1916 celebration

Dyr

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

No problem, would be nice to see some figures and sources most of this thread thus far has ben opinion, and once it is'nt from the Irish Times etc circa 1918 i'll be happy lol.

Aidan1

Aidan1 wrote:

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?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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



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.

Guys I've better things to be doing than policing people that should have enough adult common sense to abide by the charter of this board.
Please behave when you return after your weeks holidays.

Aidan and A Dub in Glasgo banned for one week.
Pm me when the time is up

Aidan1

Aidan1 wrote:

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.

The difference in society a century apart is never irrelevant and in this case we dont even know what women would have voted for.
One things for sure though, priorities today and priorities in the 1920's would make for very different voting patterns.
My point was that the SF of 1918 secured a majority on a wave of sympathy arising out of the 1916 rebels executions.SF today have never (post IRA ceasefires) and are unlikely to ever have got/get the same in the near future.
The reason for this? Different priorities, totally different societies/wants/needs etc

Zombrex

klash wrote:

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

Where did I insinuate that?

I would point out that the actions of the Rising members is the only thing that we would be celebrating, unless you think we should be also celebrating the actions of the British as well?

klash wrote:

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 ?

Yes, a lot dead civilians, which would kinda be a reason not to do something so idiotic as the Rising wouldn't it, especially if you claim to represent these dead civilians

klash wrote:

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?

*Sigh*

Are you honestly saying that the only civilians killed in the 1916 rising were the ones just stupid not to get out of the way???

If so you apparently know nothing about the reality of urban warfare.

klash wrote:

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

If you had read any history book I would be happy...

klash wrote:

The Irish weren't going anywhere, they weren't moving from their positions

And...?

Like I said you don't seem to grasp the realities of urban war fare. For example the British lost over 100 men trying to cross the canal. Do you think no civilians would be killed in these prolonged gun battles?

klash wrote:

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 ?

As soon as you present evidence that the Irish forces didn't kill anyone I will retract that statement. So far the only support you have for that idea is a complete lack of understanding of urban warfare.

klash wrote:

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

Apart from the fact that they lived there?

You seem to think everyone should have just left Dublin

klash wrote:

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

Seriously klash what are you talking about??? Do you have any concept of what you do in urban war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare

You fire from your entrenched position into the rest of the city. In a field war if you miss your target you don't hit anything because there is normally nothing behind your target except 100 miles of fields.

In a urban war if you miss you traget your bullet hits a house or building, possibly hitting someone in that house or building. And that is before you get to the people out and about (and running for cover).

The very nature that the Irish were firing at advancing Army soliders means they were far more likely to hit civilians, as the Army fired to one place all the time, where as the Rising forces were firing back out into the city, and could have to fire at any position.

klash wrote:

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?

If you want a picture just look any modern city that has been the scene of a urban battle.

samb

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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.

I like Irish Independance, but would still like to hear a response. How do you find British Rule?, you obvously don't mind it.

samb

samb wrote:

I like Irish Independance, but would still like to hear a response. How do you find British Rule?, you obvously don't mind it.

Adig is already banned for a week so wont be able to reply.
You are running the risk of a ban if you do another personal comment like that.

This warning is to everybody

Flex

Aidan1 wrote:

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.

Partition was a foregone conclusion. In the summer of 1914 before the outbreak of war the Buckingham Palace conference was held to specifically deal with the issue of Home Rule and by then Redmond and Dillon had agreed to partition, the only thing left to argue over before it was finalised was Fermanagh and Tyrone and which provence would have them. By then the Home Rule act was a couple of months overdue for being enacted, and it was made clear that a seperate arrangement was needed for Ulster at the outbreak of WW1 before HR would be brought into Ireland

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

I dont understand that really. The rebels at the time wernt associated with any political party and were denounced by the Home Ruler party and Unionists. The idea was to inspire people to support resisitance to British rule as our ancestors had through blood sacrifice. My point was Sinn Fein and the IRA didnt radicalise politics in Ireland, the Unionists had already done so when they threatened civil war against Home Rule years before the rising. The unioinst grudge stemmed from 1641 and 1688 and the fact that they recalled how badly Catholics were treated by Protestants pre-1801 in Irelands parliament so they presumed theyd end up being treated that way by Catholics as revenge.

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.

The Treaty of 1922 gave way more than any Home Rule bill ever couldve. The difference in how we got our freedom is this though; we couldve been good little subjects to the British and accepted being subdued and conformed to their British state and our bondage to it(which I think wouldve happened had the Home Rule parliament been enacted), OR we couldve gone the road we went, which was to fight and resist and take back our freedom, rather than asking and waiting for some of it to be given back when it suited those who took it from us to allow us to have it.

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.

Thats another inetersting thing though. Dominions only won the freedom to not be bound by laws passed by the British parliament as a result of the statute of Westminster passed in 1931 and which was agitated for by us. Had Ireland not been a dominion, that law mightnt have been passed when it was. And what facts are wrong with what I stated about the powers a dominion had that a HR parliament didnt?

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?

There were no Poyning laws, but the HR parliament was below the British parliament; the British parliament could suspend it or impose laws on it or anything. Asquith had attempted to stress that point to Unionists about the 1912 act. And the boundary commission wouldve sloved the problems the northern question had it been implemented properly (particularly the bit about the neutral chairman) because it wouldve given nationalist areas to the Free State and left NI as a Unionist provence eith no minority to discriminate against. Furthermore, our economy had been absolutely ****e for long long before 1922, why would the magical HR Parliament have suddenly reversed that? And if you can only equate the gains of the treaty of 1922 as the boundary commission then..... People back then obviously felt it was worth fighting and dying for otherwise they wouldnt have supported it. I guess they valued being Irish or being free more.

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

Perhaps because it represwents the fact we were never subdued and always had the fighting spirit in us. What would you rather celebrate?

sceptre

Bambi wrote:

if the above doesnt help i'd suggest specsevers

Gave me nothing new that I wasn't aware of after fourth class history I'm afraid. I do note that you made an attempt though rather than merely ignoring the question, even if you had to include a crap sideswipe as part of the answer.

Snickers Man

Sand wrote:

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

Tell me what mandate Charles de Gaulle had from the French people in 1940. His country had declared war on Germany.
His Army had been defeated.
His democratically elected Government had surrendered and signed a binding legal international treaty with Germany which allowed the retention of the French empire and continued independent (although compliant) French rule over most of France.
Yet he insisted on fighting on.

Here's a lovely Website which shows some of his machinations. In 1944 he unilaterally announced that his national liberation council was the PRovisional Government of France. The Brits and Americans told him to get lost. Note how the site says that he was nonetheless recognised by Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia and Norway.

Good one, eh? All those countries were under German rule at that time. So his 'government in exile' only recognised by other 'governments in exile". Aithnionn cuireog, cuireog eile.

The guy was an upstart military putschist. Why is he now considered right?

a) he won
b) he gained legitimacy by submitting to a democratic system of government in France after the war.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Sand wrote:

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.

In the light of our soul-searching about how we remember our own national liberation struggle, of which this debate is ample evidence, is it not remarkable that the Aussies/Kiwis are so single minded in their view of their actions at Gallipoli?

What did the Turks ever do to them? Why were they there? What did they achieve? Whose country was being defended from invasion? Who were the agressive imperialist invaders?
Who were the good guys and who the bad guys at Gallipoli?

And as for the proof of the pudding being in the eating: look what a complete mess Britain and France (with Australian help) made of the Ottoman empire when they broke it up: the world is still dealing with that foul up. In Iraq. In Israel. In Lebanon.

Yet is there any Australian who does not look back on that episode with unadulterated pride?

If some of the same criteria that are being appllied to the rebels in 1916 were applied to the Australians there would at least be some sort of debate about the legitimacy of the Australians/NZers invasion of Turkey. Maybe there is a dissenting opinion. But I've never heard it.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

a) he won
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The Rising members didn't win, they got their asses kicked, took a lot of civilians with them and the leaders were executed. :rolleyes:

They didn't have a mandate for military action before the rising, they certainly didn't have a mandate for military action after the rising.

Snickers Man wrote:

Yet is there any Australian who does not look back on that episode with unadulterated pride?

What part of the Rising should we be "proud" of exactly?

constitutionus

you know before we get compleatly bogged down in this 1916 bashing we ARE gonna have to face the fact there will be some kind of celebration so what kind of event do you reckon we should have

personally even though i had a grandfather there i dont really feel all that comfortable with a military parade. cant exactly say why but the idea of tanks on o connell street doesnt seem right to me , so i was thinking of something along the lines of paddies day mark 2 with a series of documentuarys on it on the telly exploring the less well known aspects of it, and hell a few debates would be fun if its anything like whats been going on here for the last 3 pages.

ok i'll admit im no special occasions organiser but some of you out there must have some ideas:)

Snickers Man

Wicknight wrote:

The Rising members didn't win, they got their asses kicked, took a lot of civilians with them and the leaders were executed. :rolleyes:

One of them wasn't. And sixteen years later he was elected Taoiseach*. A job he held off and on until 1959. I believe. And then he became president.

Other veterans of 1916 who were ELECTED Taoiseach were WT Cosgrave and Sean Lemass. And two more sons of 1916 veterans who became Taoiseach were Liam Cosgrave and Garret Fitzgerald.

Why do your eyes roll?

wicknight wrote:

They didn't have a mandate for military action before the rising, they certainly didn't have a mandate for military action after the rising.

See above

wicknight wrote:

What part of the Rising should we be "proud" of exactly?

Why do we have to be so po-faced about our physical struggle when other nations glorify theirs?

Ask the French why they name the biggest airport in Paris after de Gaulle a man who continued fighting without a mandate?

Why is London's main square named after a naval battle? A lot of people were killed in that.

Why is a mainline rail station in London named after a battle in which thousands were killed?

Say to an Ozzie that the diggers were the bad guys in Gallipoli and he (or she) will hit you.

What was it about their causes that were so much more worthy than ours?





* or equivalent. I don't know when the term Taoiseach was first used.

Flex

Snickers Man wrote:

One of them wasn't. And sixteen years later he was elected Taoiseach*. A job he held off and on until 1959. I believe. And then he became president.

Other veterans of 1916 who were ELECTED Taoiseach were WT Cosgrave and Sean Lemass. And two more sons of 1916 veterans who became Taoiseach were Liam Cosgrave and Garret Fitzgerald.

Why do your eyes roll?

See above

Ask the French why they name the biggest airport in Paris after de Gaulle a man who continued fighting without a mandate?

Why is London's main square named after a naval battle? A lot of people were killed in that.

Why is a mainline rail station in London named after a battle in which thousands were killed?

Say to an Ozzie that the diggers were the bad guys in Gallipoli and he (or she) will hit you.

What was it about their causes that were so much more worthy than ours?

All very good points. however, you dont realise that as a result of the rising and the War of Independence which was a direct result of it, people were killed!!! :eek: And any conflict were people are killed shouldnt be remembered, especially minor ones that lead to a peoples freedom after centuries of occupation or whatever :rolleyes:

* or equivalent. I don't know when the term Taoiseach was first used.

Think President of the Executive Council was used til 1937

Dyr

sceptre wrote:

Gave me nothing new that I wasn't aware of after fourth class history I'm afraid. I do note that you made an attempt though rather than merely ignoring the question, even if you had to include a crap sideswipe as part of the answer.

If you'd like to point out inaccuracies in the attempt to answer your question then please feel free to do so. I am now the one in need of dot linkage to see what part of your initial query I didnt address


:v: < that wasnt a sideswipe, that was merely a gentle jibe at the faintly patronising whiff offa your initial post, calm down dere now gaffer!

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

you know before we get compleatly bogged down in this 1916 bashing we ARE gonna have to face the fact there will be some kind of celebration so what kind of event do you reckon we should have

personally even though i had a grandfather there i dont really feel all that comfortable with a military parade. cant exactly say why but the idea of tanks on o connell street doesnt seem right to me , so i was thinking of something along the lines of paddies day mark 2 with a series of documentuarys on it on the telly exploring the less well known aspects of it, and hell a few debates would be fun if its anything like whats been going on here for the last 3 pages.

ok i'll admit im no special occasions organiser but some of you out there must have some ideas:)

DO'H, just heard from the lovely sharon ni bheolaoin on the news theres gonna be a military parade with a fly by by the airforce and a parade of gardai as well. think it ends with a reading of the proclomation by bertie (but not sure about whos reading it:o )

Sand

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.

I dont see where it says a vote for them was a vote for bombing? SFIRA praises and endorses its own atrocities in exactly the same way as the manifesto praises and endorses 1916. Hence, if a SF vote in 1918 is a vote for past violence, then a vote for SFIRA in 2006 is a vote for past violence.

Cmon, what sort of Provo are you? Why are you so ashamed or afraid to stand by your views that past violence is mandated by future voting patterns? Was Northern Ireland in the 1920s-1970s a better place than Dublin 1915 for Catholic Nationalists? Is that the difference? Oh no wait, are you going to make me laugh with some spiel about how SFIRA *dont* praise and justify the SFIRA campaign in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and today? That they dont wave Bobby Sands about like a battering ram?

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.

Interesting how you, and other supporters of violent republicanism like Glasgo, are terrified of asking whats so different between 1916 and the Troubles? I understand that Provos, amongst themselves, are delighted to draw dots between 1916 and murders like that of McConville - painting themselves as the true inheritors of the creed of murderous terrorism over constitutional politics.

So pick one or the other, its your logic afterall. Either political support gives a mandate for past violence, or it doesnt. I dont care what you pick, really. Pick that it gives a mandate if you like. Or pick that it doesnt. Either way, youre wrong and you contradict yourself.

Or you can run back to After Hours, or to the IRBB where the West Brits are the Provos who dont support Omagh.

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?

Water is wet. Fire is hot. Provos make threats. Is there some sort of Provo communal manual for debating out there?

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.

But the Springfield Brigade were too *brave* to accept their surrender!

In 1916 the country was occupied by a foreign power

No it wasnt. It was a part of a larger state, and elected representitives to the legislature of that state, which was widely accepted and had achieved Home Rule. It wasnt occupied. End of.

Only if guys like you get their way

Thats true, if guys like you get your way well be listening to stories of the famous flying columns led by Jerimiah Springfield.

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

Tell me whats different? SFIRA had a stronger case for violence in the 1960s than Pearse did in 1916.

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.

But they werent given a mandate. Now if you want to jump into Bambis hole and help him dig, work away. Maybe if you dig together youll get to the other side faster.

Tell me what mandate Charles de Gaulle had from the French people in 1940. His country had declared war on Germany.
His Army had been defeated.
His democratically elected Government had surrendered and signed a binding legal international treaty with Germany which allowed the retention of the French empire and continued independent (although compliant) French rule over most of France.
Yet he insisted on fighting on.

Ireland wasnt occupied - see above. Neither did the French have democratic representation in the Reichstag. Neither had French constitutional nationalists already achieved the practical independance of France from the Reichstag.

Other than the situtations being totally different, great analogy.

Yet is there any Australian who does not look back on that episode with unadulterated pride?

The difference is the Australian troops had a mandate. If they didnt have a mandate all theyd be is a bunch of crazy psychos running about killing people in the name of some country - a country that had not seen fit to give them a mandate. Now you can argue up is down all you like, but it doesnt change facts. 1916 did not have a mandate and went against the supported electoral representivies of Irelands peaceful, constitutional strategy for achieving self rule.

you know before we get compleatly bogged down in this 1916 bashing we ARE gonna have to face the fact there will be some kind of celebration so what kind of event do you reckon we should have

Maybe a parade of coffins, one for every murder justified by 1916? The demolition of Daniel O Connells statue to represent our preference for violent rather than constitutional nationalists?

Snickers Man

Sand wrote:

Ireland wasnt occupied - see above.

Of course it wasn't. :rolleyes:

Sand wrote:

Neither did the French have democratic representation in the Reichstag. Neither had French constitutional nationalists already achieved the practical independance of France from the Reichstag.

No but their democratically elected government had signed an agreement with the Germans, under some considerable duress of course --their army had just been defeated--which partitioned their country and gave the French control over about half of it.

For your argument to have any logic, De Gaulle would only have been entitled to snatch back the bit that was occupied. Which is of course ridiculous. He never recognised partition (what does that sound like?) and regarded those who consented to it as traitors. (What does that sound like?)

And when the war was over, thousands of them were lynched without any admonishment of their summary executioners. Laval and Petain, the two key leaders of the Vichy government (and before that the government of all of France) were both tried and sentenced to death. Petain, because of his age and his previous heroic service, had his sentence commuted.

Again, what mandate did de Gaulle have at the time to do any of this?

sand wrote:

Other than the situtations being totally different, great analogy.

:rolleyes:

sand wrote:

The difference is the Australian troops had a mandate.

Not from the Turks they didn't. And whose country were they fighting in? What grievance or claim had Australia against Turkey?

Just because their government ordered them there didn't make it right? You have to put it into a better context than that. Otherwise, according to your rgument the German invasions of Norway, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and the Soviet Union were all perfectly justified because the German government ordered them.

And ditto for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

This is just silly.

Dyr

Cmon, what sort of Provo are you? Why are you so ashamed or afraid to stand by your views that past violence is mandated by future voting patterns? Was Northern Ireland in the 1920s-1970s a better place than Dublin 1915 for Catholic Nationalists?


Do you label anyone who dares to have a different opinion to you a provo? That's somewhat childish. I've shown you where in the Sinn Fein manifesto of 1918 their explicit and continuing support for the rising, its aims and its methods was stated, Do you want to debate that? Contradict it perhaps? Can you spot the important distinction between that and the modern incarnation of Sinn Fein seeking election on a platform of purely peaceful methods to pursue their goals, over a decade after the IRAs campaign was wound down? It's obvious my literary skills arent of a sufficient standard to convey my point sucessfully to you, hopefully its more clear to others reading this thread



Water is wet. Fire is hot. Provos make threats. Is there some sort of Provo communal manual for debating out there?


No, i just find that when people become agitated on the interweb it's useful to give them the option to discuss the subject in person. Most debates like this become heated and insulting on the interweb because people dont have to behave as they would in real life, which is a shame




:v: < Bertie to read de proclamashun of indipendinz? sweet mother a jeesus

Flex

Sand wrote:

I dont see where it says a vote for them was a vote for bombing?

Try reading the part about using any and all means necessary to remove British Rule :rolleyes:

Interesting how you, and other supporters of violent republicanism like Glasgo, are terrified of asking whats so different between 1916 and the Troubles?

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 ). In 1916 those rebels went out to face the British army 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.

But the Springfield Brigade were too *brave* to accept their surrender!

Is that the best you can come up with? I suppose it was quite disrespectful though, so it lived up to your typical standard I guess. Fair play

No it wasnt. It was a part of a larger state, and elected representitives to the legislature of that state, which was widely accepted and had achieved Home Rule. It wasnt occupied. End of.

So was Poland occupied in WW2? Or Czechoslavakia? Or Austria? They were all part of a 'larger state'. :rolleyes:

Thats true, if guys like you get your way well be listening to stories of the famous flying columns led by Jerimiah Springfield.

No, if guys like me get my way we'll be paying respect to ordinary men and women who were willing to give up their lives for this country and whos actions culminated in our independence. If we listen to guys like you we'll listen to how poor innocent chaps in black and tan uniforms were gunned down by madmen while trying to save the country from the fascists in Sinn Fein who were roaming the streets gunnin down children and blowing up people; or anything as long as it vilifies the rebels.

But they werent given a mandate. Now if you want to jump into Bambis hole and help him dig, work away. Maybe if you dig together youll get to the other side faster.

Yeah cant ya picture it; the rebels going door to door before the rebellion "Hi, we're planning a surprise rebellion in Dublin next week, would that be alright with ya? Oh, please dont tell the authorities about this, thanks." What kind of mandate should they have had (talking about the rebels in 1916 here, not post-1916 since post 1916 they did have a mandate)? Established a political party on the promise theyd stage a rebellion in Dublin if elected? Or handed out questionnaires? They believed blood sacrifice would work and they were correct.

Sand

No but their democratically elected government had signed an agreement with the Germans, under some considerable duress of course --their army had just been defeated--which partitioned their country and gave the French control over about half of it.

Which wasnt the situation in Ireland. For slow learners, Ill repeat. Democratic elections returned Irish representitives to the state legislature, and those representitives had already secured Home Rule, peaceful independance from that legislature. No comparison to the 2nd World War. End of.

Just because their government ordered them there didn't make it right? You have to put it into a better context than that. Otherwise, according to your rgument the German invasions of Norway, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and the Soviet Union were all perfectly justified because the German government ordered them.

Who said anything about justification? I said countries tend to honour their armies because they fight on their behalf, making sacrifices. The Australians honour the ANZACs because the Australians embarked on a war, but the ANZACs were the ones who took the greatest risks in winning that war. The war in which they fought might not have been popular - Vietnam for example - but it is understood that the soldiers fought at the direction of the government elected by the people.

1916 never received a mandate.

This is just silly

Hey its your argument, you should have thought of that before you posted it.

Do you label anyone who dares to have a different opinion to you a provo?

If someone supports Fianna Fail Id call them a FFer, if someone supports the Provos I call them a Provo. Why, are you embarrassed to be associated with the Provos?

I've shown you where in the Sinn Fein manifesto of 1918 their explicit and continuing support for the rising, its aims and its methods was stated, Do you want to debate that? Contradict it perhaps?

Theres nothing that explicitly states a vote for SF is a vote for bombing, which was your original point about votes for SFIRA today - that they dont include that in their manifestos either. But that doesnt seem to affect your view that a vote for SF in 1918 is support of violence, but a vote for SFIRA in 2006 isnt support of violence.

SFIRA have explicit and continuing support for their terrorist campaign, its aims and methods and state so repeatedly. SFIRA has never, AFAIK failed to praise the terrorist campaign. So by your standards, that means a vote for them is a vote supporting terrorism.

No, i just find that when people become agitated on the interweb it's useful to give them the option to discuss the subject in person. Most debates like this become heated and insulting on the interweb because people dont have to behave as they would in real life, which is a shame

If I went round meeting every Provo who dislikes me I might as well deliver the Christmas presents and give Santa a break whilst Im at it. In the mean time, Im feet up waiting for you to choose to either accept that voting for SFIRA is support for terrorism, or that voting for SF in 1918 isnt support for terrorism. You cant have one and not the other. Except for doublethinkers, but Ive already filled my Orwell quota for this thread.

Or run along back to the IRBB...

Try reading the part about using any and all means necessary to remove British Rule

Your argument is with Bambi on that point, not with me.

In 1916 the country was occupied by a foreign power

Nope it wasnt. Point has already been covered.

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.

NI is no different, if anything the situation faced by Catholic Nationalists was worse, and their chances to effect political chance even worse again. Loyalist gangs were burning out Catholic families. The police was biased and corrupt, and the local government sectatarian. Nothing like this was occuring in Dublin 1915. And yet you feel 1916 was right to go with violence over politics, but the Provos in 1969 were wrong to go with violence over politics?

Is that the best you can come up with? I suppose it was quite disrespectful though, so it lived up to your typical standard I guess. Fair play

Well it was a hilarious gag about how history is repackaged for later generations - but it wasnt half as funny as the crap you came out with, 1916 about giving your all?:D Sounds like something youd hear in a self help book.

No, if guys like me get my way we'll be paying respect to ordinary men and women who were willing to give up their lives for this country and whos actions culminated in our independence. If we listen to guys like you we'll listen to how poor innocent chaps in black and tan uniforms were gunned down by madmen while trying to save the country from the fascists in Sinn Fein who were roaming the streets gunnin down children and blowing up people; or anything as long as it vilifies the rebels.

Actually we might be listening to how the guys in 1916 were human beings, not demi gods. You might be listening to a record of what they did do, as opposed to what you wish they had done. As for the Black and Tans Id make the point that theyd never have darkened Irelands doorway without DeV and co inviting them in.

Yeah cant ya picture it; the rebels going door to door before the rebellion "Hi, we're planning a surprise rebellion in Dublin next week, would that be alright with ya? Oh, please dont tell the authorities about this, thanks." What kind of mandate should they have had (talking about the rebels in 1916 here, not post-1916 since post 1916 they did have a mandate)? Established a political party on the promise theyd stage a rebellion in Dublin if elected? Or handed out questionnaires? They believed blood sacrifice would work and they were correct.

Grand, so you admit they didnt have a mandate? I dont care either way really. I just want Bambi to admit his logic applies equally from SF then to SFIRA now.

If they wanted a mandate, they could have done what they did in 1918. Form a party, run in elections on the manifesto of simply refusing to take seats in the House of Commons and instead to form their own legislature in Ireland. If the people vote overwhelmingly for it ( as you must be confident they would) then they have a mandate from the people to implement that program, and to defend it via force if the British resist.

But they didnt do that. Because they knew they wouldnt get a mandate to do so.

Dyr

we'll try to take this slowly:

Simple Question: do you accept that the massive support Sinn Fein recieved from the population in the 1918 election (and previous by-elections), which were the first opportunities after the rising, was a vindication of the 1916 rising? Ive pointed out why i think it was. Feel free to make a counter argument.


Is a vote for Sinn Fein now a vote in vindication of a campaign that ended a decade ago? Hardly. People had a chance to endorse their campaign at the time in election after election and didnt. Now that they are pursuing peaceful means to their objectives one can contend that a vote for them is not an endorsement for violence. You've repeatedly failed to adress the difference between the two positions that makes your comparison totally inaccurate


Theres nothing that explicitly states a vote for SF is a vote for bombing, which was your original point about votes for SFIRA today.

emm no that was your original point. i believe you were the one who wanted to see the explicit mention of a vote for Sinn Feinn being a vote for bombing. And possibly a vote for murdering policemen as well. AFAIK bombs were not a major factor in 1916 so why would Sinn Fein need to endorse bombing in 1918? You seem to be avoiding dealing with the sections of their manifesto that i highlighted by trying to demand some requirement for a reference to bombing, murder and mayhem that only you set.


I repeat yet again. Sinn Fein stood on a platform that fully endorsed the 1916 rising, its aims and objectives and was duly returned in a landslide.
Sinn Fein explicitly stated that they stood by the proclamation of independance and their intention was to pursue an independant nation by any and all means necessary. it doesnt get anymore explicit than that
The irish nation, at the first opportunity, endorsed the path that the men and women of the 1916 rising chose.



I just want Bambi to admit his logic applies equally from SF then to SFIRA now.

Well heres the real kicker, I couldnt give a flying monkeys water bottle if a vote now for les Shinners was a vindication of the IRA's armed campaign. If i thought it was then I'd freely admit it with bells on. But then I suspect your problem here is that the legitimacy of the 1916 rising in the eyes of sucessive generations of this country might lend some semblance of legitimacy to the current IRA's position and must therefore be denigerated at every turn.


If I went round meeting every Provo who dislikes me I might as well deliver the Christmas presents and give Santa a break whilst Im at it.

Im not a provo and i never said that i disliked you, so you can make an exception, Are you worried that your beligerance might fade away in the real world?

Flex

Sand wrote:

Your argument is with Bambi on that point, not with me.

You said you cant see were it said a vote for Sinn Fein was a vote for bombing, yet it says so clearly in the manifesto theyd use any and all means necessary (unless youre being ultra pedantic and insisting it doesnt count because the actual word 'bombing' wasnt used). :rolleyes:

Nope it wasnt. Point has already been covered.

So were Czechoslavakia, Poland and Austria occupied during WW2 or were they simply part of a 'larger state'? :rolleyes:

NI is no different, if anything the situation faced by Catholic Nationalists was worse, and their chances to effect political chance even worse again. Loyalist gangs were burning out Catholic families. The police was biased and corrupt, and the local government sectatarian. Nothing like this was occuring in Dublin 1915. And yet you feel 1916 was right to go with violence over politics, but the Provos in 1969 were wrong to go with violence over politics?

Did you not reead the post? Ireland was under occupation so people resisited it and the majority clearly endorsed and supported them in the following election. NI is different because the provence of NI has a majority of people do not want a united Ireland or Irish republic despite having had the chance to become part of one. When the IRA came about in the north en masse again around 1969 it was originally supported because as you say the police and co were all biased and presecuting Catholics, so people genuinely saw the IRA as thier only defendce and that they had come about because of the Civil Rights 'crisis', at which point they enjoyed significant support'; a resurgence in the IRA was bound to happen at that point because of the mess up there. However, when the motive switched to forcing a united Ireland most people withdrew support for them because they were going against the democratic will of the majority of NI.

Well it was a hilarious gag about how history is repackaged for later generations - but it wasnt half as funny as the crap you came out with, 1916 about giving your all?:D Sounds like something youd hear in a self help book

So people willing to give up their lives for the country by fighting a battle they know they cant win but doing so anyway for the greater good (ie. blood sacrifice inspiring the people of Ireland) isnt giving your all? What is giving your all in your opinion dare I ask?

BTW, sorry about the sounding like a self help book there Let me know if I say any other things that might sound like something in any of the self help books youve read if it bothers you

Actually we might be listening to how the guys in 1916 were human beings, not demi gods. You might be listening to a record of what they did do, as opposed to what you wish they had done.

Im aware they were human beings, ordinary men and women probably from working class backgrounds like anyone else, but they were willing to do what they did for this country. Thats why they should be remembered, for the fact they stood up and started what would culiminate in the birth of this country and displayed bravery and determination by holding our for nearly a week against insurmountable odds; and why? because they loved Ireland. What do I wish they had done? They fought a battle and lost, and in the process got the **** kicked out of them for a week and were spit on and jeered afterwards and put in jail; they never had a chance of winning. I have no illusions about that. What do you think I 'wished they had done'?

As for the Black and Tans Id make the point that theyd never have darkened Irelands doorway without DeV and co inviting them in

the reason they were sent is because the people of Ireland had voted for a sovereign nation and self determination, Britain ignored that and as a result fighting ensued.

Grand, so you admit they didnt have a mandate? I dont care either way really. I just want Bambi to admit his logic applies equally from SF then to SFIRA now.

If they wanted a mandate, they could have done what they did in 1918. Form a party, run in elections on the manifesto of simply refusing to take seats in the House of Commons and instead to form their own legislature in Ireland. If the people vote overwhelmingly for it ( as you must be confident they would) then they have a mandate from the people to implement that program, and to defend it via force if the British resist.

how could rebels planning a secret rising gotten a mandate to have that secret rising while at the same time making sure that secret rising was kept a secret? And they were carrying on the tradition of armed resisitance to British rule. Which other rebellions had mandates clearly expressing support for them from the majority of the general populace in Ireland before said rebellion went ahead? Did the United Irishmen have a political party :rolleyes:

But they didnt do that. Because they knew they wouldnt get a mandate to do so.

Or because maybe they didnt recognise Britains right to legislate for Ireland :rolleyes:

luckat

I can't understand why this is such a big deal.

Why on earth are people getting so passionate about the actions of 90 years ago?

But if we're going to talk about it, let's go back another few years with a quote from the debates about the Act of Union, which formed the union that 1916 began to dissolve.

Since history isn't much taught in schools, I'll give a little background. In the late 18th century Ireland had its own parliament - though this was representative of the large landowners, rather than the great mass of the people.

It was dissolved by Castlereagh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stewart,_Viscount_Castlereagh) bribing the members with the equivalent in today's terms of millions of euro to vote their parliament out of existence.

A few members refused these huge bribes. One, Charles Kendal Bushe, said as he addressed the parliament:

"For centuries the British Parliament and nation kept you down, shackled your commerce and paralysed your exertions, despised your character and ridiculed your pretensions to any privileges, commercial or constitutional. She has never conceded a point to you which she could not avoid, nor granted a favour that was not reluctantly distilled. They have all been wrung from her like drops of blood, and you are not in possession of a single blessing (except those which you derived from God) that has not been either purchased or extorted by the virtue of your own Parliament from the illiberality of England."

However, the members, drawn from the Protestant Ascendancy and the Catholic merchant classes, ignored him and took the bribes, and the parliament was dissolved; they went on to become MPs in the London parliament.

The century that followed - with the Famine and the mass emigration that accompanied and followed it - was the precursor to the War of Independence.

Dyr

Interesting, Actually i was going to start a "what if" thread on a similar theme.

People in this thread are referring to the Home Rule movement as having nigh on secured Home Rule prior to 1916. I wouldnt agree with that, as I feel they had been "almost" securing Home Rule for the previous 50 years or so but Im not that familiar on the ins and outs of the issue anymore

klash

I think the people here supporting the restarting of the 1916 celebrations are missing something the people against it are saying.

The people against it aren't against 1916 in particular, but against anything remotely connected to Physical force Republicanism. As 1916 is seen as the great start of most everything that followed, (Provos, etc) then they don't want to see it with anything but how they see the Provos.

Of all the reasons they are giving, the lack of a mandate has to be the stupidest by a long shot. By definition a rebellion can't have a mandate/vote.

Can you imagine the ballot form ?

Q: Do you support the secret rebellion schedueled for Easter to give control of this country to the people of Ireland and set up a Republic without British control ? p.s > Don't tell the Brits.

1. Mandate or no mandate it was obvious to anyone that the majority of people on this island wanted the Brits gone by any means, physical force or otherwise. The reaction in Dublin was never going to be representative of the rest of the country, the public feeling in dublin today to most subjects isn't representative of the rest of the country, nevermind back then. Dublin today might as well be a British city and i'm not sure it was all that different in 1916.

For example, i'm a Protestant and so are most of my family, my grandfather fought in WW1 but it wasn't for the good of the British Empire. He was a home ruler but completely agreed with what the rebels did in 1916 and the war of independence. (He didn't fight beause of a war injury which he died from in later life.)

He was a home ruler because thats all the options that were availible. There was no "vote for complete independence" party

Mandate is a null point.

2. Would we have gotten the same/similiar by peaceful means ?

Maybe we would have, the fact is it doesn't matter. We "Nearly" had home rule for years and imo we were never going to get it to any substantial degree like Canada and Australia had under dominion status. But then again maybe we would have.

Zombrex

klash wrote:

I
The people against it aren't against 1916 in particular, but against anything remotely connected to Physical force Republicanism.

You got it the wrong way around.

"The people" don't necessarily have anything against the independence struggle, or even the War of Independence.

What they have a problem with is the events of the Easter 1916 rebellion, which in my view was a bloody waste of life and resources that achieved little apart from killing a whole load of innocent Dubliners. And I/they don't think that event should be celebrated as a national holiday.

I also think it is very interesting that people are completely ignoring the fact that the actual Easter rebelion was a complete failure, and achieved absolutly nothing except to anger people.

The only event that could be seen to have contributed to the eventual independence of the country from Britian was the executions that followed the Rising.

The idea that the Rising members knew that they were eventually be executed and that execution would lend support to Sinn Fein (which had nothing to do with the Rising in the first place :rolleyes: ) is complete nonsense.

The British executed these men and then blamed Sinn Fein for the Rising. These events lead to greater support for SF (though it is arguable how much actual support). The British army are largely responsible for the increase in support for SF, it had little to do with the Rising members except they were the poor idiots who got shot. If the executions had not happened it is doubtful that the Irish would become sympathetic to the cause. So real these events had nothing to do with the Rising.

So why are we remembering the Rising at all. It was a complete failure, it actually achieved nothing, and it killed a load of innocent Irish people. It was the events later, that were actually out of the hands of Republicans, that lead to the surge in support for SF.

The whole myth that has grown up around the Rising is ridiculous in my opinion. The only reason we hold the rising in importance at all is because of the rather distastleful Republican idea that anyone who fights (ie kills) for an independent Ireland is automatically a hero and should be remember and celebrated, no matter how idiotic or blood thirsty. Which is why we remember the Rising and why up North SF/IRA campaigned for all IRA prisioners to be released, even thought that had committed horrific crimes against civilians. It is the same logic that has Hamas giving suicide bombers a full military funeral

To me celebrating the Rising as leading to independence is like thanking the 9/11 attacks when the ACLU wins a civil liberty suit against the Patriot act :rolleyes:

Sand

Simple Question: do you accept that the massive support Sinn Fein recieved from the population in the 1918 election (and previous by-elections), which were the first opportunities after the rising, was a vindication of the 1916 rising?

Im open to the idea, but you have to accept that as much as SFIRAs manifestos does not explicitly state "Vote for us if you think we did a good job in the troubles", the SF manifesto in 1918 did not explicitly state "Vote for us if you think Dev and the boys did a good job in 1916".

What youre doing is reading between the lines in SF 1918 manifesto but being giving the SFIRA manifesto today a very narrow reading. Is it impossible that someone in 1918 might have voted for SF on the grounds it was their policy to withdraw from Westminister, declare a Republic and establish a Dail - and yet not support the violence of 1916? Your interpretation claims that such a view is impossible and incompatible with a vote for SF in 1918. And yet, such a vote - approving of SFIRAs current policy and objectives, whilst not supporting the Troubles - is default of the average SFIRA voter.

Im asking you to be consistent. Neither party, SF or SFIRA states explicitly that a vote for them is a mandate for past violence. Do you disagree?

Both groups, as a matter of public record, support and endorse past militant republican campaigns? Do you disagree?

Given the above, if a vote gives a mandate in one case, then there is just as much ground for claiming it gives a mandate in another. Be consistent and choose.

i believe you were the one who wanted to see the explicit mention of a vote for Sinn Feinn being a vote for bombing.

No you claimed that a vote for SFIRA wasnt a mandate for the troubles because they didnt state it explicitly in their manifesto. Youre not so demanding on explicit statements in the case of SF 1918.

Im not a provo and i never said that i disliked you, so you can make an exception, Are you worried that your beligerance might fade away in the real world?

I dont discuss politics off message boards because Im just as belligerent if not more so, and I end up having to bite my tongue until it bleeds if I dont want to fall out with people because they insist that Clinton (for example) was a great Prez, but Bush is a warmonger.

You said you cant see were it said a vote for Sinn Fein was a vote for bombing, yet it says so clearly in the manifesto theyd use any and all means necessary (unless youre being ultra pedantic and insisting it doesnt count because the actual word 'bombing' wasnt used).

Of all the reasons they are giving, the lack of a mandate has to be the stupidest by a long shot. By definition a rebellion can't have a mandate/vote.

Can you imagine the ballot form ?

Q: Do you support the secret rebellion schedueled for Easter to give control of this country to the people of Ireland and set up a Republic without British control ? p.s > Don't tell the Brits.

Well, Klash and Flex, you guys need to sort out whats required for a mandate. According to Flex its easy to insert into your manifesto an obvious declaration of the intent to use force. Whereas Klash considers it impossible to insert such a declaration in a British election. Im open to either view, let me know when you thrash it out.

And BTW Klash, the Volunteers and ICA drilled in public. The British were well aware of them, and if anything were caught by surprise by the rebels hiding in plain sight. If its possible to run your own private army under the noses of the British Id imagine itd be possible to run on a manifesto thats at least vaguely militant in intent. The British policy in Ireland from the turn of the century on was quite liberal - they did not attempt to rock the boat because they viewed it as a powderkeg.

So people willing to give up their lives for the country by fighting a battle they know they cant win but doing so anyway for the greater good (ie. blood sacrifice inspiring the people of Ireland) isnt giving your all? What is giving your all in your opinion dare I ask?

My objection is to you abandoning the facts of 1916, and moving towards some inspiring romantic parable about patriotism and heroic derring do. It wont be what happened anymore, it will be about what you want to happen. Your story will not dwell on the fact that the rebels attacked ordinary dubliners trying to loot stores, nor that they were abused and clearly not supported by ordinary people. Neither will it dwell on the fact that Home Rule was on the books. Nor will it consider that despite inspiring decades of murder and bloodshed, the violent republicanism spawned by 1916 did not bring any benefit to Ireland that couldnt have been achieved via Home Rule - at much less cost in suffering and misery.

No - your version will be like something out of Commando or one of those other British WW2 comics.

how could rebels planning a secret rising gotten a mandate to have that secret rising while at the same time making sure that secret rising was kept a secret?

I dont know - how did they manage it in 1918? You claim they did afterall.

Or because maybe they didnt recognise Britains right to legislate for Ireland

So win the seat, then refuse to take it. Standard republican policy down through the ages. No reason that couldnt have done it in 1910 if there was support out there for violent republicanism.

The people against it aren't against 1916 in particular, but against anything remotely connected to Physical force Republicanism. As 1916 is seen as the great start of most everything that followed, (Provos, etc) then they don't want to see it with anything but how they see the Provos.

I dont see 1916 as the start of anything other than the violence in Irish political life that has continued down to the present day, with miserable consequences for tens of thousands of familes. And you cant praise one set of terrorists, without praising another set. And people deep down know this, because the celebrations were not held during the Troubles for that specific reason. And SFIRA know this as well, hence they can only be delighted by the gross stupidity of Bertie and Co - theyre reinforcing militant republicanism making SFIRA more acceptable and their past terrorism less objectionable, just when Bertie should be pushing constitutional nationalism. Quite simply, Bertie is a moron. He truly is that stupid. How can he view it in FFs electoral interests to make militant republicanism seem heroic when a militant republican group is cutting into his voting base? Does anyone seriously think SFIRA is even slightly concerned by the possibility of FF reclaiming 1916 from the Provos?

Diorraing

Wicknight wrote:

I also think it is very interesting that people are completely ignoring the fact that the actual Easter rebelion was a complete failure, and achieved absolutly nothing except to anger people.

Am I reading this correctly? The Easter Rebellion achieved absolutely nothing? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought 1916 inspired the Irish people to gain independance. I was of the opinion that it set the wheels in motionf for the subsequent War of Independance. Didn't Collins, de Valera and Brugha all fight in 1916? Didn't they lead us to independance?

democrates

Interesting article from the OP. Classic propaganda tactcs. "Answer these questions" , a technique used to frame the discussion. Look at these issues, and ignore others. Predictably it has been jumped all over by people with wider perspectives.

Comparing Ireland under the crown with the divided Ireland of 2006? More difference than overlap, insufficient basis for extrapolation in either direction. The tyranny of the partial metaphor. And I won't waste my brainpower responding to the rest of that drivel.

First thing I always look at is the motivations of those pushing these agendas. Sir whatsit owns that paper. Once we were tenants ruled by English Lords, Today we are largely employees, who's noble objective is to serve the shareholders interests.

Seems one set of parasites has been replaced by another. Four legs good, two legs bad. Any diversion from the true injustice serves their agenda. It's the subservient lackies who are most sickening though.

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

Am I reading this correctly? The Easter Rebellion achieved absolutely nothing? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought 1916 inspired the Irish people to gain independance.

You are wrong. You may stand corrected