Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

1…5681011…23

Comments

  • #212
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I see far too many factual terms being put in danger quotes: this discussion has descended into the usual morass of people inventing definitions of words to fit a specific historical agenda.

    If we can't have a conversation without putting quotes around "country" and "insurrection"; if we're at the level of arguing that Ireland was militarily occupied by a foreign power because believing so was the required justification for starting a war; then we're already neck-deep in a game of make-believe that I've no interest in playing.

    So I'll bow out. It doesn't matter what I or the small number of people who share my views say: in under two years time this country will be celebrating the "heroes" who started a war. I won't be taking part. On the plus side, the small minority of us who disagree with the majority view in this matter almost certainly won't be killing anyone to force our point of view on the rest of you.


  • #213
    irishpancake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭irishpancake


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I see far too many factual terms being put in danger quotes: this discussion has descended into the usual morass of people inventing definitions of words to fit a specific historical agenda.

    If we can't have a conversation without putting quotes around "country" and "insurrection"; if we're at the level of arguing that Ireland was militarily occupied by a foreign power because believing so was the required justification for starting a war; then we're already neck-deep in a game of make-believe that I've no interest in playing.

    So I'll bow out. It doesn't matter what I or the small number of people who share my views say: in under two years time this country will be celebrating the "heroes" who started a war. I won't be taking part. On the plus side, the small minority of us who disagree with the majority view in this matter almost certainly won't be killing anyone to force our point of view on the rest of you.

    These so-called danger quotes were, in my case anyway, to emphasise the words you used.

    I note your use of quotes around the word heroes, presumably meaning those brave people who participated in our Revolution in 1916, and those who fought in our War of Independence, whom you would seek to disparage.

    I fear you bowed out some time ago, when you refused to participate in a discussion, which you were unwilling to have, unless on your narrow terms only, providing "dictionary definitions", etc. which you insisted were the only basis for a discussion with you, because, according to you, they were the unvarnished truth.

    In essence, you set preconditions, based upon only your own interpretation of events, which, even now, are a matter of dispute, but which you insisted your interpretations only would form the basis for any discussion with you, or no discussion at all.

    Just what do you mean by this:

    "the small minority of us who disagree with the majority view in this matter almost certainly won't be killing anyone to force our point of view on the rest of you."

    Are you attempting to say that people disagreeing with you and like minded colleagues are threatening violence or murder on people holding contrarian points of view??

    Or what??

    It is a most odd thing to say in relation to those who, in good faith, might hold views which you disagree with.

    It betrays kind of paranoia, which perhaps you should talk to someone about.


  • #214
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I see far too many factual terms being put in danger quotes: this discussion has descended into the usual morass of people inventing definitions of words to fit a specific historical agenda.

    If we can't have a conversation without putting quotes around "country" and "insurrection"; if we're at the level of arguing that Ireland was militarily occupied by a foreign power because believing so was the required justification for starting a war; then we're already neck-deep in a game of make-believe that I've no interest in playing..

    The country was occupied. It strikes me as bizarre beyond belief that anyone would say otherwise, short of humour or satire.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So I'll bow out. It doesn't matter what I or the small number of people who share my views say: in under two years time this country will be celebrating the "heroes" who started a war. I won't be taking part. On the plus side, the small minority of us who disagree with the majority view in this matter almost certainly won't be killing anyone to force our point of view on the rest of you.

    Do kindly explain how that comment I've placed in bold pertains to the discussion on this thread. Or is it perhaps just a parting jibe?


  • #215
    RED L4 0TH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭RED L4 0TH


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I see far too.......

    It seems you are surprised by the notion that different interpretations of Irish history exist as well as the one that starts: "On the 1st January 1801 the Act of ..........". Ah well, you know how the rest of it goes. Terms like "make-believe" seem to indicate a certain level of intolerance on your behalf of other lines of thought on the topic.


  • #216
    Good loser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,283 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Nodin wrote: »
    The country was occupied. It strikes me as bizarre beyond belief that anyone would say otherwise, short of humour or satire.

    Nothing bizarre atall about considering the term 'occupation' inappropriate for describing the Irish/English relationship back in 1914/1916.

    This country then had full democratic representation in the British parliament.
    The Irish were quite happy to use this situation to further their political interests.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Good loser wrote: »

    Nothing bizarre atall about considering the term 'occupation' inappropriate for describing the Irish/English relationship back in 1914/1916.

    This country then had full democratic representation in the British parliament.
    The Irish were quite happy to use this situation to further their political interests.


    Using a situation to ones advantage doesn't imply one approved of how and why one ended up there.


  • #218
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    I can't believe we have to contest the notion that the country was occupied now, that's ridiculous. There are some who clearly cling to the narrative that Ireland was a free and equal partner in a United Kingdom. The reality was that it was a defeated and colonised nation that was bound into a political union against its will as a result of a long process of conquest. Resisting this was a morally justified affair as far as I'm concerned and those who took the forefront of that resistance should be lauded and commemorated.


  • #219
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,069 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    FTA69 wrote: »
    I can't believe we have to contest the notion that the country was occupied now, that's ridiculous. There are some who clearly cling to the narrative that Ireland was a free and equal partner in a United Kingdom. The reality was that it was a defeated and colonised nation that was bound into a political union against its will as a result of a long process of conquest. Resisting this was a morally justified affair as far as I'm concerned and those who took the forefront of that resistance should be lauded and commemorated.

    I presume that . . . "From many of Britain's ruling elite" Ireland was always the poor relation next door who had a tendancy to drink too much, and to be friends with Britain's enemies, namely the Spanish, the French, and more recently zee Germans! So from Britains perspective I guess it was best that Ireland was brought into the political fold with the act of union (1801) so that the ship could be kept ship shape & bristol fashion.

    Personally I would have been a fan of Home Rule 'a la John Burton', but sadly, circumstances including the Great War & the easter rising complicated matters and the rest is history, but I would certainly have wanted our own devolved parliament in Dublin after WWI, when the dust had settled.


  • #220
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    LordSutch wrote: »
    I presume that . . . "From many of Britain's ruling elite" Ireland was always the poor relation next door who had a tendancy to drink too much, and to be friends with Britain's enemies, namely the Spanish, the French, and more recently zee Germans! So from Britains perspective I guess it was best that Ireland was brought into the political fold with the act of union (1801) so that the ship could be kept ship shape & bristol fashion.

    .............

    Condescending, patronising nonsense.


  • #221
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Nodin wrote: »
    Using a situation to ones advantage doesn't imply one approved of how and why one ended up there.

    Given Ireland was under military occupation, do you regard the 1918 election result as being illegitimate?


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    Given Ireland was under military occupation, do you regard the 1918 election result as being illegitimate?


    Yes, in the sense that the only option was to send Irish politicians to the parliament of the occupying power. Hence the formation of the first Dail.


  • #223
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    irishpancake wrote: »
    My good friend View.....

    You are aware that this was an General Election, not a Plebiscite, or a Referendum??

    I am fully aware of that.
    irishpancake wrote: »
    It, the General Election, was fought in accordance with the Electoral rules prevailing at that time......

    Agreed.
    irishpancake wrote: »
    The result, in Ireland, when the votes were counted, was a Landslide victory for Sinn Féin and it's Platform.

    This was due to votes cast, in the FPTP electoral system, and a considerable number of uncontested seats conceded to SF, which it seems you are totally unaware of.

    I am aware of both.

    A poor electoral system, such as FPTP, does not turn a minority of the popular vote cast into a "Clear majority" in favour of a proposition though (particularly with a significant %age of the adult population still disenfranchised at the time).

    Nor indeed does the existence of uncontested seats, particularly when those seats were in areas of the country where contemporary reports at the time (before the election) indicated the state had already lost control of (or to use the language of the day "where the King's writ no longer runs").
    irishpancake wrote: »
    In that 1918 Election in GB, there was a victory for the National Coalition Parties [Tory/Liberal/Etc,] in terms of seats won in the GB Parliament, but this was with a combined 47% of votes cast.

    A MINORITY of the votes cast....

    as you so subtly/shoutily put it......

    Very exciting but no one was suggesting it constituted a mandate for GB to leave the UK, were they? :-)

    Rather it was an election to elect MPs to Parliament (and, hence, to ensure a government was elected by MPs from the ranks of Parliament).

    Exactly as it was in Ireland since it was the same election held on the same day.

    I am afraid you are undermining your own case if you are attempting to claim securing a majority of seats in a general election under a poor electoral system has the same validity as securing a majority in a referendum.

    Hence the situation is that SF did not secure a majority of votes cast in either the general election or in a subsequent referendum, so they had no "clear majority" - all of which shows them acting without care or consideration for the views of others on the island at a time when a fairly fundamental constitutional issue was up for decision.


  • #224
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yes, in the sense that the only option was to send Irish politicians to the parliament of the occupying power. Hence the formation of the first Dail.

    Would you then regard the 1910 general election to be legitimate, being held under the same occupation?


  • #225
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    Would you then regard the 1910 general election to be legitimate, being held under the same occupation?

    No, for the reasons already outlined. Can we cut to the chase now?


  • #226
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Could you explain the different judgement on either election's legitimacy, other than the result?


  • #227
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    Could you explain the different judgement on either election's legitimacy, other than the result?
    ....................do you regard the 1918 election result as being illegitimate?

    To which I answered "Yes, in the sense............"
    Would you then regard the 1910 general election to be legitimate

    To which I answered "No.............................."

    Thus there's no different judgement on the results.


  • #228
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Nodin wrote: »
    To which I answered "Yes, in the sense............"



    To which I answered "No.............................."

    Thus there's no different judgement on the results.

    Do you then regard the first Dail formed by those elected in the 1918 election, and the later campaigns which drew legitimacy from the first Dail to be illegitimate by extension?


  • #229
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    Do you then regard the first Dail formed by those elected in the 1918 election, and the later campaigns which drew legitimacy from the first Dail to be illegitimate by extension?


    Not at all. There was a vote, and those who received that vote formed the first Dail. Had they taken their seats in Westminister it would have been illegitimate.


  • #230
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Nodin wrote: »
    Not at all. There was a vote, and those who received that vote formed the first Dail. Had they taken their seats in Westminister it would have been illegitimate.

    Would you regard unionist votes to be illegitimate by default under a valid electoral contest then?


  • #231
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    Would you regard unionist votes to be illegitimate by default under a valid electoral contest then?

    ?????? Now? Then?


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Nodin wrote: »
    ?????? Now? Then?

    Would you have a different answer in either case?


  • #233
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    Would you have a different answer in either case?


    The whole thing was a joke then, as we were an occupied state. However the modern Republican movement recognises the NI state as part of Britain, until such time as a majority decides otherwise.


  • #234
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Nodin wrote: »
    The whole thing was a joke then, as we were an occupied state. However the modern Republican movement recognises the NI state as part of Britain, until such time as a majority decides otherwise.

    Does that mean you would regard all unionist votes and voters in the 1918 election to be illegitimate on the basis of who they voted for?

    Does your different reaction to current day voters mean that you do not consider Northern Ireland to be occupied by Britain?


  • #235
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    Does that mean you would regard all unionist votes and voters in the 1918 election to be illegitimate on the basis of who they voted for??

    I'd consider it an entirely dubious election based on the destination of those who were to be elected.
    Sand wrote: »
    Does your different reaction to current day voters mean that you do not consider Northern Ireland to be occupied by Britain?

    I consider it to be occupied, but as rights for nationalists have been secured, its better to wage a non-violent campaign for reunification.


  • #236
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'd consider it an entirely dubious election based on the destination of those who were to be elected.


    I consider it to be occupied, but as rights for nationalists have been secured, its better to wage a non-violent campaign for reunification.

    What rights did nationalists lack in 1918 that meant waging a violent campaign was the better option?


  • #237
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    What rights did nationalists lack in 1918 that meant waging a violent campaign was the better option?


    There was no way out of the Empire except via armed struggle. With regards to NI, there's a guarantee that should a majority wish it there will be re-unification.


  • #238
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Nodin wrote: »
    There was no way out of the Empire except via armed struggle. With regards to NI, there's a guarantee that should a majority wish it there will be re-unification.

    Can you explain why armed struggle failed to remove Ireland from the empire and instead it was done peacefully in 1948-1949?


  • #239
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    Can you explain why armed struggle failed to remove Ireland from the empire and instead it was done peacefully in 1948-1949?


    We were effectively out post the war of independence and the interim period was just a question of solidifying and clarifying that position.


  • #240
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Nodin wrote: »
    We were effectively out post the war of independence and the interim period was just a question of solidifying and clarifying that position.

    Can you explain then why the British monarch remained head of state from 1922 onwards?


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    Can you explain then why the British monarch remained head of state from 1922 onwards?

    Fairly irrelevant, given that the solidification of the state as entirely independent continued on uninterrupted.

    Is there a point to all this?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement