...because you shouldn't let your schooling interfere with your education.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Michael Davitt: Up for Discussion
Having read about his early career and role in the Irish National Land League, would you agree or disagree with this statement?
Davitt deserves to be remembered as one of Ireland's greatest historical figures, more so than the generation involved in the Easter Rising or War of Independence.
By same "level", what do you mean? Collins displayed administrative and military skills, but only exercised them in the execution of two futile wars - the War of Independence and the Civil War. De Valera removed the gun from Irish politics to an extent, but it was a gun that he had loaded and irresponsibly fired, in the name of an ideology. Davitt at least turned aside from physical force nationalism in favour of initiating real and tangible change - bear in mind, the combined land acts up to 1921 resulted in more than 55% of the land changing hands from landlords to tenant purchasers. That fact alone and his achievement in building modern Ireland's first truly national organisation that was capable of mobilising people in the name of reform is far more of an achievement, from my point of view.
Although I would definitely agree with the fact that Davitt played a crucial role in Ireland's eventual freedom from the British Empire, one might question whether someone with his non-violent philosophy would ever have achieved what Collin's and co. did during the Easter Rising and War of Independence.
I think Davitt's book title "The End of Feudalism..." captures best what he achieved. I'm inclined to agree with the interpretation of the Rising, etc as seen in The WInd That Shakes The Barley, which is to say that independence was a cosmetic change, merely substituting one master for another. The benefits of violence in the short-term are always undermined by its long term disadvantages - a partitioned country, a state whose affiliation with a particular religion has been to its detriment, the creation of political dynasties whose merits are best unmentioned, a type of party politics that gives democracy a bad name. I could go on. Ideologies, such as Irish nationalsim, are was not worth the shedding of a single drop of blood. It's a moral judgment, certainly, and one that perhaps we ought to consider, given that Collins et al were violent extremists who only happened to win public sympathy after the British response. To suggest that they "achieved" something is to ignore that they may have caused more harm, up to the taking of innocent lives, than good.
Disagree. Davitt's actions should be remembered but he's not on the same level as Collins and de Valera.
ReplyDeleteBy same "level", what do you mean? Collins displayed administrative and military skills, but only exercised them in the execution of two futile wars - the War of Independence and the Civil War. De Valera removed the gun from Irish politics to an extent, but it was a gun that he had loaded and irresponsibly fired, in the name of an ideology. Davitt at least turned aside from physical force nationalism in favour of initiating real and tangible change - bear in mind, the combined land acts up to 1921 resulted in more than 55% of the land changing hands from landlords to tenant purchasers. That fact alone and his achievement in building modern Ireland's first truly national organisation that was capable of mobilising people in the name of reform is far more of an achievement, from my point of view.
DeleteAlthough I would definitely agree with the fact that Davitt played a crucial role in Ireland's eventual freedom from the British Empire, one might question whether someone with his non-violent philosophy would ever have achieved what Collin's and co. did during the Easter Rising and War of Independence.
ReplyDeleteI think Davitt's book title "The End of Feudalism..." captures best what he achieved. I'm inclined to agree with the interpretation of the Rising, etc as seen in The WInd That Shakes The Barley, which is to say that independence was a cosmetic change, merely substituting one master for another. The benefits of violence in the short-term are always undermined by its long term disadvantages - a partitioned country, a state whose affiliation with a particular religion has been to its detriment, the creation of political dynasties whose merits are best unmentioned, a type of party politics that gives democracy a bad name. I could go on. Ideologies, such as Irish nationalsim, are was not worth the shedding of a single drop of blood. It's a moral judgment, certainly, and one that perhaps we ought to consider, given that Collins et al were violent extremists who only happened to win public sympathy after the British response. To suggest that they "achieved" something is to ignore that they may have caused more harm, up to the taking of innocent lives, than good.
Delete