Generation Of Nationalists Research Articles

‘I Must Be Buried at Straide’ Michael Davitt’s Final Request

‘I Must Be Buried at Straide’: Michael Davitt’s Final Request John Dunleavy Should I die in Ireland I would wish to be buried at Straide Co. Mayo without any funeral demonstration. If I die in America I must be buried in my mother’s grave at Manayunk, near Philadelphia and on no account brought back to Ireland. If in any other country (outside of Great Britain) to be buried in the nearest graveyard to where I may die, with the simplest possible ceremony. Should I die in Great Britain I must be buried at Straide. Michael Davitt made his will in 1904, some two years before his death. He had clear views as to where he should be buried. He was to die in Dublin in 1906 after a short illness, and he was buried at Straide, in the west of Ireland, where he had been born sixty years previously. Not surprisingly, in view of his public career, his Requiem Mass and the funeral journey across Ireland on 2 June 1906, took on the appearance of a semi-public demonstration. There were delegates from the numerous organisations with which he had been associated, leading members of the Irish Parliamentary Party and the United Irish League, and – a reflection on the universal affection for the Land League’s founder – representatives of several colonial governments.1 He found a last resting place at Straide, his grave being marked with a Celtic cross suitably inscribed in Irish and English. Significant as Davitt’s contribution to the Irish cause might have been, his biographer concedes that by 1906 he had become a marginal figure in his own country and had been so for almost a generation. The months of what have been termed ‘the Land War’ were the high-water mark of his distinct contribution to the long struggle for Irish freedom. The institution of landlordism, in particular, which he regarded as the most detested symbol of British rule in Ireland, and which he hoped to see replaced by public ownership of land, was in retreat by 1906 but not in the way he would have wished. Instead of being a country of large estates, due to a series of land acts enacted by the Westminster parliament, Ireland was on the road to becoming a society consisting of countless small, ownerJohn Dunleavy Studies • volume 107 • number 428 474 occupiers. The established political parties were already feeling the effects of new forces at work in Ireland, such as the cultural nationalism promoted by the likes of the Gaelic League and the Gaelic Athletic Association, and even Sinn Féin, though the latter was still dismissed by some as little more than the ‘green Hungarian policy’.2 It is because of these new elements at work in Ireland, elements which would ultimately succeed in wresting power from the British and securing self-government, that Davitt and his generation of nationalists have been sadly neglected. It was some years before Davitt found a biographer. Shortly after his death, Francis Sheehy-Skeffington began compiling a study of Davitt, a man he greatly admired, resulting in a life published soon afterwards. Michael M O’Hara, a journalist, published Chief and Tribune: Parnell and Davitt some years later. Both these writers relied heavily on printed sources, though their books are still worthy of perusal. It was not until as recently as 1981 that the long-awaited study by the late Professor T W Moody, of Trinity College appeared in print. This is based on primary sources, both in manuscript and in print. In the absence of a work of this nature, it is not surprising that Davitt and his generation have been marginalised by writers and teachers for so long. The appearance of Moody’s work has stimulated a later generation of students to research Davitt’s public life, resulting in articles and books and encouraging discussion through the media and in schools and conferences. The multitude of events that took place during the course of the centenary year of 2006 need not be listed here.3 The present writer was first drawn to Davitt many years ago, when living in the Lancashire town of Haslingden. A series of...

Scientific Patriotism: Medical Science and National Self-Fashioning in Southeast Asia

Physicians and scientists dominated the first generation of nationalists in at least three East Asian colonies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: the Philippines under the Spanish and United States' regimes, the Dutch East Indies, and the Japanese territory of Taiwan. There is substantial evidence that, in each place, decolonization was yoked to scientific progress—not only in a practical sense, but symbolically too. The first generation to receive training in biological science and to become socialized as professionals used this education to imagine itself as eminently modern, progressive, and cosmopolitan. Their training gave them special authority in deploying organic metaphors of society and state, and made them deft in finding allegories of the human body and the body politic. These scientists and physicians saw themselves as representing universal laws, advancing natural knowledge, and engaging as equals with colleagues in Europe, Japan, and North America. Science gave them a new platform for communication. In the British Empire, for example in India and Malaya, medical science also proved influential, though it seems lawyers cognizant of precedent and tradition more often dominated decolonization movements. This essay will examine how scientific training shaped anti-colonialism and nationalism in the Philippines and the East Indies, concluding with a brief comparison of the situation in Taiwan.