Seems Michael Collins and Padraig Pearse were gay?

Pottler

CreepingDeath wrote: »

It would explain the camp IRA berets and leather gloves.

I.R.Ghey?:D

tomtherobot

Nodin wrote: »

Sinn Fein advocatied legalising gay marriage before any other major party, afaik. You'd want to be a bit more specific in your allegations.

What allegations? I think it's pretty fair to say there's a widely held association between republicanism, sectarian violence and Catholicism.

You can say that this is a misconception (and you may or may not be right) but it doesn't change the fact that this is the public's perception.

Hazys

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

It is probably because he was one.

OP admited why specifically republicans because there is a generalization that republicans due to their links to religion would more than likely be homophobic.

He also mentioned sectarian violence but i have no idea how that fits into the discussion.

But are republicians more likely to have less a precentage of their group to be atheists than the general public? i dont think so tbh

kincsem

Padraic Pearse went around Rathmines dressed as a woman allegedly. Probably just doing a bit of auld spying.

kowloon

It's a bit weird going about outing people. It's a bit like a child making a case for something they did saying '...but Tommy down the road did it!'.
It's a bit ridiculous that anyone should feel they have to justify being gay in the first place, but state your own opinion, don't point at others.

LuciusPax wrote: »

...it would have been fantastic to see Patrick Pearse read the 'Proclamation of the irish Republic' in a ferociously camp voice.

A Fabulous new Republic darling.

Casement was clearly gay though, he's called Roger ffs! Sooooo gay! :pac:

tomtherobot

Pottler wrote: »

I.R.Ghey?:D

I R gAy would be brilliant, there'd be no more dressing up as soldiers with the camoflage gear and the balaclavas. Instead one guy would dress as a construction worker, one as a red indian, one as a police officer....

tomtherobot

Hazys wrote: »

OP admited why specifically republicans because there is a generalization that republicans due to their links to religion would more than likely be homophobic.

He also mentioned sectarian violence but i have no idea how that fits into the discussion.

I said republicans are perceived to be more religious and if you can't see why people associate republicanism with sectarian violence that's just nuts.

And yes that's a generalization i'd probably buy into myself to a degree (in so much as i'd buy into any generalization). I just don't perceive any republican figures as very tolerant people.

Pottler

tomtherobot wrote: »

I R gAy would be brilliant, there'd be no more dressing up as soldiers with the camoflage gear and the balaclavas. Instead one guy would dress as a construction worker, one as a red indian, one as a police officer....

The parades could be the "moves" - way more fun, but probably bad for business - "Give me the money or we'll knee-cap ya,.. oohhh where'd you get them trousers??, they're simply divine!"

An Coilean

tomtherobot wrote: »

I found myself leafing through yesterdays Irish Times (it's pretty ****e i know) and found an excerpt from David Norris book, he's talking about the gay right movement in Ireland and goes on to strongly suggest that Roger Casement, Padraig Pearse, Michael Collins and Eoin O'Duffy were gay.

Now personally I don't have a homophobic bone in my body (stop) but isn't it a bit weird outing people like this when there dead? Also, I'd love to know what the republicans here think of this?

I know its been widely suggested before that Roger Casement was gay but the other three came as a bit of a shock to me. For one thing i want me money back from the Liam Neeson/Julia Roberts movie. Damn you Hollywood lies....

There have been Various claims made about Pearse, very little evidence for them bar some poetry he wrote. Casement was almost definatly Gay, As for Collins, It seems very unlikely, have not seen any evidence for it, this is the first time I have even heard it rumored.

I know nothing about O'Duffy other than he was a blueshirt and a bit of a headcase.

tomtherobot

Pottler wrote: »

The parades could be the "moves" - way more fun, but probably bad for business - "Give me the money or we'll knee-cap ya,.. oohhh where'd you get them trousers??, they're simply divine!"

The Wolf Tones will have to go Disco

4zn76tysfajdxp

TeddyTedson wrote: »

He may have been engaged, but it wasn't that long ago when Freddie Mercury was married to a woman either.

Freddie Mercury was never married to a woman.

Pottler

Maxim Cool Respirator wrote: »

Freddie Mercury was never married to a woman.

Why, was he gay?:D

RoundyMooney

Pearse may not have been gay, but...

P&#225 wrote: »

Little lad of the tricks,
Full well I know
That you have been in mischief:
Confess your fault truly.

I forgive you, child
Of the soft red mouth:
I will not condemn anyone
For a sin not understood.

Raise your comely head
Till I kiss your mouth:
If either of us is the better of that
I am the better of it.

There is a fragrance in your kiss
That I have not found yet
In the kisses of women
Or in the honey of their bodies.

Lad of the grey eyes,
That flush in thy cheek
Would be white with dread of me
Could you read my secrets.

He who has my secrets
Is not fit to touch you:
Is not that a pitiful thing,
Little lad of the tricks ?

RoundyMooney

Pottler wrote: »

Why, was he gay?:D

Freddie Mercury, gay?

Certainly not! Have you taken leave of your senses, sir?

Piece of Bread.

Irish Republicanism is famous for gay people being infested in their ranks.

Pottler

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Freddie Mercury, gay?

Certainly not! Have you taken leave of your senses, sir?

Sorry, I just heard some rumours about him on an internet forum. Must have been BS:D

nice1franko

An Coilean wrote: »

There have been Various claims made about Pearse, very little evidence for them bar some poetry he wrote. Casement was almost definatly Gay, As for Collins, It seems very unlikely, have not seen any evidence for it, this is the first time I have even heard it rumored....

Agree with this and also with Wes when he says "what does it matter?".

That said, fpr Norris to suggest Collins was gay on the basis that some elderly man who visited him (Norris) claimed that he was Collins' boyfriend seems a bit.. unsubstantiated. I mean, an oulfella could call into Norris and claim he was mine - or Elvis', for that matter - boyfriend and it'd have the same credibility.

tomtherobot

Piece of Bread. wrote: »

Irish Republicanism is famous for gay people being infested in their ranks.

That's either blatent trolling or one of the funniest things i've seen on here

Piece of Bread.

tomtherobot wrote: »

That's either blatent trolling or one of the funniest things i've seen on here

Nope. The evidence is clear with the way they go on and also the evidence of homosexual behaviour of some of the most famous Irish Republicans.

Pottler

Piece of Bread. wrote: »

Irish Republicanism is famous for gay people being infested in their ranks.

Them bedlice are a scourge, tbf.

An Coilean

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Pearse may not have been gay, but...

The problem with basing a claim of homosexuality on that is that perceptions of what is 'gay' change vastly over time.

Our perceptions of what is 'Gay' is very much a product of a Victorian obsession with sexauality and trying to define what was normal and marganilise everything else.
In 17th centuary Britain it was very common for your average joe soap to walk down the street holding hands with his male freinds.
Men kissing other men on the cheak is a very common custom elsewhere in Europe.
I agree that the content of the poem may seem suggestive, but that is when viewing it from our perspective, in 1910 it may not have appeared so.

Pottler

An Coilean wrote: »

The problem with basing a claim of homosexuality on that is that perceptions of what is 'gay' change vastly over time.

Our perceptions of what is 'Gay' is very much a product of a Victorian obsession with sexauality and trying to define what was normal and marganilise everything else.
In 17th centuary Britain it was very common for your average joe soap to walk down the street holding hands with his male freinds.
Men kissing other men on the cheak is a very common custom elsewhere in Europe.
I agree that the content of the poem may seem suggestive, but that is when viewing it from our perspective, in 1910 it may not have appeared so.

Just as well hindsight is, famously, 20:20.

RoundyMooney

Oh no, I wasn't suggesting he was gay at all, and nor, in my view, does that piece-if anything he repressed his sexual leanings, whatever they were. But, even taking into account what you rightfully highlight as a moving of the cultural norms down through the decades, that poem has a very questionable tone and direction to it.

Especially given, that he nearly broke himself financially, setting up St. Enda's.

I'd love to be wrong, but I've been reading that thing for years, I think it was on the curriculum when I was in school, and it's always, to me, gone way beyond the pale.

An Coilean wrote: »

The problem with basing a claim of homosexuality on that is that perceptions of what is 'gay' change vastly over time.

Our perceptions of what is 'Gay' is very much a product of a Victorian obsession with sexauality and trying to define what was normal and marganilise everything else.
In 17th centuary Britain it was very common for your average joe soap to walk down the street holding hands with his male freinds.
Men kissing other men on the cheak is a very common custom elsewhere in Europe.
I agree that the content of the poem may seem suggestive, but that is when viewing it from our perspective, in 1910 it may not have appeared so.

Rhys Essien

David Norris - The Irish people are after forgetting about me since the Presidential Election.I know what I'll do....................................:rolleyes:

An Coilean

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Oh no, I wasn't suggesting he was gay at all, and nor, in my view, does that piece-if anything he repressed his sexual leanings, whatever they were. But, even taking into account what you rightfully highlight as a moving of the cultural norms down through the decades, that poem has a very questionable tone and direction to it.

Especially given, that he nearly broke himself financially, setting up St. Enda's.

I'd love to be wrong, but I've been reading that thing for years, I think it was on the curriculum when I was in school, and it's always, to me, gone way beyond the pale.

I understand your point, but all too often when looking at these things we in the modern and often very oversensitised world can see a giant neon red flag, but such a thought never even occoured to people at the time.

jill_valentine

The Pearse thing was commonly known, I'd thought?

Collins is a bit out of the blue though, not so sure about that one.

Incidentally, establishing who was and who wasn't gay in retrospect does sort of matter, because, for a start, doing otherwise presents a completely false picture of history. People want to know where these guys were, and what they did, and what helped them think and act as they did in every other regard, and sexuality and romance is as significant a factor as any other. Pretending that it's the one part of these titanic historical figures that doesn't matter is disingenuous.

Second of all, it matters because playing dumb about the role of homosexual people in historical narratives effectively erases it. It makes it look like homosexuality was only invented in the last hundred years, which is bollocks. Who gains from that? Not history. Not straight people, and certainly not gay people. Writing homosexuality out of our history books - which is what happens when everyone is too squeamish to mention it - makes it harder for gay people to find a home in the culture they come from, and makes it easier for bigots to dismiss and diminish their significance and contribution as a part of society in generations gone before.

It's making bad history in bad faith and it's nonsense. You cannot tell the story of Alan Turing without speaking of his orientation, any more than you could describe him without mentioning that he liked breaking codes a bit.

Just as Irish people are entitled to claim Irish heroes, and Catholics have their favored patron saints, and local boys can have their local GAA champions, gay people are entitled to claim their own; and by extension, their own due foothold in the national narrative.

People who don't see why that matters have a kind of inattentional blindness, where they're so used to taking it for granted that everybody of note is straight - just like them - that they can't imagine the effect if things were different.

Jimoslimos

Piece of Bread. wrote: »

Irish Republicanism is famous for gay people being infested in their ranks.

Piece of Bread. wrote: »

Nope. The evidence is clear with the way they go on and also the evidence of homosexual behaviour of some of the most famous Irish Republicans.

I think it's pretty obvious who this "new member" is. Welcome back and bye again!

An Coilean

jill_valentine wrote: »

The Pearse thing was commonly known, I'd thought?

Collins is a bit out of the blue though, not so sure about that one.

Incidentally, establishing who was and who wasn't gay in retrospect does sort of matter, because, for a start, doing otherwise presents a completely false picture of history. People want to know where these guys were, and what they did, and what helped them think and act as they did in every other regard, and sexuality and romance is as significant a factor as any other. Pretending that it's the one part of these titanic historical figures that doesn't matter is disingenuous.

Second of all, it matters because playing dumb about the role of homosexual people in historical narratives effectively erases it. It makes it look like homosexuality was only invented in the last hundred years, which is bollocks. Who gains from that? Not history. Not straight people, and certainly not gay people. Writing homosexuality out of our history books - which is what happens when everyone is too squeamish to mention it - makes it easier for bigots to dismiss and diminish their significance and contribution as a part of society, and it makes it harder for gay people to find a home in the culture they come from.

It's making bad history in bad faith and it's nonsense. You cannot tell the story of Alan Turing without speaking of his orientation, any more than you could describe him without mentioning that he liked breaking codes a bit.

Just as Irish people are entitled to claim Irish heroes, and Catholics have their favored patron saints, and local boys can have their local GAA champions, gay people are entitled to claim their own; and by extension, their own due foothold in the national narrative.

People who don't see why that matters have a kind of inattentional blindness, where they're so used to taking it for granted that everybody of note is straight - just like them - that they can't imagine the effect if things were different.

I agree, however while ignoring someones Homosexuality damaged the historical narrative, claiming all and sundry were gay on any pretext is just as damaging to it and the role of homosexuals in it.

RhubarbCrumble

Pearse and Casement are pretty much public knowledge aren't they? First time I've ever heard that about Michael Collins though.

Ambient Occlusion

I was under the impression that the whole Black Diaries thing about Casement was just a smear campaign done by the British at the time and that there was little evidence to support any of it, any one know about that?

El Weirdo

Piece of Bread. wrote: »

Irish Republicanism is famous for gay people being infested in their ranks.

Piece of Bread. wrote: »

Nope. The evidence is clear with the way they go on and also the evidence of homosexual behaviour of some of the most famous Irish Republicans.

Hi Keith.

Bye Keith.

jill_valentine

An Coilean wrote: »

I agree, however while ignoring someones Homosexuality damaged the historical narrative, claiming all and sundry were gay on any pretext is just as damaging to it and the role of homosexuals in it.

I absolutely agree.

It matters to figure out who was or who wasn't, but doing so on flimsy pretexts just to cause a bit of a stir dilutes the weight of it. I just rankle when people make a song and dance about acting like it's of no significance or it's improper to ask, when that's clearly not the issue. It's disingenuous, and it skews the lens we're all trying to look through.

Re: Casement, I had been under the same impression about it being a smear campaign?

Nodin

There was handwriting analysis done and apparently it's his script allright.

df1985

whether you're gay or a complete homophobe.....does it actually matter if they were/werent?

Madam_X

TeddyTedson wrote: »

My friends Dad is openly gay but only for about 15 years.
I still think his wife must have known...everyone else did.

Same with my friend's dad.

An Coilean

jill_valentine wrote: »

Re: Casement, I had been under the same impression about it being a smear campaign?

The impression I get from what I have read on the matter is that Casement was Gay, and when the British found 'incriminating' documents to that effect they used them in a smear campaign against him.

An Coilean

df1985 wrote: »

whether you're gay or a complete homophobe.....does it actually matter if they were/werent?

I would imagine yes quite a bit on both counts?

Augmerson

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

It is probably because he was one.

He was from Cork. A man. And Irish.

Perhaps all these people should be asked to comment too?

K-9

I don't believe any true Irish Republican was gay, nor a true Ulster Loyalist.

tayto lover

K-9 wrote: »

I don't believe any true Irish Republican was gay, nor a true Ulster Loyalist.

What was Sammy doing in the nip in the green fields of France i wonder?

jill_valentine

An Coilean wrote: »

The impression I get from what I have read on the matter is that Casement was Gay, and when the British found 'incriminating' documents to that effect they used them in a smear campaign against him.

Gosh, well that's interesting.

After Hours, an education as always.

K-9

tayto lover wrote: »

What was Sammy doing in the nip in the green fields of France i wonder?

He lied to feel the smell of the poppies in the morning.

Sleepy

Maxim Cool Respirator wrote: »

Freddie Mercury was never married to a woman.

No, but Elton John was....

asherbassad

tomtherobot wrote: »

I found myself leafing through yesterdays Irish Times (it's pretty ****e i know) and found an excerpt from David Norris book, he's talking about the gay right movement in Ireland and goes on to strongly suggest that Roger Casement, Padraig Pearse, Michael Collins and Eoin O'Duffy were gay.

Now personally I don't have a homophobic bone in my body (stop) but isn't it a bit weird outing people like this when there dead? Also, I'd love to know what the republicans here think of this?

I know its been widely suggested before that Roger Casement was gay but the other three came as a bit of a shock to me. For one thing i want me money back from the Liam Neeson/Julia Roberts movie. Damn you Hollywood lies....

Does it matter?
Charles Stuart Parnell, a philanderer?
Wolfe Tone a Prot?
Gerry Adams' brother a paedophile?
Nelson Mandela's ex-wife a sex-starved diva with 50 bank accounts?
Bernadette McAliskey...a whore who had a child out of wedlock

Or we have

George W Bush a torturer of animals
Bennazir Bhutto a corrupt murderess
Dick Cheney a 5 time draft dodger and advocate of torture

So the homos and degenerates actually did a spot of fighting for what they thought was right and most took a bullet.
The world leaders, ducked that bullet.
Where are you Blair?

suicide_circus

And i've heard that Michael D. Higgins likes it up the Aras

Mickey H

IvySlayer wrote: »

Maybe he was so good at fashion, they had to shoot him :P

Thanks Dougal.

kincsem wrote: »

Padraic Pearse went around Rathmines dressed as a woman allegedly. Probably just doing a bit of auld spying.

Sure Deveen hoored for Ireland. The film says so.

General General

The Cumback Kid didn't talk much about this when he was running for Presidento.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

... or they could have been bisexual! Michael Collins did like women, there's no doubt in that.

Chuck Stone

Can we all just agree that every significant person in history was gay and move on?

Oh, while we're here can we say every nice car is gay too?

And cake.

And Christmas.

Think that has it covered.

kowloon

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's making bad history in bad faith and it's nonsense. You cannot tell the story of Alan Turing without speaking of his orientation, any more than you could describe him without mentioning that he liked breaking codes a bit.

I agree that it's wrong to purposely write out parts of a person's life, but to focus on someone's sex life because they're gay seems a bit like pointing the finger, saying 'this isn't normal'. I'm not sure that's a desired outcome either.

Alan Turing is a bit of a special case because he was treated horribly and prosecuted for being gay, that often gets him an extra line in texts that would only mention him.

Someone's sexuality is only relevant if it weighs in on the topic being written about. If I decided to write about some general and their campaign in whereverland, what they like to get up to in the bedroom, gay or not, is irrelevant. Unless they're banging their chief of staff...