John Crawley ✍One of the greatest crimes in the current political climate is to be perceived as opposing the British pacification strategy known as the Irish Peace Process. 

Few republicans oppose peace, but we are entitled, indeed duty bound, to be critical of a process that cannot lead to the objectives republicans fought for so long and sacrificed so much to achieve.

We must challenge the false narrative that the republican struggle was simply about ending partition. There was no partition in 1916 when the Irish Republic was proclaimed in arms. Neither was there partition when the United Irishmen was formed in 1791. Unity for the Protestant founders of Irish republicanism meant national unity across the sectarian divide. That’s what it should continue to mean. Not geographical unity in exchange for enduring internal divisions that can only act to Britain’s benefit.

The 1916 Proclamation called for us to be … ‘oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.’ The signatories were not claiming those differences did not exist, nor were they saying they could be dismissed as irrelevant. They were saying that those differences should not be used to shape the political architecture of Ireland.

In contrast, those who support the Good Friday Agreement are determined that those differences will be permanently embedded in our national fabric. That unionists will remain forever in Ireland but not of it.

Those who believe that unionists can be enticed into a united Ireland by discarding or eroding Irish national anthems, flags, and emblems, by chasing English royalty around Ireland, or by attending British war memorials forget that Ulster unionists chose to opt out of joining the 26-County state when that state had substantially closer links with Britain than it does today. The Free State government in 1922 had retracted its allegiance to the Irish Republic, set up a subordinate parliament in the name of the King, took an oath to be faithful to that King, was a member of the British Commonwealth, and was actively murdering republicans. And yet, unionists wanted no part of it. Not then, not now, not ever.

There is no question that for many Ulster unionists, their communal identity is rooted in a paradigm of settler colonialism. Every 12th of July, they celebrate this imperial legacy and their pride at being descended from the English and Scottish planters sent to ethnically cleanse Ulster and tame and civilise the native Irish who remained. When pressed, their perception of themselves as a colonial garrison often outweighs any loyalty to London. An Irish national democracy rooted in non-sectarianism and civic equality holds no allure for this mindset. Recognising that is one thing; pandering to it by sabotaging Ireland’s republican heritage is another. Our struggle must focus on where the root cause of the problem lies – on the Union and not the unionists.

Britain’s claim to be in Ireland simply to protect the democratic wishes of Ulster unionists is a feeble alibi. England’s conquest of Ireland began centuries before the Ulster plantations. There was no Union, and there were no unionists when England’s sword first cut its genocidal swathe through Ireland.

The campaign to defeat Irish republicanism, its philosophy, ethos, and symbols is all pervasive and cuts across the many layers of loyal nationalism, North and South. By loyal nationalists, I mean those disposed to perceive Irish national ambitions through the prism of British strategic interests. Those who recognise the constitutional legitimacy of partition and endorse Britain’s regional assembly at Stormont.

In 1585 the Elizabethan planter Edmund Spencer wrote that (the Irishman) ‘…will in time quite learn to forget his Irish nation’.

Today we hear what Tony Blair called the ‘decommissioned mindset’, proving him true. They speak of a ‘Shared Island’ where we share in Britain’s analysis of the nature of the conflict, we share in the colonial legacy of sectarian apartheid, and we share in the colonial project of divide and rule. Robert Emmet did not request his epithet be withheld until his country had taken its place as two nations among the nations of the earth.

There is a saying that if you can’t do what counts, make what you can do count. The Provisional movement has cynically internalised Britain’s vision of a united Ireland that retains the sectarian dynamic and the resulting British/Irish cleavage in national loyalties into any new constitutional arrangements. Thus, the political malignancy through which Britain historically manipulated and controlled Ireland will remain intact.

Despite the willingness of loyal nationalism to buy into the British analysis of the nature of the conflict as a domestic dispute between tribal factions in which Britain had no selfish, strategic, or economic interest, it was England who injected the sectarian dynamic into Irish politics. The British are in no position to lecture the Irish on the constitutional model of a united Ireland based on liberty, equality, non-sectarianism, and social justice.

Although well-versed in the reactionary, racist, and sectarian mindset of settler colonialism, we must never forget that it was Irish Protestants inspired not by the plantations but by the enlightenment who were the founding fathers of Irish republicanism. That political DNA still exists in many Irish Protestants and can even be found among some ‘small u’ unionists.

A republican voice must once again be heard. A collective voice that echoes the republican ideals of the United Irishmen. A voice that remembers who we are and what we represent - the breaking of the connection with England and the establishment of an Irish national democracy within an All-Ireland republic.

Modern communications and social media can allow that voice to punch far above its weight, but a collective voice must have a collective consciousness. Irish republicanism has been in a race to the bottom for thirty years. It has shattered into many pieces, with each piece believing it holds the key. How does republicanism converge with the wishes and aspirations of the vast majority of the people? Or should it diverge from and alienate them by taking the most dogmatic positions without the least hint of how these positions could be achieved? This should form the basis of future articles and discussions.

John Crawley is a former IRA volunteer and author of The Yank.

A Republican Voice Must Once Again Be Heard

John Crawley ✍One of the greatest crimes in the current political climate is to be perceived as opposing the British pacification strategy known as the Irish Peace Process. 

Few republicans oppose peace, but we are entitled, indeed duty bound, to be critical of a process that cannot lead to the objectives republicans fought for so long and sacrificed so much to achieve.

We must challenge the false narrative that the republican struggle was simply about ending partition. There was no partition in 1916 when the Irish Republic was proclaimed in arms. Neither was there partition when the United Irishmen was formed in 1791. Unity for the Protestant founders of Irish republicanism meant national unity across the sectarian divide. That’s what it should continue to mean. Not geographical unity in exchange for enduring internal divisions that can only act to Britain’s benefit.

The 1916 Proclamation called for us to be … ‘oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.’ The signatories were not claiming those differences did not exist, nor were they saying they could be dismissed as irrelevant. They were saying that those differences should not be used to shape the political architecture of Ireland.

In contrast, those who support the Good Friday Agreement are determined that those differences will be permanently embedded in our national fabric. That unionists will remain forever in Ireland but not of it.

Those who believe that unionists can be enticed into a united Ireland by discarding or eroding Irish national anthems, flags, and emblems, by chasing English royalty around Ireland, or by attending British war memorials forget that Ulster unionists chose to opt out of joining the 26-County state when that state had substantially closer links with Britain than it does today. The Free State government in 1922 had retracted its allegiance to the Irish Republic, set up a subordinate parliament in the name of the King, took an oath to be faithful to that King, was a member of the British Commonwealth, and was actively murdering republicans. And yet, unionists wanted no part of it. Not then, not now, not ever.

There is no question that for many Ulster unionists, their communal identity is rooted in a paradigm of settler colonialism. Every 12th of July, they celebrate this imperial legacy and their pride at being descended from the English and Scottish planters sent to ethnically cleanse Ulster and tame and civilise the native Irish who remained. When pressed, their perception of themselves as a colonial garrison often outweighs any loyalty to London. An Irish national democracy rooted in non-sectarianism and civic equality holds no allure for this mindset. Recognising that is one thing; pandering to it by sabotaging Ireland’s republican heritage is another. Our struggle must focus on where the root cause of the problem lies – on the Union and not the unionists.

Britain’s claim to be in Ireland simply to protect the democratic wishes of Ulster unionists is a feeble alibi. England’s conquest of Ireland began centuries before the Ulster plantations. There was no Union, and there were no unionists when England’s sword first cut its genocidal swathe through Ireland.

The campaign to defeat Irish republicanism, its philosophy, ethos, and symbols is all pervasive and cuts across the many layers of loyal nationalism, North and South. By loyal nationalists, I mean those disposed to perceive Irish national ambitions through the prism of British strategic interests. Those who recognise the constitutional legitimacy of partition and endorse Britain’s regional assembly at Stormont.

In 1585 the Elizabethan planter Edmund Spencer wrote that (the Irishman) ‘…will in time quite learn to forget his Irish nation’.

Today we hear what Tony Blair called the ‘decommissioned mindset’, proving him true. They speak of a ‘Shared Island’ where we share in Britain’s analysis of the nature of the conflict, we share in the colonial legacy of sectarian apartheid, and we share in the colonial project of divide and rule. Robert Emmet did not request his epithet be withheld until his country had taken its place as two nations among the nations of the earth.

There is a saying that if you can’t do what counts, make what you can do count. The Provisional movement has cynically internalised Britain’s vision of a united Ireland that retains the sectarian dynamic and the resulting British/Irish cleavage in national loyalties into any new constitutional arrangements. Thus, the political malignancy through which Britain historically manipulated and controlled Ireland will remain intact.

Despite the willingness of loyal nationalism to buy into the British analysis of the nature of the conflict as a domestic dispute between tribal factions in which Britain had no selfish, strategic, or economic interest, it was England who injected the sectarian dynamic into Irish politics. The British are in no position to lecture the Irish on the constitutional model of a united Ireland based on liberty, equality, non-sectarianism, and social justice.

Although well-versed in the reactionary, racist, and sectarian mindset of settler colonialism, we must never forget that it was Irish Protestants inspired not by the plantations but by the enlightenment who were the founding fathers of Irish republicanism. That political DNA still exists in many Irish Protestants and can even be found among some ‘small u’ unionists.

A republican voice must once again be heard. A collective voice that echoes the republican ideals of the United Irishmen. A voice that remembers who we are and what we represent - the breaking of the connection with England and the establishment of an Irish national democracy within an All-Ireland republic.

Modern communications and social media can allow that voice to punch far above its weight, but a collective voice must have a collective consciousness. Irish republicanism has been in a race to the bottom for thirty years. It has shattered into many pieces, with each piece believing it holds the key. How does republicanism converge with the wishes and aspirations of the vast majority of the people? Or should it diverge from and alienate them by taking the most dogmatic positions without the least hint of how these positions could be achieved? This should form the basis of future articles and discussions.

John Crawley is a former IRA volunteer and author of The Yank.

8 comments:

  1. Another great contribution to the Pensive Quill.
    I've added the essay to Patricia's interview with John on YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYPJ3PPjQ_I&t=332s

    ReplyDelete
  2. Has there ever been a homogenous republican movement? In 1916 the combatants consited of the Irish Citizen Army and the Irish Volunteers. When the Irish Volunteers were formed the ICA went along, as they were formed about two weeks earlier, and heckled even adding their own words to the song, "God Save Ireland" interjecting with their own variant, "God Save Larkin". The Volunteers were openly hostile to the ICA even politely, but firmly, refusing them the use of a hall to drill. Many ICA recognised some Volunteer officers as being the employers who had locked them out of work during the Dublin Lockout, 1913/14
    Despite these differences they overcame them to become allies for the duration of Easter week. In the War of Independence the ICA took no part as an organisation, but many volunteers as individuals did take part, maintaining their autonomy as ICA vounteers, under Oscar Traynor O/C of the Irish Volunteers, soon to be called IRA, in Dublin who recognised and respected these as ICA volunteers.
    The cleavage between the two were cemented over as ideological differences could be sorted out at a later date. Today though, there are many more groups claiming the republican mantle. Prior to the sell down the river GFA two major republican groups were on the stage. The Provisional Republican Movement, the larger of the two, and the Irish Republican Socialist Movement which highlighted similar cleavages as those referred to in the early 20th century. The gap earlier 20th century, was not insurmountable, at least for the duration, but today, apart from Sinn Fein ( Provisional) and IRSM we have many other groups like Republican Sinn Fein, formed in 1986 and many small splinter groups. Are the cleavages today within republicanism too deep and too wide, scattered throughout differing ideologies and, what I term, "sub-ideologies" and movements. The IRSM, Republican Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein (Provisional, name dropped in 1990) are perhaps the three who can claim to represent anything today, though as far as republicanism goes (P) Sinn Fein are now questionable. So, where is this republican voice to come from? I do not have the answers and wuld be interested to hear points of view.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ John Crawley

    I think yours is a welcome, articulate, and interesting perspective on this subject. Your book was fantastic.

    Regarding this paragraph:

    "Those who believe that unionists can be enticed into a united Ireland by discarding or eroding Irish national anthems, flags, and emblems, by chasing English royalty around Ireland, or by attending British war memorials forget that Ulster unionists chose to opt out of joining the 26-County state when that state had substantially closer links with Britain than it does today. The Free State government in 1922 had retracted its allegiance to the Irish Republic, set up a subordinate parliament in the name of the King, took an oath to be faithful to that King, was a member of the British Commonwealth, and was actively murdering republicans. And yet, unionists wanted no part of it. Not then, not now, not ever."

    This does not tackle the fact that for many loyalists, including the late Ian Paisley, it was the influence of the Catholic church that was a major factor in their opposition to a UI. From memory, Paisley was open to a UI if the power of the Catholic church was sufficiently challenged.

    Regarding this paragraph:

    "The campaign to defeat Irish republicanism, its philosophy, ethos, and symbols is all pervasive and cuts across the many layers of loyal nationalism, North and South. By loyal nationalists, I mean those disposed to perceive Irish national ambitions through the prism of British strategic interests. Those who recognise the constitutional legitimacy of partition and endorse Britain’s regional assembly at Stormont."

    I do not think that Britain retains any strategic interest in holding territory in Ireland. That said, neither does Britain seem likely to leave any time soon. Whilst sitting in a UK funded parliament in Northern Ireland may seem anathema to republican ideals, it has set the stage for the implosion of the DUP, and the international spectacle of unionist politicians being seen as abjectly unfit for modern purposes.

    A thoughtful, well-written piece.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This does not tackle the fact that for many loyalists, including the late Ian Paisley, it was the influence of the Catholic church that was a major factor in their opposition to a UI. From memory, Paisley was open to a UI if the power of the Catholic church was sufficiently challenged."

      Been saying that for years. The South was a theocratic state so it was a non starter but times have changed and the Church I believe doesn't hold as much sway?

      Delete
  4. There is such a huge interest in this piece that I don't know if it is the subject matter - the future of republicanism, or the integrity of the author. There is a large body out there interested in what John Crawley has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's another interview with John.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKrvILE7OJE

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Steve R

    Re:

    "Been saying that for years. The South was a theocratic state so it was a non starter but times have changed and the Church I believe doesn't hold as much sway?"

    I'd say it's arguable that comparatively the North enjoys/suffers significantly more theocratic interference in its political governance since 1998 than the South.

    I was not alone in being shocked that a Free P came within a few percent of becoming First Minister of Scotland.

    Maybe the DUP are just more out and proud of their religious approach to politics than other parties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps, but that gobshite Paisley wouldn't have garnered as much support back in the 70's and 80's if Dublin wasn't run to Rome's rule that's my point.

      Delete