Black & Tans painting in the Pharmacy Building

grenache

gbee wrote: »

Check out the school's history, she's a Queen's College.

Oh dear. She was A Queens college. In any case, do you honestly think that the British establishment of the time was happy with the actions of the B&Ts?

Censorsh!t

I'm wouldn't call myself a patriot by any means, and i'm far from having any hang ups with the British, but hanging a painting of the black & tans does seem quite inappropriate. I do see how people could be offended or find it disrespectful.
Sometimes people can't just be expected to get over a part of their history and be at peace with a group like the b&t's. Even if people were at peace with them, it would still be somewhat inappropriate.

ReacherCreature

panda100 wrote: »

If the picture was in the History department it would be okay but I think its a little distasteful and strange having it up in the pharmacy building.

I disagree. Why is it distasteful having it in the Pharmacy building? This building is related to Health. I think it'd be worse having it in the History department building(s).

UnionOfV

leahyl wrote: »

My point isn't to prove that they committed crimes (we already know that), it is that they committed the crimes in this country against our people (absolutely brutalised them actually) so why in Gods name should we have a portrait of them on the walls of one of our Universities? (that is if, as i have said already, it is just a painting of the Black and Tans only)

It seems that the painting depicts Black and Tans crowding around a troop carrier, and we don't "already know" that these soldiers committed war crimes in the same way as we don't "already know" that any soldier committed a crime merely because some similarly clad soldiers committed crimes. It is true that the Black and Tans as a whole had a discriminatory attitude towards the Irish, and certain soldiers committed terrible atrocities; however no matter how you look at it this does not mean that being a member of the Black and Tans is synonymous with being a war criminal. This is not revisionism, it is removing a generalization.

harryohh

PaintDoctor wrote: »

I wouldn't see it as having taste/or not having taste. You seem to have a hangup about British Occupancy in Ireland. That ended nearly a century ago, and no one of this generation has been affected by it. To continue to be upset, and carry grudges for crimes long since past is the type of stuff which will hold back humanity from reaching any sort of plateau where we can all work together towards common goals.

Complete nonsense.We've all been affected by the troubles in northern ireland.

I didn't know of this painting at all.I must look at it.

Max001

harryohh wrote: »

Complete nonsense.We've all been affected by the troubles in northern ireland.

I didn't know of this painting at all.I must look at it.

Out of curiosity Harryohh, how have you personally been effected by The Troubles?

Orizio

This thread is all sorts of fail.

Rampant moral and historical relativism versus indignant armchair republicanism?

Christ.

Orizio

grenache wrote: »

I have a major objection with this piece of "art" being given space in an Irish university. Let us not forget that this group of thugs/criminals raped and plundered the country less than 100 years ago. They shot my own grandfather in the leg for the heinous crime of refusing to answer a question. Yet there they are in all their glory, on the wall to the right just inside the main door, smiling and laughing and immortalised forever by an over-accommodating University College Cork. :mad:

What next, Oxford to put up an IRA mural? :rolleyes:

...have you checked out the actual purpose of the painting, by, for example, contacting the artist and asking him? Before you decided this was the greatest injutice in Irish history since Michael Collins?

Orizio

PaintDoctor wrote: »

If you've an issue with what the British did, why then are you going to UCC, which is a building predominantly constructed by the British and previously named Queens University Cork?

So, just to get this straight, anyone who has a problem with what the British - in this thread's case the Black And Tans - did in Ireland during 'the troubles' (things including murder of innocents, plundering, mass arson etc) should not go to UCC?

You can't possibly mean that, as any decent minded human being is anti-murder, anti-arson and anti-theft. Maybe you'd like to re-phrase?

It's just a painting.

Picasso's painting of the atrocity in Guernica is just a painting, whilst at the same time it is one of the most potent and vivid anti-war documents ever created. That makes it extremely important and powerful, an entity which contains an essential message for human beings the world over - that war is wrong.

Orizio

That ended nearly a century ago, and no one of this generation has been affected by it.

Speechless. I am literally speechless. The ending of British tyranny in Ireland ensured that you and I live in a liberal democratic and (relatively) prosperous state, rather then a subjected and oppressed breadbasket, its main purpose being to feed and serve an imperialist nation.

More importantly, you cannot seperate the present from the past - everything that has gone before affects where we are now, our society, our culture, our government and our collective consciousness.

Orizio

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Oh yes, because the doings of the Black and Tans in Ireland are directly proportional to a regime which mass-murdered 6 million jews, millions of other "undesirables" and instigated one of the biggest wars in history.

I extremely dislike this sense of Irish exceptionalism. We're a small relatively meaningless country that went through a relatively light independence war. There was a documentary on RTE the other night about the Vietnamese independence movement; perhaps people should watch it, it would give them a sense of what tyranny really is.

Careful - the above is an extremely slippery slope of moral relativism that weakens human being's ability to make essential moral judgements. Saying one set of atrocities was worse then another is one thing; going from this to borderline dismissing - or at the very least rationalizing - the Black & Tan's horrific actions, as you are beginning to do above, is something else altogether. Murder is wrong in a very basic sense, free from political and historical scrutiny, as it steals one person's ability to do good for both himself and those around him - there should be no shifting from this point, whatever your political feelings.

Max001

Hark ye. God hath spoken


Actually if I read you correctly, I agree. A meritocracy of suffering is hard to defend in my opinion. I say this as one who's visited concentration camps on every continent. My conclusion; few nations, if any, have 'clean hands'.

UnionOfV

Orizio wrote: »

Speechless. I am literally speechless. The ending of British tyranny in Ireland ensured that you and I live in a liberal democratic and (relatively) prosperous state, rather then a subjected and oppressed breadbasket, its main purpose being to feed and serve an imperialist nation.

Because the people of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are now much less empowered than the people of the Republic, existing solely to supply the rich folk of England with haggis and rarebit?

KnifeWRENCH

Hmmm must go have a look for this painting next time I'm in the Pharmacy building.

If it was a Black & Tans propaganda poster or something (Join Black & Tans. We're awesome LOL) than I'd agree with the sentiment of the OP here. But if it's just a historical depiction that doesn't glorify them as such, then I don't think it's that big a deal.

Max001

Know your history, or risk being condemned to repeat it, but its much more important to look forwards, not backwards.

ReacherCreature

UnionOfV wrote: »

Because the people of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are now much less empowered than the people of the Republic, existing solely to supply the rich folk of England with haggis and rarebit?

Although I think, on the flipside, in recent history, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are gladly taking all the money they can from England whilst the latter has to raise taxes in order to pay their way. See Northern Ireland from 1920s up 'till recent times for an example.

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Hmmm must go have a look for this painting next time I'm in the Pharmacy building.

If it was a Black & Tans propaganda poster or something (Join Black & Tans. We're awesome LOL) than I'd agree with the sentiment of the OP here. But if it's just a historical depiction that doesn't glorify them as such, then I don't think it's that big a deal.

Any image, icon, photo, media is glorifying the object IMO especially when it's connected to a 'rough' period in Irish history.

dog_pig

As Orizio mentioned, any judgment made on the painting needs to take into account the context in which it has been painted. In this case the artist responsible (Mick O'Dea) was born in Ennis, Co. Clare and is most likely Catholic. Taking this into account I think it is pretty reasonable to conclude that this piece is in no way meant to be interpreted as a glorification of the Black & Tans.

To Eliot Rosewater:

Saying that a people's suffering isn't worthy of sensitivity/respect because that suffering wasn't as 'bad' as the worst possible example one could give is absolutely ridiculous, I suggest you rethink your logic.

UnionOfV

dog_pig wrote: »

As Orizio mentioned, any judgment made on the painting needs to take into account the context in which it has been painted. In this case the artist responsible (Mick O'Dea) ... is most likely Catholic.

I would just like to note that I find statements such as this regrettable... Religion hardly dictates how "nationalist" or whatever a person is. I'm not directing this specifically at you or anyone else, dog_pig - please do not take offence.

dog_pig

UnionOfV wrote: »

I would just like to note that I find statements such as this regrettable... Religion hardly dictates how "nationalist" or whatever a person is. I'm not directing this specifically at you or anyone else, dog_pig - please do not take offence.

Regardless of you finding it regrettable or not, there most definitely is a strong correlation between the two.

Eliot Rosewater

Orizio wrote: »

going from this to borderline dismissing - or at the very least rationalizing - the Black & Tan's horrific actions, as you are beginning to do above, is something else altogether.

I'm not doing that though. I said in terms of scale the two were not comparable. I don't see how that is in anyway justifying the Black & Tans.

Orizio wrote: »

he ending of British tyranny in Ireland ensured that you and I live in a liberal democratic and (relatively) prosperous state, rather then a subjected and oppressed breadbasket, its main purpose being to feed and serve an imperialist nation.

Are you suggesting that if we had gotten home rule that Ireland would, in this day in age, exist merely to serve British imperialism (is British imperialism even alive in 2010?) The poster you are replying to was making a judgement of the present, but your post is using facts of the past to challenge it (that British imperialism is still alive; that Ireland is a breadbasket; that it would exist to feed Britain).

Eliot Rosewater

dog_pig wrote: »

Saying that a people's suffering isn't worthy of sensitivity/respect because that suffering wasn't as 'bad' as the worst possible example one could give is absolutely ridiculous, I suggest you rethink your logic.

May I suggest that people read what I actually say before making suggestions of me?

I said that the actions of the Nazi regime were not proportional to that of the Black and Tans. I said that having a painting of the Black and Tans hanging in a building is not comparable to running around UCC with a Nazi flag.

I did not justify the Black and Tans. Though nearly every time I've tried to challenge the "Easter Risers are Heroes / Brits never did a good thing here" narrative I've been pigeon-holed as a British sympathiser or a West Brit.

Morlar

I think it's surprising decision to say the least. I'd be interested to hear the artists motivation behind it. Also what way the painting is labelled - if it's correctly contextualised and depending on the artists motivation it may not be that big a deal. On the other hand if it's an attempt at some sort of revisionist rehabilitiation of them then I would have a major issue with it.

UnionOfV

dog_pig wrote: »

Regardless of you finding it regrettable or not, there most definitely is a strong correlation between the two.

What are you basing this off of? Outside of the sphere of Northern Irish Unionism, I have never encountered any pro-union protestants, even among English immigrants. In fact I have never even heard of a single Irish individual who endorsed the actions of the Black and Tans, regardless of religion. We aren't living in early 20th century Ireland any longer, we should leave these ridiculous stereotypes behind.

dog_pig

UnionOfV wrote: »

What are you basing this off of? Outside of the sphere of Northern Irish Unionism, I have never encountered any pro-union protestants, even among English immigrants. In fact I have never even heard of a single Irish individual who endorsed the actions of the Black and Tans, regardless of religion. We aren't living in early 20th century Ireland any longer, we should leave these ridiculous stereotypes behind.

I think you've misinterpreted what I've said.

The point I was making was that as the artist is (likely) a southern Irish Catholic, it is extremely unlikely he would be inclined to produce a piece glorifying the Black & Tans.

grenache

Orizio wrote: »

...have you checked out the actual purpose of the painting, by, for example, contacting the artist and asking him? Before you decided this was the greatest injutice in Irish history since Michael Collins?

i do not care for the purpose or artistic function of the painting. Its mere existence on the wall of any building on this island is a fcuking disgrace.

JohnyDarko

grenache wrote: »

i do not care for the purpose or artistic function of the painting. Its mere existence on the wall of any building on this island is a fcuking disgrace.

Wow, over-sensitive much? Just erase the whole episode from our nations collective history and deny they ever existed or that they were human beings just like you and me?

As others have pointed out, its not as if the painting is glorifying them like.

charlemont

Iv a feeling once the UCC staff read this thread, the insulting picture will be removed, hopefully thrown into the River Lee...

grenache

JohnyDarko wrote: »

Wow, over-sensitive much?

Nope. I just don't see how putting up a bunch of thugs on a university wall is appropriate.

JohnyDarko wrote: »

Just erase the whole episode from our nations collective history and deny they ever existed or that they were human beings just like you and me?

You misunderstand the basis of my complaint. I'm asking UCC to take it down, not erase our history. I can't change our history, i wouldn't want to; its made us who we are.

dog_pig

grenache wrote: »

i do not care for the purpose or artistic function of the painting. Its mere existence on the wall of any building on this island is a fcuking disgrace.

Surely by that logic any book that mentions the Black & Tans found in the library be thrown out as well?

grenache

dog_pig wrote: »

Surely by that logic any book that mentions the Black & Tans found in the library be thrown out as well?

No, that is not my logic, that's not what i'm getting at. Sticking up a painting of them and reading about them in a history book are two totally different things. This painting inadvertently glorfies them. A history book merely tells of their actions, a statement of historical facts.

Why do you think the two are the same?