Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The erection & removal of British colonial monuments in Ireland

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    mbiking123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭mbiking123


    I am sorry but I cant give a name on this forum, not without relatives consent

    I have a name but has since passed away, as I said a brother. He lived to a good age, doubt anyone else from that time still around that could give you a 'word of mouth' confirmation.


  • Options
    #123
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    There is a McNeill connection but it is mentioned here.

    So there is more than you saying it mbik.



    Her mother's family were certainly not FG. When six Republicans were shot and bayoneted to death on Ben Bulben in Sligo during the Civil War by Free State troops under General McEoin (including the great-uncle of Michael McDowell/Eoin McNeill's brother, and the grandfather of Sligo TD Jimmy Devins), some of the bodies were taken down to her mother's house to be tended to. O'Rourke attends the commemoration of the killings on Ben Bulben now and again. http://www.politics.ie/fine-gael/38307-did-mary-o-rourke-grow-up-fine-gael-household.html


  • Options
    #124
    mbiking123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭mbiking123


    Thank you

    Free State forces have alot to answer for-exactly my point . We critise the Black and Tans and yet us Irish did this to one another. Imagine a family relative being murdered, think of all the talk in the family as you grew up - think about it guys and you know the relatives of that person who did it ! Thats why Civil War is kept quiet

    Guy that formed Civil Guards also formed FG and Blue Shirts - but then you already know that was Eoin O'Duffy . Another man with alot to answer for but thats my opinion. I will lead it up to others to form their own.

    Michael McDowell was always anti-republician, runs in the family. He was obsessed with the IRA.


  • Options
    #125
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    And there is more from boards


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55953835&postcount=2
    Irish Civil War

    In September 1922, during the Irish Civil War, an Irish Republican Army column, including an armoured car were cornered in Sligo. The car was destroyed by another armoured car belonging to the Irish Free State's National Army , and six of the IRA soldiers fled up the Ben Bulben's slopes. In the end, all were killed, allegedly after they had surrendered. They are known as the "Noble Six".

    My grandfather a war of independence veteran did not want the republican funeral for his own reasons. What is defined as a republican is open to interpretation but all sides did commit attrocities.


  • Options
    #126
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Civil wars always leave the most bitter scars - not just in Ireland.

    I lived in the area of the US where the civil war battles were fought out and the divisions and even the bitterness are STILL there amongst local folk. To the point that symbols of the American civil war - southern flags, statues of certain leaders are banned in some municipalities. Get into a conversation with anyone in rural Virginia and listen to the charges against the "Feds" and the "Yankees". And that civil war was in the 1860s. It happens all over.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Can we leave the civil war discussion at this stage? It might be worthwhile if someone starts a thread with a specific goal but its off-topic for this thread. Thanks.


  • Options
    #128
    mbiking123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭mbiking123


    My grandfather a war of independence veteran did not want the republican funeral for his own reasons

    Sorry just to clarify- he did not want a republician funeral when he passed away . Was he pro or anti treaty, was he pro treaty? is this why ? Did he not want Sinn Fein hijacking funeral etc ??


  • Options
    #129
    mbiking123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭mbiking123


    Jesus H. Christ. mbiking you haven't been on boards long so let me fill you in on the history forum. The purpose of this forum is discussion of historical topics, and it is expected that users make reference to historical facts when expressing opinions. Furthermore when expressing those opinions they should be done in a slightly more thought out manner than everyday conversation. If you can't refrain from making baseless assertions and calling people names like 'pleb' then I must ask you to stop posting in this thread. Mod.

    you asked for historical facts.
    jeez Mbik - you come on here having a go and come up with something like the Noble Six.

    I have never heard of them and maybe if you take the time to put facts down we may learn something.

    So why not give us the opportunity of hearing what you have to say and yourself the opportunity of being taken seriously.

    Thank you CDfm hence the discussion to show I have not made baseless assertions

    But I do see your point so I will leave it at that, as long as you understand my opinion even if you dont agree


  • Options
    #130
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    I wouldn't erect a monument in praise of the British, but I wouldn't destroy one either. Like it or not, those monuments were/are part of our historical record. Removing them is/was a very lame attempt at historical whitewash; trying to act as if the British weren't here. They were here, and thus their statues are a part of our cultural heritage.

    Pardon me for invoking Godwin's Law here, but this is one time where it's apt. I don't see any statues of Hitler in Germany today. His memory is one that the German's would rather not remember.

    There exists a certain Stockholm syndrome with some Irish people - Where they are afraid of speaking out against Britain's role in Ireland, incase they are labelled as fanatics. Let us be very clear about this - It is a perfectly valid stance to criticise Britain's role in Ireland, and perfectly valid to see the removal of memorials of those who facilitated and assisted with Britain's role in Ireland.

    We do not owe Britain sensitivities. We have, and should be very frank about their role in Ireland. We have earned that right.


  • Options
    #131
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    mbiking123 wrote: »
    Sorry just to clarify- he did not want a republician funeral when he passed away . Was he pro or anti treaty, was he pro treaty? is this why ? Did he not want Sinn Fein hijacking funeral etc ??

    Thats a bit irrelevant, but if you think that he was a contemporary of Lemass and grew up in an era when 10% of people lived in sod/mud huts,couldn't vote then spanish flu, tb, polio etc were rife and real, deafness from measels etc. He had a different perspective on things.

    His concept of freedom was based on those things.

    When you look at how other European peasantry were treated - we have notions that we were somehow different.
    He wasn't really into pulling down monuments and would not see the point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    man.about.town
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭man.about.town


    tearing down these monuments was a shame, they are part of our history whether we like it or not. it reminds me very much of the break up of the soviet union and there tearing down of the Stalin statues. the statues should be left to show a time past and a time remembered, good or bad.

    the brits made fantastic monuments and i for one wish they had of been left. some thankfully are left standing, the wellington monument (largest obelisk monument in europe, second largest in world) in the phoenix park. come to think of it, the brits left us with nearly all our best monuments and places of interest, the few that come to mind would be the zoological gardens, botanic gardens, trinity college/library was founded by queen elizabeth the first, dublin castle was built by the brits, collins barracks etc.. and we all speak english (what more could want)


  • Options
    #133
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    man.about.town wrote: »
    tearing down these monuments was a shame, they are part of our history whether we like it or not. it reminds me very much of the break up of the soviet union and there tearing down of the Stalin statues. the statues should be left to show a time past and a time remembered, good or bad.

    the brits made fantastic monuments and i for one wish they had of been left. some thankfully are left standing, the wellington monument (largest obelisk monument in europe, second largest in world) in the phoenix park. come to think of it, the brits left us with nearly all our best monuments and places of interest, the few that come to mind would be the zoological gardens, botanic gardens, trinity college/library was founded by queen elizabeth the first, dublin castle was built by the brits, collins barracks etc.. and we all speak english (what more could want)

    Jeez...we just can't keep this thread on track and to the point of what is actually being discussed.


  • Options
    #134
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Maybe someone will come on here and think that it is also being suggested that we tear up the streets..and how about those lampposts?

    "Colonial Monuments" - get it right.


  • Options
    #135
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    They haven't even changed the post boxes in many places. There is a Victorian one in Dalkey that I reckon is worth a few bob to a collector.


  • Options
    #136
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    I would like Nelsons pillar to be still around, as it pawns the spire, as it's actually useful. Some statues around the place are nice.

    I would not take down a monument or statue for the sake of it, but I would remove a couple of them if they were of no use other than "we bet you, hahahaha". For example, any monuments showing famous british generals on horseback.

    Around me are some things that have stood the test of time, and some that have been protected from time, and the mob. They being Castletown house (big house), Connolly's Folly (big monument), The Wonderful Barn (grain storage), Leixlip Castle (oldest continuously-inhabited buildings in Ireland, pre-dating Dublin Castle by 30 years).

    Castletown House would be seen as a conlonial monument by some, as a house by others. Connollys folly that was built during the bad winters to let the locals earn money: Connolly was a most excellent dude, creating monuments around the place, which in turn provided work for the locals during two very harsh winters. The Leixlip Castle and the Wonderful Barn have always been occupied, have been attacked during the past.

    My point is that these were useful things. Are used, or were used. Anything that is or was used, even if used by forces of the crown in the past, I have no problem with. Crap such as some crown force dude on a horse can be moved to a park where they can look nice, as opposed to a location of where they killed the Irish.
    Like the Zulus they had spears and bows and arrows,
    How you bravely slew each one
    With your sixteen pounder gun
    And you frightened them poor natives to their marrow.


  • Options
    #137
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    They haven't even changed the post boxes in many places. There is a Victorian one in Dalkey that I reckon is worth a few bob to a collector.
    there is a nice one outside the meeting of the waters pub,in avoca


  • Options
    #138
    il gatto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    I can see the justification for the removal of certain "landmark" monuments in certain, sensitive locations (our nation's parliment, our capital's main street etc.) but beyond that it is revisionism. We, like it or not, had several centuries of ties/subjugation to Britain. Removing fountains, statues, plaques etc. does nothing to change this and benefits nobody.
    People seem to have come at this topic, for all there undoubted knowledge, with a political slant which is colouring their objectivity. The British may have removed items of importance to our heritage, but the old adage "two wrongs don't make a right" seems appropriate. Also citing examples from overseas reinforces nobody's argument as there has never been a transfer or power or an independence won that was perfect and uncontentious.
    By eradicating symbols of British rule in Ireland, we eradicate a large part of our history. Furthermore, we should contemplate who it was who took it on themselves to do the eradicating. Many were destroyed by paramilitary groups and people with their own agenda, and were not sanctioned by our elected government. By Irish law, these were acts of vandalism, often carried out by people who did not recognise the Dáil, the courts or our police force.
    Rather than propose further actions against these monuments, I would ask why is it that we haven't erected more of our own? While I have no problem with monuments to Phil Lynott, Rory Gallagher et al, why is state funding not being used to commemerate those who built this nation (or indeed try those who've recently attempted to destroy it)? Is it a hangover from the Civil War? An oversight?
    Some say that these monuments no longer hold any significance. Maybe we've conditioned ourselves to this. We've destroyed what was there and replaced them with the Floozy in the Jucuzzi, a stainless steel spike and even the Spittin' Chicken. No wonder we don't see their worth as many other countries do.


  • Options
    #139
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Maybe someone will come on here and think that it is also being suggested that we tear up the streets..and how about those lampposts?

    "Colonial Monuments" - get it right.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    They haven't even changed the post boxes in many places. There is a Victorian one in Dalkey that I reckon is worth a few bob to a collector.

    I am a bit perplexed here.

    What colonial monuments are to be torn down.

    Really. I would like to see a list of those that offend people.


  • Options
    #140
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    il gatto wrote: »
    I can see the justification for the removal of certain "landmark" monuments in certain, sensitive locations (our nation's parliment, our capital's main street etc.) but beyond that it is revisionism. We, like it or not, had several centuries of ties/subjugation to Britain. Removing fountains, statues, plaques etc. does nothing to change this and benefits nobody.

    By eradicating symbols of British rule in Ireland, we eradicate a large part of our history.

    Some say that these monuments no longer hold any significance.

    Which is it, unchangeable, eradication/revisionism, or meaningless monument?


  • Options
    #141
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    dlofnep wrote: »
    There exists a certain Stockholm syndrome with some Irish people - Where they are afraid of speaking out against Britain's role in Ireland, incase they are labelled as fanatics. Let us be very clear about this - It is a perfectly valid stance to criticise Britain's role in Ireland, and perfectly valid to see the removal of memorials of those who facilitated and assisted with Britain's role in Ireland.

    I really have to disagree here. The vast majority of Irish people, in my experience anyway, are well aware of the British occupation and the often brutal reality of it. They just don't allow it to dominate their lives or inform their political choices. On the other hand, some of those who do speak out about Britain's role in Irish affairs are fanatics.
    We do not owe Britain sensitivities. We have, and should be very frank about their role in Ireland. We have earned that right.

    Of course we have. But disagreeing with the proposition that monuments and statues commemorating imperial figures should be removed wholescale is not, in any way, denying you of that right. Yet there is the spectre on the other side of the argument, where those who hold such opinions are accused of being "West Brits", "unIrish", or even of suffering from a historical Stockholm Syndrome!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    il gatto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Which is it, unchangeable, eradication/revisionism, or meaningless monument?

    Where did I say I thought they were meaningless? Far from it. I said, as you quoted "Some say these monuments no longer hold any significance." That is not my view. I realise the spirit and intent behind their erection, but that is not reason enought to remove them in my opinion.
    As for "eradication/revisionism", I have to say the eradication of monuments is to revise the history of a streetscape.
    I said that certain monuments in certain locations could be deemed "inappropriate". I think in such circumstances, a statue's removal to somewhere less jarring is a welcome solution even if complete integrity of the streetscape is not maintained, it may be the lesser evil.
    Obviously other people disagree with my views, but that's the joy of an online forum.


  • Options
    #143
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    il gatto wrote: »
    Where did I say I thought they were meaningless? Far from it. I said, as you quoted "Some say these monuments no longer hold any significance." That is not my view. I realise the spirit and intent behind their erection, but that is not reason enought to remove them in my opinion.
    As for "eradication/revisionism", I have to say the eradication of monuments is to revise the history of a streetscape.
    I said that certain monuments in certain locations could be deemed "inappropriate". I think in such circumstances, a statue's removal to somewhere less jarring is a welcome solution even if complete integrity of the streetscape is not maintained, it may be the lesser evil.
    Obviously other people disagree with my views, but that's the joy of an online forum.

    To say something no longer holds its significance means it is meaningless no? If removal of the monuments doesn't change history then how can it be eradication to do so? Atm I feel your argument cancels itself out, but I would be interested if you wanted to clarify the differences.


  • Options
    #144
    il gatto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    brianthebard wrote: »
    To say something no longer holds its significance means it is meaningless no? If removal of the monuments doesn't change history then how can it be eradication to do so? Atm I feel your argument cancels itself out, but I would be interested if you wanted to clarify the differences.

    I said "Some" believe. I said I don't feel they've lost their significance. I did clarify that.
    I said history wouldn't be changed by eradication of monuments. What is your issue with this statement? It is eradication of physical structures in an attempt to remove physical trace of the established powers of several hundred years. I fail to see where you see a contradiction. Nothing will change history. That is a given. Bulldozing statues to change how we view history is wrong, imo.


  • Options
    #145
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    il gatto wrote: »
    I said "Some" believe. I said I don't feel they've lost their significance. I did clarify that.
    I missed that, thank you for clarifying.
    I said history wouldn't be changed by eradication of monuments. What is your issue with this statement?

    You also said that eradicating monuments is revisionism. I thought the meaning behind that is that its trying pretend something didn't happen? If history can't be changed by eradicating monuments (which I agree with obviously, it just makes sense) then by extension there should be no problem with removing those monuments, because it is not changing history and being revisionist. This is what I meant by your earlier post contradicting itself.


  • Options
    #146
    il gatto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    brianthebard wrote: »
    I missed that, thank you for clarifying.



    You also said that eradicating monuments is revisionism. I thought the meaning behind that is that its trying pretend something didn't happen? If history can't be changed by eradicating monuments (which I agree with obviously, it just makes sense) then by extension there should be no problem with removing those monuments, because it is not changing history and being revisionist. This is what I meant by your earlier post contradicting itself.

    Exactly my point. What happened can not be changed. Removal of monuments is to pretend that British rule didn't happen. When we hide/demolish the visable symbols, we are hiding history from public eyes. In years to come the reminders of British rule may be forgotten (which may have it's own benefits, of course) and with it the achievement of hard won independence may be held cheap.
    As I said, it's not the effect removal of monuments have on history, for it will have none, but rather on how we view it.
    And for all my nationalist tendencies, I do not walk through the Fusilier's Arch with disregard as someone else mentioned above. The names of Irish men who fought and died should not be disregarded, regardless of the flag they followed into battle.


  • Options
    #147
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    il gatto wrote: »
    Exactly my point. What happened can not be changed. Removal of monuments is to pretend that British rule didn't happen. When we hide/demolish the visable symbols, we are hiding history from public eyes. In years to come the reminders of British rule may be forgotten (which may have it's own benefits, of course) and with it the achievement of hard won independence may be held cheap.
    As I said, it's not the effect removal of monuments have on history, for it will have none, but rather on how we view it.
    And for all my nationalist tendencies, I do not walk through the Fusilier's Arch with disregard as someone else mentioned above. The names of Irish men who fought and died should not be disregarded, regardless of the flag they followed into battle.

    I think you are misunderstand the purpose and place of symbols in any society. And the power and purpose of symbols to influence. And it is symbols that we are taking about here - not anything else. As pointed out at length previously in this thread - history does NOT depend on these symbols, or else we would never have a reliable record. The removal - or changing - of the symbols of everyday life does not impact in ANY way the historical record, nor is it intended to.

    The initial placement of these symbols was to act as gestures to the 'greatness' of Empire and to surround our everyday lives with these representations of events that we were expected to relate to. Religions do the same thing. The Reformation saw the destruction of many unwanted religious symbols. What Protestant church wants a large statue of the Virgin Mary? Do you think they should have been left there as a gesture to 'history'? - few would agree with you.

    Therefore the removal - or changing- of these symbols indicates a shift in the prism of how we want to view our world, and what we want to relate to.

    This is not unique in any way to Ireland - or to any time.


  • Options
    #148
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I think you are misunderstand the purpose and place of symbols in any society. And the power and purpose of symbols to influence. And it is symbols that we are taking about here - not anything else. As pointed out at length previously in this thread - history does NOT depend on these symbols, or else we would never have a reliable record. The removal - or changing - of the symbols of everyday life does not impact in ANY way the historical record, nor is it intended to.

    The initial placement of these symbols was to act as gestures to the 'greatness' of Empire and to surround our everyday lives with these representations of events that we were expected to relate to. Religions do the same thing. The Reformation saw the destruction of many unwanted religious symbols. What Protestant church wants a large statue of the Virgin Mary? Do you think they should have been left there as a gesture to 'history'? - few would agree with you.

    Therefore the removal - or changing- of these symbols indicates a shift in the prism of how we want to view our world, and what we want to relate to.

    This is not unique in any way to Ireland - or to any time.

    I would agree that romoving these symbols shifts how we want to view the world. The worry is that we shift things to paint a perfect picture of history, thus negating the valuable lessons to be learnt from it. i.e. removal of objects is the first step on a dangerous path, second step may be remove references from textbooks?

    Of course this argument varies even from object to object, for example most people would have a different take on the validity of a commemeration to an IRA attack in 1920 than one for an attack by PIRA in 1980. Both however will have something from which I can learn from.


  • Options
    #149
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I would agree that romoving these symbols shifts how we want to view the world. The worry is that we shift things to paint a perfect picture of history, thus negating the valuable lessons to be learnt from it. i.e. removal of objects is the first step on a dangerous path, second step may be remove references from textbooks?

    Of course this argument varies even from object to object, for example most people would have a different take on the validity of a commemeration to an IRA attack in 1920 than one for an attack by PIRA in 1980. Both however will have something from which I can learn from.

    Again, you are missing the point about symbols - they teach us little about actual history [they might represent many other things though]. They are not meant to be - nor are they ever regarded as being - primary source material.


  • Options
    #150
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    il gatto wrote: »
    Exactly my point. What happened can not be changed.
    Surely that means there is no harm in pulling down the monuments in question since history doesn't change?

    Removal of monuments is to pretend that British rule didn't happen. When we hide/demolish the visable symbols, we are hiding history from public eyes. In years to come the reminders of British rule may be forgotten (which may have it's own benefits, of course) and with it the achievement of hard won independence may be held cheap.
    As I said, it's not the effect removal of monuments have on history, for it will have none, but rather on how we view it.
    And for all my nationalist tendencies, I do not walk through the Fusilier's Arch with disregard as someone else mentioned above. The names of Irish men who fought and died should not be disregarded, regardless of the flag they followed into battle.

    I can't agree with any of this tbh, hiding history from public eyes if we remove monuments? How much do people learn from monuments? What do people know of Daniel O'Connell from his monument?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Again, you are missing the point about symbols - they teach us little about actual history [they might represent many other things though].
    I understand clearly your point, I just don't fully agree with it.

    Surely the significance of a statue is not supposed to be in teaching us about 'actual history'. Rather it can be a means of bringing a subject that a viewer may not be aware of into their consciousness. This is just a suggestion but if this was the case then a statue/ symbol that we may not feel any relationship with has more potential to educate us.

    I think my point above (in previous post) is missed so ill put it more bluntly. Removal of colonial monuments is a small step along the path of trying to make history palatable to the majority only.


Advertisement