Celebrating 1916 in 2016

Deedsie · 28-01-2009 1:16pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

I appreciate that. And ill admit right from the off my knowledge about the British Empire is minimal after attempts to diminish its position. Australian Republican Movements etc...

I presume its just my upbringing and school but the British empire was always a bad thing. Im not saying that is completely true, im just saying thats they way its always been portrayed to me.

seamus · 28-01-2009 1:26pm

Deedsie wrote: »

Im not saying that is completely true, im just saying thats they way its always been portrayed to me.

You'll find that it's pretty much the same for everyone who was educated in Ireland. Cromwell, for instance is a British hero and is lauded an all teaching of history in the UK.

Here in Ireland though, Cromwell is our own personal Hitler, with the words, "To hell or to Connaught" ingrained in our minds as the words of the biggest murdering scumbag we've ever encountered.

gurramok · 28-01-2009 1:37pm

seamus wrote: »

You'll find that it's pretty much the same for everyone who was educated in Ireland. Cromwell, for instance is a British hero and is lauded an all teaching of history in the UK.

Here in Ireland though, Cromwell is our own personal Hitler, with the words, "To hell or to Connaught" ingrained in our minds as the words of the biggest murdering scumbag we've ever encountered.

One is teaching fiction while the other is teaching fact. Go figure!

Fratton Fred wrote:

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.

Indeed true. They did not serve for loyalty but to earn a wage.

For example which i've stated before on Boards. My ancestors fought in the Somme on the British side, survived, came back and joined the IRA to fight in the War of Independence.
This was the case of many Irish who served in the British army.

LordSutch · 28-01-2009 3:24pm

gurramok wrote: »

They did not serve for loyalty but to earn a wage.

Thats just your opinion .................

Deedsie · 28-01-2009 3:34pm

Camelot wrote: »

Thats just your opinion .................

Its common knowledge that most of the Irish men who fought for Britain during WWI did so in the hope that Ireland would be granted her freedoms after the war was over.

For the majority of years Ireland was in the UK the average Irish man could not vote, we suffered two famines, an uprising, fifty years of home rule politics. another uprising followerd by a war of independence. Thats Irish history under UK rule doesnt sound like an equal to me but a hostile colony.

Why would Irish people show loyalty to the UK other than for a wage.

Fratton Fred · 28-01-2009 3:41pm

Deedsie wrote: »

Its common knowledge that most of the Irish men who fought for Britain during WWI did so in the hope that Ireland would be granted her freedoms after the war was over.

is it common knowledge, or the popular reason given, kind of like an excuse?

Deedsie wrote: »

For the majority of years Ireland was in the UK the average Irish man could not vote, we suffered two famines, an uprising, fifty years of home rule politics. another uprising followerd by a war of independence. Thats Irish history under UK rule doesnt sound like an equal to me but a hostile colony.

Why would Irish people show loyalty to the UK other than for a wage.

The same reason the Indians did. the same reason most people fought for an army back in the day, it was a way of life that appealed.

Out of curiosity, have you heard of the peterloo massacre? or the tolpuddle martyrs?

partyguinness · 28-01-2009 3:45pm

Its common knowledge that most of the Irish men who fought for Britain during WWI did so in the hope that Ireland would be granted her freedoms after the war was over.

Indeed, there many documented cases of Irish men going to WWI and joining the British Army simply to have a decent pair of shoes..it was a wage, food and clothes..nothing to do with loyalty.

Although revisionists would like us to believe that they were running to the aide of King and country...not denying that maybe a few were...but most of the Irish who did support the "King" (small minority) were from the upper middle classes and most certainly did not fight in the trenches. They were the landed classes looking after their own self interests and who felt they had most to lose without British protection...most of the Irish who did fight were poor working class who became cannon fodder...many saw it as an adventure..most just wanted food and clothes...

WWI was a disgrace. It was an imperialist war. All sides sent millions of their own citizens to certain death. For what..the great "British empire"..it was pathetic...millions of brave young men needlessly murdered..

It was the most savage and brutal acts of mindless barbarism in the history of mankind..I resent the Kevin Myers of this world who try to paint WWI as some sort of glorified campaign against evil...

At least WWII was justified.

LordSutch · 28-01-2009 4:12pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Although revisionists would like us to believe that they were running to the aide of King and country...not denying that maybe a few were...but most of the Irish who did support the "King" (small minority) were from the upper middle classes and most certainly did not fight in the trenches.

In God's name, where do you get this bilge from ............

Deedsie · 28-01-2009 4:20pm

Camelot wrote: »

In God's name, where do you get this bilge from ............

"How many miles to Babylon" Its a good read.

pepsicokeacola · 28-01-2009 4:25pm

well said partyguinneas. revisionists:rolleyes:

yomchi · 28-01-2009 4:26pm

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?

The very nationalist content was Pearse in the main and Ceannt and Clarke had an input too. The socialist aspect came from Connolly, thats the most inclusive part and probably today the most important.

partyguinness · 28-01-2009 4:36pm

Camelot wrote: »

In God's name, where do you get this bilge from ............

Reading and researching is the short answer. What do you think??:rolleyes:

Whats exactly is wrong with any of what I wrote. The curtness of your response says it all.

I am very well versed in Irish history:D

gurramok · 28-01-2009 5:12pm

Camelot wrote: »

Thats just your opinion .................

The kindly explain why those same soldiers who survived WW1 suddenly decided to join the IRA when they came home?

If they had loyalty to the King/British rule, they would of fought the IRA like the Unionists and the British Army in all its forms in Ireland!!

partyguinness · 28-01-2009 5:14pm

I believe Camelot also wrote earlier that his g/father joined the IRA during the War of Independence after fighting in the Somme....

LordSutch · 28-01-2009 5:30pm

He certainly did not join the IRA or any other rebel outfit.

He died in the Great War fighting for King & Country (Britain & Ireland).

partyguinness · 28-01-2009 5:42pm

My apologies. I am confusing you with someone else.

gurramok · 28-01-2009 7:26pm

And I sincerely doubt Camelot's grandfather joined the Irish or National Volunteers before 1916 as they were Irish Nationalist organisations

LordSutch · 28-01-2009 9:55pm

He is listed as one of the 'Thirty five Thousand' Irish man who died in the Great War.

Acacia · 28-01-2009 11:43pm

Sand wrote: »

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

The fact that you're comparing Bloody Sunday (either of them) with 1916 is laughable. I don't think I've to explain the difference between innocent Irish civilians being murdered by British troops and a rising against the Empire , for Irish independence,which resulted in the (unintentional) deaths of civilians, do I?

Of course, if you want to believe the events are somehow equally malicious towards Irish people, go right ahead.

Sand wrote: »

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

Just to be clear, I don't think it was an atrocity towards Irish people at all. And I'm baffled as to why anybody would think it was, to be frank.

I think it should be celebrated because it was the first step towards Irish independence.

Out of interest, why do you not wish to celebrate it? (I assume you don't want to, anyway.)

Sand wrote: »

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.

I actually don't agree with the view that anybody who disagrees with such opinions should be shot or called a traitor.

However, neither do I think celebrating 1916 or not viewing the Rising leaders as 'terrorists' makes one a 'Provo' or a 'bar-stool Republican', or whatever other labels are bandied about here. It does seem to be the in-thing on here to condemn any form of Irish nationalism as 'terrorism' or, at the very least, 'terrorist-sympathizing', and it's just as annoying as the other side being called 'loyalist traitors'.

Don't see why the roll-eyes thing has to be brought into it, but whatever.

yomchi · 28-01-2009 11:59pm

Terrorism is such an opinionated word. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Fratton Fred · 29-01-2009 12:04am

Jon wrote: »

Terrorism is such an opinionated word. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

to an extent, but I'm not sure how someone who bombs a shopping centre, or a commuter train can be called anything but a terrorist.

LordSutch · 29-01-2009 12:09am

Jon wrote: »

Terrorism is such an opinionated word. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

So Jon, would an IRA volunteer who plants a 500lb Bomb in a shopping Centre be a Terrorist? would an INLA volunteer who plants plants a Bomb in a Fish & Chip Shop be a Terrorist? would a UVF volunteer who sets a timer on a Car Bomb be a terrorist?

Or, are all of the above freedom fighters 'in your opinion' ?

Grudaire · 29-01-2009 12:18am

Camelot wrote: »

So Jon, would an IRA volunteer who plants a 500lb Bomb in a shopping Centre be a Terrorist? would an INLA volunteer who plants plants a Bomb in a Fish & Chip Shop be a Terrorist? would a UVF volunteer who sets a timer on a Car Bomb be a terrorist?

Or, are all of the above freedom fighters 'in your opinion' ?

Hang on isn't this about 1916????

Besides for 1916 they went with 'noble' tactics (thus it was an epic military failure). The all out face to face fighting is what they chose

Acacia · 29-01-2009 12:21am

Cliste wrote: »

Hang on isn't this about 1916????

It is, but, as usual, has turned into a 'The IRA are terrorists' discussion.

yomchi · 29-01-2009 12:28am

Camelot wrote: »

So Jon, would an IRA volunteer who plants a 500lb Bomb in a shopping Centre be a Terrorist? would an INLA volunteer who plants plants a Bomb in a Fish & Chip Shop be a Terrorist? would a UVF volunteer who sets a timer on a Car Bomb be a terrorist?

Or, are all of the above freedom fighters 'in your opinion' ?

My opinion is irrelevant, however it doesn't change the facts.

Besides for 1916 they went with 'noble' tactics (thus it was an epic military failure). The all out face to face fighting is what they chose

True, and Pearse knew it would be a epic failure in the end, hence why he termed it the 'blood sacrifice' !

Grudaire · 29-01-2009 12:37am

Jon wrote: »

True, and Pearse knew it would be a epic failure in the end, hence why he termed it the 'blood sacrifice' !

It (26/32 * 100) % worked....

They died for all of us, nuff said

Poccington · 29-01-2009 12:55am

Of all the topics that have ended up as an argument about whether *Insert group here* were terrorists, I really hope this won't be another one.

LordSutch · 29-01-2009 1:02am

Cliste wrote: »

It (26/32 * 100) % worked....

They died for all of us, nuff said

They certainly didnt die for me!

Poccington · 29-01-2009 1:06am

Camelot wrote: »

They certainly didnt die for me!

Well then they died for the rest of us.

Happy now?

Grudaire · 29-01-2009 1:11am

Camelot wrote: »

They certainly didnt die for me!

:rolleyes:

I really hope your next post is "Hey come back guys, I wanna argue" :pac:

Celebrating 1916 in 2016

Comments