Easter Sunday/ 2006

ChityWest · 11-04-2006 11:06pm

Wicknight wrote:

The Rising was an insult to the ideas of the Tri-colour, and of this nation..

What a completely *silly response. I am pretty sure you are fishing for arguments here.

Wicknight wrote:

Not that it matters (you can't stand up in court and say you didn't mean to kill your wife when you shot her in the head), but it was the motivation. The motivation was to start a war with the British, in the middle of Dublin city centre ffs. As I said, moronic.

I'll grant you that the rebels ridiculously believed at the start that the British wouldn't fight back with heavy artilery. But then being stupid isn't really a defense now is it? (But Judge, I didn't know shooting my wife in the head would kill her) If you hold up a post office in this day and age with a load of men and weapons but say "I had no idea that the police would show up" who do you blame if someone gets hurt? The Gardi? Doubtful. :rolleyes: .

Each time throughout this thread whenever a point is made you disagree with (or are unable to piece together a coherent counterpoint/argument against) you immediately throw non-related garbage into the mix and hope that no one will notice. As per the above - and in previous posts.

Also "Gardi "? Is that how its spelt thesedays ? Are you Irish ? In Ireland ?

I would have thought most people seeing that word written incorrectly would immediately notice it - no matter how bad their spelling is.

Wicknight wrote:

Its an answer to your assumption that this is just my personal take on it. It isn't, the motivations are well documented. There, thats my answer.

So that'd be a no on the answer then.

TempestSabre · 12-04-2006 12:08am

The link between the rising and events that followed, the treaties etc that lead to the freestate and eventually the republic, are the people that were involved. People like Collins, De Valera, W.T. Cosgrave, etc. People seem to be forgetting that. It had an effect on those people.

SeanW · 12-04-2006 12:28am

Christ, I don't speak any Gaeilge at at all nor do I see the need to, but even I can spell Gardaí.

Like I said, I'd sure like to know how the Republic Of Ireland would have become a free independent republic by 1945 if there had not been violence.

ChityWest · 12-04-2006 12:42am

SeanW wrote:

Christ, I don't speak any Gaeilge at at all nor do I see the need to, but even I can spell Gardaí.

Like I said, I'd sure like to know how the Republic Of Ireland would have become a free independent republic by 1945 if there had not been violence.

I dont see how that could have happened either - 2045 maybe.

If the rising /war of independence /civil war had never happened (as some here wish was the case) and we had still been under complete british control in the 1930's they would have used the economy first then the 2nd WW as an excuse not to grant any form of independence.

Then they would have used the cold war as the reason not to grant any form of independence. Our coastline would be littered with Royal Navy Bases to this day.

jank · 12-04-2006 12:47am

I'll grant you that the rebels ridiculously believed at the start that the British wouldn't fight back with heavy artilery. But then being stupid isn't really a defense now is it

So now the rebellions are stupid to believe in a free Ireland?

Ok try this for size! The british army was stupid enough to think that Irish people really didnt want to be indepenant so they executed all the leaders....hmmm penny drops I think

Wicknight I respect that you have your opinion but you are just making stupid statments now and in fact some that I find quite insulting. :mad: I had 2 family members fight in the war of independace and stupid they werent.

Im sure posters whose great grandads fought during 1914-1918, wouldnt appreaciate calling Irish WW1 soldiers stupid when they put their lives on the line in what they believed a valid cause. They would be insulted and rightly so.

Im sure many agree as is evident here. If you feel that strongly why not hold a counter demonstration, otherwise express your opinion without damming the dead, please.

rsynnott · 12-04-2006 12:51am

ChityWest wrote:

I dont see how that could have happened either - 2045 maybe.

If the rising /war of independence /civil war had never happened (as some here wish was the case) and we had still been under complete british control in the 1930's they would have used the economy first then the 2nd WW as an excuse not to grant any form of independence.

Then they would have used the cold war as the reason not to grant any form of independence. Our coastline would be littered with Royal Navy Bases to this day.

This is what happened to every country in the Commonwealth, of course.

rsynnott · 12-04-2006 12:53am

jank wrote:

Im sure posters whose great grandads fought during 1914-1918, wouldnt appreaciate calling Irish WW1 soldiers stupid when they put their lives on the line in what they believed a valid cause. They would be insulted and rightly so.

That's nice. Lots of people call the Iraq invasion stupid, for instance, with barely a thought for the soldiers involved. In fact, 'not offending soldiers in random wars' has generally been low on my list of priorities. Honestly, it is bizarre to object to someone holding an opinion on a war on the basis that it might offend somebody.

SeanW · 12-04-2006 1:02am

rsynnott wrote:

This is what happened to every country in the Commonwealth, of course.

With the exception of those that managed to break away in time.

rsynnott · 12-04-2006 1:26am

SeanW wrote:

With the exception of those that managed to break away in time.

So, you're saying that the British Empire consisted of the Falklands and Gibraltar at the start of the Cold War? I'm pretty certain that's not right.

TempestSabre · 12-04-2006 2:16am

You should only judge the 1916 rising by the events and circumstance of that that period. The world was a different place post WWI and WWII when a lot of other countries gained their independance.

Zombrex · 12-04-2006 7:47am

SeanW wrote:

Christ, I don't speak any Gaeilge at at all nor do I see the need to, but even I can spell Gardaí.

Like I said, I'd sure like to know how the Republic Of Ireland would have become a free independent republic by 1945 if there had not been violence.

Pretty easily, without violence. All the political processes were already setup and in place to make it happen.

Zombrex · 12-04-2006 7:51am

jank wrote:

So now the rebellions are stupid to believe in a free Ireland?

*Groan*

No the were just generally stupid, from their military plan in general to the idea that the british would not fight back, to there civil control policies once they removed power from the city centre (basically shoot anyone on site breaking the law). There belief in a free Ireland doesn't come into it (i'm not sure how that would be stupid, or where you got that I was saying it was stupid).

Read my post before firing back a silly ill-formed you must hate free Ireland reply please, I get enough of that from the rest of the "up the 'RA" posters here ... I feel like Mike Moore :rolleyes:

jank wrote:

Ok try this for size! The british army was stupid enough to think that Irish people really didnt want to be indepenant so they executed all the leaders....hmmm penny drops I think

Well thats not why the British executed the leaders of the rising, but I think, yes I think, I have pointed out how stupid that decision was a number of times, and how it was actually that decision that benefited what would later become the Sinn Fein movement, not the Rising itself. But I don't see anyone wanting to celebrate the decision of the British Army to execute the rebels now do I. Ummm, wonder why?

jank wrote:

Wicknight I respect that you have your opinion but you are just making stupid statments now and in fact some that I find quite insulting. :mad: I had 2 family members fight in the war of independace and stupid they werent.

We are discusing the rebeles at the Rising are we not? Did you have family memebers who faught in the Rising?

jank wrote:

otherwise express your opinion without damming the dead, please.

The celebrations of the Rising damn the dead, they damn the 220 civilians who died for the vanity of a handful of rebels.

Zombrex · 12-04-2006 9:10am

ChityWest wrote:

Also "Gardi "? Is that how its spelt thesedays ? Are you Irish ? In Ireland ?

I would have thought most people seeing that word written incorrectly would immediately notice it - no matter how bad their spelling is.

LOL .... ah yes, attacking my dyslexic spelling, the last refuge of a Boards.ie member who has suddenly realised he has no actual point to make and has lost the argument ... rather pathetic debating skills there Chity, and you may notice against the forum charter :rolleyes:

ChityWest wrote:

Each time throughout this thread whenever a point is made you disagree with (or are unable to piece together a coherent counterpoint/argument against) you immediately throw non-related garbage into the mix and hope that no one will notice.

I have noticed that each time throughout this thread I've pointed out that the rebeles were stupid, careless, killed civilians, had disreguard for the safety of the Dublin people, were stupidly naieve about the response from the British, had no proper plan of action, or strategy to actually hold Dublin, and ultimately decided to go down in a blaze of glory, you have had no response except the tired old 'RA propaganda that they were brave soldiers fighting for a worthy cause and therefore all if forgiven.

Do you actually agree with my points and just don't want to admit it. Or do you have no points of your own to make in response at all?

12-04-2006 9:16am

ChityWest wrote:

Also "Gardi "? Is that how its spelt thesedays ? Are you Irish ? In Ireland ?

It's rather barrel scraping to attack an obvious typo...
No more personal stuff here or the Ban stick will be wielded-thank you.

Flex · 12-04-2006 10:38am

murphaph wrote:

At the end of the day though, Archbishop McQuaid had Dev up kissing his hole in archbishop's house talking about the governance of this country, so it did have an effect.

Do you think if article 44.1.2 had not been there that there wouldnt have been excessive Catholic influence in peoples lives, or that the creation of that article was the direct result of the influence Catholicism and the RC church had on the people of the country?

Right, which is different from Nazi Germany how? You are almost stating that what happened to those women was ok because their 'shamed' families sent them to those hellholes? That's a strange position. Ultimately, people did disappear into those institutions and many never left them alive.

Not saying anything was OK. Already stated that Im not defending the RC church or what its done. The difference I was making is that in Ireland, gangs of priests didnt drive around in unmarked cars with guns and kick in peoples doors and abduct them from their homes in the middle of the night, never to be seen or heard from again. People were put in those Magdalene Laundry places by there families because their families thought that the only way to save their promiscuous (sp.) daughters dirty souls and end the terrible shame on the family was to send them to the wonderful Catholic institutions to fix them. And they could have removed their daughters at any point if they wanted to but didnt. Further emphasising the fact that it happened because the church had too much influence, so nobody questioned what went on inside and didnt try to remove their daughters until they were informed they had been cured (I presume); people let it happen, parents did it to their own daughters.

But the above didn't happen in the country we seceeed from! The UK was far more secular than the RoI and the CoE never had as much influence on people's lives as the RC church did here. Divorce and abortion have been available in the UK for decades and homosexuality was legalised many decades before this country. Civil liberties were ridden roughshod over with impunity and that's the failing of this state.

This state has been more secular than the UK. In the UK its still policy that the CoE get to elect 26 or so people to the House of Lords based solely on the fact theyre CoE clergy, and they get to retain their seats for as long as they serve in the CoE I think. And the government of the UK still answers to the head of the CoE. In Ireland people havnt been appointed to the Seanad based on their religious positions and its not been legal policy for the governemnt to seek approval from the head of any particualr church to sign acts in effect; so in Britain the CoE has had and still has far more priviliges bestowed upon it by the British government as official government policy, than any church in Ireland has had. The reason the RC church had so much influence here is because people allowed it, not because of government policy to make them live like that or to give the church such a dominant position. Theres no reason people back then couldnt have lived in an Ireland like we have today (with regards church influence), the only difference is our attitudes; they dont have power because we dont care about them and dont fear them anymore.

The bans on dvorce and abortion and the attitudes towards homosexuality were all spin off effects of the deeply religious attitudes people in Ireland had the time. Even 20 years ago or so a referendum on divorce was defeated and the constituional prohibition on abortion was only introduced in 1983, does that not go to show that such laws were not of touch with the general publics thinking in Ireland, and were only put there and tolerated for so long because people wanted them there, not because the government was forcing this on people?

ChityWest · 12-04-2006 11:47am

Wicknight wrote:

rather pathetic debating skills there Chity, and you may notice against the forum charter :rolleyes:

Simple question for you wicknight

Q. Can you think of a way in which your take on the Rising differs from the British wartime media's spin on it in the immediate days after ?

i.e. the rebels were a bloodthirsty murder gang out to butcher the innocents.

As you would say "*Groan*."

Its almost as if you found a copy of some british army WWI-era rag circa mid 1916 and have decided to enlighten us with its wisdom.

You still have not answered :

Innocent people also died in the War of Independence (same as they do in every war) so by your logic that War should be a point of shame and embarrassment for Irish people everywhere too ?
At this point you changed the subject with some tibetan drivel

When asked if "you are referring to one consequence (of many)(ie the Civilian Deathtoll) as if it were the motivation"

At this point you went into some Bank robber what-if type scenario

You have repeatedly characterised the 1916 Rebels as having been vain, bloodthirsty simpletons without offering a shred of evidence - are you expecting people just take your opinion on this as fact ?

Zombrex · 12-04-2006 12:26pm

ChityWest wrote:

i.e. the rebels were a bloodthirsty murder gang out to butcher the innocents.

Well despite the fact the rebels did "butcher" (wouldn't quite use that word myself) the innocents, (they shot civilians on the streets in an effort to stop looting), that actually was neither the British establishments "spin" on the events at the time, nor is it my take on events.

The focus of the media at the time was on the attack to law and order rather than innocent casualties. The Irish Times reported the most shocking event to be that of the shooting of the Verteran Corps. by snipers as they marched back to there barracks. The Times also reported the rising "as an attempt has been made to overthrow the constitutional Government of Ireland"

The media in Ireland reported the rising for exactly what it was, an attempt to over throw the government. The Times reported that the rebels did not attempt to abuse wounded soldiers at the Adelaide Hospital. Doesn't sound like blood thirsty savages does it?

You seem to just wish it was my take on events because it would be an easier position to argue against. Sorry to disappoint you.:rolleyes:

History doesn't fall into simply little sound-bites (rebels good, brits bad) to make it easy to pick sides Chity. The Rising was a complex historical event

ChityWest wrote:

Its almost as if you found a copy of some british army WWI-era rag circa mid 1916 and have decided to enlighten us with its wisdom.

:rolleyes:

Oh mercy. I expected you to at least make an attempt to argue some points Chity. Instead you seem happy to carry on attacking me while making no attempt to actually respond to what I've said.

What next, you are going to call me a "west brit?" and tell me to move to England if I like it so much

ChityWest wrote:

Innocent people also died in the War of Independence (same as they do in every war) so by your logic that War should be a point of shame and embarrassment for Irish people everywhere too ?

The War of Independence was not a signal event.

There were certainly unnecessary, stupid, ridiculous, bloodthristy events with in the WoI, in which innocent people died, which I condem as much as I condem the Rising.

The reverse of that is that you seem to be saying we should be proud of the fact that we killed civilians during the Rising and the WoI? Are you proud of that fact? I'm not, and I don't think it should be celebrated?

ChityWest wrote:

When asked if "you are referring to one consequence (of many)(ie the Civilian Deathtoll) as if it were the motivation"
At this point you went into some Bank robber what-if type scenario

I did, and you obviously choose to ignore, or simply didn't get, the point.

You claim the motivation of the rebels was not to harm civilians. I'm saying that doesn't matter. You can't start something like the Rising without knowing it will lead to the death of civilians (or you are very very stupid, which some of the leaders seem to have been). Thats before you geto the rebels actually shooting civilians.

So you are responsible for those who die needlessly because of your actions, even if you didn't want to kill them. Starting a war in the middle of O'Connel St and then claiming that you didn't expect anyone to get hurt is insulting.

ChityWest wrote:

You have repeatedly characterised the 1916 Rebels as having been vain, bloodthirsty simpletons without offering a shred of evidence - are you expecting people just take your opinion on this as fact ?

The evidence is the Rising itself. The facts of the Rising are very well documented Chity.

You have offered no evidence, logical, points or even attempted to argue I'm wrong. All you have is personal attacks over my spelling or comparing my posts to British war time propaganda (seriously, wtf?). I can only assume that you actually don't know I'm wrong, you just want me to be wrong because it doesn't fit with what you want our history to be. Its time to look at what our history actually is Chity, not what you want it to be.

growler · 12-04-2006 12:38pm

I guess Wicknight's assertion that the leaders of the uprising were naive,disorganised and "romantic" are true to certain extent and that yes the necessary measures were in place for a political solution leading to self governance ..eventually. However the notion of a political settlement had been touted for some time and had never happened, the "rebels" were understandably doubting of the sincerity of the british government's will to allow home rule to happen, home rule under a british sovereign was not acceptable to many and the irish wish for self determination without any allegiance to a foreign monarch was a perfectably underrstanable goal. 1916 did not result in mass rebellion and never could have given the lack of arms, training, funds but the subsequent events of the war of independence prove that there was, in fact, popular support amongst the catholic majority for independence (by whatever means necessary). The reluctance of the masses to rise up against their occupiers is also understandable given the history of failure of Irish rebellions over the previous 120 years and the bloody reprisals by the British against those with the temerity to challenge the empire, being a nation of oppressed, ground down, peasant sheep is not to say that the majority of irish people were content with their lot.

Wicknight's faith in the ultimate goodwill of the benevolent British is sadly misplaced, imo, the century prior to the rising had demonstrated just how far this alledged benevolence would extend... not very far. The actions of the British army and irregulars in the subsequent war of independence demonstrated quite graphically the esteem with which your average irish, catholic life was held. The deeply entrenched distaste for the Irish amongst the british ruling elite was not brought into being by the 1916 rebellion, it was always there and was not likely to go away no matter what pseudo-political machinations took place. The interests of the British empire lay not in allowing self governance to their vassals but in keeping power and wealth for themselves.

Wicknight questions what right anyone may have to take up arms in defence of any "cause" they choose, but fails to address what right the British had to occupy Ireland in the first place. The fact is that if British rule had been seen by the general populace to be largely beneficial, if they had not looked down from on high during the famine years as the Irish died in their thousands, if they had not made a concerted effort to depopulate the country of its rightful owners through organised evictions and taxation, if they had not ruled solely for the benefit of the ruling classes, if they had not tried to eradicate the Irish language and culture and religion.. then a pragmatic Irish populace may well have been content to live under a foreign monarch with or without home rule or some variation thereof... but they did not and they only course of action that reawoke the dormant Irish nationalism was armed rebellion.

Regardless of their romanticism, their military naivety , we would not be living in the Ireland of today (with all its flaws) without those brave men. I believe the state has a duty to commemorate them and I believe anyone who feels the least bit of pride in being Irish should too, the alternative could have been a great deal worse.

LordSutch · 12-04-2006 12:39pm

I suspect that most Dubliners were just as shocked by the events/ Riots of february 2006 ~ in the same way as the people of Dublin were astonished by the Mayhem, killing & distruction brought upon their beloved City in Easter (1916)!

Most of us were disgusted by what happened this February on the Streets Of Dublin (thankfully nobody was killed), but just imagine if hundreds of people had been killed (like in Easter 1916), bearing in mind that most people were very happy with our prosperous little country back then (within the UK), and admittedly looking forward to acheiving Home Rule ~ peacefully.

I know if I had been alive back then, I would have joined the rest of Dublin in my condemnation/ Disgust and incandesent rage against the Leaders of the 1916 Rising!

And most of us today are just as furious with the Dublin rioters/ looters of 2006 ...........
(obviously to a lesser extent due to No loss of life or property).

rsynnott · 12-04-2006 12:39pm

Flex wrote:

Not saying anything was OK. Already stated that Im not defending the RC church or what its done. The difference I was making is that in Ireland, gangs of priests didnt drive around in unmarked cars with guns and kick in peoples doors and abduct them from their homes in the middle of the night, never to be seen or heard from again. People were put in those Magdalene Laundry places by there families because their families thought that the only way to save their promiscuous (sp.) daughters dirty souls and end the terrible shame on the family was to send them to the wonderful Catholic institutions to fix them. And they could have removed their daughters at any point if they wanted to but didnt. Further emphasising the fact that it happened because the church had too much influence, so nobody questioned what went on inside and didnt try to remove their daughters until they were informed they had been cured (I presume); people let it happen, parents did it to their own daughters.

No, no, if I'm not horribly mistaken, the health boards did it a bit as well. State collabaration. In any case, the state allowed horrific human rights abuses on the basis that it was the Catholic Church. If it had been, say, the CoI proposing to use children as slave labour, they mightn't have been so enthusiastic.

Flex wrote:

This state has been more secular than the UK. In the UK its still policy that the CoE get to elect 26 or so people to the House of Lords based solely on the fact theyre CoE clergy, and they get to retain their seats for as long as they serve in the CoE I think. And the government of the UK still answers to the head of the CoE.

Purely symbolic.

Flex wrote:

In Ireland people havnt been appointed to the Seanad based on their religious positions and its not been legal policy for the governemnt to seek approval from the head of any particualr church to sign acts in effect; so in Britain the CoE has had and still has far more priviliges bestowed upon it by the British government as official government policy, than any church in Ireland has had.

The CoE did not run slave labour camps, and hasn't made much effort to meddle in public policy for years. Everything the CoE did was more or less formal and above-board; the catholic church was for more covert, and thus more dangerous.

Flex wrote:

The reason the RC church had so much influence here is because people allowed it, not because of government policy to make them live like that or to give the church such a dominant position. Theres no reason people back then couldnt have lived in an Ireland like we have today (with regards church influence), the only difference is our attitudes; they dont have power because we dont care about them and dont fear them anymore.

The state tolerated them, and seems to have covered up their more horrendous abuses.

Flex wrote:

The bans on dvorce and abortion and the attitudes towards homosexuality were all spin off effects of the deeply religious attitudes people in Ireland had the time. Even 20 years ago or so a referendum on divorce was defeated and the constituional prohibition on abortion was only introduced in 1983, does that not go to show that such laws were not of touch with the general publics thinking in Ireland, and were only put there and tolerated for so long because people wanted them there, not because the government was forcing this on people?

Particularly in the case of homosexuality, you don't deny people basic human rights just because it's the will of the people.

rsynnott · 12-04-2006 12:50pm

ArthurF wrote:

And most of us today are just as furious with the Dublin rioters/ looters of 2006 ...........
(obviously to a lesser extent due to No loss of life or property).

Possibly a bit less, really, because at least there was a principle, even if it was not at the time a popular principle, behind 1916. The recent rioters were just braindead thugs lead by a group kicked out of SF/IRA for being too unpleasant.

Zombrex · 12-04-2006 12:51pm

growler wrote:

Wicknight questions what right anyone may have to take up arms in defence of any "cause" they choose, but fails to address what right the British had to occupy Ireland in the first place.

No right. There I address it. Don't think I was ever not address it.

growler wrote:

Regardless of their romanticism, their military naivety , we would not be living in the Ireland of today (with all its flaws) without those brave men.

The North would not be the same North if Omagh or all the other bombs, executions, riots, bloodshed hadn't happened, its not a reason to celebrate them.

rsynnott · 12-04-2006 12:53pm

Wicknight wrote:

The North would not be the same North if Omagh or all the other bombs, executions,

That always struck me as a dangerous euphemism for what everyone else in the civilised world calls 'murder'.

growler · 12-04-2006 1:02pm

Wicknight wrote:

No right. There I address it. Don't think I was ever not address it.

The North would not be the same North if Omagh or all the other bombs, executions, riots, bloodshed hadn't happened, its not a reason to celebrate them.

Ok so. Would I be correct in saying that you would always be happy with the status quo whatever that may be, since right or wrong one cannot / should not attempt to change anything except through peaceful politics , even if a political route had no chance of succeeding ?

I admire your ardent pacifism, I just think that you are lucky you have the luxury of living in a neutral state today instead of being part of the militaristic UK ( which was the only other likely alternative imo).

Re. the North: whats your point exactly ? We're not discussing celebrating the beginnings of the north of ireland "statelet".

edited for spelling purposes :-)

Zombrex · 12-04-2006 1:51pm

growler wrote:

Ok so. Would I be correct in saying that you would always be happy with the status quo whatever that may be, since right or wrong one cannot / should not attempt to change anything except through peaceful politics , even if a political route had no chance of succeeding ?

Er, no you wouldn't be correct in saying that. I don't remember saying anything close to that.

I would point out that your description doesn't describe Ireland in 1916, so I'm not quite sure why you bring it up. Its not my position, and it doesn't even describe Ireland cira 1916.

Why is everyone so insistant in putting words in my mouth to express what they think/want my position to be. Is it because my actual position is too hard to argue against?

growler wrote:

I just think that you are lucky you have the luxury of living in a neutral state today instead of being part of the militaristic UK ( which was the only other likely alternative imo).

"Militarisitc UK" ... er what? The UK has a private army, they haven't had a draft since 1960 afaik.

growler wrote:

Re. the North: whats your point exactly ? We're not discussing celebrating the beginnings of the north of ireland "statelet".

You're right we are discussing the Rising. I use Omagh only as an example of other events that shaped a political process that do not need to be applauded or celebrated.

Just because the Rising was part (a small part) of a series of events that lead to the current republic doesn't mean it should be automatically celebrated.

The volience in the North shaped the current politcal landscape. The violence in the North lead the country to where it is now. That doesn't mean the violence was necessary or warrented. And it certainly doesn't mean it should be appaulded.

The same holds true of our history in the South. The argument that the Rising was a significant event and therefore should be automatically celebrated is ridiculous in my view.

murphaph · 12-04-2006 2:47pm

@Flex, rsynnott has replied almost word for word as I would have done. The CoE involvement in UK government is symbolic and the UK has been much more of a free spirited democracy than the RoI since 1922 whether you want that to be true or not. Ireland's towns and cities only became remotley cosmo in the last 10 years for heaven's sake!

The state/health boards (remember the x case?)/Guards/judiciary all colluded with those scumbags in the RC church and the result was indeed slave labour camps which the RC church was pained to give up. They loved the supply of free beatable labour and it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT whether or not the 'shamed' families of these poor unfortunates who ended up in these gulags were free to remove them or otherwise (they weren't free to remove them in reality, oftentimes you needed to make a 'donation' to get them out). This sh!t didn't happen in the RC society in the UK though-because that state would not allow such treatment of people to go on unchallenged.

We simply weren't as 'free' as people here would like to believe. Hell, we're one of the last bastions in (even RC) Europe where a woman cannot practically opt to terminate a pregnancy. These are all legacies of so called independence.

ChityWest · 12-04-2006 2:48pm

Wicknight wrote:

Well despite the fact the rebels did "butcher" (wouldn't quite use that word myself) the innocents, (they shot civilians on the streets in an effort to stop looting), that actually was neither the British establishments "spin" on the events at the time, nor is it my take on events.

The focus of the media at the time was on the attack to law and order rather than innocent casualties. The Irish Times reported the most shocking event to be that of the shooting of the Verteran Corps. by snipers as they marched back to there barracks. The Times also reported the rising "as an attempt has been made to overthrow the constitutional Government of Ireland"

The media in Ireland reported the rising for exactly what it was, an attempt to over throw the government. The Times reported that the rebels did not attempt to abuse wounded soldiers at the Adelaide Hospital. Doesn't sound like blood thirsty savages does it?

To recap this was the original question:

Q. Can you think of a way in which your take on the Rising differs from the British wartime media's spin on it in the immediate days after ?

- That seems to be you talking in circles for a while - a distraction here a distraction there and then a 'No' from you.

Correct me if I am wrong and if there IS in fact a single distinguishable difference between your take on the Rising and that of the wartime british media.

Wicknight wrote:

History doesn't fall into simply little sound-bites (rebels good, brits bad) to make it easy to pick sides Chity. The Rising was a complex historical event

:rolleyes

Wick, ignoring the condescending, patronising tone of that for a second - I dont recall saying that it did. But thanks for the lecture - it may be useful to some and I am sure it made you feel better to take on that tone.

Wicknight wrote:

Oh mercy. I expected you to at least make an attempt to argue some points Chity. Instead you seem happy to carry on attacking me while making no attempt to actually respond to what I've said.

The point I am making is the one you helped illustrate above. Where you seem to have acknowledged that your position on the Rising is indistinguishable from that of the wartime british media of that era. The point being that this is a perception/characterisation that the Irish people didnt accept then - and dont accept now.

Wicknight wrote:

What next, you are going to call me a "west brit?" and tell me to move to England if I like it so much

Again I dont recall saying that. Seeing as though you brought it up however I am not one to stand in the way of progress : ) If you are taking suggestions on destinations - could I put forward Israel as I feel it would be more in tune with your particular outlook.

Wicknight wrote:

There were certainly unnecessary, stupid, ridiculous, bloodthristy events with in the WoI, in which innocent people died, which I condem as much as I condem the Rising.

The reverse of that is that you seem to be saying we should be proud of the fact that we killed civilians during the Rising and the WoI? Are you proud of that fact? I'm not, and I don't think it should be celebrated?

To borrow one of your phrases here . . .

'Oh Mercy' (smiley face eyes upward).

As per the point above - again I dont recall saying that. I could be wrong & it's hard to tell as you dont specifically state anything here (what with the news that history not being made up of sound-bite sized chunks and all) but it does sound to me like you think Irish people should be ashamed/embarassed about the war of independence as well as the rising.

And perhaps not comemorate either event ? You said that the war of independence was not a 'single' event - implying that the rising was - it wasnt. It would take a particularly entrenched - narrow minded view to take it as such. Almost goes without saying that YES WOI was larger in scope/scale.

Wicknight wrote:

I did, and you obviously choose to ignore, or simply didn't get, the point.

I could be wrong here (and am willing to entertain the possibility) but are you saying that . . . yes a consequence of an event or action - (i.e. civilian death toll during the Rising) is the same as the motivation ?

This is a basic difference in opinion here - I dont think that because there were civilian casualties that that necessarily means that those behind the rising were motivated out of a simple minded bloodlust.

Wicknight wrote:

The evidence is the Rising itself. The facts of the Rising are very well documented Chity.

Well Gee Thanks - yet more patronising condesenscion - BUT Yet again you ignore the question - where is the evidence to support your characterisation ?

You are making a judgement as to the characters of the men behind the Rising without ever offering a hint of evidence. I am losing count of the number of times I have asked you to back that one up in some way shape or form. The evidence is in the rising, indeed it is - but we are not seeing the same evidence there are we ?

Wicknight wrote:

You have offered no evidence, logical, points or even attempted to argue I'm wrong. All you have is personal attacks over my spelling or comparing my posts to British war time propaganda (seriously, wtf?). I can only assume that you actually don't know I'm wrong, you just want me to be wrong because it doesn't fit with what you want our history to be. Its time to look at what our history actually is Chity, not what you want it to be.

I have yet to see one iota of evidence from your direction -all I see from you is bluster - distraction and bluff - ever heard of the 'Chewbacca Defence ?' it seems to be something you are very practiced at.

Zombrex · 12-04-2006 3:16pm

ChityWest wrote:

Q. Can you think of a way in which your take on the Rising differs from the British wartime media's spin on it in the immediate days after ?

Well without knowing what "spin" you are talking about I've no way of answering that, rather ridiculous, question.

You already claimed that the "British" media claimed the rebels were a band of bloodthirsty thugs out to kill civilians. I've already showed you that that is not true (in the case of the Irish Times, which is the only reports I'm familar with).

So you actually have examples of the British media spin. If you want to post me a quote or article from a British newspaper I can tell you if I agree or disagree with the assessment of the Rising.

ChityWest wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong and if there IS in fact a single distinguishable difference between your take on the Rising and that of the wartime british media.

I've no idea, I don't know what articles or reports you are referring to. I have a sneaking suspicion niether do you :rolleyes:

ChityWest wrote:

Where you seem to have acknowledged that your position on the Rising is indistinguishable from that of the wartime british media of that era. The point being that this is a perception/characterisation that the Irish people didnt accept then - and dont accept now.

What are you talking about???

First of all, what media reports are you talking about (do you even know).

Second of all, I assume you believe these reports are incorrect. Do you have anything to base that on apart from the fact that they are "british media" reports and everything british is bad (see point about history being a little more complex than rebels-good british-bad)

Third of all, just because the "Irish people" (which I assume means you and SeanW) don't accept the accurate description of history is rather irrelivent. You are talking about propaganda not history. You can believe any deluided version of the propaganda around the Rising, it doesn't change the facts surrounding the event.

ChityWest wrote:

Again I dont recall saying that. Seeing as though you brought it up however I am not one to stand in the way of progress : ) If you are taking suggestions on destinations - could I put forward Israel as I feel it would be more in tune with your particular outlook.

Wow, talk about self-fulling :rolleyes:

ChityWest wrote:

but it does sound to me like you think Irish people should be ashamed/embarassed about the war of independence as well as the rising.

I don't think anyone alive today should be ashamed about anything that happened 90 years ago.

Also what part of-
"There were certainly unnecessary, stupid, ridiculous, bloodthristy events with in the WoI, in which innocent people died, which I condem as much as I condem the Rising."
do you not understand? Why are you telling me what it "sounds like", its pretty fecking clear is it not?

ChityWest wrote:

You said that the war of independence was not a 'single' event - implying that the rising was - it wasnt. It would take a particularly entrenched - narrow minded view to take it as such.

The Rising was a rebel uprising that lasted a number of days carried out by one group. It was a single military event compared to the War of Independence, that was a war containing a number of different military events. Is that not obvious?

ChityWest wrote:

Almost goes without saying that YES WOI was larger in scope/scale.

Exactly, so it is impossible to catergorise the entire WoI as being good or bad. As you said, civilians were killed during the WoI but they were killed in a number of different miltiray events. Each one should be studied individually as to what happened and why. You seem to just want to catergorise everything with a massive paint-brush. ALL THIS WAS GOOD. ALL THIS WAS BAD. Not how history works.

ChityWest wrote:

I could be wrong here (and am willing to entertain the possibility) but are you saying that . . . yes a consequence of an event or action - (i.e. civilian death toll during the Rising) is the same as the motivation?

No, I'm saying that ignorance or stupidity is not a defense. Claiming that you didn't target civilians while carrying out a military operation you know will result in the death of civilians is ridiculous nonsense.

ChityWest wrote:

This is a basic difference in opinion here - I dont think that because there were civilian casualties that that necessarily means that those behind the rising were motivated out of a simple minded bloodlust.

Fair enough, neither do i

ChityWest wrote:

Well Gee Thanks - yet more patronising condesenscion - BUT Yet again you ignore the question - where is the evidence to support your characterisation ?

Have you actually read anything about the Rising ...

here this a good place to start - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rebellion

After tha I suggest you read a Leaving Cert book on modern history. Then come back to me.

ChityWest wrote:

You are making a judgement as to the characters of the men behind the Rising without ever offering a hint of evidence.

What specfically are you disputing?

Are you honestly claiming that the rebels did not have the idea of a blood sacrafice?

Are you claiming they did not think the British would not attack?

Are you claiming that the rebels did not shoot at unarmed soldiers, or that they didn't shoot at civilians to "restore" law and order?

Are you claiming the rebels didn't know the cause was lost by fought on regardless?

I mean what part do you not get?

growler · 12-04-2006 3:38pm

Wicknight wrote:

Er, no you wouldn't be correct in saying that. I don't remember saying anything close to that.

I would point out that your description doesn't describe Ireland in 1916, so I'm not quite sure why you bring it up. Its not my position, and it doesn't even describe Ireland cira 1916.

Why is everyone so insistant in putting words in my mouth to express what they think/want my position to be. Is it because my actual position is too hard to argue against?

Wicknight wrote:

Obviously I am mistaken then , I foolishly interpreted your comments regrarding (a) no "right" to rebel and (b) the British as having no "right" to be in Ireland in the 1st place as being entirely satisfied and content with the status quo. As I mentioned before, I, from my readings of contemporary accounts believe that there was little hope of the British granting Ireland independence, despite the rhetoric they had proven time and again that political obfuscation was their only answer to the Home Rule question and that in was not in the interests of the empire to allow it anyway. I believe this was pretty much the landscape in 1916.

Wicknight wrote:

"Militarisitc UK" ... er what? The UK has a private army, they haven't had a draft since 1960 afaik.

Wicknight wrote:

"Militaristic" , has nothing to do with a draft. It means that the military is of great importance to the state. Perhaps you'll disagree that that is the case, but ponder for a moment: the invasions Afghanistan andIraq in recent times, the vastly disproportionate size of the British military to its population , it's nuclear arsenal, defence of the falklands' penguin population, maintenance of strategic military bases throughout the world etc. .... might just suggest that, god forbid, you are wrong.

Wicknight wrote:

You're right we are discussing the Rising. I use Omagh only as an example of other events that shaped a political process that do not need to be applauded or celebrated.

Just because the Rising was part (a small part) of a series of events that lead to the current republic doesn't mean it should be automatically celebrated.

The volience in the North shaped the current politcal landscape. The violence in the North lead the country to where it is now. That doesn't mean the violence was necessary or warrented. And it certainly doesn't mean it should be appaulded.

The same holds true of our history in the South. The argument that the Rising was a significant event and therefore should be automatically celebrated is ridiculous in my view.

Why you're trying to bring the north into the argument I don't know. I haven't suggested celebrating the Omagh bombing.

Why you alone seem to think that the Rising of 1916 played a "small part" in shaping the of the Irish Republic is baffling, perhaps you could tell me a few events that you do consider more significant ?

Zombrex · 12-04-2006 3:56pm

growler wrote:

Obviously I am mistaken then , I foolishly interpreted your comments regrarding (a) no "right" to rebel and (b) the British as having no "right" to be in Ireland in the 1st place as being entirely satisfied and content with the status quo.

Why? I can't see the connection at all.

Aside from the fact that i have never said people don't have the right to rebel, your "interpretation" is like assuming if I don't got over and shake to death the screaming baby on the bus this morning I must have enjoyed its crying.

growler wrote:

As I mentioned before, I, from my readings of contemporary accounts believe that there was little hope of the British granting Ireland independence, despite the rhetoric they had proven time and again that political obfuscation was their only answer to the Home Rule question and that in was not in the interests of the empire to allow it anyway.

The only "evidence" I have ever heard for that theory is based on a ration irrational "Everything British = Bad" view of history. It also doesn't make sense in the context of everything that was gained from the British before and after the Rising and the WoI through completely legal political means. It also doesn't make sense considering the British could have easily won the WoI, the Irish forces were days away from running out of bullets when negotations were called. I believe that the British public were sick of Ireland, a political seperation would have been popular and probably rather easy to achieve. But we will never know

growler wrote:

"Militaristic" , has nothing to do with a draft. It means that the military is of great importance to the state.

Er, ok .., still not quite sure how I wouldn't be able to hold my views if I was living in Britian?

growler wrote:

Why you're trying to bring the north into the argument I don't know. I haven't suggested celebrating the Omagh bombing.

Well whats the difference? Why is the Rising justifed and worth celebrating, but the violence in the north, like Omagh, isn't?

Both were carried out for the sake of the Irish people.
Both were done by men who believed in a cause, a cause many here believe in (a united Ireland)
Both were attacks against the British occuping forces
Omagh was actually designed to limit civilian caustalies (thought that went obviously wrong), where as the Rising wasn't
Both events shaped the future landscape of the future peace processes (though Omagh a lot more than the Rising itself)

growler wrote:

Why you alone seem to think that the Rising of 1916 played a "small part" in shaping the of the Irish Republic is baffling, perhaps you could tell me a few events that you do consider more significant ?

Everything that was part of the Home Rule movement (not going to list them all). The formation of Sinn Fien. The executions of the rebel leaders and the propaganda spin put on it by the surviving members. The inflatration of SF. The threat of conscription in 1918. The 1918 election and the fact that SF ran uncontested seats through intimidation and threats of violence. The formation of the first Dail. The WoI. The Anglo-Irish treaty. The civil war etc etc

The Rising itself was a very very small part of a much larger chain of events.

Easter Sunday/ 2006

Comments