I’ve noticed on this website a lot of Americans like to call their president their “big wet boy.”
And I would like to notify them that in Ireland, the president (currently Michael Higgins, different guy than the taoiseach Micheál Martin) is Uachtarán na hÉireann (President of Ireland). Uachtarán means cream (like when cream rises, also why we say “cream of the crop” in English).
All of this to say, while America may have a big wet boy for now, Ireland always has and will always have a creamy boy.
ehhhh Collins undoubtedly was a force for good at times but it’s probably fine that he got whacked because he was very much on a proto-fascist trajectory. also signed the anglo-irish treaty which, you know, not great. unforgivable in fact. most irish communists wouldn’t really uphold him as he was by no means a comrade, very much a right-leaning, “pragmatic” nationalist. he was good at killing brits and insurgency, spycraft etc. but suffered from a vulgar patriotism unguided by any real left-wing ideals.
I feel like nationalism in the context of colonial occupation deserves the benefit of the doubt, but I know you’re from there and know way more about him than me.
yeah, my friend who’s a modern Irish historian and a comrade is no fan of him at all and neither am I. i mean like i said he was a force for good at times, but it’s not like left wing anti-imperialist nationalism hadn’t been invented yet, James Connolly being the shining example of that on this island. Collins’ nationalism was qualitatively different and of a vulgar, right-wing nature.
I don’t know what you mean by “benefit of the doubt”, we can acknowledge Collins’ material contribution to the struggle while criticising his significant shortcomings and reactionary tendencies. no need to let him off the hook because he was effective at killing Brits.
and again, signing the treaty was unforgivable in my view. after which he led his guys to fight on the wrong side of the civil war (the bourgeois counter-revolution), violently enforcing the will of the British crown against his fellow Irish people. playing an active role in dooming the nation to a century of rule by a bourgeois comprador class. these aren’t things you can just handwave away, it’s clear you don’t know much of the history here. he tends to be upheld these days by social chauvinist and right-wing nationalists, and it’s not some great contradiction, they kind of are his inheritors. he was a bad guy and frankly a traitor.
I didn’t mean to contradict what you initially said. By “benefit of the doubt” I mean I give more leniency to nationalists when their people and culture have been genocided by an imperial power. Colonized people as a whole, in my opinion, can be cornered into a nationalist stance. I do not mean to defend any right-wing or reactionary views.
i understand. his vulgar nationalism is one of the more forgiveable things about him. however his actions from 1921 onwards are totally unforgivable in my view and him and his ilk are a big part of why the country sucks so much shit today.
You’re right, I don’t know the history. It was an off-the-cuff comment.
you’re fine, he is still widely known/portrayed, here and elsewhere, as The Cool Irish Revolutionary (we are even taught in school that he was brave and good for signing the treaty) so i totally get it. just something i feel the need to push back on when I see it because it’s a symptom of the prevailing liberal historiography of the period.
Another liberal brainworm removed by hexbear