Celebrating 1916 in 2016

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Erin Go Brath

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Merely window dressing from FF. The acid test of them doing their 'patriotic duty' would be to stand for elections and represent people in the north.

Deedsie

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Merely window dressing from FF. The acid test of them doing their 'patriotic duty' would be to stand for elections and represent people in the north.

FF are 83 years in existence. And they are only now taking tentative steps into the North. What are they waiting for? Granted up to GFA it may not have been as straight forward to run in the North. But thats 12 years ago in a time FF were so dominant in Irish politics they could get away with anything. (As we are all now aware.) The way things are going its the only thing that might save the party.

Erin Go Brath

Deedsie wrote: »

FF are 83 years in existence. And they are only now taking tentative steps into the North. What are they waiting for? Granted up to GFA it may not have been as straight forward to run in the North. But thats 12 years ago in a time FF were so dominant in Irish politics they could get away with anything. (As we are all now aware.) The way things are going its the only thing that might save the party.

Well if its a rainy day they were waiting for, they should look out their window now. When all else fails, FF (Fake Fenians) leaders will wrap the green flag around themselves in a cynical ploy to keep voters onside.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deedsie

donegalfella wrote: »

I have no problem with Fianna Fáil candidates standing for election there—far preferable to Sinn Féin, in my book—but I fail to see how this has anything to do with a "patriotic duty."

They claim to be the republican party. There leaders have been open in there want for a united Ireland. It is part of the FF Manifesto. They represent alot of people who want a united Ireland. If its not there Patriotic duty, its there political duty to represent the people who support them.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

You misunderstand me, i think. I am wondering why FF for example don't compete in the NI assembly elections. If they are to be taken seriously as a party that favours a United Ireland then it follows that they would want to represent people in all parts of Ireland.

At the risk of stating the obvious, running in elections they are not used to would require a set of balls, something which FF appear to lack. Why should they rock the boat when they are on a cushy little number in the south?

wes

Can't say I taugh much about this, but I reckon we should go all out with celebrating. Yeah, that all I got right now .

Still it should be a great time to get everyone in the nation to celebrate.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

At the risk of stating the obvious, running in elections they are not used to would require a set of balls, something which FF appear to lack. Why should they rock the boat when they are on a cushy little number in the south?

I would agree they lack the liathroidi to make the move. They have been trading on their anti-civil war, strongly republican, strongly pro-unity position for years now but only ever pay lip service to those ideals.

Their cushy little number in the south is getting a whole lot trickier these days too. I almost feel sympathy for Brian Cowen having to pick up the pieces that the charlatan Bertie Ahern left behind.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Their cushy little number in the south is getting a whole lot trickier these days too. I almost feel sympathy for Brian Cowen having to pick up the pieces that the charlatan Bertie Ahern left behind.

why do you think Bertie (and Tony) got out when they did.

Is easter 2016 on the 24th April? if not, when will the commemorations take place? easter sunday, or the 24th?

Surely this should be a commemoration, a mark of tribute and respect to those involved and the really big celebration should be the 100th anniversary of the formation of the state? Ends of wars should be celebrated, not the beginnings.

Is it because the formation of the state caused a split within Ireland that easter 1916 is remembered more than 2nd December 1922? I have always wondered why an event, not all that popular at the time, is remembered more than later more important events in irish history.

Deedsie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is it because the formation of the state caused a split within Ireland that easter 1916 is remembered more than 2nd December 1922? I have always wondered why an event, not all that popular at the time, is remembered more than later more important events in irish history.

In my opinion, its because this was the turning point for most people of Ireland. We believed we could stand shoulder to shoulder with the nations of the world. The proclomation stirred people into wanting independence, wanting it so much they would fight for it. It may not be our independence day officially, but it made it clear to the world that Ireland was not a colony of Britain, It was the first step to the Republic.

Civil war marred the 1922 event.

Grudaire

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is easter 2016 on the 24th April? if not, when will the commemorations take place? easter sunday, or the 24th?

Plan for the 24th, but when the bands, and army get confused because some people don't want to have the celebration forget that plan, regroup for a day, and have it on the monday?

T runner

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why do you think Bertie (and Tony) got out when they did.

Is easter 2016 on the 24th April? if not, when will the commemorations take place? easter sunday, or the 24th?

Surely this should be a commemoration, a mark of tribute and respect to those involved and the really big celebration should be the 100th anniversary of the formation of the state? Ends of wars should be celebrated, not the beginnings.

Is it because the formation of the state caused a split within Ireland that easter 1916 is remembered more than 2nd December 1922? I have always wondered why an event, not all that popular at the time, is remembered more than later more important events in irish history.

Yes, in short. Personally I feel the treaty was poor and partition was a huge mistake. Many people may feel the job unfinished (not meant in a sinister way). There is still a strong British presence in Ireland and affairs are still fairly nasty between Irish people (mainly in North).

I think 1916 changed the course of Irish history and caught the imagination of the people. The Irish Volunteers pulled out shortly before but the people who fought, fought without chance of winning and as a sacrifice.

It was the culmination of a radical true republic movement and effectively turned the push for independence and not merely home rule.
If it hadnt happened we would have got home rule and possibly dominion status and it may have taken many generations to gain independence, which has been an undeniable advantage to us.

The trade off for provoking the brutal response from the British was that most of the intellectual leadership was lost.
The end result unfortunately was the emergence of a conservative, catholic state in the south and a problematic situation in the North for both sides.
It just doesnt feel right to celebrate 1922.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why do you think Bertie (and Tony) got out when they did.

Is easter 2016 on the 24th April? if not, when will the commemorations take place? easter sunday, or the 24th?

Surely this should be a commemoration, a mark of tribute and respect to those involved and the really big celebration should be the 100th anniversary of the formation of the state? Ends of wars should be celebrated, not the beginnings.

Is it because the formation of the state caused a split within Ireland that easter 1916 is remembered more than 2nd December 1922? I have always wondered why an event, not all that popular at the time, is remembered more than later more important events in irish history.

Yep thats pretty much why '16 is the big one imo. The country is ashamed of the civil war and partition of the country. Also the ideals of Pearse and the men of 1916 are what the nation has been built on and hence its more significant, with the proclamation as Irelands magna carta.
However there will be commemorations for a lot of what went on in the important 1916-1923 period in Irelands history. Topically, the 90th anniversary of the first Dail Eireann is being commemorated at the moment.

Acacia

I can't believe I'm reading Irish people condemning the leaders of the 1916 Rising as 'terrorists'. These were people who gave their lives for our freedom. By the looks of the responses here they needn't have bothered.

I'd like to see a centenary of the Rising in 2016, but no doubt it probably won't happen in case it 'offends' certain people who would rather Pearse, Connelly and Co. had remained good little boys who never did anything to upset the great British Empire. And anybody who doesn't agree that they are on the same level as Islamic terrorists is obviously an backwards-thinking 'armchair- Republican' who hates Britain. :rolleyes:

Irlbo

Acacia wrote: »

I can't believe I'm reading Irish people condemning the leaders of the 1916 Rising as 'terrorists'. These were people who gave their lives for our freedom. By the looks of the responses here they needn't have bothered.

I'd like to see a centenary of the Rising in 2016, but no doubt it probably won't happen in case it 'offends' certain people who would rather Pearse, Connelly and Co. had remained good little boys who never did anything to upset the great British Empire. And anybody who doesn't agree that they are on the same level as Islamic terrorists is obviously an backwards-thinking 'armchair- Republican' who hates Britain. :rolleyes:

It really is quite upsetting,unbelieveable that 'Irish' people would condemn fellow Irishmen who knowingly stood up against one of the most powerful empires in the world knowing that they had noe hope,their only goal was to inspire future generations to keep the struggle going,obviously that idea is lost on some of this generation who should without question be labeled Westbrits and traitors,and should be marching through the short strand hoisting the union jack with their loyalist counterparts,who they certainly share an infinity,but dont worry the republican movement will always be present,and wont be detered by the attitudes and actions of people who can be called nothing other then traitors

Sand

I find it quite unbelievable that "Irish" people celebrate the murder of unarmed Irishmen. But hey. Stuff happens.

Acacia

Sand wrote: »

I find it quite unbelievable that "Irish" people celebrate the murder of unarmed Irishmen. But hey. Stuff happens.

:rolleyes: For the love of ...

I think you'll find they're celebrating the beginning of Ireland's move towards freedom and independence, not the murder of fellow Irish men.

If I wanted to celebrate ''the murder of unarmed Irishmen'', I'd celebrate Bloody Sunday. I personally think that was a bigger atrocity towards Irish people than the Rising. But hey. Stuff happens.

And care to explain why you put quotation marks around the word ''Irish''?

Sand

I think you'll find they're celebrating the beginning of Ireland's move towards freedom and independence, not the murder of fellow Irish men.

If I wanted to celebrate ''the murder of unarmed Irishmen'', I'd celebrate Bloody Sunday.

With 1916, you can kill two birds with one stone. Awesome.

I personally think that was a bigger atrocity towards Irish people than the Rising.

Seeing as you regard 1916 as an atrocity towards the Irish people, why do you want to celebrate it?

And care to explain why you put quotation marks around the word ''Irish''?

I was mocking Irblo's dismissal of Irish people who disagreed with him in the age old traditional Provo respect for the rights of all Irishmen and women to express their views freely - Id use rolling eyes there but I think it would break the internet.

I cant say what his excuse was.

LordSutch

Obviously all the posts in this Thread are from a modern day perspective (opinions based on Hindsight), but I wonder what attitudes we would discover from the people of Dublin/Ireland circa (Easter 1916) if we had access to a Time Machine and actually went back to the streets of Dublin that week for a Vox Pop . . . . . .

What are peoples thoughts be on the Rising that week? What do Dublin people think of the distruction all around them at that moment? What do Dublin people say about the Rebels right then? Are the Rebels Irish heroes? Do the people of Dublin feel like commerating the Rebels & their actions in one hundred years time?

partyguinness

Camelot wrote: »

Obviously all the posts in this Thread are from a modern day perspective (opinions based on Hindsight), but I wonder what attitudes we would discover from the people of Dublin/Ireland circa (Easter 1916) if we had access to a Time Machine and actually went back to the streets of Dublin that week for a Vox Pop . . . . . .

What are peoples thoughts be on the Rising that week? What do Dublin people think of the distruction all around them at that moment? What do Dublin people say about the Rebels right then? Are the Rebels Irish heroes? Do the people of Dublin feel like commerating the Rebels & their actions in one hundred years time?

It is well documented that the people of Dublin were very unhappy about the Rising. The prisioners were jeered and pelted as they were being led off to jail by Dubliners.

However, as the British usually do, they made a pigs ear of the situation and ended up turning the Rising leaders into martyrs and heros.

If they hadnt executed the 7 signatories, the Rising would probably be just a footnote in history.

Instead it was the catalyst for Irish independence (well for 26 counties at least) whether one agrees with the Rising or not.

bnt

Being Scottish, not Irish, I have no particular opinion on the 1916 leaders, or what you should do in 2016. I do have some historical perspective, though, and am not impressed by the wisdom of the course taken in 1916. I spent many years in South Africa, and learned about the history of that country in school. Why is that relevant to this question, you might ask? Because South Africa was also a British Colony, one that also learned, the hard way, what happened when you rebelled against Britain in those years.

During the Second Boer War, the Afrikaner soldiers were tactically excellent, and basically invented modern guerilla warfare. (Winston Churchill was there at the time as a reporter, and was so impressed he later used them as inspiration for the British "Commando" forces.) Unfortunately for the Boers, they merely succeeded in annoying Queen Victoria and her commanders, including Kitchener, who threw the kitchen sink at the country. Thousands of soldiers, "scorched earth" warfare, and the first concentration camps. The war was over by 1902. (Yes, I know that's simplifying the story a little.)

What happened next was even more bizarre. Boer leaders got involved in day-to-day politics, became more and more influential, and were soon negotiating a version of "Home Rule". The "Union of South Africa" was formed in 1910, and basically ran itself with minimal interference from Whitehall, until independence in 1961.

If there's a lesson to be learned from South Africa, Ireland, India, and other colonies, it's this: the British would only negotiate from a position of strength, but when that was their position, they could be surprisingly reasonable. A similar pattern was repeated in India and parts of Africa later. It's my opinion that the Dublin 1916 leaders failed to learn from the experiences of other colonies, South Africa in particular. I think it was all avoidable. Still, other countries made the same mistake - such as Argentina, in 1981... :eek:

yomchi

Good discussions here! I had family who took part in the rising and were stationed in Bolands Mill. I became very interested in the events of easter week and they shaped the politics I hold now. I remember 'interviewing' my granda for a school project years ago and we covered the topic of the rising and how people felt back then. He lived in Crampton buildings at the time as a teenager (17), cramton buildings are in Temple Bar now.
His understanding of time was that the general public, far from being angry at the rising leaders or the Republican soldiers, they were more petrified in case the war prolonged itself and the city was completely destroyed. Especially when the Helga was brought up the liffey to shell the GPO. Like any war, the majority of the locals anyway, wanted it stopped and a return to civility.
When the leaders were captured and marched from their posts, it is said in history that the every day Dublin people spat at them etc. True to a degree, what the old man said was that it was in general the owners of premises that had been ruined during the war that took great exception, these were business owners. Also thrown into the pot were women who's husbands and sons were off being slaughtered in the Somme. He recalls no one actually spitting or abusing the leaders, thats his memories as he stood on O'Connell bridge, he said most people were to concerned with looting.

In 2016, there should be a national festival bringing all shades of the new Irish community under the one umbrella to celebrate what effectively was a massive effort for self reliance and identity.
One of the most significant aspects of the rising hasn't been mentioned and that of course is the Proclamation. A document now so old but yet so relevant, a document that paved the way for the democratic programme of the first Dáil. An document so inclusive of all the people of Ireland, and I believe if the ideas laid out in that document were even half adhered to today, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in, both socially and economically.

Long winded thread I know, and thanks for bearing it out!
Threads like this, usually tend to focus on the rights and wrongs and camp versus camp, opinion versus opinion, and among that the actual politics of the event are ignored. Without understanding the politics of the likes of Connolly and Pearse well then you don't understand the rising and it's raison d'etre!

In closing, there are always reference to the great men who fought in the rising and the subsequent tan war. There were equally great woman, whom without the rising could not have happened or lasted as long as it did! - contance Gore Booth, Elizabeth Farrell, Maude Gonne Macbride to name a few.

Biodh lá deas agaibh !

partyguinness

bnt wrote: »

Being Scottish, not Irish, I have no particular opinion on the 1916 leaders, or what you should do in 2016. I do have some historical perspective, though, and am not impressed by the wisdom of the course taken in 1916. I spent many years in South Africa, and learned about the history of that country in school. Why is that relevant to this question, you might ask? Because South Africa was also a British Colony, one that also learned, the hard way, what happened when you rebelled against Britain in those years.

During the Second Boer War, the Afrikaner soldiers were tactically excellent, and basically invented modern guerilla warfare. (Winston Churchill was there at the time as a reporter, and was so impressed he later used them as inspiration for the British "Commando" forces.) Unfortunately for the Boers, they merely succeeded in annoying Queen Victoria and her commanders, including Kitchener, who threw the kitchen sink at the country. Thousands of soldiers, "scorched earth" warfare, and the first concentration camps. The war was over by 1902. (Yes, I know that's simplifying the story a little.)

What happened next was even more bizarre. Boer leaders got involved in day-to-day politics, became more and more influential, and were soon negotiating a version of "Home Rule". The "Union of South Africa" was formed in 1910, and basically ran itself with minimal interference from Whitehall, until independence in 1961.

If there's a lesson to be learned from South Africa, Ireland, India, and other colonies, it's this: the British would only negotiate from a position of strength, but when that was their position, they could be surprisingly reasonable. A similar pattern was repeated in India and parts of Africa later. It's my opinion that the Dublin 1916 leaders failed to learn from the experiences of other colonies, South Africa in particular. I think it was all avoidable. Still, other countries made the same mistake - such as Argentina, in 1981... :eek:

While I respect your opinion, I do not think the comparision with SA is reasonable for one basic reason. The time scale and history involved. It was not that the leaders of 196 went into Rising blindly. They made a calculated decision to stage the Rising. The leaders 1916 did not just wake up one morning and decide to stage a military insurrection. The seeds were planted hundreds of years before hand

Ireland had been agitating for independence/self-governance since the 1500s in one way or another e.g- the Flight of the Earls after the Battle of Kinsale in early 1600s. The first parliamentary step forward came in the late 1700s with Grattans Parliament which was ended with the Rebillion of 1798, then came the campaign against the Penal Laws during the first part of the 1800s with Daniel O'Connell winning a Westminister seat for Catholics; then there was another Rebillion in 1848 and the long long campaign for Home Rule (Isaac Butt, C.S. Parnell, Redmond) up to the 1914 and the outbreak of WWI.

When the Unionist population felt that Home Rule was inevitable they embarked on a military campaign by importing hundreds of weapons in anticipation of launching a military offensive against Home Rule. Outright war was a real possibility and by 1916 the leaders had little option as they saw the last 60 yrs of work vanishing so they had to strike.

You see, the campaign for self determination went on for over 400 years and included at least 3 rebellions. The 1916 Rising, while not a military success (it was never going to be and this was acknowledged by the leaders), was the catalyst to bring an end to British occupation.

Lets look at it more simply. The Boer War ended in 1902 and full independence granted in 1961, that is 59 years. After 1916, Ireland had signed a Treaty in 1921 with Britain, its own parliament and break away from 1937 (The Irish Constitution drafted and ratified). Ireland was declared a Republic in 1949.

Whether one likes it or not, it ended up achieving more in the next 5 years than the previous 400 years of parliamentary agitation.

That is the fundamental difference with SA, India etc. The hundreds of years of history that had gone before which those countries did not have. We were also cursed by the fact Ireland is so close in proximity to the UK.

The 1916 Rising did not start or end in 1916. To look at it in isolation and to call it a mistake is naive.

LordSutch

bnt wrote: »

Because South Africa was also a British Colony, one that also learned, the hard way, what happened when you rebelled against Britain in those years.

If there's a lesson to be learned from South Africa, Ireland, India, and other colonies, it's this: the British would only negotiate from a position of strength, but when that was their position, they could be surprisingly reasonable. A similar pattern was repeated in India and parts of Africa later. It's my opinion that the Dublin 1916 leaders failed to learn from the experiences of other colonies, South Africa in particular. I think it was all avoidable. Still, other countries made the same mistake - such as Argentina, in 1981... :eek:

On No, not again ......................

'The Colonies' were Won, Created, Run, & Administered by Empire, and in the case of the British Empire, the Irish made up about 25% of the Colony making machine, and although Ireland was Not a Colony itself, it was indeed an integral part of the creative process that spread out across the Globe as part of the British Empire, with Dublin being the 'Second City of' . . . So may I suggest that it is within this context you view the event of Easter 1916, not forgetting the Somme.

The word 'Colony' in relation to Ireland is at the very least contentious to many (mostly Unionists) given our relationship & proximity to Northern Ireland & Britain just 24 miles away (and not 3000 miles away).

Deedsie

Jon wrote: »

In 2016, there should be a national festival bringing all shades of the new Irish community under the one umbrella to celebrate what effectively was a massive effort for self reliance and identity.
One of the most significant aspects of the rising hasn't been mentioned and that of course is the Proclamation. A document now so old but yet so relevant, a document that paved the way for the democratic programme of the first Dáil. An document so inclusive of all the people of Ireland, and I believe if the ideas laid out in that document were even half adhered to today, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in, both socially and economically.

Biodh lá deas agaibh !

Not to Brown nose too much but thats a great paragraph.

I always felt the proclomation was never appreciated enough. There are parts that obviously ruffle feathers "Allies on the continent". But for the most part what it states is years ahead of its time. A very impressive inclusive document. Does anyone know who wrote it? Pearse?

Deedsie

Camelot wrote: »

On No, not again ......................

'The Colonies' were Won, Created, Run, & Administered by Empire, and in the case of the British Empire, the Irish made up about 25% of the Colony making machine, and although Ireland was Not a Colony itself, it was indeed an integral part of the creative process that spread out across the Globe as part of the British Empire, with Dublin being the 'Second City of' . . . So may I suggest that within this context you also consider the 1916 Rising.

The word 'Colony' in relation to Ireland is at the very least contentious to many (mostly Unionists) given our relationship & proximity to Northern Ireland & Britain just 24 miles away (and not 3000 miles away).

How many of the 25% were Catholic Irish men from working classes? Not that i know much about it but i would suggest some of these empire builders may have come from a privileged background? For four hundred years there was the Irish question in British politics. To suggest the majority of Irish people were happy to be succeeded in the the UK is just not true. We endured it the British Empire, we didnt build it.

partyguinness

Camelot wrote: »

On No, not again ......................

'The Colonies' were Won, Created, Run, & Administered by Empire, and in the case of the British Empire, the Irish made up about 25% of the Colony making machine, and although Ireland was Not a Colony itself, it was indeed an integral part of the creative process that spread out across the Globe as part of the British Empire, with Dublin being the 'Second City of' ............

The word 'Colony' in relation to Ireland is at the very least contentious to many (mostly Unionists) given our relationship & proximity to Northern Ireland & Britain just 24 miles away (and not 3000 miles away).

Why does it sit so uncomfortably with the Unionists?

I suspect it is because it reminds them that they were planted in Ireland and perhaps the proximity is a little too close to home for comfort. They are close yet so far. Perhaps also because the methods used to plant them were not exactly..neighbourly.

They also have difficulty accepting that most of the British establishment could not give a flying monkeys about them and they are merely tolerated because of historical guilt on tha part of the British establishment.

While most Unionists have been in Ireland for several generations they still cannot shake off that nagginig feeling that they are foreign. Thats the contradiction. They want to be seen as different but try to convince themselves they are British or in Britain. They know deep down that is not the case.

It is the source of huge internal conflict for them. They regard themselves as British but yet they well never feel at home amongest the "natives". I think it is more commonly referred to as historical guilt even if they would rather go to hell and back than admit it. Its all part of the identity crisis that Unionism suffers from.

They will not accept this and it adds to their sense of isolation and siege mentality.

partyguinness

Deedsie wrote: »

Not to Brown nose too much but thats a great paragraph.

I always felt the proclomation was never appreciated enough. There are parts that obviously ruffle feathers "Allies on the continent". But for the most part what it states is years ahead of its time. A very impressive inclusive document. Does anyone know who wrote it? Pearse?

I have a framed copy of the Proclamation with me since I was 18.

Growing up, my father always (and still does) have two framed pictures in our hallway. One is the Proclamation and the other has pictures of all the people executed in 1916 (not just the 7 leaders). Its the first thing you see in my parents house. And no we are not some mad 'RA heads.

Fratton Fred

Deedsie wrote: »

How many of the 25% were Catholic Irish men from working classes? Not that i know much about it but i would suggest some of these empire builders may have come from a privileged background? For four hundred years there was the Irish question in British politics. To suggest the majority of Irish people were happy to be succeeded in the the UK is just not true. We endured it the British Empire, we didnt build it.

there is a saying that the Irish won the empire, the Scots administered it and the English lost it.

The Irish did a lot more in term os supporting the empire than you may think, I believe that majority of non local British soldiers in India, for example, were Irish.