nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Easter 1916 celebrations are brainwashed nonsense

[Deleted User]

and is downright dangerous..............to hell with 1916 and the Easter celebrations. It really is a celebration of unelected, unaccountable, self appointed extremists who decided to take over the city at a time when political engagement and representation was ongoing. If a group of people did that today because they didnt like how the country was run how would or how should they be dealt with?

Maybe that would be right when you consider the banking debt etc and maybe the people of 1916 were right (history has shown they were) but celebrating this kind of thing has unintended consequences. To hell with the blood sacrifice crap. Ireland could very well be a united republic today if it werent for 1916. India pulled it off, Scotland had the option. How many people would have lived? How would our infrastructure be? Maybe there would have been a north - south civil war. Maybe that would have been a better outcome than an Anglo Irish war and following civil war. We dont know the answers to any of this. But we do know that an independent Ireland without the north has, mostly, been the cause of deaths in conflicts north and south of the border, a kind of home rule is Rome rule truth with dire consequences regarding child abuse, corruption as bad as some of British/Anglo Irish rule, massive emigration and real poverty until recent decades.

1916 celebrations are flawed. The day of the first Dail is what should be celebrated or else the date of the elections themselves. But people in Ireland are brainwashed from an early age and cant seem to see past it. If the past 100 years had of been a peaceful transition to independence that included the North then the addition of northern politicians may not be a bad add to the mix**. Couldnt be any worse could it?

** this assumes a different type of politician that conflict and prejudice in the north over the last 100 years bred.

Its equally possible that 1916 was the worst thing to happen Ireland in the last 100 years. And I definitely do not care for the nonsense and outright disgusting notion that heads of state should be born into it as per the British monarchy. I`m 100% republican. That probably messes with some shinnerbots heads.

Any other boardsies think celebrating 1916 is flawed?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Shurimgreat

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The Rising didn't amount to anything, it was Maxwell's brutality that lead to the rise of DeValera and Sinn Fein. If you want to celebrate something, celebrate Asquith sending a bull to squash an ant.

I think Pearse and co. more then likely envisaged such a reaction from the British. I'd say they knew what the outcome of the Rising would be, it would last a few weeks, but the British would win in the end and the true face of British rule in Ireland would be shown. The Brits were ok until you stood up to them or questioned their rule and then they were brutal. Pearse and the Rising leaders knew this. He won sympathy for the Irish cause. It was probably the only way to do it.

Years and years of non violent protests came to nothing.

VinLieger

RandomName2 wrote: »

It had to. It was the law. In fact it did happen after the war - it just wasn't recognised by nationalists.

Without the war home rule for all of Ireland would quite likely have occurred, with some sort of rising or rebellion from the unionists. Who knows how that would have turned out.

Exactly, thats why I asked the question of the poster, the theory that both communities were bought off so as to keep them quiet and get them to help but would have been screwed once the war was over makes no sense, Home Rule was going to happen therefore the rising was not necessary and those involved were simply impatient.

Now the question of what would have happened with the unionists is something nobody can really answer, there would have been violence but on the same level of the last 100 years is not something anyone can say for certain

The Backwards Man

beach_walker wrote: »

And he was there because of the Rising... Still maintain it had no effect on your life whatsoever??

Yep. None at all.. Fermanagh might be in the South note and we might be in the North or something, but that's about it. Dublin, Westminster, Brussels, they are all the same to us common five eighths.

pojfexcsc

Shurimgreat wrote: »

On the contrary, I think its important for the Irish people to take back the legacy of the 1916 Rising from those who continue to misuse it for political gain.

The leaders of the 1916 Rising would have zero time for the criminality of many modern day "Republicans". In fact I wish modern day "Republicans" would stop using the word republican.

Yeah I've always wished Fianna Fail would drop that tagline from their party too.

Shurimgreat

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Can't wait for it to be over. It is tacky at this stage.

I saw some of the 1966 commemoration last night on TV. It was seriously impressive. It looked like the whole Irish Army was out in parade. Also O'Connell street looked perfect. It's going to be hard to top that, even though 100 years is possibly a more significant anniversary.

beach_walker

VinLieger wrote: »

Exactly, thats why I asked the question of the poster, the theory that both communities were bought off so as to keep them quiet and get them to help but would have been screwed once the war was over makes no sense

Wait, so Home Rule was definitely going to happen because the Brits said so. and yet... Carson was given a written assurance from Llyod George stating "‘we must make it clear that at the end of the provisional period Ulster does not, whether she wills it or not, merge in the rest of Ireland’". You can see that they knew, and planned, that someone was going to get screwed over.

VinLieger

beach_walker wrote: »

Wait, so Home Rule was definitely going to happen because the Brits said so. and yet... Carson was given a written assurance from Llyod George stating "‘we must make it clear that at the end of the provisional period Ulster does not, whether she wills it or not, merge in the rest of Ireland’". You can see that they knew, and planned, that someone was going to get screwed over.

Thats why I asked to do you think without WW1 Home Rule would have happened? Any answer?

The Backwards Man

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think Pearse and co. more then likely envisaged such a reaction from the British. I'd say they knew what the outcome of the Rising would be, it would last a few weeks, but the British would win in the end and the true face of British rule in Ireland would be shown. The Brits were ok until you stood up to them or questioned their rule and then they were brutal. Pearse and the Rising leaders knew this. He won sympathy for the Irish cause. It was probably the only way to do it.

Years and years of non violent protests came to nothing.

Aye, I'd have no doubt they reacted exactly the way he wanted them to, but there were other ways to further the Irish cause, and they were working.

maudgonner

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I saw some of the 1966 commemoration last night on TV. It was seriously impressive. It looked like the whole Irish Army was out in parade. Also O'Connell street looked perfect. It's going to be hard to top that, even though 100 years is possibly a more significant anniversary.

There were some bizarre bits of the 1966 commemoration too though. RTE Archives have a clip of the pageant that was held in Croke Park - I posted it in the Rebellion thread of the TV forum and the consensus was that it's a cross between an Olympics opening ceremony and a German 1930s rally

RandomName2

magma69 wrote: »

The West Brits really have their knickers in a twist about this. You wouldn't see steam coming out of their ears for celebration of a milestone number of years in France on Bastille day.

I personally am indifferent to it but if Nationalists want to get into the celebrations then power to them.

Well the French Revolution was a bit of a blood bath in all honesty, but I don't see any dissident Republicans in France planting bombs in the name of "Napoleon IV" or carrying around mobile guillotines under their arms.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

On the contrary, I think its important for the Irish people to take back the legacy of the 1916 Rising from those who continue to misuse it for political gain.

The leaders of the 1916 Rising would have zero time for the criminality of many modern day "Republicans". In fact I wish modern day "Republicans" would stop using the word republican.

The leaders of the Rising were a mixed bunch.

Some would highly endorse the criminality as a means to an end, some would feel that such criminality should be less cloak-and-dagger and more noble (dying in uniform and a gun in your hand, rather than by accidentally setting off a bomb in a residential district, for instance) and some would feel disgusted at such criminality in a land of plenty and opportunity (as they would see it compared to early 20th century Ireland).

"Republican" doesn't really have much meaning in Ireland. Never really did. It was an intellectual concept that worked well with the intelligentsia of both revolutionary France and American colonies... and to a lesser extent Russia (who were full of starry eyed idealists). In Ireland the more intellectual aspects of "Republicanism" began and ended with the United Irishmen.

beach_walker wrote: »

And he was there because of the Rising... Still maintain it had no effect on your life whatsoever??

Butterfly effect?

beach_walker

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats why I asked to do you think without WW1 Home Rule would have happened? Any answer?

I dislike hypotheticals. And that's a pretty big one tbh.

To answer your question I think no, at least most definitely not in that time period. The powers that be didn't want it, privately and publicaly they backed the anti-Home Rule, heavily armed and organised Ulster Volunteers. There always would have been something to delay it. And when and if it came it would have been heavily watered down and most definitely with a partition element.

Huntergonzo

I'm not patriotic and so personally I'm completely indifferent the 1916 commemorations. Some people feel very strongly about it which I don't really understand but I have no problem with, once their feelings aren't rammed down my throat.

On a personal level I think 1916 is quite sad for a number of reasons, obviously because it led to a lot of people losing their lives but just as bad is what they died for.

We could have went from being a British colony to a progressive democratic Republic, instead Ireland effectively decended into a deeply oppressive catholic theocracy and the hangover from that dreadful past still remains to an extent today. We threw away a golden opportunity, our ancestors allowed civil war and religion prevent what could have been great.

beach_walker

RandomName2 wrote: »

Butterfly effect?

Nah, not to those who dislike the Rising. They need to jump through some serious mental loops to work out that history has absolutely no effect on their lives in any way, shape or form.

RandomName2

beach_walker wrote: »

I dislike hypotheticals. And that's a pretty big one tbh.

To answer your question I think no, at least most definitely not in that time period. The powers that be didn't want it, privately and publicaly they backed the anti-Home Rule, heavily armed and organised Ulster Volunteers. There always would have been something to delay it. And when and if it came it would have been heavily watered down and most definitely with a partition element.

The powers that be did want it, but they just wanted the problem to go away. The unionists considered the UK Parliament to be an enemy where even the Conservatives could not be trusted. They armed themselves, not against nationalists, but against their government. Their source of arms was the same one used by the nationalists!

Unionists hoped that they would be enough of a pain that the issue would be endlessly deferred, but that was no longer on the cards. What would ultimately have happened, noone can say.

VinLieger

beach_walker wrote: »

I dislike hypotheticals. And that's a pretty big one tbh.

To answer your question I think no, at least most definitely not in that time period. The powers that be didn't want it, privately and publicaly they backed the anti-Home Rule, heavily armed and organised Ulster Volunteers. There always would have been something to delay it. And when and if it came it would have been heavily watered down and most definitely with a partition element.

Fair enough disliking hypotheticials but that theory holds no water considering Home Rule had been passed without anything added that would allow it be watered down or altered

sheesh

Whether it was good bad or indifferent it was the beginning of a process that led to formation of the country we now live in. This country that we now live in would not exist in its current form if it had not happened.

The same could be said about the American revolutionaries or the French revolution and they are celebrated.

on the celebration side I am involved in a choir that is doing something there are english people in the choir which is quiet funny.

as for brainwashing yes you are correct in that too. it is the governments attempt to instill some patriotism in the population. This is pretty normal government behaviour.

Take part in it or don't take part in it nobody cares.

RandomName2

beach_walker wrote: »

Nah, not to those who dislike the Rising. They need to jump through some serious mental loops to work out that history has absolutely no effect on their lives in any way, shape or form.

Oh of course it has had an effect - a huge one.

But so did Gavrillo Princip's gun...

Willfarman

Commemorations so far have been fairly rounded for the most part.. It is amusing though to hear the term revisionist being brandied about as though it is massively derogatory. Revision of history is always good as more information becomes available and can be revised impartially.

As a church of Ireland member growing up in Wexford the ignorance was unbelievable. In secondary school the consensus was that We are all landed gentry who don't believe in Mary..... Though the vast majority were tenant farmers, stone masons ,carpenters, plasterers, blacksmiths, had big families with a strong tradition of emigration, and were f all better off in rural Ireland than their catholic neighbours. And the early years of the twentieth century were a lot better in rural Ireland economically than the decades that followed.

Nodin

bnt wrote: »

I just wish there was a bit more of a global, long-term perspective. It was 1916. The Great War was at its peak. Thousands of soldiers were dying daily around Verdun. How much time did the British government have to deal with some rebellious Irish, do you think? I can almost hear Asquith saying "just make it go away, please, we've got bigger fish to fry".

Sorry. People forget who the real victims are sometimes.

Nodin

Willfarman wrote: »

Commemorations so far have been fairly rounded for the most part.. It is amusing though to hear the term revisionist being brandied about as though it is massively derogatory. Revision of history is always good as more information becomes available and can be revised impartially.

As a church of Ireland member growing up in Wexford the ignorance was unbelievable. In secondary school the consensus was that We are all landed gentry who don't believe in Mary..... Though the vast majority were tenant farmers, stone masons ,carpenters, plasterers, blacksmiths, had big families with a strong tradition of emigration, and were f all better off in rural Ireland than their catholic neighbours. And the early years of the twentieth century were a lot better in rural Ireland economically than the decades that followed.

...on horses. Never forget the horses.

Willfarman

Nodin wrote: »

...on horses. Never forget the horses.

Oh always on horses wearing red Blazers!

RobertKK

1916 does nothing for me, I believe we would eventually have got independence without 1916, and maybe on an all Ireland basis.

Lisacatlover

[Deleted User] wrote: »

and is downright dangerous..............to hell with 1916 and the Easter celebrations. It really is a celebration of unelected, unaccountable, self appointed extremists who decided to take over the city at a time when political engagement and representation was ongoing. If a group of people did that today because they didnt like how the country was run how would or how should they be dealt with?

Maybe that would be right when you consider the banking debt etc and maybe the people of 1916 were right (history has shown they were) but celebrating this kind of thing has unintended consequences. To hell with the blood sacrifice crap. Ireland could very well be a united republic today if it werent for 1916. India pulled it off, Scotland had the option. How many people would have lived? How would our infrastructure be? Maybe there would have been a north - south civil war. Maybe that would have been a better outcome than an Anglo Irish war and following civil war. We dont know the answers to any of this. But we do know that an independent Ireland without the north has, mostly, been the cause of deaths in conflicts north and south of the border, a kind of home rule is Rome rule truth with dire consequences regarding child abuse, corruption as bad as some of British/Anglo Irish rule, massive emigration and real poverty until recent decades.

1916 celebrations are flawed. The day of the first Dail is what should be celebrated or else the date of the elections themselves. But people in Ireland are brainwashed from an early age and cant seem to see past it. If the past 100 years had of been a peaceful transition to independence that included the North then the addition of northern politicians may not be a bad add to the mix**. Couldnt be any worse could it?

** this assumes a different type of politician that conflict and prejudice in the north over the last 100 years bred.

Its equally possible that 1916 was the worst thing to happen Ireland in the last 100 years. And I definitely do not care for the nonsense and outright disgusting notion that heads of state should be born into it as per the British monarchy. I`m 100% republican. That probably messes with some shinnerbots heads.

Any other boardsies think celebrating 1916 is flawed?

Hey. Welcome to Ireland. You must be new here. Look, here's the deal. Any excuse for a party. That's it. That's the whole system. I mean, look... life is life. You basically have to run around and try to consume energy like this big human shaped pacman/pacwoman /pacnongenderpacific dying eating machine. So sometimes you have to just let off steam. And choose any reason you want. It's like AA , chose your own initiation of God.
But we're having a party . Go **** yourself.

conorhal

RobertKK wrote: »

1916 does nothing for me, I believe we would eventually have got independence without 1916, and maybe on an all Ireland basis.

I'm sure the UVF loyalists signing the Ulster Covenent in blood would disagree with the latter, as for the former, I suspect that but for 1916, right now we'd be Wales only slightly $h1ttier......

bnt

Nodin wrote: »

Sorry. People forget who the real victims are sometimes.

No idea what you mean by that. I was just making that point that Dublin would have been low on the list of Whitehall's priorities at the time. The Easter Rebellion is considered a pivotal event in the history of Ireland, but you can not say it was pivotal, or even important, in the history of the UK. The Brits who came over to stomp on the Rebellion would not have been their best and brightest, to put it politely. The result was not the British Empire's finest hour, but you have to ask: did they give a damn then, or do they now?

Nodin

bnt wrote: »

No idea what you mean by that. I was just making that point that Dublin would have been low on the list of Whitehall's priorities at the time. The Easter Rebellion is considered a pivotal event in the history of Ireland, but you can not say it was pivotal, or even important, in the history of the UK. The Brits who came over to stomp on the Rebellion would not have been their best and brightest, to put it politely. The result was not the British Empire's finest hour, but you have to ask: did they give a damn then, or do they now?

....they gave a damn in the sense that losing an island that close would be seen as a strategic problem, yes. Now its a rather different world so that doesn't arise. As to what the mass of the british public think I doubt any of them have a clue it happened, or that they are particularily aware of other rebellions in other countries - certainly 20 years ago or so they weren't, though hopefully there may have been some change.

It's said that a surprising number, for instance, view the Empire in a good light, but the question must be asked as to what exactly they know about it - is the narrative of the paternal mission to bring civilisation to the world trotted out?

beach_walker

bnt wrote: »

The Brits who came over to stomp on the Rebellion would not have been their best and brightest, to put it politely.

Do you have anything to base this on??

The Brits had 400 troops available on Easter Monday, by Friday they had "18-20,000 soldiers" flooded into the capital. Not to mention the police, Helga etc. Did they give a damn... I can't honestly believe that's even being asked tbh. The history and facts speak for themselves.

topper75

VinLieger wrote: »

What hindsight was required to know that Home Rule had simply been postponed till after the war?

None.

But how blind would one be to throw out words like 'simply postponed' and completely ignore the Ulster Volunteer Force.

Don't ever forget that some people signed the Ulster Solemn League and Covenant and then pricked their fingers to add a bloody print on top of the signature.

There was a damn good reason that particular can was being kicked down the road eternally in Westminster.

sdanseo

flas wrote: »

You are very very flawed in any understanding of Irish history in the last 120 years,so much so its actually frightening...

BTW our biggest loss from 1916 was Connelly and his progressive thinking...

Yes you can't even spell his name.

Sad as it is, our biggest GAIN from 1916 was the deaths of the leaders. Whatever their political ideaology (someone mentioned cuba and communism and I don't think they'd have been far off that) - in 1916 they gave up their lives knowing that the reaction to their actions and likely deaths would bring the country to arms.

Ultimately, it worked, except for the North.

That is what we commemorate. Not their socialist policies.

A Dub in Glasgo

Such revisionism from the OP is unreal