2016 Celebrations.Why?

eia340600

in 5 years time we will be celebrating the centenary of the Easter Rising.A number of events are planned and a number of projects commenced to be ready on time for date, such as;

· Arbour Hill renewal works including restoration and extension of the existing church car park, repair and restoration of all existing cemetery graves, repair of cemetery pathways and the planting of new trees.
· The future location for the Abbey Theatre and possible redevelopment at the GPO with reference also to the protection of 16 Moore Street. (The suggested relocation to the GPO complex of the Abbey Theatre is currently being examined by the Office of Public Works. The decision on future use will have regard to all advice and suggestions received)
· Recent acquisition for the national collections of items of interest relating to the independence period, amongst which were the 964 items of the Stanley Collection at a cost of €3.5 million.
· Assistance towards themed publication i.e. the Royal Irish Academy’s recent publication on Seán Lemass, and the SIPTU sponsored publication on James Connolly.
· The Military Archives Project, which envisages that files, being the service records of personnel involved in the struggle for independence, would be released into the public domain on a phased basis in the years leading to the Centenary of the Rising.
· At Glasnevin Cemetery, the Group inspected progress on the significant programme of ongoing restoration works underway for which €6.4m of NDP funding has been provided to date (to be complete by 2016)
· Ongoing restoration work being conducted on Erskine Childers’ yacht Asgard.

While a lot of this work is to be thanked for I find myself wondering why we are celebrating in 2016.I myself would favour a celebration of the republic in 2049, independence in 2037 or home rule in 2022.Must we really remember a group of freedom fighters who actually failed and forget the 60th anniversary of the birth of the republic which occurred two years ago?I'm just looking for other people's opinions on the matter.

hatrickpatrick

We should have both. 1916 and the British response to it was a major catalyst for the eventual revolution.

KeithAFC

I hope the PUL community do something for the Somme remembrance that year.

Offy

KeithAFC wrote: »

I hope the PUL community do something for the Somme remembrance that year.

PUL community, who are they? I never heard of them. What part did they play in the 1916 rising?

Wolfe Tone

Offy wrote: »

PUL community, who are they? I never heard of them. What part did they play in the 1916 rising?

Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist.

Offy

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist.

So where is the connection between the 1916 rising and the Somme? Sorry but Im not a history expert. Personally I think we should celebrate 1916, its was a landmark event in Irish history.

PatsytheNazi

eia340600 wrote: »

in 5 years time we will be celebrating the centenary of the Easter Rising.A number of events are planned and a number of projects commenced to be ready on time for date, such as;

· Arbour Hill renewal works including restoration and extension of the existing church car park, repair and restoration of all existing cemetery graves, repair of cemetery pathways and the planting of new trees.
· The future location for the Abbey Theatre and possible redevelopment at the GPO with reference also to the protection of 16 Moore Street. (The suggested relocation to the GPO complex of the Abbey Theatre is currently being examined by the Office of Public Works. The decision on future use will have regard to all advice and suggestions received)
· Recent acquisition for the national collections of items of interest relating to the independence period, amongst which were the 964 items of the Stanley Collection at a cost of €3.5 million.
· Assistance towards themed publication i.e. the Royal Irish Academy’s recent publication on Seán Lemass, and the SIPTU sponsored publication on James Connolly.
· The Military Archives Project, which envisages that files, being the service records of personnel involved in the struggle for independence, would be released into the public domain on a phased basis in the years leading to the Centenary of the Rising.
· At Glasnevin Cemetery, the Group inspected progress on the significant programme of ongoing restoration works underway for which €6.4m of NDP funding has been provided to date (to be complete by 2016)
· Ongoing restoration work being conducted on Erskine Childers’ yacht Asgard.

While a lot of this work is to be thanked for I find myself wondering why we are celebrating in 2016.I myself would favour a celebration of the republic in 2049, independence in 2037 or home rule in 2022.Must we really remember a group of freedom fighters who actually failed and forget the 60th anniversary of the birth of the republic which occurred two years ago?I'm just looking for other people's opinions on the matter.

1916 was the catalyst for the events that followed in 1922, 1937, 1949.

Simples.

Wolfe Tone

Offy wrote: »

So where is the connection between the 1916 rising and the Somme? Sorry but Im not a history expert. Personally I think we should celebrate 1916, its was a landmark event in Irish history.

Well Keith is a loyalist... better ask him why he posted what he did.

PatsytheNazi

KeithAFC wrote: »

I hope the PUL community do something for the Somme remembrance that year.

So the Taigs who fought at the Somme will be ignored by the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist. ?

Offy

KeithAFC wrote: »

I hope the PUL community do something for the Somme remembrance that year.

What has your post got to do with us celebrating the 1916 rising? Sorry but I just cant see the connection.

smcgiff

Offy wrote: »

What has your post got to do with us celebrating the 1916 rising? Sorry but I just cant see the connection.

Best not to encourage

PeterIanStaker

The only people who will benefit from this commemoration are the assorted trolls in the Indo/Sindo who will tell us ad nauseum that life would have been so much better if the entire population of the southern part of this island had been sent to the Western Front or whatever.

It'll come, it'll pass, life will go on.

Uriel.

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

There's no point in celabrating 1916, considering this country merely handed over control to the Vatican for a few decades until the IMF stepped in.

I'll be long gone out of the country by then, and I hope my children will grow up to have British passports.

Ignoring the simplistic element of your post.

At least we made the choice either directly or indirectly to "hand over power" (as you call it). Before our independence a foreign power made all of the decisions for us

I'll just ignore your last line :-)

PatsytheNazi

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

There's no point in celabrating 1916, considering this country merely handed over control to the Vatican for a few decades until the IMF stepped in.

I'll be long gone out of the country by then, and I hope my children will grow up to have British passports.

The biggest crime this state carried out was to abound the nationalists in the six northern eastern counties to the " Protestant state for a Protestant people ". Sure the Catholic church had too much of an influence down here but it's something else a unionist pointing fingers down here.

Hoefully you will be gone out of the country ASAP, but as for the IMF, that great utopia Britain had them in back in 1974 and indeed may have them in again as they are 4.8 trillion in debt. People in glass houses etc

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

PeterIanStaker

Uriel. wrote: »

Ignoring the simplistic element of your post.

At least we made the choice either directly or indirectly to "hand over power" (as you call it). Before our independence a foreign power made all of the decisions for us

I'll just ignore your last line :-)

Will someone on the Internet please hurry up and invent the sarcasm font?

I was trying to imitate the sort of wankery that some people go on with when it comes to "de nasshinnall quesstion" and the accompanying low self - esteem.
Sorry if the irony got lost, my bad :pac:

PeterIanStaker

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Well I half guessed it but I like to get the dig into unionists whenever possible.

They don't bother me half as much as the homegrown variety that Bertie puts in the Seanad:mad:

KeithAFC

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

So the Taigs who fought at the Somme will be ignored by the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist. ?

Not at all. I remember the Irish and Catholic volunteers every year. RIP.

Pauleta

I think we should be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the 1st dail instead. I feel it has much more importance than a short battle that was realistically lost. Plus its less likely to be highjacked by red necks.

Savage Tyrant

The Easter Rising was an important event, forever changing and reshaping the history of this island and the path it has taken since. Genuinely I can't see a valid argument against commemorating it.

PatsytheNazi

Pauleta wrote: »

I think we should be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the 1st dail instead. I feel it has much more importance than a short battle that was realistically lost.

As per post #7 -

1916 was the catalyst for the events that followed in 1919, 1922, 1937, 1949.

Simples.

Plus its less likely to be highjacked by red necks.

:rolleyes: Another wannabe comedian.

PeterIanStaker

Pauleta wrote: »

Plus its less likely to be highjacked by red necks.

Or hijacked by journos with a sizeable postcolonial inferiority complex.

I think both mentalities are equally flawed.

StupidLikeAFox

PeterIanStalker, it can only be hijacked if people let it be hijacked. If people celebrate it in the way they see fit, or for what it is, they should and will be allowed do that. Lots of people have lots of dumb opinions but that shouldnt get in the way of celebrating a pivotal event in our history.

gigino

The government would be better off trying to improve economic conditions for present + future generations of Irish people than harping on about what happened 100 years ago.

deise go deo

gigino wrote: »

The government would be better off trying to improve economic conditions for present + future generations of Irish people than harping on about what happened 100 years ago.

Pity they are only allowed do one of those things isn't it.

djpbarry

Offy wrote: »

...Im not a history expert. Personally I think we should celebrate 1916, its was a landmark event in Irish history.

Hmmm...

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

1916 was the catalyst for the events that followed in 1922, 1937, 1949.

That’s a little simplistic – the groundwork for Irish independence had been laid long before the Rising and independence likely would have come to pass in the absence of the Rising.

Uriel. wrote: »

At least we made the choice either directly or indirectly to "hand over power" (as you call it). Before our independence a foreign power made all of the decisions for us

That’s also a little simplistic – it’s not like the Irish population was not represented in Westminster.

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

The Easter Rising was an important event, forever changing and reshaping the history of this island and the path it has taken since.

I don’t think anyone’s going to disagree with that. However, the question is, was the change effected by the Rising positive or negative? It is very likely that Home Rule would have been attained in the absence of The Rising, so it should be asked, what exactly did the Rising achieve? Apart from conferring (unwarranted, in my opinion) hero status on Pearse and co. and shifting the likes of Parnell, who did far more for Irish independence than Pearse, de Valera and Collins put together (in my opinion), into Irish History’s “also ran” bracket.

Morpheus

Offy wrote: »

PUL community, who are they? I never heard of them. What part did they play in the 1916 rising?

They didnt play a direct part, but they and the rest of the british forces were mostly out of the country with a smaller than usual presence here as a result of the war, creating a favorable environment for an attempted rising.

enlighten yourself here...

200,000 irish served

30,000 were killed (perspective: thats like wiping out the current entire defence forces 3 times over)

url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_and_World_War_I[/url]


most irish families have someone who died. 2 of my great grand uncles served in WW1, one was a sargent with a cavalry unit, in the somme, but thankfully survived.

my other great grand uncle (the aboves brother) served with the Royal Navy and died on HMS Monmouth in the battle of the Coronel at 21:19pm 1st November 1914, his ship was damaged and made a run for the chilean coast in an effort to beach itself before it sunk, but it was chased down by german light cruiser SMS Nuremburg and when it refused to surrender, the german ship fired 75 10.5 inch shells at close range.

there were no survivors.

Cookie_Monster

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

1916 was the catalyst for the events that followed in 1922, 1937, 1949.

And that's all it was, 1949 is the important one IMO.

DrumSteve

Morphéus wrote: »

They didnt play a direct part, but they and the rest of the british forces were mostly out of the country with a smaller than usual presence here as a result of the war, creating a favorable environment for an attempted rising.

enlighten yourself here...

200,000 irish served

30,000 were killed (perspective: thats like wiping out the current entire defence forces 3 times over)

url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_and_World_War_I[/url]


most irish families have someone who died. 2 of my great grand uncles served in WW1, one was a sargent with a cavalry unit, in the somme, but thankfully survived.

my other great grand uncle (the aboves brother) served with the Royal Navy and died on HMS Monmouth in the battle of the Coronel at 21:19pm 1st November 1914, his ship was damaged and made a run for the chilean coast in an effort to beach itself before it sunk, but it was chased down by german light cruiser SMS Nuremburg and when it refused to surrender, the german ship fired 75 10.5 inch shells at close range.

there were no survivors.

Fairly familiar with WW1 but never heard of that incident... Any further reading on it? Sounds scary as **** btw

Qualitymark

There is a plan to commemorate the Irish soldiers who fought at the Somme as well.

I would personally be adamantly against making the two commemorations into a single one, but would absolutely want to commemorate both the soldiers of the Somme and those of the 1916 Rising, separately, and would certainly attend both commemorations.

PatsytheNazi

djpbarry wrote: »

Hmmm...
That’s a little simplistic – the groundwork for Irish independence had been laid long before the Rising and independence likely would have come to pass in the absence of the Rising.

No it wouldn't, their's nothing to show that it would, India, Cyprus etc were promised independence also after WW1 and WW2 - which o fcourse was reneigned on by the Brits.

That’s also a little simplistic – it’s not like the Irish population was not represented in Westminster.

The Irish people were about as represented at in Westminister as say, Latvia was in the Soviet parliament. You could go there say what you like - and then Westminister/Soviet Parliament would go their own way regardless.

I don’t think anyone’s going to disagree with that. However, the question is, was the change effected by the Rising positive or negative? It is very likely that Home Rule would have been attained in the absence of The Rising, so it should be asked, what exactly did the Rising achieve? Apart from conferring (unwarranted, in my opinion) hero status on Pearse and co. and shifting the likes of Parnell, who did far more for Irish independence than Pearse, de Valera and Collins put together (in my opinion), into Irish History’s “also ran” bracket.

Parnell didn't achieve anything like Collins etc. His Home Rule Bill was shafted by British duplicity in 1886. Besides it was only setting up an ineffective talking shop with no real powers over economic policy etc Something like the Welsh parliament we have today.

PatsytheNazi

gigino wrote: »

The government would be better off trying to improve economic conditions for present + future generations of Irish people than harping on about what happened 100 years ago.

And doubtless over 100 years ago the Gombeen men were saying the same about 1798 as they fumbled in the greasy till.

Morpheus

DrumSteve wrote: »

Fairly familiar with WW1 but never heard of that incident... Any further reading on it? Sounds scary as **** btw

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_coronel.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_HMS_Monmouth.html
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/coronel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coronel
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles1900today/p/Coronel.htm

list of casualties
http://www.naval-history.net/xDKCas1914-11Nov2.htm

loads out there if you look, it was the worst beating the british took in WW1, i think it may even have been the first MAJOR confrontation between both sides - open to correction though.

Palmach

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Parnell didn't achieve anything like Collins etc. His Home Rule Bill was shafted by British duplicity in 1886. Besides it was only setting up an ineffective talking shop with no real powers over economic policy etc Something like the Welsh parliament we have today.

Exactly. I am always astounded when people can't see that physical force was the only thing that was going to work. The idea that an Empire would just let us make our decisions is laughable. The West Brits will be at high doh for the next few years wailing about those nasty men in 1916. I have no doubt that the vast majority will celebrate the bravery of these men.

djpbarry

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

No it wouldn't, their's nothing to show that it would...

...other than the fact that Home Rule had been enacted (and subsequently suspended) in 1914.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

, India, Cyprus etc were promised independence also after WW1 and WW2...

Were they? I’m not sure that was the case at all.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

The Irish people were about as represented at in Westminister as say, Latvia was in the Soviet parliament.

Really? Following the 1885 election (for example), the Irish Parliamentary Party held 86 of the 670 seats in the House of Commons – at the same time, Latvians were ruled by a Russian Tsarist autocracy.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Parnell didn't achieve anything like Collins etc. His Home Rule Bill was shafted by British duplicity in 1886. Besides it was only setting up an ineffective talking shop with no real powers over economic policy etc Something like the Welsh parliament we have today.

The difference between Home Rule and the Free State were minor – certainly not worth the blood that was shed to achieve the latter.

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

Exactly. I am always astounded when people can't see that physical force was the only thing that was going to work.

But physical force didn’t work – the Rising failed.

How much physical force was required to declare Ireland a republic in 1948?

KeithAFC

There's no point in celabrating 1916, considering this country merely handed over control to the Vatican for a few decades until the IMF stepped in.

I'll be long gone out of the country by then, and I hope my children will grow up to have British passports.

Fantastic post peter. Im glad that we didn't give in that easily.

LordSutch

eia340600 wrote: »

in 5 years time we will be celebrating the centenary of the Easter Rising. . .

we will be ?

Ahem no, I certainly won't be, but you are welcome to.

Savage Tyrant

LordSutch wrote: »

we will be ?

Ahem no, I certainly won't be, but you are welcome to.

He means "we" as a country and you well know it.

eia340600

LordSutch wrote: »

we will be ?

Ahem no, I certainly won't be, but you are welcome to.

That's essentially the reason I started the thread m'Lord....:rolleyes:

junder

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

So the Taigs who fought at the Somme will be ignored by the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist. ?

So what will you be doing to commemorate the Irish men that served in the 10th and 16th Irish divisions ?

Iwasfrozen

LordSutch wrote: »

we will be ?

Ahem no, I certainly won't be, but you are welcome to.

Won't you? I will.
Even though I don't agree with their methods I'm glad Ireland is an independent country and I appreciate their sacrafice. Imagine what must have been going through their heads, many not much older then myself, as they marched to their certain death.

KeithAFC

junder wrote: »

So what will you be doing to commemorate the Irish men that served in the 10th and 16th Irish divisions ?

I doubt very much to be honest.

PeterIanStaker

KeithAFC wrote: »

Fantastic post peter. Im glad that we didn't give in that easily.

you do know I was being sarcastic there? Maybe you are too. Its hard to tell without the sarcasm font, which I wish someone would hurry up and invent.

PeterIanStaker

ColHol wrote: »

PeterIanStalker, it can only be hijacked if people let it be hijacked. If people celebrate it in the way they see fit, or for what it is, they should and will be allowed do that. Lots of people have lots of dumb opinions but that shouldnt get in the way of celebrating a pivotal event in our history.

That's exactly the point I'm making, but better expressed.

djpbarry

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Even though I don't agree with their methods I'm glad Ireland is an independent country and I appreciate their sacrafice.

Was their “sacrifice” absolutely necessary for an independent Ireland?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Imagine what must have been going through their heads, many not much older then myself, as they marched to their certain death.

I can’t imagine what must have been going through their heads, because I simply cannot understand the mindset of anyone who takes up arms to further a political goal.

Iwasfrozen

djpbarry wrote: »

Was their “sacrifice” absolutely necessary for an independent Ireland?

No it wasn't.

djpbarry wrote: »

I can’t imagine what must have been going through their heads, because I simply cannot understand the mindset of anyone who takes up arms to further a political goal.

Try for a sec, they knew they were going to die but they did it anyway. That takes balls. No matter how you look at it.

Savage Tyrant

djpbarry wrote:

Was their “sacrifice” absolutely necessary for an independent Ireland?

Absolutely necessary? No, but it certainly quickened the process.

djpbarry wrote:

I can’t imagine what must have been going through their heads, because I simply cannot understand the mindset of anyone who takes up arms to further a political goal.

Like the current Libyan Rebels? Nelson Mandela? Or the wars to topple Saddam Hussain or even Hitler? Political goals are at the forefront of most armed conflicts. Sure sometimes human rights violations and self defense are reasons for war but generally there are political agendas at work too.

Predator_

To celebrate the victory over the enemy and our independence.

djpbarry

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it wasn't.

In which case, shouldn’t we be questioning why they did what they did? And whether it was a wise course of action?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Try for a sec, they knew they were going to die but they did it anyway. That takes balls. No matter how you look at it.

I’m sure they also knew that others were going to die and they were going to be responsible. You call that “balls” if you want, but I prefer to call it murder.

djpbarry

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

Absolutely necessary? No, but it certainly quickened the process.

I’m not sure it did, but let’s say for arguments sake that you’re right – was this quickening of the process worth all those deaths?

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

Like the current Libyan Rebels? Nelson Mandela? Or the wars to topple Saddam Hussain or even Hitler? Political goals are at the forefront of most armed conflicts.

And virtually all armed conflicts are utterly reprehensible. As for the examples you cite, none are comparable to the situation in Ireland immediately preceding the Rising.

karma_

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not sure it did, but let’s say for arguments sake that you’re right – was this quickening of the process worth all those deaths?
And virtually all armed conflicts are utterly reprehensible. As for the examples you cite, none are comparable to the situation in Ireland immediately preceding the Rising.

Anyone else sick of hearing "but you can't compare....." It's as about as pedantic an argument you can make, as no other incident ever is going to be exactly the same.