1916 celebration

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

I disagree.
At best we'd still be in the commonwealth with a free state like the Isle of man but not a Republic.

How does 1916 have anything to do with the formation of the Republic. We were a free state (and part of the commonwealth) for over 15 after the formation of the Free State in 1922, and we removed ourself from the Commonwealth and into a Republic state using diplomatic (and peaceful) channels.

Earthman wrote:

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.

True, but then a lot of events, some of much more importance than Easter 1916, got us to where we got.

Earthman wrote:

I didnt say justified,I said accepted.

As I said, they were neither justified or accepted at the time.

Earthman wrote:

I might be a Christian but I'm not going to nail myself to a cross for your sins.

No, but you souldn't get very far as a christian by saying that if Jesus had done that today it would have been wrong.

Earthman wrote:

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.

You don't have to advocate a repeat for something to still be distastlefull.

Imagine how warmly welcomed a R-IRA member would be if he stood up and said that "While Omagh shouldn't be repeated, it was none the less necessary step to freedom in the North and the right thing to do at the time. Therefore we should celebrate the brave men and women of the R-IRA who planted the bomb while also remembering the lives of the civilians who died so we can be free" ... don't think they would get very far with that.

Earthman wrote:

And dont tell me it wasnt acceptable then.

It wasn't acceptable then. In fact of all the "freedom figher" things that were done during the 800 years of opposing British rule in Ireland the rising was one of the most pointless and unacceptable actions.

Earthman wrote:

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

No they don't

Independence day (4th July) in America celebrates the signing of the declaration of independence.

Fête Nationale (know, incorrectly, as "Bastille day" in English) celebrates the Fête de la Fédération in 1790 to celebrate the constitutional monarchy, held exactly a year after the storming of the Bastille.

Neither day directly celebrates an event in American or French history of war and death like the Easter Rising celebrations do in Ireland.

Earthman wrote:

As regards associating them with acts of modern day terrorism that fly in the face of the evolved society we have today.

You either have a very poor idea of "society" in 1916 or a very high idea of society now if you believe our society has evolved to such a huge extent in only 90 years.

Earthman wrote:

If you think both things are the same they are not.Both societies are completely different.

In what way?

LordSutch

gurramok wrote:

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.

You present a total distortion of the truth young man - Those fighting at the Somme were not impressed on their return to Dublin to find what those Republican Yobbos had done to their City "this is a fact" its not my opinion, It is also a fact that (nearly) everybody wanted some form of Government in Dublin, (but not by force) and if those poor misguided Republican souls had not carried-out 1916 or 1922 then we would probably have a very nice Government in Dublin today anyway! I might also suggest that there would not have been the "Troubles" and we certainly would not have suffered Sixty years of hardship and poverty - remember that as recently as 1986 the EMF were nearly knocking on the door, such was the terrible state of the Republics Finances and the huge debts built-up since 1922, so much for independence then (In the way that it happened)!

Snickers Man

gurramok wrote:

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.

To be honest, the penny had dropped before 1916. When war was declared in August 1914, the Home Rule Bill was just about to be passed. It had gone through the house of commons two years previously but was held up by Tories in their stronghold of the House of Lords.

Naturally there was considerable nationalist euphoria about the granting of home rule which was not abated,initially at any rate, by the fact that its implementation was put on hold until the war was over and until a separate arrangement could be made for Ulster.

So Redmond enthusiastically urged members of the Volunteers to enlist in the British Army to establish their bona fides that they would be good neighbours and trusted partners in the Empire to a parliament that appeared to be delivering on its promises.

Sure enough, a division's worth of volunteers signed up almost straight away. They became the 10th Irish division who were sent out to Gallipoli, split up, messed around and eventually packed off to Bulgaria after the abject failure of the Gallipoli campaign to fight the Bulgarians in the middle of winter with their summer clothes.

Another division's worth of men were raised almost immediately from Ireland. That was the UVF which became the 36th Ulster Division. They too were determined to demonstrate their loyalty to king and country in the hope of being rewarded afterwards. They would get cut to pieces at the Somme.

The third of the three Irish divisions that Kitchener hoped to raise took a longer time to come together. Recruitment slacked off rather alarmingly. Why was that, do you think? It was long before 1916.

Maybe they realised that if the British had to make a choice between a debt of honour owed to one bunch of Paddies who had sacrificed themselves for the green cause and another bunch that had died for the Orange cause, then naturally they would choose the one that best matched their own interests, ie the Orange one.

Maybe people were beginning to get an inlking that the British were likely to welch out of their commitments once the war was over.

Cronus333

Wicknight wrote:

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.

here here!

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

How does 1916 have anything to do with the formation of the Republic. We were a free state (and part of the commonwealth) for over 15 after the formation of the Free State in 1922, and we removed ourself from the Commonwealth and into a Republic state using diplomatic (and peaceful) channels.

Yes we evolved.1916 was certainly a traceable root to peoples opinions on getting a Republic as opposed to a free state.If it didnt happen, there would have been an electorate less disposed to Republicanism

True, but then a lot of events, some of much more importance than Easter 1916, got us to where we got.

I dont know about that now.
Playing a game of which event was more important than the rest is not what I'm debating here with you.I'd rather take the collection of events and not worry about the importance of each individual event-other than to recognise what historically led to SF and ultimately its sucessors eventually getting their Republic.

As I said, they were neither justified or accepted at the time.

I'd have thought the 1918 election answers that.Most candidates that got elected supported it.But in the absence of a poll of all people,It's hard to say.
I can be definitive as regards the assertion of comparison between then and now though.
SF today did not get anything like the support of 1918 2 years after the 1990's ceasefires and are unlikey to in the foreseeable future either ergo Edwards point doesnt hold water as regards comparing acceptability.

No, but you souldn't get very far as a christian by saying that if Jesus had done that today it would have been wrong.

I dont know of anyone thats done it since that hasnt been sectioned.

You don't have to advocate a repeat for something to still be distastlefull.

This is your angle on it,you think it distastefull to celebrate something that if done today is distatefull.
The world doesnt work like that.
Basically by your logic the people who came out in their tens of thousands nationwide to celebrate the bicentenary of 1798 were all wrong.
You're entitled to that opinion of course but it is a minority one.

Imagine how warmly welcomed a R-IRA member would be if he stood up and said that "While Omagh shouldn't be repeated, it was none the less necessary step to freedom in the North and the right thing to do at the time. Therefore we should celebrate the brave men and women of the R-IRA who planted the bomb while also remembering the lives of the civilians who died so we can be free" ... don't think they would get very far with that.

This is where you again ignore how society has evolved to such a large extent as to recognise the likes of Omagh as an unnecessary abhorance that couldnt possibly conceivably spurr any future train of events like the 1916 rising did.

It wasn't acceptable then. In fact of all the "freedom figher" things that were done during the 800 years of opposing British rule in Ireland the rising was one of the most pointless and unacceptable actions.

You say that,I hear you but I am not here to defend it,I'm here to tell you that Edwards comparison of that band of rebels with the present day IRA is invalid.

No they don't

Independence day (4th July) in America celebrates the signing of the declaration of independence.

I suppose no one died to get that?

Fête Nationale (know, incorrectly, as "Bastille day" in English) celebrates the Fête de la Fédération in 1790 to celebrate the constitutional monarchy, held exactly a year after the storming of the Bastille.

I suppose no one died when the Bastille was stormed either.
I suppose the French Revolution was entirely peacefull?

Neither day directly celebrates an event in American or French history of war and death like the Easter Rising celebrations do in Ireland.

heh thats a good one.. "directly" you say
You give out to me earlier in the thread for the difference between acceptance,recognition and celebration-yet now you are glossing over the events that lead to the French Republic and the independence of the US by saying they were indirect.
Your bucket hasnt even got a bottom in it now never mind holding water.

You either have a very poor idea of "society" in 1916 or a very high idea of society now if you believe our society has evolved to such a huge extent in only 90 years.

Lets see,how many televisions were there in the 1920's, how good was the dissemination of information?
What were the social values like then compared to today? Was there any possibility that most people were a bit more anti British than they are in 2006?
Ever heard of the magdalene sisters?
What way did society treat you if you had an out of welock baby or split from your husband or wife.
You think Society or the way it looked at things in the 1920's, was the same as it is in 2006?
Get Real
Of course it isnt.

Sand

This is where you again ignore how society has evolved to such a large extent as to recognise the likes of Omagh as an unnecessary abhorance that couldnt possibly conceivably spurr any future train of events like the 1916 rising did.

Unfortunately society hasnt evolved to such a large extent as to recognise the likes of 1916 as an unnecessary abhorance.

The fascination with 1916 completely overshadows the work done by Irish constitutional politicians and cultural revivalists (GAA, Gaelic League), long, long before 1916. The lesson, as SFIRA consistently state today, is that violence is neccessary to achieve a United Ireland and Republic. That is the message of the apologists for 1916 - that we wouldnt have the Republic we have today without 1916, without violence, without bloodshed. SFIRA at this point nod enthuastically. Its demented that on one hand were trying to tell SFIRA that constitutional politics is the only way to do things, and yet trying to outdo them in glorifying violence.

I have more respect for constitutional politicians like Redmond and Daniel O Connell than I do for blood drenched proto-fascists like Pearse. Points about this democracy, or that democracy, or the SFIRA visions of some feudalistic political structure in Ireland of 1916 dont sit well with the fact that the Rising was able to surprise the British by parading and drilling in public. What sort of police state are we supposed to credit letting private armies march about Dublin - or Ulster for that matter?

For people who claim that we wouldnt have our Republic without 1916, theyre right. We wouldnt have *this* Republic, with its lifetime of poverty, theocratic catholicism and quiet assent for terrorism. But we would still have *a* Republic if people wanted to have one. One that would have to be built on concensus, respecting everyones traditions and views - rather than a conquerers Republic imposed by force. Which would be better? Think on it before viewing 1916 as something to be viewed positively.

And for people comparing, say the Australians at Gallipoli and why theyre venerated by their people its probably to do with those soldiers were acting under a mandate received from the people, fighting and risking their lives on behalf of their people. Its a common trait of those relationships between a country and its army, that the servicemen in that army are respected for their sacrifices they make for the country.

And no, the men of 1916 never received any mandate from the people of this country.

Dyr

Sand wrote:

And no, the men of 1916 never received any mandate from the people of this country.

They recieved a massive mandate in the years that followed the rising, one which elevated them them to the status of heroes right across the country, and brought their succesors to power in a landslide victory. Maybe if this country "evolves" a bit more to your satifaction then your fellow travellers might be able to revise history to address that unpleasant fact

A Dub in Glasgo

ArthurF wrote:

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)!

Is this Groundhog Day??

Edit
Yep is it, here it is http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50786472&postcount=138

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You must have been leading some sheltered life if this is all news to you. Maybe you should have a chat with your folks about where you are getting your information from prior to learning this bombshell news as it is well known and told in basic Irish history studies that the 1916 rebellion was frowned upon by a lot of people in Dublin at the time. The way the British treated the leaders and interned a lot of people changed attitudes soon after.

sceptre

Bambi wrote:

They recieved a massive mandate in the years that followed the rising, one which elevated them them to the status of heroes right across the country, and brought their succesors to power in a landslide victory.

Sinn Fein got the wave of votes in the elections following the rising.

Sinn Fein didn't organise the rising.

Draw the dots for me as I can't see the picture.

Maybe if this country "evolves" a bit more to your satifaction then your fellow travellers might be able to revise history to address that unpleasant fact

It would appear that history is continually revised. Not that this comes as any news to those who read it carefully.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is this Groundhog Day??

Five days ago. No-one else I know bothered to remember.

Sand

They recieved a massive mandate in the years that followed the rising, one which elevated them them to the status of heroes right across the country, and brought their succesors to power in a landslide victory. Maybe if this country "evolves" a bit more to your satifaction then your fellow travellers might be able to revise history to address that unpleasant fact

So then someone voting for say SFIRA today is giving them a mandate for say, the Warrington bombing or the murder of Jean McConville?

Dyr

sceptre wrote:

Sinn Fein got the wave of votes in the elections following the rising.

Indeed they did, with Eamon Devalera (the last surviving commandant of the rising) as their president while he was also the head of the Irish volunteers. Those dots are really close together...

sceptre wrote:

Sinn Fein didn't organise the rising.

Indeed they didnt, but the british govt were convinced they did and the irish people voted for them on a ticket of support for the rising.

sceptre wrote:

Draw the dots for me as I can't see the picture.

if the above doesnt help i'd suggest specsevers

:v: < the nice thing about history though, is that just when people have neatly revised it to suit themselves, it goes and repeats itself

klash

shoegirl wrote:

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!

Well i wouldn't put it like that but yes that was probably correct to an extent and is today to an extent.

I mean no insult to the people of Dublin but they DON'T care what happens outside of "the pale". Its not really an Irish thing its a worldwide thing, the urban areas are the more important (Votes).

I wouldn't use the term "proper" Irish folk but Dublin is just "different" to the rest of the country. Apart from the euros and the accent you might as well be in a British City. Theres no difference whatsoever. Something several English/Welsh people have said to me time and time again.

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?

I think any informed person can see that the current state of affairs in this Country is never going to be "Unionist-friendly" until it changes significantly. For just one example, the GAA's rules and especially the GAA clubs in NI named after Provos. But Ms Edwards seems to think that "we" are completely wrong whilst the British and conservative Unionists are completely in the right.

1916 is part of our history, whether it was right or wrong isn't the question anymore. Asking the question of British rule in Ireland or the question of 1798 or any number of historical queries are just as legitimate.

So 1916 wasn't a popular rebellion supported by the majority of the people ? So what ? It wasn't a vote, it wasn't a democratic choice, it was a rebellion.

Regardless of whether or not Padraig and "The boys" had a mandate is not the question, its irrelevant. 1916 was a blood sacrifice, a hopeless rebellion to show the people of this country that "the cause" was still alive. A cause which had being popularly supported for hundreds of years, a cause which had remained alive in this country after defeat after defeat after defeat.

What mandate did the French underground have during WW2 ? How much time between a "mandate" and the "rebellion/violence" are we allowed before it becomes illegitimate ?

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?

Because the 1916 revolutionaries won (In the end). Its that simple.

If there had being no war of independence or Irish independence afterwards they'd be "murderers/terrorists" in a history book with barely a mention.

What differentiates them from the next 9 generations ? Well if you asked Bertie i'm sure he'd say something along the lines of the 1919 elections. In truth, nothing seperates them. If the British won the American war of independence do you think Mr Washington would be remembered as a hero ?

The victors write the history books.

Dyr

Sand wrote:

So then someone voting for say SFIRA today is giving them a mandate for say, the Warrington bombing or the murder of Jean McConville?

No more than someone voting for Pat Rabbite is giving Labour a mandate to print funny money

:v: < I've never seen SFIRA on a ballot though, who are these people??

Flex

ArthurF wrote:

Those fighting at the Somme were not impressed on their return to Dublin to find what those Republican Yobbos had done to their City "this is a fact" its not my opinion,

How do ya know that ? Did you ask them?

It is also a fact that (nearly) everybody wanted some form of Government in Dublin, (but not by force)

Thats weird, it seemed like the IRA had the overwhelming support of the civilian population when the war of independence began. If they hadnt got that support they wouldve been defeated, like the anti treaty IRA were in the civil war.

and if those poor misguided Republican souls had not carried-out 1916 or 1922 then we would probably have a very nice Government in Dublin today anyway!

Probably, would it be a republic though? And at least we fought for our independence and took it back in the Free State rather than following the home rule parties policy of being good little lackies and 'asking' for 'some' of our freedom to be given back when it suitesd Britain to allow us to have it. Im proud we fought (although I know some people arnt because it resulted in innocent Black and Tans being killed)

I might also suggest that there would not have been the "Troubles"

Wouldnt of been any Troubles if the unionists had have joined the Free State on the other hand.

and we certainly would not have suffered Sixty years of hardship and poverty

Suffered hardship and poverty for a hell of a lot longer than 60 years prior to 1922, why would it have changed if we were still occupied by Britain, oh yeah, the home rule parliament which had little control over finances :rolleyes:

Flex

sceptre wrote:

Sinn Fein got the wave of votes in the elections following the rising.

Sinn Fein didn't organise the rising.

Draw the dots for me as I can't see the picture.

AFAIR, people who took part in the rising stood for election as Sinn Fein candidates and of course de Valera became leader of Sinn Fein.

Sand

No more than someone voting for Pat Rabbite is giving Labour a mandate to print funny money

But you said voting for Grifiths SF after 1916 *was* a mandate for 1916. Now youre saying that voting for SFIRA after their atrocities is *not* a mandate for those atrocities....which is it?

I dont care which you choose - either way youre contradicting yourself, but it just highlights the house of cards Provo idealogy is.

I've never seen SFIRA on a ballot though, who are these people??

Ah, denial. Its not needed to support SFIRA, but I assume it helps. Can I safely assume that you support the orphaning of the McConville family or the murder of Jerry McCabe much as you assume the voters in 1918 supported the murder of an unarmed police officer?

Flex

ArthurF wrote:

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

Yeah, those Irish bastards fighting so the Irish people could have a sovereign independent nation! They sure werent fighting for Ireland!

A Dub in Glasgo

It is quite funny the convulsions some people go through to deny their own history and how the state was established. Ashamed of their independence springs to mind

Sand

It is quite funny the convulsions some people go through to deny their own history and how the state was established. Ashamed of their independence springs to mind

Glasgo, the funniest thing about denial is displayed right there in your sig. A British soccer club in a UK city and its the heart of plastic irish nationalism. Theres two Irelands Glasgo, the one they sell you as a keyring in the club shop and the real one.

A Dub in Glasgo

You do seem determined to drag this one off topic don't you, what with McConville, McCabe and now Celtic FC in the space of 2 posts

constitutionus

ALL nations were born in blood and death. anyone has an example of a country that DIDNT massacare someone before being instituted please inform us all

Victor

phantom_lord wrote:

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

I see you have been very detailed in obliterating her comments.

phantom_lord wrote:

Another West Brit Retoric From 'Sir' Tony's Rag

Is she a West Brit if she lives in London?

Dyr

Sand wrote:

But you said voting for Grifiths SF after 1916 *was* a mandate for 1916. Now youre saying that voting for SFIRA after their atrocities is *not* a mandate for those atrocities....which is it?

Emm..No. thats not what I'm saying, maybe you don't try to grasp the unsubtle difference between your weak analogy and what I'm saying.

(BTW It wasnt Griffiths Sinn Fein, He stood down in 1917 IIRC)
Sinn Fein won a landslide on the back of their support for the men of 1916 and their ideals. Gerry and the boys dont go into elections promising that a vote for them is a vote for bombings and perhaps the odd execution of women who pass information to the british army so the similarity that you're straining to draw doesnt hold much water.

Sand wrote:

I dont care which you choose - either way youre contradicting yourself, but it just highlights the of deck of cards Provo idealogy is.

Im not contradicitng myself at all, Pat was once a member of a party that allegeldy printed it own party funds (and had its owned armed wing!! gasp!)
Gerry was allegedly a member of a proscribed organisation that blew things and people up. Neither of them are seeking election on a manifesto of those activities now. You can try to be pedantic but Sinn Fein post 1916 were big on the rising and its why they went from obscurity to an overwhelming majority, because the electorate identified them with the rising and its ideals and voted for them

Incidentally You're the only person here mentioning the provo's, or trying to drag a discussion on 1916 onto the Northern Irish situation, must be a bugbear of yours. I guess playing the atrocity card is habit forming

Sand wrote:

Ah, denial. Its not needed to support SFIRA, but I assume it helps. Can I safely assume that you support the orphaning of the McConville family or the murder of Jerry McCabe much as you assume the voters in 1918 supported the murder of an unarmed police officer?

Ah the atrocity card again, You can assume what you like, Im assuming nothing. The electorate endorsed the 1916 rising massively, No matter how much spin you put on it, it wont change the fact that the landslide on which Sinn Fein came to power was anything else. Even revised history wont change who in SInn Fein stood for election, what they espoused in regards to 1916 (devalera, markievicz, plunkett etc, were all somewhat enthusiatic about it lol) and how many votes they recieved.



:v: <Im assuming nobodies found a ballot with these mysterious SFIRA charectars on it yet??

Sand

You do seem determined to drag this one off topic don't you, what with McConville, McCabe and now Celtic FC in the space of 2 posts

Ive contributed to the thread - youve linked an old post and made some vague attack on people who arent signed up adherents to Celtics version of Irish nationalism. Try to stay on topic.

ALL nations were born in blood and death. anyone has an example of a country that DIDNT massacare someone before being instituted please inform us all

A lot, in fact probably all, countries have engaged in slavery as well. Are you calling for slavery to be celebrated and restored to its proper perch?

Just because other nations are deluded about their own founding myths doesnt mean we have to be as well.

Blackjack

klash wrote:

For just one example, the GAA's rules and especially the GAA clubs in NI named after Provos.

Which specific rules and which specific clubs?

constitutionus

Sand wrote:

Just because other nations are deluded about their own founding myths doesnt mean we have to be as well.

my grandfather fought in 1916, ive NO delusions to how this country was founded, i just dont feel the need to APOLOGISE for it

for all those condeming the IRA in the north remember this, when my grandfather was arrested he was charged with treason and sentenced to death. which as a brittish subject was correct and he and his were derided by the people and the media of the day.
he escaped and fought in the war of independance, when he died in 1971 he was buried with FULL military honors. the only difference between what he did and what went on up the north was TIME, and fifty years from now people will look back and afford them the same respect my grandfather has and if that sticks in anyones craw, tough, because im sure there were plenty of people who felt the same way about a couple of thirty something thugs called collins and develara.

in the end WE wont be writing the history of this country, they will

klash

A lot, in fact probably all, countries have engaged in slavery as well. Are you calling for slavery to be celebrated and restored to its proper perch?

So basically your saying all countires founded on violence and death should be ashamed of their beginnings and not celebrate those beginnings in any shape or form ?

The Americans shouldn't celebrate the American war of independence etc yes ?

If thats your view then i feel much better opposing it.

We have as much right to celebrate 1916 as any country has of a historic event in their past which relates to that countries national identity.

It makes no difference whatsoever of the circumstances. Sher don't we celebrate a Welshman who supposedly drove and killed all the snakes out of this fair island. If that was in this day and age he'd have PETA on his ass and probably get done for animal cruelty among other things.

Sand

Sinn Fein won a landslide on the back of their support for the men of 1916 and their ideals. Gerry and the boys dont go into elections promising that a vote for them is a vote for bombings and perhaps the odd execution of women who pass information to the british army so the similarity that you're straining to draw doesnt hold much water.

Bull, SF in 1918 didnt have a manifesto that promised a vote for them was a vote for bombings. But you say a vote for them *was* a mandate for 1916.

Gerry on the other hand praises SFIRA atrocities, leads SFIRA militant commemorations, campaigns to free SFIRA bank robbers are part of NI deals, and his buddy Alex Maskey claims murder isnt a crime. But you say a vote for them was *not* a mandate for 4 decades of atrocities.

Pathetic.

Choose one or the other. Either a vote is a mandate for past atrocities, or it isnt. Dont try to squirm out of the ruins of your theological crap now.

Incidentally You're the only person here mentioning the provo's, or trying to drag a discussion on 1916 onto the Northern Irish situation, must be a bugbear of yours. I guess playing the atrocity card is habit forming

You cant praise one gang of violent, undemocratic psychopaths murdering in the name of Ireland and not praise the other. SFIRA know this, which is why they can only laugh when Bertie tries to repackage 1916 as some peace activist march gone badly wrong...

Ah the atrocity card again, You can assume what you like, Im assuming nothing. The electorate endorsed the 1916 rising massively,

Youre assuming that the 1916 rising was given its mandate after the fact, via electoral support for a party you claim touted 1916.

The sad thing is you know thats crap because you wont apply the same logic to SFIRA and the validation of their bombings.

But like I said, I dont care what you choose - either way youre contradicting yourself.

Sand

my grandfather fought in 1916, ive NO delusions to how this country was founded, i just dont feel the need to APOLOGISE for it

I dont care if you feel the need to apologise for it or not. Your grandfather is responsible for his own actions either way. But I dont feel the need to celebrate your grandfathers escapades at tax payers expense and packaging your grandfather as some heroic figure for us all to emulate. Hmm, I dont want my tax money being spent on the commemoration. What would the men of 1916 do?

I know - Ill shoot someone and blow stuff up until I get my way. Thats the 1916 way.

for all those condeming the IRA in the north remember this, when my grandfather was arrested he was charged with treason and sentenced to death. which as a brittish subject was correct and he and his were derided by the people and the media of the day.

And you know what changed between the Provos in the north and the Volunteers in 1916? Nothing. Nothing at all. Other than many years of self induced dementia that somehow the guys in 1916 were glorious, heroic and unsullied unlike the "modern" provos who were doing pretty much the same thing except too near for us to pretend not to see the reality of it. Though, full credit to political myopia, Irish people have certainly tried to pretend not to recognise SFIRA for what it is.

So basically your saying all countires founded on violence and death should be ashamed of their beginnings and not celebrate those beginnings in any shape or form ?

What Im saying is 1916 and its heritage of bitter violence over constitutional politics is not what we should be celebrating as Irish people, or the image we should be projecting of ourselves. The founding myths of the Americans (for example) of the colonies banding together to fight off the yoke of a British king helpfully ignores that many Canadian families are descended from Loyalist who fled north from persecution in the new Republic. Its ignores that the architechts of american liberty were mostly slave owners. Its ignores that America wasnt some uninhabited continent but that native peoples were decimated by wars, disease and starvation that if not caused by government neglect was government policy.

And people point at these holes in the founding myth and say its a complete sham. But its too far gone at this stage. July 4th is barely about what happened historically anymore. Its about what people want to believe happened July 4th.

Its the same with 1916 - people want to have some happy clappy event where they can invent what its supposed to mean and we can tune out all the troubling or inconsistent parts. Unfortunately for them, theyve chosen an event thats relatively recent, that we can compare to the modern era and ask - If violence in the Troubles is reprehensible, how can 1916 be admirable? If anything, the Provos had much better excuses in 1969 than DeV and co had in 1916.

This is the problem with glorification of events - it just ignores everything that doesnt fit the pre-determined message. We should know better. But were just saying, "If everyone else can be wrong, why cant we be wrong to?"

But 200, 300 years from now when people are finished repackaging and altering 1916 from what it was, to what they want it to be, will it actually have anything to do with 1916 anymore?

The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.
George Orwell

Dyr

Sand wrote:

Bull, SF in 1918 didnt have a manifesto that promised a vote for them was a vote for bombings. But you say a vote for them *was* a mandate for 1916.

Gerry on the other hand praises SFIRA atrocities, leads SFIRA militant commemorations, campaigns to free SFIRA bank robbers are part of NI deals, and his buddy Alex Maskey claims murder isnt a crime. But you say a vote for them was *not* a mandate for 4 decades of atrocities.

Pathetic.

Choose one or the other. Either a vote is a mandate for past atrocities, or it isnt. Dont try to squirm out of the ruins of your theological crap now.



You cant praise one gang of violent, undemocratic psychopaths murdering in the name of Ireland and not praise the other. SFIRA know this, which is why they can only laugh when Bertie tries to repackage 1916 as some peace activist march gone badly wrong...



Youre assuming that the 1916 rising was given its mandate after the fact, via electoral support for a party you claim touted 1916.

The sad thing is you know thats crap because you wont apply the same logic to SFIRA and the validation of their bombings.

But like I said, I dont care what you choose - either way youre contradicting yourself.

Sand wrote:

SF in 1918 didnt have a manifesto that promised a vote for them was a vote for bombings. But you say a vote for them *was* a mandate for 1916.

off we go again. Taken from the Sinn Fein manifesto of 1918:

"Sinn Féin, however, goes to the polls confident that the people (sic) of this ancient nation will be true to the old cause and will vote for the men who stand by the principles of Tone, Emmet, Mitchel, Pearse and Connolly, the men who disdain to whine to the enemy for favours."


Sinn Féin stands less for a political party than for the Nation; it represents the old tradition of nationhood handed on from dead generations; it stands by the Proclamation of the Provisional Government of Easter, 1916, reasserting the inalienable right of the Irish Nation to sovereign independence, reaffirming the determination of the Irish people to achieve it, and guaranteeing within the independent Nation equal rights and equal opportunities to al

Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of that Republic...
2. By making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise.



That's taken from the manifesto Sinn Fein took to the electorate, Are you going to even attempt to argue that Sinn Fein didnt endorse the 1916 rising (and the physical force tradition that existed prior to the rising) and that the electorate didnt, in turn, overwhemingly endorse them? You can convince yourself but i dont think you'll convice many others.

Sand wrote:

Gerry on the other hand praises SFIRA atrocities, leads SFIRA militant commemorations, campaigns to free SFIRA bank robbers are part of NI deals, and his buddy Alex Maskey claims murder isnt a crime. But you say a vote for them was *not* a mandate for 4 decades of atrocities

Interesting that you're still trying to drag the current situation in northen ireland into a debate on 1916, maybe you feel you're on steadier ground there. I believe your original position was that if vote for gerry et al wasnt a vote for bombings, mayhem etc than how could a vote for sinn fein in 1918 be a vote for the rising?


I've answered already and provided you with evidence. Sinn Fein in 1918 fully endorsed the actions of the 1916 rebels. Sinn Fein in 2006 arent keen on the armalite end of things anymore, so voting for them now isnt an endorsement for the IRA's campaign back in the day. However it could be construed as a vote for gerry to attend meetings, and keep company with people like alex maskey..shocking stuff

Sand wrote:

"Either a vote is a mandate for past atrocities, or it isnt. Dont try to squirm out of the ruins of your theological crap now."

there you go again, trying to create an analogy where there is none. You vote for Sinn Fein now, you are, i presume, voting for the aspiration that ireland will be reunited through peaceful means. Because that's what they say they're all about nowadays. You voted for Sinn Fein in 1918 you were voting for a party that fully upheld the ideals and methods of the 1916 rising.

An here's the funny thing you assume that i'd have a problem with saying that a vote for the shinners nowadays was a vote for terrorism etc etc. I wouldnt if it that was the case. That might have applied up until the 90s but nowdays a vote for the local sinn fein dodo is just a vote to annoy people like you... which makes it worthwhile

BTW nice use of dismissive foul language, throw me a PM and I'll see if we can meet up so you can swear at me over a cuppa..one presumes you dont reserve that kind of behaviour for only the interweb?