This article does make one think. But it takes absolutely no position on the reality of the situation. So what is the point? And as at October 2014 the ongoing militarization and land grabs in the north continue. The Tamil people who suffered in the North continue to suffer. So what is the point in laying out the history of a far away place. The article seems to dislike all uprisings. Seems to blame the rebels without quite saying so.

The disappeared remain unaccounted for. The journalists who continue to be threatened remain under threat. The journalists and those who were white-vanned remain lost or dead?

I think there are parallels between pre-peacetime Ireland and the North of Sri lanka. But those parallels have not been drawn out in this piece though I thought it would. I feel a little cheated, imo of course.

But the pride that the Irish continue to have as a people partly stems from the suffering pre-peace time brought upon by the English presence there. And in that there is a parallel between the Tamils and the Irish. Be it in their motherland or outside.

Did you mean “almost 1,000 years” with the Irish/English dispute, Akira?

Thank you so much for that Adrian.

The martyrology in the context of “achievable goals” makes sense, though I fear that the awful footage of Prabhakaran’s supporters, women included, stripped naked, lying bound on mud and being shot in the head will in the future have the same effect as Bobby Sands’ death.

I lived in a house of Irish hippies when Bobby Sands died, and one housemate was mentioning his child becoming fatherless and I was rather distanced from it all, and felt that it was not Thatcher who caused his death, but Sands himself. I never knew his sister was a cofounder of the “Real IRA”. That – and other points – raised made it a top-notch essay. I think parallels could be drawn between Irish issues, LTTE and other groups such as Basque nationalists of ETA and at one stage I believe there was mutual support of IRA and ETA.

In some ways there could also be parallels between these and Islamic terrorism, but the latter would need to have numerous “qualifications” to be accurate and that would interrupt the flow of the narrative. But there is one point in there – whether it came from Mark Cousins or yourself – that also applies very strongly to Islamic terrorism which Glenn Greenwald and other current pundits are too myopic to appreciate: the “feeling of impotence.”

You have done ample research, on the Irish/LTTE conflicts, and on other topics you write about, but you don’t labour your findings. They flow, they augment your argument and they enlighten. Which is why this article of yours is a genuine joy to read, and something I have bookmarked to revisit later.

My main theme in the article is that some people choose to be “martyrs” for a cause but unfortunately other people die as a result of that choice. The article is aimed at a Sri Lankan audience for whom the experience of “freedom fighters” painted as “martyrs” is recent and current.

Many people died as a result of De Valera’s choice to oppose the treaty. When he came to his long stint in power he had no problem with Ireland remaining in the Commonwealth and with Ireland being divided. He interned and executed people who took the same stand that he had taken himself. Ireland did not become a republic until 1949. Were those deaths in the Civil War worthwhile in the light of that fact? Even when Ireland became a republic and there was no oath of allegiance to the British crown, the IRA (in various forms) continued to “fight” (i.e. sacrifice individual “warriors” and innocent members of the public) for a united Ireland. In view of the fact that Ireland remains divided were those deaths worthwhile?

O’Brien did not owe his right to free speech to the Provos who were killing innocent people in his own day under the leadership of an Englishman from Leytonstone called John Stephenson. It is unfortunate that people use the term fighting for freedom when what actually happens is that bombs are set off that kill innocent people.

*think there was one TD who raised the issue of partition in a manner that came to pass out of hours of debate in the dail. the issue most talked about was the oath.

iam a bad speller i can’t deny that alright.

up until the Friday the leaders where under the impression that arms and men where on the way. the plan was to take more than dublin. the bones of this plan had been brewing for over 40 years since the new departure ‘englands difficulty will be irelands opportunity’

when the casement was caught things changed. its more realistic to look on easter monday as a quickly drawn together plan b. to say it was a long term plan is to go against historical evidence that there was a plan drawn up to take the country.

the civil war was over the oath. go back to the dail debates, both sides had faith in the boundary commission, this there was one objection raised that came to pass out of hours of debate, can’t remember the TD’s name. the oath was the issue. the IRA in the north split 3 ways. for against and neutral. none of them where in favour of partition but didn’t see it as a long term issue.

i was born 60 years after the end of the civil war its not for me to pick a side. what i do know is that people who fought against the oath believed it a worthy issue. yes it might seem extreme but up to that point theese people lived there entire life under the british crown which they detested. they conciderd it important. as the people who lived it they and there opponents are the experts. i’ve no interest in re-fighting that battle but think its still important not to de value them, on both sides.

o brien has the right to say what he likes. the people he denigrates died to win him that right. all iam doing is pointing out he has a bias.

Thank you for taking the trouble to read and comment James.

Some of your views are as eccentric as your spelling. “a last stand rather than an organised blood sacrifice”. What you say about the cock-ups in the arrangements is correct but there was much talk of blood sacrifice long before the disappointments related to the gun-running. I have dealt with the duplicity of Pearse in relation to McNeill and The O’Rahilly and Bulmer Hobson in a longer version of the article.

See:

http://pcolman.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/the-easter-rising/

“the civil war in ireland was over the oath of alligence to the english monarch not partition”.

I confess that I over-simplified for reasons of space. The oath of allegiance and partition were inextricably bound together. De Valera eventually accepted what he had fought against.

Ireland is still divided today, even though there is no oath of allegiance. Was the oath of allegiance itself worth dying for? More to the point was it worth innocent people, who had not chosen rebellion and martyrdom, dying for a cause that is not their own?

“some of the references you used in this regard would have come from political opponents as opposed to neutral historians”

True, but neutrality can be over-rated. Conor Cruise O’Brien detested the IRA and praised the Gardai Síochána if they had “beaten the shit” out of someone to find out where the Provos were holding a hostage. I do not condone torture but O’Brien has a right not to be neutral.

the easter monday rising was ment to happen on a sunday. the rising was oganised by a secret group of IRB men with in the various armed groups at the time. after a shipment of arms where captured two days previously it because impossible for them to convince some of the open leadership (mcNeill) to support the rising. as a result conflicting orders where given. in this spirit the leaders would have known that dublin castle (the british) was bareing down, bound to be picked up. it was in this spirit that the rising was staged, a last stand rather than an organised blood sacrafice.

while you are correct to say that republicans look to the past to justify the present it is also true of there opponents to crisise the past to delegitimise there opponents in the present. some of the references you used in this regard would have come from political opponents as opposed to neutral historians.

over all though good read.