|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Nov 20, 2007 19:55:49 GMT
This is just a question, mainly from my own ignorance of Irish history...
How do you feel about Michael Collins?
He was the one who settled for a partitioned Ireland wasnt he, a freestater, and De Velera wanted to continue the war for the entire lot?
Iv watched Michael Collins the film about 5 times and I only copped on the last time what was up - that michael collins signed a treaty to divide Ireland up.
Iv also seen graffiti "Michael Collins" written about. Sure he was an IRA man and took part in the easter rising - but was he good or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on Nov 20, 2007 22:39:13 GMT
He wasnt a republican,he was a nationalist. But i wouldnt condemn him for that. he took on the british army at their strongest,it would be comparable to beating the americans in guerilla war nowadays maybe. he deserves credit for that,but politically he was very shalow i think..
|
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Nov 20, 2007 22:46:10 GMT
He signed an agreement with Imperialist Britain. In other words he agreed with the oppressor, with the ruling classes, at the expense of the working class, in order to get his name in the history books. So what are we left with? The working class are no further to liberation. The North is a 'carnival of reaction' as Connolly predicted and the south is a carnival of capitalism. No help to the working class but Collins got a film out of it, Yipee! for him. There were more revolutionary people involved in Irish liberation who died unknown and fought to the death for liberation. But we never hear about the losers, no matter how hard they fought and no matter what they gave up.
You might say, well Connolly got plenty of films out of it too. The difference is that Connolly thought the working class to fend for themselves through his writings, his poems, his songs and made a serious effort towards liberation without making any agreements with the oppressor. The reason is because he understood the oppressor and in order to achieve liberation the oppressor had to be taken out of power rather than be 'agreed' with. F*** the oppressor! Smash the oppressor! F*** Collins! Smash imperialism! Don't agree with it. We cannot agree with the people who are leaching off of us or they will continue to leach off of us.
...sorry got a little pasionate there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Nov 20, 2007 22:51:17 GMT
The Provos fought harder than collins and gave up much more for over a longer period but they too were fooled by the British and now have been absorbed. Without a revolutionary ideal, a people's army will be absorbed sooner or later and are no help to the working class or Irish liberation. I think Connolly stated that in his writings also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Nov 20, 2007 23:12:35 GMT
Its just that the same people who go spraying and writing "IRA" or "CIRA" on bustops and back alleyways (as in, fuck the english and the prods, Sinn Fein IRA la la la) also go spraying "Michael Collins" aswell.
I dont see how these two are compatible. One wanted a settled partition, the other fought (not any more of course) for a full united Ireland.
So maybe theyv been watching too many films or something I dont know.
So where does that put De Velera?
Is he someone who you would have supported and agree with then?
Is FF just a mess of what DV stood for?
Its just that after realising what the film was about, and who michael collins was - I didnt agree with it, and I dont see why they go making a big film about the guy (though it was good. at least the music was ;D). Does JC have a film? - not that im aware of.
Its not just me though - I know of at least 2 who came away thinking MC wanted a united republic after watching that film. they said DV stiched him up and sent him to Britain to sign the treaty and MC didnt know about it and took the flak.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangeresque on Nov 20, 2007 23:14:46 GMT
nay. in the physical force tradition, but not so much republican and nationalist, imo. the latest issue of An Glor had an interesting article on the man actually. go to www.rsym.org to find it. |
|
|
|
Post by dangeresque on Nov 20, 2007 23:16:08 GMT
The Provos fought harder than collins and gave up much more for over a longer period but they too were fooled by the British and now have been absorbed. Without a revolutionary ideal, a people's army will be absorbed sooner or later and are no help to the working class or Irish liberation. I think Connolly stated that in his writings also. very valid point! |
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Nov 20, 2007 23:35:56 GMT
Wasn't it Devalera who introduced internment for Irish Republicans during the border campaign? I remember seeing something of the respect in 'The secret history of the IRA' which was about the 50s campaign. Hardly a revolutionary. Seamus Costello was also involved in that when he was with the officials I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangeresque on Nov 21, 2007 2:04:11 GMT
Wasn't it Devalera who introduced internment for Irish Republicans during the border campaign? I remember seeing something of the respect in 'The secret history of the IRA' which was about the 50s campaign. Hardly a revolutionary. Seamus Costello was also involved in that when he was with the officials I believe. Yeah, Costello was involved in the Border Campaign, but they weren't the Officials then, just simply the IRA. It was the raid for weapons in England by MacStoifain and Goulding that inspired Costello to get involved. He read of it and then joined. At first they rejected him so he came back a year later and as instructed to become a member of the RM. |
|
|
|
Post by RedFlag32 on Nov 21, 2007 20:52:22 GMT
Its just that the same people who go spraying and writing "IRA" or "CIRA" on bustops and back alleyways (as in, fuck the english and the prods, Sinn Fein IRA la la la) also go spraying "Michael Collins" aswell. These people are usually young and not educated in rebulicanism proper. These people actually turned me against republicanism for a while,when i didnt know better ofcourse. This is why we have to show that republicanism and nationalism,or national chauvanism are two completely different things. I believe the provisional movement did more harm to republicanism than we think. There right-wing sectarian campaign wrongly used republicanism as their ideology. Republicanism is the united Irishmen,provisionalism is defenderism. Provisionals wher not fighting for Ireland or for a beter society,they were fighting for their streets,catholic defenders. This is not republicanism,its about time we declared the progressive nature of republicansim and laid it bare to the people in actions and campaigns. Romanticism i think is the word your looking for mate.  Dev was a politician,he craved attention. Its been said this has to do with his childhood from what i can recall,think he had a rough upbringing. He was a religious fanatic also,you can bame good old dev for giving the catholic church all of its power in the country. Blame him for southern sectarianism,child abuse even,he gave them the power to abuse it,and they did.I personally hate this long streeky rasher. I think its just a mess....  Because its not dangerous to make a film about him,he doesnt threaten the state. Lets see a good film about the Dublin lock outs? |
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Nov 21, 2007 21:44:07 GMT
Does JC have a film? - not that im aware of. I watched a film on BBC I think (screened at 1am in the on a Sat night/ Sunday morning when nobody is watching mind you) about the rising. It focused more on the ICA. Obviously made in the US as most of the actors had really bad Irish accents ha ha. Can't remember the name of it. I just remember turning it on and seeing the trademark ICA uniforms and getting very interested very quickly ;D There's also a film called 'Devil's Glen' which was about Michael Dwyer and his comrades fighting the British with great success I believe. Can't find it anywhere though. Anyone know? |
|
|
|
Post by anticapitalist on Jan 8, 2008 6:40:26 GMT
Collins wanted to get what he could and intended to use it as a stepping stone,he made a mistake when he said that the safety of the protestants in the North could not be guaranteed, the brits used the old divide and conquer trick, they were more afraid of Collins, thats why they left dev alive after 1916, they knew he would run Ireland how they wanted, when Collins went on about the American connection this sealed his faith, dev used more brutal methods to oppose anybody who even questioned the american connection during his dictatorship,
they had to have our ports to use in an attack against any continental European country that they were finished with, especially Germany, who they supported at first by financing the nazi party, in the hope that through Hitler they could defeat Stalins Russia.
|
|
