The Irish Proclamation

cdsb46

This country was born on the 24th of april 1916, a day in which the most important document of this state was read out to the country, this document is what our current constitution is supposedly based on, apart from one major flaw, a flaw that has prevented the rights of all citizens from being equal.

The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irish woman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities of all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority in the past.

Is it not time with this major change that has occurred in the governance of this country, and the proposed reform of the political system, that we should also focus on reform to our constitution based on equal rights for every man, woman and child like that of which was proclaimed on this faithful day in 1916.

Dannyboy83

Could you be more specific?
Not sure what point you are making, seems open to interpretation.

If you're referring to the situation with the North, I think the 1916 proclamation is out of date, according to the Good Friday Agreement.

Kevin O Higgins famously commented that the Democratic Programme of the 1st Dáil was "mostly poetry". I feel that applies to a certain extent; That proclamation was made without the benefit of 100 years hindsight.

We need to look forward, not backward.

KeithAFC

The religious bit is funny.

cdsb46

i'm saying that although our country was formed from this proclamation we failed to introduce the fundamental part of it, which is equal rights for every citizen, i don't mention northern ireland in any part of it, i mean gay marriages, equal rights to travellers, and equal rights for single fathers and many more minority groups, which this country fails to give equal rights to in everyday life!!!

Aka Ishur

cdsb46 wrote: »

i'm saying that although our country was formed from this proclamation we failed to introduce the fundamental part of it, which is equal rights for every citizen, i don't mention northern ireland in any part of it, i mean gay marriages, equal rights to travellers, and equal rights for single fathers and many more minority groups, which this country fails to give equal rights to in everyday life!!!

Couldnt agree more with regard to gay marriage and single fathers, but I am sick to death of people saying travellers somehow have less rights than anyone else.

Run_to_da_hills

The Irish Proclamation is now not worth the paper that it is written on thanks to all those that voted for Lisbon :mad:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bobbysands81

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ahhhh Ruth Dudley Edwards... not exactly the bastion of independent truth is she?

My experience of the Republican movement is that it has always been far more inclusive minorities than the general population on this island... but that kind of gets in the way of people's demonising of the movement.

Today's Republican movement would be very open to same sex marriage in a way that other sectors of Irish society wouldn't. You can hardly claim that the Republican movement maintains a "special relationship" with the Chursh, that would very much be the role that Fianna Fáil have with them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

zig

cdsb46 wrote: »

This country was born on the 24th of april 1916, a day in which the most important document of this state was read out to the country, this document is what our current constitution is supposedly based on, apart from one major flaw, a flaw that has prevented the rights of all citizens from being equal.

Is it not time with this major change that has occurred in the governance of this country, and the proposed reform of the political system, that we should also focus on reform to our constitution based on equal rights for every man, woman and child like that of which was proclaimed on this faithful day in 1916.

Id hardly call it the most important document, I think the decleration of independence was more important http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Declaration_of_Independence
Also, what about this line from the proclomation...

We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God. Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, in humanity, or rapine.

Looks like the protection from the 'Most High God' was betrayed, the catholic church springs to mind.

The proclomation is without a doubt a very important document, but it is a statement that we are now a republic and are free from England, so yes the date it was presented to the people is the first day of our state, but thats all it represents, you cannot write up a whole constitution from a few paragraphs.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He is right though. RDE has very little credibility. If PP or RC were gay, so be it. I don't think any Republican would actually care, but RDE and the rest of the revisionists are 'discovering' things about Republican icons for mischeiveious reasons.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can you name another please?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And again, his point remains valid. The Republican movement have consistantly been the force in Irish politics trying to achieve fundamental change. SF have been arguing for gay marraige long before any other party. Sorry if that doens't fit into your red scare tactic, but its true.

bobbysands81

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're intentionally missing the point... it's irrelevant to me if Pearse was gay or not - I couldn't care less what his sexuality was, is his sexuality a problem for you? Do you not like gay people?

Ruth Dudley Edwards argues from a position of prejudice - she is narrow minded, not open minded.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmmmm Irish society at the time was hardly a bedrock of equality for all, thus the brilliance of the 1916 Proclamation... all you have to do is look at the prominent position the Proclamation gave to women. Whether you like it or not the Republican movement in Ireland has always lead the way in equality for minorities.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Gone over at length on politics.ie when it came out. Possibly one of the more childish efforts I've come across in recent times, it has to be said, though a salutory lesson in the silliness that can be acheived when somebody approaches literary analysis with a large agenda while simultaneously lacking an iota....

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

One could equally say the same for the US constitution with regards gay rights and racial equality, particularily the latter.

LordSutch

cdsb46 wrote: »

This country was born on the 24th of april 1916 . . .

I didn't know that.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can you give us a couple of examples?

A Dub in Glasgo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I stopped reading after you referenced Ruth Dudley Edwards. The contents of my rich tea biscuit and my tea suddenly hit the monitor as I guffawed that RDE was being referenced seriously

bobbysands81

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Can you give us a couple of examples?

Sure "the dogs on the street" know about it.:rolleyes:

Denerick

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Hmmmm Irish society at the time was hardly a bedrock of equality for all, thus the brilliance of the 1916 Proclamation... all you have to do is look at the prominent position the Proclamation gave to women. Whether you like it or not the Republican movement in Ireland has always lead the way in equality for minorities.

Is that why the two sets of Republicans who both won and lost and the civil war (The pro treatyites and anti treatyites) promptly went about to create a theocratic and repressive state where such dangerous books like Aldous Huxleys 'Point Counter Point' and so on were banned? The Brits legalised homosexuality in the 60s. The Irish did it after a judicial decision in 1993.

Is this why the latest batch murdered a couple of Polish pizza deliverymen for 'collaborating' with an occupation?

Denerick

Out of interest, how many of you people have read RDE's book on Pearse? I always find that those who haven't read it are more shocked by it than those who have. The same usually goes for most so-called 'revisionists'. In other countries these people would just be 'historians', but not in whacky old Ireland, where any deviation from a violent hagiography is considered blasphemy.

walrusgumble

Denerick wrote: »

Out of interest, how many of you people have read RDE's book on Pearse? I always find that those who haven't read it are more shocked by it than those who have. The same usually goes for most so-called 'revisionists'. In other countries these people would just be 'historians', but not in whacky old Ireland, where any deviation from a violent hagiography is considered blasphemy.

It was free/seriously half price by the Irish Independent, along with a selection of other books on Irish people , in the mid 00's.

I hear what you say, but RDE has been more than vocal on their allegiances and has been accused of prejudicing this with the truth. You know about her critics

karma_

Denerick wrote: »

Out of interest, how many of you people have read RDE's book on Pearse? I always find that those who haven't read it are more shocked by it than those who have. The same usually goes for most so-called 'revisionists'. In other countries these people would just be 'historians', but not in whacky old Ireland, where any deviation from a violent hagiography is considered blasphemy.

Funny, considering RDE feels free to criticise Ken Loach without actually seeing his films.

R P McMurphy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What I find a little amusing are the very people who go to great lengths and try to push homosexuality as an issue. Surely it is of no relevance if Casement or Pearse were homosexuals. It says a great deal about the 'historians' that they try to push it centre stage.

View

cdsb46 wrote: »

This country was born on the 24th of april 1916,

It wasn't - the rebellion was defeated if you remember.

After a lot of subsequent strife, what we ended up in 1922 with - rightly or wrongly - was de facto (if not de jure) dominion status much like Canada, Australia etc got around the same time (roughly speaking) without all the associated strife.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

Out of interest, how many of you people have read RDE's book on Pearse? I always find that those who haven't read it are more shocked by it than those who have. The same usually goes for most so-called 'revisionists'. In other countries these people would just be 'historians', but not in whacky old Ireland, where any deviation from a violent hagiography is considered blasphemy.

I've read it, and found it suprisingly sympathetic, in light of her later 'turn'.

RandomName2

cdsb46 wrote: »

This country was born on the 24th of april 1916,

No. It wasn't.

walrusgumble

View wrote: »

It wasn't - the rebellion was defeated if you remember.

After a lot of subsequent strife, what we ended up in 1922 with - rightly or wrongly - was de facto (if not de jure) dominion status much like Canada, Australia etc got around the same time (roughly speaking) without all the associated strife.

Facts wise, you are correct. But what the other person meant was that the Republican idea, however loose it was in 1916 and it was when you look at say religious converatives and socialists (Connolly) joined together, was reborn from the ashes of Tone and Emmet before them. Just the motive and purpose, it was a success, as predicted by Pearse in his statement before the miliatary tribunal

Yes it was a military failure and far to many innocent people got killed, but it helped reawaken (clearly by the mistakes of the British later) the idea of complete separation, as oppose to home rule. Look you know this so there is no point going on about it. But this is what the other poster meant.

I would disagree though about the de facto situation. You are wrong that we got the same as Canada and Australia, we had far more restrictions, probably for obvious reasons and the oath of allegiance is slightly different. Yes on paper it was a dominion and no more. Yes it was still heavily restricted by the Treaty despite genuine efforts by CnaNG (despite what people think) to sort it out. By 1933 (much to the work of O'Higgins & Fitzgerald and obviously with WW2 helping) Ireland was independent all but name. Even Churchill despite his horror recongised this, later.

Funny enough, even then in the 1918-1920 period there was a struggle between armed force (Collins Mulcahy etc) and the Sinn Féin party (Dev , Griffith) as to what road it should take , war or constitutionalism.

PeterIanStaker

I'd take anything RDE writes with a large pinch of salt.

T runner

KeithAFC wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Whats funny is that a Northern Ireland Loyalist should say this, coming from the most sectarian society in western Europe.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its been recently disclosed that the accounts of Atricities committed in the 1641 rebellion have been based completely on hearsay. These were used as a basis for Cromwells exploits in Ireland.

The British again used a forgery to mobilise an anti-Catholic pogrom in Armagh where Catholics were taking control of teh linen industry (legally).

Also come to light, was a British plan in 1972, to repatriate over half a million people in Northern Ireland. Plans for Ethnic cleansing have caused Eastern European leaders to face courts of human Rights. Par for the course for British strategy in Ireland.

The point is: a claim that an Irish leader is gay or had "necrophiliac thoughts" at a grave are probably motivated by other agendas tahn historical. people are right to be sceptical, especially when notable British historical figures seem to survive the homophobic scrutiny of these commentators.

Denerick wrote: »

Out of interest, how many of you people have read RDE's book on Pearse? I always find that those who haven't read it are more shocked by it than those who have. The same usually goes for most so-called 'revisionists'. In other countries these people would just be 'historians', but not in whacky old Ireland, where any deviation from a violent hagiography is considered blasphemy.

No. "Revisionist" is an internationally recognised word for people who re-interpret history for political agendas.
Yous eem to have a problem with Ireland. Clearly you believe teh Republic of Ireland should not exist.
Does the sectarian model of NI and pre independence Ireland appeal to you more? Maybe whacky isnt a word you should use too often.

BTW if you split a country for sectarian reasons you will get sectarian results.

The pro-Catholic state with a 90% majority had far less sectarianism than the Proetstant state with a 2:1 majority.

Ofcourse the only way a United country could have worked would have been with no sectarianism as a secular state as the proclamation envisaged.

Take teh blinkers off.

Nhead

As a matter of interest what evidence does RDE give for Pearse's supposed homosexuality?

KeithAFC

Whats funny is that a Northern Ireland Loyalist should say this, coming from the most sectarian society in western Europe.

Eh? It is funny. I mean, anyone who knows about the history on the island will know what a load of nonsense that statement is. Me being a loyalist has nothing to do with religion.

RandomName2

T runner wrote: »

Its been recently disclosed that the accounts of Atricities committed in the 1641 rebellion have been based completely on hearsay.

Partially based on hearsay. They are of certain historical merit - but are patchy at best.

T runner wrote: »

These were used as a basis for Cromwells exploits in Ireland.

Not really, more as a basis for the start of the civil war per se. Executing a king was a far bigger deal than invading a rebel province (well, two rebel provinces, Dublin was pretty much held by the king throughout and thus in opposition to Cromwell as well).

T runner wrote: »

The British again used a forgery to mobilise an anti-Catholic pogrom in Armagh where Catholics were taking control of teh linen industry (legally).

Jaysus. :eek:


The CATHOLICS used a forgery to justify the coup.

T runner wrote: »

Also come to light, was a British plan in 1972, to repatriate over half a million people in Northern Ireland.

Mightn't have been a bad idea... depending on implementation.

T runner wrote: »

The point is: a claim that an Irish leader is gay or had "necrophiliac thoughts" at a grave are probably motivated by other agendas tahn historical. people are right to be sceptical, especially when notable British historical figures seem to survive the homophobic scrutiny of these commentators.

Well that is true, I suppose.

T runner wrote: »

BTW if you split a country for sectarian reasons you will get sectarian results.

The reason why there are separate countries in the world... you know... those things called borders... is because of 'sectarianism'. A house divided cannot stand.

T runner wrote: »

The pro-Catholic state with a 90% majority had far less sectarianism than the Proetstant state with a 2:1 majority.

1. That isn't true.
2. Protestant fears due to their minority status in Ireland (as a whole) was the reason why they behaved so abominably when they had control of their own state. Not that it justifies it.

T runner wrote: »

Ofcourse the only way a United country could have worked would have been with no sectarianism as a secular state as the proclamation envisaged.

Well, that is debatable - but the empirical evidence was that Irish revolutionaries had taken arms against the state and were prepared, expecting, and perhaps even hoping for a bloody counterstroke and for war to wrack the capital and state. Never mind the fact that the Irish Volunteers (you know the guys who took part in the rising) emerged to counter the armament of the unionists. All this does not auger well for a progressive, non-biased government to emerge, regardless of what was hesitantly read out on the steps of the GPO - unless they also hoped to crush the unionists by force of arms after the successful blood sacrifice and then afterwards introduce a nice democratic non-sectarian government.

Denerick

T runner wrote: »

No. "Revisionist" is an internationally recognised word for people who re-interpret history for political agendas.
Yous eem to have a problem with Ireland. Clearly you believe teh Republic of Ireland should not exist.
Does the sectarian model of NI and pre independence Ireland appeal to you more? Maybe whacky isnt a word you should use too often.

I want an independent Ireland governed by a liberal constitution with no ties to any multinational bastion of superstition. With the Home Rule movement, we had a very clear, parliamentary and moderate path to independence. What was offered by the Brits prior to 1919 was essentially no different than the dominion status we gained, and the independent Republic that eventually flowed from that. Perhaps you need to take your blinkers off. Despite the arguments of hagiographers, violent nationalist hysteria was not the only method to achieve independence.

BTW if you split a country for sectarian reasons you will get sectarian results.

The pro-Catholic state with a 90% majority had far less sectarianism than the Proetstant state with a 2:1 majority.

Ofcourse the only way a United country could have worked would have been with no sectarianism as a secular state as the proclamation envisaged.

Take teh blinkers off.

Meaningless bullshít, the chances of a united Ireland under a peaceful Home Rule settlement were far greater than one under a violent nationalist one, which merely set out to confirm the fears of northern loyalists.

Take the blinkers off.

junder

T runner wrote: »

Whats funny is that a Northern Ireland Loyalist should say this, coming from the most sectarian society in western Europe.



Its been recently disclosed that the accounts of Atricities committed in the 1641 rebellion have been based completely on hearsay. These were used as a basis for Cromwells exploits in Ireland.

The British again used a forgery to mobilise an anti-Catholic pogrom in Armagh where Catholics were taking control of teh linen industry (legally).

Also come to light, was a British plan in 1972, to repatriate over half a million people in Northern Ireland. Plans for Ethnic cleansing have caused Eastern European leaders to face courts of human Rights. Par for the course for British strategy in Ireland.

The point is: a claim that an Irish leader is gay or had "necrophiliac thoughts" at a grave are probably motivated by other agendas tahn historical. people are right to be sceptical, especially when notable British historical figures seem to survive the homophobic scrutiny of these commentators.





No. "Revisionist" is an internationally recognised word for people who re-interpret history for political agendas.
Yous eem to have a problem with Ireland. Clearly you believe teh Republic of Ireland should not exist.
Does the sectarian model of NI and pre independence Ireland appeal to you more? Maybe whacky isnt a word you should use too often.

BTW if you split a country for sectarian reasons you will get sectarian results.

The pro-Catholic state with a 90% majority had far less sectarianism than the Proetstant state with a 2:1 majority.

Ofcourse the only way a United country could have worked would have been with no sectarianism as a secular state as the proclamation envisaged.

Take teh blinkers off.

That's alittle hyprocritical coming from you

walrusgumble

Denerick wrote: »

I want an independent Ireland governed by a liberal constitution with no ties to any multinational bastion of superstition. With the Home Rule movement, we had a very clear, parliamentary and moderate path to independence. What was offered by the Brits prior to 1919 was essentially no different than the dominion status we gained, and the independent Republic that eventually flowed from that. Perhaps you need to take your blinkers off. Despite the arguments of hagiographers, violent nationalist hysteria was not the only method to achieve independence.



Meaningless bullshít, the chances of a united Ireland under a peaceful Home Rule settlement were far greater than one under a violent nationalist one, which merely set out to confirm the fears of northern loyalists.

Take the blinkers off.

you do know that prior to1916 the north was definitely not going to be part of the 26 co home rule.carson joining the war cabinet made sure of this.the rc and self interest helped

Denerick

walrusgumble wrote: »

you do know that prior to1916 the north was definitely not going to be part of the 26 co home rule.carson joining the war cabinet made sure of this.the rc and self interest helped

I do know that, but the war of independence certainly didn't help, and neither did the Romanisation of Dominion Ireland either. The counter revolution of the 1920s and 30s did more to set back the cause of unification than any action by any Northern loyalist politician. Unionists felt justified with their fear and prejudice of Catholics; violence, disorder, and Rome. It was played very poorly.

A Home Rule parliament, maintaining sufficient links with Westminster, whilst also politicking at all times to include Ulster in the equation would undoubtedly have led to greater success than the violent parochial nonsense which ensued.

T runner

KeithAFC wrote: »

Eh? It is funny. I mean, anyone who knows about the history on the island will know what a load of nonsense that statement is. Me being a loyalist has nothing to do with religion.

A: You making judgemental noises about religion in the ROI is preposterous in view of the fact that the state you come from and support waa/is the most sectarian in western Europe. And the main proponents of that sectarianism until quite recently was the state itself.

Secondly, loyalism is completely bound in with Protestantism and has ties to extreme sectarian groups like teh Orange order. Implying that loyalism has nothing to do with religion is preposterous.

T runner

Denerick wrote: »

I want an independent Ireland governed by a liberal constitution with no ties to any multinational bastion of superstition. With the Home Rule movement, we had a very clear, parliamentary and moderate path to independence. What was offered by the Brits prior to 1919 was essentially no different than the dominion status we gained, and the independent Republic that eventually flowed from that. Perhaps you need to take your blinkers off. Despite the arguments of hagiographers, violent nationalist hysteria was not the only method to achieve independence

.

But what the Brits offered was vetoed by the British army and conservative party with the Curragh mutiny. The Brits could not even deliver on teh rare genuine promise they made.

Please deomonstarte the clear path and timescale
given that the British army would not support anything more than mild home rule for a partitioned Ireland?

The home rule on offer was completely different from teh dree state we got. It was somewhat less than waht Scotland has now.



Meaningless bullshít, the chances of a united Ireland under a peaceful Home Rule settlement were far greater than one under a violent nationalist one, which merely set out to confirm the fears of northern loyalists.

Take the blinkers off.

You do understand that the covenenat was signed by Loyalists to use every possible means at their disposal (ie violence including the mass pogrom of teh Ulster Catholic population) against home rule NOT irish independence? That puts paid to your theories of loyalists acting reasonably with the prospect of peaceful home rule.

And what exactly were these loyalist fears?

Loyalasts didnt want home rule not because they feared Catholic domination for fundamental reasons. Essentially they feared that any increase in power for Catholics meant a proportionate decrease in power for Protestants. Their view of a united Ireland was a mirror image of the zero sum game that they themselves dominated in NI.

This behaviour has been repeated by Protestants over the centuries. Pogroms, the burning of Catholic Armagh due to Catholic advances in the linen industry, the trhowing out of 10,000 Catholic workers across NI in 2 days in teh 20s.

They fear Catholics are as sectarian as they are. They are not. There is no bogeyman, no evidence for such.

If a power holds a country by occupation of army and demonstrates that tehre is no democratic method for that country to obtain independence then that country has the right to expel that violent power by use of arms.

You abhor violence in the name of freedom for Irish people. yet you condone violence in the name of holding territory for the British empire.

In 1972 the British conservative government seriously considered forcibly moving .5 million people in NI (ethnic cleansing). Is this an act you perform on co-countrymen?

The British establishment has never regarded Irish people as equal, always as foreign natives in an occupied territory.

Perhaps if they ahd regarded us as equal they might have listened to our please for independence taht rang loudly throughout teh centuries and not engaged in a violent occupation of Ireland.

KeithAFC

T runner wrote: »

A: You making judgemental noises about religion in the ROI is preposterous in view of the fact that the state you come from and support waa/is the most sectarian in western Europe. And the main proponents of that sectarianism until quite recently was the state itself.

Secondly, loyalism is completely bound in with Protestantism and has ties to extreme sectarian groups like teh Orange order. Implying that loyalism has nothing to do with religion is preposterous.

It doesn't. Me being loyal to Ulster and the Union has nothing to do with religion. You seem stuck in the state which was in the 20's, 60's. That was then, this is now. The loyalist people are the defenders of the state and will be for a long time to come.

T runner

Denerick wrote: »

I do know that, but the war of independence certainly didn't help, and neither did the Romanisation of Dominion Ireland either. The counter revolution of the 1920s and 30s did more to set back the cause of unification than any action by any Northern loyalist politician. Unionists felt justified with their fear and prejudice of Catholics; violence, disorder, and Rome. It was played very poorly.

The unionist fears were that Catholics would be equally as sectarian as Protestants. That did not prove to be the case.

You also conveniently forget that NI was the most sectarian state in western Europe. Surely the hypocrisy of such a state citing sectarianism in another is not lost on you.


It is quite clear that partition was meant as a sectarian solution to the problem in NE Ireland.
Some form of Unified independence as proposed by the first home rule Bill would have sufficed to force a sucular solution to Irelands problem. It may have meant the British army having to face down the Unionists who wanted teh sectarian Zero-sum game to continue Ad-finitum in NE Ireland.

Unfortunately, thy Britsish army, teh Tories and teh UUs ensured tehre could be no peaceful path to the vast majority of irish people gaining independence.

A Home Rule parliament, maintaining sufficient links with Westminster, whilst also politicking at all times to include Ulster in the equation would undoubtedly have led to greater success than the violent parochial nonsense which ensued.

Any comment on the State violence that Britain forced daily on Irish people by its occupation with a huge imperial army? Is this violence acceptable to you?

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

I do know that, but the war of independence certainly didn't help, and neither did the Romanisation of Dominion Ireland either. The counter revolution of the 1920s and 30s did more to set back the cause of unification than any action by any Northern loyalist politician. Unionists felt justified with their fear and prejudice of Catholics; violence, disorder, and Rome. It was played very poorly.

A Home Rule parliament, maintaining sufficient links with Westminster, whilst also politicking at all times to include Ulster in the equation would undoubtedly have led to greater success than the violent parochial nonsense which ensued.

Can you give an example of any secular states in the 1920's and 30's?

Lapin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Irish Proclamation is now not worth the paper that it is written on thanks to all those that voted for Lisbon :mad:

The proclamation of 1916 is perhaps one of the most important statements in Irish history. However it was, (and remains) an aspirational document.

Provision for the Lisbon referendum came about as a result of the 1937 Constitution, which, as the legal foundation for the workings of the state, has far more relevance in 2011.

View

walrusgumble wrote: »

Facts wise, you are correct. But what the other person meant was that the Republican idea, however loose it was in 1916 and it was when you look at say religious converatives and socialists (Connolly) joined together, was reborn from the ashes of Tone and Emmet before them. Just the motive and purpose, it was a success, as predicted by Pearse in his statement before the miliatary tribunal.

Obviously, to people today dedicated to the concept of militant repulicanism, 1916 is a big deal since it "justifies" their actions. Obviously, also it was a big deal in the 1920's to the IRA members who founded the state as they could say: "Well, we were forced into using violence and won out despite that".

Today, though in a state with a strong tradition of constitutional democracy where such actions are regarded as unacceptable, we should be capable of seeing it in historical context - namely: a) it was a military failure, b) the subsequent strife in the period up to 1922 resulted in the achievement of little extra to what was achieved elsewhere through constitutional methods (plus or minus a few restrictions) and c) there was already a "Home Rule" solution on the table at the time that could have been used as a starting point for further independence, much like the 1922 treaty was used in the 1922 - 1949 period.

As such, 1916 probably should be recognised as being essentially an unnecessary violent diversion from a strong tradition of constitutional democracy here. That constitutional tradition is a far bigger influence on the development of the state today than the violent events of yesteryear.

Lapin

cdsb46 wrote: »

This country was born on the 24th of april 1916

That comment alone is so contentious, it would probably elicit half a dozen pages of response in the politics forum within 48 hours.

Stick it in AH and you'll have a similar number of replies within 8 hours. :rolleyes:

RandomName2

T runner wrote: »

The unionist fears were that Catholics would be equally as sectarian as Protestants. That did not prove to be the case.

Yes it did. It also proved less capable of law and order, economic growth, secular education and social life, progressive cultural views, etc. but that's a separate issue.

T runner wrote: »

You also conveniently forget that NI was the most sectarian state in western Europe. Surely the hypocrisy of such a state citing sectarianism in another is not lost on you.

It depends on what you mean by Western Europe and what time scale you are talking about. If you mean it was the most sectarian state of the British Isles in the last 50 years then you would be correct.

T runner wrote: »

It is quite clear that partition was meant as a sectarian solution to the problem in NE Ireland.

Well independence for Ireland was a sectarian solution to the problem of the Irish... not having independence. Your understanding of nationalism seems limited.

T runner wrote: »

Some form of Unified independence as proposed by the first home rule Bill would have sufficed to force a sucular solution to Irelands problem. It may have meant the British army having to face down the Unionists who wanted teh sectarian Zero-sum game to continue Ad-finitum in NE Ireland.

Unfortunately, thy Britsish army, teh Tories and teh UUs ensured tehre could be no peaceful path to the vast majority of irish people gaining independence.

What are you talking about? Home Rule, unified or not was rejected by southern Ireland. :pac:

T runner wrote: »

Any comment on the State violence that Britain forced daily on Irish people by its occupation with a huge imperial army? Is this violence acceptable to you?

violence = are you talking about the war of independence... or something else?
daily = when/ how long?
occupation = what do you mean by this?
huge = by what standards
acceptable = this is just a rhetorical question isn't it?

RandomName2

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Can you give an example of any secular states in the 1920's and 30's?

To all intents and purposes:

France, Germany (both pre-and post Weimar), Sweden, Britain (notwithstanding a long standing albeit shriveled Anglican Church), Italy, Denmark (I think), Norway (I think), Czechoslovakia (I think), etc. etc.

RandomName2

KeithAFC wrote: »

It doesn't. Me being loyal to Ulster and the Union has nothing to do with religion. You seem stuck in the state which was in the 20's, 60's. That was then, this is now. The loyalist people are the defenders of the state and will be for a long time to come.

Yes, but nonetheless you must accept that Protestantism is an inherent part of Northern Ireland cultural identity. Moreover, as unionist and Irish nationalist became more polarised from 1900 onwards that unionists choose to identity themselves as exclusively protestant, and that once separation from the south was obtained that polices were pursued that exclusively favoured Protestantism.

KeithAFC

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, but nonetheless you must accept that Protestantism is an inherent part of Northern Ireland cultural identity. Moreover, as unionist and Irish nationalist became more polarised from 1900 onwards that unionists choose to identity themselves as exclusively protestant, and that once separation from the south was obtained that polices were pursued that exclusively favoured Protestantism.

No one said it wasn't but im on about me and many like me in the loyalist community who aren't religious.

Denerick

RandomName is pretty much covering all the bases here. Can't we just nominate a spokesman each and let them slog it out? I think its important that this debate be had (Continuously) but I grow very tired of these discussions, essentially a dichotomy of fascist militarism and peaceful constitutionalism.

walrusgumble

View wrote: »

Obviously, to people today dedicated to the concept of militant repulicanism, 1916 is a big deal since it "justifies" their actions. Obviously, also it was a big deal in the 1920's to the IRA members who founded the state as they could say: "Well, we were forced into using violence and won out despite that".

Today, though in a state with a strong tradition of constitutional democracy where such actions are regarded as unacceptable, we should be capable of seeing it in historical context - namely: a) it was a military failure, b) the subsequent strife in the period up to 1922 resulted in the achievement of little extra to what was achieved elsewhere through constitutional methods (plus or minus a few restrictions) and c) there was already a "Home Rule" solution on the table at the time that could have been used as a starting point for further independence, much like the 1922 treaty was used in the 1922 - 1949 period.

As such, 1916 probably should be recognised as being essentially an unnecessary violent diversion from a strong tradition of constitutional democracy here. That constitutional tradition is a far bigger influence on the development of the state today than the violent events of yesteryear.

You are basing this on an assumption that we would have eventually decalred a separate republic despite very little historical precedence to suggest that Irish people would have wanted more from Home Rule.

I find it funny how everyone assume what the 1914 act actually gave, bar a few lines on wikipedia. 1914 act still required representatives at Westminister, it still controlled our judiciary with final court of appeal in Privy Council. It prevented the government from making substantial rules on our economy and finance. It was basically a sham , the parliament was tootheless. THis substantially changed by the 1920 act and 1922 constitution, as forced to do so by the war. At any rate , the deal achieved at the treaty stage as seen in the 1922 constitution was by far, from a 26 county prespective, far more encouraging than 1914 ACT, it had far more power on finance and courts and westminister were gone. I don't think Collins could really have been serious if pressed to even suggest that the 1914 would be a stepping stone to achieve freedom. So its wrong to suggest that what was finally achieved was the same as what was on offer in 1914.

THe English kept their eye off the ball when the Irish Separatists dismantled the treaty within one year (why the need for civil war, is infurating). But even if they tried, international world would have reminded them that they could not get all santamonoius in light of the Tans (which Republican Propaganda would have stirred up.)

No one in their right minds is suggesting it was a military success. THe problem you lot seem to forget or don't want to understand is that it was never expected to be a success. 1916 achieved, whether you like it or not, what it wanted to achieve. Rewakening Republican/Separatist ideas which had fallen a sleep under the Constitutionalists who made no suggestion of leaving the Empire.

Hindsight is a great thing, but in 1915-1916, there was a genuine threat that this home rule you talk of was not going to materalise. Ulster Covenant, Curragh Mutiny, Different reaction by the British to the UVF and Irish Volunteers Gun Running (IVF being to "defend Home Rule")

RandomName2

walrusgumble wrote: »

You are basing this on an assumption that we would have eventually decalred a separate republic despite very little historical precedence to suggest that Irish people would have wanted more from Home Rule.

I find it funny how everyone assume what the 1914 act actually gave, bar a few lines on wikipedia. 1914 act still required representatives at Westminister, it still controlled our judiciary with final court of appeal in Privy Council. It prevented the government from making substantial rules on our economy and finance. It was basically a sham , the parliament was tootheless. THis substantially changed by the 1920 act and 1922 constitution, as forced to do so by the war. At any rate , the deal achieved at the treaty stage as seen in the 1922 constitution was by far, from a 26 county prespective, far more encouraging than 1914 ACT, it had far more power on finance and courts and westminister were gone. I don't think Collins could really have been serious if pressed to even suggest that the 1914 would be a stepping stone to achieve freedom. So its wrong to suggest that what was finally achieved was the same as what was on offer in 1914.

THe English kept their eye off the ball when the Irish Separatists dismantled the treaty within one year (why the need for civil war, is infurating). But even if they tried, international world would have reminded them that they could not get all santamonoius in light of the Tans (which Republican Propaganda would have stirred up.)

No one in their right minds is suggesting it was a military success. THe problem you lot seem to forget or don't want to understand is that it was never expected to be a success. 1916 achieved, whether you like it or not, what it wanted to achieve. Rewakening Republican/Separatist ideas which had fallen a sleep under the Constitutionalists who made no suggestion of leaving the Empire.

Hindsight is a great thing, but in 1915-1916, there was a genuine threat that this home rule you talk of was not going to materalise. Ulster Covenant, Curragh Mutiny, Different reaction by the British to the UVF and Irish Volunteers Gun Running (IVF being to "defend Home Rule")

Yes, but most of that is relatively irrelevant.

As Yeats said, he got it wrong. The fanatic republicanism had, as Gerry Adams would say 'not gone away, you know'. The fact of its existence was proven by 1916, not the other way round.:D

If you are to say that the rising itself generated republican sentiment - up to a point that would be correct. More to the point would be a sympathy generated FOR the republicans, rather than the generation of republicans per se. For any guerrilla warfare to be fought, the guerrillas require the sympathy of most of the civilian population - which they achieved due to clumsy imperial responses to constitutional crises both during and after the Great War.

Saying that Home Rule was did not generate a republic is also not the point. The War of Independence did not generate a republic. As you said, the Civil War did not generate a Republic. Bunreacht na hEireann did not generate a republic. So, strictly speaking the OP is nonsense. It did not create the cause of Irish nationalism, either constitutionally or militarily - nor did it provide the catalyst for the Republic of Ireland to be created. It did nothing in of itself (besides wreck Dublin) and it is debatable if even the pathos it enspired ultimately aided the national cause.

Equally the risk posed to Home Rule by the Unionists did not dissipate due to the Rising - rather it solidified into a solid formation. The bloody acts of the Irish rebels did more to secure the position of partitionists than any other act since the turn of the century. Whether Ulster would accept Home Rule was always a tetchy subject - but ultimately they, of course, did when it was offered to them as it was offered to the Irish. As you also point out it gave plenty of independence.

Even though the Easter Rising was more interested in having all the rebels die in a hail of bullets and thus become martyrs - there is a temptation to cover up the fact that it did indeed have military goals and that the Rising, in this sense, was an embarrassment.

Digging trenches in Stephen's Green. FFS.

T runner

KeithAFC wrote: »

It doesn't. Me being loyal to Ulster and the Union has nothing to do with religion. You seem stuck in the state which was in the 20's, 60's. That was then, this is now. The loyalist people are the defenders of the state and will be for a long time to come.

Youre tying yourself in knots. The loyalist people are instrinsically bound to religious organistions like the Orange Order. The slogan of many is "For God and Ulster".

BTW if you are loyal to the State then you are loyal to Northen Ireland NOT to Ulster. Loyalists showed their loyalty to that Irish provence by demanding its splitting in two in 1921. Loyalists should have dropped any mistey eyed references to Ulster a long time ago. Your state is NI NOT Ulster.

Do you even know what Ulster means (without looking it up in Wikipedia)?