Will the 100th anniversary of the 1916 Rising be less devisive than the 50th was?

LordSutch

Just heard an interesting discussion on the radio about the 100th anniversary of the 1916 rising which is now only four years away. The chat also focused on the 50th anniversary back in 1966, and how the upcoming anniversary in 2016 might be viewed by the public at large.
Myths/propaganda about the Rising are also delt with by Pat Kenny & his guest!

Interesting listening, click on Link then go to 1h:43mins > http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A3266365%3A133%3A24-04-2012%3A

john reilly

depends if people with an anti irish agenda try to antagonise republicans or not

Sunnyisland

With the next general election being held either before or more likely in 2016,and with SF (if current trends continue)getting more & more support, I would think all the main parties be playing up there republican and nationalist roots,So I would think it will be huge and in a positive way,one hopes.

paky

i dont think 2016 will be in anyway significant. people rarely celebrate it as it is

Lapin

Cancel it.

The signatories of the Proclamation would turn in their graves if they knew how this country has been run since independence.

The sight of a bunch of self congratulatory politicians jostling for a share of the centenary limelight will be hard to take.

KeithAFC

From listening to that interview, it seems no one liked the rebels at all and actually didn't bother listening to them. Padraig Pearse for example when reading out the proclamation was only in front of a few people. So there never was loud cheers which was reported to people in America.

So it was built on propaganda and myth. Can't say I am surprised by this at all.

Shea O'Meara

KeithAFC wrote: »

From listening to that interview, it seems no one liked the rebels at all and actually didn't bother listening to them. Padraig Pearse for example when reading out the proclamation was only in front of a few people. So there never was loud cheers which was reported to people in America.

So it was built on propaganda and myth. Can't say I am surprised by this at all.

In Irish schools you learn from an early age that the rising wasn't popular with the majority of people. There's no myth about it.
It was the treatment of the prisoners by the British Army which began to sway public opinion.
Then of course the eventual realisation that a foreign government didn't give a toss about your people regardless of how many Union Jacks you waved

I wouldn't mind some peaceful repeat in 2016 to get the country free of the civil war parties.

The Waltzing Consumer

KeithAFC wrote: »

From listening to that interview, it seems no one liked the rebels at all and actually didn't bother listening to them. Padraig Pearse for example when reading out the proclamation was only in front of a few people. So there never was loud cheers which was reported to people in America.

So it was built on propaganda and myth. Can't say I am surprised by this at all.

Keith, that is not myth or propaganda and is taught to every school child in the Republic, it is also publicized on any tour related to the Rising too.

As for what propaganda tools they used back during that time, well, it is good to examine it and acknowledge the most truthful version of events.

KeithAFC

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Keith, that is not myth or propaganda and is taught to every school child in the Republic, it is also publicized on any tour related to the Rising too.

As for what propaganda tools they used back during that time, well, it is good to examine it and acknowledge the most truthful version of events.

The woman herself in the interview said it was a myth and for me that is propaganda to Americans with Irish ancestry.

john reilly

everybody knows that they didnt have support and that the rising was badly planned. back then like now there was plenty of west brits in dublin. but the same as now the british give the rebels the upper hand by executing the leaders. amazingly despite having the finances and numbers the brits were too stupid to learn from there mistakes and continued to boost the ira by killing 13 unarmed civilians in derry and letting the hunger strikers die.

KeithAFC

john reilly wrote: »

everybody knows that they didnt have support and that the rising was badly planned. back then like now there was plenty of west brits in dublin. but the same as now the british give the rebels the upper hand by executing the leaders. amazingly despite having the finances and numbers the brits were too stupid to learn from there mistakes and continued to boost the ira by killing 13 unarmed civilians in derry and letting the hunger strikers die.

Many people would argue against this and say that Sinn Fein used the hunger strike as a way of getting publicity for the party and to boost the Irish Republican cause around the world.

Sinn Fein have a lot of questions to answer in regards to the Hunger strike.

john reilly

KeithAFC wrote: »

Many people would argue against this and say that Sinn Fein used the hunger strike as a way of getting publicity for the party and to boost the Irish Republican cause around the world.

Sinn Fein have a lot of questions to answer in regards to the Hunger strike.

even if that was true it was a propoganda war the brits lost out of stuborness and stupidity

linfield

john reilly wrote: »

even if that was true it was a propoganda war the brits lost out of stuborness and stupidity

Lost out on what exactly?

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Many people would argue against this and say that Sinn Fein used the hunger strike as a way of getting publicity for the party and to boost the Irish Republican cause around the world.

Sinn Fein have a lot of questions to answer in regards to the Hunger strike.

A lot of people and organisations have a lot to answer for, That would be why SF have called continuously for an Independent truth commision,But guess who is not in favor of it ?

LordSutch

Quite amazing how the pro-rebel myths & propaganda got into the US papers so quickly (next day)!

tfitzgerald

Lapin wrote: »

Cancel it.

The signatories of the Proclamation would turn in their graves if they knew how this country has been run since independence.

The sight of a bunch of self congratulatory politicians jostling for a share of the centenary limelight will be hard to take.

I agree completely

The Waltzing Consumer

LordSutch wrote: »

Quite amazing how the pro-rebel myths & propaganda got into the US papers so quickly (next day)!

Was it really the next day? I have no idea myself, but it sounds pretty quick for that time and the lines of communication back then.

I am not sure why you and Keith seem to focus on "myths & propaganda" during this time near 100 years ago. I am pretty sure if we looked at any political event back then anywhere in Europe, the propaganda would be pretty crude and obvious compared to today's standards.

Sunnyisland

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Was it really the next day? I have no idea myself, but it sounds pretty quick for that time and the lines of communication back then.

I am not sure why you and Keith seem to focus on "myths & propaganda" during this time near 100 years ago. I am pretty sure if we looked at any political event back then anywhere in Europe, the propaganda would be pretty crude and obvious compared to today's standards.

Its all they can do, that is to look back, For if they look forward it doesent look to good for there union does it.

Denerick

1916 is historically interesting as an expression of the proto fascist nationalist militarism of its day. It harkens back to the various revolutions in France in the 19th century (To the barricades dear fellows, to the barricades!) But realistically it was not a modernist, liberal revolutionary attempt. It was a tiny, aggressive, hyper nationalist elite, with a few socialists, who attempted to force an unpopular and unwanted doctrine of militarism upon a populace who showed absolutely no interest whatsoever in such an ideology.

The subsequent rise of the pro-rising Sinn Féin movement was mostly a consequence of the conscription crisis. The drift to a war of independence was mostly an accident and initially unpopular.

When you combine these facts with Pearse's queasy and weird fundamentalism and his disregard for human life you have a particularly abhorrent moral example for the 21st century.

Unfortunately the Easter Rising is one of those foundational myths upon which nation states claim their legitimacy. Unfortunately our founding myth is a mildly embaressing episode in our history. The French have the French Revolution, the Americans the American one. And we the Easter Rising, whose intellectual leader was an asexual weirdo who presumed that tiny elites had the inherent right to lead the destiny of millions.

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

Its all they can do, that is to look back, For if they look forward it doesent look to good for there union does it.

You know something we don't? Scotland will not vote to leave the Union. So I don't see what else you could be on about.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

1916 is historically interesting as an expression of the proto fascist nationalist militarism of its day. It harkens back to the various revolutions in France in the 19th century (To the barricades dear fellows, to the barricades!) But realistically it was not a modernist, liberal revolutionary attempt. It was a tiny, aggressive, hyper nationalist elite, with a few socialists, who attempted to force an unpopular and unwanted doctrine of militarism upon a populace who showed absolutely no interest whatsoever in such an ideology..

What was this "doctrine of militarism" they were trying to force on people?

If 'Militarism' was so unpopular, why were so many off fighting in WW1?

whose intellectual leader was an asexual weirdo

A "weirdo" eh? I'm glad you're using such scientific terms. Well, we can't be harbouring any 'weirdos'. I'm sure a test for such creatures is carried out when applying for any public office or position of responsibility. We really do owe much to technology ( I hear theres an iphone app that can spot them at 10 paces )

As to "asexual" - lets imagine, for the sake of it, that Mr Pearse was in fact asexual, established beyond argument. How would that make his views and actions any less or more valid than if he was either homosexual, or heterosexual?

LordSutch

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Was it really the next day? I have no idea myself, but it sounds pretty quick for that time and the lines of communication back then.

I am not sure why you and Keith seem to focus on "myths & propaganda" during this time near 100 years ago. I am pretty sure if we looked at any political event back then anywhere in Europe, the propaganda would be pretty crude and obvious compared to today's standards.

I was simply refering to what was said (claimed) in the clip, maybe you haven't listened to it yet?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

In Irish schools you learn from an early age that the rising wasn't popular with the majority of people. There's no myth about it.
It was the treatment of the prisoners by the British Army which began to sway public opinion.
Then of course the eventual realisation that a foreign government didn't give a toss about your people regardless of how many Union Jacks you waved

I wouldn't mind some peaceful repeat in 2016 to get the country free of the civil war parties.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Keith, that is not myth or propaganda and is taught to every school child in the Republic, it is also publicized on any tour related to the Rising too.

As for what propaganda tools they used back during that time, well, it is good to examine it and acknowledge the most truthful version of events.

john reilly wrote: »

everybody knows that they didnt have support and that the rising was badly planned. back then like now there was plenty of west brits in dublin. but the same as now the british give the rebels the upper hand by executing the leaders. amazingly despite having the finances and numbers the brits were too stupid to learn from there mistakes and continued to boost the ira by killing 13 unarmed civilians in derry and letting the hunger strikers die.

Which begs the question; why are these people viewed as heroes? And why is, what was a hugely unpopular event at the time, celebrated as if it was hugely popular?

Strange.

charlemont

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

In Irish schools you learn from an early age that the rising wasn't popular with the majority of people. There's no myth about it.
It was the treatment of the prisoners by the British Army which began to sway public opinion.
Then of course the eventual realisation that a foreign government didn't give a toss about your people regardless of how many Union Jacks you waved

I wouldn't mind some peaceful repeat in 2016 to get the country free of the civil war parties.

And that is the reason to celebrate it, Only the people who live on this island should govern this island no matter what background they are from. WW1 came at a bad time for us, We should have had Home Rule much sooner but the Unionists and House of Lords put paid to that so fair play to those people who risked their lives to fight for the freedom we have today, Look I have no doubt that if the Uprising didn't take place we would have eventually split anyway or got devolved government but we would also have been the weak spot in the UK's defence against a Nazi attack so I think we got out at the right time.

Nodin

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Which begs the question; why are these people viewed as heroes? And why is, what was a hugely unpopular event at the time, celebrated as if it was hugely popular?

Strange.

Popularity 'at the time' is hardly a measure of worth. What was done was subsequently judged to be "right". Meanings and judgements attached to events in popular culture shift in emphasis over time.

SMASH THE UNIONS

Yet another extravagant waste of taxpayer's money. The centenary celebrations will be almost as unpopular as the original rising in 1916. Is there any way I can opt out of this? I can see it now - an army of civil servant government cronies hired to organise this racket, rubbing their greasy hands together with glee as the money rolls in. Unlimited expenses - whatever you need, you get. Gombeens from Kerry being paid to get the train up to Dublin to prepare a parade. How many household charges will this cost? Why don't SF use their own party funds to cover their cost of this?

charlemont

KeithAFC wrote: »

You know something we don't? Scotland will not vote to leave the Union. So I don't see what else you could be on about.

Have to agree there Keith, Can't see the Scots leaving the safety of the Union, At least Scotland is on the same island as England and Wales, Scotland played a pivotal role in the Union and wasn't exactly a conquered land like Ireland, I don't claim to know too much about her history with England but I'd argue England and Scotland both shared the spoils from Ireland, England in the south and Scotland in the north which obviously is why Ireland is still divided. You do know Keith that the original English settlers here ended up speaking Irish and were described as "More Irish than the Irish themselves", All that changed after the reformation though.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Nodin wrote: »

Popularity 'at the time' is hardly a measure of worth. What was done was subsequently judged to be "right". Meanings and judgements attached to events in popular culture shift in emphasis over time.

Judged right by whom? Because I certainly don't view it as being "right". Can you tell me what was "right" about it?

And anyway, that is mostly the point; that is hasn't/wasn't judged to have been "right". It was the fact that they were executed which swayed public opinion to sympathize with them in some shape or form, not the fact the public agreed with their views or that they actually staged the rising itself.

Nodin

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

Yet another extravagant waste of taxpayer's money. ?

How much is budgeted for this? A source please.

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

The centenary celebrations will be almost as unpopular as the original rising in 1916.

What is that assertion based on?

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

Is there any way I can opt out of this? I can see it now - an army of civil servant government cronies hired to organise this racket, rubbing their greasy hands together with glee as the money rolls in. Unlimited expenses - whatever you need, you get..

What is that notion based on? Is there a precedent?

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

Gombeens from Kerry being paid to get the train up to Dublin to prepare a parade.
..

Are you stating that everyone in Kerry is a "Gombeen" or do you think that a selection process to find same and enrol them was carried out by the Government in that county?

Taking the wider implications of your claim - Why would people from outside Dublin be brought up to "prepare" the parade? If there are certain areas of expertise that exist outside the capital, are these to be ignored?

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

Why don't SF use their own party funds to cover their cost of this?

SF are not organising it.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Just a friendly reminder that this thread is about the anniversary of the Rising - which has little to do with Scotland or Sinn Fein hunger strikers.

Nodin

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Judged right by whom?.

..by those who do so. Certainly a good number turned out at the 90th anniversary.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Because I certainly don't view it as being "right". Can you tell me what was "right" about it??.

Any people have the right to self-determination.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

And anyway, that is mostly the point; that is hasn't/wasn't judged to have been "right". .......

...then, but largely is now.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Nodin wrote: »

..by those who do so. Certainly a good number turned out at the 90th anniversary.



Any people have the right to self-determination.



...then, but largely is now.

Self - Determination? It can be argued very well that we have not had that since the Rising i.e. "Ruled from Rome" and now the "troika".

Well I'd dispute largely. However it is clear that the majority of Irish people today do feel it was "right". I just don't understand how a largely unpopular uprising by what today would essentially be terrorists can today be viewed as having been right. I find it odd.

Nodin

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Self - Determination? It can be argued very well that we have not had that since the Rising i.e. "Ruled from Rome" and now the "troika"

Well I'd dispute largely. However it is clear that the majority of Irish people today do feel it was "right". I just don't understand how a largely unpopular uprising by what today would essentially be terrorists can today be viewed as having been right. I find it odd.

C'est la guerre.

As a sidenote, I might add that the "stand up" method of the fighting used is far more palatable to the general public than the more practical hit and run or remote bomb tactics.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Nodin wrote: »

C'est la guerre.

As a sidenote, I might add that the "stand up" method of the fighting used is far more palatable to the general public than the more practical hit and run or remote bomb tactics.

Well one is essentially more "manly", the other more intelligent (in most cases anyway).

Also I'm not going to lie, I had to Google what C'est la guerre meant/inferred... Guess you learn something new everyday:pac:

LordSutch

I never realised how much bitternes there was surrounding the 50th anniversary in 1966.

Click on Link then go to 1h:43mins > http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/...A24-04-2012%3A

Rebelheart

LordSutch wrote: »

I never realised how much bitternes there was surrounding the 50th anniversary in 1966.

Click on Link then go to 1h:43mins > http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/...A24-04-2012%3A

Isn't it just a wonder that your "surprise" always happens to be about Irish resistance to British rule, with each of your exclamations being designed to show that British rule was popular in Ireland and how marginalised we native Irish have been in our resistance to your colonial state's rule over us in Ireland.

Denerick

Nodin wrote: »

What was this "doctrine of militarism" they were trying to force on people?

If 'Militarism' was so unpopular, why were so many off fighting in WW1?

The Irish people did not support the kind of proto fascism paramilitarism that Pearse insisted was in the national interest, without ANY popular support whatsoever. Its legacy has been the creation of an utter monstrosity in the north, and of a group of people who feel they are entitled to murder and maim so long as 'Ireland is unfree'. Pearse was a monster, 1916 was a travesty, and its inheritence is murder.

A "weirdo" eh? I'm glad you're using such scientific terms. Well, we can't be harbouring any 'weirdos'. I'm sure a test for such creatures is carried out when applying for any public office or position of responsibility. We really do owe much to technology ( I hear theres an iphone app that can spot them at 10 paces )

As to "asexual" - lets imagine, for the sake of it, that Mr Pearse was in fact asexual, established beyond argument. How would that make his views and actions any less or more valid than if he was either homosexual, or heterosexual?

Come on Nodin, don't do this shrug of the shoulders thing. He was a strange chap, learn to accept it.

LordSutch

Rebelheart wrote: »

Isn't it just a wonder that your "surprise" always happens to be about Irish resistance to British rule, with each of your exclamations being designed to show that British rule was popular in Ireland and how marginalised we native Irish have been in our resistance to your colonial state's rule over us in Ireland.

When I said "I never realised how much bitternes there was surrounding the 50th anniversary in 1966" I was refering to what was said in the clip regarding the bitterness between the pro Treaty side and the Anti treaty side . . .

Oh dear. soulds like you haven't listened to the clip either )

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

The Irish people did not support the kind of proto fascism paramilitarism that Pearse insisted was in the national interest, without ANY popular support whatsoever..

You still haven't explained what it was, when it was formally rejected....a perusal of the declaration read leaves me none the wiser.

Denerick wrote: »

Its legacy has been the creation of an utter monstrosity in the north, and of a group of people who feel they are entitled to murder and maim so long as 'Ireland is unfree'. Pearse was a monster, 1916 was a travesty, and its inheritence is murder.
..

You'll find that the motivation, or origin, of much of the violence of that period was in fact the sectarian statelet and its treatment of the catholic minority. While the perversity of human nature means that it's entirely possible that somebody somewhere read Pearses work and - in total isolation - decided to launch a bombing campaign based on those alone, its never going to be a common phenomena.

Denerick wrote: »

Come on Nodin, don't do this shrug of the shoulders thing. He was a strange chap, learn to accept it.

"a strange chap", "asexual weirdo", "monster","murder","maim". You seem very fond of emotive language.....

Whether or not, or to what degree, Mr Pearse was "strange" is a subjective matter, around which a great deal of unfounded speculation takes place. As no new papers have arisen and the invention of time travel is not likely, I can't see you having any greater insight than the others who have tried to tie the matter down - certainly not by what you've thrown out here.

I am, however, still intrigued as to the "asexual" comment. Do please answer my question - what effect on the validity of the political views of Pearse (or indeed any figure) are their sexual procliviities (or lack of)? Does one or more persuasions render a persons economic theories invalid? I'm intrigued to know.

Denerick

Nodin wrote: »

You still haven't explained what it was, when it was formally rejected....a perusal of the declaration read leaves me none the wiser.

Fine. Show me the national referendums, the polls, the expressions of support from a sizable chunk of the population, the electoral success of the militant republican movement prior to 1916. It was an isolated and unprovoked assault on a body politic that most people were content with, in the understanding it would eventually lead to regional autonomy (With the aspiration to a more total freedom over time)

But no. A few hyper nationalist proto fascists decided that the constitutional system that was in place was 'dishonourable' and decided the only course of action was murder and destruction.

"a strange chap", "asexual weirdo", "monster","murder","maim". You seem very fond of emotive language.....

Whether or not, or to what degree, Mr Pearse was "strange" is a subjective matter, around which a great deal of unfounded speculation takes place. As no new papers have arisen and the invention of time travel is not likely, I can't see you having any greater insight than the others who have tried to tie the matter down - certainly not by what you've thrown out here.

Are you claiming he isn't one of the above calumnies?

I am, however, still intrigued as to the "asexual" comment. Do please answer my question - what effect on the validity of the political views of Pearse (or indeed any figure) are their sexual procliviities (or lack of)? Does one or more persuasions render a persons economic theories invalid? I'm intrigued to know.

He is either asexual or a paedophile. If he is asexual then his comment about kissing the lips of young boys is innocent and possibly even poetic. If he is a paedo then it makes him a paedo. The choice is yours.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

Fine. Show me the national referendums, the polls, the expressions of support from a sizable chunk of the population, the electoral success of the militant republican movement prior to 1916. It was an isolated and unprovoked assault on a body politic that most people were content with, in the understanding it would eventually lead to regional autonomy (With the aspiration to a more total freedom over time)

But no. A few hyper nationalist proto fascists decided that the constitutional system that was in place was 'dishonourable' and decided the only course of action was murder and destruction.

.

"murder" eh? "destruction"? You might specifically refer to where such was advocated.

You might also find where a majority voted on all options available for Irish independence.

Denerick wrote: »

Are you claiming he isn't one of the above calumnies?.

The claims and somewhat hysterical tone in this thread so far are all yours. I still await any answer as to their relevance.

Denerick wrote: »

He is either asexual or a paedophile. If he is asexual then his comment about kissing the lips of young boys is innocent and possibly even poetic. If he is a paedo then it makes him a paedo. The choice is yours.

So now we have to contend with four possibilities, rather than three. If we can throw in bisexual it's five.

Once again I'll ask the question - what effect on the validity of the political views of Pearse (or indeed any figure) are their sexual procliviities (or lack of)? Does one or more persuasions render a persons economic theories invalid?

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

I think the Pearse debate could be an interesting thread As it stands, however, it is not the topic of this thread. Can we get back on topic please? Cheers.

snafuk35

If you are true Irishmen and Irishwomen and if you truly love your country you must unashamedly honour the men and women of 1916.
1916 inevitably is divisive - tell me of one revolution that isn't?
In 1914 the Home Rule Bill had been passed by both houses of the British parliament. The IPP majority was won in 1910 because the Irish people demanded Home Rule. The UVF, their Tory supporters and the British Army conspired to suppress the democratic will of the majority of the Irish people. The UVF was allowed to import 20,000 German rifles and mobilise to oppose Home Rule while the British Army in Ireland refused to implement the law while the Tories openly supported this treason.
When the Irish Volunteers organised to defend Home Rule, they faced DMP and RIC harrasment, arrest and imprisonment.
John Redmond meanwhile duped tens of thousands of Irishmen to fight for Britain in the Great War and as many as 50,000 perished. At the Irish Convention in 1917 the Unionists refused to support Home Rule or any other arrangement.
Quite clearly the democratic will of the Irish people had been usurped.
Pearse had been a Home Ruler as were many nationalists whether in Sinn Féin or the IPP and they were betrayed at every turn.
It was quite clear the after the Great War that Irish Home Rule already suspended would be opposed at every turn by the Tory government.
That is why the patriots who fought in 1916 deserve recognition for their sacrifice.
They had no democratic backing but when national aspirations are usurped what rebel group ever had democratic backing? Did the French Resistance seek democratic support the defeat the occupation of their country? It is clear that the groundwell of support for Irish republicanism following 1916 justified the rising. People who were sitting on the fence became radicalised over night.
After their victory in 1918 when Sinn Féin MPs were jailed and imprisoned the remainder called the British bluff and established Dáil Éireann.
Men like Dan Breen, Seán Treacy and others began the War of Independence and when their actions were met by the British establishment of an openly tyrannical military regime and the introduction of the Tans and Auxilliaries who attempted to cow the people, it was clear there was no alternative but armed struggle.
The British were at war with the Irish people - their attempts to kill Irish nationalism with kindness had failed ignominously and they resorted to their old tactic of brute force.
Anyone who fails to acknowledge the heroism of the rebels of 1916 who lit the spark of the fire that gave this nation its liberty is clearly delusional or else tragically ignorant of history.
The Rising and the War of Independence and most tragically the Civil War were not pretty but they were necessary to create the democratic freedoms we all enjoy today no matter what our political opinions are.
The Irish Revolution of 1916-1923 lit the spark of other revolutions around the world and inspired other nations to break the link with tyranny and empire and dictatorship around the world.
Before 1916 the Irish people were serfs, slave-minded and men like Pearse and the patriots who took up arms sought to lift the nation out of the shadow of Britain.

KeithAFC

The UVF, their Tory supporters and the British Army conspired to suppress the democratic will of the majority of the Irish people. The UVF was allowed to import 20,000 German rifles and mobilise to oppose Home Rule while the British Army in Ireland refused to implement the law while the Tories openly supported this treason.

Ulstermen wanting freedom you mean?

snafuk35

KeithAFC wrote: »

Ulstermen wanting freedom you mean?

The UVF and their unionist fellow travellers in the rest of the country sought to crush Irish nationalist aspirations entirely not just in Ulster but across the island of Ireland.
In the end they got their six county sectarian statelet.
But had Irish nationalists not fought for the Irish Republic there would have been no 26 county Free State let alone a 26 county Irish Republic.
The British Army and the Anglo-Irish Protestant elite in the south sought to crush the Irish people's aspirations for independence.

LordSutch

snafuk35 wrote: »

If you are true Irishmen and Irishwomen and if you truly love your country you must unashamedly honour the men and women of 1916.
1916 inevitably is divisive - tell me of one revolution that isn't?

But of course, there was no revolution in 1916, and regarding your long winded ramble in praise of the rebels, all I can say is there are many shades of Irishness, and I for one would not buy into the "heroes of 1916" who to my mind were opportunist rebels and nothing more, who then took it upon themselves (without widespread support) to declare and then start a rebellion!!! Many people were killed, including many policemen, many civilians, many soldiers, many rebels too. Homes and shops were burnt down and Dublin was in ruins (thank you rebels), and I say this in the full knowledge that most people milling around Dublin in that week of 1916 would agree with me 100%.

Pearse read out the proclamation to a handful of supporters and a dog, so there was no great Revolution in 1916, and there was no great groundswell of support either, but there certainly was lots of anti rebel feeling in that Easter of 1916, and the rebels got to know about that as they were led away to the jibes to jeers from the public at large, many of whom had their sons fighting & dying on the western front against ze Germans. From many an Irishman's point of view in 1916, the rebels stabbed them in the back while they were fighting the Germans in Europe. Nothing too controversial there I hope.

murphaph

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I just don't understand how a largely unpopular uprising by what today would essentially be terrorists can today be viewed as having been right. I find it odd.

As is always the case with any war, guerilla or otherwise, the victors write the history of that war. In Ireland from 1922 on the official line as taught in schools was quite black and white. It was only later that schools dared to teach that in fact the rising was deeply unpopular at the time.

I would however hope that we could mark the anniversary in a somewhat grown up way this time, rather than running about the place renaming railway stations maybe we could remember all those who died in 1916, mostly the completely innocent civilians who didn't buy into Pearse's "blood sacrifice" mentality.

swimming in a sea

pretty annoyed by the spending of millions on 100th anniversary of a bunch of poets, teachers and civil servants destroying the city and causing the death of many innocent people. Maybe if any of the rebels had a real job they would not have had time to be playing a little boy soldiers.

But I suppose 100 years is plenty of time for vested interests to put a better spin on events.

Dubhlinner

snafuk35 wrote: »

The UVF and their unionist fellow travellers in the rest of the country sought to crush Irish nationalist aspirations entirely not just in Ulster but across the island of Ireland.
In the end they got their six county sectarian statelet.
But had Irish nationalists not fought for the Irish Republic there would have been no 26 county Free State let alone a 26 county Irish Republic.
The British Army and the Anglo-Irish Protestant elite in the south sought to crush the Irish people's aspirations for independence.

There would have been through home rule. They probably would have partitioned it alright, but the southern state would have ended up declaring autonomy and we'd be in a similar situation to today.

Had there been no 1916 (and we're really into 'if my aunt had balls' territory here) and no uprisings, and Ireland remained one jurisdiction, we may even be in the position Scotland are in now, with the entire island making a decision as one on independence.

Nodin

O dear.....

LordSutch wrote: »

But of course, there was no revolution in 1916, .

There was, however, an attempt at same.

LordSutch wrote: »

and regarding your long winded ramble in praise of the rebels, all I can say is there are many shades of Irishness, and I for one would not buy into the "heroes of 1916" who to my mind were opportunist rebels and nothing more, who then took it upon themselves (without widespread support) to declare and then start a rebellion!!! .

...or "revolution".

It is certainly true that there are many shades of Irishness. Rather unfortunately you seem to put your own observation aside and go on to reject that shade represented by those who rose in 1916.

LordSutch wrote: »

Many people were killed, including many policemen, many civilians, many soldiers, many rebels too. Homes and shops were burnt down and Dublin was in ruins (thank you rebels), and I say this in the full knowledge that most people milling around Dublin in that week of 1916 would agree with me 100%. .

As you have to no access to temporal transport and neither do I, not one of us can say with "100%" or "full knowledge" anything. Even were such means available, the tools and mediums which allow that form of data to be collected with a degree of accuracy were not extant in the period.

The picture - insomuch as we might speculate on it - would seem to be a small part 'support', a small part 'hostility', a large part of 'bewilderment' and an amount of that most cutting of attitudes, 'indifference'.

LordSutch wrote: »

Pearse read out the proclamation to a handful of supporters and a dog, .

You'll find that - and I believe this to be a universal occurrence - clandestinely organised events tend not to be well attended by those 'outside the loop'. One of course could advertise ones intentions, but that would lead to certain difficulties, particularily in regard to overthrowing governments and such like.

LordSutch wrote: »

...... and the rebels got to know about that as they were led away to the jibes to jeers from the public at large, many of whom had their sons fighting & dying on the western front against ze Germans. From many an Irishman's point of view in 1916, the rebels stabbed them in the back while they were fighting the Germans in Europe. Nothing too controversial there I hope.

Yet a scant two years later their apologists become the overwhelming majority selected by vote in a general Election. Evidently feelings were neither as deep or as widespread ad you might believe.

Fenian Army

Irish Unionist in belittlement of Easter rebels shocker. (Yes LordSutch I'm talking about you).

Aren't you on record as saying that you would have fought against the heroes of '16?