Celebrating 1916 in 2016

partyguinness

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Nobody is saying the Irish were "special". But this is a debate on the 1916 Rising and the comparison was made long ago about the Irish fighting in WWI during the Rising.

Britain was not solely to blame nobody said otherwise. I said in previous posts that all side sent millions of their young men to certain death in the greatest acts of mass murder in the history of mankind.

Yes the Rising was a military failure and a complete mess from that side of things. The leaders knew this and acknowledged this but they wanted to "strike a blow" and stirr up rebellion which is ultimately what happened.

Badly organised blood sacrifice..sure it was and in keeping with the spirit of the times. Before the Rising Padraig Pearse frequently spoke of spilling the blood of Irish men to rise against the oppressor. He felt that spilling blood was the only was to stir the public.

But it was no more badly organised blood sacrifice than what was happening in Europe at the time.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And you would have failed.

I'm reminded of bonkey's former sig quoting C S Lewis's Aslan: "...no-one is ever told what would have happened."

Home Rule might not have succeeded; but it's hard to imagine a movement with such popular support being ignored indefinitely. Sure, it might have taken longer: but considering that by Republican standards the island hasn't fully obtained independence yet, it seems only fair to point out that the Rising didn't work either.

Silly argument either way, isn't it?

partyguinness

Yes the island does not have full independence...

But I think before we debate whether or not the Rising was a success we must be clear on what it was the leaders of the Rising were hoping to actually achieve.

This is where the papers and words of the leaders before the Rising is most relevant. I for one feel that the Rising was a success when all the facts etc are taken as a whole.

I do feel that people look at the Rising in isolation and out of context. Yes..it was a military failure..Yes it didnt in its self achieve independence..Yes it did not have a democratic mandate..Yes it caused destruction and deaths in Dublin...but they were fighting an oppressor which no Irish person voted into the country..

It laid the foundation and like all foundations it had to be built upon with future events and battles....

Like it or not, it is without question that without the 1916 Rising we, as a nation, would not be where we are today.

For me, that is worth celebrating, to do otherwise is to undermine and deny the very country we were born and raised in.

(Tears now welling up..sob)

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

The 1916 leaders didnt fcuk anything up. They knew exactly what they were doing and what the likely outcome would be. Thomas Jefferson sums it up eloquently in the following quote:
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Pearse and the rebels knew that the odds were stacked against them and that death most likely awaited them. They died for Ireland knowing that their blood sacrifice would awaken and re-energise Irelands desire for freedom, which could only realistically be achieved by a continuation of armed conflict.
The 1916 rising and subsequent execution of the leaders served to radicalise a large amount of Irish people which provided the springboard for indpendence.

LordSutch

partyguinness wrote: »

...but they were fighting an oppressor which no Irish person voted into the country..[/I]

This business about the 'opressor' and the Irish being 'oppressed' has cropped up several times in this 1916 Thread, and is always held up as the reason for the Easter Rising, but just how oppressed was Ireland generally, how oppressed was Ireland economically, and how oppressed were the Irish people in 1916?

A relavent question I think, in light of the accusations.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The 1916 leaders didnt fcuk anything up. They knew exactly what they were doing and what the likely outcome would be. Thomas Jefferson sums it up eloquently in the following quote:
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Pearse and the rebels knew that the odds were stacked against them and that death most likely awaited them. They died for Ireland knowing that their blood sacrifice would awaken and re-energise Irelands desire for freedom, which could only realistically be achieved by a continuation of armed conflict.
The 1916 rising and subsequent execution of the leaders served to radicalise a large amount of Irish people which provided the springboard for indpendence.

I thought they were expecting the rest of the country to rise up and drive the British out, using the arms from the Aud and the Irish PoWs?

aahh, I suppose a failed rebellion is not as romantic as a "Blood Sacrifice" is it.

partyguinness

Lets see:-

a. Denying the right of to self-determination
b. The Right to Vote being restricted to the landed gentry (the 1916 Proclamation extended the right to vote to ALL Irish men and women)
c. Controling imports and exports
d. Maintaing a military presence in the country
e. Controlling Judiciary
f. Direct rule from London.

In 1916, the British were denying the Irish people to self determination. That is oppression.

Lets not even get into how Landlord/Tenant system evolved, the Penal Laws, the famine, the Protestant ascendency, Cromwell etc etc

Camelot- In relation to the last few posts. Your silence is deafening.;)

oscarBravo

partyguinness wrote: »

a. Denying the right of to self-determination

To what extent was such a right universally acknowledged at the time?

b. The Right to Vote being restricted to the landed gentry (the 1916 Proclamation extended the right to vote to ALL Irish men and women)

Was Ireland different from the rest of the UK in that regard?

c. Controling imports and exports
d. Maintaing a military presence in the country
e. Controlling Judiciary
f. Direct rule from London.

All of which is true of, say, England today. Little more than an exercise in sophistry, really - unless, of course, you decide to style Ireland a colony, in which case you're arguing from your conclusion anyway.

Lets not even get into how Landlord/Tenant system evolved, the Penal Laws, the famine, the Protestant ascendency, Cromwell etc etc

Or we could point out just how very different life in Ireland already was in 1916 to how it had been even fifty or sixty years earlier.

Irlbo

partyguinness wrote: »

Lets see:-

a. Denying the right of to self-determination
b. The Right to Vote being restricted to the landed gentry (the 1916 Proclamation extended the right to vote to ALL Irish men and women)
c. Controling imports and exports
d. Maintaing a military presence in the country
e. Controlling Judiciary
f. Direct rule from London.

In 1916, the British were denying the Irish people to self determination. That is oppression.

Lets not even get into how Landlord/Tenant system evolved, the Penal Laws, the famine, the Protestant ascendency, Cromwell etc etc

Camelot- In relation to the last few posts. Your silence is deafening.;)

All goes to show Britains presence in Ireland was,is and always will be a curse,alot of the ills in Irish society today are as a result of past British influence

partyguinness

aahh, I suppose a failed rebellion is not as romantic as a "Blood Sacrifice" is it.

In isolation and taken out of context, it was a "failed rebellion" but as I have stated a few times today (and ignored by those who cant refute it).

The Rising cannot be taken in isolation.

This is simplistic, naive and a complete denial of everything that happened before and after the rising..aahh but that doesnt suit your agenda. :rolleyes:

It is very easy and downright lazy to throw out lines like "It was a military failure"; "It achieved nothing"; "It was undemocratic" etc etc.

In fact it shows a basic lack of in depth knowledge and understanding of the 1916 Risiing.

You (and Camelot) cannot accept that the Rising gave birth to this nation whether you like it or not.

partyguinness

Irlbo wrote: »

All goes to show Britains presence in Ireland was,is and always will be a curse,alot of the ills in Irish society today are as a result of past British influence

LOL..idiot.

We are talking about 1916. Not today.:rolleyes:

jaqian

mountainyman wrote: »

The men who fought in Dublin in 1916 fought for Ireland. The men who fought on the Somme fought for the British Empire. That they died like cattle in the service of evil may bring a tear to the eye but their deaths were meaningless.

Not so. Many Irish who fought for Britain thought they would gain Irelands independence by it.

jaqian

Slideshowbob wrote: »

So in 7 years we will celebrate 100 years since or nation stood up for itself and those brave men strove for independence

any opinions on how to celebrate it?

Make it a national holiday. Have a big parade, with military etc

LordSutch

Irlbo wrote: »

All goes to show Britains presence in Ireland was,is and always will be a curse,alot of the ills in Irish society today are as a result of past British influence, Camelot- In relation to the last few posts. Your silence is deafening.;)

I think Oscar Bravo summed up my thoughts in Post 189, hence my recent silence .

Irlbo

partyguinness wrote: »

LOL..idiot.

We are talking about 1916. Not today.:rolleyes:

Point Im making my friend is that their legacy particulary from that era has led to alot of the ills we suffer today,if you were republcian you'd believe in the concept of continuity that the British presence is bad an influence as it was in 1916,Idiot

Irlbo

Camelot wrote: »

I think Oscar Bravo summed up my thoughts in Post 189, hence my recent silence .

I dont think thats why you were silent

partyguinness

oscarBravo wrote: »

To what extent was such a right universally acknowledged at the time? Was Ireland different from the rest of the UK in that regard? All of which is true of, say, England today. Little more than an exercise in sophistry, really - unless, of course, you decide to style Ireland a colony, in which case you're arguing from your conclusion anyway. Or we could point out just how very different life in Ireland already was in 1916 to how it had been even fifty or sixty years earlier.

Yes the rest was the same for the UK. But that was not Irelands concern. I dont think you quiet undersatnd the meaning of the word sophisty.

Yes Ireland was very different from the previous 60 years..so what? Did that somehow make British occupation more acceptable? Clearly not as history shows.

The leaders of 1916 should have been more grateful to the British..is that your argument against the Rising??

What did the Romans ever so for us, eh?:rolleyes:

LordSutch

Irlbo wrote: »

I dont think thats why you were silent

OK, I must confess to having a wee toilet break

Irlbo

jaqian wrote: »

Not so. Many Irish who fought for Britain thought they would gain Irelands independence by it.

The majority were poor and unemployed,and hadnt a hope of getting a job,they went to somme playing Russian roulette hoping to get home to their familes with afew quid,Britain used Irishmen who shouldnt have been in the Somme as Cannon Fodder

Fratton Fred

partyguinness wrote: »

You (and Camelot) cannot accept that the Rising gave birth to this nation whether you like it or not.

I can accept that, that is not my point.

My point is that every year I celebrate my birthday, not the day my parents got jiggy...(I suddenly feel ill now:D)

It was related to lots of other events, the climax being the formation of the state of Ireland, yet it is celebrated a lot more.

Mark the event certainly, but why not the other events?

oscarBravo

partyguinness wrote: »

Yes the rest was the same for the UK. But that was not Irelands concern.

Ireland was the UK, as much as Great Britain was.

I dont think you quiet undersatnd the meaning of the word sophisty.

You'd be surprised.

Yes Ireland was very different from the previous 60 years..so what? Did that somehow make British occupation more acceptable? Clearly not as history shows.

It wasn't occupation, and it was becoming steadily more acceptable, yes. You may not think that's a valid point, but as I've said, you're arguing from your conclusion.

partyguinness

Camelot wrote: »

OK, I must confess to having a wee toilet break

Yeah I dont believe that for one second

I'd say you have a lot of toilet breaks at your age..:p

oscarBravo

Let's keep the conversation grown-up and civil, shall we?

partyguinness

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland was the UK, as much as Great Britain was. You'd be surprised. It wasn't occupation, and it was becoming steadily more acceptable, yes. You may not think that's a valid point, but as I've said, you're arguing from your conclusion.

Yes Ireland was under UK/British jurisdiction..hence the Home Rule movement, the 1916 Rising, War of Independence etc..does that really have to be stated..

It wasn't occupation, and it was becoming steadily more acceptable, yes. Is that not a complete contradiction?

How am I am arguing from my conclusion?

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

Yeah I dont believe that for one second

I'd say you have a lot of toilet breaks at your age..:p

Yeah I'm sorry..that was needless and out of order..:o

ChocolateSauce

Acacia wrote: »

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.

There's a difference between being independent and being self-governing. Until the 70's we were so stupidly dependent on Britain for trade that we were still part of the "informal empire" for all intents and purposes. Decisions taken by the British had direct and far reaching consequences for us. That's hardly independence. But if calling it such makes people feel better, who am I to wreck that?

They died for Ireland knowing that their blood sacrifice would awaken and re-energise Irelands desire for freedom, which could only realistically be achieved by a continuation of armed conflict.

Just like the bloody wars of independence that Australia, New Zealand and Canada fought against the British?

Oscar says everything I was gonna say about the points listed.

What did the Romans ever so for us, eh? Well, to take a leaf out of the Monty Python book, Roads, Education, Aqueducts, medicine, sanitation...

partyguinness

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There's a difference between being independent and being self-governing. Until the 70's we were so stupidly dependent on Britain for trade that we were still part of the "informal empire" for all intents and purposes. Decisions taken by the British had direct and far reaching consequences for us. That's hardly independence. But if calling it such makes people feel better, who am I to wreck that?



Just like the bloody wars of independence that Australia, New Zealand and Canada fought against the British?

Oscar says everything I was gonna say about the points listed.

What did the Romans ever so for us, eh? Well, to take a leaf out of the Monty Python book, Roads, Education, Aqueducts, medicine, sanitation...

There is very little a country can do about where and who it trades with.

Britain is literally next door..same climate, diet etc. It was and is inevitable that Britain is our largest trading partner. If there is a strong demand for Irish goods in Britain and vice versa so be it.

Expanding the point I made earlier, the US is hugely dependent on China that does not mean it is not independent of China..of course not.

With the greatest respect I think you are confusing different points or have a very different understanding of the word "independence". We are talking about political and sovereign independence no economic. Yes we may be to an extent economically dependent of the UK but look at the size of the two countries..its hardly surprising. And to be fair Ireland is not as dependent on the UK as you might think..it has diminished greatly over the past 20 years or so...there is not a country in the world that is economically dependent on another country.

ChocolateSauce

partyguinness wrote: »

There is very little a country can do about where and who it trades with.

Britain is literally next door..same climate, diet etc. It was and is inevitable that Britain is our largest trading partner. If there is a strong demand for Irish goods in Britain and vice versa so be it.

Expanding the point I made earlier, the US is hugely dependent on China that does not mean it is not independent of China..of course not.

With the greatest respect I think you are confusing different points or have a very different understanding of the word "independence". We are talking about political and sovereign independence no economic. Yes we may be to an extent economically dependent of the UK but look at the size of the two countries..its hardly surprising. And to be fair Ireland is not as dependent on the UK as you might think..it has diminished greatly over the past 20 years or so...there is not a country in the world that is economically dependent on another country.

I believe I said that, when I pointed out we were no longer overwhelmingly dependent on the UK.

The UK was at the peak of its power in the 1860's, before it annexed most of the formal Empire. It was far, far more powerful then than it was in 1914. In 1868, it controlled between 25-35% of world trade, but by 1914 this had declined to around 11%, due to competition from the other newly industrialised powers of France, Germany and the US. It held more sway when it had economic superiority than when it had more territory. Don't underestimate the importance of economic dominance when talking about colonialism.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I can accept that, that is not my point.

My point is that every year I celebrate my birthday, not the day my parents got jiggy...(I suddenly feel ill now:D)

It was related to lots of other events, the climax being the formation of the state of Ireland, yet it is celebrated a lot more.

Mark the event certainly, but why not the other events?

I see where you're coming from with this line of thinking, and your correct that many other countries celebrate the first day of their new state as the main political occasion, and not the date of a signficant revolution for example which is the case here.

Irelands situation isn't normal however. The 10 ton elephant in the room that is the partition of Ireland still looms largely over the political landscape of the country, even if some choose to ignore it. If/When there is a United Ireland the first day of this new political 32 County state will assume more significance going forward than the first day of the free state or when the 26 County republic came into being and maybe even greater than 1916 itself who knows.

Normality as you probably understand it isn't possible in Ireland until the unification of the national territory happens.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

unless, of course, you decide to style Ireland a colony, in which case you're arguing from your conclusion anyway.

Are you arguing it wasn't?