Easter Sunday/ 2006

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

What the hell are you talking about. There was not "Occupational Force". There was The Army. There was the police force. Ireland had been part of the U.K for nearly 800 years. That is longer than most European countries had existed. There had never been an Irish State in any modern definition of the term, there had never been a Irish Army. There was the British Army there had always been the British Army, since knights were roaming the lands. The army of Ireland was the British Army.



Again, what the f**k are you talking about. The Dubliners killed during the Rising were oridinary folk going about their ordinary lives until a bunch of "heros" and thrill seekers with a death wish decided to start a fecking war in the middle of one of the most densely populated urban centres in Europe.

How dare you suggest that those civilians killed during the rising were collaborating with the British Army.

If this is what we are celebrating this Easter, this pervertion of history, it is a disgrace and I for one am having nothing to do with it.

Who killed the innocent civilians the British army did

Who shelled the city including using incendiary shells the british army did

Who gave orders to shoot people and not take prisioners the british army did

Example who murdered 12 innocent civilians on Nth king St the british army did http://www.ireland.com/focus/easterrising/friday/

Example murder of 3 innocent civilians
The deranged Capt Bowen-Colthurst arrests three innocent civilians, including the pacifist Francis Sheehy Skeffington, and has them shot the next morning.

http://www.ireland.com/focus/easterrising/tuesday/

The British army were a Foreign occuppying power they had Irish people in their ranks of course they did all occupying armies always have people from the country they are occuppying who are willing to collaberate with them


Interestingly a poll in yesterdays Sunday Business post suggests that 80% of Irish people ( i presume it is a 26 county poll) view the 1916 rising as a positive event and believe that we owe a debt to the men and women of 1916

Zombrex

Voipjunkie wrote:

...the British army did
...the british army did
...the british army did

And if the British army jumped off a bridge ...

Ok so the logic is the British killed Irish people so its ok for Irish people to kill Irish people so long sa they are killing British people at the same time :rolleyes:

It isn't ok for ANYONE to kill Irish people.

BTW is anyone calling for a celebration for what the British did at Easter 1916??? No, so can we stop with this silly "Well the British did this this and this" comments. No one is supporting the British reaction to the Rising, and certainly no on is suggesting we celebrate it.

Voipjunkie wrote:

Interestingly a poll in yesterdays Sunday Business post suggests that 80% of Irish people ( i presume it is a 26 county poll) view the 1916 rising as a positive event and believe that we owe a debt to the men and women of 1916

And a lot less thing it should be celebrated with a military parade

murphaph

Diorraing wrote:

THE UK WAS NOT A DEMOCRATIC STATE!!! What mandate did the british government have to rule Ireland - none. Did the Irish people ever vote to be in the union? No! Irish people overwhelmingly voted for Home Rule for 50 years, was it granted? NO! What the hell is democratic about that. When SF were the majority and called for Ireland to be disestablished from the Union, were they listened to Murphaph?You can cod yourself all you like, but no reasonable person would call the UK in the early part of the last century democratic.
Wow, a member of the British Occupational Force in Ireland was killed. Its war, people die, its regrettable, but how many innocent people were killed by the regime he was upholding and supporting in this country? So Irish people were killed by the volunteers in 1916. Whats your point? French people collaborating with the Nazis were killed by the French resistance.

The UK was far far more democratic than most of our neighbours in 1916. Irish people could vote in westminster elections on the exact same grounds as english people. You must remember that at that time, Ireland was an inegral part of the UK, just like Donegal or Kerry are integral parts of Ireland. If the Corrib gas field turned out to have vast quantities of oil, would the rest of us let Mayo have it's independence tomorrow even if 95% of Mayo's citizens voted fo it? Nah, didn't think so. However, the Liberal government in 1916 was so pro-irish that it was preparing to force the issue of Home Rule through parliament using the new fangled parliament act which prevented to Lords from stopping the act receiving royal ascent. If WWI hadn't come along, Home Rule would have progressed, slowly I'm sure, given the understandable (in hindsight of the repressive catholic state this place became) reluctance of protestants to progress with Rome Rule. I believe that the terrible hatred born out of the rising an the subsequent split of the island could have been avoided altogether and for these reasons see no reason to celebrate 1916 as something glorious. It led to decades of catholic dogma and intollerance of anything non-conformist. For examle, homosexuality was legalised decades ago in the UK, but here t wasn't legalised until 1992. Heck, remember the hoo-ha created by Virgin megastore when they dared to sell condoms? That's the end result of your rising my friend. Had we remained in the UK with devolved government we would have enjoyed a much more open and tollerant society. Youcan sream all you like about what it says in the proclamation-words, just words. The actions of this repressive kip of a state from almost the moment it was born were actions more akin to a fascist state than a democracy-you could vote for who you liked but McQuaid & Co still ran the show, thanks Padraig, thanks a bunch.

Snickers Man

murphaph wrote:

The UK was far far more democratic than most of our neighbours in 1916. Irish people could vote in westminster elections on the exact same grounds as english people. You must remember that at that time, Ireland was an inegral part of the UK, just like Donegal or Kerry are integral parts of Ireland.

Exactly. It was an 'integral part' as you so correctly put it of the world's strongest empire at the time. And 50 years before, many parts of the country had starved. In the midst of plenty. That's the level of mismanagement to which Ireland was subjected by Britain. And which, in my opinion, was the biggest single reason for Britain forfeiting any right to rule a country which it never really regarded as part of itself anyway.

Now, what examples of mismanagement by the Irish state can you bring up? Outlawed homosexuality and an inability to buy condoms in the local chemist? FFS.


Who wanted to buy condoms in the local chemist? What thousands of young people at the time did,while working in Germany for the summer, was to bring over a stack of old 5p pieces which were exactly the same size, but one sixth the value, of the old Deutsch mark and stock up for the year. (A single pack of 3 in my case :-))

The Irish state is not perfect but it's a damn sight better than it was with the British in charge. And at least we have the werewithal to change it ourselves. This week, our Taoiseach meets up with an association of Gay and Lesbian people and you can now buy all the condoms you want. So you can bum **** your boy friend (if that's your bag) to both your hearts' content without having your collar felt but are you happy? I think you have some self-esteem issues, frankly.

murphaph wrote:

However, the Liberal government in 1916 was so pro-irish

was so dependent on the votes of the IPP, you mean.

murphaph wrote:

If WWI hadn't come along, Home Rule would have progressed, slowly I'm sure, given the understandable (in hindsight of the repressive catholic state this place became) reluctance of protestants to progress with Rome Rule.

What evidence do you have for that? Do you really think that the Unionists and Nationalists having served together in the army would have come to realise that the guys on the other side were good eggs really and that all differences could now be forgotten?

I don't think so. The evidence is that each would have demanded that their own blood sacrifice conferred on the British Government an obligation to honour their demands.

So the Government would have vacillated and pleaded for 'more talks' and 'more negotiation'. And people would have got impatient. And a lot of them would have been trained soldiers. And it would have got nasty very quickly.

Have a look at what happened in the Punjab in India after the war. The Punjab is the centre of the Sikh religion which was always, and indeed still is, a big contributor of men to the Indian Army. The majority of Indian soldiers in the British Army were Sikh. The Punjab was a hotbed of Indian nationalism immediately after the war. 'We fought for them, they owe us' was the simple logic of the time. So much so that the authorities saw fit to turn their guns on the local populace with devastating effect at Amritsar in 1919. (see the film Gandhi for a faithful re-enaction of that massacre)

And who were these authorities? Governor of the Punjab at the time was one Michael Francis O'Dwyer from Tipperary.

So that leads to Snickers Man's First Law: The ability of Irishmen to mismanage on behalf of the British Empire far exceeds their ability to mismanage their own country.

LordSutch

One thing is for sure, we as Irish people are still not united in our thinking about the events of Easter 1916 ~ just looking at this thread for a start, or even in the Irish media at large, the country (26 Counties) is still very split on weather the Rising was a good thing or a bad thing!

Every other day in the papers there is a column or a letter either praising the Rising or birating it ~ either way its controversial.

As for celibrating the rising, some people will attend and many others wont be there on principle 'me included' not because I am anti Irish (far from it) but I am from the other camp who still says it was a great mistake that should not have been held in such high esteem by successive Governments here in the Republic.

I will however be attending the Somme commerations later in the year!

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

Now, what examples of mismanagement by the Irish state can you bring up? Outlawed homosexuality and an inability to buy condoms in the local chemist? FFS.

Er, thats a joke right.

Without going off topic too much, how about, for starters the huge level of abuse caused by the church and allowed by the state that lasted for decades

Victor

Commemorate, not celebrate.

axer

Wicknight wrote:

Ireland had been part of the U.K for nearly 800 years.

I thought Ireland was only pulled into the UK by the Act of Union 1800.

murphaph wrote:

The UK was far far more democratic than most of our neighbours in 1916.

What does that mean? Was it democratic or not?
Catholics did not have ANY say with regards joining the UK.

murphaph wrote:

Irish people could vote in westminster elections on the exact same grounds as english people.

How much power did they actually hold though is the question. Considering 2 parties in Britain alone had more seats than the total number of Irish seats Ireland were allocated.

murphaph wrote:

You must remember that at that time, Ireland was an inegral part of the UK, just like Donegal or Kerry are integral parts of Ireland. If the Corrib gas field turned out to have vast quantities of oil, would the rest of us let Mayo have it's independence tomorrow even if 95% of Mayo's citizens voted fo it? Nah, didn't think so.

There is a big difference between indendence for Ireland and independence of one county of Ireland. But you did hit the nail on the head - Ireland was a great money/food earner for England, why would they want to give it back?!

murphaph wrote:

However, the Liberal government in 1916 was so pro-irish that it was preparing to force the issue of Home Rule through parliament using the new fangled parliament act which prevented to Lords from stopping the act receiving royal ascent. If WWI hadn't come along, Home Rule would have progressed, slowly I'm sure, given the understandable (in hindsight of the repressive catholic state this place became) reluctance of protestants to progress with Rome Rule.

Great they allowed a Home Rule act to go through that gave the minority everything (and more) that they wanted. The protestants were not fearful of Rome Rule - thats only what they screamed about - what they were really fearful of was that finally catholics would have the same rights as protestants and thus the protestants would loose the higher ground which they had violently gained.

murphaph wrote:

I believe that the terrible hatred born out of the rising an the subsequent split of the island could have been avoided altogether and for these reasons see no reason to celebrate 1916 as something glorious.

You mean if the Irish had remained good little servants then every thing would have worked out for the best?

murphaph wrote:

It led to decades of catholic dogma and intollerance of anything non-conformist. For examle, homosexuality was legalised decades ago in the UK, but here t wasn't legalised until 1992. Heck, remember the hoo-ha created by Virgin megastore when they dared to sell condoms? That's the end result of your rising my friend. Had we remained in the UK with devolved government we would have enjoyed a much more open and tollerant society.

And who have we got to thank for that? The unionists. Considering they made sure that the Republic would consist of a huge majority of catholics. It was envitable that the Republic would become a Catholic state. Had the unionists not demanded their own state then I believe we would not have had the problems we had because of this Catholic state.

murphaph wrote:

Youcan sream all you like about what it says in the proclamation-words, just words. The actions of this repressive kip of a state from almost the moment it was born were actions more akin to a fascist state than a democracy-you could vote for who you liked but McQuaid & Co still ran the show, thanks Padraig, thanks a bunch.

How do you know they were just words? They weren't allowed to be fulfilled.

Freelancer

axer wrote:

Originally Posted by murphaph
It led to decades of catholic dogma and intollerance of anything non-conformist. For examle, homosexuality was legalised decades ago in the UK, but here t wasn't legalised until 1992. Heck, remember the hoo-ha created by Virgin megastore when they dared to sell condoms? That's the end result of your rising my friend. Had we remained in the UK with devolved government we would have enjoyed a much more open and tollerant society.

And who have we got to thank for that? The unionists. Considering they made sure that the Republic would consist of a huge majority of catholics. It was envitable that the Republic would become a Catholic state. Had the unionists not demanded their own state then I believe we would not have had the problems we had because of this Catholic state.

I'm praticaly speechless. Let me get this straight, our cultural and societal issues that we've had to deal with in the republic, was the unionists fault. That is without a doubt the most specious bit of reasoning every put forth on this board, and I am actually in, well, awe of it.

Are you really telling us that you believe that the oppression, the guilt, the nonsense we had for generations, could have been fixed if it weren't for those Orange Bastárds? Is there anything you won't blame them for?

axer wrote:

I missed the bus this morning, this is clearly a paisleyette plot!!!

Christ if you've not got the moral backbone to admit that our issues are as a society are just that our issues, and instead believe in some purile fantasy that Ireland would have been the merry old land of Oz, were it not for "them up north", I suggest you do some growing up. Welcome to my ignore list, life is far too short to listen to this nonsense.

axer

Freelancer wrote:

I'm praticaly speechless. Let me get this straight, our cultural and societal issues that we've had to deal with in the republic, was the unionists fault. That is without a doubt the most specious bit of reasoning every put forth on this board, and I am actually in, well, awe of it.

Are you really telling us that you believe that the oppression, the guilt, the nonsense we had for generations, could have been fixed if it weren't for those Orange Bastárds? Is there anything you won't blame them for?

I should say that it was actually the British Governments fault and not the unionists for it was them who allowed the unionists get what they wanted.

Please don't make up false quotes and attribute them to me.

Bam Bam

For those that will be attending.

The parade will consist of 2'500 members of the defence forces PDF and RDF, naval service and Air Corps as well as members of IUNVA and ONET, there will also be sixty DF vehicles involved

The proclamation will be read, military honours rendered and the tricolour will be raised over the GPO.

The rising itself is seen as the first shots in the war of independence and is a pivotal moment in Irish history.

Before the rising the IRA and the volunteers had little support from the people of Ireland

However it was the executions that enraged the people.

A lot of Irelands problems (neutrality and the North) were caused and worsened by De Valera's government and his actions during WWII

Snickers Man

Wicknight wrote:

Er, thats a joke right.

Without going off topic too much, how about, for starters the huge level of abuse caused by the church and allowed by the state that lasted for decades

That was a reply to Murphaph's post. Number 94.

I am not saying that this state was a utopia. I am saying that the level of mismanagement palls in comparison with what the British did over the 18th and 19th centuries to the majority of its inhabitants.

Now I don't know about you but I went to a catholic school and nobody ever tried to put his hand down my pants. Which is not to say that abuse didn't take place; just that it was not a universal experience.

And anyway that doesn't remove the right of the Irish people to govern themselves. We are entitled to make our own mistakes and to rectify them.

There was plenty of abuse in English schools as well. Especially the public ones, where prefects were allowed to behave like little Hitlers to toughen up the chaps for use in keeping the natives down overseas. Bullying was systemic and tolerated? Buggery was a way of life and tolerated.

Does that mean the Brits should say: "Well actually we'd be a lot better off if somebody else was in charge. The Scandinavians seem to have a pretty good society and they were in charge here about a thousand years ago after all. Let's hand the whole country back to them." ?

Even I wouldn't argue that point.

Freelancer

Yes Axer the British government forced us to become a devout catholic nation

:rolleyes:

Give over....

You're the kind that likes to give the republicans credit for anything that good happens, and then blames the British and Unionists for anything bad and wrong that happened, even it was commited by republicans, because "they wouldn't have done it if the Brits hadn't made em do it".

Like I said welcome to my ignore list.

Snickers Man

ArthurF wrote:

One thing is for sure, we as Irish people are still not united in our thinking about the events of Easter 1916 ~ just looking at this thread for a start, or even in the Irish media at large, the country (26 Counties) is still very split on weather the Rising was a good thing or a bad thing!

We sure are. Only most of the people in the press whinging about it (Myers, Harris and just about every else on the Sunday Independent) are complete neocon arseholes. Some who have reservations about it, like Fintan O'Toole I could respect. I have reservations myself.

But many of the same people who tut tut about people getting killed are the same who were cheerleaders for the British and Americans in the hey day of 'Shock and Awe' and as such are just utter toilets who deserve to be beaten to death with a dirty bog brush. IMHO.

I actually think it's healthy that our society insists on both sides of the argument being presented. As long as what people are presenting IS a side of the argument. Much of the anti-commemoration argument is based on silliness that hasn't been properly thought through.

You tend not to get the same equivocation in other countries. Would anybody in Britain dare criticise their motives for joining WWII? Out of the question, you might think. Never was the country more united. Well here's a little fact that has been largely written out of history. Several anti-war candidates were elected during by-elections in Britain during the war. Hands up all those who knew that.

Would anybody in Australia dare condemn the diggers of Gallipoli? Even though a) they were the bad guys in that battle and b) they lost.

Most countries in the West proclaim their pride in their fighting men for winning World War Two. The brunt of the fighting in the war was borne by the Soviet Union. They're the guys who really won it. But that's largely ignored here.

ArthurF wrote:

I will however be attending the Somme commerations later in the year!

Your right to be wrong has been fought for and won by those you're ignoring this April.

I might go along as well. I'll build a big banner with the phrase 'Spectamur Agendo' and pictures of Indian rebels being tied to cannons for having the effrontery to fight for their own country. Or pictures, if I can find them, of Boer women and children being herded into concentration camps (a British invention) in the Boer War, in which the Royal Dublin Fusiliers were enthusiastic participants. (See the commemorative arch at the top of Grafton Street known to generations of Dubliners as Traitors' Gate' for verification)

Spectamur Agendo, as I'm sure you know, was the motto of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, which was itself the motto of one of the two indian regiments which were merged to form the Fusiliers.

It means, loosely translated, 'by our actions shall we be known'

Damn right.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

But many of the same people who tut tut about people getting killed are the same who were cheerleaders for the British and Americans in the hey day of 'Shock and Awe' and as such are just utter toilets who deserve to be beaten to death with a dirty bog brush. IMHO.
...
But that's largely ignored here.

Most Irish people I imagine were dead against the war in Iraq, and are dead against the british army in general.

But as i said before, I'm failing to see the point in this type of logic.

What has the Rising got to do with WWII or the war in Iraq? Why when ever someone says "i think it is horrible what the rebels did to Dublin" does someone start listing off thing other armys did in other times. Does that change what happened in Easter 1916?

Its like the school boy who gets caught doing something naughty by his teacher who procedes to list off everything his friends were doing.

Snickers Man wrote:

Your right to be wrong has been fought for and won by those you're ignoring this April.

No, actually it wasn't.

He had pretty much exactly the same rights before the rising as he had after (and by Rising I assume u mean independence, which of course had little to do with the actual rising).

Actually, censorship and state oppression went into overdrive after the formation of the Republic during the 40s and 50s, so probably he would have had less rights.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

just that it was not a universal experience.

Very true, but then the idea that we were a nation of oppressed tortured suffering people prior to 1922 is also nonsense.

Snickers Man wrote:

And anyway that doesn't remove the right of the Irish people to govern themselves. We are entitled to make our own mistakes and to rectify them.

Of course we are. But then again, as I said, the idea that we were on the brink and therefore all forms of savagrey were justifed to "win" our freedom is nonsense.

Snickers you have to get it out of your head the idea that people who don't support the rising are saying we should have stayed Brisith forever. They aren't

They are pointing out that conditions in Ireland were not that bad relative to the rest of the Uk and more importantly they didn't change that much after freedom.

It is this ridiculous idea that if we just have our own state, if we just have the republic, everything will be better that people are objecting to. That idea still goes on in the north, that if we just unite ireland the social problems will solve themselves. Its nonsense.

Yes Ireland had a lot of problems. Most countries at the turn of the century did. But very few of those problems had solutions to be found with Independence. As has been pointed out a lot of things got a lot worse after independence.

That isn't an argument against independence, as you say every country has the right to make its own mistakes. Democracy is good. Independence is good. It is simply an attempt to cut through the patriotic bullsh*t that surrond events like the Rising.

People talk about the Rising as if we urgently needed independence to solve all our problems. We didn't. Independence was coming, through peaceful means. Yes it was taking time, but then so what. Nothing was going to be solved over night by suddenly having a free state. Hell it took years for the Free State to move to a full Republic.

Social and economic changes don't happen over night, and there is not a magical solution to them

axer

Freelancer wrote:

Yes Axer the British government forced us to become a devout catholic nation

:rolleyes:

Give over....

You're the kind that likes to give the republicans credit for anything that good happens, and then blames the British and Unionists for anything bad and wrong that happened, even it was commited by republicans, because "they wouldn't have done it if the Brits hadn't made em do it".

Like I said welcome to my ignore list.

Your ignore list must not be working.

I was making the point that Ireland would not have become such a catholic state if other religions had been part of it. Had the unionists not been granted their own state (in which catholics were persecuted) then the Roman Catholic church would not have had such a control over the government. Dividing the two religions made the situation whereby each would control their own territory. It was a bad move and created the divide and hatred between the two communities. I know the Irish Government had a massive hand in it but what did they know about running the country - they were only starting.

I have stated already that those who fought for Ireland in 1916 were terrorists. No matter how much you think they did wrong, they still did achieve their objectives i.e. to get this country off its ass and fight for its own government.

Had the Easter Rising not happened then I believe there would not be a Republic of Ireland. Even if home rule had been granted in the absense of the Easter Rising then the Unionists would have still fought for 9 counties of their own and would have still gotten at least 6.

Zombrex

axer wrote:

Had the Easter Rising not happened then I believe there would not be a Republic of Ireland. Even if home rule had been granted in the absense of the Easter Rising then the Unionists would have still fought for 9 counties of their own and would have still gotten at least 6.

So, considering we got the Republic in the 1940s through completely peaceful means that could have easily been achieved with Home Rule, and considering the North was still divided, and that the War of Independence made the situation with the Protestants in the north much worse rather than better, what exactly would have been different if the Rising had not had happened

axer

Wicknight wrote:

So, considering we got the Republic in the 1940s through completely peaceful means that could have easily been achieved with Home Rule, and considering the North was still divided, and that the War of Independence made the situation with the Protestants in the north much worse rather than better, what exactly would have been different if the Rising had not had happened

We got the republic through completely peaceful means? Thats news to me. I do believe it was the war of independence that gained the free state which led to the forming of a republic. So to say the republic was gained by completely peaceful means is simply incorrect.

The creation of a protestant state in the North agravated the problem of the divide between protestants and catholics - not the war of independence. It lead to massive violation of human rights against catholics which obviously strained relations between catholics and protestants.

What the Easter Rising did is jump start the war of independence which lead to the free state which lead to the republic. How hard is that to understand?

LordSutch

For those who talk about "The War of Independence" it wasnt really a War in any conventional sence, it was basically a gurella campaign involving the shooting of Policemen, the shooting of soldiers and general bloody mayhem!

Britain gave us our independence in s signed treaty (because it was on the cards anyway) since before the Great War, shame then it just happened the way it did ~ from the mindless actions of the 1916 rising right through to the Civil War .............................

And as for leaving the Commonwealth in 1949, talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or cutting off ones nose to spite your face!

The whole episode from 1916~1922 was a Big Mistake that has led to the permanent division of hearts and minds on this island!

And as for the poster in this thread who says he will be picketing the Commerations of those Irish Men who died in the First World War ~ What can I say?

Zombrex

axer wrote:

So to say the republic was gained by completely peaceful means is simply incorrect.

I say again, the Republic was gained through completely peaceful means.

We removed ourselfs, stage by stage over nearly 20 years from the British Empire and established a Republic.

All of which could have been done from Home Rule. The war of independence got us pretty much the same as what were were going to get anyway with home rule, except of course we lost the North :rolleyes:

The Republic came years later, didn't require the war of independence, and was achieved through dipolomatic and legal challanges (ie peaceful)

I suggest you read up on the history of this country.

I though the Rising => War of Independence => Republic version of history was only to be found in Sinn Fein pamplets :rolleyes:

axer wrote:

The creation of a protestant state in the North agravated the problem of the divide between protestants and catholics - not the war of independence.

No, the protestants demanded that the north stay in the UK because of things like the Rising and the WoI. Do you blame them?

axer wrote:

What the Easter Rising did is jump start the war of independence which lead to the free state which lead to the republic. How hard is that to understand?

Again, read a history book. The Rising was a disaster. The only positive aspects for the independence movment came out of the rather silly decision of the British Army to execute the ring leaders and blame Sinn Fein. This was then used by the supporters of the Rising to their propaganda advantage.

But as has been pointed out many time it was far more the threat of consription in 1918, and the fact that S.F ran a very successful campaign that year that lead to the formation of the Dial and the beginning of the war of independence. The Rising was at most a footnote in the run up to this.

It is a complete myth that nothing was happening before the rising or that the rising caused a surge in the independence movement. It didn't. The independence movement was ticking along nicely, had been for the last 60 years. The Rising simply provided another propaganda campaign for them. So did conscription. So did Sinn Fein.

LordSutch

Well said Wicknight, I couldnt have put it better myself!

Diorraing

ArthurF wrote:

For those who talk about "The War of Independence" it wasnt really a War in any conventional sence, it was basically a gurella campaign involving the shooting of Policemen, the shooting of soldiers and general bloody mayhem!

Britain gave us our independence in s signed treaty (because it was on the cards anyway) since before the Great War, shame then it just happened the way it did ~ from the mindless actions of the 1916 rising right through to the Civil War .............................

And as for leaving the Commonwealth in 1949, talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or cutting off ones nose to spite your face!

The whole episode from 1916~1922 was a Big Mistake that has led to the permanent division of hearts and minds on this island!

And as for the poster in this thread who says he will be picketing the Commerations of those Irish Men who died in the First World War ~ What can I say?

Is there any chance you could tell us the justifications of WW1. What was actually achieved because quite frankly the 1916 rising was a far more just war. The British fought the war to preserve their empire and shame on anyone who fought to maintain their system of colonies. The British didn't give a damn about the Belgians or anyone else. They saw Germany (who had assembled a massive fleet) as a threat to their naval power and empire. There were no goodies or baddies in WW1 - it was a war of greed and selfishness. The 1916 rising was an act of total selflessness

Sand

We got the republic through completely peaceful means? Thats news to me.

Buy a history book then. The Republic of Ireland Act was introduced in April 1949, without a shot being fired. The lack of murders or bloodshed was clearly a tragic oversight on the part of the politicians who brought about the Republic. If they had been real patriots they would have murdered some child to mark the event.

I do believe it was the war of independence that gained the free state which led to the forming of a republic. So to say the republic was gained by completely peaceful means is simply incorrect.

The rising and the war of independance brought about nothing noteworthy for Ireland that couldnt have been achieved by Home Rule and constitutional politics. The country was still partitioned. The British army was still garrisoned in the country. The British Monarch was still the head of State. Ireland was still a part of the British Empire/Commonwealth. And the Irish people and their representitives endorsed this deal (rejecting violence), which was hardly surprising given that they had endorsed Home Rule already.

All the rising led to was a bitter civil war that damaged Ireland economic infrastructure, drove an even deeper wedge between Irelands two traditions (ensuring the Catholic Taliban style culture that led to massive child abuse coverups and the removal of constitutional rights like divorce which offended Catholic churchmen), and laid the foundations and justification for decades of bloodshed, murder and terrorism.

The cost-benefit analysis doesnt add up. And any person truly interested in Irelands advancement would not view the harm done to Ireland by militant republicanism as being a price worth paying to get pretty much the same deal as was on the table already. Why would anyone who professes to love Ireland wish that sort of suffering on Ireland for no gain? Do we truly need enemies when we have such patriots?

I know though your eyes are glazing over at this point "West Brit, why dont you move to the UK, you should be worshipping the men who killed unarmed irish policemen, etc, etc". But Home Rule was on the books. It was going to happen - in fact it did happen. Some deal would have been swung with the North, probably partition as happened anyway, but Ireland could have swung concessions from the UK in exchange for accepting partition.

Then the rest of steps to Irish independance play out much as they did - using the Commonwealth to underline the sovereignty of the Dominions, and then consistently underlining Irelands independance from UK and Commonwealth policy, up until post WW2 when Britains days as a world hegemon were clearly over - declare full independance, which would only be a formality by that stage, and bobs your uncle were in the same place, but we far less bloodshed and carnage, a greater chance of building a Republic that represents all citizens equally, and in a much better position to prevent the Troubles ever occurring.

What the Easter Rising did is jump start the war of independence which lead to the free state which lead to the republic. How hard is that to understand?

People will happily accept that 1916 led to further violence right up to the present day. Thats why its not an event to be praised in Irish history. They wont accept that the Free State (warmed over Home Rule) was unachievable without violence, seeing as it was on the books. How hard is that to understand?

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote:

This week, our Taoiseach meets up with an association of Gay and Lesbian people and you can now buy all the condoms you want. So you can bum **** your boy friend (if that's your bag) to both your hearts' content without having your collar felt but are you happy? I think you have some self-esteem issues, frankly.

Minimum one month ban.You'll actually have to make an effort to convince me that you should be allowed back at all when you post that kind of tripe...

axer

Wicknight wrote:

I say again, the Republic was gained through completely peaceful means.

We removed ourselfs, stage by stage over nearly 20 years from the British Empire and established a Republic.

Which all started from the Anglo-Irish treaty which Im sure we all agree on. A truce was called during the Irish War of Independence during which the treaty was agreed.

Wicknight wrote:

All of which could have been done from Home Rule. The war of independence got us pretty much the same as what were were going to get anyway with home rule, except of course we lost the North :rolleyes:

If the British were so eager to grant home rule then why was it not granted straight after World War 1?

Wicknight wrote:

The Republic came years later, didn't require the war of independence, and was achieved through dipolomatic and legal challanges (ie peaceful)

Well they had already been granted Dominion status so theyhad a government to fight the case for them.

Wicknight wrote:

No, the protestants demanded that the north stay in the UK because of things like the Rising and the WoI. Do you blame them?

Unless they could see into the future then yes because they whole heartily opposed Home Rule before the Rising and War of Independence.

Wicknight wrote:

Again, read a history book. The Rising was a disaster. The only positive aspects for the independence movment came out of the rather silly decision of the British Army to execute the ring leaders and blame Sinn Fein. This was then used by the supporters of the Rising to their propaganda advantage.

I disagree. The rebels managed to hold the capital for 7 days with 1,250 rebels versus 17,000 british soldiers. It created leaders that went on to negotiate freedom for Ireland. You look it as a military failure - but somehow I don't think the leaders believed they would be able to defeat the British Army with 1250 men.

Wicknight wrote:

But as has been pointed out many time it was far more the threat of consription in 1918, and the fact that S.F ran a very successful campaign that year that lead to the formation of the Dial and the beginning of the war of independence. The Rising was at most a footnote in the run up to this.

The Rising was a major factor.

Wicknight wrote:

It is a complete myth that nothing was happening before the rising or that the rising caused a surge in the independence movement. It didn't. The independence movement was ticking along nicely, had been for the last 60 years. The Rising simply provided another propaganda campaign for them. So did conscription. So did Sinn Fein.

Of course the Rising was not the very start of it. Even if you call it a mistake by the british by executing the leaders - The rising DID inspire the Irish people to achieve independence.

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

I say again, the Republic was gained through completely peaceful means.

We removed ourselfs, stage by stage over nearly 20 years from the British Empire and established a Republic.

All of which could have been done from Home Rule. The war of independence got us pretty much the same as what were were going to get anyway with home rule, except of course we lost the North :rolleyes:

Of course you cannot prove that anything like an independent republic could have been achieved through Home Rule

And you also ignore the fact that Partition was actually introduced in the Third Home rule bill in 1914 that is before the rising and the WOI

Wicknight wrote:

The Republic came years later, didn't require the war of independence, and was achieved through dipolomatic and legal challanges (ie peaceful)

I suggest you read up on the history of this country.

I though the Rising => War of Independence => Republic version of history was only to be found in Sinn Fein pamplets :rolleyes:

And the institutions of the state that declared itself a republic in 1949 were established following the war of independence. And it was established by an act passed by the Dail not through legal challenges or diplomacy


Actually I believe the SF view would be the rising => republic => black and tan war in defense of the republic declared in 1916 and endorsed by the people in the election of the first Dail=> Sellout by the reactionary and business elements and the partition of the country => And that somehow the remnants of the second Dail that was never dissolved properly handed over the duty of defense of the republic in the 30's to the IRA which continues down to the PIRA or the CIRA or the RIRA depending on which group you believe is the genuine successor to the IRA but as you mention Sinn Fein that would be the PIRA.

Wicknight wrote:

No, the protestants demanded that the north stay in the UK because of things like the Rising and the WoI. Do you blame them?

Wrong Unionists had pledged to oppose Home Rule violently before 1916 or the WOI in fact they had set up the UVF and armed themselves in order to do so

Wicknight wrote:

Again, read a history book. The Rising was a disaster. The only positive aspects for the independence movment came out of the rather silly decision of the British Army to execute the ring leaders and blame Sinn Fein. This was then used by the supporters of the Rising to their propaganda advantage.

But as has been pointed out many time it was far more the threat of consription in 1918, and the fact that S.F ran a very successful campaign that year that lead to the formation of the Dial and the beginning of the war of independence. The Rising was at most a footnote in the run up to this.

Perhaps in your version of History but in reality the elections in 1918 took place in December that is after the end of the first world war and after the threat of conscription had subsided. Sinn Fein had won 3 bye elections in 1917 before the conscription bill was passed in april 1918 the IPP had opposed conscription as well as SF.
Also the execution of the leaders may have increased the sympathy as may have the British Armies actions during Easter week and the murder of innocent civilians but in truth the rising gave Irish people hope and a believe that we could win our independence.
Trying to separate the rising from the WOI and the first dail makes no sense read the democratic programme of the first Dail. Yes the rising was a military failure but what it did suceed in doing was convince people like Collins, Barry and O'Malley etc that guerilla tactics were the way to fight a superior numbered army. The tactics of holding buildings and letting the British shell you into surrender were thankfully dropped.

To argue that the Dail was founded just on opposition to conscription is nonsense it was a factor as was the rising and the aftermath of the rising and many other things

Wicknight wrote:

It is a complete myth that nothing was happening before the rising or that the rising caused a surge in the independence movement. It didn't. The independence movement was ticking along nicely, had been for the last 60 years. The Rising simply provided another propaganda campaign for them. So did conscription. So did Sinn Fein.

Longer than the last 60 years try the last 800


Odd that you keep advising the reading of history books perhaps it is advise you might follow yourself.

axer

Sand wrote:

Buy a history book then. The Republic of Ireland Act was introduced in April 1949, without a shot being fired.

Wow, you seem to forget about all that happened previous to that. Ireland had its own government after it was became a dominion. I don't think they were going to take on the british army in a "official" war.

Sand wrote:

The lack of murders or bloodshed was clearly a tragic oversight on the part of the politicians who brought about the Republic. If they had been real patriots they would have murdered some child to mark the event.

“A sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility.”

Sand wrote:

The rising and the war of independance brought about nothing noteworthy for Ireland that couldnt have been achieved by Home Rule and constitutional politics. The country was still partitioned. The British army was still garrisoned in the country. The British Monarch was still the head of State. Ireland was still a part of the British Empire/Commonwealth. And the Irish people and their representitives endorsed this deal (rejecting violence), which was hardly surprising given that they had endorsed Home Rule already.

what about the Anglo-Irish treaty?

Sand wrote:

All the rising led to was a bitter civil war that damaged Ireland economic infrastructure, drove an even deeper wedge between Irelands two traditions (ensuring the Catholic Taliban style culture that led to massive child abuse coverups and the removal of constitutional rights like divorce which offended Catholic churchmen), and laid the foundations and justification for decades of bloodshed, murder and terrorism.

So you believe the Rising caused child abuse? I think the unionist were hold a large wedge between them and Catholics well before the Rising.

Sand wrote:

The cost-benefit analysis doesnt add up. And any person truly interested in Irelands advancement would not view the harm done to Ireland by militant republicanism as being a price worth paying to get pretty much the same deal as was on the table already. Why would anyone who professes to love Ireland wish that sort of suffering on Ireland for no gain? Do we truly need enemies when we have such patriots?

I think it is nieve to think that Ireland would have been just granted home rule if we shouted loud enough.

Sand wrote:

I know though your eyes are glazing over at this point "West Brit, why dont you move to the UK, you should be worshipping the men who killed unarmed irish policemen, etc, etc". But Home Rule was on the books. It was going to happen - in fact it did happen. Some deal would have been swung with the North, probably partition as happened anyway, but Ireland could have swung concessions from the UK in exchange for accepting partition.

Its not much fun debating with someone who argues with themselves.

Sand wrote:

People will happily accept that 1916 led to further violence right up to the present day. Thats why its not an event to be praised in Irish history. They wont accept that the Free State (warmed over Home Rule) was unachievable without violence, seeing as it was on the books. How hard is that to understand?

What about the 80% of people as mention earlier that thought the easter rising was a positive event? and the 71% who believe Ireland "owes a debt to the leaders’’ of the rebellion. I guess you and a few others in the this thread are in the minority 20 odd percent.

jank

“A sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility.”

Yep, explains alot on this thread and forum in general.

Your wasting your time axer, these clever guys will never acknowledge that the fact that if the rising didnt happen we wouldnt be masters of our own destiny Home rule or not

Remember Home Rule in the form offered was not what was acheived when we got our own state and eventually our own head of state, all because of the rising.

Canada and Austrailia still have the queen as their head of state, would all ye so clever people like the queen as your head of state??(Answers on a postcard please)

Yes i know about the 1937 constitution but History is about what happened in the past and understanding how the future was influneced by these events.
I cant believe the niavity of people sometimes.
A sense of realism please!

sceptre

jank wrote:

Canada and Austrailia still have the queen as their head of state, would all ye so clever people like the queen as your head of state??(Answers on a postcard please)

I'm loath to pay the price of a stamp for this one. The Statute of Westminster has meant that the queen has been head of state of those two countries for the past 75 years essentially at their own behest. No-one else's. And that counted back when they were mere Dominions as opposed to independent states.

I'm not addressing the rest of the post because it's mere opinion backed up by opinion. I'm too lazy to read any of the earlier contributions from anyone, though I'm sure I've read most of it before in one form or another.