Seán Sabhat Book and DVD Launch

by Duine Fri Jan 05, 2007 15:15

A Uolf,
Scríobh tú:

"To Duine I can only say that I agree. "Republicanism" - taking the word at face value is about a "republic". That was the essence of my point though I may not have articulated it as pithly as you have. I see a contradiction between the concept of a "Republic" and that of a clerico-fascist state which seems to have been what the Maria Duce crowd wished for the people of Ireland."

Go raibh maith agat as a dúirt tú i leith m'fhocail.
Dar liom, is áit do iliomad "pobal" an phoblacht, cuma cad iad a ndearcaí nó a dtuairimí ach iad ag siúl ar an tsiocháin. Bíodh cead aighnis ag cách áfach.
Go pearsanta, áfach, ní maith liom an fhaisisteachas, idir pholaitiúl agus reiligiúnda

by an poc ar bhuile Thu Jan 04, 2007 03:48

Perhaps you could name some names ?

by Joe Tue Jan 02, 2007 22:07

Sean Sabhat was not a member of Duce Maria. This claim has been disproven by historians.

by Richard - SP (pers cap) Tue Jan 02, 2007 21:33

First of all, I've read the book and it's quite good. It is made up mostly of individual accounts of what happened on 1st January 1957. This gives an excellent insight into an event that the vast majority of people know very little about. We also see some of the naive, absurd views of many nationalists.

One example of such is the claim made by the book is that the partition of Ireland was the cause of Ireland unemployment at the time and that unification would turn this around. This is obviously ridiculous and idealistic. Unemployment at the time had much more complex roots in Irish economic policies both internally and externally. Unification at that time, at least, would have been a tremendous drain on the economy, as East Germany has been on the West. This is not a legitimate excuse for unification, but I just made the point to counter points made by the book.

The second absurd assumption by the book and the men of the Harvest campaign (I think that was the name, please correct me) was that this attack on the army barracks in Brookeborough was spark off an uprising both north and south of the border. Although public opinion at the time was predominately nationalist and pro-unification, this was most certainly a passive support and is reflected by paramilitary support and membership. This action was a typical example of conservative, opportunist paramilitary-nationalism.

On Seán Sabhat, himself, as Fear Bocht suggests he was a ultra-conservative, right, religious nationalist who was hostile to all left activities in Limerick.

"They wanted an end to colonial rule and landlordism. South would have fitted in very well and he did actually do something to try and get rid of the colonial power." Although I cannot know what Sabhat thought, it is my guess that although he actively fought British colonialism, he was a typical nationalist, opposing Britain, rather than what British occupation represents - imperialism.
James Connolly ridicules this attitude in 'Socialism Made Easy':

"Let us free Ireland!
The rackrenting landlord; is he not also an Irishman, and wherefore should we hate him? Nay, let us not speak harshly of our brother - yea, even when he raises our rent.
Let us free Ireland!"

Wolfe Tone, author of the post rather than Theobald, sees the bigger picture of international imperialism (imperialism not colonialism). Northern Ireland is occupied by British Imperialism, as Iraq is by US Imperialism.

I agree that Limerick people should "remember well Seán Sabhat of Garryowen". We should remember and learn from his mistakes - British imperialism will not be defeated by paramilitary action, but by workers' action - which can also overthrow capitalism and create a society where no-one is oppressed on the basis of religion and everyone's needs are met, just as James Connolly wanted.

Fair play to Des Long for giving us the information to reignite this topic, but some of his conclusions and disregard for the peace process hold back any chance for peace in the North in our lifetime.

by Emmet Gleeson Tue Jan 02, 2007 07:08

Sean was a great man who was murdered by the british on irish soil he fought and dyed for his country people who mock and critasize Limerick and limerick people should remember this
Also another great man was my father the late Willie Gleeson a friend and comrade of seans

by wolfe tone Fri Dec 22, 2006 16:52

Dear "Historian", I would qualify that by saying that he engaged in actions against one colonial power (London) while obviously lending his support to another (Rome). Perhaps we need to move beyond the narrow Irish obsession with "THE colonial power". There is more than one form of "colonial power" and more than one form of "colonisation".

Today the dominant "colonial power" in the world would seem to be that of international financial capital which is largely exercised through its politico-military wing of the London-Washington axis. But I suspect that - primarily for historical reasons - very few Irish people would perceive or categorise the USA as a "colonial power" in relation to Ireland. There may be a justification for that insofar as the USA is not an occupying military power in the same sense as the UK is for Irish "nationalists". At this point some people might shout "Shannon" but strictly speaking that is just a logistical transit centre for operations elsewhere. And because it has to a large extent provided the motor for the "Celtic Tiger", many who might be persuaded to admit that the US is de facto a "colonial power" would still categorise it as a benign one.

To Duine I can only say that I agree. "Republicanism" - taking the word at face value is about a "republic". That was the essence of my point though I may not have articulated it as pithly as you have. I see a contradiction between the concept of a "Republic" and that of a clerico-fascist state which seems to have been what the Maria Duce crowd wished for the people of Ireland.

by Historian Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:16

The struggle for Irish freedom from British colonialism and colonists predates republicanism. Indeed I would imagine that most of the people who took part in the 1798 Rising cared very little for the ideas that motivated Tone and the UI leaders. They wanted an end to colonial rule and landlordism. South would have fitted in very well and he did actually do something to try and get rid of the colonial power.

by Duine Wed Dec 20, 2006 16:13

Nach raibh "poblachtaigh fhasaisteacha" riamh againn? ;-)

by Fear Bocht Mon Dec 18, 2006 18:07

Sean Sabhat was by all accounts a brave and idealistic man. He was also a person of his time, when the schools and cultural ethos of the south filled young men full of the desire to re-claim the fourth green field. Even by the standards of the 50s he was conservative, a member of Maria Duce and complainer about 'communist' movies being shown in Limerick. Why do I doubt that Des Long will reflect on whether we could learn anything from a lonely death on a border road in 1957 and not endorse sending out todays teengers in RSF to try and do the same thing against an even more well equipped British Army. But no, history hasn't moved on and all we've got to do is try a bit harder.