1918 and all that
Wednesday, October 27, 2010 at 10:19AM It's November, and the lapel poppies are coming out again. I will not be wearing one.
A grand-uncle of mine died as a British soldier in Iraq a little more than 90 years ago. At least one other relative also served. As far as I know, no-one related to me died - or even fought - in the Easter Rising of 1916 which was the beginning of the end for British rule in most of Ireland. (Another grand-uncle was, however, assassinated in the Civil War of 1922-3; he was a non-combatant politician).
Despite that, I consider that the state of which I am a citizen rightly honours the rebels of 1916, while I am not too happy with the current fashion to simultaneously honour those thousands of Irishmen like my relative who died fighting in the First World War. Mind you, there was overlap: some heroes of the War of Independence (1919-21) were veterans of WW1, General Tom Barry being a celebrated example.
It is not that I am ashamed of my relative. Not at all. I have no idea why he joined the British Army, but no great feats of imagination are required to understand it. Irish men of all backgrounds did so, for all the reasons that young men still join armies. In the Ireland of 1914, there were also political reasons being added to the normal mixture of motives: the leaders of the Irish Party presented enlistment as a duty to the cause of Irish self-government.
Closer to the present day, two first cousins of mine have served in the British Army. They are not pariahs but very popular members at our family gatherings.
This sort of experience is not unique to my family; it is probably replicated, to some degree, in almost every Irish family.
The young men of 1914-18 are all dead now. Those who died "for Ireland" in 1916 or 1919-21 were not necessarily more heroic than those who died fighting for the British Empire's fatal miscalculation.
The point is that the deaths of the former were in a cause that I value: Ireland's entitlement to self-determination. This is also a cause that it makes sense for the State to honour; what sense does it make for the State to honour the sacrifices for the British Empire ?
To "honour" the Irish regiments in WW1 is to endorse by implication the cause for which they fought. In the service of what cause did my relative die ? Irish soldiers in The Great War were at least partially driven by a belief that it was their patriotic or religious duty (British propaganda portraying the German invaders of Belgium as anti-Catholic barbarians was very effective).
Nationalist opinion as the war progressed became sceptical and, helped by the Tory coup d'etat, the 1916 Rising and the threat of conscription in early 1918, became steadily more disaffected from the British state.
What was Britain's purpose in WW1? That is a question routinely evaded, but whatever it was, it did not include granting self-determination to Ireland. We had been duped. (Two decades later, it was entirely understandable that we should have been resistant to a reprise of the dupe rôle.)
Why should we "honour" as a body of men those who were duped ? Remember, yes, but let us recall them as individuals, some of them as fine as one could imagine and many who were better people than those proved right by events.
Fergus O'Rourke
This post was noted in Slugger O'Toole's very busy website, where the reference generated a large number of comments. (Why none of the commenters came here to do so is a bit mysterious, but it kept me from getting too busy with moderation duties, so I am not complaining).
Today, I also participated in a radio discussion about wearing the poppy. Unfortunately, Bobby Ballagh stole all my best lines, and my contribution was rather forgettable, but it's at just after the 24 minutes point in part four here (Monday November 8 2010) if you're feeling masochistic.
Fergus O'Rourke
Fergus O'Rourke
Reader Comments (1)
Less cogent than usual, perhaps, but I am tired.
Soldiering is best left to bankers and politicians!