1916 celebration

phantom_lord

Questioning right to life of a sacred cow
ADVERTISEMENT



READERS of the Sunday Independent are a superior class of Irish people. (Yes, yes, I'm flattering you shamelessly, but, a) I mean it and, b) I'm buttering you up in the hope that you'll do me and, indeed, Ireland, a small favour.)

You demonstrate your superiority because, in a country culturally conditioned by an authoritarian church to suppress any questioning of orthodoxy, you have for years tolerated dissenters on these pages.

Long before it was popular or profitable, the Sunday Independent allowed its contributors to question and criticise church, State and even the peace process.

We're no longer bullied by bishops or impoverished by little Irelanders but, as a nation, we still have a few sacred cows hanging about the place whose right to life needs to be called into question. One such is the belief that Easter Rising of 1916 was a good thing.

This particular cow sickened a while back, and while it got the occasional nod from passers-by for old time's sake, increasingly, it was worshipped enthusiastically by only a few fundamentalists, who encouraged it to run amok.

Then came the Government's decision to call in the vets, fill the cow with antibiotics, monkey glands and sedatives, get it scrubbed up, trained to be continent and put under the aegis of the Health and Safety Authority.

Henceforward, was the thinking, this docile sanitised cow would be kept away from the fanatics and be a safe pet for the whole community.

A few heretics, however, are suggesting that the beast is inherently dangerous and should be put down.

They point out that in 1916 Ireland was a democracy, that Home Rule was on the statute book, that during a war in which 140,000 Irishmen served, back home a tiny conspiratorial cabal staged a revolt that caused about 450 deaths and 2,600 injuries (mainly to civilians), that in the subsequent war about 1,400 died and in the civil war around 2,000, and that these conspirators still inspire young men to kill.

Why, they ask, do we celebrate that?

Last weekend, President Mary McAleese, presumably at the behest of the Government, denounced such heretics as "a powerful and pitiless elite" who wickedly suggested that 1916 was "an exclusive and sectarian enterprise".

Her speech demonstrated that despite her modish rhetoric, at 54 our president is little changed from the Mary Patricia Leneghan who grew up sharing the prejudices of a fiercely nationalist, Catholic Belfast community.

She shows no sign of having read any modern Irish history except that produced by a gaggle of counter-revisionists who repackage old myths in modern jargon, and she put at risk all the good work she has put into trying to make friends with unionists.

The McAleese hotch-potch of justifications for violence included women not having the vote and her curious belief that Ireland was run from the Kildare Street Club.

THE speech was littered with sneering references to "imperial English gentlemen" and the "foreign class" (ie Anglo-Irish Protestant) who mainly ran Ireland. (There was, of course, no mention of the enormous contribution made by the Irish to protecting and running an efficient empire.)

Roy Garland, a unionist commentator who feels nothing but friendship for our Republic, wrote of how Mrs McAleese "has taken risks for peace but now plays with fire".

To him, the legacy of her 1916 "heroes" was "the utter decimation of the southern unionist community, the cowering of many 26-county Protestants, partition and fratricidal strife in the North."

"She has let herself down and demeaned the presidency," said a moderate unionist friend. "And she made it worse by comparing 1916 - where 16 men were shot for staging a revolution - with the Somme, where tens of thousands of people died terrible deaths in a war they hadn't started."

A friend from a unionist background but now a constitutional agnostic emailed:

"I am distressed and disappointed by a speech that reeks of narrowness . . . exclusivity - precisely those characteristics which Mrs McA levels at the critics of 1916.

"For example, to claim, as she does, that membership of the Catholic church automatically enabled Irish people to have a higher level of contact with the wider world causes the followers of Irish Protestantism to wonder whether they have been relegated to the status of lesser beings to be pitied for their insularity and unavoidable small world view.

"It is precisely this sort of dogma which helps to make non-Catholics feel a sense of 'not belonging' to Ireland - of being outsiders who can never really belong."

The Irish Times columnist, David Adams, a loyalist who fought hard to make the Good Friday Agreement work, complained that her speech represented "propaganda posing as historical truth". What she said about the "idealistic and heroic founding fathers and mothers" of 1916 could equally validly be said about the Provos or even the Real and Continuity IRAs, he commented.

Before our army starts marching in celebration of 1916, we need a sober debate about whether we should cheer. The small favour I ask is that you consider and discuss these questions posed by Kevin Myers last week.

1. What right had the 1916 insurgents to start killing innocent Irish people in Dublin? What right? (No, no, no: don't ask what right the British had to rule Ireland. That's quite another question, to which, of course, the poor victims of the 1916 insurgents had no answer.)

2. Why had none of the signatories of the Proclamation, not one of them, ever stood for parliament?

3. How could they possibly call the butchers of Belgium 'gallant allies'?

4. How can supposedly civilised people today 'celebrate' an orgy of violence in which hundreds of innocent Irish people died?

And here is one from me: 5. How can it be right for a handful of unelected men in the secret Irish Republican Brotherhood to kill and maim in the name of Irish freedom in 1916, in a democracy, yet be wrong for members of various secret Irish Republican armies (some of them elected) to do the same over the subsequent nine decades?

Answers on a postcard, please.

Ruth Dudley Edwards

This artcle has more holes than Emmentaler. She can be certain of my reply in the post.

Flex

The person sounds like a total jackass. Probably a member of the reform organisation thing from the sounds of it

madmorphy

Well all i can say to you,is more fool to you for buying the rag.Check out any of the gaaboards on the web and you'll see the huge no.'s boycotting the paper due to its stance and commentary on all matters gaa.

Aidan1

She's been writing along these lines for years.

Phantom - if its so full of holes, why don't you try answering her 5 questions?

Aidan1

Aidan1 wrote:

Phantom - if its so full of holes, why don't you try answering her 5 questions?

It is full of holes.She's probably right about some people not having a mandate to do what they did.But she totally ignores that there was a wave of sympathy for them when they were put to death by the British-not to mention the reactive sympathy later arising out of the Black and Tans reign.
In 1916 or earlier Ruth Dudley Edwards wouldnt have had a vote and neither would any woman... so along with many things it wasnt the democracy we are in today
In that democracy half the population hadnt a vote.

Most countries have national holidays based on what led to their foundation or significant events around it.
July 4th didnt come about peacefully and Guy Falkes wasnt a peace loving person either.

It doesnt mean we advocate what was done then as being a template for today-we most certainly dont.
Why dont we? Because we are informed and we have evolved into a more civilised stable society with a set of expectations compliant with that modern information age society.

Television and Radio have had a lot to do with bringing that about in that unlike centuries ago people can see war, the outcomes of it and the tragedies and invariably at least here in Ireland say no thanks.

Zombrex

phantom_lord wrote:

This artcle has more holes than Emmentaler. She can be certain of my reply in the post.

Not a big fan of the Sunday Independent, but that article seemed to make a lot of sense

Why do we celebrate 1916 when a small revolt of a secret organisation managed to kill and mame a load of fellow Dubliners?

Sure it lead, indirectly to events that put the War of Independence into motion, but that was more down to the executions of the men by the army and the successful propaganda campaign by Sinn Fein (who actually had feck all to do with the rising) afterwards than the actual rising itself, which managed to achieve nothing.

In fact if the army had not over reacted in such a manner with the executions of the ring leaders it could be argued that the rising would have done serious damaged to the independence movement as the rising itself caused wide anger amoung the Dublin population and the population of Ireland in general.

magpie

If you didn't like that article I heartily suggest you avoid Ruth Dudley Edwards' biography of Padraig Pearse.

Aidan1

Its full of holes alright, or at least semi deliberate oversights, but she always manages to pose the same questions for the 'traditionalist' or anti revisionist view of Irish history. She's not exactly comprehensive in her views, but its a short article, and, if nothing else, its thought provoking.

She's probably right about some people not having a mandate to do what they did

Probably? The individuals involved in the Rising were a breakaway group from an unelected party. They had no mandate, whatsoever.

But she totally ignores that there was a wave of sympathy for them when they were put to death by the British

She also ignores the fact that it was the conscription crisis of 1918 that gave Sinn Fein so much support in the election that year (Even if they didn't win an outright majority). Its an omission, but its a short article.

In that democracy half the population hadnt a vote.
How is that relevant? They didn't have a vote anywhere else in the UK at that time either. Ireland wasn't being unduly oppressed on that basis, rather it was subject to the same laws as the UK. There are a great number of things that the UK Govt had pressed on Ireland that are more relevant than universal suffrage to this debate.

Ireland was enough of a democracy to have elected a majority of nationlists to the commons for several decades, and for them to have secured a Home Rule Act by 1914.

I agree that we should have an 'independence day', I just don't think that 1916 is the appropriate point to celebrate it. The simple fact of the matter is that 1916 was an attack by a small minority, not just on crown forces and civilians, but on the attempts by other nationalists to secure freedom through other means. It was an attempt to subvert existing processes by radicals and it worked, at the cost of thousands of lives. Why should we celebrate that?

How about whatever day in December the "Treaty" was ratified by the Dail?(in 1922)

Zombrex

Aidan1 wrote:

But she totally ignores that there was a wave of sympathy for them when they were put to death by the British

She also ignores the fact that it was the conscription crisis of 1918 that gave Sinn Fein so much support in the election that year (Even if they didn't win an outright majority). Its an omission, but its a short article.

Thats a good point.

The Rising didn't cause the wave of sympathy for the cause. Quite the opposite in fact, Dubliners hated the members of the rising (which kinda nullifises the idea they had a mandate from the people as well).

What caused the wave of sympathy was the executions of the leaders of the rising days later and the successful propagranda campaign by SF that followed. But I don't see anyone lining up to thank the army for killing these men.

I know it is necessary for people to try to focus the wealth of historical information onto one point in time, to say "This caused it all..", but really we are clasping and mythical straws here to say that the Rising itself cause, or lead directly to, independence. The Rising put in motion other events that would eventually lead to independence, but not through any purposful direct plan of action. If you take the goals of the Rising, what the members actually hoped to achieve, the Rising was a complete failure. Independence was due as much to the actions of people independent to the events on Easter 1916 as it was the actions of those at the GPO.

Aidan1 wrote:

How about whatever day in December the "Treaty" was ratified by the Dail?(in 1922)

I was thinking the same thing.

Aidan1

Aidan1 wrote:

In that democracy half the population hadnt a vote.
How is that relevant? They didn't have a vote anywhere else in the UK at that time either. Ireland wasn't being unduly oppressed on that basis, rather it was subject to the same laws as the UK. There are a great number of things that the UK Govt had pressed on Ireland that are more relevant than universal suffrage to this debate.

It's relevant because they have a vote Today and Ruth Dudley Edwards is comparing "Democracy" as it was then with the truer Democracy we have today.

I agree that we should have an 'independence day', I just don't think that 1916 is the appropriate point to celebrate it. The simple fact of the matter is that 1916 was an attack by a small minority, not just on crown forces and civilians, but on the attempts by other nationalists to secure freedom through other means. It was an attempt to subvert existing processes by radicals and it worked, at the cost of thousands of lives. Why should we celebrate that?

How about whatever day in December the "Treaty" was ratified by the Dail?(in 1922)

It would depend on what you are objecting to.
If its the loss of lives that was involved in the run up to independence-then you wont support remembering it at all because it was achieved bloodily.

Aidan1

It's relevant because they have a vote Today and Ruth Dudley Edwards is comparing "Democracy" as it was then with the truer Democracy we have today.

I still don't get you. Yes, we have a more fair democracy today, but even the state of affairs in 1916 was democratic by contemporary standards. In that, at least, Irish people, were not being discriminated against. And that democracy was sufficient to have secured a Home Rule Act by 1914. With todays democracy, what significant alternative result would have been achieved? Its irrelevant.

All I'm saying is that if we are going to have a day of independence, it should actually celebrate a date on which independence was achieved, not one which was actually an attempt to prevent or subvert an existing process to bring independence about.

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

It's relevant because they have a vote Today and Ruth Dudley Edwards is comparing "Democracy" as it was then with the truer Democracy we have today.

Not really, she was pointing out that Ireland was a democracy to the same standard as the rest of Britian. Now there are a few problems with that if you don't accept Ireland as part of the UK in the first place, but I think the point she was making was the democractic channels to independence were not blocked off, quite the opposite, so a military route was not justified.

The question of if women could vote doesn't really come into it. Women's sufferage followed pretty much the same line as Britian, with women getting conditional voting in 1918 and expanded voting in 1928, so independence would not have effected this either way as far as I can tell.

Snickers Man

I must admit to being hugely amused at the sight of Kevin Myers (who is quoted in Dud's piece) getting his shorts in a shemozzle now at the prospect of people looking back with patriotic fervour to the year 1916 to pay reverent regards and offer undying thanks to those who fought and died then.

After all, he's been harranguing us to do the same for years.

Only the version he wants us to subscribe to is the alternative version to that proposed for the 1916 jamboree. He wants us to remember with pride those Irishmen who served with the British Army in the First World War and who have been 'written out of history' by subsequent generations.

As I've said before, the Irish veterans of the British Army were never 'written out of history'. Their story is well known, and frequently told on state-owned RTE, their deeds remembered by their families, their remembrance services marked and their monuments extant even south of the border.

What is probably true to say is that we have never 'written in' to our popular history a version of events that seeks to given them an uncontrovertible glorified status in our national pantheon but that's a completely different thing.

Before we beat ourselves up over this let's see how other countries remember key events in their history. And how they might do otherwise to meet the exacting standards of Kevin Myers, Ruth Dudley Edwards and <shudder>Eoghan Harris.

France: national holiday - Bastille Day
Commemorates the storming of the Bastille Prison.
Version written into history
A symbolic overthrow of the old corrupt ancien regime striking at the leading physical manifestation of its intrinsic cruelty and a vindication of the spirit of freedom of the common people, leading to the eventual establishment of an enlightened democracy based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Version written out of history
A brutal indisciplined rabble showing utter disregard for the rule of law launches an attack on a correctional institution, thereby undermining any decent notion of peaceful legal mechanisms to affect changes in society. Leads to the tyrrany of the reign of terror, military dictatorship and a ruinous war that lasts for 25 years.

France: Alternative national day: June 18th
Anniversary of broadcast by General De Gaulle to the French People following the French surrender in World War II
Version written into history
Heroic stand by indomitable patriot who refuses to accept defeat in the face of overwhelming odds and vows to fight on thereby keeping alive the soul of a free, independent democratic France that eventually fought its way back to a place among the community of nations.
Version written out of history
Unmandated recidivism by an upstart military man who had never stood for election, urging his countrymen to renege on a legally binding international treaty signed by their own democratically elected government to bring to an end a war against Germany which they themselves had declared. Safe in exile he urged the creation of a force of insurgent contras to undermine the legitimate government of that part of France which remained independent. Led to a campaign of vicious and murderous terrorism which saw thousands of French civilians (in particular young girls with German boyfriends) murdered in an orgy of triumphalist bloodshed.

Australia & New Zealand-Anzac Day
Commemorates the military service of Aussies and Kiwis, particularly at Gallipoli
version written into history
Remembers with pride the valour and selfless devotion to duty of the ANZAC fighting man as he struggled heroically against all the odds in unfamiliar terrain with scant support from their British masters against a ruthless and pwerful foe, providing successive generations of his countrymen with a sense of national pride and proving an inspiration in all fields from sports to politics.

Version written out of history
Lickspittles of the empire who went rushing off to fight Britain's battles at the click of a finger. Invaded Turkey, with whom they had no quarrel, with the intention of dismembering that country and handing its capital and chief port over to its traditional enemiy Russia.
Got the crap kicked out of them by an underarmed, underfed but ferociously brave enemy who fought to the death to defend their homeland and suffered huge casualties, not necessarily at the hands of the Anzacs but from the incessant shelling from the Pommy Navy.
They were the bad guys.They invaded a country that never harmed them. They got their just desserts. It was nearly a hundred years ago. Let it go.

Try saying that to a modern day Ozzie if you're brave enough.

The point is that there are many different ways to view history when looking backwards. And other countries can be as myopic as we are, if not more so. At least we're having a debate as to how best to do it. Any Ozzies, Kiwis or Frogs want to take me up on any of the points I've raised above?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Not really, she was pointing out that Ireland was a democracy to the same standard as the rest of Britian. Now there are a few problems with that if you don't accept Ireland as part of the UK in the first place, but I think the point she was making was the democractic channels to independence were not blocked off, quite the opposite, so a military route was not justified.

I was referring to this bit...

Ruth Dudley Edwards wrote:

And here is one from me: 5. How can it be right for a handful of unelected men in the secret Irish Republican Brotherhood to kill and maim in the name of Irish freedom in 1916, in a democracy, yet be wrong for members of various secret Irish Republican armies (some of them elected) to do the same over the subsequent nine decades?

Answers on a postcard, please.

Ruth Dudley Edwards

My emphasis is in bold.
Democracy/society then in Ireland and Today in Ireland has evolved and improved to an immense degree.Information was at a premium then whereas today we are informed to the extent that most people abhor violence because we can easily see the consequences of it.

The question of if women could vote doesn't really come into it. Women's sufferage followed pretty much the same line as Britian, with women getting conditional voting in 1918 and expanded voting in 1928, so independence would not have effected this either way as far as I can tell.

It does come into it along with a lot of other things when you see Ruth trying to compare back then with today.
They got the vote in 1918 allright but only when they were over 30.Try telling society today that women should only vote when over 30.

Ergo the two "times" and events are not comparable

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

As I've said before, the Irish veterans of the British Army were never 'written out of history'.

Actually until very recently they were.

My great grandfather faught in the Great War in Eastern Europe (he was at Galipoli) and at his death in 1976 he had thrown away all his photographs, letters, medels and other WWI articles as he believed that no one in Ireland cared about the war, or the Irish who had faught in it. Throughout his life he had kept largely quiet about is involvment as it attracted opinions of distaste.

So it has only been in the last 10-20 years or so that we as a nation have begun to accept the fact that a large number of Irish soldiers fought in the Great War and more importantly that they should be remembered.

Snickers Man wrote:

Before we beat ourselves up over this let's see how other countries remember key events in their history.

I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you saying we should celebrate 1916 since other countries celebrate equally distastleful events? How does that work?

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

Ergo the two "times" and events are not comparable

Again, not really following your points here Earthman.

You seem to be saying that the democracy of 1916 and the democracy of today is very different because in 1916 women couldn't vote. This is totally irrelivent to any of the points you have listed from the article.

The bit you highlighted in the article was asking why terrorist groups like the IRA are not justified in todays democractic world, but seemingly were justified in 1916.

Are you saying that they were justifed back then because women couldn't vote and as such we didn't have a "true" democracy?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Are you saying that they were justifed back then because women couldn't vote and as such we didn't have a "true" democracy?

I am saying they were accepted back then in circumstances far removed from today when they wouldnt be and evidentially arent accepted.
People voted en masse for the SF of then but they didnt for the SF of Today when the IRA were bombing and shooting in the North.

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

I am saying they were accepted back then in circumstances far removed from today when they wouldnt be and evidentially arent accepted.
People voted en masse for the SF of then but they didnt for the SF of Today when the IRA were bombing and shooting in the North.

But one of the points of the article was making is that by accepting Easter 1916 as a national celebration we are saying that we (ie modern society) accept what the rising members did by the standards of our modern time.

Snickers Man

Wicknight wrote:

Actually until very recently they were.

My great grandfather faught in the Great War in Eastern Europe (he was at Galipoli) and at his death in 1976 he had thrown away all his photographs, letters, medels and other WWI articles as he believed that no one in Ireland cared about the war, or the Irish who had faught in it. Throughout his life he had kept largely quiet about is involvment as it attracted opinions of distaste.

Well that's a shame. My mother still has letters one of her uncles wrote home from the front in 1914. There weren't too many though. He was killed in Septermber that year.

So it has only been in the last 10-20 years or so that we as a nation have begun to accept the fact that a large number of Irish soldiers fought in the Great War and more importantly that they should be remembered.

Well, your experience is different to mine then, speaking as a product of an inner city national school in Dublin. We had the proclamation of the republic with the pictures of the seven signatories on the class room wall of course and we were taught all about the heroics of Pearce and the boys. We were also told how they were jeered and booed as they went away and I also remember being told in school about the Irishmen who fought in both world wars.

I remember for instance, reading an extract in a school reader from some piece by Brendan Behan describing a hilarious scene when a film about Gallipoli was shown at the local cinema. All the local Dubs went to catch a glimpse of their relatives in the Dublin Fusiliers who were massacred at V beach. As the film rolled and the bodies fell everybody started pointing out their brothers, fathers and uncles as they got shot. He even joined in himself and received huge sympathy when his 'Da' got killed.

It was of course, just a bunch of Holywood extras but that didn't stop anybody's claims. Which just went to show that in 1930s Dublin, the general populace were only too well aware that many Irish people had fought in the war.

This is quite apart from what I learned at home from my family, both sides of which sent men to the front in WWI and WWII.

I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you saying we should celebrate 1916 since other countries celebrate equally distastleful events? How does that work?

I am simply pointing out that hindsight is 20-20. And that people all over the world are only too pleased to accept a single version of historical events that glorifies their present. 'Nobody voted for Pearce in 1916' How many French voted for De Gaulle in 1940?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
in the 19th Century when we were ruled by Britain, our police force was routinely armed (in the countryside anyway)
since independence the standard policeman is unarmed. We are one of only three European countries that I know that does this.

In the 19th Century when we were an integral part of the world's strongest Empire with direct representation in the House of Commons, 10 per cent of our population starved. They don't since independence.

We stopped hanging people before most other countries in Europe.
We have built a successful thriving economic nation and now have other challenges to face to accomodate that.

Could this have been achieved without 1916? Maybe, but we'll never know. It's there. Remember it.

Aidan1

And that people all over the world are only too pleased to accept a single version of historical events that glorifies their present

Thats nice. So we just do the same thing, and gloss over history just because others do it?

Its not quite the same thing for us though, we accept constitutionalist nationalism and the rule of law now, just as the majority of Irish people did in 1916, why would we celebrate a Rising aimed just as much against Irish people as the crown?

It's there. Remember it.

No one is saying that we should institutionally 'forget it'. In fact, the sheer volume of the debate since the presidents speech should tell you what a 'live' issue it is. All I'm doing is questioning the wisdom of elevating it, above all else in Irish history, to the role of foundation myth. To do so glorifies violence and the subversion of democracy, particularly when there are other options that are more relevant. We know better now, right?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

But one of the points of the article was making is that by accepting Easter 1916 as a national celebration we are saying that we (ie modern society) accept what the rising members did by the standards of our modern time.

Oh you mean in the same way that say those who come out on the 12th accept that we should do today what King Billy did? Clearly as you know the very vast majority of them dont.

To suggest that they should is a mischievously flawed logic on the part of Edwards.
We are not accepting it as a standard to uphold or to practice today.We are recognising it (by looking back on the reasoning and result of it) as the genesis of the state that we have today.
Two completely different things.

I mean no one (with the exception of a tiny minority) is advocating murder and mahem today based on the fact that it did the job in the early 20th century.
Why?
Because we have evolved and moved on to better more peace full solutions.

Edwards might(in an effort to diss 1916) want to think that we should praise todays tiny minority in the same way that we praise 1916's tiny minority but that just doesnt hold water thanks to the huge evolution of society.
Edwards might like to ignore that but I wish her luck and maybe when she's done criticising in Ireland, she can move onto the many other democracies and preach the same errant nonsence to them.
She could start with Bastille day as its a quick ryanair trip away.

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

We are not accepting it as a standard to uphold or to practice today.We are recognising it (by looking back on the reasoning and result of it) as the genesis of the state that we have today.

Well firstly as I said in other posts it really wasn't the "genesis" of the state that we have today.

Secondly, the idea that these tactics were acceptable at the time is nonsense. We are talking about 90 years ago, not the middle ages. Terrorist campaigns were as unacceptable then as they are now, especially considering that Ireland was a democracy, much more of a democracy that many countries of the time. The political struggle to independence had been ticking away for 50 years previous to 1916, the idea that military action of the type shown in 1916 was justifed then because it was a different time doesn't hold.

Thirdly you cannot distance the support for the actions of the rising by saying we are not celebrating we are "recognising" .

If the event was a memorial of quite reflection (possibly with a church service) that remembered all those who died on both sides and remembered what a waste the event was you might have a point.

But clearly that is not what is on the table. What is on the table is a celebration of what took place on Easter 1916.

To a lot of people, myself included, that is a very distastleful proposition, as distastefull as celebrating events of modern terrorism.

shoegirl

Wicknight wrote:

Why do we celebrate 1916 when a small revolt of a secret organisation managed to kill and mame a load of fellow Dubliners?

I think the answer to this is something that still lives in Ireland today: that much of rural Ireland regarded Dubliners as "not proper" Irishfolk who disregarded the needs and views of those outside Dublin, and that as a result they were (and still are in many circles) regarded as inferior beings to those outside Dublin who were/are seen as representing "true" Irishness. Just a suggestion!

Dudley Edwards is an interesting writer. Her commentary regarding unionism is one of the few actually informed commentaries that exist. It sad that after nearly 80 years of partition that such a level of ignorance exists regarding those who we are trying to embrace into the 32 county state. Or are we? Are we simply instead trying to drive them out of the country, or ignore them in the hope that they will simply go away?

What Dudley Edwards does manage to do is see Ireland without the rose-tinted glasses of the nationalist ideology. Her views are challenging, and I often have found myself uncomfortable with what she says - especially when it does seem to make sense.

I don't like her style of writing simply because it patronises nationalism and rural Ireland in a way reminisent of British imperialism. However I do think she has a few points. I think her last question is definitely food for thought: why was it ok for the 1916 revolutionaries to go out with guns blazing, and what differentiates them from the next 9 generations of republican revolutionaries?

shoegirl

Snickers Man wrote:

In the 19th Century when we were an integral part of the world's strongest Empire with direct representation in the House of Commons, 10 per cent of our population starved. They don't since independence.

However according to every new survey produced we are now only second to the US in terms of inequality, have a rate of homelessness greater than any UK city (and in some cases greater than several of them put together) and for all the efforts of the last 2 governments, this inequality is growing dramatically. People might not starve today in Ireland since 1916, but they certainly do still experience horrendous levels of poverty. This has nothing to do with whose flag flies over the Mansion House or Dublin Castle . . .

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Well firstly as I said in other posts it really wasn't the "genesis" of the state that we have today.

I disagree.
At best we'd still be in the commonwealth with a free state like the Isle of man but not a Republic.
Essentially we'd have Todays Scotland status but decades before Scotland had it.
The timeline of opinion and events post 1916 did get us to where we actually got regardless of whether there was minority support at the time or not.

Secondly, the idea that these tactics were acceptable at the time is nonsense. We are talking about 90 years ago, not the middle ages. Terrorist campaigns were as unacceptable then as they are now, especially considering that Ireland was a democracy, much more of a democracy that many countries of the time. The political struggle to independence had been ticking away for 50 years previous to 1916, the idea that military action of the type shown in 1916 was justifed then because it was a different time doesn't hold.

I didnt say justified,I said accepted.

Thirdly you cannot distance the support for the actions of the rising by saying we are not celebrating we are "recognising" .

Yes you can elementarally by saying you wouldnt do it today.
I might be a Christian but I'm not going to nail myself to a cross for your sins.

If the event was a memorial of quite reflection (possibly with a church service) that remembered all those who died on both sides and remembered what a waste the event was you might have a point.

That ignore/evades my point entirely.One can and by and large the majority does recognise what went on in by gone days as the actions of the time.It's not an advocation of a repeat.

But clearly that is not what is on the table. What is on the table is a celebration of what took place on Easter 1916.

Yeah so whats new about that? FF'ers have been celebrating it for years albeit without a national day and FG'ers have been idolising collins for years.
Both are celebrations of what was acceptable in a different time and clearly unacceptable today.
And dont tell me it wasnt acceptable then.
The distinctions are clear FF won the 1932 general election after all that trouble SF havent won any General election today and its been a longer time frame since the 2nd ceasefire.They are unlikey too in the near future either.

To a lot of people, myself included, that is a very distastleful proposition, as distastefull as celebrating events of modern terrorism.

So you will think the same of Bastille day in France and july 4th in the States then? Both celebrations recognise events of murder and mahem

As regards associating them with acts of modern day terrorism that fly in the face of the evolved society we have today.
Well that just plain doesnt compute.
If you think both things are the same they are not.Both societies are completely different.

Snickers Man

Wicknight wrote:

Thirdly you cannot distance the support for the actions of the rising by saying we are not celebrating we are "recognising" .

If the event was a memorial of quite reflection (possibly with a church service) that remembered all those who died on both sides and remembered what a waste the event was you might have a point.

But clearly that is not what is on the table. What is on the table is a celebration of what took place on Easter 1916.

Brilliant!! Well put!! Now you put exactly those same criteria to the 'commemorations' of other country's past wars and then I'll listen to you.

Do a search for the number of times the word Gallipoli appears on the website of the Sydney Morning Herald or The New Zealand Independent. (put allintext:Gallipoli site:www.smh.au.com into the search window in Google)

WTF were the Australians doing there? Fighting for Belgium? Hello!!!!!

I've never been a Sinn Fein voter in my life but the IRA have as much right to fight for Dublin and Belfast as the Aussies have to fight for Gallipoli or the British for the Falklands.

Snickers Man

shoegirl wrote:

However according to every new survey produced we are now only second to the US in terms of inequality, have a rate of homelessness greater than any UK city (and in some cases greater than several of them put together) and for all the efforts of the last 2 governments, this inequality is growing dramatically. People might not starve today in Ireland since 1916, but they certainly do still experience horrendous levels of poverty. This has nothing to do with whose flag flies over the Mansion House or Dublin Castle . . .

What do you want to do? Hand it back to Britain and apologise for its condition?

I'm not saying we live in a Nirvana, but at least this country is now answerable to its own electorate. We have the country we deserve, for better or worse. I know which I'd rather have.

I'm not proud of the fact that my ancestors were cannon fodder for the empire. Are you?

I'm angry about it.

LordSutch

Did You Know?

I have been studying History this year and it has come to my attention that the 1916 rebellion was in fact a very unpopular act!

Initially I was stunned, becuse all my life I have been taught that "we" the Irish people faught the evil Brits in order to gain independence, whereas in "Reality" a handful of Republican fundameltalists went on an idolistic mission of Rampage & martyrdom, and "According to the history books" the people of Dublin actually hurled insults, eggs, rotten tomatoes and horse manure at the leaders of the 1916 rising as they were been led away to jail, such was Dublin's disgust at their treacherous actions (News indeed to me)!

So now after all these years of having one side of the story drummed into me I can see another side for the first time and the fact that the seeds for this State were hatched (Slap Bang in the Middle of the GREAT WAR) with many thousands of Irish men fighting under the Union Flag in the trenches of the Somme, while at the very same time a motley bunch of Irish Republicans decide to have a go at Britain through the back door.
"Not a Good idea if you think about it for one moment" - and so - the leaders were executed - as was the way in those days (Fact)!

LordSutch

Snickers Man wrote:

I've never been a Sinn Fein voter in my life but the IRA have as much right to fight for Dublin and Belfast as the Aussies have to fight for Gallipoli or the British for the Falklands.

One thing is for sure Snickers - The IRA were not fighting for Dublin in 1916, they were fighting against the people of Dublin!

Snickers Man

ArthurF wrote:

Did You Know?

Yes. See earlier post above

arthurf wrote:

I have been studying History this year and it has come to my attention that the 1916 rebellion was in fact a very unpopular act!

Well Eu-focking-reka Archimedes.

arthurf wrote:

"According to the history books" the people of Dublin actually hurled insults, eggs, rotten tomatoes and horse manure at the leaders of the 1916 rising as they were been led away to jail, such was Dublin's disgust at their treacherous actions (News indeed to me)!

So you weren't paying attention in history class. What's your point?

gurramok

ArthurF wrote:

So now after all these years of having one side of the story drummed into me I can see another side for the first time and the fact that the seeds for this State were hatched (Slap Bang in the Middle of the GREAT WAR) with many thousands of Irish men fighting under the Union Flag in the trenches of the Somme, while at the very same time a motley bunch of Irish Republicans decide to have a go at Britain through the back door.
"Not a Good idea if you think about it for one moment" - and so - the leaders were executed - as was the way in those days (Fact)!

Those fighting in the Somme wanted Irish independence, they were not fighting for retention of the Union, they were conned into going there by the moderate nationalist redmond on the pre-text that if we helped Britain & poor Catholic Belgium that Britain would grant us independence.
The heroes of 1916 knew better.
It took a war of independence to make sure our promise for freedom was enacted after Britains refusal to grant home rule despite the sacrifice of the conned in WW1.