Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Easter Sunday/ 2006
Options
Comments
-
The bulk of the disagreement here (the parts I have been involved in at least) boils down to a straightforward (bite sized if you like) question :
Do you think the cost, in terms of human life, of the Easter 1916 Rising was worth what it eventually accomplished ?
i.e. Whatever way you look at it if you trace our independence back- it does go back directly to the Easter Rising. It was a pivotal event whether you would have preferred it otherwise or not.
Had it not been for the rising - its possible another event could have provided a different trigger which could have taken things to the same conclusion by a different route - but to my mind that's a pedantic/academic argument to be made more for the sake of argument than anything else.
My opinion is - yes it was worth it.
Nothing I have read in this thread has convinced me otherwise.
In my view we got off lightly considering our geographic location and the war mongering mentality generally prevalent in the british establishment through the 1920's at least to the 1950's. (yes I know another "*groan*,english =bad" opportunity for you there wick! go for it!!)
If we had en masse signed up for the trenches (as was the english promise of the time) in the hope of being maybe granted more freedom - the cost to Irish people would have been far higher. And dont forget that was a legal/constitutional option of the day.
I respect an honestly put argument on the merits of a pacifist /constitutional approach to a country gaining its liberty, but I dont agree that it would have worked not in anything like a reasonable timeframe.
My basis for this is that throughout anglo-irish history it had never worked up to that point. And it was also not known to work for other countries under occuppation. And I am not just talking about those under english occupation.
Wick,
So far in this thread you have bandied about accusations of 'ra propaganda', you have tried to lecture me on the nature of history, you have suggested that I need to read a leaving cert history book before getting back to you, you have introduced remarks about 'westbrit' and moving out of Ireland' when before you no one had mentioned anything of the sort. You have attempted to characterise those who disagree with your viewpoint as having a simplistic mentality along the lines of English=Bad, Irish=Good - and this playschool language and attitude is not (imo at least) helping in putting your point across.
Countless times you have characterised the men involved in the rising as having been simple minded, bloodthirsty, stupid, moronic, idiotic and stupid again - all without a shred of evidence. Despite being asked for it countless times.
Beyond your assertion that 'the rising' is all the evidence you needed.
Chewbacca Defence :
You seem to think that because you say so - it has to be true. You also seem to think that you can bully your way through an argument and When anyone disagrees you you start slinging around distractions and non-relevant analogies ranging from (in no particular order)
Tibet to
Bank robbers (with 'gardi' in hot pursuit)
to Screaming Babies being throttled on buses.
And no - I for one am not putting words into your mouth because your 'actual position is too hard to argue against' - I think if you read back through this thread as I have just dont you will see that even though you wish that was the case it is not.
(smiley face- eyes upward).0 -
Nothing I have read in this thread has convinced me otherwise.
It wouldnt though would it? Most of the arguments have asked what did the rising achieve that would make it worth it?
You neatly skip that headscratcher by running straight to the answer: it was worth it, and thats it.You seem to think that because you say so - it has to be true. You also seem to think that you can bully your way through an argument and When anyone disagrees you you start slinging around distractions and non-relevant analogies ranging from (in no particular order)
Hes been forced to explain concepts like rule of law, democratic mandate and responsible use of force by using simple examples - like its wrong for some tiny unrepresentitive group to murder others, even if future generations like them. Much as it would be wrong for me to find and kill someone even if future generations thought I was a great man altogether for doing so. See thats another analogy.
Analogies are designed to take the isolate the logic of a particular action and hold it up for evaluation. Its to try and sidestep unthinking blind unreasoning adherence to some action or event. The logic of the Rising doesnt hold up to reasonable analysis hence your headlong flight from actually defending it, resorting instead to the religious card "It was great, and thats it".
As for accusations of "cartoon history". Look, its hard not to swing your eyes to heaven when you hear of Ireland 1916 being described in the same terms as some Orwellian nightmare. The reality is the Rising of 1916 was foreshadowed by open drilling and marching by private armies. The British establishment in Ireland was so light handed and liberal that they allowed this carry on - hence the swing to heavy handed executions after the rising - the softly softly approach was discredited. Generally, Provos have a horrific grasp of history because they are only interested in it so far as it supports their politics.0 -
"Political processes" my eye. The Brits dominated and repressed all before them worldwide for centuries and I can't think of any now-independent countries that broke away from them peacefully. The USA didn't, Ireland didn't. Neither country could have escaped the British Empire without violence.Wicknight wrote:
Pretty easily, without violence. All the political processes were already setup and in place to make it happen.SeanW wrote:Like I said, I'd sure like to know how the Republic Of Ireland would have become a free independent republic by 1945 if there had not been violence.
The Brits would have let Ireland go fully independent without a fight when Hell froze over.0 -
Sand wrote:It wouldnt though would it? Most of the arguments have asked what did the rising achieve that would make it worth it?.
I wish - most of the comments in the preceding thread were not along those lines to my reckoning.Sand wrote:You neatly skip that headscratcher by running straight to the answer: it was worth it, and thats it..
I did make that point in an effort to keep things remotely on topic - granted the original topic was strictly related to the Parade itself. That does not mean that I want to or am trying to shut down any possibility of an adult sober conversation that doesnt involve repettitively calling those involved in the rising as bloodthirsty moronic or 'stupid' in increasingly different ways.
Or of repettitively assessing their character/motivations as having been about killing full stop. Based on thin air or prejudice.Sand wrote:Hes been forced to explain concepts like rule of law, democratic mandate and responsible use of force by .
Hmm - many different ways to take that one - I for one dont need an explanation of the rule of law, democratic mandate or the responsible use of force. Thanks anyway. If I did I doubt that an analogy relating to Tibet, Dead Babies or Bank Robbers would be required.Sand wrote:Analogies are designed to take the isolate the logic of a particular action and hold it up for evaluation. Its to try and sidestep unthinking blind unreasoning adherence to some action or event. The logic of the Rising doesnt hold up to reasonable analysis hence your headlong flight from actually defending it, resorting instead to the religious card "It was great, and thats it"..
Thanks for that -you have explained what an analogy is. Do you really think that people need an explanation of what an analogy is ?
I would say that there are also times when analogies are used to distract/obfuscate.
That would be your characterisation of my opinion /stance - not mine. If you got that impression perhaps you are looking at this through tinted glasses too ? Willing to accept that as a possibility or would that come under "blind unthinking unreasoning adherence"Sand wrote:As for accusations of "cartoon history". Look, its hard not to swing your eyes to heaven when you hear of Ireland 1916 being described in the same terms as some Orwellian nightmare. The reality is the Rising of 1916 was foreshadowed by open drilling and marching by private armies. The British establishment in Ireland was so light handed and liberal that they allowed this carry on - hence the swing to heavy handed executions after the rising - the softly softly approach was discredited. Generally, Provos have a horrific grasp of history because they are only interested in it so far as it supports their politics.
I for one hadnt brought the subject of the provos into this conversation.0 -
ChityWest wrote:
I for one hadnt brought the subject of the provos into this conversation.
don't mind Sand.. he brings the Provos into nearly every thread. The Provos were responsible for everything on this planet through their dastardly use of violence and if you disagree with Sand, you are classed as a Provo too. At least it is consistancy across threads (in relation to the Provos that is).
As for the Rising, everybody is entitled to their view on it. Some will commemorate it, some will celebrate it, some will not be bothered by it, some will be disgusted by it and some will be embarrassed by it. I believe the last 2 camps are very much a minority amongst Irish people (and the vast majority of them will be folk who prefer the Union with Britain).0 -
Advertisement
-
Again a ridiculously loaded question, because the Rising didn't accomplish independence.ChityWest wrote:Do you think the cost, in terms of human life, of the Easter 1916 Rising was worth what it eventually accomplished ?
The Rising didn't achieve independence. It didn't achieve anything. Was killing a lot of people worth achieving nothing, no I'd have to disagree with that :rolleyes:
Pivotal to what?ChityWest wrote:i.e. Whatever way you look at it if you trace our independence back- it does go back directly to the Easter Rising. It was a pivotal event whether you would have preferred it otherwise or not.
Tell me what the actual Rising, the military assault and rebelion in Dublin, actually achieved.
Not the executions that followed. Not the British army and media blaming Sinn Fein. Not the propaganda used by SF afterward. But the actual Rising. What did that achieve? Did it meet any of its objectives? No it didn't, it was a disaster.
What was worth it? The 1918 election? The formation of the Dail? The start of the War of Independence? What? What did the Rising allow to happen?ChityWest wrote:My opinion is - yes it was worth it.
You do know British has rotating government system. The government in 1920s wasn't the government in 1950s. Or do you think because they are British they are all the same. Conservative = Labour = Liberals ... all the same British bastards .. :rolleyes:ChityWest wrote:In my view we got off lightly considering our geographic location and the war mongering mentality generally prevalent in the british establishment through the 1920's at least to the 1950's. (yes I know another "*groan*,english =bad" opportunity for you there wick! go for it!!)ChityWest wrote:Countless times you have characterised the men involved in the rising as having been simple minded, bloodthirsty, stupid, moronic, idiotic and stupid again - all without a shred of evidence. Despite being asked for it countless times.
I will ask again, what point do you actually disagree with?
Aside from bloodthirsty (which I don't recall claiming they were), they were stupid, moronic idiotic and stupid again.
They started an urban battle in one of the most densly populated urban centres in Europe - Stupid
They believed the British would not counter-attack with artilery - Stupid
They had no plan or even idea how to hold the British off if they did - Moronic
They had no plan to deal with the break down in law and order - Moronic
They begain shooting civilians, their own Irish men, in the street to try and maintain law - Vicious
They fired on unarmed British soldiers - Vicious
They decided to sacrafice themselves and the Dublin public in a blood scarafice when it was clear all was lost - Moronic, stupid and vicious
Do you dispute any of those events? I could go on, but I doubt you are going to reply, you didn't the first 5 times
Its true because it happened. I could not be arsed explaining to you what actually happened at the Rising when any Junior Cert text book explains it. This isn't a history lesson, I assumed you actually knew what you were talking about.ChityWest wrote:You seem to think that because you say so - it has to be true.ChityWest wrote:And no - I for one am not putting words into your mouth because your 'actual position is too hard to argue against' - I think if you read back through this thread as I have just dont you will see that even though you wish that was the case it is not.
You still haven't actually responed to any of my points except to say I'm just wrong.0 -
What are you basing that on except a general "British = bad" mentality.SeanW wrote:The Brits would have let Ireland go fully independent without a fight when Hell froze over.
The "Brits" gave up Ireland after one of the shortest independence rebelions in history and when they were about to win by completely crushing it! At first the WoI rebels didn't believe the offer of talks was real because they were so close to getting their asses kick. They were days away from complete collapse.
Doesn't sound like they gave two hoots about Ireland really. They just didn't want to look too bad faced with terrorism and rebelion. They probably would have been more than happy to give Ireland over if the response had been peaceful, legal process.
It might be a bit hard for the SF/IRA "we hate the Brits" hear to get their head around the fact, but the War of Independence forced the British to give us nothing. They gave us the Anglo-Irish treaty, when they didn't have to. How does that fit with "The brits would never give up Ireland" :rolleyes:0 -
Wicknight wrote:Again a ridiculously loaded question, because the Rising didn't accomplish independence.
The Rising didn't achieve independence. It didn't achieve anything. Was killing a lot of people worth achieving nothing, no I'd have to disagree with that :rolleyes
I dont recall saying that the rising caused independence. Again with the mis-characterisations.
You say that it didnt achieve anything - didnt lead to anything - didnt inspire anything - you view it as a non entity. Whereas I would tend to disagree with that. As stated in the post above that you replied to before actually reading.Wicknight wrote:Pivotal to what?
Pivotal to reminding people of the possibillities of what could be achieved. Pivotal to inspiring those who fought in the War of Independence perhaps ? Lets not forget that the same players (those who hadnt been executed) were involved in both - not according to me - but according to those primary school history books you insist on bringing into this discussion,Wicknight wrote:Tell me what the actual Rising, the military assault and rebelion in Dublin, actually achieved.
Militarily in the directly immediate short term ?
Nothing.
As stated previously in another thread you didnt actually read - they were massively outnumbered outgunned out-trained etc. The fact that they were defeated in the end is something I had taken for granted that anyone reading this would know.
Having said that some held out longer than expected. There are two ways to view this - they should have surrendered for their own sake - or the other way to view it would be that they had the courage and character to fight on for a greater cause - that of a Free Ireland which their actions DID help to inspire. That thought may not sit well with you for any number of reasons - - the actions of those in the Rising did inspire others who were more successful (WOI),Wicknight wrote:You do know British has rotating government system. The government in 1920s wasn't the government in 1950s. Or do you think because they are British they are all the same. Conservative = Labour = Liberals ... all the same British bastards .. :rolleyes
More insults in the place of valid points - more patronising condescenscion which in my opinion couldnt be more misplaced. There are some people who can carry that off - but your not one of them. Again thanks for the mis-characterisation of what I said. You do seem to enjoy making people deny things that they never actually said.
What I actually said was . . .
"the war mongering mentality generally prevalent in the british establishment through the 1920's at least to the 1950's."
Which is a comment I stand by. I did not say that - the english had the same government for 30+ years.Wicknight wrote:I will ask again, what point do you actually disagree with?
Aside from bloodthirsty (which I don't recall claiming they were), they were stupid, moronic idiotic and stupid again.
They started an urban battle in one of the most densly populated urban centres in Europe - Stupid
This is a point we are not ever going to agree on - I think that your dismissive attitude to the sacrifice they made is pretty low-class. Your assessnent of them as having been 'stupid, moronic, idiotic' etc is purely your opinion being passed off as historical fact.Wicknight wrote:They started an urban battle in one of the most densly populated urban centres in Europe - Stupid
That bit right there - thats a historical fact thrown into the mix - followed by the word stupid in bold.Wicknight wrote:They believed the British would not counter-attack with artilery - Stupid
They had no plan or even idea how to hold the British off if they did - Moronic
Pretty sure this is covered above in the part about things we will never agree on EVER.Wicknight wrote:They had no plan to deal with the break down in law and order - Moronic
They begain shooting civilians, their own Irish men, in the street to try and maintain law - Vicious
I dont doubt for a second that they got many things wrong - nor do I doubt that they did not cover every eventuality. To expect otherwise would be . . . .. well I could descend into some condescending patronising drivel about you personally - but I wont.Wicknight wrote:They fired on unarmed British soldiers - Vicious
I would not be overly surprised to hear stories of either side firing on the other while they were unarmed. Not just during the Rising itself either - there are countless examples throughout our history of that happening.Wicknight wrote:They decided to sacrafice themselves and the Dublin public in a blood scarafice when it was clear all was lost - Moronic, stupid and vicious
Again with your opinion - they did risk their own lives - if your saying that they all intended to die - I would disagree with that.
Again they were massively out gunned out armed out-trained as mentioned before - and still they did it - you see that as stupidity whereas my personal take on that is that it must have taken more courage than I have to walk out on your cosy family life and risk your life & liberty under those impossible circumstances for your fellow men and your childrens freedom.Wicknight wrote:Do you dispute any of those events? I could go on, but I doubt you are going to reply, you didn't the first 5 times
? I think if you scroll back you will see several pages of where you are not getting 'the point'Wicknight wrote:Its true because it happened. I could not be arsed explaining to you what actually happened at the Rising when any Junior Cert text book explains it. This isn't a history lesson, I assumed you actually knew what you were talking about.
This is where you degenerate into personal insult as opposed to making a point.Wicknight wrote:You still haven't actually responed to any of my points except to say I'm just wrong.
Really ? The fact is we are not going to agree on this - not sure what you expect me to do about that - perhaps your used to a different response in this forum ? I doubt you are going to change my mind - and I doubt you would change yours either. I can live with that.0 -
This thread is going nowhere. 14 pages trying to prove the rising achieved nothing. The fact that you are still talking about it disproves that theory many pages ago.0
-
TempestSabre wrote:This thread is going nowhere. 14 pages trying to prove the rising achieved nothing. The fact that you are still talking about it disproves that theory many pages ago.
Could not agree more.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
So basically your argument is that while the Rising was a complete failure, it should be celebrated because it "inspired" some people to possibly do other things for Irish independence.ChityWest wrote:Pivotal to reminding people of the possibillities of what could be achieved.
Are you serious?
You are telling me we should be proud of the fact 220 (probably alot more) civilians died just so that people could be "inspired" in the future to look for Irish independence?
We they not inspired before? Had everyone in Ireland just forgot that we wanted independence? Had 60 years of the home rule movement, countless indepedence movements, 3 underground armys and a massive cultural revival all suddenly been forgotten in 1915 and we needed the Rising rebels to come along and kill a load of people to remind us, "inspire" us, that oh yes we actually wanted independence again?
Aside from that argument being ridiculous, ignoring everything that was going on in Ireland upto 1916, it is also an insult to the 220 people who died. You don't have to kill anyone to inspire an independence movement.
You can't inspire yourselfChityWest wrote:Lets not forget that the same players (those who hadnt been executed) were involved in both
The men who fought in the Rising and went on to be part of Sinn Fein were already "inspired" to fight for Irish Freedom, otherwise they wouldn't have been in the Rising :rolleyes:
You don't have to agree, its historical fact. A fact I notice you aren't showing is wrong, you are just saying you don't agree.ChityWest wrote:Pretty sure this is covered above in the part about things we will never agree on EVER.
Like I said, they were stupid. Someone doing something moronic for Irish Freedom is still someone doing something moronic. It doesn't suddenly become a good intelligent idea because you attach a worthy cause to it (see my analogy about Tibet and blowing up teh Chinese embassy)ChityWest wrote:I dont doubt for a second that they got many things wrong
Again, read about Pearse and his ideas of blood scarfice .. historical fact ..ChityWest wrote:Again with your opinion - they did risk their own lives - if your saying that they all intended to die - I would disagree with that.
Would that be the 220 "fellow men and children" who died needlessly because of their "courage"ChityWest wrote:Again they were massively out gunned out armed out-trained as mentioned before - and still they did it ... for your fellow men and your childrens freedom.
Chity you are now contradiction yourself. YOu say they didn't wnat to die but you also say they had no chance of winning and knew they had no chance of winning. You say there was no idea of a blood sacrafice but you say they knew they were going to be defeated and fought on anyway.
Your version doesn't make any sense, it contadicts itself, and is not backed up by history.0 -
Wicknight wrote:You can't inspire yourself
More blase patronising condescending drivel. So your new contention is that only those actually physically involved in the Rising were involved in the WOI ? That there was no connection between either event ?
Thats a bit of a stretch even for you. Wow - how convenient.
You are now putting forward the notion that the rising did not inspire anyone to anything ever ?
It had no immediate affect beyond the short-term ? Seems to me that that is the view of it you would prefer we all had in this instance as it would suit your argument. 'Nice debating skills' (your words) indeed. No context and still taking your word for it as to the character and motives of those involved - this from the person who lectures others as to the nature of history (history doesnt come in bite sized chunks, *groan* smiley face eyes upward - again your words).
Except now you have gotten to the page in that little primary school history book you keep going on about which contains a mention of Pearses writings. Which you now bring in out of context to mis-characterise all of those involved as having been suicidal. Classy !
This seems to be the entire basis of your argument that and trying to use the civilian death count as a battering ram against anyone who disagrees with you. Wont someone please think of the children !!!
At least you have moved on from your earlier chewbacca defence of throwing wild and unrelated analogies into the mix - or of throwing a single historical fact into the mix of opinion and bluster - followed by the word stupid in bold. We were all getting tired of that one.
You still have not given any evidence for your contention that those involved were bloodthirsty, simpletons, stupid or moronic after being asked 4/5/6 times you came back with 'the rising' was all the evidence you needed. Your now going to assert that this is because of Pearses writings, nice try but dont try and pass your opinion off as fact.0 -
No ...ChityWest wrote:So your new contention is that only those actually physically involved in the Rising were involved in the WOI ?
Seriously, are you even reading my posts? Is this the only response you have, ignore what I wrote and make something up that you can argue against.
What are you talking about? I didn't claim that, I don't even know what you mean by "affect" or "short-term"ChityWest wrote:It had no immediate affect beyond the short-term ?
Have you completely lost the argument that you just have to make up new ones?
What more evidence do you want? You admit that everything I said about the events was correct, you admit that the rising rebels made a huge number of mistakes and errors (even to the point of contradicting yourself), yet you want "proof" that they were stupid.ChityWest wrote:You still have not given any evidence for your contention that those involved were bloodthirsty, simpletons, stupid or moronic after being asked 4/5/6 times you came back with 'the rising' was all the evidence you needed.
Chity is a man straps armbands on and jumps off the Dublin Spire into O'Connel street do you need more "evidence" that he was stupid? Or do the actions speak for themselves.
I notice that instead of actually trying to explain how these events or actions where not stupid and moronic, you have completely avoided the issue and just kept calling for "evidence", and when presented with the evidence you dismiss it, claim I never gave it to you in the first place, and call for more "evidence" ... and so on and so onChityWest wrote:Your now going to assert that this is because of Pearses writings, nice try but dont try and pass your opinion off as fact.
See what I mean. Evidence for the idea of blood sacrifice is Pearse's writtings. What do you do? Dimiss it and call for something else.
Ok, so now Pearse was making it all up. His writting talked about blood sacrafice, his actions showed he believed in blood sacracifce, but that is not evidence he believed in it. All right then
This is ridiculous ... :rolleyes:0 -
Wicknight wrote:No ... :confused
Seriously, are you even reading my posts? Is this the only response you have, ignore what I wrote and make something up that you can argue against.:
This is where you confuse your own approach with mine.Wicknight wrote:Have you completely lost the argument that you just have to make up new ones?:
If thats your interpretation you are welcome to it.Wicknight wrote:What more evidence do you want? You admit that everything I said about the events was correct, you admit that the rising rebels made a huge number of mistakes and errors (even to the point of contradicting yourself), yet you want "proof" that they were stupid.
I dont recall saying either of those things :
everything you say about the rising was correct -
or the rebels made a huge number of mistakes and errors
neither of those comments is an accurate reflection of my position - as I am pretty sure you know. I did say that the rebels did make mistakes and did not reckon for every eventuality of how things would develop - hardly concievable that they didnt now is it ? I mean seriously in the real world would that be concievable ? Also if you compare what I said to what you said that I said you may see a subtle difference.
I cant see any good reason why you would try to give that impression.Wicknight wrote:Chity is a man straps armbands on and jumps off the Dublin Spire into O'Connel street do you need more "evidence" that he was stupid? Or do the actions speak for themselves.
More distracting chewbacca-defence nonsense analogies.Wicknight wrote:I notice that instead of actually trying to explain how these events or actions where not stupid and moronic, you have completely avoided the issue and just kept calling for "evidence", and when presented with the evidence you dismiss it, claim I never gave it to you in the first place, and call for more "evidence" ... and so on and so on
Considering its your assertion that they were stupid, moronic, bloodthirsty, idiotic and stupid again why would I have to justify or explain the opposite ?
That they were normal men of average intelligence ?
Do you think that by putting forward your opinion under the guise of historical fact - that this automatically means that other people have to prove the opposite ?
If so you are wrong - you are the one with the point to prove here. I have never said that they were super intelligent - if I had said that then perhaps I would provide some form of evidence to back that outlandish assertion up. If I put forward that notion it wouldnt mean that it would be up to everyone else to prove otherwise. Which seems to be the point you dont get.Wicknight wrote:See what I mean. Evidence for the idea of blood sacrifice is Pearse's writtings. What do you do? Dimiss it and call for something else.
I did say that I was wondering when you would get to using pearses writings as a way of describing those involved in the rising as having been bloodthirsty or suicidal.Wicknight wrote:Ok, so now Pearse was making it all up.
Again with the mis-representation of my position. This really is getting old.Wicknight wrote:His writting talked about blood sacrafice, his actions showed he believed in blood sacracifce, but that is not evidence he believed in it. All right then
This is ridiculous ... :rolleyes
I dont recall saying that pearse didnt believe in blood sacrifice. One of these days you willl get over this habit you have of misrepresenting the points made by people you are in disagreement with. Also the habit of making people deny things that they never said.0 -
ChityWest wrote:Considering its your assertion that they were stupid, moronic, bloodthirsty, idiotic and stupid again why would I have to justify or explain the opposite ?
A few simple questions for you Chity -
The rebels assumed that the British would not shell the city or risk a large scale street battle because they believed (being the little socialists they were) that a capitalist country like England would not destroy their own property.
Was that a smart, intelligent assumption?
The rebels had no proper plan to deal with the break down of law and order when they took the city. They believed that the people of Dublin would rise up with them, and as such apparently they wouldn't need to establish law and order. When it dawned on them that this was ridiculous (around the time people started looting shop fronts) they panicked and started shooting civilians.
Was that a smart, intelligent decision?
When it became clear that all was lost (despite what you seem to believe, the rebels did think they had a chance when they started, another example of stupidity?), the rebels decided that they would hold their ground and fight on reguardless instead of surrenduring and stopping the civilian bloodshed. They believed that this act of blood sacrafice would inspire the people of Dublin to rise up.
Was that a smart, intelligent[/i] decision?
You talk about them being of average intelligence as if I am talking about their IQ scores :rolleyes:
The simple fact is that the rebels made stupid, moronic decisions that cost the lives of hundreds of people.
You excuse that because you think the rightousness of their cause excuses any stupidity in their decision to achieve that cause. You say that in any war there will be mistakes that cost lives, as if the unfortunate inevitability of that fact justifies or excuses those who make those mistakes, and the loss of life they cause.
If they had been commanders in a modern war like Iraq they would probably have been courtmarshed and kicked out of the army for gross miss-judgement, with a large spread in the Sun or Star denouncing them as idiots with blood on their hands.
But through the mists of time we are supposed to forget their bad decisions, forget the lives they cost, and just focus simply on their goal of a free Ireland, even if nothing close to that was actually achieved.
The pursuit of the end justifies the means used, justifies any means used, justifies killing and death, excuses the stupidy, even if the end was only to inspire others (you admit the Rising itself achieved nothing except "inspiration")?
Er, no .. I don't think so.0 -
Wicknight, I wonder if you could just clarify a few points ..
1. Do you think it is ever acceptable to use force against a foreign occupier and would you agree that the British were indeed a foreign occupier?
2. Do you think that to engage in any military operation one must be assured of complete success otherwise it is simply moronic ?
3. Would you , with your unique hindsight abilities, have been content to wait for a political solution ad infinitum, that , at best led to Ireland being part of the UK with the reigning monarch as our head of state ?
I think you are trying to apply 21st century morality and political thinking to a very different time. I don't think that your average irish person in the early
20th century had the luxury of assuming that British rule was the best option ( the previous century having shown that not to be the case). You conveniently ignore the reasons why the leaders of the rebellion were so willing to sacrifice themselves. Of course civilian deaths were unfortunate but seizing a number of fields in Leitrim on a windy Tuesday evening would not have generated the same publicity for the "cause", though the risk of "collateral damage" would have been greatly reduced.
You continually refer to any version of history that does not support your point as being from the "Brits Bad " school of thought, conversely you yourself seem to have no problem in advocating the Brits Good / Popish, Peasant, Paddies Bad point of view.
Your obstinate unwillingness to accept that the Rising of 1916 was pivotal to the formation of the state in which you now live shows a total disregard for the facts.0 -
Yes, and yesgrowler wrote:1. Do you think it is ever acceptable to use force against a foreign occupier and would you agree that the British were indeed a foreign occupier?
No, but it helpsgrowler wrote:2. Do you think that to engage in any military operation one must be assured of complete success otherwise it is simply moronic ?
Er, thats what we got out of the War of Independence. The Anglo-Irish treaty had the King as the head of state, with Ireland as a dominion of Britian, exactly like Canada and Australia. Members of the Dial had to swear alligence to the King.growler wrote:3. Would you , with your unique hindsight abilities, have been content to wait for a political solution ad infinitum, that , at best led to Ireland being part of the UK with the reigning monarch as our head of state ?
The War of Independence didn't get us anything we couldn't have gotten anyway.
And please don't tell me the British would never have actually given us Home Rule. They tried to establish Home Rule twice once striaght after the Rising in May 1916 and again in 1917. We rejected both attempts. The British were begging us to take Home Rule, but oh no we wanted our little war to get a full republic and keep the north, neither of which we achieved through military actions.
We achieved the Republic through completely peaceful political solutions.
With my unique hindsigh I would have waited for Home Rule to be established and then set about establishing our Republic exactly the same way we actually did. We would have got exactly what we got now, but a lot less people would have died.
It was only 90 years ago growler. Why do people talk about 1916 as if it was the middle ages. The morality of the time is pretty much exactly the same as it is today, you can see that in the newpaper reports about the Rising, and in the response of teh people of Dublin.growler wrote:I think you are trying to apply 21st century morality and political thinking to a very different time.
Call me crazy but I don't think killing innocent people should be done for a PR stunt :rolleyes:growler wrote:Of course civilian deaths were unfortunate but seizing a number of fields in Leitrim on a windy Tuesday evening would not have generated the same publicity for the "cause", though the risk of "collateral damage" would have been greatly reduced.
Nope, I refer to the ridiculous idea that the British governments from 1800 to 1950 were one single entity of one mind, that would never give Ireland anything unless we took it, as the "Brits Bad" school of thought.growler wrote:You continually refer to any version of history that does not support your point as being from the "Brits Bad " school of thought
I don't accept it because it isn't true growler.growler wrote:Your obstinate unwillingness to accept that the Rising of 1916 was pivotal to the formation of the state in which you now live shows a total disregard for the facts.
As I asked Chity, please explain what the actual Rising itself achieved. Chity's answer was that it inspired people to think about independence, which is nonsense, everyone was already thinking about independence, and even if that were true killing people to inspire others is immoral and barbaric.
So whats your answer? What are these facts that show the Rising actually did something?0 -
Wicknight wrote:It was only 90 years ago growler. Why do people talk about 1916 as if it was the middle ages. The morality of the time is pretty much exactly the same as it is today, you can see that in the newpaper reports about the Rising, and in the response of teh people of Dublin.
It was a very different world in many respects, even 1950's Ireland was very different to today, I think it's quite presumptuous of any of us to claim to truly compehend the motivations of the men of the rising, its even harder for us to understand what influences actually brought them to take such radical actions. Sure we can read understand the socialist motives of connolly and co. , but there were 1200 odd ordinary irish men who marched out that day and it must have taken a lot to bring them to that point.Wicknight wrote:Call me crazy but I don't think killing innocent people should be done for a PR stunt :rolleyes:
They didn't set out to kill innocents as you well know. As I mentioned earlier it would have been even more "moronic" to seize a field in Leitrim and read the procolamation. There was a genuine military strategy in the Dublin rising, it just wasn't a very good one. None the less, I personally have a great admiration for their courage in taking on a superpower in such hopless circumstances. You call this moronic, and by present day standards it probably is, but Irish nationalism had a very long legacy of heroic failure but that doesn't mean they were stupid to try.Wicknight wrote:Nope, I refer to the ridiculous idea that the British governments from 1800 to 1950 were one single entity of one mind, that would never give Ireland anything unless we took it, as the "Brits Bad" school of thought.
If it were possible to take a retrospective poll of the British MP's and lords during the time from 1798 to 1920 ( which it isn't ) I suspect that the overwhelming majority would not be pro Irish independence. If one were to objectively view the actions of the British governments in the same time frame one would be hard pressed to come to the conclusion that British rule was in any way benevolent to the Irish people. If you disagree with this there would seem to be little point continuing this discussion , I presume you know enough of our history to draw the same conclusion.Wicknight wrote:I don't accept it because it isn't true growler.
As I asked Chity, please explain what the actual Rising itself achieved. Chity's answer was that it inspired people to think about independence, which is nonsense, everyone was already thinking about independence, and even if that were true killing people to inspire others is immoral and barbaric.
So whats your answer? What are these facts that show the Rising actually did something?
You are correct , in a very black and white view of history , in stating that the Rising itself achieved very little besides death and destruction, however the subsequent chain of events starting with the execution of Pearse, Connolly, Casement, Kent, MBride, McDonagh and the rest led to the revival of popular Irish nationalism (which as you point out was there..though dormant), the Rising and the executions that followed were the catalyst for the War of Independence. It's a very clear sequence of events, if there had been no rising, there would have been no leaders to execute, there would have been no war of independence. Or do you disagree with that too ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight wrote:A few simple questions for you Chity -
I will point out here that there are several outstanding points in the posts above and on previous pages that you are conveniently yet to address.Wicknight wrote:The rebels assumed that the British would not shell the city or risk a large scale street battle because they believed (being the little socialists they were) that a capitalist country like England would not destroy their own property.
Was that a smart, intelligent assumption?
You again repeat the point that the rebels made mistakes (shock horror !!) - No one is saying that they did not make mistakes - to expect otherwise (as has previously been mentioned) would be unreasonable. imo.
Whatever assumptions or suspicions the rebels may have had were made in that context on the basis of information available at the time - they were not made with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
And again at this point I will add - its not english property anymore is it ?Wicknight wrote:The rebels had no proper plan to deal with the break down of law and order when they took the city. They believed that the people of Dublin would rise up with them, and as such apparently they wouldn't need to establish law and order. When it dawned on them that this was ridiculous (around the time people started looting shop fronts) they panicked and started shooting civilians.
Was that a smart, intelligent decision?]
You keep harping on about an incident where looters were shot - as if this is some sort of shock horror front page news. Its not - get over it.
Throughout history the shooting of looters (whether in peace or war) is not an activity unique to the Rising rebels.Wicknight wrote:When it became clear that all was lost (despite what you seem to believe, the rebels did think they had a chance when they started, another example of stupidity?), the rebels decided that they would hold their ground and fight on reguardless instead of surrenduring and stopping the civilian bloodshed. They believed that this act of blood sacrafice would inspire the people of Dublin to rise up.
Was that a smart, intelligent[/i] decision?
Again you return to a view of the rising as a single event - that it was a non entity that lead to nothing - inspired nothing etc etc - this is ground that was previously covered.Wicknight wrote:You talk about them being of average intelligence as if I am talking about their IQ scores :rolleyes
Well perhaps that could be to do with your Repeated characterisations of the rebels as having been stupid, idiotic, moronic and stupid again - not to mention bloodthirsty and mindless. For more information on this you may want to scroll back a couple of pages in this thread.Wicknight wrote:The simple fact is that the rebels made stupid, moronic decisions that cost the lives of hundreds of people.
Werent you the one to lecture about how history is complicated - mmmmkay - doesnt come in bite sized chunks which conveniently fit your particular view point ? wasnt that you who gave that lecture couple pages back ? Oh so it is a simple situation now ? Now that it suits your viewpoint. Neato.
((I am skipping some blah blah bits here))Wicknight wrote:If they had been commanders in a modern war like Iraq they would probably have been courtmarshed and kicked out of the army for gross miss-judgement, with a large spread in the Sun or Star denouncing them as idiots with blood on their hands.
But through the mists of time we are supposed to forget their bad decisions, forget the lives they cost, and just focus simply on their goal of a free Ireland, even if nothing close to that was actually achieved.
Taking an event from our history and placing it in a modern context doesnt always stand up to much analysis.Wicknight wrote:The pursuit of the end justifies the means used, justifies any means used, justifies killing and death, excuses the stupidy, even if the end was only to inspire others (you admit the Rising itself achieved nothing except "inspiration")?
Er, no .. I don't think so.
And you are fully entitled to your opinion. Just as I am fully entitled to mine.0 -
Not quite sure of your point. The fact that a lot of people were willing to join the rebelion shows very little.growler wrote:Sure we can read understand the socialist motives of connolly and co. , but there were 1200 odd ordinary irish men who marched out that day and it must have taken a lot to bring them to that point.
If you judge the worthiness of a movement by the number of those willing to die and kill for that movement then Al Queda must be the most worthy of all modern political movements.
And as you well know they would have had to been incredabily stupid not to know that a lot of innocent people were going to die as a result of their actions.growler wrote:They didn't set out to kill innocents as you well know.
Why are you are assuming they had to perform some kind of military rebelion? Was it a choice between a Rising in Dublin and a Rising somewhere else? How about no Risinggrowler wrote:As I mentioned earlier it would have been even more "moronic" to seize a field in Leitrim and read the procolamation.
Why?growler wrote:None the less, I personally have a great admiration for their courage in taking on a superpower in such hopless circumstances.
I have no problem if someone wants to kill themselves for a cause. I admire the strength needed to truely sacrafice yourself, like someone like Billy Sands did, for something you believe in. I don't support him, or his politics, but you have to admire someone willing to die in pain for their cause.
I draw the line when you decide that along with sacraficing yourself you decide to take a whole load of innocent people with you.
Which is why I don't have any admiration for someone like a Hamas suicide bomber even though he is willing to kill himself in the same way Sands was. The difference is Sands didn't hurt anyone while doing that (I'm ignoring for argument sake his history before the hunger strike), where as the suicide bomber does.
It is, its called the Parliment voting record, and it shows that in the late 1800s and early 1900s the government (ie the majority) repeatable passed the Home Rule bill, only to have it stopped by the House of Lords. The complete veto of bills was then removed from the House of Lords.growler wrote:If it were possible to take a retrospective poll of the British MP's and lords during the time from 1798 to 1920 ( which it isn't ) I suspect that the overwhelming majority would not be pro Irish independence.
Well firstly, it didn't lead to any "revivial" of popular nationalism. That revivil was already well underway, it had been for years What the executions did do was play a part in the switch of support from the IPP to Sinn Fein. A large number of other events of course played a hand in this development of course, not just the executionsgrowler wrote:You are correct , in a very black and white view of history , in stating that the Rising itself achieved very little besides death and destruction, however the subsequent chain of events starting with the execution of Pearse, Connolly, Casement, Kent, MBride, McDonagh and the rest led to the revival of popular Irish nationalism
You will notice though we are talking about the executions, not the Rising itself. It is ridiculous to argue that the actions of the rebels purposely lead to the executions.
Simple question for you and Chity, how would you have classifed the Rising if the leaders had not been executed? Would it still have been a success?
I agree totally with that, since that is the chain of events. There is no disputing that.growler wrote:It's a very clear sequence of events, if there had been no rising, there would have been no leaders to execute, there would have been no war of independence. Or do you disagree with that too ?
What is not true is that the Rising or the rebels achived any of it. They didn't.
The events that lead to the 1918 election were out of the hands of the rebels. The rebels had no idea that their eventual execution would have the effect it did, and the decision to execute them was not of their making.0 -
They did make mistakes, they made stupid costsly mistakes that caused the deaths of hundreds of people. But to expect otherwise is "unreasonable" .. right ..:rolleyes:ChityWest wrote:You again repeat the point that the rebels made mistakes (shock horror !!) - No one is saying that they did not make mistakes - to expect otherwise (as has previously been mentioned) would be unreasonable. imo.
I agree, they had terrible informtion at the time, which made it even more of a stupid decision to go ahead with the plan.ChityWest wrote:Whatever assumptions or suspicions the rebels may have had were made in that context on the basis of information available at the time - they were not made with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
Ends justified the means yes?ChityWest wrote:And again at this point I will add - its not english property anymore is it ?
So you think the death is a sutiable punishment for looting? Glad you aren't making the laws.ChityWest wrote:You keep harping on about an incident where looters were shot - as if this is some sort of shock horror front page news. Its not - get over it.
Also they fired into crowds when looting started, they killed civlians indiscrimately.
And "throughout history" it has been condemed as a barbaric response, right up to the New Orleans events last year.ChityWest wrote:Throughout history the shooting of looters (whether in peace or war) is not an activity unique to the Rising rebels.
Chity you already agreed they made a string of very costly mistakes... yet you refuse to call them stupid mistakes .. what the difference?ChityWest wrote:Well perhaps that could be to do with your Repeated characterisations of the rebels as having been stupid, idiotic, moronic and stupid again - not to mention bloodthirsty and mindless. For more information on this you may want to scroll back a couple of pages in this thread.
Wow, good come back ... are you now agreeing with me that they were stupid mistakes?ChityWest wrote:Neato.
Hate to break it to you but 1916 is "modern"ChityWest wrote:Taking an event from our history and placing it in a modern context doesnt always stand up to much analysis.0 -
Wicknight wrote:I have no problem if someone wants to kill themselves for a cause. I admire the strength needed to truely sacrafice yourself, like someone like Billy Sands did, for something you believe in. I don't support him, or his politics, but you have to admire someone willing to die in pain for their cause.
I draw the line when you decide that along with sacraficing yourself you decide to take a whole load of innocent people with you.
Which is why I don't have any admiration for someone like a Hamas suicide bomber even though he is willing to kill himself in the same way Sands was. The difference is Sands didn't hurt anyone while doing that (I'm ignoring for argument sake his history before the hunger strike), where as the suicide bomber does.
Dont you mean Bobby Sands ? And why are you equating Hamas to al quadea and bringing them both into the same conversation when this thread has nothing to do with israel in the first place ?0 -
1200 clowns march out and try to overthrow the 'yoke of british oppression' (even though these goons were allowed drill their private armies in public-compare this freedom to modern day China or Zimbabwe to find true oppression lads) and this is 'popular support' from a country of millions. Tell me, how many irishmen were away fighting WWI while these 1200 men were occupying the post office (that particular act infuriated ordinary dubs who used the post office to contact their loved ones at the front)?
The rising achieved SFA but for 220 odd civilian deaths and the toal destruction of the city centre. All the other stuff was achieved through other means and all could have been achieved (as evidenced by almost EVERY other former part of the empire) peacefully.
There's nothing to celebrate. A commemoration of the innocent dead I could support.0 -
I'm not "equating" Hamas to Al Queda (do you know what "equating" means) ...ChityWest wrote:And why are you equating Hamas to al quadea and bringing them both into the same conversation when this thread has nothing to do with israel in the first place ?
I brought up the Hamas suicide bomber to show the difference between a person who sacrafices himself for a cause and someone who sacrafices himself for a cause while killing a lot of other people. You see the difference?
I brought up Al Queda to counter the silly idea that a groups following in any way reflects the worthiness of the cause. You see?
You really don't get the concept of analogy and comparision do you .. I though Sands post was quite clear, obviously not. :rolleyes:0 -
Wicknight wrote:I'm not "equating" Hamas to Al Queda (do you know what "equating" means) ...
I brought up the Hamas suicide bomber to show the difference between a person who sacrafices himself for a cause and someone who sacrafices himself for a cause while killing a lot of other people. You see the difference?
I brought up Al Queda to counter the silly idea that a groups following in any way reflects the worthiness of the cause. You see?
You really don't get the concept of analogy and comparision do you .. I though Sands post was quite clear, obviously not. :rolleyes
Pretty sure that I do know what an analogy is - ( I also know when an analogy is used to distract and confuse an issue in the middle of an argument ) - thanks again for the lecture!
Again it must make you feel pretty good when you presume to dispense these nuggets of wisdom.
BTW You do know that Bobby Sands's name is Bobby and not Billy ?
And just on the offchance that you may be wondering - no I am not persecuting you for your spelling - I make spelling mistakes too all the time, also grammatical errors and I am pretty sure that 'mis-characterisation' is not actually a real word. But I am curious as to how somone could get that name wrong.0 -
ChityWest wrote:Pretty sure that I do know what an analogy is
So then, since you understand the analogy I was using, can you see the difference between someone who sacrafices themselves for a cause and someone who sacrafices themselves for a cause while killing innocent people.
What is the difference in your view between a hunger striker like Bobby Sands, and a suicide bomber who destroys a police station in a public square in say Israel?
Assuming both are fighting for a noble cause, a cause we will assume both yourself and I support, do you think they are the same thing? Are both justifed?0 -
ChityWest wrote:But I am curious as to how somone could get that name wrong.
Maybe I'm actually a British agent ... *wicknight rips off mask* ... ah ah I was me, Maggie Tatcher all along ... FOOLS!
:rolleyes: talk about nip picking ... Chity how about you focus on actually responding to my points instead of constantly trying to get out of it0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight wrote:Maybe I'm actually a British agent ... *wicknight rips off mask* ... ah ah I was me, Maggie Tatcher all along ... FOOLS!
:rolleyes talk about nip picking ... Chity how about you focus on actually responding to my points instead of constantly trying to get out of it
I dont think anyone here is accusing you of being a british agent - you are bringing that up.
you are free to call it nit-picking - but I dont think that its unreasonable to ask why somone would spell the name Bobby Sands as Billy Sands. Thats all. I was wondering. Not accusing you of anything.
We can go around in more circles on this if you like - I think I have responded to your points as much as I would want to - there are several on pages previous to this one in which you have not yet responded and I take it that you have no plans to either. Which is fair enough.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement