Fight or not?

Dannyboy83

People cannot read a history books without an economic journal.

Journalisim - reporting of the mundane facts
History/Literature - turning the journalisim into patriotic, symbollic, (shambollic) romantic nonsense

To give an accurate description of what has never occurred is not merely the proper occupation of the historian, but the inalienable privilege of any man of parts and culture.

The Irish history that we are taught in school is largely revisionist.

The point about the 'necessity to fight' is 1 thing.
The idea of the motivating factors seems wildly misplaced though.
People seem to get the "Hollywood History" and the "BroScience", I got that in school myself. One should be careful, lest one become indoctrinated.

Always be skeptical of everything you read in a history book and try to remember who the benefactor is.

One should absorb the colour of life, but one should never remember its details. Details are always vulgar.

Do people run around today, starting wars and revolutions because of some silly patriotic, romantic ambition? Unlikely.
Or is it more likely that they have something to gain? Usually.

Romantic ambitions - How about "in it, for whatever I can get out of it"
Do the Zimbabweans really adore Robert Mugabe or feel so concerned for the history books?

Hard to understand today in modern economies, but in the old days - land was everything.


If you go back and read some books, you'll see that most momentum started when the British tried to introduce conscription. People didn't want their sons being shot for nothing.
"Why the fcuk did I raise Jimmy Joe if hes going over to get a bullet on the Somme?"

Then the Auxilaries/tans burned down the City Hall in Cork. Attack the population. <- These are real motivating factors.
Before this there was massive Unionist support in Cork, because people were making nice profits.


Do you know when the famine was?
1845? No, not that one
What about the late 1879? No, not talking about that one either
1740? Yes, that one.

Have you heard of the Boston Tea party - 1775?

In 1740 - the borders were closed and food exports blocked.
Why didn't they do that in 1845? Because the AOU 1801 meant they had lost their government, so instead of exporting food, they exported people.

The funny thing about talking to the elderly, is that they will often explain to you the difference between the knackers in Moyross, and the original IRA, was at times minimal.
Some good men, plenty of bored opportunists.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

Whoah, wait a second. The great British Empire - at its zenith, as we've been repeatedly reminded in this thread - actually granted Home Rule to some of its colonies?

Yea, I made this point a few pages back. Check out my quote on Gladstone.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is the undefeated, indivisible Empire that the Irish Republicans had to stage an armed rebellion against, because the dogs in the street knew that Home Rule could never be countenanced?

Never said it would never happen. Only that it wasnt implimented and that it wasnt certain what would happen due the Ulster question. Can you say for definate what would have happened? No. Nobody can cause it NEVER happened.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm confused... And yet, Parliament after Parliament passed Home Rule bills. Strange, that.

Yes, they did so why was Ireland so far behind? Why did Canada get devolution in 1867 yet Ireland its oldest colony had to wait till 1914?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't conceive of any circumstances under which we would still be part of the Union. The impetus towards Home Rule had reached the point where it was effectively unstoppable. It was only a matter of time. It's quite frankly silly to say that we would still be part of the UK now had Pearse not started his little war.

Unstoppable but never implimented. You can argue all you want about the inevitability of Home Rule in Ireland. God himself can come down and say it to me but that fact is that it was never implimented, ever. ...The reason for this is of course the rising, Pearse & co. and how the British botched the aftermath of it. Would there have been less death if this didnt happen maybe, maybe not. Again nobody not even you oscar can say for definate what would have happened. To think that home rule would have been implimented, Ireland paritioned and everybody had gone on with their lives is idealistic to say the least.

"Technically"? It was part of the Union. You can argue to your heart's content about the legitimacy of the tactics used to buy votes to that end, but that doesn't change the fact that Ireland was an integral part of the UK.

So when did Ireland become an intergeral part of the UK? What was it before that date?

I invite you to read the excellent The Green Flag, by Robert Kee.

Ill check it out, but it nice of you to ignore all my points regarding my view that Ireland was a colony for the british. I see that you didnt dispute it this time so I take you agree with me.

Yes, because an Act of Union was passed.

Riiiiiight!! So a piece of paper is signed and therefore reality and circumstances change over night. There has been a bill of rights in the US since the 1770's stating as you well know that "all men are created equal" yet slavery existed there until the 1860's and it took until johnson passed the civil rights act for many black americans to get a vote.

Just because there is a piece of paper saying something is so, doesnt mean squat until it reflects daily life. The act of union well if it was so why was there a home rule movement to counteract it?

At least I can refer to an Act of Parliament. What's your authority for your statement, beyond Nationalist folklore?

LOL, I dont know.. maybe redmond, parnell, home rule, GAA, Land League, Gaelic movement, o'connel just to name a few things and people that tried to resist the "integration" of Ireland with the rest of the UK. Also pretty much every historian that has written about the subject, including British imperialist loving Neill Fergusan. The Act of Union was a failure, it cant be described otherwise.

Would you try to argue that fewer people would have died had Ghandi led an armed rebellion?

No, but I am saying that violence is sometime inevitable. Thats just reality im afraid. Ghandi led a peacefull rebelion but people still died on both sides maybe in much smaller numbers then if there was an open rebellion. Then when independance was granted the partition of India was anything but peaceful. Up to a million died in ethnic violence.

This is a compelling argument for killing people to further a political end, exactly how?

Britain in 1945 was nowhere the powerful empire it had been in 1914. Ill let you fill in the blanks as you like putting words in my mouth.

I'm not arguing that killing people is good as you love to paint me with that tag. It is never good but sometimes when push comes to shove it happens. History tells us this over and over and over again.

Would you argue that George Washington and his peers were wrong to start a war with the red coats, until ALL political angles were exhausted? How about french and jewish resistance in WW2. The Dali Lama has been trying the "middle way" for decades now, yet there has been no progress regarding the Tibet issue with China.

If some small armed tibetan revolutionary group kill some chinese communist party offical are you going to sit there and write that you are appaled that these blood thirsty tibetan's should keep trying political means of resolving the issue?

shqipshume

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

OP:

Slaves to what? One of the worlds freest and most democratic states? Where slavery had been abolished generations before Ireland was seperated from Britian?

Anyway, that racist chip on your shoulder is really something. You need to get several history lessons, and not ones from a state-endorsed JC text book.

The idea that the British would occupy Ireland in this day and age is nothing short of impossible, so it really makes no sense to ask what would we do if it happened. For it to happen the circumstances of our relationship with them, and the circumstances of the world at large, would have to be so radically different from what they are as to make speculation impossible.

Yeah you keep telling yourself that:D
Tá an ceistean seo hipitéiseach,Tá do nóta bocth agus is cúma liom cad a smaoinaigh duit.Tá tusa neamhábhartha!
hahahahahaha
Some people are so high and mighty hahahahaha
You can only find it on the Internet. lol
Lets get this thru your thick non Irish skull i don't care what you think my post says whether it makes me racist or not.I will say what i want,its freedom of speech and i dont care about your flipping morals.
I love that rubbish if you don't agree with someone then you are wrong hahahahahaha
I am a racist because i have an opinion and not once attacked a British person in any of my posts hahahaha honestly people will just try to be the smartest by trying to make everything someone says wrong.
And you know what if i was alive back then i sure as hell would have been racist.And you would have been kissing British butt lol

To any English person on forum as i said before is not attack on yous some people just try to make it look like that.

Also it was not about British invading it was about any country invading or what if you were around then.And duh that's what the thread is about speculations,If you don't want to speculate then don't bother reading;)
I am very up on my history thank you very much.My grandad worked under president Sean t o Kelly.And politics and history is a very big part of my family.
And now go away

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmmy

"90 years ago we had a world class infrastructure ; canals, harbours ( the airports of their time ), railways, universities etc. A letter posted from Dublin to London was quicker 90 years ago than today. The train from Dublin to Galway was slightly quicker 90 years ago than today. One quarter of the ruling class in India was Irish. Britain was the force which defended us, like it or not, in the 20th century. But for it, whatever Irish jewish citizens there were would have perished in the concentration camps of the Continent.( and they thought the pogroms in Limerick in the early years of independence were bad). Just as other island groups of the world are united ( think of the Japanese islands, the 2 main islands of New Zealand, the Canaries, the Hawaiian islands etc ) it is arguable that we would have been better off playing a fulfilling role in a British Isles economy. Does it make sense of this little country to have embassies in every far flung little place in the world ?"

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Ireland was always going to be better off independent than as a constituent part of the UK.

If thats the case why not argue for the splitting up of the Japanese islands or New Zealand islands etc ?
Living standards around the world - especially the western world- have greatly increased in the last 90 years. Do not forget the many tens of billions we got in handouts from the EC ( mainly the German and British taxpayer ) since we joined what was then the EEC.

Serenity Now!

The people who live on this island voted in two referenda on how they felt it should be here and they decided on non-violent, democratic compromise for peace.

The animals who took to the gun last week are living proof that sudden-death-syndrome and fatal diseases claim the lives of the wrong people.

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

One quarter of the ruling class in India was Irish. .

Hardly something to be proud of.

jimmmy wrote: »

Britain was the force which defended us, .

...while all the Paddies stayed at home?

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your mistake is to assume that such ability could only have come about through those actions.

I don't know if you're intentionally misunderstanding or not. The fact is that Home Rule did not succeed in holding back Irish desires of true freedom, rebellion did, and we achieve our independence through violence which lead to negotiation. Its not that this was the only way that independence could have occurred. Its the way that things happened.

A handful of people for whom Home Rule was anathema started a shooting war to try to prevent it. Ironically, their aim of an independent republic was only partly realised some 33 years later - so much for running out of patience. Ireland wasn't a colony, and the Home Rule bill had been passed.

A handful? Ahh you make a distinction between the 1916 rising and the War of Independence... since more than a handful of people participated in the war.

As for home rule being passed, what did it achieve..? And how do you make that Ireland wasn't a colony?

I'm curious: you and others seem utterly certain that the steady momentum towards Home Rule had somehow come to a complete halt in 1916. It's obvious Pearse didn't agree with your view. On what do you base your certainty? Just as well Canada started an armed rebellion, so - otherwise they'd have ended up like those poor Australians, under the jackboot of British law to this day.

Right?

I'm curious to know why you keep lumping me with other people.. These are my opinions, and I'm not going to speak for them..

I feel that Home Rule wouldn't have achieved anything significant. You (and others ) seem to believe that simply because Home Rule existed it was the better option because it didn't involve bloodshed. For my part I feel that the world was a far different place than today, and the politics of the British Empire wouldn't have allowed Ireland independence..

Most Irish people that wanted freedom didn't want to be beholden to the British crown. They didn't want the oath of allegience, or the aspect of being counted as one of Britain's colonies.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and a few years later, another PM may have been dependent on the Nationalists again. Basically, it boils down to this: a minority wanted a 32-county republic, they weren't prepared to wait for it, but they were prepared to kill for it.

At the end of the day we could argue this back and forth, but fundamentally the difference between us is that you believe that a political aim is worth the loss of hundreds or thousands of lives, whereas I believe it's worth working hard for by political and diplomatic means. How many things in 1800 had the consent of the population? It's a bit farcical to justify armed rebellion in 1916 by criticising the quality of representative democracy in 1800.

But, of course, hindsight is 20:20. A more useful question is: what percentage of Irish people in 1916 felt that their independent nation was occupied by a foreign country?

Thats a risky gamble relying on horsetrading in parliament to get autonomy, not guaranteed at all. A people who wanted their own parliament should not have to wait 45years on whether their masters were going to grant it.

You're speculating on 'hundreds of thousands of lives' there!

The Unionists torpedoed Home Rule. They threatened civil war if it was granted. Redmond was stuck, its no wonder revolutionaries appeared due to a groundswell of frustration built up over centuries.

You ask yourself, why did the Irish electorate want autonomy at all if they felt they were 'not occupied by a foreign country'?

How much time did Redmond (who most certainly disagreed with the status quo) spend in jail? How much torture did he endure? He also knew the majority backed a political approach to the issue, but he didn't let that stand in his way. For an armed rebellion? Did he buggery. They didn't get that much support - they were pretty well insolvent by 1915. Even so, they were proposing a political solution to the issues, including the so-called "dual monarchy". They had no involvement in the Easter rising. It's beyond disingenuous to claim that what little support there was for Sinn Féin in 1916 translated into popular support for armed rebellion.

Irish/National Volunteers. Redmond took up arms along with a couple of hundred thousand of his countrymen to defend their 'parliament' hence 'tacit support'.

As for the support they gained post-1916, that was largely down to the stupidity of Dublin Castle in blaming them for the Easter rising.

As i said, that was a factor but not the only one.

Plenty of people had been martyred before 1916 and there wasn't that much of a swing to the Republican voice then. (Fenian Brotherhood etc).

The support was there in the mindset, the Rising was the spark that gave the people hope and they followed.

Political progress through horse-trading in parliament? Unheard of! Shocking!! And also because (again cf. djpbarry's quote) he believed it was in the best interest of both countries. Until next time.

But again, it comes down to a difference of opinion. I regularly don't get my way in debates with my peers. When that happens, I bide my time and revisit the issue another day. What do you do? Start a war?

It sounds like you are prepared to wait another 45years for a parlament demanded by the Irish people when the present voting electorate would be dead and their hopes and dreams dashed for the next generation to suffer the same fate. Thats absurd.

Again, you're asking us to take your word for it that nothing could have been achieved without bloodshed. I don't accept that. How much blood was shed to achieve the independence of Canada? Australia? New Zealand? India? I honestly don't know. I've reluctantly got into fights that other idiots have started in the past. That's reason enough for me to avoid starting fights myself.

Big difference. Canada, Australia, NZ were largely settled by British people who wanted NO break with Britain.

Ireland on the other hand wanted to run its own affairs and it was settled largely by non-British people. Britain feared independence.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

So a piece of paper is signed and therefore reality and circumstances change over night. There has been a bill of rights in the US since the 1770's stating as you well know that "all men are created equal" yet slavery existed there until the 1860's and it took until johnson passed the civil rights act for many black americans to get a vote.

And what were the Civil Rights Acts but pieces of paper?

jank wrote: »

I'm not arguing that killing people is good as you love to paint me with that tag. It is never good but sometimes when push comes to shove it happens.

Killing does not just “happen”. Killing occurs when somebody makes a conscious decision to kill somebody else. You are attempting to absolve people of responsibility for their actions.

jank wrote: »

History tells us this over and over and over again.

Oh please do provide an example of an occasion when a killing just “happened” because "push came to shove".

jank wrote: »

How about french and jewish resistance in WW2.

You are comparing the situation in Ireland at the beginning of the 20th century with the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany? Are you serious?

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

As for home rule being passed, what did it achieve..?

Politically, not much less than the War of Independence.

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel that Home Rule wouldn't have achieved anything significant.

But the War of Independence did?

Deleted User wrote: »

You (and others ) seem to believe that simply because Home Rule existed it was the better option because it didn't involve bloodshed.

You don’t? Bloodshed was acceptable because the Free State was marginally better? Actually, forget ‘marginally’; it doesn’t matter how much better the Free State was. It still doesn’t excuse the loss of life incurred during it’s attainment.

Deleted User wrote: »

For my part I feel that the world was a far different place than today, and the politics of the British Empire wouldn't have allowed Ireland independence..

So the democratically elected leader of the Empire at the time (Asquith) was just leading Ireland up the garden path, was he? Taking up all that time in the Commons for the purposes of a practical joke, eh? Oh those crazy Lib Dems….

Deleted User wrote: »

Most Irish people that wanted freedom didn't want to be beholden to the British crown. They didn't want the oath of allegiance...

But they were still stuck with one despite the perceived successful outcome of the War of Independence, weren’t they?

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

Thats a risky gamble relying on horsetrading in parliament to get autonomy, not guaranteed at all.

Yeah, you’re right. Best pick up some guns and start shooting people instead.

gurramok wrote: »

The Unionists torpedoed Home Rule. They threatened civil war if it was granted.

Nobody has suggested that the problems that have existed in Northern Ireland over the last century would have been magically overcome had Home Rule been implemented.

gurramok wrote: »

You ask yourself, why did the Irish electorate want autonomy at all if they felt they were 'not occupied by a foreign country'?

That’s a little simplistic, don’t you think? Perhaps they felt that it was in their interest (and the interest of the UK as a whole) to be granted autonomy.

gurramok wrote: »

… the Rising was the spark that gave the people hope and they followed...

No, it was not. Had Pearse and co. not been martyred, it is likely that the Rising would have faded into the annals of history as yet another failed rebellion (that lacked popular support).

gurramok wrote: »

It sounds like you are prepared to wait another 45years for a parlament demanded by the Irish people when the present voting electorate would be dead and their hopes and dreams dashed for the next generation to suffer the same fate. Thats absurd.

More absurd than killing people to further your cause?

gurramok wrote: »

Canada, Australia, NZ were largely settled by British people…

So was the US.

ChocolateSauce

shqipshume wrote: »

Yeah you keep telling yourself that:D
Tá an ceistean seo hipitéiseach,Tá do nóta bocth agus is cúma liom cad a smaoinaigh duit.Tá tusa neamhábhartha!
hahahahahaha
Some people are so high and mighty hahahahaha
You can only find it on the Internet. lol
Lets get this thru your thick non Irish skull i don't care what you think my post says whether it makes me racist or not.I will say what i want,its freedom of speech and i dont care about your flipping morals.

And I will defend to the death your right to that freedom (liberty; a very Anglo notion). Have you any evidence to suggest I'm not Irish? Or is that just the little racist inside you shrieking that anyone who doesn't agree with you can't be Irish, because Irish nationalism in in our blood? It's a pity the British failed to bash some manners into your grandfather; he clearly failed to pass them on to you.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, you’re right. Best pick up some guns and start shooting people instead.

Very simplistic. They were asking for Home Rule for 45 years and had the overwhelming democratic majority.

As you are strongly arguing in favour for Home Rule, do you think we should join the UK again as independence was a 'mistake' in your eyes?

Nobody has suggested that the problems that have existed in Northern Ireland over the last century would have been magically overcome had Home Rule been implemented.

Then how would you have dealt with armed Unionist opposition to Home Rule?

That’s a little simplistic, don’t you think? Perhaps they felt that it was in their interest (and the interest of the UK as a whole) to be granted autonomy.

Ridiculous. Eh, why didnt Scotland/Wales want autonomy at the time?
Ireland wanted autonomy for the Irish people, not the British people. The British people had Westminister, Ireland's parliament was stolen from her in 1801.

No, it was not. Had Pearse and co. not been martyred, it is likely that the Rising would have faded into the annals of history as yet another failed rebellion (that lacked popular support).

Most countries which had a thumping majority in favour of autonomy, in history have not waited 45years+ for a degree of autonomy. It led to majority of cases to justified armed rebellion. Ireland was no different. Read it up on comparable cases. (Yugoslavia is a recent example)

More absurd than killing people to further your cause?

You are copying Oscar in your terminology. Those people you speak of were occupying soldiers in which cases committed atrocities against the Irish people since 1801. They were not unarmed innocent civilians.

They did not go out Al Queda style to kill civilians en masse. Their target were soldiers of a foreign army on Irish soil.

So was the US.

Nice try. The Brits learnt from their mistakes of the US. They never taxed people to the hilt in Aus/NZ/Canada after US independence hence those places of British extraction never really had a case for rising up. They kept loyal to the British Queen.

And oh yeh, i guess you say the US revolutionaries were terrorists too for killing 'people'.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And I will defend to the death your right to that freedom (liberty; a very Anglo notion)..

Mais non.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It's a pity the British failed to bash some manners into your grandfather; he clearly failed to pass them on to you.

?

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

Mais non.



?

Well, yes. Starting with the English, later British, and then American schools of thought, the modern liberty we enjoy has been driven largely by the Anglo-Saxon culture. And yes, the French did contribute a great deal, particularly during the enlightenment, but it was the Anglos that carried it to fruition.

As for the other part, I'll just say it started in another thread.

shqipshume

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And I will defend to the death your right to that freedom (liberty; a very Anglo notion). Have you any evidence to suggest I'm not Irish? Or is that just the little racist inside you shrieking that anyone who doesn't agree with you can't be Irish, because Irish nationalism in in our blood? It's a pity the British failed to bash some manners into your grandfather; he clearly failed to pass them on to you.

whatever Manners are given to people i have respect for and you would not be one of them

shqipshume

Nodin wrote: »

Mais non.



?

Have you Nodin? lol


The rest is just someone who takes internet world to the extremes and thinks i give a toss how many insults they can throw out there.:rolleyes: And the all mighty high attitude that our four fathers are scum.

oscarBravo

I'm going to bow out of this discussion. The answer to the original question is that (with the exception of the sort of psychopaths that came out of the woodwork last week) people generally won't fight until they feel have no choice.

But when does that arise? Obviously for some people, the answer is: when the political process isn't moving fast enough, or in a direction that suits them.

Presumably the same people wouldn't object to the other EU member states invading us for rejecting Lisbon.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

I never suggested otherwise. However, as oscarBravo has pointed out, you are among a group of posters here who seem utterly convinced that violence was the only option. That all diplomatic avenues had been explored and the drive for Home Rule was doomed to failure. I see little evidence (if any) to support this position.

Not all avenues of diplomacy were explored, but I feel that Home Rule wouldn't have brought about the creation of an Irish State independent of British rule. I feel that the violence that occurred was effective, and brought about our freedom.

You see little evidence because you don't want to consider the Irish violent actions as being justified. You've taken the stance that all violence is wrong, and nothing good can come from it. Whereas I believe that violence in certain circumstances can and will generate enough momentum to allow diplomacy to create a lasting peace.

Here's a question for you.... Just curious but if Ireland had not gained its freedom, and had continued under British auspices throughout WW2, do you believe that more people would have died fighting on the side of the allies, than those who died fighting during the War of Independence? You feel that the bloodshed wasn't justified, and yet it may have saved more Irish lives since Ireland wasn't obliged to fight for the British Empire...

Scotland has attained devolved government through peaceful means, but you’re asking me to demonstrate that independence could have been achieved through peaceful means, even though there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that the majority of Scots favour independence? That makes absolutely no sense.

Nope. I'm pointing out that Scotland gained independence only ten years ago. You have shown nothing to suggest that Home rule would have given Ireland independence prior to this time. That is my point. That it would have taken decades for independence to occur, and frankly I'm glad that the Irish did what they did, and fought for independence.

walrusgumble

oscarBravo wrote: »

Very little is ever achieved through violence. It's claimed that the 1916 rebellion led to the Free State, but Home Rule was on the cards anyway, so there's no reason exactly the same settlement couldn't have been arrived at through peaceful negotiation as was achieved after years of slaughter.

So, no: as long as there's any possibility of achieving my aims through negotiation, I won't fight. I can't think of a political ideal that's worth killing another human being for.

the first paragraph is a very lazy and spectulative comment to make.

1. how many examples on the constitutional side (except arthur griffith ala 1905, but he was dismissed by the ipp), bearing in mind militant rebellions peppered the 1790- 1800's and the idea of complete break from the empire , actaully expressed and did something to bring about a complete break from the empire? o'connell (certainly not), butt, parnell (he did utter some references - ala his statue in dublin, but did not live), redmond? (you having a laugh!, why didn't he not accept at least to attend mansion house in january 1919?). the right to rule on domestic affairs yes, but with regard to the people, was the actual idea of complete independence on all frontiers and having no shared connection with britian , even within their mind frame? not really, not from the policitial figures of the day anyway.
2. 1916 brought about a huge change in irish politics. its main goal was to change people's mind frame and look to, in the long term, a fully independent state. this was achieved by like minded people with the enactment of bunreacht na heireann. the attitudes of 1916 did not die despite the treaty. there is little evidence from the ipp to suggest the type of mindframe of people like arthur griffith. there is very little evidence from the ipp, that we would have a republic today, if they remained in power. they did not even have the courage to leave westminister and dset up their own de facto parliament in ireland and seek international approval, in a manner similar to sinn fein.
3. redmond called for a blood sacrifice of his own so that home rule would defintely be brought into existence after the war! he encouraged men, despite the bad feelings of the absentee landlord etc, to join british armies and fight THEIR war under some ridiculous pretence of saving "little catholic belgium". all of this despite being refused a recongnised irish brigade despite ulster 36th division getting one; a group who had previously opnely expressed that they would take to arms if home rule came to the ulster.
4.government of ireland act 1914 (home rule), government of ireland act 1920 (which replaced the 1914, and brought in partition) and the treaty 1921 (yes, say what you like, it was home rule, as you say) and the comparisons. the first note, it that the treaty ended the idea of the retainment of irish mp's at westminister, the head of state/representative of britain in ireland had far less real power or say in legislation (or at least in pratice, prime ministers had in de facto come into existance), ireland was allowed its own army (limited). the treaty was brought about by violence (noting to shout about but its simply fact). the treaty may not have got rid of the brits straight away, but the ethos of republicianism did not die and evolve to constitutional ways via actions of fianna fail 1926-1936
5. how many gandi like people were there in public prominence during 1912-1923?

walrusgumble

ionix5891 wrote: »

this guy here managed to get the British out without resorting to violence (killing civilians, police officers and/or army)


i am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this thread, but the recent killings and now this thread are making me very suspisous of certain elements trying to stir up **** and in the process "spit on Irish rebels who fought for Ireland freedom and died."

in the context of modern day, what oscar is saying is correct, and i would fully agree with you and him.

however, in the context of comparing gandi and the establishment of this country, times were very very different. countries went to war. it was the affects of ww1 that people dismissed war as the norm(with exceptions of a certain gentleman from austria of course) gandi also had the luxury of being in a country of the british empire that was not next door to the set of the crown. gandi, if i am correct, was very much influenced, if i understand, by ireland in the idea of civil disobedience. not all in sinn fein such as arthur griffith, were for war, irrespective of reasons.

what hugely infuriates me, in the context of some people's dismissle about the establishment of this country and making easy and lazy comparisons to events that happened shortly after 1916-1923, it that some irish republicans tried to go the constitutional route!!!! i will give you a clue... DAIL EIREANN 19/1/1919 and the REPUBLICAN COURTS and the REPUBLICAN POLICE. these methods were done peacefully. but of course people seem reluctant to remember how they were targetted by the british. had they being allowed, there may have been no reason for the ordinary person to support the militants. anyone remember how england tried to disrupt these institutes???? cough THE GERMAN PLOT cough!

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

And what were the Civil Rights Acts but pieces of paper?

Yes, but you need to re read what I wrote. A peice of paper is meaningless unless there is action to back it up like the civil rights act. We all know the images of African Americans going to public run schools in the south, shielded by the national gaurd while local whites protest and shout abuse. That my friend is an Act with action. The Act of union of 1801 just made Ireland a part of the United Kingdom over night, took away local parliament and further aliented the Irish population. Argue all you want but them are the facts. It was a failure, hence the home rule movement and general Irish cultural revival that took place after it.

djpbarry wrote: »

Killing does not just “happen”. Killing occurs when somebody makes a conscious decision to kill somebody else. You are attempting to absolve people of responsibility for their actions.

You again need to re read what I wrote. When people are pushed into action they more then often respond. On a very personal level yes, people have to make a decision to kill someone else be it for money or sex or greed or for whatever. Sometimes its for politcal means. Sometimes those killed are for what they feel is a greater good (to that person). Again french resistance, US revolution, Tibet?. In a twisted way the Nazis thoughts it was for the greater good for the fatherland to kill jews? Obviously that was wrong, but was the US revolution wrong too, french revolution. The world has lots of shade of grey.

Oh please do provide an example of an occasion when a killing just “happened” because "push came to shove"

So many to choose from. Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1944 is one of the more extreme ones i can choose. Budapest 1956 is another one while sticking to the theme of eastern europe.

You are comparing the situation in Ireland at the beginning of the 20th century with the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany? Are you serious?

LOL. NO I NEVER COMPARED THE TWO. Seriously get some glasses or stop trying to put words in my mouth. I was asked a question which was

This is a compelling argument for killing people to further a political end, exactly how?

And responded saying that not all situations can be resolved by talking. Hence I brought up the dali lama, jews in WW2 etc. Picking apart and editing my posts in a flimsy way is poor form IMO. By all means answer any question I put but please leave aside the hysterics and clever editing. Are Fox News hiring?

LordSutch

All I would say about this topic has already been said in Posts 3 & 4.

Foxhound38

I've seen so many of these "what if the brits re-invaded" type threads over the last while. They grow tiresome. Britain isnt going to re-invade, NOBODY is going to attack us and if they did we could have all the nationalistic zeal in the world and still wouldnt last 5 minutes, so the scenerio isnt really worth thinking about.

As for the rebels, I think we would have gotten our independence peacefully a few years down the line anyway

Foxhound38

Foxhound38 wrote: »

As for the rebels, I think we would have gotten our independence peacefully a few years down the line anyway

How, why and when? A few years down the line... what line would that be?

dhorgan3

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you ever answer a staight question??

oscarBravo

dhorgan3 wrote: »

Do you ever answer a staight question??

If you've nothing to contribute to the discussion, don't post.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

earwicker

Gandhi's take on violence was actually quite nuanced: see Joan V. Bondurant's Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1988).

The following quotes from Bondurant's book can also be found in the Wiki entry on Gandhi.

Gandhi guarded against attracting to his satyagraha movement those who feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. 'I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.' (28)

At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before. It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they had become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan's influence. Their bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and being ever ready to bare their breasts to the bullets. (139)

It's also worth noting that Gandhi couldn't stop the partition of India either.

Nodin

And while Gandhi advocated non-violence, violence in India at the time was quite common.

It should also be pointed out that the vast distance of India from Britain precluded easy control, once a majority of Indians decided not to co-operate with the Empire. These are conditions not nessecarily present in every situation.

Offalycool

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True they were dark days in many respects. We did however have an abortion referendum! Hardly undemocratic.

Dannyboy83

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So well said.
There was also a minor cult of personality surrounding Dev too from what I understand.
When I think back to Irish Press, you can see the seeds of Charlie/Bertie.

Chamberlin and Churchill both hated Dev. Churchill quite liked Collins.
History could have been so very different.

Never understood why the Pope had such a big say in everything.
He was the one who authorised Henry II to invade Ireland in the first place anyway.
Didn't stick up for the Jews either, did he?
The only good pope was John Paul II, The Pope should be ignored permanently by this country.

Legalise abortion, legalise gay marraige, give people the freedom they deserve, then we'd be rich and happy.

Exile 1798

This is an interesting thread.

I was going to quote and reply to some of you but seeing as multiple people have raised the same points perhaps it would make more sense just to give a general reply.

On the question of the necessity of the Easter Rising the answer is quite simple. If you believe Ireland’s place to be as a semi independent country within the United Kingdom then the Rising was not necessary. If you believe Ireland should be an independent Nation and a Republic is every sense of the word then it was necessary.

One of the great achievements of the Rising was to kill Home Rule, which was the most popular Nationalist position at the time. Some people however make the mistake of believing that Home Rule was inevitable (or desirable). Yes a bill had been passed, but so had two bills before it which where never enacted. Let's not forget that the Ulster Volunteers where formed to resist Home Rule before that act was even passed in 1914, and when it was actually passed the British Army in Ireland threatened mutiny, at which point the Liberal government who had passed the bill backed down. Then the war broke out.

Interestingly, after the Rising the British Cabinet tried urgently to enact Home Rule despite the war. So contrary to what some may think, it didn't put Westminster off the idea, quite the opposite. Rather it was Nationalist Ireland who now saw it as a rather poor option compared to The Irish Republic proclaimed at the GPO.

People who talk about the "needless bloodshed" caused by the rebellion don't seem to quite understand the context of the time. Millions of men, many of them Irish, where being fed into meat grinders on the Western Front. I'd say a few hundred dead in Dublin was an exceptionally mild price to pay for the re-birth of a Nation.

Someone mentioned Gandhdi, incredibly thinking that this was a clever point against Pearse and co. At the time of the Mahatma India was a nation of 300 million people. It was being ruled by a handful of British soldiers and administrators and their local lackeys. A non-violent mass movement to overthrow British India was conceivable and made sense. Ireland, a tiny country not at all comparable to India, was a post famine society which had suffered the lost of half it's population. For someone to post a picture of Gandhdi and smugly think that they have made a clever point just shows that that person has no comprehension of history and no understanding of either India or Ireland.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

A lot of good points made there exile1798. Welcome to the forum.:)

jank

I would also question your assertion that the Rising killed Home Rule. What actually killed Home Rule was the 1918 electoral defeat of moderate nationalists by extremist republicans

Surely it was the over riding factor in this democratic electorial defeat. The people wanted more freedom then the Home Rule bill was going to offer.

FTA69

The first time I've ever bothered to thank a post, spot on Exile1798.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

Conscription was a major issue, independence was the issue.

The Home Rulers opposed conscription too, both in the parliament and the in the press.

People flocked to the Republicans instead. Sinn Fein ran on a platform of boycotting the British Parliament and instead setting up an independent Dail. This was spelt out in their election manifesto, which explicitly mentions 1916.

GENERAL ELECTION --- MANIFESTO TO THE IRISH PEOPLE


THE coming General Election is fraught with vital possibilities for the future of our nation. Ireland is faced with the question whether this generation wills it that she is to march out into the full sunlight of freedom, or is to remain in the shadow of a base imperialism that has brought and ever will bring in its train naught but evil for our race.

Sinn Féin gives Ireland the opportunity of vindicating her honour and pursuing with renewed confidence the path of national salvation by rallying to the flag of the Irish Republic.


Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of that Republic.

1. By withdrawing the Irish Representation from the British Parliament and by denying the right and opposing the will of the British Government or any other foreign Government to legislate for Ireland.

2. By making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise.

3. By the establishment of a constituent assembly comprising persons chosen by Irish constituencies as the supreme national authority to speak and act in the name of the Irish people, and to develop Ireland's social, political and industrial life, for the welfare of the whole people of Ireland.

4. By appealing to the Peace Conference for the establishment of Ireland as an Independent Nation. At that conference the future of the Nations of the world will be settled on the principle of government by consent of the governed. Ireland's claim to the application of that principle in her favour is not based on any accidental situation arising from the war. It is older than many if not all of the present belligerents. It is based on our unbroken tradition of nationhood, on a unity in a national name which has never been challenged, on our possession of a distinctive national culture and social order, on the moral courage and dignity of our people in the face of alien aggression, on the fact that in nearly every generation, and five times within the past 120 years our people have challenged in arms the right of England to rule this country. On these incontrovertible facts is based the claim that our people have beyond question established the right to be accorded all the power of a free nation.

Sinn Féin stands less for a political party than for the Nation; it represents the old tradition of nationhood handed on from dead generations; it stands by the Proclamation of the Provisional Government of Easter, 1916, reasserting the inalienable right of the Irish Nation to sovereign independence, reaffirming the determination of the Irish people to achieve it, and guaranteeing within the independent Nation equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens.


Believing that the time has arrived when Ireland's voice for the principle of untrammelled National self-determination should be heard above every interest of party or class, Sinn Féin will oppose at the Polls every individual candidate who does not accept this principle.

The policy of our opponents stands condemned on any test, whether of principle or expediency. The right of a nation to sovereign independence rests upon immutable natural law and cannot be made the subject of a compromise. Any attempt to barter away the sacred and inviolate rights of nationhood begins in dishonour and is bound to end in disaster. The enforced exodus of millions of our people, the decay of our industrial life, the ever-increasing financial plunder of our country, the whittling down of the demand for the 'Repeal of the Union,' voiced by the first Irish Leader to plead in the Hall of the Conqueror to that of Home Rule on the Statute Book, and finally the contemplated mutilation of our country by partition, are some of the ghastly results of a policy that leads to national ruin.

Those who have endeavoured to harness the people of Ireland to England's war-chariot, ignoring the fact that only a freely-elected Government in a free Ireland has power to decide for Ireland the question of peace and war, have forfeited the right to speak for the Irish people. The green flag turned red in the hands of the Leaders, but that shame is not to be laid at the doors of the Irish people unless they continue a policy of sending their representatives to an alien and hostile assembly, whose powerful influence has been sufficient to destroy the integrity and sap the independence of their representatives. Ireland must repudiate the men who, in a supreme crisis for the nation, attempted to sell her birthright for the vague promises of English Ministers, and who showed their incompetence by failing to have even these promises fulfilled.

The present Irish members of the English Parliament constitute an obstacle to be removed from the path that leads to the Peace Conference. By declaring their will to accept the status of a province instead of boldly taking their stand upon the right of the nation they supply England with the only subterfuge at her disposal for obscuring the issue in the eyes of the world. By their persistent endeavours to induce the young manhood of Ireland to don the uniform of our seven-century old oppressor, and place their lives at the disposal of the military machine that holds our Nation in bondage, they endeavour to barter away and even to use against itself the one great asset still left to our Nation after the havoc of the centuries.

Sinn Féin goes to the polls handicapped by all the arts and contrivances that a powerful and unscrupulous enemy can use against us. Conscious of the power of Sinn Féin to secure the freedom of Ireland the British Government would destroy it. Sinn Féin, however, goes to the polls confident that the people of this ancient nation will be true to the old cause and will vote for the men who stand by the principles of Tone, Emmet, Mitchel, Pearse and Connolly, the men who disdain to whine to the enemy for favours, the men who hold that Ireland must be as free as England or Holland, Switzerland or France, and who demand is that the only status befitting this ancient realm is the status of a free nation.

ISSUED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF SINN FÉIN

oscarBravo

Exile 1798 wrote: »

One of the great achievements of the Rising was to kill Home Rule, which was the most popular Nationalist position at the time. Some people however make the mistake of believing that Home Rule was inevitable...

Aren't these points mutually contradictory?

It's also instructive that the use of violence to "kill off" a popularly-held ideal is seen as a "great achievement".

junder

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Conscription was a major issue, independence was the issue.

The Home Rulers opposed conscription too, both in the parliament and the in the press.

People flocked to the Republicans instead. Sinn Fein ran on a platform of boycotting the British Parliament and instead setting up an independent Dail. This was spelt out in their election manifesto, which explicitly mentions 1916.

And no mention of the unionist question, FYI arthur griffth was a well known anti-semite

Nodin

junder wrote: »

And no mention of the unionist question, FYI arthur griffth was a well known anti-semite

And held some racist views as well, I seem to recall. Him, Churchill, Carson and the vast majority of the population held these kinds of beliefs Such was, unfortunately, the nature of the times.

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

They were asking for Home Rule for 45 years and had the overwhelming democratic majority.

What is the significance of this “45 years” that yourself and others keep harping on about? Consider the following equations:

y = ax
y ≥ b

Let x denote the number of years taken for Home Rule to be implemented. Let y denote the level of Republican bloodlust, which is directly proportional to x and a is the proportionality constant. Let b denote some constant value at which violence becomes acceptable. Please insert appropriate values for a and b and solve for x.

gurramok wrote: »

As you are strongly arguing in favour for Home Rule, do you think we should join the UK again as independence was a 'mistake' in your eyes?

:rolleyes: I’m either with you or against you, eh?

gurramok wrote: »

Then how would you have dealt with armed Unionist opposition to Home Rule?

I’m not sure to be honest, but I would have been surprised if partition could have been avoided in the event that Home Rule was implemented.

gurramok wrote: »

Ireland wanted autonomy for the Irish people, not the British people. The British people had Westminister, Ireland's parliament was stolen from her in 1801.

Nonetheless, Irish people were represented (rather effectively) at Westminster.

gurramok wrote: »

Most countries which had a thumping majority in favour of autonomy, in history have not waited 45years+ for a degree of autonomy.

Maybe not, but I thought Ireland’s situation was unique, was it not? Or may Ireland’s situation only be compared to other countries’ when it suits your argument to do so?

gurramok wrote: »

Those people you speak of were occupying soldiers in which cases committed atrocities against the Irish people since 1801. They were not unarmed innocent civilians.

So no civilians were killed? None at all?

gurramok wrote: »

The Brits learnt from their mistakes of the US. They never taxed people to the hilt in Aus/NZ/Canada after US independence hence those places of British extraction never really had a case for rising up.

But Ireland did because?

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Not all avenues of diplomacy were explored…

Would you not agree that all diplomatic options should have been explored before the threat of violence was even considered?

Deleted User wrote: »

You see little evidence because you don't want to consider the Irish violent actions as being justified.

Violence is rarely justified. I will accept that it is sometimes necessary as a defensive measure, but that caveat does not apply in the case of the Rising.

Deleted User wrote: »

You've taken the stance that all violence is wrong…

No, I have not. I have taken the stance that the use of violence to advance a political goal is wrong.

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's a question for you.... Just curious but if Ireland had not gained its freedom, and had continued under British auspices throughout WW2, do you believe that more people would have died fighting on the side of the allies, than those who died fighting during the War of Independence?

Possibly, but who’s to say that Ireland would not have had control over it’s own military affairs by the 1940’s had Home Rule been granted 20 years earlier?

Deleted User wrote: »

You have shown nothing to suggest that Home rule would have given Ireland independence prior to this time.

Likewise, you have shown nothing to suggest otherwise. I have never said that independence was guaranteed, but considering the popular support for independence in this country and the progress that had been made in securing Home Rule, I see little reason why the advances toward full independence would have ground to a halt in the early 20th century.

Exile 1798

oscarBravo wrote: »

Aren't these points mutually contradictory?

It's also instructive that the use of violence to "kill off" a popularly-held ideal is seen as a "great achievement".

No. There are two points. Revisionists say that The Rising put an end to Home Rule because it enflamed opinion and turned Nationalist support away from HR and towards a Republic. This is true. (They say this as if it where a bad thing, it was in fact a great thing.)

That doesn’t however mean that Home Rule was inevitable as they continually claim. For all the reasons I mentioned and more, there was certainly no guarantee of Home Rule. So this is a false claim on their part, so better for them to stop making it.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

Obviously that was wrong, but was the US revolution wrong too, french revolution.

Certain aspects, yes. I am sure that many an event took place during both revolutions of which neither French nor American people are particularly proud.

jank wrote: »

Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1944 is one of the more extreme ones i can choose.

Eh, I think that would have been a case of people resisting transportation to extermination camps. It was a fight for survival; politics had nothing to do with it.

djpbarry

Exile 1798 wrote: »

If you believe Ireland’s place to be as a semi independent country within the United Kingdom then the Rising was not necessary. If you believe Ireland should be an independent Nation and a Republic is every sense of the word then it was necessary.

Can you demonstrate that independence could not have been achieved without the Rising? Didn’t think so.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

People who talk about the "needless bloodshed" caused by the rebellion don't seem to quite understand the context of the time. Millions of men, many of them Irish, where being fed into meat grinders on the Western Front.

It was their choice to enlist.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I'd say a few hundred dead in Dublin was an exceptionally mild price to pay for the re-birth of a Nation.

I’d say one single death is too high a price to pay for a political goal.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Would you not agree that all diplomatic options should have been explored before the threat of violence was even considered?

Actually I don't. You see I don't have this aversion to violence that you have. I believe that at that time violence was the method needed to force the British out of the Empire mentality. Force was the only thing a military nation like the British could respect.

Violence is rarely justified. I will accept that it is sometimes necessary as a defensive measure, but that caveat does not apply in the case of the Rising.

who is making the justifications? For myself, I can see plenty of times when violence can be justified.

No, I have not. I have taken the stance that the use of violence to advance a political goal is wrong.

Which is pretty much any form of violence including nations, or organisations.

Possibly, but who’s to say that Ireland would not have had control over it’s own military affairs by the 1940’s had Home Rule been granted 20 years earlier?

I would suggest that it would be highly unlikely considering the British viewpoint towards firstly the Irish, and secondly the need to keep a strong face in Europe. Until WW2 Europe was still a continent of Empires, and empires historically did not give up their colonies easily. It took WW2 for Britain to start truly releasing their colonies, so by your logic it would have been more likely to have occurred by the mid-50's.

Likewise, you have shown nothing to suggest otherwise. I have never said that independence was guaranteed, but considering the popular support for independence in this country and the progress that had been made in securing Home Rule, I see little reason why the advances toward full independence would have ground to a halt in the early 20th century.

I don't need to show otherwise. History is my proof. Home Rule didn't achieve anything on its own prior to the Rising. It was a carrot that the British waved at the Irish to have them obey their masters. How long would Home Rule have needed to be in effect, before it actually gave the Irish what they needed? Since Home Rule didn't solve the problems, the onus would be on you to prove that it could, which you haven't.

Exile 1798

djpbarry wrote: »

Can you demonstrate that independence could not have been achieved without the Rising? Didn’t think so.

Can you prove or disprove the existence of God? Didn't think so.

djpbarry wrote: »

It was their choice to enlist.

Wow.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’d say one single death is too high a price to pay for a political goal.

Unless of course they chose to enlist.