1916 celebration

Flex

Sand wrote:

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

No, the 1916 way would be to confront your problems head on,face to face and be willing to give up everything you have for a greater good and for people who generations from now will be enjoying the freedom you earned for them through your sacrifices and fighting; even though some of those people will do nothing but begrudge you and put you down.

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.

In 1916 the country was occupied by a foreign power and people rightly resisted it. The War of Independence and guerilla war which followed was because the Irish people had voted overwhelmingly for Sinn Fein on the grounds that (among other things) they would declare Ireland a sovereign republic and make it known that the British forces would have to leave. The British refused to do so and as a result, the war of independence began; because Britain wouldnt respect the democratic will of the majority of Ireland (nothing new there i suppose:rolleyes: ). In 1916 those rebels went out to face the British army face to face in open combat, knowing they would lose, but hoping theyre blood sacrifice might rally the people of Ireland. They were willing to lay down their lives for something that mightnt have had any impact on peoples opinions whatsoever, but did so anyway because they loved this country. NI is a different situation. the provence of NI is there and exists and isnt going anywhere until the majority choose otherwise. I think thats why people didnt really support the PIRA.

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.

Our history for the last few centuries is one of being dominated and occupied by a larger and more powerful country. Why shouldnt we take pride in the fact we were always ready to take up the fight and couldnt be subdued despite what the people were put through? What image should we project of ourselves in your opinion out of interest?

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?

Only if guys like you get their way

samb

I don't like the Idea of a parade for the Easter Rising. Flag waving, Marching, Military equipment, Anthems, etc.................its very British;)

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

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.

I have linked to an old post that was in response to the exact wordings of a post in this thread. I don't feel I have to type out my response again and pretend it is a new post. I still do find it funny that certain people are still ashamed of their history. The foot stamping indignation and the 'how dare they do this' in 19th and early 20th cenury Ireland that was under foreign rule is funny.

You have dragged this thread on tangents that revisits Warrington, McConville, McCabe and now the football club supporters who celebrated one of Irelands greatest players. Strange.

Aidan1

No, the 1916 way would be to confront your problems head on,face to face and be willing to give up everything you have for a greater good and for people who generations from now will be enjoying the freedom you earned for them through your sacrifices and fighting; even though some of those people will do nothing but begrudge you and put you down.

No, the 1916 way would be try and subvert an ongoing and democratic process by killing people in the streets. The 'problems' had been faced head on by a series for at least a century beforehand. 1916 was a childish attempt to prevent a form of Irish freedom that an unelected minority didn't like.

In truth, there was precious little more won by the 7 years of violence from 1916-23 that wasn't already on the table in 1914. And there was a good deal less (like 6 counties less, for example). Moreover, there was nothing so different in the 1914 act as the 1922 settlement that would have prevented a republic being declared in time also. All that 1916 ensured was that (a) Irish politics were radicalised, and cast into the hands of the (funda)mentalists, cocking up the new state for a good 60 years (b)it played into the hands of the Unionists and ensured partition and the 1920 Govt of Ireland Act (c) it provided moral support for thoise who, post partition, sought to repeat the mistake made by those in 1916, that you could actually coerce a million people into a situation they were terrified of (and with good reason). Was that really worth several thousand dead?

Sinn Fein won a landslide on the back of their support for the men of 1916 and their ideals

Bull, on two counts. Firstly, Sinn Fein's landslide was won with 47% of the vote, and with the benefit of widespread personation and intimidation (how many Sinn Fein candidates ran unopposed for example?). Secondly, the 1916 rising was not the main reasons for their success, the threat of conscription was.

I still do find it funny that certain people are still ashamed of their history.

No one here is ashamed of our history, some of us are, on the other hand, ashamed that some would twist what happened to glorify terrorism and murder for some juvenile and puerile 'patriotism', and elevate a few misguided radicals to martyrs. I would have thought that 30 years of slaughter in the North would have proved the ultimate futility of violence and coercion. But apparently not.

Anyways, if you are so proud of Irish independence, why are you living under British rule?

Zombrex

Flex wrote:

They were willing to lay down their lives for something that mightnt have had any impact on peoples opinions whatsoever, but did so anyway because they loved this country.

They were also willing to lay down the lives of a lot of innocent Dubliners :rolleyes:

By that logic every suicide bomber in Israel is a hero because he is willing to lay down his life for a cause. Thats great until you realise he is also will to take a load of innocent people with him while he is doing it.

Is bloody thristy sucide really something we should celebrate?

Flex wrote:

What image should we project of ourselves in your opinion out of interest?

Personally, I am most proud of the way the Irish have, by and large, managed to conduct the vast majority of their struggle for independence through peacefull, political, means, everything from Parnell and Home Rule to the formation of the Republic.

I see no need to celebrate the bloody bumps on this otherwise largely peaceful road.

Zombrex

Aidan1 wrote:

1916 was a childish attempt to prevent a form of Irish freedom that an unelected minority didn't like.

Well said

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

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

Thats nonsense, the idea of an Irish Republic didn't originate with the Rising.

Earthman wrote:

ultimately its sucessors eventually getting their Republic.

You can't trace the formation of the Republic back to the Rising, so why celebrate the Rising at all? The concept and idea of an Irish Republic existed long before the rising and it existed long after the rising.

Earthman wrote:

I'd have thought the 1918 election answers that.

No, as has been pointed out by Aidan1 that is a gross missunderstanding of what the 1918 election was actually about. The only part of the Rising the generated sympathy was the executions days later.

Earthman wrote:

Basically by your logic the people who came out in their tens of thousands nationwide to celebrate the bicentenary of 1798 were all wrong.

Well they are aren't really similar events, but if you actually look at what the 1798 did it seems strange to celebrate an event that made the lives of ordinary Irish worse for the next 100 years.

Earthman wrote:

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.

Earthman I have no idea where you are getting the idea that something like the Rising was acceptable at the time, when all evidence shows it wasn't accepted by the vast majority of Dubliners.

Earthman wrote:

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.

Why? Society at large didn't accept the Rising members at the time, and society at large doesn't accept the modern IRA. Lots of people do of course, the IRA has large support throughout the 60s,70s,80s and 90s and still does have large support in certain areas of the North.

Earthman wrote:

I suppose no one died to get that?

Loads of people were killed to get that, but the US doesn't celebrate with a national holiday the fact they were killed.

Earthman wrote:

I suppose no one died when the Bastille was stormed either.

Loads of people were killed during the storming, but the French don't celebrate the fact they were killed. They don't even celebrate the storming of the Bastille.

Earthman wrote:

I suppose the French Revolution was entirely peacefull?
heh thats a good one.. "directly" you say

As I said, there is a (big) difference between remembering those who died and celebrating that they were killed

Earthman wrote:

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.

Its not gloss, its context.

Neither the US or the French use these days to celebrate the fact that a load of people were killed and mamed. They instead choose to celebrate the ideas of freedom, and the days around these ideas freedom. Yes a lot of people died in events around those freedoms, but they don't celebrate that fact.

We on the other hand choose the celebrate the days when people killed a load of other people.

Earthman wrote:

Your bucket hasnt even got a bottom in it now never mind holding water.

Quite :rolleyes:

Earthman wrote:

Lets see,how many televisions were there in the 1920's, how good was the dissemination of information?

Very good actually. The news media wasn't invented with the television.

Earthman wrote:

What were the social values like then compared to today?

Pretty much the same as they are now.

Earthman wrote:

Was there any possibility that most people were a bit more anti British than they are in 2006?

People were less "anti-British" in Dublin 1916 than Catholics in Belfast 2006.

There is a great myth that the wide masses of Dublin (or Ireland) in the 19th and early 20th century were frothing at the mouth with hatred for the Bristish. They weren't, most were too busy living their lives. They hated the rising so much because it effected just that, their day to day lives.

Earthman wrote:

What way did society treat you if you had an out of welock baby or split from your husband or wife.

This has what exactly to do with teh acceptance of terrorism in 1916 by the general public?

Earthman wrote:

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.

It was when it came to terrorism.

klash

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.

It seems to me your determined to link Gerry and the boys to the lads of 1916.

The fact of the matter is that while Gerry and the lads started their trouble in an established country, one which was predominately pro-British (Illegitimate or not, its not the point) the lads of 1916 were in fact rebelling in a country which didn't want British Rule and where the vast majority of the population wanted them gone one way or another.

You can no more say that the Irish people only wanted them gone by peaceful means then i can say that the "democracy" in NI during the 60's was AOK.

The fact of the matter is the majority of Irish people wanted them gone and war was not the bad subject it is today. War was a glorious thing, an adventure, thats the way it was seen.

So the majority of Dubliners didn't like what Pearse etc did, so what ? Regardless of a "vote" saying to the people "Shall we rebel on this date ?" it was and is obvious to anyone that a majority if not the vast majority still regarded Ireland as occupied by an unwanted foreign country.

You can't take your 2006 mentality and apply it to then. 1916 was as legitimate and right to remember as any other countries national day.

I don't think you realise something. People aren't celebrating the 1916 your talking about, their celebrating the ideals those men represented. They weren't the same gang as the Provos anymore then the British are the same gang as they were.

1916 represented and represents something to this country, the ideal of nationhood that like it or not had being brewing in this country for hundreds of years previous (or at least back to 1798-ish).

Thats what we're celebrating.

luckat

1) Many of those who fought in the Great War then returned to fight for Irish independence in the War of Independence - for example, take a look at the people who were with Michael Collins at Béal na Bláth as a representative sample.

2) It's a little sweeping to say that Dublin, or "everyone" was against the Rising. Some Dubliners and some Irish people were, and some were not. The establishment - the media, the Catholic and Protestant church hierarchy, the MPs, the big business owners - were. So were those with an involvement with the British Army - and remember, the troops rushed in to fight against the Rising were those stationed in the Curragh, which is to say mostly Irishmen. If you fished around a little you could probably find the descendants of those who made up the firing squads in Kilmainham still living in Dublin.

3) The Rising was the beginning of the War of Independence. To view it in isolation is to falsify it.

4) Get over it. It's been nearly 100 years. Of course we should celebrate and honour our history - all of it. But it's much more important that we should "give our lives for our country" in a different sense: we should live in a way that enriches our community's life in every way that we can. And Ireland now is in a phase of huge expansion and change, with new DNA of all sorts pouring into our national life. It's time to go with that, and make a new Ireland stronger and better than the old!

A Dub in Glasgo

Aidan1 wrote:

Anyways, if you are so proud of Irish independence, why are you living under British rule?

If I had a pound each time somone, who does not like Irish Independence, trots out that tired line, I would have a bag of coins.

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

who does not like Irish Independence

*groan*

Seriously thats up there with the Republicans calling people who oppose the Iraq war (or simply oppose them) as hating America.

Irish Independence is great (igoring of course 60 years of massive catholic conservatism and oppression of civil liberties), and I (and I imagine Aidan1) am very proud of what the people of the 19th and 20th century did to try and bring about a largely non-violent Independence.

What I am not proud of is the handful of idiots who believed that the way to spur the nation to take up arms against the British was to go into the GPO and kill a large number of people in a largely pointless exercise in mass murder and suicide.

Aidan1

If I had a pound each time somone, who does not like Irish Independence, trots out that tired line, I would have a bag of coins.

Yup, a bag of pound coins. Still not an answer though.

I'm very proud of irish independence btw, and I find it kind of funny that you have to accuse me of somehow being ashamed of it to justify your barstool Provery, all the way from Glasgow.

Perhaps you don't like results of an independent democratic Irish state? I mean, if you're sooooo proud of it, why not live here?

Snickers Man

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,

No it's a generalisation. Plenty of those who came back from the Somme (and there weren't too many of them let's face it) joined the IRA and fought against their former comrades.

Prominent among them was General Tom Barry, formerly Bombardier Barry of the Royal Artillery. And he's only the most famous.

ArthurF wrote:

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

You're forgetting aren't you that in 1912 thousands of unionists had signed the Solemn League and Covenant, many in their own blood, saying that they would resist any Home Rule government (NB not republic) established in Dublin.

To quote, they promised to use "any means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority"

In this they were wholeheartedly supported by the leader of HisMajesty's opposition Andrew Bonar Law, the Tory leader.

Bunch of terrorist bastards.

These guys would not have been squeamish about shooting the odd Taig here and there. As their leader Carson put it in a letter to future NI primeminister James Craig “What I am very anxious about is that the people over there really mean to resist. I am not for a mere game of bluff, and unless men are prepared to make great sacrifices which they clearly understand, the talk of resistance is no use…”

You should read the great guru of 1916 revisionism in the Irish Times today. Kevin Myers, in what is basically an apologia for Ireland's succesful move to independence contrasts the subsequent fortunes of the republic with those of Scotland.

Pointing out that territory's dependence on the public sector for much of its economy, and on how the nation that gave the world Adam Smith, high priest of laissez faire capitalism is now a welfare-dependent unenterprising mess with only a fig-leaf of home rule and separate soccer and rugby teams to assert its independence.

NI's economy is similar-propped up by the British State. In the 19th century they called it 'killing Home Rule by kindness'. Today they call it 'creating a dependency culture'.


Oh and Kev makes light of the fact that a relatively prosperous period of Scottish history was made possible by the defeat of the Highlanders at Culloden and the subsequent massacres, disposessions and ethnic cleansing that comprised the Highland Clearances. Sure what's the wiping out of a few recalcitrants when there's a great political project at stake?

And to think that I was worried we might be like Wales!!!

klash

Wicknight wrote:

*groan*
What I am not proud of is the handful of idiots who believed that the way to spur the nation to take up arms against the British was to go into the GPO and kill a large number of people in a largely pointless exercise in mass murder and suicide.

Excuse me ?

Your saying that Pearse etc killed a large number of people ?

Who were these people ? How did Pearse etc kill them ? Did they shoot them all ? Car bombs ? Poison ?

I think you'll find it was the British Army who did the killing, but after reading your previous posts i'm sure you'll blame Pearse etc for what the British Army "had" to do.

I'm not a Republican, or even close to it, but are you one of these "everything is the Republicans" fault people ?

You've blamed just about everything from Pedophile priests to Gerry and Co on 1916.

Dyr

Aidan1 wrote:

Bull, on two counts. Firstly, Sinn Fein's landslide was won with 47% of the vote, and with the benefit of widespread personation and intimidation (how many Sinn Fein candidates ran unopposed for example?). Secondly, the 1916 rising was not the main reasons for their success, the threat of conscription was.

Sinn Fein won by a landslide, it was accepted at the time as such, Are you contesting that fact? Could this radical surge in support have been caused by fact that the electorate for the first time included a huge amount of the population who previously had not been given the vote? Or that there had been no election for almost a decade prior to this ?

funny how some people like to ignore democratic elections when the results don't suit them, of course you would have reliable proof of personation etc from independant contemporary sources?

It would take some amount of personation and intimidation to rig that kind of vote, and then to intimidate the poulation into a war of independance, and convince the entire island for generations after that their forebears were all for these things when in fact they had been hoodwinked and intimidated into it. :rolleyes:

I presume your contention that people primarily voted for Sinn Fein due to the botched attempt to introduce conscription is backed up with something other than your own opinion? As far as I remember the british governement had already realised what a faux pas attempting to introduce conscription here was and had taken it off the table prior to the election. Also, IIRC, the IPP were opposed to conscription in 1918 so a vote for them was a vote against conscription

But you are correct that their attempts to introduce conscription only convinced more people to vote for a party that wanted to eradicate british rule entirely

Snickers Man

Sand wrote:

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.

Nail on the head. That's the motivation for commemorating 1916. We want to be able to pay tribute to those who fought to achieve our independence. Who fought for our country and weren't sacrificed as cannon fodder for somebody else's.

However valid the argument that perhaps the actions of 1916 caused as many problems as they solved or that perhaps they had not dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's with regard to obtaining a democratic mandate the simple fact is that their motivation was to achieve Irish independance which is something we now have and for which we are now grateful.

Does the fact that Britain was taking the side of the terrorists in a war on terrorism (which is what World War One was at its start) prevent the british from acknolwedging their dead on the anniversary of that war's final cessation? Of course not.

Would the world have been a better place if World War one hadn't happened? Probably. Look at the mess it caused: dictatorships throughout Europe culminating with Hitler's Germany. Maybe they should all have paid more heed to democratic processes before they went charging off to fight each other in 1914.

Zombrex

klash wrote:

Your saying that Pearse etc killed a large number of people ?

Yes. At least 400 Dubliners were killed in cross fire battles, ignoring the army and police personell who were killed during the rising (who a lot of people probably believed were legitimate targets).

klash wrote:

Who were these people ? How did Pearse etc kill them ? Did they shoot them all ? Car bombs ? Poison ?

They shot them.

klash wrote:

I think you'll find it was the British Army who did the killing

What? The Brtitish Army shot civilians in the cross fire but the magical heroic Rising members had special bulliets that managed to go around any innocent Dublin people ... oh ok, I obviously forgot to read the latest SF "history" book.

klash wrote:

I'm not a Republican, or even close to it, but are you one of these "everything is the Republicans" fault people ?

I am saying -

What I am not proud of is the handful of idiots who believed that the way to spur the nation to take up arms against the British was to go into the GPO and kill a large number of people in a largely pointless exercise in mass murder and suicide.

Are you one of these "Everything bad was the British, even when it was the Irish it was really the British"?

klash wrote:

You've blamed just about everything from Pedophile priests to Gerry and Co on 1916.

What Not even sure where to even start with what is wrong with that comment...

DublinWriter

It's complete revisionism. Most people don't know that the rebels were spat on by bystanders when they were led out of the GPO by the British Army.

Yet, it's all glorious 1916 this, heroic 1916 that now.

Dev didn't chose to make us a true Republic until 1949.

Zombrex

Bambi wrote:

Sinn Fein won by a landslide, it was accepted at the time as such, Are you contesting that fact? Could this radical surge in support have been caused by fact that the electorate for the first time included a huge amount of the population who previously had not been given the vote?

It was a landslide (compared to anyone else), but it wasn't necessarily a "radical surge in support". As has been pointed out a large number of the seats were uncontested.

In history it is important not to jump to conclusions based on limited understanding of events.

If you win all the seats in the Dail you can say you won a landslide. But if none of these seats were contested in the first place you cannot say you have huge support. You won because no one ran against you, and you know for certain you have the support of only those who decided not to run against you.

Zombrex

DublinWriter wrote:

It's complete revisionism. Most people don't know that the rebels were spat on by bystanders when they were led out of the GPO by the British Army.

Or that the proclimation of the republic on the steps of the GPO was ignored by dubliners. No one cared.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

the simple fact is that their motivation was to achieve Irish independance which is something we now have and for which we are now grateful.

It isn't the motivation, it is the tactics used.

I would no more want to celebrate Easter 1916 than I would wish to celebrate the day gas was first used in the trentches of WWI, or the bombing of Dresden in WWII, even though I have no problem celebrating the day WWI or II ended, or commemorating the death in those wars.

I have no problem having a day to celebrate the Irish independence movement, but Easter 1916 is not a day to celebrate.

luckat

The louts who spit on people are those who are said to represent the country?

If you're interested in reading a contemporary account, read Cesca's Diary, edited by Hilary Pyle - the diary of the artist Cesca Chenevix Trench, who painted under the name Sadhbh Trinseach. It's just been published by the Woodfield Press. (She was horrified by the Rising, by the way.)

The diary covers 1913 to 1916, and she knew a lot of the people involved, on both sides - her brother was an officer serving in the Curragh, while she herself was a strong proponent of Irish.

It's very vivid about the time. Here's a quote, for example, from late May in 1916:

"[She told me that] They made plans for a general rising without telling Eoin MacNeill anything about it. About 6 weeks before they told him, but not the date. He agreed to it - then, a week before, they told him the date. (I haven't the next bit clearly enough to write it and I must ask M. Ní Riain.) It ought to be true, told under these circumstances, and, if so, Eoin MacNeill comes less well out of it than Bulmer Hobson's story leads one to think..."

Flex

Aidan1 wrote:

No, the 1916 way would be try and subvert an ongoing and democratic process by killing people in the streets. The 'problems' had been faced head on by a series for at least a century beforehand. 1916 was a childish attempt to prevent a form of Irish freedom that an unelected minority didn't like.

What elected minority, the Unionists? The Home Rule party had been unopposed prior to 1918 in nationalist Ireland. People had been led to believe Ireland would never be able to exist as a sovereign nation, and the best that could be hoped for was limited self rule within the UK. People had seemed to be on the verge of resigning themselves and Ireland to this faith until 1916, when people realised they could have more if they fought for it

In truth, there was precious little more won by the 7 years of violence from 1916-23 that wasn't already on the table in 1914. And there was a good deal less (like 6 counties less, for example). Moreover, there was nothing so different in the 1914 act as the 1922 settlement that would have prevented a republic being declared in time also. All that 1916 ensured was that (a) Irish politics were radicalised, and cast into the hands of the (funda)mentalists, cocking up the new state for a good 60 years (b)it played into the hands of the Unionists and ensured partition and the 1920 Govt of Ireland Act (c) it provided moral support for thoise who, post partition, sought to repeat the mistake made by those in 1916, that you could actually coerce a million people into a situation they were terrified of (and with good reason). Was that really worth several thousand dead?

Wrong. In 1914 partition was a foregone conclusion, way before Sinn Fein won the election. The Home Rule act was due to be enacted in April or May of 1914 because it had been delayed by the British House of Lords in April of 1912. It didnt however, because the Unionists threatened to start a war. So options were thought up by the Home Rulers including, a 6 year transition period for Ulster (flat out rejected), then Home Rule within HoemRule for Ulster (also flat out rejected). So negotiations began about which area would be left out of the Dublin parliaments provence in 1914. Derry, Armagh, Down and Antrim were already 'lost', the only real question was over which provence Fermanagh and Tyrone would be a part of. The Home Rulers consented to partition, Sinn Fein for their part at least got the promise of a boundary commission. The 6 counties were not lost by Sinn Fein.

Furthermore, Irish politics had been radicalised in 1912 by the Unionists when they became the first party in Irish history to establish a private political army to use the threat of violence and civil war to achieve their political aims when it suited them (setting a precedent that later parties decided to follow perhaps).

And the 1922 settlemnet gave WAY more freedom to the 26 county area than any Home Rule bill possibly would or could have given; complete control over finances, education, a department of foreign affairs, the right to join the league of nations, the right to raise our own army, police force, etc. Youre right in that the Home Rule parliament could have ,in time, led to the ability to declare independence, but it didnt because we fought and took back our freedom rather than asking for it.

Bull, on two counts. Firstly, Sinn Fein's landslide was won with 47% of the vote, and with the benefit of widespread personation and intimidation (how many Sinn Fein candidates ran unopposed for example?). Secondly, the 1916 rising was not the main reasons for their success, the threat of conscription was.

Sinn Fein won twice as many votes as the Home Rule party and this margin wouldve ben greater if it wasnt for the fact the Home Rule party didnt contest 25 seats because they knew they would lose. Out of 6 seats they won, 4 were uncontested Ulster seats. Out of 47 seats they contested with Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein won 45. Sinn Fein had beaten the Home Rule party in 3 by elections prior to the Conscription crisis; for example de Valera stood for electionin the Clare East by-election, openly declaring his belief in an Independent Irish Republic and support for the rising and he won easily.

klash

Wicknight wrote:

Yes. At least 400 Dubliners were killed in cross fire battles, ignoring the army and police personell who were killed during the rising (who a lot of people probably believed were legitimate targets).

You insinuated that Pearse etc were the only ones responsible for the above.

They shot them.

You know what you get when you have a handful of rebels entrenched in positions and a force 20-100 times that number marching through a city ?

Obviously you don't.

Are you saying that the Dubliners of the time, who must have being very like lemmings in their suicidal antics, proceeded to stay/go towards these entrenched positions, popping their heads up and down and running between these positions for the laugh ?

I think you need to re-read your "Sams teach yourself Irish history in 24 hours" again.

The Irish weren't going anywhere, they weren't moving from their positions and the British had a force 20-100 times stronger, they shelled the city with artillery for god sake and yet your putting the full blame of the deaths of Dubliners on the Rebels ?

Was there some kind of magic vortex beside the GPO/Bolands mills where the fair people of Dublin city were dragged towards ?

I'm not saying that Pearse & co weren't directly responsible for the death of some civilians, but to say most of them is an absolute joke in itself.

What? The Brtitish Army shot civilians in the cross fire but the magical heroic Rising members had special bulliets that managed to go around any innocent Dublin people ... oh ok, I obviously forgot to read the latest SF "history" book.

Well according to you those bullets must have being magic if they managed to kill 400 Dublin civilians from entrenched positions.

Can you paint a picture of what you think the scene might look like ? I'm getting images of the people of Dublin running back and forth between between Padraic and co and the Brits, something similiar to a shooting gallery yes ?

Are you one of these "Everything bad was the British, even when it was the Irish it was really the British"?

nope.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aidan1 wrote:

Yup, a bag of pound coins. Still not an answer though.

Maybe you were not dealing with money prior to 2002 but I think you will find that pound was the accepted name for the currency in Ireland. This should help you out

I mean, if you're sooooo proud of it, why not live here?

Is this some kind of new criteria ticklist that you have pulled out from thin air that means people cannot be proud of their countries independence if they do not currently reside in the country? How childish.

Aidan1

funny how some people like to ignore democratic elections when the results don't suit them, of course you would have reliable proof of personation etc from independant contemporary sources?

(the bolding is mine)

Yes, there was an entire generation who voted in 1918 who had never voted before, partly because of the extension of the franchise, partly because there hadn't been an election for 8 years (the demographics also meant that there was a 'bulge' in the population in this age group).

Secondly, any sources I present are now going to be ruled as 'not independent' by you, aren't they? Yes, there was large scale personation and intimidation, to the extent that several IPP MPs were told not to run, or they'd be shot, burned out of their house, or both. There is plenty of evidence of both. I'm at a disadvantage because I'm away from my books, but heres one for you for a start, taken from wiki ... "On one occasion the 'victory' of a Sinn Féin candidate in the Longford by-election is said to have been achieved through putting a gun to the head of a returning officer and telling him to "think again" when he was about to announce an IPP victory. On doing a 'recheck' the official 'found' a new uncounted ballot papers in which votes were cast for the Sinn Féin candidate. Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins: A Biography (Hutchinson, 1990) p.67. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_(UK)_general_election,_1918

I'm not suggesting that the election be 'ignored', just pointing out that SF only got 47% of the vote. That is not a majority of voters on the Island (even if it was probably well over 65% of the nationalist vote). Moreover, that rationale (ie a majority of nationlists voted in a particular way), duly extended, would mean that the unionists can claim that, since they had majority in the six counties, they had a mandate for partition. It may well be true, but I don't support that idea, do you?

As far as I remember the british governement had already realised what a faux pas attempting to introduce conscription here was and had taken it off the table prior to the election.

Well, WWI ended with the armistice in November 1918, and the election was in December, so I really doubt that they had to 'take it off the table'. Conscription was the issue that galvanised political support for SF. Theres no doubt but that the IPP were in for a hiding anyways (the UUP/DUP analogy applies here) because Home Rule had taken so long in coming (the campaign had been ongoing since 1870 remember), but the conscription issue was the one that SF capitalised on during 1918, aided by inept British govt.

Flex, you may have quoted me, but you certainly didn't answer my question ...

Sinn Fein for their part at least got the promise of a boundary commission. The 6 counties were not lost by Sinn Fein.

No agreement had been reached by 1914 on what would happen on the introduction of Home Rule. Partition was on the table as far back as 1911, but was never agreed. 1916 (and all that) meant that the Ulster Unionists got what they wanted up front, with no representation for the nationlaist community in the north. Had HR been granted, with partition, at least the South wouldn't have taken off on the isolationist/catholic path that it did, and the huge gap that opened up between the North and South. The fact that the unionist community were able to paint 1916 as a "stab in the back" only aided their cause.

Furthermore, Irish politics had been radicalised in 1912 by the Unionists

Absolutely. Proving them right by having a revolution in the centre of Dublin during a major European war helped how, precisely?

Youre right in that the Home Rule parliament could have ,in time, led to the ability to declare independence

Granted, we're into alternative history territory here, but this is the central point. There is nothing we have now, nothing, that could not have been achieved peacefully over time. Without the large scale loss of life. 1916 happened, and the aims of those responsible should be recognised and lauded asuch, but elevating those who engaged in a unmandated act of violence in an attempt to subvert and head off a democratic process that was set to deliver at least as much, in the short term, as the 1922 agreement is fanciful, dangerous and irresponsible.

gave WAY more freedom to the 26 county area than any Home Rule bill ... complete control over finances, education, a department of foreign affairs, the right to join the league of nations, the right to raise our own army, police force, etc

All of those rights could have been taken by a new HR parliament over time (you nay want to check some of those facts btw). Remember, under the treaty there were British troops based here until 1938, we were members of the commonwealth until 1949. Yet all of these were reversed by an Irish government; precisely the same process could well have facilitated the progression of a HR state. The real, critical, element was that there was no 'Poynings Law' in the HR Act. So I'll ask again, were the gains of 1922 (ooooh the boundary commission - that worked well, didn't it!) worth the deaths of thousands, the economic disruption and the cocking up of the new state for 50-60 years and the cementing of the Northern problem?

And tell me again why we should celebrate this, above all else, as our foundation myth?

Maybe you were not dealing with money prior to 2002 but I think you will find that pound was the accepted name for the currency in Ireland

Exactly my point. The pounds you use have ickle pictures of the queen of them. Or do you file them off, out of pride for 1916?

How childish

Yup, and I'm quite enjoying hoisting you on your own petard. Being proud of your origins and nationalisty are one thing. Being a flagwaving provo supporter and living in Britain is just plain funny.

Snickers Man

DublinWriter wrote:

It's complete revisionism. Most people don't know that the rebels were spat on by bystanders

I think that's horse poo. I believe that fact is widely known and not disputed.

DublinWriter wrote:

Dev didn't chose to make us a true Republic until 1949.

It wasn't Dev anyway. It was the Fine Gaeler Costelloe.

ISAW

Aidan1 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.

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.

Which is EXACTLY the point! "by contemporart standards" is not today and what is being claimed is that we should view the 1916 leaders not as they were viewed then (and clearly they were elevated after execution) but as that should be viewed TODAY.

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.

Catholic emancipation 1829. So it took from 1829 to 1914 to secure a partical democracy for Irish Nationalists/Catholics? mainly because the Irish WERE discriminated against! Did it take that long to abolish the slave trade?

And there you go again with the TODAY thing! It is alternative history to ask that. It is also doing exactly the opposite to where you came in i.e. asking to judge a different historical context by todays standards and also claiming that having differnet standards then as being no difference.

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.

Which I am sure we would have if SF didn't split and the Free Staters go into government. BOTH accept 1916. Others may argue about 1922, 1937, 1948. Pith they couldnt pass the legislation in all those years on the same day eh ?

ISAW

Aidan1 wrote:

funny how some people like to ignore democratic elections when the results don't suit them, of course you would have reliable proof of personation etc from independant contemporary sources?

(the bolding is mine)

Yes, there was an entire generation who voted in 1918 who had never voted before, partly because of the extension of the franchise, partly because there hadn't been an election for 8 years (the demographics also meant that there was a 'bulge' in the population in this age group).

snip the IPP bit

I'm not suggesting that the election be 'ignored', just pointing out that SF only got 47% of the vote. That is not a majority of voters on the Island (even if it was probably well over 65% of the nationalist vote).

It WAS a majority! The IPP also won seats (eight I think). They were nationalist. the Nationalist majority was about 70 per cent, much mopre than the current Unionist Majority in the North.

Moreover, that rationale (ie a majority of nationlists voted in a particular way), duly extended, would mean that the unionists can claim that, since they had majority in the six counties, they had a mandate for partition. It may well be true, but I don't support that idea, do you?

the majority of the whole country voted nationalist!

As far as I remember the british governement had already realised what a faux pas attempting to introduce conscription here was and had taken it off the table prior to the election.

Well, WWI ended with the armistice in November 1918, and the election was in December, so I really doubt that they had to 'take it off the table'. Conscription was the issue that galvanised political support for SF. Theres no doubt but that the IPP were in for a hiding anyways (the UUP/DUP analogy applies here) because Home Rule had taken so long in coming (the campaign had been ongoing since 1870 remember), but the conscription issue was the one that SF capitalised on during 1918, aided by inept British govt.

Actually more catholics/nationalists/republicans joined up (per capita) in the South than in Ulster!

Flex, you may have quoted me, but you certainly didn't answer my question ...

snip..

Absolutely. Proving them right by having a revolution in the centre of Dublin during a major European war helped how, precisely?

The IRB were split on this and the Citizens Army were late comers. But given the time it happened the idea of "Standing Up" as the Sons of Liberty did in America probably appealed to them.

Granted, we're into alternative history territory here, but this is the central point. There is nothing we have now, nothing, that could not have been achieved peacefully over time. Without the large scale loss of life.

Tell that to the blacks whose families fought in the US Civil War!
And as for alternative history we might well be part of the UK with abortion divorce and a whole host of other things coming earlier than expected. We might have less power than the Scottish or Welsh parliaments or God forbid the Stormont one!

So I'll ask again, were the gains of 1922 (ooooh the boundary commission - that worked well, didn't it!) worth the deaths of thousands, the economic disruption and the cocking up of the new state for 50-60 years and the cementing of the Northern problem?

And tell me again why we should celebrate this, above all else, as our foundation myth?

Were the emancipation of slaves worth it or should the Union have looked for democrat change in the confederacy?

Yup, and I'm quite enjoying hoisting you on your own petard. Being proud of your origins and nationalisty are one thing. Being a flagwaving provo supporter and living in Britain is just plain funny.

I think you should be indulging in neither. you should Attack the argument and not the person making them.

Aidan1

Catholic emancipation 1829. So it took from 1829 to 1914 to secure a partical democracy for Irish Nationalists/Catholics? mainly because the Irish WERE discriminated against! Did it take that long to abolish the slave trade?

You're taking the quote out of context. I was saying that Ireland had the same electoral system as the Uk and "In that, at least, Irish people, were not being discriminated against". I would have thought the 'at least' was sufficient to express the idea that the Irish were being discriminated against?

Did it take that long to abolish the slave trade?

No, it took a lot longer.

And there you go again with the TODAY thing!

Now you is getting confused ... the point was being made (irrelevant in my view) that just because democracy 'then' was not the same as democracy 'now' because of the lack of universal suffrage, we couldn't use the same standards for 'anything'. I was merely pointing out the irrelevance of that idea in this case for the simple reason that the democracy of the time 'had' in fact secured a Home Rule Act. Even with a more 'democratic' situation in Ireland at the time in terms of universal suffrage, how much more 'adopted' could the Home Rule Act be? In short, the democratic situation had secured what it had then, to transplant today's situation back, and assert that it would have made any material difference to the constitutional situation is irrelevant.