Confusing remembrance of 1916

samb

julep wrote:

indeed.
the british government are to blame for the whole thing. they were the ones who invaded in the first place. .

What government was this? Read your history and stop being so insultant.

samb

murphaph wrote:

Would anybody bother going into town to watch Oglaigh na hEireann march down O'Connell Street with their less than impressive arsenal, to watch an Air Corps 'fly by' with a Marretti (sp?)? Give me a break, it'd be pure sh!te and you all know it. Paddies day is less about religion today than ever, half naked brazilian samba dancers aren't exactly the Catholic Church's idea of what the day was all about. It's a decent festival and getting better. I'd rather celebrate being a peaceful multicural Ireland than watch the defence forces being made march around for no real reason.

I think we should invite the British Army over and celebrate thier victory over the insurgents. They have better Guns also. It seems so to me that we would celebrate a failed mission. If they wanted to commit suicide for their cause why didn't they go on hunger strike. Instead they went on a suicide mission just like Al Queda today, killing inocent civilians and police along with them.

Terry

samb wrote:

I think we should invite the British Army over and celebrate thier victory over the insurgents. They have better Guns also. It seems so to me that we would celebrate a failed mission. If they wanted to commit suicide for their cause why didn't they go on hunger strike. Instead they went on a suicide mission just like Al Queda today, killing inocent civilians and police along with them.

first off, british government/british monarchy, potato/potato.

secondly, comparing the heroes of 1916 to al qaeda is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever read. are you serious or are you just trolling?
if you want to get down to it, remember it was the british who declared war on germany in WW2 and sent innocent civilians (conscripts) onto the continent to die and basically invited germany to invade britain. it's also worth noting the old saying "the sun never sets on the british empire". how many innocent civilians had to die for that to happen?
stop glorifying the brits as some type of heroic benefactor that took care of the Irish people. they were nothing but scum, who tried to strip the culture of this country and treated the citizens as filth. they would have been happy to see every person in this country dead so that they could just walk in and take the land for themselves. history has shown them for what they were (and in some cases still are. iraqi oil, anyone? although the outcome of that has yet to be seen, but if their past actions are anything to go by...) and that is a parasitical people who will stop at nothing to take over a country and strip its resources for themselves. a few people fought against this tyranny and you compare them to a terrorist organisation that launcehd attacks on america purely because they are insane. this mentality makes me sick.

diplomacy had failed, home rule was a joke and the only option left to remove the invaders was all out war. the rising failed, but it gave people the incentive to try again and the next time around they gave us the country we have today.

NB. all references to "the british" are references to the ruling people in britain at the time and is not to be misconstrued as hatred of the british people in general. most of the british people i know are nice people and had no part in their governments decisions regarding Ireland or the rest of the world and i'm sure this goes for most british people.

samb

I'm not sure what your on about below julep. I never glorified the british or anything like that. However, are you suggesting that WWII was not a just war, from an allied perspective?
I a trolling slightly comparing them to Al queda but IMO there are relevant comparison. They new it was a doomed mission, they wanted to be martyers. :The silly brits gave them thier victory by executing them.

Your problem is that you have a simple good/bad version of history in your head. Remember that Irish Nationalists in Westminster were listened to and often thier support needed for legislation, it wasn't total domination, although not the democracy we wanted. During the famine they did pass legislation to help, but they failed to help. Their was no general hatred I irish people as you suggest, merely poor governance, apathy etc.
Also remember that the insurgents of 1916 did not have the support of the people of Dublin when they carried it out.

You view shows disrgard for all the people who died since then. British soldiers, RIC, civilains, all those in civil war, northern Ireland. What followed was a partitioned Ireland, Civil war, and continued troubles in the north, not very nice. If 1916 hadn't happened things would have been different-and I can't see how they could have been bloodier.

murphaph

axer wrote:

And who's fault is that? Home rule would never have been implemented - EVER!!! The unionists/loyalists would have blocked it (and indeed did) by whatever means necessary. Maybe if the british government had dealt with those who violently opposed it at the time (instead of letting the Army in the Curragh refuse to deal with the issue) then we would not have the mess of a divided island that we have today. It was/is the British Government who caused/dealt very badly with this mess. Neither those who fought for Irish freedom in 1916 nor the signatories of the treaty caused this mess - it was the British Government.

You believe Home Rule wouldn't have been implemented because a minority of the population did not want it. I believe that HMG would have forced it through in the absence of WWI which resulted in Britain's heavy dependance on the 36th Ulster Division and the rest is history. I can see some shades of grey here-I can see that there were at least 4 parties involved in the failure of HR-HMG, The Ulster Loyalists, The Constitutional Home Rule supporters and of course, the violent republicans of the time. You see it in black and white; 'brits bad, irish good' sort of way, history is rarely so simple.

spanner

Hagar wrote:

The trouble with 1916 is that it is too recent. There are still too many people with direct family connections to the event in public office and too many open wounds in our society as a whole.

Many other countries celebrate "bloody events", such as the American Revolution, but enough time has not yet passed for the event to be associated with the birth of a nation not the death of a grandfather.

We shouldn't forget 1916, We shouldn't be ashamed of it. We should commemorate it.

The Irish Army have their roots in the Rising. They should not forget 1916. They would be marking the event on our behalf, so let us decide how it should be marked. We are not a military nation, our army's primary role is one of peacekeeping in foreign lands. Why not lay some emphasis on the positive role of an army? Highlight the change from the war we came from to the peace we maintain?

Mostly we should find a way to make it a cultural celebration. And for God's sake lets try to avoid the Paddy Whackery that goes hand in hand with St. Patrick's Day.

that is the best coment i have heard on these boards in a long time. No one is asking that we all join up with gerry and the boys but we cannot scorn or forget our past. being proud to be Irish has been hijacked, look at america for all the bad press their people get they are very very proud at heart, every child knows the plege of alligance and nearly every business and home has a flag, where as here we seem nearly ashamed to use any Irish symbolisms or remember any creed from our past.

murphaph

Anyone who thinks Britain wanted to go to war again after the horrors of the Great War still fresh in the minds are absolutely ignorant of history and the rest of their historical debate must be considered to b on extremely dodgy ground.

Google 'Neville Chamberlain Munich' and see what comes back to see how hard the brits tried to avoid war with Herr Hitler. It's the very last thing they wanted, totally unprepared for war compared to Germany which had been secretly building its arsenal during the years preceeding.

Diorraing

murphaph wrote:

You believe Home Rule wouldn't have been implemented because a minority of the population did not want it. I believe that HMG would have forced it through in the absence of WWI which resulted in Britain's heavy dependance on the 36th Ulster Division and the rest is history. I can see some shades of grey here-I can see that there were at least 4 parties involved in the failure of HR-HMG, The Ulster Loyalists, The Constitutional Home Rule supporters and of course, the violent republicans of the time. You see it in black and white; 'brits bad, irish good' sort of way, history is rarely so simple.

Rubbish. The British Government had been promising Home Rule for 40 years and yet we didn't get it. We were then led to believe that we would definately get it in 1914 bu they used WW1 as an excuse. Everyone, especially, the Brits thought that WW1 would be a quick war, saying things like 'home before Christmas'. Seeing as they believed this would be a very quick war, there was no need to postpone HR for Ireland.
When HR was postponed 2 stipulations were put in place:
(a) The war had to end
(b) There had to be a consensus with Ulster Unionists
The latter gave the Unionists a veto on HR.

samb wrote:

Scotland and Wales could easily achieve independance today if enough of them actually wanted to. If 1916 hadn't happened we would certainly have achieved independance by now and probably would have done Are you for real? There is absolutely no chance that Scotland or Wales could gain their independance now even if the vast majority of the population wanted it. They have become such an integral part of the Union that England would never let them go. Their fate is sealed as would ours were it not for 1916 and the chain of events it sparked.

seems so to me that we would celebrate a failed mission. If they wanted to commit suicide for their cause why didn't they go on hunger strike. Instead they went on a suicide mission just like Al Queda today, killing inocent civilians and police along with them.

No we are not celebrating a failed mission. We are celebrating the start of our successful independence struggle. The French don't celebrate the day they declared a Republic, they celebrate the day they strormed the Bastille.
Anyway, there seems to be a lot of people who are afraid to celebrate 1916 because it involved bloodshed. This is called moral relativism. Placing today's standards on a different time or place. In 1916 bloodshed wasn't such a no no like it is today. Look at the bloodbath that was WW1, the year after the rising there was the Russian Revolution. When we celebrate the rising we acknowledge that violence was a legitimate tool at the time.
More than the violence of 1916 we celebrate the ideals of 1916 encapsulated in the proclamation: Equality, Democracy, Liberty - perhaps posters on this thread would disagree with these ideals but the vast majority of Irish people agree with them.

Flex

samb wrote:

Their was no general hatred I irish people as you suggest, merely poor governance, apathy etc.

Hang on a second, if you want to know what the British thought of the Irish take a look at some of the caricatures in Punch Magazine from around the late 19th century. We were made out to be savages and somewhere in between primative monkeys and savage men. Basically, sub-human.

You view shows disrgard for all the people who died since then. British soldiers, RIC, civilains, all those in civil war, northern Ireland. What followed was a partitioned Ireland, Civil war, and continued troubles in the north, not very nice. If 1916 hadn't happened things would have been different-and I can't see how they could have been bloodier.

Ireland was partitioned under the Government of Ireland act in 1920, the treaty didnt come into effect until Dec 1921, roughly 18 months after partition. People seem to think if 1916 hadnt happened then the Troubles and partition and etc wouldnt have happened (for whatever reason), which I dont think is true considering how hostile Unionists were at the prospect of a meagre pathetic amount of autonomy permitted by Home Rule for Ireland. Another analogy is that those bad parts of Irish history wouldnt have happened if Unionists wouldve just accepted an all Ireland republic (as was the democratic will of the majority of people incidentally)

axer

murphaph wrote:

You believe Home Rule wouldn't have been implemented because a minority of the population did not want it. I believe that HMG would have forced it through in the absence of WWI which resulted in Britain's heavy dependance on the 36th Ulster Division and the rest is history. I can see some shades of grey here-I can see that there were at least 4 parties involved in the failure of HR-HMG, The Ulster Loyalists, The Constitutional Home Rule supporters and of course, the violent republicans of the time. You see it in black and white; 'brits bad, irish good' sort of way, history is rarely so simple.

So you are saying IF WW1 had not started then you believe we would DEFINITELY have gotten home rule?
You do however realise that home rule was not a spur of the moment thing just before WW1? this was going on years before WW1 and was blocked on a number of occaisions. Yet you still think that IF WW1 had not started then we would DEFINITELY have gotten home rule? You seem a little disillusioned to me.

This just shows your blindness in history:

murphaph wrote:

The Ulster Loyalists

murphaph wrote:

the violent republicans

It was the the Ulster Loyalists who were using violence up north to ensure that home rule would not have been granted not the republicans.

This must be one of those "rare" occaisions that it is black and white - The majority of the country wanted home rule, a violent minority did not - Yet home rule was not granted. This is a clear failure by the British Government and was the start of the Northern Troubles. Please show me the grey in that?

samb

samb wrote:

What government was this? Read your history and stop being so insultant.

Could you not have pointed that out in a less abrasive way.
Any attacks on the poster from now on in this thread as opposed to the post will receive an automatic 2 week ban from me if I see them
Final warning.

Terry

further to Axer's post.

In April 1912, the Prime Minister offered Ireland self-government in the form of the third Home Rule Bill. Allowing slightly more autonomy than its two predecessors, the bill provided for:

* A bicameral Irish Parliament to be set up in Dublin (a 40-member Senate and a 164-member House of Commons) with powers to deal with most national affairs;
* A number of Irish MPs would continue to sit in the Imperial Parliament in Westminster (42 MPs, rather than 103).

The Bill was passed by the Commons by a majority of 10 votes but the House of Lords rejected it 326 votes to 69. In 1913 it was re-introduced and again passed the Commons but was again rejected by the Lords by 302 votes to 64. In 1914, the Bill passed the Commons on 25 May by a majority of 77 and this time, due to the Parliament Act, it did not need the Lords' consent. However in June the Irish Unionist Party (mostly Ulster MPs) backed by the Lord's recommendation, forced through an amending Exclusion of Northern Ireland Bill, the number of counties (four, six or nine) and whether exclusion was to be temporary or permanent, still to be negotiated.

Some of these MPs had been instrumental in establishing the paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force to prevent by force the enactment of the Act, fearing Dublin rule would mean "Rome Rule". They had illegally imported thousands of rifles from Imperial Germany in the expectation that the British army would be used to impose the Act upon the northeast (see the Curragh incident). The Act eventually received Royal Assent in September 1914 as World War I was breaking out, but was suspended for the duration of what was expected to be a very short war. This decision was to prove crucial to subsequent Irish history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Rule_Act_1914#The_Third_Home_Rule_Bill

seems to me that the loyalists were planning a little rising of their own. WW1 provided them with a reason not to.
note that the third home rule act (the one that would have been enacted, were it not for gavrilo princip) gave home rule to a 26 county Ireland and not 32, so i don't see why some people here are saying that we should have settled for that.

Murphaph wrote:

Very true Arthur. This island could have been far less divided had home rule been given the chance

wrong. see the amendment to the third home rule bill for details.

ArthurF wrote:

While I agree that we should be proud of our independence and indeed our Economy, we should also remember that this State was the economic "Basket-Case" of Europe for the first 65 years (Approx) after independence!

Of course hindsight is a great thing but may I suggest that if we had not left the Union in the fashion that wed did, then many of the ills that this State had to endure for those decades would not have happened, and that we would have gained independence anyway (after the Nazi threat had gone away in Europe) but without the Economic Grief of being a backwater!

during the famine we were part of the richest nation on earth and 1 million people died. in the late 1800's and early 1900's millions were starving to death in india (which was still under british rule at the time). what makes you think they would have looked after us as their economy grew?
would you have preferred to have had us conscripted during WW2, a war that had nothing to do with us? would you have liked to have had a similar situation to that of britain in the 1980's, where people rioted because of thatchers economic policies?
of course the economy wasn't going to be booming the minute we gained our independence. ok, it took 70 or 80 years for us to get to the position we are in now, but i would say that it was worth it. the british empire, like every other empire before her, crumbled and left the british people in a poor economic situation.

replytohere2004

Great article from Tom Mcgurk n the Sunday Business Post:

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=TOM%20MCGURK-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=5.3.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

The Easter Rising: The shots that changed the world forever
12 March 2006 By Tom McGurk
The public commentary ever since Bertie Ahern announced the revival of the 1916 memorial parade has been fascinating.

A curious collection of voices have raised all sorts of protestation.

Kevin Myers has been in full spate in The Irish Times, the various letters columns of the newspapers have been filled and some Fine Gael, Labour and Green members of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Council voted against the 1916 Proclamation being displayed in their building.

Some callers to RTE radio are even protesting about the blood-curdling sentiments of the national anthem.

When one compares this public reaction to, for example, France’s annual Bastille Day celebrations or the recent Trafalgar bicentenary celebrations in Britain, the differences in national character are most interesting. At one level, where our own history is concerned, we still behave like a dysfunctional family. At another, it is fascinating to see that the post-colonial process is taking so many generations to depart the national DNA.

Most of the complaints have been utterly silly - half-baked historical facts compounded with a stew of prejudice and private anger. Myers in The Irish Times has been threatening to turn into his own caricature, his dinner party history lessons growing ever more tedious. How remarkable, for example, that his schoolboy fetish with militarism still excludes the notion of the Irish using force for Irish ends.

Out of all this correspondence have come some truly bizarre historical misunderstandings.

Take, for example, the idea that with Home Rule on the way the republican rebellion was totally unnecessary.

It’s good dinner party talk, but it’s historically absurd. Home Rule and the concept of an Irish Republic were not simply totally different things, but they were actually diametrically opposed to each other.

Given that the Redmondite Home Rule party was largely composed of the Irish middle class and large farmers who had done well out of the late 19th century land reform, Home Rule was intended to give an emerging Irish class, who were now doing well out of John Bull’s Other Island, a share in their own colonisation.

It was actually a subtle method of harnessing - while simultaneously subverting - Irish national aspirations to the wider imperial agenda. A Home Rule parliament was simply a devolutionary device to corral the growing demands for Irish democracy into a legislature whose ultimate control lay under the Crown and the Commons. If the notion of an Irish Republic was freehold, then Home Rule was no more than tenancy.

What has also characterised the recent 1916 grumblers has been their remarkable inability to understand the nature of the colonial relationship between Britain and Ireland. Complaints are being made that the 1916 leaders never sought democratic mandates (in what elections to what Irish parliament might they have stood?) and that their actions were entirely unmandated.

The fact that revolutionaries by definition seek to alter national perspectives so radically that they must act first, and subsequently seek approval, is still being misunderstood.

It was actually the precise circumstances of the colonial relationship between Britain and Ireland, and the growing threat of Home Rule to cunningly alter it, that made Pearse and company act in the way they did. Believing as they did in an sovereign Irish people, British rule in Ireland was entirely a product of conquest and therefore devoid of moral authority.

Even worse, not only would Home Rule have merely changed the appearance of the old colonial relationship, it would also democratically mandate it for the first time. The sovereign Irish people were about to vote for mere tenancy status in their own country.

The use of force by the men of 1916 was also determined by the exact nature of the colonial relationship. Force and the threat of superior force by the imperial power was the context in which all Irish political discourse was maintained.

This was vividly illustrated only three years later when the democratic will of the first Dail was met by state terrorism.

And most importantly of all, since the fear of the ruled being killed by the superior force of the ruler is at the heart of all colonial relationships, Pearse’s idea of the blood sacrifice was about directly confronting that fear.

Subsequently, after the stonebreakers’ yard in Kilmainham, the imperial myth that might was right was destroyed for ever in the Irish imagination. The sacrifice of 1916 was about revealing the true nature of the colonial relationship to the Irish people and thereby creating the imaginative context whereby sovereignty could at last be imagined and then asserted.

Thus the revolutionary act was attained.

Importantly, this revolutionary assertion of an indigenous national sovereignty in the context of the imperial world of the period gave 1916 and its Proclamation global significance. No wonder Lenin, Gandhi and the young Mao were so affected by it. In the generations that followed, all across the world, subjugated peoples everywhere found inspiration in 1916. Its imaginative power hastened the end of the imperial and colonial ages and, critically, its wider context as both cultural and political revolution created a template that changed the world.

Flex

replytohere2004 wrote:

Great article from Tom Mcgurk n the Sunday Business Post:

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=TOM%20MCGURK-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=5.3.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

The Easter Rising: The shots that changed the world forever
12 March 2006 By Tom McGurk
The public commentary ever since Bertie Ahern announced the revival of the 1916 memorial parade has been fascinating.

A curious collection of voices have raised all sorts of protestation.

Kevin Myers has been in full spate in The Irish Times, the various letters columns of the newspapers have been filled and some Fine Gael, Labour and Green members of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Council voted against the 1916 Proclamation being displayed in their building.

Some callers to RTE radio are even protesting about the blood-curdling sentiments of the national anthem.

When one compares this public reaction to, for example, France’s annual Bastille Day celebrations or the recent Trafalgar bicentenary celebrations in Britain, the differences in national character are most interesting. At one level, where our own history is concerned, we still behave like a dysfunctional family. At another, it is fascinating to see that the post-colonial process is taking so many generations to depart the national DNA.

Most of the complaints have been utterly silly - half-baked historical facts compounded with a stew of prejudice and private anger. Myers in The Irish Times has been threatening to turn into his own caricature, his dinner party history lessons growing ever more tedious. How remarkable, for example, that his schoolboy fetish with militarism still excludes the notion of the Irish using force for Irish ends.

Out of all this correspondence have come some truly bizarre historical misunderstandings.

Take, for example, the idea that with Home Rule on the way the republican rebellion was totally unnecessary.

It’s good dinner party talk, but it’s historically absurd. Home Rule and the concept of an Irish Republic were not simply totally different things, but they were actually diametrically opposed to each other.

Given that the Redmondite Home Rule party was largely composed of the Irish middle class and large farmers who had done well out of the late 19th century land reform, Home Rule was intended to give an emerging Irish class, who were now doing well out of John Bull’s Other Island, a share in their own colonisation.

It was actually a subtle method of harnessing - while simultaneously subverting - Irish national aspirations to the wider imperial agenda. A Home Rule parliament was simply a devolutionary device to corral the growing demands for Irish democracy into a legislature whose ultimate control lay under the Crown and the Commons. If the notion of an Irish Republic was freehold, then Home Rule was no more than tenancy.

What has also characterised the recent 1916 grumblers has been their remarkable inability to understand the nature of the colonial relationship between Britain and Ireland. Complaints are being made that the 1916 leaders never sought democratic mandates (in what elections to what Irish parliament might they have stood?) and that their actions were entirely unmandated.

The fact that revolutionaries by definition seek to alter national perspectives so radically that they must act first, and subsequently seek approval, is still being misunderstood.

It was actually the precise circumstances of the colonial relationship between Britain and Ireland, and the growing threat of Home Rule to cunningly alter it, that made Pearse and company act in the way they did. Believing as they did in an sovereign Irish people, British rule in Ireland was entirely a product of conquest and therefore devoid of moral authority.

Even worse, not only would Home Rule have merely changed the appearance of the old colonial relationship, it would also democratically mandate it for the first time. The sovereign Irish people were about to vote for mere tenancy status in their own country.

The use of force by the men of 1916 was also determined by the exact nature of the colonial relationship. Force and the threat of superior force by the imperial power was the context in which all Irish political discourse was maintained.

This was vividly illustrated only three years later when the democratic will of the first Dail was met by state terrorism.

And most importantly of all, since the fear of the ruled being killed by the superior force of the ruler is at the heart of all colonial relationships, Pearse’s idea of the blood sacrifice was about directly confronting that fear.

Subsequently, after the stonebreakers’ yard in Kilmainham, the imperial myth that might was right was destroyed for ever in the Irish imagination. The sacrifice of 1916 was about revealing the true nature of the colonial relationship to the Irish people and thereby creating the imaginative context whereby sovereignty could at last be imagined and then asserted.

Thus the revolutionary act was attained.

Importantly, this revolutionary assertion of an indigenous national sovereignty in the context of the imperial world of the period gave 1916 and its Proclamation global significance. No wonder Lenin, Gandhi and the young Mao were so affected by it. In the generations that followed, all across the world, subjugated peoples everywhere found inspiration in 1916. Its imaginative power hastened the end of the imperial and colonial ages and, critically, its wider context as both cultural and political revolution created a template that changed the world.

Good article. Hes correct in what he said about "the post-colonial process taking so many generations to depart the national DNA" and its also down to fickleness on the West Brits part too, with each generation Id say 'West-Britishness' will decline more and more in Ireland hopefully.

murphaph

Flex wrote:

Good article. Hes correct in what he said about "the post-colonial process taking so many generations to depart the national DNA" and its also down to fickleness on the West Brits part too, with each generation Id say 'West-Britishness' will decline more and more in Ireland hopefully.

I don't like the expression ( I think it's a rural ireland dancing at the crossroads type of construction) but I imagine quite the opposite will happen actually. The reason being that more and more young people are now attending Uni in Britain and there are even trends emerging in the opposite direction. These young people without the hump are the future political leadership remember. They will see no real differences between B&I because in 2006 there aren't that many really at all. We all watch British TV and shop in British stores. To a foreigner you'd be hard pushed to tell where the UK ends and Ireland begins at the end of the day.

samb

Earthman wrote:

Could you not have pointed that out in a less abrasive way.
Any attacks on the poster from now on in this thread as opposed to the post will receive an automatic 2 week ban from me if I see them
Final warning.

I said ''What government was this? Read your history and stop being so insultant.''

in response to julep saying ''don't like it here? **** off to the britain you seem to love so much. i'm sure the BNP would be happy to have you as a member''

and you give me a warning.

samb

samb wrote:

I said ''What government was this? Read your history and stop being so insultant.''

in response to julep saying ''don't like it here? **** off to the britain you seem to love so much. i'm sure the BNP would be happy to have you as a member''

and you give me a warning.

Yes I gave you a warning and rightly so.
Read the charter.

Regarding julep-did you report the post? Read the charter again.I cant seem to find the comment you refer to and you didnt quote it either which you should have done if thats what you were replying to.
Had I have seen it,julep would be banned.

julep

julep wrote:

don't like it here? fuck off to the britain you seem to love so much. i'm sure the BNP would be happy to have you as a member.


would you ever cop the fuck on.

That sort of language is totally unacceptable here and neither are accusations of Trollery.

2 week ban

Any further bad posts or posts that are not civil to other users here will be deleted and the offender banned.

Final warning

Voipjunkie

Brilliant article by Tom Mcgurk

Was anyone listening to RTE radio one 1 oclock news on Sunday they read from articles published by the Irish Times , Irish Independent ,examiner and Irish News
and it was very interesting to hear the outright condemnation and calls for severe punishment to be meted out to the participants in the Rebellion.

It just goes to show that it is nothing new for the media in this country to be completely out of step with the country even as it protrays itself as speaking on behalf of the Nation.

It should not be forgotten that then as now the media is under the control of an elite middle class who were quite comfortable in the British Empire and whose current incarnation would be happy with Ireland back there and that is the agenda that these people come from when criticising the 1916 rising.

People like Kevin Myers and people like media baron O'Reilly who are happy to take honours from a disgraced empire are Neo Unionists they are happy to criticise the rising in Dublin but never mention the Violence real and threatened that Britain used to maintain its control over this Island they are happy to blame everything on the Republicans and overlook the UVF.
They are happy to refer to republicans as terrorists but never speak of the British Army in such tones nor do they ever mention that Ireland was Partitioned and Home Rule was Delayed because of threats of violence from Unionists with no regard to the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland

And that the threats of Unionist violence predate the rising as does the arming of the UVF.

ivan087

FFS can people just move on. history is great if you have an interest in it. people should study our history in school, talk about it in pubs, read books if your interested in it. but lets not waste our money and time on this. lets put our money into paddys day and try to make it a good holiday for the people of ireland and our tourists. this parade lark stinks of orange men parades, ie people who like to get dressed up and parade around like goons.

lets try and think how we can make this country better, try and sort out the real problems of this nation. if we can do that then maybe we can sit back and be proud of our little country and get tears in our eyes.

ivan087

Voipjunkie wrote:

Brilliant article by Tom Mcgurk

Was anyone listening to RTE radio one 1 oclock news on Sunday they read from articles published by the Irish Times , Irish Independent ,examiner and Irish News
and it was very interesting to hear the outright condemnation and calls for severe punishment to be meted out to the participants in the Rebellion.

It just goes to show that it is nothing new for the media in this country to be completely out of step with the country even as it protrays itself as speaking on behalf of the Nation.

It should not be forgotten that then as now the media is under the control of an elite middle class who were quite comfortable in the British Empire and whose current incarnation would be happy with Ireland back there and that is the agenda that these people come from when criticising the 1916 rising.

People like Kevin Myers and people like media baron O'Reilly who are happy to take honours from a disgraced empire are Neo Unionists they are happy to criticise the rising in Dublin but never mention the Violence real and threatened that Britain used to maintain its control over this Island they are happy to blame everything on the Republicans and overlook the UVF.
They are happy to refer to republicans as terrorists but never speak of the British Army in such tones nor do they ever mention that Ireland was Partitioned and Home Rule was Delayed because of threats of violence from Unionists with no regard to the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland

And that the threats of Unionist violence predate the rising as does the arming of the UVF.

just read this last article now. and wow! so am i a british servent if i dont want to see this little military parade. its funny when anyone condems anything to do with the nationalism/sf/military parades that they are automatically pro-british. it goes to show peoples insecurities.

and get this - the british army were fighting a terrorist war in northern ireland. and apart from some big mistakes (ie bloody sunday) they did pretty well over 30 years (the ira were effectively beaten by the late 80s forcing adams and co into negotiations).

also - the majority of people in northern ireland (including a large minority of catholics) want to remain in the union. the british army were helping the democratic wishes of northern ireland. civil rights were achieved by 1969. the ira then uped their campaign and caused 30 years of troubles. loyalist fears prevented the 70s and 80s agreements because the ira were there.

please stop listening to the ira/sf propaganda!

A Dub in Glasgo

ivan087 wrote:

just read this last article now. and wow! so am i a british servent if i dont want to see this little military parade. its funny when anyone condems anything to do with the nationalism/sf/military parades that they are automatically pro-british. it goes to show peoples insecurities.

If you prefer Ireland not to have attained independence and you would like to join the Union again, you are pro-British.

the british army were fighting a terrorist war in northern ireland.

That is refreshingly honest

and apart from some big mistakes (ie bloody sunday)

That was part of their terrorist war as well

also - the majority of people in northern ireland (including a large minority of catholics) want to remain in the union.

Wow, a gerrymandered state with a built in majority for the union want the union!

civil rights were achieved by 1969.

Please show me how

the ira then uped their campaign and caused 30 years of troubles.

The IRA were responding to terrorism from the state and their proxies in the loyalist paramilitaries. The IRA hardly existed in 1969.

loyalist fears prevented the 70s and 80s agreements because the ira were there.

Loyalist fears = Loyalist violence. Where were the IRA when the loyalists and the state embarked on their attack on the nationalist population in the year you claim Civil Rights were attained?

please stop listening to the ira/sf propaganda!

...and instead tune into the Irish/Sunday Independent propaganda

murphaph

ivan087 wrote:

FFS can people just move on. history is great if you have an interest in it. people should study our history in school, talk about it in pubs, read books if your interested in it. but lets not waste our money and time on this. lets put our money into paddys day and try to make it a good holiday for the people of ireland and our tourists. this parade lark stinks of orange men parades, ie people who like to get dressed up and parade around like goons.

lets try and think how we can make this country better, try and sort out the real problems of this nation. if we can do that then maybe we can sit back and be proud of our little country and get tears in our eyes.

Well said. It's funny how those who despise the OO (and I'm no fan) want this silly military triumphalist marc-hey, isn't that what the 12th is all about?!

It's lame and as you say, we have a better, world famous parade to spend the cash on and make it something really special.

ivan087

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

That was part of their terrorist war as well

how exactly would you have conducted the war against the IRA. i'm not sayiing they were little angels. but they had to do something.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Wow, a gerrymandered state with a built in majority for the union want the union!

a state that was built because about half a million people didnt want to be part of our little catholic funhouse. how could these people feel part of ireland (im talking pre 1990s here). if that state wasnt made back in 1922 we would have had one hell of a civil war. plus we probably would only have got as far as free state and maybe only as far as home rule. do you think 500,000 citizens of this country would have wanted the removal of all things british (ie commonwealth etc)

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Please show me how

according to most people who organised the original protests (eamon mccann for example), they stopped the original protests when their demands were met. also remember the british army came in and all was peacefull for a time being. then the ira targeted the british army and well the rest is history.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The IRA were responding to terrorism from the state and their proxies in the loyalist paramilitaries. The IRA hardly existed in 1969.

the loyalists started to arm during the protests, incidents happened. it wasnt until the ira started to target prodestant areas that the troubles began.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Loyalist fears = Loyalist violence. Where were the IRA when the loyalists and the state embarked on their attack on the nationalist population in the year you claim Civil Rights were attained?

yes loyalist violence did start to happen during the protests. pity the ira took it a step further. i dont think loyalists would have kept the trouble going long after the civil rights. remember this, and this is important. the civil rights movement had nothing to do with a united ireland, nothing. the loyalists believed this and that is why some incidents occured. then the ira took it over and the loyalists, wrongly, took up arms to prevent this from occuring.

the IRA didnt come about to achieve civil rights. civil rights were achieved before the IRA started to really get their campaign in motion. the IRA didnt protect their communities - they killed working class people like themselves. they lost their self claimed title of community protectors when they moved into the shankill and other prodestant areas and started killing innocent people. id call that murder, not war. id even call it ethnic cleansing.

im not excusing loyalists. thats another argument. but if irish people want to move on its time to except the IRA for what they are and were. not for who they believed you were.

...and instead tune into the Irish/Sunday Independent propaganda[/QUOTE]

Zombrex

Voipjunkie wrote:

It just goes to show that it is nothing new for the media in this country to be completely out of step with the country even as it protrays itself as speaking on behalf of the Nation.

Out of step with what part of this nation? Because that vast majority of people on this nation don't support Republican terrroism in any shape or form.

Voipjunkie wrote:

They are happy to refer to republicans as terrorists but never speak of the British Army in such tones

So you agree that republicans were terrorists? Right then, whats the problem?

Because last time I checked no one was asking for a public holiday to celebrate the actions of the British Army on Bloody Sunday, so I think the defintion of republicans is a little more important to this discussion

Why in any discussion about the IRA or republicanism to people constantly go on and on about how much people don't criticise the other side. If someone says I think the IRA should not have blown up that put you can guarentee one of the first responses will be "You didn't seem that vocal when the UVF blew up a pub", as if that has any bearing on the events.

I have no idea if Kevin Meirs criticises the British Army enough. But that is irrelivent to the critisim about the actions of Republicans. I swear it is like in school when the teacher calls you up for fighting and you start going on about "But Bill stole a chocolate bar from the shop last week" as if what you did was ok if you can just find someone who did something worse than you.

The IRA and Republican movement claim to represent us. It is more important that we decide how we feel about this terrorist movement than any other. It is not as important that we endlessly chastate the British Army, the US Army, the French Army etc etc because they are not as directly linked to us.

The British Army carried out a lot of war crimes in its history, a lot done in Ireland. That doesn't justify, excuse or validate the republican armies doing equally distastefull and immoral military actions. A military crime stands on its own. It isn't more or less justifed because of what the other side has done in the past.

Running Bing

France and America celebrate independence day. Britain celebrates World war 2 why cant we celebrate 1916.

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

Out of step with what part of this nation? Because that vast majority of people on this nation don't support Republican terrroism in any shape or form.



So you agree that republicans were terrorists? Right then, whats the problem?

Because last time I checked no one was asking for a public holiday to celebrate the actions of the British Army on Bloody Sunday, so I think the defintion of republicans is a little more important to this discussion

Why in any discussion about the IRA or republicanism to people constantly go on and on about how much people don't criticise the other side. If someone says I think the IRA should not have blown up that put you can guarentee one of the first responses will be "You didn't seem that vocal when the UVF blew up a pub", as if that has any bearing on the events.

I have no idea if Kevin Meirs criticises the British Army enough. But that is irrelivent to the critisim about the actions of Republicans. I swear it is like in school when the teacher calls you up for fighting and you start going on about "But Bill stole a chocolate bar from the shop last week" as if what you did was ok if you can just find someone who did something worse than you.

The IRA and Republican movement claim to represent us. It is more important that we decide how we feel about this terrorist movement than any other. It is not as important that we endlessly chastate the British Army, the US Army, the French Army etc etc because they are not as directly linked to us.

The British Army carried out a lot of war crimes in its history, a lot done in Ireland. That doesn't justify, excuse or validate the republican armies doing equally distastefull and immoral military actions. A military crime stands on its own. It isn't more or less justifed because of what the other side has done in the past.

Out of step with the majority of people who are proud of 1916 and Irelands independence


Now this is a discussion on the 1916 rising and commeration if you want to start a thread on the troubles that existed and still exist in the North then perhaps you might open a thread on it.
When I refered to the UVF I was refering to Carsons UVF which armed themselves and threatened violence in 1912.
I was refering to the complete lack of comment by Myers and his Fanboys on terrorist actions like that and the Curragh mutiny.

The British Army had a standing army in Ireland ready and willing to suppress the Nationalist population that is how the british army are relevant to 1916 if the british army were not here then there would not have been any need for a rising. It is the equivalent of criticising the French resistance in WW2 without mentioning the Nazi Occupation or criticising the ANC and not mentioning Apartheid.



There was no democracy in Ireland if there had been then the 1916 rising would never had needed to happen as the Irish people could have chosen their own destiny. However the Irish people were not free to choose their own course the vast majority of Irish people had no voice.

And BTW I have no problem calling the IRA terrorists or the Leaders of the Rising but lets also say the British were terrorists the Unionists were terrorists as was John Redmond and co.

All were willing to use violence to further their political aims.

Voipjunkie

ivan087 wrote:

just read this last article now. and wow! so am i a british servent if i dont want to see this little military parade. its funny when anyone condems anything to do with the nationalism/sf/military parades that they are automatically pro-british. it goes to show peoples insecurities.

and get this - the british army were fighting a terrorist war in northern ireland. and apart from some big mistakes (ie bloody sunday) they did pretty well over 30 years (the ira were effectively beaten by the late 80s forcing adams and co into negotiations).

also - the majority of people in northern ireland (including a large minority of catholics) want to remain in the union. the british army were helping the democratic wishes of northern ireland. civil rights were achieved by 1969. the ira then uped their campaign and caused 30 years of troubles. loyalist fears prevented the 70s and 80s agreements because the ira were there.

please stop listening to the ira/sf propaganda!

Again Irish History did not start in 1969 if you want to discuss that period perhaps you might start a thread on it I will head over there and debate the last 35 years with you but this is about 1916

Sand

France and America celebrate independence day. Britain celebrates World war 2 why cant we celebrate 1916.

Britain doesnt celebrate WW2 anymore than it celebrates the Somme. It commemorates the memory of the British soldiers who died. AFAIK they dont go "hurrah for WW2, wasnt it great that tens of millions died, what a great event it was".

And I saw an American born letter writer today in the Irish Times make the point that the US celebrates the Declaration of Independance on July 4th. The closest approximation to 1916, the fighting at Concord and Lexington that sparked the revolution, occured the previous year and is decidely secondary to the July 4th celebrations - and indeed, the American colonial militias repeatedly attempted to dissuade the British through a show of force rather than actually attacking them.

And either way, July 4th and WW2 rememberance has little or no divisive effect on the world today. 1916 does. It is not something people can rally around.