The forthcoming centenary of the Easter Rising in 2016

Grettbags

The 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising is approaching and the conversations and debates with regard to event and the suitable forms of commemoration are already in full flow i.e. the recent Unionist backlash to Brian Cowen’s call on Unionist leaders to mark the centenary of the Rising.
The current commemorative projects underway and in the pipeline for 2016 (monitored and reviewed by an All Party Oireachtas Consultation Group on the Centenary of the 1916 Rising) are as follows:
· Arbour Hill renewal works including restoration and extension of the existing church car park, repair and restoration of all existing cemetery graves, repair of cemetery pathways and the planting of new trees.
· The future location for the Abbey Theatre and possible redevelopment at the GPO with reference also to the protection of 16 Moore Street. (The suggested relocation to the GPO complex of the Abbey Theatre is currently being examined by the Office of Public Works. The decision on future use will have regard to all advice and suggestions received)
· Recent acquisition for the national collections of items of interest relating to the independence period, amongst which were the 964 items of the Stanley Collection at a cost of €3.5 million.
· Assistance towards themed publication i.e. the Royal Irish Academy’s recent publication on Seán Lemass, and the SIPTU sponsored publication on James Connolly.
· The Military Archives Project, which envisages that files, being the service records of personnel involved in the struggle for independence, would be released into the public domain on a phased basis in the years leading to the Centenary of the Rising.
· At Glasnevin Cemetery, the Group inspected progress on the significant programme of ongoing restoration works underway for which €6.4m of NDP funding has been provided to date (to be complete by 2016)
· Ongoing restoration work being conducted on Erskine Childers’ yacht Asgard. This project is scheduled to be completed by the end of June 2010.
(provided by Dept. Of Defence Minister – Tony Killeen)
Other civic ideas have been put forward by various groups for 2016 such as the pedestrianisation of College Green.
The commemoration of the 1916 Easter Rising has always been and continues to be problematic.
It has been formed by and in accordance with the contemporary political situation in Ireland.
In light of the above, what effect will the current economic crisis and the subsequent lack of confidence in the current government have on the lead up to and the proposals for the commemoration of the centenary of the 1916 Easter Rising in 2016? Will the self-perception of the disillusioned post-Celtic Tiger generation dictate how the 2016 commemoration will unfold?
I would be interested to hear people’s opinions on how important they feel it will be to commemorate 1916 in 2016? Will it be important to commemorate the Rising to reaffirm Irish National identity or should we be looking to future to rebuild as opposed to the past to remember?

Morlar

Grettbags wrote: »

The 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising is approaching and the conversations and debates with regard to event and the suitable forms of commemoration are already in full flow i.e. the recent Unionist backlash to Brian Cowen’s call on Unionist leaders to mark the centenary of the Rising.
........
The current commemorative projects underway and in the pipeline for 2016 (monitored and reviewed by an All Party Oireachtas Consultation Group on the Centenary of the 1916 Rising) are as follows:
. . . .

· The future location for the Abbey Theatre and possible redevelopment at the GPO with reference also to the protection of 16 Moore Street. (The suggested relocation to the GPO complex of the Abbey Theatre is currently being examined by the Office of Public Works. The decision on future use will have regard to all advice and suggestions received)

The current minister for heritage John Gormley has shown no interest in the 16 Moore st preservation despite repeated representations made to him by the 'Save 16 Moore St' committee (which includes the relative of at least one Rising signatory).

Grettbags wrote: »

Recent acquisition for the national collections of items of interest relating to the independence period, amongst which were the 964 items of the Stanley Collection at a cost of €3.5 million.

Would you have any links to more information on this ?

The reason I ask is that there have recently been several high profile items which were put up for auction that the govt expressed no interest in, including a Rising flag and a Michael Collins cap badge. The thoughts of these items ending up in private hands out of the country or above a bar somewhere is pretty disgusting. So I am curious about the criteria they are using in selecting which items to retain within the ownership of the state.

Grettbags wrote: »

Assistance towards themed publication i.e. the Royal Irish Academy’s recent publication on Seán Lemass, and the SIPTU sponsored publication on James Connolly.

I have not read either of those books but would question the worth of funding siptu books. I think funding a wider panel of historians and authors and researchers into studying the totality of this period could be money better spent. For example one comprehensive book on the Rising/War of Independence/Civil War with essays from all sides on all aspects of the discussion outling in detail their conflicting viewpoints - something like that would interest me more than a govt funded siptu publication.

Grettbags wrote: »

The Military Archives Project, which envisages that files, being the service records of personnel involved in the struggle for independence, would be released into the public domain on a phased basis in the years leading to the Centenary of the Rising.

This sounds like an interesting project and it would be good to see this information online. Do you have any links to more information on this ?

Grettbags wrote: »

At Glasnevin Cemetery, the Group inspected progress on the significant programme of ongoing restoration works underway for which €6.4m of NDP funding has been provided to date (to be complete by 2016)
· Ongoing restoration work being conducted on Erskine Childers’ yacht Asgard. This project is scheduled to be completed by the end of June 2010.
(provided by Dept. Of Defence Minister – Tony Killeen)

Those sound like excellent initiatives in my view.

Grettbags wrote: »

Other civic ideas have been put forward by various groups for 2016 such as the pedestrianisation of College Green.

The pedestrianisation of College Green has no connection whatsoever to commemorating the 1916 Easter Rising. In my view it's part of an anti-motorist agenda that would also hurt businesses in the city centre at a time when unemployment is at it's highest point in the history of the state.

Grettbags wrote: »

The commemoration of the 1916 Easter Rising has always been and continues to be problematic.

I would strongly disagree with this. Either that it ever was actually problematic or that it continues to be problematic. There was always a perception among some anti-republicans that this was the case and it is true that it was downplayed by successive govts throughout the troubles but this would be due to their lack of commitment and vision in my view. At the times where it was given the correct level of attention such as 1966 there was a massive upsurge in interest, as did the 2006 parade through Dublin.

Grettbags wrote: »

In light of the above, what effect will the current economic crisis and the subsequent lack of confidence in the current government have on the lead up to and the proposals for the commemoration of the centenary of the 1916 Easter Rising in 2016? Will the self-perception of the disillusioned post-Celtic Tiger generation dictate how the 2016 commemoration will unfold?

The current govt will not be in place in 2016 (I'd forecast long years in the wilderness for the greens after they exit stage left of Irish politics) the other parties will be tripping up over themselves to claim connection to the Rising legacy (in my view). Those 2 events - the fall of the 'Celtic Tiger' and the rising commemoration are not necessarily related in a negative way. In fact it could herald a national re-assessment of our direction and how we are destroying the legacy day by day by pandering to europe and the 'progressive' left anti-nationalistic agenda (my view).

Grettbags wrote: »

I would be interested to hear people’s opinions on how important they feel it will be to commemorate 1916 in 2016? Will it be important to commemorate the Rising to reaffirm Irish National identity or should we be looking to future to rebuild as opposed to the past to remember?

Those are not mutually exclusive and of course it should be commemorated - any nation that does not properly commemorate the struggle that led to it's founding is deeply flawed.

delop

it would be wonderful if before the date people pick up a book like this one (http://www.amazon.com/Easter-1916-Rebellion-Charles-Townshend/dp/156663704X) and find out what actually happened . I was amazed by the amount of bull I was 'taught' in school ...

MarchDub

delop wrote: »

it would be wonderful if before the date people pick up a book like this one (http://www.amazon.com/Easter-1916-Rebellion-Charles-Townshend/dp/156663704X) and find out what actually happened . I was amazed by the amount of bull I was 'taught' in school ...

You can't take one singular book such as Charles Townsend's and think that you are getting a full picture of the Rising. Townsend's book has serious flaws. He strives in his opening chapter to downplay all Irish resistance to British rule over the centuries. I really have to wonder how much reading of original sources he did. He takes on the British narrative that the tenants of the Land War "exaggerated" their plight.
He refers to the 1798 rising as a "civil war". Most egregiously, he labels Parnell's downfall as "a product of his [Parnell's] reckless defiance of Victorian public morality". A singularly thin view - or glaring bias- of what was actually going on.

Townsend relishes in playing up minor incidents to make the 1916 insurgents seems confused and even clownish [his bias] - but there is frequently confusion surrounding a war situation and especially one that knew it was taking on a very powerful enemy.

Most rebellions begin with great uncertainly as to where they are going to end or even how much success they might achieve. I recently watched interviews on CNN about the American Civil Rights movement and John Lewis - now a black Congressman and very active in the early movement - admitted that the full blown civil rights movement in the southern states began with an attempt to make segregation more equitable. It was when they got such massive support amongst their own community and some active whites that they were able - incredible to the leaders - to go as far as they did and win full civil rights. The 1916 Rising could be seen in the same light - a small step that led to most of Ireland winning independence from Britain. I for one think we should indeed celebrate the men and women of 1916 and stop being ashamed - and skittish- about our past.

Grettbags

Thanks for you comments!

Morlar wrote: »

The current minister for heritage John Gormley has shown no interest in the 16 Moore st preservation despite repeated representations made to him by the 'Save 16 Moore St' committee (which includes the relative of at least one Rising signatory).

Yes I'm aware that there has been very little interest shown with regard to No. 16 and the debate re: its conservation. I actually know a descendant (Great-grandson) of the Plunkett family who lived in No. 16, the premises still belonged to the them up until the 70's or 80's, the family are now involved in the 'Save 16 Moore St' campaign also...if only it hadn't changed hands!


Would you have any links to more information on this ?

The reason I ask is that there have recently been several high profile items which were put up for auction that the govt expressed no interest in, including a Rising flag and a Michael Collins cap badge. The thoughts of these items ending up in private hands out of the country or above a bar somewhere is pretty disgusting. So I am curious about the criteria they are using in selecting which items to retain within the ownership of the state.

I actually don't have much else on this. I was keeping on eye on such items myself. http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0323/rising.html
It seems the govt. are turning a blind eye in certain cases and the National Museum perhaps don't the accession funds which naturally would come from the govt.


This sounds like an interesting project and it would be good to see this information online. Do you have any links to more information on this ?

I have been unable to source much else on this....perhaps it to early for publications re: the project in the intention really is to have it completed over the next 6 years
http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2010-06-02.864.0
http://www.military.ie/dfhq/archives/arch.htm


Those sound like excellent initiatives in my view.

Agree totally, work in Glasnevin is well under way and the new museum opened in April. It is an excellent space.



I would strongly disagree with this. Either that it ever was actually problematic or that it continues to be problematic. There was always a perception among some anti-republicans that this was the case and it is true that it was downplayed by successive govts throughout the troubles but this would be due to their lack of commitment and vision in my view. At the times where it was given the correct level of attention such as 1966 there was a massive upsurge in interest, as did the 2006 parade through Dublin.

Appreciate you comments here. My use the word problematic was to imply that past commemorations of the Rising have always been subject to question and debate (take the recent Brian Cowen - Unionist debate) Two excellent publications:
Ni Dhommchadha and Dorgan - Revising the Rising (1991) and Daly and O’Callaghan - 1916 in 1966 - Commemorating the Easter Rising (2007) highlight through multiple essays, the debates and conversations surrounding the 75th anniversary and 50th anniversary respectively. No doubt a collection of essays will be published in the aftermath of 2016!
I myself am intrigued by the 90th anniversary as 90th anniversaries in general are rarely celebrated. True, it was the first real opportunity after the Good Friday agreement to have an official commemoration of 1916 with some vision and spirit, however many saw it as a shrewd political move on the part of FF to prevent SF from taking ownership of the Rising. Willie O'Dea at the time said it was a good practice run for 2016, but what should the country do for the 10 years leading up to the centenary? Celebrate with a big parade as they have so far, is there a need for this?


The current govt will not be in place in 2016 (I'd forecast long years in the wilderness for the greens after they exit stage left of Irish politics) the other parties will be tripping up over themselves to claim connection to the Rising legacy (in my view). Those 2 events - the fall of the 'Celtic Tiger' and the rising commemoration are not necessarily related in a negative way. In fact it could herald a national re-assessment of our direction and how we are destroying the legacy day by day by pandering to Europe and the 'progressive' left anti-nationalistic agenda (my view).

FG have already stated that they want to be in power for 2016. My feeling is FF might claw there way back up by 2016.

Grettbags

Sorry I didn't multi quote so my responses are in the quote box! Doh!

brianthebard

MarchDub wrote: »

You can't take one singular book such as Charles Townsend's and think that you are getting a full picture of the Rising. Townsend's book has serious flaws. He strives in his opening chapter to downplay all Irish resistance to British rule over the centuries. I really have to wonder how much reading of original sources he did. He takes on the British narrative that the tenants of the Land War "exaggerated" their plight.
He refers to the 1798 rising as a "civil war".

A civil war is a war fought in one country. You might consider it pedantic, but even so.

Townsend relishes in playing up minor incidents to make the 1916 insurgents seems confused and even clownish [his bias] - but there is frequently confusion surrounding a war situation and especially one that knew it was taking on a very powerful enemy.

I don't think that's the case at all, he just tries to move away from a grand narrative to display the real events of the week, he also spent lots of time writing about the great battles of the rebels and the little victories which occurred throughout the week.
No one book is going to be complete, or consider every possible angle that a reader might be interested in.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

A civil war is a war fought in one country. You might consider it pedantic, but even so.

Maybe pedantic - or something else. Do we refer to the American Revolutionary War as a "civil war"? Do we refer to our own War of Independence as a "civil war"? Do we refer to the Indian War of Independence as a "civil war"? These are wars of rebellion against a foreign power and are generally recognized as such. The term "civil war" conjures up an entirely different scenario in the vernacular and I believe is meant to when used in the context of 1798.

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't think that's the case at all, he just tries to move away from a grand narrative to display the real events of the week, he also spent lots of time writing about the great battles of the rebels and the little victories which occurred throughout the week.
No one book is going to be complete, or consider every possible angle that a reader might be interested in.

Yes, I said that no book is complete but that Townshend's has serious flaws. And yes, he does gives details of the battles and victories. I dug out my copy and, besides those details, still find it patronising on the actions and personalities of the rebels. He doesn't seem to quite understand why they did what they did. He seems to want to emphasize what he sees as the lack of real preparedness or "the weight that Pearse placed" on the Military Committee's command structure. Reading it for me suggests that he simply doesn't get that this was a rebellion against a standing authority, which by its nature had to be prepared in secret with even communication between insurgents done in secret. All this complicated by WWI and Redmond's actions.

He really doesn't seem to "get" Pearse at all and even criticises him for looking to past insurrections for inspiration, i.e Pearse saying "No failure, judged as the world judges these things, is more complete, more pathetic, than Emmet's, and yet he has left us a prouder memory than the memory of Brian victorious at Clontarf or Owen Roe victorious at Benburb". Furthermore Pearse said that "Emmett has redeemed Ireland from acquiescence in the union" - From this Townshend concludes that to Pearce "gesture was all". I find this remarkably dismissive and superficial considering the fact that Pearse laid down his life and knew that he would have to. It certainly wasn't a mere "gesture" to give up his life.

As a footnote I would add that Townshend's take on Yeats is off the mark also. Yeats expresses ambiguity about 1916 in his poem "Easter 1916" but not for the reasons that Townshend suggests. The real shock for Yeats was the fact that the British authorities actually shot the leaders. He personally knew many of them.To Yeats this was practically akin to murder and he fretted that his work might have been a party to this crime: "Did that play of mine send out certain men the English shot'? was the concern he agonises over some 20 years later.

brianthebard

MarchDub wrote: »

Maybe pedantic - or something else. Do we refer to the American Revolutionary War as a "civil war"? Do we refer to our own War of Independence as a "civil war"? Do we refer to the Indian War of Independence as a "civil war"? These are wars of rebellion against a foreign power and are generally recognized as such. The term "civil war" conjures up an entirely different scenario in the vernacular and I believe is meant to when used in the context of 1798.

Well you may not refer to it as such but that doesn't negate the validity of the statement and if nothing else it should make others consider the rebellion again.

Yes, I said that no book is complete but that Townshend's has serious flaws. And yes, he does gives details of the battles and victories. I dug out my copy and, besides those details, still find it patronising on the actions and personalities of the rebels. He doesn't seem to quite understand why they did what they did. He seems to want to emphasize what he sees as the lack of real preparedness or "the weight that Pearse placed" on the Military Committee's command structure. Reading it for me suggests that he simply doesn't get that this was a rebellion against a standing authority, which by its nature had to be prepared in secret with even communication between insurgents done in secret. All this complicated by WWI and Redmond's actions.

I think in a lot of ways he is quite sympathetic to Pearse and the rebels and doesn't from my memory dismiss Pearse as a dreamer who had nothing to contribute beyond mysticism. I don't remember any patronising stuff from Townshend, would it be poor form to ask for references? I haven't read the book in a while.

He really doesn't seem to "get" Pearse at all and even criticises him for looking to past insurrections for inspiration, i.e Pearse saying "No failure, judged as the world judges these things, is more complete, more pathetic, than Emmet's, and yet he has left us a prouder memory than the memory of Brian victorious at Clontarf or Owen Roe victorious at Benburb". Furthermore Pearse said that "Emmett has redeemed Ireland from acquiescence in the union" - From this Townshend concludes that to Pearce "gesture was all". I find this remarkably dismissive and superficial considering the fact that Pearse laid down his life and knew that he would have to. It certainly wasn't a mere "gesture" to give up his life.

Now this is certainly interesting. Quite frankly if you don't understand the importance of the symbolism of the Easter Rising from the point of view of all of the main players, then you have severely underestimated the meaning of the events and have only considered one aspect of the whole. The attack on Dublin castle was symbolic, the reading of the proclamation was theatre, the decision to hold a rising at Easter was symbolic, choosing the GPO as the primary target was symbolic, martyrdom is symbolic. I don't think that Townshend believed or concluded that gesture was the only meaning of the rising without any other consideration, but gesture and symbolism and theatre were as or more important than the actual fighting.

As a footnote I would add that Townshend's take on Yeats is off the mark also. Yeats expresses ambiguity about 1916 in his poem "Easter 1916" but not for the reasons that Townshend suggests. The real shock for Yeats was the fact that the British authorities actually shot the leaders. He personally knew many of them.To Yeats this was practically akin to murder and he fretted that his work might have been a party to this crime: "Did that play of mine send out certain men the English shot'? was the concern he agonises over some 20 years later.

Who knows what Yeats was thinking, I don't think he did himself half the time. Which of the leaders did he know personally btw?

Wolfe Tone

He knew McBride. He married Maud Gonne I believe. Yeats hated him but came to grudgingly respect him due to his revolutionary activities I think. Open to correction but I think I am right.


I haven't read the book so I wont comment too much on it, but was the GPO not chosen for practical reasons also? I know that Boland mills was the best place taken up from a militaristic view as it guarded the approaches to the city but the GPO was not without merit.

brianthebard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

He knew McBride. He married Maud Gonne I believe. Yeats hated him but came to grudgingly respect him due to his revolutionary activities I think. Open to correction but I think I am right.

He married Maud Gonne's daughter. He knew of McBride through MG but was hardly a friend, I would question how much they interacted as well. He did know Markievicz though I suppose.

I haven't read the book so I wont comment too much on it, but was the GPO not chosen for practical reasons also? I know that Boland mills was the best place taken up from a militaristic view as it guarded the approaches to the city but the GPO was not without merit.

No there are no particularly military reasons for the rebels to have taken the GPO, the BOI and Trinity were two of the most important strategic points in the city which they didn't plan to occupy, one could again say for symbolic reasons.

Wolfe Tone

brianthebard wrote: »

He married Maud Gonne's daughter. He knew of McBride through MG but was hardly a friend, I would question how much they interacted as well. He did know Markievicz though I suppose.




No there are no particularly military reasons for the rebels to have taken the GPO, the BOI and Trinity were two of the most important strategic points in the city which they didn't plan to occupy, one could again say for symbolic reasons.

No, he married Maud Gonne in something like 1903. I am sure of that. Wikipedia agrees too.
Edit: I double checked in a book too. Never too sure with wiki!


Would the fact that it was a central building easily fortified not play a role? While I agree it was no doubt partly symbolic, I cant help but feel that its capture had a practical reason too. After all before Murphys law kicked in (loss of arms, countermanding orders etc etc) the rebels no doubt believed that they had a fighting chance of victory. It can be argued that the blood sacrifice motive only truly came to the fore after the volunteers pulled out.

brianthebard

I meant Yeats married Maud Gonne's daughter, not McBride.

How do you mean easily fortified? Do you realise how many windows there are, how many buildings but up against it, how many overlook it? Its centrality weakened its value to the rebellion since to be successful they would have had to constantly push out from the centre, not defend a headquarters in the middle of town far away from any battlefield (until the end). I don't think it can be argued that the blood sacrifice motive only came up afterwards considering the amount of writing by Pearse, Connolly, McDiarmada and others on this topic. That's not to say I believe it was the only motive, because I don't, but it was always considered a feature of the rebellion's possibilities.

Wolfe Tone

brianthebard wrote: »

I meant Yeats married Maud Gonne's daughter, not McBride.

How do you mean easily fortified? Do you realise how many windows there are, how many buildings but up against it, how many overlook it? Its centrality weakened its value to the rebellion since to be successful they would have had to constantly push out from the centre, not defend a headquarters in the middle of town far away from any battlefield (until the end). I don't think it can be argued that the blood sacrifice motive only came up afterwards considering the amount of writing by Pearse, Connolly, McDiarmada and others on this topic. That's not to say I believe it was the only motive, because I don't, but it was always considered a feature of the rebellion's possibilities.

I am sure he asked her to marry but they didnt.
And what I meant was that while it was always there it became APPARENT that it was the only real motivation after the volunteers pulled out. Before the Aud was captured there was a chance of victory. With all the events after there was none. With only 1500 men they knew they would defiantly lose. I get your point, but then again even the idea of taking up static defensive positions was not the best one.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

I think in a lot of ways he is quite sympathetic to Pearse and the rebels and doesn't from my memory dismiss Pearse as a dreamer who had nothing to contribute beyond mysticism. I don't remember any patronising stuff from Townshend, would it be poor form to ask for references? I haven't read the book in a while.

TBH I find the whole attitude in the book as expressed by Townshend himself to be patronising not only towards the 1916 participants but towards Irish historians and Irish writers whom he says in the Preface fail to bring 'a proportionate view' to the study of 1916. As if the need for a calm outside, British? voice is going to really explain it all. See his whole Preface and Epilogue for many other examples. Page xvi in the Preface for example he states that he is purposely using the word "rebellion" instead of rising because it is more accurate in spite of the fact as he states that "some Republicans have always rejected its implication that the incumbent government was legitimate'. What is Townshend saying here? That the Rising was illegitimate? If so, where does that leave his bias?

brianthebard wrote: »

Now this is certainly interesting. Quite frankly if you don't understand the importance of the symbolism of the Easter Rising from the point of view of all of the main players, then you have severely underestimated the meaning of the events and have only considered one aspect of the whole. The attack on Dublin castle was symbolic, the reading of the proclamation was theatre, the decision to hold a rising at Easter was symbolic, choosing the GPO as the primary target was symbolic, martyrdom is symbolic. I don't think that Townshend believed or concluded that gesture was the only meaning of the rising without any other consideration, but gesture and symbolism and theatre were as or more important than the actual fighting.

I wouldn't for a moment disagree with the notion that the Rising was symbolic and full of theatre. Many wars are - George Bush labelled the initial invasion of Iraq "Shock and Awe" - a very important symbolic first step in setting out who was going to control whom. The "spirit of Dunkirk" was pure symbolism fed to keep up the spirits and ignore the disaster that the Dunkirk invasion had been. We could go on - George Washington crossing the Delaware was well aware of the symbolism attached to that.
I was around in 1966 and turned out to watch the commemorations with other school kids and remember the symbolism of THAT very well. It was meant to keep us proud that we had established an independent state.
The problem I have with Townshend - and others - is that somehow 1916 gets labelled as a unique act of symbolism - as if war were usually something else entirely. And as if the insurgents had little military knowledge and were substituting symbolism for this lack. Anyway, that is how it reads to me.

One further note - Townsend uses the emotive term "terrorist" and throws is around quite liberally from the nineteenth century Fenians to all other acts of armed rebellion. It is a singular use of the nomenclature -as if what we witnessed from the British Army on Bloody Sunday and many other occasions cannot also be described in this way. Another poster mentioned "Revising the Rising" well, there is an excellent article by Declan Kiberd in there who traces the historic use of this term to describe any rebellion against a fixed order. Some time during the late1960s he says "The old liberal/radical critique of colonialism, pioneered by Bertram Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre was usurped by the new fashionable thesis of the 'self inflicted wound'. Irish historiography has become full of the narrative of the self inflicted wound.

brianthebard wrote: »

Who knows what Yeats was thinking, I don't think he did himself half the time. Which of the leaders did he know personally btw?

Yeats - now we're really talking symbolism. The question probably is whom did he not know? He pretty much knew them all and moved in the same circles. He disliked MacBride because of the Maud Gonne thing - she married him. He knew Pearse quite well and once shared a platform with him for a lecture series - but he mistrusted Pearse's politics and saw him initially as shallow. Like many others Yeats did not really grasp the reality that the rebellion would actually take place. His poem "September 1913" details his frustration with the lack of a "romantic Ireland" which he declares at that time to be 'dead and gone; it's with O'Leary in the grave'. His palinode poem "Easter 1916" written to refute that earlier poem - after the Rising- is therefore written with an element of shock and a dedication to those he had thought to be just posers - "being certain that they and I but lived where motley is worn". Pearse, Yeats declares "rode our winged horse", MacDonagh would have been a great writer, "so sensitive his nature seemed"; Markievicz spent her nights in "argument until her voice grew shrill" and so on. He declares that all have resigned their parts in the "casual comedy" that was Dublin talk prior to the Rising and elevates them to hero status- "all changed, changed utterly".

Incidentally, Declan Kiberd in another published paper makes a great comment about another 1916 poem. The lines where Yeats asks -

What stalked through the Post Office? What intellect,
What calculation, number, measurement, replied?

Kiberd declares the answer to be "India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Aden'...in other words our 1916 Rising set the Empire on its head.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

I meant Yeats married Maud Gonne's daughter, not McBride.

.

Yeats didn't marry Gonne's daughter, he proposed to Iseult Gonne but she refused him - just like her mother had done! He married a woman called George Hyde-Lees. They had a son and a daughter.

brianthebard

MarchDub wrote: »

TBH I find the whole attitude in the book as expressed by Townshend himself to be patronising not only towards the 1916 participants but towards Irish historians and Irish writers whom he says in the Preface fail to bring 'a proportionate view' to the study of 1916. As if the need for a calm outside, British? voice is going to really explain it all. See his whole Preface and Epilogue for many other examples. Page xvi in the Preface for example he states that he is purposely using the word "rebellion" instead of rising because it is more accurate in spite of the fact as he states that "some Republicans have always rejected its implication that the incumbent government was legitimate'. What is Townshend saying here? That the Rising was illegitimate? If so, where does that leave his bias?

I think you're reading things into the text that aren't there. Every academic claims that their book covers things that have not been dealt with before, they would not get published if this was not the case. I don't have a problem with his use of the word rebellion either tbh. Is your complaint here based solely/mainly on his Britishness or are there other factors?

The problem I have with Townshend - and others - is that somehow 1916 gets labelled as a unique act of symbolism - as if war were usually something else entirely. And as if the insurgents had little military knowledge and were substituting symbolism for this lack. Anyway, that is how it reads to me.

Well the fact of the matter is the insurgents had little to no military knowledge. Connolly had served in the British army as a teenager and Michael Mullen had had some position in the Army too (not 100% sure what) and that was pretty much it. Everyone else's military knowledge was theoretical only. 1916 is a unique act of symbolism in many many ways. We can't say with any accuracy how much was about symbolism and how much was about war, but symbolism was huge and cannot be underestimated.

One further note - Townsend uses the emotive term "terrorist" and throws is around quite liberally from the nineteenth century Fenians to all other acts of armed rebellion. It is a singular use of the nomenclature -as if what we witnessed from the British Army on Bloody Sunday and many other occasions cannot also be described in this way.

Come on now, you can't insert whataboutery into books just because you have a point to make.

Yeats - now we're really talking symbolism. The question probably is whom did he not know? He pretty much knew them all and moved in the same circles.

I'd question this assertion, can you provide some evidence? What circles are we talking about?

His poem "September 1913" details his frustration with the lack of a "romantic Ireland" which he declares at that time to be 'dead and gone; it's with O'Leary in the grave'. His palinode poem "Easter 1916" written to refute that earlier poem - after the Rising- is therefore written with an element of shock and a dedication to those he had thought to be just posers - "being certain that they and I but lived where motley is worn". Pearse, Yeats declares "rode our winged horse", MacDonagh would have been a great writer, "so sensitive his nature seemed"; Markievicz spent her nights in "argument until her voice grew shrill" and so on. He declares that all have resigned their parts in the "casual comedy" that was Dublin talk prior to the Rising and elevates them to hero status- "all changed, changed utterly".

Sorry but I don't see what this proves.

Incidentally, Declan Kiberd in another published paper makes a great comment about the 1916 poem. The lines where Yeats asks -

What stalked through the Post Office? What intellect,
What calculation, number, measurement, replied?

Kiberd declares the answer to be "India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Aden'...in other words our 1916 Rising set the Empire on its head.

ok, again this has nothing to do with townshend though. Connolly was already making those sort of international connections long before Kiberd, its not surprising that he or Yeats might latch onto those thoughts at a later time.

Wolfe Tone

McBride was a soldier also I believe, fought n South Africa, second in command at Jacobs.

brianthebard

He wasn't a major player in the lead up to the Rising though.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

I think you're reading things into the text that aren't there. Every academic claims that their book covers things that have not been dealt with before, they would not get published if this was not the case. I don't have a problem with his use of the word rebellion either tbh. Is your complaint here based solely/mainly on his Britishness or are there other factors?

It is Townshend himself who introduces the notion of nationality into the mix when he chides "Irish historians" [his words] for their failure to bring a 'proportionate view' [also makes me wonder what he is reading, because this in itself sounds grossly uninformed] - so I answered his charge with a question mark on the term "British?" Is he in fact suggesting that his Britishness makes him a better judge? If so, I certainly think this is a thin argument. And arrogant.

brianthebard wrote: »

Well the fact of the matter is the insurgents had little to no military knowledge. Connolly had served in the British army as a teenager and Michael Mullen had had some position in the Army too (not 100% sure what) and that was pretty much it. Everyone else's military knowledge was theoretical only. 1916 is a unique act of symbolism in many many ways. We can't say with any accuracy how much was about symbolism and how much was about war, but symbolism was huge and cannot be underestimated.

I wasn't making a point about their military experience - I was addressing the issue of symbolism being used against them as if their actions were all just about theatre and not at all a serious attempt at anything. I was additionally making the point that symbolism is a part of all wars. But in the case of 1916 it is used frequently to invalidate their efforts and even reduce the Rising to the level of farce. The OVER emphasis on the symbolism is an attempt IMO to maybe expunge their historic significance. Theatre or not - they gave their lives for it. So there was a hell of a lot more going on for them than street panto.

brianthebard wrote: »

Come on now, you can't insert whataboutery into books just because you have a point to make.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this.
The point I am making concerns the exclusive use of such an emotive term as terrorism - I am pointing out that other violent acts should also be labelled with the same level of vitriol or it becomes a biased one sided discussion and not at all the balanced view that Townshend promises in his Preface. Violence is violence - whether state sponsored or not. Language becomes a subliminal tool in this case - to name it and shame it.

brianthebard wrote: »

II'd question this assertion, can you provide some evidence? What circles are we talking about?

The assertion that WB Yeats personally knew the 1916 leaders? This is a fact. The circles? - the Gaelic League, IRB, Abbey Theatre, Cuala Press. He joined the IRB and took the oath in the early 1890s and participated fully in the centenary celebrations for 1798. John O'Leary, President of the Supreme Council of the IRB was a close friend. Read Yeats' own "Autobiographies" or any biography of Yeats, Richard Ellmann is excellent.
Thomas MacDonagh dedicated a volume of his poems to WBY - Francis Sheehy Skeffington was so well known to WBY that when news of his murder reached Yeats he was devastated, and expressed this in a letter to Lady Gregory. Markievicz he had known since his youth. Pearse he had had many dealings with and thought him odd - as I previously said. All this is much written about in literary publications.

I just pulled out a copy of Yeats' letters and in a letter to his sister Lolly about four days after the Rising Yeats writes "I know most of the Sinn Fein leaders and the whole thing bewilders me because Connolly is an able man and Thomas MacDonagh both able and cultivated". He goes on to describe Pearse as having "molded himself into Emmet".

brianthebard wrote: »

ISorry but I don't see what this proves.

It demonstrates that Townshend does not appear to understand the context of the Yeats' poem he chooses to quote from- and make historical analysis from.

brianthebard wrote: »

ok, again this has nothing to do with townshend though. Connolly was already making those sort of international connections long before Kiberd, its not surprising that he or Yeats might latch onto those thoughts at a later time.

This was more an afterthought of mine in keeping with the OP's question. And I did want to make the point that the Rising was not just an Irish farce that died on the streets of Dublin - it went on to inspire others to seek independence from the empire. Connolly might have dreamed of this - Yeats wrote too early to know yet - but from our vantage point we can see it and own it.

Einhard

Morlar wrote: »

The reason I ask is that there have recently been several high profile items which were put up for auction that the govt expressed no interest in, including a Rising flag and a Michael Collins cap badge. The thoughts of these items ending up in private hands out of the country or above a bar somewhere is pretty disgusting. So I am curious about the criteria they are using in selecting which items to retain within the ownership of the state.

I'm all for commemorating the Rising, but where exactly would you draw the line when it comes to the state purchasing of items related to it? Do we really need Micheal Collins' cap badge or some tattered old flag to enhance our understanding of the event, especially as the National Museum already has an excellent exhibition on the period which includes many such artifcats? I think at this stage the money would be better off spent improving services, or safegaurding heritage sites at risk around the country. Indeed, if such money is going to be spent on historicical artifacts, I'd much rather it go towards items from other eras of our history, or even towards acquisitions for the National Gallery. We don't have to own every single item associated with the Rising; the state shouldn't be in the the business of building memorabilia which is what collecting cap badges and the like amounts to.

Also, in relation to 16 Moore St, what is there exactly to be saved? I'm just asking because it seems every day some group is claiming another site as indispensable to our national heritage. And they tend to overstate the significance, or as with Tara, the effects of development. Finally, why should the signature of a descendant of one of the Rising leaders have some special cachet?

Morlar

Einhard wrote: »

I'm all for commemorating the Rising, but where exactly would you draw the line when it comes to the state purchasing of items related to it? Do we really need Micheal Collins' cap badge or some tattered old flag . . . .

Do we really need Michael Collins cap badge or 'some tattered flag' - yes we do. As a nation how many countries can you think of would allow such a significant artifact from the founding of their state to be sold off to the highest bidder ? The cap badge was a cap badge of the fledgling Irish army worn by an Irish General - reportedly at his assasination (if original) - a moment of monumental importance to the state. Why should a collector called simon from colchester or freddy from ibiza own such an item of national interest to this state (invented names but you probably get the picture). The tattered flag was reportedly an original Easter 1916 Rising flag - so yes I would say those 2 items should if genuine categorically be on the list of items which should remain in the state. And no, no one is saying that we have to own every single item associated with Independence era Ireland but there are some that don't belong above a bar in new york or in some other private hands for the sake of a few thousand euros.

Einhard

Morlar wrote: »

Do we really need Michael Collins cap badge or 'some tattered flag' - yes we do. As a nation how many countries can you think of would allow such a significant artifact from the founding of their state to be sold off to the highest bidder ? The cap badge was a cap badge of the fledgling Irish army worn by an Irish General - reportedly at his assasination (if original) - a moment of monumental importance to the state. Why should a collector called simon from colchester or freddy from ibiza own such an item of national interest to this state (invented names but you probably get the picture). The tattered flag was reportedly an original Easter 1916 Rising flag - so yes I would say those 2 items should if genuine categorically be on the list of items which should remain in the state. And no, no one is saying that we have to own every single item associated with Independence era Ireland but there are some that don't belong above a bar in new york or in some other private hands for the sake of a few thousand euros.

I'm sorry, I don't see how a badge is of monumental significance to the Irish state. Especially as we have so many artifacts from that period. Does it tell us anything new about the period? Does it open new avenues of debate, or confound existing narratives? If not, it's really a piece of memorabilia. And whilst I think memorabilia is hugely important in the context of educating people, and giving them a feel for the past, I do think people can go a little too far. It's almost as if you're somehow unpatriotic if you question the purchase of yet another 1916 artifact. You'll always have people advocating for buying every piece of related material, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. As for the flag, I'd agree with you were it not for the fact that the state is, as far as I know, already in possession of one of banners that flew from the GPO during the Rising. Also, we're not alking about a few thousand euro. These kind of artifacts sell for hundreds of thousands, and the entry of the state is gauranteed to infllate such figures. I just think we have enough artifacts from the period, and the money could be better spent safegaurding other important aspects of our national heritage.

brianthebard

Morlar wrote: »

Do we really need Michael Collins cap badge or 'some tattered flag' - yes we do. As a nation how many countries can you think of would allow such a significant artifact from the founding of their state to be sold off to the highest bidder ? The cap badge was a cap badge of the fledgling Irish army worn by an Irish General - reportedly at his assasination (if original) - a moment of monumental importance to the state.

In fairness the most important part of this issue is what you have in brackets, there were a lot of questions about authenticity of the two objects you're talking about at the time of auction, and personally I'd want whoever is in charge of acquisitions of this sort to be 100% sure that what they are buying is genuine. I think it would be worse if the state had bought MC's cap badge and then another one had come on the market a couple of years later. More generally, we have the reconstructed GPO which is surely of more significance than a single cap badge. It may hold a lot of patriotic and sentimental significance to you and others, but at the end of the day the course of Irish history was not changed because of a cap badge, and there are plenty of other things which commemorate Michael Collins as well or better than it. Imo.

Morlar

Einhard wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't see how a badge is of monumental significance to the Irish state. Especially as we have so many artifacts from that period. Does it tell us anything new about the period? Does it open new avenues of debate, or confound existing narratives? If not, it's really a piece of memorabilia. And whilst I think memorabilia is hugely important in the context of educating people, and giving them a feel for the past, I do think people can go a little too far. It's almost as if you're somehow unpatriotic if you question the purchase of yet another 1916 artifact. You'll always have people advocating for buying every piece of related material, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. As for the flag, I'd agree with you were it not for the fact that the state is, as far as I know, already in possession of one of banners that flew from the GPO during the Rising. Also, we're not alking about a few thousand euro. These kind of artifacts sell for hundreds of thousands, and the entry of the state is gauranteed to infllate such figures. I just think we have enough artifacts from the period, and the money could be better spent safegaurding other important aspects of our national heritage.

But it's not a badge. It's a badge reputedly worn by Michael Collins at Béal na mBláth on the day he was assasinated. So it's not just a badge just like any other. The entry of the state does not have to cost more - it is not unreasonable to introduce a law whereby if you plan on selling items of national interest relating to the independence era Ireland that the state gets first refusal on them.

I have been to many museums in Ireland and also seen private collections and I can tell you that we do not have the over-abundance of 1916, Civil War and War of Independence related items as you seem to think. One single fire in Collins Barracks or a theft from Kilmainham and that point would be brought made all the more clear.

Your other points about how each item should 'confound exsisting narratives' and so on - if you were to apply that criteria to any museum in the state it would be time for a going out of business sale, same would go for the vast majority of items in any museum that I can think of here or abroad.

Also you say 'do we really need to pay for yet another 1916 item' - can you name the last 5 1916 or even independence era items the state purchased?

Or even the last one that you can think of without googling it?

I would completely dispute your assertion that we have already got this period more than adequately covered - in my view it is completely the opposite and whatsmore we are in a period when much of this material is becoming available for the first time having been in private family hands since those days.

PS it goes without saying that any purchase should have provenance and be thoroughly checked & researched before payment.