Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Myth and propaganda of the unpopuliarity of 1916 ?
Options
-
27-08-2009 1:16pm#1Was the 1916 Rising portrayed as very unpopuliar in Ireland a view that the british propaganda machine wanted to give the impression of, and that ofcourse the newspapers were unlikely not to publish anything to contradict it ?
At the monent I am rereading Ernie O'Malley's outstanding On Another Man's Wound ( couldn't recommend it enough for anyone who has not read it). He gives an eye witness account of the public's reaction to when they began occupying the GPO, the fighting and aftermath. In his account of it, the public was split in for support for the Rebels and the ' bowsies ' who were stabbing the efforts of Irishmen on the continent.
Their are also very credible historians such as former outstanding Guardian journalist Peter Berresford Ellis who suggests that portraying the rising as very unpopuliar in Ireland was certainly a view that the british propaganda wanted to impress on everyone, and that newspapers were unlikely to publish anything to the contrary.
According to Berresford Ellis quotes a Canadian journalist Frederick Arthur McKenzie, who arrived in Dublin with the English reinforcements sent to put down the insurrection had no sympathy for the Irish ‘rebels’ and German sympathizers, as he perceived them. " I have read many accounts of public feeling in Dublin in these days. They are all agreed that the open and strong sympathy of the mass of the population was with the British troops. That this was in the better parts of the city, I have no doubt, but certainly what I myself saw in the poorer districts did not confirm this. It rather indicated that there was a vast amount of sympathy with the rebels, particularly after the rebels were defeated. "
McKenzie describing how he watched as people were waving and cheering as a regiment approached, and that he commented to his companion they were cheering the soldiers. Noticing then that they were escorting Irish prisoners, he realised that they were actually cheering the rebels. The rebels he says were walking in military formation and were loudly and triumphantly singing a rebel song. McKenzie reports speaking to a group of men and women at street corners, "shure, we cheer them" said a woman, "why wouldn’t we? Aren't they our own flesh and blood." Dressed in khaki McKenzie was mistaken for a British soldier as he went about Dublin back streets were people cursed him openly, and "cursed all like me strangers in their city."0
Comments
-
Ellis' history of the Irish Working Class is a very good book. Its hard to know how much support the rising had. Certainly the members of the IVF and IRB supported it and a majority of the ITGWU would have as well, which comes to anywhere between 30 and 50 thousand. Then there must have been at least some support in Redmond's volunteers, although very hard to calculate.
Another reason why some sections of the population were against the rising was that many thousands of men had been sent to the front so the rebels were seens as attacking or damaging these men.0 -
From my own reading on those times, I think the general public were for the most part against the rebels for the period of the Rising. But I do believe there has been exaggeration of the extent of the public opposition.
This exaggeration is probably due to post-Independence myth-making which many people tried to claim participation in and support for 1916 and the Black & Tan war. And successive governments were keen to promote this to butress their position and create a new national unity. The initial unpopularity of the Rising has been highlighted to counterbalance simplistic ideas about the National Struggle. The fact that Ernie O'Malley's older bother joined the British army and died in WWI is an example of the complexities that are often overlooked.
Sorry the small size of this, but this is a good Dublin Opinion cartoon which pokes fun at one aspect of this in the post-1916 era:
Speaker: "What's that?"
Crowd: "It's the bed you were under in 1916!"0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Ellis' history of the Irish Working Class is a very good book. Its hard to know how much support the rising had. Certainly the members of the IVF and IRB supported it and a majority of the ITGWU would have as well, which comes to anywhere between 30 and 50 thousand. Then there must have been at least some support in Redmond's volunteers, although very hard to calculate.
Another reason why some sections of the population were against the rising was that many thousands of men had been sent to the front so the rebels were seens as attacking or damaging these men.
Anyway, yes indeed it is hard to quantify the support for the Rising. But the point of my post is that historians have falling in behind the propaganda of the british and of course the papers reported the british version verbatim. Yes their were some against them as they had sons at the front fighting for " little Catholic Belgium " in the " war for small nations etc ". But my point been
that 1916 needs more discussion and research before it can be established to a practical degree the reaction of the general public to it and probably the myth of almost all out hatred to the Rebellion pre the executions dispelled ?
And indeed not just Dublin reaction but also the rest of the country. Not trying to put down the Dubs as Jackeens etc, ( but Dublin been well, a bit of a garrison town where unfortunately many through economic conscription had to join the rank and file of the brits in hard times, same in Athlone, Cobh or Queenstown as it was called) may have been initially more critical of the IRA.
One of the things I'm pondering is that in other areas of Ireland with little tradition of joining the british forces - and that would have been most of rural Ireland - was the reaction to the Rebellion more sympathetic to the Rebels ?
( A bit off topic but Ellis's history of the Irish Working Class is indeed a first class book and also 10 Men Dead about the 1981 Hunger Strike - outstanding.)0 -
" The fact that Ernie O'Malley's older bother joined the British army and died in WWI is an example of the complexities that are often overlooked. " Ernie's older brother Frank joined the british army pre 1916. Whether he would have joined the IRA had witnessed 1916 with Ernie obviously is conjecture. But it should be noted that Ernie's younger brother joined the IRA and was killed in the attack on the Custom's House in 1921.From my own reading on those times, I think the general public were for the most part against the rebels for the period of the Rising. But I do believe there has been exaggeration of the extent of the public opposition.
This exaggeration is probably due to post-Independence myth-making which many people tried to claim participation in and support for 1916 and the Black & Tan war. And successive governments were keen to promote this to butress their position and create a new national unity. The initial unpopularity of the Rising has been highlighted to counterbalance simplistic ideas about the National Struggle. The fact that Ernie O'Malley's older bother joined the British army and died in WWI is an example of the complexities that are often overlooked.
Sorry the small size of this, but this is a good Dublin Opinion cartoon which pokes fun at one aspect of this in the post-1916 era:
Speaker: "What's that?"
Crowd: "It's the bed you were under in 1916!"0 -
I think that while your point about propaganda is true and interesting, the English papers would have course loved publishing accounts that went against the rebels in 1916. But there have been many eye witness accounts from people on the streets throughout the rising, the general consensus amongst historians has always been that the Rising was viewed by most of the ordinary people as a nuisance baring in mind that the country was in the grip of economic hardship and that they were constantly being bombarded with WW1 and as you and others have stated here some had men on the front.
However, what is important to note is that after the executions of the rebels were immediately catapulted to martyrs status and the support for the movement increased steadily in the subsequent months and years.
So while it may be true that there was a lot of propaganda about the volunteers and had always been that doesn't mean that everything published was propaganda and in this case a lot of it was true, especially I suppose in Dublin, what with it being the main stronghold of British control and politics in Ireland.0 -
Advertisement
-
There was a thread on here a while back where I asked why it was thay 1916 is so revered yet the actual signing of the anglo irish agreement is never mentioned in ireland.
I think it was snickersman who said that because independance initially lead to a very bloody civil war that it is not something that the Irish are particularly proud of. So, yeah, I would conclude thayt there is probably a lot of myth and propoganda about easter 1916, but probably not for the reasons McArmalite would wish.0 -
McArmalite wrote: »Was the 1916 Rising portrayed as very unpopuliar in Ireland a view that the british propaganda machine wanted to give the impression of, and that ofcourse the newspapers were unlikely not to publish anything to contradict it ?
"
McArmalite - I agree with your thesis about British propaganda – one of their oldest and most successful traditions - but actually see this issue of the "popularity" of the actions taken the week of the Rising as a distraction from the real issue at hand about whether the Irish wanted a separate nation - and every piece of information we have says yes. The aspirations of the 1916 leaders were in sync with the Irish people – the only true discussion can be about the means. . The Irish electorate had for 30 years prior to the Rising returned Home Rule candidates to Westminster. Then as soon as an election was called in 1918 Sinn Fein swept the country -winning 73 out of 100 seats - even winning Ulster. This is the reason the border had to gerrymandered in the 1920 bill.
The real question for many was whether the British would grant Home Rule after the war - and many at the time of 1916 felt that they would not. It was not an unreasonable assumption to make given the lamentable record of constitutional politics. But the implied notion spread by the propaganda machine that the aspirations of the 1916 leaders were not popular is as far as I can see, a lie. All statistics say otherwise.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »There was a thread on here a while back where I asked why it was thay 1916 is so revered yet the actual signing of the anglo irish agreement is never mentioned in ireland.
This is probably because the Treaty was and is still seen as an incomplete document. Michael Collins even referred to it as such. It was a "stepping stone" in his words. The fact that no united Ireland has since arrived makes it not ready for prime time to be celebrated. When the real "Treaty" is signed for the whole of Ireland then I would guess we would see celebrations.0 -
This is probably because the Treaty was and is still seen as an incomplete document. Michael Collins even referred to it as such. It was a "stepping stone" in his words. The fact that no united Ireland has since arrived makes it not ready for prime time to be celebrated. When the real "Treaty" is signed for the whole of Ireland then I would guess we would see celebrations.
That is kind of my point ( to an extent) Michael Collins is probably the greatest Irishman ever, and yet he was killed in a power struggle that is now called the Irish civil war. There were so many things that happened in the years after the anglo irish treaty that no one wants to talk about it, therefore, 1916 is a convenient, noble time for people to celebrate.0 -
Dublin was always much more pro-British than the countryside, because they got economic advantage from being the second city of the Empire, but the culchies got landlords and tax. So maybe the housewives of the Liberties spat at the Volunteers, but I doubt they felt the same in Tralee or Sligo.0
-
Advertisement
-
McArmalite wrote: »Anyway, yes indeed it is hard to quantify the support for the Rising. But the point of my post is that historians have falling in behind the propaganda of the british and of course the papers reported the british version verbatim. Yes their were some against them as they had sons at the front fighting for " little Catholic Belgium " in the " war for small nations etc ". But my point been
that 1916 needs more discussion and research before it can be established to a practical degree the reaction of the general public to it and probably the myth of almost all out hatred to the Rebellion pre the executions dispelled ?
And indeed not just Dublin reaction but also the rest of the country. Not trying to put down the Dubs as Jackeens etc, ( but Dublin been well, a bit of a garrison town where unfortunately many through economic conscription had to join the rank and file of the brits in hard times, same in Athlone, Cobh or Queenstown as it was called) may have been initially more critical of the IRA.
One of the things I'm pondering is that in other areas of Ireland with little tradition of joining the british forces - and that would have been most of rural Ireland - was the reaction to the Rebellion more sympathetic to the Rebels ?
( A bit off topic but Ellis's history of the Irish Working Class is indeed a first class book and also 10 Men Dead about the 1981 Hunger Strike - outstanding.)
Look you have to keep in mind that this is a subjective issue and cannot be quantified properly. I don't believe that historians have been falling behind British propaganda-it also suits the Irish nationalist propagandists to suggest that the noble sacrifice of the rebel leaders was the spark that caused the people of Ireland to wake up from their slumber and seek liberation. Therefore to counter the myth of anti-rebellion sentiment you have to go beyond both British and Irish nationalist histories and find something different-this is the first step towards a revision of 1916.
Also given the fact that Dublin was the scene of all major events of the rising I think it is unfair to suggest Dublin was inherently less sympathetic to the rebel ideals. You should also keep in mind that there had been a lot of organisation throughout the country before the Rising which did not express itself physically in April 1916 but you could say it took longer to gestate-there was rebellion in parts of Galway, Wicklow and areas surrounding Dublin, and IVF and IRB members in Cork, Sligo, Belfast, Tralee, Fenit and many other areas had been organised in the months prior to the Rising although they did not participate. So when these people did participate later it should not be seen as emerging from the sacrifice of the rebel leaders but from their attempts to organise the Irish population while they were still alive.0 -
I think that while your point about propaganda is true and interesting, the English papers would have course loved publishing accounts that went against the rebels in 1916. But there have been many eye witness accounts from people on the streets throughout the rising, the general consensus amongst historians has always been that the Rising was viewed by most of the ordinary people as a nuisance baring in mind that the country was in the grip of economic hardship and that they were constantly being bombarded with WW1 and as you and others have stated here some had men on the front.
However, what is important to note is that after the executions of the rebels were immediately catapulted to martyrs status and the support for the movement increased steadily in the subsequent months and years.
So while it may be true that there was a lot of propaganda about the volunteers and had always been that doesn't mean that everything published was propaganda and in this case a lot of it was true, especially I suppose in Dublin, what with it being the main stronghold of British control and politics in Ireland.
Irish papers also tended to be against the Rising. William Martin Murphy's Irish Independent was famously opposed and called for the execution of James Connolly. People associate him most with the 1913 Lockout and the Yeats poem, but he would have represented a lot of mainstream middle class Irish Catholic and Nationalist opinion.
If you look at the country pre-1916, the Irish National Party (Redmond), still held sway and there was no popular credible alternative to them. Both Redmond and mainstream Nationalist opinion were frustrated with the progress of Home Rule - but were many people advocating an armed uprising against Britain?
The Rising was carried out in secret by a tiny minority of Irish Nationalism. It did achieve most of the real aims of its planners in that it changed the course of Irish history.0 -
Dublin was always much more pro-British than the countryside, because they got economic advantage from being the second city of the Empire, but the culchies got landlords and tax. So maybe the housewives of the Liberties spat at the Volunteers, but I doubt they felt the same in Tralee or Sligo.
Bit of a generalisation maybe. You could also argue that there was more resentment in Dublin due to having a large urban proletariat and some of the worst slums in Europe. The countryside on the other hand had settled down from the "Land Wars" due to Tenant Purchase schemes and other measures like "Killing Home Rule with Kindness". Agriculture was also going through a boom due to war food shortages in the UK, farmers were getting paid top dollar. Redmond's Home Rule within the UK trade zone would have suited these people very well. And like Dublin inner city women, country people also had sons and husband in the British army.
Does the Rising in Dublin and lack of action in the countryside mean that Dublin was more radical? Not really, the Rising leaders were not all native Dubliners, but planned the major actions there as it was the capital. Reading about the events in Cork it appears that the Volunteers there barely had enough bullets between them so couldn't sustain any sort of a fight. The Dublin inner city working class engaged in looting. And some Volunteers responded by firing shots over their heads.
Going back to the original question, "how divided was opinion?". Anyone got any other way of gauging this apart from eye witness accounts? James Stephens account is one of the best. He described varying reaction among witness to the Rising. But gives the mainstream view as being one of mostly shock, and some antagonism to the Volunteers during the Rising.0 -
Actually there was strong resistance to joining the army in rural areas. Also there was action in Galway as I already pointed out and Wexford. James Stephens 'account' is terrible and in no way indicative of the events, nor does it show any real understanding of the purpose or ideology behind the Rising, I wouldn't trust it at all.0
-
brianthebard wrote: »Actually there was strong resistance to joining the army in rural areas. Also there was action in Galway as I already pointed out and Wexford. James Stephens 'account' is terrible and in no way indicative of the events, nor does it show any real understanding of the purpose or ideology behind the Rising, I wouldn't trust it at all.
From my own reading, the various Irish regiments did a lot of recruiting in 1914, but this started to tail off long before 1916. Probably because of dissillusionment with the duration & stagnation of the war, the heavy casualties, and the postponement of Home Rule.
I've never read about significant anti-conscription campaigns in Ireland until post-1916.
I don't think anyone is denying that Volunteers took action outside of Dublin. The discussion got a little sidetracked as to why there was not more. An obvious answer to this is the confusion of orders from Pearse and MacNeill.
I'm not sure why you find James Stephens' account to be terrible. It is quite simply a recording of his first-hand observations, and seems quite pertinant to the original post. As for not understanding the purpose or ideology behind the Rising - only the secret planners really knew this (and Connolly and Pearse clearly had some sorting out of ideology to do if they ever found themselves in power together). Stephens would have been aware of the organisations and the participants general motives, but like most Dubliners would have been very shocked and surprised to see the Rising break out.0 -
Yuo raise a good point there that their has been a policy of discrediting the Rising and the leaders aspirations were not in sync with the Irish people as if they Pied Piper style led the general public off in another direction. Though I do agree that the reaction by the public to the Rising is a subjective issue and cannot be quantified properly. However in my OP where I state what Ernie O'Malley witnessed, the report of the Canadian journalist that the poorer people sympathised with the Rebels and the ' respectable ' people tended to emphasize with the british. However, I think it's wrongly been portrayed to this day that the Rising and those who took part in it where universally jeered and booed as just reporting the british propaganda version.McArmalite - I agree with your thesis about British propaganda – one of their oldest and most successful traditions - but actually see this issue of the "popularity" of the actions taken the week of the Rising as a distraction from the real issue at hand about whether the Irish wanted a separate nation - and every piece of information we have says yes. The aspirations of the 1916 leaders were in sync with the Irish people – the only true discussion can be about the means. . The Irish electorate had for 30 years prior to the Rising returned Home Rule candidates to Westminster. Then as soon as an election was called in 1918 Sinn Fein swept the country -winning 73 out of 100 seats - even winning Ulster. This is the reason the border had to gerrymandered in the 1920 bill.
The real question for many was whether the British would grant Home Rule after the war - and many at the time of 1916 felt that they would not. It was not an unreasonable assumption to make given the lamentable record of constitutional politics. But the implied notion spread by the propaganda machine that the aspirations of the 1916 leaders were not popular is as far as I can see, a lie. All statistics say otherwise.0 -
Martin Murphy's Independent newspapers were unionist in their outlook and still are today but owned by Sir Tony O'Reilly.Irish papers also tended to be against the Rising. William Martin Murphy's Irish Independent was famously opposed and called for the execution of James Connolly. People associate him most with the 1913 Lockout and the Yeats poem, but he would have represented a lot of mainstream middle class Irish Catholic and Nationalist opinion.
Yes, it did wake the slumbering giant of Irish nationalism. Ernie O'Malley's personal account of this is extremely good, from a young man who was basically indifferent to it, to it becoming the sole focus of his life, though he did pay a heavy price for it and I think when he died in the 50's he still had a few of the bullets left in him.If you look at the country pre-1916, the Irish National Party (Redmond), still held sway and there was no popular credible alternative to them. Both Redmond and mainstream Nationalist opinion were frustrated with the progress of Home Rule - but were many people advocating an armed uprising against Britain?
The Rising was carried out in secret by a tiny minority of Irish Nationalism. It did achieve most of the real aims of its planners in that it changed the course of Irish history.0 -
McArmalite wrote: »Anyway, yes indeed it is hard to quantify the support for the Rising. But the point of my post is that historians have falling in behind the propaganda of the british and of course the papers reported the british version verbatim. Yes their were some against them as they had sons at the front fighting for " little Catholic Belgium " in the " war for small nations etc ". But my point been
that 1916 needs more discussion and research before it can be established to a practical degree the reaction of the general public to it and probably the myth of almost all out hatred to the Rebellion pre the executions dispelled ?
And indeed not just Dublin reaction but also the rest of the country. Not trying to put down the Dubs as Jackeens etc, ( but Dublin been well, a bit of a garrison town where unfortunately many through economic conscription had to join the rank and file of the brits in hard times, same in Athlone, Cobh or Queenstown as it was called) may have been initially more critical of the IRA.
One of the things I'm pondering is that in other areas of Ireland with little tradition of joining the british forces - and that would have been most of rural Ireland - was the reaction to the Rebellion more sympathetic to the Rebels ?
( A bit off topic but Ellis's history of the Irish Working Class is indeed a first class book and also 10 Men Dead about the 1981 Hunger Strike - outstanding.)
with regarding places like athlone, mullingar and tullamore, three midland towns with very strong history with the british army, some historians have noted that many of the people of these towns were very hostile towards the men of 1916 and in some parts 1919-1923. local historians noted how the town councils/boroughs , like many others put motions condeming the republicans - lets bear in mind these men were irish parliamentary party supports - athlone after all is the home of tp o'connor. local historians note the strong economic increase that occurred with the presence of the army barracks in athlone (shops groceries etc) and the culture (soccer which lead to setting up athlone town fc, rugby and sailing). also the women, like in dublin, were relying on the widows pension from the army or seperation allowance for their husbands were fighting over in europe - amazing how economic realities effect one's allegiance. athlone barracks, by the way is suppose to be one of the oldest barracks in europe, was first established after 1690 siege and greatly expanded shortly after 1798. the town of athlone, with its wollen mills greatly benefited britain's war time efforts as far back as the crimean war. i understand that even the russian army had big orders with the main wollen mill during ww1.
of course the hostility quietened down when many many many men were interned after. the main local paper, westmeath independent. however, the black and tans burned down their building during the tan war.despite the influence of athlone town fc, people like dinny o'hanlon (major player in the league, irish international, captain & member of the 1st free state team, ex bohemians and athlone) worked and helped out in the local sinn fein courts. the tans seriously encourage the people towards republicanism, along of course with the rising through heavy handness and repression. a strong example of this occurred during 1918-1921 (not sure which) athlone was granted permission to host the all ireland football and hurling finals. this was big deal economically, however,the british took over the fields without notice for camps etc and thus after a huge uproar at last minute gave them back only for the games to be extremely poorly attended. in november 1920 the army caused further resentment when it odered all business premises to close for armistice day.failure to comply meant destruction of the business.
of course, go west along athlone into roscommon hinterland, past the hill of berries, this was very strong republican wise.memories of the ric's activities from the land war days were still fresh.poverty in the west made it less connected with london. athlone itself had an active brigade during the 1919-1921 war (not in the same manner of say north roscommon or the rest of the hilly counties like cork).i could be wrong, but i swore i noted from books written by tim pat coogan, roscommon was under martial law. at least 6-8 people from the athlone region, like many other regions, fought in dublin in 1916. one famous volunter, sean costello. cossan athlone had also being one of the centres of training ivf men in 1915. a contingent of 100 men from the athlone region were on their way to dublin but got as far as shannon bridge when the countercommand came through. on their way they had cut telegraphs etc. many went home. one or two carried on only to be arrested at lucan pitty they did not do something with the train track (some of the 18 pounders that were used against the gpo were based in the curragh and athlone barracks)0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »There were so many things that happened in the years after the anglo irish treaty that no one wants to talk about it, therefore, 1916 is a convenient, noble time for people to celebrate.
While I said that the Treaty is an incomplete document I don't agree that 1916 is an expedient proxy celebration. It is in the act of standing up and declaring independence that is the great moment in a country's or a people's history. Pearse's reading of the Irish Proclamation of Independence is a great moment IMO - and the signatories are heroes who knew they faced certain death. Other countries also celebrate the beginning of revolution and not the end - and not because they are embarrassed about how it ended.
In the USA the big celebration is around 4th July - the Declaration of Independence, not the final obtaining of it [ask any American when the revolutionary war finally ended and they are likely to be unsure, but they all know the moment of declaration and the signatories]. The French celebrate the storming of the Bastille - the beginning of the Revolution - as the moment when they first successfully challenged the Aristos - not the final achieving of the overthrow of the old order.0 -
I was always under the impression that a lot of people didn't even want independence from the UK.
Home rule would presumably have been similar to what Wales and Scotland have now, and very few people would recognise them as independant of the UK. I doubt many would have wanted to leave the UK, given that at the time, it was still the world's leading superpower. Rather, with more independence, we could have been good citizens when needed. After all, how many thousands did go on and join the British Army?
It's interesting to contrast the desire for Home Rule to the full independence we actually got.0 -
Advertisement
-
anonymous_joe wrote: »I was always under the impression that a lot of people didn't even want independence from the UK.
Home rule would presumably have been similar to what Wales and Scotland have now, and very few people would recognise them as independant of the UK. I doubt many would have wanted to leave the UK, given that at the time, it was still the world's leading superpower. Rather, with more independence, we could have been good citizens when needed. After all, how many thousands did go on and join the British Army?
It's interesting to contrast the desire for Home Rule to the full independence we actually got.
I think you need to read some more history - I don't know where your "impressions" are coming from.
For one, in 1918 Sinn Fein swept the elections with the election promise of setting up a separate government in Dublin. They won 73 seats out of 100 and formed a Government in Dublin with a large majority of support from the Irish electorate. The Dublin Government was declared illegal by the British who sent in troops to arrest the Irish government and this led to the Irish War of Independence - but you cannot say, based on the election results, that it was not the will of the Irish people.0 -
McArmalite wrote: »Martin Murphy's Independent newspapers were unionist in their outlook and still are today but owned by Sir Tony O'Reilly.
Hold the thread! How do you reckon this?0 -
-
I'm not looking for some sort of an argument, but are you serious? William Martin Murphy, besides being a very successful Catholic businessman, was also a Nationalist, and for a few years an MP for the Irish Parliamentary Party (but of the anti-Parnelite faction).
The original Daily Irish Independent was dominated by the Parnelite faction of mainstream Irish Nationalism. Murphy took it over in 1900 and it then was more reflective of his anti-Parnelite Nationalist faction. Other newspapers which merged into the Indo like the Freemans Journal were also Nationalist in outlook.
Murphy's relations with John Redmond, the presumed-to-be Irish "leader in waiting" were initially cordial. But as negotiating positions began to be taken over impending Home Rule, Murphy antagonised Redmond by having editorials in the Indo arguing for full Domion status with fiscal autonomy, and arguing against any partition of Ireland.
The mainstream view of Murphy is very coloured by his harsh treatment of the working people during the 1913 lockout, and arguments with intellectuals (e.g. his tiff with Yeats over funding for the Hugh Lane gallery).
The Indo represented an aspect of mainstream Irish Parliamentary Party Nationalism, and as the ground changed, repositioned itself as a Cumann na Gael/Fine Gael paper. This would explain a consistant resentment towards it by more radical Nationalists.
So I think we can clearly say that it was a type of Nationalist newspaper. Not Unionist? Perhaps what this thread shows it that a heavy focus on Nationalism in period 1916-1923 means that some of the complexities of the larger period gets overlooked. I guess the period from the death of Parnell to 1914 isn't very exciting.0 -
Hold the thread! How do you reckon this?
I'll leave it to the individual to conclude what ideology Independent newspapers were influenced by in their editorial on 1916 -
" No terms of denunciation that pen could indict would be too strong to apply to those responsible for the insane and criminal rising of last week.....our heads might now hang low in shame for the misdeeds of those who have been the willing dupes of Prussian intrigue. ....Irishmen have been the agents for the commission of the crime, from the consequences of which it will take us many years to recover.....They were out, not to free Ireland, but to help Germany. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/newspapers/na02.shtml0 -
McArmalite wrote: »I'll leave it to the individual to conclude what ideology Independent newspapers were influenced by in their editorial on 1916 -
" No terms of denunciation that pen could indict would be too strong to apply to those responsible for the insane and criminal rising of last week.....our heads might now hang low in shame for the misdeeds of those who have been the willing dupes of Prussian intrigue. ....Irishmen have been the agents for the commission of the crime, from the consequences of which it will take us many years to recover.....They were out, not to free Ireland, but to help Germany. "
I know what you mean McArmalite, it is a very severe reaction from the Indo. Especially when you view from the prism of the post-1916 tradition.
But its clear that this is a dispute within Irish Nationalism. The post-Parnelites (despite their divisions) saw the IRB/Sinn Fein/Citizen Army as a threat to their grip on power, and their power within any free Ireland which could emerge. By trying to suggest that the 1916 rebels were merely "out, not to free Ireland, but to help Germany", they were appealing to Irish people to remain within their camp.0 -
" they were appealing to Irish people to remain within their camp. "I agree, which was just a recipe for a symblic talking shop with nice perks for Murphy's buddies Redmond, Joe Devlin etc.I know what you mean McArmalite, it is a very severe reaction from the Indo. Especially when you view from the prism of the post-1916 tradition.
But its clear that this is a dispute within Irish Nationalism. The post-Parnelites (despite their divisions) saw the IRB/Sinn Fein/Citizen Army as a threat to their grip on power, and their power within any free Ireland which could emerge. By trying to suggest that the 1916 rebels were merely "out, not to free Ireland, but to help Germany", they were appealing to Irish people to remain within their camp.
Come to think of it, that sounds like the Irish political society of today :rolleyes:
0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Actually there was strong resistance to joining the army in rural areas. Also there was action in Galway as I already pointed out and Wexford. James Stephens 'account' is terrible and in no way indicative of the events, nor does it show any real understanding of the purpose or ideology behind the Rising, I wouldn't trust it at all.
A great uncle was killed in the Somme in 1917. Another relative was a "civilian" victim during the period.
One thing that has always interested me was the little amount of information available on "civilian" victims in the whole episode. Also - that there were looter casualties on O'Connell Street.I read somewhere that in the 1916 rising that the British Troops on Guard Duty on Easter 1916 were not issued with ammunition.
As an issue how big were the "civilian" casualties in the period and was it an issue?
"Civilian" casualties were a big thing in the North and affected political support - so did they here?
The other issue I have always wondered about was the composition of the British Army Soldiers and were there Irish soldiers fighting against the rebels?0 -
Dublin was always much more pro-British than the countryside, because they got economic advantage from being the second city of the Empire, but the culchies got landlords and tax. So maybe the housewives of the Liberties spat at the Volunteers, but I doubt they felt the same in Tralee or Sligo.
Absolutely false. Dublin and the Dublin area was always the cradle of rebellion in Ireland. If Culchies were so patriotic why did they vote overwhelmingly for partition?
The fact is that the people of Kerry and Sligo lived in endogamous incredibly insular communities and did not give a hang about Ireland or anything outside their own barony.
The people of Sligo were touching the forelock to Mountbatten in the bloody 1970s. Patriots indeed!
Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement