The Swede and the Finn

Jellybaby1

tac foley wrote: »

Sir, you might not care for the use of the word, but in this context it is correct.

Rebel (noun) - a ​person who is ​opposed to the ​political ​system in ​their ​country and ​tries to ​change it using ​force : eg., The rebels took over the ​capital and set up a new ​government.

The government of the day was the established government - fact.

The vast majority of that established government did not support the efforts of the rebels. Nor, at the time, did the majority of the population - another two facts.

tac

Very true, or ait could also be said they were wrestling the country from the grasping fingers of Britain. Whichever words you use, they did not have an overwhelming mandate from the population to do what they did. Brave, I said, yes, but I could also add foolhardy given the overwhelming odds against them. The British army against a few thousand, really bad odds.

The Chieftain wrote: »

That is to concede that the British were a legitimate government in Ireland, which is not so. But in any case, successful revolutionaries are no longer such, by virtue of their success. And while they may have lost an initial battle, the Irish revolutionaries were eventually successful.

One important analogy I would put forth is that with the US revolution. The Americans are variously described as patriots, Americans, or colonials, but never as rebels. If it is the standard for the the US, I see no reason not to apply the same to ourselves.

So you are saying what is good enough for America, is good enough for us? I would not agree with you. Particularly seeing what's coming at the moment.

tac foley wrote: »

Notwithstanding your POV, the government of the day was the duly elected government of the day, like it or not.

tac

Precisely! Thanks tac.

hognef

tac foley wrote: »

Sorry - SE = Sweden and SF = Finland in international abbreviations. Sverige and Suomi/Finland, in fact.

Like you see on trucks and cars? I guess you see very few of these in Ireland, but they are very common here on mainland UK.

tac

Off topic, but Swedish vehicles actually use S. Finnish ones use FIN (though I think they have used SF in the past).

SE is the two-letter ISO code for Sweden, and is also their Internet TLD name. Finland is FI in both systems.

tac foley

Yes you are right, but my neighbour, who is Finnish and has a 2014 BMW, has SF on the back of his car.

tac

The Chieftain

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Very true, or ait could also be said they were wrestling the country from the grasping fingers of Britain. Whichever words you use, they did not have an overwhelming mandate from the population to do what they did. Brave, I said, yes, but I could also add foolhardy given the overwhelming odds against them. The British army against a few thousand, really bad odds.



So you are saying what is good enough for America, is good enough for us? I would not agree with you. Particularly seeing what's coming at the moment.



Precisely! Thanks tac.

International norms: The American example has been there for over 200 years. To dismiss it because of a non-related, transient political contest is absurd. If you don’t like the US example, then adopting standard international practice might be more to your taste? The founders of all the countries of Southern and Central America, as well as Mexico, are today heroes and patriots, not “rebels”. The only country I know of where the pejorative language of the colonizer is still widely misused is Ireland.

Mandate: You have this point reversed. It is the Union which was without poplar mandate from start to finish. The Irish Parliament voted against the Union in 1799, but it occurred anyway, by corrupt and illegal means. By 1916, democratic methods had failed to prevent or undo the Union for a period of 117 years. Yes, 117 years. If that alone is not an absolute justification for revolution then I don’t know what is.

Existing governments of the day: Revolutions are made against an existing government, so what you say is just tautology.

In conclusion, the patriots of 1916 were on the right side of history. Today, the right to national self-governance, free from colonial subjugation and dominance is recognized as fundamental by the UN. That some in 2016 still defend the indefensible and brand them as mere “rebels” astounds me.

Jellybaby1

My choice of one word has obviously enraged you. This is obviously of a more personal interest to you than it is to me. I do not see a point in any further discussion as it has taken the thread off my original topic, in which you seem to have absolutely no interest. Perhaps you should start a new topic on the subject of pensions for the members of Cumann na mBan as I am sure it would be of interest.

The Chieftain

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

My choice of one word has obviously enraged you. This is obviously of a more personal interest to you than it is to me. I do not see a point in any further discussion as it has taken the thread off my original topic, in which you seem to have absolutely no interest. Perhaps you should start a new topic on the subject of pensions for the members of Cumann na mBan as I am sure it would be of interest.

It is not so much your use of a single word, as your defense of the same. Having made such a defense you can hardly complain if your arguments get answered.

Manach

Mod Note:
Discussion of terminology which was used during the period in question is drawing the discussion somewhat off topic. Please consider that particular tangent closed.

K-9

I had heard a few of the Indian national students studying at UCD joined the Volunteers in 1914, don't know if any were in the GPO or elsewhere for the rising.

V.V Giri was the most famous, taught by Thomas McDonagh at UCD, went to be President of India in 1969.

It says on his wiki page that he expelled from Ireland in 1916 for links with the Rising, I hadn't known that previously. As to what role he played, it doesn't say.

Jellybaby1

I wonder if there were any newspaper reports at the time. Unfortunately I no longer have a sub to the Newspaper archives so I can't check it out. Would it be such a far-fetched idea? Particularly when you consider the 1857 Rebellion in India. With all the history talks going on this year I am finding that there is a lot of hidden history I had never heard of. The Swede and the Finn is one such story. Wonder what else I will discover this year.

K-9

I'd heard about it on talking history, must have been a book out about it. There was a lot of anti-India sentiment in the 1910's in London, so a good few students went elsewhere to study. As you say, a good few of the Indian students would have been anti-colonial so sympathetic to the Volunteers etc.

DeV knew Giri personally according to the Wiki page so he may well have played some part in the Rising. Early experiences like that may have shaped DeV later recognising minority religions in the constitution.

pinkypinky

All of the INA 1916 content is free this month.

http://1916.irishnewsarchive.com/

Jellybaby1

Great! Didn't realise that.

Stojkovic

K-9 wrote: »

Early experiences like that may have shaped DeV later recognising minority religions in the constitution.

Only on paper.

Manach

K-9 point on the connection between the Rising and India is well made, given that they took this as a precedence and latter on used the1936 constitution as a template.

Bob Z

It's a funny story