Telegraph writer compares Easter rising to IS Brussels attack

steddyeddy

Charles Moore professional British imperialist stereotype penned an article in the Telegraph relating to the Easter rising. He compared the rising to the recent attacks in Brussels by the Islamic state. He then makes a little dig at Ireland in bold. First of all I don't agree that fighting for independence in your own country is the same as bombing a foreign country because your god tells you to do it. Secondly this article just reeks of a man's hate for anything anti-British. Do we take this seriously?

I live in England and people who have seen the article apologised for it and said he doesn't represent their views. Should we consider this an insult?

The centenary of the Easter Rising was
commemorated in Dublin yesterday. The unsuccessful revolt of Irish Republicans
helped pave the way for the breakaway of southern Ireland from the United
Kingdom in 1922 and the horrible civil war.


In the phrase “Easter Rising” is contained the central blasphemy of terrorist
acts committed in the name of God. What has the resurrection of the Prince of
Peace got to do with trying to shoot the British out of Ireland?


Patrick Pearse, the rising’s leader, who proclaimed the republic outside the
General Post Office, suffered from what Yeats called “the vertigo of
self-sacrifice”. He had a homoerotic vision of the macaomh, the beautiful young
scholar warrior who would die for his country – half the Irish mythical hero
Cuchullain, half Jesus. The night before he was shot by a British firing squad,
Pearse wrote a mawkish poem comparing the Virgin Mary’s loss of her son to his
own death.


A century later, this distasteful confusion of political fanaticism with
faith is even more in fashion, but nowadays in Islam, not Christianity. Among
those rebels executed by the British shortly after Pearse was his devoted
brother, Willie. In Brussels last week, a pair of brothers, Ibrahim and Khalid
al-Bakraoui, detonated


two of the three bombs which killed 31 people.


In modern Ireland, I am glad to say, sentimentality about the murderous and
self-righteous revolutionaries who helped condemn the Republic to

70 years of economic backwardness and narrow priest-domination – and the
North to terrorist guerrilla warfare – is at last being superseded by a more
clear-headed approach. I strongly recommend Ruth Dudley Edwards’s new book, The
Seven, which dissects the attitudes of the founding fathers. The repentant IRA
terrorist Sean O’Callaghan has published a brave, hostile account of the life of
Pearse’s socialist co-conspirator and martyr, James Connolly.


It no longer seems so heroic to have provoked violence against a
parliamentary democracy and slaughter among one’s own people, however much one
may support an independent Ireland. Must it take another century before a
comparable questioning of supposedly holy killing comes to dominate the Muslim
world?


“A terrible beauty is born”, famously wrote Yeats. Actually, it was a
terrible ugliness, and it is getting uglier.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Not as ugly as him, state of him. His parents must have been related to each other

The Moldy Gowl

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Not as ugly as him, state of him. His parents must have been related to each other

Throw us up a photo of yourself so we can judge you.

My name is URL

Charles Moore.

Margaret Thatcher's biographer and a guy that became a 'catlick' because the Church of England allowed women to be ordained.

Who cares about that cunt's opinion?

He has little to be occupying himself with now that the arch bitch of britain is rotting in the ground

Herb Powell

I've very rarely heard any worthwile commentary on the situation/history from British people, the exception being soldiers who were stationed here, believe it or not.

Bless em.

12Phase

Actually, the utterly incompetent, economically disastrous and sectarian British rule in the 1800s saw millions die and emigrate from here.

The Act of Union was 1801 and within barely 40 years there was a widespread famine in what was a region of the UK, the richest and most powerful country on earth at the time.

That's what laid the ground for 1916.

Revisionist history seen through imperial tinted glasses.

steddyeddy

Herb Powell wrote: »

I've very rarely heard any worthwile commentary on the situation/history from British people, the exception being soldiers who were stationed here, believe it or not.

Bless em.

The soldiers who were based here and in the north actually had a much lighter view of our struggle for independence.

Liberosis

The ideals behind colonialism were far more twisted than Pearse's.

I am more insulted for the people of Brussels tbh.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

Throw us up a photo of yourself so we can judge you.

Can't, soz. Too beautiful

steddyeddy

I love when people in Britain bring up the economic problems in Ireland post independence. What about northern Ireland which is under British rule? Their economy is in the gutter and needs to be subsidised several billion a year.

The flying mouse

He wrote Margaret thatchers authorized biography, He tells us to read Ruth Dudley Edwards new book and supergrass Sean o Callaghans and then he says this.

One wonders whether it pains Moore and his ilk here that Irish people had and have the temerity to express an identity other than a British one.

marienbad

From the same article he goes on to reminisce about the Boat Race

''When I was a boy, our gardener was Cambridge and his wife Oxford, for no discernible reason except to enjoy a contest.''

it reminds me of the prosecution argument in the case of Lady Chatterley's Lover ''is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read.”

Such a person would be incapable of seeing the viewpoint of the 'other' side

12Phase

steddyeddy wrote: »

I love when people in Britain bring up the economic problems in Ireland post independence. What about northern Ireland which is under British rule? Their economy is in the gutter and needs to be subsidised several billion a year.

As opposed to our economic boom times under direct Westminster rule in the 1800s when absolutely nobody moved to America in vast numbers and food was plentiful...

steddyeddy

marienbad wrote: »

From the same article he goes on to reminisce about the Boat Race

''When I was a boy, our gardener was Cambridge and his wife Oxford, for no discernible reason except to enjoy a contest.''

it reminds me of the prosecution argument in the case of Lady Chatterley's Lover ''is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read.”

Such a person would be incapable of seeing the viewpoint of the 'other' side

Is he on drugs?

steddyeddy

12Phase wrote: »

As opposed to our economic boom times under direct Westminster rule in the 1800s when absolutely nobody moved to America in vast numbers and food was plentiful...

Ah stop we were spoiled for choice.

Eugene Norman

The whole revisionist and telegraph view of the world makes the "Irish" terrorists to be Irish nationalists only. Everything else is written out of history.

Take the aside about parliamentary democracy. If Britain were a democracy (run by the people rather than the unelected) then Irish home rule would have been granted in 1890 or so. And were it not for the UVF, an organisation set up to thwart the decisions of that parliament then the Irish volunteer force wouldn't have armed and 1916 wouldn't have happened.

12Phase

I think we sometimes fail to look at the whole Irish situation as we might in modern times.

The United Kingdom basically failed, there was a civil war which resulted in about 1/5 of its landmass declaring independence.

British historians don't like to see it that way and Irish historians tend to see it very much as a heroic and romantic expression of Irish nationalism.

The 19th century British economic model was fundamentally flawed and obsessed with market economics. It was class ridden and sectarian in outlook and it ultimately imploded.

That failure is not ever admitted and they don't like to see it as a systemic failure but rather as some kind of "Irish problem" as if we were the root cause due to being irrationally difficult.

Had the UK in that era been run well and fairly, this situation would never have arrisen in the first place.

Basically, Ireland is to the UK what the French revolution is to France and a long gone French establishment. It just never spread as the industrial revolution in England kept a lid on things.

British society really only slowly modernised in the very late 19th and into the 20th century and extremely rapidly after WWII.

It's absolutely nonsensical to compare the UK now and in the 1800s era. A lot of Irish people has a lot of axes to grind back then and the island had been grossly mismanaged.

Also the notion that we were just non industrious is thrown around. The industrial revolution happened where there was coal and iron ore deposits. We had neither so it didn't happen.

Also, there had been a lot of damage done to the Irish economy pre act of Union with things like the Navigation Acts that basically hindered us from developing industries that competed with Britain.

The comparison between Ireland in 1916 and modern Scotland is often made but is totally pointless as the circumstances are very different. The modern UK is a liberal social democracy and Scotland is quite prosperous.

That wasn't the case for Ireland in most of the 19th century (other than for a few islands of wealth mostly around the cities).

You'd hardly expect informed social and historic analysis in the Telegraph though.

youreadthat

That's just like, his opinion man.

marienbad

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is he on drugs?

probably on the magic mushrooms grown by his gardener consumed as they all sat down to watch the boat race together

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Charles Moore professional British imperialist stereotype penned an article in the Telegraph relating to the Easter rising. He compared the rising to the recent attacks in Brussels by the Islamic state. He then makes a little dig at Ireland in bold. First of all I don't agree that fighting for independence in your own country is the same as bombing a foreign country because your god tells you to do it. Secondly this article just reeks of a man's hate for anything anti-British. Do we take this seriously?

I live in England and people who have seen the article apologised for it and said he doesn't represent their views. Should we consider this an insult?

I'm shocked, surprised nay stunned.

You were reading the torygraph? That is the ying to the Grauniads yang.

The same day we had an article "We should apologise to the Irish" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/03/27/easter-rising-it-is-time-to-apologise-to-the-irish/

Both articles are just thinly vieled pro-Brexit articles.

12Phase

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah stop we were spoiled for choice.

My ancestors were on an all potato diet due the fashion at the time for famine victim chic no doubt.

Arsemageddon

The man from the Torygraph blames the Irish for what happened in British ruled Northern Ireland.

Who would have thunk it?

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm shocked, surprised nay stunned.

You were reading the torygraph? That is the ying to the Grauniads yang.

I wasn't Fred I attended a college debate on the article.

Aidric

Seems that comments are not possible on that article. Shame, could have been a blast.

12Phase

I read an article recently which actually puts an interesting angle on the UK emigration experience. Throughout the 19th and well into the 20th century a lot of British people moved to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and more so in the earlier years to parts of Asia and elsewhere that were under British rule.

Those people are often portrayed as part of the empire and it's expansion but when you look at them many were just broke British people or the marginlised escaping hard times in cities or rural areas.

A lot of British social problems, particularly poverty were historically exported. People were transported to Australia for petty crime etc etc

The result is actually an enormous and largely unrecognised British diaspora who pretty much came from failures of domestic policy in the UK itself.

I just think that British establishment historians tend to paint a bit of a glorious fiction about their relatively recent past sometimes. It's all seen through a very narrowly focused lens that tends to view everything with a positive spin put on it.

Blackadder sums it up well. We really view history from the point of view of Edmund or George not Baldrick (who is and was most people)

Arsemageddon

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm shocked, surprised nay stunned.

You were reading the torygraph? That is the ying to the Grauniads yang.

In fairness to them, they are both good newspapers for reportage and analysis. It's just the opinion column writers from both frequently come out with simplistic cliché riddled click bait gibberish.

The same goes for all of the Irish papers as well.

Fratton Fred

12Phase wrote: »

A lot of British social problems, particularly poverty were historically exported. People were transported to Australia for petty crime etc etc.

Or even forming a trade union.

My name is URL

steddyeddy wrote: »

I wasn't Fred I attended a college debate on the article.

No offence, but why?!

Why on earth was there a debate on the article?

Was the debate based on the merit of the arguments raised within, or just on the fact that it was a bit controversial?

Is this real life?

steddyeddy

My name is URL wrote: »

No offence, but why?!

Why on earth was there a debate on the article?

Was the debate based on the merit of the arguments raised within, or just on the fact that it was a bit controversial?

Is this real life?

They were debating whether the British government should apologise for colonialism and this came up.

diomed

Nice of him to link a Christian feast to the Irish rising. I've never before thought there was a religious element to 1916.

RobertKK

I wouldn't worry what was said. The thing is if people did what the people did in 1916, they would be called terrorists.

Jimoslimos

The centenary of the Easter Rising was
commemorated in Dublin yesterday. The unsuccessful revolt of Irish Republicans
helped pave the way for the breakaway of southern Ireland

Where now?

Ireland, ROI or even Éire if it pains you not to say Ireland.

tomwaterford

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Where now?

Ireland, ROI or even Éire if it pains you not to say Ireland.

Or the free state. :pac:

maryishere

tomwaterford wrote: »

Or the free state. :pac:

or, as a devils advocate would suggest, the failed entity which was subsidised by the EC since the early seventies (mainly Germany and England, its 2 biggest contributers), and despite being bailed out by the IMF/Britain/EU only a few years ago, still has the second highest debt per head of population in the world.

Jimoslimos

tomwaterford wrote: »

Or the free state. :pac:

Well at least that name did exist for a time.

Would be like calling Norway, Western Scandinavia or Spain, Greater Iberia.

Jimoslimos

maryishere wrote: »

or, as a devils advocate would suggest, the failed entity which was subsidised by the EC since the early seventies (mainly Germany and England, its 2 biggest contributers), and despite being bailed out by the IMF/Britain/EU only a few years ago, still has the second highest debt per head of population in the world.

What are ya wafflin about?

maryishere

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Well at least that name did exist for a time.

Would be like calling Norway, Western Scandinavia or Spain, Greater Iberia.

Or the Canaries, off the coast of Africa, western Spain?

12Phase

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Where now?

Ireland, ROI or even Éire if it pains you not to say Ireland.

+353 Ireland or +44 Ireland as one German guy I know calls them.

tomwaterford

maryishere wrote: »

Or the Canaries, off the coast of Africa, western Spain?

WTF???

steddyeddy

maryishere wrote: »

or, as a devils advocate would suggest, the failed entity which was subsidised by the EC since the early seventies (mainly Germany and England, its 2 biggest contributers), and despite being bailed out by the IMF/Britain/EU only a few years ago, still has the second highest debt per head of population in the world.

You ok hun xxxx?

maryishere

Jimoslimos wrote: »

What are ya wafflin about?

what others were sayin'

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Where now?

Ireland, ROI or even Éire if it pains you not to say Ireland.

tomwaterford wrote: »

Or the free state. :pac:

maryishere

"condemn the Republic to 70 years of economic backwardness and narrow priest-domination – and the North to terrorist guerrilla warfare – is at last being superseded by a more
clear-headed approach."
Why did the Telegraph writer convert to Catholicism if he has such a bad word to say about Priestly influence?

tomwaterford

maryishere wrote: »

"condemn the Republic to 70 years of economic backwardness and narrow priest-domination – and the North to terrorist guerrilla warfare – is at last being superseded by a more
clear-headed approach."
Why did the Telegraph writer convert to Catholicism if he has such a bad word to say about Priestly influence?

Its like blood from a turnip




A bleeding mystery :pac: :pac:

maryishere

tomwaterford wrote: »

Its like blood from a turnip




A bleeding mystery :pac: :pac:

Well holy be to God, it surely it, so it is. How did the word about the abuse cases and the Magdalene laundries and so on get out?

Tis very unfair for that English Telegraph writer to compare the glorious Easter rising to IS Brussels attack. The Brussels attack was far smaller and did not kill as many.

Wibbs

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or even forming a trade union.

True enough FF. For all the discussion about how a very small group of the English treated Ireland, they didn't exactly extend much favouritism to their "own". Any push back was smothered at birth, often violently. They emptied Scotland with the highland clearances and the Welsh or English didn't fare much better. Brainwashed cannon and coalface fodder for the narrow elite was about the crux of it. As I've said before I'm surprised the English didn't do a French revolution of their own. I suppose after Cromwell, the ruling types learned enough of a lesson and tweaked the monarchy and hierarchy enough to at least give the appearance of a more equitable society by the time Madame Guillotine came along.

Here in Ireland we threw off one London yoke, to happily take up the Vatican city one and it could be argued we're doing it again with Brussels/Bonn(though at least they're firing funds our way). I often think the inhabitants of these islands are too damned easy going for our own bloody good. Except the Scots. They're all stone mad they are. No wonder the Italians built a wall to keep them out. Didn't work mind you.

Arsemageddon

maryishere wrote: »

or, as a devils advocate would suggest, the failed entity which was subsidised by the EC since the early seventies (mainly Germany and England, its 2 biggest contributers), and despite being bailed out by the IMF/Britain/EU only a few years ago, still has the second highest debt per head of population in the world.

Britain (not England) received an IMF bailout in the 1976 and the Germans received a bit of a bailout back in 1945 after they went completely mental. They are both doing grand now.

Economic and political folly are not uniquely Irish traits.

My name is URL

steddyeddy wrote: »

They were debating whether the British government should apologise for colonialism and this came up.

Fair enough. I just realised that you're in the UK after seeing a post you made earlier. I had thought this debate happened here somewhere and was solely based on the article.

Anyway, no.. apologies shouldn't be made. Most of those involved are dead or close to it. They tend to be empty and fall on deaf ears anyway. Those that don't want to be appeased will never be appeased.

Maybe instead of falling over each other to place blame or accept it on behalf of others, people should just get the fuck on with it.. with life, with the stuff affecting us today.

Where are all the debates in British Unis about how crappy and selective the teaching of history is for younger people nowadays?

steddyeddy

maryishere wrote: »

Well holy be to God, it surely it, so it is. How did the word about the abuse cases and the Magdalene laundries and so on get out?

Tis very unfair for that English Telegraph writer to compare the glorious Easter rising to IS Brussels attack. The Brussels attack was far smaller and did not kill as many.

You're all over the place dude.

12Phase

The class system brought the likely peasant upstarts into the parlour with non-hertidatory knighthoods though. That's always kept the status quo.

I've strongly suspected that's been one of the reasons why the British entrepreneur and journalist and even left wing political class never really got absolutely fed up with the system.

maryishere

Instead of helping the British to run their Empire (a third of the British admin staff in India was Irish), we would have been much better being a colony of Spain or France or Belgium. The inhabitants of their colonies, like the Congo, fared much better