Questioning the Easter rising and other media coverage

jonniebgood1

Interestingly the airwaves and TV are live with what I would call a healthy questioning of the events of Easter 1916. By healthy I mean that they have tried to look at the events of the period from different perspectives.

One example being the RTE program 'the enemy files'. Times review of same here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/how-the-british-lost-the-easter-rising-1.2579169
Another being RTE primetimes program last night. There has also been a number of radio discussions on this. Amongst those was a surprisingly interesting interview on Newstalk with Bob Geldof.

What are peoples views of this narrative. Without judging the Rising I think it is good to at least look at it from both sides of the argument. What are peoples views on the media coverage of the commemorations thus far???

Del.Monte

To be honest, it started off well, but as the Easter weekend has drawn closer media coverage/advertising of events has become more of the triumphalist nature i.e celebration rather than commemoration. Those of us who hold different views about 1916 and the people involved will keep our heads down in time honoured fashion. In my opinion, the 'proclamation day' flag raising forced on all primary schools was nothing more than a crude attempt at ethnic cleansing of the minority memory/viewpoint.

This weekend I'll be at home, with the shutters closed, and do my best to avoid the whole thing. Very difficult considering where I live.

Sorry for the rant but you did ask.

jonniebgood1

Del.Monte wrote: »

To be honest, it started off well, but as the Easter weekend has drawn closer media coverage/advertising of events has become more of the triumphalist nature i.e celebration rather than commemoration. Those of us who hold different views about 1916 and the people involved will keep our heads down in time honoured fashion. In my opinion, the 'proclamation day' flag raising forced on all primary schools was nothing more than a crude attempt at ethnic cleansing of the minority memory/viewpoint.

This weekend I'll be at home, with the shutters closed, and do my best to avoid the whole thing. Very difficult considering where I live.

Sorry for the rant but you did ask.

I did ask but your view seems to be equally as one sided as that which you criticise. The programs I referenced also go against the one sided view you describe.

The nature of the primary school flag raising taken literally does seem to be ott. However from what I saw of this it seemed to be treated in a more laid back fashion by schools. Mock outfits complete with mock moustaches, etc, point being it was light hearted. Far from your description.

shanew

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Interestingly the airwaves and TV are live with what I would call a healthy questioning of the events of Easter 1916. By healthy I mean that they have tried to look at the events of the period from different perspectives.

One example being the RTE program 'the enemy files'. ....
Another being RTE primetimes program last night. ...

both were interesting - especially 'Enemy Files'.. I think important to look at all angles and remember all those who died

riffmongous

I can't watch the program myself, but did someone in the Enemy Files program really compare the 1916 rebels to ISIS?

jonniebgood1

Yes but surely not the first time you've heard that type of comparison, ive heard of the 1916 rebels being compared to different terrorist groups before (doesn't make it a correct comparison, just a common one). In this case I think it was robert Fisk that made the comparison which to most people give the point more weight as he is well respected. The point he was making was a comparison of blood sacrifice. He followed it by commenting that he did not wish to over emphasise the point or something of that ilk. In review of the program Ferriter correctly in my view noted the problems with comparison of eras 100 years apart. If you did not see the program I would imagine it should be on the rte player.

Mr.Nice Guy

Well I think the tone has been far too negative on the Rising. I'm particularly disappointed by the BBC which in my opinion has given far too much coverage to critics of the event and not enough time to those who salute those involved.

Case in point, this is a documentary that aired ten days ago on Radio 4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nppMY3mVW2w

They asked long-time critic Ruth Dudley Edwards to be involved (of course); as well as Fintan O'Toole, who is also unkind; Heather Jones, who came out with her own documentary on the station called 'Can you not just wait?' (by the title alone you can tell what the tone of that was - and having listened to that documentary imo it was also negative); and finally featured is a guy called David Rieff, who has a book called 'In Praise of Forgetting'.

This was a total hatchet job in my view but hey, that's just me; have a listen and make your own minds up.

We have a government telling us 'this is a commemoration, not a celebration'. Not to me. I will be CELEBRATING the Rising this weekend and will make absolutely no apologies for doing so. The way I look at it, if it's okay for unionists to celebrate the signing of the Ulster Covenant and to have a great big statue to Edward Carson outside of Stormont, then it's okay for those of a different tradition on this island to mark the men and women who took a different viewpoint.

riffmongous

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Yes but surely not the first time you've heard that type of comparison, ive heard of the 1916 rebels being compared to different terrorist groups before (doesn't make it a correct comparison, just a common one). In this case I think it was robert Fisk that made the comparison which to most people give the point more weight as he is well respected. The point he was making was a comparison of blood sacrifice. He followed it by commenting that he did not wish to over emphasise the point or something of that ilk. In review of the program Ferriter correctly in my view noted the problems with comparison of eras 100 years apart. If you did not see the program I would imagine it should be on the rte player.

It's region blocked for me unfortunately. It still sounds like a rather inflammatory comment to make to my ears, especially when the program also attempted to explain away the British civilian massacres? (I originally heard about it from a thread on the politics forum). It probably just needs to be watched but my impression was that rather than going for balance, RTE hope that by showing both extremes they will balance each other.

CrabRevolution

Ruth Dudley Edwards strikes again.

I remember reading on a Scottish message board, a discussion on an orange order event held in Glasgow. The posters on the forum seemed to have as much disdain for it as nationalists here do. One poster was obviously an OO member and defending the event, saying its a family day out, culture etc. His reply to the assertion that it was an anti Irish organisation was to point out that they even had an Irish person speaking at the event. The person in question was of course Ruth Dudley Edwards.

It's strange to think how it's possible to hate being Irish so much.

BalcombeSt4

Out of all the Republican groups who took up arms during the 20th century I always taught the Provos were the most justified.

The Easter rebels were not being beaten by police or having their homes set on fire by Loyalist mobs unlike the Bogside & Belfast rebels.

jonniebgood1

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Out of all the Republican groups who took up arms during the 20th century I always taught the Provos were the most justified.

The Easter rebels were not being beaten by police or having their homes set on fire by Loyalist mobs unlike the Bogside & Belfast rebels.

What on earth does this post have to do with the thread you have posted in?

BalcombeSt4

Off topic post deleted. This thread is not about northern Ireland. No need for unnecessary tangents.
Edit by moderator

Del.Monte

Off topic post deleted. This thread is not about northern Ireland. No need for unnecessary tangents.
Edit by moderator

jonniebgood1

Keep on topic folks. Otherwise infractions will follow.
Moderator

maryishere

Del.Monte wrote: »

...as the Easter weekend has drawn closer media coverage/advertising of events has become more of the triumphalist nature i.e celebration rather than commemoration. Those of us who hold different views about 1916 and the people involved will keep our heads down in time honoured fashion. In my opinion, the 'proclamation day' flag raising forced on all primary schools was nothing more than a crude attempt at ethnic cleansing of the minority memory/viewpoint.

Well said. Its pure propoganda but we would expect nothing less of this state. Its how generations of people were brainwashed in to thinking how "great" the rebels of 1916 were. If it happened anywhere else they would be called insurgents or terrorists. In history at school a one sided version of history was beaten in to so many of us ...no wonder some people followed in the footsteps of the men of 1916, which has claimed many lives, up to and including a prison officer in Belfast a week or 2 ago.

On RTE telly this evening the new programmes repeated a 5 minute interview with the new owners of Lissadell house where Countess Markievicz grew up. They kept talking about how she fought for the poor people, and fairness etc. They did not mention the murdering b**** shot an unarmed constable, a poor man from co. Clare, at close range in Harcourt st. during the Rising, as witnessed by a nurse Fitzgerald at the time.

mrsdewinter

I'm not a history scholar but I've become intrigued by the Rising in the run-up to this wkd. First of all, like a lot of people, I grew up at a time when recalling our republican past was deeply problematic. Since the late 90s, that is no longer the case, and this is probably the first time I've looked at that period without the shadow of later events obscuring my view. Secondly, it's a tale with clearly defined goodies - the Citizen Army, the signatories to the Proclamation - and baddies - the British Army. Over the next few years, as we approach the Centenary of the Civil War, say, the moral landscape will not be as clear.

maryishere

mrsdewinter wrote: »

I grew up at a time when recalling our republican past was deeply problematic.

It still is problemnatic because this part of our history is glorified. If looked at objectively you see the insurgents of 1916 were just a relatively small band of terrorists without a mandate....and their example let to deaths of thousands of others. The problem is so much of the rest of the past was airbrushed out of history / not mentioned....only the 1916 insurgents were the goodies as you point out.

rsh118

Have to say, as a nation we have easily the most mature debates about our history and in depth discussions.

You get roared down by the red trouser brigade in England and railroaded out of the country in America for similarly in depth discussion and criticism of history. I've been impressed by the range and depth of though on the rising.

maryishere

rsh118 wrote: »

Have to say, as a nation we have easily the most mature debates about our history and in depth discussions.

History here about Ireland is more controversal because of the one sided slant propogated by the state, which has named streets and places and glorified insurgents who took up arms and killed people without a mandate. Only one of the signaturies of the proclamation had stood for election and he came last.

rsh118

maryishere wrote: »

History here about Ireland is more controversal because of the one sided slant propogated by the state, which has named streets and places and glorified insurgents who took up arms and killed people without a mandate. Only one of the signaturies of the proclamation had stood for election and he came last.

I'd say equally controversial because we are only one generation removed from it and it's ripples affected the current generation in Ulster.

This is a prime example of the kind of solid debate we can have about our history because we have the interest and passion to do so.

I'm not here to take either side (of which there are many) only to say it's been brilliant to see it discussed, put down, glorified, mocked, commemorated and interpreted repeatedly over the weeks. I hope we will keep it going and do something to have a better debate about the Civil War.

jeamimus

riffmongous wrote: »

I can't watch the program myself, but did someone in the Enemy Files program really compare the 1916 rebels to ISIS?

Like it or not, there are parallels; self appointed people, some with a death wish, killing to bring about political change in the absence of substantial public support...

Obviously the emphasis on extreme violence with the objective simply to create terror are not applicable in 1916, nor is the overbearing theological justification.

Arsemageddon

maryishere wrote: »

Well said. Its pure propoganda but we would expect nothing less of this state. Its how generations of people were brainwashed in to thinking how "great" the rebels of 1916 were. If it happened anywhere else they would be called insurgents or terrorists. In history at school a one sided version of history was beaten in to so many of us ...no wonder some people followed in the footsteps of the men of 1916, which has claimed many lives, up to and including a prison officer in Belfast a week or 2 ago.

On RTE telly this evening the new programmes repeated a 5 minute interview with the new owners of Lissadell house where Countess Markievicz grew up. They kept talking about how she fought for the poor people, and fairness etc. They did not mention the murdering b**** shot an unarmed constable, a poor man from co. Clare, at close range in Harcourt st. during the Rising, as witnessed by a nurse Fitzgerald at the time.

maryishere wrote: »

It still is problemnatic because this part of our history is glorified. If looked at objectively you see the insurgents of 1916 were just a relatively small band of terrorists without a mandate....and their example let to deaths of thousands of others. The problem is so much of the rest of the past was airbrushed out of history / not mentioned....only the 1916 insurgents were the goodies as you point out.

maryishere wrote: »

History here about Ireland is more controversal because of the one sided slant propogated by the state, which has named streets and places and glorified insurgents who took up arms and killed people without a mandate. Only one of the signaturies of the proclamation had stood for election and he came last.

There was no mandate for the Act of Union - a Protestant only parliament was bribed to vote itself out of existence and join the Union.

There was no mandate for the rejection of the first two Home Rule bills, the unelected House of Lords had a veto.

There was no mandate for the formation of the UVF to oppose Home Rule by importing vast amounts of weaponry and threatening civil war.

There was no mandate for officers in the British Army to mutiny in support of the UVF

There was no mandate for the Famine.

There was no mandate for the attempted eradication of the Irish language.

There was no mandate for institutionalised sectarian discrimination against Catholics.

There was no mandate for an unelected colonial Lord Lieutenant wielding power in a constituent part of the UK.

But yeah, you're right - the rules should only apply to one side

Grandeeod

maryishere wrote: »

On RTE telly this evening the new programmes repeated a 5 minute interview with the new owners of Lissadell house where Countess Markievicz grew up. They kept talking about how she fought for the poor people, and fairness etc. They did not mention the murdering b**** shot an unarmed constable, a poor man from co. Clare, at close range in Harcourt st. during the Rising, as witnessed by a nurse Fitzgerald at the time.

Had you watched Nationwide, the full interview was featured. It went into detail about the Constable. They even interviewed a reletive.

You are entitled to your opinion on the rising, but please do not schew matters by incorrectly citing a media piece, that I found to be fair and balanced.

BoJack Horseman

In terms of media coverage today, Sky news are doing a better job than RTE.

RTE is endless pre-prepped items.... Sky are actually showing what is happening on the streets.

Grandeeod

maryishere wrote: »

It still is problemnatic because this part of our history is glorified. If looked at objectively you see the insurgents of 1916 were just a relatively small band of terrorists without a mandate....and their example let to deaths of thousands of others. The problem is so much of the rest of the past was airbrushed out of history / not mentioned....only the 1916 insurgents were the goodies as you point out.

I think you need to view the rising in the context of the historical period. Worldwide and closer to home there were military, political and social decisions taken by legitimate Governments without any kind of mandate. Just look at what the Suffragette movement had to do in order to get women the right to vote.

hytrogen

It certainly is a very emotive time now, rightly so,
a lot of people's colours are being shown,
as they did then.
Let's just hope we don't see a resurgence of the violence
for real ever again

DanielODonnell

I refuse to take anything to do with the commemorations, even via television, the one in Dublin is full of 26 county nationalists, there is a certain name for these people regarding a colour of a shirt

DanielODonnell

DanielODonnell wrote: »

I refuse to take anything to do with the commemorations, even via television, the one in Dublin is full of 26 county nationalists, there is a certain name for these people regarding a colour of a shirt

Are you not having something to do with the commemorations by posting in this thread:p

Arkady

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Out of all the Republican groups who took up arms during the 20th century I always taught the Provos were the most justified.

The Easter rebels were not being beaten by police or having their homes set on fire by Loyalist mobs unlike the Bogside & Belfast rebels.

True, but then they quickly turned into cowardly sectarian civilian murdering power hungry terrorists themselves. The very thing they were supposed to be fighting against.

recipio

I struggle to understand why the '16 generation including Redmond would want a one way ticket to independence. Its a bit like Alaska wanting the leave the US ? The British Empire at the time offered security and no end of career opportunities. Of course various factors like WW1, Catholic resentment and land lust were at play.The images of our little army ( which is more of a gendarme ) marching is a bit ironic. A military display was inevitable but could we not have left the schoolchildren out of it ? It would also been good to hear a Unionist like John Taylor put the contrary argument in the media.

riffmongous

recipio wrote: »

I struggle to understand why the '16 generation including Redmond would want a one way ticket to independence. Its a bit like Alaska wanting the leave the US ? The British Empire at the time offered security and no end of career opportunities. Of course various factors like WW1, Catholic resentment and land lust were at play.The images of our little army ( which is more of a gendarme ) marching is a bit ironic. A military display was inevitable but could we not have left the schoolchildren out of it ? It would also been good to hear a Unionist like John Taylor put the contrary argument in the media.

Would you deny the Baltic, Caucasus, and Balkan states their wish for independence for the same reasons?

Arsemageddon

recipio wrote: »

I struggle to understand why the '16 generation including Redmond would want a one way ticket to independence. Its a bit like Alaska wanting the leave the US ? The British Empire at the time offered security and no end of career opportunities. Of course various factors like WW1, Catholic resentment and land lust were at play.The images of our little army ( which is more of a gendarme ) marching is a bit ironic. A military display was inevitable but could we not have left the schoolchildren out of it ? It would also been good to hear a Unionist like John Taylor put the contrary argument in the media.

The most obvious reason is that the Irish were treated as second class citizens within the UK and measures to remedy this inequality consistently had to be dragged from Britain. Catholic emancipation, land reform, vetoing of Home Rule and the Famine made this starkly clear to people at the time.

Had the British made concessions to Ireland in a timely fashion over the course of the nineteenth century then perhaps things could have been different.

Your comments about the Defence Forces are both obnoxious and ill-informed.

Del.Monte

@ Arsemageddon

Your post is almost conciliatory. Perhaps there's hope of peace yet.

maryishere

recipio wrote: »

I struggle to understand why the '16 generation including Redmond would want a one way ticket to independence. Its a bit like Alaska wanting the leave the US ? The British Empire at the time offered security and no end of career opportunities. Of course various factors like WW1, Catholic resentment and land lust were at play.The images of our little army ( which is more of a gendarme ) marching is a bit ironic. A military display was inevitable but could we not have left the schoolchildren out of it ? It would also been good to hear a Unionist like John Taylor put the contrary argument in the media.

Correct. Pupils being dressed up in IRA para-military uniforms and being given guns is an aabhorrent way to mark the rising. The army visiting every school to delivery a national flag and read the proclamation is wrong and talk about the Rising "heroes" is wrong. Facebook and every school - well many schools - are full of little children extolling the bravery of the 7 leaders.
Indoctrinating children that there are just good fellas and bad fellas in the tapestry of Irish history is wrong on so many levels.
The commeroration committe initially said it would encompass different traditions but it ended up "celebrating" one.
Not surprising a million people north of the border, including many Catholics, do not want a "united" Ireland.

A Dub in Glasgo

Well you are on your crusade to spread the smear

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

Correct. Pupils being dressed up in IRA para-military uniforms and being given guns is an aabhorrent way to mark the rising. The army visiting every school to delivery a national flag and read the proclamation is wrong and talk about the Rising "heroes" is wrong. Facebook and every school - well many schools - are full of little children extolling the bravery of the 7 leaders.
Indoctrinating children that there are just good fellas and bad fellas in the tapestry of Irish history is wrong on so many levels.
The commeroration committe initially said it would encompass different traditions but it ended up "celebrating" one.
Not surprising a million people north of the border, including many Catholics, do not want a "united" Ireland.

How could it have been anything other than celebrating one tradition though?? and how could they ever encompass unionist ones ( which is I assume what you are getting at )

Those guys have their own annual commemoration and I don't here cries from nationalists to be included in those

I do very much agree with your other point regarding good guys/ bad guys in Irish history , it should never be attempted to be made so black and white or sugar coated even.

jonniebgood1

maryishere wrote: »

Correct. Pupils being dressed up in IRA para-military uniforms and being given guns is an aabhorrent way to mark the rising. The army visiting every school to delivery a national flag and read the proclamation is wrong and talk about the Rising "heroes" is wrong. Facebook and every school - well many schools - are full of little children extolling the bravery of the 7 leaders.
Indoctrinating children that there are just good fellas and bad fellas in the tapestry of Irish history is wrong on so many levels.
The commeroration committe initially said it would encompass different traditions but it ended up "celebrating" one.
Not surprising a million people north of the border, including many Catholics, do not want a "united" Ireland.

Cobblers.
Pupils in paramilitary uniforms, rubbish.
Given guns...., are you for real. Your argument lacks credibility given your hyperbole as quoted.

The rising whether you like it or not was a significant moment in irish history. Since this is a thread on media coverage I will refer to the media coverage which has been largely in praise of how the commemorations have been handled. The programs have been as inclusive as possible, not everyone will want to be involved- particularly the extremes from both sides in the north (some irony there...).

recipio

Deleted User wrote: »

How could it have been anything other than celebrating one tradition though?? and how could they ever encompass unionist ones ( which is I assume what you are getting at )

Those guys have their own annual commemoration and I don't here cries from nationalists to be included in those

I do very much agree with your other point regarding good guys/ bad guys in Irish history , it should never be attempted to be made so black and white or sugar coated even.

No doubt we will have a re-run of all this in 2022. The point is that the legitimacy of the 'rising' is very questionable. It was an attempted coup d'etat against a stable democracy in which we had our vote, the same as the rest of the UK. The commemorations seem to me be pushing a very one sided Nationalist agenda which is best reserved for the 2022 debate. It legitimized violence in Irish society which lingers to this day.

jonniebgood1

recipio wrote: »

No doubt we will have a re-run of all this in 2022. The point is that the legitimacy of the 'rising' is very questionable. It was an attempted coup d'etat against a stable democracy in which we had our vote, the same as the rest of the UK. The commemorations seem to me be pushing a very one sided Nationalist agenda which is best reserved for the 2022 debate. It legitimized violence in Irish society which lingers to this day.

You are missing the point. The celebrations are for the culture and heritage as much as anything else. Noone is claiming that the rebels thought they were democratically elected, they would not be rebels if that were the case.

Grandeeod

maryishere wrote: »

Correct. Pupils being dressed up in IRA para-military uniforms and being given guns is an aabhorrent way to mark the rising.

They weren't. The IRA didn't exist in 1916.

My daughter was dressed up in child attire from the period.

riffmongous

recipio wrote: »

No doubt we will have a re-run of all this in 2022. The point is that the legitimacy of the 'rising' is very questionable. It was an attempted coup d'etat against a stable democracy in which we had our vote, the same as the rest of the UK. The commemorations seem to me be pushing a very one sided Nationalist agenda which is best reserved for the 2022 debate. It legitimized violence in Irish society which lingers to this day.

Really? If you want to see what a one sided agenda actually looks like go up north in July

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

How could it have been anything other than celebrating one tradition though??

The rebels who killed unarmed constables and others are heroes while no mention is made of the other strands of Dublin life. Plenty of other people died as well. The unarmed constable shot in Harcourt st was just as heroic and just as Irish as the 7 leaders of the rising. More Irishmen died fighting the Germans that week than all the casulties of the rising ; they were stopping what would have been the invasion of these islands (after Germany invaded Catholic Belgium and France.) Then you would really have known what a colonial master was (after the rape of Belgium). No mention of those Irishmen fighting for our freedom.

Grandeeod wrote: »

My daughter was dressed up in child attire from the period.

Good for you / your daughter

Some other children have been dressed up with face masks of the 1916 rising leaders and strut about for the camera complete with imitation guns.

A Dub in Glasgo

maryishere wrote: »

The rebels who killed unarmed constables and others are heroes while no mention is made of the other strands of Dublin life. Plenty of other people died as well. The unarmed constable shot in Harcourt st was just as heroic and just as Irish as the 7 leaders of the rising

The leaders of the rising affected change, the unarmed cop did not... that is the difference. You may not like that change but that is historical fact that you cannot change. There were ceremonies to remember all who died in the Rising, maybe you missed them in your rush to come on here and sully the Rising

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/1916-centenary-tributes-paid-at-glasnevin-cemetery-1.2588751

Edit because of the edit above

maryishere wrote: »

More Irishmen died fighting the Germans that week than all the casulties of the rising ; they were stopping what would have been the invasion of these islands (after Germany invaded Catholic Belgium and France.) Then you would really have known what a colonial master was (after the rape of Belgium). No mention of those Irishmen fighting for our freedom.

Surely you are aware that there is separate commemoration for WW1? As for the rest, that is shrieking hyperbole

jonniebgood1

maryishere wrote: »

The rebels who killed unarmed constables and others are heroes while no mention is made of the other strands of Dublin life. Plenty of other people died as well. The unarmed constable shot in Harcourt st was just as heroic and just as Irish as the 7 leaders of the rising. More Irishmen died fighting the Germans that week than all the casulties of the rising ; they were stopping what would have been the invasion of these islands (after Germany invaded Catholic Belgium and France.) Then you would really have known what a colonial master was (after the rape of Belgium). No mention of those Irishmen fighting for our freedom.
.

Are you deliberately forgetting about all the commemorations of our fallen heroes from wwi??? Again you are ignoring the facts.

recipio

riffmongous wrote: »

Really? If you want to see what a one sided agenda actually looks like go up north in July

There might not be a 'North' if the 1916 leaders had used their heads instead of forcing their agenda through. However, they were never interested in a democratic solution.It was to be their Catholic Republican State or nothing.

A Dub in Glasgo

recipio wrote: »

There might not be a 'North' if the 1916 leaders had used their heads instead of forcing their agenda through. However, they were never interested in a democratic solution.It was to be their Catholic Republican State or nothing.

What do you think using their heads would look like? forcibly removing the folk who do not recognise democracy from the NE of Ireland?

riffmongous

recipio wrote: »

There might not be a 'North' if the 1916 leaders had used their heads instead of forcing their agenda through. However, they were never interested in a democratic solution.It was to be their Catholic Republican State or nothing.

I'm starting to wonder if the media has been unbalanced by failing to emphasisee the role of the Ulster volunteers and the curragh incident, as they rarely seem to be mentioned.

Grandeeod

recipio wrote: »

There might not be a 'North' if the 1916 leaders had used their heads instead of forcing their agenda through. However, they were never interested in a democratic solution.It was to be their Catholic Republican State or nothing.

So the Plantation of Ulster had nothing to do with it?

micromary

This is just myself and sorry if I upset anyone. Nothing against the Rising which of course was a significant event in Irish history but I am tired of the media overkill. There seems to be nothing but 1916 on Irish media. Seriously thought of taking a holiday abroad to avoid it last week but could not. Glad the whole thing is over.

Disgruntled Badger

jonniebgood1 wrote:

What are peoples views of this narrative. Without judging the Rising I think it is good to at least look at it from both sides of the argument. What are peoples views on the media coverage of the commemorations thus far???

There were less than a handful of programmes challenging the preferred narrative of the political classes, or academics who might differ from that opinion.

RTE, in particular, has romanticised it in favour of the rebels. Debating its justification or not on prime time, but then putting out hours of commemorative matter, especially on news broadcasts, and Indepth biographies of the rebel protagonists, their values and views, and their eventual executions.

There has been virtually no mention of those who were not executed and went on to rule, De Valera, Collins etc, who themselves held very different views of the merits of the rising afterwards, but you can't escape an unrepentant Countess Markovitz, who has been massively over credited with her involvement.

I think what has been most worrying is the heavy focus on kids. Flag ceremonies in schools, young children being rolled out in front of cameras reading the proclamation. As these kids grow up, unless they study history in depth, will have this ladybird book version of the events.

On the other hand, has this all been anything other than a day out for most. Judging by the smaller than expected crowds, in part due to the Luas strikes, it will become as relevant as 1798 or any of the other failed rebellion, and people will go back to knowing where they are but ignorant and ambivalent to how they got there.

Grandeeod

micromary wrote: »

This is just myself and sorry if I upset anyone. Nothing against the Rising which of course was a significant event in Irish history but I am tired of the media overkill. There seems to be nothing but 1916 on Irish media. Seriously thought of taking a holiday abroad to avoid it last week but could not. Glad the whole thing is over.

Your opinion is an honest one and I personally appreciate it because it's not filled with vitriol and simply expresses that you are pissed off with it at this stage. I completely take you point.