John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

Bruton is right.

The Ireland of the 1920s right up through the decades and decades that followed were not worth anyones blood.

The fight was for self-determination. In an ideal world, nobody should ever have to die for a cause but I'm afraid the world just isnt that nice. Is your interpretation of Bruton such that we made such a balls of running the country that it wasnt worth it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Think about it, the Unionists feared that home rule would be rome rule. Ya know what, they were right! All the child abuse scandals and the different arms of the state that covered it all up. The Magdalene laundries etc etc.

The shameful role of the Catholic Church is a different argument altogether. Plus, the 1916 leaders were socialist and they were on for a head on clash with the RCC. It is a fair argument to make that Ireland under the 1916 leaders would have pushed the RCC to the sidelines. Of course that is a moot point. It was Bruton and his forefathers that elevated the RCC to its position in Irish society.

Also, remember the minority Unionists started the arms race in 1912 by importing arms to defend their position against the majority. The authorities looked the other way. This is turn lead to the Nationalists arming.

I love the way the 1916 Rising is portrayed as violent armed terrorists while ignoring the armed British and Unionist side. What would you have them do? Hindsight is great isn't it. [/QUOTE]

Deleted User wrote: »

Idiocy to kill and die for that. We were brought up in a school system to believe that the British are always the bad guys. Literally brainwashed.

Speak for yourself. As a avid reader of history I think our Irish history lessons were extremely moderate and we were not told half the story. Only years later I read about the British role in, for example, during the famine there was plenty of food in Ireland but the British were exporting it under armed escort. I was never told that in school or about the siege of Drogheda or slaughter of civilians by Cromwell and Francis Drake.

Deleted User wrote: »

The Irish played major roles in empire building alongside the British. We were taught that the 1916 rising was a good and noble thing. More craziness.

Yes, plenty of Irish people worked around the world in the pay of the 'Empire'. Not entirely sure what that was to do with 1916 and Ireland's fight for self-determination.

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people did and still do think it was noble- how many people today would show the courage and bravery they showed before their executions in Kilmainham? If fighting and dying for your country in not noble- then what is?

Deleted User wrote: »

What should be celebrated is the 1918 election, this is the only point at which the Irish people give a mandate to a government. The war of independence followed. Celebrate democracy not a random group of people taking up arms at the GPO.

That does not make sense.

So basically ignore or even condemn the 1916 Rising but celebrate the 1918 elections. Okay- but the 1916 Rising and subsequent executions lead to the 'success' of the 1918 elections against HR.

Pick the good bits but ignore the more unsavory bits.

Deleted User wrote: »

If a terrorist group did that today it would be no different. Madness, and the average person is so brainwashed that cant see it.

'madness' 'craziness'- why the emotive words?

'brainwashed' - again speak for yourself. But please not so average person, tell us more?

Why dont you tell that the Croats et al?

eire4

Deleted User wrote: »

Bruton is right.

The Ireland of the 1920s right up through the decades and decades that followed were not worth anyones blood. Think about it, the Unionists feared that home rule would be rome rule. Ya know what, they were right! All the child abuse scandals and the different arms of the state that covered it all up. The Magdalene laundries etc etc.

Idiocy to kill and die for that. We were brought up in a school system to believe that the British are always the bad guys. Literally brainwashed. The Irish played major roles in empire building alongside the British. We were taught that the 1916 rising was a good and noble thing. More craziness.

What should be celebrated is the 1918 election, this is the only point at which the Irish people give a mandate to a government. The war of independence followed. Celebrate democracy not a random group of people taking up arms at the GPO.

If a terrorist group did that today it would be no different. Madness, and the average person is so brainwashed that cant see it.

If you do not support Irish independance thats fair enough. But please refrain from gross insults and calumny. The people who fought and died in the Easter Rising fought to free Ireland from the British empire and to even suggest they fought so children could be molested and brutalised as they were in Ireland over many decades is disgusting and wrong. As is calling others brainwashed.

Thomas_.

partyguinness wrote: »

The fight was for self-determination. In an ideal world, nobody should ever have to die for a cause but I'm afraid the world just isnt that nice. ...

Agreed.

The shameful role of the Catholic Church is a different argument altogether.

Without the silence by the people on such matters, I wonder whether and how they could had proceed in their ways at all. Ireland was for a very Long time a country of devoted catholics that allowed the church to have that much influence on society and on politics via certain politicians, to name Dev as being at the top of it.

Plus, the 1916 leaders were socialist and they were on for a head on clash with the RCC. It is a fair argument to make that Ireland under the 1916 leaders would have pushed the RCC to the sidelines. Of course that is a moot point.

Aside from James Connolly, I´m not aware that the other signatories of the Easter Proclamation were that much of socialist creed. Maybe Thomas Clarke had some socialist affiliations, but I didn´t recognise anything pointing in such a direction by the others, according to their biography and social background.

I have my doubts about the 1916 leaders to have pushed the RCC to the sidelines because the people, and most those living in the country, weren´t that inclined to push the RCC back on her influence upon them.

It was Bruton and his forefathers that elevated the RCC to its position in Irish society.

I think that Bruton himself wasn´t even born when this happened, on the contrary, he merely grew up with it.

Also, remember the minority Unionists started the arms race in 1912 by importing arms to defend their position against the majority. The authorities looked the other way. This is turn lead to the Nationalists arming.

The thread that led to that goes further back than just 1912, in fact it goes back to the early days of the plantation of Ulster in early years of the 17th century.

I love the way the 1916 Rising is portrayed as violent armed terrorists while ignoring the armed British and Unionist side. What would you have them do? Hindsight is great isn't it.

Well, the only two parties which were involved in the Easter Rising were the Irish Volunteers / Irish Citizen Army and the British Army. Never heard of the UVF taking part in it. In fact, the UVF couldn´t hardly take part in it because they all formed the 36th Ulster Division and they were already deployed to France when the Easter Rising happened.

To your Point it´s interesting that the Easter Rising revolutionaries were seen as terrorists by the Irish themselves. That changed just with the executions of the leaders in the aftermath. Then they became heros, but not while they were fighting in Dublin. If the British hadn´t shot 16 of them, they might even not had become heros at all, aside from those who saw them already as heros no matter what because they made a stance against British rule in Ireland.

Speak for yourself. As a avid reader of history I think our Irish history lessons were extremely moderate and we were not told half the story. Only years later I read about the British role in, for example, during the famine there was plenty of food in Ireland but the British were exporting it under armed escort. I was never told that in school or about the siege of Drogheda or slaughter of civilians by Cromwell and Francis Drake.

I would assume, that even by the Standards of what sort of School one is attending, the history curriculum in each School allows just to handle some picked parts of history and it mostly remains on the surface to have a go at the key Events that shaped further developments. For more indepth study, one has to do it by his / her own. But what you said regarding the Famine and the Cromwell years in Ireland, it does strike me that this wasn´t mentioned, for both events were key events with a huge effect on the population of Ireland.

Yes, plenty of Irish people worked around the world in the pay of the 'Empire'. Not entirely sure what that was to do with 1916 and Ireland's fight for self-determination.

I´m not speaking for the poster you were addressing in this quoted post of yours. It is often the case that some die-hard nationalist republicans do have a certain problem in dealing with this. I´d say that the reasons for why Irish people joined the British Forces through the centuries were as variable and different as they were when lots of them joined the British Army to fight in WWI. Fact is, that no matter what their reasons were, they supported and helped the British to build up and to sustain their Empire, along with other People from the British colonies as well.

To me, the principle and the blue print of the British Empire is based on that of the former ancient Roman Empire. The British (with the exemption of the Scottish) have been part of that ancient Roman Empire, and there was something left in the legacy of the ancient Romans that endured the times and lived on in history to be picked up when the time was right for England to look over the seas and make their fortune there. But this reference to the ancient Romans goes just to the principles that brought them their success, divide and rule is just one thing to mention. Before the British seized any overseas land, the Spanish and the Portuguese were already at it. Hence the rivalty between England and Spain at the period of Queen Elizabeth I.

Self-determination was always decided upon military strength and diplomacy but above all, it needed a strong and united Country ruled by a strong leader, which means King or Queen. The Irish didn´t have that when they were invaded and conquered, but the English had. That´s to say for the Long term of that part of history, not to speak about the infights among the Irish themselves in medieval times and afterwards.

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people did and still do think it was noble- how many people today would show the courage and bravery they showed before their executions in Kilmainham? If fighting and dying for your country in not noble- then what is?

They gave an example for modern revolutionary Irish nationalism and republicanism. Would you say that this applies for those born some generations afterwards and thought that this is their legitimacy to take up arms and join the PIRA during the troubles?

So basically ignore or even condemn the 1916 Rising but celebrate the 1918 elections. Okay- but the 1916 Rising and subsequent executions lead to the 'success' of the 1918 elections against HR.

Pick the good bits but ignore the more unsavory bits.

That´s what many die-hard Nationalist republicans do as well.

Ash.J.Williams

I have great respect for the men killed on 1916. I never got the impression they were violent people. It looks to me like a minor calamity that exploded beyond what it should have been. They seemed like decent people whose legacy was hijacked by corruption and greed. I think we should not celebrate 1916 officially, because those doing the celebrating and taking the glory do not deserve it. We should celebrate by listing all our mistakes made since then and try an learn from them

demfad

Thomas_. wrote: »

Without the silence by the people on such matters, I wonder whether and how they could had proceed in their ways at all. Ireland was for a very Long time a country of devoted catholics that allowed the church to have that much influence on society and on politics via certain politicians, to name Dev as being at the top of it.

Some kind of child abuse occurs to over 20% of children in European countries from Ireland to England to Holland to Romania. Your mistake is in assuming that child abuse and silence surrounding it is peculiar to Independent Ireland.

Aside from James Connolly, I´m not aware that the other signatories of the Easter Proclamation were that much of socialist creed. Maybe Thomas Clarke had some socialist affiliations, but I didn´t recognise anything pointing in such a direction by the others, according to their biography and social background.

The proclamation they all signed before the Easter rising (knowing they might die) says otherwise.

I have my doubts about the 1916 leaders to have pushed the RCC to the sidelines because the people, and most those living in the country, weren´t that inclined to push the RCC back on her influence upon them.

They would have most definately pursued a more Republican ethos which would have been the antithesis of Catholicism. As it happened the Republicans were beaten by the British backed Free State army so society continued much as before (similar corrupt society with Catholicism wielding more influence especially due to the border reducing Protestant influence massively).

The thread that led to that goes further back than just 1912, in fact it goes back to the early days of the plantation of Ulster in early years of the 17th century.

And consistant divide and rule policies by Britain in NE Ulster e.g an insistance on Caomplete Catholic non-ownership of land, forged documents to spark pogroms (e.g when Catholics threatened Protestant domination of Linen industry in Armagh)..these policies made more acute when the NI government kicked in.

Well, the only two parties which were involved in the Easter Rising were the Irish Volunteers / Irish Citizen Army and the British Army. Never heard of the UVF taking part in it. In fact, the UVF couldn´t hardly take part in it because they all formed the 36th Ulster Division and they were already deployed to France when the Easter Rising happened.

The UVF made a bit of noise when they arrived back physically throwing over 10,000 Catholics out of 'their' jobs. Any reaction from the British government?

To your Point it´s interesting that the Easter Rising revolutionaries were seen as terrorists by the Irish themselves. That changed just with the executions of the leaders in the aftermath. Then they became heros, but not while they were fighting in Dublin. If the British hadn´t shot 16 of them, they might even not had become heros at all, aside from those who saw them already as heros no matter what because they made a stance against British rule in Ireland.

That was the version in the British media and Unionist Irish Times at the time. The insurgents seemed to have significant support among the Irish in Dublin city center. Many dozens of civilians were summarily executed in the residential area west of the GPO. When the British army murders civilians it implies that they view them as the enemy.
The fact that the entire decade was one of radicalism and militarisation was a fact missed by this revision. The pro-British media outlook can be safely regarded as propaganda.
But there maybe some truth in the fact that the British should have strategically been more sensitive to nationalist concerns then Unionist bays for blood on this occasion. But...Its not in their nature, brutality worked for 100s of years in every colony. Not this time though. Looked like the revolutionaries were right.

Fact is, that no matter what their reasons were, they supported and helped the British to build up and to sustain their Empire, along with other People from the British colonies as well.

If the reason was for example poverty as in most colonies then your use of the word 'support' is unsubstantiated

Self-determination was always decided upon military strength and diplomacy but above all, it needed a strong and united Country ruled by a strong leader, which means King or Queen. The Irish didn´t have that when they were invaded and conquered, but the English had. That´s to say for the Long term of that part of history, not to speak about the infights among the Irish themselves in medieval times and afterwards.

The barbarism of empire. You are weaker than us. Therefore we have the right to invade you and treat you as sub-human and impose racism, sectraianism (and whatever tool works) to keep you subdued . The fact that this position is still being defended in the 21st century implies 'brain-washing'. British empire defenders and Royalists need to let it go. People should have the right to be citizens, not subjects.


The corpse of a particularly despicable ruler was reburied in England in the last year with full military and religious honours. The English establishment still believe this wretch was some kind of half-God? WTF

Would you say that this applies for those born some generations afterwards and thought that this is their legitimacy to take up arms and join the PIRA during the troubles?

Pogroms, apartheid, massacres, people gunned down in 'legitimate' civil rights marches. Wouldnt you pick up a gun and defend your street and family if it became life or death? That's not to defend the leaders of the PIRA who should have carried out peaceful abstentionism when there was a chance after 1975.

Half a million Protestants signed the Ulster covenant to defend Ulster 'by any means' from Home rule. It was crystal clear that this would include the pogrom, expulsion and murder of their Catholic neighbours. Have you a problem with this?

Thomas_.

demfad wrote: »

Some kind of child abuse occurs to over 20% of children in European countries from Ireland to England to Holland to Romania. Your mistake is in assuming that child abuse and silence surrounding it is peculiar to Ireland.

The Posters reference was to Ireland and therefore I´ve had no Need to take other countries within my reply.

The proclamation they all signed before the Easter rising (knowing they might die) says otherwise.

I wouldn´t believe in a statement that to know that one might die because he took up arms against his government means to be of socialist creed. As various as the Irish Republican movement was at that time and with regards on how it split in different factions after the signing of the Anglo-Irish-Treaty, I take the Easter Proclamation not as a singular Socialist declaration but as a summary of many creeds from the Irish Republican movement that is displayed in there. The outset of an Irish State that bears conservative as well as progressive aims to built upon. It was a proclamation, not a consitituion.

They would have most definately pursued a more Republican ethos which would have been the antithesis of Catholicism.

I seriously doubt that the Catholic Church had stood idly by watching their influence on Irish Society going down the drain by Irish Republicans taking over. Despite the most fierce political ideologies, the Catholic Church survived because People Chose for themselves whom they believed and whom they distrusted. The Nazis tried that one from 1933 to 1945, the Communists tried that one as well from 1945 to 1989 and they both failed. The reason for why they failed is simple, because both were oppressive regimes.

As it happened the Republicans were beaten by the British backed Free State army so society continued much as before (similar corrupt society with Catholicism wielding more influence especially due to the border reducing Protestant influence massively).

The Irish Free State was the stepping Stone towards ultimate freedom in the long run for the price of partition and in the circumstanced of that time when the Free State was established. There was nothing else on offer, otherwise, the Irish had to wait for another fifty years until they would had gained independence and it´s obvious, that the majority of the Irish people then was not prepared to take another fifty years of waiting.

And consistant divide and rule policies by Britain in NE Ulster e.g an insistance on Caomplete Catholic non-ownership of land, forged documents to spark pogroms (e.g when Catholics threatened Protestant domination of Linen industry in Armagh)..these policies made more acute when the NI government kicked in.

What forged documents are talking about?

The UVF made a bit of noise when they arrived back physically throwing over 10,000 Catholics out of 'their' jobs. Any reaction from the British government?

Many of the British soldiers returned to their homes in 1919 and in that year, the Irish War of Independence was already going on. So why should the British react on such a thing when they had to battle the Irish in their efforts to gain Independence by military force?

That was the version in the British media and Unionist Irish Times at the time. The insurgents seemed to have significant support among the Irish in Dublin city center. Many dozens of civilians were summarily executed in the residential area west of the GPO. When the British army murders civilians it implies that they view them as the enemy.
The fact that the entire decade was one of radicalism and militarisation was a fact missed by this revision. The pro-British media outlook can be safely regarded as propaganda.

No doubt, the whole decade was that, but it continued for another decade with less killed people after the Irish Civil War ended.

But there maybe some truth in the fact that the British should have strategically been more sensitive to nationalist concerns then Unionist bays for blood on this occasion. But...Its not in their nature, brutality worked for 100s of years in every colony. Not this time though. Looked like the revolutionaries were right.

I´m not buying this in regards that the Irish are in contrast better then them. Just look to other places where they settled themselves on foreign soil in America, Australia and New Zealand. You can´t make me believe that those Irish settlers over there were merely Protestants in their majority, the reference goes to all Irish people, both Catholic and Protestant. They didn´t give a damn about the natives there either. Such was the way of history then. There was no humanitarianism back then. It´s a modern concept and to judge history by that makes one missing the pure picture of those time periods concerned.

The barbarism of empire. You are weaker than us. Therefore we have the right to invade you and treat you as sub-human. The fact that this position is still being defended in the 21st century implies 'brain-washing'.

Such is the rule of force and it´s sad enough that this continues in our times by the likes of ISIS.

The corpse of a particularly despicable ruler was reburied in England in the last year with full military and religious honours. Do the English still believe these people are half-God? WTF

Was it any better make a show of the funeral of Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa in 1915 to have him for a good use for Propaganda?

Pogroms, apartheid, massacres, people gunned down in 'legitimate' civil rights marches. Wouldnt you pick up a gun and defend your street and family if it became life or death? That's not to defend the leaders of the PIRA who should have carried out peaceful abstentionism when there was a chance after 1975.

To pick up a gun to defend oneself is one thing, to go on a bombing campaign and kill hundreds of innocent people is quite another.

Half a million Protestants signed the Ulster covenant to defend Ulster 'by any means' from Home rule. It was crystal clear that this would include the pogrom, expulsion and murder of their Catholic neighbours. Have you a problem with this?

I have no Problem with the amount of People who signed the Ulster Covenant and as for the Pogroms, Expulsion and murder of Catholics, same happened to Protestants in Ireland too.

demfad

Thomas_. wrote: »

The Posters reference was to Ireland and therefore I´ve had no Need to take other countries within my reply.

Your agreement that levels of covered up child abuse were related to Irish independence should have referenced child abuse in Ireland Ireland pre-independence and other countries to be valid. As levels of child abuse being covered up did not vary with state or country the assumption is invalid.

It was a proclamation, not a consitituion.

And the strong socialist language and tone of the proclamation reveals the likely views of the people who signed it which was originally what you disagreed with.

I seriously doubt that the Catholic Church had stood idly by watching their influence on Irish Society going down the drain by Irish Republicans taking over. Despite the most fierce political ideologies, the Catholic Church survived because People Chose for themselves whom they believed and whom they distrusted. The Nazis tried that one from 1933 to 1945, the Communists tried that one as well from 1945 to 1989 and they both failed. The reason for why they failed is simple, because both were oppressive regimes.

The Nazis tried to quell the Catholic church and failed because they were oppressive regimes? I have no idea what point you are trying to mkae here. Do you?

The Irish Free State was the stepping Stone towards ultimate freedom in the long run for the price of partition and in the circumstanced of that time when the Free State was established. There was nothing else on offer, otherwise, the Irish had to wait for another fifty years until they would had gained independence and it´s obvious, that the majority of the Irish people then was not prepared to take another fifty years of waiting.

It was all that the British claimed they were offering. So the Irish question was settled as the British wished which seems to again disprove the assumption that the problems post sectarian partition Ireland were somehow of Republicans causing.


FYI. The militarisation of the UVF (and then the rest of Ireland) was caused by the British government's deliberate wording of the home rule bill. They duped Redmond by leaving a clause about the inclusion of Ulster being revisited should circumstances in Ulster change. That was a signal for the UVF to militarise and for the covenant to be signed in order to 'change' the Ulster situation. Even though Unionists only had a majority in 3 counties they got 6.

What forged documents are talking about?

E.g Before almost every Catholic household in Armagh was burned out (and their linen looms were all destroyed or stolen) by peep o day boys, a document was circulated in the days before 'exposing' a Catholic plot to kill every Protestant in Armagh in their beds. The document was later exposed as a (Britsih) forgery. This is typical of colonial tactics for social subjugation.

Many of the British soldiers returned to their homes in 1919 and in that year, the Irish War of Independence was already going on. So why should the British react on such a thing when they had to battle the Irish in their efforts to gain Independence by military force?

The Dail was only outlawed in September 1919. The expulsions happenned in July. No. Its the same reason why they ignored anti- Catholic pogroms in NE Ireland for 400 years. It was not only in their interest to ignore it. It was in their interest to ignite it. These are imperialist tactics. Why should a country accept such despotic rule?

No doubt, the whole decade was that, but it continued for another decade with less killed people after the Irish Civil War ended.

The amount of deaths post Independence Ireland compared to pre-independence Ireland are miniscule. Could this be related to the lack of British rule in Ireland I wonder?

There was no humanitarianism back then.

Humanitarianism and the concept that all human beings are of equal moral significance has been around since the Greek Republic. Imperialist defenders use this as a classic defence. I do agree the British empire was racist. But humanitarian and its political manifestation (republicanism) were obviously around.

Such is the rule of force and it´s sad enough that this continues in our times by the likes of ISIS.

And The British/American armies.... 500,000 fatalities in the Iraq war mainly civilians. Lies about WMDs. Attacks on hospitals etc etc. Im so glad that most of Ireland is not part of that bloodbath anymore. Are you not?

Was it any better make a show of the funeral of Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa in 1915 to have him for a good use for Propaganda?

At least you admit that media coverage of the 1916 rising at the time was propaganda.

To pick up a gun to defend oneself is one thing, to go on a bombing campaign and kill hundreds of innocent people is quite another.
I have no Problem with the amount of People who signed the Ulster Covenant and as for the Pogroms, Expulsion and murder of Catholics, same happened to Protestants in Ireland too.

You have no problem with people signing something knowing that the are de facto threatening to murder innocent people by doing so? The fact that they considered Catholics as inferior does not constitute an excuse.

At the end of the day the government of a state is responsible for what happens in the state. You can either govern fairly or you can subjucate, corrupt and use your army to enforce (as an empire does). The continuous huge British military presence in Ireland as well as state documents and the terms of the Act of Union itself point to the latter.

You need to look at your own prejudices and be honest about why you are defending Imperialism.

Thomas_.

First of all, I think that I have to make some things clear to you. I´m not here to serve any political stance in this thread. I do such things on other political matters. The thread itself is about historical matters and an individual opinion on these by a former Irish politician.

As we do not know each other yet, I just tell you that I´m a Social Democrat and therefore politically left of the centre, but I don´t call myself a Socialist in the sense of the far-left who hang on to that term.

So, what I express in my opinion is just coming from the angle and the way I look at history and try to take both parts of a story into account, not just following one side. I´m therefore no Imperialism apologist, I just look at the things that happend in the context of the times when they happened and what the rule as well as what the attitude of the People towards it were.

demfad wrote: »

Your agreement that levels of covered up child abuse were related to Irish independence should have referenced child abuse in Ireland Ireland pre-independence and other countries to be valid. As levels of child abuse being covered up did not vary with state or country the assumption is invalid.

Again, I´ve had no Intention to widen this specific topic and therefore I´ll leave it at what I´ve said before.

And the strong socialist language and tone of the proclamation reveals the likely views of the people who signed it which was originally what you disagreed with.

Is that so? Some from the republican faction told me that the proclamation has no explicit wording that bears the word "Socialism" in it. It is therefore a matter of interpretation regarding the text and of course what the signatories had in mind when setting up the text and signing it. I have once called that document as bing a socialist one and got bothered by some Republicans that it is not. But still, despite the lacking of the word, I´m more of the opinion that it carries socialistic ideals with it. Otherwise, Connolly had never signed it, that´s for sure, at least to me.

The Nazis tried to quell the Catholic church and failed because they were oppressive regimes? I have no idea what point you are trying to mkae here. Do you?

To keep it short in order to not getting too far from the topic, I just like to point out how the Nazis as well as the Communists tried to replace the Christian Religion by their ideology. They took their efforts to alienate the people from Christianity and win them over for their political ideology which was anti-religious to some extent but more of a nihilistic nature. The oppressive regime both ideologies had hat their core demanded that the people are standing 100% behind that ideology and abandon their religion. It didn´t work because one can´t have the whole of the population behind an ideology. To follow or prefer a religion in contrast to the ruling ideology meant to be suspicious to the regime. Another word for that is totalitarianism, a system that demands from the people to subjugate themselves totally to the ruling ideology with no questions asked. That was at the core of Nazism and Communism. When you look at North Korea, you still see it there (apart from the fact that there is no link to Catholicism, but the totalitarianism of the ruling regime is open on display).

So, we both know that the Catholic Church always had an opposite stance regarding Socialism and Communism. Given that the majority of the Irish Republican were followers of the Socialist ideals, they had got into conflict with the Catholic Church in Ireland sooner or later. Once Irish Independence had been achieved (given that the Easter Rising had not failed), the People might had been more or less satisfied with having the British out of the Country, but this doesn´t mean that they all had necessarily become Socialists. To change a society is a very difficult and long period matter. The way you look at it is a bit too simply for me.

It was all that the British claimed they were offering. So the Irish question was settled as the British wished which seems to again disprove the assumption that the problems post sectarian partition Ireland were somehow of Republicans causing.

On the parts of David Lloyd George, Irish Unity hadn´t been a Problem if it wasn´t for Craig and his Unionists in Ulster. The British government approached to solve the Irish Problem by the most pragmatic one given the circumstances and what has been feasible at that time. The establishing of the Northern Irish Statelet in 1920 by the Act of Ireland was a result of the then still ongoing Irish War of Independence but also addressing the staunch Opposition from the Unionists accept home rule and thus dominion Status for Ireland. In fact there was no other way out of it than this from their point of view.

FYI. The militarisation of the UVF (and then the rest of Ireland) was caused by the British government's deliberate wording of the home rule bill. They duped Redmond by leaving a clause about the inclusion of Ulster being revisited should circumstances in Ulster change. That was a signal for the UVF to militarise and for the covenant to be signed in order to 'change' the Ulster situation. Even though Unionists only had a majority in 3 counties they got 6.

The same things had been included into the Anglo-Irish-Treaty of 1921.

E.g Before almost every Catholic household in Armagh was burned out (and their linen looms were all destroyed or stolen) by peep o day boys, a document was circulated in the days before 'exposing' a Catholic plot to kill every Protestant in Armagh in their beds. The document was later exposed as a (Britsih) forgery. This is typical of colonial tactics for social subjugation.

I´m rather sceptical about the validity of that assumption.

The Dail was only outlawed in September 1919. The expulsions happenned in July. No. Its the same reason why they ignored anti- Catholic pogroms in NE Ireland for 400 years. It was not only in their interest to ignore it. It was in their interest to ignite it. These are imperialist tactics. Why should a country accept such despotic rule?

You speak of the anti-Catholic Pogroms and killings but you don´t mention the anti-Protestant Pogroms and killings carried out by Catholics in These 400 years? You seem to be doing that on purpose.

The amount of deaths post Independence Ireland compared to pre-independence Ireland are miniscule. Could this be related to the lack of British rule in Ireland I wonder?

Is it? In all the books I´ve read about Irish history regarding that period many historians, if not all, say that the amount of killed People during the time of the Irish Civil War is higher than that from the Irish War of Independence.

Humanitarianism and the concept that all human beings are of equal moral significance has been around since the Greek Republic. Imperialist defenders use this as a classic defence. I do agree the British empire was racist. But humanitarian and its political manifestation (republicanism) were obviously around.

You speak of the idea whereas I was speaking of the reality and practice.

And The British/American armies.... 500,000 fatalities in the Iraq war mainly civilians. Lies about WMDs. Attacks on hospitals etc etc. Im so glad that most of Ireland is not part of that bloodbath anymore. Are you not?

Sure, it´s better that Ireland has no part in this.

At least you admit that media coverage of the 1916 rising at the time was propaganda.

I wasn´t admitting anything. I´ve merely put a question to you by using a different person for example.

You have no problem with people signing something knowing that the are de facto threatening to murder innocent people by doing so? The fact that they considered Catholics as inferior does not constitute an excuse.

No, I have no problem with the Ulster Covenant because it´s just a Piece of paper multiplied and distributed to many people to give their signature on it and thus showing their agreement with its content. The things you´ve come up with are not written there, it´s your interpretation and connection to what happened a couple of years later and you use it as being something of a document that might prove the sinister ideas you think that the Unionists had when they signed that paper.

At the end of the day the government of a state is responsible for what happens in the state. You can either govern fairly or you can subjucate, corrupt and use your army to enforce (as an empire does). The continuous huge British military presence in Ireland as well as state documents and the terms of the Act of Union itself point to the latter.
...

I realised that you have the usual republican view on history.

demfad

On the parts of David Lloyd George, Irish Unity hadn´t been a Problem if it wasn´t for Craig and his Unionists in Ulster. The British government approached to solve the Irish Problem by the most pragmatic one given the circumstances and what has been feasible at that time. The establishing of the Northern Irish Statelet in 1920 by the Act of Ireland was a result of the then still ongoing Irish War of Independence but also addressing the staunch Opposition from the Unionists accept home rule and thus dominion Status for Ireland. In fact there was no other way out of it than this from their point of view.

Winston Churchill argued with Lloyd George in cabinet over Ulster's inclusion in the home rule bill. Lloyd George subsequently met after reassuring them that the clause in the bill allied to the 2 year delay in its enactment would ensure that Ulster would be able to stay out. Ulster Unionists had 2 years to create a reason for the Brits to reconsider. Thus the arming and growth of the UVF.
Churchill actually went to Belfast to support Unionists there. Thus there was another way. The British just made sure the way that transpired was the way strategically most appealing to them. Remember, unionists still had only a majority in 3 Irish counties of 32. There clearly were several other ways then the 26/6 split.
If the treaty negotions had split up over partition do you think the US would assume anything other than that Britain was acting tyrant and tit again?

The same things had been included into the Anglo-Irish-Treaty of 1921.

Not the same thing. In 1921 the NI parliament had the option to vote themselves out. Simple.
In the home rule bill, a general worsening situation in Ulster might provoke a rethink. In option 1921, a vote was necessary. Before that a huge threat needed to be established by Unionists: ergo: UVF, covenant etc

You speak of the anti-Catholic Pogroms and killings but you don´t mention the
anti-Protestant Pogroms and killings carried out by Catholics in These 400
years? You seem to be doing that on purpose.

There have been some massacres of Protestants although tehse have by and large been once off during wars: e.g 1641 and wexford 1798.
Yes, they existed. But never on the same scale or as a pattern.

The violence against Catholics has been massively more prevalent taking on a familiar repetitive pattern. More recently between 1920 and 1930 the population of Catholics fell from 1/3 to 1/4 in NI. This was due to 'a pPotestant state for a Protestant people' state and social violence.
The population of Protestants in the Free State dropped also. This was due to relocation of jobs (RIC, British army). Relocation of people working close to the border. Ne temara etc. There was violence against some big houses, some of it revenge on informers, some of it straight forward sectarian murder...all of it wrong.....but the only redeeming factor is that there were so few. If you look at any post revolutionary State, no minority who supported the exiting power, has been treated as well as the Protestants in the Free State/ROI. Their position as the elite economic group in Ireland remained unchanged. Unheard of.

Is it? In all the books I´ve read about Irish history regarding that period many
historians, if not all, say that the amount of killed People during the time of
the Irish Civil War is higher than that from the Irish War of Independence.

Look at the 100 years before independence compared to the 100 years after. Compare it with NI even. The murder, infighting etc that the British used to smear the Irish, seems to have more or less disappeared with the British. Curious.

You speak of the idea whereas I was speaking of the reality and practice.

Sure empires raped, murdered and plundered most of the globe. But the argument that they thought they were doing right is a lie. Many, many peaceful democracies have emerged when the imperial tyrant departs.

No, I have no problem with the Ulster Covenant because it´s just a Piece of
paper multiplied and distributed to many people to give their signature on it
and thus showing their agreement with its content. The things you´ve come up
with are not written there, it´s your interpretation and connection to what
happened a couple of years later and you use it as being something of a document
that might prove the sinister ideas you think that the Unionists had when they
signed that paper.

The signatories agreed that they would use every means in their power to defend Ulster from Home rule. One of the principal tools used again and again and again against popery or fenians in the past had been the use of violence/pogroms/burning out/murder of Catholic populations. Do you really believe that their most used tool would not come under the heading 'every means in their power'?. The very FIRST thing that would have happened should home rule be brought in was that Catholics would be attacked. I think you know this well. Some Catholics in Belfast were actually against home rule by virtue of putting the safety of their families first.

I realised that you have the usual republican view on history.

If you could attack what I say and not who you think I am it might help with clarity and strength of your argument.

Thomas_.

demfad wrote: »

...

If you could attack what I say and not who you think I am it might help with clarity. The old unionsist logic......Republicans = non unionist/imperialists = ridiculous ... argument doesn't wash in this State any more at least.

Well, I recommend you to take your own advice first and remember that you were the first who accused me of defending imperialism, which I didn´t.

Here´s what you "recommended" to me:

You need to look at your own prejudices and be honest about why you are defending Imperialism.

So either you stop implying things into my Posts I did not say, or just look for another poster you can play you poxy little games. I´ve been dealing with various kinds of idiots in the recent past and frankly, I´ve no interest to meet new ones.

I hope that this was clear enough and will be understood by yourself.

Good day to you.

demfad

Thomas_. wrote: »

So either you stop implying things into my Posts I did not say, or just look for another poster you can play you poxy little games. I´ve been dealing with various kinds of idiots in the recent past and frankly, I´ve no interest to meet new ones.

I hope that this was clear enough and will be understood by yourself.

Good day to you.

Of course, when you do not have the wit to attack the post you can always resort to attacking the poster.

Thomas_.

demfad wrote: »

Of course when you do not have the wit to attack the post you can always resort to attacking the poster.

All right, I´m not interested in this old silly game. Welcome to my ingore list and I wish you a happy history reading with those who share your ideas. I´m not among them.

Bye.

K-9

Mod: Well that escalated quickly!

Tbh I think we've moved very much into the hisorical realm of discussion, which really isn't the politics board remit, and more for the history forums on boards.ie.