Easter Sunday/ 2006

Sand

But canada and austrailia are free to declare their independence at any time they like. india did it.

[Pedantic] They are independant, they simply choose to retain the British Monarch - or more directly their representitive - as the head of state. They also choose to remain in the Commonwealth, which is just a talking shop anyway but they feel it, along with the British monarchy, is part of their heritage/history[/Pedantic]

No, youve misunderstood. Id never say that the Catholic Church hadnt excessive influence in Ireland, however it wasnt the fault of the constitution, it was the 'fault' of the Irish people.

More directly it was the fault of the 1916/WoI establishment who actively collaborated with the Catholic Church and invited their input on policy, in a relationship which was balanced against the elected representitives of Ireland.

While the Catholic Church was always powerful force in Ireland, power being concentrated in a Dublin government dominated by die hard Catholics, who had little understanding of the double edged sword of liberal government ( still a problem today with parity of esteem, Northern style (you'd better respect my traditions, but I wont respect yours), only led to an amplification of that power to an extremely unhealthy degree. Hence the removal of measures like divorce, which was motivated by Catholic religious beliefs as opposed to the civil right to disolve a disastrous marraige.

Zombrex

magick wrote:

em a LOT of ppl got killed by the siging of that Document because that Document was a symbol of Americas resolve to free herself from the British Empire, and rightly so.

As I said, no one got killed at the signing of the declaration.

I've no problem if people want to celebrate the first Dail, or the signing of the Anglo-Irish treaty.

I have a problem that people want to celebrate an the day of an act of barbaric violence that achieved nothing except the deaths of innocent people

Zombrex

Akrasia wrote:

you think that the only fighting in the U.S. war of independence was in 'fields somewhere'? There were dirty tactics in that war, and in the U.S. civil war, there were massacres and savagery on both sides.

And do the Americans have a day to celebrate these massacres and savagery? Do they hold a military paraide to celebrate on the day they droped the bomb? Do they hold a parade to celebrate the days the carpet bombed Vietnam? No, they fecking don't.

They choose to celebrate the day the idea of freedom written down and signed by a group of men in a room. No one got shot, no one got massacred, on that day afaik. They are not celebrating violence when they celebtrate the 4th of July, they are celebrating the idea of freedom.

When we celebrate the Easter Rising we are celebrating an act of violence, pure and simple.

Why is Ireland the only country in the western world who thinks it is a good idea to celebrate a specific day of violence and death when choosing to celebrate their freedom?

mloc

i think the valid point is while 1916 might have been neccessarily, it was definately a neccessarily evil and as such such not be celebrated. If something must be celebrated, celebrate the birth of the irish nation a few years later.

Diorraing

Cillian1973 wrote:

What do you mean by a greater good?. We are living in a democratic land with civil liberties.You can hardly compare those who died in 1916 to Nelson Mandela's plight. Firstly, Nelson Mandela never advocated violence. Secondly, he was struggling for the rights of a race whereas we were fighting for a culture BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!

Mandela never advocated violence? Why was he a member of the ANC then? I'd advise reading up about South Africa.
In 1916 we were fighting for rights. THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM!!!!!!!! and for democracy, which didn't exist in Ireland at the time

Pazaz 21

The Easter Rising is where we stood up and said "We are a soverign nation and should be treated like one", it's when we stood up and said we are sick and tired of being treated like second class citizens, if citizens at all, in our own country.

And another thing, how would we have achieved democracy and a free state if not with violence ? I am totally against violence, but as others have said, it was a necessary evil at the time.

I feel conflicted as in this day and age i am totally against violence and feel that a solution to most problems can be solved through negotiation. But back then, with the British Empire at its hight of power with no-one to back us up in negotiations, america, or a european coalition, UN security council etc, there was not much of a choice.

P.S. Sorry if i sound like a hippocriate, i'm trying hard not to :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

In 1916 we were fighting for rights. THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM!!!!!!!! and for democracy, which didn't exist in Ireland at the time

So are Hamas who think blowing up children is a good way to force Israel to give them what they want.

Just because you are fighting for the RIGHT TO FREEDOM (OH MY GOD! :eek: ) does give you carte blanche to carry out any act of violence you want.

Zombrex

Pazaz 21 wrote:

The Easter Rising is where we stood up and said "We are a soverign nation and should be treated like one", it's when we stood up and said we are sick and tired of being treated like second class citizens, if citizens at all, in our own country.

Read a history book. "We" had been saying that for years before the 1916 Rising.

God, seriously why does everything seem to think the Rising started anything? I find it ironic that the most "patriotic" seem to know least about the history of this country.

Everything that happened after the Rising had been started before the Rising. The Rising achieved nothing new.

Pazaz 21

Wicknight wrote:

Everything that happened after the Rising had been started before the Rising. The Rising achieved nothing new.

If it achieved nothing then why does every body remember it, i'll tell you why, it's the kick up the Ar*e the irish people needed to get motivated to do something. It showed people that it was possible to unite and to stand up to the british, i know it wasn't that successfull militarily, but it was successfull in promoting Irish pariotism and giving people hope to carry on the fight.

I don't need to know every shred of Irish history to know it was an important act in our history. And why shouldn't it be celebrated ?

As for your Suicide Bomber/Easter rising comparisions, when did irish soldiers blow up children, or target restaurants etc.

(Don't even attempt to feed me some IRA bollix)

dathi1

Why is Ireland the only country in the western world who thinks it is a good idea to celebrate a specific day of violence and death when choosing to celebrate their freedom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille_Day

Zombrex

Pazaz 21 wrote:

If it achieved nothing then why does every body remember it

Yeah, thats great logic :rolleyes:

Everyone "remembers" it because it has been used for republican propaganda since right after the Rising, propaganda that was used to write the offical history of this state for years afterwards.

Pazaz 21 wrote:

i'll tell you why, it's the kick up the Ar*e the irish people needed to get motivated to do something.

Er, the irish people had been doing something for a long time before the Rising. The IRB, Parnell, Home Rule, Sinn Fein, Griffith etc etc were all around long before the Rising.

Pazaz 21 wrote:

It showed people that it was possible to unite and to stand up to the british,

Actually it showed the exact opposite, which is why the military tactics of the republicans changed significantly after the Rising.

Pazaz 21 wrote:

And why shouldn't it be celebrated?

Because it was a pointless and moronic act of violence and stupidity that lead to the needless death of hundreds of people. Just because it was done for a worthy cause doesn't change that fact.

Pazaz 21 wrote:

As for your Suicide Bomber/Easter rising comparisions, when did irish soldiers blow up children, or target restaurants etc.

Restaurants??? They targeted the entire city centre of Dublin FFS...

During the Rising offically 220 civilians were killed and 600 wounded. The actual death toll amount civilians is probably a lot higher.

The members of the Rising started a large scale rebelion in the most densely populated urban centre in Ireland. The, incredably naively, believed the British wouldn't mount a large scale retaliation to take back the city. Boy where they wrong, and because of there stupid little war hundred lot their lives and nothing was achieved.

flogen

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1750159,00.html

Pretty rediculous comment piece in the Observer on the march next week... I'm not saying that the argument against the Rising is wrong, but to assume that it was a rising against a real democracy is extremely ignorant... Can anyone possibly assume that a referendum in 1916 (pre-rising) on Irish independence would have come out in any way other than for rather than against?

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille_Day

Maybe you should read the wikipedia article before you post it :rolleyes:

"Bastille Day" (as the English incorrectly call 14 July French holiday) does not celebrate the storming of the Bastille, it celebrates Fete de la Federation in 1790 and formation of the constitutional monarch, that took place exactly one year after the storming of the Bastille in 1789.

As far as I know no one got stabbed shot or hacked to death or otherwise violently attacked on the 14th July 1790.

So again we have another country in the west that decided to celebrate the independence of their country by marking a day no one got killed. Funny that.

ateam

To be a patriot doesn't mean killing people, so people who kill aren't patriots.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

The, incredably naively, believed the British would mount a large scale retaliation to take back the city. Boy where they wrong

Mr. History Expert, the British did shell the GPO and surroundings didn't they?

Now if something like that were to occur in modern day Palestine I'd just bet you'd say the Israelis were damn right to drop a big load of shells on the heads of the terrorist scum and never mind the bit of "collateral damage" which might occur?

Well, wouldn't you?

Threads merged

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Mr. History Expert, the British did shell the GPO and surroundings didn't they?

Well spotted sparky ... that should of course be -

"They, incredably naively, believed the British wouldn't mount a large scale retaliation to take back the city"

fly_agaric wrote:

Well, wouldn't you?

No, I think it would be very stupid and irresponsible (not to mention barbaric) to shell a densely populated urban centre. Have you been following any of my posts ...

Sand

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comme...750159,00.html

Pretty rediculous comment piece in the Observer on the march next week... I'm not saying that the argument against the Rising is wrong, but to assume that it was a rising against a real democracy is extremely ignorant... Can anyone possibly assume that a referendum in 1916 (pre-rising) on Irish independence would have come out in any way other than for rather than against?

It was a rising led by men who praised violence, denigrated constitutional politics (they *never* stood for election, *never* sought public approval, and they were desperate to sabotage constitutional nationalism) and were clearly proto-fascists. The Germans had Aryan man, DeValera &Co had Arran man. The article makes the very valid point that when people draw international links to the rising they run scared from Pearse rantings and the tide of ultra nationalism and "blood sacrifice" that was sweeping the continent. Even to this day there are posters on this very thread who feel violence was the only acceptable way to achieve independance, and independance is lessened unless someone was murdered for it.

flogen

Sand wrote:

It was a rising led by men who praised violence, denigrated constitutional politics (they *never* stood for election, *never* sought public approval, and they were desperate to sabotage constitutional nationalism) and were clearly proto-fascists. The Germans had Aryan man, DeValera &Co had Arran man. The article makes the very valid point that when people draw international links to the rising they run scared from Pearse rantings and the tide of ultra nationalism and "blood sacrifice" that was sweeping the continent. Even to this day there are posters on this very thread who feel violence was the only acceptable way to achieve independance, and independance is lessened unless someone was murdered for it.

Regardless of the undemocratic means in which the rebels wished to achieve their goals it's ignorant to claim that Great Britain and Ireland circa 1916 was a democracy. It may have been for England, but it wasn't for Ireland.
I don't believe that violence was the only acceptable way to achieve independance but at the same time I struggle to imagine that real independance would have come about through politics alone (As one commenter points out, years of politics long before 1916 got Ireland no closer to freedom).
Comparisons with the "ultra-nationalism" of Europe are flawed too; some in mainland Europe fought each other for their ideals of nationalism, Ireland fought a foreigner for a nation to start with.
I'm not sure how they were obviously proto-fascists, but that's neither here nor there; my point about the article is that it seems to paint Great Britain and Ireland as a utopia of free choice, one that was crushed by a small group of people who somehow convinced Irish people that they wanted out of Britain and not through debate.

jank

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1750159,00.html

Good Article that....for exactly proving a point that the rising or something like it was going to happen sooner or later, when people like Geoffrey Wheatcroft was running our country from London.

Alot of the comments after the article are very insightfull too.

The rising happened, so lets get over it shall we. Anyway most people are too busy caring about this stuff because of the wealth of the country.Look at the economies of NI, Wales and Scotland. They may be ticking over but nothing likes our at the moment. Do you think that if Home Rule was initiated that we would be masters of our own destiny now?

Scotland has been rebelling for 100's of years. They may have their own type of devulution now but London still calls the shots.

SeanW

Wicknight wrote:

Maybe you should read the wikipedia article before you post it :rolleyes:

"Bastille Day" (as the English incorrectly call 14 July French holiday) does not celebrate the storming of the Bastille, it celebrates Fete de la Federation in 1790 and formation of the constitutional monarch, that took place exactly one year after the storming of the Bastille in 1789.

As far as I know no one got stabbed shot or hacked to death or otherwise violently attacked on the 14th July 1790.

So again we have another country in the west that decided to celebrate the independence of their country by marking a day no one got killed. Funny that.

You're picking over semantics.

First of all, Ireland's national holiday is St. Patricks Day which has nothing to do with any of it.

The American's called for war with the British when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Did they think the Brits were just going to feck off back to England and wish the new Congress "Good Luck?" No of course not.

And again the Bastille day thing - the events being celebrated were in themselves the prize/result of the events of the preceeding year.

Same here in Ireland, we wouldn't have a nation to celebrate today if some rebels hadn't taken matters into their own hands.

It's not our national holiday like July 4th is to the US so there is no point in discusssing it on similar terms TBH but Easter Sunday 1916 is one of the first days that Irish people (albeit a small number) dared to stand up against the tyranny of the day, and they are worthy of our respect for that IMO. They certainly have my respect.

If you want to talk about backward, how about all the loyalists with their orange get-up? They march all the time in summer AFAIK. William Of Orange, their hero, wasn't exactly a choirboy, if my memory serves me correct.

Zombrex

SeanW wrote:

You're picking over semantics.

No I'm picking over the difference between something grand and something distastfull and insulting

SeanW wrote:

The American's called for war with the British when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Did they think the Brits were just going to feck off back to England and wish the new Congress "Good Luck?" No of course not.

And again the Bastille day thing - the events being celebrated were in themselves the prize/result of the events of the preceeding year.

And again, NONE OF THEM WERE CELEBRATING VIOLENCE ....

Even if you think the Rising was an necessary evil (which it wasn't) there is no reason to celebrate it. Why would we want to celebrate the deaths of 220 innocent people?

SeanW wrote:

Same here in Ireland, we wouldn't have a nation to celebrate today if some rebels hadn't taken matters into their own hands.

Yes, actually we probably would.

SeanW wrote:

TBH but Easter Sunday 1916 is one of the first days that Irish people (albeit a small number) dared to stand up against the tyranny of the day

No its not. Seriously what history book have you all been reading. Do you know anything about the republican movement in the late 19th century?

SeanW wrote:

If you want to talk about backward, how about all the loyalists with their orange get-up? They march all the time in summer AFAIK. William Of Orange, their hero, wasn't exactly a choirboy, if my memory serves me correct.

Yeah and I don't exactly want to celebrate that either ...

Zombrex

flogen wrote:

Regardless of the undemocratic means in which the rebels wished to achieve their goals it's ignorant to claim that Great Britain and Ireland circa 1916 was a democracy. It may have been for England, but it wasn't for Ireland.

Well technically it was exactly that same. An Irish male had the same vote as an English, Scotish or Welsh male.

The problem was Ireland was too small a percentage of the overall UK vote to properly effect change in Ireland itself if these went against the rest of the UK, in the same way that Kerry can't have a different outcome in something like the abortion referendum even if everyone in Kerry votes different from the rest of Ireland.

So it was all a quite modern democracy. The problem was the border that drew up this democracy.

jank

So it was all a quite modern democracy.

Tell me, would you rather be part of the Union still?

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Well spotted sparky ... that should of course be -

"They, incredably naively, believed the British wouldn't mount a large scale retaliation to take back the city"

Why thank you. I'm quite flattered to serve as the proofreader for the stuff you post for the betterment of mankind!

Wicknight wrote:

No, I think it would be very stupid and irresponsible (not to mention barbaric) to shell a densely populated urban centre. Have you been following any of my posts ...

I haven't been following all of them I'm afraid.
I just wouldn't like you to be logically inconsistent - like the Observer laying into Ireland for remembering the people who fought for Independence while its sister paper the Guardian regularly glorifies and apologises for Third World "resistance movements" that are far more vicious than Pearse + co ever were.

flogen wrote:

I'm not sure how they were obviously proto-fascists

Because it sounds cool? Has a nice Kevin Myersy ring to it don't ya think?:D

Zombrex

jank wrote:

Tell me, would you rather be part of the Union still?

*Groan* :rolleyes:

No actually, I quite like living in a democratic republic.

Let me guess whats going to come next ... "Well then you should thank the sacrafise those brave soldiers made at the GPO so you can live in a democractic republic blah blah blah"

The simple fact of the matter is the Rising didn't achieve the republic. It didn't start the independence movement and it certainly didn't convince the British of anything.

It was a stupid waste of life, an excersise in moronic killing and violence for the sake of killing and violence by men who let their frustrations and darker sides get the better of them.

I am happy we live in a republic, but that republic could have been achieved with little or no bloodshed through peaceful legal progress. It might have took abit longer (though actually probably not, or at the least only a few years), but it would have ultimately saved lives.

Instead, as often happens with independence movements, the more violent impatiant aggressive aspects come to the forefront, demanding this and that and thinking voilence is the best way to get it. It happens all around the world, and Irelands independence movement, after holding off for a longer time during the 1800s, unfortunately surcame to this frustrated violent side once again.

While we cannot change it, I see no point wollowing in the blood of the past in some sick celebration of military violence and bloodshed.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

I just wouldn't like you to be logically inconsistent - like the Observer laying into Ireland for remembering the people who fought for Independence while its sister paper the Guardian regularly glorifies and apologises for Third World "resistance movements" that are far more vicious than Pearse + co ever were.

I've read the Guardian a bit and i'm not sure they do "glorify" acts of violence by third world resistance movements, but then I'm sure you have examples.

I certainly don't glorify them, so I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

ChityWest

Quote:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comme...750159,00.html

jank wrote:

Good Article that....for exactly proving a point that the rising or something like it was going to happen sooner or later, when people like Geoffrey Wheatcroft was running our country from London.

Alot of the comments after the article are very insightfull too.

The rising happened, so lets get over it shall we. Anyway most people are too busy caring about this stuff because of the wealth of the country.Look at the economies of NI, Wales and Scotland. They may be ticking over but nothing likes our at the moment. Do you think that if Home Rule was initiated that we would be masters of our own destiny now?

Scotland has been rebelling for 100's of years. They may have their own type of devulution now but London still calls the shots.

"In 1914, there had been deep sympathy in Ireland for Belgium as a small Catholic nation brutally violated"

Belgium was not the only small Catholic nation brutally violated which caught the attention of the Irish people at the time.

What also caught the attention was the stupidity and arrogance of the people who thought that they could use Belgium's plight to source Irish canon fodder - while themselves being guilty of much worse.

That article is pure 100% anti Irish - patronising, condescending drivel. The first reply from Lopakhin says it all.

Flex

Sand wrote:

More directly it was the fault of the 1916/WoI establishment who actively collaborated with the Catholic Church and invited their input on policy, in a relationship which was balanced against the elected representitives of Ireland.

The Catholic Church in Ireland didnt support violence at all nor did they collaborate with the IRA. When the IRA were fighting the British army and Black and Tans they routinely condemned them and told people not to support them (shows how popular the IRA and the armed struggle were amongst the population that they supported the IRA anyway) because their aims were futile,

"The Catholic hierarchy was critical of the violence of both sides, but especially that of the IRA, continuing a long tradition of condemning militant republicanism. The Bishop of Kilmore, Dr. Finnegan, said: "Any war...to be just and lawful must be backed by a well grounded hope of success. What hope of success have you against the mighty forces of the British Empire? None...none whatever and if it unlawful as it is, every life taken in pursuance of it is murder." The Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Gilmartin, issued a letter saying that IRA men who took part in ambushes "have broken the truce of God, they have incurred the guilt of murder." However in May 1921, Pope Benedict XV dismayed the British government when he issued a letter that encouraged the "English as well as Irish to calmly consider...some means of agreement", as they had been pushing for a condemnation of the rebellion. They declared that his comments "put HMG (His Majesty's Government) and the Irish murder gang on a footing of equality"."

The RC Church was pro-IPP, not Sinn Fein. Wasnt DeValera excommunicated along with a bunch of other anti-treatyites at one point?

While the Catholic Church was always powerful force in Ireland, power being concentrated in a Dublin government dominated by die hard Catholics, who had little understanding of the double edged sword of liberal government ( still a problem today with parity of esteem, Northern style (you'd better respect my traditions, but I wont respect yours), only led to an amplification of that power to an extremely unhealthy degree. Hence the removal of measures like divorce, which was motivated by Catholic religious beliefs as opposed to the civil right to disolve a disastrous marraige.

What other acts of religious discrimination (if it can be considered religious discrimination) existed aswel as the ban on divorce? As I already said, the constitution provided the means for a liberal society to live in, just like we have today, but people were willing to accept the Catholic ethos in everyday life for whatever reason. Whats so different about Bunreacht na hEireann today than from the day it was enacted in 1937 that means we're able to live in such a liberal democracy today where the RC Church has pretty much no influence or power rather than back then when the RC Church was so influencial; nothing really. The difference is in peoples attitudes, because nowadays the majority of people simply wouldnt accept so much Catholic ethos in their lifes.

Flex

Sand wrote:

It was a rising led by men who praised violence, denigrated constitutional politics (they *never* stood for election, *never* sought public approval, and they were desperate to sabotage constitutional nationalism) and were clearly proto-fascists.

They were not 'proto-fascists', they wanted to establish a democratic republic where the people had 'unfettered control' of Ireland. The only reason I dont totally condemn the IPP for claiming to be nationalists when in fact they were liberal unionists, is because in fairness to them, they were seeking the absolute maximum amount of freedom anybody could hope for Ireland to have at the time.

If a party stood for election seeking to make Ireland a sovereign republic completely independant of British rule, it would have been laughable, unless such a party was willing to use violence to back up their aims. Back at the start of the 20th century self determination and civil rights and so on for small countries and peoples werent considered important or as things people were entitled to like we consider them today. The 2 world wars that occured in the 20th century enormously advanced those concepts to the point that today we can look back and think 'Geez, they didnt need to fight, all they needed to do was ask' because in this era when we have the concepts of self determination and the principal of democracy being paramount in liberal-Western democracies that we live in, thats how things can be achieved, but back then they had to fight.

Furthermore, war and combat were seen as glorious back then. Being a soldier was a great job. And look at how the countries of Europe celebrated upon hearing the declarations of war in France, Germany and Britain.

The Germans had Aryan man, DeValera &Co had Arran man. The article makes the very valid point that when people draw international links to the rising they run scared from Pearse rantings and the tide of ultra nationalism and "blood sacrifice" that was sweeping the continent. Even to this day there are posters on this very thread who feel violence was the only acceptable way to achieve independance, and independance is lessened unless someone was murdered for it.

That article was unreal. I find it amazing people can have such points of view 'How dare those people try to rule their own country instead of being ruled by us'; typical imperialists attitude, stupid in the extreme. I dont believe violence was the only accpetable means of achieving independence, I do however believe at the time it was the only way of achieving independence (unless you consider a home rule parliment with f***-all powers, where the British still called the shots and where Ireland was still part of the British state, to be 'independence' ). As I already said, back at the start of the 20th century, anybody seeking freedom for Ireland wouldnt have had a hope of achieving it without violence being used.