unionists and nationalists, help me out.

[Jim]

alright well, im in the middle of writing my dissertation about nationalism in the UK, this covers english, irish, ulster/loyalist, scottish, welsh, and british nationalism.

what is your national identidy? do you see yourself as an ulster man, an irish man, a briton? maybe all of the above to some extent?

and more importantly, if say, scottish or english nationalism came into conflict with your own ideas of your nationality, how would you react to it? for example, a sudden rise in english and scottish nationalism wanting to dissolve the union? hypothetical situation. what would you consider yourself if this happened, and the notion of britishness no longer existed in a legal or even cultural sense?

cheers.

[Wasp]

Will try my best to help. First of all I am an Ulsterman and very proud of that, as an Ulsterman I am British and again very proud of that. I would oppose anyone trying to split the Union, if hypothetically that was to happen I would still call myself British regardless of whether Britishness existed or not.

Hope that helps

[Republic]

Would your sense of Britishness feel different in anyway? Lets say if Scotland (unlikely situation) left the union and set up a republic. Would British then mean English, Welsh and N. Irish? Would that demean it, stregthen it, or not make any noticeable difference?

[Wasp]

Hard question, to me people in Scotland would be British, but the country itself would no longer be British in my eyes.

[Jim]

Nov 18, 2009 18:19:39 GMT Wasp said:

Will try my best to help. First of all I am an Ulsterman and very proud of that, as an Ulsterman I am British and again very proud of that. I would oppose anyone trying to split the Union, if hypothetically that was to happen I would still call myself British regardless of whether Britishness existed or not.

Hope that helps

Thanks, everything helps. I have a couple of books on loyalism but its better to hear first hand.

What do you think about ulster nationalism then? Not simply being an Ulsterman but defining people from Ulster as a nationality and would you take an independent northern ireland over a united ireland if the above situation happened?

[Wasp]

An independant Ulster would always come first, a UI would never be an option. Jim here is some stuff I have and I hope it helps you out.

Some excerpts from the book 'Interpreting Northern Ireland'
The partition of Ireland appears so obviously as a direct application of that policy,that most people in Ireland take it for granted that partition was deliberately devised by English politicans as a means of retaining a grip on Irish territory which at any time could be expanded.

However,the difficulty remained that Ulster Protestants,by overwhelming majorities at election after election,rejected candidates who favoured a united Ireland. As the 1950s wore on,some nationalists were beginning to wonder if their traditional assumptions were adequate to account for so adamant a resistance. A veteran Irish nationalist,Ernest Blythe,published numerous articles in English and Irish,and a book in Irish, Briseadh na Teorann ('The Smashing of the Border') in which he argured that partition existed,not because of the British,but because of the northern Protestants,and that the only way to bring about a united reland was by enticing sufficent northern Protestants to vote for it. Page 119



In 1955 a young Irish Catholic,Michael Sheey,published a book entitled 'Divided We Stand' in which he argued that there were two distinct peoples on the island,that unionists had good reasons for not wishing to join with the south,and that there was no moral case for the ending of partition. In 1959 a young barrister (who has since become a distinguished judge),Donal Barrington,published a pamphlet on similar lines entitled 'Uniting Ireland'. Barrington challenged the central tenets of traditional nationalism:

'It is quite misleading to say that partition was forced on Ireland by the British Goverment against the wishes of North and South. It would be more correct to say that partition was forced on the British Goverment by the conflicting demands of the two parties on the island. It is true that both North and South were dissatisfied with partition but that was because the North wanted all Ireland for the Act of Union and the South wanted all Ireland for Home Rule.

The events of the last twenty years have been illuminating for nationalists. They have made it far more difficult to argue that Protestant opposition to Irish unity is essentially artifical,blown up out of proportion by British machinations. Page 121

In the 1950s the BBC was following a policy of bringing both sides of society together. This meant that 'the positive aspects of community relations were emphasised and the negative underplayed' (Cathcart 1984,263) Page 123

A great weight of historical writing can,however, be put in the other side of the balance. On the whole,recent historians have been struck by the depth of Ulster unionist opposition to a united Ireland separate from Britain,and the independence of that opposition from British support. Page 125

F.S.L. Lyons in his magisterial biography of Parnell,criticizes Parnell for his failure to take seriously the problem posed by Ulster unionist opposition to home rule. Ruth Dudley Edwards,in her equally authoritive life of Patrick Pearse,considers him naive for believing that the Orangemen could be won over to the nationalist cause. Page 125

Akenson's 'Between Two Revolutions: Islandmagee,County Antrim. Islandmagee,an almost purely Protestant area,had in 1978 joined in the United Irish rebellion against English domination. By 1920,however,it was solidly in favour of the union with Britain. To examine the reasons for this change is to provide a kind of litmus test against which some theories of the growth of unionism - traditional nationalist,but also Marxist - can be tested. The change could not be ascribed to the creation of marginal differences for Protestants against Catholics - there were hardly any Catholics in the area to be discriminated against (Akenson 1979,162,176). It could not be ascribed to the influence of the Orange Order,which was weak in Islandmagee (pp.152-3). It could not be ascribed to the growing economic differentiation between the industrial north-east of Ireland and the argicultural society in the rest of the island,because Islandmagee itself remained overwhelmingly rural (p.177). The most plausible explanation of why the people of Islandmagee became such staunch defenders of the status quo,in Akenson's view,is that, under the union,and particularly from about 1850,their society had worked. In addition,their culture was predominantly Scottish (p.175). In these circumstances there was nothing for them in a united Ireland separate from Britain. 'The Islanders acted as loyalists simply as an assertion of their own cultural identity' (p.178) Page 126/7

Authors who have explored the nineteenth century have found that the roots of the unionist tradition are older and sturdier than nationalists were traditionally disposed to admit. Scholars who have investigated the nationalist attitude to N.I. since partition have been struck by the internal inconsistencies of the position - insisting that Ireland was really one nation,yet unable to find any convincing way of reconciling that claim with the refusual of unionists to accept that they belonged to that nation. These findings are all the more significant because the majority of the authors who have developed them come from the nationalist tradition. Page 133

Both strands of Adam's(Gerry) case are open to question. The claim that the unionists are an Irish minority,without the right of self-determination,is to assume what needs to be proved. We have seen that nothern Protestants are much more likely to describe themselves as 'British'or'Ulster' than Irish. We have seen earlier in this chapter that nearly all historians who have looked at Ulster during the union period have been struck by the strength and durability of the distinct Protestant identity.

More important have been the real differences in religious values,national identity,and economic interest. Page 135.

Desmond Fennell is the author of four revelant books. On his own showing ,he worked in the 1970s with Provisional Sinn Fein and wrote for the republican organ An Phoblacht. At the same time however,he rejects some traditional beliefs. He does not believe that the people of Ireland comprise one nation. In Ireland,'there is one nation,the Irish nation,and part of another nation,namely the British nation. He is critical of those nationalists who see the Ulster unionists as 'somehow,unknown to themselves,as part of the Irish nation' Page 137

The traditional nationalist interpretation,in the form in which it was expressed by writers such as Gallagher or statesmen such as de Valera,is now rarely found in the literature on Northern Ireland. Scarcely anyone who has put himself/herself to the discipline of writing in a scholarly manner on the problem now stands over the one-nation theory Page 141

[Wasp]

And some more from the same;

The unionist view of N.I.,like the nationalist,can be traced back to the earliest days of the region itself. One of the first,and still among the best,statements of the case can be found in Ronald McNeill's Ulster's Stand for Union (1922). Hugh Shearman wrote two books in the 1940s: Not an Inch: A Study of N.I. and Lord Craigavon (1942) and Anglo-Irish Relations (1948). William A. Carson published a short book,scarecely more than a pamphlet,called Ulster and the Irish Republic,in 1957. The most comprehensive presentation of a pro-unionist point of view was published by a Dutch academic geographer,M.W. Heslinga,in his book The Irish Border as a Cultural Divide (1962). It is interesting that the fullest statement of the Ulster unionist case should come from a foreigner. Some might say that this illustrates the inarticulateness which unionists have always displayed,as compared with their nationalist counterparts. However that may be,it is probably true Heslinga's work can be taken as the best counterpart to Frank Gallagher's The Indivisible Island (1957). Between them,the two books illustrate the nationalist/unionist argument as it stood before the troubles began.

Heslinga argues that,despite the political secession of the greater part of Ireland in 1921,the British Isles remain in many ways one unit. Basing his conclusions partly on his own observation,and partly on an exhaustive study of the secondary literature available at the time he wrote,he argues that,in so far as there are differences between various parts of the archipelago,they are between north and south rather than between west and east,and that the Republic is in temperament and culture closer to England than to N.I. (pp.96-7). Though he accepts that there are similarities between north and south in Ireland,there are also many differences. The great difference between most of Ireland and the rest of the archipelago is religion (p.204): it does indeed divide most of Ireland from Britain,but also south from north within Ireland. Heslinga sees Ulstermen as forming a separate nation (p.62). While he does not feel obliged to stand over the details of the border he considers that it 'represents,however arbitrarily,an important spiritual divide'(p.78). Heslinga does not come to any overt political conclusions,which he may have felt were inappropiate in what was in origin an academic thesis,but it is clear that in the argument between traditional nationalists and traditional unionists his sympathies are with the latter. To him,the partition of Ireland is that natural consequence of deep-seated differences,and he sees no merit in the claim that Ireland should be one State.

[Wasp]

Here's more Jim;

ULSTER AN ETHNIC NATION

Professor Anthony Alcock......One can conclude that what exists in N.I. are two communities: one Irish and Gaelic,the other a non-gaelic amalgam,and it is with the latter that the Ulster Society,in uniting together those of English,Scots Welsh,Huguenot and even some Irish descent is concerned.

But it is the next question that is the interesting one: can this Ulster-British amalgam develop into something distinctive in its own right,different from the general British amalgam,different from the English,Scots,Welsh or Irish? Is this already occuring? Has it already occurred? The answer can either be ''Yes'' or ''No''.

On the one hand,it can be argued that the Ulster-British have indeed developed that feeling of unity that promotes the willl to a common like,and this will has been manifested on many occasions over the past three hundred and fifty years and more. In particular,this unity has been forged in the defence of their linguistic and cultural heritage against the threats of Gaelic and Roman Catholicism and the threat of desertion by their kin. They have developed special local institutions such as the Orange Order,to bring solidarity to the group. And they have a homeland to which they are passionately devoted.

On the other hand, it can be argued that their culture is only a British amalgam; that there is nothing distinctive in terms of way of life between the Ulster-British and the British. However,depending on whether one believes the answer to be ''Yes''or ''No'',there are important consequences,and particularly so if one day N.I. comes to be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom.

For if,indeed,the Ulster-British are different from the other nations of the British Isles then surely they would be in a strong position to claim the right to a national destiny separate from,independent of, the rest of the island of Ireland. If they are not different then they would run the risk of being cast into a united Irish Republic as a mere cultural minority,the British minority in Ireland.

The Ulster Protestants - Church and Nation
Dr Peter Brooke....When preparing this paper I began with the general title - ULSTER,AN ETHNIC NATION- When we talk about a nation,we are not talking about a piece of territory,even though the ability to hold on to a piece of territory may be an important characteristic of a nation. We are talking about peoples and that brings us on to the question of the 'ethnic nation'.

I'm never very sure what the word 'ethnic' means.If it means simply a set of inherited racial and cultural characteristics - folklore,language,dialect,traditional music etc,- these are certainly things to which nationalists,those who wish to create a national feeling,can appeal. But they are not in themselves sufficent to create a nation. They are not the engine by which a nation comes into existence and in fact many of the strongest nations of the world are based on a combination of widely differing ethnic strains and traditions. The obvious example is the U.S.A.,but we could also cite France,Germany,England,China and India where differences of dialect and even language and culture,exist in abundance.

The crucial element in nation forming seems to me to be loyalty. It is a subjective thing. At the risk of sounding tautologous,a nation is a people which believes itself to be a nation. Nationhood belongs to the realm of opinion. The element of belief is crucial,and historically the greatest formers of opinion and belief have been the churches. It is no accident that the people who formed a nation in Ulster - a nation which,in my view,already exists and does not have to be created - are the Ulster Protestants.


From 'Spare My Tortured People'

'At the same time it must be remember that many northerners reject fiercely the very idea of being called Irish or even part of the Irish nation. ''The border between Northern Ireland and Eire exists because of the ideological gulf which divides the two people'' says the late Lord Brookeborough,a former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

''It must be noted here here that while the Ulstermen stressed their difference,and want above all to be independant from the Republic,they rarely call themselves a nation or indeed think of themselves as a separate nation. Their desire is to be part of of the United Kingdom. If they want to call themselves anything,the word they prefer to use is British.''

However, no matter how British they may claim to be the Ulsterman's real and first loyalty is to Ulster.

[Jim]

Some of that was fairly interesting, especially the arguments dating from the 1950s as I've always thought of those arguments being more recent. Ofcourse I'll have to look around for those books too. May as well do that next time I'm in Belfast.

When I started reading about loyalism I remember reading about the "Amalagated Ireland" deal between the UVF (or the UDA cant remember) and the IRA which fell through because of informants and a lack of trust. The idea as far as I remember was brought forward by loyalists to create a united Ireland but an autonomous Northern Ireland similar to how devolution works now in the UK, it was surprisingly similar to the Eire Nua (new ireland) policy of Sinn Fein which can be seen here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ire_Nua

I've personally always seen unionists as "Irish-British" rather than Ulster-British but I'm not a unionist as you already know.

Do you think its fairly consistent in the unionist community to want nothing to do with Irishness? What do you think about cross border co-operation and all-Ireland bodies?

[Republic]

They are very interesting pieces WASP. I have to say, I think that the most accurate comment is where the author states :

In Ireland,'there is one nation,the Irish nation,and part of another nation,namely the British nation.

I think describing Ulster itself as a nation is going too far. How does one deal with the other 3 Ulster counties? Are they part of the nation? How does one deal with Irish people living inside the Ulster nation - you would have to then say that Ulster is composed of the Ulster nation, and a part of the Irish nation.

I think the point about a nation depending on 'belief' is a very relevant point. If RoI voted to rejoin the UK and 'become' British, then they would be. Likewise if unionists suddenly decided to join a UI and 'become' Irish.

[Wasp]

Jim to say we want nothing to do with irishness is taking it out of context because that sounds like we are against anything irish which is not true. Perhaps you could explain your question/point better.

As far as cross bodies are concerned I currently oppose them, my reason for this is that everything seems to be about what the British government has alledgedly done wrong and what all the British gov can do to appease the irish, why are the matters of failed cross border security issues such as extradition not being looked at with proper explanations being given to my community?? The irish governemnt needs to address these things instead of wanting cross border bodies up and running to appease nationalists when violence has reduced greatly. Like an extradition warrant for example was turned down because a full stop was missing so what is that telling my community concerning the attitude of the irish governemnt and wanted terrorists, the same terrorists who attacked my community with horrific outrages. Yet fucking silence on it. When these type of things are addressed then I would have no opposition to some cross border bodies depending on what they are.

[Wasp]

I think the Ulster nation is the 6 counties, take the RUC/UDR for an example they were for the 6 counties yet Ulster was in their name so it is not going to far. Often when people ask where I am from I say British Ulster.

[Jim]

I'm not particularly talking about extradition, more along the lines of cross border bodies that are in the benefit of both countries. Weither thats from the two governments, or two independent bodies merging, or two companies working on an all ireland basis (or all uk and ireland basis for that matter). I understand what you are saying about extradition.

Over the years I've met a lot of unionists who do not want anything to do with Irishness, so I had to put the question forward. Weither its Irish culture, citizenship (the right to passports), sport (such as the rugby team) or popular culture, I'm not sure. Do you think its becoming less important as the EU begins to grow and we all turn out to be European anyway and have the ability to freely travel, live and work in any EU country?

[Wasp]

I'm not particularly talking about extradition, more along the lines of cross border bodies that are in the benefit of both countries. Weither thats from the two governments, or two independent bodies merging, or two companies working on an all ireland basis (or all uk and ireland basis for that matter). I understand what you are saying about extradition.

Understanding and not dismissing is key to debating, my point was that while there are calls for cross bodies and everything being to appease nationalists etc the irish governemnt need to address the concerns that I have expressed concerning extradition.

Over the years I've met a lot of unionists who do not want anything to do with Irishness, so I had to put the question forward. Weither its Irish culture, citizenship (the right to passports), sport (such as the rugby team) or popular culture, I'm not sure.

For me anyway any all Ireland teams should have ceased when N.Ireland as a country was born infact anything all Irleand and not just sport. My identity is with N.Ireland first and foremost and my country comes first over anything and if that means opposing the British governemnt then so be it as long as we are protecting our identity and our country. The easiest way for me to explain is that You have to understand the 2 different identities that my community sees with irishness. First their is the irish favourites which there is no problem with such as the old foster and allen songs being blasted out at weddings all over the country, there is the beautiful landscape and scenery that the republic is rich with and let's not forget the guiness ;D ;D Irish dancing is something that I have never heard anyone from my community compalin about and that I beleive is because it does not have the sectarian baggage that the gaa does. I have never ever been to a wedding or party (wth adults) that hasnt played at some stage in the night country and western singers and irish singers.

Then there is the otherside, irish signs are seen as territory marking symbolizing ira areas, the irish language is seen as an aspiration of violent republicans, you know my views on the gaa, the tri colour symbolizes the ira in N.I and getting into the bigger picture there is also the problems with various irish governements including extradition, failure on security, claiming ownership of N.Ireland etc. Some points are still very raw concerning the irish government but at the sametime you will know I have posted on here about my admiration for Ahern and his stance against sf/ira, various irish ministers more neutral stance concerning Unionists and even the irish presidents husband is someone I know who can pull a few strings and I welcome his participation. But I must also add these things still have me being suspicious of the true motives, are they what they say they are or are they more sinister by trying to walk us gently into a UI??

Do you think its becoming less important as the EU begins to grow and we all turn out to be European anyway and have the ability to freely travel, live and work in any EU country?

There is one thing that is strong within Britishness and that is identity so the size of the EU doesnt make a difference IMO.

[Jim]

Havent had time to reply but thanks Wasp for taking the time to answer those questions, they've been very helpful