110 years ago marked the beginning of a new political era for the Irish. Centuries of oppressive rule by British overlords included the prohibition of expressions of Irish culture, discrimination against its Catholic population, and worst of all, intentional mass starvation during the 1840s. Although it is known as the Irish Potato Famine, the reality is that while the potatoes died in large quantities, British landlords confiscated virtually all of Ireland’s supply of other foods, such as beef, cheese, and fish. They made exorbitant profits off selling them back in Great Britain, whose wealth contrasted with the extreme poverty that scarred Ireland in the 19th century. As a result, around one million Irish people died of hunger, and millions more emigrated from the island, mainly to urban centers in Canada, the United States, and Great Britain since then. In fact, the island’s population today still is lower than it was in 1841, while tens of millions of people in America alone claim Irish ancestry. But in 1916, a rebellion that would serve as the catalyst for Irish independence began. The Easter Rising conducted by fighters aiming to establish Ireland as an independent republic in Dublin was unsuccessful after days of attempting to seize control of various buildings in the city. British troops crushed the rebellion, but later lost to the Irish republicans in the War for Independence. Despite a civil war shortly after Irish independence, the Republic of Ireland has enjoyed political stability and a lack of armed conflict ever since, even during the Second World War, when the country remained neutral. Ireland was no longer impoverished to subsistence levels, but still remained a largely agrarian, isolated economy that was far from Europe’s strongest in the mid 20th century. The economic policies of the new republic were marked by intense trade barriers, and in particular, high tariffs on imports of British goods in the 1930s. These failed to produce prosperity for Irish farmers, and even after the Second World War, Ireland’s economy remained relatively stagnant, in contrast to the booming ones on the European mainland. However, since the 1970s, reforms in Ireland’s economic policy have greatly improved its significance on the global stage. In 1973, Ireland turned away from protectionism by joining the European Economic Community, predecessor of the European Union, which allowed for free movement of goods, services, capital, and people between the island and continental Europe. This would only be the first step towards producing its economic boom later on. Combined with low corporate tax rates that kicked in during the turn of the millennium, it has produced a business-friendly environment not just to other European investors and corporations, but for the rest of the world as well. Major American firms, such as Dell and Intel have also established presence in Ireland’s business-friendly environment to gain access to the European Union’s market, which has turned it into the “Silicon Valley of Europe.” In fact, the country has now greatly surpassed its former colonizer in GDP Per Capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity, becoming one of the richest members of the EU. Even when Ireland’s government imposes restrictions on market activity, it has done so in a highly transparent manner. Ireland consistently ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, and has invested its tax revenue and subsidies from the EU heavily in education to continue this economic growth. These contrast sharply with many other countries that gained independence from Britain, such as Nigeria and Zimbabwe, whose public institutions have been rife with corruption and mismanagement of funds. It is not a coincidence that many of Britain’s similar former African colonies also rank low on indices of business friendliness and market freedoms, which has severely hampered their economic growth. If colonialism really explained poverty in the world, Ireland would be far from where it is today economically.
By Edward Kim
It may come as a shock to individuals who have been told otherwise that feminism and women’s rights are not the same concept. It is unclear when the two ideas were interconnected, however, in modern culture, especially digital media culture, you cannot believe in women’s rights and say you’re not a feminist. Common arguments used to respond to those who try to disconnect the two are to ask them to get rid of all of the things they received from feminism, and deem them oppressed. However, there is a vast amount of undebatable arguments that sit below the surface as to why the two are not the same. The most simple is that the idea of “women’s rights” is a term that speaks for itself, while feminism, despite popular belief, is not. Women’s rights simply encompasses women’s ability to have liberty and the same access legally as men. The idea of feminism drives beyond that; feminism is a movement shaped by its authors. To make the statement “feminism believes in equality” is logically incorrect, because feminism is a social movement with a variety of different perspectives. Additionally, a similar statement of “it’s only fourth wave feminism” is also incorrect, because quotes from multiple early authors of first wave feminist literature associate themselves against systems of religion (primarily Christianity), traditional family structure, and women who chose to partake in the two. Overall, this reasoning fundamentally separates feminism from “women’s rights” or “women’s equality” because it associates equality with debatable ideas, not solid concepts. As time passes on in societies, the definitions of popular movements tend to change. Feminism is not exempt. Today, feminism is associated with “pro-choice” and other political movements. Advertisements like Nike’s “Dream Crazy” highlight current feminist perspectives of toxic sameness – the common definition of “feminism” today not only believes in underlying oppression, at a systemic level, but its method of dismantling oppression is by disconnecting women from traditional roles and placing their value in their success in typically masculine settings. Arguably, feminism as a movement does not create equality on the level of both sexes and their typical gender distinctions, but it disconnects women from the idea of gender altogether, taking their groundedness away from biological-social connections, and arguing that men and women should not be distinct social groups, only distinct biologically. The most important subnote here is that identifying feminism’s wins for women’s legal advancement does not take away these tensions between morality and underlying sexist trajectories. The underlying issue in all of this is rooted in the lack of thought given to “pro-women” ideas and the irresponsibility associated with modern “girlhood”. The blind acceptance of anything that seemingly positively influences women or places them on an equal level to men, regardless of the fact it does not properly represent the essence of womanhood, is an issue by which society has turned into a gender-confused warzone. This is not to say gender diversity does not exist, as we see intersex individuals being born for many years, but false gender diversity has blurred the line between “pro-women” and “pro-sameness”. This rhetorical dystopia reflects the very ideas we were warned about in previous years, which could be considered “Orwellian”, and unfortunately, it has torn apart classical ideas of women’s rights and any true opportunity for respect of our sexual difference.
By Megan Fincher
Anytime there are strained relations between the US and another country, leftist media outlets do not miss the opportunity to point towards President Trump’s “failed” diplomacy. After Maduro’s arrest in international narcotics cases, the same thing happened. Outlets like BBC reported a “Venezuela Attack” and some outlets claimed Maduro’s arrest was due to Trump’s ego rather than America’s national interests. But if it was an “attack,” how were Venezuela and US flight services restored just yesterday? In a significant geopolitical and economic development, the US and Venezuela extended trade relations, restoring commercial flights between Miami and Caracas after 7 years. The US Department of State credited President Trump’s leadership for these improved diplomatic ties. “For nearly 7 years there have been no direct commercial flights between the U.S. and Venezuela,” the Department of State said. “Under President Trump, we’re changing that today. Flights between Miami and Caracas [have been] restored.” 7 years ago, the US Department of Homeland Security ordered an indefinite suspension of the airline route, citing security concerns. Now authorities have confirmed that the first commercial flight successfully completed the Miami–Caracas journey, reestablishing a vital air corridor that had remained inactive since 2019. The renewed flights will deliver immediate benefits: reconnection for families separated for years, particularly within the large Venezuelan population living in the United States; strengthening of business travel; support for trade discussions; and the encouragement of investment opportunities between the two countries. Airlines have already begun scheduling regular service on the route, and officials expect additional carriers to follow. This expansion will increase travel frequency and gradually normalize air connectivity between the two nations. Under President Trump, the Middle-East geopolitics are reshaping in various nations including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They have become closer with the US and have cost Iran and its terror proxies a lot as Iran is failing to draw sympathy for its terror operations from those nations. Trump accomplished this during the Gaza peace deal under the name of Peace 2025. Yes, relations with NATO nations under Trump’s presidency look slightly strained, but what he is saying shows that he is reconsidering foreign policy via “Peace Through Strength.” NATO nations had bluntly stated that the Iran war was “Not our war.” Yet, the US funds 60% of NATO’s defense. When it’s US taxpayers’ money and NATO doesn’t help the US in a crisis, Trump’s skepticism is valid. Recently, King Charles and Queen Camilla visited the US and attended a dinner at the White House, marking their first official visit since ascending the British throne in 2022. The occasion also marks the first visit by a British monarch since Queen Elizabeth II traveled to the US in 2007 for the Jamestown settlement anniversary. But, the left-backed media outlets resorted to trolling Trump, downplaying his diplomatic efforts that made this historic moment possible and paved the path for stronger ties between the nations. Regardless, Trump’s second term has witnessed dramatic foreign policy shifts: war against the nuclear capacity of terror-sponsoring nations, ending the Gaza war, and stopping the India-Pakistan conflict. Tariffs are now ready to be charged at “zero” in India, which were historically as high as 150%. In short, Trump’s actions starting from Maduro’s dramatic arrest to his tit-for-tat policies in imposing tariffs have significantly elevated the US’s global super power image, which he promised in his MAGA campaign before the 2024 election. Thus, his “Peace Through Strength” is no longer a mere political stunt—it’s actually showing results.
By Susmita Majumder
Follow Us