Ireland's greatest person

brianthebard

The tv series documenting the last five people starts tonight, Michael MacDowell is on giving his spin on Michael Collins. Numerous inaccuracies and clear bias, most obviously the claim that he wanted nothing to do with Connolly's Marxist Republic. I guess that's why Collins said he would follow Connolly to the depths of hell if he asked? :rolleyes:

MarchDub

IMO the historic past poses a problem for many in the Irish media and political world. The blackening of De Valera - necessary to shed the now apparently unacceptable birth and early development of the nation - has to be accompanied with an equal separating out of Collins from the 'revolutionary' track. Collins died so it's possible to indulge in a 'things would/should have been much different' saga. That how it appear to me - so we get stuff like the nonsense you describe.

In fact, De Valera, Collins, Connolly were all more in sync with each other and their aspirations for a free Ireland than many now want to acknowledge. As I said, that's how it comes across to me anyway.

brianthebard

I'd be the first to say I don't believe Collins was a Marxist, or at the very least never gave any real signs that he was, although he didn't have mcuh of chance. However he made clear declarations of admiration for Connolly, which MacDowell completely ignores. I agree completely with your sentiments however, from 1916 to 1919 or slightly later there was many threads binding those three together. And the civil war was as much about personal opinions as an ideological divide. There is a strong desire within MacDowell's coverage to paint Collins in such a way as to suggest he was perhaps a forerunner of the PD's.

Morlar

brianthebard wrote: »

I'd be the first to say I don't believe Collins was a Marxist, or at the very least never gave any real signs that he was, although he didn't have mcuh of chance.

I saw that programme and found it quite good. No major glaring inaccuracies that I noticed. I think if anyone has an agenda on this issue then it is those who seek to claim that Collins as some kind of marxist when there is absolutely no credible, actual evidence to back that up whatsoever.

Judgement Day

I'm intrigued that Bono has been shortlisted - if it was Ireland's greatest ego perhaps?

smcgiff

Michael Collins followed by Bono... Bono!!! :rolleyes:

MarchDub

Morlar wrote: »

I saw that programme and found it quite good. No major glaring inaccuracies that I noticed. I think if anyone has an agenda on this issue then it is those who seek to claim that Collins as some kind of marxist when there is absolutely no credible, actual evidence to back that up whatsoever.

Not a strict or orthodox Marxist at all of course - but there is ample evidence, in Collins' own writing, that he believed in a planned economy. He wrote quite a bit about what exactly those plans would be and the role that the new Irish government would play in the operation of these plans.

Denerick

MarchDub wrote: »

Not a strict or orthodox Marxist at all of course - but there is ample evidence, in Collins' own writing, that he believed in a planned economy. He wrote quite a bit about what exactly those plans would be and the role that the new Irish government would play in the operation of these plans.

Given Collin's extraordinary organisational abilities (Someone once said that if Mulcahy and Collins were to be killed, the Republic would be dead, as it was all stored in their heads) I think he was instinctively a proto Keynesian, or some variation of a contemporary English radical.

I thought the show was very poor. Whilst primarily anti Republican, I have a lot of time for Collins and find it impossible not to admire such an energetic, pragmatic and thoroughly devious man. :cool: McDowell blatantly tried to categorise him as a principled democrat - I don't believe he necessarily was, just more inclined to exploit and manipulate the popular will than many of his distinctly anti democratic anti treaty opponents. This is classic history through rose tinted lenses, though I suppose that is to be expected in a show of this kind.

I'm going to be cringing when the episode for Bono comes. That completely mocks the purpose of finding 'Irelands greatest'. Might as well have an episode for Bill Cullen if we're going to be going down that road. :rolleyes:

Corsendonk

Is there anyway to get this overturned? I had a look at the shortlist of 40. WB Yeats was 40th while Louis Walsh was 38th. Stephen Gately was 7th. Joke of a polls and higher amount of people alive compared to poles in Begium, Romania and GB. Irish must only have short term memories these days.

convert

I think the programme did what it had intended to do: to show why Collins was 'Ireland's greatest'. Obviously something like that is going to be rather simplistic and biased and somewhat propagandist.

However, if the programme is taken at face value and accepted for what it was intended to be - aimed at the masses rather than the specialists, and to show reasons why Collins is Ireland's greatest - then it did a good job.

Sure, if you've studied the area in detail, then obviously you'll be yelling at the TV (or, in some case, books and articles) or holding your tongue when speaking to someone who's over-simplified something or has it a bit wrong, but most people will have enjoyed the programme which provided them a brief overview of Collins' life. It may stiumulate peoples' interest in history and encourage them to do some reading on the topic.

Finally, I'd take that programme over anything to do with Bono any day!

brianthebard

convert wrote: »

I think the programme did what it had intended to do: to show why Collins was 'Ireland's greatest'. Obviously something like that is going to be rather simplistic and biased and somewhat propagandist.

However, if the programme is taken at face value and accepted for what it was intended to be - aimed at the masses rather than the specialists, and to show reasons why Collins is Ireland's greatest - then it did a good job.

Sure, if you've studied the area in detail, then obviously you'll be yelling at the TV (or, in some case, books and articles) or holding your tongue when speaking to someone who's over-simplified something or has it a bit wrong, but most people will have enjoyed the programme which provided them a brief overview of Collins' life. It may stimulate peoples' interest in history and encourage them to do some reading on the topic.

Finally, I'd take that programme over anything to do with Bono any day!

It wasn't really on the grounds of light history that I objected but rather McDowell inserting his own politics into the thing and trying to make out he had a political lineage to Collins. I suppose for him to consider Collins the Greatest Irish person that might be necessary but it still struck me as weird, Collins is not the person I would have thought of when I think possible very early pd. But then we see from Denerick's post above that people will base their positions on Collins on the flimsiest of evidence, and this I suppose is the inevitable result of an inspirational man dying young without leaving a strong body of writing detailing his politics and thoughts. Whoever presents the programme on Connolly will have far less leeway in this regard for instance (glad to see Connolly made the top five at least).

Morlar

brianthebard wrote: »

Whoever presents the programme on Connolly will have far less leeway in this regard for instance (glad to see Connolly made the top five at least).

You will be pleased to learn that is going to be Joe Duffy (my money is on Collins to win personally). I am not sure what people were expecting out of this. After the Late Late the other night when each of the 5 panel were giving an overview of their selection and the criteria it very quickly became clear that this was a very personal choice for them and to expect each of them to turn out an indepth historical biography or anything of the sort was a bit much.

Of course it is going to be their personal interpretation of that figure, of course it is going to be 'osprey history' or very summarised and bite sized history in broad strokes. A million and one editorial variation exsist for ways in which that period Could have been covered differently with a focus placed more in one direction than another.

Beyond incorrectly set expectations of the programme format itself the programme delivered in my view.

McDowell is entitled to give his opinion - he was after all asked to present the programme, personally I do not think he overstepped the mark too much. On a side note if you compare that programme to say . . . . the 1916 walking tour of Dublin where according to the socialist tour guide every single aspect of 1916 was blood red socialist - compared to that I do not think Mc Dowell was bad in comparison.

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

But then we see from Denerick's post above that people will base their positions on Collins on the flimsiest of evidence, and this I suppose is the inevitable result of an inspirational man dying young without leaving a strong body of writing detailing his politics and thoughts.

Come again?

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

Come again?

Organisational skills, amazing or not, are not a sign of a proto-Keynesian, or any other political position for that matter. Having accepted the Treaty and sided with the Free State with can't even say with 100% certainty that Collins was a died in the wool Republican, despite his record in the War of Independence.

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

Organisational skills, amazing or not, are not a sign of a proto-Keynesian, or any other political position for that matter. Having accepted the Treaty and sided with the Free State with can't even say with 100% certainty that Collins was a died in the wool Republican, despite his record in the War of Independence.

Actually any writings Collins did put to paper regarding economics were proto Keynesian, and his superior organisational skills eg, the Dáil loan etc, clearly show that he was sympathetic to the idea of an activist state.

I should also like to say that I think you were un-necessarily rude.

P.S. Do you think that anyone who supported the Treaty was not a Republican?

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

Actually any writings Collins did put to paper regarding economics were proto Keynesian, and his superior organisational skills eg, the Dáil loan etc, clearly show that he was sympathetic to the idea of an activist state.

Organisational skills like that can easily be interpreted to mean he favoured a central economic so that's exactly the sort of thing I meant when I said your reasoning was flimsy. Link to his proto Keynesian writings please?

I should also like to say that I think you were un-necessarily rude.

P.S. Do you think that anyone who supported the Treaty was not a Republican?

How was it rude? I believe your reasoning is flimsy and I pointed that out.

P.s. No that's not what I'm saying.

PatsytheNazi

Bono, Mary Robinson as Ireland's greatest person Why didn't they throw in celebrities like Dustin the Turkey, Sir Anthony O'Reilly, Jack Charlton as well. And McDowell, who could quite easily fit in with the most right wing of unionist Tory backbenchers of all people to represent Collins. A joke just like everything else in Ireland these days I suppose.

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

Organisational skills like that can easily be interpreted to mean he favoured a central economic so that's exactly the sort of thing I meant when I said your reasoning was flimsy. Link to his proto Keynesian writings please?

I have a little collection of essays here by Collins called 'The Path to Freedom' (1968) One of the essays is called 'building up Ireland - Resources to be developed'. Among other things he says:

* 'The uses of wealth are to provide good health, comfort, moderate luxury and to give the freedom which comes from the possession of these things'

* With regard to exploiting Irish resources he clearly states that it should reflect a common good, discounting industrialism for its own sake but for improving the overall welfare of the Irish people; 'It will be possible for each to have sufficient food, a good home in which to live in fair comfort and contentment... our people will be able to secure themselves against the inevitable times of sickness and old age.'

* He talks about the state playing a role in preventing the rise of inequality; 'We must not have the destitution of poverty at one end, and at the other an excess of riches in the possession of a few individuals, beyond what they can spend with satisfaction and justification'

* Also; 'The growing wealth of Ireland will, we hope, be diffused through all our people, all sharing in the growing prosperity, each receiving according to what each contributes in the making of that prosperity, so that the weal of all is assured.'

* He goes on to outline major public investment and provision for infrastructure; specifically outlining the development of the road network and revamping our harbours. Also calls for hydro electrification etc.

* He mentions taxation, which should be specifically levied on the wealthy and aimed at the provision of industry (Labour, not capital intensive)

* He specifically endorses the redistribution of under cultivated grazier land to smallholders.

* Endorses the creation of an agricultural science culture and mass training of prospective farmers in the latest, most scientific methods.

* He specifically rejects state socialism, decries monopoly, and endorses fair competition in industry.

* He hints at the possibility of national ownership of the commanding heights of industry.

* Favours distorting savings rates by provoking Irish capital to come into more productive use.


This is clearly more Keynes than Hayak.

doolox

I'd have to put John Hume first in terms of sheer length of service to his community for over 40 years and sticking to his principles against violence when so many were tempted to go the physical force way and engender fear, hatred and bitterness on all sides and postpone progress further.

I'd have to put James Connolly second for resorting to violence but very understandable in the context of the times and what they were up against.

I'd put Collins 3rd simply because he didn't live long enough to really exploit his full potential which would have been on par with the careers of Churchill or Wellington if he had lived long enough. H'ed have been a shoo-in for Taoiseach or President if he had survived.

I'd put Robinson 4th for her work in vitalising the presidency and her work in promoting womens rights etc. Her ongoing work in human rights has enhanced Irelands reputation greatly.

I'd have to put Bono 5th. He is an entertainer, a singer of songs but has used the ridiculous level of credibility given to celebrity in this age to promote some good causes. Perhaps he is on par with Woody Guthrie or Christy Moore who also have written some intelligent songs about social issues. Also John Lennon comes to mind. Bono, however has been well rewarded for his work, he has suffered little or no persecution etc for his beliefs. True greatness shines through when people stick to their beliefs in the face of danger, ridicule, death or prison as in the case of some of the other people shortlisted.

PatsytheNazi

Doesn't it say it all when a tax dodger like Bono is nominated as Ireland's greatest person. And as for Robbo ( Mary Robinson ). Other women such as Anne Devlin or Countess Markievicz would have been far more worthy, but I suppose they had to throw her in for the trendy middle classes :rolleyes: I rememeber when the Berlin Wall was coming down and a silly fecker on the Late Late show saying Robbo getting elected was Ireland's equivalent of the Berlin Wall falling .........ah yes, the Gombeen state.

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

I have a little collection of essays here by Collins called 'The Path to Freedom' (1968) One of the essays is called 'building up Ireland - Resources to be developed'. Among other things he says:

* 'The uses of wealth are to provide good health, comfort, moderate luxury and to give the freedom which comes from the possession of these things'

* With regard to exploiting Irish resources he clearly states that it should reflect a common good, discounting industrialism for its own sake but for improving the overall welfare of the Irish people; 'It will be possible for each to have sufficient food, a good home in which to live in fair comfort and contentment... our people will be able to secure themselves against the inevitable times of sickness and old age.'

* He talks about the state playing a role in preventing the rise of inequality; 'We must not have the destitution of poverty at one end, and at the other an excess of riches in the possession of a few individuals, beyond what they can spend with satisfaction and justification'

* Also; 'The growing wealth of Ireland will, we hope, be diffused through all our people, all sharing in the growing prosperity, each receiving according to what each contributes in the making of that prosperity, so that the weal of all is assured.'

* He goes on to outline major public investment and provision for infrastructure; specifically outlining the development of the road network and revamping our harbours. Also calls for hydro electrification etc.

* He mentions taxation, which should be specifically levied on the wealthy and aimed at the provision of industry (Labour, not capital intensive)

* He specifically endorses the redistribution of under cultivated grazier land to smallholders.

* Endorses the creation of an agricultural science culture and mass training of prospective farmers in the latest, most scientific methods.

* He specifically rejects state socialism, decries monopoly, and endorses fair competition in industry.

* He hints at the possibility of national ownership of the commanding heights of industry.

* Favours distorting savings rates by provoking Irish capital to come into more productive use.


This is clearly more Keynes than Hayak.

Tbh I asked for a link, not some points cherry picked. Regardless most of those points are more Connolly than Keynes. You can see most of those are taken directly from Connolly's manifesto's for the IRSP and the Labour party.

Fratton Fred

doolox wrote: »

I'd have to put Bono 5th. He is an entertainer, a singer of songs but has used the ridiculous level of credibility given to celebrity in this age to promote some good causes. Perhaps he is on par with Woody Guthrie or Christy Moore who also have written some intelligent songs about social issues. Also John Lennon comes to mind. Bono, however has been well rewarded for his work, he has suffered little or no persecution etc for his beliefs. True greatness shines through when people stick to their beliefs in the face of danger, ridicule, death or prison as in the case of some of the other people shortlisted.

It is refreshing to hear someone compliment Bono on the work he does, although if he is Ireland's greatest person, i think his wife Ali should get a mention as i believe she orchestrates a lot of his work.

brianthebard wrote: »

Tbh I asked for a link, not some points cherry picked. Regardless most of those points are more Connolly than Keynes. You can see most of those are taken directly from Connolly's manifesto's for the IRSP and the Labour party.

Socialism has changed enormoulsy over the past century. A lot of the aspirations of the early socialists, such as those listed above, are now considered to be norms.

Morlar

I would agree with whoever said that putting Bono on that list is an insult to the other candidates. The vote rigging of homosexual advocacy groups that saw stephen gately make it into the top 10 list has already cast a shadow over the entire saga in my view & if bono was to somehow win the greatest Irishman title then in my view that'd be an insult to Irish history, culture and tradition. Out of the 5 on the list the only 2 that deserve to be there are Collins and Connolly in my view. As far as I can see that is who the competition is about.

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

Tbh I asked for a link, not some points cherry picked. Regardless most of those points are more Connolly than Keynes. You can see most of those are taken directly from Connolly's manifesto's for the IRSP and the Labour party.

I'm sorry for providing a source, summarising the contents, and generally substantiating the point I originally made - here, I'll even emphasise the relevant words that clearly state that I was offering a personal opinion and not a historical fact: I think he was instinctively a proto Keynesian, or some variation of a contemporary English radical.

I think you may have made a mountain out of a molehill.

Oh, as an addendum, read the essay in full before you compare it to the Labour Party agenda. Its much more nuanced than that I'm afraid. We wouldn't want to be basing an opinion on the flimsiest of evidence now...

jpfahy

Morlar wrote: »

I would agree with whoever said that putting Bono on that list is an insult to the other candidates. The vote rigging of homosexual advocacy groups that saw stephen gately make it into the top 10 list has already cast a shadow over the entire saga in my view & if bono was to somehow win the greatest Irishman title then in my view that'd be an insult to Irish history, culture and tradition. Out of the 5 on the list the only 2 that deserve to be there are Collins and Connolly in my view. As far as I can see that is who the competition is about.

+1

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Socialism has changed enormoulsy over the past century. A lot of the aspirations of the early socialists, such as those listed above, are now considered to be norms.

So? I'm talking about Collins and Connolly, they lived in the same period.

Denerick wrote: »

I'm sorry for providing a source, summarising the contents, and generally substantiating the point I originally made - here, I'll even emphasise the relevant words that clearly state that I was offering a personal opinion and not a historical fact: I think he was instinctively a proto Keynesian, or some variation of a contemporary English radical.

I think you may have made a mountain out of a molehill.

Oh, as an addendum, read the essay in full before you compare it to the Labour Party agenda. Its much more nuanced than that I'm afraid. We wouldn't want to be basing an opinion on the flimsiest of evidence now...

I don't know if you somehow think I compared it to the present labour party but to clarify I was still talking about Connolly. I think you already know that or were trying to claim something was in my post that wasn't.
As for your opinion, what is it based on? That's the point I made which you seemed to miss. That is further shown by the use of the word instinctively, attempting to bypass an explanation for this position.

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't know if you somehow think I compared it to the present labour party but to clarify I was still talking about Connolly. I think you already know that or were trying to claim something was in my post that wasn't.

I apologise if I misunderstood. You claimed it was similar to what you'd find in Connolly's organisation or the contemporary Labour party etc. I'm saying its rather different. Nationalisation being a crucial distinction. And if my memory serves me (I may be wrong, I never really took much of an interest in left wing Irish history) Labour were calling for compulsory tillage of the soil and a social revolution in many respects with regards to its policy towards the grazier class.

As for your opinion, what is it based on? That's the point I made which you seemed to miss. That is further shown by the use of the word instinctively, attempting to bypass an explanation for this position.

My opinion is based on his extraordinary organisational capabilities (You are correct, that needn't necessarily demonstrate anything - its a 'gut' feeling on my part) and his writings which clearly place him on the left; be that some strange breed of proto Keynesianism or some variation of a contemporary English radical.

I used the word 'instinctively' as Collins had no systematic economic training (Though he was talented with numbers and figures) and thus I was suggesting that he was 'instinctively' of that persuasion, as opposed to having arrived at such a position by long periods of thought or wide reading or learned debate.

This pedantry is giving me a headache, by the way.

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

I apologise if I misunderstood. You claimed it was similar to what you'd find in Connolly's organisation or the contemporary Labour party etc.

I never said 'or the contemporary' anything.

My opinion is based on his extraordinary organisational capabilities (You are correct, that needn't necessarily demonstrate anything - its a 'gut' feeling on my part) and his writings which clearly place him on the left; be that some strange breed of proto Keynesianism or some variation of a contemporary English radical.

I used the word 'instinctively' as Collins had no systematic economic training (Though he was talented with numbers and figures) and thus I was suggesting that he was 'instinctively' of that persuasion, as opposed to having arrived at such a position by long periods of thought or wide reading or learned debate.

This pedantry is giving me a headache, by the way.

I think its not giving the man his dues to suggest he instinctively came to these conclusions without thought or reading or debate. As for pedantry you should not go into academia if this is the level of pedantry that aggravates you, this is nothing of the sort.
Most of the points you listed from Collins' writing could be taken almost verbatim from Connolly or the Workers' Republic. That and professions of admiration and affinity for Connolly says a lot more than ideas of instinctive politics.

I was not claiming Collins as a socialist fyi, just commenting on the many and frequent attempts people make to claim him as similar to their own politics. We all know that every party in Ireland is the true successor to Michael Collins after all, including the pd's it seems, in spite of the actual article pieces you posted. That was always my main point but it was dragged off topic.

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

I never said 'or the contemporary' anything.

You can see most of those are taken directly from Connolly's manifesto's for the IRSP and the Labour party.

A quibble of words.

I think its not giving the man his dues to suggest he instinctively came to these conclusions without thought or reading or debate. As for pedantry you should not go into academia if this is the level of pedantry that aggravates you, this is nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry but this is all indeed a pedantry. I choose to use the word 'instinctively' when offering a fly by opinion, not intended to be the final word on the matter or anything like it. Just a down to earth honest opinion that I would never have put in a scholarly essay. This is the internet after all.

Most of the points you listed from Collins' writing could be taken almost verbatim from Connolly or the Workers' Republic. That and professions of admiration and affinity for Connolly says a lot more than ideas of instinctive politics.

I admire Ron Paul but that doesn't mean I'm a Libertarian.

I was not claiming Collins as a socialist fyi, just commenting on the many and frequent attempts people make to claim him as similar to their own politics. We all know that every party in Ireland is the true successor to Michael Collins after all, including the pd's it seems, in spite of the actual article pieces you posted. That was always my main point but it was dragged off topic.

Your point is sound. Its just a pity it was dragged off topic by erroneous accusations of opinions based on flimsy evidence.

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

You can see most of those are taken directly from Connolly's manifesto's for the IRSP and the Labour party.

A quibble of words.

Who's being pedantic now?

I'm sorry but this is all indeed a pedantry. I choose to use the word 'instinctively' when offering a fly by opinion, not intended to be the final word on the matter or anything like it. Just a down to earth honest opinion that I would never have put in a scholarly essay. This is the internet after all.



I admire Ron Paul but that doesn't mean I'm a Libertarian.



Your point is sound. Its just a pity it was dragged off topic by erroneous accusations of opinions based on flimsy evidence.

While it is in fact the internet i had hoped that we had come to view the history forum as a place where more thorough debate can be initiated and that it is not unusual to ask for sources, since history requires sources.

Can I ask if you would not put it in a scholarly essay, do you not think it is an opinion that could be well argued and is soundly based on historical fact? Because I would definitely put my opinion that he admired Connolly and held many of the same policies into any essay on the topic.

R.Dub.Fusilier

Morlar wrote: »

I would agree with whoever said that putting Bono on that list is an insult to the other candidates. The vote rigging of homosexual advocacy groups that saw stephen gately make it into the top 10 list has already cast a shadow over the entire saga in my view & if bono was to somehow win the greatest Irishman title then in my view that'd be an insult to Irish history, culture and tradition. Out of the 5 on the list the only 2 that deserve to be there are Collins and Connolly in my view. As far as I can see that is who the competition is about.

agree with you Molar. the only thing i can remember Bono doing for Ireland was in the 80's , a year or so after Live Aid , doing the Self Aid gig in the RDS to highlight unemployment in this country. of course he does do good work for the poor of this world but its all self promotion to add to his ever expanding ego imo.

Collins or Connolly should win.

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

Who's being pedantic now?

I literally don't know what you're on about. I'm merely posting back what you said. I am in no way being pedantic whatsoever.

While it is in fact the internet i had hoped that we had come to view the history forum as a place where more thorough debate can be initiated and that it is not unusual to ask for sources, since history requires sources.

Yes, I did provide sources but apparantly I was supposed to provide an internet link.

Can I ask if you would not put it in a scholarly essay, do you not think it is an opinion that could be well argued and is soundly based on historical fact? Because I would definitely put my opinion that he admired Connolly and held many of the same policies into any essay on the topic.

I think it is an opinion that could be argued but its not something I would dare put in an essay; partly because Collins wrote in generalities, partly because it would take a big leap to definitively make the case that I made. History deals mainly in certainties or near certainties. I never claimed it was a certainty, I said that 'I think' rather than 'Collins was'.

The best history discussions are provocative by the way, not when people sidestep around each other, constantly adding disclaimers such as 'I may be wrong here' or 'although it is highly unlikely' or 'I'm just thinking aloud here' etc. In short if I wanted to talk to a vegetable I would have went to Tesco's. EDIT: That really really isn't aimed at you. This exchange just reminded me of something.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

I would agree with whoever said that putting Bono on that list is an insult to the other candidates. The vote rigging of homosexual advocacy groups that saw stephen gately make it into the top 10 list has already cast a shadow over the entire saga in my view & if bono was to somehow win the greatest Irishman title then in my view that'd be an insult to Irish history, culture and tradition. Out of the 5 on the list the only 2 that deserve to be there are Collins and Connolly in my view. As far as I can see that is who the competition is about.

I think if you swapped Bono for Parnell and Robinson for Daniel O'Connell then the list would be pretty respectable.

mathepac

brianthebard wrote: »

... You can see most of those are taken directly from Connolly's manifesto's for the IRSP and the Labour party.

ISRP I believe, but I've no wish to appear pedantic :cool:

brianthebard

mathepac wrote: »

ISRP I believe, but I've no wish to appear pedantic :cool:

Quality.

MarchDub

I don't think that anyone suggested here that Collins was Marxist - in fact the contrary. But in A Path to Freedom he shows how fluid his economic polices were and suggests that "The profits from the mineral resources - the working of mines, the development of water power etc. - will belong to the nation for the advantage of the whole nation". In another place he writes "We will hope to see in Ireland industrial conciliation and arbitration taking the place of strikes and the workers sharing in the ownership and management of business".

A read of his essays does also certainly reveal him to be as nationalist and as passionately anti-English as anyone else who fought in 1916. So to suggest that Collins somehow was a shade apart is a false notion. Collins wanted rid of the English and freedom for Ireland - getting rid of the odious connection with England being a top priority that he comes back to again and again in these writings.

"The Irish struggle has always been for freedom- freedom from English occupation, from English interference and from English domination - not for freedom with any particular label attached to it. What we fought for at any particular time was the greatest measure of freedom obtainable at that time and it depended upon our strength whether the claim was greater than at another time or lesser than at another time."

Collins also lays the blame for the violence of 1916 at the door of the British forces. He writes "In the first two years all violence was the work of the British armed forces who in their efforts of suppression murdered fifteen Irishmen and wounded nearly 400 men, women and children. Meetings were broken up everywhere, National newspapers were suppressed. Over 1,000 men and women were arrested for political offenses, usually of the most trivial nature...These forces were kept here or sent here by the British government to harass the development of Irish self-government".

Collins goes on to describe the British presence in Ireland from 1916 to the time of the early 1920s as a 'Reign of Terror' - his words. He castigates the British presence in Ireland - emphasises the British policy of violence to suppress nationalism - and waves aside any suggestion that there was any change of heart on the side of the British to pulling back on the violence. The British "did not repent in the middle of their Black and Tan terror". Those in Britain who opposed this terror "were pacifists with very little power" - the same people who had opposed WWI without any results.

Collins describes as a false notion the idea that the British wanted peace in Ireland - in fact he says what they really wanted was "destruction of the national movement". He writes "In Aug 1920 a law was passed 'to restore law and order in Ireland', this law in reality abolished all law in Ireland and left the lives and property of the people defenceless before the British forces".

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think if you swapped Bono for Parnell and Robinson for Daniel O'Connell then the list would be pretty respectable.

You have made a good point there, not a fan of O'Connell but he deserves to be there instead of Robbo ( Mary Robinson), I think there should be at least one woman considered ( even if I'm accused of tokenism) As I said earlier, maybe Countess Markievicz would have been more worthy, 1916, suffragette and first woman MP, trade union agitator etc

PatsytheNazi

MarchDub wrote: »

I don't think that anyone suggested here that Collins was Marxist - in fact the contrary. But in A Path to Freedom he shows how fluid his economic polices were and suggests that "The profits from the mineral resources - the working of mines, the development of water power etc. - will belong to the nation for the advantage of the whole nation". In another place he writes "We will hope to see in Ireland industrial conciliation and arbitration taking the place of strikes and the workers sharing in the ownership and management of business".

A read of his essays does also certainly reveal him to be as nationalist and as passionately anti-English as anyone else who fought in 1916. So to suggest that Collins somehow was a shade apart is a false notion. Collins wanted rid of the English and freedom for Ireland - getting rid of the odious connection with England being a top priority that he comes back to again and again in these writings.

"The Irish struggle has always been for freedom- freedom from English occupation, from English interference and from English domination - not for freedom with any particular label attached to it. What we fought for at any particular time was the greatest measure of freedom obtainable at that time and it depended upon our strength whether the claim was greater than at another time or lesser than at another time."

Collins also lays the blame for the violence of 1916 at the door of the British forces. He writes "In the first two years all violence was the work of the British armed forces who in their efforts of suppression murdered fifteen Irishmen and wounded nearly 400 men, women and children. Meetings were broken up everywhere, National newspapers were suppressed. Over 1,000 men and women were arrested for political offenses, usually of the most trivial nature...These forces were kept here or sent here by the British government to harass the development of Irish self-government".

Collins goes on to describe the British presence in Ireland from 1916 to the time of the early 1920s as a 'Reign of Terror' - his words. He castigates the British presence in Ireland - emphasises the British policy of violence to suppress nationalism - and waves aside any suggestion that there was any change of heart on the side of the British to pulling back on the violence. The British "did not repent in the middle of their Black and Tan terror". Those in Britain who opposed this terror "were pacifists with very little power" - the same people who had opposed WWI without any results.

Collins describes as a false notion the idea that the British wanted peace in Ireland - in fact he says what they really wanted was "destruction of the national movement". He writes "In Aug 1920 a law was passed 'to restore law and order in Ireland', this law in reality abolished all law in Ireland and left the lives and property of the people defenceless before the British forces".

No doubting you, where are the above quotes from, The Path to Freedom ?

MarchDub

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

No doubting you, where are the above quotes from, The Path to Freedom ?

Yes, the selection of various essays and notes written by Collins himself. All the quotes in my post are Collins' own words.

PatsytheNazi

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, the selection of various essays and notes written by Collins himself. All the quotes in my post are Collins' own words.

At Bachelors Walk in 1913 the British army killed 4 and wounded 30 or more. Collins writes "In the first two years all violence was the work of the British armed forces who in their efforts of suppression murdered fifteen Irishmen and wounded nearly 400 men, women and children."

Where the other deaths caused by attacks of meetings, cell beatings etc ? A bit off topic, but any idea anyone ?

MarchDub

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

At Bachelors Walk in 1913 the British army killed 4 and wounded 30 or more. Collins writes "In the first two years all violence was the work of the British armed forces who in their efforts of suppression murdered fifteen Irishmen and wounded nearly 400 men, women and children."

Where the other deaths caused by attacks of meetings, cell beatings etc ? A bit off topic, but any idea anyone ?

The quote you refer to is taken from Collins' essay "Collapse of the Terror" - the word 'terror' being applied by him to the British forces. The number he refers to is to the post 1916 'murders' [his word] by the British. Collins goes on say that "no police were killed during these two years [after the Rising]. The only disorder and bloodshed were the work of the British forces".

Again, everything within quotes are the words of Michael Collins.

brianthebard

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

At Bachelors Walk in 1913 the British army killed 4 and wounded 30 or more. Collins writes "In the first two years all violence was the work of the British armed forces who in their efforts of suppression murdered fifteen Irishmen and wounded nearly 400 men, women and children."

Where the other deaths caused by attacks of meetings, cell beatings etc ? A bit off topic, but any idea anyone ?

There were four people killed during the Lock Out weren't there? Can't think of other events atm.

Dionysus

An t-Éireannach is fearr? Aodh Mór Ó Néill, gan amhras ar bith.

An extraordinary person at an extraordinary time in Ireland's history. It's embarrassing that any list of supposedly great Irish people could overlook him.

MarchDub

Dionysus wrote: »

An t-Éireannach is fearr? Aodh Mór Ó Néill, gan amhras ar bith.

An extraordinary person at an extraordinary time in Ireland's history. It's embarrassing that any list of supposedly great Irish people could overlook him.

Great choice!

PatsytheNazi

Dionysus wrote: »

An t-Éireannach is fearr? Aodh Mór Ó Néill, gan amhras ar bith.

An extraordinary person at an extraordinary time in Ireland's history. It's embarrassing that any list of supposedly great Irish people could overlook him.

Agus Aodh Ruadh Ó Domhnaill.

MarchDub

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Agus Aodh Ruadh Ó Domhnaill.

Yes. Him too. You know some years ago I was reading some of the source material from the Battle of Kinsale and something that always stayed with me was the description of O'Donnell - in the jaws of defeat - running around the rear of the Irish army lines - when they were in retreat- desperately trying to convince them to stay their positions. A man of great passion and conviction.

corny

Stunned Bono made that list but then again it says more about the people voting for him. Serious question. Has he ever done anything at all for the people of this country? He doesn't even pay tax. I'm a greater Irishman.

Michael Davitt or James Joyce perhaps.

purplepanda

Seems that the proportion of sheeple in Ireland compared with other nations is increasing, proof of this is the inclusion of Bono, Gatley & the other media airhead celebrities.

Many of the real greatest Irish people will be turning in their graves that all they aspired to for the future has been reduced to this trivia.

Brainwashing the populace has now achieved such complete success that even Goebbels could only have dreamed of!:mad:

Denerick

The fact that Stephen Gately could even be considered for inclusion says a lot about our vacuousness as a society. This should be evidence enough against an Athenian style democracy...

This has reminded me of an internet book award last year... Guess who won? Bill Cullen. Yes, thats right, Bill Cullen.

PatsytheNazi

Gateley was included and scored high due an internet campaign among the gays to give him a high score :rolleyes: Whatever about Bono, at least he has done a bit more for the less fortunate in the world than that airhead Gateley.

PatsytheNazi

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes. Him too. You know some years ago I was reading some of the source material from the Battle of Kinsale and something that always stayed with me was the description of O'Donnell - in the jaws of defeat - running around the rear of the Irish army lines - when they were in retreat- desperately trying to convince them to stay their positions. A man of great passion and conviction.

There's a book called Survivors which is a series of interviews with IRA men and women from 1916 to 1921. In the introduction they have Red Hugh's speech before his victory the Battle of the Curlews in 1599. Stirring stuff indeed, one of the best speeches in Irish history I've ever read. Aodh Ruadh is still held in the highest esteem in his native Donegal to this day, for example with two GAA clubs named in his honour, Aodh Ruadh of Ballyshannon and Red Hugh's of Killygordon.