Easter Monday - GPO Dublin

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a bit rich.

The people involved in The Rising came from Socialist, Nationalist and Republican traditions.

These are actual political traditions and schools of thought that have been applied by actual people in actual countries all over the actual world.

Your view seems not to exist outside of the internet and the minds of a few cultish kooks.

turgon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Come on donegalfella, we all know that Human Rights watch is an anti-communist pro-western corrupt organization with a secret plot against Fidel.

And Castros repression is only necessary because of the US embargo. Thats just a given.

turgon

Exile 1798 wrote: »

That's a bit rich.

Erm, not really. Its common knowledge that the Rising did not have popular support at the time. Why else would they have been abused by the "people" and have had food thrown at them? This is historical fact, not mere speculation.

Exile 1798

turgon wrote: »

Erm, not really. Its common knowledge that the Rising did not have popular support at the time. Why else would they have been abused by the "people" and have had food thrown at them? This is historical fact, not mere speculation.

By some people, not the people.

turgon

Exile 1798 wrote: »

By some people, not the people.

Home Rulers were in the majority. Sinn Fein wasnt even heard off properly until the 1918 election. Why is this hard to understand?

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Any period up to the mid to late 1600's as far as I'm aware. You'll find it verified in any detailed social history of the various eras. It is in fact common knowledge eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_Ireland
and

Within this Dublin 'Pale' was the 'Land of Peace' administered by the King's Justiciar or, later, Lord Lieutenant. "Beyond the Pale" lay the 'Land of War', where Irish and Anglo-Irish lords raided and battled one other in an endless series of petty wars and clan succession struggles characterized by a bewilderingly complex and constantly-shifting tangle of alliances.

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/IV58.html


The country rather famously only ever had one king that approached undisputed ruler and it took him some 15-20 years to get there with it collapsing as soon as he died.

Precisely why you want a source for this is rather beyond me.

Exile 1798

turgon wrote: »

Home Rulers were in the majority. Sinn Fein wasnt even heard off properly until the 1918 election. Why is this hard to understand?

Oh I understand perfectly.

Why can't you understand that history can't be written on a post card? The fact the a few middle-class Dubliners allegedly abused the prisoners doesn't account for the view of an entire people.

Indeed there are accounts of the rebels being cheered and sheltered in poorer districts of the city. The only reason why the former (alleged) reaction is so ingrained in the minds of people today is because it was elevated as part of the anti-Rising propaganda effort at the time.

And Sinn Fein off course had no involvement in the Rising.

turgon

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Why can't you understand that history can't be written on a post card? The fact the a few middle-class Dubliners allegedly abused the prisoners doesn't account for the view of an entire people.

Im basing my view on election results. Almost all reps to westminster were home-rulers at the time. There was no widespread support for such extremism until the executions.

Soldie

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The people involved in The Rising came from Socialist, Nationalist and Republican traditions.

So why, do you suppose, the self-proclaimed socialist Seán O'Casey parted ways with the Gaelic League, IGTWU & ICA as they became more and more aligned with militant nationalism? His 1926 play The Plough and the Stars gives a great insight into how he saw the rising as being completely out-of-touch with the common man, and there are plenty of quotes from it which support this.

Whatever about the 'traditions' from which those involved in the rising came from - it was nothing more than a blinkered hard-line republican blood-bath.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LordSutch

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The fact the a few middle-class Dubliners allegedly abused the prisoners doesn't account for the view of an entire people.

But was it just "a few middle-class Dubliners" who objected to the Rising :cool: > I think not!

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Indeed there are accounts of the rebels being cheered and sheltered in poorer districts of the city. The only reason why the former (alleged) reaction is so ingrained in the minds of people today is because it was elevated as part of the anti-Rising propaganda effort at the time.

I wonder do those accounts you speak of refer to the cheers of their own supporters. (ie; the few converts), & not the general populous of the city! > because the impression I get from every historical account of the 1916 Rising is that it was a very devisive & unpopular event, carried out at a very bad & opportunist time (in the middle of the Great War) no less ...................

There seems to be a bit of skulduggery going on at the moment amongst worshipers of the 1916 leaders, & their attempt to re-write the history of that time > wherby the perpetrators were cheered by most of the people, that they had widespread support, & that the Irish people broadly agreed with their fight & 'their' version of how Ireland should be governed in 1916 :cool:

This is not a History I am familliar with.

Exile 1798

Camelot wrote: »

But was it just "a few middle-class Dubliners" who objected to the Rising :cool: > I think not!



I wonder do those accounts you speak of refer to the cheers of their own supporters. (ie; the few converts), & not the general populous of the city! > because the impression I get from every historical account of the 1916 Rising is that it was a very devisive & unpopular event, carried out at a very bad & opportunist time (in the middle of the Great War) no less

The so called Great War was the perfect time to strike.

Who is Ireland's enemy?
Not Germany, nor Spain,
Not Russia, France nor Austria;
They forged for her no chain,
Nor quenched her hearths,
Nor razed her homes,
Nor laid her altars low,
Nor sent her sons to tramp the hills
Amid the winter snow.

....

Not Germany nor Austria,
Not Russia, France nor Spain
That robbed and reaved this land of ours,
And forged her heavy chains;
But England of the wily words --
A crafty, treacherous foe --
'Twas England scourged our Motherland,
'Twas England laid her low!

Camelot wrote: »

Judging by some of the posts here, there seems to be a bit of skulduggery going on at the moment amongst worshipers of their 1916 'myrters' & their attempt to re-write the history of the Rising > wherby the perpetrators were cheered by most of the people, that they had widespread support, & that the Irish people broadly agreed with their fight & 'their' version of how Ireland should be governed in 1916 :cool:

This is not a History I am familliar with.

I certainly don't see anyone trying to do that.

On the other hand, taking the alleged reaction of a few Dubliners and equating that with being THE representation off not just the people of Dublin, but of Ireland definitely smacks of a revisionist effort.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You aren't exactly in a position to say what I have and have not researched. I provided one or two random sources which back up my position, which is one or two more than you've supplied.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So now you're admitting I'm correct.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

....because the "Gaelic order" had long been systematically exterminated by a Foriegn power. A centralised nation state ruled by its own citizens would therefore be a legitamate modern alternative. I find it strange that you complained previously about attempts to teach the Irish language. Reinstating Brehon law would hardly be a trot in the park.

Camelot wrote:

carried out at a very bad & opportunist time

Aka "bloody ideal time" depending on which side of the fence etc.

LordSutch

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The so called Great War was the perfect time to strike.

Who is Ireland's enemy?
Not Germany, nor Spain,
Not Russia, France nor Austria;
They forged for her no chain,
Nor quenched her hearths,
Nor razed her homes,
Nor laid her altars low,
Nor sent her sons to tramp the hills
Amid the winter snow.

This is what divides your thinking & my thinking re the rising > this is the very knub of the argument regarding the 'Pros & Cons' of 1916, with over one hundred thousand (maybe more)? Irish troops fighting the Germans on the western front > then the rising takes place .................

With the above in mind, the Rising was only ever going to spark controversy & deep divisions, it could never ever hope to unite the island with the majority of the fighting population with Britain against Germany.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RealityCheck

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is correct. Pre Norman Society was a lot more civilised than post. In fact it could be argued that pre christian society in Ireland was even more civilised and society was more equal.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can you please explain how the leaders at the time could have gone about setting up such a an ararchic society? and explain to me how the British would have taken this approach seriously?
Basically you are saying we should have back to this society, but you are not saying how this could have been realistically achieved. All empty fanciful notions.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And how do you think the new system of law would have been enacted...?

Exile 1798

Camelot wrote: »

This is what divides your thinking & my thinking re the rising > this is the very knub of the argument regarding the 'Pros & Cons' of 1916, with over one hundred thousand (maybe more)? Irish troops fighting the Germans on the western front > then the rising takes place .................

With the above in mind, the Rising was only ever going to spark controversy & deep divisions, it could never ever hope to unite the island with the majority of the fighting population with Britain against Germany.

Do I really need to list the prominent IRA Volunteers from the Anlgo-Irish War that formerly served in the British army? It's a long time since I read Tom Barry's book but from memory he was serving with the British in Iraq when he heard of The Rising and couldn’t wait to get home and join the fight.

Most Irishmen who enlisted weren’t Union Jack waving God Save The King types, they joined because of circumstance and false promises.

'Twas Britannia bade our Wild Geese go that small nations might be free
But their lonely graves are by Sulva's waves or the shore of the Great North Sea
Oh, had they died by Pearse's side or fought with Cathal Brugha
Their names we will keep where the fenians sleep 'neath the shroud of the foggy dewNeath the shroud of The Foggey Due

And if you want to talk about "blood sacrifice" then look no further then your Ulster Unionist pals who to this day celebrate the slaughter of an entire generation of their men for the King… as if it where a great thing.

Grudaire

Camelot wrote: »

This is not a History I am familliar with.

Well I have pasted it up here a few times, I advise you read the thread in full!


My opinion on the matter is that such a massive turnaround in public opinion couldn't have happened, so I imagine this was a case of using isolated incidents that didn't represent everyone for their article

Don't get me wrong I'm not going to claim that it had widespread support either - just balancing the argument

Edit: actually it was in another thread (Just go to the post below):

Cliste wrote: »

from 93 years today thread

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LordSutch

I will never recognise the rising as anything more than a stain on Irish history.

I'm not saying that I dont sympathise with the two or three hundred who died during the rising, but I will never venerate the insurgents or what they ultimately acheived, ie; a very unstable Ireland that gained its independence from Britain by way of a violent & devisive divorce that could only ever lead to political unrest, unease, & division with the North. The Rising sowed the seeds for the next 80 years of violence, greyness & emmigration, and I will never praise or respect that ...........

'Home Rule' for Ireland would have been the right way to go, and that is something I would have respected & celebrated 100% > without hesitation

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In the face of resistance? Coercion and sanction.

Grudaire

I will forever see the rising as a important glorious moment in Irish history.

I'm saying that I sympathise with the two or three hundred who died during the rising, but I will celebrate the heroes, and what they ultimately acheived, ie; a very free Ireland (26/32*100%) that gained its independence from Britain by way of a violent uprising, and the devisive divorce that could only ever lead to political unrest, unese, & division with the North was not ideal - I'll admit that, but much worse would have been more years under British rule. The Rising was a culmination of the hundreds of years of violence, greyness & emmigration that plagued the country, and I while it would have been best that none of the above happened I praise and respect that...........

'Home Rule' for Ireland would have been the wrong way to go, and that is something I would have feared & fought against 100% > without hesitation

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

Camelot wrote: »

I will never recognise the rising as anything more than a stain on Irish history.

Don't worry, no one is in any doubt as to where your allegiance lies.

Camelot wrote: »

I'm not saying that I dont sympathise with the two or three hundred who died during the rising, but I will never venerate the insurgents or what they ultimately acheived, ie; a very unstable Ireland that gained its independence from Britain by way of a violent & devisive divorce that could only ever lead to political unrest, unese, & division with the North.

Later in your post.

'Home Rule' for Ireland would have been the right way to go, and that is something I would have respected & celebrated 100% > without hesitation

Perhaps you are unaware that "the North" (as you say) also opposed Home Rule and threatened partition if it came about? Or that The British garrison in Ireland threatened to mutiny rather then uphold Home Rule? Or that the UVF was formed in 1912, not to oppose Irish Republicanism, but Irish Home Rule?

So how is it really possible to say it was the Rising the ensured partition and division, but that Home Rule didn’t or wouldn’t have?

Camelot wrote: »

The Rising sowed the seeds for the next 80 years of violence, greyness & emmigration, and I will never praise or respect that ...........

As opposed to the previous 80 years where Ireland lost 50% of it's population? A million of them who weren't lucky enough to have immigrated, but rather died by the wayside and where buried in mass graves? Or when entire Counties where owned by four or five absent English landlords who extorted rent from those who merely lived there? Serfdom!

LordSutch

I still say that Home Rule would have been the way to go, (even if it did take decades), at least it could have been done in a civilised way, with an open & inclusive hand towards the North > Redmond was no fool.

How could the Rising have acheived anything other than disharmony & recrimination?

sceptre

Exile 1798 wrote: »

As opposed to the previous 80 years where Ireland lost 50% of it's population?

The what now?

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Considering that it was done by deportation, 'ethnic cleansing', massacre, disenfranchisement, cultural extermination, discrimination and general brutality its hardly an improvement they brought. I'm merely pointing out that it wasn't some libertarian anarcho-hippy cuddlefest beforehand.