Confusing remembrance of 1916

murphaph

Babybing wrote:

Britain celebrates World war 2

Erm, no it doesn't. It holds services of rememberance to remember those who died for us to live in a free Europe. It's about as sombre an occasion as you'll encounter, not a great celebration!

Voipjunkie

murphaph wrote:

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.

It is not a triumphalist march it is a commeration of the sacrifice made by ordinary Irish men and women to try and free Ireland from foreign domination

Marching through our own city to remember our own history is not triumphalising (new word?) over anyone if we all got on to Buses and headed down the Shankill then you might have a point

I have no problem with the 12th as long as it is not done in the triumpalist manner on display on the Garvaghy rd etc

I supported the right of the Loyalist marchers to march down O'Connell St and I support the right of people to march and be proud of the 1916 rising if you are not proud of the rising then don't go but at least have the decency to be consistant and support peoples right to be proud of it.

This is a democracy if you are not happy about the Government supporting the commeration then use your vote and vote for someone who agrees with you if enough people agree with you end of story

Running Bing

ivan087 wrote:

apart from some big mistakes (ie bloody sunday) they did pretty well over 30 years

Are you serious? The IRA did well also apart from some big mistakes like the butchering of hundreds of innocent peole. You are clearly very uneducated on the history and the situation in Northern Ireland

ivan087 wrote:

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

Yes but the majority of people on the island of Ireland wanted a republic. If an army colonised Wexford tomorrow Im sure it would be the concern of people outside of Wexford also.

ivan087 wrote:

civil rights were achieved by 1969.

I suggest you try to speak to someone who was living in NI at the time and ask were civil rights were achieved by then. You clearly have a poor understanding of northern Irish history.

ivan087 wrote:

please stop listening to the ira/sf propaganda!

I assure you I listen to no sf/ira propaganda I base my opinions on the facts and not on prejudice or hatred for unionists or loyalists or the DUP or any loyalist paramilitary organisation. If more people did this I feel we would have better more intelligent discussions on this board rather than people just basing opinions on their hatred of sf/ira or unionists/Britain.

axer

ivan087 wrote:

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

ivan087 wrote:

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)

YOUR FUNNY!!! Ha Ha Ha!

Let me get this right - you say that because the majority of people in Northern Ireland want to keep the union then we should keep it as part of Britain. But then you say even though a majority wanted a 32 county Ireland that the minority are justified to get what they wanted instead.

Wow! I'm confused!

FFS can't people make up their minds!

I won't even continue through your posts, my sides are splitting!

axer

murphaph wrote:

Erm, no it doesn't. It holds services of rememberance to remember those who died for us to live in a free Europe. It's about as sombre an occasion as you'll encounter, not a great celebration!

Last I heard Britain hadn't been oppressed by a foreign power it was just under threat - there is a difference. Why can't we commemorate those who gave their lives to freeing Ireland of an oppressor?

murphaph

axer wrote:

Last I heard Britain hadn't been oppressed by a foreign power it was just under threat - there is a difference. Why can't we commemorate those who gave their lives to freeing Ireland of an oppressor?

Irish people had the same voting rights as anywhere else in the UK in 1916. The jews couldn't hold german citizenship, nevermind vote. In any case, I was merely correcting the poster who believed that Britain 'celebrates' WWII today, when it does no such thing.

Voipjunkie

murphaph wrote:

Irish people had the same voting rights as anywhere else in the UK in 1916. The jews couldn't hold german citizenship, nevermind vote. In any case, I was merely correcting the poster who believed that Britain 'celebrates' WWII today, when it does no such thing.

The voting rights of the people of the UK are a matter for the UK the fact is undeniable and that is that the vast majority of Irish people were not entitled to vote.
Those who were entitled to vote were people who had done well under the status quo and while the majority of those with voting rights may have wanted Home Rule they did not represent the views of the majority of Irish People.

What citizenship rights did most ordinary Irish people have they could not vote they could not choose the destiny of their own country they had the right to die if they opossed British rule only 70 years earlier over 2 million Irish people died of starvation or were forced to flee in a country with plenty of food.
Our language and culture was being destroyed.

ivan087

axer wrote:

YOUR FUNNY!!! Ha Ha Ha!

Let me get this right - you say that because the majority of people in Northern Ireland want to keep the union then we should keep it as part of Britain. But then you say even though a majority wanted a 32 county Ireland that the minority are justified to get what they wanted instead.

Wow! I'm confused!

FFS can't people make up their minds!

I won't even continue through your posts, my sides are splitting!

instead of acting like a child and wanting to slag of what i wrote would you please read what i said. the point of what i wrote, which you have missed completely, is that if the northern state was not created for those people who did not want to join a united ireland we would have entered an even more bitter civil war. the result of which would not have led to the creation of a republic.
and further more, northern ireland is a state that has existed just as long as this state, its time people got used to that fact. republicans and ira supporters continue to look back at history and moan about how britain treated us. well pity us. look at the middle east and africa which suffered and continues to suffer from past british treatments and policies.

ivan087

Babybing wrote:

Yes but the majority of people on the island of Ireland wanted a republic. If an army colonised Wexford tomorrow Im sure it would be the concern of people outside of Wexford also.



I suggest you try to speak to someone who was living in NI at the time and ask were civil rights were achieved by then. You clearly have a poor understanding of northern Irish history.
QUOTE]

i assure you if a vote was taken on an all-ireland basis there would be a strong no vote to an all ireland. thats just not my opinion, thats just about every poll taken on the issue. if you want a united ireland, are you prepared to kiss goodbye the celtic tiger, foot a security bill the british hate paying, rasie your taxes to pay the 40% of people in the north who work for the public sector, join the commonwealth, change our national anthem, change our flag, risk an unknown level of terrorism in the south. and you take issue with me and then make a wierd comparison with colonisation of wexford.
both sides suffered ill treatment in the north. the ira more then made up for british and loyalist treatment of catholics.

Diorraing

murphaph wrote:

Erm, no it doesn't. It holds services of rememberance to remember those who died for us to live in a free Europe. It's about as sombre an occasion as you'll encounter, not a great celebration!

Em, what about D-Day and VE day. Get your facts right Murphaph:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/yourlondon/1945/celebrate.shtml
Looks like more of a great celebration than "as sombre an occasion as you'll encounter".

axer

ivan087 wrote:

instead of acting like a child and wanting to slag of what i wrote would you please read what i said. the point of what i wrote, which you have missed completely, is that if the northern state was not created for those people who did not want to join a united ireland we would have entered an even more bitter civil war. the result of which would not have led to the creation of a republic.
and further more, northern ireland is a state that has existed just as long as this state, its time people got used to that fact. republicans and ira supporters continue to look back at history and moan about how britain treated us. well pity us. look at the middle east and africa which suffered and continues to suffer from past british treatments and policies.

Let me ask you this, do you think they should have gotten their own section of Ireland?

Diorraing

murphaph wrote:

Irish people had the same voting rights as anywhere else in the UK in 1916 .

Why weren't our voting rights respected then? The majority of people in Ireland wanted Home Rule from about 1870 but 45 years later it still hadn't been granted. What use is it having a vote if it isn't respected. Anyway what mandate had Britain to be in Ireland in the first place. Had there been a proper vote about Britain's rule in Ireland they'd have been told to beat it.
So don't come out with this "Same voting rights" rubbish - there wasn't a shred of democracy about Britain's rule in Ireland.

ivan087

axer wrote:

Let me ask you this, do you think they should have gotten their own section of Ireland?

put it this way, if i was around in 1922, i would have supported the pro-treaty.

axer

ivan087 wrote:

put it this way, if i was around in 1922, i would have supported the pro-treaty.

thats not answering the question.
do you think the loyalists should have gotten their own section of Ireland?

flogen

Just as a matter of interest; what is the official government line on this?
Is it a commemoration of the 1916 rising, and the 1916 rising or the entire War of Independence? I think the latter (or at least the outcome of it) is what we should be celebrating rather than just one (unsuccessful) skirmish in it.

ivan087

axer wrote:

thats not answering the question.
do you think the loyalists should have gotten their own section of Ireland?

yes i do. they cant tolerate being part of a united ireland, we cant tolerate their traditions. it seems to be the best answer, doesnt it? what else could you have done? tell them all to go home!?
i dont want to get mixed up in the never ending debate of history. that goes nowhere. i want to think about whats best for irish people. And a united ireland, in my opinion, is not the best for ireland north or south. do you not agree? what good would a united ireland bring? how would it change my life (for the good) tomorrow? i think this is what nationalists need to ask.

ateam

flogen wrote:

Just as a matter of interest; what is the official government line on this?
Is it a commemoration of the 1916 rising, and the 1916 rising or the entire War of Independence? I think the latter (or at least the outcome of it) is what we should be celebrating rather than just one (unsuccessful) skirmish in it.

1916 lead to the War of Independence, so i think it's appropiate to commemorate the starting point.

murphaph

Diorraing wrote:

Em, what about D-Day and VE day. Get your facts right Murphaph:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/yourlondon/1945/celebrate.shtml
Looks like more of a great celebration than "as sombre an occasion as you'll encounter".

You trying to pull a fast one or something? Of course they celebrated on VE Day! They'd just finished a long war. From the page YOU linked to;

BBC wrote:

After six years of hardship and 32,000 killed in the Blitz, the end of the Second World War in Europe was a unique moment in London's history.

Sixty years ago this weekend when that day came it seemed if the whole population of the city left their homes, factories and offices to head for the landmarks of the city in celebration.

The point is that these days anything to do with war is remembered in the UK, not celebrated. The fact that londoners celebrated their socks off on VE day itself (6o years ago) is hardly a bit surprising now is it?

samb

ivan087 wrote:

yes i do. they cant tolerate being part of a united ireland, we cant tolerate their traditions. it seems to be the best answer, doesnt it? what else could you have done? tell them all to go home!?
i dont want to get mixed up in the never ending debate of history. that goes nowhere. i want to think about whats best for irish people. And a united ireland, in my opinion, is not the best for ireland north or south. do you not agree? what good would a united ireland bring? how would it change my life (for the good) tomorrow? i think this is what nationalists need to ask.

Harold Wilson and the Irish government at the time were planning on repartition at the begining of the troubles. Anyone know much about this? I think they decided it would be too much of a headache. Shame though, it could have saved a lot of hardship since.
With regard a united Ireland, I agree, I don't think that having unionists as part of the republic is now realistic. The rioters showed that. If Tony and Bertie agreed on a united Ireland tomorrow, there would be serious trouble, trouble that is in nobody's interest.

samb

Northern Unionists will never peacefully accept a united Ireland
Northern Republicans will never peacefully accept British Rule

Answer; Give them complete independance, with constitution stipulating a 3/4 majority for change. they can both unite in there misery of not having got what they want.

Sorry, off topic.

Zombrex

Voipjunkie wrote:

I was refering to the complete lack of comment by Myers and his Fanboys on terrorist actions like that and the Curragh mutiny.

Did anyone ask them to comment on this?

Are we planning to have a national celebration to celebrate the actions of the UVF? :rolleyes:

Voipjunkie wrote:

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.

As I said before, is anyone suggesting we celebrate anything the British army did to Ireland in the 800 years of rule from london?

Can you not see the hypocracy in condeming attrocities of the British army but celebrating attrocites of the republican movement? You call Meirs a hypocrate, but as far as i know he isn't calling for a celebration of British Army oppression in Ireland.

The only difference is that you believe our side had the right to do with it did, where as the British Army didn't. Which is nonsense. There was no mandate for the Rising, and from a civilian point of view it was horrific. If the British Army or Loyalist had carried out an action like the Rising you would be damning Meirs and co condeme it.

Voipjunkie wrote:

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.

There was the same democracy as the rest of the U.K.

What there wasn't was enough support for Ireland leaving the U.K in the rest of the U.K. Its exactly the same reason 15 farmers in Southern Kerry can't democratically declare Tralee an independent state.

The Rising did little to change this.

The actual Rising did nothing at all for the Republican cause, except put it back about 40 years. Why do you think the rest of the Republican movements were so pissed off by it.

The executions of the Rising members was quite successfully manipulated by Sinn Fein to gain support for there political party, mainly by a screw up of the RIC by blaming SF for the Rising. If the army had not decided to execute the members, and if Sinn Fein had not been blamed, and if republicans had not inflence the ranks of SF, the Rising would have to this day been considered a disaster, and this ridiculous myth that the Rising achieved something would never had grown up.

That is a lot of things that had to happen after the Rising. The Rising was intentionally responsible for pretty much nothing except the deaths of nearly 500 civilians.

Voipjunkie wrote:

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.

I prefer to use the term "military attrocity" or "war crime", when describing most of the actions of the British army in Ireland, because it is more accurate description. Terrorism is a specific military tactic, one the British army had very little need to use through out its history, since it was normal an over whelming military force.

People really have to get out of this ridiculous miss-use of the word "terrorism". Terrorism does not mean war crime. War crime does not mean terrorism. You can commit a terrible war crime or attrocity that is not terrorist in nature, which the British army did all the time.

Voipjunkie wrote:

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

So why are we celebrating one form violence for political aims and condeming another?

Zombrex

axer wrote:

Why can't we commemorate those who gave their lives to freeing Ireland of an oppressor?

Because if you are talking about 1916 those brave souls giving their lives to "freeing" Ireland from its 800 year old democratic government were killing a whole lot of fellow Irish while doing it, and end up not achieving nothing.

To celebrate the Rising is to celebrate pointless and stupid bloodshed. Just because you support the cause doesn't change that fact. As a military action the Rising was a complete and utter disaster, based on ridiculously stupid military assumptions. The Rising members believed the Army would not shell Dublin, or risk a street battle, since they are a capitialist government. The Rising members had no plan to deal with the absence of law and order (they started shooting looters) or how to minimise civilian casualties.

People seem to conviently like to forget how the Rising memebers were attempting to achieve "freedom"

I mean I support Palestine and its right to exist along side Isreal. And I'm opposed to Isreal military actions in Palestine. That doesn't mean I support a suicide bomber blowing up a bus of school children in an attempt to "free" Palestine, nor do I believe such an action should be celebrated.

The only thing easier than dying for your country is killing for your country. The Rising was an exersice in killing for you country, not dying for you country. And not something I want to celebrate.

If someone wants to hold a memorial for the 480 civilians killed during the Rising I will be there.

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

Em, what about D-Day and VE day. Get your facts right Murphaph:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/yourlondon/1945/celebrate.shtml
Looks like more of a great celebration than "as sombre an occasion as you'll encounter".

VE is the celebration of the end of a war, not the start of one.

Very few countries celebrate with a national holiday the Nazi's invading Poland :rolleyes:

ivan087

Wicknight wrote:

VE is the celebration of the end of a war, not the start of one.

Very few countries celebrate with a national holiday the Nazi's invading Poland :rolleyes:

then maybe we should celebrate the ending of the war of independence?!

Hagar

ivan087 wrote:

then maybe we should celebrate the ending of the war of independence?!

When did it end? Ask our seperated brethern in the Wee Six.

ivan087

Hagar wrote:

When did it end? Ask our seperated brethern in the Wee Six.

i think it ended with the formation of this state! the one we're living in right now.

Diorraing

Wicknight wrote:

Can you not see the hypocracy in condeming attrocities of the British army but celebrating attrocites of the republican movement? You call Meirs a hypocrate, but as far as i know he isn't calling for a celebration of British Army oppression in Ireland.

Do you really need someone to spell this out for you. The reason we keep mentioning British opression is because it gave legitimacy to the rising. If violence is the only way to end opression then it is justified (c.f. Nelson Mandela and the ANC)

The only difference is that you believe our side had the right to do with it did, where as the British Army didn't. Which is nonsense. There was no mandate for the Rising, and from a civilian point of view it was horrific. If the British Army or Loyalist had carried out an action like the Rising you would be damning Meirs and co condeme it.

And what mandate was there for British rule in Ireland? Yeah, I would condemn the British army or Loyalists for carrying out an act like the rising becasue they weren't being opressed. They'd have no reason to do it. I really don't see where you are going with these analogies of "Well if the Brits did it you wouldn't be happy"

There was the same democracy as the rest of the U.K.

Well, if you look back over the posts you'll see I answered this point already. If there was proper democracy then why weren'y we given Home Rule after we overwhelmingly supported it from about 1970. It was vetoed by the "democratic" house of Lords twice and the postponed another time. What democracy was there in Ireland when out vote didn't mean anything.

The Rising was intentionally responsible for pretty much nothing except the deaths of nearly 500 civilians

.
Read Pearse's writings on Blood sacrifice. Rising did what it intended - inspired the next generation to fight and gain freedom

I prefer to use the term "military attrocity" or "war crime", when describing most of the actions of the British army in Ireland, because it is more accurate description. Terrorism is a specific military tactic, one the British army had very little need to use through out its history, since it was normal an over whelming military force.

How about "State Terrorism"

So why are we celebrating one form violence for political aims and condeming another?

Because one was justified and ther other wasn't

ivan087

the rising was a terrorist action that was supported by a minority. ok it did lead to support for a republic, but it was still an act of terrorism. if we support one act of terrorism, then you support it all - 9/11, 7/11, bali, etc. when the easter rising atrocity was carried out it had little support. you cant pick and choose what terrorist action you support and which you dont. terrorism is terrorism. you can try and justify it etc, but it is what it is.

if there was a hunger for independence, then it would have come around before long. the british empire ended after WW2, i think if ireland still wanted independence then, we would have got it. then maybe those people that died in 1916, the war of independence, the civil war and the troubles might have lived to see an independent ireland.

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

Do you really need someone to spell this out for you. The reason we keep mentioning British opression is because it gave legitimacy to the rising. If violence is the only way to end opression then it is justified (c.f. Nelson Mandela and the ANC)

And if it is not the only way to end oppression then it isn't justified.

Firstly, oppression does not give legitimacy to all forms of violence (see suicide bombers in Israel).

Secondly, British "oppression" in Ireland in 1916 was mild by any standards of the word. As has been pointed out a hundred times, in 1916 Ireland was pretty much a democracy. It wasn't the democracy that some or a lot of people of Ireland wanted, it was a democracy in which the island of Ireland was too small a representation of the over all U.K. to be able to fully address the needs of the people (in the same way that the views 40% of the population of the USA are largely ignored by the government). But it was a functioning democracy, especially at local level, and in general people had high standards of living that was comparable with the rest of the U.K. The idea that it was some for of tolatarian state like South Africa under aparthied is nonsense.

Thirdly, even if Ireland was suffering much worse under British rule than it actually was, even if an action like the Rising was justified or legitimised before hand (which it wasn't), it was still a ridiculous, pointless, and down right stupid military action that showed very little reguard for the city of Dublin or the population of the city and which was doomed to failure before it started.

Fourthly the Rising was completely unnecessary. How can I said that? Because it didn't achieve anything. At all! I am still amazed people fail to grasp this relatively simple point. The Rising as a military action was a complete and utter failure. None of the objectives of the Rising were met. None.

Diorraing wrote:

They'd have no reason to do it

They had plenty of reasons to do what they did. For a start we were trying to destroy their empire and were killing their citizens.

It is very easy to find reasons to do something, it is much harder to find justifiable reasons to do something.

Diorraing wrote:

What democracy was there in Ireland when out vote didn't mean anything.

The same system of democracy that means the people of Kerry cannot change the constitution of Ireland or remove themselves from the republic, even if every Kerry man and woman votes to do so. Ie the system of democracy we have now. The only thing different is the borders.

Diorraing wrote:

Read Pearse's writings on Blood sacrifice. Rising did what it intended - inspired the next generation to fight and gain freedom

Pearse was an idiot, and his notions of Blood sacrifice were idiotic. And the Rising inspired nothing. Pearse expected the population to rise up in support. In fact the rising completely ignored at first and later caused wide spread out rage. Hardly sounds like the people of Dublin were falling over themselves to rise up against the "oppression" of Britian.

The later handling of the Rising prisioners by the Army inspired some support for Sinn Fein (through a crazy set of luck and mistakes), so really you should be lapping praise on the brutality of the Army, not Pearse.

I mean did it take a lot of military brillance and planning to mount a disaterous military action, kill a load of innocent people, get captured and get executed. Because if it did the Rising members are fecking military masterminds.

It would have been easier if they had just gone into the middle of O'Connel street and shot themselves in the head.

Diorraing wrote:

How about "State Terrorism"

What about it? Are you desperate to just fit this months buzz word "terrorism" in there some where?

Diorraing wrote:

Because one was justified and ther other wasn't

Says who?

Maybe you should ask the families of the 480 civilians who were killed during the Rising if their deaths were justified.

axer

ivan087 wrote:

yes i do. they cant tolerate being part of a united ireland, we cant tolerate their traditions. it seems to be the best answer, doesnt it? what else could you have done? tell them all to go home!?

I don't think it is the best answer. Why can't they tolerate being part of a united Ireland? What traditions would these be?

ivan087 wrote:

i dont want to get mixed up in the never ending debate of history. that goes nowhere. i want to think about whats best for irish people. And a united ireland, in my opinion, is not the best for ireland north or south. do you not agree? what good would a united ireland bring? how would it change my life (for the good) tomorrow? i think this is what nationalists need to ask.

crime, tourism, investment, currency and other practicalities of law i.e. two states on a very small island is not very practical. I don't think it is best for everyone as it stands.