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
-
oscarBravo wrote: »So O'Connell, Parnell, Davitt, Redmond and so on were just pissing into the wind, yes?
In the sense that we would have been better off staying with Britain, yes.
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 ?0 -
No i don't see a united ireland in my life time, i see the RoI as a forgein country, i do not hate the RoI or have any perticuler problem with the RoI but it is at the end of the day a forgein country in mine and most unionists eyes, you might as well ask as to unite with france. The only way partition will end is throughy demographics which is a slow process and not about to change any time soon, this 50%+1 idea is a non starter the british and irish governments both know this as this will still leave a very sizeable group of pissed of unionists, as i have mentioned before in order for partition to end peacefully ot atleast in a more manageable way there will need to be a 70%+ vote in favour of it
About 40%+ desire a UI by voting SF/SDLP so the arrangement presented by demanding a 70% agreement in favour is a non-runner hence power-sharing was needed to agree to some form of a governance!
This post has nothing to do with this thread, we are talking about the Irish independence period about 100 years ago!Apologising for the murder of these men using nationalistic rhetoric and brainless ideology is for cowards.
This is what most civilized people think.........
If you believe in your heart that the Murder of those 3 men in the past week was nesessary then you are a sick and worthless human and have no place in our society.But the difference is you are using speculation as justification for bloodshed.
This fact was clearly illustrated by the House of Commons’ passing of the Third Home Rule bill three times. Oh, wait now…
No, I continue to look back at this particular period in history and wonder why, when progress was being made (albeit slow progress) in attaining Home Rule, Pearse et al. felt it necessary to shed blood.
Mate, 45 years of first asking and then bloodthirsty blockage from Carson. Hardly inspiring.djpbarry wrote:Britain began to “let loose” it’s colonies long before the outbreak of WWI. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa were all granted self-governance of sorts before 1914.
Have you asked why? It wouldn't be got to do with the people of those regions wanting some say in runnning of their own countries now would it?:rolleyes:oscarBravo wrote: »Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom. India was never part of the United Kingdom.
Against her will. The Protestant Ascendancy(COI not Presbyterian) which formed less than 10% of the population were only allowed to sit in the Irish parliament at the time of the Act of Union.0 -
A will that was in the process of being asserted by political means until it was interrupted by armed rebellion.Against her will.
Was this still the case in 1916?The Protestant Ascendancy(COI not Presbyterian) which formed less than 10% of the population were only allowed to sit in the Irish parliament at the time of the Act of Union.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »A will that was in the process of being asserted by political means until it was interrupted by armed rebellion.
The political process failed, 45 years was too long. What does one do when the political process of the will of the vast majority fails after 45years?!:rolleyes:oscarBravo wrote: »Was this still the case in 1916?
No. It was a case of people of both religions trying to do a right on a wrong inflicted on the people for 115 years then.
They ran out of justifiable patience.0 -
About 40%+ desire a UI by voting SF/SDLP so the arrangement presented by demanding a 70% agreement in favour is a non-runner hence power-sharing was needed to agree to some form of a governance!
This post has nothing to do with this thread, we are talking about the Irish independence period about 100 years ago!
Mate, 45 years of first asking and then bloodthirsty blockage from Carson. Hardly inspiring.
Have you asked why? It wouldn't be got to do with the people of those regions wanting some say in runnning of their own countries now would it?:rolleyes:
Against her will. The Protestant Ascendancy(COI not Presbyterian) which formed less than 10% of the population were only allowed to sit in the Irish parliament at the time of the Act of Union.
I made no demands only pointed out the realitys of trying to unite this island.0 -
Advertisement
-
For some people, the answer seems to be "go out and start killing people". For me, the answer is "keep trying".The political process failed, 45 years was too long. What does one do when the political process of the will of the vast majority fails after 45years?!:rolleyes:
What makes 45 years the arbitrary point at which it's ok to shed blood to further your political aims? Do you think it would be perfectly acceptable for the xIRA to start a bombing campaign in 2043 if a United Ireland has not come about?
By killing people. Way to do a right.No. It was a case of people of both religions trying to do a right on a wrong inflicted on the people for 115 years then.
"Fnck this, I'm fed up waiting, I'm gonna kill someone." Laudable.They ran out of justifiable patience.0 -
Had all diplomatic avenues been exhausted? Considering the Home Rule Bill had been passed, I think the answer to that question would have to be a resounding ‘No’.Mate, 45 years of first asking and then bloodthirsty blockage from Carson. Hardly inspiring.
Obviously. What’s your point?Have you asked why? It wouldn't be got to do with the people of those regions wanting some say in runnning of their own countries now would it?
The process was drawn out; it had not failed. How could the passing of a Home Rule Bill be considered a failure of the political process?The political process failed, 45 years was too long.
Wait another 45 if it means the loss of life will be prevented.What does one do when the political process of the will of the vast majority fails after 45years?!0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »For some people, the answer seems to be "go out and start killing people". For me, the answer is "keep trying".
What makes 45 years the arbitrary point at which it's ok to shed blood to further your political aims? Do you think it would be perfectly acceptable for the xIRA to start a bombing campaign in 2043 if a United Ireland has not come about? By killing people. Way to do a right. "Fnck this, I'm fed up waiting, I'm gonna kill someone." Laudable.
They had the vast majority of the vote to fight for an Irish parliament in whatever form it takes, thats a difference.
A brutal occupation did not exactly help a peaceful resistance, there is only so much a resistance can take peacefully before it is forced to take up arms.
There was no UN back then nor a powerful peacebroker process.Had all diplomatic avenues been exhausted? Considering the Home Rule Bill had been passed, I think the answer to that question would have to be a resounding ‘No’.
The process was drawn out; it had not failed. How could the passing of a Home Rule Bill be considered a failure of the political process?
Wait another 45 if it means the loss of life will be prevented.
Wait another 45 years? You are joking right?
We should then apply that to all matters of international dispute. Guess your advice should of been given to the Croats and Slovenes in 1991 then
If a majority of a region want freedom, well they can wait 90 years from first asking!!:D
On the Home Rule bill, you seem to be forgetting something.
There were 3 Home Rule bills, the first about 1870 or so. It passed on 3rd time asking with 'Royal Assent' just before WW1 and was being blocked by a bloodthirsty Carson. Throw in the mix of distrust of a British govt with past form and its quite easy to see why the Irish got fed up waiting.0 -
it was not carson that used violence now was it, moreover if 'irish' can use force to defend themselves against percieved injustices surly by your logic it was ok for the unionists.0
-
it was not carson that used violence now was it, moreover if 'irish' can use force to defend themselves against percieved injustices surly by your logic it was ok for the unionists.
Against percieved injustices like what?
Roughly 80% wanted Home Rule and 20% did not, thats a thumping majority. The UVF armed themselves first, you saying that was just for show?:rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Against percieved injustices like what?
Roughly 80% wanted Home Rule and 20% did not, thats a thumping majority. The UVF armed themselves first, you saying that was just for show?:rolleyes:
Maybe it was for show maybe it was'nt who knows since the weapons were only ever used in germany.0 -
Wait, what? Are you trying to claim that in 1916 there was a democratic mandate from the Irish people for armed rebellion?They had the vast majority of the vote to fight for an Irish parliament in whatever form it takes, thats a difference.
There was no brutal occupation in 1916. Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Dublin was a major UK city. There was a groundswell of popular support for a degree of autonomy, but even Sinn Féin wanted Home Rule with allegiance to the king.A brutal occupation did not exactly help a peaceful resistance, there is only so much a resistance can take peacefully before it is forced to take up arms.
None was needed. All that was required was that the parliamentary process be allowed to take its course; a course that Pearse deliberately sabotaged.There was no UN back then nor a powerful peacebroker process.
Yeah, you're right. Killing people is so much more viscerally satisfying, isn't it?Wait another 45 years? You are joking right?
Of course not. They should start killing people. It's a small price to pay for a political goal, after all.If a majority of a region want freedom, well they can wait 90 years from first asking!!:D
What makes a bloodthirsty Carson an evil bogeyman, but a (self-confessedly) bloodthirsty Pearse a national idol? Is it simply that you agree with the aims of one, but not the other?On the Home Rule bill, you seem to be forgetting something.
There were 3 Home Rule bills, the first about 1870 or so. It passed on 3rd time asking with 'Royal Assent' just before WW1 and was being blocked by a bloodthirsty Carson.
The Irish didn't get fed up waiting. A tiny minority of a small minority decided that bloodshed was a better solution than diplomacy, and brought everyone else into the abyss with them.Throw in the mix of distrust of a British govt with past form and its quite easy to see why the Irish got fed up waiting.0 -
Well, let's follow your logic. The separation of part of Ireland from the UK was a major problem for Unionists. Accordingly, they would have been justified in starting a war in 1947. Right? That's about the timeframe for getting fed up with political processes, isn't it?Against percieved injustices like what?
Were the IRB's arms for show?The UVF armed themselves first, you saying that was just for show?:rolleyes:0 -
But the difference is you are using speculation as justification for bloodshed.
justification for bloodshed? I suppose I am. I guess I believe that times were different, and the ability we have today to pass judgement has only come about from the actions of those in the past.
Simply because your opinion favours a non-violent means towards independence doesn't make your speculation any more accurate... Its still speculation no matter how you want to dress it up.So your statement about Scottish “freedom” is pretty meaningless, isn’t it?
No, because Scotland still gained its independence to a degree, and it happened only in the last decade. No violence occured to create that independence, and you haven't shown that lack of violence would have guaranteed them independence prior to this time.This fact was clearly illustrated by the House of Commons’ passing of the Third Home Rule bill three times. Oh, wait now…
And what happened then?No, I continue to look back at this particular period in history and wonder why, when progress was being made (albeit slow progress) in attaining Home Rule, Pearse et al. felt it necessary to shed blood.
Perhaps because they didn't see that the British Empire was willing to let go of Ireland as a colony any time soon. I still haven't seen reasons from you as to why the British would have been willing to let us go...Britain began to “let loose” it’s colonies long before the outbreak of WWI. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa were all granted self-governance of sorts before 1914.
Of sorts. Still with oath of allegience to the crown and to the queen. And still capable of being tried under British law for any offenses they felt appropiate.0 -
Your mistake is to assume that such ability could only have come about through those actions.Deleted User wrote: »justification for bloodshed? I suppose I am. I guess I believe that times were different, and the ability we have today to pass judgement has only come about from the actions of those in the past.
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.And what happened then?
Ireland wasn't a colony, and the Home Rule bill had been passed.Perhaps because they didn't see that the British Empire was willing to let go of Ireland as a colony any time soon. I still haven't seen reasons from you as to why the British would have been willing to let us go...
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.Of sorts. Still with oath of allegience to the crown and to the queen.
Right?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »So O'Connell, Parnell, Davitt, Redmond and so on were just pissing into the wind, yes? Of course there's a doubt. If there was no doubt, we wouldn't be having a discussion.
Daniel O'Connell the great liberator indeed. I'm sure Catholic emancipation was of great comfort to the Irish people when British Regiments were removing food from Ireland in the 1840s during the Great famine.
The British Government saw Ireland as a fertile colony where they could exploit for their own selfish ends. Ireland was never going to be allowed her freedom unless it became too troublesome for her imperial masters to handle. From an empire perspective if Ireland was granted her freedom then many of Britains far flung colonies might get similar notions. Another reason to deny Irelands sovereignty.0 -
In the sense that we would have been better off staying with Britain, yes.
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 ?
Before you start pining for being back under the British jackboot you should cast your mind back to all the injustices perpetrated by your beloved British on the natives in Ireland. Ireland was always going to be better off independent than as a constituent part of the UK. We might be in a recession, we might have some shamefully corrupt leaders, and we have made many mistakes since independence but still we are a hell of a lot better off that we would be under UK rule.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Wait, what? Are you trying to claim that in 1916 there was a democratic mandate from the Irish people for armed rebellion?
You misread. There was an overwhelming mandate from the Irish people to have a parliament of their own. It was denied continuously since 1801.There was no brutal occupation in 1916. Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Dublin was a major UK city. There was a groundswell of popular support for a degree of autonomy, but even Sinn Féin wanted Home Rule with allegiance to the king.
An autonomy that was denied for 114 years despite the huge majority in favour of it.
Yeh, lets have waited another 45years. That process you speak of failed miserably. I'm surprised someone like Pearse did not happen sooner. The Irish people certainly had patience to wait that long.None was needed. All that was required was that the parliamentary process be allowed to take its course; a course that Pearse deliberately sabotaged.
Again, you're trying to legitimise an unwelcoming and brutal occupying power as peaceful when it was not.Yeah, you're right. Killing people is so much more viscerally satisfying, isn't it? Of course not. They should start killing people. It's a small price to pay for a political goal, after all.What makes a bloodthirsty Carson an evil bogeyman, but a (self-confessedly) bloodthirsty Pearse a national idol? Is it simply that you agree with the aims of one, but not the other?
Why was Carson taking up arms in the first place and getting many Unionists to sign the Covenant in blood then? a new harmless hobby?:rolleyes:The Irish didn't get fed up waiting. A tiny minority of a small minority decided that bloodshed was a better solution than diplomacy, and brought everyone else into the abyss with them.
Nice analysis.oscarBravo wrote: »Well, let's follow your logic. The separation of part of Ireland from the UK was a major problem for Unionists. Accordingly, they would have been justified in starting a war in 1947. Right? That's about the timeframe for getting fed up with political processes, isn't it? Were the IRB's arms for show?
Unionists had their own state in 1947, they were content that the Union was safe for them, had their own parliament, no need for uprising.
The IRB was a tiny organisation compared to the huge UVF(100,000 members) who armed first in 1913 to stop the democratic wishes of the majority, that is any sort of Home Rule.
Carson initiated the threat of violence hence deserved to be called bloodthirsty.
The Irish Volunteers were formed after the UVF to uphold the democratic wishes of the majority.0 -
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.0 -
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.Deleted User wrote: »Simply because your opinion favours a non-violent means towards independence doesn't make your speculation any more accurate... Its still speculation no matter how you want to dress it up.
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.Deleted User wrote: »No, because Scotland still gained its independence to a degree, and it happened only in the last decade. No violence occured to create that independence, and you haven't shown that lack of violence would have guaranteed them independence prior to this time.
Because it was costing Britain a small fortune to run this country? To quote Asquith:Deleted User wrote: »I still haven't seen reasons from you as to why the British would have been willing to let us go...A poor country, mainly agricultural, is, for financial purposes, yoked with a rich country, mainly industrial, and the standard and scale of financial provision suitable to England has been necessarily, and almost automatically, applied to Ireland.
...
If you continue what he calls this partnership—if, in other words, you continue to adopt Unionist methods for Ireland, and refuse to grant Home Rule, you are going to develop Irish resources at the cost of the British taxpayer. That is what this sort of partnership means if it means anything, and that is why I say to the House of Commons that, although we have now to face a deficit of £1,500,000 as compared with what twenty years ago was a surplus of £2,000,000, if you go on working this partnership on Unionist lines, the deficit of £1,500,000 will swell and swell and swell to dimensions which none of us can forsee. Home Rule, as we believe, will be, among other things, a means of adjusting Irish finance to Irish needs, and giving Irishmen a direct interest in economy which under the partnership they have not got, and a direct responsibility for waste which under the partnership they have not got, and so of gradually reducing this deficit, and in time, as we hope and believe, of producing a surplus which will be available for future common purposes. The Bill, therefore, by recognising this deficit as a necessary starting point, anticipates the future when Irish income will balance, and more than balance, Irish expenditure.
Yes and of course Britain still has an overbearing influence on their affairs today. Oh no, wait now...Deleted User wrote: »Of sorts. Still with oath of allegience to the crown and to the queen. And still capable of being tried under British law for any offenses they felt appropiate.
Was no progress made during that time? None whatsoever?An autonomy that was denied for 114 years despite the huge majority in favour of it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Was no progress made during that time? None whatsoever?
The right to vote, sit in parliament in London and also own property which is basic and shouldn't have been fought for in the first place if it was a just society...if that's whats your asking.
There was zero progress on the national question unless i missed something?0 -
I'd really, really love to see your detailed logical assessment of exactly why all the political progress that had been made between 1801 and 1916 would suddenly have ground to a total and irrevocable halt had the Easter rising not taken place.You misread. There was an overwhelming mandate from the Irish people to have a parliament of their own. It was denied continuously since 1801.
...and that was on the cusp of being granted.An autonomy that was denied for 114 years despite the huge majority in favour of it.
Given that the Home Rule bill had been passed, on what do you base the figure of "another 45 years"? There is absolutely no logical basis - none whatsoever - for concluding that the British government would have waited 45 years to implement a bill that it had already passed.Yeh, lets have waited another 45years.
Of course it did. It was deliberately sabotaged by Pearse.That process you speak of failed miserably.
It wasn't an occupying power. I know, I keep repeating that, but that's because you keep re-stating that particular falsehood as if repetition will make it true.Again, you're trying to legitimise an unwelcoming and brutal occupying power as peaceful when it was not.
As for it being brutal - in what sense did the average British citizen living in Ireland in 1916 feel brutalised by his government?
Because he didn't want Home Rule, and was prepared to fight to prevent it. Which was also true of Padraig Pearse. The difference is, only one of them actually started a war. The one who threatened war you revile; the one who started the war you revere. Why the double standards?Why was Carson taking up arms in the first place and getting many Unionists to sign the Covenant in blood then?
Assuming that that's intended ironically: what's inaccurate about it?Nice analysis.
If Home Rule had been allowed to be implemented, nationalists would have had their own state sometime post-1916, they would have been content that Ireland was safe for them, they would have had their own parliament - where was the need for uprising?Unionists had their own state in 1947, they were content that the Union was safe for them, had their own parliament, no need for uprising.
The democratic wishes of the majority should have been allowed to take fruition through the democratic process. There was certainly strong support for it from the Asquith - cf djpbarry's post above.The IRB was a tiny organisation compared to the huge UVF(100,000 members) who armed first in 1913 to stop the democratic wishes of the majority, that is any sort of Home Rule.
Pearse started a war. Why doesn't he deserve to be called bloodthirsty?Carson initiated the threat of violence hence deserved to be called bloodthirsty.0 -
-
oscarBravo wrote: »I'd really, really love to see your detailed logical assessment of exactly why all the political progress that had been made between 1801 and 1916 would suddenly have ground to a total and irrevocable halt had the Easter rising not taken place. ...and that was on the cusp of being granted. Given that the Home Rule bill had been passed, on what do you base the figure of "another 45 years"? There is absolutely no logical basis - none whatsoever - for concluding that the British government would have waited 45 years to implement a bill that it had already passed.
You're missing something in you're argument. Granting home rule was part of a bartering agreement at the time between Liberals and the Irish MP's. There was no guarantee whatsoever(despite you might say Royal Assent) that it would of been followed through because Llyod Geroge the then PM from 1916 depended on Unionist votes in parliament and we know they were vehemently opposed to home rule.oscarBravo wrote: »Of course it did. It was deliberately sabotaged by Pearse. It wasn't an occupying power. I know, I keep repeating that, but that's because you keep re-stating that particular falsehood as if repetition will make it true.
Yes it was an occupying power as they forced Ireland into the UK without consent of the population(where 90% didnt have the vote to decide).oscarBravo wrote: »As for it being brutal - in what sense did the average British citizen living in Ireland in 1916 feel brutalised by his government?
Eh, firstly they were labelled as being British without their consent and secondly they would of been jailed(torture in some cases) if they disagreed with the status quo.oscarBravo wrote: »Because he didn't want Home Rule, and was prepared to fight to prevent it. Which was also true of Padraig Pearse. The difference is, only one of them actually started a war. The one who threatened war you revile; the one who started the war you revere. Why the double standards?
Pearse knew that the vast the majority wanted freedom from British rule in whatever form and they had been denied their rights. He had tacit backing from the public as they came to understand that his and their comrades way was the right way.(see next reply)
Carson represented a vocal minority(20%). The Irish Volunteers who had public support went to fight in WW1(including my grandpa). They split and then the smaller Irish Volunteers stayed behind as they knew the war was a con. The remainder of the Irish Volunteers(now National Volunteers) came back and joined the freedom fight.oscarBravo wrote: »Assuming that that's intended ironically: what's inaccurate about it?
Because you implied they were akin to just bandits. Those guys were intelligent revolutionaries, they knew what would of happened publicily when it was all over. They knew the public would support them as they showed leadership.
Just in case, they were not peasants. Their leaders were mostly middle to upper class types who had a vision and the public bought it. If they had no support, why on earth did their associated party(SF) get so much support?
Answering by executions is only a part of garnering support. They gave hope to the Irish people which they never had before.oscarBravo wrote: »If Home Rule had been allowed to be implemented, nationalists would have had their own state sometime post-1916, they would have been content that Ireland was safe for them, they would have had their own parliament - where was the need for uprising? The democratic wishes of the majority should have been allowed to take fruition through the democratic process. There was certainly strong support for it from the Asquith - cf djpbarry's post above. Pearse started a war. Why doesn't he deserve to be called bloodthirsty?
Again, democratic process. 45 years of waiting, generations passed and yet no movement and that movement was not from goodwill but from balancing the votes in Westminister.
Asquith was dependent on Irish votes. He didnt push through home rule of good heart. He did it for his own political party's survival in govt.
The tables turned in 1916 when George became PM. Dependent on Unionist votes to survive, the home rule was torpedoed in all but name.oscarBravo wrote: »How many people had to be killed to attain those rights? Apart, of course, from the passing of a Home Rule bill.
Many were killed and injured in Ireland to attain those rights over many years. That home rule bill was finally given Royal Assent Sept 18th 1914, about 45 years later of first asking.
Btw, we know you would of not taking part in 1916 Rising. What would of been your stance in the War of Independence, would you have fought the British?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I wouldn't describe the actions of O'Connell, Parnell and Redmond as "sitting quietly in their houses and saying nothing", would you?
Redmond achieved nothing not even home rule and that was garunteed..lol..
O connell fair enough but he didnt really change much now did he...
but i would agree with parnell.... but he didnt deliver either
to be fair ireland achieved the most through voilence...0 -
Ireland wasn't a colony, and the Home Rule bill had been passed.
What?.... Of course it was.... It was the first colony of the British. Have you heard of the plantations? Ireland was a test bed for years for the future of british expansion before the new world became the place to go. Maybe technically it was a part of the Union after 1800 but the reality is that it was a colony, ruled by an anglo saxon elite, much like other colonies in the 19th centuary. Even Niall Ferguson in his books say this was so and he is anything but an Irish Republican. Just look at his views on British Imperialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
In fact I would like to see if there was any historian who said other wise.oscarBravo wrote: »Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Why? Because an Act of Union was passed where 90% of the population had no say in the matter at all? You have to do better then that. Technically it may have been but it was only on paper where this was true. Reality it never was hence the calls for independance and the idea behind Ireland as a nation state.oscarBravo wrote: »It's interesting that you should bring India into it. How many people were killed on Ghandi's orders?
None id say. But how many died in the run up to India's independance and subsequent partition. Some people say it was over a million. Violence occured regardless of what Ghandi said or did. The british empire of post WW2 was much weaker then pre WW1. India's independance was just a matter of time. in 1914 things were not as clear cut and even post WW1 when the winners helped themselves to more subjects and land proved the imperialism was far from dead.0 -
...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.You're missing something in you're argument. Granting home rule was part of a bartering agreement at the time between Liberals and the Irish MP's. There was no guarantee whatsoever(despite you might say Royal Assent) that it would of been followed through because Llyod Geroge the then PM from 1916 depended on Unionist votes in parliament and we know they were vehemently opposed to home rule.
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.Yes it was an occupying power as they forced Ireland into the UK without consent of the population(where 90% didnt have the vote to decide).
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?
How much time did Redmond (who most certainly disagreed with the status quo) spend in jail? How much torture did he endure?Eh, firstly they were labelled as being British without their consent and secondly they would of been jailed(torture in some cases) if they disagreed with the status quo.
He also knew the majority backed a political approach to the issue, but he didn't let that stand in his way.Pearse knew that the vast the majority wanted freedom from British rule in whatever form and they had been denied their rights.
For an armed rebellion? Did he buggery.He had tacit backing from the public...
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.If they had no support, why on earth did their associated party(SF) get so much 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.
Political progress through horse-trading in parliament? Unheard of! Shocking!!Again, democratic process. 45 years of waiting, generations passed and yet no movement and that movement was not from goodwill but from balancing the votes in Westminister.
And also because (again cf. djpbarry's quote) he believed it was in the best interest of both countries.Asquith was dependent on Irish votes. He didnt push through home rule of good heart. He did it for his own political party's survival in govt.
Until next time.The tables turned in 1916 when George became PM. Dependent on Unionist votes to survive, the home rule was torpedoed in all but name.
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?
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?Many were killed and injured in Ireland to attain those rights over many years.
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.Btw, we know you would of not taking part in 1916 Rising. What would of been your stance in the War of Independence, would you have fought the British?
Redmond had achieved Home Rule, until Pearse torpedoed it.Redmond achieved nothing not even home rule and that was garunteed..lol..
Nope. Just Catholic emancipation. But who wanted that?O connell fair enough but he didnt really change much now did he...
Not a damn thing, if by "deliver" you use the standard Republican measure of body count.but i would agree with parnell.... but he didnt deliver either
Again, if your measure of achievement is the amount of blood spilled, I can't argue with that.to be fair ireland achieved the most through voilence...0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
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?
Wrong because they were granted Home Rule years before Ireland. Why was this? Why had Canada, Australia, NZ more say in their own affairs. Because as you said the British saw Ireland as a
They didnt need home rule as 1) The british can rule them better 2) Irish people were catholics i.e inferior.integral part of the United Kingdom.
Yet the reality of the ground was much different. If it wasnt, we would still be part of the union now.0 -
"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.Maybe technically it was a part of the Union after 1800...
I invite you to read the excellent The Green Flag, by Robert Kee.In fact I would like to see if there was any historian who said other wise.
Yes, because an Act of Union was passed.Why? Because an Act of Union was passed where 90% of the population had no say in the matter at all?
At least I can refer to an Act of Parliament. What's your authority for your statement, beyond Nationalist folklore?You have to do better then that. Technically it may have been but it was only on paper where this was true.
Would you try to argue that fewer people would have died had Ghandi led an armed rebellion?None id say. But how many died in the run up to India's independance and subsequent partition. Some people say it was over a million. Violence occured regardless of what Ghandi said or did.
This is a compelling argument for killing people to further a political end, exactly how?The british empire of post WW2 was much weaker then pre WW1. India's independance was just a matter of time. in 1914 things were not as clear cut and even post WW1 when the winners helped themselves to more subjects and land proved the imperialism was far from dead.0 -
Advertisement
-
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?Wrong because they were granted Home Rule years before Ireland.
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?
I'm confused...
And yet, Parliament after Parliament passed Home Rule bills. Strange, that.Why was this? Why had Canada, Australia, NZ more say in their own affairs. Because as you said the British saw Ireland as a[n integral part of the United Kingdom]. They didnt need home rule as 1) The british can rule them better 2) Irish people were catholics i.e inferior.
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.Yet the reality of the ground was much different. If it wasnt, we would still be part of the union now.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement