1916 commercialised

LordSutch

La Fenetre wrote: »

It's true, the vast majority of Dublin people were staunchly jackine in 1916 until...ever since.

Exactly my point.

Thank you.

La Fenetre

LordSutch wrote: »

Exactly my point.

Thank you.

I doubt it, the cronies in power before 1916 weren't any better, we just swapped Gangsters with English accents/sympathies for Gangsters with Irish accents . . . . "1916" my ass.

LordSutch

Yes indeed, I won't argue with that, but my point being that at the time of the Rising, "a snapshot in time", the 1916 Rising was not a popular event. Yes it became popular after the event!

Thats my point.

Jesus.

LordSutch wrote: »

Context.

Your own family lived during the Rising? So did everyone's! Did your own family not live through WW1 also?

LordSutch

Jesus. wrote: »

Your own family lived during the Rising? So did everyone's! Did your own family not live through WW1 also?

Is that the best you can do in answer to post No30 :rolleyes:

What's your point Jesus?

...not that I like arguing with the Son of God.

Jesus.

Good comeback to be fair m'lord

Peregrinus

LordSutch wrote: »

Yes indeed, I won't argue with that, but my point being that at the time of the Rising, "a snapshot in time", the 1916 Rising was not a popular event. Yes it became popular after the event!

Thats my point.

This is true. But it's important to remember that we can't assume that the 1916 Rising was unpopular means that it was unpopular in, say, the way that the Provisional IRA became unpopular in the 1970s. Physical force republicanism, or an acceptance of same, was a much more mainstream political position back in 1916 that it was in the context of Northern Ireland sixty years or so later. Back in the 1880s or 1890s, something close to half the MPs of the Irish Parliamentary Party were sworn members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood; there was much more overlap and crossover between physical force republicanism and constitutional nationalism than was to be the case later on, and differences between them were about tactics and timing and appropriateness of different ways of achieving shared goals than was to be the case later. If the citizens of Dublin opposed the 1916 Rising, it wasn't because they thought it was fundamentally wrong; it was because it was inconvenient, or badly timed, or ill-judged, or unfair or shocking at a time when so many Dubliners were serving in France.

And this helps to explain why opinion about the Rising changed so rapidly in the space of just two years. It wasn't just a matter of the ham-fisted ineptitude with which the British responded to the Rising; it was also that popular distaste for the Rising wasn't that deeply-rooted, and was always tempered with some degree of respect for what the rebels were trying to do.

whisky_galore

Del.Monte wrote: »

Came across this online.

About the same level of kitsch as Charles and Lady Di commemorative wedding crockery.

LordSutch

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the citizens of Dublin opposed the 1916 Rising, it wasn't because they thought it was fundamentally wrong; it was because it was inconvenient, or badly timed, or ill-judged, or unfair or shocking at a time when so many Dubliners were serving in France.

And this helps to explain why opinion about the Rising changed so rapidly in the space of just two years. It wasn't just a matter of the ham-fisted ineptitude with which the British responded to the Rising; it was also that popular distaste for the Rising wasn't that deeply-rooted, and was always tempered with some degree of respect for what the rebels were trying to do.

Firstly, thanks for your considered reply (unlike some other nut-job offerings from one or two other posters).

My perceptions of the Rising are based on direct family experience, therefore the paragraph in bold is totally at odds with what I have learned from aged members of my Dublin family!

Families on both sides would have been aghast at what the rebels did, ruining as it was the society that my normal working class family flourished in. Both my grandads would have been quite happy with Ireland gaining Home Rule whilst keeping Ireland connected to Britain, for what they would have described as "obvious reasons" like what would you break off all links with Britain? > is the picture I've always been told.

Admittedly my family were/are all C of I which may have a different bearing on my families views on the time? wedded as we were to Church and upholding the rule of law and order, no doubt with a picture of the King hanging on the living room wall?

Well I just added that picture for a laugh, although it wouldn't surprise me it was true.

We also had massive connections with the war effort in France/Belgium + the Royal Navy as did every other house in the road where my maternal grandparents lived (North Dublin).

I have several first hand stories from the rising from close aged family members, and all their recollections would point to the fact that the Rising was akin the "9/11" of their time! (My analogy).

The Rebels were the enemy within, and law and order must be withheld at any cost.
The Rebels stabbed us (and Britain) in the back while we were in crisis fighting the hun.
The Rebels should be brought to justice at any cost (not sure about executions though)?

That's three quotes that I would have been told many time over the years (or words to that effect).

All I'm doing is relaying what I know from my families perspective from the Dublin of the time.

Yes I realise that it flies in the face of Irish Nationalism and Republicanism, but that's where my family is from. A family I hasten to add who like many other Dudblit falilies, did not agree with the Rebels or their goals.

Jesus.

With respect Lord Hutch, why does what your aged family says hold so much sway with you? My family (being COI also) would presumably have been very much against the Rising too but I form my own opinions.

Was your Clan from the North Strand?

LordSutch

Jesus. wrote: »

With respect Lord Hutch, why does what your aged family says hold so much sway with you? My family (being COI also) would presumably have been very much against the Rising too but I form my own opinions.

I am just voicing (a view from the past) that is totally submerged in the build up to 2016.

Jesus. wrote: »

Was your Clan from the North Strand?

Near Stoney Batter.

Peregrinus

From what you say, Lord Sutch, your family would have been regarded, and would probably have regarded themselves, as Unionists in Dublin at the time. And, yes, this wasn't unconnected to the fact that they were CofI. I'm not saying that all Unionists were Protestant, or all Protestants were Unionists, but there was a definite correlation. And this is hardly sruprising; Protestants benefited from a privileged position under the Union, and naturally they would see the attractions in that.

The eclipse of their perspective on the Rising is probably linked with the eclipse of Southern Unionism generally. Unionists in the North very quickly lost interest in Southern Unionists once the 1921 settlement happened, and Southern Unionists felt abandoned not just by Britain but by their fellow Irish Unionists. That, obviously, was a bit of a blow; a challenge to their very identity. The people with whom they had identified themselves were, basically, not interested in them. Some responded to this by moving to Britain and seeking to integrate there. (Edward Carson exemplifies this.) Others decided to be flexible and make the best of the situation they were in. They ceased very quickly to think of themselves as Unionists. They formed groups like the Businessmen's Party, which contested elections in 1922 and 1923 (and won a couple of seats) or they joined parties like the National League, with some more-or-less monarchist remants of the Irish Party. By the 1930s they had been absorbed into Fine Gael. But even in the 20s they never advanced a Unionist political programme; they could see that was an absolute busted flush, and there was no mileage in it. For the same reason they ceased articulating a Unionist perspective on the 1916 Rising.

In short, if the Southern Unionist perspective on the 1916 Rising is forgotten today it's largely because they forgot it, because it was of no use to them. All that remains is a few memories handed down within particular families, such as your own.

Del.Monte

A good summation Peregrinus and we haven't (all) gone away you know.

Jesus.

Del.Monte wrote: »

A good summation Peregrinus and we haven't (all) gone away you know.

I beg your pardon?

LordSutch

Peregrinus wrote: »

From what you say, Lord Sutch, your family would have been regarded, and would probably have regarded themselves, as Unionists in Dublin at the time. And, yes, this wasn't unconnected to the fact that they were CofI. I'm not saying that all Unionists were Protestant, or all Protestants were Unionists, but there was a definite correlation. And this is hardly sruprising; Protestants benefited from a privileged position under the Union, and naturally they would see the attractions in that.

The eclipse of their perspective on the Rising is probably linked with the eclipse of Southern Unionism generally. Unionists in the North very quickly lost interest in Southern Unionists once the 1921 settlement happened, and Southern Unionists felt abandoned not just by Britain but by their fellow Irish Unionists. That, obviously, was a bit of a blow; a challenge to their very identity. The people with whom they had identified themselves were, basically, not interested in them. Some responded to this by moving to Britain and seeking to integrate there. (Edward Carson exemplifies this.) Others decided to be flexible and make the best of the situation they were in. They ceased very quickly to think of themselves as Unionists. They formed groups like the Businessmen's Party, which contested elections in 1922 and 1923 (and won a couple of seats) or they joined parties like the National League, with some more-or-less monarchist remants of the Irish Party. By the 1930s they had been absorbed into Fine Gael. But even in the 20s they never advanced a Unionist political programme; they could see that was an absolute busted flush, and there was no mileage in it. For the same reason they ceased articulating a Unionist perspective on the 1916 Rising.

In short, if the Southern Unionist perspective on the 1916 Rising is forgotten today it's largely because they forgot it, because it was of no use to them. All that remains is a few memories handed down within particular families, such as your own.

That's a good post and a good analysis.
You know your onions

Eugene Norman

LordSutch wrote: »

Firstly, thanks for your considered reply (unlike some other nut-job offerings from one or two other posters).

My perceptions of the Rising are based on direct family experience, therefore the paragraph in bold is totally at odds with what I have learned from aged members of my Dublin family!

Families on both sides would have been aghast at what the rebels did, ruining as it was the society that my normal working class family flourished in. Both my grandads would have been quite happy with Ireland gaining Home Rule whilst keeping Ireland connected to Britain, for what they would have described as "obvious reasons" like what would you break off all links with Britain? > is the picture I've always been told.

Admittedly my family were/are all C of I which may have a different bearing on my families views on the time? wedded as we were to Church and upholding the rule of law and order, no doubt with a picture of the King hanging on the living room wall?

Well I just added that picture for a laugh, although it wouldn't surprise me it was true.

We also had massive connections with the war effort in France/Belgium + the Royal Navy as did every other house in the road where my maternal grandparents lived (North Dublin).

I have several first hand stories from the rising from close aged family members, and all their recollections would point to the fact that the Rising was akin the "9/11" of their time! (My analogy).

The Rebels were the enemy within, and law and order must be withheld at any cost.
The Rebels stabbed us (and Britain) in the back while we were in crisis fighting the hun.
The Rebels should be brought to justice at any cost (not sure about executions though)?

That's three quotes that I would have been told many time over the years (or words to that effect).

All I'm doing is relaying what I know from my families perspective from the Dublin of the time.

Yes I realise that it flies in the face of Irish Nationalism and Republicanism, but that's where my family is from. A family I hasten to add who like many other Dudblit falilies, did not agree with the Rebels or their goals.

Of course COI members would not represent anywhere near the majority opinion, and trended towards unionism (a valid ideology btw).

I'm inclined to believe most of the hostility towards 1916 was caused by the destruction not the aims.

Del.Monte

Jesus. wrote: »

I beg your pardon?

Southern Unionists.

Arsemageddon

LordSutch wrote: »

Firstly, thanks for your considered reply (unlike some other nut-job offerings from one or two other posters).

First off, I presume this is referring to me. Your earlier posts in this thread were mostly irrelevant waffle. People in glass houses.......

My perceptions of the Rising are based on direct family experience, therefore the paragraph in bold is totally at odds with what I have learned from aged members of my Dublin family!

While your own family background and their perceptions of the rising are interesting they do not give you a unique insight into 1916. As has been pointed out by myself and others every Irish family lived through 1916.

While the rest of your post is interesting your family's opinions do not trump the opinions of the hundreds of thousands of others living in Dublin and elsewhere at that time. Anecdotes, no matter how interesting do not create absolute facts. You repeatedly claimed that the rising was universally unpopular. The fact public opinion swung behind the rebels so quickly after the rising is evident that they has a lot of tacit support.

You also still haven't accepted that the Somme is commemorated every year and there are special events planned for the centenary next year. TBH this just looks like whataboutery thrown in to get a reaction.

Nor have you adequately explained why you think that the rising was solely responsible for all Ireland's ills since then. For example, you have stated that your family did not object to Home Rule but were keen that law and order be upheld. Do you know what they thought of Unionist threats of violent opposition to Home Rule? Have you any opinion on this yourself?

whisky_galore

We've strayed far from the topic I wanted to discuss, can people take it outside please?

Peregrinus

LordSutch wrote: »

Regarding Irelands ills, well where do I start?
From about 1922 to 1990 the State didn't exactly instill any kind of confidence in growing an economy. Thanks to Dev we got a mono cultural, insular, priest ridden, closed shop, isolated, and a "we ourselves alone" type of society, for so many decades after independence ..........

I think the problem with this analysis is that Ireland's economic performance was woeful before 1922 - a shrinking economy, a declining manufacturing base, high emigration. This was well-recognised at the time. One of the constant themes of nineteenth-century foreign commentators was how well Britain was governed, and how badly Ireland was governed - by the same government.

Yes, the Free State failed to turn this around, and the Economic War in the 1930s was a particularly damaging policy. But I think most commentators put the turning point not in the 1990s but in the 1950s. Certainly from 1960 onwards economic growth in Ireland has been stronger than in the UK - there were reversals of that during the recession of the 1980s and again since 2008, but for 50 years now the long-term trend has been higher growth in Ireland than in the UK.

LordSutch wrote: »

Finally; Regarding the threat of Northern Violence, I presume the reason the border was introduced was to stop an all island confligration? seeing as NI did not to be ruled from Dublin.

NI, or much of it, didn't want to be ruled from Belfast either, though, which was why the Northern statelet was a pretty comprehensive failure. Say what you like about the South, but (since the Civil War) we have generally managed to solve our differences without recourse to bombs and bullets, which is not something that can be said for Northern Ireland.

And, there's no escaping this,what happened in Northern Ireland happened on the UK's watch. I think UK governments were guilty of neglect, or possibly despair, rather than malice in relation to their management of NI, but if you want evidence that Ireland under British government would likely continue to have been poorly-ruled, well, QED.

All of which leads me to think that, whatever the failings of successive governments of the Free State/Republic have been (and they have been many) we are overall better off than we would have been, had we remained in the UK. The collapse of Southern Unionism was perhaps traumatic for the people involved at the time, but it was good for the country, and I suspect good for their children and grandchildren.

LordSutch

whisky_galore wrote: »

We've strayed far from the topic I wanted to discuss......

OK then.

I wonder will Hotel & B&B rates go through the roof next Easter?

I guess thay will.

Jesus.

whisky_galore wrote: »

We've strayed far from the topic I wanted to discuss, can people take it outside please?

This is a discussion Forum. What'd you expect when you started the thread?

whisky_galore

Jesus. wrote: »

This is a discussion Forum. What'd you expect when you started the thread?

A discussion about the topic, is it too much to ask?

La Fenetre

Peregrinus wrote: »

Say what you like about the South, but (since the Civil War) we have generally managed to solve our differences without recourse to bombs and bullets, which is not something that can be said for Northern Ireland.

The demographics are completely different in NI.

Jesus.

whisky_galore wrote: »

A discussion about the topic, is it too much to ask?

Your topic was controversial and you knew it when you started it

Peregrinus

La Fenetre wrote: »

The demographics are completely different in NI.

Of course they are.

On the other hand, NI was designed specifically to ensure that it would have those demographics. That worked out well, didn't it?

Would a united Irish state from 1922 onwards have fared better, or worse, than the Free State/Republic has fared? Or than Northern Ireland has fared? We can't really say. It's a huge historical what-if, fun to speculate about but having no relationship to reality.

What we can say, though, is that Ireland as a dependency of Britain was badly governed (even by the standards of the day), Ireland within the UK was badly governed, the partition of Ireland worked out badly for Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland within the UK was badly governed (and is still not terribly well governed).

Which underlines my point; Ireland under/within the UK generally hasn't worked terribly well for Ireland. And, to come back to the point of this thread, one reason why we might remember Easter 1916 differently from July 1916 is that, whatever the populace felt about it at the time, Easter 1916 set in train a sequence of events that, in time, generally improved things. Whereas July 1916 was a senseless slaughter in support, as far as Irish Unionists were concerned, of a cause that turned out to be utterly bogus.

We should have mixed feelings about Easter 1916. We should feel bloody angry about the Somme.

LordSutch

Getting back to the commercialisation of 1916 (the Rising) for one minute. I wonder how will a balance be struck between the manufacture of things like GPO chocolate bars, rebellion biscuit tins, countess Markievicz wolly hats, & the like? Who will manage what's permitted and what's not permitted in the shops?

...also, getting back to my previous post about hotel & and B&B room rates for visitors.There has been a lot of talk about elevated accommodation prices for 'Web Summit' visitors in the last few years, which hasn't gone down well, so who will oversee such things next Easter for Rising visitors?

Peregrinus

LordSutch wrote: »

Getting back to the commercialisation of 1916 (the Rising) for one minute. I wonder how will a balance be struck between the manufacture of things like GPO chocolate bars, rebellion biscuit tins, countess Markievicz wolly hats, & the like? Who will manage what's permitted and what's not permitted in the shops?

I don't know. Is there any law in place by which anyone could prevent me from marketing, say, a range of Constance Markievicz toilet roll covers? Cuddly toys of Patrick Pearse and Sir John Maxwell?

There are a few specific provisions in place. The use of the harp, as the national emblem, is controlled by law, for example. I have a vague idea that the starry plough device is registered to one of the trade unions, or to ICTU, and possibly they could control inappropriate uses. I could be wrong about that. The organising committee for the celebrations will have a logo that they control. But there's no general law, that I know of, by which historical memorabilia require any kind of official licence or approval. Which suggests the principal control on what is sold will be public taste - what will people buy?

LordSutch wrote: »

...also, getting back to my previous post about hotel & and B&B room rates for visitors.There has been a lot of talk about elevated accommodation prices for 'Web Summit' visitors in the last few years, which hasn't gone down well, so who will oversee such things next Easter for Rising visitors?

The whole point of promoting festivals and conventions which will attract visitors is to benefit, inter alia, the hospitality industry. And, in any industry, high demand for a product, the supply of which is relatively fixed (like hotel rooms) will tend to drive up prices. That's how markets work.

We may not like this but, again, we don't have a price control regime in Ireland - we used to, but we dismantled the remnants of it about 30 years ago. Hoteliers can charge what people are willing to pay and, while we may deplore opportunistic profit-taking by hoteliers, unless the Dail is going to rush through legislation (of questionable constitutionality?) I don't see that there's any legal mechanism for stopping it.

I haven't seen any projections. Are the commemorations expected to attract many tourists?

Jesus.

LordSutch wrote: »

Getting back to the commercialisation of 1916 (the Rising) for one minute. I wonder how will a balance be struck between the manufacture of things like GPO chocolate bars, rebellion biscuit tins, countess Markievicz wolly hats, & the like? Who will manage what's permitted and what's not permitted in the shops?

The shop owner

La Fenetre

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course they are.

On the other hand, NI was designed specifically to ensure that it would have those demographics. That worked out well, didn't it?

Would a united Irish state from 1922 onwards have fared better, or worse, than the Free State/Republic has fared? Or than Northern Ireland has fared? We can't really say. It's a huge historical what-if, fun to speculate about but having no relationship to reality.

What we can say, though, is that Ireland as a dependency of Britain was badly governed (even by the standards of the day), Ireland within the UK was badly governed, the partition of Ireland worked out badly for Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland within the UK was badly governed (and is still not terribly well governed).

Which underlines my point; Ireland under/within the UK generally hasn't worked terribly well for Ireland. And, to come back to the point of this thread, one reason why we might remember Easter 1916 differently from July 1916 is that, whatever the populace felt about it at the time, Easter 1916 set in train a sequence of events that, in time, generally improved things. Whereas July 1916 was a senseless slaughter in support, as far as Irish Unionists were concerned, of a cause that turned out to be utterly bogus.

We should have mixed feelings about Easter 1916. We should feel bloody angry about the Somme.

Well that depends on what part of Ireland you live in. Many areas of so called rural Ireland were for the times, much better served in terms of infrastructure, railways, roads, bridges, ports, hospitals, schools, employment and industry than they are today by comparison. The British made many mistakes, but one thing they didn't do was discriminate in terms of location when it came to providing resources. There is much less of a divide and discrimination between so called rural and urban Northern Ireland than there is in the Republic. It's certainly not as much of a mono city culture and mentality that the Republic has become.