Irish Freedom: A History of Nationalism in Ireland

by Richard English

Drawn from years of original research and also from the literature on the subject, this book offers explanations of why Irish nationalists have believed and acted as they have, why their ideas and strategies have changed over time, and what effect Irish nationalism has had in shaping modern Ireland.

Genres: History, Ireland, Nonfiction, Politics, Irish Literature, European History

625 pages, Hardcover

First published March 30, 2007

About the author

Richard English is a historian from Northern Ireland. He was born in Belfast in 1963. His father, Donald English (1930–1998) was a prominent Methodist preacher. He studied as an undergraduate at Keble College, Oxford, and subsequently at Keele University, where he was awarded a PhD in History. He was first employed by the Politics Department at Queen's University Belfast in 1990 and became a professor in 1999. He is currently teaching at the University of St Andrews.

Reviews

[Emilija · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is such a disappointing book. This is not the history of nationalism in Ireland, this is the history of nationalism, with Irish examples. It focuses more on the philosophy and literature surrounding nationalism than on nationalism within Ireland.

There was no telling the nationalism of Parnell from the nationalism of O’Connell or Collins or Davitt. In fact, there was nothing about why or how these nationalistic figures came to be nationalistic figures, or even much about what they wanted. It didn’t even have much detail on what the issues of the times were. Parnell had more troubles than just landlord/tenant problems, and the 1921-23 problems were a bit more than just nationalistic fightings. But the book also focuses on time periods that aren’t well known for particularly nationalistic happenings, such as the 1930s-1950s in Northern Ireland. The book assumes a lot more base Irish knowledge than the average person has, and it feels like it focuses outside of the actual topic.

[Marianna · Rating 3 out of 5]

pretty dense at times but overall gave interesting insight in Irish politics and nationalism

[Charles Berteau · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book during and immediately after a vacation to Ireland, hoping to gain insight on nationalism in Irish history, as it is seems to be such a critical contextual element in understanding the country and its people.

While I learned a bit about the topic from this book, overall I came away disappointed. A more accurate subtitle would have been "An Academic Study of Nationalism Using Irish Examples." I found the writing tedious, repetitious, and unnecessarily abstruse; and the book presumed more baseline knowledge of Irish history than I possessed.

The author does present a very balanced perspective, rightly biased against violence and fairly recognizing both the legitimate underpinnings and the mythological embellishments that drove the various uprisings - as well as the various legislative setbacks and advancements - that seem to dominate a history of this island. The book flies through pre-1800 Ireland, although it takes the time to cast doubt on some elements of the typical Irish-nationalist historical narrative, spending most of its time on 19th and 20th century events (into the 21st - well into the post-Good Friday Agreement era). I found the section on post-independence Ulster (i.e. the challenge of Ulster after the Republic of Ireland came to be) to be particularly thought-provoking and enlightening.

Overall, I came away with a better understanding of Irish history, through a nationalistic lens - just not as much as I hoped when I started. I also learned a great deal (somewhat unintentionally) about the general nature of nationalism, and the reason that it exerts such a strong pull, generally, compared to other movements and -isms. Not a bad book, just not what I thought it would be. Someone reading it for what it actually is, probably will like it better :-)

[John Markan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Actually didn't get past the first chapter, it's a philosophical 'work' that actually questions the existence of Irish people. It makes bizarre claims that St. Patrick never existed, and that the Celts never arrived in Ireland, despite claiming literally a paragraph before that there was a non-stop flow of immigration from Europe. It further claims that the Irish are a sprawling genetic mixing pool & in the very next sentence claims the Irish are a heterogeneous ethnic group!
It seems to set the idea that irish nationalism (and nationalism in general) is not based on anything in reality since 'Irish' people don't really exist, and thus 'nationalism' is some delusional folly.
I found this an utterly ludicrous way to begin a book, undermining the entire point of the story before even beginning it.
To believe anything in this book, I would have to check every single reference & do so much research I'd be able to write my own book.
Utter. Rubbish.

[Jim Gibson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Full disclosure: I am rating this book as a general reader. If I were an academic and/or a specialist in Irish history or nationalism in general my rating would likely be much more positive. Although Richard English's "Irish Freedom" has its virtues, overall it is a tough row to hoe.

Let's start with the positives. The depths of Mr. English's knowledge and research are impressive. This is easily the most footnoted book I have ever read. Mr. English gives his definition of nationalism up front and then proceeds to connect this definition to various eras and aspects of Irish history. He is consistent in this approach throughout, lending credibility to his conclusions.

I also found Mr. English admirably even-handed in his analyses of both nationalists and unionists. Clearly not a nationalist himself, he nevertheless gives nationalists and nationalism their due when appropriate and effectively counters many weak pro-unionist positions. Although I disagreed with a few of his conclusions, overall I found Mr. English remarkably fair-minded.

Now for the problems. As I said, I am reviewing this as a general reader. Mr. English assumes more knowledge of Irish history than the general reader possesses. He often makes references to people and events without any prior introduction or explanation. This isn't always a big issue, but it is distracting at best, confusing at worst.

Secondly, the style. Rough. Really, really rough. "Turgid" is probably too strong a word, but no one will accuse Mr. English of excess brevity or concision based upon "Irish History." He is verbose, repetitive, and pedantic. As I neared completion I couldn't help but think Mr. English could have made his argument in half the pages with no loss (indeed, with an increase) in clarity.

I genuinely feel bad about giving the book only two stars because the author clearly put much research, thought, and effort into it, and it is not completely devoid of merit. But I wish I could ask Mr. English who he thought his target audience was while writing "Irish History." If he intended it to be an academic work I question how it was marketed. I think academics might be able to get a lot out of this book. But the knowledge gleaned is not worth the effort for a wider audience.

[Ron Natalie]

This book is an analysis of modern nationalism, using Irish history as an exemplar--and presupposes some knowledge of the struggle for Irish freedom. It is quite interesting, but if you're interested in a book of Irish history, look elsewhere.

[Vivian Valvano · Rating 3 out of 5]

English's knowledge is vast, his intellect is superb, and his research prowess is prodigious and even enviable. Why, then, 3 stars and not more for this valuable book? Two reasons. 1) Sometimes (not always ... just sometimes) the arm of revisionism reaches too far. One example: English writes, "So, as with most of the great leaders of nationalist Ireland (Charles Stewart Parnell, Eamon de Valera and John Hume among them), O'Connell's career was centred for the most part on democratic and non-violent politics rather than violent revolutionism" (136). With my beloved Parnell, the estimable Hume, and the important O'Connell, I have no quarrel. But de Valera? My heart aches! Yes, he turned to constitutional nationalism later, when his political star rose, seemingly incessantly, in the 1930s. But de Valera of the early 20th century, of the Rising, of the Anglo-Irish War, of the anti-Treaty position, of the Civil War...? "Democratic and non-violent politics"? 2) I do not like style sheets that allow scholarly writers to quote in their texts without stating the source. English's publisher is Macmillan. Endnotes are used. I get dizzy having to continuously flip back to the endnotes to identify sources for quotations. Sometimes, it gets absurd. To wit: In his chapter on "Fenians and Parliamentary Nationalism, 1850-1900", English writes, "Nationalism could kill the hated system of Irish landlordism, and reduce instead the material and psychological security of peasant landownership ('to think of a thing as your own makes an inexpressible difference, so far as pleasure is concerned')." The quotation within the parentheses is, of course, endnoted. Flipping to the endnote, one reads the source as Aristotle's POLITICS, p. 47 of the Oxford 1995 edition. Does it not make much more sense to give Aristotle his initial credit in the text? This is a matter, I realize, in the hands of academies and publishers, but I really do think incessant flipping from text to endnotes can weary even the most diligent and dutiful scholarly reader, even when the argument presented is good and sound.

[Ed · Rating 3 out of 5]

First of all, what this book isn't: a history of Ireland. As the subtitle makes clear it is a history of nationalism is Ireland and one should have read at least an undergraduate level text on Irish history before this book. English defines nationalism and shows how it has evolved in the particular political and economic atmosphere of Ireland. He is by no means a fan of the "Nationalists" (as opposed to the Unionists) and thinks that partition was necessary and inevitable.

English is very widely read in the literature of nationalism--he includes an ecletic 40 page bibliography and even with this there are several works he cites (or at least mentions) in the text that don't appear in the bibliography.

Violence was legitimated because, for a small group of zealots, it offered political and other rewards in terms of a powerful expresion of nationalist struggle.

Parnell was an elitist, social conservative who sought political change through parliamentary methods, he led the masses in an explosive land struggle and...formed and alliance with revolutionary Fenianism.

In the Fenians, one saw the defiantly aggressive politcs of nationalist grievance, involving pride and a marked hostility to servility or submissiveness.

The young Ireland years embodied the profound attractions of emotionally entwining oneself with one's imagined nation.

The Famine had produced a newly large and angry transatlantic Irish nationalism and provided a basis for lastingly rage-filled revanchism.

[Edward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard English provides a comprehensive and engaging overview of the history of the Irish struggle for freedom within the wider context of nationalism. Starting prior to the 17th century he presents the interplay of immigration/migration between England and Ireland illustrating that cultural and religious divisions are not as clear-cut nor as one-sided, as would be imagined from the popular media.

English presents a more detailed picture of the events and personalities involved in the struggle from the latter half of the 19th century through the 20th century and culminating with the Good Friday Agreement. The influence of revolutionary France on English/Irish politicians intermixed with language and religious identity illustrates the interrelationships of a more complicated picture.
At times, English’s presentation can seem repetitious at certain places but he is a historian interested in getting important points across concerning the political struggle within the context of nationalism.

The last chapter is a good attempt at synthesizing a theory of nationalism from the literature. Overall, English provides a framework within which other nationalist struggles can be understood whether or not he intended to do so.

[Mark O'hagan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I gave up history as a subject in school and always felt that there were huge gaps in my knowledge of Irish history. A huge "thank you" to Richard English for helping me to fill in those gaps. A very comprehensive book that asks a lot of "what if"? Questions of the reader -and that isn't a bad thing. Essential reading for anyone with more than just a passing interest in the subject

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

St. Patrick's day is coming up, so this one is on the "currently-reading" pile.

Nice overview!

[Anthony Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book by the ironically named Richard English. Hard going at times but worth the effort.

[James]

I'm reading this for two reasons. One is as research for my new W.I.P; the other is because I've forgotten most of what I was thought in school.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book about the phenomenon of nationalism as it has manifested itself in Ireland, this is, perhaps, the best there is on the subject.