood or blood connections - both myths invented in our modern age - but so many innocent people have been killed in the name of these myths.
General Election Results 1918, Ireland
Number of constituencies: 103 (105 seats)
Number of seats uncontested: 25 (Sinn Fein)
Votes of 78 contested consituencies:
Sinn Fein: 476,87 (46.9%)
Unionists/Conservatives: 257,314 (25.3%)
Nationalists ("Home Rulers"): 220,837 (21.7%)
"Labour Unionists": 30,304 (3.0%)
Labour: 12,164 (1.2%)
Ind Unionists: 9,531 (0.9%) - Trinity College, 1 seat
Ind Nationalists: 8,183 (0.8%)
Ind Lab: 659 (0.1%)
Ind: 436 (0.0%)
Total turnout: 67.9%
Average Sinn Fein Vote Share of contested seats: 67.1%
Uncontested seats total electorate: 474,778
Source:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm
Sinn Fein won 67.1% of the contested vote, a strong majority
even including the votes of the future area of Northern Ireland. The non-Sinn Fein Nationalists were obliterated as a party. Even in Ulster where they held all their seats with exception of Waterford City (which went to Capt. William Archer Redmond, the WWI hero and brother of the recently deceased leader of the National Party John Redmond) the Sinn Fein vote was higher.
Points of interest include
Michael Collins returned unopposed for Cork County South and the first and only woman elected in a Westminister election in 1918, Countess Constance de Markievicz (Sinn Fein, Dublin City St Patrick's).
I think that 67.1% of the vote pretty much indicates a national conciousness, let alone the Home Rulers.
67.9% of the Irish people eligible to vote did so and they voted for Collins and DeValera
after they had announced their intention of proclaiming a Republic. They also promised the electorate that their MPs would not go to Westminister - they would abstain.
In January 1919 Sinn Fein summoned all 105 Irish Mps to the Mansion House in Dublin in order to hammer out an appeal to submit to the Peace Conference in Paris. The six Home Rulers and twenty-six Unionists ignored the invitations and Sinn Fein alone met. The MP's declared the first meeting of Dail Eireann on 21 January.
After this point things are pretty clear cut. The Dail declared a Republic (as they had promised) opened up Sinn Fein Courts, Land Courts (agriculture) and sent emissaries abroad. The IRA went war against the RIC. British civil power collapsed.
To other points:
If any group of people in my area get 67.1% of the vote after declaring their desire for seccession then frankly I'd either move or start obeying the new laws.
Does Arafat have a democratic majority in a fair election backing him?
The 'victims' died because of justice. They had and continued to betray their country, had been warned several times previously and yet continued to knowingly serve an occupying enemy force. They ceased to be non-combatants.
I guess we will just have to disagree about terrorism. I believe that in certain cases it ceases to be an issue. It is simplistic to believe that their is some sort of over arching defenition of terrorism, and more than that it is dangerous. Under such a view tyranny and autocracy are perfectly legitimised because the only escape the people have is through supposed terrorism.
Yours
Ross
'
