Easter Sunday/ 2006

lostexpectation

Bam Bam wrote:

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

I want mock executions for the army to commemorate and I'll spit at anybody I hear with a Brit accent

Zombrex

axer wrote:

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.

No actually it didn't. The legal structures and precedence that allowd us to leave the UK, leave the Common wealth and eventually form the republic started from the Home Rule movement, and the changes made to the British system inspired by the Home Rule movement. The Anglo-Irish treaty only got us what we were going to get anyway.

axer wrote:

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

Probably because of the Rising. Would any British government be seen to so obviously give into terrorism and rebelion.

axer wrote:

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

And?

axer wrote:

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

Of course they did. But they weren't taken as serously in England until we started blowiing up post offices and shooting RIC members.

axer wrote:

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.

Actually they did, at least at the start. They believed Britian would not shell the city or risk a street battle to take it back, and be forced to lay siege. That would give them time to route forces from the rest of the country. Then the British would be forced to give up Dublin. Without Dublin they would have little power in the rest of the country. Its a moronic plan for sure, but then they whole idea was moronic.

axer wrote:

The Rising was a major factor.

Not really. The propaganda it generated was very successful used, but then that is down to the 1918 election campaign more than anything else.

axer wrote:

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.

No the harsh treatment of the prisions inspired some people to vote Sinn Fein in the 1918 election. There is a huge leap from that to say that the Rising itself inspired the people of Ireland to independence.

The people of Ireland were already inspired to achieve independence, they had been for the last 60 years, except most were doing it politically and peacefully.

Zombrex

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)

That is because they choose to. :rolleyes:

Flex

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.

They wernt 'pro-Irish' at all. They came back to power in 1906 with a strong enough majority that they didnt need IPP votes so they ignored Home Rule and basically maintained the Conservatives policy of 'killing Home Rule'. The parliament act they passed that removed the Lords veto also had nothing to do with Ireland. Lloyd George needed to pass a tax to maintain the increased spending Britain was doing on its navy (because at that point Germany was building up its navy), so he passed an act to have a tax put on people earning over £5000 a year and taxes on luxury items like tobacco. Needless to say the Lords, being full of upper class folk who would get hit by this tax, rejected it, so the Liberals passed the act to remove the veto. After an election in 1910 or 1911 they needed IPP votes, so agreed to a Home Rule bill.

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.

Prior to the rising Unionists had threatened an all out civil war to prevent the creation of a pathethic Home Rule parliament with ****-all powers. Hatred was already there. Plus they had the complete support from the Conservative party, sure they were only threatening to murder Irish Catholics so why not support them :rolleyes:

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.

True, but we were more democratic than the British, for example, from the outset of the states birth men AND women were given universal sufferage, something that didnt happen in Britain until 1928. There were good aspects to the Irish state, aswel as bad.

Flex

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.

Do you know how much power the HR parliament wouldve had?

The country was still partitioned.

Under the Home Rule act of 1920......

The British army was still garrisoned in the country.

Big difference between 3 ports and the entire country.

The British Monarch was still the head of State.

True. We did however get a concession with regards the Governor General whom represented the British monarch. In every other Dominion the Governor General was a British nobleman, in Ireland we insisted he must be an ordinary Irishman.

Ireland was still a part of the British Empire/Commonwealth.

But not part of the British state, once again, not ideal but big difference. We now had freedom to achieve freedom and could be proud of the fact we had fought for it rather than asked and waited for it.

And the Irish people and their representitives endorsed this deal (rejecting violence), which was hardly surprising given that they had endorsed Home Rule already.

This deal that was brought about by the WoI which the people supported the IRA during, you mean? They had been offered a Home Rule parliament in May of 1920 IIRC, out of which 124 of the 128 people elected were Sinn Feiners. As for endorsing Home Rule, at that point most people believed Ireland would never be a free country, so the most they could hope for was some meagre form of freedom within the UK, ie Home Rule. And people didnt really have a choice at that point, it was either Home Rule or Irish Unionist Party.

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.

Oh yeah, thats all it led to, child mollestation by Catholic priests :rolleyes:

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?

Do you know the difference between the power a HR parliament wouldve had and the power a dominion had? A dominion could raise its own army, have its own national flag, control its foreign affairs, join the league of nations, complete control over finances.....; What could a Home Rule parliament do? emmmm....... oh! levy stamp duties!, but then again so could a dominion.

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.

You know partition was PART of the Home Rule act, right?

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

You dont see a difference between fighting for ones freedom or simply waiting until those who took it from you are willing to give it back to you?

a much better position to prevent the Troubles ever occurring.

Then again the Troubles wouldnt have happened if Unionists had just accepted a united Ireland from day 1

People will happily accept that 1916 led to further violence right up to the present day.

If youre referring to the Troubles, that was actually caused by the Unionist governments treatment of the Catholic minority in the north from the outset of the northern provence.

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?

As I already stated, dominion status was FAR more than Home Rule. Referring to it as 'warmed over Home Rule' is stupid. its like comparing a piece of muck to a piece of gold.

Flex

Wicknight wrote:

That is because they choose to. :rolleyes:

But only because th British permit them to choose so.

rsynnott

Flex wrote:

But only because th British permit them to choose so.

I don't follow. What, precisely, do you think Britain would do if Australia, say, voted to loose the queen? (They have had votes on that issue before). Do you honestly see Britain invading Australia? Do you think Britain is, in this day and age, capable of invading Australia?

murphaph

A number of our republican friends have made points that roughky translate to "the rising made independence possible, violence had to be used etc.". But look at all the other dominions commonwealth realms that secured independence through largely peaceful means. In fct, the vast vast majority of former empire/commonwealth countries became sovereign states without a shot being fired. The rising wasn't required to achieve independence fellas. We could always have just stayed in the union, it wouldn't have been any worse (and in my view would have been a lot better) than the years of catholic oppression. I had an uncle stillborn in the forties and because he hadn't received the sacrament of baptism he didn't exist to those ba$tards and so he ended up buried in a hospital plot instead of in a cemetery, fcuking shower of cnuts the lot of 'em. That's what our so-called freedom was all about. I'd have rathered London rule than the Rome Rule we ended up with and I was baptised RC and made my confirmation like most of us here.

Sand

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

Australia and Canada (for starters) disagree. Violence won nothing we wouldnt have achieved anyway. And its truly naive to think otherwise.

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

Hey, Provos tend to dismiss everyone else as West Brit traitors. A sign of their security and the strenth of their arguments I guess.

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.

A fair chunk of Serbians wept for Milosevic and hailed him as a great defender of the serbs against the evil west and the murderous Croats, Bosnians and Kosovars. I know it sounds nuts to us, because we can look at it objectively and see the Balkan conflicts as being unnecessary and bitter. But for them theyre wrapped up in hysterically insecure nationalism and view the Serbs activities in those wars as something heroic, neccessary and to be praised.

I guess people can be blinded by nationalist urges, cant they Axer?

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)

Australians do. Provos with weak hearts should sit themselves down before I continue, but Australia had a referendum recently on whether to declare a Republic or retain the Queen as head of state. The Queen is still head of state. As for Canada Im not sure it has ever been an issue. As I understand it British Armed Forces werent put on stand by to invade Australia if they declared a Republic. Perhaps this implies that a country can remove the Queen as head of state without a bloodbath?

Do I get a prize?

A sense of realism please!

I only have the one and Im using it, but Ill let you know if I see a spare one floating about.

True. We did however get a concession with regards the Governor General whom represented the British monarch. In every other Dominion the Governor General was a British nobleman, in Ireland we insisted he must be an ordinary Irishman.

Meet the representitive of the Queen in Canada. She doesnt appear to be a British nobleman. Wow, and they managed to swing that deal without murdering anyone...

But not part of the British state, once again, not ideal but big difference. We now had freedom to achieve freedom and could be proud of the fact we had fought for it rather than asked and waited for it.

Just a stepping stone, just a stepping stone. But it was worth murdering all those people rather than waiting a few more years to achieve the same level of independance. Oh right, because it would have been *impossible*. It could *never* have worked. You know, thats the exact same arguments the opponents of the Treaty used. And we have a fully independant Republic, proving them wrong.

Ill come back to the last part of your post later.

You dont see a difference between fighting for ones freedom or simply waiting until those who took it from you are willing to give it back to you?

This is what it comes down to. Pearse was a proto-fascist, with a warped view of nationalism. Independance was worthless in his eyes unless it was accompanied by death and suffering. He would never regard constitutional politics as a suitable tool to achieve independance. Even if the exact same rights were won by constitutional politics as were won by violence, he would regard independance won by peaceful means as diminished. 1916 was calculated to destroy and undermine constitutional politics in Ireland. In this it almost succeeded.

This is the same argument we see repackaged and repeated today. The Rising is justified as neccessary, but its blatantly obvious it wasnt. Canada, Australia and other parts of the Commonwealth/Empire seceded peacefully, with some exceptions. Even if Britain wanted to stop them, it couldnt. The two World Wars shattered its hegemony, and it suddenly found itself following the USAs lead.

So then we get down to the real reason why Provos love 1916. The old fascist wet dreams about nationalism, violence and tribalism > boring old consensus politics.

Diorraing

murphaph wrote:

A number of our republican friends have made points that roughky translate to "the rising made independence possible, violence had to be used etc.". But look at all the other dominions commonwealth realms that secured independence through largely peaceful means. In fct, the vast vast majority of former empire/commonwealth countries became sovereign states without a shot being fired. The rising wasn't required to achieve independence fellas. We could always have just stayed in the union, it wouldn't have been any worse (and in my view would have been a lot better) than the years of catholic oppression. I had an uncle stillborn in the forties and because he hadn't received the sacrament of baptism he didn't exist to those ba$tards and so he ended up buried in a hospital plot instead of in a cemetery, fcuking shower of cnuts the lot of 'em. That's what our so-called freedom was all about. I'd have rathered London rule than the Rome Rule we ended up with and I was baptised RC and made my confirmation like most of us here.

Utter nonsense, comparing us to the other countries that got their independance peacefully. To generalise like that is foolish. Ireland was much much closer than any other countries of the British empire. Ireland was planted a few times by people from Britain. Ireland was making Britain a lot of money in terms of providing a cheap labour force and in terms of the agriculture. Most importantly, IRELAND WAS A MEMBER OF THE UNION!!! So you're analogy is absurd.
Anyways in 1916, no other country in the British Empire had achieved freedom through any means other than violent. The 1916 rising inspired India and others to pursue freedom.

Hagar

Diorraing wrote:

Anyways in 1916, no other country in the British Empire had achieved freedom through any means other than violent.

No country had ever broken away from the Empire full stop.
Ireland rose against the biggest Empire the world had ever seen.

To misquote Churchill "It wasn't the end of the beginning, it was the beginning of the end"

Victor

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.

We got our own head of state because the British couldn't deal with thier king marrying a non-virgin.

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)

Didn't Australia vote only a few years ago to not become a republic?

And does Mary really have much more influence than Liz or Pete?

murphaph

Diorraing wrote:

Utter nonsense, comparing us to the other countries that got their independance peacefully.

Because it doesn't fit in with your neat and tidy "rising good, brits bad" philosophy no doubt!

Diorraing wrote:

To generalise like that is foolish.

It wasn't a generalisation at all, it was a specific comparsion.

Diorraing wrote:

Ireland was much much closer than any other countries of the British empire. Ireland was planted a few times by people from Britain. Ireland was making Britain a lot of money in terms of providing a cheap labour force and in terms of the agriculture. Most importantly, IRELAND WAS A MEMBER OF THE UNION!!! So you're analogy is absurd.

Ah, right, you see when I pointed this out to another poster and compared it to Mayo wanting independence from the rest of us should they find vast quantities of oil in the Corrib field and I was told I was being absurd in making that comparison, yet here you are telling me we were part of the union, which of course we were. Ireland provided very little to the UK in comparison to Australia (Bauxite, Gold, Coal, Iron Ore etc.), South Africa (Oil, Gold, Gemstones, Coal), India (Tea) and Canada (Timber, Ores). Ireland had and has SFA by way of natural resources. These countries were far more valuable to the empire than us, yet they simply left the empire and became sovereign without incident.

Diorraing wrote:

Anyways in 1916, no other country in the British Empire had achieved freedom through any means other than violent. The 1916 rising inspired India and others to pursue freedom.

Ah, right, so that makes it alright so does it? Suicide bombers inspire other suicide bombers but it's interesting that you mention India, didn't they achieve their independence through largely peaceful means by simply not cooperating with british administration in their country? Bad comparison methinks.

jank

We got our own head of state because the British couldn't deal with thier king marrying a non-virgin

I know, hence my comment on the 1937 constitution.

Its interesting that the US had the have a revolution to get their indepdance ie through violent means, nothing is said about it yet becuase we did we are nothing more then thugs!?

I think people are arguing for arguments sake

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

The 1916 rising inspired India and others to pursue freedom.

Doubtful, I would find it hard to believe anyone took the disaster of the Rising as something to aspire to. Unless they were idiots. Maybe the Buddist monks who set themselves on fire outside of the US embassy in Vietnam :rolleyes:

Diorraing

murphaph wrote:

Ah, right, you see when I pointed this out to another poster and compared it to Mayo wanting independence from the rest of us should they find vast quantities of oil in the Corrib field and I was told I was being absurd in making that comparison, yet here you are telling me we were part of the union, which of course we were.

God, drawing analogies isn't really your forte is it Murphaph? The reason Mayo is different is because they have no legitimate claim for freedom. They were never occupied by any country, they have no history of ever seeking independance. They are the same race as us also. Ireland on the otherhand, was unwillingly dragged into a Union from which it constantly tried to disestablish itself but to no avail (because the Uk was UNDEMOCRATRIC)

Ireland provided very little to the UK in comparison to Australia (Bauxite, Gold, Coal, Iron Ore etc.), South Africa (Oil, Gold, Gemstones, Coal), India (Tea) and Canada (Timber, Ores). Ireland had and has SFA by way of natural resources. These countries were far more valuable to the empire than us, yet they simply left the empire and became sovereign without incident.

Wrong, because the cost of running British administration so far overseas was enormous. Shipping and all that. Ireland was handy to have as a supplier of goods, being only a few miles across the sea. Anyway, if Ireland was of little use to the Brits why were they so reluctant to grant us our independance?

Ah, right, so that makes it alright so does it? Suicide bombers inspire other suicide bombers but it's interesting that you mention India, didn't they achieve their independence through largely peaceful means by simply not cooperating with british administration in their country? Bad comparison methinks.

Firstly, there was no comparison. I merely stated that Ireland inspired India to pursue freedom. Fortunately, peaceful means succeeded in India. It didn't in Ireland as the 50 years in pursuit of Home Rule shows. Also I explained why Britain was more eager to hold onto Ireland than India.

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

God, drawing analogies isn't really your forte is it Murphaph? The reason Mayo is different is because they have no legitimate claim for freedom.

Funny, thats what the English said about Ireland for 800 years.

The point is if the people of Mayo wanted independence from the rest of Ireland and the rest of Ireland didn't want them to do you think they would get it? Doubtful.

And the "irish" are not a race, any more then Mayo people are a race apart from the rest of the country.

Diorraing wrote:

Fortunately, peaceful means succeeded in India. It didn't in Ireland as the 50 years in pursuit of Home Rule shows. Also I explained why Britain was more eager to hold onto Ireland than India.

Actually it did, as Home Rule was proving.

It just didn't come quickly enough for some republicans who just really wanted to blow sh(t up and kill British Army members.

Gandi encountered exactly the same problems with the more violent members of the India campaign, but fortunately for India he was able to control them and not let them take over the movement. Unfortunately as our history shows, the people of Ireland were not so lucky.

Victor

Unfortunately for Gandhi .....

Zombrex

Victor wrote:

Unfortunately for Gandhi .....

Good point ... suppose India and especially Ireland show that the more impatiant, violent aspects of human nature tend to eventually win out in the end, despite the efforts to keep them controlled

Victor

Wicknight wrote:

Good point ... suppose India and especially Ireland show that the more impatiant, violent aspects of human nature tend to eventually win out in the end, despite the efforts to keep them controlled

No, they don't win, they merely spoil it for the rest of us. In Ireland and India and everywhere else, it is the nation building in peacetime that has improved the lives of the ordinary people, not the violence.

nuttz

I think a distinction should be made between the commemoration/ celebration of the foundation of this state and republicanism politics. It should be possible to celebrate the foundation of the state (similar to the US, 4th July) without being associated with a particular party/belief?

Past British colonisation has been the topic in recent posts, I think you have moved off topic from the original post.

lostexpectation

alot of people have been making this point about catholic repression following the rising ... war of independence, but I mean would this have not happened anyway?

netwhizkid

lostexpectation wrote:

alot of people have been making this point about catholic repression following the rising ... war of independence, but I mean would this have not happened anyway?

I agree lostexpectation the church (Catholic) had a lot of influence in Irish politics after our Independence and it has happened in other countries too. When many Islamic countries got their Independence they have imposed Religious rule, like the Taliban did in Afghanistan after Russian Withdrawal. The Catholic church was almost guaranteed influence as they unwittingly were involved as many people just saw it as a war between Catholics & Protestants, and not really Irish V British.

Regarding the Celebrations on Easter Sunday, I think it is great as I have never seen celebrations of this kind in my lifetime that I can recall/remember. Whatever may be perceived by some commentators as ulterior motives behind it. I actually plan to fly the tri-colour in my lawn on that day. I feel proud of it and if it catches on, Who knows but it could become a kind of Irish - 4th of July type of occasion!

Freelancer

lostexpectation wrote:

alot of people have been making this point about catholic repression following the rising ... war of independence, but I mean would this have not happened anyway?

I think Axer was trying to blame our dour catholic lead society is the fault of the unionists for not coming with us. Which is possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard said about this mess. As if we'd have been a more relaxed and liberal society if we'd had the influence of a bunch of dour strict devout protestants and presbyterians among us. :rolleyes:

Its not like they do the congo line when the orange lodges get together. There were protests when gay marriage was introduced this year, and its the only place in the UK you cannot get an abortion.

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

alot of people have been making this point about catholic repression following the rising ... war of independence, but I mean would this have not happened anyway?

Possibly, but the point was things didn't get suddenly wonderful for everyone because of independence, and those at the for front of the independence movement in were the ones that allowed for this catholic stronghold when they eventually got into power.

Civil and liberal reform took place in England a lot faster throughout the 20ths century than it did in Ireland

Diorraing

If the people were so pissed off about the catholic ethos the country possessed its a surprise that there was literally no significant movement against it. Clearly, life in a catholic independant Ireland was better than life under the Union.

Flex

rsynnott wrote:

I don't follow. What, precisely, do you think Britain would do if Australia, say, voted to loose the queen? (They have had votes on that issue before). Do you honestly see Britain invading Australia? Do you think Britain is, in this day and age, capable of invading Australia?

They are able to decide whether or not to have the Queen as their representative because Britain has allowed them to choose so. I thought the point was fairly straight forward.

Flex

Sand wrote:

Australians do. Provos with weak hearts should sit themselves down before I continue, but Australia had a referendum recently on whether to declare a Republic or retain the Queen as head of state. The Queen is still head of state. As for Canada Im not sure it has ever been an issue. As I understand it British Armed Forces werent put on stand by to invade Australia if they declared a Republic. Perhaps this implies that a country can remove the Queen as head of state without a bloodbath?

Yea, back a decade or so ago. When we voted for a Republic back in December of 1918 the response we got was the Black and Tans and a War of Independence that lasted from January 1919 til December 1920 until the British finally accepted we werent going to give in to brute force this time.

Meet the representitive of the Queen in Canada. She doesnt appear to be a British nobleman. Wow, and they managed to swing that deal without murdering anyone...

Im referring to the 1920's, not the present day. At the point we became a Dominion it was customary that every Governor General be a British nobleman, we insisted ours must be an ordinary Irishman.

Just a stepping stone, just a stepping stone. But it was worth murdering all those people rather than waiting a few more years to achieve the same level of independance. Oh right, because it would have been *impossible*. It could *never* have worked. You know, thats the exact same arguments the opponents of the Treaty used. And we have a fully independant Republic, proving them wrong.

I do agree with the concensus of people that after WW2, around the 50's or 60's we could have gotten freedom we have now, HOWEVER, I see a major difference in fighting for our freedom and for what is rightfully ours, and simply waiting until those who took it from us are willing to give it back. By that point we could have become free because Britain would have permitted us to do so.

1916 was calculated to destroy and undermine constitutional politics in Ireland.

No it wasnt. It was intended to inspire the country to rise up and fight to win back our independence, a free Ireland, in the form of a republic aswel. Unless it was some sort of fascist dictatorship style republic they were planning, judging by the proclomation however, it sounds like they were planning a democratic country where the people would have control over Ireland.

In this it almost succeeded.

Yes, 'twas unfortunate they didnt succeed in doing the above in 1916 ^ We had to wait until December of 1921 until their actions finally culminated in Ireland having democracy and self determination.

This is the same argument we see repackaged and repeated today. The Rising is justified as neccessary, but its blatantly obvious it wasnt. Canada, Australia and other parts of the Commonwealth/Empire seceded peacefully, with some exceptions. Even if Britain wanted to stop them, it couldnt. The two World Wars shattered its hegemony, and it suddenly found itself following the USAs lead.

Firstly, Canada and Australia were Dominions who saw Britain as their ancestoral motherland. They didnt have the same history with Britain that Ireland did. Secondly, Ireland was part of the British state, we didnt have the freedom Canada and Australia enjoyed. Like I said, I dont doubt that after WW2 in the 60's or so we couldve left because Britain wouldve permitted us, but who knew there would be a WW2? The first world war was billed as the Great War, and "the war to end all wars". People believed there would never be another war on that scale again. Also, Im proud that we fought and resisted and werent subdued.

So then we get down to the real reason why Provos love 1916. The old fascist wet dreams about nationalism, violence and tribalism > boring old consensus politics.

Hey, West Brits tend to dismiss everyone else as Provos or fascists. A sign of their security and the strenth of their arguments I guess.

rsynnott

Diorraing wrote:

If the people were so pissed off about the catholic ethos the country possessed its a surprise that there was literally no significant movement against it. Clearly, life in a catholic independant Ireland was better than life under the Union.

Would you count the women coming on the train from Belfast with contraceptives? The gay civil rights movement? The vast majority who voted to remove the Catholic church's special position in the 70s?

And life may have been better, assuming one wasn't a woman, gay, an illegitimate child, desirous of speech without censorship, having sex, and so on.

lostexpectation

rsynnott wrote:

Would you count the women coming on the train from Belfast with contraceptives? The gay civil rights movement? The vast majority who voted to remove the Catholic church's special position in the 70s?

And life may have been better, assuming one wasn't a woman, gay, an illegitimate child, desirous of speech without censorship, having sex, and so on.

i think he was talking of 1916 and after... (up to the seventies)

I do think the risers increased the catholic repression but i think any event that might have occured at the time or little later would have resulted in catholic hegemony at the time to a degree that wouldn't have changed much.