Ireland revisited

Thank you for you interesting email. It provokes the sentiment that, in all of us is a "right" which we feel strongly about and which often has its seed in history, or at least the history we were given.
The history books I was brought up on was possibly no different to yours but in so far as the emphasis the teacher gave, given his or her background, often the story was biased one way or another.
Believing in our past was and I emphasise 'was', a touch stone to who we thought we were.
Yes we were of course individual's  but we also belonged to something larger more complex something we identified with, much as we identified with our parents and their parents before them. The warp and weft of the tribe was totally ours and as a Yorkshireman I would often reply to the question "where do you come from", Yorkshire rather than England.



The mention of the Easter Uprising and Bloody Sunday are events which mark a moments when the rule of law broke down and the Establishment reacted, often over reacted. 



Of course uprisings and rebellion was a national cause, dating back to the 1500 and before.
The FitzGerald's, the Desmond's, the O'Donald's, the O'Neill's and the Maguire's families and clans who took up arms against the English. The Fenian raids and the War of Independence when we first heard of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in 1919. The 'Troubles' in 1969 - 98 which eventually brought into being the Northern Ireland Parliament and the sight of a   Ian Paisley working alongside his nemesis Martin McGuinness was remarkable, given the apparent enmity between them or was it on Paisleys part, pure oratory given the man's calling to preach when ever he was given the chance. McGuinness was a different kettle of fish, as head of the IRA with all that that entails, to becoming a respected politician was a bumpy journey and I have always, when I see and hear the man, reflected on the dark secrets he holds in what was a very dirty war not so much against the Establishment but against the ordinary man and women living on the wrong side of the street in Belfast and across Northern Ireland.
Nationalism often fired up the people who resented instruction, nations form made up of ordinary people who break free from convention and strike if they can, a new model closer to their needs.
The Irish have been, through the aeons of time, seen as a hot rebellious people and as we mentioned before they found central government very difficult because tribal affinity held sway and even to this day their anger  is quite destructive as old enmities continue to bridal passions.
From an Englishman's point of view.  A view which had settled the question of working within some sort of democratic framework in which law and order held an important role, it has always seen these matters of nationalism, questions of 'debate' rather than a call to arms.
In England the aristocracy formed a pact with the local citizen and thought its method of governance exportable. Conquest and then a formulation of a structure for governance was introduced with much the same format, right across the world.  India and  Africa were all supposed to see the enlightened opportunities of 'light touch' guidance but largely self -governance but unfortunately based of a structure which was foreign to all of them. And so wherever the English went they assumed too much and bore the brunt of rejection virtually everywhere.
Roosevelt saw it in Churchill's plans for setting boundaries and creating allegiances after the 2nd World War but of course he had his own desire for hegemony under a different guise, the dollar.
The problems in Northern Ireland with the segregation of Church and the split allegiances that it created within the population as well as the divisions on political opportunistic lines are all for another blog.
Be it Parnell and his powerful advocacy for Home Rule and Gladstone's efforts to get it through parliament must wait another day.
As a simple Yorkie I might miss a point or two under-standing the very deep antithesis of being raised in amongst the turmoil. You could no doubt confirm chapter and verse the unfairness, some would say iniquity of the English and their meddling. Whilst I might say, in the round, the English were benign compared to the history of most Empires.

Ps Yes I also like Mr Higgins, he seems a throughly down-to-earth chap, so unlike those who would purport to be famous and influential.