John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

djpbarry wrote: »

They really weren’t

I'm sorry but they were. The Dáil only took responsibility for the IRA toward the end of the Tan War. The Soloheadbeg ambush was solely down to Treacy and Breen acting off their own bat. The IRB had actually banned attacks on Crown Forces in 1917, causing the two men to leave that organisation shortly after the ambush and act independently. The Republican Movement at the time wasn't this homogenous block of hive-minded people and contained many disparate elements with different perspectives.

but anyway, like I said already, I’m not implicitly condoning any actions of the British authorities of the time.

I accept that but the reason I'm bringing up the intrinsically violent nature of British imperialism is to demonstrate what Irish democracy was up against. There seems to be this continued talk about how a peaceful transition into Irish independence was inevitable when the reality is that decolonisation occurred as a direct result of struggle and unfortunately that struggle more often than not needed to have an armed element considering the empires in question. As I said, do you think the Vietnamese would have overcome the French and later the Americans without an armed struggle? Not a chance. Similarly, like Ireland; Vietnamese political efforts were dismissed for nearly a century before the foundation of the Viet Minh.

Absolutely, which is why people like Parnell deserve so much more respect, in my opinion. I think it’s criminal how his contributions are essentially being dismissed as insignificant by so many posters on this thread.

Bear in mind the Brits scooped up Parnell and threw him in jail without trial at one stage. He also had a close relationship with the IRB. Regardless of his achievements, the fact remains that Irish Parliamentarianism achieved f*ck all on the national question for decades; and nor could it in the face of an empire that was perfectly willing to use coercion and force to maintain itself.

Cuba, Algeria and Angola aren’t exactly stable, prosperous states are they?

That's irrelevant, the question is would they have achieved independence with the pacifist lark you're advocating and the answer is no considering for decades in these countries that approach was either ignored or suppressed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Everything - every single thing - that you've just outlined there took place in the aftermath, and in the context, of a recent insurrection.

The entire conversation is a discussion of whether or not a peaceful settlement was possible if the 1916 rising hadn't happened - and as "proof" that it wasn't, you outline a series of events that are, to a greater or lesser extent, consequences of the rising.

If I'm in dispute with my neighbour and I throw a brick through his window, do I get to use the fact that he brandishes a shotgun at me immediately afterwards as proof that he's so unreasonable that the brick-throwing was always necessary?

There's a tendency among the defenders of 1916 to insist that everyone see things from their perspective, but have you ever tried looking at the situation from the perspective of a government who have had an armed insurrection in their own country while they are fighting a prolonged and major war elsewhere?

So the argument is that it was necessary to start a war because the political process didn't proceed without a hitch? Why are you celebrating a rising that was suppressed, while scorning a political process that was suppressed?

I genuinely can't get my head around the thinking that justifies war. The argument is that the peace process wasn't working: what, and armed insurrection had a 100% track record of success? The men and women of 1916 couldn't know that the home rule bill would be enacted: but they knew for a fact that the rising would succeed?

They didn't know anything of the kind. They were exactly the same as the dissidents of today: they convinced themselves that peace wouldn't work at all, or wouldn't work fast enough to suit them, and that violence was the only language that the Brits would understand. They made a conscious decision that the cost in lives of starting a war was a price worth paying for whatever gains they felt they could make.

I think that was a very, very immoral and wrong decision for them to make, and I don't think we should be celebrating it.

I genuinely can't get my head around the thinking that justifies war. The argument is that the peace process wasn't working: what, and armed insurrection had a 100% track record of success? The men and women of 1916 couldn't know that the home rule bill would be enacted: but they knew for a fact that the rising would succeed?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yet again (and again and again) this isn't even a reply to the point I made; it's a complete evasion of it. Worse, it's an evasion of my point, while continuing to demand something that I've already explained why I won't be providing. Oh, ye gods. "Occupied." There's a word to shut down any intelligent discussion on the topic if there ever was one. Go on, throw in an "800 years", it will resonate with the "flame of revolution" we had earlier; before you know it we'll have a sing-song. I don't even know how to parse this. I mean... what?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think there's some sort of moral contradiction involved in a country that's at war with Germany putting down an insurrection that is being abetted by Germany?

Seriously? Have you stopped trying to make sense? I personally believe that gambling with people's lives is morally wrong. I struggle to understand why you think it's morally acceptable. Oh, I'm sorry. Have I offended you by comparing people who preferred violence and gambling with innocent people's lives to pursuing a democratic process with people who prefer violence and gambling with innocent people's lives to pursuing a democratic process? It's not a celebration? Tell me, at what time each year do we celebrate Irish independence?

Celebration, remembrance, whatever: I believe that we should mark the event only insofar as we consider it yet another squandered opportunity to pursue a peaceful resolution to our troubled history.

it will resonate with the "flame of revolution" we had earlier

oscarBravo wrote: »

insurrection, n: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

What's the idea of the completely arbitrary introduction of "occupation" as a prerequisite for insurrection?

Just so we're clear: if your view is that Ireland in 1916 was an occupied territory being ground under the heel of a brutal military dictatorship, fine - we don't have common ground for a rational conversation.

Sand wrote: »

Ireland was quite frankly a very low priority on the radar of British imperialism. Churchill indicated as much with his 1922 "dreary steeples" commentary on Ireland, when he compared the persistence of localised bitterness and hatred to the great turmoil of WWI that had seen millions die and empires fall.

Britain withdrew relatively peacefully by agreement from India - a far, far, far greater jewel in the British Empire than Ireland - and Canada and Australia and others by peaceful means because the less militant, less brutal factions of British imperialism were in charge. There is nothing to indicate that Britain, or the British people, would have fought tooth and nail to hold onto Ireland. The reality remains that even an Ireland entirely free and independent would have been economically dependant on the UK as its biggest trading partner. British imperial interests would not have been threatened by an independent Ireland that was within its economic orbit.

What Irish militant republicanism did was create a violent, militant struggle in Ireland. This invited the militant, brutal factions of British imperialism to take charge of the response. The British factions that had urged tolerance and restraint to militant groups drilling openly in Dublin were shown to be naive fools. The royal commission set up to investigate the cause of the Rising indicated that the administration of Ireland had been too soft and tolerant of obviously hostile and militant political groups:


That view, and the early bemused, confused and puzzled response to the Rising by ordinary Dubliners and British forces doesn't tend to support the idea that there was cruel, military occupation and repression by British forces in Ireland or Dublin. The Rising seemed so out of place that early on, the forces in the Rising struggled to be taken seriously...by all accounts the original reading of the Proclamation took place in front a group of confused bystanders.

Obviously, if someone starts a war with you the obvious reaction is to fight back - so they sent in the Black and Tans. Brutal obviously, but what did the militant republican groups expect to happen? If the British are so brutal and terrible, and so numerous then clearly avoiding military action and hitting them where they are weak (How can a democratic, freedom loving Britain justify imperialism afterall?) is smarter?

We will never know what could have occurred if Home Rule had been taken as the basis for achieving Irish dominion status, and then full independence by peaceful, constitutional means. But I do think it is fair to say that the Rising was unnecessary.