Will 1916 commemorations open up old wounds between Ireland and the brits?

bobbysands81

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Seeing as were fellow EU members they should take the time learn it.

Why would they care about us?

We're obsessed by them due to the overbearing relationship that they have on us (and had on most of the rest of the world).

Our relationship with Britain is akin to that of a battered wife always seeking approval and love from the abusive husband knowing that it'll never come... but always returning to him and forgiving him clinging to the vain hope that we can change him but knowing we never will.

cml387

Here's the thing. When will they commemorate the actual day? Will it be Easter Monday 2016 which is the 28 March, or the actual day which was April 24.

Or will we have two, for the crack.

Banjoxed

The Ireland of 2016 without a 1916 rising would look exactly the same as the Ireland of today. Self rule in the 26 counties was going to happen anyway. In fact it was the conscription crisis of 1917-18 that galvanised Sinn Féin as a more radical alternative to the Irish Parliamentary Party and the All-for-Ireland breakaway party.

Andy From Sligo

cml387 wrote: »

Here's the thing. When will they commemorate the actual day? Will it be Easter Monday 2016 which is the 28 March, or the actual day which was April 24.

Or will we have two, for the crack.

All of 2016! every day!

Berserker

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

The usual ballbags out in force already, always someone on here trying to find a way to discredit their own people.

Lets celebrate the Invasions :rolleyes:

If you don't like or want to celebrate your countries fine history, **** Off

An Ireland for all, eh! Isn't that what republicans say? Ireland's Anglicisation is celebrated each and every day through the use of language and the culture of a heavy majority of people in the RoI. 1916 has no relevance. The RoI in 2016 would be pretty much the same if it didn't happen.

cml387

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Our relationship with Britain is akin to that of a battered wife always seeking approval and love from the abusive husband knowing that it'll never come... but always returning to him and forgiving him clinging to the vain hope that we can change him but knowing we never will.

Well that's your view. I'd compare it with the the next door neighbours whom we envy, never averse to borrowing a bob or two off them, or watching their television through the windows.

greenflash

cml387 wrote: »

Here's the thing. When will they commemorate the actual day? Will it be Easter Monday 2016 which is the 28 March, or the actual day which was April 24.

Or will we have two, for the crack.

Better off having two. To be sure to be sure.

KingBrian2

It is also the 200 years since the Ha' penny bridge was built this May.

Berserker

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Why would they care about us?

We're obsessed by them due to the overbearing relationship that they have on us (and had on most of the rest of the world).

Our relationship with Britain is akin to that of a battered wife always seeking approval and love from the abusive husband knowing that it'll never come... but always returning to him and forgiving him clinging to the vain hope that we can change him but knowing we never will.

You having a laugh. I would say that a certain percentage of the people in the RoI are utterly obsessed with Britain, in a negative way. They are like attention seeking teenagers.

Junkyard Tom

Banjoxed wrote: »

The Ireland of 2016 without a 1916 rising would look exactly the same as the Ireland of today.

Based on nothing and also wrong. The expansion of the British welfare state would have made independence economically painful the longer we remained under British control.

Extended Home Rule would have been a disaster for this nation and thankfully the men of 1916 set in motion events that led to us booting the British out of the majority of the island.

questionmark?

Berserker wrote: »

An Ireland for all, eh! Isn't that what republicans say? Ireland's Anglicisation is celebrated each and every day through the use of language and the culture of a heavy majority of people in the RoI. 1916 has no relevance. The RoI in 2016 would be pretty much the same if it didn't happen.

I say they got the timing pretty right. If it was after WW2 we would still be part of the UK, SF would be the noisy group joining the other noisy party the SNP in Westminster.

cml387

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Based on nothing and also wrong. The expansion of the British welfare state would have made independence economically painful the longer we remained under British control.

You mean enhanced benefits for all Irish citizens, and a national health service. Well we sure dodged a bullet there.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Just think of the thousands that would have died in WW2 (and subsequently the thousands who would not have been born) if had we still been part of the UK at that point in time.

We should be thankful we got out of the UK when we did

questionmark?

cml387 wrote: »

You mean enhanced benefits for all Irish citizens, and a national health service. Well we sure dodged a bullet there.

NHS isn't all its made out to be. Postcode lottery really comes into play for standards in hospitals and try getting a doctors appointment in some areas! It's better in some areas and just as bad as Ireland in others.

Richard

Banjoxed wrote: »

The Ireland of 2016 without a 1916 rising would look exactly the same as the Ireland of today.

It's arguable that Ireland would never have been partitioned if the rising hadn't happened. If Ireland had stayed in the UK (but with Home Rule) it could have gradually attained independence as a whole in the same way that Scotland nearly did last year.

Berserker

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Extended Home Rule would have been a disaster for this nation and thankfully the men of 1916 set in motion events that led to us booting the British out of the majority of the island.

Yeah, it would have been dreadful alright. All the great work that Irish republicans did, like handing ownership of the country over to the RCC, who used that leverage to ..... we all know the score there ...., would never have happened, for starters.

Richard wrote: »

It's arguable that Ireland would never have been partitioned if the rising hadn't happened. If Ireland had stayed in the UK (but with Home Rule) it could have gradually attained independence as a whole in the same way that Scotland nearly did last year.

Nail on the head Richard. Top post.

Junkyard Tom

cml387 wrote: »

You mean enhanced benefits for all Irish citizens, and a national health service. Well we sure dodged a bullet there.

I don't think you've given it much thought. Dodging bullets would have been a regular occurrence in an Ireland under extended British Rule. The desire for independence would not suddenly have disappeared because of any 'benefits' - not a bit. There would still have been plenty of people carrying out attacks on the British security apparatus - think the north in the 80's only island wide and a lot more ferocious.

masti123

cml387 wrote: »

Here's the thing. When will they commemorate the actual day? Will it be Easter Monday 2016 which is the 28 March, or the actual day which was April 24.

Or will we have two, for the crack.

The reason it makes sense to commemorate the Rising at Easter, rather than on the 24th, is that the Rising was deliberately scheduled for whenever Easter was, not because it was the 24th. Easter was consciously chosen to make a parallel with the Sacrifice of Christ, the sanctifying power of death so that there might be life, etc. Pearse was very heavy on the symbolism, and the Catholic imagery was deliberate. If Easter had fallen on March 30th instead, the Rising would have been scheduled for that day instead, thus commemorating at Easter is correct.

asherbassad

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Will 1916 commemorations open up old wounds between Ireland and the brits at all do you think? dont you think some things best left in the past and just look forward to the future? will some issues surface again and bring about some animosity?

Nah.....Bloody Sunday and the subsequent coverup, internment without trial, collusion with pro-Union death squads, destruction of civil rights, gerrymandering of electoral boundaries and a shoot-to-kill policy by the most discredited police force in Europe probably opened those wounds 50 years after 1916.

Dyr

Berserker wrote: »

Yeah, it would have been dreadful alright. All the great work that Irish republicans did, like handing ownership of the country over to the RCC, who used that leverage to ..... we all know the score there ...., for starters.

I love this Irish history-for-the-not-very-clever class of guff

Berserker

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I don't think you've given it much thought. Dodging bullets would have been a regular occurrence in an Ireland under extended British Rule. The desire for independence would not suddenly have disappeared because of any 'benefits' - not a bit. There would still have been plenty of people carrying out attacks on the British security apparatus - think the north in the 80's only island wide and a lot more ferocious.

Wrong. Take a look at the visits of the King to Dublin at that time. The streets were filled with people celebrating the visits with Union flags in hand. The terrorists would have been dealt with, in an appropriate manner and the above would have become the norm once again. Ireland was a very peaceful country, prior to the rising. People were poor but they lived happy, safe lives, as my grandparents used to tell me.

bobbysands81

Richard wrote: »

It's arguable that Ireland would never have been partitioned if the rising hadn't happened. If Ireland had stayed in the UK (but with Home Rule) it could have gradually attained independence as a whole in the same way that Scotland nearly did last year.

So many 'if's' 'but's' and 'maybe's' that it's a fairytale.

Utter drivel of a post.

Centuries of mayhem instigated and maintained by an invader yet some still try and portray the invader as some sort of innocent force and not one who had a hand in the deaths of far more people than we could ever comprehend.

It's all OUR fault that we were invaded.

Junkyard Tom

Berserker wrote: »

All the great work that Irish republicans did, like handing ownership of the country over to the RCC, who used that leverage to ..... we all know the score there ...., would never have happened, for starters.

Obviously it wasn't perfect but then the birth of a post-colonial sovereign nation rarely is. We're a young country still.

wendell borton

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I've always found the idea of commemorating a failed uprising to be rather a stupid one. Surely the Irish would be better off getting their dose of historical nationalism in 1921?

1921 was a far greater failure was it lead to vicious civil war and a resultant convervative stranglehold on power.

The_Valeyard

wendell borton wrote: »

1921 was a far greater failure was it lead to vicious civil war and a resultant convervative stranglehold on power.

1921 was a success. The civil war was unnecessary and a failure by the anti-treaty side.

asherbassad

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I've always found the idea of commemorating a failed uprising to be rather a stupid one. Surely the Irish would be better off getting their dose of historical nationalism in 1921?

But was it failed? That liberation came 5 years later can hardly separate the start and the culmination of a sequence of events.

Your adopted homeland celebrates a "Reunification Day". Now does this day celebrate the signing of a document without paying any heed to the years and efforts leading up to the event?

The Battle Of Britain is celebrated as some kind of British Victory over Nazi Germany when it wasn't until 4 years later that Berlin was overrun (by the Russians I might add).

So while the 1916 Rebellion ended with a crushing military defeat and the execution of the instigators of said revolution, it was the most dramatic turning point in the British Occupation of Ireland.

Was Dien Bien Phu and the hammering of the French in Indochina an insignificant event, because it occurred nearly 2 decades prior to the liberation of Vietnam? What about the Tet Offensive?

History didn't start yesterday.....or 5 minutes before any major event that changes the kaleidescope.

Kermit.de.frog

Using terms like "Ireland and 'the brits'" might in itself be opening wounds OP.

Bulbous Salutation

wendell borton wrote: »

1921 was a far greater failure was it lead to vicious civil war and a resultant convervative stranglehold on power.

1919 to 1922 are far more interesting times for the non-partisan dilettante of history when exploring the ideas that brought about the Republic. 1916 was a failed uprising that was very badly organised. I can see how its place is acknowledged in the overall narrative. A national celebration is stupid. It's the last vestiges of Dev and the lads.

Andy From Sligo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Using terms like "Ireland and 'the brits'" might in itself be opening wounds OP.

to over-sensitive people maybe who want to make something out of nothing , they are only words - would it have been better if "Ireland & the English/British" words were used instead ?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Berserker wrote: »

Wrong. Take a look at the visits of the King to Dublin at that time. The streets were filled with people celebrating the visits with Union flags in hand. The terrorists would have been dealt with, in an appropriate manner and the above would have become the norm once again. Ireland was a very peaceful country, prior to the rising. People were poor but they lived happy, safe lives, as my grandparents used to tell me.

It's been by and large a peaceful country since the rising as well.