Bertie and 1916

WILKEL

Anyone have any comments on bertie's recent interview on 1916 - he went to great length to make the point that the rising was caused by people having no other alternative because they were not getting anywhere with the peaceful /constitutional route - did this not happen again in the late 60s in the north and why do some people try to completely isolate these two conflicts in that one was totally legitimate (1916 -1921)despite the brutality and the other was not?

joebhoy1916

I seen them and i must say i think he gave a very goodshow.
I would agree with ya about the north but though alot
of people might have agree with them as people can see from
this board that alot of people didnt agree with them.

Its amazing when i was growing up never once can i remember
even learning about Sir Roger Casement who did alot for the
slaves in the Congo and south America then went to America
where he then travelled to Germant to try get fighters
for the irish rebellion the brought home weapons.

Sure the irish goverment was helping the IRA during there
armed conflict though they always claim they didnt
people know they did. Sure at one stage the irish soliders
was at the border Charles Haughey said he would not stand
by and watch innocent catholics been burnt out of there
homes.

I think its ashame we go through the years of school
yet we hardly learn anything about our country or even
the men of the hunger strikes.
Bertie said during his interview that when he
was growing up in his school they hardly ever talked about the
likes of Sir Roger Casement and he said thats not the way
forward for our country. I think the books should be changed.

Our history are the same as ever and there based from
British side. The country we live in today is not the
country that the men of 1916 died for.

walrusgumble

i always loved history in school, doing constitutional law learning about the history of the constitutions of 1922 and 1937, the treaty, the government of ireland act 1920 and good friday agreement made me realise how bad the books were in school.

while its all great learning tales of fion maccul etc is all great and interesting, should that still continue in primary school. weres the relevancy. the course needs a serios change. how many people especially in their twenties really know what happened in the north in the sixites, why the hunger strikes happened, no not really. they are relevant, they are the aftermaths of civil war etc. have any of ye gone to gaa matches hearing idiots calling northerns orange 2222, ignorance.

while i am in favour of getting history from an irish perspective but it must be balanced, the otherside of the story has to be told ie the unionist side. why do they want to remain in britain.

our flag stands for peace and cooperation between both communties. the proclamation speaks of equality for all irish men. understanding their side whilst maintain our nationalist belief maybe the only way we will achieve a united ireland in the future. no way will it happen at this stage. one place for this is the history books in school. it has to have some relevance to today also, because as one of you correctly said our history of yesterday is still the same as today. (sorry if i sound a bit condensending)