The next photograph, showing the Irish Volunteers in Dublin during World War 1 again supports the idea of Irish nationalism as a belief rather than propaganda. The group of men are both protesting against the war, and confirming their Irish nationality, as they only ‘serve’ Ireland. However the photograph shows only a small number demonstrating their nationalism, and only shows that there were these feelings in Dublin. It also includes a sign, which could easily be seen as propaganda. It uses the same inspiring sort of slogans which can be seen on sources of propaganda, like the two poster sources shown here. It raises the question whether Irish nationalism was just a propaganda concept, which developed into something much more?
The third photographic source is accompanied a small paragraph, but both picture and writing try to paint a brief picture of Constance Markievicz. In doing this it shows that Constance Markievicz is not your traditional Irish nationalist. In fact she seems to have no motive for her support other than sympathy. Or perhaps she was seduced by Irish nationalist propaganda. It is difficult to say whether this source supports the idea of nationalism, even among the landed classes, or whether it shows that propaganda was very much at work converting people to the nationalist cause. The source itself is not very helpful in discerning an answer for this because it does not explain Markievicz’s reasons for joining the side of the Irish.
The other two sources, both recruitment posters of a sort, are definitely propaganda, and show all the signs of propaganda. They are trying to sell Irish nationalism to the masses. Thus, could it be said that this is not propaganda but merely advertising? But then, are these not the same thing? Firstly there is the Irish Citizen Army recruitment poster, which does its best to bring out all the wrongdoings of the British and paint the picture of Ireland as the oppressed underdog. It also uses short inspiring sentences designed to invoke feeling. This source may be produced for direct propaganda purposes but it could have been produced by a small number of people, and so it is impossible to determine the effect or reach of such material. It undeniably shows the use of Irish nationalism in propaganda, but the question has to be asked whether Irish nationalism is the tool of propaganda or propaganda is a tool of Irish nationalism?
Again the other poster source, trying to inspire the men of North Roscommon, is again quite obviously propaganda, although the same question over which is the tool of which has to be asked. This source emphasises national pride, and uses text size to highlight certain words. It is again very adept in its use of propaganda techniques, and also pictures Ireland again as the underdog.
The sources are inconclusive in either direction in answering whether “Irish nationalism was a propaganda concept.” They show both the presence of strong Irish nationalism as a force and belief in its own right, and also the use of propaganda advertising powerfully Irish nationalism. It is impossible to say if the nationalism that became present was just rekindled or whether it was developed anew. Perhaps better debate than if “Irish nationalism was a propaganda concept” would be whether Irish nationalism is the tool of propaganda, or vice versa?
