Eire complainment

[unmerged(51378)]

Whoa.

Interregnum revises history with what-ifs. What if a Council had decided X instead of Y? What if The Battle of Z was won by A instead of B.

But I didn't think we were in the business of creating great individuals. Was there actually a great, charismatic Irish/Gaelic leader who would have done the things being proposed, in the same era as you propose?

Please correct me if I am wrong on this issue.

I think it's fair. Say that country A don't attack country B, some noble aren't killed in a battle, and so he gets time to get a child.

Just how you can accept it.

And also: It could be some guy from Galicia, if Eire takes it...

 

[MattyG]

I really like the Galician connection. Someone of Gaelic heritage but with no pesonal experience of Gaelic Law, and so not bound by the assumptions about it.

Thanks Dairpo also for the nationalism comments. One of the confusing elements here is the use of the term nationalism. Any group can self-identify and determine to defend itself. We can call that nationalism or just leave it without a label and acknowledge that that is the way people behave.

Although, there is a big step from self-awareness that leads to defense against aggression by an 'other' and a sense of national character that leads a group to expand beyond its current political boundaries with that concept as the driving justification.

 

[MattyG]

In response to Ahmed's concerns I'd like to point out that nationalism did exist prior to 19th Century Europe. The names and forms that we associate with "nationalism" date from that time but ideas of cultural unity can be found in places such as the English and French colonies in North America in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Les canadiennes had national stirrings prior to the conquest. Power struggles between local elites and European Frenchmen sent over by the king were constant from the mid17th Century onwards. These conflicts became so bad that by the time the British invaded during the 7-Years War the French and Canadienne leadership couldn't organize for war, albiet they had a few early victories. Simply while the French claimed dominion and control over their Canadian colony the Canadienne likewise struggled, in a rather orderly fashion, for their relative autonomy (which they got, in a fashion, under British rule).

Basically if we take an isolated community that has developed certain unique characteristics that makes it fundamentally different than its neighbours, overlords, or some form of invader they become incredably self-aware fast. The nationalist leader would not come from no-where, it would involve some kind of society-crashing crisis, or a sudden realization of difference, that would shake up society in such a way that it recreates itself as something completely different than the other. ...

So.. maybe an Irish civil war and a Scottish invasion (or Breton, or whatever). The first will weaken the Irish state to the point that the invaders discover a claim on the Island and decide to take while the getting's good only to face a quick victor that manages to reunite the State behind his (or her) charismatic leadership as they realize their common uniqueness (not even consiously) in time to repulse the invaders...

Or something like that

More about nationalism.

What dairpo is saying is more "we agaist strangers (those who have
diferent language and culture)" (dislike of arrogant french lords) and "feudoal
nationalism" - village against village, city agaist city, clan against clan. And its in one cultoro-linguistic group.

Nationalism is based on common myth about "their" history and predescers, who unites people as the same opposed others. There is diference with
feudal nationalism, cos that 19C nationalism unites peoples even across border - it is not region (geographic) nationalism, but myth of common "holy blood". (Remember that nationalism is connected with racism time.)

 

[loki1232]

What about Robespierre? He was of Irish descent, and could be just the carismatic leader to overthrow the current system.