Nelson's Pillar - 46th anniversary

Wild Bill

golfwallah wrote: »

This is pure rubbish and not worthy of comment.

I take that as a "no".

Kinda proves me point!

We should be sensitive to their historical traditions - but it is "rubbish" to imagine that Britain remove it's endless war memorials, triumphal arches, cenotaphs and other trappings of the most genocidal Empire in history - of which Ireland was one of the most prominent victims!

You can't deal with the issue - so you get into the abuse - in one quick move.

golfwallah

Wild Bill wrote: »

There are many people in the Dail with my views (not enough, of course)!

So you admit your views aren't in the majority - now there's a surprise!

Wild Bill wrote: »

Not that many there with Bruton's infatuation with Jug-ears I'd wager :rolleyes:

John Bruton went to the trouble of getting elected and then getting the necessary votes to form a Government ..... irks you, doesn't it that your views are not in the majority?

Let's face it, views like yours are representative of a thankfully small minority.

If you want to prove otherwise - why not see how many will agree with you by going for election yourself?

Much easier to spew out hatred on an internet site, than put your own name and views before the public or come up with something constructive - isn't it?

golfwallah

Wild Bill wrote: »

I take that as a "no".

Kinda proves me point!

We should be sensitive to their historical traditions - but it is "rubbish" to imagine that Britain remove it's endless war memorials, triumphal arches, cenotaphs and other trappings of the most genocidal Empire in history - of which Ireland was one of the most prominent victims!

You can't deal with the issue - so you get into the abuse - in one quick move.

More rubbish .... why don't you get a grip ...... monuments of any kind in Britain are matters for people over there ... nothing to do with Ireland.

As for genocidal ..... ever heard of the Romans, Ghengis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler?

You are entitled to your views, even if they are mistaken and factually incorrect ........ but behaving as if your views are the norm and that lots of people accept your approach - are you for real?

golfwallah

1916 Group to advise the Government on overall commemorative program and many specific issues including: “In particular, it will seek to set a tone that is inclusive and non-triumphalist, ensuring authenticity, proportionality and openness.” See link on:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0307/1224312917945.html#


Mayo woman is among some of the country’s leading academics and authors to feature in an advisory group established last week to assist with centenary commemorations of the 1912-16 period of Irish history:
http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/50595/ballina-woman-appointed-to-1916-advisory-group#

MarchDub

golfwallah wrote: »

With all due respect, you’re entitled to your preferences and opinions. But the right to opinions does not mean everyone agrees with them. I prefer to look at the past and learn from it in the context of what we can do to make a better world today and tomorrow.

This is a difference in perspective to that held by some who, perhaps, dwell a tad too much on past events and forget that we need to move forward.

That’s why this thread was initially focussed on celebration, in an inclusive way, and moving forward from historic events.

Life be very boring, indeedm if everyone had the same opinion – on any subject, including history.

I certainly wasn't stating a personal preference or personal opinion - I was merely pointing out the function and nature of historiography.

Opinion forums or threads are not something that I am inclined to participate in - and mostly my posts on this thread concerned the historic record, which is why I said what I said about the direction you state that you want this to go. And from what you repeatedly say I take it you are less interested in the history of actual events - in fact not at all? and more interested in personal opinions or perspectives [be they gleaned from fact, hearsay, or otherwise, as opinions invariably are ] ...and with the future?

golfwallah

MarchDub wrote: »

I certainly wasn't stating a personal preference or personal opinion - I was merely pointing out the function and nature of historiography.

Opinion forums or threads are not something that I am inclined to participate in - and mostly my posts on this thread concerned the historic record, which is why I said what I said about the direction you state that you want this to go. And from what you repeatedly say I take it you are less interested in the history of actual events - in fact not at all? and more interested in personal opinions or perspectives [be they gleaned from fact, hearsay, or otherwise, as opinions invariably are ] ...and with the future?

I have no quibble with anyone, including yourself.

All I am trying to do is to give an insight into where I am coming from, without being controversial or confrontational. I am interested in history but my interest is not purely historiographical. I am more interested in what we can learn from the past and how we can celebrate historic events in a non-triumphalist and balanced way.

That being said, I have found your historic posts and photographs very informative and interesting. I enjoyed reading them and do appreciate the time taken to share them with others on this forum.

But there are numerous ways of looking at the same events, for example:

From John F. Kennedy “History is a relentless master. It has no present, only the past rushing into the future. To try to hold fast is to be swept aside”.
And from Maya Angelou: “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again”.

Perhaps we could all benefit by cutting each other a bit of slack and accepting different ways of looking at history. It can be viewed as a purely academic exercise in recording past events and documenting them but also as a platform from which we can all learn and build a better future.

I have absolutely no interest in making political capital out of any of these events.

Wild Bill

golfwallah wrote: »

So you admit your views aren't in the majority - now there's a surprise!

Try reading. I neither claimed "my views" were in a majority nor "admitted" they weren't.

I have very many views. Some are widely shared, some not so much.

My views are not validated by how many people share them; they are validated by being consistent with the facts.

John Bruton went to the trouble of getting elected and then getting the necessary votes to form a Government ..... irks you, doesn't it that your views are not in the majority?

On the issue of Bruton I am confident I reflect the majority view.

If you want to prove otherwise - why not see how many will agree with you by going for election yourself?

Much easier to spew out hatred on an internet site, than put your own name and views before the public or come up with something constructive - isn't it?

Rather bizarre stuff coming from an anonymous nameless poster on an internet forum!

Look in the mirror, if the sight isn't too painful

I think challenging your mind-numbingly naive waffle about us embracing British symbolism while rubbishing any notion of reciprocation is hardly "spewing hatred" - unless think referring to the Royal Spock as "Jug-ears" is 'spewing hatred. (I suppose given you support Bruton's cringing deference you just might!)

If you do, then sorry, but you'll just have to live with it :cool:

Wild Bill

golfwallah wrote: »

More rubbish .... why don't you get a grip ...... monuments of any kind in Britain are matters for people over there ... nothing to do with Ireland.

You think British Imperialism has nothing to do with Ireland? Really?

As for genocidal ..... ever heard of the Romans, Ghengis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler?

Indeed I did.

But it appears you have never heard of the Brutish Empire. It arguably killed more then all four combined. Look it up. :cool:

You are entitled to your views, even if they are mistaken and factually incorrect ........ but behaving as if your views are the norm and that lots of people accept your approach - are you for real?

Hmmmmm. I wonder how not behaving "as if your views are the norm" would manifest on a thread like this?

Any ideas? :rolleyes:

Wild Bill

Rather bizarre stuff coming from an anonymous nameless poster on an internet forum!

btw, my sincere apologies if your real name actually is Golfwallah. :rolleyes:

Wild Bill

OK - apologies to the class for going for a 4th post in a row (bad form) but it just struck me that this is the "history and heritage" forum and >>>SNIP<<< seems interested in neither. :cool:

jonniebgood1

golfwallah wrote: »

More rubbish .... why don't you get a grip ...... .......

Wild Bill wrote: »

OK - apologies to the class for going for a 4th post in a row (bad form) but it just struck me that this is the "history and heritage" forum and >>>SNIP<<<, seems interested in neither. :cool:

This is as you point out the 'History and Heritage' forum Bill. It is for discussing history, not for commenting on other posters as per quoted posts and the one previous to it. I am not issuing an infraction for this but that is on the understanding that you and other posters return to the topic of the thread. I have tried to turn a blind eye to this sideshow but it needs to end now. You do not need to agree with each other but you both need to stop rubbishing each others posts. Any problems with this should be sent by PM rather than continuing in this thread.

Moderator.

Rebelheart

MOD SNIP>

Comment deleted for use of foul launguage.<

Rebelheart

golfwallah wrote: »

But there are numerous ways of looking at the same events... Perhaps we could all benefit by cutting each other a bit of slack and accepting different ways of looking at history.

MOD SNIP> comment deleted in the interest of keeping thread on topic>

We must embrace all opinions here (unless, of course, they might result in the setting up of a thread entitled "British Atrocities in Ireland" when we will deftly rename it "Atrocities in Ireland". My word, we are so open-minded to our own ideas here!)

CDfm

Rebelheart wrote: »

Oh sweet Jesus - enough already! Bruton's a first-rate gobshíte on his best - his very, very, very, best day. .

What in gods name has an anti-John Bruton rant to do with the Pillar.

I just can't see the connection .

Rebelheart

CDfm wrote: »

What in gods name has an anti-John Bruton rant to do with the Pillar.

I just can't see the connection .

What in God's name has a pro-John Bruton rant to do with the Pillar?

I just can't see the connection.

Batsy

So those who opposed British rule in Ireland destroyed a statue of a man who fought a Frenchman who ruled not just one or two European countries but almost the whole of continental Europe?

Hmmmmmmmmmm......

Wild Bill

Batsy wrote: »

So those who opposed British rule in Ireland destroyed a statue of a man who fought a Frenchman who ruled not just one or two European countries but almost the whole of continental Europe?

Very few people give a continental sh*** what wonderful things their imperial oppressors might have done elsewhere.

So the British fought to prevent a rival Empire gaining power? Big deal.

It's like suggesting Stalin should be revered because he freed Poland from the Nazis.

Yet not many Poles would tolerate a statue of Stalin in Warsaw. His pillars would go the way of Nelson's!

Hmmmmm......
:cool:

CDfm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Very few people give a continental sh*** what wonderful things their imperial oppressors might have done elsewhere.

So the British fought to prevent a rival Empire gaining power? Big deal.

It isn't that simple , take Daniel O'Leary father or Michael O'Leary VC speaking in 1915.

“Mr. O’Leary, senior, father of the famous V.C., speaking in the Inchigeela district, urged the young men to join the British army. ‘If you don’t’, he told them, ‘the Germans will come here and will do to you what the English have been doing for the last seven hundred years’.”


http://www.ballingearyhs.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=210:michael-oleary-kuno-meyer-and-peadar-o-laoghaire&catid=9:journal-2004&Itemid=16

And this link

http://irishconstabulary.com/topic/975#.T3jPYtnPwmw

So it wasn't clear cut and neither were the people back then as conflicted about it.

If you look at the real history as opposed to the traditional "makey-upey" version it makes sense.

Why are Dubliners called " Jackeen's". Should it bother me that they have that heiritage. Of course not.

pedroeibar1

Wild Bill wrote: »

Yet not many Poles would tolerate a statue of Stalin in Warsaw. His pillars would go the way of Nelson's!

Hmmmmm......
:cool:

How wrong you are.
Read up on the Pałac Kultury i Nauki imienia Józefa Stalina.
Hmmmm........indeed.

thecommietommy

Wild Bill wrote: »

It's like suggesting Stalin should be revered because he freed Poland from the Nazis.

Yet not many Poles would tolerate a statue of Stalin in Warsaw. His pillars would go the way of Nelson's!

Hmmmmm......
:cool:

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

How wrong you are.
Read up on the Pałac Kultury i Nauki imienia Józefa Stalina.
Hmmmm........indeed.

How wrong you are. A wiki, not always the most reliable but - " The building was originally known as the Joseph Stalin Palace of Culture and Science (Pałac Kultury i Nauki imienia Józefa Stalina), but in the wake of destalinization the dedication to Stalin was revoked; Stalin's name was removed from the interior lobby and one of the building's sculptures"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science,_Warsaw

Just goes to show you, the Poles don't just have gorgeous women but have an unapologetic pride in their country. Now that's what I call maturity as a nation.

jonniebgood1

thecommietommy wrote: »

How wrong you are. A wiki, not always the most reliable but - " The building was originally known as the Joseph Stalin Palace of Culture and Science (Pałac Kultury i Nauki imienia Józefa Stalina), but in the wake of destalinization the dedication to Stalin was revoked; Stalin's name was removed from the interior lobby and one of the building's sculptures"

This is equivalent to changing names of the Royal barracks to Collins baracks rather than blowing up Nelsons pillar.
There are however more equitable examples in other Eastern European cities such as the Stalin monument in Budapest, torn down in 1956 or a similar monument in Prague, blown up in 1962. Since 1990 most emblems of Communism have been removed from Eastern European cities.

pedroeibar1

thecommietommy wrote: »

How wrong you are. A wiki, not always the most reliable but - " The building was originally known as the Joseph Stalin Palace of Culture and Science (Pałac Kultury i Nauki imienia Józefa Stalina), but in the wake of destalinization the dedication to Stalin was revoked; Stalin's name was removed from the interior lobby and one of the building's sculptures"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science,_Warsaw

Just goes to show you, the Poles don't just have gorgeous women but have an unapologetic pride in their country. Now that's what I call maturity as a nation.

I was fully aware of that as I have been there. The Poles removal of Stalin's name was sensible and, as you point out, showed 'maturity as a nation.' Just goes to prove my point (and that of many others) that those of the armalite and dynamite persuasion in Ireland showed their immaturity in destroying the Pillar.

thecommietommy

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I was fully aware of that as I have been there. The Poles removal of Stalin's name was sensible and, as you point out, showed 'maturity as a nation.' Just goes to prove my point (and that of many others) that those of the armalite and dynamite persuasion in Ireland showed their immaturity in destroying the Pillar.

Oh I see, so those who tore down the Stalin monument in Budapest 1956 or better again in Prague in 1962 blew it, up along with notable others such as the Iraqi's pulling down/blowing up statues of Saddam and his regime, showed their immaturity also ?

thecommietommy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is equivalent to changing names of the Royal barracks to Collins baracks rather than blowing up Nelsons pillar.
There are however more equitable examples in other Eastern European cities such as the Stalin monument in Budapest, torn down in 1956 or a similar monument in Prague, blown up in 1962. Since 1990 most emblems of Communism have been removed from Eastern European cities.

They just didn't change the name, they also they physically removed reference to him in the interior and on a sculpture. Just like the those with Nelsons pillar - but in a more dramatic fashion

pedroeibar1

thecommietommy wrote: »

Oh I see, so those who tore down the Stalin monument in Budapest 1956 or better again in Prague in 1962 blew it, up along with notable others such as the Iraqi's pulling down/blowing up statues of Saddam and his regime, showed their immaturity also ?

Your comments are becoming increasingly absurd. Firstly, I responded to a comment from another poster about Stalin in Poland. You saw fit to jump in with another ill-informed, sexist comment. Secondly, you now have seized on a comment by the Mod. and have quoted it out of context. Thirdly, to compare Nelson to what Stalin and Saddam Hussein did to their people is absurd and shows a ludicrously poor grasp of both history and current affairs. :rolleyes:

thecommietommy

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Your comments are becoming increasingly absurd. Firstly, I responded to a comment from another poster about Stalin in Poland. You saw fit to jump in with another ill-informed, sexist comment. Secondly, you now have seized on a comment by the Mod. and have quoted it out of context. Thirdly, to compare Nelson to what Stalin and Saddam Hussein did to their people is absurd and shows a ludicrously poor grasp of both history and current affairs. :rolleyes:

Not quoting anything out of context, just using these examples along with Saddam etc to show that we are not the only ones who have violently removed statues and so on. As for comparing Nelson to Stalin, two megalomaniacs in 2 tyrannical regimes though I will concede Uncle Joe was very much the worse.

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Thirdly, to compare Nelson to what Stalin and Saddam Hussein did to their people is absurd and shows a ludicrously poor grasp of both history and current affairs.

This is a good point. It would help us understand your view on this commietommie if you could explain what it is that Nelson did to Ireland that you feel is intolerable (and indeed make him comparable to Stalin)?

Rebelheart

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I was fully aware of that as I have been there. The Poles removal of Stalin's name was sensible and, as you point out, showed 'maturity as a nation.' Just goes to prove my point (and that of many others) that those of the armalite and dynamite persuasion in Ireland showed their immaturity in destroying the Pillar.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is a good point. It would help us understand your view on this commietommie if you could explain what it is that Nelson did to Ireland that you feel is intolerable (and indeed make him comparable to Stalin)?

It's actually a crap, historically illiterate point, as usual from pedroeibar1. I trust you won't censor that because you had no problem with his accusing other posters of, ironically, being historically ignorant?

---

Right, so here goes.


Nelson was a huge hero of the British Empire, an empire which rests upon mass murder, dispossession and centuries of colonialism and subjugation in this country. You and he both appear to have considerable resistance to this historical fact. That's your problem. Your dislike or otherwise doesn't negate its reality.

That you want this society to honour heroes of that rapacious foreign oppressive régime and that you're objecting to their being treated with the contempt that the Poles and other European peoples have treated monuments to the heroes of foreign régimes which misruled them says much more about your political viewpoints than it does about some nebulous and profound historical knowledge which pedroeibar1 at any rate would like to think he is the purveyor of.

As I explained in another thread, the logic of your line is that this country would still be plastered with monuments glorifying the history of a foreign elite simply because they had the power to erect them all. Your argument is that public space in Ireland should continue to be monopolised to glorify the enemies of the Irish people/heroes of the British Empire, people who crushed Irish Ireland. When it comes down to it the only "history", as you two define it, which we'll have in our squares from British rule times is that erected by the coloniser to represent heroes of the coloniser's world. Oh how narrow, sectarian and entrenched is your true conception of Irish "history" when your support for these monuments is examined. It's not like the British were erecting monuments to Tomás an tSíoda, Fiacha Mac Aodha, Liam Nuinseann, Ó Néill, Ó Dónaill, Ó Dochartaigh & rl between the years 1603 and 1922.
"Historical memory", in terms of the defence of all apologists for these British imperial monuments, is an awfully one-sided affair. When stripped to its essence, your plea to "respect the past and keep these British monuments here" is unequivocally a plea to respect their reflection of their elite past. Your plea is anything but historically inclusive or historically balanced or concerned with being historically representative of Irish society. When stripped your plea for such one-sided historical "memory" is, at best, intellectually vacuous. At best.

Why you both get so defensive and intent upon ensuring that that colonial elite continues to have a massively disproportionate control over public space and historical memory in this society again can only go back to your political preferences rather than to a considered historically-informed view that takes the sentiments and sensitivity of all Irish society into account rather than the narrow interests of the British colonial elite whom you both believe should in effect get special treatment in Irish public spaces and memory.

Like Soviet glorifications of their former power in modern Poland, British colonial glorifications of their former power in Ireland should be removed as quickly as the English smashed the inauguration stone of the Uí Néill/historical tradition in 1602, or indeed as quickly as they destroyed medieval statues and pilgrimage sites when, in the late 1530s, they found they were representative of a political powerbase which they, iconoclastic English colonialists in Ireland, did not like. This sudden British nationalist respect for monuments is, to say the least, breathtakingly selective.

Amen.

jonniebgood1

Rebelheart wrote: »

It's actually a crap, historically illiterate point, as usual from pedroeibar1. I trust you won't censor that because you had no problem with his accusing other posters of, ironically, being historically ignorant?

---

You have personalised your comment with the unnessesary addition of

as usual from pedroeibar1

This is against the forum charter which you should read if you do not understand this. Do it again and you will be censored. If you dont understand the difference between criticising an opinion and criticising the person making the opinion then you can PM me for a longer explanation.

Moderator.

CDfm

I grew up in a medieval town and the fabric of our lives included monuments and buildings to both traditions.

You have the same in Dublin with its heritage.

1707 – Custom House, Dublin

Architect: Thomas Burgh

The previous Custom House by Thomas Burgh and built in 1707 was sited up river at Essex Quay and was judged as unsafe just seventy years later. The site chosen for the new Custom House met with much opposition from city merchants who feared that its move down river would lessen the value of their properties while making the property owners to the east wealthier. The old Custom House was used as a barracks for a time until it was demolished.


http://archiseek.com/2012/1707-custom-house-dublin/

Its replacement

The Custom House, designed by James Gandon is an exquisite building and was the cause of much rioting at the time of its construction as it changed the location of much of the cities trading. The building was completed in 1791, only to be burned down by the IRA in 1921. The building has been beautifully restored by the Office of Public Works.

Custom house was the first building built for the public in Dublin. Architecturally it's considered as one of Dublins most historical and important building.

Graceful pavilions, arcades and columns mark the elegance of this exquisite Georgian building. The central dome is topped by a 16 foot- statue of Commerce. There are 14 keystones over the doors and windows, known as the Riverine Heads in respect of the Atlantic Ocean and the 13 principal rivers of Ireland. The exterior of the building is beautifully adorned with sculptures, coats of arms and a series of sculpted keystones symbolizing the rivers of Ireland.

During the Irish Civil war from 1921-1922 the building was terribly affected as it was completely engulfed by fire for 5 days, resulting in a major loss of public records. Due to the intensity of the heat the dome melted and the stone was still cracking when it began cooling five months later. The Gandon's interior section was completely destroyed.

The building went under a prolonged series of massive reconstruction and was further catered to by the Office of Public Works in the 1980's.


http://www.dublinevents.com/dublin-places-to-visit/custom-house.php

To me Nelson is not a powerful symbol of the empire and I am really ambivalent about the monument.

And the monument had more to do with Dublin's prominence/development as a port than anything else.

Dublin Castle is the symbol of power in my mind.
Aras an Uachtarain/Vice Regal Lodge and Leinster House are others.

I can't see any cult of personality for Nelson .From the 1500's to the 1700's you had the growth of the Cult of St Patrick - well in Munster we had St Declan. St Patrick's Day was a holiday. The Ui Neills were hardly Brian Boru fan's and what we were taught about him in school was not really true and the Battle of Clontarf was really part of a civil war.

Now they are personality cults.!!!

Maybe there was a Nelson cult , was it really an important emblem for protestant unionist Dublin. In my opinion it wasn't.

I just can't see it.