This is a Discussion more than a True WI or AH Challenge or anything of the sort, and one I hope to keep reasonably apolitical, if at all possible.
Basically, a Friend forwarded a reasonably good ditty by the Wolfe Tones. However, when I looked for more songs by this band, It became quickly apparent what the purpose of their celtic melodies were. This got me thinking, and to cut a long story short, I've come to realize the difference between the IRA and other, similar organizations.
Quite simply, it seems to be Popular Culture. I know, for example, that nobody in 1916 was much bothered by the Easter Rising, and that the IRA were a miniscule force heavily reliant on the sympathy and support of impoverished farmers. Indeed, the Easter Rising occurred entirely without the support of the "majority", with their leader being deliberately kept out of the loop.
However, ever since the inevitable breakdown of the Stormont Parliament in 1972, events like the Easter Rising have been elevated from interesting precursors to more significant events, to full-blown revolutionary martyrs and heroes. This seems odd to me, since the "Revolution", such as it was, occurred already, and the Irish were granted Home Rule in 1922.
The IRA, I believe, was successful because it had a damn good PR Machine. This PR Machine, drawing on celtic culture, popular music, and folk history, was not necessarily an organized or directed body, but rather a sporadic, perhaps spontaenous, outpouring of nationalistic/patriotic coming-of-age. Simply put, the Irish identity was tied with the "Struggle", and the IRA, despite being, quite frankly, a highly organized terrorist army, were identified with more conventional and arguably less brutal "freedom fighters".
The Popularization of the IRA with the Irish identity/brand took on a life of its own, and was, I believe, largely the reason for the "support" given to the organization and its more "legitimate" arms by the Libyans, and, in a more neglible way, groups within the United States. It is much easier to provide arms and funds to a group of brave, Irish rogues fighting for freedom, than it is to give to ranting, raving, masked vigilantes who blow up pubs and clubs. (The latter may sound more familiar to the US general public, under a different guise.)
Why then, now that the "Struggle" is over, at least for this generation, does the IRA continue to be shrouded in veils of nostalgic popularism? I fear that I am using inappropriate terminology for discussing such a volatile subject, but I am interested as to how the IRA became, well, at least partially successful, and why they are mythologized, whereas other, similar terroristic groups are by and large unknown, or, where known, vilified and reviled.
Basically, a Friend forwarded a reasonably good ditty by the Wolfe Tones. However, when I looked for more songs by this band, It became quickly apparent what the purpose of their celtic melodies were. This got me thinking, and to cut a long story short, I've come to realize the difference between the IRA and other, similar organizations.
Quite simply, it seems to be Popular Culture. I know, for example, that nobody in 1916 was much bothered by the Easter Rising, and that the IRA were a miniscule force heavily reliant on the sympathy and support of impoverished farmers. Indeed, the Easter Rising occurred entirely without the support of the "majority", with their leader being deliberately kept out of the loop.
However, ever since the inevitable breakdown of the Stormont Parliament in 1972, events like the Easter Rising have been elevated from interesting precursors to more significant events, to full-blown revolutionary martyrs and heroes. This seems odd to me, since the "Revolution", such as it was, occurred already, and the Irish were granted Home Rule in 1922.
The IRA, I believe, was successful because it had a damn good PR Machine. This PR Machine, drawing on celtic culture, popular music, and folk history, was not necessarily an organized or directed body, but rather a sporadic, perhaps spontaenous, outpouring of nationalistic/patriotic coming-of-age. Simply put, the Irish identity was tied with the "Struggle", and the IRA, despite being, quite frankly, a highly organized terrorist army, were identified with more conventional and arguably less brutal "freedom fighters".
The Popularization of the IRA with the Irish identity/brand took on a life of its own, and was, I believe, largely the reason for the "support" given to the organization and its more "legitimate" arms by the Libyans, and, in a more neglible way, groups within the United States. It is much easier to provide arms and funds to a group of brave, Irish rogues fighting for freedom, than it is to give to ranting, raving, masked vigilantes who blow up pubs and clubs. (The latter may sound more familiar to the US general public, under a different guise.)
Why then, now that the "Struggle" is over, at least for this generation, does the IRA continue to be shrouded in veils of nostalgic popularism? I fear that I am using inappropriate terminology for discussing such a volatile subject, but I am interested as to how the IRA became, well, at least partially successful, and why they are mythologized, whereas other, similar terroristic groups are by and large unknown, or, where known, vilified and reviled.