Easter 1916 celebrations are brainwashed nonsense

and is downright dangerous..............to hell with 1916 and the Easter celebrations. It really is a celebration of unelected, unaccountable, self appointed extremists who decided to take over the city at a time when political engagement and representation was ongoing. If a group of people did that today because they didnt like how the country was run how would or how should they be dealt with?

Maybe that would be right when you consider the banking debt etc and maybe the people of 1916 were right (history has shown they were) but celebrating this kind of thing has unintended consequences. To hell with the blood sacrifice crap. Ireland could very well be a united republic today if it werent for 1916. India pulled it off, Scotland had the option. How many people would have lived? How would our infrastructure be? Maybe there would have been a north - south civil war. Maybe that would have been a better outcome than an Anglo Irish war and following civil war. We dont know the answers to any of this. But we do know that an independent Ireland without the north has, mostly, been the cause of deaths in conflicts north and south of the border, a kind of home rule is Rome rule truth with dire consequences regarding child abuse, corruption as bad as some of British/Anglo Irish rule, massive emigration and real poverty until recent decades.

1916 celebrations are flawed. The day of the first Dail is what should be celebrated or else the date of the elections themselves. But people in Ireland are brainwashed from an early age and cant seem to see past it. If the past 100 years had of been a peaceful transition to independence that included the North then the addition of northern politicians may not be a bad add to the mix**. Couldnt be any worse could it?

** this assumes a different type of politician that conflict and prejudice in the north over the last 100 years bred.

Its equally possible that 1916 was the worst thing to happen Ireland in the last 100 years. And I definitely do not care for the nonsense and outright disgusting notion that heads of state should be born into it as per the British monarchy. I`m 100% republican. That probably messes with some shinnerbots heads.

Any other boardsies think celebrating 1916 is flawed?

Kermit.de.frog

I totally agree with the OP. The economic ideology they had was insane as well and would have led to a post 1960's Cuban style state. Commies the lot of them.

Dirty Dingus McGee

There are a whole load of nonsense maybe's in that opening post.

The reason 1916 is commemorated and not the independence of the 26 counties is because commemorating the independence of the 26 counties would be an insult to the nationalists in the north who were left behind.

1916 was about an independent Ireland (the whole island) and it's that the event started the process of Ireland gaining independent and that is why it is important just like the signing of the Declaration of Independent in America by the Founding fathers in 1776 despite the USA not being independent for many years later and a number of the founding fathers owning slaves.

galljga1

I predict another shinner bashing thread.

flas

You are very very flawed in any understanding of Irish history in the last 120 years,so much so its actually frightening...

BTW our biggest loss from 1916 was Connelly and his progressive thinking...

Canis Lupus

Its that time of the year again is it?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

To hell with the blood sacrifice crap. Ireland could very well be a united republic today if it werent for 1916. India pulled it off, Scotland had the option.

Erm, would that be the British Indian Empire that was partitioned into Pakistan and India and where up to 2 million died and 14 million were forced to move in the violence that followed, and where the countries to this day remain locked in conflict over regions like the Kashmir, which has seen each country develop a nuclear programme?

Was that India "pulling it off"? I wouldn't exactly say it all went swimmingly...

bnt

I just wish there was a bit more of a global, long-term perspective. It was 1916. The Great War was at its peak. Thousands of soldiers were dying daily around Verdun. How much time did the British government have to deal with some rebellious Irish, do you think? I can almost hear Asquith saying "just make it go away, please, we've got bigger fish to fry".

beach_walker

Deleted User wrote: »

...at a time when political engagement and representation was ongoing.

It was in its hole. The Brits needed meat for the grinder, hence them promising everything to everybody in order to get the bodies. Arabs, Jews, ourselves, Ulster protestants... all were assured they'd get their wishes if only they signed up for that pointless war.

RandomName2

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

There are a whole load of nonsense maybe's in that opening post.

The reason 1916 is commemorated and not the independence of the 26 counties is because commemorating the independence of the 26 counties would be an insult to the nationalists in the north who were left behind.

1916 was about an independent Ireland (the whole island) and it's that the event started the process of Ireland gaining independent and that is why it is important just like the signing of the Declaration of Independent in America by the Founding fathers in 1776 despite the USA not being independent for many years later and a number of the founding fathers owning slaves.

Well 1916 probably set back the entire concept of a united Ireland, so I don't know why you'd use that as a reason for celebration.

WesternZulu

Deleted User wrote: »

Ireland could very well be a united republic today if it werent for 1916. India pulled it off, Scotland had the option. How many people would have lived?

Hindsight is a great thing!
How could those involved in 1916 have foreseen any of this!

The very fact that they did what they did, knowing that it was in all likelihood going to end in failure, shows the desperation that they felt.
There was probably a sense that it was perhaps the only way to set the wheels in motion for independence.

iDave

You'd swear it was the only act of violence that took place in history the way some revisionists talk about it.

RandomName2

WesternZulu wrote: »

Hindsight is a great thing!
How could those involved in 1916 have foreseen any of this!

Well the volunteers couldn't because soldiers aren't supposed to have foresight: they are supposed to point and shoot.

The leaders of the Rising could see that they were disrupting a delicate political process by deliberately bringing WW1 to Dublin: but it was predominantly an IRB rising, which had never placed any value in politics, so that was to be expected. Pearse, in particular, liked the idea of a blood sacrifice, but the whole idea about taking up arms, digging trenches, and fortifying positions was all very much in vogue at the time, so you could just say they were guerilla fashion victims.

VinLieger

WesternZulu wrote: »

Hindsight is a great thing!
How could those involved in 1916 have foreseen any of this!

The very fact that they did what they did, knowing that it was in all likelihood going to end in failure, shows the desperation that they felt.
There was probably a sense that it was perhaps the only way to set the wheels in motion for independence.

They were impatient nothing more, Home Rule was inevitable and had simply been postponed till after the war and it would have eventually led to full independence much like the creation of the free state did, albeit with a lot less bloodshed which pearse we know now had a hard-on for

The flying mouse

I for one am very proud of the men and women who gave there lives and freedom to get our nation its nearly independence from the biggest empire of the day,hindsight is great with the if ony this and if only that,what about if only the british didn't invade us in the first place...

VinLieger

The flying mouse wrote: »

I for one am very proud of the men and women who gave there lives and freedom to get our nation its nearly independence from the biggest empire of the day,hindsight is great with the if ony this and if only that,what about if only the british didn't invade us in the first place...

What hindsight was required to know that Home Rule had simply been postponed till after the war?

The Backwards Man

It's something that happened in Dublin, I won't be celebrating it because it had no bearing in my life whatsoever, for good or bad. It's interesting from an historical point of view, that's it. I have to laugh at the likes of Donegal County Council organising events because some of the rebels could speak Irish, that's tenuous at best.

If we're going to commemorate futile exercises where people died needlessly, here's some food for thought. Well over a thousand Donegal men were killed in the Somme in 1916, none were killed at the GPO

beach_walker

VinLieger wrote: »

What hindsight was required to know that Home Rule had simply been postponed till after the war?

It was very convenient that it had to be postponed (just tell both sides to sign up and fight, you'll get whatever you want afterwards). Event the British conduct up til 1916 shows they didn't take it seriously whether it was turning a blind eye to the arming up North or Lloyd George's guarantee to Carson that "Ulster would never merge with the rest of Ireland".

Yeah just wait til the end of the War (whenever that would be, there was no end in sight to the slaughter), let the tens of thousands of Irish continue to die pointlessly and hope and pray that conscription wouldn't be introduced in Ireland in the mean-time so that the entire young generation wouldn't be sacrificed for 'King and Country'? Great plan.

beach_walker

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I won't be celebrating it because it had no bearing in my life whatsoever, for good or bad.

Really? None whatsoever?! Lol. And it wasn't just a Dublin thing, it's just the area that gets the most press.

pojfexcsc

I leave boards for months at a time but always come back for my fix of revisionism and anti-nationalism every once in a while, got a full on blast of it in the face from this thread

The Backwards Man

beach_walker wrote: »

Really? None whatsoever?! Lol. And it wasn't just a Dublin thing, it's just the area that gets the most press.

None whatsoever. As far as I know, the couple of dozen headers in Creeslough are still awaiting instruction.

Richard Hillman

Can't wait for it to be over. It is tacky at this stage.

VinLieger

beach_walker wrote: »

It was very convenient that it had to be postponed (just tell both sides to sign up and fight, you'll get whatever you want afterwards). Event the British conduct up til 1916 shows they didn't take it seriously whether it was turning a blind eye to the arming up North or Lloyd George's guarantee to Carson that "Ulster would never merge with the rest of Ireland".

Yeah just wait til the end of the War (whenever that would be, there was no end in sight to the slaughter), let the tens of thousands of Irish continue to die pointlessly and hope and pray that conscription wouldn't be introduced in Ireland in the mean-time so that the entire young generation wouldn't be sacrificed for 'King and Country'? Great plan.

Okay lets go further into theoreticals then, would Home Rule have happened without the war?

beach_walker

The Backwards Man wrote: »

None whatsoever. As far as I know, the couple of dozen headers in Creeslough are still awaiting instruction.

So you actually disagree with the premise of the thread then right? The OP is mad about 1916 because they (and most people) recognise it led to the war of independence, civil war and well the last 100 years of Irish history in one way or another.

To claim the last hundred years has had no effect on your life whatsoever, good or bad, is... well, possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've read in AH.

RandomName2

The flying mouse wrote: »

I for one am very proud of the men and women who gave there lives and freedom to get our nation its nearly independence from the biggest empire of the day,hindsight is great with the if ony this and if only that,what about if only the british didn't invade us in the first place...

The british didn't invade Ireland - the British were invaded by the Vikings, and over the course of a couple of hundred years became the Anglo-Saxons (or English). Instead you are thinking of the Normans who also invaded both England, and multiple kingdoms in Ireland. The Normans entirely subjugated England (killing their king in the battle of Hastings), and later gained control of a large part of Ireland by dominating many of the minor kingdoms, through their (partnership?) with Leinster. But that happened almost a thousand years ago, and had very, very little to do with anything during WW1.

Unless you are talking about the self styled "British Empire" (that is the UK), which only "invaded" Ireland as part of larger conflicts (like you could say that the British army invaded Dublin during the 1916 Rising, t'would be a bit silly)

RandomName2

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay lets go further into theoreticals then, would Home Rule have happened without the war?

It had to. It was the law. In fact it did happen after the war - it just wasn't recognised by nationalists.

Without the war home rule for all of Ireland would quite likely have occurred, with some sort of rising or rebellion from the unionists. Who knows how that would have turned out.

magma69

The West Brits really have their knickers in a twist about this. You wouldn't see steam coming out of their ears for celebration of a milestone number of years in France on Bastille day.

I personally am indifferent to it but if Nationalists want to get into the celebrations then power to them.

The Backwards Man

beach_walker wrote: »

So you actually disagree with the premise of the thread then right? The OP is mad about 1916 because they (and most people) recognise it led to the war of independence, civil war and well the last 100 years of Irish history in one way or another.

To claim the last hundred years has had no effect on your life whatsoever, good or bad, is... well, possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've read in AH.

The Rising didn't amount to anything, it was Maxwell's brutality that lead to the rise of DeValera and Sinn Fein. If you want to celebrate something, celebrate Asquith sending a bull to squash an ant.

Shurimgreat

On the contrary, I think its important for the Irish people to take back the legacy of the 1916 Rising from those who continue to misuse it for political gain.

The leaders of the 1916 Rising would have zero time for the criminality of many modern day "Republicans". In fact I wish modern day "Republicans" would stop using the word republican.

VinLieger

magma69 wrote: »

The West Brits really have their knickers in a twist about this. You wouldn't see steam coming out of their ears for celebration of a milestone number of years in France on Bastille day.

I personally am indifferent to it but if Nationalists want to get into the celebrations then power to them.

LOL your implying anyone who has an opinion that it wasn't neccessary for Irish independence and simply led to unnecessary bloodshed a west brit?

beach_walker

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The Rising didn't amount to anything, it was Maxwell's brutality that lead to the rise of DeValera and Sinn Fein.

And he was there because of the Rising... Still maintain it had no effect on your life whatsoever??

Shurimgreat

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The Rising didn't amount to anything, it was Maxwell's brutality that lead to the rise of DeValera and Sinn Fein. If you want to celebrate something, celebrate Asquith sending a bull to squash an ant.

I think Pearse and co. more then likely envisaged such a reaction from the British. I'd say they knew what the outcome of the Rising would be, it would last a few weeks, but the British would win in the end and the true face of British rule in Ireland would be shown. The Brits were ok until you stood up to them or questioned their rule and then they were brutal. Pearse and the Rising leaders knew this. He won sympathy for the Irish cause. It was probably the only way to do it.

Years and years of non violent protests came to nothing.

VinLieger

RandomName2 wrote: »

It had to. It was the law. In fact it did happen after the war - it just wasn't recognised by nationalists.

Without the war home rule for all of Ireland would quite likely have occurred, with some sort of rising or rebellion from the unionists. Who knows how that would have turned out.

Exactly, thats why I asked the question of the poster, the theory that both communities were bought off so as to keep them quiet and get them to help but would have been screwed once the war was over makes no sense, Home Rule was going to happen therefore the rising was not necessary and those involved were simply impatient.

Now the question of what would have happened with the unionists is something nobody can really answer, there would have been violence but on the same level of the last 100 years is not something anyone can say for certain

The Backwards Man

beach_walker wrote: »

And he was there because of the Rising... Still maintain it had no effect on your life whatsoever??

Yep. None at all.. Fermanagh might be in the South note and we might be in the North or something, but that's about it. Dublin, Westminster, Brussels, they are all the same to us common five eighths.

pojfexcsc

Shurimgreat wrote: »

On the contrary, I think its important for the Irish people to take back the legacy of the 1916 Rising from those who continue to misuse it for political gain.

The leaders of the 1916 Rising would have zero time for the criminality of many modern day "Republicans". In fact I wish modern day "Republicans" would stop using the word republican.

Yeah I've always wished Fianna Fail would drop that tagline from their party too.

Shurimgreat

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Can't wait for it to be over. It is tacky at this stage.

I saw some of the 1966 commemoration last night on TV. It was seriously impressive. It looked like the whole Irish Army was out in parade. Also O'Connell street looked perfect. It's going to be hard to top that, even though 100 years is possibly a more significant anniversary.

beach_walker

VinLieger wrote: »

Exactly, thats why I asked the question of the poster, the theory that both communities were bought off so as to keep them quiet and get them to help but would have been screwed once the war was over makes no sense

Wait, so Home Rule was definitely going to happen because the Brits said so. and yet... Carson was given a written assurance from Llyod George stating "‘we must make it clear that at the end of the provisional period Ulster does not, whether she wills it or not, merge in the rest of Ireland’". You can see that they knew, and planned, that someone was going to get screwed over.

VinLieger

beach_walker wrote: »

Wait, so Home Rule was definitely going to happen because the Brits said so. and yet... Carson was given a written assurance from Llyod George stating "‘we must make it clear that at the end of the provisional period Ulster does not, whether she wills it or not, merge in the rest of Ireland’". You can see that they knew, and planned, that someone was going to get screwed over.

Thats why I asked to do you think without WW1 Home Rule would have happened? Any answer?

The Backwards Man

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think Pearse and co. more then likely envisaged such a reaction from the British. I'd say they knew what the outcome of the Rising would be, it would last a few weeks, but the British would win in the end and the true face of British rule in Ireland would be shown. The Brits were ok until you stood up to them or questioned their rule and then they were brutal. Pearse and the Rising leaders knew this. He won sympathy for the Irish cause. It was probably the only way to do it.

Years and years of non violent protests came to nothing.

Aye, I'd have no doubt they reacted exactly the way he wanted them to, but there were other ways to further the Irish cause, and they were working.

maudgonner

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I saw some of the 1966 commemoration last night on TV. It was seriously impressive. It looked like the whole Irish Army was out in parade. Also O'Connell street looked perfect. It's going to be hard to top that, even though 100 years is possibly a more significant anniversary.

There were some bizarre bits of the 1966 commemoration too though. RTE Archives have a clip of the pageant that was held in Croke Park - I posted it in the Rebellion thread of the TV forum and the consensus was that it's a cross between an Olympics opening ceremony and a German 1930s rally

RandomName2

magma69 wrote: »

The West Brits really have their knickers in a twist about this. You wouldn't see steam coming out of their ears for celebration of a milestone number of years in France on Bastille day.

I personally am indifferent to it but if Nationalists want to get into the celebrations then power to them.

Well the French Revolution was a bit of a blood bath in all honesty, but I don't see any dissident Republicans in France planting bombs in the name of "Napoleon IV" or carrying around mobile guillotines under their arms.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

On the contrary, I think its important for the Irish people to take back the legacy of the 1916 Rising from those who continue to misuse it for political gain.

The leaders of the 1916 Rising would have zero time for the criminality of many modern day "Republicans". In fact I wish modern day "Republicans" would stop using the word republican.

The leaders of the Rising were a mixed bunch.

Some would highly endorse the criminality as a means to an end, some would feel that such criminality should be less cloak-and-dagger and more noble (dying in uniform and a gun in your hand, rather than by accidentally setting off a bomb in a residential district, for instance) and some would feel disgusted at such criminality in a land of plenty and opportunity (as they would see it compared to early 20th century Ireland).

"Republican" doesn't really have much meaning in Ireland. Never really did. It was an intellectual concept that worked well with the intelligentsia of both revolutionary France and American colonies... and to a lesser extent Russia (who were full of starry eyed idealists). In Ireland the more intellectual aspects of "Republicanism" began and ended with the United Irishmen.

beach_walker wrote: »

And he was there because of the Rising... Still maintain it had no effect on your life whatsoever??

Butterfly effect?

beach_walker

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats why I asked to do you think without WW1 Home Rule would have happened? Any answer?

I dislike hypotheticals. And that's a pretty big one tbh.

To answer your question I think no, at least most definitely not in that time period. The powers that be didn't want it, privately and publicaly they backed the anti-Home Rule, heavily armed and organised Ulster Volunteers. There always would have been something to delay it. And when and if it came it would have been heavily watered down and most definitely with a partition element.

Huntergonzo

I'm not patriotic and so personally I'm completely indifferent the 1916 commemorations. Some people feel very strongly about it which I don't really understand but I have no problem with, once their feelings aren't rammed down my throat.

On a personal level I think 1916 is quite sad for a number of reasons, obviously because it led to a lot of people losing their lives but just as bad is what they died for.

We could have went from being a British colony to a progressive democratic Republic, instead Ireland effectively decended into a deeply oppressive catholic theocracy and the hangover from that dreadful past still remains to an extent today. We threw away a golden opportunity, our ancestors allowed civil war and religion prevent what could have been great.

beach_walker

RandomName2 wrote: »

Butterfly effect?

Nah, not to those who dislike the Rising. They need to jump through some serious mental loops to work out that history has absolutely no effect on their lives in any way, shape or form.

RandomName2

beach_walker wrote: »

I dislike hypotheticals. And that's a pretty big one tbh.

To answer your question I think no, at least most definitely not in that time period. The powers that be didn't want it, privately and publicaly they backed the anti-Home Rule, heavily armed and organised Ulster Volunteers. There always would have been something to delay it. And when and if it came it would have been heavily watered down and most definitely with a partition element.

The powers that be did want it, but they just wanted the problem to go away. The unionists considered the UK Parliament to be an enemy where even the Conservatives could not be trusted. They armed themselves, not against nationalists, but against their government. Their source of arms was the same one used by the nationalists!

Unionists hoped that they would be enough of a pain that the issue would be endlessly deferred, but that was no longer on the cards. What would ultimately have happened, noone can say.

VinLieger

beach_walker wrote: »

I dislike hypotheticals. And that's a pretty big one tbh.

To answer your question I think no, at least most definitely not in that time period. The powers that be didn't want it, privately and publicaly they backed the anti-Home Rule, heavily armed and organised Ulster Volunteers. There always would have been something to delay it. And when and if it came it would have been heavily watered down and most definitely with a partition element.

Fair enough disliking hypotheticials but that theory holds no water considering Home Rule had been passed without anything added that would allow it be watered down or altered

sheesh

Whether it was good bad or indifferent it was the beginning of a process that led to formation of the country we now live in. This country that we now live in would not exist in its current form if it had not happened.


The same could be said about the American revolutionaries or the French revolution and they are celebrated.

on the celebration side I am involved in a choir that is doing something there are english people in the choir which is quiet funny.

as for brainwashing yes you are correct in that too. it is the governments attempt to instill some patriotism in the population. This is pretty normal government behaviour.

Take part in it or don't take part in it nobody cares.

RandomName2

beach_walker wrote: »

Nah, not to those who dislike the Rising. They need to jump through some serious mental loops to work out that history has absolutely no effect on their lives in any way, shape or form.

Oh of course it has had an effect - a huge one.

But so did Gavrillo Princip's gun...

Willfarman

Commemorations so far have been fairly rounded for the most part.. It is amusing though to hear the term revisionist being brandied about as though it is massively derogatory. Revision of history is always good as more information becomes available and can be revised impartially.

As a church of Ireland member growing up in Wexford the ignorance was unbelievable. In secondary school the consensus was that We are all landed gentry who don't believe in Mary..... Though the vast majority were tenant farmers, stone masons ,carpenters, plasterers, blacksmiths, had big families with a strong tradition of emigration, and were f all better off in rural Ireland than their catholic neighbours. And the early years of the twentieth century were a lot better in rural Ireland economically than the decades that followed.

Nodin

bnt wrote: »

I just wish there was a bit more of a global, long-term perspective. It was 1916. The Great War was at its peak. Thousands of soldiers were dying daily around Verdun. How much time did the British government have to deal with some rebellious Irish, do you think? I can almost hear Asquith saying "just make it go away, please, we've got bigger fish to fry".

Sorry. People forget who the real victims are sometimes.

Nodin

Willfarman wrote: »

Commemorations so far have been fairly rounded for the most part.. It is amusing though to hear the term revisionist being brandied about as though it is massively derogatory. Revision of history is always good as more information becomes available and can be revised impartially.

As a church of Ireland member growing up in Wexford the ignorance was unbelievable. In secondary school the consensus was that We are all landed gentry who don't believe in Mary..... Though the vast majority were tenant farmers, stone masons ,carpenters, plasterers, blacksmiths, had big families with a strong tradition of emigration, and were f all better off in rural Ireland than their catholic neighbours. And the early years of the twentieth century were a lot better in rural Ireland economically than the decades that followed.

...on horses. Never forget the horses.