FPL:Forum des Peuples en Lutte

Foru di i Populi in Lotta/Forom ar Pobloù a Stourm/Fòrum dels Pobles en Lluita/Foròm dels Pobles en Luta/Borrokan dauden Herrieri buruzko Forua/Anmagar n ugdaden itnaghen
 
AccueilAccueil  ­PortailPortail  ­CalendrierCalendrier  ­GalerieGalerie  ­FAQFAQ  ­RechercherRechercher  ­S'enregistrerS'enregistrer  ­MembresMembres  ­GroupesGroupes  ­ConnexionConnexion  
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujetPartager | 
 

 La révolte de 1798

Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Aller en bas 
AuteurMessage
Hern
Résistant
Résistant


Nombre de messages: 453
Localisation: treger
Date d'inscription: 26/03/2005

MessageSujet: La révolte de 1798   Dim 6 Jan - 17:00

Bon pour ceux qui étaient bon en anglais à l'école Laughing voilà un bon texte du WSM (workers solidarity movement) qui explique ce qui s'est passé lors de la révolte de 1798 en Irlande car il y a clairement eux 2 interpretations de celles ci toute les 2 masquant la réalité. Il est interessant de voir à quel point la haine entre catholiques et protestants est le fruit des idéologies Républicaine (qui a récuperée l'evenement) et Loyaliste bourgeoises et qu'elles ont toujours tout fait pour empecher un mouvement d'emancipation des Irlandais. Une révolte avortée par peur de ne pas pouvoir controler les prolos en l'absence de l'aide de troupes françaises etc.
Et c'est dommage que le républicanisme d'aujourd'hui se base sur les constructions des dirigeant qui n'ont jamais voulu la liberation des irlandais.

http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/2385

Je met juste les 2 dernières parties qui font le lien avec la situation contemporaine
Citation:
1798 and Irish nationalism

The debate around nation is in itself something that divides the Irish left. In particular after the partition of Ireland in 1922, there has been a real and somewhat successful effort to divide people into two nations. One consists of all the people in the south along with northern Catholics. Catholicism is a central part of this definition, with the Catholic Church being given an informal veto for many decades over state policy in the south. To a large extent this definition is tacitly accepted by many parts of the Republican movement today. Francie Molloy's 1996 election campaign posters - based on there being 20,000 more nationalists (i.e. Catholics) than Protestants in Mid-Ulster - is a case in point. This has led to a situation where those responsible for sectarian murders of Protestants were not treated as seriously by the republican movement as informers or even those judged guilty of 'anti-social' crime.

However, the south has started to emerge from under the long dark shadow of Catholic nationalism, in the urban centres at least. De Valera's comely maids at the Crossroads and the threat of the Bishop's crosier have faded into a distant and bizarre past.

However in the north, the ideology of a 'Protestant state for a Protestant people' is still strong. Particularly in recent years, this has seen the political decision of northern loyalists to start referring to themselves as British or 'Ulster-Scots'. This is a quite remarkable robbing of even the history of loyalism, and would have been an insult to even the Orangemen of 1798, one of whom James Claudius Beresford declared he was "Proud of the name of an Irishman, I hope never to exchange it for that of a colonist".[52]

A couple of years after the rising, Britain succeeded in forcing the Irish Parliament to pass an 'Act of Union' which effectively dissolved that parliament and replaced it with direct rule from Westminster. It is ironic that 36 Orange Lodges in Co. Armagh and 13 in Co. Fermanagh declared against this Act of Union. Lodge No. 500 declared it would "support the independence of Ireland and the constitution of 1782" and "declare as Orangemen, as Freeholders, as Irishmen that we consider the extinction of our separate legislature as the extinction of the Irish Nation".[53]

What was the nation fought for in 1798?

The rewriting of the history of 1798 by loyalists and nationalists alike has a common purpose, which is to define being 'Irish' as containing a requirement to being a Catholic. The greatest defeat of 1798 is the success of this project, in particular after partition when the southern and northern states adopted opposed confessional definitions of themselves. One legacy of that failure is that in 1998 we not only live on a divided island but that the vast majority of our hospitals and schools are either Catholic or Protestant.

The United Irishmen's core project, to replace the name of Irishman for the labels of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter was not an abstract nationalist one. It came from a concrete analysis that unless this was done then no progress could be made because a people divided were easily ruled. Here lies the greatest gulf with 'republicans' today who reverse this process and imagine that such unity can only be the outcome rather than the cause of progress.

The rebellion of the United Irishmen was not a rebellion for four abstract green fields, free of John Bull. It was inspired by the new ideas of equality, fraternity and liberty coming out of the French revolution. Separatism became a necessary step once it was realised that fulfilling these ideas required the ending of British rule. For many it also represented a rebellion against the ownership of land by a few, and for some a move towards an equality of property.

Those leaders who planned the rising were part of a revolutionary wave sweeping the western world, they were internationalists and indeed an agreement for distinct republics was drawn up with the United Scotsmen and the United Englishmen.[54] They corresponded with similar societies in Paris and London. Some, like Thomas Russell, were also active anti-slavery campaigners. As Connolly puts it "these men aimed at nothing less than a social and political revolution such as had been accomplished in France, or even greater".[55]

None of this is to claim that socialism was on the agenda in 1798. Common ownership of the means of production would not become a logical solution for some years yet, when large numbers of people started to work in situations where they could not simply divide up their workplace. But there is no denying that radical ideas that are well in advance of today's republicans were on the agenda of many in 1798.

The central message of 1798 was not Irish unity for its own sake, indeed the strongest opponents of the British parliament had been the Irish ascendancy, terrified that direct rule might result in Catholic emancipation. Unity offered to remove the sectarian barriers that enabled a tiny ascendancy class to rule over millions without granting even a thimble full of democratic rights. The struggle has progressed since as many of these rights have been won, but in terms of creating an anarchist society the words of James Hope, the most proletarian of the 1798 leaders still apply

"Och, Paddies, my hearties, have done wid your parties. Let men of all creeds and profissions agree. If Orange and Green min, no longer were seen, min. Och, naboclis, how easy ould Ireland we'd free."

_________________
"After Ireland is free, says the patriot who won't touch Socialism, we will protect all classes, and if you won't pay your rent you will be evicted same as now. But the evicting party, under command of the sheriff, will wear green uniforms and the Harp without the Crown, and the warrant turning you out on the roadside will be stamped with the arms of the Irish Republic."
James Connolly
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur En ligne
 

La révolte de 1798

Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Revenir en haut 
Page 1 sur 1

Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
FPL:Forum des Peuples en Lutte :: Autres peuples en lutte :: Forum des Nations Celtiques / Celtic's Nation Forum-
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet