While reading Slavoj Žižek’s more recent works and alongside them taking J. R. R. Tolkien’s books into my hands, the similarity between some of their themes dawned on me. Furthermore, this realization of what progress represents and how it is understood matters for how we read the Middle-earth of The Lord of the Rings, be it the movies or the books. If we count human civilization from the Agricultural Revolution, then civilization is roughly ten thousand years old; if we count recognizably technological modernity, meaning machines that feel like “technology” rather than improved agrarian tools, we are talking about a tiny final sliver of that span. The psychological mistake is to project our own acceleration backward, as if every society should naturally move from iron to industry in a few generations.

Warfare makes the point clearer for our eyes to see. An Egyptian soldier from the First Dynasty would not have understood every detail of a battlefield in the middle of the 16^th century, but he would have recognized the basic grammar: men in formation, ranged and missile weapons, shields, horses, metal blades, and the terrifying intimacy of killing at arm’s length. The transition from bronze to iron to steel mattered enormously, but it did not abolish the basic form of war. For millennia, war still meant moving bodies toward other bodies until somebody was close enough to pierce, cut, crush, or burn.

Gunpowder changes the imaginative structure of warfare. It does not merely make armies more effective; it changes the meaning of distance, walls, courage, and bodily presence. That is why Saruman’s use of black powder at Helm’s Deep feels so alien. In the films, Wormtongue’s reaction implies discovery, not routine familiarity. Théoden’s defence assumes a world where stone, height, valour, and formation still matter. And he has faith in his stronghold that kept even his ancestors safe.

From this perspective, it can be hypothesised that Middle-earth therefore appears to sit near a late medieval or early modern threshold. If its peoples followed a broadly European developmental path after the War of the Ring, then Eldarion’s lifetime would not plausibly produce tanks, airplanes, or telegraphs. It might produce cannons, muskets, better roads, fiscal states, and centralized logistics. The point is not that Middle-earth could not change. The point is that old worlds change slowly until a system appears that makes change itself self-accelerating.

This is where the Singularity becomes the dark mirror of fantasy. The Singularity is the idea that technological change eventually becomes so fast that ordinary human adaptation cannot keep up. In that sense, it is not merely a prediction about artificial intelligence; it is a myth about acceleration itself. Žižek’s discussion of accelerationism is useful here to understand this process, because he treats it as a fantasy in which capitalism becomes permanent intensification, pushes through every stable form of life, and culminates in a post-human collective intelligence through AI and the Singularity (2025, 23). Žižek reads this fantasy not as liberation but as a desire for an endpoint, because accelerationism imagines history rushing toward a final overcoming of ordinary human finitude (2025, 23–25).

Tolkien’s world is powerful because it mostly refuses this structure. Middle-earth is not a laboratory of endless innovation. It is a memory-world, a ruin-world, a world where much of what is greatest lies behind rather than ahead. The elves do not innovate their way into salvation. The dwarves do not industrialize their way into moral clarity. Gondor does not become good by becoming more efficient. The Shire is not admirable because it is productive, but because it preserves a human scale of life.

Yet Tolkien is not simply saying “technology bad.” The deeper point is that technology becomes monstrous when it is subordinated to domination. Sauron and Saruman represent industry as command: extraction, regimentation, surveillance, breeding, furnaces, engines, and the conversion of living landscapes into instruments. Žižek’s argumentation helps sharpen this point because he rejects simple, linear ideas of progress and argues that every apparent higher stage leaves some hidden casualty behind (2025, 1). Saruman’s industry is precisely that kind of progress: it produces power, but the cost is visible in felled forests, mutilated bodies, ruined soil, and creatures reduced to tools.

This is why the good societies of Middle-earth develop differently. Their alternative is not infinite technical acceleration, but a more harmonic and balanced evolution. Rohan, Gondor, Lothlórien, Rivendell, and the Shire are not anti-change in the same way. They are anti-Sarumanic change: a type of change that treats the world as raw material and treats people as instruments. Similarly, Žižek’s point is not that we should abandon progress, but that progress has to be redefined by looking directly at the damage it produces rather than hiding the damage behind triumphant narratives (2025, 3).

Consequently, this line of thinking also gives us a better way to understand Tolkien’s anti-industrial imagination. Tolkien is not rejecting craft, skill, invention, or order. He is rejecting the industrial logic in which the machine becomes a moral alibi. Saruman can always say that he is modernizing. Sauron can always argue that he is organizing. Isengard and Mordor are, in that sense, presenting a perverse image of progress: they have coordination, production, logistics, and scale, but all of them are bent toward domination; while they also try to compete against one another and sink the world in the process. Or in other words, try to sacrifice the natural world on the altar of progress in different manners to see who can become more dominant as a result.

Žižek’s phrase “progress in general” in the context of Middle-earth is shown why no such thing exists (2025, 7). A mill in the Shire, a forge in Erebor, a palantír in Orthanc, and the fires of Mordor are all “technology,” but they do not belong to the same moral world. Žižek argues that progress must be judged from within a system and according to the potentials that system actualizes, which means that the same invention can mean different things under different social relations (2025, 7). The question is therefore not whether Middle-earth advances, but what kind of world its advances serve.

Additionally, this also explains why the speed of progress matters. Slow development allows institutions, customs, and moral expectations to metabolize change. Rapid development breaks that metabolism. Flight took humanity thousands of years to achieve, and roughly sixty years after it we reached the Moon. Mechanical computation, early programming, ENIAC, and pocket supercomputers did not unfold across geological cultural time; they arrived inside a few human lifetimes. The shock is not merely that we invented powerful things. The shock is that we invented powerful things faster than our ethical and political worlds could absorb them. Specifically, these last points are felt today when it comes to the digital space, we lack regulations, ethics and morals are dubious and we cannot preserve cultural items that were born in the virtual environment, dooming them to slow oblivion.

Žižek’s critique of accelerationism helps name this danger. He argues that the accelerationist fantasy is too optimistic (and naïve), because it imagines the post-human Singularity while skipping over the nearer dangers of ecological catastrophe, war, and social chaos (Žižek 2025, 24–25). In other words, the problem is not simply that technology might outrun us, rather the problem is that our political imagination might collapse before technology does.

This is also why a purely pastoral answer is insufficient. It would be easy to argue that Tolkien’s “good guys” are right or honourable because they are closer to nature. Nevertheless, Žižek complicates that move, as he argues that nature is not a stable, harmonious background ruined only by human hubris, because nature itself contains excess, disruption, and instability too (2025, 20). Furthermore, he also argues that traditional wisdom can prevent us from perceiving modern threats, because ecological catastrophe is not fully visible to common sense and has to be grasped scientifically (Žižek 2025, 20–21).

Exactly that point matters for Tolkien. Thus, the answer to Saruman cannot simply be “go back” as there is no pure pre-industrial innocence to recover. Even the Shire after the Scouring is not the same Shire as before. It has learned that history reaches even the places that imagine themselves outside of history. Žižek’s account of progress as constant redefinition fits here: after a real break, one cannot simply return to the old state as if nothing happened (2025, 8–10).

Therefore, the best postwar future for Middle-earth would not be technological stagnation. Instead, it would be selective development under moral limits, which would allow craft, medicine, infrastructure, learning, and defence to improve without allowing Mordor’s logic to define improvement. Žižek’s critique of Kohei Saito sharpens this distinction, because he shares the impulse to reject growth for growth’s sake, but insists that planetary-scale crises cannot be met through slowing down and decentralization alone (2025, 14–17, 98). Applied to Middle-earth, the lesson is that harmony cannot mean passivity; a good society still needs planning, coordination, and the capacity to act.

The deepest question, then, is not whether Middle-earth should industrialize. The question is whether it can develop without becoming Sarumanic. Can Gondor build without becoming Mordor? Can the Shire modernize without turning every field into a unit of production? Can dwarven craft remain craft rather than extraction or mass-production? Can human kingdoms adopt gunpowder without reorganizing their whole (political) life around permanent militarization?

Žižek gives us a severe but useful test for this. Authentic progress is not proved by novelty, speed, power, or scale. Authentic progress is partly negative: things once treated as normal, such as slavery, torture, or direct oppression, become impossible to justify without appearing monstrous (Žižek 2025, 9). By that standard, Middle-earth progresses only if it becomes harder for any ruler, wizard, or kingdom to treat living beings as material, which is one of our modern-day challenges as people are generally viewed as resources only.

That is also the real difference between Tolkien and the Singularity myth. The Singularity imagines a point where change becomes too fast for human beings. Tolkien imagines worlds in which beings are always in danger of being absorbed into systems too large for them: the Ring, Mordor, Orthanc, empire, machinery, command. Žižek’s warning against accelerationism clarifies why this absorption is not automatically progress; a future that erases politics, finitude, and conflict may be only domination in a more advanced form (2025, 24).

People underestimate how slow development used to be because we live after the explosion. We are born on the steep part of the curve and assume the whole curve was steep. Tolkien’s Middle-earth restores our sense of scale. For most of history, a sword was not obsolete after ten years. A fortress was not made meaningless overnight. A way of life could persist for centuries. On the one hand, slowness is not automatically good, and acceleration is not automatically evil. On the other hand, acceleration without moral form is Saruman’s path to a dark industrial world. This path promises efficiency, but delivers wasteland and loss, it promises mastery and delivers servitude. But above all, Saruman promises the future and burns the world that would have had to live there.

The lesson is not “against progress” in the crude sense, rejecting growth for growth’s sake is necessary, but planetary-scale crises demand more than localism, restraint, and a simple slowing of the machine (Žižek 2025, 14–17, 98). Instead, the goal is to go against progress as an idol. Thus, the main idea is that we must deconstruct the fantasy that every increase in power is an increase in civilization. Žižek’s strongest contribution is to force the question that Saruman never asks: where is the hidden casualty of this advance, and what would progress mean if we refused to hide it (2025, 1, 3, 8)? Middle-earth’s answer is that the good future is not the fastest future, instead it is the one in which invention remains answerable to the living world.

Reference

Žižek, Slavoj. 2025. Against Progress. Bloomsbury Academic.

The post Middle-earth and the Slow Violence of Progress appeared first on Alexander Wolf Writings.

This thus makes them deeply postmodern.

In the postmodern condition, certainty collapses. There are no stable foundations, no fixed meanings, no universal truths from which people can build a coherent identity. Everything becomes contextual, relative, and unstable. Meaning does not come from the thing itself, but from how it is used, who uses it, where it appears, and how others respond to it.

Skibidi toilet represents this very well. It has no true definition. Depending on the context, it can be positive, negative, neutral, ironic, absurd, or completely empty. It can be a joke, an insult, a compliment, a sound, a vibe, or simply a way of participating in the moment. Therefore, its meaning behaves like a spectrum rather than a fixed concept.

This mirrors the broader instability of contemporary identity. If everything is relative, then the old building blocks of the self become unreliable. Gender, personality, taste, politics, aesthetics, and even humor increasingly appear as fluid categories rather than fixed truths. As a result, people are left to assemble themselves out of fragments, trends, images, sounds, and temporary meanings.

Moreover, the posthuman element enters here as well. These phenomena are not fully human in the traditional sense. They are not authored by one person, nor do they develop through clear intention. They are produced by platforms, algorithms, repetition, remix culture, and collective online behaviour. Thus, no one truly controls them. So, they mutate, circulate, and reproduce almost like digital organisms.

There is also no future in them, at least not in the traditional sense. Skibidi and 6-7 are not trying to build toward something. They do not offer stability, ideology, or resolution. Nor do they exist in the endless present of the feed, where every moment is consumed, repeated, remixed, and replaced.

And so, perhaps the only thing left is laughter.

However, not laughter because something is clearly funny, but laughter because meaning itself has become unstable. The joke is not that Skibidi means something. The joke is that it does not need to. It survives precisely because it resists definition.

In that sense, Skibidi and 6-7 are not merely nonsense. They are symptoms of a culture where meaning has become temporary, identity has become fragmented, and the future has become uncertain. They are meaningless, but their meaninglessness means something.

The post The Skibidi and 6-7 Phenomena: Postmodern, Posthuman, and Meaningless Meaning appeared first on Alexander Wolf Writings.

Nature is black and white. Not because it is artistic, but because all life and colour have frozen out of it. The trees are bare, the bushes are dead, the grass is muddy and brown, and the air is so cold that it does not only strike your face — it somehow goes deeper. Down to the bones. Down to the thoughts.

There is no panorama. Only apartment blocks, empty bus stops, cracked pavements, soaked coats, rusty fences. Everything feels as if someone abandoned the world halfway through making it, then forgot to come back and finish it.

And yet there is something strangely familiar in its beauty.

It is not pleasant. It is not comforting. It is the kind of beauty you do not want to look at, but survive.

This is the aesthetic of Eastern Europe: when the landscape is not scenery, but a state of mind.

The post Eastern Europe — Not a Postcard appeared first on Alexander Wolf Writings.

Aragorn, for example, is not simply a royal heir walking confidently toward the throne. For many long years, he carries the weight of his lineage, the shadows of the past, and the uncertainty of the future. What makes him great is not invulnerability, but the fact that he accepts his calling despite his doubts. His courage is not loud or boastful. It is quiet, enduring, and often lonely. This aspect of his character is especially emphasized in the films, but even in the books, it is clear that his path to kingship was a long and difficult one.

Faramir’s character also shows us that the deepest struggles do not always take place on the battlefield. All his life, he longs for his father’s approval, while still trying to remain a man who does not abandon his own moral compass. His strength lies not in being immune to pain, but in refusing to let lovelessness and rejection turn into bitterness.

His brother, Boromir, may be the most human of them all. He falls because he is human — because most of us fall in our own lives too, not once, but many times. And yet he is able to rise again, and in the end, to redeem himself. In the moment of his death, we do not see a fallen man, nor a greedy, evil traitor. We see a hero.

Frodo’s journey may be one of the most painful examples of this. He does not return as the same person who first set out. The burden of the Ring, the fear, the temptation, and the wounds he suffers along the way change him forever. Through Frodo, Tolkien expresses something profoundly human: there are journeys after which we cannot simply return to life as it once was. Some experiences leave their mark on us even when, from the outside, the battle appears to be over.

And then there is Samwise, whose loyalty is perhaps one of the purest forms of love in Tolkien’s world. Sam cannot take Frodo’s burden from him. He cannot walk the road in his place. But he can stay beside him. He can support him, lift him up, and encourage him when everything seems hopeless. This realization is especially powerful: we cannot solve every pain on behalf of another person, but we can be present with them, so they do not have to carry it alone.

In Tolkien’s world, true strength does not mean perfect self-sufficiency. It does not mean enduring everything alone, without help. The Fellowship does not reach its goal because each member is unbeatable on their own. They have a chance precisely because they stand beside one another. Because they are different, yet still able to share a common purpose. Because when one of them weakens, another carries the hope forward.

This message may matter today more than ever. Our hardest battles are often not visible. There is not always a clearly named enemy before us, no sword, no armor, no battlefield. Many struggles take place within us: in grief, anxiety, loneliness, burnout, disappointment, or in that quiet exhaustion others may never see.

Not every wound leaves a mark on the body. Not every battle can be seen from the outside. And not every victory looks the way stories have taught us to expect. Sometimes it is a victory simply to get out of bed in the morning. Sometimes it is an act of courage to say, “This is too heavy for me to carry alone.” Sometimes the greatest strength is not found in gritting our teeth and pushing forward, but in allowing someone to step beside us.

Tolkien’s heroes remind us of this. Courage is not the absence of fear, but the ability to stand up and act despite it. Hope is not always certainty; often, it is a choice — one more step, even when we cannot see the end of the road. True heroism does not always reveal itself in grand gestures, but in refusing to turn away from one another, even in the dark.

Perhaps this is exactly why these stories stay with us. They do not tell us that being strong means never breaking. Instead, they offer a more complex and honest picture: that even a broken person can be brave, and that pain does not take away our worth. They remind us that there are burdens we cannot remove from each other’s shoulders — but together, we can make them easier to carry.

The post Heroes of Tolkien appeared first on Alexander Wolf Writings.

With that said, the lack of posts does not mean that I have not written anything this year. To put it briefly, my work and the responsibilities that come with my PhD have taken up most of my time. At the same time, this also means that some of my publications, which are significant on an academic level and important for the progress of my scholarly career, are slowly beginning to appear. Over the past semester, I have attended several conferences, and two of my studies are due to be published this summer. After that, more will follow. With the great support of my supervisors, we are steadily moving towards the writing of the dissertation chapters.

Of course, I also wanted to devote time to my “blog-style” entries this year. There is one piece I have been sitting on since Christmas, simply because I have not had the time to properly return to it. My literary translations have not been forgotten either. Soon, I will begin posting those texts that I have managed to shape from notes into full-fledged pieces of writing. To start with, I will publish the one that first took shape in my mind around Christmas, when I picked up Tolkien’s works again.

For me, J. R. R. Tolkien is one of my role models, and his writings are deeply motivating. In fact, he was one of the reasons I set out on an academic path in the first place. His characters also gave me guidance in finding a direction, the strength in myself, and they showed me how to work hard. In the second place stands Attila Márton Farkas, whose writings nourish the soul just as much as they nourish the mind. Buddhism has also interested me for a long time, and I have been trying to incorporate its teachings into my life step by step. Hopefully, some fruits will appear based on those too in the future… maybe in the form of writings as well.

I can consider myself fortunate, because I have met many good people throughout my life. Some have influenced me as friends, others as mentors. Through my hard work, I try to repay all the support I have received from them. So, there is no shortage of motivation and inspiration. The difficult part, of course, is transforming that energy into productivity.

But it is not a problem if that does not always work out. It does not always work out for me either. I have often slipped behind schedule, and in the end, after finishing an academic study, I simply did not have the energy to turn to creative writing on the very same day. Exhaustion is just as human as anything else, and sometimes we have to accept that. After all, what writer does not have a stack of unfinished or unpublished texts lying in a drawer?

The post Why the Lack of Posts Lately? appeared first on Alexander Wolf Writings.

Alright, let us jump right into it. The writing of the expansion’s narrative is more serious by miles and thus provides a more realistic take on war and guerilla warfare as the consequences arrive to the Western Frontier. The fight against the RDA feels more tense and the state of the world constantly reminds the player of the weight that So’lek carries. The inclusion of a pre-made character with an already set background as the main character adds to the narrative rather than taking from it. So’lek is a perfect protagonist, who can provide a deeper psychological journey as well, which presents a great character progression and inner struggle that comes with war and its costs. As a result of a writing that better represents these aspects, and the compelling story arc of So’lek already provides a more immersive experience. One with which the player can identify.

Furthermore, gameplay-wise the compact size and the well-paced narrative packed into an optimal story length that is not dragged out creates a balanced and compelling experience. From this perspective the expansion feels content complete, and even I could claim that it could work as a standalone game. The mechanics of the game have been simplified a bit to fit the journey of So’lek, but also improved upon, regarding combat, gear and crafting. These systems are not unnecessarily complex while their diversity is also preserved. In comparison, the base game featured a number of different crafting materials that restricted the player in crafting higher level gear, but also made it a tiny bit frustrating as it was senseless in some cases. In contrast, the way you can unlock gear and weapons in From the Ashes is tied to the narrative, and at the same time, the players are allowed and encouraged to do some exploring to get additional powers, weapons and skills. Crafting and upgrading weapons require an amount of hunting and gathering for resources, but these are done well and only come as an additional and not toilsome activity, which is important, because these activities do not ruin the pacing and the sense of urgency within the narrative.

Which leads us to my next point that is the impending doom is done so well that this urgency is well balanced by both pushing the player forward and allowing the story to have its moments through character arcs, development and crisis that we witness surfacing because of the context. As a result, the elements of urgency and weight within the narrative serves the plot well and creates unique and dramatic moments. Additionally, the destruction and the visualization of war are achieved through gameplay and narrative as well, and thus immersion triumphs. Consequently, the narrative no longer feels to be a light-hearted stroll in the tranquil forest amidst war, which made the base narrative break immersion and logic, instead world that is visualized in front of our eyes is presented both brutally and beautifully. This duality creates a sense of sadness, and also shows us why we need to carry on the fight while we are in So’lek’s boots, resulting in a better character and player connection as well.

Pandora is a beautiful, dangerous and complex world that is ravaged by war and human greed. This expansion, similarly to the main game, presents the players with a criticism of capitalism and human nature by showcasing the brutality and destruction, which the humans have brought to the planet. However, the expansion with its more compact and impactful story could present the aspect of complexity in a better way by showing that not everything is so simple as RDA bad and Resistance good. The original game also tried to present that while not all humans are bad, they are the cause for pollution and destruction. In contrast, the noble native image is deconstructed in the narratives of Fire and Ash and From the Ashes by showing the cruel side of the Na’vi, and their capabilities of destruction. This side is also exemplified in the actions of Nor, who abandons the resistance, denying help, which can be considered an act of outright betrayal. However, the case of Nor is also a complex psychological journey into the depths of PTSD and the fight for agency.

We are presented with complex characters that are not one-sided anymore, neither Nor, Ri’nela or So’lek are one dimensional, they have their doubts, their scars and regrets, they are also angry and very human in this manner, and this provides a great character progression that presents forgiveness and mercy in a different light that also comes with their own respective costs and consequences. Additionally, this also shows how the humans can be victims as well in this manner, while it goes without saying that not all humans are bad actors – which we are shown through the main antagonists of the game. Namely, Wukula and Bukowski are complex in their nature as well as the opposite sides of the same coin. Bukowski is disciplined and in his audio files his motives of creating a chance for humanity in finding a new home is also revealed. While Wukula is the testament of what the Na’vi oppose, a detachment from Eyva and the manifestation of vengeance that drives many to madness as he loses everyone, who he cares for around himself.

Regarding the deeper psychological aspects, such as PTSD, the fight for agency and self-definition and the search for one’s own place within the world while juggling sanity and fighting against being consumed by rage and revenge, the narrative of the expansion is more successful than that of the base game. From the Ashes provides a deep insight into the personal conflicts of the characters, while also allows them to surpass them and repress them as survival instincts kick in. This dynamic creates that believable context, which is required to provide an immersive experience. As a result, the players are presented with deep and dramatic moments that are taken seriously and we can finally see the real costs of war both in connexion with the world and the characters inhabiting it.

The Ravines was a good addition to the Kinglor Forest, both gameplay and story-wise. It was a fresh breath where you could not use your ikran and had to explore more on foot, which made it feel more intense, dangerous and rich. The inclusion of more focused and straightforward levels in favour of linear maps instead of total open-world design allowed for a better visual and narrative experience as well, as the levels felt more inline with the world and the story as well. Personally, I loved that the game was more compact and that it was not overly packed with locations on the map that I had to clear. This expansion was a fresh breath and may signal a return and re-evaluation of older narrative and game design formulas. I felt a little bit of similarity to the old Avatar: The Game from 2009.

Moreover, I liked the little story nods and easter eggs included and hidden in the narrative. The connection to the main story of the films was stronger and had me lined up with the complexity of the world that was enhanced with this story that ran alongside the main one from Fire and Ash. Mainly, it showed that, while the film also presented it, although more subtly, that there are more things at stake and processes that are ongoing in the background other than the events that transpire around Jake and his family. Additionally, regarding the other nods and easter eggs, I liked that they mentioned the Tipani Clan and I welcomed the return of Unobtanium in the form of the Sky Crystals.

In summary, From the Ashes presents a more immersive and compelling story through a compact and well written narrative and a protagonist that is well founded within the broader world of Avatar. Retrospective, the expansion also solves some of the critical problems of the base game’s plot by tying up loose ends, filling in plot holes and providing the necessary weight and consequences that were missing from it. The more serious tone and the feeling of impending doom created an intense, dramatic and awesome experience that is capable of delivering an enjoyable and deep narrative for the players.

Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora was released by Ubisoft Entertainment in 2023; while Avatar: From the Ashes was released in December 2025, prior to the premier of Avatar: Fire and Ash.

The pictures are taken from them official Fan Kit, published by Ubisoft.

The post The Triumph of Immersion over Mediocrity appeared first on Alexander Wolf Writings.

But to an outsider, to the non-human, it is an activity and process so strange that is hard to accurately describe.

It may seem at the moment of reading a book from the outside, if we are willing to distance ourselves, that a fairly hairless animal, a monkey if you will, is staring at a dead piece of a tree dotted with strange symbols that are applied with a substance made from other long dead things, and then getting high on these symbols.

This is how reading could seem like from the outside, we are imagining things written on a piece of paper, a dead piece of wood, while we fantasise and see things with our mind that are not really there. We can travel distances and live multiple different lives, observing the cosmos of endless possibilities with our creative human mind. But it is nothing more than hallucinating by getting high on a piece of paper dotted with strange symbols that make no sense to anything outside the human observer.

The post Reading a Book as Seen by an Outsider’s Eye appeared first on Alexander Wolf Writings.

First of all, the overall theme of the story is very serious and talks about issues, which overarch human history and there is the potential of providing different perspectives to human affectation and agency over nature and our complex relationship with our own planet by presenting an otherwise anti-humanist story. This in itself is a very serious approach regarding the current identity crisis of who we are and how we should relate to the world and the universe that we inhabit, especially as we are integrating machines and AI into our everyday lives and as we approach the point of no return regarding the climate crisis. Moreover, the game’s narrative approaches these issues in a reflective manner that can contribute towards the transcendental nature of these issues and questions, whether we are here to master our environment or to coexist with nature, or what is our place in the grand design or the universe. Therefore, the potential is there to convey a message and provide an active reflection to the player, who otherwise can immerse him or herself in the game’s virtual world and enjoy this wonderful journey into the beautiful and dangerous alien world of Pandora.

The approach is interesting because of the fact that we are not playing as a human, who has a Na’vi avatar body, rather we are put into the shoes of a native of Pandora from the Sarentu Clan, whose relatives and whose whole clan were massacred by the human invaders and who has been taken as a child to be re-educated by the same humans who killed his or her loved ones. This is a recipe that provides ground for a serious and complex story of agency, rebellion and fight for freedom. And to some degree this aspect of the narrative is explored, especially in connexion with colonialism and how bad this is, which we could say that it is evidently a bad thing. Also, the interment (or imprisonment) of the Na’vi children is reflected upon during the quest, titled “Into the Fog”, in a very creative way, which also serves as an exploration of the corruption and pollution of nature by the RDA (the human faction) the most, and probably this is one of the most serious parts of the narrative that dares to go deep enough. A similar quest that reflects upon unethical questions of animal experiments and other bioengineering incentives is found during the “Feral Hunters” quest. Albeit, these quests or narrative elements are rather few. On the contrary, these points in the story provide its depth and tone that make James Cameron’s world an interesting thought experiment and reflection upon humanity’s greatest challenges.

However, the narrative is belittled by its un-seriousness and thus in the end the story is wasted on more personal issues that could be important and could provide basis for character progression, but fall short even in that category as the weight of these narrative aspects is non-existent and never addressed properly. One notable example is the death of the avatar of Alma (one of the main characters on the side of the Resistance), which provides the reflective choice to the players to redefine their relationship with the character based on her past deeds, mistakes and decisions. We are given the choice to accept the past or confront it. However, nothing really changes regarding the narrative. This otherwise important issue that can serve as a reflective mirror for real life challenges is lost as it is never addressed in game.

Additionally, similar other issues are overshadowed by inappropriate or illogical jokes that are inserted unnecessary to important moments within the narrative, which eventually ruins both the seriousness of the scene and its weight that would otherwise make it meaningful. Moreover, contemporary identity politics also make an appearance in game, which to a degree serve as interesting side-plots, regarding questions like how one can relate to his or her religion or racial background in this alien and different world, where we are the invaders and we carry out the exploitation regardless of our backgrounds. Which would be an interesting topic to explore; for instance, how can a person of colour whose race were previously colonized and exploited justify the same events from his or her perspective, which are carried out by this person? However, the un-serious presentation of this otherwise very serious issue takes away the whole point of including such ideas and reflections as these are never fully and accurately addressed. The minute it would become too meaningful or controversial these issues are pushed to the side.

Instead, we are bombarded with jokes and surface level identity politics. For example, the exploration of one’s identity or how can you find love or create a family in the middle of a hostile world and a conflict that never seems to end could serve as important hooks and serious narrative elements. The questions of continuity and the future, from a perspective of legacy and bloodline or motherhood and fatherhood are all important everyday aspects of our lives that could go so much deeper, even into the psychological sphere where the effects of war and violence can override and alter our views on these matters remain totally unexplored after being introduced into the plot. On the contrary, we are presented with meaningless issues such as pronouns instead, which only touch the surface of these otherwise important identity issues.

Climate change and the climate crisis are themes that dominate the anxieties and fears of many young people, who inherited these issues and who are expected to fight and solve these as well. The game’s narrative makes an attempt to integrate these themes into the plot and the gameplay as well. To some degree these are best experienced though the cleansing of the game’s virtual space from the corruption and pollution that the human facilities and factories cause to nature. Moreover, this is one of the most immersive parts of the gameplay as pollution literally bars the player from gathering herbs and other ingredients and thus also presents a real obstacle, which makes it graspable. However, the narrative reflects on this aspect rather poorly. Only the last chapters of the game present serious consequences about the issue for the world and the characters. But the true depths and controversies are never explored or talked about. We are meant to clean the lands, the waters and the air of Pandora; which is clear and good, but there is more to this part of the story that is never explored.

Moreover, maybe the greatest failures of the narrative come in the representation of the seriousness of war, especially the costs, toils and sacrifices that a rebellion or resistance asks from those who are ready to pay them. This is the part of the game that is meant as the most dominant, as we, the players, are tasked with the management and the recruitment of the different Na’vi clans throughout the Western Frontier. The Sarentu as renowned diplomats are supposed to bring the clans together and unite them against the invasion of the RDA. This allows for the narrative to present the players with the diversity of the different clans and the Na’vi culture. This can be viewed as a success, because this is very well done during the story and adapted gameplay-wise as well. However, the handling of the actual resistance is often presented as a joke, and here it is meant literally. The characters do not take it seriously and it is presented as a form of fairy tale to the players. While the real horrors of war and the toil that takes to bring guerilla warfare to success against a might that is seemingly infinite is rarely touched upon during the narrative. Instead, we are there to hear about jokes and run petty errands like there is no haste or seriousness, just like we were at theme park with no consequences. And to a degree this would not be a problem, and the game still provides an enjoyable experience. However, the narrative suffers this as it becomes meaningless, banal and un-serious.

Additionally, this comes as an issue that originates from the gameplay as well. The game is designed to be an action first person shooter, which appears like it wants to become a role-playing game. This discrepancy or paradox originates from the narrative choice that the player character is supposed to be a diplomat from the nomadic clan of the Sarentu, who is there to bring peace, negotiate and unite the clans. However, the game provides little to no opportunities to really discuss or negotiate with the different clans. Every conversation and dialogue with any character is a linear experience, the player is just there to watch a movie. But the character has no real effect on the outcome of the unification attempts. We are there to shoot things or to gather things, which is not a problem in itself, but from the positioning of the main character, it creates a discrepancy.

Therefore, the question of combat and implied diplomacy, as we are supposed to be diplomats, in the pursuit of peace becomes the Achilles heel of the narrative. It is never truly addressed, nor explored in depth. As a result, the game gets stuck in the action and we story-wise we are only shooting things and exploding things. Which are undoubtedly very important aspects of guerilla warfare and rebellions. But even by presenting this aspect of war as its core mechanism, the game still fails to deliver the urgency and seriousness of the goals that we are supposed to achieve.

In comparison with the previous game in the franchise, which is not totally considered to be canon anymore, titled James Cameron’s Avatar: The Game (2009), Frontiers of Pandora falls short on the presentation of the various serious topics that it aims to explore. The military aspects, the effects and consequences of war, the mechanism of warfare, resistance and rebellion, and the presence of death, nature and its exploitation are all explored in a more immersive and serious storytelling in its predecessor (which is also not a role-playing game, but a third-person shooter action-adventure game) that features only a soldier (a signals specialist) as its main protagonist. In the 2009 game, the player can feel the urgency and the haste to get ahead of your enemy, and we are also presented with the harsh realities of war that operates as a meat-grinder in order to achieve what the higher-ups want. Instead, the superficial themes and the forced implementation of contemporary political issues and identity politics leave the game with a shallow plot that is unable to present its true message, contemporary criticism or the reflection for the player that could become meaningful. Fundamentally, this lack of seriousness and depth leaves the player with a forgettable narrative experience, which lacks the qualities of companionship and the often-hopeless struggle against hardship, and thus ruins the immersive experience of the player who is supposed to partake in a Resistance movement to stop the colonialization and exploitation of Pandora.

Furthermore, Frontiers of Pandora falls victim of commercialization and consumerization. Most of its narrative and gameplay problems originate from this tendency, which is present in the whole video game industry nowadays as it grew to be one of the biggest entertainment industries. Namely, the game is made to be for everyone, so that more and more people could buy it and consume it, and that eventually ruins it, because in the end to fit everyone it fits no one. This game is meant to be purchased and generate money through its various microtransactions. This is why the narrative is light-weight, so that it does not scare away the potential customer and so that it is light enough to be consumed by everyone. However, this creates no appeal as it is not interesting enough for the majority of people and it shows in the player numbers and the statistics of how many copies were sold altogether.

Regarding the narrative, this above-mentioned trend gives way for the un-seriousness that players experience. Jokes and light humour are there to make it easy to consume, where players are not really invited to contemplate or reflect on the otherwise deep issues that the game only presents superficially. Additionally, the writing falls short because of another issue as well – the writers of the narrative portray little to understanding and misunderstanding of the various topics that they present. Thus, in other words, the narrative feels superficial, because the writers only understand or know the surface level of these themes. As a result, for people who have a deeper understanding of the above-presented various serious issues and even have first experience with them, it is evident that the story-writers write about things that they do not understand or had no experience with. And to compensate this the narrative is bloated and it seems like the story operates with a lot of fillers to fill in the gaps. This eventually ruins immersion from a story perspective.

On the contrary, the gameplay experience is very good and it carries the game itself. Being a Na’vi, experiencing the different cultures in the game and even admiring Pandora itself are all done exceptionally and thus provide an enjoyable time for players. The duality of beauty and danger is superbly captured within the game world. My only criticism in this regard comes from the lack of melee combat, which could make the gameplay more diverse. But it is not that great of an issue. Additionally, riding a direhorse or an ikran is an incredible experience. Moreover, this already complex experience is enhanced by the way you can customize your character, treat and care for your ikran and manage your relationship with the different clans.

In summary, Frontiers of Pandora provides a good experience regarding gameplay which carries the player (and the game as well), but the story falls short and it is doomed for sweet oblivion, as other deeper and more meaningful video games overshadow it as Frontiers of Pandora’s un-serious and superficial narrative overshadows its very own potential. Nevertheless, the game and its narrative are not bad at all, I can consider them good on average; the story has its moments and the finale is epic. However, for me it is deeply saddening that a great potential was wasted regarding the narrative.

Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora was released by Ubisoft Entertainment in 2023; while Avatar: The Game was released in 2009.

The pictures are taken from them official Fan Kit, published by Ubisoft.

The post The Ruin of Immersion and the Effects of Consumerization and Commercialization appeared first on Alexander Wolf Writings.

Historically and geographically, today’s United Kingdom and, particularly, England, exist on the land that once belonged to the Roman Empire and thus it was once known as the province of Britannia and was also known as Roman Britain. In popular media, Romans and their culture and history are often represented. For example, there are films, books, music and video games made to retell or idealise the story, ideology, society, culture, religion, achievements or even just a tiny historical part of Rome. As it is established by many authors, for example, Robert Philips argues that history is always part of the formation of the national identity (2003, 5), and Roman Britain is part of England’s past. Therefore, the question of this essay is that how are the Roman times still relevant in today’s British culture?

Regarding the geographical territory that we nowadays call England, the Roman past was always relevant. It was a relevant foundation upon which countries could be established and political or diplomatic claims could be created upon its legacy during the Middle Ages – tying the legendary origins of England to the Roman Empire (Maley 2010, 26). In the time of the Renaissance, it was a question of identity. For instance, shall the British people relate themselves to the Celts, Britons, the Anglos-Saxons or the Romans (Maley 2010, 24)? Similarly, to the various peoples and nations of Italy, who cherished the Roman times and believed themselves to be the direct heirs of the Empire (Porter and Teich 1992, 17). This and future periods have often seen the altering dominant ideals regarding the heritage and ancestry of the English people – one time it was the Romans, the other time when it benefited them, it was the Anglo-Saxons or even the Normans (Cerasi 2018, 242). Later on, when Great Britain became a colonial power, during the imperialist era, the Roman Empire was drawn as a parallel to the British, such as in the criticism of Eleanor Davies in 1644 (Maley 2010, 25). Fearing of the fall, it was a base of discussion and criticism, whether the British Empire would become the Second Rome (Maley 2010, 26). Finally, as Peter Shaffer in his post-war drama titled Equus also argues, the British person, who is a “[m]odern citizen for whom society doesn’t exist” (1993, 104), which, in my interpretation based on Attila Kiss’ theories of the creation of the subject[1] (2010, 11), points to an identity crisis within the British Society that still exists today.

This essay is structured to build its argument in four major sections. First of all, I am to present the state of representation of Rome in popular media in order to establish the foundation for the relevancy of the topic. Second, it is important to introduce the British identity crisis of the current era. Third, there is also a description of the province of Britannia and its economy that made it possible to create a heritage. Finally, I explain the cultural legacy and relevancy of Rome to the British of today.

Concerning the literary background of the essay I rely on authors from different departments, such as history, economy, religion and culture, to accurately draw the major questions that I explore. First of all, regarding History, I rely mainly on the works of Brunt (1965), Cambell (2001), Todd (2004) and Németh and Hegyi (2011), who had thoroughly described and researched the History of Rome and its provinces. Second, the foundation of the arguments about the romanization of the native population and the frontier society of (Roman) Britannia is built upon the literature by Irby-Massie (1999), Gardner (2017) and Hanscam and Buchanan (2023) through which I explain the special status of the province within the empire from a societal point of view that contributes to the same special positioning of the English in the post-modern era. Third, the societal, religious and cultural issues presented in the paper are mainly supported by the writings of Irby-Massie (1999), Cerasi (2018), Savani (2019), and Chenault (2020) who are experts in their fields regarding the various Roman religions, social interconnectedness and the cultural aspects of the Roman Empire that spread to the provinces, which are still found in the belief of being a frontier society.

2. The Roman Empire in Popular Media

As I have already mentioned above, in the last few decades a number of books were written, films were made and video games were created that all relate to, connect to or retell a story regarding Rome and the Roman Empire. For instance, a very popular example is the film titled Ben-Hur by William Wyler (1957), or a more recent example, the film Gladiator by Ridly Scott released in 2000. Moreover, it is important to mention that the tradition of narrating stories set in the Roman era was also present during the time of Shakespeare, who wrote several dramas about that period, such as the famous play Titus Andronicus (more recently, adapted to film in 1999, titled Titus), Julius Caesar and also Antony and Cleopatra. In addition, the comedies of Monty Python also used many aspects of the Roman past to create their themes, thus continuing the British tradition. Recently, video games have also delved into the Roman past of the British Isles, such as the action-adventure titled Assassin’s Creed Valhalla (that references Roman Britain on multiple occasions) released in 2020, in numerous strategy games like the series titled Caesar, Total War, Imperator: Rome, to name a few. In literature, the Roman tradition and mythology appears in many novels, such as Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, and the historical setting of ancient Rome or Britannia is base for many modern stories, for example, A Day of Fire, Boudica: The Warrior Queen, Pompeii, The Wolf Den among many others.

            Therefore, it is safe to say that in popular culture, Rome, the Roman Empire and the province of Britannia are still present, and in stories and especially in fiction these times are idealised and romanticised. As it is argued by Porter and Teich (1992, 6–10) and Philips (2003, 5), national identity incorporates a glorified version of the past, often falsifying real events and historical relations in order to create a strong belief in the concept of the current nation that is the successor of the great empires of the past. Consequently, Roman Britain is still a relevant cultural factor today, as it was during Imperialism – as it is presented by Brunt (1965, 267–268), Maley (2010, 26) and Cerasi (2018, 245–249) – when it was often a basis for comparison, which often underlined conflicting images of the two empires, problematizing the issue, and which more often strengthened the parallel between them that further constructed the national myth.

However, there is also the Celtic past that often rises together with the Roman legacy. For example, this phenomenon can be witnessed in relation to the historical and literary works of art representing Boudica – such as Boudica: The Warrior Queen by M. J. Trow that released in 2022 – the Celtic queen who revolted against the invading Roman colonists (Chenault 2020, 39). As Chenault argues this warrior queen’s story has been resurfacing throughout history (2020, 39–40). From the perspective of the women of England, Boudica’s narrative can be an important identity marker that symbolises female strength and leadership in modern times as well (Chenault 2020, 49–52).

As a result, it can be argued that there were always conflicting stories connected and mixed in one national identity, which in the case of the above-mentioned examples, attempts to use both the Celtic and the Roman past, in order to form a glorious and strong heritage, as it was presented above through the arguments of Porter and Teich (1992, 6–10) and Philips (2003, 5). On the contrary, this contradiction regarding the conflicting sources and stories does not undermine the fact that the sense of being a successor of the Roman Empire is still a relevant identity marker that is strengthened through numerous media in today’s popular culture.

3. The British Question

As I have already presented above based on the arguments of Porter and Teich (1992, 6–10) and Philips (2003, 5), identity was always a question throughout history. Some of these questions still remain from the Renaissance and the contradicting period of Imperialism (Cerasi 2018, 245).

The claim of the Roman heritage underlying the hint at the comparisons between Roman and British Empire […], is worth remarking. Indeed, the ideas of Empire in early twentieth century Britain were diverse, even divergent, and it has been appropriately noticed that the complexity, diversity, and sheer size of the Empire itself, as well as the different aims that fostered the Imperial sentiment […] Nonetheless, on a cultural terrain can be traced a pattern of recurrent references to the Roman Empire, made by a wide range of authors throughout the decades of the building and consolidation of the British Empire. (Cerasi 2018, 245–246).

As Cerasi argues, the picture of Roman Imperialism conflicts on many elements with the British imperial setting, but despite this conflict, the comparison and its results were interpreted in a more positive light following the ever-growing achievements of the British Empire (2018, 245–249). Nevertheless, this past is there to draw an analogue with the colonialist era, and it is there in the identity formation of the nation.

The place of Britain in the world was fundamentally changed after the two World Wars that were devastating for Europe. As a result, the notion of Britishness was also questioned, which led to the need of a new identity for the British people. “In many ways war forged state and nation but in a way that has led to its possible break-up” (McCrone 1997, 579). Furthermore, in the post-war period, during the Cold War the nation suffered another humiliation on the global scale. The Suez Crisis and the Oil Crisis’s aftermath dismantled British imperialist goals and aims. Therefore, this imperial heritage had to be abandoned. However, both the everyday British people and the people behind the media of the time still kept the notion of being supreme to others around Great Britain, as this concept could have been read from many newspapers at the time, “[f]or some there could be no doubt. Britain’s place in the world was what it always had been” (Levin 1993, 389). On the contrary, in global politics, decolonisation ended this struggle and, ultimately, it resulted in not only an economic crisis, but also in an identity crisis as well (McCrone 1997, 591–595).

As a result, the British literature of the post-war period also reflects on this identity crisis and presents various social criticism for the audiences. For instance, the plays written by Harold Pinter and Peter Shaffer notoriously present these issues, where the main characters are in the middle of their own crisis. For example, in Pinter’s plays titled The Room, Caretaker, The Birthday Party written between 1957 and 1960; the main characters are undergoing identity transformation and suffering. Also, the same theme appears in Shaffer’s plays as well, such as The Royal Hunt of the Sun written in 1964 and Equus written in 1973.

Furthermore, Gardner argues regarding the Brexit that the identity crisis, which was borne in the post-war period, heavily influenced the events (Gardner 2017, 3).

The year 2016 will be marked as a year in which identity politics reached new levels of significance. Among numerous dramatic events, the UK referendum on membership of the European Union has brought many issues of interest to archaeologists to the fore. These range from entirely contemporary concerns, such as the future of research funding in Britain, to topics of more longitudinal significance, including the interactions between different identity groups in particular economic and political circumstances (Gardner 2017, 3).

Gardner puts heavy emphasis on the relationship between identity and imperialism regarding the British position and world view (2017, 3). As shown in the quote above, it is evident that there is still tension between the various elements that make up the identity of the ordinary people, which is either reinforced or crumbled by the national identity that is propagated by those in power.

Brexit can be seen as the culmination of the collapse of the British empire, and transformation of British identity, in the post-Second World War era and the particular dynamics of this process invite comparison with Britain’s earlier position as one of the frontier provinces of the Roman empire, especially in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. This comparison reveals two paradoxical dimensions of imperial identities, the first being that so-called ‘peripheries’ can be more important than ‘cores’ in the creation of imperial identities and the second that such identities can be simultaneously ideologically powerful yet practically fragile in the circumstances which follow imperial collapse. Such insights are important because, at a time of apparently resurgent nationalism in many countries, archaeologists need to work harder than ever to understand identity dynamics with the benefit of time depth (Gardner 2017, 3).

As a result, based on the arguments of Gardner and the nature of the issue, the past reveals itself to be ever so relevant – especially, when the roots of the society are questioned (2017, 3–4). Furthermore, English people have a special place regarding British identity, in opposition to the Scots and the Irish. Since the lands of England were under Roman control ‘they’ (as they identify as being the descendants of the Romanized people) were colonialised and civilized, in comparison with the Celts of the region, outside of the Roman borders, such as the ancestors of the Scots and the Irish – arguably placing the English into a position of a ‘frontier’ society of civilization (Gardner 2017, 7 & 13). Therefore, it is also a factor in the differences that show, for example, in the case, who voted for staying in the EU and who voted to leave (the English in majority voted to leave, while the other ethnic groups in majority voted to stay) as it is presented by the findings of Gardner (2017, 7–13).

4. The Province of Britannia

As Gardner argues, the British, and especially the English, in some context position themselves as the frontier (2017, 7 & 13). There is a historical core to this notion; however, as I established above, the continuity between the Roman times and the Anglo-Saxon rules are inherently cultural beliefs, based on culture and religion, rather than real inheritance. Nevertheless, it is an important identity aspect. Irby-Massie, summarizes the historical core in the following quote, which also leads into the notion of Romanization, where the native population is basically converted to Roman religion and culture (1999, 9).

The interaction of Roman and native in Britain is central. The Roman army, the institution responsible for imposing Roman culture on frontier societies, was itself immensely diverse in ethnicity and culture. The army, despite (or because of) its diversity, enabled locals to interact with Rome via veteran colonies, local municipal government, intermarriage, and commerce, as manifested in language, fashion, housing, and religion. Roman and native religions were an important forum for cultural exchange, providing a social organization for civilians as army cults did for soldiers of different cultural and religious backgrounds (Irby-Massie 1999, 7).

In addition, Irby-Massie also argues that before and even after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Roman Church was not as consistent and strong within the Romanized population yet and only around and after the fifth century they built real Roman Christian churches, which were not conversions of previous pagan shrines (1999, 9).

            The province was kept under control with an ethnically diverse army, recruited from people all across the Empire – from Gaul to Africa and from Hispania to Judea. This, as Irby-Massie argues, contributed to the cultural and religious variety as well, which led to the establishment of many shrines originating from faraway lands in Roman Britain (1999, 2–3). However, despite the cultural conversion – Romanization – the Celtic natives could also maintain their own religion, since “there was no religious conflict of interest,” so various beliefs and religions could co-exist within the Empire (Irby-Massie 1999, 4). By the third century, Romano-British men also took part in the defence of the province and soon they became the major factor in this task; also, it must be underlined that Romano-British soldiers started to appear outside of the province as well, mainly, due to the constant moving of the legions – which then applied to the Romano-British cohorts as well (Irby-Massie 1999, 3) – thus, it can be argued that the Romanization process was a success on many fronts.

            The Romans got into contact with the Island of Britain during the time of Julius Caesar, when he was fighting in Gaul. He led expeditions and campaigns into the island as well, between 55 and 54 B.C., mainly as a part of the Gallic Wars. However, at the time, it was not a full conquest and there was no lasting result (Cunliffe in Todd 2004, 6).

Therefore, the origins of the province date back to the rule of Caesar (Emperor) Claudius, who aimed to acquire more land, resources and, also, to secure the defence of Gallia. With his legions, he started conquering the lands of Britannia in 43 AD. However, the emperor returns from the isle in the same year and leaves everything to his generals. Between the years 43 and 51 AD, the lands up until the river Humber are conquered and Claudius organised this territory into a province and two client kingdoms (Németh et al. 2011, 491).

            Under the rule of Caesar Nero, in 60 A.D., Boudica organised a rebellion against the Roman invaders, under whose yoke and heavy taxes the Britons were suffering. Boudica was a widow queen of one of the client states, who had enough of the brutality of the Roman soldiers. She managed to spread the rebellion through the whole province and in the process, the Roman cities of Camulodunum (Colchester) and Londinium (London) were totally destroyed and their inhabitants slaughtered (Németh et al. 2011, 493). Despite the early achievements of Boudica against the Roman legions, she was defeated eventually in the year 61 A.D., and her deeds were avenged (Németh et al. 2011, 496).

            After this period, there were no more plans for more than twenty-five years to expand the Roman territories in Britain. First of all, even under the reign of Nero, there were several internal conflicts and also a civil war broke out in Gallia. Second, after his death came another civil war in the year of the “four emperors” in 69 A.D. that severely hindered any Roman goal in Britannia (Németh et al. 2011, 496 & 500). However, following this troublesome period the conquest – of what we know as Roman Britain today – was concluded under the rule of Vespasian, who emerged as the victor of the civil war (Németh et al. 2011, 500–501). He appointed Gnaeus Julius Agricola, who oversaw and led the conquest of the territories of today’s Wales and the rest of Roman Britain, and, who also prepared to go further north into Caledonia (Manning in Todd 2004, 70–71). However, the northern lands, which we today call Scotland are a matter of debate – there is not enough or correct evidence to date, whenever it was controlled or conquered for the first time; nevertheless, archaeological and some textual evidence show that some parts of Southern Scotland was under control by the Romans for a relatively vast period of time (Maxwell in Todd 2004, 76–78).

            Moreover, Hadrianus, during his reign (117–138), aimed to further secure the borders of the Empire and, as a result, built the limes. This in Britannia meant the Wall of Hadrianus (also known as the Hadrian’s Wall). This meant to protect and separate the province from the barbarians (Németh et al. 2011, 511–512).

The dominant events in the history of Roman Britain from the end of Domitian’s reign until the accession of Marcus were the construction of the two barrier walls across the island: the walls of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Both these works were major structural enterprises and although, on one hand, they declare the failure of Rome to dominate the whole island, the two walls and their garrisons represent a clear commitment to maintaining the security of the northern frontier of the province (Crow in Todd 2004, 114).

This legacy of the Empire, following the Fall, serves even still today as an important element in the English psyche, which is supported by the findings of Hanscam and Buchanan (2023, 1008).

In addition, as it is also mentioned in the quote, there was another wall, which was built on the island, north from Hadrian’s Wall, called the Antonine wall. This was built by Antoninus Pius with the aim of defending Britannia from the Caledonian tribes. Between the years 142 and 158, the territories between Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall were occupied by Rome and they intended to keep it. However, by 158, the legions had to retreat and abandoned the region due to the failure in stabilizing the power of the Empire in the region. Following the retreat, the matter was sealed afterwards. Consequently, the Wall of Hadrian became the limes of the northern frontier (Crow in Todd 2004, 132–133).

In conclusion, following the conquests, there came a continuously carried out Romanization process. Eventually, this led to the unique identity that was distinctive within the Roman Empire, which is known as Romano-British (Irby-Massie 1999, 3–4). The fifth and sixth centuries saw a continuation of the Romano-British rule over the southern part of the British Isle, with a strong identity separate from the rest of the tribes (Wood in Todd 2004, 430–432). As a result of this continuity and the physical remains scattered throughout the land, the English people kept in their possession and made the Roman period into an identity marker of their own during the modern times as well, leading up even to today (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1008–1009).

5. The Legacy’s Imprint on British Culture and Identity

Based on the research conducted by Hanscam and Buchanan, the interpretation of Hadrian’s Wall differs in the different socio-cultural contexts (2023, 1009). Such, as archaeologists may interpret as a boundary that marked the northern frontier of and stood for the Empire, and within its walls Rome was a multicultural space representing everything that it has united (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1009).

While Hadrian’s Wall has traditionally been considered to be a defensive structure intended to protect the Roman province of Britannia from the ‘barbarians’ to the north, more recent approaches argue that it functioned as a multi-faceted complex used to observe and manage human mobility, and/or was constructed as a symbol of Roman power and authority […]. [C]omparatively few studies focus on the ways in which preconceptions of the Wall influence the socio-political landscape of modern-day Britain […]. Recent studies of the post-Roman history of the Wall demonstrate its enduring importance in discussions surrounding the origins of British identity […] (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1008–1009).

Therefore, it can be argued, similarly as Hanscam and Buchanan does, that the public understanding and interpretation of the remains of antiquity gave them a special marker for their identity formation, such as I have introduced above with the Theory of the Subject (2023, 1008–1009).

Despite such plural narratives, however, many visitors continue to experience the material remains of the Wall through the lens of barbarian (‘them’) and Roman (‘us’) […]. Here, we contend that archaeologists must acknowledge and explore how the materiality of the Wall and the narratives woven around it can serve to perpetuate inequalities in the contemporary world (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1009).

As a result, it can be argued that the physical or material remains of the Roman times still heavily impact the psyche of the general public, and thus as their inheritance, it gives the English a sense of special place within the world as a frontier society, which identity affects modern day politics as well (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1008–1009).

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, as it is presented by the various examples from the modern and post-modern era, the British and, especially, the English portray the characteristics of a frontier society that they originate from the Roman period of Britannia (Irby-Massie 1999, 7). This special status affects their current decisions regarding the socio-political course that they aim to take and at the same time this contributes to an ideological and identity crisis, which results in a displaced position within the world order (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1008–1009). As I have been arguing through the examples of post-war dramas, contemporary examples and different studies, the authority in charge of the national discourse regarding identity makes the problematized question into a fluid concept that can be changed to whatever narrative fits the current goals (Cerasi 2018, 242). However, this practice further pushes society into a status of displacement and a feeling of an empty or lost national identity. Contrary to this process, the material legacy is still standing and its effect is still felt. Therefore, as it is presented via the research conducted by Irby-Massie (1999) and Hanscam and Buchanan (2023), research into the relevance of the legacy of Roman Britain is still needed from a socio-cultural and a political perspective.

Recommended Readings:

Allen, Martyn, Lisa Lodwick. 2017. “Chapter 4: Agricultural strategies in Roman Britain.” New visions of the countryside of Roman Britain, vol. 2 – The rural economy of Roman Britain. Britannia Monograph Ser. 30, Londres, 2017. pp. 142–177.

Campbell, B. 2001. “Diplomacy in the Roman world (c.500 BC‐AD 235).” Diplomacy & Statecraft, 12(1): 1–22. DOI:10.1080/09592290108406185

Croxford, Ben. 2003. “Iconoclasm in Roman Britain?.” Britannia, 34: 81–95. DOI:10.2307/3558540

Gardner, A. 2013. “Thinking about Roman Imperialism: Postcolonialism, Globalisation and Beyond?.” Britannia, 44: 1–25. DOI:10.1017/s0068113x13000172

Grahame, Mark. 1998. “Redefining Romanization: Material Culture and the Question of Social Continuity in Roman Britain.” Forcey, C., Hawthorne, J., and Witcher, R. (eds.) TRAC 97: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Nottingham 1997. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Greene, Elizabeth M. 2011. Women and families in the auxiliary military communities of the Roman West in the first and second centuries AD. Dissertation. University of North Carolina.

Greene, Kevin. 2005. “The Economy of Roman Britain: Representation and Historiography.” Bruhn, J., Croxford, B., and Grigoropoulos, D. (eds.) TRAC 2004: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Durham 2004. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Hingley, Richard. 1996. “The ‘legacy’ of Rome: the rise, decline, and fall of the theory of Romanization.” in Webster, J.; Cooper, N. (eds.) Roman imperialism: post-colonial perspectives. pp. 34–48.

Millar, F. 1988. “Government and Diplomacy in the Roman Empire during the First Three Centuries.” The International History Review, 10(3): 345–377.

Rippon, Stephen, Chris Smart, Ben Pears. 2015. The Fields of Britannia: Continuity and Change in the Late Roman and Early Medieval Landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reference List:

Brunt, P. A. 1965. “Reflections on British and Roman Imperialism*.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 7(03), 267. DOI:10.1017/s0010417500003686

Cerasi, Laura. 2018. “A contested legacy: conflicting images of the Roman and British Empire in the Italian imperialist discourse through the liberal and fascist era.” In Wouter Bracke, Jan Nelis & Jan De Maeyer (eds.), Renovatio, inventio, absentia imperii: from the Roman Empire to contemporary imperialism. Academia Belgica. pp. 239–260.

Chenault, Rachel L. 2020. “The Celtic Queen Boudica as a Historiographical Narrative.” The Gettysburg Historical Journal: Vol. 19: Article 6.

Gardner, A. 2017. “Brexit, boundaries and imperial identities: A comparative view.” Journal of Social Archaeology, 17(1), 3–26. DOI:10.1177/1469605316686875

Hanscam, Emily, & Buchanan, Brian. 2023. “Walled in: Borderlands, frontiers and the future of archaeology.” Antiquity, 97(394), 1004–1016. DOI:10.15184/aqy.2023.14

Irby-Massie, Georgia L. 1999. Military Religion in Roman Britain. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill.

Kiss, Attila. 2010. “Double Anatomy in Early Modern and Postmodern Drama.” Papers in English & American Studies XX. Monograph Series 9. Szeged: JATEPress.

Levin, Bernard. 1993. “Run It Down the Flagpole (1970).” The Past Speaks. Sources and Problems in British History – Vol. II: Since 1688. Edited by Walter L. Arnstein. Toronto: D. C. Heath and Co. pp. 389–393.

Maley, W. 2010. “The English Renaissance, the British problem, and the early modern archipelago.” Critical Quarterly, 52(4), 23-36.

McCrone, D. 1997. “Unmasking Britannia: The Rise and Fall of British National Identity.” Nations and Nationalism, 3(4): 579–596. DOI:10.1111/j.1354-5078.1997.00579.x

Németh, György, György W. Hegyi. 2011. Görög-római történelem. Hungary, Budapest: Osiris kiadó.

Philips, Robert. 2003. “British Island Stories: History, Schools and Nationhood.” International Journal of Historical Teaching, Learning and Research, Volume 3(1): 3–7.

Porter, Roy, and Teich, Mikulas. 1992. The Renaissance in National Context. Cambridge University Press.

Savani, G. 2019. “An Elusive Legacy: The Rediscovery of Roman Baths in Eighteenth-Century Britain.” Britannia, 50: 13–48.

Shaffer, Peter. 1993. Equus. Edited by Adrian Burke. Longman.

Todd, M. (Ed.). 2004. A Companion to Roman Britain. DOI:10.1002/9780470998861

[1] “[The theory of the] enunciated, [studies] the mechanical relationship between signifiers and signifieds, and it considers the subject as the controller of signification. The subject in this traditional semiotics is a self-enclosed unit which is in possession of the linguistic rules, and always stands hierarchically above the elements of meaning production, as a guarantee and origin of meaning and identity. In short, this tradition is grounded in the phenomenological abstraction of an ego which is the heritage of the Cartesian ‘cogito’” (Kiss 2010, 11).

A Seminar Paper written for the East and West in the Antiquity seminar at the University of Szeged, during the Fall of 2023.

The post Roman Britain and its Legacy appeared first on Alexander Wolf Writings.

First of all, it is very important to define the phrase ‘Celtic fringe’, which refers to the specific “portion of the population of the British Isles which is of Celtic origin or the native land of such people” (Merriam-Webster U.D.). This includes the lands of Cornwall, Ireland, Isle of Man, Scotland, Wales, and Brittany. In terms of History, the ‘Celtic fringe’ was a process of language and culture revitalisation, which of course are related to nationalism (Lyons 2003, 410–411).

It was already clear during the 1970s and 1980s that Britain is a multinational state, which also meant that it is divided culturally and with regard to the national identity of its citizens. While England is the dominant region and for the English there is little distinction between being English and British, the Irish of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland consider themselves first and foremost Irish. The Northern Irish case is very special, which is discussed in detail later on this essay. In summary, the Protestants living in Northern Ireland are closer in identity to the British, but the Roman Catholic minority is dominantly Irish. The economic troubles of the 1960s and 70s and the shrinking of the Empire threatened the unity of Britain and saw the rise of Celtic nationalism once again, which dominates the cultural and political life of the Irish in both Irelands today (Heyck 2002, 265).

For example, a contemporary example can be taken from sports. Most sporting bodies are established on an ‘all-Ireland’ basis. Except national football teams, which are separate organisms in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. At the Olympics, a person from Northern Ireland can choose to represent either the Republic of Ireland team (which competes as “Ireland”) or United Kingdom team (which competes as “Great Britain”). In football the same can be observed regarding other Celtic nations, such as Wales or Scotland still plays in under their own nationality and not under the colours of the United Kingdom (Sugden and Sugden 1997, 46).

Second, to say the least, the relationship of Ireland with England and Scotland was complicated. Therefore, to discuss the present situation, it is important to look at the roots of the contemporary problems. Since the very beginning of time there was a British-Irish quarrel. Ireland was united with Great Britain in 1801 (1800 – Act of Union) – forming the United Kingdom of Ireland and Great Britain. Then, the Irish actively sought equal representation in the English Parliament and when that failed, they turned to rebellion (Britannica I.D.). Following the unification, however, integration of the Irish failed and during the Great War, the ‘Celtic fringe’ was revitalized (Heyck 2002, 133).

The rift between the people of Ireland and the other Celtic nations and the English originates partly from the field of religion. Opposed to the British, the Irish are Roman Catholic Christians – while, of course, the British are Protestants, namely, mostly Anglicans (the Scottish are Presbyterians). This led to further complications, which later also led to the escalation of the status of Northern Ireland and the radicalized Irish Republican Army (Heyck 2002, 136).

Several historical events contributed to the rivalry, but arguably the most devastating was the Potato Famine (1845–1851) alongside the constant English tyranny that led to many deaths (over 1 mil. during the Potato Famine) and to the emigration of the population to the United States of America. The atrocities that the British made against the Irish and the negligence towards their pleas are not forgotten even today (Irish Famine Curriculum Committee 1998, 1–14). Following the years of the Great Irish Famine, the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries saw the rise of Irish nationalism – mainly from the ranks of the Catholics, as it is already established before (Heyck 2002, 133–136).

The next important step in the chain of events that led to the Irish Revolution was the Home Rule movement (1870–1918). In 1914 Home Rule was accepted by Westminster, which meant that the Irish can rule Ireland. However, this was opposed by the Ulster Volunteers (1913). They were Protestant Irishmen and Scots, who feared that the Home Rule will lead to the absolute power of Catholics in Ireland. Therefore, this group aimed to prevent the passing of the Bill. To counter act the Ulster Volunteers, the Irish Volunteers was formed in 1914, who, of course, wanted to ensure that the Home Rule Bill was passed by Westminster (Heyck 2002, 136).

The Bill was passed, with the “temporary” exclusion of the six Ulster counties (precursors of the Northern Ireland province), which was the achievement of the resistance that the Ulster Volunteers showed. The most crucial part, which set the course of Ireland into the direction of uprising, was that before it could have been implemented, the Home Rule Act had to be suspended for the duration of the Great War. However, the Irish demanded immediate implementation despite the war and the decision of Westminster was taken as a betrayal (Heyck 2002, 136).

Due to the plans of John Redmond (leader of the Home Rule movement) to get involved in the European front, the Irish Volunteers split into two branches, one was the National Volunteers (the Majority – Supporting Irish involvement in the War) and the other was the Irish Volunteers (the Minority – radicalized and opposed involvement in the war). As a counter movement, the Red Hand of Ulster, distinguished themselves from the rest of Ireland in order to show that they are separate and willing to fight for the Empire (Brandon 1992, 402–405).

During the year of 1916, amidst the Great War, the radical Irish, who had enough of tyranny, had risen up. This was the Easter Uprising, which was carried out by the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Republican Brotherhood (which was a socialist militia). The British response, partially because of the war was martial law, executions and imprisonment. However, this turned the country towards welcoming the radical rebels, which eventually led to the Conscription Crisis of 1918. During which the Irish resisted to be taken into the army to fight in the Great War (Heyck 2002, 137–138).

As a result, turning from the peaceful and lawful solution, Sinn Féin, the Radical Irish Party, had won popularity and support after the English retaliation. They won during the General Election of 1918. Following the Great War, they declared the Irish Republic in 1919, with an Independent Parliament and government. The year of 1920 saw the Government of Ireland Act and the declaration of Ireland as an independent republic. Furthermore, this meant inspiration to the people longing for freedom, which resulted in more and more volunteers to Irish Republican Army (IRA). The result was three years of guerrilla war against Britain that lasted from 1919 to 1921 (Heyck 2002, 139–141).

Meanwhile British public opinion was sickened, they had enough. From one war to another they had to march and soldiers did not want to die in Ireland after they survived the Great War. This meant that in July 1921, a truce was established and in December 1921 the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed. The treaty meant a complete independence for Ireland in home affairs, practical independence in foreign policy, but loyalty to the King of Britain. Basically, a dominion status. However, this was different from other dominions; there was no representative in Westminster and the foreign policy of the country was managed somewhat ‘independently’ (Heyck 2002, 141).

However, to much dislike to the radicals and the IRA, this truce also meant the creation of Northern Ireland in 1921, which is still part of United Kingdom as of today. This created a rift within the populace and on June 1922 the Irish Civil War broke out, which lasted until May 1923. It was fought between the pro-Treaty-National Army and the anti-Treaty IRA. In addition, the atrocities of the Civil War created more and more a rifts in the Irish society. Also, today Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are the direct continuations of the opposing parties in the Republic and still their programs reflect the original ideas, dividing the nation. Britain, who was interested in peace, supported the pro-Treaty forces – which were successful due to the weapons provided by the British. Finally, the Civil War ended in 1923, de Valera ordered cease-fire and the Irish Free State was once again led by the winners, but this meant that they are part of the Commonwealth (Heyck 2002, 142–145).

The years of 1921–1939 proved to be successful in the case of establishing the Free State, but was also accompanied with great economic and social problems. A nation divided by the treaty and the British succeeded with the Partition of Ireland (North and South). The IRA was treated as a criminal organization and the government had to accept the borders of Northern Ireland (Heyck 2002, 145).

Fianna Fáil won the elections of 1932. Therefore, the 1930s were marked by de Valera’s social policies that aimed to counter the Great Depression. However, there were no funds for any social policy and especially for any welfare benefits. The relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the Empire had worsened, mainly because of the open criticism of the Partition and because de Valera had stopped the turnover of land purchase payments to Britain. He also dropped the oath of allegiance, which was part of the treaty. To say the least Britain was not pleased, but this time restrained from using violence, there was no need for another war, especially a domestic one. As a result of the British appeasement towards the Irish, de Valera saw to the establishment of a new constitution in 1937, which was free from British interference. This meant a gradual separation from the British Empire (Heyck 2002, 146–147). However, British political agenda did not permit true union with Northern Ireland, so this remained a formal point of the new constitution (Heyck 2002, 145–147).

The 1940s, despite World War II marked the road towards greater sovereignty. The Irish demonstrated neutrality during the war. However, clandestine assistance was provided to the Allies, which marked where the Republic was leaning in the scene of world politics. Despite the various assistance, the neutrality was unpopular with not just the British, but with the Americans as well. People in Great Britain viewed the neutrality as a threat to the safety of the islands. However, the neutrality was only formal, because in secret, the Irish supported the Allies by allowing them to use Irish airspace and by reporting Nazi submarine movements. In addition, Irish volunteers fought in the war on the side of the Allies (Heyck 2002, 273).

After the war, the road was clear towards true independence, mainly, because neutrality was not in line with the Commonwealth. De Valera’s Fianna Fáil party lost dominance after the war years (1945–48), mainly due to the lack of progressive programs. The relatively “young” opposition–Clann na Poblachta–proclaimed the Irish Republic. The year 1949 saw the declaration of the Republic of Ireland, which was free from all British rule. (Heyck 2002, 273–275).

Large-scale emigration marked most of the post-war period, particularly during the 1950s and 1980s. However, beginning in 1987 the economy improved, and the 1990s saw the beginning of substantial economic growth. Also, Ireland joined the European Community, which greatly advance their options and boosted the economy (White 2007, 8). Due to this period of rapid economic growth, The Republic of Ireland became known as the Celtic Tiger (Heyck 2002, 316).

In Northern Ireland, during the 1950s and 60s, Catholics in Ulster began to change their opinion towards the Northern Ireland province. The 50s and 60s saw the emancipation of Catholics in the United Kingdom and also there was the rise of ecumenism within the Roman Catholic Church. The citizens of the UK (including that of Northern Ireland) enjoyed the benefits provided by the welfare state and Catholics had the opportunity of attending universities, which they took. The goal for them was shifted from the union with the Republic of Ireland to achieving full rights as Catholic citizens in Northern Ireland (Heyck 2002, 278–279).

This changed atmosphere gave rise to the Northern Ireland civil rights movement. Marching and demonstrations for equality were held, starting from 1967. Similarly to, and pretty much inspired by the American civil rights movement (Heyck 2002, 278).At first, the goal of the marches was not at all union with Ireland. However, Irish radicals’ and the Ulster Protestants’ irrationality and the non-Catholic fear of unification led to harsh reactions from both sides. During the years of 1968–69, Protestant mobs attacked the civil rights marchers. The Police only stood by or some from among their ranks even joined in on the Protestant side (Heyck 2002, 278–280). Arguably, this was one of the ultimate atrocities that stemmed from viewing the Christians as enemies instead of citizens. As a result, the resistance of the IRA grew even fiercer.

For instance, the protestant viewpoint was that the Catholics were traitors. Ian Paisley argued that the Civil Rights Movement was only a plot to reunite Ireland and subjugate the Protestants of Ulster to the Pope (Heyck 2002, 280–282). This once again shows that the whole rivalry has several levels, and the religious differences are very important. During the years of the Troubles, this aspect resurfaced constantly – especially, from radicalised parties.

The other aspect of the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland was characterised by the accusation of discrimination against the Irish Nationalists and the Catholic Minority by the Unionist governments. Therefore, the 1960s were also a fight to end discrimination. In the beginning it was non-violent and moderate – in 1967 the movement was launched by the Catholic minority in Ulster, without the IRA (Heyck 2002, 278).

Loyalists and Unionists opposed the campaign and accused the movement of being radical and fighting for a United Ireland. It was especially voiced by the radical protestant organization, the Orangemen, also known as Ultra-Protestants, led by Ian Paisley. The Ulster governments could not negotiate with both sides and ultimately failed to satisfy the Roman Catholics (Heyck 278–280).

By the summer of 1969, people were killed in Belfast during Protestant-Catholic riots. The August Riots in 1969 resulted in the deployment of British troops by Wilson’s Labour government and this marked the beginning of the Troubles (1969–98). At first, the Catholics welcomed the British Army as their saviours against the Protestants and their Police brutality. However, the arrival of the army coincided with the revival of the IRA (Heyck 2002, 279).

The IRA began the shootings and bombings against the British army, the Ulster police and the Protestant paramilitary organizations. As a result of the constant fighting, the Civil Rights movement merged with the IRA’s goals. The struggle escalated quite rapidly: murder, assassinations, bombings, and executions became daily. Many people in the Catholic community turned against the British army, which tried to flash out the IRA among the Catholics and that led to innocent deaths. For instance, in July 1971, two young Catholics were killed in Derry by British troops. Stormont government refused to investigate, as a result, the Catholic representatives withdrew from the Parliament. In addition, in Aug. 1971, the army and the police began the internments of suspected IRA sympathisers. Internment camps were set up and the army also tortured prisoners. British troops fired on protestors, who tried to raise their voices against the internment camps (Heyck 2002, 279–280).

As a result, the Stormont government was dismissed and Westminster established direct rule over Northern Ireland. from London in 1972. The British goals were to re-establish order and to get rid of the Irish problem. This gave rise to the power sharing policy. Finally, in 1974, moderate Protestants and Catholics agreed to work together that resulted in the Sunningdale Agreement. However, as it happened before in many occasions, Protestant fanatics destroyed the hope and tore down the results of the Agreement. In conclusion, the IRA continued the bombings, which did not help either (Heyck 2002, 280–281).

In 1973, Westminster tried to reconcile the opposing parties by holding a Border Poll (referendum). It was held in Northern Ireland, which ironically the Irish nationalists had boycotted. Therefore, the results were an overwhelming majority for remaining in the UK (Heyck 2002, 281). Basically, this was an opportunity to achieve some kind of change or to make the governments to hear the voice of the people, but by refusing to take part in this legal process, they once again wasted their chances.

The IRA complicated matters by miles. In 1979, they carried out the assassination of Airey Neave, the Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland in the House of Commons parking lot. Earl Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, was also blown up on his own yacht. In 1984, a terrorist IRA bomb destroyed the Grand Hotel in Brighton. This narrowly failed to kill the Prime Minister , Margaret Thatcher. As a result, Thatcher became relentless against the nationalists. Refused to give in to hunger strikes, which resulted in the death of the strikers (Heyck 2002, 280–281).

In addition, both the government of Northern Ireland and the IRA used ruthless propaganda to win the people’s support. The IRA, for example, used the case of Mairead Farrell, who as they told was an innocent university student executed without evidence, to shake up the civilians in order to create an uprising. However, as it was proved later, Farrell had affiliations with the IRA and partook in extreme or radical operations as well. The goal of the IRA was to frame the Ulster Government as ruthless murderers and as the source of terror. In contrast, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, despite the efforts of the government, did the very same against the IRA and further escalated the already dire situation (Lyons 2003, 412–414).

The Irish Republic became more and more hostile against the IRA. The Republic sympathised with the Civil Rights movement, but the IRA went too far, which in fact destroyed opportunities for de-escalation, peace or even partial reunification and overall cast a bad light on the unification project. After the bombings and the violence, carried out by the IRA, spread to the Republic and especially Dublin, the Irish Parliament adopted an anti-terrorist legislation and started imprisoning IRA activists (Heyck 2002, 281–282).

In addition to carter to Westminster and the Protestants of Northern Ireland, in 1972 the Parliament of Ireland removed Article 44 from the constitution to make itself less threatening towards the Ulster Protestants. Previously, this article gave the Roman Catholic Church a special status. This act was intended to show that the Republic of Ireland is in no way aims to view the citizens of Ulster as second class citizens based on their beliefs (Heyck 2002, 282).

Ultimately, all of these events led to the point, where in 1980 the Republic of Ireland officially admitted that Northern Ireland is a province of Britain. As a result of this gesture it was evident that the Republic is increasingly willing to cooperate with the British in putting down the IRA. This cooperation was a good foundation for establishing peace. Both parties were willing to open talks (Heyck 2002, 280–282).

The willingness to cooperate led to creation of the New Ireland Forum in 1983, which was aimed to improve the Anglo-Irish relations (Heyck 2002, 282). Partially it succeeded and resulted in the Hillsborough Agreement two years later in 1985. This agreement concerned the notion of a united Ireland that would only be achieved by peaceful means (Heyck 2002, 282). Such as by the principle of majority of wishes in Northern Ireland (Heyck 2002, 316–317).

Since both the Irish and the British interests lay in peace and stability, in 1993 the Northern Ireland peace process began with the Downing Street Declaration. The IRA in the middle of these events had to recognize that they cannot drive the English out of Northern Ireland, also the British had to realize that they cannot defeat the IRA as well. However, the IRA was still a radical terrorist organisation (and even today it is one), so they refused to lay down arms. The leaders of the IRA feared that the principles laid down in the Downing Street Declaration would lead to Protestant veto over the Catholic minority. However, Adams persuaded the majority of the IRA to accept the ceasefire, and take part in the peace-talks. The Ulster Unionists saw this as a sign of weakness and since they were the majority, they voted to not let Sinn Fein take their seats in the parliament unless the IRA lay down arms. Of course this invoked the fear of surrender, which the IRA wanted to avoid at all cost. As a result, this fear and resentment resulted in the 1996 IRA bombings. This led to violence once again, which left the peace talks in ruins (Heyck 2002, 317–318).

Despite the temporary setback, in 1997 Tony Blair accepted that the reunification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland would be a “natural” solution to the problem. Then in Belfast, he urged all parties to take part in the negotiations, where he also apologised for the Great Famine – which marked a new attitude and a new direction for the British towards the Irish. Eventually, this led to the aim from all parties that Northern Ireland should to be demilitarized. With the establishment of the Council of the Isles another great step was taken in to the direction of peace, and finally, the Irish were considered to be equal, In 1998, after the long years of The Troubles, the Good Friday Agreement had finally been signed. This meant the ceasefire of the IRA and Sinn Fein (Heyck 2002, 316–320).

Furthermore, to understand the whole process and why it is very difficult to reconcile the opposing sides, it is very important to take a look at the viewpoint of the radical party as well. For this, Bernadette Devlin’s interview that she gave to Playboy in 1972 is a very useful source. Especially, because the rhetoric and the references that she used are quite telling regarding the way how radical supporters of the union with the Republic of Ireland frame and think about the events and the opposite side.

As we can read in the introduction of Blakeley the whole situation is either “England’s Irish question, or Ireland’s English question” (1993, 266). This notion sets up the approach of Devlin that is filled with resentment and which aims to frame the rivalry in the same condescending viewpoint that the British had before. It can be argued that this is partly the result of the unfulfilled nationalism and the religious bigotry that characterises both parties.

Devlin as a Roman Catholic advocates for the unification of all Ireland in opposition to the Protestant unionists, who want to remain part of the United Kingdom. She was elected to be a member of the twelve Northern Irish PMs in House of Commons in order to represent the Catholics and fight for their rights. She positions herself as an Irish Nationalist and socialist – advocating for the system to be an independent socialist state, which could solve the problems of the Irish. However, she spent time in prison for inciting to riot in the name of change, instead of realising slow reforms in the legal way. Therefore, she turned to radicalism, which is a very important characteristic that marks the political solution taken by her (Blakeley 1993, 266–267).

In addition, she condemned the British policy towards Ireland, but drawing a more complex picture, mainly due to the fact that she acknowledged that the problems of Ireland were not only incited by the British political and religious oppression. Instead, the interview presented two parallel societies living in Ulster besides one another, a rift within the Irish nation. Also, she draws the line of segregation on the historical fact that there were Scottish Presbyterian settlers imported by Cromwell, during his conquest of Ireland. Describing the complex history of Ireland as “800 years of invasion, oppression, exploitation and genocide” (Blakeley 1993, 267). She also makes a reference to the Battle of Boyne that was part of the Glorious Revolution: “In Northern Ireland, the Battle of Boyne is still being fought…” (Blakeley 1993, 268). This quote explains the attitude of the radicals, which is evident, that they are fighting a revolutionary war constantly against the British.

This war like attitude also explains the viewpoint, which was debated that if the Irish negotiating team had held out, the British Parliament under Lloyd George would have caved in. The argument stems from the fact that after The Great War, the survival for the British depended on the quick withdrawal from Ireland by the British forces in order to save manpower and other resources (Blakeley 1993, 269).

Finally, Devlin argues that the North was exploited, and non-protestants are oppressed. Therefore, the long term solution would only be a United Ireland with the idea of independent socialism, otherwise problems will resurface time and time again despite the reconciliation efforts. But eventually she too realises that only a peaceful reunification is acceptable (Blakeley 1993, 270). As a result, in my interpretation, it is clear that both the British and the Irish are fighting a war that neither side can win at the moment, but which could be partially solved if both sides would let their hatred go.

In conclusion, the events of the early 20^th century set the course for the Irish nation, and even today dominates their political affiliations and sometimes their everyday lives as well. In summary, the resentment of the people towards the British and the conflict and tension that exists even today stems from the scars between the various ethnicities that live in the British Isles. For example, radical IRA terrorists are still active today in Northern Ireland, fighting an improbable war to liberate Ulster and create a united and independent Ireland. However, they disregard facts that the region is now of Protestant majority and they more or less democratically voted to stay in the UK. The other side of the coin is that the British are in the same boots and they are interested in keeping Northern Ireland. Today Brexit complicates matters further, so this question is far from being answered. Therefore, the own biases of both Ireland(s) and the UK and their agenda keep them from recognising the failures of their current political patchwork that is meant as a solution for the long run. Feelings and radical points of views that are embedded in the events of the past still dominate the political and social lives of the two Irelands.

Reference List:

Bardon, Jonathan. 1992. A History of Ulster. Newtownards: Blackstaff Press.

Blakeley, Brian and Collins, Jacquelin. 1993. Documents in British History. Vol. II: 1688 to Present. London: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. Invalid Date. “Act of Union.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Act-of-Union-United-Kingdom-1801. Accessed: 3 November 2022.

Heyck, T. W. 2002. A history of the British Isles from 1688 to 1914. Vol. II. (From 1870). London: Lyceum Books.

Irish Famine Curriculum Committee. 1998. “The Great Irish Famine.” New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education. Online archived PDF. Accessed: 3 November 2022.

Lyons, Laura. 2003. “Hand-to-hand history: Ephemera and Irish Republicanism.” Interventions, 5(3), 407–425. DOI:10.1080/1369801032000135648 

Merriam-Webster. Unknown Date. “Celtic fringe.” Dictionary. Online dictionary. Last accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Celtic%20fringe

Orwell, George. 2008. Animal Farm. London: Penguin Books.

Sugden, J., & Sugden, J. 1997. “Sport and community relations in Northern Ireland.” Managing Leisure, 2(1), 39–54. DOI:10.1080/136067197376275 

White, Timothy J. 2007. “Modeling the Origins and Evolution of Postcolonial Politics: The Case of Ireland.” Postcolonial Text, Vol 3: 3.

[1] Orwell (1903–1950), also known as Eric Arthur Blair.

Written at the University of Szeged, during the Fall of 2022, for the Seminar titled Politics and Society in Interwar Britain.

The post The Celtic Fringe – The Case of Ireland appeared first on Alexander Wolf Writings.