Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Poppy wreath on site of Easter Rising battlefield

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    I don't see any problem with rembering soldiers but I do take issue with the fascist symbol.
    have you been at the brandy mince pies today?


  • Options
    #33
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    recedite wrote: »
    Only about 56% of adult males could vote before 1918, but subsequently all men over the age of 21 and most women over the age of 30 could. Unjust by today's standards, but in 1916 it was thought that only people who owned their own house or some form of property were sufficiently invested in the stability of society to vote responsibly.
    So in other words, Ireland (& GB) was not a free Country at the time
    recedite wrote: »
    The Easter Rising was not a contributory factor to any of those changes.
    It was part of their intention according to the Proclamation the morning the Rising began


  • Options
    #34
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Happy Christmas folks, and Happy Birthday Jesus.
    johnny_doyle wrote: »
    how would you have got a democratic mandate in Ireland in 1916?
    I don't think it was possible. On the other hand, John Redmond was pleading with people to wait until the end of WW1, saying everything would change then. Did the Easter Rising bring full democracy to Ireland? No, it brought war and destruction.
    Voting rights for landless men came in at the end of WW1, in 1918, by an Act of Parliament in London. Voting for women came about later as a result of political lobbying by the sufragette movement.
    Jesus wrote:
    So in other words, Ireland (& GB) was not a free Country at the time.
    Free in the sense that people were able to move around freely and go about their business, unlike say the Russian serfs of the previous century. But not free to participate in democracy. It was more aristocracy than democracy. But the Gaelic Revivalists such as Pearse and Yeats came from relatively wealthy backgrounds. They were not particularly interested in socialism like James Connolly was. Connolly was equally comfortable talking to the dock workers of Dublin or Liverpool. Pearse was part of the "arty" set; the Gaelic aristocracy. Hence a civil war between their two private armies would have been inevitable, even if the Rising had succeeded and the British had pulled out in 1916. It was the far left and the far right temporarily united in a nationalist rebellion.
    Jesus wrote:
    It was part of their intention according to the Proclamation the morning the Rising began
    A lot of good intentions listed in the proclamation, but they were not new ideas. They were rehashed from the 1798 rebellion, which got them from 1789 French revolution, and before that various French and American philosophers had been developing them prior to the 1777 American revolution.
    If you look at the moment the actual Irish Republic (with its constitution upholding those ideals) came into being, in 1937, there was barely a whimper and not a single shot fired. We have no Republic Day national holiday to celebrate it. So in that respect Pearse was right; its the pointless bloodletting that people remember, and that's what forges nations in the popular imagination.

    By striking in 1916, Pearse engineered a situation that guaranteed years of civil war, whether he won or lost the initial battle. From his point of view, that was a win-win situation, because the years of blood sacrifice would serve to purify the nation.

    Looking at Redmonds alternative; a 32 county Ireland with home rule (a Free State) was within reach. By getting the moderates of the south and the north around the negotiating table with the British, and leaving the extremists on the fringes. But Pearses pre-emptive actions snookered all that by polarising the country, permanently. And that's why I consider him to be one of the arch villians of Irish history.

    In an alternative history, a 32 county Ireland could have prospered peacefully similar to Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
    Yes, the Union Jack and the monarch would have remained for a while, but so what. Canada only dumped the Union jack for the maple leaf flag in the 1960s and NZ is debating a new flag now. Any of these countries could vote in a republic by referendum any time they wanted.
    It is ironic that so many young Irish emigrate to these countries, when you consider that we could have followed the exact same path to peace and prosperity.
    Also interesting to note that these countries have a completely different attitude to their WW1 war dead. For them, the pointless bloodletting of hundreds of thousands of their young men in Flanders and Gallipoli was a defining moment in forging their sense of nationhood. For us, it was an embarrassment to be forgotten. Our chosen "heroic bloodletting" happened around the GPO, and any other heroic bloodletting is a distraction from that.

    Basically then, Pearse and Redmond were both right, but they offered two different versions of the future.


  • Options
    #35
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    recedite wrote: »
    But the Gaelic Revivalists such as Pearse and Yeats came from relatively wealthy backgrounds. They were not particularly interested in socialism like James Connolly was. Connolly was equally comfortable talking to the dock workers of Dublin or Liverpool. Pearse was part of the "arty" set; the Gaelic aristocracy. Hence a civil war between their two private armies would have been inevitable, even if the Rising had succeeded and the British had pulled out in 1916. It was the far left and the far right temporarily united in a nationalist rebellion.
    I agree regarding the right & left but I'd like to hear you expand on an inevitable civil war between the IV's and ICA!

    recedite wrote: »
    If you look at the moment the actual Irish Republic (with its constitution upholding those ideals) came into being, in 1937, there was barely a whimper and not a single shot fired.
    The Republic didn't come into being until 1949. Regarding the constitution, not sure what your point is mate
    recedite wrote: »
    Pearses pre-emptive actions snookered all that by polarising the country, permanently. And that's why I consider him to be one of the arch villians of Irish history.
    You seem to be forgetting that the UVF armed & mobilised itself 3 years prior to the Rising and would have staged their own rebellion had the B Govt not backed down regarding Home Rule. The polarising and villainousness had well begun in earnest.
    recedite wrote: »
    In an alternative history, a 32 county Ireland could have prospered peacefully similar to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Yes, the Union Jack and the monarch would have remained for a while, but so what. Canada only dumped the Union jack for the maple leaf flag in the 1960s and NZ is debating a new flag now. Any of these countries could vote in a republic by referendum any time they wanted.
    It is ironic that so many young Irish emigrate to these countries, when you consider that we could have followed the exact same path to peace and prosperity.
    Pie in the sky stuff. Firstly I don't think the north would have acceded to Home Rule (as was demonstrated already by them) but supposing they did, there'd have been no way they'd have gone any further in terms of uniting with the rest of nationalist Ireland. New Zealand etc are simply not comparable in this respect. I do not know if you've ever visited Northern Ireland but you seem to have no notion of the fanaticism of Ulster Protestantism (no offence).

    (And Ireland was never given the option of voting in a referendum on a republic & wouldn't have been subsequently either because of the ever present threat of the Unionists.)
    recedite wrote: »
    Also interesting to note that these countries have a completely different attitude to their WW1 war dead. For them, the pointless bloodletting of hundreds of thousands of their young men in Flanders and Gallipoli was a defining moment in forging their sense of nationhood. For us, it was an embarrassment to be forgotten.
    I don't think those Countries saw WW1 as pointless bloodletting. In fact the opposite esp Australia where they fawned over the heroism of it for decades. Only recently have such Countries come to realise the futility of it all.
    recedite wrote: »
    Our chosen "heroic bloodletting" happened around the GPO, and any other heroic bloodletting is a distraction from that.
    Agreed
    recedite wrote: »
    Basically then, Pearse and Redmond were both right, but they offered two different versions of the future.
    Agreed



    (Thanks for the b'day wishes :))


  • Options
    #36
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    johnny_doyle wrote: »
    have you been at the brandy mince pies today?

    No, and don't such a ****ing smart ass, if you got a question to ask, ask it, stop making childih comments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Jesus. wrote: »
    I agree regarding the right & left but I'd like to hear you expand on an inevitable civil war between the IV's and ICA!
    Well, both private armies were kept under separate control, with different uniforms etc.. which underlines the fact that it was only an alliance between two groups with different long term objectives, not a single unified revolutionary army.

    Connolly- a marxist revolutionary, concerned with international workers solidarity; not narrow nationalism. Connected with "syndicalism" and the anarchist labour movement that was most notable in (later) "Republican" Spain.
    He was anti church. He controlled the Citizen Army.
    And most significant of all, he had a big Stalin moustache :pac:


    Pearse- Imagined himself to be part of a revived Gaelic aristocracy, ran a boarding school in an austere and militaristic fascist style, which turned out fanatical followers of his cause. Fiercely patriotic and nationalistic.
    Pro-church, so long as it was the RCC. Very similar in outlook to the "Nationalist" Franco faction in Spain
    Became spokesman for a rump faction of the Irish Volunteers after the larger faction had joined Redmond in the trenches.

    An alliance between these two was like the alliance between Hitler and Stalin; it was bound to end in a war, if they weren't both killed first.
    The Republic didn't come into being until 1949. Regarding the constitution, not sure what your point is mate
    Technically correct yes, but with the 1937 constitution creating a President, the monarch was displaced as head of state so the situation was somewhat ambiguous 1937-1949. People had more to worry about during that time, I suppose, than the official declaration of a republic.
    Firstly I don't think the north would have acceded to Home Rule (as was demonstrated already by them) but supposing they did, there'd have been no way they'd have gone any further in terms of uniting with the rest of nationalist Ireland.
    The mood at the end of WW1 was different to 1913. The rank and file UVF membership from Ulster had spent 4 years fighting alongside rank and file IV membership from other parts of Ireland in the trenches. If they had been guaranteed that Home rule did not equate to Rome Rule, I don't think many would have been in the mood for a civil war against the south.
    And don't forget it was already a united Ireland, as partition had not yet happened. So it was not a question of uniting them with the south, only of preventing their secession.
    I do not know if you've ever visited Northern Ireland but you seem to have no notion of the fanaticism of Ulster Protestantism (no offence).
    Oh yes, I've been there and was nearly blown up by an IRA bomb in Belfast.
    I don't think those Countries saw WW1 as pointless bloodletting. In fact the opposite esp Australia where they fawned over the heroism of it for decades. Only recently have such Countries come to realise the futility of it all.
    The reason they fawned over it, and still do, is that human nature refuses to believe that so much sacrifice could have achieved nothing. And even made the world a worse place.
    The same reason we fawn over the marxists and the fascists who caused the destruction of Dublin city centre in 1916.
    Australians choose to believe that as a positive outcome of their blood sacrifice, their nation took on an identity of its own. At the same time, deep down, songs such as Waltzing Matilda have always lamented the futility of it all.


  • Options
    #38
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    davycc wrote: »
    first i heard of them but they promote the south of ireland rejoining the commonwealth apparently :D

    Which would you prefer, what we have now or a 32 county Ireland in the Commonwealth, as independent as Canada?


  • Options
    #39
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    No, and don't such a ****ing smart ass, if you got a question to ask, ask it, stop making childih comments.

    Over the top reaction darkyhughes. You earn an infraction for the back seat moderation. If you have a problem with a post you should report it as per forum charter.
    Moderator.


  • Options
    #40
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Jonnie don't you think you're being a bit harsh on Darky?


  • Options
    #41
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Over the top reaction darkyhughes. You earn an infraction for the back seat moderation. If you have a problem with a post you should report it as per forum charter.
    Moderator.

    Well he's just being an unfunny trolli. How am I suppose to reply the post when it has nothing to do with the actual topic or the post I made? If he has a difference of opinion he can express it instead of restoring to playground remarks & trying to derail the thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    A lot of conjecture in this. Plus in relation to your last sentence there was a civil war anyway so its not much of an argument against Pearse to say a civil war was inevitable if he had won. In any case did the rebels not achieve their 1916 aim?

    I have never understood events in Ireland between 1912 and 1921 or any part of them being described as a civil war, other than in the context of promoting the agenda of one side. There was a war of independence. The proportion of unionists in Ireland at that time was pretty much identical to the proportion of loyalists in North America in 1775. I have never heard the American War of Independence called a civil war.


  • Options
    #43
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Jonnie don't you think you're being a bit harsh on Darky?
    No, if there someone has a problem with a post they should report it, not respond to it. In anycase your quote above is not needed in thread so stay away from this type of commentary in future.
    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    Well he's just being an unfunny trolli. How am I suppose to reply the post when it has nothing to do with the actual topic or the post I made? If he has a difference of opinion he can express it instead of restoring to playground remarks & trying to derail the thread.
    Your response was ott as per my moderation post. Any more comment should be by pm.
    feargale wrote: »
    I have never understood events in Ireland between 1912 and 1921 or any part of them being described as a civil war, other than in the context of promoting the agenda of one side. There was a war of independence. The proportion of unionists in Ireland at that time was pretty much identical to the proportion of loyalists in North America in 1775. I have never heard the American War of Independence called a civil war.

    The civil war followed the war of independence, nobody suggested it was prior to 1921.


  • Options
    #44
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    In anycase your quote above is not needed in thread so stay away from this type of commentary in future.

    Jawohl mein Fuhrer!


    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #45
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    No, if there someone has a problem with a post they should report it, not respond to it. In anycase your quote above is not needed in thread so stay away from this type of commentary in future.

    Your response was ott as per my moderation post. Any more comment should be by pm.


    The civil war followed the war of independence, nobody suggested it was prior to 1921.

    What did I say that was so bad? I told him to grow up & stop making childish comments. If deserve a red card for that he deserves one for trolling.


  • Options
    #46
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Jawohl mein Fuhrer!


    :rolleyes:

    Haha :pac:

    Yeah lighten up a bit mods.


  • Options
    #47
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    If deserve a red card for that he deserves one for trolling.

    The way Jonnie dishes out cards on here you'd swear he was a Football Referee suffering from OCD!


  • Options
    #48
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    Haha :pac:

    Yeah lighten up a bit mods.
    Jesus. wrote: »
    The way Jonnie dishes out cards on here you'd swear he was a Football Referee suffering from OCD!

    Thanks folks,
    Take a hike for a few days , a peaceful new year so....
    Feel free to pm each other about how unfair the referee is.

    Infraction bans both.
    Jonniebgood1


Advertisement