Re: Re: A Nation at War with its Capital City?
In fairness, indeed. This discussion has not been about architecture or about planning – it has been a simplistic attempt to play one concept of what Ireland is off against another concept of what Ireland is. It is a debate that is as old as the hills and has certainly been trotted out in various forms since the very concept of the Pale was first derived (the Pale itself being based upon the notion of a cultural, linguistic and political division between Dublin and the rest of the land). Indeed, it was the first colonial attempt to partition the country and from what I can see it has, in the long term, been as successful as the later partitioning of the north. Wjat is being played out here in Archiseek is a primitive revision of some of the more sophisticated arguments presented by esteemed colonialists such as Sir Edmund Spenser who did little more than attempt to demonize the rural Irish as barbaric heathens when compared to the civilized British-influence pervading the east coast. In short, its time to move away from such debates that truly do not add much to the discussion or architecture or planning, but just provoke old colonial debates, prejudices and stereotypes. Instead of casting all of that crap out again, some of the people who have contributed to this debate would be better taking their noses out of the local FF and FG gazettes and out of the Irish Times and get their noses into books on understanding stereotypes and on understanding and appreciating the plurality of discourses within society, Maybe then they could move on to an enlightened discussion of architecture, rather than a ridiculous and simplistic vision of rural Ireland vs Dublin (for Christ sake – its a tiny island with four million people who are all basically related to each other through centuries or inter-marriage – just get real).