Will the 100th anniversary of the 1916 Rising be less devisive than the 50th was?

LordSutch · 25-04-2012 07:28PM #1

Just heard an interesting discussion on the radio about the 100th anniversary of the 1916 rising which is now only four years away. The chat also focused on the 50th anniversary back in 1966, and how the upcoming anniversary in 2016 might be viewed by the public at large.
Myths/propaganda about the Rising are also delt with by Pat Kenny & his guest!

Interesting listening, click on Link then go to 1h:43mins > http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A3266365%3A133%3A24-04-2012%3A

john reilly · 25-04-2012 08:21PM

depends if people with an anti irish agenda try to antagonise republicans or not

Sunnyisland · 25-04-2012 08:43PM

With the next general election being held either before or more likely in 2016,and with SF (if current trends continue)getting more & more support, I would think all the main parties be playing up there republican and nationalist roots,So I would think it will be huge and in a positive way,one hopes.

paky · 26-04-2012 06:01PM

i dont think 2016 will be in anyway significant. people rarely celebrate it as it is

Lapin · 26-04-2012 06:24PM

Cancel it.

The signatories of the Proclamation would turn in their graves if they knew how this country has been run since independence.

The sight of a bunch of self congratulatory politicians jostling for a share of the centenary limelight will be hard to take.

KeithAFC · 26-04-2012 06:33PM

From listening to that interview, it seems no one liked the rebels at all and actually didn't bother listening to them. Padraig Pearse for example when reading out the proclamation was only in front of a few people. So there never was loud cheers which was reported to people in America.

So it was built on propaganda and myth. Can't say I am surprised by this at all.

Shea O'Meara · 26-04-2012 08:03PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

From listening to that interview, it seems no one liked the rebels at all and actually didn't bother listening to them. Padraig Pearse for example when reading out the proclamation was only in front of a few people. So there never was loud cheers which was reported to people in America.

So it was built on propaganda and myth. Can't say I am surprised by this at all.

In Irish schools you learn from an early age that the rising wasn't popular with the majority of people. There's no myth about it.
It was the treatment of the prisoners by the British Army which began to sway public opinion.
Then of course the eventual realisation that a foreign government didn't give a toss about your people regardless of how many Union Jacks you waved

I wouldn't mind some peaceful repeat in 2016 to get the country free of the civil war parties.

The Waltzing Consumer · 26-04-2012 08:07PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

From listening to that interview, it seems no one liked the rebels at all and actually didn't bother listening to them. Padraig Pearse for example when reading out the proclamation was only in front of a few people. So there never was loud cheers which was reported to people in America.

So it was built on propaganda and myth. Can't say I am surprised by this at all.

Keith, that is not myth or propaganda and is taught to every school child in the Republic, it is also publicized on any tour related to the Rising too.

As for what propaganda tools they used back during that time, well, it is good to examine it and acknowledge the most truthful version of events.

KeithAFC · 26-04-2012 08:12PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Keith, that is not myth or propaganda and is taught to every school child in the Republic, it is also publicized on any tour related to the Rising too.

As for what propaganda tools they used back during that time, well, it is good to examine it and acknowledge the most truthful version of events.

The woman herself in the interview said it was a myth and for me that is propaganda to Americans with Irish ancestry.

john reilly · 26-04-2012 08:51PM

everybody knows that they didnt have support and that the rising was badly planned. back then like now there was plenty of west brits in dublin. but the same as now the british give the rebels the upper hand by executing the leaders. amazingly despite having the finances and numbers the brits were too stupid to learn from there mistakes and continued to boost the ira by killing 13 unarmed civilians in derry and letting the hunger strikers die.

KeithAFC · 26-04-2012 08:59PM

john reilly wrote: »

everybody knows that they didnt have support and that the rising was badly planned. back then like now there was plenty of west brits in dublin. but the same as now the british give the rebels the upper hand by executing the leaders. amazingly despite having the finances and numbers the brits were too stupid to learn from there mistakes and continued to boost the ira by killing 13 unarmed civilians in derry and letting the hunger strikers die.

Many people would argue against this and say that Sinn Fein used the hunger strike as a way of getting publicity for the party and to boost the Irish Republican cause around the world.

Sinn Fein have a lot of questions to answer in regards to the Hunger strike.

john reilly · 26-04-2012 09:06PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Many people would argue against this and say that Sinn Fein used the hunger strike as a way of getting publicity for the party and to boost the Irish Republican cause around the world.

Sinn Fein have a lot of questions to answer in regards to the Hunger strike.

even if that was true it was a propoganda war the brits lost out of stuborness and stupidity

linfield · 26-04-2012 09:11PM

john reilly wrote: »

even if that was true it was a propoganda war the brits lost out of stuborness and stupidity

Lost out on what exactly?

Sunnyisland · 26-04-2012 09:13PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Many people would argue against this and say that Sinn Fein used the hunger strike as a way of getting publicity for the party and to boost the Irish Republican cause around the world.

Sinn Fein have a lot of questions to answer in regards to the Hunger strike.

A lot of people and organisations have a lot to answer for, That would be why SF have called continuously for an Independent truth commision,But guess who is not in favor of it ?

LordSutch · 28-04-2012 04:55PM

Quite amazing how the pro-rebel myths & propaganda got into the US papers so quickly (next day)!

tfitzgerald · 28-04-2012 05:00PM

Lapin wrote: »

Cancel it.

The signatories of the Proclamation would turn in their graves if they knew how this country has been run since independence.

The sight of a bunch of self congratulatory politicians jostling for a share of the centenary limelight will be hard to take.

I agree completely

The Waltzing Consumer · 28-04-2012 05:20PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Quite amazing how the pro-rebel myths & propaganda got into the US papers so quickly (next day)!

Was it really the next day? I have no idea myself, but it sounds pretty quick for that time and the lines of communication back then.

I am not sure why you and Keith seem to focus on "myths & propaganda" during this time near 100 years ago. I am pretty sure if we looked at any political event back then anywhere in Europe, the propaganda would be pretty crude and obvious compared to today's standards.

Sunnyisland · 28-04-2012 05:56PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Was it really the next day? I have no idea myself, but it sounds pretty quick for that time and the lines of communication back then.

I am not sure why you and Keith seem to focus on "myths & propaganda" during this time near 100 years ago. I am pretty sure if we looked at any political event back then anywhere in Europe, the propaganda would be pretty crude and obvious compared to today's standards.

Its all they can do, that is to look back, For if they look forward it doesent look to good for there union does it.

Denerick · 28-04-2012 06:40PM

1916 is historically interesting as an expression of the proto fascist nationalist militarism of its day. It harkens back to the various revolutions in France in the 19th century (To the barricades dear fellows, to the barricades!) But realistically it was not a modernist, liberal revolutionary attempt. It was a tiny, aggressive, hyper nationalist elite, with a few socialists, who attempted to force an unpopular and unwanted doctrine of militarism upon a populace who showed absolutely no interest whatsoever in such an ideology.

The subsequent rise of the pro-rising Sinn Féin movement was mostly a consequence of the conscription crisis. The drift to a war of independence was mostly an accident and initially unpopular.

When you combine these facts with Pearse's queasy and weird fundamentalism and his disregard for human life you have a particularly abhorrent moral example for the 21st century.

Unfortunately the Easter Rising is one of those foundational myths upon which nation states claim their legitimacy. Unfortunately our founding myth is a mildly embaressing episode in our history. The French have the French Revolution, the Americans the American one. And we the Easter Rising, whose intellectual leader was an asexual weirdo who presumed that tiny elites had the inherent right to lead the destiny of millions.

KeithAFC · 28-04-2012 06:49PM

realies wrote: »

Its all they can do, that is to look back, For if they look forward it doesent look to good for there union does it.

You know something we don't? Scotland will not vote to leave the Union. So I don't see what else you could be on about.

Nodin · 28-04-2012 06:55PM

Denerick wrote: »

1916 is historically interesting as an expression of the proto fascist nationalist militarism of its day. It harkens back to the various revolutions in France in the 19th century (To the barricades dear fellows, to the barricades!) But realistically it was not a modernist, liberal revolutionary attempt. It was a tiny, aggressive, hyper nationalist elite, with a few socialists, who attempted to force an unpopular and unwanted doctrine of militarism upon a populace who showed absolutely no interest whatsoever in such an ideology..

What was this "doctrine of militarism" they were trying to force on people?

If 'Militarism' was so unpopular, why were so many off fighting in WW1?

whose intellectual leader was an asexual weirdo

A "weirdo" eh? I'm glad you're using such scientific terms. Well, we can't be harbouring any 'weirdos'. I'm sure a test for such creatures is carried out when applying for any public office or position of responsibility. We really do owe much to technology ( I hear theres an iphone app that can spot them at 10 paces )

As to "asexual" - lets imagine, for the sake of it, that Mr Pearse was in fact asexual, established beyond argument. How would that make his views and actions any less or more valid than if he was either homosexual, or heterosexual?

LordSutch · 28-04-2012 07:00PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Was it really the next day? I have no idea myself, but it sounds pretty quick for that time and the lines of communication back then.

I am not sure why you and Keith seem to focus on "myths & propaganda" during this time near 100 years ago. I am pretty sure if we looked at any political event back then anywhere in Europe, the propaganda would be pretty crude and obvious compared to today's standards.

I was simply refering to what was said (claimed) in the clip, maybe you haven't listened to it yet?

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-04-2012 07:07PM

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

In Irish schools you learn from an early age that the rising wasn't popular with the majority of people. There's no myth about it.
It was the treatment of the prisoners by the British Army which began to sway public opinion.
Then of course the eventual realisation that a foreign government didn't give a toss about your people regardless of how many Union Jacks you waved

I wouldn't mind some peaceful repeat in 2016 to get the country free of the civil war parties.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Keith, that is not myth or propaganda and is taught to every school child in the Republic, it is also publicized on any tour related to the Rising too.

As for what propaganda tools they used back during that time, well, it is good to examine it and acknowledge the most truthful version of events.

john reilly wrote: »

everybody knows that they didnt have support and that the rising was badly planned. back then like now there was plenty of west brits in dublin. but the same as now the british give the rebels the upper hand by executing the leaders. amazingly despite having the finances and numbers the brits were too stupid to learn from there mistakes and continued to boost the ira by killing 13 unarmed civilians in derry and letting the hunger strikers die.

Which begs the question; why are these people viewed as heroes? And why is, what was a hugely unpopular event at the time, celebrated as if it was hugely popular?

Strange.

charlemont · 28-04-2012 07:09PM

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

In Irish schools you learn from an early age that the rising wasn't popular with the majority of people. There's no myth about it.
It was the treatment of the prisoners by the British Army which began to sway public opinion.
Then of course the eventual realisation that a foreign government didn't give a toss about your people regardless of how many Union Jacks you waved

I wouldn't mind some peaceful repeat in 2016 to get the country free of the civil war parties.

And that is the reason to celebrate it, Only the people who live on this island should govern this island no matter what background they are from. WW1 came at a bad time for us, We should have had Home Rule much sooner but the Unionists and House of Lords put paid to that so fair play to those people who risked their lives to fight for the freedom we have today, Look I have no doubt that if the Uprising didn't take place we would have eventually split anyway or got devolved government but we would also have been the weak spot in the UK's defence against a Nazi attack so I think we got out at the right time.

Nodin · 28-04-2012 07:13PM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Which begs the question; why are these people viewed as heroes? And why is, what was a hugely unpopular event at the time, celebrated as if it was hugely popular?

Strange.

Popularity 'at the time' is hardly a measure of worth. What was done was subsequently judged to be "right". Meanings and judgements attached to events in popular culture shift in emphasis over time.

SMASH THE UNIONS · 28-04-2012 07:18PM

Yet another extravagant waste of taxpayer's money. The centenary celebrations will be almost as unpopular as the original rising in 1916. Is there any way I can opt out of this? I can see it now - an army of civil servant government cronies hired to organise this racket, rubbing their greasy hands together with glee as the money rolls in. Unlimited expenses - whatever you need, you get. Gombeens from Kerry being paid to get the train up to Dublin to prepare a parade. How many household charges will this cost? Why don't SF use their own party funds to cover their cost of this?

charlemont · 28-04-2012 07:18PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

You know something we don't? Scotland will not vote to leave the Union. So I don't see what else you could be on about.

Have to agree there Keith, Can't see the Scots leaving the safety of the Union, At least Scotland is on the same island as England and Wales, Scotland played a pivotal role in the Union and wasn't exactly a conquered land like Ireland, I don't claim to know too much about her history with England but I'd argue England and Scotland both shared the spoils from Ireland, England in the south and Scotland in the north which obviously is why Ireland is still divided. You do know Keith that the original English settlers here ended up speaking Irish and were described as "More Irish than the Irish themselves", All that changed after the reformation though.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-04-2012 07:23PM

Nodin wrote: »

Popularity 'at the time' is hardly a measure of worth. What was done was subsequently judged to be "right". Meanings and judgements attached to events in popular culture shift in emphasis over time.

Judged right by whom? Because I certainly don't view it as being "right". Can you tell me what was "right" about it?

And anyway, that is mostly the point; that is hasn't/wasn't judged to have been "right". It was the fact that they were executed which swayed public opinion to sympathize with them in some shape or form, not the fact the public agreed with their views or that they actually staged the rising itself.

Nodin · 28-04-2012 07:28PM

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

Yet another extravagant waste of taxpayer's money. ?

How much is budgeted for this? A source please.

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

The centenary celebrations will be almost as unpopular as the original rising in 1916.

What is that assertion based on?

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

Is there any way I can opt out of this? I can see it now - an army of civil servant government cronies hired to organise this racket, rubbing their greasy hands together with glee as the money rolls in. Unlimited expenses - whatever you need, you get..

What is that notion based on? Is there a precedent?

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

Gombeens from Kerry being paid to get the train up to Dublin to prepare a parade.
..

Are you stating that everyone in Kerry is a "Gombeen" or do you think that a selection process to find same and enrol them was carried out by the Government in that county?

Taking the wider implications of your claim - Why would people from outside Dublin be brought up to "prepare" the parade? If there are certain areas of expertise that exist outside the capital, are these to be ignored?

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

Why don't SF use their own party funds to cover their cost of this?

SF are not organising it.

southsiderosie · 28-04-2012 07:32PM

MOD NOTE:

Just a friendly reminder that this thread is about the anniversary of the Rising - which has little to do with Scotland or Sinn Fein hunger strikers.

Nodin · 28-04-2012 07:33PM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Judged right by whom?.

..by those who do so. Certainly a good number turned out at the 90th anniversary.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Because I certainly don't view it as being "right". Can you tell me what was "right" about it??.

Any people have the right to self-determination.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

And anyway, that is mostly the point; that is hasn't/wasn't judged to have been "right". .......

...then, but largely is now.

Will the 100th anniversary of the 1916 Rising be less devisive than the 50th was?

Comments