Why do we commemorate the Easter Rising rather than December the 6th?

P_1

Been thinking about this today given the day that is in it.

Why is the Easter Rising commemorated rather than December the 6th, the date of the establishment of the 'Free State'?

I mean when you think about it, the Rising wasn't exactly a stunning success, it was a catastrophic military failure and its participants were not particularly well thought of by the population of the time. It also caused massive damage to the city of Dublin.

December the 6th could largely be considered as our 'Independence Day', a date that is commemorated by the majority of other states.

Is it due to the legacy of the Civil War? After all Fianna Fail have been in power for the majority of the history of this state, I doubt they would want to have commemorated an event in history that was largely presided over by Michael Collins?

What do the rest of ye think about this? All comments/opinions are welcome.

mike65

Two reasons I imagine, first - the Easter Rising while a failure was the precursor and second - there is something about an heroic failure that people find attactive or sexy. Its become the stuff of myth/legend whereas the technical fact of the "free state" being established with the Anglo Irish Treaty is frankly boring. One is box-office the other isn't.

Seloth

It because its the day we declared our Independence,that really why its celebrated and while the battle as lost,it was anticipated to happen.Thus the ell known saying of a "Blood Sacrifice" which knocked people of th fence onto a side,the majority now going for republicanism unlike before being undecided or not caring.(Shock horror but yes)

I do have to agree with you though that the 6th should be commemorated in someway but then again people would call for the commemoration of when the Irish Republic formed in the 40's.

I honestly doubt it has anything to do with party politics,especially in the last 20-30 years.While it is civil war politics that has both FF and FG both sides are celebrated in both now,as well as in the common eye of the people.

But yeah for the lack of a better word as above put it,Its more Sexy/box office/Poetic.Its the Bold statement that pretty much said "F**k of ye c*nts!".In many country its this statement that is celebrated for their freedom more so than the actual day.

Jim236

Why would we commemorate the partition of our country? Because thats what the Free State created. You should ask yourself why don't we have an independence day as well, and the answer is because there is no desire to celebrate our independence until full independence, i.e. a United Ireland, is achieved. The Easter Rising is the only date we can commemorate that includes all Irish men and women on this island.

later12

The irony is almost too much. Oh dear, oh dear.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0424/easterrising.html

The head chaplain to the Defence Forces Monsignor Eoin Thynne prayed that people would speak out as one voice against those who persist with cowardly acts of terrorism.

Jim236

later10 wrote: »

The irony is almost too much. Oh dear, oh dear.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0424/easterrising.html

I wouldn't agree the volunteers were terrorists, but I do agree that you can't justify their actions and then turn around and brand the IRA of the troubles or even today as 'terrorists'. Its complete hypocrisy. Either its all terrorism or its not.

Right or wrong, what the IRA are doing today or what the IRA of 30 years ago did then is no different to what the IRB/ICA did 95 years ago.

The Waltzing Consumer

Jim236 wrote: »

I wouldn't agree the volunteers were terrorists, but I do agree that you can't justify their actions and then turn around and brand the IRA of the troubles or even today as 'terrorists'. Its complete hypocrisy. Either its all terrorism or its not.

Right or wrong, what the IRA are doing today or what the IRA of 30 years ago did then is no different to what the IRB/ICA did 95 years ago.

Eh no, it is very different. To suggest IRB/ICA is the same as rira/cira is a joke and quite ignorant of any facts.

later12

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Eh no, it is very different. To suggest IRB/ICA is the same as rira/cira is a joke and quite ignorant of any facts.

Interestingly, or conveniently, you neglect to expand on those 'facts'.

Jim236

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Eh no, it is very different. To suggest IRB/ICA is the same as rira/cira is a joke and quite ignorant of any facts.

How? Republicans in 1916 had no mandate and very little support for their actions and the media then would've branded them terrorists in the same way they do the IRA now. Yet we commemorate the Rising every year and celebrate the volunteers as national heroes. Given that part of this island is still under British rule and that is the motive for dissident groups today and of the IRA 30 years ago, why is their cause any less legitimate than the IRB/ICA's 95 years ago?

The Waltzing Consumer

later10 wrote: »

Interestingly, or conveniently, you neglect to expand on those 'facts'.

Take your pick. Conditions, communications, standards of living, democratic will, education, the issue of nationalism, criminality, weapons, tactics etc. There is a wealth of difference, just take any issue and look it objectively and compare IRB and RIRA/CIRA and it is pretty obvious that it is completely different

The Waltzing Consumer

Jim236 wrote: »

How? Republicans in 1916 had no mandate and very little support for their actions and the media then would've branded them terrorists in the same way they do the IRA now. Yet we commemorate the Rising every year and celebrate the volunteers as national heroes. Given that part of this island is still under British rule and that is the motive for dissident groups today and of the IRA 30 years ago, why is their cause any less legitimate than the IRB/ICA's 95 years ago?

Again, pick anything, education, standards of living, communications, tactics, means, criminality, drug dealing etc., and the differences speak for themselves. The only similarities are both occurred in Ireland and both used violence, end of comparison.

Seloth

Jim236 wrote: »

How? Republicans in 1916 had no mandate and very little support for their actions and the media then would've branded them terrorists in the same way they do the IRA now. Yet we commemorate the Rising every year and celebrate the volunteers as national heroes. Given that part of this island is still under British rule and that is the motive for dissident groups today and of the IRA 30 years ago, why is their cause any less legitimate than the IRB/ICA's 95 years ago?

Because history is written by the victors.

And while I'd like a United Ireland myself it is only when the majority of people in the North wish for it,then action should be made(which is agreed upon in the many treatys signed over the year).

The song Zombie best describes the current IRA's as its a dead cause being fought on.The Old IRA after the Rising did have majority support,and that is what the current IRA are trying to do.They have even said in the media how they do these actions to bring back large military forces in order to remind people that they are occupied,Yet it is those "freedom" fighters whiha re causing it.

Even the Old IRA had more reason,and those times were different,and one could argue the same for NI in the 60's and 70's with unfair treatment of the Catholics,which is why so many people supported them back then.

But if at any time the IRA could be truly classes as terrorists it is now!The people of NI are all equal,and the land is not abused.They fight on a dead cause that no longer needs be.This is a time for diplomacy now,not violence.

Jim236

Seloth wrote: »

Because history is written by the victors.

Thats true and in all likelihood, had the IRA campaign of the troubles brought about a United Ireland, we'd probably be celebrating them as national heroes too. And we'd have probably seen some pathetic attempt by Fianna Fáil to take credit for it too by acknowledging their role in the arms crisis.

But thats my point. We only commemorate the Easter Rising because it actually achieved constitutional change, whereas the IRA campaign of the troubles achieved very little in that area.

Seloth wrote: »

And while I'd like a United Ireland myself it is only when the majority of people in the North wish for it,then action should be made(which is agreed upon in the many treatys signed over the year).

The song Zombie best describes the current IRA's as its a dead cause being fought on.The Old IRA after the Rising did have majority support,and that is what the current IRA are trying to do.They have even said in the media how they do these actions to bring back large military forces in order to remind people that they are occupied,Yet it is those "freedom" fighters whiha re causing it.

They Old IRA only gained support after the Rising because of the executions of those who led the rebellion, not because of what the rebellion was about.

Seloth wrote: »

Even the Old IRA had more reason,and those times were different,and one could argue the same for NI in the 60's and 70's with unfair treatment of the Catholics,which is why so many people supported them back then.

But if at any time the IRA could be truly classes as terrorists it is now!The people of NI are all equal,and the land is not abused.They fight on a dead cause that no longer needs be.This is a time for diplomacy now,not violence.

But given that part of this island is still under British rule, how is the cause of the dissidents any less legitimate? How can you pursuade dissidents that diplomacy will bring about a United Ireland when 13 years on from the GFA, all we have are more North-South bodies and still no constitutional change.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Again, pick anything, education, standards of living, communications, tactics, means, criminality, drug dealing etc., and the differences speak for themselves. The only similarities are both occurred in Ireland and both used violence, end of comparison.

You're still not addressing the fact that the volunteers of 1916 had no mandate and very little support for their actions and if not for the executions of those who led the rebellion, they would've gained very little support after the rising. So with that in mind, how is the cause of the ICA/IRB any different to the cause of the IRA during the troubles or even today?

Why was it ok to kill an RIC officer for being an RIC officer back then, but today its murder? I'm not arguing one way or the other btw, I'm just curious as to how you can justify the actions during the Rising and the WOI but brand the troubles campaign as 'terrorism'.

paky

how is the ira of today anyone worse from the ira of 1916? in 1916 over 250 civilians died because of the actions of the irish volunteers. tell me how the ira of 1916 were any better from the ira of today?

Seloth

Fianna Fáil to take credit for it too by acknowledging their role in the arms crisis.

I'm sorry but why does FF have to be brought up in everything,being both annoying and funny that people assume they are some malicious lizard men seeking power behind the scene.

They Old IRA only gained support after the Rising because of the executions of those who led the rebellion, not because of what the rebellion was about.

I never said that that it was because of the Ideals of the Rebellion,I said after the Rebellion,and yes I do know that it is because of the executions,Especially those such as Tomas McDunnagh who recently married.

But given that part of this island is still under British rule, how is the cause of the dissidents any less legitimate? How can you pursuade dissidents that diplomacy will bring about a United Ireland when 13 years on from the GFA, all we have are more North-South bodies and still no constitutional change.

Because the people arent suffering and over time there has been growth in a wish to unite with Ireland.By blowing up places and killing officers your just causing hassle.Its like if I went into France saying you wish to be apart of out republic and started to shoot police officers.Not the greatest analogy but you get my point

You're still not addressing the fact that the volunteers of 1916 had no mandate and very little support for their actions and if not for the executions of those who led the rebellion, they would've gained very little support after the rising. So with that in mind, how is the cause of the ICA/IRB any different to the cause of the IRA during the troubles or even today?

Because it was both a different world and Ireland then.You are seeing things with a modern view rather than a early 20th century one. Colonialism still existed then.The Irish had ery little rights and politics was protestant dominated,being a minority.

Why was it ok to kill an RIC officer for being an RIC officer back then, but today its murder? I'm not arguing one way or the other btw, I'm just curious as to how you can justify the actions during the Rising and the WOI but brand the troubles campaign as 'terrorism'.

Well do the RUC go abobut in such away that the RIC did...No they dont.And if you read my post again you can see I dont declare the troubles as terrorism for the most part as the catholics in the North were no fairly or equally treated the same.Thus you had events such as the Battle of the Bogside.

Jim236

Those last 2 paragraphs weren't aimed at you Seloth, but seen as you've answered them;

Seloth wrote: »

Because it was both a different world and Ireland then.You are seeing things with a modern view rather than a early 20th century one. Colonialism still existed then.The Irish had ery little rights and politics was protestant dominated,being a minority.

No I'm not. I'm seeing it for what it is and for what it was. A lot of people are condemning the murder of Ronan Kerr who would quite happily justify the killing of an RIC officer during the WOI for just being an RIC officer. These are actions which Michael Collin's stood over, a person we all celebrate as a national hero. The point I'm making is its all hypocrisy. Either its all terrorism or none of it is. I subscribe to the later, but I fully respect those who wish to take a different view, but I have no respect for anyone who attempts to condemn the IRA of the troubles or today as terrorists and then attempt to justify the actions of 1916 or the WOI, and the civil war that followed.

Seloth wrote: »

Well do the RUC go abobut in such away that the RIC did...No they dont.And if you read my post again you can see I dont declare the troubles as terrorism for the most part as the catholics in the North were no fairly or equally treated the same.Thus you had events such as the Battle of the Bogside.

Again that reply wasn't aimed at you, but yes the RUC did go about the same way as the RIC did, worse in fact. And you'll find there is still a lot of harassment towards Nationalist communities given by the PSNI. But thats not what I'm basing my comparison on. RIC Officers were killed because they were members of the crown forces and were seen as an enemy.

Denerick

Perhaps we should commemmorate O'Connells electoral victory in Co. Clare in 1828, or the establishment of the co-operative movement by Plunkett in the 19th century, both of which had more positive and prosperous impacts than the onset of Catholic theocracy from the 1920s to the 1990s, which is essentially the principal outcome of both the Easter Rising and the founding of the Free State.

Or maybe the legalisation of homosexuality in 1993? How about we actually celebrate something that improved peoples lives rather than circle jerk in an orgy of camp nationalism over a small group of fanatics who decided one Easter to blow the hell out of Dublin and to hell with the consequences?

Liam Byrne

paky wrote: »

how is the ira of today anyone worse from the ira of 1916? in 1916 over 250 civilians died because of the actions of the irish volunteers. tell me how the ira of 1916 were any better from the ira of today?

Because back then people hadn't democratically shown what they wanted.

Seloth

No I'm not. I'm seeing it for what it is and for what it was. A lot of people are condemning the murder of Ronan Kerr who would quite happily justify the killing of an RIC officer during the WOI for just being an RIC officer. These are actions which Michael Collin's stood over, a person we all celebrate as a national hero. The point I'm making is its all hypocrisy. Either its all terrorism or none of it is. I subscribe to the later, but I fully respect those who wish to take a different view, but I have no respect for anyone who attempts to condemn the IRA of the troubles or today as terrorists and then attempt to justify the actions of 1916 or the WOI, and the civil war that followed.

I've called todays IRA terrorists with out reason.THose in 1916 were indeed terrorists,every "Freedom Fighter" thoughout history but some have more just reason than others.I'll defend those of the troubles and before but those of today are terrorists without fair cause

Again that reply wasn't aimed at you, but yes the RUC did go about the same way as the RIC did, worse in fact. And you'll find there is still a lot of harassment towards Nationalist communities given by the PSNI. But thats not what I'm basing my comparison on. RIC Officers were killed because they were members of the crown forces and were seen as an enemy.

I am discussing the RUC of today,not those during the troubles or before.

Jim236

Seloth wrote: »

I've called todays IRA terrorists with out reason.THose in 1916 were indeed terrorists,every "Freedom Fighter" thoughout history but some have more just reason than others.I'll defend those of the troubles and before but those of today are terrorists without fair cause

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, thats the way I see it.

You say you'll defend the actions during the troubles, but the media back then branded the IRA's actions as indefensible in the same way they do today.

So is it acceptable to support 'terrorism'/violence once it becomes a distant part of history just because the media of the day deplore it?

What was achieved from the IRA campaign during the troubles that makes their actions so defensible so as to nullify the actions of dissidents today?

At least though you regard the actions of the IRA during the troubles as no different to the actions of the ICA/IRB of 1916. But there are plenty who would regard the IRA of the troubles as terrorists and warmongers, and then claim the likes of Michael Collins and Éamon de Valera as national heroes, even though they were/are all fighting for the same cause which has yet to be achieved.

Adrian009

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Eh no, it is very different. To suggest IRB/ICA is the same as rira/cira is a joke and quite ignorant of any facts.

Don't know about that. Apparently, the first person killed during Easter Week was an RIC officer, unarmed, on duty in Dublin. Sounds not too far away from Jerry McCabe or Ronan Kerr.

Liam Byrne

Adrian009 wrote: »

Don't know about that. Apparently, the first person killed during Easter Week was an RIC officer, unarmed, on duty in Dublin. Sounds not too far away from Jerry McCabe or Ronan Kerr.

Hang on - weren't we told that McCabe's murder wasn't an IRA operation?

Moflojo

Rebellion: Open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.

Terrorism: The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

(Definitions from dictionary.com)

My two cents: The participants in the Easter Rising were part of an armed and organised group. They also openly declared their aims when they took control of the GPO. It can be argued that they lacked a mandate from the people, but no system existed at the time to allow the citizens of Ireland to democratically declare their political will.

The current crop of IRA Terrorists have specifically targeted Catholic members of the security forces in the North in an attempt to influence that community's participation in cross-community policing. They completely lack any mandate, with people from across the island of Ireland having voted overwhelmingly to accept and support the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

Comparisons between the two groups ring hollow, in my humble opinion.

Jim236

Moflojo wrote: »

Rebellion: Open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.

Terrorism: The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

(Definitions from dictionary.com)

My two cents: The participants in the Easter Rising were part of an armed and organized group. They also openly declared their aims when they took control of the GPO. It can be argued that they lacked a mandate from the people, but no system existed at the time to allow the citizens of Ireland to democratically declare their political will.

But there was very little support for independence prior to the rebellion, so the actions of 1916 are more aligned to terrorism than a rebellion going by the definitions you provided above because they lacked the will of the people.

Moflojo wrote: »

The current crop of IRA Terrorists have specifically targeted Catholic members of the security forces in the North in an attempt to influence that community's participation in cross-community policing. They completely lack any mandate, with people from across the island of Ireland having voted overwhelmingly to accept and support the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

Comparisons between the two groups ring hollow, in my humble opinion.

Just like the IRB/ICA targeted RIC officers for being...RIC officers. Ring any bells?

Denerick

Moflojo wrote: »

My two cents: The participants in the Easter Rising were part of an armed and organised group. They also openly declared their aims when they took control of the GPO. It can be argued that they lacked a mandate from the people, but no system existed at the time to allow the citizens of Ireland to democratically declare their political will.

No system existed at the time to allow Irish citizens to democratically declare their will? Irish people had democratically declared their will from at least the 1820s, when Catholic 40 shilling freeholders defied their landlords and voted for pro emancipation candidates for parliament. They openly declared their will when they turned out in the hundreds of thousands to hear O'Connell in the 1840s. They openly declared their will when they consistently elected and re-elected with overwhelming numbers, the Irish Parliamentary Party and consented to its aspiration to Home Rule.

Fenian fanatics and extremists on the other hand decided to operate behind shadowy corridoors, looking faintly ludicrous when the likes of Charles Kickham was barking orders to members in Ireland from the petit bourgeouis surroundings of Paris...

Fenians and fanatics had their chance in the marketplace of ideas and consistently failed. Idiots like DP Moran and Richard Pigott were permitted to spread their doctrine of hate and their pyschotic opposition to compromise in national newspapers that were ostensibly fenian, Republican and separatist. Any comparison between the British Empire in the 1870s and any totalitarian government that stifles dissent is completely and utterly false. All kinds of dissenting publications were tolerated. The fact was that Irish people by and large didn't read this extremist muck; because they were quite happy with the evolutionary and reformist path to nationhood.

I'm sick of this Republican revisionism, its positively ahistorical and never tires from playing the eternal victim tune.

In 1916 the people of Ireland had endorsed peaceful Home Rule. In 2012 the people of Ireland have endorsed the good friday agreement and peace. Little seperated the fanatics of 1916 and 2012, both have identical world views and both have 'war aims' that are similarily absurd and quixotic.

later12

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Again, pick anything

Ok. Explain how

communications

makes these modern nationalist terrorists less acceptable than the nationalists who inflicted terror in 1916

vampire of kilmainham

Jim236 wrote: »

I wouldn't agree the volunteers were terrorists, but I do agree that you can't justify their actions and then turn around and brand the IRA of the troubles or even today as 'terrorists'. Its complete hypocrisy. Either its all terrorism or its not.

Right or wrong, what the IRA are doing today or what the IRA of 30 years ago did then is no different to what the IRB/ICA did 95 years ago.

i know we have peace now but dont forget that the british establishment were just as much terrosits themselves dont ever forget the attrocities they carried out here for 800years and other countries they occupied even on their own people during the reign of verious monocries. I do aggree with moving on yes and i dont hate the english i have some very good friends over there who deplore what happened here carried out by their establishment.

Jim236

vampire of kilmainham wrote: »

i know we have peace now but dont forget that the british establishment were just as much terrosits themselves dont ever forget the attrocities they carried out here for 800years and other countries they occupied even on their own people during the reign of verious monocries. I do aggree with moving on yes and i dont hate the english i have some very good friends over there who deplore what happened here carried out by their establishment.

I know, and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what the volunteers did was wrong. I was just making the point that you can't differentiate their actions from those of the IRA during the troubles or even today.

vampire of kilmainham

Adrian009 wrote: »

Don't know about that. Apparently, the first person killed during Easter Week was an RIC officer, unarmed, on duty in Dublin. Sounds not too far away from Jerry McCabe or Ronan Kerr.

the RIC were armed at that time all over ireland.

later12

vampire of kilmainham wrote: »

the RIC were armed at that time all over ireland.

I think he meant Dublin Met Police. They were unarmed and first shot.

Sierra Oscar

Because a huge portion of Irish society fundamentally disagreed with the provisions which allowed for the formation of the Irish Free State - which led to Civil War.

The Easter Rising is something which all Irish Republicans can come together and commemorate.

It is nothing necessarily to do with the "boogeyman" Fianna Fail party. Throughout the years Irish people have been just too divided to come together and celebrate something which led to a vicious Civil War, and as a result commemorating the Easter Rising is what gained the momentum.

later12

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The Easter Rising is something which all Irish Republicans can come together and commemorate.

I know that some people will dismiss this as pedantry, but it is actually quite an important distinction: nationalist and republican are not interchangeable terms. The original Sinn Fein party were not republicans, and many modern republicans, myself included, do not wish to see ourselves associated with Irish nationalists, viewing nationalism as pointless, backwards, and even more divisive than monarchy or oligarchy.

Republican
adjective /riˈpəblikən/
having the supreme power lying in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them; or characteristic of such government.

So as a republican, I must point out that in keeping with mainstream republican ideology, I would oppose such an undemocratic, non-representative attack on society as happened at the hands of British and Irish Nationalists during Easter week 1916, or as has recently occurred in Northern Ireland.

A Dub in Glasgo

later10 wrote: »

Republican
adjective /riˈpəblikən/
having the supreme power lying in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them; or characteristic of such government.

So as a republican, I must point out that in keeping with mainstream republican ideology, I would oppose such an undemocratic, non-representative attack on society as happened at the hands of British and Irish Nationalists during Easter week 1916, or as has recently occurred in Northern Ireland.

By the same token you must also oppose the British response to the 1918 election and the subsequent partition of Ireland?

Sierra Oscar

later10 wrote: »

I know that some people will dismiss this as pedantry, but it is actually quite an important distinction: nationalist and republican are not interchangeable terms. The original Sinn Fein party were not republicans, and many modern republicans, myself included, do not wish to see ourselves associated with Irish nationalists, viewing nationalism as pointless, backwards, and even more divisive than monarchy or oligarchy.

Republican
adjective /riˈpəblikən/
having the supreme power lying in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them; or characteristic of such government.

So as a republican, I must point out that in keeping with mainstream republican ideology, I would oppose such an undemocratic, non-representative attack on society as happened at the hands of British and Irish Nationalists during Easter week 1916, or as has recently occurred in Northern Ireland.

Fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Irish Republicans had a underlying nationalist ideology which motivated them and the same was true of the majority of their supporters.

later12

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

By the same token you must also oppose the British response to the 1918 election and the subsequent partition of Ireland?

Two different issues; yes the British response to the 1918 elections was extraordinarily stupid, and deserves plenty of condemnation - mind you, not condemnation met with force, in my opinion. Nothing in Ireland at that time was so different to the rest of the UK as to justify that.

Subsequent partition of Ireland is more complex. However one would have to take into account the views of the majority, even when borne of nationalism, just like in the south.

This thread isn't about my political beliefs, and I'm not making it so. I'm just pointing out the difference between republicanism and nationalism, which are too often confused with one another.

later12

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Irish Republicans had a underlying nationalist ideology which motivated them and the same was true of the majority of their supporters.

Yes I know that most of them were nationalists, I'm not denying that many nationalists legitimately describe themselves as republicans, just pointing out that many republicans would reject completely any inherent relationship with nationalism, or particularly its more extremist forms.

Sierra Oscar

later10 wrote: »

Yes I know that most of them were nationalists, I'm not denying that many nationalists legitimately describe themselves as republicans, just pointing out that many republicans would reject completely any inherent relationship with nationalism, or particularly its more extremist forms.

Oh of course, I totally agree with you - but you can see why the Easter Rising is commemorated more so than the foundation of the Irish Free State all the same I assume.

later12

Yes, it makes sense that they would choose to celebrate the Easter Rising as opposed to the foundation of the Free State.

However, what makes less sense to me is how they can celebrate, in effect, the murder of innocent, unarmed Dublin Metropolitan Policemen at the outbreak, and not celebrate the murder of Constable Kerr for the exact same cause - that is, complete Irish independence. Can anyone elucidate?

later12

Denerick wrote: »

Perhaps we should commemmorate O'Connells electoral victory in Co. Clare in 1828, or the establishment of the co-operative movement by Plunkett in the 19th century, both of which had more positive and prosperous impacts than the onset of Catholic theocracy from the 1920s to the 1990s, which is essentially the principal outcome of both the Easter Rising and the founding of the Free State.

Or maybe the legalisation of homosexuality in 1993? How about we actually celebrate something that improved peoples lives rather than circle jerk in an orgy of camp nationalism over a small group of fanatics who decided one Easter to blow the hell out of Dublin and to hell with the consequences?

Exactly. As an example, why not celebrate the founding of Daniel O'Connell's 'Catholic Board'. Not quite as clerical as it sounds, the organisation was established to campaign for a release from discrimination against those who were Catholic in, among other things, voting and running for parliament - in other words, a campaign for the foundations of British and Irish democracy. And in a nice co-incidence, that organisation was established 200 years ago this year.

But no, we much prefer to celebrate a group of ruffians shooting unarmed policemen in a state in which they were freely entitled to run for parliament or, indeed, local government.

Adrian009

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Hang on - weren't we told that McCabe's murder wasn't an IRA operation?

Says who?

P_1

Seems I've inspired a lively debate...

Should have added my musings that the Rising was the last 'united' action to have taken place prior to the Dev-Collins split. That would make it seem the most logical explanation for the commemoration of it taking precedence without bringing party politics into the debate (although I still think that may still have played a role, call me a cynic if you may).

The point of the Rising being more 'sexy' also makes a good bit of sense.

later12

pithater1 wrote: »

Seems I've inspired a lively debate...

Should have added my musings that the Rising was the last 'united' action to have taken place prior to the Dev-Collins split.

I think most people would point to the General Election of 1918, which was the only event that gave the independence movement any semblance of legitimacy at this time.

Sierra Oscar

later10 wrote: »

Yes, it makes sense that they would choose to celebrate the Easter Rising as opposed to the foundation of the Free State.

However, what makes less sense to me is how they can celebrate, in effect, the murder of innocent, unarmed Dublin Metropolitan Policemen at the outbreak, and not celebrate the murder of Constable Kerr for the exact same cause - that is, complete Irish independence. Can anyone elucidate?

Making a connection between today and ninety five years ago in order to back up a point is tempting, but it is simplistic at best as the political circumstances in Ireland have changed drastically during those ninety five years.

In 1916 there was little or no tolerance for those who wished to set about advocating the creation of an an all island Irish Republic. If you advocated such a proposition, you were shunned by the political establishment. There was little or no opportunity to bring about such a scenario through the political structures in place at the time - and as a result the Easter Rising occurred.

Today we have a guarantee that should it be the wish of the people, we will see the creation of an all island Irish Republic. Accordingly you can argue that the violence that was necessary ninety five years ago is no longer necessary today.

I share your frustration in regards the condemning of dissident Republicans by those who are commemorating Republicans who in the past had the same goal as today's dissidents - its totally hypocritical. We should not be repeating the same condemnation mantra, instead we should be working to ensure everyone is brought into the GFA movement. We need to highlight that the GFA is the best way forward to ensuring the creation of an all island Irish Republic.

We are loosing focus from the GFA. Some key elements of the agreement are stalling, and if we do not act quickly then the dissident movements will continue to rapidly grow in strength. The fact of the matter is that some Republicans have become disillusioned with the GFA - and arguably rightly so.

Denerick

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

In 1916 there was little or no tolerance for those who wished to set about advocating the creation of an an all island Irish Republic. If you advocated such a proposition, you were shunned by the political establishment. There was little or no opportunity to bring about such a scenario through the political structures in place at the time - and as a result the Easter Rising occurred.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Fenians existed in every part of the country through the various Fenians organisations advocating an independent Republic. They even had their own newspapers and folk traditions. By all accounts this tradition co-existed with the constitutional one, but you cannot claim Fenians were not free to express themselves or infliltrate society at large. It was exactly their failure in the marketplace of ideas that makes them fanatics. Had they enjoyed widespread support and popular enthusiasm we'd be in a different ball game.

Most people, of course, were content with the thought of Home Rule and that it might eventually lead to more.

later12

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

In 1916 there was little or no tolerance for those who wished to set about advocating the creation of an an all island Irish Republic.If you advocated such a proposition, you were shunned by the political establishment.

Quite the contrary... the most avid and outspoken Fenians were the Americans whose views resembled those of John Devoy, and who were pandered to by the Irish Home Rule Party because they could help Home Rule tap into American funds!
However, there was no big political groundswell behind complete independence where it was relevant - in Ireland. This was acknowledged by Arthur Griffith and manifested in the lack of support for SF in the run up to 1916.

There was little or no opportunity to bring about such a scenario through the political structures in place at the time - and as a result the Easter Rising occurred.

What political structures? As we know, SF did run in elections prior to 1916... they just didnt manage to achieve a national mandate although they barely managed a couple of local councillors. The IRB, who infiltrated SF, brought about a rising which involved shooting unarmed police, and that had no democratic mandate, and which was not supported at that5 time by the general public. Remind you of anything?

Sierra Oscar

Denerick wrote: »

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Fenians existed in every part of the country through the various Fenians organisations advocating an independent Republic. They even had their own newspapers and folk traditions. By all accounts this tradition co-existed with the constitutional one, but you cannot claim Fenians were not free to express themselves or infliltrate society at large. It was exactly their failure in the marketplace of ideas that makes them fanatics. Had they enjoyed widespread support and popular enthusiasm we'd be in a different ball game.

Most people, of course, were content with the thought of Home Rule and that it might eventually lead to more.

What I am saying is that no matter the support for the fenians, their wishes would not have been humoured by the British authorities which gave rise to the need for an armed insurrection. That is not necessarily the case today, where the British have signed an international agreement which paves the way for a single Irish state.

I am merely pointing out that the situation has changed quite considerably over the last ninety five years.

deise go deo

later10 wrote: »

Yes, it makes sense that they would choose to celebrate the Easter Rising as opposed to the foundation of the Free State.

However, what makes less sense to me is how they can celebrate, in effect, the murder of innocent, unarmed Dublin Metropolitan Policemen at the outbreak, and not celebrate the murder of Constable Kerr for the exact same cause - that is, complete Irish independence. Can anyone elucidate?

I would suggest that your confusion may arise because you are focusing on the 'Cause' for which the acts were supposedly carried out for, to the exclusion of the circumstances in which they were set.

In 1916 you had a group of people, dedicated to resisting British rule by force. They did so openly, and by the accepted conventions of war at the time, did so in a civilized way. They did not mistreat prisoners, they cared for enemy wounded, they acted across the board as a conventional military force, And importantly, they went out to fight for what they believed in, knowing they could not win and would have to pay the ultimate price for their actions.
They did this at a time when the British state under no circumstances would accept the right of the Irish people to be free of Britain, and when the British state was still ruling Ireland through force of arms and coercion acts.


Today you have a situation where a group of armed thugs set out to murder, in cowardly fashion, a member of a police service that was in the Employ of a state that respects the right of the people of NI to determine their own destiny, that is not oppressing the Irish people and has apologized for its actions in the past.


Two very different scenarios.

later12

deise go deo wrote: »

In 1916 you had a group of people, dedicated to resisting British rule by force. They did so openly, and by the accepted conventions of war at the time, did so in a civilized way. They did not mistreat prisoners, they cared for enemy wounded, they acted across the board as a conventional military force, And importantly, they went out to fight for what they believed in, knowing they could not win and would have to pay the ultimate price for their actions.

And where, exactly, under 'conventional military action' does one find the shooting dead of an unarmed Irish policeman, Constable Lahiff, on St Stephen's Green, possibly the first gunshot of 1916?

They did this at a time when the British state under no circumstances would accept the right of the Irish people to be free of Britain, and when the British state was still ruling Ireland through force of arms and coercion acts.

The IRA splinter group/ RIRA of today would say the exact same thing of today.

getz

Jim236 wrote: »

How? Republicans in 1916 had no mandate and very little support for their actions and the media then would've branded them terrorists in the same way they do the IRA now. Yet we commemorate the Rising every year and celebrate the volunteers as national heroes. Given that part of this island is still under British rule and that is the motive for dissident groups today and of the IRA 30 years ago, why is their cause any less legitimate than the IRB/ICA's 95 years ago?

drugs ,extortion,civilian murders, kidnapping,ect

LordSutch

Jim236 wrote: »

The Easter Rising is the only date we can commemorate that includes all Irish men and women on this island.

All Irish men and women?

Well I guess you do commerate it if you are an Irish Republican, I'm Irish alright, but I'm certainly not a Republican . . . .

Jim236

LordSutch wrote: »

All Irish men and women?

Well I guess you do commerate it if you are an Irish Republican, I'm Irish alright, but I'm certainly not a Republican . . . .

Well the vast majority of people on this island are. If you don't subscribe to Republicanism then fair enough, each to their own, but I'm not gonna apologize for supporting a commemoration that isn't inclusive of those who don't even support the state in it's current form, i.e. as a republic.