Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fight or not?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »I suspect we're trending towards agreeing to differ, but: the leaders of the rising proclaimed an Irish Republic in 1916. The actual Republic of Ireland that we live in today came about in 1949. It amazes me that anyone can believe the same result couldn't have been achieved in thirty-three years without armed rebellion.
And as I repeatably say that may have come to pass but I don't think it would have been very likely. Reasons given in many other threads.oscarBravo wrote: »I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Basically reading into what I say or rather what I don't say.oscarBravo wrote: »The main catalyst for independence was the Irish people's desire for it. The majority would have been happy with Home Rule - you can't possibly contest that. The path from there to a republic is not that different from that of a free state.
Yea I agree that the majority wanted home rule and voted accordingly pre 1916. Sinn Fein was a footnote at that time. However the elections of 1918 was very different of those of 1910. The rising was the main catalyst for the huge change of public opinion and the means towards the road of Independence. You cant contest that.oscarBravo wrote: »If all they had done was nail the proclamation to the door of the GPO, you might have a point. They didn't; they took up arms and precipitated a rebellion that directly led to widespread loss of life and destruction of property, and indirectly led to a vicious and bloody war of independence.
Well if they just went home after the proclamation then I don't think it would ever be known what they did. I repeat myself again that loss of life is regrettable but hindsight is bliss.
Using your point if the British just said "OK, we will go home then" then there would have been no violence. Far fetched but I don't see you proportioning blame on them?
HyperboleoscarBravo wrote: »Of course you do.oscarBravo wrote: »If you can find a historical justification for the holocaust, fair play to you. As for the French revolution, it's hardly a shining example of the ideal way to create a modern nation-state.
No, not me (putting words in my mouth again) but I'm sure there is someone out there in the world that will try and justify the holocaust. Hence the stupid game we could play..... and on it goes....:cool:
Anyway what non - violent revolution is a shining light of a creation of a nation state that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century?oscarBravo wrote: »Why is it necessary to buy into any mythology at all? What's wrong with looking at history objectively?
Nothing at all, but you think because I take a conventional view that I didn't look at things objectively because I come up with the conventional view. I.E I swallow up everything I'm taught. I think you need to come off your high horse.oscarBravo wrote: »Who says I'm disregarding anything? Taking everything into account, I remain convinced that the main reason Irish independence was such a vicious, bloody affair was the completely unnecessary Easter rising.
Thats fine but in the next quote you contradict yourself.oscarBravo wrote: »On the contrary, I think I am looking at history objectively, without green-tinted glasses. .
It's impossible for me to describe a scenario without violence, especially with all the sabre-rattling that was going on up north. But I fail to see how you can consider armed insurrection as a laudable and necessary thing, just because the parliamentary route might have led to conflict later.
Even by your own admission an independent Ireland without violence is impossible to visualize i.e very likely to occur, yet you associate pretty much all blame of the violent troubles we had in this country on the rising and the people behind it.
oscarBravo wrote: »Oh, I accept that people believe that; the mythology has become an accepted part of our history. It's not comfortable to think that your national identity is predicated on unnecessary bloodshed in the past. That's where objectivity comes in.
You can call it mythology if you want but most people call it history, because it happened.
Anyway I'm not sure why you are so sensitive and uncomfortable to the past and the rising. It was a long time ago. Should an American hang his head in shame because of the bloodshed of the American revolution or a French man ignore Bastille day celebrations? Maybe its just an Irish thing to have this guilty outlook. We don't even have a national Independence day which is a rare thing for a country. Instead we have a get pissed day.oscarBravo wrote: »I had to include it, or you'd have pounced on my analogy. As it is, you've pounced on it anyway, so: what's your excuse? Who mentioned Islam and fascism before you did?
I did, but you sure made the modern links to it.oscarBravo wrote: »Presumably, since they bought into his rhetoric.
LOL, really? Pearce a messianic figure that dabbles in mind control. Lol.
I hear that you ordered 13 young virgins to perform seppuku the night before the rising.:poscarBravo wrote: »To ignore his self-proclaimed desire for bloodshed as a cleansing thing is to abandon objectivity. Pearce actively wanted the political process to fail; his zeal for a republic founded on martyrdom was a key reason for the rebellion. If you gloss over that, you're just buying the mythology that accepts that only bloodshed could possibly have achieved his objectives. I don't buy it.
I didn't tell you ignore it but maybe look at other things and factors. Pearce died in 1916. Why didn't the violence an martyrdom die with him?oscarBravo wrote: »I think more could have been achieved with less loss of life, yes.
Yet you try and down play your idealism of history and life:D
Ireland have had countless rebellions over the last few hundreds years. They all failed including the rising, but what the rising did was give birth to the general population the idea of a republic and full Independence. It took time and loss of life but that is what happened. I don't think you can not concur with that.
One can think up thousands of difference scenarios of how we would become a Republic without the rising. Some argue that we might still not be a republic today! But even by your own admission it is almost impossible to think up a scenario where NO violence would have occurred.
Therefore arguing over the rising and its bloodshed seems a bit ....... short sighted and a waste of everyones time.0 -
Of course I can contest it. You speak as if the "road to independence" began on the steps of the GPO in 1916, which is patent nonsense, and an insult to the memory of O'Connell, Parnell and Redmond.Yea I agree that the majority wanted home rule and voted accordingly pre 1916. Sinn Fein was a footnote at that time. However the elections of 1918 was very different of those of 1910. The rising was the main catalyst for the huge change of public opinion and the means towards the road of Independence. You cant contest that.
The road to independence was well advanced, until the 1916 rising diverted it onto a path of bloodshed and internecine warfare.
We obviously have different definitions of "regret". For me it means wishing something hadn't happened; for you it seems to mean celebrating it.Well if they just went home after the proclamation then I don't think it would ever be known what they did. I repeat myself again that loss of life is regrettable but hindsight is bliss.
On the contrary, I said it would be difficult to outline a scenario that didn't involve violence at some point.Using your point if the British just said "OK, we will go home then" then there would have been no violence. Far fetched but I don't see you proportioning blame on them?
As for the "British going home", that's the sort of revisionism that makes it impossible to have an objective discussion on the topic. Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom in 1916. The "British" troops and police that were stationed here were formed almost exclusively of Irishmen. They couldn't "go home", they were home.
Who needs revolution? What's wrong with how Canada achieved independence?Anyway what non - violent revolution is a shining light of a creation of a nation state that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century?
I didn't say it's impossible to visualise; but it's impossible to describe a completely non-violent scenario without someone popping up and explaining how violence "would have" inevitably resulted.Even by your own admission an independent Ireland without violence is impossible to visualize i.e very likely to occur, yet you associate pretty much all blame of the violent troubles we had in this country on the rising and the people behind it.
So yes, I accept that the pursuit of peaceful means towards independence could have, and quite likely would have, resulted in violence in the north. But to use the possibility violence as a justification for violence is just silly - it's like punching someone in the face to start a fight, and then claiming that you had to, because if you didn't he might have punched you and started the fight anyway.
It did? Really?? :rolleyes:You can call it mythology if you want but most people call it history, because it happened.
I'm not disputing that it happened. I'm disputing that it was necessary, or even productive.
If America or France had an ongoing problem with murderers claiming their historical roots as a retrospective justification for their present-day actions, they might have reason to regret them too.Anyway I'm not sure why you are so sensitive and uncomfortable to the past and the rising. It was a long time ago. Should an American hang his head in shame because of the bloodshed of the American revolution or a French man ignore Bastille day celebrations?
The problem with claiming that bloodshed was necessary (if "regrettable") to advance a political cause in 1916 is that the same justification is still used today: the murder of soldiers, police officers, pizza deliverymen, pregnant women and Spanish students is considered by some to be necessary (but "regrettable") to further their cause. The parallels are there: the claims of "occupation" (which Ireland wasn't in 1916, and Northern Ireland isn't now), the belief that the political process is a sell-out of the One True Religion of a 32-county Republic, the callous willingness to shed as much blood as is necessary to achieve those aims, the total indifference to the fact that the vast majority of the population have no sympathy for the cause.
They rely on the type of thinking that you've espoused here: that unnecessary and unwanted acts of violence will somehow be transformed into the widespread support of the people. The continued glorification of the Rising provides historical justification for today's acts of terrorism.
And you accuse me of hyperbole...LOL, really? Pearce a messianic figure that dabbles in mind control. Lol.
I hear that you ordered 13 young virgins to perform seppuku the night before the rising.:p
Largely because of some extreme stupidity on the part of the government of the day.I didn't tell you ignore it but maybe look at other things and factors. Pearce died in 1916. Why didn't the violence an martyrdom die with him?
I concur that an independent republic happened, but I don't accept that violence was required to achieve it. The most important steps on the road to independence - Catholic emancipation, the Land League, Home Rule - were achieved by parliamentary means. You've said yourself that every armed rebellion was a failure - why are we so obsessed with eulogising our failed violence over our successful negotiations?Ireland have had countless rebellions over the last few hundreds years. They all failed including the rising, but what the rising did was give birth to the general population the idea of a republic and full Independence. It took time and loss of life but that is what happened. I don't think you can not concur with that.
No. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.One can think up thousands of difference scenarios of how we would become a Republic without the rising. Some argue that we might still not be a republic today! But even by your own admission it is almost impossible to think up a scenario where NO violence would have occurred.
Therefore arguing over the rising and its bloodshed seems a bit ....... short sighted and a waste of everyones time.
Everything worthwhile in this country's history was achieved through negotiation and diplomacy. Armed rebellion, by definition, leads to bloodshed. Bloodshed leads inevitably to more bloodshed, and so on.
As long as we continue to glorify the violence of the past, we will continue to provide justification for the violence of the present - whether or not that was our intention.0 -
-
-
Interesting, our 32 county thread was closed down because it digressed from the initial subject to a debate about the merits of treaty/ truce, yet this one is allowed to swerve from its initial point because the moderator is involved? A case of 'its my ball and you're not playing with it'
Playground Dictators :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
oscarBravo wrote: »Of course I can contest it. You speak as if the "road to independence" began on the steps of the GPO in 1916, which is patent nonsense, and an insult to the memory of O'Connell, Parnell and Redmond. .
Of course it was advanced, but as I keep saying the major spark was the rising. It was the ultimate catalyst for change in the way forward (or backward whatever way you look at it) to freedom.oscarBravo wrote: »The road to independence was well advanced, until the 1916 rising diverted it onto a path of bloodshed and internecine warfare.
Well advanced but ultimately fruitless as it hit a wall. Tell me if the war of independence was unpopular as you make it out to be why did the majority of the people support it? Why did Sinn Fein get so much support in 1918 when a lot of the people knew what they stood for?
And as you say a Republic of Ireland without ANY violence is impossible to visualise so we are going around in circles here.oscarBravo wrote: »We obviously have different definitions of "regret". For me it means wishing something hadn't happened; for you it seems to mean celebrating it.
Yeah go death and blood!!! Seriously!:rolleyes:oscarBravo wrote: »On the contrary, I said it would be difficult to outline a scenario that didn't involve violence at some point.
So why are you arguing over the semantics of the rising? Violence was going in reality to occur anyway and guess what it did. You blame the rising for the violent struggle of independence while fully expecting that violence was going to occur pretty much anyway?oscarBravo wrote: »As for the "British going home", that's the sort of revisionism that makes it impossible to have an objective discussion on the topic. Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom in 1916. The "British" troops and police that were stationed here were formed almost exclusively of Irishmen. They couldn't "go home", they were home.
Your being pedantic, you know exactly what I mean but I should have used a better phrase, sorry.
But my question still stands. Do you proportion any blame on how the British handled the situation? For example, the widespread destruction was mainly caused by British artillery.oscarBravo wrote: »Who needs revolution? What's wrong with how Canada achieved independence?
Nothing at all and if the British were so accommodating to us as they were to the Canadians then we could have had that.
I said that many times in my previous posts. I also said that when Gladstone was trying to compare the Irish and the Canadians in Westminster he said “The Canadians were not nice and friendly so they got Home Rule; they are nice and friendly because of Home Rule". I.e. they learned from the American Revolution to treat your subjects with a degree of respect otherwise the **** will hit the fan.
I repeat what I said earlier, why was the Home rule bill voted down twice? Why was there a 47 year gap between Canada getting a devolved government (Home Rule) and Ireland finally get its own Home Rule bill passed. Why did Ireland her oldest colony have less say in her own affairs then other far flung colonies for so long? What made Ireland so different? Do you proportion any blame to the ruling elite of the British Empire to "ignoring" the Irish's wishes for so long and its piecemeal approach and creating a vacuum where revolutionary ideals could flourish?oscarBravo wrote: »I didn't say it's impossible to visualise; but it's impossible to describe a completely non-violent scenario without someone popping up and explaining how violence "would have" inevitably resulted....
Exactly, so these hypothetical questions are getting us nowhere. We should accept what actually happened no matter how strongly you disagree with it and move on.oscarBravo wrote: »So yes, I accept that the pursuit of peaceful means towards independence could have, and quite likely would have, resulted in violence in the north. But to use the possibility violence as a justification for violence is just silly - it's like punching someone in the face to start a fight, and then claiming that you had to, because if you didn't he might have punched you and started the fight anyway. ..
So what is your argument here? I’m not trying to justify anything but I'm just realistic to what happened and in all possibility what could have happened.oscarBravo wrote: »It did? Really?? :rolleyes:
I'm not disputing that it happened. I'm disputing that it was necessary, or even productive. ..
Necessary, maybe not, productive, well that’s the crux of the argument. History tells us it DID lead to a republic so one can’t dismiss it altogether.
Anyway mythology is something to describe Nordic or ancient Greek gods, not something that happened 90 odd years ago. Maybe a better term to use is a happy melancholy.oscarBravo wrote: »If America or France had an ongoing problem with murderers claiming their historical roots as a retrospective justification for their present-day actions, they might have reason to regret them too.
This is true and I agree, however, there are 2 tails to that story. The IRA (I Ran Away) in the late 50's was pretty much a dead entity. What brought it back to life were the civil rights movement and the lack of reform in the north and the subsequent treatment of Catholics and nationalists. I am not dismissing that the rising brought to them some justification of their actions but why not proportion blame evenly? I am not using this excuse for their actions but to dismiss any root cause is not being objective and trying to compare apple and oranges.
But these other revolutions happened way before the rising. Look at India and its "peaceful" rise to independence. I don’t have to describe the ethnic ongoing problems in that region. Ireland's recent troubles are nothing compared to what happened and is happening over there.
Canada has had a bit of trouble with a Quebec liberation movement. The treatment of Native Americans by white settlers is one of the greatest crimes in history. France had a lot of blood split because of these revolutions, including Napoleon's conquests of europe. I fact most French people I think are proud of Napoleon (check out his tomb at Les Invalides to see what I mean.)oscarBravo wrote: »The problem with claiming that bloodshed was necessary (if "regrettable") to advance a political cause in 1916 is that the same justification is still used today: the murder of soldiers, police officers, pizza deliverymen, pregnant women and Spanish students is considered by some to be necessary (but "regrettable") to further their cause. The parallels are there: the claims of "occupation" (which Ireland wasn't in 1916, and Northern Ireland isn't now), the belief that the political process is a sell-out of the One True Religion of a 32-county Republic, the callous willingness to shed as much blood as is necessary to achieve those aims, the total indifference to the fact that the vast majority of the population have no sympathy for the cause.
They rely on the type of thinking that you've espoused here: that unnecessary and unwanted acts of violence will somehow be transformed into the widespread support of the people. The continued glorification of the Rising provides historical justification for today's acts of terrorism.
..
I actually agree with a lot of that. It is wrong for people to use past events for the justification in their view of killing. It seems to me that this is you biggest gripe against the rising. However, I think that you are way over playing the part of the rising in these incidents. There was violence in Ireland before the rising and there was violence after it. One can’t blame all ills of recent violent history on one act alone.
I’m not sure where you are getting this “Ireland was not occupied” notion. Yes an act of union was signed in 1800 (the people of Ireland had no say in this), which made Ireland in your words “an integral part of the UK” overnight. But that was a technicality hence the desire for home rule. What was Ireland before the act of union was signed?oscarBravo wrote: »And you accuse me of hyperbole...
Well if Pearce can convince grown men, many with a good intellect to just die for their country for no real benefit then he must have been pretty pervasive to say the least.oscarBravo wrote: »Largely because of some extreme stupidity on the part of the government of the day. ..
Huraahhh, we are getting somewhere. So why not proportion blame to the government of the day that gave rise to nationalist martyrdom?oscarBravo wrote: »I concur that an independent republic happened, but I don't accept that violence was required to achieve it. The most important steps on the road to independence - Catholic emancipation, the Land League, Home Rule - were achieved by parliamentary means. You've said yourself that every armed rebellion was a failure - why are we so obsessed with eulogising our failed violence over our successful negotiations?
Home rule was never achieved/implemented.
TBH I don’t think we are obsessed with eulogising our failed risings. As I said before, we do not have a national day of independence much like the rest of the world. We had a parade a few years ago and will probably have one every 10 years or so. Not exactly over eulogising is it?
I think it is the extreme elements such as the RIRA and some shinners that celebrate it as you describe it as above. Last time I check a good proportion of our school history books describe the land league (people died in this struggle too!), Parnell and so on. Leaving Cert history books doesn’t have 100pages on the rising and 2 on "other stuff”. If popular culture in Ireland was more interested in the rising then the reason for this is because it was widely recognised as the biggest catalyst for the road to full independence.
If you feel so strongly about it then start an awareness campaign.oscarBravo wrote: »No. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Everything worthwhile in this country's history was achieved through negotiation and diplomacy. Armed rebellion, by definition, leads to bloodshed. Bloodshed leads inevitably to more bloodshed, and so on.
As long as we continue to glorify the violence of the past, we will continue to provide justification for the violence of the present - whether or not that was our intention.
Rebellions the world over are glorified. July 4th, Bastille Day, the 12th of July
All these glorify bloodshed in the name of a greater good, but I don’t buy into the idea that only the rising gave part to a "myth" that it’s OK to kill people for an idea or a political goal.
I am afraid that idea has been around for thousands of years and will be for the foreseeable future.
I think we have learned from our mistakes,... eventually. Many in the world are still repeating these mistakes e.g. south Asia. The north has moved on leaps and bounds since the mid 90's. There are still a few lunatics running around but I think people like these would be running around with guns anyway robbing banks or being involved in the drugs trade and so on. How many people a year does the drugs trade kill these days?
Unfortunately life and the world aint perfect and idealism can only go so in describing this curious world of ours. We would all love to live in a perfect world but I am realist enough to know that this will never happen so therefore we must look at the root causes of violence and conflicts and learn from it so the consequences are lessened.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Advertisement