Celebrating 1916 in 2016

LordSutch

No, but for you to just glibly say "They died for all of us, nuff said" is very shallow & presumptuous, I mean to say Cliste, you mst be aware that even to this day there are arguments For & Against the rights & wrongs of what the rebels did in 1916, the way they did it (in the middle of the Great War)! against the will of the people (of the time), & the ramifications of their actions which have rippled down the decades to this day.

Irlbo

Camelot wrote: »

No, but for you to just glibly say that "They died for all of us, nuff said" is very shallow & presumptuous, I mean to say Cliste, you mst be aware that even to this day there are arguments For & Against the rights & wrongs of what the rebels did in 1916, the way they did it (in the middle of the Great War)! against the will of the people (of the time), & the negative ramifications of their actions, the results of which have rippled down the decades to this very day, nuff said.

The anger and frustration towards the 1916 leaders by the public transformed into anger and frustration towards the British establishment when they executed them,which in turn led to a swell in support for the republican movement at the time,the efforts of the 1916 leaders at the time laid the foundations for future republicans,the IRA in time became immensely strong with nearly enough firepower and manpower to rival the freestate army

ChocolateSauce

I won't be celebrating. I view it as an anti-democratic insurrection.

LordSutch

Yes Irlbo, but would you agree that the actions of the 1916 rebels had a profound impact on the island as a whole. Launching a Rebel attack in the climate of the day was not going to help attain Unity with the North!

There are still ripples today, and I personally think the Rising was a big mistake, it was the last thing the country needed in 1916 with all the sorrow & death in the country surrounding World War One.

If I had been around in those days I would have been a Redmondite ~ 'Home Rule' devolved from London > to Dublin (without hostilities).

Allah Hu Akbar

Camelot wrote: »

There are still ripples today, and I personally think the Rising was a big mistake,

Sure don't we already know that. You would rather Ireland still be ruled by the British.

LordSutch

Please read #155 again carefully.

partyguinness

Camelot wrote: »

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

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

No doubt your grandfather died bravely and his death was tragic.

But to say he died for King and country...please..pull the other one..who made him the King of Ireland..and unelected and over privileged dinosaur.

But does no deflect from the fact that it was a pointless and Imperial war:

Britain was not attacked
Britain was not invaded
British citizens were not being attacked
Was the King attacked? Assassinated?

So why did Britain join the "Great" War? It was a disgusting and vulgar display of power and utterly pointless.

Tell me..what did WWI achieve? What was it for?

All it did was rob an entire gereration of millions of young men sent to their certain death who were lied to and betrayed by the military and political establishment.

Died for King...?? :eek:

I am sure the King was delighted...where was the King when your father was being killed?

Would the King have laid down his life for your father? No, he was being hidden away from any danger.

As much as this might hurt..the millions of young men died because of incompetent buffoons.

I have never heard anybody being able to justify WWI with any degree of credibility.

partyguinness

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I won't be celebrating. I view it as an anti-democratic insurrection.

As opposed to what? A democratic insurrection?

partyguinness

Camelot wrote: »

Yes Irlbo, but would you agree that the actions of the 1916 rebels had a profound impact on the island as a whole. Launching a Rebel attack in the climate of the day was not going to help attain Unity with the North!

There are still ripples today, and I personally think the Rising was a big mistake, it was the last thing the country needed in 1916 with all the sorrow & death in the country surrounding World War One.

If I had been around in those days I would have been a Redmondite ~ 'Home Rule' devolved from London > to Dublin (without hostilities).

I will say it again..viewing the 1916 Rising in isolation is simplistic and naive.

Remember the catalyst for the military asect of 1916 was brought about by Edward Carson and the Covenant in 1911 where the Unionists vowed to fight Home Rule with "any means possible". Some people even signed it in blood.

The Unionists then proceeded to land thousands of weapons in Larne in 1912 in preparation for a military campaign. The Nationalist movement were left with little option but to follow suit.

So Camelot, say 1916 hadnt happened and after WWI Home Rule was forced through. How do you think the (armed) Unionist population would have reacted?

Northern Ireland did not exist until 1922 and there was no question of unity with the North in 1916.

The 1916 Rising gave birth to this State whether one agrees with it or not and should be rightly commemorated. The subsequent elections in 1917 validated the actions of the 1916 leaders.

OhNoYouDidn't

Camelot wrote: »

If I had been around in those days I would have been a Redmondite ~ 'Home Rule' devolved from London > to Dublin (without hostilities).

And you would have failed.

LordSutch

Maybe?

OhNoYouDidn't

Camelot wrote: »

Maybe?

No, you would have.

If the British couldn't see the contradiction between fighting to free gallant little Belguim and keeping their foot on Irish necks, resoned argument would not have won the day.

Violence was the only language the Imeperialists in Whitehall clubs understood.

Grudaire

Camelot wrote: »

No, but for you to just glibly say "They died for all of us, nuff said" is very shallow & presumptuous, I mean to say Cliste, you mst be aware that even to this day there are arguments For & Against the rights & wrongs of what the rebels did in 1916, the way they did it (in the middle of the Great War)! against the will of the people (of the time), & the ramifications of their actions which have rippled down the decades to this day.

I'm all for reasonable debate, but after 140 posts you're arguing about the PIRA et all, which has nothing to do with the 1916 rising. I don't know who steered in that direction, but it has 0% to do with the topic at hand.

If you say that they didn't go out to gain benifits for all Irish you're being unreasonable

mountainyman

Apologies Camelot thought this was on After Hours:

the onus is on Ulster Unionists to celebrate the Somme in an inclusive way. That said it is unclear why a squalid incident, in a squalid war for a squalid empire should be celebrated.

They died as cattle.

Fratton Fred

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, you would have.

If the British couldn't see the contradiction between fighting to free gallant little Belguim and keeping their foot on Irish necks, resoned argument would not have won the day.

Violence was the only language the Imeperialists in Whitehall clubs understood.

Britain weren't fighting to free Belgium, they were fighting to prevent Germany getting too powerful and potentially capturing France. The fear was that a combined German/French power would threaten Britain. Any talk of freeing Belgium was only to get Irish people to sign up, nothing more.

partyguinness

the ramifications of their actions which have rippled down the decades to this day.- Camelot
The Battle of Clontarf 1066
The Battle of the Boyne 1689
The French Revolution
The US Civil War
The Boer War
Even Ray Houghtans goal in Stuttgart in 1988 for christs sake
Hell even man discovering fire..

Every battle/historic event has ripples for many decades/centuries to come.

It is trite to say that 1916 has ripples to this day and should not have happened.

It gave birth to this country.

partyguinness

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain weren't fighting to free Belgium, they were fighting to prevent Germany getting too powerful and potentially capturing France. The fear was that a combined German/French power would threaten Britain. Any talk of freeing Belgium was only to get Irish people to sign up, nothing more.

Any talk of freeing Belgium was only to get Irish people to sign up, nothing more.[/quote]

Thank you for validating one of my earlier points. Many of the Irish men who signed up were misguided, lied to and betrayed by the military and political elite in Britain in nothing but a disgusting imperial exercise in mass murder and destruction.

And the 1916 leaders were expected to reaons with those blood thirsty barbarians in Whitehall?

That makes the deaths of all the those young men even more sad (including Camelots g/father) and depressing.:(

LordSutch

partyguinness wrote: »

It gave birth to this country.

Well if you agree that 'the 1916 rising' gave birth to anything I'd say it was a Mono Cultural, Priest ridden, Mono religious, Inward looking, Blinkered, Black & White, Economically unstable State (for 80 years).

Not something I want to celibrate in 2016.

partyguinness

Camelot wrote: »

Well if you agree that 'the 1916 rising' gave birth to anything I'd say it was a Mono Cultural, Priest ridden, Mono religious, inward looking, backward, black & white State (for 80 years).

Not something I want to celibrate in 2016.

Yes you are right, that is a fairly accurate description of Northern Ireland.

Like it or not..you are part of it..so maybe you should take a good long look in the mirror as blaming the 1916 Rising is downright pathetic.

Acacia

Camelot wrote: »

Well if you agree that 'the 1916 rising' gave birth to anything I'd say it was a Mono Cultural, Priest ridden, Mono religious, Inward looking, Blinkered, Black & White, Economically unstable State (for 80 years).

Not something I want to celibrate in 2016.

Maybe we were so 'inward-looking' and all the rest of it because of how the Britsh had treated us for so long. What did you expect to develop after 800 years of oppression? An economic super-power or something? We're doing perfectly well now without Britain, thanks very much and that's why I'll be celebrating 1916 in 2016.

Grand so if you don't want to celebrate it, I'll be celebrating it because it rid us of an oppressive empire that treated us like muck for 800 years.

Well, to each their own and all that.

Soldie

I must say I find it thoroughly amusing that so many Irish nationalists (yes, those who viewed Ireland as being a 'colony') are guilty of exatly the same thing they accuse 'West Brits' of - neatly picking and choosing from history to fit their agenda.

partyguinness

What????

I dont think I have seen the word "West Brit" in this thread so what the hell are you taking about?

Are you in the wrong thread?

ChocolateSauce

partyguinness wrote: »

As opposed to what? A democratic insurrection?

Actually, yes. The war of independence was a democratic insurrection, as the republicans had won an election but their decision to break from Britain was not respected by Westminster. Therefore the cause they fought for was one chosen by the majority of the Irish population, in stark contrast to the Easter rising, which was done against the general wishes of the nation.

And you would have failed.

Actually Redmond had already succeeded by 1914. Home rule was due to take force in 1916, but the war had it postponed.

We're doing perfectly well now without Britain, thanks very much and that's why I'll be celebrating 1916 in 2016.

Actually we're not. It is still our single largest trading partner, and the only reason we're not still wholly dependent on them is because of the help of the EU, most of whom are former imperial powers just like (or worse than) Britain.

Nodin

Camelot wrote: »

Well if you agree that 'the 1916 rising' gave birth to anything I'd say it was a Mono Cultural, Priest ridden, Mono religious, Inward looking, Blinkered, Black & White, Economically unstable State (for 80 years).

Not something I want to celibrate in 2016.

As oppossed to the liberal 24-Hour-Party-people state up north that "stayed loyal". Hmmmmmm.

partyguinness

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Actually, yes. The war of independence was a democratic insurrection, as the republicans had won an election but their decision to break from Britain was not respected by Westminster. Therefore the cause they fought for was one chosen by the majority of the Irish population, in stark contrast to the Easter rising, which was done against the general wishes of the nation.

Yes you are right they did not have a democratic mandate..."All in favour of a military insurrurection tick this box, thank you":) Somehow the words... John Cleese...Flying Circus spring to mind

So following on this logic..Hitler was elected and so was Stalin..does that legitimise their actions in WWII and the concentration camps??

The huge support in the 1919 elections for Sinn Fein (with the collapse for the Home Rule party) was a direct result of the 1916 Rising which led to the "democratic" War of Independence..so go figure that one out...??

You can't have one without the other. History cannot be viewed in isolation or put into neat little boxes.

ChocolateSauce

partyguinness wrote: »

Yes you are right they did not have a democratic mandate..."All in favour of a military insurrurection tick this box, thank you":) Somehow the words... John Cleese...Flying Circus spring to mind

So following on this logic..Hitler was elected and so was Stalin..does that legitimise their actions in WWII and the concentration camps??

This is extremely flimsy logic, and the analogy doesn't stick. Firstly, Stalin was not elected by the people; he seized power and murdered his rivals. Second, Hitler was only elected once, and he was elected to fix Germany's problems. He did not run for election under the platform "let's murder the Jews and start a war".

The huge support in the 1919 elections for Sinn Fein (with the collapse for the Home Rule party) was a direct result of the 1916 Rising which led to the "democratic" War of Independence..so go figure that one out...??

That's like saying the ends justify the means.

Public opinion only turned against the British because of how the British handled the situation, and with good cause.

partyguinness

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Actually, yes. The war of independence was a democratic insurrection, as the republicans had won an election but their decision to break from Britain was not respected by Westminster. Therefore the cause they fought for was one chosen by the majority of the Irish population, in stark contrast to the Easter rising, which was done against the general wishes of the nation.

See my reply above.


Actually we're not. It is still our single largest trading partner, and the only reason we're not still wholly dependent on them is because of the help of the EU, most of whom are former imperial powers just like (or worse than) Britain.

Actually Redmond had already succeeded by 1914. Home rule was due to take force in 1916, but the war had it postponed.

Seriously go back and read your history books. Start with the Balfour/Bonar/Conservative Party generally from 1911 onwards and the Covenant signed in Belfast in 1911 at the behest of Edward Carson. Home Rule would never have come in. The Liberals lost power during the war and that was the end of it.


Actually we're not. It is still our single largest trading partner, and the only reason we're not still wholly dependent on them is because of the help of the EU, most of whom are former imperial powers just like (or worse than) Britain.[/quote]


And your point is??

So what if Britain is our largest trading partner. It is our neighbour.

Every single country in the world has large trading partners e.g. the US is hugely indebted to China for trading purposes, Japan and China are mutually dependant on each other, I could go on...

That is of absolutely no relevance to a debate on 1916.

Fratton Fred

partyguinness wrote: »

Thank you for validating one of my earlier points. Many of the Irish men who signed up were misguided, lied to and betrayed by the military and political elite in Britain in nothing but a disgusting imperial exercise in mass murder and destruction.

And the 1916 leaders were expected to reaons with those blood thirsty barbarians in Whitehall?

That makes the deaths of all the those young men even more sad (including Camelots g/father) and depressing.:(

What makes the Irish so special, at least conscription wasn't introduced here. WWI was not entirely Britains fault, they may have been at part to blame, but no more than France and a lot less than Germany.

If the 1916 leaders had not issued statements to the effect that they were cooperating with their "Glorious Allies" in europe and a boat load of arms hadn't been found off the coast of Kerry, then things may have turned out a hell of a lot different.

The 1916 leaders ****ed it up. They gave the British an excuse to come down on them heavy. Agreed if they hadn't then things would have turned out a lot different, but lets face it, it was a badly organised blood sacrifice.

This is why, as I said earlier, I can't understand why it is celebrated so much other than the fact that it has somehow fallen as much into folklore as it has anything else.

partyguinness

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This is extremely flimsy logic, and the analogy doesn't stick. Firstly, Stalin was not elected by the people; he seized power and murdered his rivals. Second, Hitler was only elected once, and he was elected to fix Germany's problems. He did not run for election under the platform "let's murder the Jews and start a war".



That's like saying the ends justify the means.

Public opinion only turned against the British because of how the British handled the situation, and with good cause.

You call it flimsy but that is your logic, they were both elected to power (one way or another). Therefore being elected gives a carte blanche to justify any argument or action. Didn't Hitler invade the Sudetenland, Austria etc to "fix" Germanys problems?? which invariably led to WWII...anything can be justifed with that logic.

I am not getting into a debate on Hitler and Stalin. This is not the place. It was to illustrate a point.

To call the Rising undemocratic and in the same sentnce call the War of Independence democratic is simplistic and naive.

I will repeat..the democracy which led to the legitimate (as you see it and I agree) War of Independence was a direct result of the 1916 Rising (and the way the British (badly) handled the situation).

And yes..the end did justify the means.

Acacia

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Actually we're not. It is still our single largest trading partner, and the only reason we're not still wholly dependent on them is because of the help of the EU, most of whom are former imperial powers just like (or worse than) Britain.

I'm aware of that, but as partyguinness points out, most countries depend on others for trade. What I meant was we're doing fine without being ruled by Britain- we are perfectly capable of ruling ourselves , independent of Britain.