"Cradle of Nation" Derelict disgrace

MadsL

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-drennan/john-drennan-cradle-of-nation-a-derelict-national-disgrace-3074306.html

Concern is growing at the highest level of government over the ongoing dereliction of the central location of the 1916 rebellion.

The area surrounding the GPO and Moore St, where the first Republic was declared and lost, is within the theology of the Irish Republic, a sacred space where the heroism of those boys, poets, shop-keepers and Socialist pamphleteers, who took on an Empire and created the seeds of the Republic, should be celebrated.

However, as the centenary of 1916 comes ever more close, the current state of this cradle of the Republic has been described by relatives of the original Rising leaders, and correctly so, as a "national disgrace''

With four years to the centenary is it all possible to get to some movement on actually having a National Monument worth visiting? This site has enormous historical resonance but some some bizarre reason it seems impossible to get it sensitively restored. In any other nation this would be a prized location. In Dublin, to be blunt, a kip. Any ideas why Ireland cannot get its act together on this?

Dirk Gently

First build an actual republic, then worry about celebrating it. The aftermath of 1916 was a lost opportunity, no republic was ever built.

Perhaps 2016 can be the reset button when we can throw off the yoke of conservatism, corruption and cronyism. That would be worth celebrating.

benway

Dirk Gently wrote: »

First build an actual republic, then worry about celebrating it. The aftermath of 1916 was a lost opportunity, no republic was ever built.

Perhaps 2016 can be the reset button when we can throw off the yoke of conservatism, corruption and cronyism. That would be worth celebrating.

Nailed it. This is why I think 2016 is so important, a reminder that we won't simply be granted a true republic without a struggle, and that what we have now doesn't even come close.

Mr.Micro

benway wrote: »

Nailed it. This is why I think 2016 is so important, a reminder that we won't simply be granted a true republic without a struggle, and that what we have now doesn't even come close.

By struggle, I presume you mean our fiscal and public office competence and propriety?

Lapin

MadsL wrote: »

Any ideas why Ireland cannot get its act together on this?

Possibly because there are more pressing things to get our act together about than tarting up a few streets around the Ilac Centre.

Nodin

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-drennan/john-drennan-cradle-of-nation-a-derelict-national-disgrace-3074306.html



With four years to the centenary is it all possible to get to some movement on actually having a National Monument worth visiting? This site has enormous historical resonance but some some bizarre reason it seems impossible to get it sensitively restored. In any other nation this would be a prized location. In Dublin, to be blunt, a kip. Any ideas why Ireland cannot get its act together on this?

...because traditionally, if you show certain elements of Irish society a stunning natural vista, they will look at it and sigh with wonder, imagining just how many houses/shopping centres/industrial sites they can cram into it. The same would extend to historic buildings or buildings of historical significance.

MadsL

tarting up a few streets

Err, one street. In fact, a small terrace. In the scale of billions of euros does this make such a huge impact?

Nice bit of reverse whataboutary.

AlekSmart

MadsL wrote: »

Err, one street. In fact, a small terrace. In the scale of billions of euros does this make such a huge impact?

Nice bit of reverse whataboutary.

But,But...MadsL...didya not inspect de planz for the NEW ! IMPROVED ! Moore St "Quarter" incorporating O Connell St,Parnell St and environs..?

Surely you,like myself were stunned into silence by such incredible inventions as the North Facing Ski-Slope Garden and hundreds of thousands of sq Metres of SHOPPING space....?

Can we do it......YES we can....as long as we keep our eyes shut !!!!!

MadsL

AlekSmart wrote: »

But,But...MadsL...didya not inspect de planz for the NEW ! IMPROVED ! Moore St "Quarter" incorporating O Connell St,Parnell St and environs..?

Surely you,like myself were stunned into silence by such incredible inventions as the North Facing Ski-Slope Garden and hundreds of thousands of sq Metres of SHOPPING space....?

Can we do it......YES we can....as long as we keep our eyes shut !!!!!

According to the revised ABP permissions there wil be no NorthFace (sponsorship deal?) Ski-slope...

I have posted one proposed treatment (put together by relatives of the 1916 volunteers) for Moore St over at the (unfortunetly closed) Dublin City Forum thread on Moore St..



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77308775&postcount=56

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

toxic nationalistic claptrap

I'm curious, as an outsider, albeit with 15 years invested in Ireland, why is celebrating what many see as the birth of the Republic "toxic nationalist claptrap" - how is it any more toxic than Bastille Day, 4th July, or Cinco de Mayo?

And 'toxic'?? - what undesirable attitude is it spreading in your view?

I'm trying to see how a monument to the surrender offensive? I'm sorry, other than some sort of extreme pacifist stance or extreme Unionist stance - what is to object to here?

I'm increasingly baffled as to some sort of Irish group-think that Irish history is something to be ashamed of? As an Englishman, I don't particularly like my nation's history and there have been some very unsavoury times, but I can see the point in maintaining cultural sites, particularly this one. Some Irish people seem content to see them rot. I don't get it.

As to costs, we seem to be able to afford coloured bollards and weird grassy staircases in Smithfield, but not anything more cultural resonant? Putting a money value on it seems to be a strange thing to bring into it, but surely 2016 should be huge tourist year, and it is less than four years away.

Mr.Micro

MadsL wrote: »

As to costs, we seem to be able to afford coloured bollards and weird grassy staircases in Smithfield, but not anything more cultural resonant? Putting a money value on it seems to be a strange thing to bring into it, but surely 2016 should be huge tourist year, and it is less than four years away.

With respect, the current physical state of the area is probably more accurate as a reflection with the state of the country at present. Too much is made of the 1916 thing IMO. The Titanic thing, is the way to go for those who want to make money and exploit a huge tragedy, like its something great.

MadsL

Mr.Micro wrote: »

With respect, the current physical state of the area is probably more accurate as a reflection with the state of the country at present. Too much is made of the 1916 thing IMO. The Titanic thing, is the way to go for those who want to make money and exploit a huge tragedy, like its something great.

Sorry, you are saying attracting tourism is just 'making money'. What a weird and perverse way to view it, how about providing inward spending, jobs and stimulating the domestic economy?? Or should we just provide more tax breaks for hotels or keep the zombie ones alive. What exactly do you think tourists come to Ireland to see??

On the Titanic thing, as someone who's great-grandfather worked on the chains for Titanic; Titantic was an incredible engineering feat as should be celebrated, it was flawed admittedly, but these things happen if you drive head first into solid objects. The engineering and craftmanship was incredible and like nothing seen before. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

Mr.Micro

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, you are saying attracting tourism is just 'making money'. What a weird and perverse way to view it, how about providing inward spending, jobs and stimulating the domestic economy?? Or should we just provide more tax breaks for hotels or keep the zombie ones alive. What exactly do you think tourists come to Ireland to see??

Well Belfast has opened its Titanic centre and has( for some time)/will trade on a huge tragedy, as I stated above. So what is so perverse about that? People do not come to Ireland to see the sites of the 1916 rising.... do they? I think not. Doing up the area will not cure the inner city decline.

Mr.Micro

MadsL wrote: »

On the Titanic thing, as someone who's great-grandfather worked on the chains for Titanic; Titantic was an incredible engineering feat as should be celebrated, it was flawed admittedly, but these things happen if you drive head first into solid objects. The engineering and craftmanship was incredible and like nothing seen before. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

Its the human tragedy thing that tourists will come to see. The engineering thing has a minor role. The tragedy far outweighs the other, so IMO its exploitative, and the 1916 thing could go the same way.

MadsL

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well Belfast has opened its Titanic centre and has( for some time)/will trade on a huge tragedy, as I stated above. So what is so perverse about that?

Nothing. What I am calling perverse is your view that it is just about 'money making'.

People do not come to Ireland to see the sites of the 1916 rising.... do they?

15% of them come for cultural reasons - and tourism made up €4.3 billion (2.7% of GDP) in 2009. 15% of 4.3 billion is €645m. That's a hell of a injection into the economy. About a children's hospital a year.

[IMG][/img]

I think not. Doing up the area will not cure the inner city decline.

I never said it would - but, how do you think inner cities recover? By people spending time (and by definition money) there.

Also Ireland is badly losing ground in this regards

THE Irish share of the world tourism market has plummeted in the past decade, despite us spending more money on tourism than any other European country.

Radical ideas in a confidential report, seen by the Irish Independent, include flying the Union Jack in more locations to make British visitors feel more comfortable.

The report says Ireland had 0.93pc of the world market in 2000 but had just 0.64pc of the global market a decade later.

The study, commissioned by the Dublin City Business Association, also found:

- There appears to be little correlation between marketing spending by tourism organisations and visitor numbers.
- Too little money is spent on selling Dublin overseas given the amount it contributes to the tourist economy.
- Too many tourist attractions are looking dated and fresh ideas are needed.
- There should be specific attractions aimed at attracting the lucrative Chinese and French markets.

and don't say spend more on marketing...

The report says: "The World Tourism Organisation found that, in 2009, Ireland had the highest marketing spend per tourist arrival of 29 European countries.

"Ireland's marketing spend per arrival was €7.40, or almost eight times that of France and almost 19 times that of Italy."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/our-tourism-share-plummets-in-spite-of-record-marketing-spend-2977309.html

Dirk Gently

MadsL wrote: »

I'm curious, as an outsider, albeit with 15 years invested in Ireland, why is celebrating what many see as the birth of the Republic "toxic nationalist claptrap"

except it's not celebrating the birth of a republic, it's celebrating the birth of an authoritarian theocracy, one which ruled through religion, nationalism and conservative values. We've never had the accountability, transparency or responsibility which I would associate with a republican revolution. I'll celebrate the republic when we have a republic worth celebrating.

fly_agaric

MadsL wrote: »

Any ideas why Ireland cannot get its act together on this?

My cynical list of reasons:

1. There's really no quick buck to be made out of it for some one "important" in Ireland (maybe nearer 1916 anniversary?). It is a manana/Investment in our heritige/high-faluting sort of stuff (we're not really into that nonsense).

2. It's Dublin. Most of our politicians don't really like the place very much imo. The fact that they have to leave pressing matters in their constituencies to come to Leinster House is quite a pain in the bottom really! Extra money from national kitty might be hard to obtain even if Ireland wasn't on its uppers.

3. Not only that, it is also in altogether the "wrong" area of Dublin for money to be spent on it! <JOKE>Maybe rewrite all the history books to say St. Stephen's Green S.C. was occupied in 1916 (would rest of the world notice?)</JOKE>

Nodin

Dirk Gently wrote: »

except it's not celebrating the birth of a republic, it's celebrating the birth of an authoritarian theocracy, one which ruled through religion, nationalism and conservative values. We've never had the accountability, transparency or responsibility which I would associate with a republican revolution. I'll celebrate the republic when we have a republic worth celebrating.

We never had a theocracy in this country, so lets ditch the hyperbole, shall we? And please don't come back with any "But..." nonsense.

The ideals and general intent of the leaders of 1916 never came about. However those ideals and indeed independence are worth commemoraration as is the sacrifice and intent that went with them. It's not about DeValera, Charles McQuaid and what came after.

Nodin

fly_agaric wrote: »

My cynical list of reasons:

1. There's really no quick buck to be made out of it for some one "important" in Ireland (maybe nearer 1916 anniversary?). It is a manana/Investment in our heritige/high-faluting sort of stuff (we're not really into that nonsense).

Apart from the whole "heritage/high faluting" thing being nonsense, I agree. The K club would be more likely to attract "culural heritage" status.

MadsL

Dirk Gently wrote: »

except it's not celebrating the birth of a republic, it's celebrating the birth of an authoritarian theocracy, one which ruled through religion, nationalism and conservative values. We've never had the accountability, transparency or responsibility which I would associate with a republican revolution. I'll celebrate the republic when we have a republic worth celebrating.

So to be clear, until we achieve your utopia, in the meantime any significant sites associated with 1916 should rot into the ground, is that your view?

By that basis, the Alamo should be left to the termites, and the Tower of London sold for architectural salvage.

My cynical list of reasons:

1. There's really no quick buck to be made out of it for some one "important" in Ireland (maybe nearer 1916 anniversary?). It is a manana/Investment in our heritige/high-faluting sort of stuff (we're not really into that nonsense).

Oh really, that why the state paid almost 30m for Farmleigh.
Nearer 2016?? Have you looked at the date? Less than four years away.

2. It's Dublin. Most of our politicians don't really like the place very much imo. The fact that they have to leave pressing matters in their constituencies to come to Leinster House is quite a pain in the bottom really! Extra money from national kitty might be hard to obtain even if Ireland wasn't on its uppers.

But we can spend a couple of mil down in Smithfield out of the DCC purse?

3. Not only that, it is also in altogether the "wrong" area of Dublin for money to be spent on it! <JOKE>Maybe rewrite all the history books to say St. Stephen's Green S.C. was occupied in 1916 (would rest of the world notice?)

:rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster

why focus on 1916 though? why not the actual founding of the current state and constitution on 29 December 1937?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

...I had no idea that America had a similar conflict and situation to NI in its history. You'll doubtless be able to inform us of the parallels.

I do recall however, that - in its heyday - the Klan had large gatherings every 4th of July. Does that mean that the 4th is terminally tainted with racist ideology now? Or was it what the 4th represented that had them gathering in the first place?

southsiderosie

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well Belfast has opened its Titanic centre and has( for some time)/will trade on a huge tragedy, as I stated above. So what is so perverse about that? People do not come to Ireland to see the sites of the 1916 rising.... do they? I think not. Doing up the area will not cure the inner city decline.

MadsL wrote: »

15% of them come for cultural reasons - and tourism made up €4.3 billion (2.7% of GDP) in 2009. 15% of 4.3 billion is €645m. That's a hell of a injection into the economy. About a children's hospital a year.

Yes, but to be honest, most people coming for culture are not thinking about Irish political history: they are interested in the music, language, dance - the diddly-eye version of Irish culture. And most tourists who aren't there to be on the piss don't linger in Dublin.

The unfortunate truth about the area around the GPO is that it is, frankly, unpleasant. Regardless of its historical importance, I think it is a shame that one of Dublin's main thoroughfares and in particular, the areas behind it are both ugly and unruly. And, until quite recently, it was too expensive for its dumpiness to be charming.

Finally, assuming they did fix the GPO up, do you really think that it would be a major tourist draw? The city spent millions fixing up the quays, only to let them be overtaken by junkies. Having a river walk is a lovely addition to any city, and has helped revitalize more than a few urban cores, but in Dublin's case it just seems like it was a waste of money because nobody could be bothered to maintain it (sound familiar?).

matthew8

benway wrote: »

Nailed it. This is why I think 2016 is so important, a reminder that we won't simply be granted a true republic without a struggle, and that what we have now doesn't even come close.

What do you mean what we have doesn't even come close? How is Ireland not a republic?

MadsL

Just a quick response; I'll post more later.

Why is the stock response to most problems in Ireland "what's the point?"

Is it possible that one site might just dredge up enough national (with a small N) pride to actually do something A. Positive, B. Inspiring and C. Present Irish History in an grown-up, moved on and constructive manner. Would that be possible?

As to Permabear's ridiculous contention that it is "debatable that it is a cultural site", I'd remind him that it's a National (Capital N) Monument (Capital M) - we don't recognise any higher legal status (unless you want to start talking about UNESCO sites - don't get me started on how DCC fked up that application for Georgian Dublin as a UNESCO site)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

MadsL wrote: »

Is it possible that one site might just dredge up enough national (with a small N) pride to actually do something A. Positive, B. Inspiring and C. Present Irish History in an grown-up, moved on and constructive manner. Would that be possible?

Can I ask, what is stopping people from doing this now? Why can't civic organizations mobilize to get things cleaned up? Is there a 'Friends of O'Connell Street" organization or some such?

Nobody familiar with my posting history would accuse me of being a libertarian, but I find it curious that there are so many threads with people saying "DO SOMETHING" (by which they usually mean the government) whereas in reality a lot of urban renewal and cultural heritage programs in other countries are really driven by private-public sector partnerships, or civic organizations which work with/harass government to take responsibility for the historical sites under its remit, and help raise funds and public awareness for their restoration. With all of the money that sloshed through the economy over the last 20 years, nobody did this? Because, frankly, given the DCC's history, I wouldn't trust them to preserve a jar of fruit, much less historically important sites! (RIP Viking settlement).

MadsL

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And yet other civic projects are taking place? How much do you actually think this would cost.

@rosie You (understandably) don't know the recent history of this site. The site is in the ownership of Chartered Land, formerly the vehicle for developer Joe O'Reilly of Golden Circle fame. All very well asking for volunteers to clean up the site, the problem is that this site is in the hands of a developer still under investigation and his former company. So unless you advocate direct action and squatting there has to be some Govt action.

Civic organisations have been lobbying for this site; Save 16, National Graves Association, An Taisce, etc. and notably relatives of the Volunteers. However when Dublin City Council issues secret contracts and puts CPO structures in place to hand this site over to a developer it is not easy for those groups to get heard, never mind have impact.

So, in a word "what is stopping people from doing this now?" Ownership. This site is not publicly owned.

fly_agaric

MadsL wrote: »

Oh really, that why the state paid almost 30m for Farmleigh.
Nearer 2016?? Have you looked at the date? Less than four years away.

I mean that I don't think there's any money to be made for one of our great "businesspeople" from any developments there. No need for more shopping centres, restaurants, hotels etc on the site.

Is not Farmleigh House's main function a pad that our leaders can use to impress foriegn visitors? (i.e. buying & restoring it etc only has a tangential connection to preserving and highlighting the state's heritage/history).

MadsL wrote: »

But we can spend a couple of mil down in Smithfield out of the DCC purse?

As you said that is DCC. IMO the national politicians who are not from Dublin do not like spending money on the capital city unless they have no alternative. They aren't going to fight for something to happen/money to be spent this.

MadsL

fly_agaric wrote: »

I mean that I don't think there's any money to be made for one of our great "businesspeople" from any developments there. No need for more shopping centres, restaurants, hotels etc on the site.

Chartered Land are supposedly proceeding with the development at the site. So I guess there's a "need" for a shopping centre.

Is not Farmleigh House's main function a pad that our leaders can use to impress foriegn visitors? (i.e. buying & restoring it etc only has a tangential connection to preserving and highlighting the state's heritage/history).

Then why not just use a hotel? Did anyone complain that Farmleigh was a waste of money?

As you said that is DCC. IMO the national politicians who are not from Dublin do not like spending money on the capital city unless they have no alternative. They aren't going to fight for something to happen/money to be spent this.

Spike costs a million to keep clean

Some things we seem to find money for...

KyussBishop

MadsL wrote: »

Spike costs a million to keep clean

Some things we seem to find money for...

Exactly that came into my mind while reading this thread.

Cut down that hideous spike on O'Connell street, and replace it with a monument; get rid of a fugly eyesore (saving a lot of money in the process) and commemorate the 1916 rising all at once, think that could make everyone happy.

MadsL

KyussBishop wrote: »

Cut down that hideous spike on O'Connell street, and replace it with a monument; get rid of a fugly eyesore (saving a lot of money in the process) and commemorate the 1916 rising all at once, think that could make everyone happy.

Not exactly what I had in mind...but my point is that funds are available for more 'frivolous' projects.

The relatives proposal could easily be done with a couple of million, and I see no reason why that could not be done in conjunction with a diaspora campaign and VIP invitation for the centenary. Could we start the bidding at $2500 a head? Limited to a 1000 guests? Or is that too near the bone for those complaining about how broke the country is?

AlekSmart

MadsL wrote: »

According to the revised ABP permissions there wil be no NorthFace (sponsorship deal?) Ski-slope...

DAMN !...Another incredible opportunity wasted.....Dublin could have challenged the entire global horticultural establishment with the original feature....Grrrrr !! (BTW: That "Proclamation Path" idea is excellent )

Originally Posted by MadsL :
But we can spend a another couple of mil down in Smithfield out of the DCC purse?

It's worth noting that "we" already spent several millions on Smithfield Mk1,then left the completed project to rot on the vine before deciding to throw more money at a re-hash which,unless the actual problem issue is addresed,will be equally fruitless spending !

fly_agaric

MadsL wrote: »

Chartered Land are supposedly proceeding with the development at the site. So I guess there's a "need" for a shopping centre.

I find it difficult to see this ever going ahead.
How long is planning application with the council (must be several years)?
I suppose we'll see next year as apparently it is due to open then according to what I just read on Chartered Land's (defunct looking) website!

http://www.charteredland.ie/dublincentral.htm

MadsL wrote: »

Then why not just use a hotel? Did anyone complain that Farmleigh was a waste of money?

Ireland was a legend in its own lunchtime. An important wealthy European country. Our leaders felt they should have some sort of official pad (a sort of baby-Chequers) befitting their status. Using hotels just doesn't quite convey the same impression of power and wealth. Probably our media believed this too (don't recall anything negative). I kind of thought it was a waste tbh.

expectationlost

got a link to the councils shaffrey report

expectationlost

MadsL wrote: »

According to the revised ABP permissions there wil be no NorthFace (sponsorship deal?) Ski-slope...

I have posted one proposed treatment (put together by relatives of the 1916 volunteers) for Moore St over at the (unfortunetly closed) Dublin City Forum thread on Moore St..



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77308775&postcount=56

i like that but wouldn't it be more appropiate outside the GPO, not convinced you want to make the place where they surrenedered or where they took their stand.

Duggys Housemate

Dirk Gently wrote: »

except it's not celebrating the birth of a republic, it's celebrating the birth of an authoritarian theocracy, one which ruled through religion, nationalism and conservative values. We've never had the accountability, transparency or responsibility which I would associate with a republican revolution. I'll celebrate the republic when we have a republic worth celebrating.

Lol,we didn't produce Iran. Apparently some half-educated revisionists think that Ireland was a theocracy in the 1930's - 1990's - it was in fact a liberal democracy, and people voted how they liked, joined what civic organisations they liked, and were free from summary arrest ( with the exception of some militant Republicans, as it happens).

Books were banned, but books were banned in all democracies for indecency. Even the US, which banned Joyce. Homosexuality was illegal everywhere. Divorce and Abortion were outliers but that was it. Compared to the rest of the world - a 20th century world of communism, fascism, peronism, or general petty dictatorships, Ireland was - and is - one of the most liberal and freest places on the planet. It has no secret police, no federal police, no war on drugs, terrorism, or other ideas. It jails almost nobody ( too few in fact). As fast as I know the blasphemy laws have never seen anybody prosecuted, nor has - tomy knowledge - there been prosecutions for homosexuality when it was illegal. There is no constitutional provision which places the Catholic Church in any privileged position. And the much vaunted corruption - which didn't exist for the first 50 years in any case, it was a largely Dublin FF based cronyism - is at a minor political level, not through the state. You don't bribe the police, the judiciary, or the civil service in Ireland.

So not a perfect Republic, but a Republic. The term is not reserved for your socialist or libertarian fantasies.

Nodin wrote: »

We never had a theocracy in this country, so lets ditch the hyperbole, shall we? And please don't come back with any "But..." nonsense.

The ideals and general intent of the leaders of 1916 never came about. However those ideals and indeed independence are worth commemoraration as is the sacrifice and intent that went with them. It's not about DeValera, Charles McQuaid and what came after.

But day were terrorists, innit. Now of course they had no democratic mandate but neither did the Boston Tea Party, what makes a commemoration is what came later. What the rebellions led to.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Exactly that came into my mind while reading this thread.

Cut down that hideous spike on O'Connell street, and replace it with a monument; get rid of a fugly eyesore (saving a lot of money in the process) and commemorate the 1916 rising all at once, think that could make everyone happy.

The Spike is alright.

delta_bravo

To be honest I don't see why this area is in need of preservation for the 1916 commemoration plans. I certainly wouldn't call it the "cradle of the nation".

Surely if you have a keen interest in promoting the thing you should focus on places like the GPO, RCSI, Boland's Mill, South Dublin Union and the various barracks.

Personally I find it a bit weird if we were to spend money on transforming the site of the surrender. Just doesn't sound right. If you had money to spend you could probably look at moving An Post out of the GPO and turning that into a 1916 museum.

MadsL

Surely if you have a keen interest in promoting the thing you should focus on places like the GPO, RCSI, Boland's Mill, South Dublin Union and the various barracks.

Why? Are they threatened with a shopping centre too?

Why would you let Moore St rot to concentrate on the GPO? Moore St was a HQ too.

lividduck

MadsL wrote: »

Why? Are they threatened with a shopping centre too?

Why would you let Moore St rot to concentrate on the GPO? Moore St was a HQ too.

Neither the time 1916 nor the place could or should be referred to as the "cradle of the Nation", the Nation well existed before this highly unpopular uprising took place.

MadsL

lividduck wrote: »

Neither the time 1916 nor the place could or should be referred to as the "cradle of the Nation", the Nation well existed before this highly unpopular uprising took place.

Really? In what form of nationhood that we would recognise?

later12

MadsL wrote: »

Really? In what form of nationhood that we would recognise?

I don't think it's particularly relevant if you recognize it. I think what's pretty relevant is that the vast majority of Irish people recognized and accepted Ireland's place within the United Kingdom and scoffed when the 1916 version of Occupy Dame Street announced a Republic on the steps of the GPO.

MadsL

later12 wrote: »

I don't think it's particularly relevant if you recognize it. I think what's pretty relevant is that the vast majority of Irish people recognized and accepted Ireland's place within the United Kingdom and scoffed when the 1916 version of Occupy Dame Street announced a Republic on the steps of the GPO.

You seem to be implying that that announcement and subsequent rising should not be celebrated in some way. Why is that? Reading the above, one would almost think you are suggesting reunification.

Duggys Housemate

later12 wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

Really? In what form of nationhood that we would recognise?

I don't think it's particularly relevant if you recognize it. I think what's pretty relevant is that the vast majority of Irish people recognized and accepted Ireland's place within the United Kingdom and scoffed when the 1916 version of Occupy Dame Street announced a Republic on the steps of the GPO.

About 50% of Anericans in British America were opposed to independence, and were no fans of the Boston Tea Party, or the declaration of independence. They came around.

Within a few years 80% of people voted for Sinn Fein.

later12

MadsL wrote: »

You seem to be implying that that announcement and subsequent rising should not be celebrated in some way. Why is that?

Absolutely.

Why is that? Because as has been established in another thread here recently, 1916 did not lead to the reforms that it promised in any meaningful way. The reforms that 1916 brought about were either no better or very much worse than the environment it sought to replace.

The only way one would be satisfied by the ultimate outcome of the 1916 rising -- which was to assist in the fermentation of nationalist separatism -- is if one believes that nationalist separatism was an asset to the island thereafter.

I don't want to rekindle an old debate of dubious relevance to this forum, but it is worth repeating that the men of 1916, including some of the most ruinously divisive heads of Government the state has ever seen, left Ireland in a worse state than that which they found it - most particularly Eamon de Valera, but also men like Richard Mulcahy and Rory O'Connor, the latter of whom particularly never again did a single commendable act for the Irish people.

It took Ireland upwards of 30 years to recover from the wounds incurred in the period from 1916 to 1923, and up to 40 years before it began to pick itself up from the ground, having been left long behind by its neighbours.

Reading the above, one would almost think you are suggesting reunification.

Absolutely not. I'm quite happy with Ireland being in charge of its own governance, but then, that was never realistically in doubt.

I just happen to think that what 1916 achieved - which was very little for the man in the street except to make him considerably worse off than his British neighbours - is not something that is worthy of a commemoration in itself.