Nelson's Pillar - 46th anniversary

pedroeibar1

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?

---

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.

I suppose a point might be lurking in that rant, buried somewhere, camouflaged, hidden beneath a multitude of derisory adjectives.

Rebelheart wrote: »

a crap, historically illiterate point

Rebelheart wrote: »

rapacious foreign oppressive regime

Rebelheart wrote: »

nebulous and profound historical knowledge

(rather contradictory, that):rolleyes:

Rebelheart wrote: »

narrow, sectarian and entrenched is your true conception

Rebelheart wrote: »

British imperial monuments

Rebelheart wrote: »

iconoclastic English colonialists

Rebelheart wrote: »

When stripped your plea for such one-sided historical "memory" is, at best, intellectually vacuous.

My plea? What plea? I've not plead for anything. That humbug above is not historical; it is political invective and reminiscent of a schoolboy’s essay from Mao era China. People like that could not see the world; wood for trees. They never went anywhere and when eventually they were allowed out on their own, they saw nothing through the dialectic of their thick lenses.
You seem keen on the O’Neills: my granny was an O’Neill. Literary people: you should look up the response Hugh O’Neill wrote to Sir John McCoughleyn. Erudite, succinct, polite (and not an adjective in sight.)
There are many contributors to this board who enlighten, entertain and amuse. There are others who do the opposite.
Seeing as we spoke of Poland, more than 32 years ago a Polish man came to Dublin and said ‘Pervading nationalism imposes its dominion on man today in many different forms and with an aggressiveness that spares no one…The challenge that is already with us is the temptation to accept as true freedom what in reality is only a new form of slavery.’ I did not agree with many of his other views, being that he was Pope, but on that occasion he hit the nail.

MarchDub

Don't know about Nelson but this thread certainly looks like it has blown up...

Fratton Fred

The house I grew up in had a monument to Nelson a few hundred yards away. It was one if the first and was funded by fellow officers and men.

There was a genuine fear that the French were going to invade and Nelson was seen as being instrumental in removing that threat. Not only was he a national hero, he was also loved by his men and was a bit of a character. He directly disobeyed orders (the famous one being when he out his looking glass to his blind eye and didn't see orders to withdraw) which appealed to people and he created gossip but didn't seem to care.

His early death added to his stardom, particularly in the manner in which it came about.

pedroeibar1

CDfm wrote: »

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.

The main reason for that renovation was due to the aftermath of the fire in the '20's. Much of the cornice was pegged to the top of the building by iron pins, each one encased in lead to prevent rust. The heat of the fire melted the lead and the iron rusted over the years, causing spalling, with bits falling off onto passers by. That is why the building was fenced off for years.
As for the first Custom House, many of the 18th C buildings - including many of those in our Georgian Squares - were gerrybuilt. Zoe Developments and Priory Hall were not unique!

CDfm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

As for the first Custom House, many of the 18th C buildings - including many of those in our Georgian Squares - were gerrybuilt. Zoe Developments and Priory Hall were not unique!

Not a fan of Georgian Dublin then ?

MarchDub

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

My plea? What plea? I've not plead for anything. That humbug above is not historical; it is political invective and reminiscent of a schoolboy’s essay from Mao era China. People like that could not see the world; wood for trees. They never went anywhere and when eventually they were allowed out on their own, they saw nothing through the dialectic of their thick lenses.

Who are you referring to in this? "People like that" ? I am confused by your posts -

pedroeibar1

CDfm wrote: »

Not a fan of Georgian Dublin then ?

Colonialist, imperialist dross. Built by the enemies of the Irish people/heroes of the British Empire, people who crushed Irish Ireland. Burn the lot of it and replace it with the stunning architecture of the fior gael, true Irish Ireland, like the ESB did!;)

Sound of Silence

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Colonialist, imperialist dross. Built by the enemies of the Irish people/heroes of the British Empire, people who crushed Irish Ireland. Burn the lot of it and replace it with the stunning architecture of the fior gael, true Irish Ireland, like the ESB did!;)

I believe that you have found yourself to be entirely at odds with the idea that a young nation may express a desire to establish a new identity. Nations that were born of blood and revolt don't often place value on the edifices of the former occupier, no matter how pretty and grand you may feel they look. It would be misguided to assume otherwise, as such an attitude has been evidenced in countless nations throughout recorded history - most prominently the Middle-East, but also Revolutionary France and Soviet Russia.

As such, one could argue that the destruction of Nelson's column was simply another step in the effort to formulate what could be considered an "Irish identity", one which was clearly distinct from it's imperial British past. Therefore, monuments dedicated to the lives of foreign Military figures would then cease to have any relevance beyond their clear ascetic value.

Fratton Fred

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I believe that you have found yourself to be entirely at odds with the idea that a young nation may express a desire to establish a new identity. Nations that were born of blood and revolt don't often place value on the edifices of the former occupier, no matter how pretty and grand you may feel they look. It would be misguided to assume otherwise, as such an attitude has been evidenced in countless nations throughout recorded history - most prominently the Middle-East, but also Revolutionary France and Soviet Russia.

As such, one could argue that the destruction of Nelson's column was simply another step in the effort to formulate what could be considered an "Irish identity", one which was clearly distinct from it's imperial British past. Therefore, monuments dedicated to the lives of foreign Military figures would then cease to have any relevance beyond their clear ascetic value.

So should we expect the destruction of Dun Laoghaire harbour, the Dublin to Rosslare railway and the grand canal next?

pedroeibar1

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I believe that you have found yourself to be entirely at odds with the idea that a young nation may express a desire to establish a new identity. Nations that were born of blood and revolt don't often place value on the edifices of the former occupier, no matter how pretty and grand you may feel they look. It would be misguided to assume otherwise, as such an attitude has been evidenced in countless nations throughout recorded history - most prominently the Middle-East, but also Revolutionary France and Soviet Russia.

As such, one could argue that the destruction of Nelson's column was simply another step in the effort to formulate what could be considered an "Irish identity", one which was clearly distinct from it's imperial British past. Therefore, monuments dedicated to the lives of foreign Military figures would then cease to have any relevance beyond their clear ascetic value.

Quite wrong in all respects. Immediately after a revolution a few statues of individuals are destroyed, but these inevitably are despots - Hoxha, Saddam, Stalin, Ceausescu, Pahlavi , etc. and that is quite ‘normal’ given what they did to their peoples. My point is that too many of Ireland’s ‘heros’ were (are) narrow-minded blinkered peasant hillbillies, intent on destruction, without a mandate and without an ability to differentiate between history and heritage. I fully understand and accept the desire, need and merit for ‘new’ countries (including Ireland) to establish an identity. I’ve worked with many of them in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, and it is great to see the respect they have for the past. When the Old Town of Warsaw was destroyed by the Germans, it was rebuilt, brick by brick, exactly as it had been, by workers bussed in after their shifts were over. That is respect for history and heritage.
Destruction of buildings was much more rare, usually by a mob intent on plunder. Very few buildings were destroyed in France, the Bastille was stormed to obtain gunpowder, nothing else. It was primarily a storehouse and a prison for the better-off, not the poor. During the same revolution a mob stormed the Tuileries Palace and looted it: in the 1848 revolution it again was looted, and also by the Communards in the 1870’s, who also robbed and set the Louvre on fire. Much later when it finally was destroyed, it was against the forceful opposition of France’s chief architect, Baron Haussmann, who said it was a crime against French history. Haussmann ‘s ‘destruction’ of Paris was primarily to do with slum clearance and had nothing ‘political’ about it, although his grandes avenues scheme did have a military overtone. The destruction of the Tuileries actually allowed a 16th century plan be completed – the result is the rue de Rivoli and the layout we see today. Hardly trying to escape the past. The principle museum in Baghdad was looted during the second Gulf War, as were several state buildings in Egypt during the Arab Spring rising in Cairo. Booty was the objective, not politics.
The reason France has such a beautiful built heritage is that banks and insurance companies are required to own and maintain them – they are included in their ‘primary liquidity’ requirements. In Ireland we see fit to destroy everything, look at the ESB building on was once was the longest Georgian facade in Europe, look at Wood Quay, etc.
The sad thing is that the gombeen ‘patriots’ of today are such fanatics that they drive away an interest by ordinary citizens in history and heritage.
(and its aesthetic, not ascetic;))

MarchDub

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Quite wrong in all respects. Immediately after a revolution a few statues of individuals are destroyed, but these inevitably are despots - Hoxha, Saddam, Stalin, Ceausescu, Pahlavi , etc. and that is quite ‘normal’ given what they did to their peoples. My point is that too many of Ireland’s ‘heros’ were (are) narrow-minded blinkered peasant hillbillies, intent on destruction, without a mandate and without an ability to differentiate between history and heritage. I fully understand and accept the desire, need and merit for ‘new’ countries (including Ireland) to establish an identity. I’ve worked with many of them in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, and it is great to see the respect they have for the past. When the Old Town of Warsaw was destroyed by the Germans, it was rebuilt, brick by brick, exactly as it had been, by workers bussed in after their shifts were over. That is respect for history and heritage.
Destruction of buildings was much more rare, usually by a mob intent on plunder. Very few buildings were destroyed in France, the Bastille was stormed to obtain gunpowder, nothing else. It was primarily a storehouse and a prison for the better-off, not the poor. During the same revolution a mob stormed the Tuileries Palace and looted it: in the 1848 revolution it again was looted, and also by the Communards in the 1870’s, who also robbed and set the Louvre on fire. Much later when it finally was destroyed, it was against the forceful opposition of France’s chief architect, Baron Haussmann, who said it was a crime against French history. Haussmann ‘s ‘destruction’ of Paris was primarily to do with slum clearance and had nothing ‘political’ about it, although his grandes avenues scheme did have a military overtone. The destruction of the Tuileries actually allowed a 16th century plan be completed – the result is the rue de Rivoli and the layout we see today. Hardly trying to escape the past. The principle museum in Baghdad was looted during the second Gulf War, as were several state buildings in Egypt during the Arab Spring rising in Cairo. Booty was the objective, not politics.
The reason France has such a beautiful built heritage is that banks and insurance companies are required to own and maintain them – they are included in their ‘primary liquidity’ requirements. In Ireland we see fit to destroy everything, look at the ESB building on was once was the longest Georgian facade in Europe, look at Wood Quay, etc.
The sad thing is that the gombeen ‘patriots’ of today are such fanatics that they drive away an interest by ordinary citizens in history and heritage.
(and its aesthetic, not ascetic;))

Again I am asking you to actually identify who you are referring to?

This reads highly hyperbolic and caricatural - just hitting out - but you are not giving details or identifying your personal targets.

MarchDub

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I believe that you have found yourself to be entirely at odds with the idea that a young nation may express a desire to establish a new identity. Nations that were born of blood and revolt don't often place value on the edifices of the former occupier, no matter how pretty and grand you may feel they look. It would be misguided to assume otherwise, as such an attitude has been evidenced in countless nations throughout recorded history - most prominently the Middle-East, but also Revolutionary France and Soviet Russia.

As such, one could argue that the destruction of Nelson's column was simply another step in the effort to formulate what could be considered an "Irish identity", one which was clearly distinct from it's imperial British past. Therefore, monuments dedicated to the lives of foreign Military figures would then cease to have any relevance beyond their clear ascetic value.

Yes, it had to do with a post-independence evolving sense of Irish identity. While I don't think that the method of removing Nelson was the way to do it most Dubliners at the time where supportive of keeping the pillar and replacing Nelson - and something that has not so far being mentioned on the thread I think was the actual position that the statue was placed in. It stood literally in the very centre of the Irish capital, Dublin.

So for years this was also part of the talk/discussion - removing the statue and replacing it with something more suitable to the position the statue was actually placed in at very the centre of the Irish capital. Many believed that it was more appropriate to place something of Irish identity there.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

...

It stood literally in the very centre of the Irish capital, Dublin.

So for years this was also part of the talk/discussion - removing the statue and replacing it with something more suitable to the position the statue was actually placed in at very the centre of the Irish capital. Many believed that it was more appropriate to place something of Irish identity there.

Dare I ask what figure do people think should have replaced Nelson??? A suitable figure seems an impossible target.

thecommietommy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The house I grew up in had a monument to Nelson a few hundred yards away. It was one if the first and was funded by fellow officers and men.

There was a genuine fear that the French were going to invade and Nelson was seen as being instrumental in removing that threat. Not only was he a national hero, he was also loved by his men and was a bit of a character. He directly disobeyed orders (the famous one being when he out his looking glass to his blind eye and didn't see orders to withdraw) which appealed to people and he created gossip but didn't seem to care.

His early death added to his stardom, particularly in the manner in which it came about.

The British navy was rampant with sodomy and gang rape but even the bisexual Nelson couldn't have been loved by all of the British navy Besides, I doubt if the many men pressed ganged into the British navy and economic conscripts who were often the victims of the cat of nine tails etc for the slightest mistake or indisgression, thought highly of him.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So should we expect the destruction of Dun Laoghaire harbour, the Dublin to Rosslare railway and the grand canal next?

Harbours, railways, canals have an economic function, Nelsons pillar was built to honour an imperialist megalomaniac.

thecommietommy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Dare I ask what figure do people think should have replaced Nelson??? A suitable figure seems an impossible target.

Micheal Collins.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Dare I ask what figure do people think should have replaced Nelson??? A suitable figure seems an impossible target.

The Haslam's or the Sheehy-Skeffington's would have been symbolically been a good fit for both traditions.

Hannibal

thecommietommy wrote: »

Micheal Collins.

Collins is too much of a division, to FG this ex-IRA commander is revered but to SF and FF he's perhaps the biggest sell out and traitor the country has ever seen.
Anything that can be said of erecting a statue of Collins could be argued for a statue of DeValera.

thecommietommy

CDfm wrote: »

The Haslam's or the Sheehy-Skeffington's would have been symbolically been a good fit for both traditions.

Dotsey wrote: »

Collins is too much of a division, to FG this ex-IRA commander is revered but to SF and FF he's perhaps the biggest sell out and traitor the country has ever seen.
Anything that can be said of erecting a statue of Collins could be argued for a statue of DeValera.

:rolleyes: Ok, maybe Jedward then so ?

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

:rolleyes: Ok, maybe Jedward then so ?

Tut tut.:p

Sound of Silence

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So should we expect the destruction of Dun Laoghaire harbour, the Dublin to Rosslare railway and the grand canal next?

Absolutely not.

You have to be able to make the clear distinction between buildings and settlements which were clearly established for entirely commercial and practical purposes, and monuments which were erected solely to regale the memories of what are now considered to be foreign military figures.

As I had mentioned in my previous post, many of these monuments have a clear ascetic value as far as their design is concerned. However, they no longer maintain any sort of relevancy to the majority of the Irish population beyond any sort of historical value - not least due to the fact that Nelson only witnessed five years of Britain's new found Union, and as such had little influence in Ireland.

Perhaps you could provide a reason why the Irish people should be interested in maintaining British Military monuments.

golfwallah

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Dare I ask what figure do people think should have replaced Nelson??? A suitable figure seems an impossible target.

William Dargan would have been a suitable figure - an Irishman, pioneer of railways in Ireland and a man who implemented large scale practical economic improvements for the betterment of the country and its people:
http://www.irrs.ie/Journal%20171/171%20Dargan.htm

Sound of Silence

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Quite wrong in all respects. Immediately after a revolution a few statues of individuals are destroyed, but these inevitably are despots - Hoxha, Saddam, Stalin, Ceausescu, Pahlavi , etc. and that is quite ‘normal’ given what they did to their peoples.

You have simply created your own conditions for what you would consider to be appropriate dissent.

The British occupation of Ireland obviously being quite tame and uneventful, the Irish people would have no reason but to respect such monuments.

My point is that too many of Ireland’s ‘heros’ were (are) narrow-minded blinkered peasant hillbillies, intent on destruction, without a mandate and without an ability to differentiate between history and heritage.

Then perhaps one may argue that the Irish people are simply treating Britain's military "heroes" with the same level of respect which has been demonstrated in your "narrow-minded" post. A few posts back you dismissed a posters entire arguement as "bigoted" simply because he derided many of Britain's undeniable failures in Ireland.

If you're attempting to inspire a new found appreciation for British culture in Ireland, then perhaps you should rethink your strategy and approach the topic with more sensitivity. Just a thought.

I fully understand and accept the desire, need and merit for ‘new’ countries (including Ireland) to establish an identity. I’ve worked with many of them in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, and it is great to see the respect they have for the past. When the Old Town of Warsaw was destroyed by the Germans, it was rebuilt, brick by brick, exactly as it had been, by workers bussed in after their shifts were over. That is respect for history and heritage.

You've ignored the fact that I was referring specifically to monuments rather than buildings. Could the restoration of popular period architectural style be considered an appreciation for Polish/Lithuanian/Russian/Prussian heritage, or simply an expression of a renewed national spirit?

Destruction of buildings was much more rare, usually by a mob intent on plunder. Very few buildings were destroyed in France, the Bastille was stormed to obtain gunpowder, nothing else. It was primarily a storehouse and a prison for the better-off, not the poor. During the same revolution a mob stormed the Tuileries Palace and looted it: in the 1848 revolution it again was looted, and also by the Communards in the 1870’s, who also robbed and set the Louvre on fire. Much later when it finally was destroyed, it was against the forceful opposition of France’s chief architect, Baron Haussmann, who said it was a crime against French history. Haussmann ‘s ‘destruction’ of Paris was primarily to do with slum clearance and had nothing ‘political’ about it, although his grandes avenues scheme did have a military overtone. The destruction of the Tuileries actually allowed a 16th century plan be completed – the result is the rue de Rivoli and the layout we see today.

As noted, I was not referring to buildings, rather monuments dedicated to foreign military figures.

In Ireland we see fit to destroy everything, look at the ESB building on was once was the longest Georgian facade in Europe, look at Wood Quay, etc.

Architectural abominations are hardly the sole reserve of the Irish people. Such abominations can be evidenced in every major Nation and City across the globe.

I personally find Georgian architecture to be beautiful, and frankly I consider the ESB building to be utterly repulsive. However, this is clearly beyond my initial point.

The sad thing is that the gombeen ‘patriots’ of today are such fanatics that they drive away an interest by ordinary citizens in history and heritage.
(and its aesthetic, not ascetic;))

I'm not aware of which "patriots" you are referring to, but I'm absolutely certain that you will provide a comprehensive list in your next post.

Also, it's "bigoted", not "biggoted"

It's "heroes", not "heros".

The fact that you missed the entire message of my original post in favour of pointing out a spelling error is frankly disconcerting.

CDfm

Sound of Silence wrote: »

The British occupation of Ireland obviously being quite tame and uneventful, the Irish people would have no reason but to respect such monuments.

This was different and happened in 1966 and was not carried out by the state.Those who blew up the monument had no right to.

There is a huge distinction.

We have some obligations to those who stayed on, and they include Yeats and Douglas Hyde, who did lots for Irish Culture.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

We have some obligations to those who stayed on, and they include Yeats and Douglas Hyde, who did lots for Irish Culture.

An excellent point.

In reference to our built heritage, Nelsons statue was the work of Thomas Kirk sculptor from Cork http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib3_1202298339 .
The pillar itself was made from a comination of Limestone and Granite. The granite came from Gold hill in Wicklow, one of the well known quarries that have sadly closed now http://wicklowgranitequarries.jimdo.com/history-of-the-quarries/ . The quarrying of granite for this type of project was a huge undertaking in that era and overall it seems there was a massive effort of craftwork by Irish artisans. On this basis it is another example of needless destruction of our built heritage. The people who worked their crafts on the monument are not considered yet in this argument. I am taking about ordinary masons that would have had the trade handed through generations of families from father to father.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Dare I ask what figure do people think should have replaced Nelson??? A suitable figure seems an impossible target.

Well I'm only recalling the talk of the period and it was a constant suggestion that someone who had contributed to Irish freedom and to the making or establishing of the Irish nation who ought to occupy the central place in the capital city.

Personally I didn't have a favourite - but I would have liked for the actual pillar to have remained.

Sound of Silence

CDfm wrote: »

This was different and happened in 1966 and was not carried out by the state.Those who blew up the monument had no right to.

There is a huge distinction.

We have some obligations to those who stayed on, and they include Yeats and Douglas Hyde, who did lots for Irish Culture.

The bombing wasn't carried out by the Irish State? Of course it wasn't.

And in the eyes of the British Government, neither was the War of Independence.

Regarding your comment on Yeats and Hyde, I believe you have entirely misunderstood my posts. I'm having difficulty seeing how British Military monuments have anything to do with the Anglo-Irish diaspora and the Celtic revival, as the two groups are in fact mutually exclusive.

I hope you're not mistaking me for a nativist.

jonniebgood1

Sound of Silence wrote: »

The bombing wasn't carried out by the Irish State? Of course it wasn't.

And in the eyes of the British Government, neither was the War of Independence.

Are you comparing the 2?

Its not a good comparison in my opinion and you should support the comparison further if you think there is a link.

pedroeibar1

Sound of Silence wrote: »

You have simply created your own conditions for what you would consider to be appropriate dissent.
..........
You've ignored the fact that I was referring specifically to monuments rather than buildings.
..................
As noted, I was not referring to buildings, rather monuments dedicated to foreign military figures.
.........
I'm not aware of which "patriots" you are referring to, but I'm absolutely certain that you will provide a comprehensive list in your next post.

This has become more than tiresome, with selective revisionary quoting by you. In your post you spoke of edifices, not monuments.

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Nations that were born of blood and revolt don't often place value on the edifices of the former occupier, no matter how pretty and grand you may feel they look

An edifice is a building, particularly a large, imposing building. From late Middle English: via Old French from Latin aedificium, from aedis 'dwelling' + facere 'make'. If you write edifice I cannot be expected to know that you are referring to monuments, which are a different thing altogether. That is why I wrote about the buildings of Warsaw, Paris, etc.

As for the gombeen 'patriots' I was referring to those who obliterated centuries of records in the Four Courts, to those who killed unarmed policemen, an old retired admiral who helped a few local lads when asked, and to those who torched countless historic houses. Include those who burned the home of Plunkett, founder of the Co-op movement, and Gogarty. Sadly the list is too long, but you probably get my drift. The taxpayer of course had to pay eventually, under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923. Plus ca change..........

CDfm

Sound of Silence wrote: »

The bombing wasn't carried out by the Irish State? Of course it wasn't.

And in the eyes of the British Government, neither was the War of Independence.

Whoa there.

Regarding your comment on Yeats and Hyde, I believe you have entirely misunderstood my posts. I'm having difficulty seeing how British Military monuments have anything to do with the Anglo-Irish diaspora and the Celtic revival, as the two groups are in fact mutually exclusive.

I quoted Yeats view in post 124

In the Senate, W.B. Yeats suggested that “if
another suitable site can be found Nelson’s Pillar should not be broken up. It represents the
feeling of Protestant Ireland for a man who helped to break the power of Napoleon. The life
and work of the people who erected it is a part of our tradition. I think we should accept the
whole past of this nation and not pick and choose. However it is not a beautiful object”
(quoted in Henchy, 1948: 62).

http://www.ucd.ie/gsi/pdf/34-2/sack-2.pdf

So they were Yeats thoughts and i respect them.

I hope you're not mistaking me for a nativist.

I don't know what a nativist is.

dubhthach

CDfm wrote: »

I don't know what a nativist is.

Nativist is a term from US history, specifically the anti-immigration groups who particularly oppose Irish immigration in period 1840-1870. Think of Daniel Day Lewis character in "Gangs of New York". the "Know Nothing" party and the "Bowery Boys" are examples of Nativist groups in US history.

Of course it also ties in with the rebirth of the Klan in the 20th century etc.