1916 Military parade to be reintroduced

Victor

You keep talking about 1949 as being the great year because a republic was declared. Do you not understand that there would have been no republic then if there was no freestate. There would be no freestate without the war of Independance. There would have been no war of independance without the 1916 rising.

No 1916 without British Empire, should we thank Strongbow or Cromwell?

Diorraing wrote:

Your logic is exteremly weak.

(a) its not my logic, (b) it demonstrates my point perfectly.

Maskhadov wrote:

boul·e·vard Audio pronunciation of "boulevard" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bl-värd, bl-)
n.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=boulevard

1. A broad city street, often tree-lined and landscaped.

More correctly an avenue (O'Connell Street) is a radial route and a boulevard (Parnell Street ) is cross-radial.

FTA69

Hagar wrote:

I see you are from Cork. The town that never rose. What right have you to talk of glory?

Unless you count the murder of a good man in Beal na mBlath?

Cork the place that never rose? Did you ever hear of Tom Barry by chance? Kilmichael? Crossbarry? Clonmult? Terence McSwiney? Thomas MacCurtain? Cork provided many martyrs to the Irish Republican cause, before lauding 1916 maybe you should read up on the history of the struggle that defined it, as well as those like Michael Collins who subverted the message of the Proclamation.

Thread reopened.
Muppetrous posts from orizio and hagar deleted and duly noted as muppetry.

Continue on and stay on topic

Hagar

I posted some badly advised frivolous posts. Apologies to one and all.
I have absolutely no wish to subvert this forum or thread.

Sand

I dont agree with the decision (wont surprise the provo fanboys Id imagine), primarily because it just signals a backward looking stance digging up the past so we can relive all the old bitterness. When were supposed to be looking forward to a violence free political landscape in both the Republic and Northern Ireland Bertie is back trying to celebrate the birth of the violent political movements that have made Irelands history in the 20th century so bitter, divided and murderous.

It just demonstrates a complete lack of ideas on his part, hes got no vision to bring us forward so he roots around in the tribal closet for old rags to impress us with. All the other politicians mumble their assent like rabbits caught in headlights because theyre all afraid of the sacred cow of a United Ireland. If any even in the history of the Republic should be marked and celebrated its the foundation of the Republic in 1949, which was accomplished without a drop of blood being spilt, underlining the myopic blindness of the blood drenched brand of republicanism that wanted to fight on in the 1920s, and continued to fight on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on to achieve nothing.

What did 1916 accomplish that it is worthy of praise by a democratic lawful society? The men of 1916 were abused and pelted by the people of Dublin when they were taken to prison afterwards, so it was hardly a popular rising, no more than the RIRAs bombing of Omagh. In 100 years should we be celebrating Omagh if a United Ireland can be traced back to it historically?

The majority of voters in at the time Ireland solidly supported Home Rule, a negotiated settlement. The Treaty, after years of bloodshed delivered a slightly better form of Home Rule (with partition), that later democrats were able to take and use to achieve a Republic. There is nothing to suggest that Home Rule wouldnt have happened eventually anyway without 1916, and that if people wanted a Republic could have been formed from that Home Rule. The critical blow to Britains imperial ambitions and capabilities from the two world wars would have occured regardless.

From 1916 we got the Dev years of cultural and economic dystopia, if this is the "spirit of 1916" that people are talking about, they can keep it thanks. Looking at the thread "what would Ireland be like if it stayed in the UK", people seem to agree that it wouldnt be all that different - I think Conolly said that if the revolution changed only the flags over our heads then it would all be in vain; well thats all it did change and thus its damned by the words of its own leader.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

I dont agree with the decision (wont surprise the provo fanboys Id imagine)...... SNIP

Not really surprising that a Unionist fanboy objects to a celebration of the independence of three quarters of Ireland. Reminds me of the question 'Does a bear ****e in the woods?'

Sand

Well I like Ireland enough to live in it, whereas you pay the taxes that fund the British Army in Northern Ireland. Interesting republican stance youre taking there.

Ok enough of this shoite.
Sand and ADIG Quit the personal stuff or there will be bannage.

Flex

Sand wrote:

I dont agree with the decision (wont surprise the provo fanboys Id imagine), primarily because it just signals a backward looking stance digging up the past so we can relive all the old bitterness. When were supposed to be looking forward to a violence free political landscape in both the Republic and Northern Ireland Bertie is back trying to celebrate the birth of the violent political movements that have made Irelands history in the 20th century so bitter, divided and murderous.

It just demonstrates a complete lack of ideas on his part, hes got no vision to bring us forward so he roots around in the tribal closet for old rags to impress us with. All the other politicians mumble their assent like rabbits caught in headlights because theyre all afraid of the sacred cow of a United Ireland. If any even in the history of the Republic should be marked and celebrated its the foundation of the Republic in 1949, which was accomplished without a drop of blood being spilt, underlining the myopic blindness of the blood drenched brand of republicanism that wanted to fight on in the 1920s, and continued to fight on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on to achieve nothing.

What did 1916 accomplish that it is worthy of praise by a democratic lawful society? The men of 1916 were abused and pelted by the people of Dublin when they were taken to prison afterwards, so it was hardly a popular rising, no more than the RIRAs bombing of Omagh. In 100 years should we be celebrating Omagh if a United Ireland can be traced back to it historically?

The majority of voters in at the time Ireland solidly supported Home Rule, a negotiated settlement. The Treaty, after years of bloodshed delivered a slightly better form of Home Rule (with partition), that later democrats were able to take and use to achieve a Republic. There is nothing to suggest that Home Rule wouldnt have happened eventually anyway without 1916, and that if people wanted a Republic could have been formed from that Home Rule. The critical blow to Britains imperial ambitions and capabilities from the two world wars would have occured regardless.

From 1916 we got the Dev years of cultural and economic dystopia, if this is the "spirit of 1916" that people are talking about, they can keep it thanks. Looking at the thread "what would Ireland be like if it stayed in the UK", people seem to agree that it wouldnt be all that different - I think Conolly said that if the revolution changed only the flags over our heads then it would all be in vain; well thats all it did change and thus its damned by the words of its own leader.

LOL

Richard

Sand wrote:

I dont agree with the decision....

I agree with a lot of of what you say. I also think if 1916 hadn't happened there may have been a united Ireland outside the UK today.

Mind you I'm not from the Republic, nor do I live there, so it's really none of my business what parades they have in Dublin.

cal29

Sand wrote:

The majority of voters in at the time Ireland solidly supported Home Rule, a negotiated settlement. The Treaty, after years of bloodshed delivered a slightly better form of Home Rule (with partition), that later democrats were able to take and use to achieve a Republic. There is nothing to suggest that Home Rule wouldnt have happened eventually anyway without 1916, and that if people wanted a Republic could have been formed from that Home Rule. The critical blow to Britains imperial ambitions and capabilities from the two world wars would have occured regardless.
.

As I have already pointed out in the ireland in the Union thread

There was no democracy in Ireland prior to 1916 claiming that the majority of voters in Ireland solidly supported Home Rule is factually correct but completely ignores the fact that very few people could vote and majority of voters does not equate to majority of people

Infact your use of the word voters instead of people is almost akin to provo speak where you play with words to give a false impression

1918 was the first elections held in the UK and Ireland under universal sufferage or alot closer to it that what had preceded it (although even then women had to be over 30 to vote)

an example Irish Parliamentary Party or the Home Rule party as it was known received 121,000 votes in 1910 and returned 84 MPs

in 1918 that party recieved 220,000 votes but only 7 MPs returned(that includes votes from candidates in Britain and 1 MP elected in Liverpool) Sinn Fein received 476,000 votes and returned 73 MPs (25 unopposed reducing the total votes)

In fact if you go back to 1906 the " Home Rule Party received just 33,000 votes and returned 84 MPs to suggest that this was somehow representative of the Irish people is ridicolous

As for your point about the 1916 leaders being abused after the rising we all know there has always been people like yourself who would gladly take the queens shilling and lie down for the Brits however you do not represent the vast majority of Irish People just as they did not represent them back then as clearly demonstrated in the 1918 election when for the first time the majority of Irish people were given a voice for the first time and they gave a clear and decisive message.

Flex

Sand wrote:

I dont agree with the decision (wont surprise the provo fanboys Id imagine), primarily because it just signals a backward looking stance digging up the past so we can relive all the old bitterness. When were supposed to be looking forward to a violence free political landscape in both the Republic and Northern Ireland Bertie is back trying to celebrate the birth of the violent political movements that have made Irelands history in the 20th century so bitter, divided and murderous.

yeah, lets forget our history and our countries legacy because some people moan about it or it makes them uncomfortable.

What did 1916 accomplish that it is worthy of praise by a democratic lawful society? The men of 1916 were abused and pelted by the people of Dublin when they were taken to prison afterwards, so it was hardly a popular rising, no more than the RIRAs bombing of Omagh. In 100 years should we be celebrating Omagh if a United Ireland can be traced back to it historically?

it was the catalyst for the creastion of the nation we live in today. I dont know how the hell you can compare 1916 to the omagh bombings.

The Treaty, after years of bloodshed delivered a slightly better form of Home Rule (with partition), that later democrats were able to take and use to achieve a Republic. There is nothing to suggest that Home Rule wouldnt have happened eventually anyway without 1916, and that if people wanted a Republic could have been formed from that Home Rule. The critical blow to Britains imperial ambitions and capabilities from the two world wars would have occured regardless.

Dominion status was far far far far far more freedom than Home Rule. For example, we were allowed to raise an army, control our own finances, foreign affairs, join the leaque of nations,etc. Also, Ireland only managed to get enough freedom as a dominion to establish a republic and completely sovereign nation, because we managed to persuade other dominions to support us in getting the british to pass the statute of westminster. a home rule parliament would have been subordinate to the london parliament, a meagre form of autonomy.

From 1916 we got the Dev years of cultural and economic dystopia, if this is the "spirit of 1916" that people are talking about, they can keep it thanks. Looking at the thread "what would Ireland be like if it stayed in the UK", people seem to agree that it wouldnt be all that different - I think Conolly said that if the revolution changed only the flags over our heads then it would all be in vain; well thats all it did change and thus its damned by the words of its own leader.

well, i take pride in my irish nationality and ireland being a free nation, so id disagree.

Sand

Mind you I'm not from the Republic, nor do I live there, so it's really none of my business what parades they have in Dublin.

Ah Richard, why must you taunt me with comments I can use to good effect elsewhere. It is so tempting, but Ill have to resist.

There was no democracy in Ireland prior to 1916 claiming that the majority of voters in Ireland solidly supported Home Rule is factually correct but completely ignores the fact that very few people could vote and majority of voters does not equate to majority of people

That the majority of voters does not equate to the majority of people is a *given* and still holds true today. There are people who do not have the right to vote, including children. Theyre still people, just not voters. There are people who have the right to vote, but dont. Theyre still people, just not voters. In Ireland turnout at elections is usually far lower than the people who can vote. The result of our elections is not a reflection of what the majority of people think, but what the majority of voters think. Theres no wordplay involved.

This holds true now, and it held true then. And even when the Treaty offered partition and a slightly better version of Home Rule, including an oath of loyalty to the Queen, the majority of voters supported it over the die hard fanatical republicans who only wished to fight on to the last for their mythical republic. The voters consistently supported negotiation and compromise over violent republicanism.

You on the other hand seem to be summoning the "silent majority" card, assuming that people without the vote were closet hard core republicans, whilst they were stoning the men of 1916. Your rationalisation below was that they were nefarious west brit traitors! How you reconcile their closet republicanism and their public west brit treachery is your own internal battle.

As for your point about the 1916 leaders being abused after the rising we all know there has always been people like yourself who would gladly take the queens shilling and lie down for the Brits however you do not represent the vast majority of Irish People just as they did not represent them back then as clearly demonstrated in the 1918 election when for the first time the majority of Irish people were given a voice for the first time and they gave a clear and decisive message.

Is there a queens shilling grant for disagreeing with Provos and their fanboys? Please tell me more, as I am now concerned I have been operating pro bono when I could be getting paid for my opinions.

And Flex, tbh your first response was better thought out.

cal29

Sand wrote:

That the majority of voters does not equate to the majority of people is a *given* and still holds true today. There are people who do not have the right to vote, including children. Theyre still people, just not voters. There are people who have the right to vote, but dont. Theyre still people, just not voters. In Ireland turnout at elections is usually far lower than the people who can vote. The result of our elections is not a reflection of what the majority of people think, but what the majority of voters think. Theres no wordplay involved.

This holds true now, and it held true then. And even when the Treaty offered partition and a slightly better version of Home Rule, including an oath of loyalty to the Queen, the majority of voters supported it over the die hard fanatical republicans who only wished to fight on to the last for their mythical republic. The voters consistently supported negotiation and compromise over violent republicanism.

You on the other hand seem to be summoning the "silent majority" card, assuming that people without the vote were closet hard core republicans, whilst they were stoning the men of 1916. Your rationalisation below was that they were nefarious west brit traitors! How you reconcile their closet republicanism and their public west brit treachery is your own internal battle.



Is there a queens shilling grant for disagreeing with Provos and their fanboys? Please tell me more, as I am now concerned I have been operating pro bono when I could be getting paid for my opinions.

And Flex, tbh your first response was better thought out.

I presume you realise the difference between choosing not to vote or being a child and unable to vote and being denied the right to vote
The Majority of voters in this country at the moment is representative of the majority of the people as we have universal sufferage
The majority of voters prior to 1918 were only representative of men over 21 which specific property rights

Even the 1918 election was not fully representaive of the people (particularly women under 30 those over 30 without property) however the electorate in Ireland increased from about 500,000 to about 2 million and it became far more representative of the people


I am not summoning a silent majority the very loud majority who voted for the Republic in 1918 will do fine
You on the other hand seem to believe that you can base how the vast majority of this country felt on the basis of how the middle class and landed males voted in a very restrictive and unrepresentative election and on the actions of some west brits and unionists in dublin
I never said that the west brit traitors were republican voters I said that they were then as you are now unrepresentative of the views of the vast majority of Irish people.

The 1918 election was held up as a referendum on wether the Irish People wanted a Republic or Home Rule (the Labour Party abstained from that election for that very reason ) In every constituency except one where the IPP stood against SF they were trounced

If you are trying to suggest that the 1918 election was just some flash in the pan brought on by the rising and that all Irish people really wanted was Home Rule then were are the Home Rulers now why did they not make a comeback once the fervour had died down
All of the major political parties in the( even labour now that they have been subsumed by the workers party/DL) state trace their roots back to SF the IPP became defunct the idea they were selling ie Home Rule was not what the people wanted

And I can Gaurantee you this if we had a referendum on the issue again tomorrow the answer would be an even more emphatic Yes to a republic

bonkey

cal29 wrote:

...and on the actions of some west brits

When you have to resort to insulting those who's actions you wish to cast as unrepresentative, you should perhaps reconsider the strength of your argument.

Alternately, if your argument can stand without such pointless denigration, one has to ask why you're resorting to it.

Neither option seems to add much credibility to your stance, nor to your insistence that you have some insight into what the majority of the people wanted, when you'll basically villify anyone of them who expresses an alternate sentiment.

jc

cal29

bonkey wrote:

When you have to resort to insulting those who's actions you wish to cast as unrepresentative, you should perhaps reconsider the strength of your argument.

Alternately, if your argument can stand without such pointless denigration, one has to ask why you're resorting to it.

Neither option seems to add much credibility to your stance, nor to your insistence that you have some insight into what the majority of the people wanted, when you'll basically villify anyone of them who expresses an alternate sentiment.

jc

You are of course presuming the term west brit is an insult as opposed to being merely being descriptive
If you want to treat the term as an insult that is your choice


Not to mention that it was sand who introduced the term west brit to the discussion

Sand wrote:

Your rationalisation below was that they were nefarious west brit traitors! How you reconcile their closet republicanism and their public west brit treachery is your own internal battle.



.

A Dub in Glasgo

westbrit for someone who would prefer the union = insult
provo fanboy for someone who would prefer independence = legitimate description

I think I have got the terminology correct now for this thread

cal29

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

westbrit for someone who would prefer the union = insult
provo fanboy for someone who would prefer independence = legitimate description

I think I have got the terminology correct now for this thread

Yes odd that it is the term west brit that Bonkey finds insulting even though I did not introduce the term but he did not post to object to the term Provo fanboy

catholicireland

i think its a great idea that this is being celebrated.
its not surprising though that the same old faces here are opposing it:v:

LordSutch

Wear the Poppy with pride next Sunday when remembering the many thousands of Irish men who faught & died in the Great War (1914-1918),
specially those who died at the Somme (1916), lets also remember the few
who died in the 1916 Rising!

Flex

ArthurF wrote:

Wear the Poppy with pride next Sunday when remembering the many thousands of Irish men who faught & died in the Great War (1914-1918),
specially those who died at the Somme (1916), lets also remember the few
who died in the 1916 Rising!

yes, absolutely. to all you people who decide to wear a poppy and support the british legion, remember the men of the 1916 rising, for they did more for irelands freedom than anyone else.

cal29

ArthurF wrote:

Wear the Poppy with pride next Sunday when remembering the many thousands of Irish men who faught & died in the Great War (1914-1918),
specially those who died at the Somme (1916), lets also remember the few
who died in the 1916 Rising!

Unfortunately the poppy does not just commerate those who died in WW1 or 2 it also commerates all Britains war dead including the occupying forces in Ireland and now Iraq

If you can come up with a symbol that does not Honour Britains imperial past and present but just those Irish people who died in both world wars then I would definitely consider wearing it but I have no intention of Honouring the various murder campaigns that Britain indulged in throughout the world

cal29

cal29 wrote:

You are of course presuming the term west brit is an insult as opposed to being merely being descriptive
If you want to treat the term as an insult that is your choice


Not to mention that it was sand who introduced the term west brit to the discussion

I'm not paricularally enamoured by either phrases.
Please folks use other terms and be respectfull of one another at least to the extent of attacking the post and not the poster.
Thats just one of the few things we ask around here.

Unfortunately the poppy does not just commerate those who died in WW1 or 2 it also commerates all Britains war dead including the occupying forces in Ireland

Ok so you are a republican.I've no truck with that.
However, You are stating opinion as fact there.
There are from a legal perspective no occupying forces in Ireland.
It is a fact though that Republicans hold the opinion that you have just expressed as a fact.

cal29

Earthman wrote:

I'm not paricularally enamoured by either phrases.
Please folks use other terms and be respectfull of one another at least to the extent of attacking the post and not the poster.
Thats just one of the few things we ask around here..

Hang on I never refered to any poster here as a west brit the phrase was introduced by sand to describe the actions of people who attacked the rebels in 1916
I notice you say either phrase but chose a quote from me with just the west brit one perhaps you could be more clear as to the other phrase you dont like

Earthman wrote:

Ok so you are a republican.I've no truck with that.
However, You are stating opinion as fact there.
There are from a legal perspective no occupying forces in Ireland.
It is a fact though that Republicans hold the opinion that you have just expressed as a fact.

Are you suggesting that there never were occupying forces in Ireland please re read my post I said occupying forces in Ireland and NOW Iraq wether you believe that the British army in the six counties is an occupying force is your choice but I presume you are not going to tell me that the Black and tans and Auxies were some domestic arrangement They were a foreign force sent here to terrorise Irish people into accepting British rule.
So remember if you are going to wear a poppy it is for them as well and all the other murder gangs they sent around the world to defend the empire.

FTA69

Earthman's argument will remain the same Cal, the Black and Tans and Auxillaries were British troops simply going to a different part of the United Kingdom by his logic.

Earthman,

However, You are stating opinion as fact there.
There are from a legal perspective no occupying forces in Ireland.

Whether you term them occupiers or not is an irrelevancy, the fact remains British troops are resident in the Northern part of Ireland and the fact also remains that the poppy would be representative of those also. The good people of the British Legion have this to say on the matter;

The Royal British Legion is the UK's leading charity providing financial, social and emotional support to millions who have served and are currently serving in the Armed Forces, and their dependants

Note "currently serving".

I'm also intrigued regarding your denial of an occupation;

Dictionary.com describes an occupation as such;

The act or process of holding or possessing a place.
The state of being held or possessed.

Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory

Control of a territory or nation by foreign armed forces? The act of being held or possessed? (Last time I was there the people of South Armagh by and large didn't welcome the Brit troops on their doorstep)

FTA69

FTA69 wrote:

Earthman's argument will remain the same Cal, the Black and Tans and Auxillaries were British troops simply going to a different part of the United Kingdom by his logic.

Correct,however It's not just logic,its a legal fact.
Occupation in this case is an opinion.

As regards what I said to Cal,I thought it was clearly being directed at everybody,I dont care who starts personality bashing here.
It's not allowed so take direction from me please.

murphaph

FTA69 wrote:

Last time I was there the people of South Armagh by and large didn't welcome the Brit troops on their doorstep

.....and the Gardai aren't exactly made feel welcome on the doorsteps of many of the more choice parts of our towns and cities. The point is moot.

The people of South Armagh are free to vote to leave the union anytime a refrendum is held. Why do you not hear SF screaming for a referendum? Because they know it would fail, by a large majority (thus showing the large number of catholics in favour of the union).

If the IRA hadn't continued blowing people up long after the civil rights issues were dealt with the british army watchtowers (currently being dismantled) wouldn't be there in south Armagh today.

The people of South Armagh are obviousl happy enough residing in the UK or they'd have just moved to lovely Louth.

Flex

The people of South Armagh are free to vote to leave the union anytime a refrendum is held. Why do you not hear SF screaming for a referendum? Because they know it would fail, by a large majority (thus showing the large number of catholics in favour of the union).

yeah, that must be why the alliance party wins such a huge amount of the vote in elections :rolleyes: 3% or so in the latest elections http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/

The people of South Armagh are obviousl happy enough residing in the UK or they'd have just moved to lovely Louth.

i suppose the unionists mustnt of minded being terrorised by the ira or they wouldve just moved to bonny scotland

FTA69

.....and the Gardai aren't exactly made feel welcome on the doorsteps of many of the more choice parts of our towns and cities. The point is moot.

I know, bloody plebs. On the other hand though, I don't think the cops in Knocknaheeney or wherever is comparable to a foreign army routinely killing people in an area in which they are despised. Besides, police can feasably fit into the dictionarial description I gave earlier, eg police in Soweto pre-apartheid.

Because they know it would fail, by a large majority (thus showing the large number of catholics in favour of the union).

Oh right so most in South Armagh are pro-Union now?

In Crossmaglen, the fire burns true, that watery Home-Rule flame will never die....

Nah sorry murphaph, doesn't have the same ring to it. Why does an area like South Armagh then vote overwhelmingly for Sinn Féin in every election?

If the IRA hadn't continued blowing people up long after the civil rights issues were dealt with the british army watchtowers (currently being dismantled) wouldn't be there in south Armagh today.

The Brits came to Ireland in 1969, 2 years before the IRA assumed offensive operations so to quote your good self, the point is moot.

The people of South Armagh are obviousl happy enough residing in the UK

Judging by the warm reception given to the British Army there?

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

The Brits came to Ireland in 1969...

So much for 800 years of occupation.