Fight or not?

FTA69

jimmmy wrote: »

Indeed they did and I would imagine a lot more than you were taught to believe.

Taught to believe? As opposed to what you were "taught to believe". If you actually had a grasp of the history of that period you would know full well the vast majority of sectarian murders were of Catholics in the North by mobs and groups like the UVF. In Belfast countless of people were murdered, or burnt out of their houses in a pogrom far worse than any of the odd incidents that occurred in Cork.

We are not talking about individual families....there were many poor Protestants in the country too...this is a fact which seems to escape you.

There were many, that is true. But Protestants always formed a higher class in this country, they were a former ascendancy after all.

The Protestant population throughout the country declined during those years.

Yes it did, because of emigration and intermarriage. Not because Tom Barry killed them all or anything.

jimmmy

FTA69 wrote: »

emigration and intermarriage. .

Nobody denies in that era emigration ( though of course Catholics emigrated too ) and intermarriage ( where they were denied bringing any of their children up in their own religion ) were factors.

FTA69 wrote: »

Not because Tom Barry killed them all or anything.

Nobody suggested "Tom Barry" killed them all. All that was claimed was that there were murders committed eg the Pearson farmers and others , much intimidation, some house burnings etc. . As I said,it was a cold house for Protestants, they learnt to keep quiet and their heads down. Few got government jobs. If a shopkeeper stepped out of line he got his windows broken. Look at the boycott of Protestant businesses decades after the war of independence in Fethard on Sea.

Thankfully Ireland is a much better place nowadays.

jank

jimmmy wrote: »

You think all Irish who went to the states were Catholic ? Thats what you have said above. Sorry to inform you, but at least twenty-three presidents of the United States have some Irish and/or Scots/Irish origins.

No I do not think that nor did I say that all Irish who went to the states were 100% catholic. Stop putting words in my mouth. AFAIK Irish protestants who emigrated to the states are classifed as Ulster-Scots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American#Presidents_of_Irish_and_Scots-Irish_descent

Obviously the non-Catholic Irish must have integrated better when you do not even recognise them.[/QUOTE]

Seriously what planet do you live on? I presume you have heard of the term WASP.

How many on that list were catholics? I suppose you never heard of anti Irish racism either.

Look all this is way off topic, but you idea that Irish people all huddle together in ghettos and dont integrate is ...just wrong.

Find me one reference that backs this up.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, those too statements are almost exactly the same; your definition of “liar” is obviously very different to mine.

Note the words "rather effectively" that you used. Representation is one thing, but how well we are governed is one thing. Hell why dont we join the Union again if it was so good. No one is claiming that the british "made" the famine but both Irish and British historians of all sorts agree that the westminister goverment of the day didnt cover themselves in glory when managing relief efforts. Now if you think that a government that persided over a million avoidable deaths is "rather effectively" then that is up to you.

djpbarry wrote: »

And would you not agree that is totally daft?

Definately, I think its stupid and it damages the country but you cannot argue that it doesn't happen, so there goes your arguement....

djpbarry wrote: »

Your argument might be better served if you replied to what I actually post, rather than replying to what you would like to think I post.

Well what did you say. You said that some incidents occured during that revolution that wouldn't really be savory if mentioned today. And I agree. But would you exchange those incidents to what happened. I would, would you.

Did the end justify the means in this incident???

djpbarry wrote: »

You know, for someone who brought up the Hungarian Revolution, you seem to have very little knowledge of the event.

You are aware that 'dissident' Hungarians were rounded up in their thousands and sent off to concentration camps (post WWII), aren’t you? Hundreds of thousands of people were imprisoned and often tortured having been found guilty of crimes against the state in highly-politicised show trials.

I agree with the scale of what happened wasnt on par with Ireland however you refuse to admit that there was any push factors at all from the British regime here. If everything was so rosey why was there a push for home rule at all?

djpbarry wrote: »

You see, the problem with your argument is that you are starting from the position that the Rising (and subsequent events) was wholly justified, i.e. there was no alternative. Because I disagree with this position, I am dismissed as a pacifist who will condemn violence in all its forms. While I am not a pacifist, I do believe (like any reasonable person) that violence is almost always avoidable. The fact that human history is littered with violent events (and in all likelihood, the future too) does not change this fact.

I think the problem is that you dont see any factors that contribute to these acts of violence. All violence is bad I agree, but I can see why it occurs. There are always factors, that is why books are written about the stuff.

Push people so far they will bite back, history has shown us this time and time again. Where we disagree is that the you think the rising was unnessesary because home rule was more or less there. What I think is that the rising was going to happen at some stage anyway and if the British actually appeased Irish sentiment alot quicker then there would have been no rising. If home rule was granted and impliemented in 1914 (leaving aside the ulster question), then the odds of a rising would have been alot less. They almost got away with it..... but history shows us otherwise.

jimmmy

jank wrote: »

No I do not think that nor did I say that all Irish who went to the states were 100% catholic. Stop putting words in my mouth. AFAIK Irish protestants who emigrated to the states are classifed as Ulster-Scots.

No , you are totally wrong there. Many many Irish protestant people emigrated to the States ( and elsewhere in the world ) who would most definitely not be classified as "Ulster-Scots".
You cannot have it both ways.

jimmmy

jank wrote: »

Irish integration in the States in the 19th centuary paved the way for countless other nationalities to go to the states. The reason why the Irish were different is because they were Catholics. They broke down those barriers and the rest is history. JFK became the ultimate symbol of this

So only Catholics are allowed to be really Irish? Millions of Americans have ( as well as numerous other US Presidents before JFK ) roots in Ireland as great or greater than JFK's...but of course you dont count them because they were not Catholic ? If you do not consider the Protestants who emigrated from Ireland to be Irish, what do you consider the Protestants who did not emigrate from Ireland ...obviously not true Irish / west Brits ?

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

No one is claiming that the british "made" the famine but both Irish and British historians of all sorts agree that the westminister goverment of the day didnt cover themselves in glory when managing relief efforts.

Indeed; but of course, I was referring to the early 20th century.

jank wrote: »

Definately, I think its stupid and it damages the country but you cannot argue that it doesn't happen, so there goes your arguement....

Actually, this little to-and-fro began by you dismissing my claim that Parnell and co. were doing a decent job representing the Irish people, by bringing up the famine. I think my argument still stands.

jank wrote: »

You said that some incidents occured during that revolution that wouldn't really be savory if mentioned today. And I agree. But would you exchange those incidents to what happened. I would, would you.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking, but let me put it like this. At the most basic level, the Americans were essentially defending themselves against British aggression, which was justified. But I’m sure you’d agree that is a rather trite and simplistic account of the American Revolution.

jank wrote: »

I agree with the scale of what happened wasnt on par with Ireland however you refuse to admit that there was any push factors at all from the British regime here.

No I have not. Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I have never dismissed the Irish desire for Home Rule, self-government, or whatever we’re going to call it. What I am disagreeing with is how certain people felt it ought to be attained.

jank wrote: »

If home rule was granted and impliemented in 1914 (leaving aside the ulster question), then the odds of a rising would have been alot less. They almost got away with it..... but history shows us otherwise. Pearse wanted his “romantic” revolution.

Fixed that for you.

junder

jimmmy wrote: »

No , you are totally wrong there. Many many Irish protestant people emigrated to the States ( and elsewhere in the world ) who would most definitely not be classified as "Ulster-Scots".
You cannot have it both ways.

the were actully classified as scotch-irish

jank

jimmmy wrote: »

No , you are totally wrong there. Many many Irish protestant people emigrated to the States ( and elsewhere in the world ) who would most definitely not be classified as "Ulster-Scots".
You cannot have it both ways.

jimmmy wrote: »

No , you are totally wrong there. Many many Irish protestant people emigrated to the States ( and elsewhere in the world ) who would most definitely not be classified as "Ulster-Scots".
You cannot have it both ways.

I don't mean what you are saying that I cannot have it both ways?

My apologies though I was referring to Scotch-Irish (as they called them in America, these same people people were called Ulster-Scotch while in Ireland). The vast majority of these people who emigrated to the States were protestant but were usually classified as Scotch Irish, not just Irish as these came later and were defined more so by their Catholicism. I think this distinction was created because of their different religion. Have a gander.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American

jank

jimmmy wrote: »

So only Catholics are allowed to be really Irish? Millions of Americans have ( as well as numerous other US Presidents before JFK ) roots in Ireland as great or greater than JFK's...but of course you dont count them because they were not Catholic ? If you do not consider the Protestants who emigrated from Ireland to be Irish, what do you consider the Protestants who did not emigrate from Ireland ...obviously not true Irish / west Brits ?

Look you are barking up the wrong tree. I think you are mis interpretting my points. You are trying to do 2+2=1239080984312^2....

Of course anyone who emigrated from Ireland can be Irish, be they Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and whatever. However, when mass emigration took off during the famine years and the vast majority of Irish people who did emigrate were Catholic and this is what defined alot of them. I dont know the numbers but I would imagine that 95%+ were catholic

Of course protestants emigrated too but in smaller numbers and generally it happened much sooner in the 18th centuary. The majority of these would be classifed as Scots-Irish. Again religion and geography defined this term aswell.

Although both groups are "Irish" they are defined differently, the main reason being religion. Im sure its not as clear cut as that but thats the generic terms that are used. Remember I didnt invent these terms!:)

The reason JFK was different was because he was an Irish catholic and still to this day the only Catholic to get the top job even though 25% of the country is catholic. The other 40+ odd others were all protestant, the reason for this was of course the early settlers were protestant but as the history of the states wore on these became the power brokers of the country. I assume you have heard of the term WASP? Not many non - protestants in the early years were in powerful positions.

Tell me how many catholics were signed the declaration of independance?
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Why I used JFK was that he was the symbol of the breaking down of such barriers, what the Irish catholics did in the states in breaking down said barriers. It has nothing to do with "you cant claim him"!

Scots-Irish or Irish people who were protestant didnt have to worry about their religion as they were in the majority and part of the set. Being a catholic wasnt exacly a good trait to have in the states up until recently really....

To say that becuase I use JFK as an example of the breaking down of barriers, that I ignore all other "Irish" presidents such as Reagan or Obama indicates that I dont consider any protestants Irish... well to use an America term lay off the Kool-Aid!

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Indeed; but of course, I was referring to the early 20th century.
.

Indeed, they may have have governed more effectively but effects of the famine and the distrust of the Westminster government IMO was still very much evident at this time.

djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, this little to-and-fro began by you dismissing my claim that Parnell and co. were doing a decent job representing the Irish people, by bringing up the famine. I think my argument still stands.

eh? Why does me bringing up probably the most single important Irish event in the last 200 years lose the argument? Can you imagine a world if it didn't happen? One of the greatest What ifs of history IMO.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking, but let me put it like this. At the most basic level, the Americans were essentially defending themselves against British aggression, which was justified. But I’m sure you’d agree that is a rather trite and simplistic account of the American Revolution.

Hmmm, at first they wanted to be represented. You know the famous line, "No taxation without representation" British aggression came later when they refused to give in (but they did learn hence home rule in Canada and beyond). Yes Ireland had some form of representation but the vast majority were unhappy with this, hence the drive for home rule and the full Independence.

djpbarry wrote: »

No I have not. Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I have never dismissed the Irish desire for Home Rule, self-government, or whatever we’re going to call it. What I am disagreeing with is how certain people felt it ought to be attained.

Thats fine. Its the first time you admit that. I admit that what happened may not have been to the best taste to allot of people especially in today PC climate and hindsight. It is regrettable in the way it happened.

However, it did happen and being all revisionist about it is fine and all but it doesn't change anything except writing replies on boards.ie

The rising was the spark that gave us our Independence. Home rule did nothing. If the British were a bit more proactive then home rule may have given us Independence, if Pearce wasn't so reactive then we may have Independence through home rule.

But ifs and but's don't make reality.

Am I surprised the Rising happened. No. Was it regrettable that people died. Of course.

djpbarry wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

You can argue all you want about Pearce, Connelly et all but at the end of the day they gave their life for the country. It is because of this that we have republic. That is the undeniable, absolute, irreversible truth!

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

You can argue all you want about Pearce, Connelly et all but at the end of the day they gave their life for the country. It is because of this that we have republic. That is the undeniable, absolute, irreversible truth!

Applying similar logic, it's because of the Famine that we have a republic. Yay for the famine.

jimmmy

jank wrote: »

My apologies though I was referring to Scotch-Irish (as they called them in America, these same people people were called Ulster-Scotch while in Ireland).

So now you think all Protestants who emigrated were called Scotch-Irish in the States but Ulster-Scotch "while in Ireland" ? I suppose its a move on from your statement " The reason why the Irish were different is because they were Catholics." Not all Irish are Catholics, and those who are not can be just as Irish as those who are Catholic. Not only that, but not all Irish Protestants trace their roots back to Scotch-Irish, Ulster-Scots or whatever term you use. There was also of course a Welsh and English influence, as well as Heugeneots fleeing persecution in France etc.

jimmmy

jank wrote: »

I dont know the numbers but I would imagine that 95%+ were catholic

I think what you would like to believe and what actually happened in history are two different things. I suggest you go to somewhere like the very good and interesting museum at the American Folk park near Omagh, which goes through the history of emigration from Ireland to the new world. It will open your eyes.

Exile 1798

oscarBravo wrote: »

Applying similar logic, it's because of the Famine that we have a republic. Yay for the famine.

There's no "logic" that I can see at play there.

oscarBravo

Exile 1798 wrote: »

There's no "logic" that I can see at play there.

I would have been shocked to the core if you could.

But think about it: the premise is that a republic couldn't possible have ever come to pass without the 1916 rising (a premise that seems not to require anything resembling proof, which is just as well, being unprovable). We're also told that armed rebellion was inevitable and home rule a pipe dream, because of the painful memories of the famine. Ergo, the famine was a prerequisite for the rising, which was a prerequisite for a republic. QED.

Tortuous logic, isn't it? And yet, you'll ask me to accept comparable logic to "prove" that, were it not for Pearse's bloodlust, we'd still be in the United Kingdom today.

Deedsie

Joining in on this one late.

If there was no reasonable negotiable alternative id fight and die for my country.

Id have definitely fought in the War of Independence. Not sure about 1916, id prob have been defending Belgium. For the benefit of Ireland id have fought.

Blood sacrifice was necessary to instill patriotism in Ireland for generations to come. "I bear no hate against a living thing, but i love my country above your King"

jank

jimmmy wrote: »

So now you think all Protestants who emigrated were called Scotch-Irish in the States but Ulster-Scotch "while in Ireland" ? I suppose its a move on from your statement " The reason why the Irish were different is because they were Catholics." Not all Irish are Catholics, and those who are not can be just as Irish as those who are Catholic.
.

Eh. Read my posts again please. Of course there were exceptions to the rule.

The vast majority of these people who emigrated to the States were protestant but were usually classified as Scotch Irish.

jimmmy wrote: »

Not only that, but not all Irish Protestants trace their roots back to Scotch-Irish, Ulster-Scots or whatever term you use. There was also of course a Welsh and English influence, as well as Heugeneots fleeing persecution in France etc.

Yes, I agree and that wiki link I gave you says this also. Therefore we are in agreement. Not sure what your argument is here.

Did you read my subsequent post as well before posting the above as I flesh out my points a bit more.

jank

jimmmy wrote: »

I think what you would like to believe and what actually happened in history are two different things.

Well I did say that I do not know what the figures are but if you have some on hand then please do share. I would imagine that the ratio of Catholic Irish vs Protestant Irish emigrtion during the 19th centuary to be at least in the 90% range. If I am wrong about this sorry as I am basing my figures on lose demographs of the time, but what are the figures. Im actually curious.

jimmmy wrote: »

I suggest you go to somewhere like the very good and interesting museum at the American Folk park near Omagh, which goes through the history of emigration from Ireland to the new world. It will open your eyes.

Thanks for the tip but not sure when I will be in Ireland again.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

Applying similar logic, it's because of the Famine that we have a republic. Yay for the famine.

And the chicken came before the egg.

Come on Oscar, you said a while ago you were bowing out of the debate but you have little tit bits of input since without ever really answering any of my previously put questions. Not a great example of a politics mod in fairness. Either debate or butt out.

oscarBravo

OK, I admit, I got sucked back into the vortex of illogic.

What have you asked that I haven't answered?

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

I would have been shocked to the core if you could.

But think about it: the premise is that a republic couldn't possible have ever come to pass without the 1916 rising (a premise that seems not to require anything resembling proof, which is just as well, being unprovable). We're also told that armed rebellion was inevitable and home rule a pipe dream, because of the painful memories of the famine. Ergo, the famine was a prerequisite for the rising, which was a prerequisite for a republic. QED.

Tortuous logic, isn't it? And yet, you'll ask me to accept comparable logic to "prove" that, were it not for Pearse's bloodlust, we'd still be in the United Kingdom today.

I'm not sure what the hell you are on about.

First off I never said (not sure about other posters) that the republic could never come to pass without the rising. Read my post. You are putting words in my mouth to prove some point that cant be proved.

If the British were a bit more proactive then home rule may have given us Independence, if Pearce wasn't so reactive then we may have Independence through home rule.

Did you see that part underlined?????:o

Of course it was possible that we may have had a Republic without the rising but as I keep repeating unless there are parallel universes then the only reality right now is this.

The rising did happen, home rule did nothing (because it was never implemented) and we do have a republic because of the rising. Thats the truth. You can be all clever and revisionist about it and if that pisses you off then fine but it doesn't change the past unless you have a flux capacitor.

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler for you.

And Oscar you are intelligent enough to know of the consequences of the famine on Irish politics and society and the knock on effects around the world. But claiming that the famine is alone responsible for the push for a home rule/rising without any other factors is silly and trivializing the death of million plus (including some of my distant family) is in utter bad taste.

Sand

The rising did happen, home rule did nothing (because it was never implemented) and we do have a republic because of the rising.

No, we have a republic because one was declared and established decades after the rising.

The only definite results of the rising was that it led to the civil war by establishing the principle of anti-democratic militant vanguards who could happily reject the will of the people based on the assurance that at some point the people would agree with the actions they took.

The same view carried on to justify violent, murderous republican atrocities throughout the 20th century.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, I admit, I got sucked back into the vortex of illogic.

What have you asked that I haven't answered?

Pretty much all these questions.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59411465&postcount=153

You "bowed out" of the debate soon after. I think it has move on though, to what I have no idea.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

First off I never said (not sure about other posters) that the republic could never come to pass without the rising.

And I never said that it it could never come to pass without the famine.

You said that the republic came about because of the rising; the point has been made that the rising came about (in part) because of the famine; therefore (using the same process of deductive reasoning) the republic came about because of the famine.

Of course it was possible that we may have had a Republic without the rising but as I keep repeating unless there are parallel universes then the only reality right now is this.

Sure. And it's a reality in which we're being asked whether the rising was the appropriate course of action to take.

Now, as you've acknowledged, nobody can say for certain what would have happened had the rising not taken place. Logically, there are an number of conclusions to be drawn from that: one, it's impossible to say that the rising was a necessary precondition for the eventual emergence of the republic. Two, it's impossible to say that home rule wouldn't have led to the emergence of a republic. Three, anyone who claims to know for certain what course history would have taken in the absence of armed rebellion is, at best, intellectually dishonest.

The rising did happen, home rule did nothing (because it was never implemented) and we do have a republic because of the rising. Thats the truth. You can be all clever and revisionist about it and if that pisses you off then fine but it doesn't change the past unless you have a flux capacitor.

I'm not sure who suggested the past should be changed. The question was asked: would you take up arms under the circumstances of 1916? My answer, and that of several others, has been that - in the absence of an immediate physical threat, and as long as there's any possibility of a negotiated settlement, killing people to further a political aim is just. plain. wrong.

And Oscar you are intelligent enough to know of the consequences of the famine on Irish politics and society and the knock on effects around the world. But claiming that the famine is alone responsible for the push for a home rule/rising without any other factors is silly and trivializing the death of million plus (including some of my distant family) is in utter bad taste.

I never claimed anything of the sort. If you're going to argue with me, argue with what I say, not what you think I mean.

jank

Sand wrote: »

No, we have a republic because one was declared and established decades after the rising..

Which came about because of the rising and a certain Mrs Simpson:pac:.

Sand wrote: »

The only definite results of the rising was that it led to the civil war by establishing the principle of anti-democratic militant vanguards who could happily reject the will of the people based on the assurance that at some point the people would agree with the actions they took...

Well considering that these vanguards swapped power due to democratic elections and without a shot being fired in 1932 is fairly commendable given what was going in in Europe at the time and the rise of totalitarianism and the subsequent death of millions.

Another definite result is that we today live in the Republic of Ireland.

Sand wrote: »

The same view carried on to justify violent, murderous republican atrocities throughout the 20th century.

You may be right here and I have never condoned the actions of the PIRA. This is one factor of many to what happened in the North. However this is another discussion.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

Why does me bringing up probably the most single important Irish event in the last 200 years lose the argument?

I didn't say it did, but anyway...

Are you saying that, if you were around in 1916, the famine would have had a significant bearing on your decision to take part (or not) in the Rising? Because that's just plain daft.

jank wrote: »

Thats fine. Its the first time you admit that.

In other words, I question some aspects of Irish history, so you had me labelled as a unionist.

jank wrote: »

However, it did happen and being all revisionist about it is fine and all but it doesn't change anything except writing replies on boards.ie

:rolleyes: And here I was thinking we were in the process of rewriting history.

jank wrote: »

You can argue all you want about Pearce, Connelly et all but at the end of the day they gave their life for the country. It is because of this that we have republic.

As oscarBravo has already pointed out, this argument could be extended to include just about everything that occurred prior to the Rising.

soika

jank wrote: »

I'm not sure what the hell you are on about.

First off I never said (not sure about other posters) that the republic could never come to pass without the rising. Read my post. You are putting words in my mouth to prove some point that cant be proved.



Did you see that part underlined?????:o

Of course it was possible that we may have had a Republic without the rising but as I keep repeating unless there are parallel universes then the only reality right now is this.

The rising did happen, home rule did nothing (because it was never implemented) and we do have a republic because of the rising. Thats the truth. You can be all clever and revisionist about it and if that pisses you off then fine but it doesn't change the past unless you have a flux capacitor.

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler for you.
And Oscar you are intelligent enough to know of the consequences of the famine on Irish politics and society and the knock on effects around the world. But claiming that the famine is alone responsible for the push for a home rule/rising without any other factors is silly and trivializing the death of million plus (including some of my distant family) is in utter bad taste


That about sums it up. Nicely put.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

And I never said that it it could never come to pass without the famine..

Thats fair enough but you are directly implying that I think that we would still be in the union if it weren't for the rising without me ever saying that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You said that the republic came about because of the rising; the point has been made that the rising came about (in part) because of the famine; therefore (using the same process of deductive reasoning) the republic came about because of the famine. ..

I agree with what you are saying in part that all factors have to be considered when analyzing such an event and one could go back to the Normans and beyond when talking about the rising. History is always a spiders web.



One could also argue the opposite that the famine actually curtailed and delayed Independence as it weakend Irish society to a breaking point and that survival was much more important then home rule/independence. There will always be different view points to history.

History teaches us that small events can lead to much larger and important events later on. Take for example hmmm I don't know, a few hundred chads in Florida in 2000. Or Henry the VIII wanting a divorce so he can ride some young one. Can you imagine a world if that didn't happen?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure. And it's a reality in which we're being asked whether the rising was the appropriate course of action to take.

Now, as you've acknowledged, nobody can say for certain what would have happened had the rising not taken place. Logically, there are an number of conclusions to be drawn from that: one, it's impossible to say that the rising was a necessary precondition for the eventual emergence of the republic. Two, it's impossible to say that home rule wouldn't have led to the emergence of a republic. Three, anyone who claims to know for certain what course history would have taken in the absence of armed rebellion is, at best, intellectually dishonest. .

I agree so maybe we should stick to what actually happened.

Was the rising justified. At the time probably not, but subsequent British handling of it in my opinion cemented public opinion (along with the push for conscription) at the time that the British will never put the interests of the Irish people before their own.

Hence why the overwhelming victory for sinn fein in the 1918 election. So in that respect I think it was justified as the catalyst for future Independence.

To go further back to the famine times Ireland remained a net food exporter. Pretty hard to believe when 1 million died due to starvation and disease. The ruling elite at that time were Anglo Saxon protestants so its not hard to equate negative public sentiment towards the British for this man made disaster.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure who suggested the past should be changed. The question was asked: would you take up arms under the circumstances of 1916? My answer, and that of several others, has been that - in the absence of an immediate physical threat, and as long as there's any possibility of a negotiated settlement, killing people to further a political aim is just. plain. wrong. .

And others said they would given the failure of British rule & occupation in Ireland on many levels. Of course people are going to say it was wrong as people died. But do I understand why they did it. Yes. To paint the 1916 rebels as blood drunk Islamic fascists is wrong. Sometimes talking can only do so much but sometimes people differ when that end is met. In todays case Tibet is a good example. Talking does only so much.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I never claimed anything of the sort. If you're going to argue with me, argue with what I say, not what you think I mean.

I see we are getting some where so.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

I didn't say it did, but anyway...
.

**Cough**

Actually, this little to-and-fro began by you dismissing my claim that Parnell and co. were doing a decent job representing the Irish people, by bringing up the famine. I think my argument still stands

**Cough**

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you saying that, if you were around in 1916, the famine would have had a significant bearing on your decision to take part (or not) in the Rising? Because that's just plain daft.

I see where you are getting confused. On a personal level it is suffice to say that the famine had little impact on individuals in 1916 but as a collective and society then yes the famine was a factor for the calls of Home Rule and Independence. Wasnt the Land League a huge success?

But to say that johnny x wanted to avenge the death of his grand parents because of the famine by taking over the GPO is a little far fetched.

And I never said significant but it was definitely a factor. How big a factor is debateable.

Anyway the original reason why the famine was brought up is because you argued that the British were running Ireland "quite effectively" (your words). One just has to point to the famine to view how effective it really was. Thats was my overall point.

\

djpbarry wrote: »

In other words, I question some aspects of Irish history, so you had me labeled as a unionist.

Excuse me?... When and where did I imply or say that?
Otherwise withdraw the remark

Are you also implying that there is something wrong with being a unionist?

djpbarry wrote: »

:rolleyes: And here I was thinking we were in the process of rewriting history

I am glad we are on the same page now on what actually transpired rather than a worm hole. 1916 however strongly you disagree with it happened. And the rest is history.

djpbarry wrote: »

As oscarBravo has already pointed out, this argument could be extended to include just about everything that occurred prior to the Rising.

Yes, I agree but the rising was the culmination of these events to which why we are talking about it now and why it is widely regarded as the catalyst towards Independence.