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?