Check out this rag journalism

darkman2

:mad: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1750246,00.html

We ,'may', celebrate. He is entitled to his view but its a bit strong:mad:

county

theres always two sides to a story:rolleyes:

Crucifix

Wow, he totally Godwinned it.

monkeyfudge

I'm pretty sure I read an almost identical letter in the Irish Times last week as well.

mike65

Meh....so what? Its an opinion and there's no shortage of nationalist outrage in the responces.

Mike.

darkman2

mike65 wrote:

Meh....so what? Its an opinion and there's no shortage of nationalist outrage in the responces.

Mike.

Is he comparing us to a 'facist' state:eek: A bit twisted and very condescending piece

Max_Damage

For Ireland to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the 1916 rebellion is to betray democracy

80th Anniversary? Got your facts a bit mixed up there! :rolleyes:

Wertz

It's the Guardian...what were you expecting?
A tabloid for people that turn their nose up at tabloids.

mike65

The Guardian (actually its in the observer the sister paper) is as right-on as you can get without eating tofu.

And the format is called 'the Berliner'.

Mike.

magick

lol what a peice of crap!

the author is getting some amount of abusive feedback and rightly so¬!

nlgbbbblth

Wertz wrote:

It's the Guardian...what were you expecting?
A tabloid for people that turn their nose up at tabloids.

What Mike65 said.

Have you ever read it?

ferdi

what an idiot, pay no attention, people like him will get theirs in hell.

Wertz

nlgbbbblth wrote:

What Mike65 said.

Have you ever read it?

I've had the misfortune on occasion....and I wasn't referring to the format, I was referring to it's style...basically the red tops with a healthy dose of a thesarus to dress it up.

WallysWorld

Wow, thats unbelievable...words almost fail me.
sure you can say the rebels of 1916 rose up against the "lawfull" powers in the country, but it was the british laws imposed on the irish that they rose against.

for every 'volunteer' who took part in the rising, there were 100 Irishmen fighting on the Western Front for home rule, which had already been granted by the London government.

granted but not actually implemented, and with the war raging in europe who knew when it would be? If the British had implemented it when they granted it much bloodshed on both sides could have been avoided.

In the early decades of the 20th century, there was everywhere a reaction against constitutional liberalism into irrationalism, whether it was Mussolini's successful 'march on Rome' in 1922 or Hitler's unsuccessful Munich putsch of 1923.

The Easter Rising was the forerunner, echoed all too often thereafter.

To compare 1916 to these events is almost impossible in my mind, for one the rebellion was for the right of self determination against an imperial occupier and they were NOT fighting for fascism, they were fighting to have their own parlimentary democracy instead of being ruled by the parlimentary democracy of another nation.

Its probably pointless posting this as id say most people here know this already, but the article annoyed me and i wanted to get it off my chest!:D

Anyway all better now! Rant Over

darkman2

WallysWorld wrote:

Wow, thats unbelievable...words almost fail me.
sure you can say the rebels of 1916 rose up against the "lawfull" powers in the country, but it was the british laws imposed on the irish that they rose against.



granted but not actually implemented, and with the war raging in europe who knew when it would be? If the British had implemented it when they granted it much bloodshed on both sides could have been avoided.



To compare 1916 to these events is almost impossible in my mind, for one the rebellion was for the right of self determination against an imperial occupier and they were NOT fighting for fascism, they were fighting to have their own parlimentary democracy instead of being ruled by the parlimentary democracy of another nation.

Its probably pointless posting this as id say most people here know this already, but the article annoyed me and i wanted to get it off my chest!:D

Anyway all better now! Rant Over

I think this article is very unfair. Id hate to see what he thinks of countries further afield!:eek:

WallysWorld

Very unfair

Looking around the world today, the Easter rebels have a good deal to answer for.

Is it just me or are the rebels being blamed for all the various wars and insurections in the world today?
Frankly this guy is laughable

Ri_Nollaig

reading that made me feel sick, but atleast almost every person in the hundred or so comments after it thinks the same.
i would still like to see what would happen if he complained about the american war of independence and the 4th of july

netwhizkid

That guy needs a history lesson. If it was up to the likes of him we'd still have the Union Jack over Dublin today. Thankfully the majority of British people are not like him and do not sympatise with that short of rhetoric. The British people want to give Northern Ireland back to Ireland, the only people that are stopping it are Paisley & Co. Blair wants to but is afraid of a bloodbath up there if he did. Seeing our fine young soldiers marching uesterday filled me with a great sense of patriotic nationalism.

ullu

Wertz wrote:

It's the Guardian...what were you expecting?
A tabloid for people that turn their nose up at tabloids.

I agree the opinion piece in question is fairly dubious (especially the reference to Cathal Brugha and Michael Collins) but to say the Guardian is a tabloid in everything but name is a totally unqualified statement. I generally read a tabloid and a broadsheet most days and it's fascinating to see how the same event is described. An example might be a broadsheet referring to Charles Kennedy's suspected alcohol problem with expected gravitas while a tabloid would refer to him as a "SOZZLED SCOT". To put the Guardian anywhere near the second bracket is totally erroneous. If you can point out any recent news or sports articles that you'd consider to be tabloid in the Guardian, please do.

Wertz

Come on, in comparison to the DT, Times, hell even the Observer?
It's low brow for the highbrow IMO...but then maybe I'm just biased...I held that view before I read Wheatcroft's editorial piece, and no I can't point you to any particular example.

ullu

Wertz wrote:

Come on, in comparison to the DT, Times, hell even the Observer?

Lol, that's a good one. The Observer is effectively the Guardian on a Sunday. If you go to the link in the original post, you'll see that it was released as a piece in the Observer.

The Conservative leaning slant to everything written in the Telegraph and the Times puts me off reading them. While the Guardian is a Labour leaning, left of centre paper, it is less pervasive in their day to day news reporting. The same cannot be said for the others.

Dagnir Glaurung

It was an opinion piece and was rightly slated by Observer readers in the letters section. It wasn't rag journalism. Rag journalism would have been front page and passed off as fact with a healthy dose of Irishmen dressed as Nazis or such nonsense. People are too eager to wave the 'tabloid rag' slur when they read something they dislike.

blu_sonic

Clearly the writer is looking for a rise out of us, hes so off the mark, maybe he should ask why the brittish were occuping another nation? was the stealing of our country lawful? was the Olver Cromwell murders Lawful? he's no prespective on it, this IMO is hate mongering, he is a racist nothing but

EDIT we were the 1st country to fight the brittish out of our nation, America did it before us, i think there are more but i couldn't be bothered to find out, not to proove a moron wrong

nlgbbbblth

Wertz wrote:

Come on, in comparison to the DT, Times, hell even the Observer?

I think you are way off the mark here.

The article was in last Sunday's Observer not The Guardian.

I'd consider the worst English papers to be The Sun, The Star and The Mirror with the likes of the Daily Mail and Daily Express a little better.

snickerpuss

That was a very interesting read. Also i wouldn't consider the Guardian a tabloid-esque paper, i'm not sure where you got this opinion from.

Lirange

I doubt many of his fellow columnists would fully endorse many of these sentiments.

He did a complete hatchet job on the history. Sloppy.

Rudyard Kipling is alive and writes for the Guardian. Who knew?

Sleepy

No worse a hatchet job on the history than the Republicans have been doing for years tbh...

nlgbbbblth

Lirange wrote:

Rudyard Kipling is alive and writes for the Guardian.

Incorrect.

He died in 1936 according to this which is consistent with the entry in my World Book encyclopedia 1979 edition.

lucernarian

What are the differences between the Guardian and the Observer?? I'm not too well-informed on UK papers.

Definetely, if that article was written as a new thread here, then there would be cries of "troll". I was annoyed to see the Dáil being talked about in such a manner. The proclamation should rightfully hang in the entrance hall. It is a reminder of the admirable (IMO) aspirations of the people who eventually helped us get our independence.

I see nothing wrong with a speech outlining a vision of a united island, with all the people living on it in cooperation and with all its citizens treated equally and fairly. If NI does not agree with those views then let them remain with the british. It's not like living under a Union Jack is evil or anything.

The author is trying to portray the commeration as some kind of bloodlust ceremony. No one can deny that there was no violence during the rising, obviously but to compare it to the March on Rome or the beer hall putsch is unfounded and dissapointing. The rising was a struggle for independence and the foundation of a republic based on equality, I believe.

indiewindy

The Guardian and the Observer are both owned by the same trust. The observer is just the Sunday Guardian

Sposs

"For Ireland to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the 1916 rebellion is to betray democracy "

Is it not the 90th Anniversary?

nlgbbbblth

It's important to recognise that the piece represents Wheatcroft's personal opinion as opposed to the Observer / Guardian's general slant which has historically been sympathetic to the nationalist cause in Northern Ireland

Gerry Adams regularly writes a column for The Guardian.

ChityWest

"If the Irish want to celebrate the Easter Rising they may, "

Phew , thankfully we had permission for last saturday! That writing belongs in a bnp rag or the secret diary of connor cruise o'brien.

lucernarian

Sorry for going off topic but Conor Cruise O'Brien is a good man and he is not in the same league as the author of that article. To the best of my knowledge Conor Cruise O'Brien never compared the Easter Rising to the Munich Putsch.

ChityWest

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Sorry for going off topic but Conor Cruise O'Brien is a good man and he is not in the same league as the author of that article. To the best of my knowledge Conor Cruise O'Brien never compared the Easter Rising to the Munich Putsch.

Fair enough - that was a bit glib alright. I was going by this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conor_Cruise_O'Brien

He boasted of keeping a "black book" of names of people who wrote letters to the daily newspapers and appeared to him to be pro-Irish republicanism.
&
In 1996 he joined the United Kingdom Unionist Party and secured a seat in the elections of May 1996
&
He extended and vigorously enforced censorship of the media, banning members of Sinn Féin and the Irish Republican Army from being interviewed on radio or television.

Not exactly the same as having written the above article but in that general direction. (imo).

pyramuid man

That is the largest pile of excrement I have ever had the displeasure to lay my eyes on. Unfortunatly there are people who will read and judge Irish people on this piece of literary abomination. And this actually got published. What is the world coming to?

ullu

pyramuid man wrote:

That is the largest pile of excrement I have ever had the displeasure to lay my eyes on. Unfortunatly there are people who will read and judge Irish people on this piece of literary abomination. And this actually got published. What is the world coming to?

Why are you so surprised? Ireland was Britain's longest standing colony and the closest to home. I'm sure there are still plenty of people in Britain who would love a return to the glorious days of the Empire, Wheatcroft probably being one of them. British people will naturally have a different opinion of the events of 1916 because it was one of the catalysts towards the end of their worldwide dominance. The fact it took place at the peak of the first World War didn't really help generate sympathy towards the Irish cause so I wouldn't blame imperialist British people for regarding the Irish rebellion as a sore point. Even though I wouldn't agree with them, they're entitled to their view (and publish it in this case).

Lirange

nlgbbbblth wrote:

Incorrect.
He died in 1936 according to this which is consistent with the entry in my World Book encyclopedia 1979 edition.

No he is alive. Did you read the article?

Don't let that "Wheatcroft" alias fool you.

Lirange

ChityWest wrote:

Fair enough - that was a bit glib alright. I was going by this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conor_Cruise_O'Brien

Thanks for the link. Interesting read.

But you didn't mention this: "He was forced to resign from the party in 1998 after writing an article encouraging unionists to embrace the idea of a United Ireland to thwart Sinn Féin."

Seems he was more anti-IRA/Sinn Féin than pro-British.

ChityWest

Lirange wrote:

Thanks for the link. Interesting read.

But you didn't mention this: "He was forced to resign from the party in 1998 after writing an article encouraging unionists to embrace the idea of a United Ireland to thwart Sinn Féin."

Seems he was more anti-IRA/Sinn Féin than pro-British.

There was a lot of the article I didnt mention/quote for reasons of brevity - including the part you mentioned the reason being that it wasnt the best one for illustrating the point I was making.

Lirange

Well next time make sure to undermine yourself for the sake of nurturing our knowledge.

ChityWest

Lirange wrote:

Well next time make sure to undermine yourself for the sake of nurturing our knowledge.

Good to have that cleared up.

darkman2

I thought the independent was better, obviously not:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article357801.ece

A bit of the usual paddy bashing from elements of the British media

ChityWest

darkman2 wrote:

I thought the independent was better, obviously not:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article357801.ece

A bit of the usual paddy bashing from elements of the British media

The english Independent is usually not bad - and Ingrams' private eye isnt the worst either imo. There is just the first 2 paragraphs on that page - not the entire article. Going by those 2 paragraphs it looks a bit off colour though.

darkman2

ChityWest wrote:

The english Independent is usually not bad - and Ingrams' private eye isnt the worst either imo. There is just the first 2 paragraphs on that page - not the entire article. Going by those 2 paragraphs it looks a bit off colour though.

Yes and Robert Fisks article in the same paper was far more balanced.

MorningStar

Most of the time people ignore the bad elements of the rising which is not really the birth of our nation. THe first few people shot in the rising were unarmed people including a man trying to retrive his only form of income.

At the time most of the people in the city felt pretty much the same as most people in Dublin felt about the recent rioters. The only reason the rising got such standing was the particually bad decission to shoot the organisers. Marters have a long history in the world just look at Jesus

jimmycrackcorm

MorningStar wrote:

Most of the time people ignore the bad elements of the rising which is not really the birth of our nation. THe first few people shot in the rising were unarmed people including a man trying to retrive his only form of income.

At the time most of the people in the city felt pretty much the same as most people in Dublin felt about the recent rioters. The only reason the rising got such standing was the particually bad decission to shoot the organisers. Marters have a long history in the world just look at Jesus

There's a slight difference between the rebels who proclaimed a free ireland at the GPO and ths skangers in tracksuits robbing shoe shops on O'connell Street.

Most risings are particularly violent. I do wonder though in a hundred years time will Irish people be celebrating the IRA struggle of recent times that brought about a united Ireland.

MorningStar

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

There's a slight difference between the rebels who proclaimed a free ireland at the GPO and ths skangers in tracksuits robbing shoe shops on O'connell Street.

People at the time did not think so. It was very unpopular at the time according to many reports. AS the victor tends to write the history we can assume some of the heroics of the time weren't that heroic shooting a man trying to take back his cart (only form of income) doesn't sound great to me.

If the ring leaders hadn't been killed many hostorians don't beleive the support of the rising would have happened

Bear in mind at the time many Irish people were in the british army fighting the war and the freedom fighters were killing their fellow soldiers.

It was a very complex issue and most people from their 50s onwards in Ireland were taught very little about the rising and subsequent civil war due to fear or stirring up emotions. I don't know enough about it to really say they were rightbut it is hilarious to see government officals commemorate an armed rebillion agaisnt a governemnt while trying to say it to a similar group not to. The deffinition of a hypocrite means they contradict themselves and won't admit it. THe article is a little much but there is a valid point.

mountainyman

MorningStar wrote:

At the time most of the people in the city felt pretty much the same as most people in Dublin felt about the recent rioters. The only reason the rising got such standing was the particually bad decission to shoot the organisers.

There is no way of knowing this.
The proportion of dubliners who booed the rebels was tiny in absolute terms protestors in support of them would have been arrested.

The fact that Sinn Fein support grew so much after the rising need not be derived from the rising itself.
I have always thought it more likely that it was the change in the suffrage that led to this result. The perception that 1916 played a role is an ex post facto attempt to justify a useless piece of political theatre.

Maybe the original article was a satire.

MM

MorningStar

mountainyman wrote:

There is no way of knowing this.
The proportion of dubliners who booed the rebels was tiny in absolute terms protestors in support of them would have been arrested.
MM

I'll go with talking to family members who were closer to the events as they lived in the city.

To go with your logic nobody can know what happened so why support it in anyway.

I think you should read the papers of the time and the poetry of the times
"dead with O'Leary in the grave" . There is lots of talk about the hipocrits who didn't support the rising untill after events happened. It's there in history but it doesn't seem to have quite made the history books in that way.