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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Nelson's Pillar - 46th anniversary

12345679»

Comments

  • #242
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Are you comparing the 2?

    Its not a good comparison in my opinion and you should support the comparison further if you think there is a link.

    The original poster had stated that the destruction of Nelson's Pillar was not carried out by the State and was therefore an illegitimate action within the context of the time period.

    I had argued that, rarely could any overt military action in Ireland have been considered legitimate in the eyes of the State.

    Such actions are, however, only ever given credence with the benefit of foresight. Therefore, it would interesting to get a general idea of what Dubliners think about the destruction of Nelson's pillar.


  • #243
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    dubhthach wrote: »
    X

    I wasn't making reference to the US politcal movemnt.

    I was using the word in it's traditional sense - the acting of being hostile to non-natives.


  • #244
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    CDfm wrote: »
    Whoa there.

    I make reference to my intent in a previous post.

    I quoted Yeats view in post 124

    So they were Yeats thoughts and i respect them.

    I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Yeats, but I would certainly respect his opinion.

    It's an illuminating quote and would perhaps allow one to achieve a greater understanding of the arguements for the pillars continued existence.
    I don't know what a nativist is.

    The fear of anything which appears to be non-native. In essence a typical republican stereotype.


  • #245
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    This has become more than tiresome, with selective revisionary quoting by you. In your post you spoke of edifices, not monuments.

    Revisionary quoting? I think you'll find that I quoted your entire post and commented on individual points of interest. I never edited anything you said, nor did I simply dismiss any relevant information.
    An edifice is a building, particularly a large, imposing building. From late Middle English: via Old French from Latin aedificium, from aedis 'dwelling' + facere 'make'. If you write edifice I cannot be expected to know that you are referring to monuments, which are a different thing altogether. That is why I wrote about the buildings of Warsaw, Paris, etc.

    By simply placing my reply into the context of the thread, it would be easy to deduce what I was referring to. The fact that I summarised my point at the bottom of my post was arguably a clear indication.

    But I'm sure you will forgive me for being similarly vague as you had been when you initially referred to certain Irish "Patriots" as having been "Gombeen Hillbillies".
    As for the gombeen 'patriots' I was referring to those who obliterated centuries of records in the Four Courts, to those who killed unarmed policemen, an old retired admiral who helped a few local lads when asked, and to those who torched countless historic houses. Include those who burned the home of Plunkett, founder of the Co-op movement, and Gogarty. Sadly the list is too long, but you probably get my drift. The taxpayer of course had to pay eventually, under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923. Plus ca change..........

    Who exactly deifies these people?


  • #246
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    The original poster had stated that the destruction of Nelson's Pillar was not carried out by the State and was therefore an illegitimate action within the context of the time period.

    I had argued that, rarely could any overt military action in Ireland have been considered legitimate in the eyes of the State.

    Such actions are, however, only ever given credence with the benefit of foresight. Therefore, it would interesting to get a general idea of what Dubliners think about the destruction of Nelson's pillar.

    I agree that a view on what people across the country thought of this would be helpful. Some users have already given this foresight on this thread which was indeed interesting. See post 02, post 04, post 15.

    I would judge legitimacy in terms of wide spread support, i.e. In the war of independence the actual movement for independence only succeeded because of the massive support that it was given by the general population. The blowing up of a monument is not comparable to this.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    The British navy was rampant with sodomy and gang rape but even the bisexual Nelson couldn't have been loved by all of the British navy :D Besides, I doubt if the many men pressed ganged into the British navy and economic conscripts who were often the victims of the cat of nine tails etc for the slightest mistake or indisgression, thought highly of him.

    Nelsons pillar was built to honour an imperialist megalomaniac.

    It is impossible to take any of your posts seriously when you write unsourced drivel like the foregoing.

    There is no evidence that the Navy was rampant with sodomy or gang rape. Sodomy was a hanging offense, under Article 28 of the Articles of War, the ‘rule book’ for life afloat. It was disliked by the men (a hanging brought disgrace on their ship) and with no privacy on a ship it was impossible. Where are your sources?

    There is no evidence that Nelson was bisexual. Where are your sources?

    Corporal punishment was the norm at the time and was not confined to the Navy.

    Contrary to popular belief impressment was uncommon in Britain and there was a very long list of those exempt from impressment. It was almost unknown in Ireland. At the time of the Napoleonic wars about 95% of the Navy were volunteers, the 5% being criminals chosing the Navy over prison and impressed men. You might also consider that there was no conscription at that time, which in itself is impressment by another name.

    Nelson was idolised by both his officers and men, and by the British people. Read contemporary accounts of his funeral. Where are your sources to the contrary?

    You should read the three Quota Acts of the late 1700’s - you will note that Ireland was excluded. Best estimates arising from those Acts and other figures show that about 3% of the RN sailors were Irish. Despite rumours that the Navy was being filled with thousands of Irish rebels after the Insurrection Act of 1796, the best authorities have shown that a total of 115 men from both the United Irishmen and the Defenders were sent to the Navy between 1795 – 1797. If you want to prate about Nelson or the Royal Navy you should first read 'The Command of the Ocean' by N.A.M. Rodger which is generally acknowledged at THE book on the RN in the period 1649-1815.


  • #248
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »

    I quoted Yeats view in post 124


    So they were Yeats thoughts and i respect them.


    .

    I have been trying to locate the origin of that Yeats quote and cannot. The source you give for it is only a tertiary source, quoting a secondary source - why papers gets published with such loose source material is another issue - but I have gone through Yeats' Seanad speeches and can't locate the original. Maybe you can?

    Anyway, I did find this reference from Yeats on Nelson in a speech he gave on 11th June 1925
    I am anxious to draw the attention of the Bishop of Meath to Nelson. There is a proposal to remove Nelson because he interferes with the traffic. Now, I would suggest to the Protestant Bishop of Meath that he should advocate the removal of Nelson on strictly moral grounds. We will then have the whole thing out, and discover whether the English people who teach the history of Nelson to their children, and hold it before the country as a patriotic ideal, or the Bishop of Meath represent, on the whole, public opinion. The Bishop of Meath would not, like his predecessors in Ireland eighty years ago, have given Nelson a Pillar. He would have preferred to give him a gallows, because Nelson should have been either hanged or transported.


  • #249
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    MarchDub wrote: »

    Anyway, I did find this reference from Yeats on Nelson in a speech he gave on 11th June 1925

    That comment was in a speech advocating Divorce and setting out Yeats' views on the clericalism of the ascendancy, rather than on Nelson. The comment on the bishop's views on Nelson was no doubt tied to Nelson's liaison with Emma, Lady Hamilton.


  • #250
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    That comment was in a speech advocating Divorce and setting out Yeats' views on the clericalism of the ascendancy, rather than on Nelson. The comment on the bishop's views on Nelson was no doubt tied to Nelson's liaison with Emma, Lady Hamilton.

    Yes, I am aware of all that - but I was searching the speeches for ref to Nelson, seeing as how another quote was used [without any comment from you BTW as I can detect] - and I could not find it, which is what I said.

    Where an original source is found does not negate the quote or de-legitimise it -


  • #251
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Where an original source is found does not negate the quote or de-legitimise it -
    Agreed. However, any quote should be read in context, and it is very easy to infer something quite different from the snippet you posted.
    FWIW, Nelson is not a hero of mine.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Agreed. However, any quote should be read in context, and it is very easy to infer something quite different from the snippet you posted.
    FWIW, Nelson is not a hero of mine.

    Well I find it interesting that you only question the context of a quote which does not support your own views - and let other quotes go by.

    The quote I gave is the only ref to Nelson in the speech - which even as an aside, has its legitimacy.


  • #253
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    It is impossible to take any of your posts seriously when you write unsourced drivel like the foregoing.

    There is no evidence that the Navy was rampant with sodomy or gang rape. Sodomy was a hanging offense, under Article 28 of the Articles of War, the ‘rule book’ for life afloat. It was disliked by the men (a hanging brought disgrace on their ship) and with no privacy on a ship it was impossible. Where are your sources?

    There is no evidence that Nelson was bisexual. Where are your sources?

    Corporal punishment was the norm at the time and was not confined to the Navy.

    Contrary to popular belief impressment was uncommon in Britain and there was a very long list of those exempt from impressment. It was almost unknown in Ireland. At the time of the Napoleonic wars about 95% of the Navy were volunteers, the 5% being criminals chosing the Navy over prison and impressed men. You might also consider that there was no conscription at that time, which in itself is impressment by another name.

    Nelson was idolised by both his officers and men, and by the British people. Read contemporary accounts of his funeral. Where are your sources to the contrary?

    You should read the three Quota Acts of the late 1700’s - you will note that Ireland was excluded. Best estimates arising from those Acts and other figures show that about 3% of the RN sailors were Irish. Despite rumours that the Navy was being filled with thousands of Irish rebels after the Insurrection Act of 1796, the best authorities have shown that a total of 115 men from both the United Irishmen and the Defenders were sent to the Navy between 1795 – 1797. If you want to prate about Nelson or the Royal Navy you should first read 'The Command of the Ocean' by N.A.M. Rodger which is generally acknowledged at THE book on the RN in the period 1649-1815.
    The guy who condemns my posts as " unsourced drivel " - and then goes on to write drivel without a single source to back it up :D


  • #254
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    The guy who condemns my posts as " unsourced drivel " - and then goes on to write drivel without a single source to back it up :D

    The Articles of War are freely available and should be evident as a source to anyone who has a modicum of wit.
    All the rest taken from NAM Rodger's book, quoted in my post above:rolleyes:.


  • #255
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    The Articles of War are freely available and should be evident as a source to anyone who has a modicum of wit.
    thecommietommy wrote: »
    The guy who condemns my posts as " unsourced drivel " - and then goes on to write drivel without a single source to back it up :D

    As per post 192.

    It should be enough to comment on each others posts without the additions about "modicum of wit' or 'drivel'. I am not issuing an infraction for this but that is on the understanding that you and other posters return to the topic of the thread. You do not need to agree with each other but you both need to stop rubbishing each others posts as this ruins the thread on others. Any problems with this should be sent by PM rather than continuing in this thread.

    Moderator.


  • #256
    Johnny Be Goode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Johnny Be Goode


    I have a chunk of the pillar. A now deceased family friend lived in the old flats above ( I presume now gone??) above CIE offices on O'Connell Street was able to pop out a grab a chunk. It has surface side. Years ago I tried to bring it into the museum but they said that all the pieces that were claimed to be part of the pillar that it would build a monument ten times the size of the actual pillar!


Advertisement