800 years

Blackjack · 25-12-2006 2:00pm

InFront wrote:

Why? Women and innocent civilians were killed in 1916. Their murders were no more warranted than the murders of 9/11.
Remember: 1916 happened about 70 years after the famine, and nearly 200 years after Catholic Emancipation. Irish Catholic MPs sat at Westminster, Irish policemen walked the streets, Irish families lived perfectly happily in a free society. The Landlord System had been, in practical terms, totally abolished. How can you say the terrorism was needed?

Wrong on a number of levels.

THe Gunboat Helga was probably responsible for a larger number of Civilian Deaths than any firing by the rebels at the time, and Catholic Emancipation only occured in 1829, less than 100 years before 1916.

As regards Catholic MP's sitting, given that Home Rule bills were being defeated continuously in the House of Lords, or delayed by the outbreak of War, what further Patience did you want from the people of Ireland as regards getting Home rule?. Bearing in mind that Dublin had what were regarded as the worst Slums in the British Empire (Source), you can perhaps forgive people getting a little impatient and untrusting of the Empire that was disastrously inept at dealing with the Famine. You can also perhaps their impatience when Home rule was continually delayed and also at the actions used to defeat Daniel O'Connells efforts. Also, given that Australia, New Zealand, Canada and what is now known as South Africa had already been given Dominion Status, you'd wonder why the further delays were necessary in giving Ireland something similar. I'm sure it would have prevented a whole lot of trouble, don't you think?. I'm sure a lot of people were thinking "what has the empire ever done for us?".

Also, the Nazi's referred to "Le Resistance" as terrorists during World war 2. I'm sure you could also refer to George Washington as a terrorist for leading Rebellion against the British in the US, as well as any number of others who have taken arms against Colonial powers in order to gain independence, but it depends on which side of the fence you are looking on from.

PHB · 25-12-2006 2:41pm

The poster above me alluded to the anwser, but what about the French resistance? Obviously you'd argue that they aren't terrorists, or you might even claim that they are defensive terrorists, but those distinctions are quite arbitrary. If the French were responding to the Nazi, and are thus defensive terrorists, surely the IRA could be argued to be doing the same, albeit with a 800 year (:P) delay. I would argue that this distinction between defensive and offensive terrorism is quite transparent (I think that's the wrong word), and that they are effectivly the same actions, but with different justifications, justifications which are ultimately relative.

The whole one man terrorists is another mans freedom fighter highlights a very important point, it is that all of these actions are relative.

InFront · 25-12-2006 5:56pm

Blackjack wrote:

Catholic Emancipation [/URL]only occured in 1829, less than 100 years before 1916.

Yes, my apologies over that, I was quite foolishly subtracting 1829 from 2006, instead of 1916. You're right, it was almost 100 years, not almost 200. That's a bit embarrassing. Still, all Irish (indeed all British) Catholics had long since been liberated.

As regards Catholic MP's sitting, given that Home Rule bills were being defeated continuously in the House of Lords, or delayed by the outbreak of War, what further Patience did you want from the people of Ireland as regards getting Home rule?.

This argument is often trotted out in primary school classrooms and is technically problematic as an argument. That Home Rule was coming is unquestionable. For Irishmen living back then in the midst of the difficulties to have seen that, admittedly, would not have been easy. Some did: John Redmond and co could see it, but they were probably in the minority.

However, for us, with the benefit of hindsight, to still deny the existance and inevitability of such a trend is quite a foolish thing.
That "great cloud in the west" that was Ireland would have had to have been addressed eventually. I honestly don't think the country would be any worse off today if they (the reublicans) had let politics run its course.

Bearing in mind that Dublin had what were regarded as the worst Slums in the British Empire

You think Dublin had the worst slums in the British empire? That isn't what is stated in your source: it says "some of the worst slums", meaning other places were as bad or worse. Britons were established 'slum makers', creating havoc beyond all of the beatiful facades and squares and townhouses they gave to the world. Thoughout Africa, the natives lived in shanty towns on the city boundaries, in Bombay there was widespread urban squalor and disease, as there was in other Indian cities and beyond India into South East Asia. I have yet to meet anyone else to have claimed that Dublin had it worse.

It is one thing if you live ina n autocracy, but having a bad (indeed, a disgraceful) social policy doesn't give someone the right to choose the gun over the ballot box when they live in a democracy.
Take the men who led 1916: how many of these were politicians in their communities? They either hadn't even run for election or in some cases, had failed to win seats.

you can perhaps forgive people getting a little impatient and untrusting of the Empire that was disastrously inept at dealing with the Famine.

Most people back then, and all of the leaders, were too young to even remember the famine. Everybody who held a gun in 1916 and fired shots had only heard the stories, or read about it in books, the same as us. And it was a different administration in charge during the famine.

You can also perhaps their impatience when Home rule was continually delayed and also at the actions used to defeat Daniel O'Connells efforts.

The republicans certainly hadn't exprienced Catholic subservience, and again that was a different administration. Thank goodness not everyone adapts this way of looking at things or you'd still have Catholics bemoaning protestants in Cork (for example) because of landgrabbing.
This was a different generation, and a different time.

Also, given that Australia, New Zealand, Canada and what is now known as South Africa had already been given Dominion Status, you'd wonder why the further delays were necessary in giving Ireland something similar.

Absolutely, of course it was long overdue. I happen to think the British were often terribly incompetent rulers and this is just another example of that. They could have saved themseves a lot of hassle if they had granted Ireland home rule much earlier.

Also, the Nazi's referred to "Le Resistance" as terrorists during World war 2.

Yes but by most definitions, they weren't terorists were they. It was an elected government falsely overthrown. Padraig Pearse (for example) was not a member of an overthrown government, he wasnt even an elected representative, unlike the government he sought to overthrow. I think it's pretty obvious who the terrorist is here.

I'm sure you could also refer to George Washington as a terrorist for leading Rebellion against the British in the US, as well as any number of others who have taken arms against Colonial powers in order to gain independence,

George Washington's case is quite different to that of Pearse, deValera and other early 20th century Irish militants. He didn't have a praliament to speak in, as they could have had. That was a pretty major bone of contention with the American colonies, not with Ireland. Irish republicans had a wonderful political vehicle available to them at Westminster (just look how the unionists used their numbers to steer the political agenda).

I have a problem with anyone killing people in the name of a country of which they are a free citizen, who resort to murder and shootings despite having the potential to change things with more sensible pastimes. This is my gripe with Muslim terrorists and with irish republican terrorists, who are not wholly dissimilar.

Blackjack · 25-12-2006 7:57pm

InFront wrote:

Yes, my apologies over that, I was quite foolishly subtracting 1829 from 2006, instead of 1916. You're right, it was almost 100 years, not almost 200. That's a bit embarrassing. Still, all Irish (indeed all British) Catholics had long since been liberated.

This argument is often trotted out in primary school classrooms and is technically problematic as an argument. That Home Rule was coming is unquestionable. For Irishmen living back then in the midst of the difficulties to have seen that, admittedly, would not have been easy. Some did: John Redmond and co could see it, but they were probably in the minority.

However, for us, with the benefit of hindsight, to still deny the existance and inevitability of such a trend is quite a foolish thing.
That "great cloud in the west" that was Ireland would have had to have been addressed eventually. I honestly don't think the country would be any worse off today if they (the reublicans) had let politics run its course.

You think Dublin had the worst slums in the British empire? That isn't what is stated in your source: it says "some of the worst slums", meaning other places were as bad or worse. Britons were established 'slum makers', creating havoc beyond all of the beatiful facades and squares and townhouses they gave to the world. Thoughout Africa, the natives lived in shanty towns on the city boundaries, in Bombay there was widespread urban squalor and disease, as there was in other Indian cities and beyond India into South East Asia. I have yet to meet anyone else to have claimed that Dublin had it worse.

It is one thing if you live ina n autocracy, but having a bad (indeed, a disgraceful) social policy doesn't give someone the right to choose the gun over the ballot box when they live in a democracy.
Take the men who led 1916: how many of these were politicians in their communities? They either hadn't even run for election or in some cases, had failed to win seats.

Most people back then, and all of the leaders, were too young to even remember the famine. Everybody who held a gun in 1916 and fired shots had only heard the stories, or read about it in books, the same as us. And it was a different administration in charge during the famine.

The republicans certainly hadn't exprienced Catholic subservience, and again that was a different administration. Thank goodness not everyone adapts this way of looking at things or you'd still have Catholics bemoaning protestants in Cork (for example) because of landgrabbing.
This was a different generation, and a different time.

Absolutely, of course it was long overdue. I happen to think the British were often terribly incompetent rulers and this is just another example of that. They could have saved themseves a lot of hassle if they had granted Ireland home rule much earlier.

Yes but by most definitions, they weren't terorists were they. It was an elected government falsely overthrown. Padraig Pearse (for example) was not a member of an overthrown government, he wasnt even an elected representative, unlike the government he sought to overthrow. I think it's pretty obvious who the terrorist is here.

George Washington's case is quite different to that of Pearse, deValera and other early 20th century Irish militants. He didn't have a praliament to speak in, as they could have had. That was a pretty major bone of contention with the American colonies, not with Ireland. Irish republicans had a wonderful political vehicle available to them at Westminster (just look how the unionists used their numbers to steer the political agenda).

I have a problem with anyone killing people in the name of a country of which they are a free citizen, who resort to murder and shootings despite having the potential to change things with more sensible pastimes. This is my gripe with Muslim terrorists and with irish republican terrorists, who are not wholly dissimilar.

Wow, so Dublin did not have the worst slums in the Empire. I suppose we should be thankful that only 1 third of Dublin lived in this squalor, and it was worse in India. Or maybe they were equally as bad given the death rate was equal to that of Calcutta.

Whether it was different Parties that ruled in 1916 or not, people being continually denied home rule which they had continually requested via democratic means for a number of years, you have to think that they are going to get rather impatient don't you?. The British have as much responsibility for allowing this situation to arise as much as anyone else.

Your expectation seems to be that people should be willing to wait. The thing you do acknowledge is that these were different times - whereas now we have some hindsight or perspective, You'd do well to realise that 1916 was only 70 years or at that time 2 generations after the famine - given that 1916 is still being discussed today whether people had direct experience of the famine or not would not prevent it being very much in peoples minds at the time, or indeed Catholic emancipation etc.

You dismiss the analogy of the Nazi's and the Resistance, however in the case of a number of people in Ireland, they're quite satisfied that the 1916 rising took place and that Ireland managed to gain independence from the UK without having to wait for the unelected peers in the house of lords to finally permit it (which we have no evidence that they would have to this day).

You also called the Rebels of 1916 Murderers and Terrorists and alluded to the Citizens that were killed in the rising, despite the majority of these having been victims of the Administration at the time. Given the actions of the British Army in Ireland and also the actions of the Black and Tans, it's not as if the British Administration could not be accused of Terrorism and them Murder themselves is it not?.

One rule for one it seems.

vesp · 26-12-2006 12:07am

Blackjack wrote:

Wow, so Dublin did not have the worst slums in the Empire.

No. Not only that, 100 years ago Dublin was a fine city in many regards, and far from being one of the worst places in the world to live. It had world class infrastructure at the time eg canals, railways, harbours ( the airports of their time ), universities, some of the nicest buildings in the world etc

You mention India : one third of the people who ruled and governed India at the time were Irish. It made no difference to the people out there if the white man they met was from Britain ( the mainland ) or Ireland.....just the same as it makes no difference to you now if you met an Australian from Tasmania or the Australian mainland.

walrusgumble · 26-12-2006 2:41am

vesp wrote:

No. Not only that, 100 years ago Dublin was a fine city in many regards, and far from being one of the worst places in the world to live. It had world class infrastructure at the time eg canals, railways, harbours ( the airports of their time ), universities, some of the nicest buildings in the world etc

You mention India : one third of the people who ruled and governed India at the time were Irish. It made no difference to the people out there if the white man they met was from Britain ( the mainland ) or Ireland.....just the same as it makes no difference to you now if you met an Australian from Tasmania or the Australian mainland.

ye dublin was a nice place for the wealthy.ok may not have won the prize for the worlds worse city, but it was a small section thaat were wealthy, dublin had one of europes highest infants death by birth. also note with all the fancy buldings it had itdone feck all to alleviate the high level of unemployment, dublin did not enjoy the same industrial boom as derry, belfast, liverpool and manchester (of course ireland depended heavily on agriculture, main exports been guinness and jacobs)

larkin's failure during the locke out in 1913 and the aftermaths of the rising worsened the conditions, sure some of the slums of dublin were only alleviated in the 1960's onwards. was ucd opened before 1920? doubt many irish people where going to college in those days,

InFront · 26-12-2006 2:45am

walrusgumble wrote:

larkin's failure during the locke out in 1913 and the aftermaths of the rising worsened the conditions, sure some of the slums of dublin were only alleviated in the 1960's onwards. was ucd opened before 1920? doubt many irish people where going to college in those days,

UCD celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2005. So yes it was there before 1920. Great Catholics like Newman and GM Hopkins were associated with it, and many irishmen: James Joyce, Kevin Barry, Padraig Pearse, etc. All of therse 'opressed' men received a wonderful education in a very much free and Catholic Ireland (yes, even before 1916 and the war of independence)

And the poverty argument really doesn't do much to justify terrorism.

InFront · 26-12-2006 2:54am

Blackjack wrote:

You dismiss the analogy of the Nazi's and the Resistance, however in the case of a number of people in Ireland, they're quite satisfied that the 1916 rising took place and that Ireland managed to gain independence from the UK without having to wait for the unelected peers in the house of lords to finally permit it (which we have no evidence that they would have to this day).

But those unelected peers only had control over a 'talkshop'. Lords had effectively lost its power by the time Home Rule was forced through by the Liberals... and remember, Ireland did actually achieve home rule eventually, but, what interest does a terrorist have in political debating? They blindly carried on the war at whatever cost to Irish and British life.

Yes, many people today are happy that the republicans carried out these murders. I wonder what, if a united Ireland ever happens, future Irish people will be saying about the IRA of the late 20th century?? Will that have been a justified terrorism as well?

Blackjack · 26-12-2006 12:14pm

InFront wrote:

But those unelected peers only had control over a 'talkshop'. Lords had effectively lost its power by the time Home Rule was forced through by the Liberals... and remember, Ireland did actually achieve home rule eventually, but, what interest does a terrorist have in political debating? They blindly carried on the war at whatever cost to Irish and British life.

Yes, many people today are happy that the republicans carried out these murders. I wonder what, if a united Ireland ever happens, future Irish people will be saying about the IRA of the late 20th century?? Will that have been a justified terrorism as well?

Did the Lords not previously defeat the Home Rule Bills put before them?. Pretty Powerful Talkshop if you ask me.
Ireland Did achieve Home Rule, however there is still no proof that it would have happened at any stage, without the actions of those in 1916. As regards British Interest in Democracy and debating, they'd shown plenty of ruthlessness and cruelty in this country, the burning of towns and Businesses was hardly the action of a Democratic administration.

What people would say if something happens in the future is a matter for when that happens, not before.

InFront · 26-12-2006 2:18pm

Blackjack wrote:

Did the Lords not previously defeat the Home Rule Bills put before them?. Pretty Powerful Talkshop if you ask me.
Ireland Did achieve Home Rule, however there is still no proof that it would have happened at any stage, without the actions of those in 1916.

That's factually incorrect. The first parliament Act of 1911 virtually abolioshed the power of the House of Lords, Home Rule was pushed through, and was destined to become Law after the Lords could no longer exert their temporary veto. This happened later, when Ireland did actually achieve Home Rule in the midst of the militant hype and extreme nationalism.

Blackjack · 26-12-2006 2:48pm

InFront wrote:

That's factually incorrect. The first parliament Act of 1911 virtually abolioshed the power of the House of Lords, Home Rule was pushed through, and was destined to become Law after the Lords could no longer exert their temporary veto. This happened later, when Ireland did actually achieve Home Rule in the midst of the militant hype and extreme nationalism.

No, it's not. The House of Lords did Veto the previous 2 Home Rule Bills until the Parliment act would allow for a bill to be passed without the Lords being allowed to Veto in the third year (see Third Home Rule act). They had already vetoed this Third Home rule act twice.

If you read further down the same page you will see that the action to attempt to implement the act only came in May 1916 - after and as a direct result of the Rebellion. Again, the fact that the enactment of the third Home Rule act i 1914 highlights further failure on the part of the British Government and you can again understand why people were getting impatient with continuous delays.

InFront · 26-12-2006 3:31pm

Blackjack wrote:

No, it's not. The House of Lords did Veto the previous 2 Home Rule Bills until the Parliment act would allow for a bill to be passed without the Lords being allowed to Veto in the third year (see Third Home Rule act). They had already vetoed this Third Home rule act twice.

Yes you were wrong. The nature of not being able to permanently block a bill from the Commons is what I was referring to as the "Temporary Veto" position of the Lords as handed down to them by the Parliament Act 1911. They couldn't block the bill a third time, so they were essentially powerless with regard to legislation.

If you read further down the same page you will see that the action to attempt to implement the act only came in May 1916 - after and as a direct result of the Rebellion.

Repeat this mantra all that you wish, I can't believe that anyone who claims to understand this period of irish history would still deny the inevitability of home rule, knowing what we now know.

Blackjack · 26-12-2006 3:47pm

InFront wrote:

Yes you were wrong. The nature of not being able to permanently block a bill from the Commons is what I was referring to as the "Temporary Veto" position of the Lords as handed down to them by the Parliament Act 1911. They couldn't block the bill a third time, so they were essentially powerless with regard to legislation.

No, it was you who were wrong, particularly when you check the details of the Third Home Rule bill and also it being abandoned for the 4th Home rule bill as the Parliment act required it to be passed 3 times in identical form in the house of commons (source).

InFront wrote:

Repeat this mantra all that you wish, I can't believe that anyone who claims to understand this period of irish history would still deny the inevitability of home rule, knowing what we now know.

And you can repeat your Mantra all you like, but given the rather intransigent nature of the British Government who were clearly in no rush to allow Home rule until the 1916 rebellion, I find it hard to believe anyone can claim that Home Rule was actually going to happen anytime in the early 20th Century without the 1916 Rebellion having occured. How long it would be before it was to be given is what's up for debate, and as you can see the Government of Ireland act of 1920 was already too little too late (and 6 years after the Third Home Rule act could have been passed) and shows how out of touch the administration was with the populace.

Furthermore, I never denied the inveitibility of Home Rule, I highlighted that what occured was that people were impatient and rebelled. As a result of the continued delays to implementing Home Rule, the concensus then changed to full Independance as opposed to Home Rule. Again, the British Government's continued lack of sufficient attention to the Home Rule issue was their own failing in this regard.

InFront · 26-12-2006 4:16pm

Blackjack wrote:

No, it was you who were wrong, particularly when you check the details of the Third Home Rule bill and also it being abandoned for the 4th Home rule bill as the Parliment act required it to be passed 3 times in identical form in the house of commons (source).

Seriously what are you talking about? Go back and show me where I posted something that was wrong???

And you can repeat your Mantra all you like, but given the rather intransigent nature of the British Government who were clearly in no rush to allow Home rule until the 1916 rebellion,

It had been made it clear that Home Rule was being (quite understandably) being postponed for the duration of the war, but I suppose that was just some sort of conspiracy theory was it? Seriously: why would they refuse to grant home rule after they had already tried to get it through, and were now on their way to forcing it past the Lords? And if you say 'the northern Unionists', I seriously think you should read up on this period of history.

Furthermore, I never denied the inveitibility of Home Rule, I highlighted that what occured was that people were impatient and rebelled.

Okay, so you don't deny the inevitability of home rule, but you do think impatience is grounds for terrorism?
You don't deny that self-governance was coming anyway, yet do you think it was alright for unelected, private citizens (many middle class boys who had attended university) citizens with zero public authority, having never being chosen by anyone but by their own selfish impatience or impertinence, that they might walk into public buildings and kill innocnt civilians and deface the entire democratic process which the entire nation was involved with? For a cause that, by your own admission, wasn't itself necessary?

As a result of the continued delays to implementing Home Rule, the concensus then changed to full Independance as opposed to Home Rule.

Wrong again, this is where your beliefs fall apart. ireland had actually waited since 1801 for Home Rule, the impatience wasnt going to come over night. Popularity for Sinn Fein after 1916, in the elctions of December 1918, (which is automatically and erronously assumed to mean popularity for complete iindependence as opposed to Home rule) rose due to a number of factors, amongst them the delayed and drawn out executions of the militants of 1916 when their terrible act had been almost forgotten (forgiven?), hero worship of a group of seemingly "strong, powerful" terrorists who will save us all, a phenomenon that is at home in Belfast as it is in Basra, and of course dissatisfaction with the British Government after the threat of conscription.
The ideas of Sinn Fein, in my opinion, had little to do with bar the leftovers. They had been around since 1905, and had never won this sort of support. So no, it wasn't impatience that won them power, it was the other factors I have mentioned.
You also might remember that few people would have made distinctions, or even completely have understood the distinction between Home Rule and Independence. Independence was a new theory for this generation.

Blackjack · 26-12-2006 4:59pm

InFront wrote:

Seriously what are you talking about? Go back and show me where I posted something that was wrong???

OK - I posted the following:
Did the Lords not previously defeat the Home Rule Bills put before them?. Pretty Powerful Talkshop if you ask me.
Ireland Did achieve Home Rule, however there is still no proof that it would have happened at any stage, without the actions of those in 1916.

You responded:
That's factually incorrect.

I believe I've proven that I was indeed correct as the House of Lords Vetoed the previous Home Rule Acts and also vetoed the Third Act twice, and also that the catalyst for pushing for Home Rule was indeed the 1916 rising.

InFront wrote:

It had been made it clear that Home Rule was being (quite understandably) being postponed for the duration of the war, but I suppose that was just some sort of conspiracy theory was it? Seriously: why would they refuse to grant home rule after they had already tried to get it through, and were now on their way to forcing it past the Lords? And if you say 'the northern Unionists', I seriously think you should read up on this period of history.

The was was supposed ot be over by Christmas too, I recall. Why would they refuse to Grant Home Rule?. Why indeed?. Why delay it as long as it had been delayed (you indicate Later in your post that Ireland had waited since 1801, so thats over 100 years of Delay).

InFront wrote:

Okay, so you don't deny the inevitability of home rule, but you do think impatience is grounds for terrorism?
You don't deny that self-governance was coming anyway, yet do you think it was alright for unelected, private citizens (many middle class boys who had attended university) citizens with zero public authority, having never being chosen by anyone but by their own selfish impatience or impertinence, that they might walk into public buildings and kill innocnt civilians and deface the entire democratic process which the entire nation was involved with? For a cause that, by your own admission, wasn't itself necessary?

How long do you think would have been reasonable to wait?. More importantly, how long do you think the people at the time though it would have been reasonable to wait?.
By the way, do you have any links to show how many Innocent Civilians were killed by Rebel forces and how many were killed by the Administration at the time?. Particularly the Shelling?.

InFront wrote:

Wrong again, this is where your beliefs fall apart. ireland had actually waited since 1801 for Home Rule, the impatience wasnt going to come over night.

As regards Ireland waiting over a century for Home Rule, you are absolutely right, but there comes a time when peoples patience runs thin, don't you think?.

InFront wrote:

Popularity for Sinn Fein after 1916, in the elctions of December 1918, (which is automatically and erronously assumed to mean popularity for complete iindependence as opposed to Home rule) rose due to a number of factors, amongst them the delayed and drawn out executions of the militants of 1916 when their terrible act had been almost forgotten (forgiven?), hero worship of a group of seemingly "strong, powerful" terrorists who will save us all, a phenomenon that is at home in Belfast as it is in Basra, and of course dissatisfaction with the British Government after the threat of conscription.
The ideas of Sinn Fein, in my opinion, had little to do with bar the leftovers. They had been around since 1905, and had never won this sort of support. So no, it wasn't impatience that won them power, it was the other factors I have mentioned.

To be honest, you calling 1916 a terrible act shows how you cannot acknowledge the impact this had on the political Landscape at the time. However, I'll ignore that for the time being. You still equate these men with Terrorists, however I'll refer to the earlier post re Freedom fighters and Terrorists. In my opinion, the 1800 act of Union (given that 90% of the population were excluded from sitting in Parliment) was both Corrupt and also questionable, so the indication that the British were entitled to be the administration in the Country again comes into question. They may have been terrorists to you, but not to me.

InFront wrote:

You also might remember that few people would have made distinctions, or even completely have understood the distinction between Home Rule and Independence. Independence was a new theory for this generation.

Really?. Anything to back this up?.

Aedh Baclamh · 26-12-2006 7:08pm

But republican terrorists like Padraig Pearse and his brother, and Thomas Clarke, McDonagh et al

haha, stop please

Women and innocent civilians were killed in 1916. Their murders were no more warranted than the murders of 9/11.

Who murdered them?

PHB · 26-12-2006 7:42pm

It had been made it clear that Home Rule was being (quite understandably) being postponed for the duration of the war,

A war which had no apparent end. It doesn't matter whether we can see now that they woulda granted home rule, for all the IRA knew, that war would continue for years and years to come. Those people had no reason to believe that either
A. The war would end
B. The British would win the war
C. The British would hold their promise after the war (especially considering the weakness of the government)

The British had done nothing, at all, to make you believe that they would grant home rule, the proof of this, where was home rule after the end of the war?

InFront · 26-12-2006 8:27pm

Blackjack wrote:

OK - I posted the following:
Did the Lords not previously defeat the Home Rule Bills put before them?. Pretty Powerful Talkshop if you ask me.
Ireland Did achieve Home Rule, however there is still no proof that it would have happened at any stage, without the actions of those in 1916.

You responded:
That's factually incorrect.

Yes, what was factually incorrect was your claim that Lords was a pretty powerful talkshop, everybody who knows anything knows about how the Parliament Act came about including the unsuccessful home rule bills. That’s why I continued on to say:

That's factually incorrect. The first parliament Act of 1911 virtually abolished the power of the House of Lords, Home Rule was pushed through, and was destined to become Law after the Lords could no longer exert their temporary veto

My point is that the Lords had no real legislative power and still, to this day, has no real legislative power. This issue came up after you referred to the undemocracy of unelected peers blocking home rule, and my point is that it is factually incorrect to claim they were that they held legislative power.

I believe I've proven that I was indeed correct as the House of Lords Vetoed the previous Home Rule Acts and also vetoed the Third Act twice, and also that the catalyst for pushing for Home Rule was indeed the 1916 rising.

You haven't proven the former, everybody already knows it. And as for the latter, you haven't proven that. How do you know 1916 had anything to do with the final home rule bill? It was planned and passed before 1916. That gave home rule to the entire island of Ireland, and had the republican terrorists just kept quiet, it would have been enacted. But instead, we got the 4th home rule act which didn't go as far at all. So militant republicanism - terrorism - destroyed home rule for all of Ireland as a unified state, and with it all prospect of independence the clever/ honourable way.

Why would they refuse to Grant Home Rule?. Why indeed?. Why delay it as long as it had been delayed (you indicate Later in your post that Ireland had waited since 1801, so that’s over 100 years of Delay).

The British were often terrible administrators. They could be admirable empire builders, architects and playwrights, but you wouldnt have put them in charge of anything.
Nevertheless, as you said youself, home rule was inevitable, and if you agree with that, as you seem to, would not independence, as it came to the then undivided India, not also have been quite inevitable? Why not?

How long do you think would have been reasonable to wait?. More importantly, how long do you think the people at the time though it would have been reasonable to wait?.

The British were at war and I think it was reasonable, having already waited well over one hundred years, to wait another two years or until the end of the war (for they (the terrorists) knew that all wars must end) to get the Irish parliament back, having received British assurance that this was to happen, and being educated men. So 1916 does seem to have been a rather lazy sort of opportunism.

While most of us agree on the foolishness of British rule during various eras of their affair with Ireland, they certainly were not foolish in retaining Ireland for the duration of the war. Who would be so foolish as to give away so strategically important a territory as Ireland at that time, and to risk alienating a province of soldiers upon which they were quite reliant?

By the way, do you have any links to show how many Innocent Civilians were killed by Rebel forces and how many were killed by the Administration at the time?. Particularly the Shelling?

No, I haven't looked for any and I don't understand what relevance that has either. I'm not an apologist for British policy, however, we do know that the British army's reaction was exactly that – reactionary, as opposed to the offensive carried out by republican terrorists.

Take the British army troops who fired against republicans during the week of the Easter rising: these were powerless British men, servants of the British regime, the vast majority of them from normal, working class backgrounds without any political opinions and aspirations (unlike the terrorists who actually chose the actions of that week): in fact I'm sure none of those soldiers could care less whether Ireland had its own parliament at college green or not, and even less understood any of the history about the thing.
The republican terrorist leaders came out with an extensive knowledge of the politics that was surrounding home rule and independence, and what was going on at Westminster. They were very much in charge of the course of events of that week, and must bear responsibility that the British soldiers stationed in Dublin (and indeed drafted in) at the time cannot reasonably be expected to accept.

To be honest, you calling 1916 a terrible act shows how you cannot acknowledge the impact this had on the political Landscape at the time.

Could you explain what you mean here? I understand very well the political ramifications that 1916 had, I also happen to think it was a terrible, criminal thing to have happened.

You still equate these men with terrorists, however I'll refer to the earlier post re Freedom fighters and Terrorists. In my opinion, the 1800 act of Union (given that 90% of the population were excluded from sitting in Parliment) was both Corrupt and also questionable, so the indication that the British were entitled to be the administration in the Country again comes into question.

So, we have the right to use terrorism to alleviate the wrongs that have gone on 100 years ago? Is that your point? Isn't this all the old (recent) Sinn Féin position on political co-operation in Northern Ireland?
Even they seem to have moved on from that ridiculous way of thinking. With the full democratic process available to them, why should these terrorists have chosen guns instead of political oratory?

These men were terrorists. Another characteristic of terrorists, which has not been mentioned, is so often their fantastical, lofty idealism. Muslim suicide bombers wished to win a world of Islam for Allah. Pearse, sitting at his desk, exulted in "the joy of combat and red wine of the battlefield", in practice he soon discovered his own naive foolishness, eventually surrendering himself and his fellow miltitants, admitting defeat to the British army.

Remember Patrick and Willie Pearse's own sister's words to her brother as she came into the GPO during the rising, "come home Pat and leave all this foolishness!", a telling rebute to the new "President" of this 'Make-Believe Republic'. They might as well have been playing cowboys and indians with real guns (or pikes, more to the point). How can we look back on this period in history with anything but bewilderment, shame and pity?

I just came across thisvery interesting page on the issue. Not directly relevant, but it is interesting reading in general.

Quote:
Women and innocent civilians were killed in 1916. Their murders were no more warranted than the murders of 9/11.

Who murdered them?

What you're probably getting at is the steps taken by the British army to combat the Rising. Remember few of the republicans taking part wore uniforms, and we are told that crowds of interested and curious spectators did assemble across the army lines, as one historian put it "much like an assembly at a movie theatre" (words to that effect). Therfore, it must have been very difficult to differentiate insurgent from curious civilian.
That, combined with the fact that the army were instructed to put down the terrorism at all costs, means that more civilians died at the hands of the British army than would have been expected otherwise. I think the republicans realised their responsibility in what had happened by the very act of their surrender. They did not directly sanction the deaths, but they certainly knew that this was inevitable, it was their insurrection that caused the death of every soldier and civilian in Dublin during Easter week.

http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/pearse.html

"For the sake of our fellow citizens and our comrades across the city who are likely to be shot or burned to death, I propose ... we surrender." Clarke, who had struggled for decades to bring about a rising, could not speak — he turned his face to the wall and wept. Pearse surrendered and sent an order to other outposts to surrender also.

InFront · 26-12-2006 8:59pm

PHB wrote:

A war which had no apparent end. It doesn't matter whether we can see now that they woulda granted home rule, for all the IRA knew, that war would continue for years and years to come. Those people had no reason to believe that either
A. The war would end

Of course the war would have ended, all of the others had.

B. The British would win the war

I don't see what relevance that would have had though. If they had lost, wouldn't they have been even more eager to offload Ireland?

C. The British would hold their promise after the war (especially considering the weakness of the government)

This one maybe, but it was much more unreasonable to expect the British to hand over Ireland during wartime.

The British had done nothing, at all, to make you believe that they would grant home rule, the proof of this, where was home rule after the end of the war?

Despite continually pushing home rule through Lords and passing it? I think it is a tragedy that it (home rule) was suspended, the first World War was a badly timed distraction from the Irish perspective. We will never know how history would have been different in the long term, but to say that the British "had done nothing, at all, to make you believe that they would grant home rule" seems very unreasonable. This was a government still very much dedicated to the pacification of Ireland, as demonstrated through their consistency on Home Rule in previous years, their third home rule bill having gone through 3 readings at the HoL, just to make sure it got past.

And by the way, where was home rule after WWI? It was offered on a plate to the Irish. Except now it was in the form of the fourth home rule bill, the unionists, being put off by what they saw the republicans do in 1916, were now completely trenchant in their unwillingness to co-operate with the south of the country.

Blackjack · 26-12-2006 9:23pm

InFront wrote:

Yes, what was factually incorrect was your claim that Lords was a pretty powerful talkshop, everybody who knows anything knows about how the Parliament Act came about including the unsuccessful home rule bills. That’s why I continued on to say:

My point is that the Lords had no real legislative power and still, to this day, has no real legislative power. This issue came up after you referred to the undemocracy of unelected peers blocking home rule, and my point is that it is factually incorrect to claim they were that they held legislative power.

Except that they already vetoed out the Third Home Rule bill twice and that the (flawed) Parliment act would allow it to go through (provided it had been passed in identical form 3 times). However, as indicated earlier, the third Home rule bill could not be put through due to the changes made between 1912 and 1914, hence why the 4th Home Rule bill came about.

InFront wrote:

You haven't proven the former, everybody already knows it. And as for the latter, you haven't proven that. How do you know 1916 had anything to do with the final home rule bill? It was planned and passed before 1916. That gave home rule to the entire island of Ireland, and had the republican terrorists just kept quiet, it would have been enacted. But instead, we got the 4th home rule act which didn't go as far at all. So militant republicanism - terrorism - destroyed home rule for all of Ireland as a unified state, and with it all prospect of independence the clever/ honourable way.

OK, let me spell it out for you again then. From the Same link I provided earlier

Attempted implementation
After the rebellion, the British Cabinet urgently decided in May 1916 that the 1914 Act should be brought into operation immediately and a Government established in Dublin. Asquith tasked Lloyd George, then Minister for Munitions, to open negotiations between Redmond and Carson. As to how long the period of partition was to last, due to the ambiguities of the wording of the final document purposely intrigued by Walter Long to jeopardise Home Rule. Redmond understanding it would be temporary broke off negotiations when he realised this was not so. The tragedy of the failure to reach agreement between Redmond and Carson is underlined by the narrow division separating the disputants and the fact that the deal was very nearly concluded had Long not undermined it.

A second attempt to introduce self-government in Dublin was made by Britain with the calling of the Irish Convention in July 1917, to which Lloyd George, now Prime Minister, invited representatives of all parties. Two refused to attend, William O'Brien's dissident All-for-Ireland League because Redmond objected to some Unionists he wished to have invited, and Sinn Féin on the grounds that the Convention would not lead to the Irish Republic they aspired to. The Convention sat until March 1918, discussing various options from Dominion status to a federal solution within or outside the United Kingdom. Southern Unionists, opposing the northern Unionists, eventually sided with Redmond's nationalists on the question of setting up a Dublin parliament.

InFront wrote:

The British were often terrible administrators. They could be admirable empire builders, architects and playwrights, but you wouldnt have put them in charge of anything.
Nevertheless, as you said youself, home rule was inevitable, and if you agree with that, as you seem to, would not independence, as it came to the then undivided India, not also have been quite inevitable? Why not?

so only another 30 years of a wait then? So after a second world war was over?. India's liberation would not appear to have been quite such a peaceful event either, really. I particularly refer you to the Rowlatt Act. Indeed, it is argued that India's independence was given as a result of the well founded fears of Mutiny in the British Indian Armed forces, as opposed to any sense on the part of the British that it was time to let go.

InFront wrote:

The British were at war and I think it was reasonable, having already waited well over one hundred years, to wait another two years or until the end of the war (for they (the terrorists) knew that all wars must end) to get the Irish parliament back, having received British assurance that this was to happen, and being educated men. So 1916 does seem to have been a rather lazy sort of opportunism.

Yeah, the British were an honourable bunch after all, and being educated men, perhaps the rebels of 1916 were aware of previous perfidious acts, such as the Treaty of Limerick and a number of other events significant to Irish History. All wars must indeed end, however, when, was the question I'm sure these people were asking. You and I both know that this was to end in 1918, however no one at the time had a Crystal ball to say "it will only be 2 more years".

InFront wrote:

While most of us agree on the foolishness of British rule during various eras of their affair with Ireland, they certainly were not foolish in retaining Ireland for the duration of the war. Who would be so foolish as to give away so strategically important a territory as Ireland at that time, and to risk alienating a province of soldiers upon which they were quite reliant?

so we'll wait until the end of the "war to end all wars" that no one knew when it was going to end?.

InFront wrote:

No, I haven't looked for any and I don't understand what relevance that has either. I'm not an apologist for British policy, however, we do know that the British army's reaction was exactly that – reactionary, as opposed to the offensive carried out by republican terrorists.

Relevance is that I suspect that the Number of Civilians killed by the British Army was a lot higher than the few killed by the Rebels.

InFront wrote:

Take the British army troops who fired against republicans during the week of the Easter rising: these were powerless British men, servants of the British regime, the vast majority of them from normal, working class backgrounds without any political opinions and aspirations (unlike the terrorists who actually chose the actions of that week): in fact I'm sure none of those soldiers could care less whether Ireland had its own parliament at college green or not, and even less understood any of the history about the thing.
The republican terrorist leaders came out with an extensive knowledge of the politics that was surrounding home rule and independence, and what was going on at Westminster. They were very much in charge of the course of events of that week, and must bear responsibility that the British soldiers stationed in Dublin (and indeed drafted in) at the time cannot reasonably be expected to accept.

So the British Administration, who again only came about by the Corrupt act of Union, by denying home rule for over a Century, and by continually delaying the process through both the Lords and also the war, and whatever other excuse, weren't to blame for any of this?. Really, you need to look at what was going on at the time. You can't expect a nation that's been looking for Home rule for over a hundred years to hold on indefinetly before turning to Violence. Oddly enough, Daniel o'Connell did predict this in the 1840's, but was of course ignored. I would have though 60 years of a warning as plenty of time for the British to react in all honesty.

InFront wrote:

Could you explain what you mean here? I understand very well the political ramifications that 1916 had, I also happen to think it was a terrible, criminal thing to have happened.

You think it was terrible, I don't. I'm quite happy that it did happen because to be honest, it's the only way I have certainty that Ireland would have any semblence of Independence. I would not be happy if Ireland were still under British Rule. As explained I don't believe the Act of Union was a legitimate act, so don't believe the British had a right to be the administrators in Ireland.

InFront wrote:

So, we have the right to use terrorism to alleviate the wrongs that have gone on 100 years ago? Is that your point? Isn't this all the old (recent) Sinn Féin position on political co-operation in Northern Ireland?

No, that's not my point. The point is that the British Administration should not have been there at the time. Do you expect people to think "oh, it was one hundred years ago, we've left it too late?".

InFront wrote:

Even they seem to have moved on from that ridiculous way of thinking. With the full democratic process available to them, why should these terrorists have chosen guns instead of political oratory?

Perhaps they were getting impatient with the continuous waiting game denying Home Rule?. I mean, over a hundred years is a bit of a long time, don't you think?.

InFront wrote:

These men were terrorists. Another characteristic of terrorists, which has not been mentioned, is so often their fantastical, lofty idealism. Muslim suicide bombers wished to win a world of Islam for Allah. Pearse, sitting at his desk, exulted in "the joy of combat and red wine of the battlefield", in practice he soon discovered his own naive foolishness, eventually surrendering himself and his fellow miltitants, admitting defeat to the British army.

Remember Patrick and Willie Pearse's own sister's words to her brother as she came into the GPO during the rising, "come home Pat and leave all this foolishness!", a telling rebute to the new "President" of this 'Make-Believe Republic'. They might as well have been playing cowboys and indians with real guns (or pikes, more to the point). How can we look back on this period in history with anything but bewilderment, shame and pity?

I just came across thisvery interesting page on the issue. Not directly relevant, but it is interesting reading in general.

again, you use Terrorist, I would not for Pearse and the Leaders of 1916, but as mentioned before, the Nazi's also called the Resistance in France a Terrorist Group, so whatever floats your boat really. The British administration of the time were far more responsible for anything that you could class as Terrorism in Ireland than the Rebels of 1916.

As regards your Link, it's people in London, Australia and New Zealand disagreeing with the Rebellion?. You're right, it's not relevant.

InFront · 26-12-2006 10:30pm

Except that they already vetoed out the Third Home Rule bill twice and that the (flawed) Parliment act would allow it to go through (provided it had been passed in identical form 3 times). However, as indicated earlier, the third Home rule bill could not be put through due to the changes made between 1912 and 1914, hence why the 4th Home Rule bill came about.

What on earth are you talking about? The third bill did go through and became an act even with the amendments. Where are you getting your information from?
1912: passed commons, failed at Lords
1913: the ulster bill (appendix) within the HR bill gave Ulster a unique federal authority under the umbrella authority of the Irish legislature in Dublin. Bill passed commons, failed at Lords
1914: Same bill passed commons, failed at Lords, sent for Monarch's Ratification and that was granted Septembr 1914.

This third home rule bill with it's Ulster amendment was passed into law and became an act, but was never put into effect.

The fourth home rule bill came about due to aggravated unionist opposition to united home rule post 1916, and directly as a result of the war of independance as well. But there had been no legal or legislative impediment to the enactment of the third HR bill whatever.

Indeed, it is argued that India's independence was given as a result of the well founded fears of Mutiny in the British Indian Armed forces, as opposed to any sense on the part of the British that it was time to let go.

Correct, that's an argument and not without it's merits. I wouldn't agree that's the whole truth personally, lets imagine that it is though. But India wasn't the only colony offloaded at this time, was it. Do you think all the others offloaded had their own version of the INA as well, armies of globally mutineering navy men? The aftermath of WWII brought about the outward manifestation of a global end to British imperialism that would have also signalled the end to Irelands British status. Just look at Australia and their referenda on leaving the commonwealth (and indeed pakistan and its request to re-enter the commonwealth). Do you think Ireland would have been denied all of these opportunities, realistically? Of course not.
So while it is one thing for the men of 1916 to have admired Pearse, for someone alive today, knowing what is known about Commonwealth politics and the post war era, to say that...

"You think it was terrible, I don't. I'm quite happy that it did happen because to be honest, it's the only way I have certainty that Ireland would have any semblence of Independence."

...seems foolish, and completely ridiculous. Of course Ireland would have independence, just like all the others have it.

Yeah, the British were an honourable bunch after all, and being educated men, perhaps the rebels of 1916 were aware of previous perfidious acts, such as the Treaty of Limerick and a number of other events significant to Irish History.

Completely different regime and leaderships, how could Asquith's and Lloyd George's governments have held responsibility for that or borne any blame for it?

All wars must indeed end, however, when, was the question I'm sure these people were asking. You and I both know that this was to end in 1918, however no one at the time had a Crystal ball to say "it will only be 2 more years".

That's not an argument for terrorism. If anything it's an argument for making that case at Westminster to be honest (this was never attempted by Sinn Fein because they wouldn't sit there, though the parties they grew into later took the Oath of Allegiance to the Kings George in Dublin)

so we'll wait until the end of the "war to end all wars" that no one knew when it was going to end?.

Why not complain at Westminster about it? Padraig Pearse had probably never even set foot in such a political arena in his life, nor had his fellow conspirators.

Relevance is that I suspect that the Number of Civilians killed by the British Army was a lot higher than the few killed by the Rebels.

There are obvious reasons for that. And it's not like the British army clamoured off a boat one morning and decided to go shoot some Fenians, is it. What caused the British Army to come into Dublin and start shooting people, boredom? By the way the loss of civilian life compared to the loss of soldiers of the British Army, taking into account the relative numbers, isn't enormously different. It is however too high, and I can only see how the Republicans can be to blame for that.

So the British Administration, who again only came about by the Corrupt act of Union, by denying home rule for over a Century, and by continually delaying the process through both the Lords and also the war, and whatever other excuse, weren't to blame for any of this?.

You do realize it was a different governement to the act of union right? And that the government who were in power weren't actually the one's vetoing the bill at the House of Lords, right?

Oddly enough, Daniel o'Connell did predict this in the 1840's, but was of course ignored.

Ha, if you think Daniel O Connell would have agreed with 1916 I think you should, again, re-examine what material you are reading.

I would not be happy if Ireland were still under British Rule. As explained I don't believe the Act of Union was a legitimate act, so don't believe the British had a right to be the administrators in Ireland.

Do you think that the bombing of Omagh in 1997 was warranted? Given that the Ulster-Scotsmen had no right to be planted in Ireland, and that the act of Unioin was still illegitimate? And that the British administration there, as well as the power of the Northern Ireland Office, and thus Stormont, is really unwarranted? Is everyone up there not impatient yet? Why shouldn't they start a siege in Belfast?

No, that's not my point. The point is that the British Administration should not have been there at the time. Do you expect people to think "oh, it was one hundred years ago, we've left it too late?".

Is it still not too late for the IRA in Ulster?

again, you use Terrorist, I would not for Pearse and the Leaders of 1916, but as mentioned before, the Nazi's also called the Resistance in France a Terrorist Group, so whatever floats your boat really.

And again, as repeated to that, the French government was overthrown by people who had no mandate to do so. Pearse and co. had no mandate whatsoever to overthrow the British government.
In that context, the republicans are more akin to Nazis than the innocent French.

Blackjack · 26-12-2006 11:14pm

InFront wrote:

What on earth are you talking about? The third bill did go through and became an act even with the amendments. Where are you getting your information from?
1912: passed commons, failed at Lords
1913: the ulster bill (appendix) within the HR bill gave Ulster a unique federal authority under the umbrella authority of the Irish legislature in Dublin. Bill passed commons, failed at Lords
1914: Same bill passed commons, failed at Lords, sent for Monarch's Ratification and that was granted Septembr 1914.

This third home rule bill with it's Ulster amendment was passed into law and became an act, but was never put into effect.

Enactment then - is that not the point of putting things into Law?.

InFront wrote:

The fourth home rule bill came about due to aggravated unionist opposition to united home rule post 1916, and directly as a result of the war of independance as well. But there had been no legal or legislative impediment to the enactment of the third HR bill whatever.

see what happened when they wasted even more time?.

InFront wrote:

Correct, that's an argument and not without it's merits. I wouldn't agree that's the whole truth personally, lets imagine that it is though. But India wasn't the only colony offloaded at this time, was it. Do you think all the others offloaded had their own version of the INA as well, armies of globally mutineering navy men? The aftermath of WWII brought about the outward manifestation of a global end to British imperialism that would have also signalled the end to Irelands British status. Just look at Australia and their referenda on leaving the commonwealth (and indeed pakistan and its request to re-enter the commonwealth). Do you think Ireland would have been denied all of these opportunities, realistically? Of course not.

You mean the Referendum the Australians only got to have in 1999?. Did they not have Dominion status before Ireland?.

InFront wrote:

So while it is one thing for the men of 1916 to have admired Pearse, for someone alive today, knowing what is known about Commonwealth politics and the post war era, to say that...
...seems foolish, and completely ridiculous. Of course Ireland would have independence, just like all the others have it.

Like Scotland?.

InFront wrote:

Completely different regime and leaderships, how could Asquith's and Lloyd George's governments have held responsibility for that or borne any blame for it?

How about "why should we trust them over those that came before them"?. What exactly (apart from delaying enactment or passing any semblance of Home rule to that stage) done?.

InFront wrote:

That's not an argument for terrorism. If anything it's an argument for making that case at Westminster to be honest (this was never attempted by Sinn Fein because they wouldn't sit there, though the parties they grew into later took the Oath of Allegiance to the Kings George in Dublin)

Again, you use the word Terrorism, which I would disagree with entirely. The act of Union was flawed and corrupt, so by extension, the British administration in Ireland was in fact Illegal.

InFront wrote:

Why not complain at Westminster about it? Padraig Pearse had probably never even set foot in such a political arena in his life, nor had his fellow conspirators.

Why have to wait to the end of a war which was supposed to be over by Christmas.

InFront wrote:

There are obvious reasons for that. And it's not like the British army clamoured off a boat one morning and decided to go shoot some Fenians, is it. What caused the British Army to come into Dublin and start shooting people, boredom? By the way the loss of civilian life compared to the loss of soldiers of the British Army, taking into account the relative numbers, isn't enormously different. It is however too high, and I can only see how the Republicans can be to blame for that.

Yep, it must have only been the Rebels that killed these people, not the Shells from the Gunboats on the Liffey. Glad that's been cleared up then.

InFront wrote:

You do realize it was a different governement to the act of union right? And that the government who were in power weren't actually the one's vetoing the bill at the House of Lords, right?

Yes, I'm well aware of that. You do realise that it was the British that were delaying the whole process don't you?.

InFront wrote:

Ha, if you think Daniel O Connell would have agreed with 1916 I think you should, again, re-examine what material you are reading.

Please do tell where it was I said O'Connell would have agreed with it?.

InFront wrote:

Do you think that the bombing of Omagh in 1997 was warranted? Given that the Ulster-Scotsmen had no right to be planted in Ireland, and that the act of Unioin was still illegitimate? And that the British administration there, as well as the power of the Northern Ireland Office, and thus Stormont, is really unwarranted? Is everyone up there not impatient yet? Why shouldn't they start a siege in Belfast?

Personally I find Civilian death in any conflict to be quite repulsive. However, as you are asking, do you think the Burning of Milltown and Fermoy and numerous other towns by the Black and Tans was warranted?.

InFront wrote:

Is it still not too late for the IRA in Ulster?

You're not very up to date with Current affairs then are you?.

InFront wrote:

And again, as repeated to that, the French government was overthrown by people who had no mandate to do so. Pearse and co. had no mandate whatsoever to overthrow the British government.
In that context, the republicans are more akin to Nazis than the innocent French.

Well, I don't think so. I think the actions involved in the Act of Union to be more akin to Nazism and also the Penal laws, etc, the be closer to Nazi activity. But I expect you'll disagree with that.

InFront · 26-12-2006 11:32pm

Blackjack wrote:

Enactment then - is that not the point of putting things into Law?.

Yes it had become law, but none of the political machinery of Irish parliament had been made, suspended until the end of the war.

How about "why should we trust them over those that came before them"?.

Because politics doesn't suffer from genetics.

Again, you use the word Terrorism, which I would disagree with entirely. The act of Union was flawed and corrupt, so by extension, the British administration in Ireland was in fact Illegal.

Then can you please explain, as you failed to, why it is different to IRA activities in the north up until recently?
The Ulster-Scots were planted illegally, the act of Union was wrong, political debate was not rectifying anything, and anyway as Sinn Fein 1918 argued, and as Sinn Fein 1988 argued, it would be wrong to co-operate with an illegal imposter at Westminster.

So why was Easter Week warranted and not the IRA atrocities of later years? or what are your opinions on the IRA atrocities of later years? Are the IRA terrorists or freedom fighters?

Why have to wait to the end of a war which was supposed to be over by Christmas.

What was to stop them going to Westminster to ask that question? Or more to the point: run in an election and actually win a public mandate to go to Westminster to ask that question.

Yep, it must have only been the Rebels that killed these people, not the Shells from the Gunboats on the Liffey. Glad that's been cleared up then.

Show me where I suggested that? The point is: what were the British doing there with gunboats in the first place? A day on the water? There were republican terrorists hijacking the city, and much to the public disapproval. Look at the headlines run by the (nationalist) Irish Independent at this time if you doubt me.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. You do realise that it was the British that were delaying the whole process don't you?.

Most British people couldnt give a toss about it, it was one institution, the House of Lords, which was delaying the Home Rule Bill, with limited effect.

However, as you are asking, do you think the Burning of Milltown and Fermoy and numerous other towns by the Black and Tans was warranted?.

No, as most people are aware, the Black and Tans were a more heavy handed force in relation to how they dealt with terrorism here.

Well, I don't think so. I think the actions involved in the Act of Union to be more akin to Nazism and also the Penal laws, etc, the be closer to Nazi activity. But I expect you'll disagree with that.

No I justb dont believe that an unrelated government, or a people, who came one hundred years later should be expected to pay the price for that. They had nothing to do with it.

csk · 27-12-2006 1:12pm

infront wrote:

You can't claim that the economic disadvantage that ireland was at in the early 20th century was a direct result of the penal laws. It was due to the fact that Ireland was, quite foolishly, being ruled by a foreign power with unfortunately little say in its own administration. Today, we see the same situation in Ulster.

Was this not the point I was making, "that Ireland was, quite foolishly, being ruled by a foreign power with unfortunately little say in its own administration."
Is this not oppression, in and of itself?

You say that I am viewing history in a bubble. Yet this is what you yourself seem to doing.

infront wrote:

Most people back then, and all of the leaders, were too young to even remember the famine. Everybody who held a gun in 1916 and fired shots had only heard the stories, or read about it in books, the same as us. And it was a different administration in charge during the famine.

infront wrote:

The republicans certainly hadn't exprienced Catholic subservience, and again that was a different administration

You fail to see that history is a process made up of cause and effect [EDIT]that informs on the present.

I will use a personal anecdote to illustrate my point.
A particular friend of mine with whom I was sharing a house, said to me that I was under no circumstances to use a an old table of his in the front room because it was a family heirloom. I asked what made it such an important heirloom and he pointed to some innocous chips on the surface of the table. these chips had come about when the table was used as a makeshift baricade at a time when his family were being forcefully evicted. Shots had been fired and they had lodged in the Table.
Now this fellow is your run of the mill Joe Soap, he has no overt interest in politics or history and never looks much into the future past his next week's wages. Yet his exact words to me were, "isn't it terrible what those b@$tards did to us in the past".
Now keep in mind he was telling me this story almost 150-200 years later, that 5,6,7 generations had lived since and that he had never experienced anything but an Ireland that was free and prosporous. Yet he and his family still remembered this incident.

So what about men who lived less than 100 years after events such as these, who were only at most 3 generations removed and who had never lived in a free and prosporous Ireland.
Would they not remember these incidents?
Would they not see that the reasons, for Catholic subservience, for the famine and for economic disadvantage were not yet remedied?

infront wrote:

They Home Rule Bill 1914 was passed into law and later delivered on.

The Home Rule Bill was passed in 1912 and due to pass into law in 1914.
To say that it was later delivered on is to ignore the context of why it was delivered on and why it was ignored by the Irish people.

infroont wrote:

Look at Scotland and Wales and their respective nationalist histories.

You know what my mother would say when I was young and tried to make silly comparisons like these, "if Scotland and Wales jumped off a bridge..."

You keep saying loook to India, Pakistan, Scotland and Wales, to what happened there.
What I'm saying is look to Ireland and see why what happened in those places didn't happen here.

infront wrote:

I would view a terrorist as an unelected political or philosophical activist who uses (often extreme levels of) violence towards society to further his cause. I wouldn't include governments as in their case, the line between furthering one's cause and doing one's duty for peace is so easily blurred. I am still of the opinion that most people who don't view these republicans ont eh early 20th century as terrorists, think so because the crimes they committed happened "ages ago".

You can give it any definition you like but it doesn't matter. I could start to call you a West Brit this, that and the other and all it would do would be to bring about accusations of having no argument or of using outdated rhetoric in place of coherent reasoning. this is all your doing.

infront wrote:

Of course we have to judge it by today's standards, that doesn't mean we can't still appreciate the context that events like 1916 or 1798 occured in. That's a very basic point.

You know you have things back to front there and what we have to do is,
We have to judge it [the past] by its [the pasts] standards, that doesn't mean we can't still appreciate the context that events like 1916 or 1798 occured in, by todays standards.

infront wrote:

In some ways 1916 played such a small part in Dev's and Collins' respective careers. In more ways, it was instrumental to their careers.

What does that mean, it just reads like gibberish to me and what follows is not much better.

"Seeing how terrorism had worked"
Of 1916? 1916 had failed miserably, that's why Collins ad DeValera changed strategy.

"who would not sit at Westminster, nor would they sit in Dublin,"
What happened in January 1919 at the Mansion House or am I missing something and that was that not in dublin?

used violence as the lazy way of getting things done."
"They wanted to ride the post-1916 'easy' wave that surfers call a tube ride."
Going out and trying to win an election for yourself is much harder and requires effort. Terrorism is easy, any dumbass "

You don't seem to understand what happened in the years after 1916. Sinn
Féin won the election, they out fought the IPP in every way imaginable. they
were more organised and better motivated. AFAIK there was only one notable exception of where a gun was used to get somebody elected. Sinn Féin campaigned, wrote manifestos and used the events of the day to their advantage.
You seem to be putting your warped sense of inevitability here.

infront wrote:

Ok what's "the obvious difference" in the context? I just don't agree it's absurd considering how many parallells there are between the countries. You know our problem? Mahatma Gandhi was from the Gujarát and not Gorey.

Well you touched on it yourself, Geography. Ireland is a couple of hundred miles from the administrative centre of the British Empire, India is a few thousand miles away. Ireland has a population of maybe 4, 5 million and is only a few hundred square miles, India has a population of hundred millions and is a sub-continent.

infront wrote:

The republican terrorists didn't win freedom of speech or freedom of thinking for us, whata strange thing to suggest. Like I said, Britain was a free society. These men won us things like the ability to have a national soccer team at an earlier point in time than might otherwise have been expected, they won us a famously shoddy and unsuccessful domestic policy for the early years of the state that actually left a family dead of starvation in Cork, a civil war, they won us 'a quick state' of our own, ready with the last ping of a bullet of the war of Independence.

The point I was making seems to once again have gone completely over your head. Now I can only surmise given your location is Dundrum Ireland but to me dundrum (and I live there) isn't exactly a hotbed of oppression. The forces and pressures exerted on peolpe who took part in 1916 and beyond aren't there for you. Now who's to say that if you had experienced those exact same forces, you would not have been in the G.P.O with Pearse. You use the example of Ghandi. If he had actually grown up in Gorey would he have turned out the same? Especially in Gorey and the powerful memories of 1798 that still exist in Wexford today.

What evidence is there to suggest a Home Rule State would not have been any less shoddy and unsuccessful?

To say all those men won was a National Soccer team shows how little you know really.

You say that you have an extensive understanding of this period, could you maybe um, start to demonstrate that please?

After reading through the rest of your insipid posts I see that you are clinging to the idea that Home Rule was inevitable and that with it everything would have been la-di-da. even with Home Rule there is no guarantee that a) it would have been more successful or b) that it would have meant no violence.
Now I could point out different outcomes from Home Rule that would see Ireland still "quite foolishly, being ruled by a foreign power with unfortunately little say in its own administration" even to this day.

I could look to O'Connell or Parnell and say why didn't they use violence to achieve their goals. I mean all they had to do was gather a few "aul codgers" together and go "play cowboys and indians with real guns" for a week in the G.P.O, right?
So knowing what we know now (that Indepenedence was achieved with the help of violence) why didn't they do the same thing?
Hmmmmm, I wonder....?

Fratton Fred · 27-12-2006 1:23pm

csk wrote:

I could look to O'Connell or Parnell and say why didn't they use violence to achieve their goals. I mean all they had to do was gather a few "aul codgers" together and go "play cowboys and indians with real guns" for a week in the G.P.O, right?
So knowing what we know now (that Indepenedence was achieved with the help of violence) why didn't they do the same thing?
Hmmmmm, I wonder....?

interesting that you mention these guys and Parnell in particular.

To me, Parnell is a good example of the Irish not helping themselves.

There were so many people not supporting Parnell and all too quick to get the knives into him, when in reality he had a lot of influence in westminster and moved the irish cause forward a long way.

I can not understand why so many people had it in for him.

PHB · 27-12-2006 2:26pm

These men won us things like the ability to have a national soccer team at an earlier point in time than might otherwise have been expected, they won us a famously shoddy and unsuccessful domestic policy for the early years of the state that actually left a family dead of starvation in Cork, a civil war, they won us 'a quick state' of our own, ready with the last ping of a bullet of the war of Independence.

The right to self-determination isn't enough? Britain as a whole never saw Ireland as part of it, the Act of Union was out of necessity rather than idea, we werne't like Scotland or Wales, they didn't care about what happened to us as much. The famine is the perfect example of this.

Fratton Fred · 27-12-2006 2:34pm

PHB wrote:

The right to self-determination isn't enough? Britain as a whole never saw Ireland as part of it, the Act of Union was out of necessity rather than idea, we werne't like Scotland or Wales, they didn't care about what happened to us as much. The famine is the perfect example of this.

Why is the famine the perfect example of this?

The potato crop failed, that is all. Why is Irelands inability to feed itself a sign of Britain not caring about Ireland?

csk · 27-12-2006 3:17pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

interesting that you mention these guys and Parnell in particular.

To me, Parnell is a good example of the Irish not helping themselves.

There were so many people not supporting Parnell and all too quick to get the knives into him, when in reality he had a lot of influence in westminster and moved the irish cause forward a long way.

I can not understand why so many people had it in for him.

I suppose you have to try look at it in the context it happened, from the perspective of those who lived at the time.
I know that's a very hard thing to do especially in today's secular society but people were far more religious back then. So his affair would have been a big deal to those at the time. I know it is hard to see why, what we view today as something fairly trivial, got in the way of the greater good but it did.
Truth be known I don't understand it myself.

I'd also say like most "great men" or "big personalties" he had his enemies, those who held petty jealousies, or might have wanted to take his place or credit or maybe didn't like him because he didn't say hello to them one morning. As such they saw an opportunity and exploited it or used it to confirm their dislike.

Fratton Fred · 27-12-2006 4:25pm

csk wrote:

I suppose you have to try look at it in the context it happened, from the perspective of those who lived at the time.
I know that's a very hard thing to do especially in today's secular society but people were far more religious back then. So his affair would have been a big deal to those at the time. I know it is hard to see why, what we view today as something fairly trivial, got in the way of the greater good but it did.
Truth be known I don't understand it myself.

I'd also say like most "great men" or "big personalties" he had his enemies, those who held petty jealousies, or might have wanted to take his place or credit or maybe didn't like him because he didn't say hello to them one morning. As such they saw an opportunity and exploited it or used it to confirm their dislike.

This is what I find incredibly frustrating with Irish History. I almost want to shake it and shout "****ing sort yourselves out". There were so many people in violent agreement, but who all had their own agendas.

InFront · 27-12-2006 9:26pm

csk wrote:

Was this not the point I was making, "that Ireland was, quite foolishly, being ruled by a foreign power with unfortunately little say in its own administration."
Is this not oppression, in and of itself?

Of course that isn't oppression. The Union of Britain and Ireland was a historical wrongdoing just like messy old wars and rusty old Roman Emporers. Everybody who had influenced it, had voted on it, had argued for it, had argued against it was dead. So why should a live man, with no influence over that union, pay for it with his life?

As for having little say in it's own administartion, I mean that in the context that it had even been denied Home Rule. Not having a parliament in Dublin was only stupidity - not having a parliament at all would have been oppression.

Take Quebec in Canada. This rather large province has little control in its own governance despite widespread nationalism and the continuous protestations of the PQ. Quebec has no international standing by itself, despite the will of the people and despite its distinct cultural, religious, lingual, social, and racial embryology as seperate to mainstream Canada. Historically, it was taken over by the British despite its French origins, and has even suffered its own "Act of Union"

So, these annexed Quebecers, who've been demanding independence fruitlessly for years, do they have the right, or perhaps the moral imperative, to hijack their central post office, their public buildings, and besiege Montréal? Would you be understanding if the Front de libération du Québec did just that? would they be freedom fighters? Did they ever have that right? When exactly did that right disappear? Why doesnt Northern ireland have that right?

So did the South of Ireland, with all of the political machinery and educated men, well read on natural science and political science, literature and theology, men who did not want nor seek any democractic obligations, ever have the right to shoot or to kill?

If, for some reason, there was no independence today, and we still had no home rule, would you see it as your patriotic duty to kill British soldiers and innocent British civilians so that Ireland could have Bertie and Micheál in the political high chair instead of Blair and Brown? Would you murder for that? Should anyone murder for that?

Yet his exact words to me were, "isn't it terrible what those b@$tards did to us in the past".
Now keep in mind he was telling me this story almost 150-200 years later, that 5,6,7 generations had lived since and that he had never experienced anything but an Ireland that was free and prosporous. Yet he and his family still remembered this incident.

No, they didnt remember the incident at all and I think the use of the term "what they did to us" is the problem. Nothing was done to that man or to his immediate or living family in that event. He has no ownership of the conflict any more than I (with no irish ancestry) or you have. Politics is not genetic, life experience is not hereditary, personal trauma does not live in chromosomes, it evaporates away on the deathbed.

There is abolsutely nothing wrong with commemorating and reflecting on the sometimes harrowing wrongs that were done to our ancestry, and that's all that man was doing, of course. But personalizing a past wrong to satisfy one's own personal ambitions through violence is the trademark of terrorism and real oppression.

So what about men who lived less than 100 years after events such as these, who were only at most 3 generations removed

Padraig Pearse grew up free and unoppressed in a prosperous family. DeValera suffered no personal oppression either, nor did Collins, nor Higgins, nor Mulcahy nor McDermott. These men had the vote, the right to education (just like everyone, if they could pay for it), they could run in elections, had all of the things available to him in that society as a Liverpudlian or a Glaswegian or a Londoner of equal social standing would have had.

He had no mandate to right the wrongs that had been done by the penal laws... the penal laws had been wiped out by political oratory! It is fine to remember such things, but they provide no excuses, nor can they shift any portion of blame from the republicans with all of their democratic potential.

Would they not remember these incidents?
Would they not see that the reasons, for Catholic subservience, for the famine and for economic disadvantage were not yet remedied?

No they did not "remember" these incidents, they would be aware of them, yes.
What Catholic subserviance, in 1916?
What famine was not yet remedied? Ireland was in a poor economic state, but povrty doesn't call for terrorism, it calls for new political measures, that's the most anyone can demand.

You can give it any definition you like but it doesn't matter. I could start to call you a West Brit this, that and the other and all it would do would be to bring about accusations of having no argument or of using outdated rhetoric in place of coherent reasoning. this is all your doing.

Outdated rhetoric is a bit of a strange description for what i was describing. Anyway, tell me how you would define a terrorist differently and we'll see if it is coherent.

"Seeing how terrorism had worked"
Of 1916? 1916 had failed miserably, that's why Collins ad DeValera changed strategy.

1916 was not a miserable failure, in the long term it was successful in the eyes of deValera and Collins, and most 1916 sympathisers. My point is that seeing how 1916 had worked, the leaders took advantage of the swaying political opinion and put on a similar tack of continual British offense and unco-operation that culminated in the War of Independence and that unreasonable, unspeaking mentality was later dragged out by the civil war.

"who would not sit at Westminster, nor would they sit in Dublin,"
What happened in January 1919 at the Mansion House or am I missing something and that was that not in dublin?

They wouldn't sit in the parliament they were elected to sit at. I have no doubt it was the will of an awful lot of Irish people, and probably the majority, but there was no vote for an Independent Ireland attached to the December 1918 elections. Indeed the Sinn Fein success is attributable to more than simply their popularity with the people, other factors came into play. How could the British administration legally co-operate with such a thing?

Now it is, presumably, every MP's own business as to how he divides his time, and if he wants to spend it in an un-mandated, undemocratic parliament with no legal status, fine. But to shoot those who oppose that undemocracy, is wrong.
Say Fine Gael runs on a policy of abortion, and they get elected. Does that mean that the public have voted for abortion? No, it might mean that most people agree with them on abortion, but it isn't an outright vote for abortion, and it doesn't legally permit abortion. You need a constitutional referendum to do so.
Sinn Fein's demand for legal recognition of the first Dail was foolish and naive. They fact that they backed it up with violence and murder, is terrorism.

You don't seem to understand what happened in the years after 1916. Sinn Féin won the election, they out fought the IPP in every way imaginable. they were more organised and better motivated. AFAIK there was only one notable exception of where a gun was used to get somebody elected. Sinn Féin campaigned, wrote manifestos and used the events of the day to their advantage.

Yes, but everybody is already aware of that, that's simple fact that we all learned in school. Have you not got any deeper awareness of the time in question? Have you ever put yourself in DeValera's shoes and examined, knowing the facts, what your conscience might tell you? Have you ever considerded the mentality that shoots a policeman walking through the park after he finished work... a peacekeeping, normal irishman.

And can anybody clear up why this is so different IRA activiity in the last 30 years of the 20th century?

The forces and pressures exerted on peolpe who took part in 1916 and beyond aren't there for you. Now who's to say that if you had experienced those exact same forces, you would not have been in the G.P.O with Pearse.

The personal situation in those terms (as opposed to the above) is an irrelevance. It's like asking "how do i know if I grew up in Pakistan I wouldnt be an extremist" or "how do you know if you grew up in New york you wouldn't be a Republican", it's a facile and pointless question with no value. All anyone has is their personal experience as it is, and it is in that context, yes bearing in mind the social context, that we all examine history.

What evidence is there to suggest a Home Rule State would not have been any less shoddy and unsuccessful?

None. Personally I think it would have been as bad as any transition, and I doubt it would be much better than the first legitimate Dáil under Cosgrave (except there would be no arms debt to Britain). However, it would have been one thing: less bloody.

To say all those men won was a National Soccer team shows how little you know really.

Why is it better to win independence through murder than through political debate? All we can do is speak hypothetically, so go on, what would we have missed out on if we had won independence through home rule?

You say that you have an extensive understanding of this period, could you maybe um, start to demonstrate that please?

If you want to debate, I will. To be honest, I'm sure we both have better things to do with our respective evenings, and that kind of childish rhetoric is not only impolite, it comes across as quite arrogant and isn't adding anything to the topic.

Now I could point out different outcomes from Home Rule that would see Ireland still "quite foolishly, being ruled by a foreign power with unfortunately little say in its own administration" even to this day.

Fair enough, but that isn't a widely held opinion. Why would Ireland be the only foreign colony not to have been given self governance? Why would the Statute of Westminster, allowing as it does, for the ability to leave the Commonwealth, and stressing as it does, the superiority of home law to UK law throughout the Commonwealth, not have applied to us?

I could look to O'Connell or Parnell and say why didn't they use violence to achieve their goals. I mean all they had to do was gather a few "aul codgers" together and go "play cowboys and indians with real guns" for a week in the G.P.O, right?

The same reason why Tone and Emmett and DeValera did choose violence: their individual education, their backgrounds, history, society, personal choices... individual politics comes into play. Different strokes for different folks, people carry on with what their best at.

So knowing what we know now (that Indepenedence was achieved with the help of violence) why didn't they do the same thing?
Hmmmmm, I wonder....?

Check the facts, Daniel O Connell and CS Parnell did not seek Irish independence.

800 years

Comments