Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Nelson's Pillar - 46th anniversary

2456

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »

    What I remember most though is the jokes - it was the first time that I learned what a Half Nelson was. But it must be remembered that all this joviality was before NI became embroiled in violence - that was the real shock of the 1960s. So there was little sense around in 1966 in Dublin of any potential danger when the Pillar was blown up, as I remember it.

    I didn't know anyone who thought that Nelson's statue belonged in O'Connell St - but the Pillar did. But the debate about who to replace him with went on for too long, IMO. And the rest is history....

    Do you think that the lack of prosecution lend some legitimacy to paramilitaries. I remember you posting about terrorist activity in the south and emergence of gun crime, murders etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Subversive supporters were the first people that I heard it from.
    People who did not believe in democracy and believed it was OK to explode bombs among innocent people. They were trying to influence the ordinary person. They succeeded to a minor extent, mainly through people incapable of thinking for themselves . As for why? to subvert democracy and its legal servants.

    When these people are asked "How much explosive did the army use?"
    They look confused and cannot answer, despite claiming the army used "too much".
    When they are asked "what explosive should have been used " they look confused and cannot answer.
    When they are asked what qualifications they hold that qualifies them to assess a job of this nature they don't answer.
    In fact, ask them any question relevant to the army's operation that day and they can't answer. Mostly this is simply because they've never given it any thought.
    When they are invited to visit the former site and point out which buildings they believe the army damaged they refuse point blank. When they are invited to view the documents in the national archive they refuse. Its pointless trying to engage logically with these people - their minds are shut to anything other than what they want to believe. I'm sure there were days when the army did make mistakes. This wasn't one of them.

    I think that you are reading to much into it if you think it was "to subvert democracy and its legal servants". To me it seems more likely that it was simply typical Irish humour and typical Irish folklore based upon windows been broken by the army demolition (and I doubt there was any offence meant to the army either). By this I refer to the same type of humour that comes up with names like 'time in the slime' for the millenium clock in the liffey or many other examples.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1



    Why didn't this glass get broken in the Inital explosion? Because explosives normally expand in the direction of least resistance and when the bomb was placed it was higher than this glass.

    The height difference is inconsequential IMO. It would take alot less explosives to blow up a statue on top of a pillar than the actual pillar itself, the pillar would have alot more bulk and would have substantial foundations.

    Thus more explosives= more damage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    The height difference is inconsequential IMO. It would take alot less explosives to blow up a statue on top of a pillar than the actual pillar itself, the pillar would have alot more bulk and would have substantial foundations.

    Thus more explosives= more damage.

    The IRA left the structure unstable and dangerous too, did that affect it. ?


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


    I think that you are reading to much into it if you think it was "to subvert democracy and its legal servants". To me it seems more likely that it was simply typical Irish humour and typical Irish folklore based upon windows been broken by the army demolition (and I doubt there was any offence meant to the army either). By this I refer to the same type of humour that comes up with names like 'time in the slime' for the millenium clock in the liffey or many other examples.

    Yes, I agree, which is why I said that the fact that more windows were in fact broken by the army became the narrative - there was nothing 'subversive' about the talk at all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭Wicklowrider


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Yes, I agree, which is why I said that the fact that more windows were in fact broken by the army became the narrative - there was nothing 'subversive' about the talk at all.

    Again, I agree :)

    But I'd qualify my agreement by repeating I heard it from Subversive supporters - and believe me there was nothing funny about them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 Pike in the Thatch


    CDfm wrote: »
    The height difference is inconsequential IMO. It would take alot less explosives to blow up a statue on top of a pillar than the actual pillar itself, the pillar would have alot more bulk and would have substantial foundations.

    Thus more explosives= more damage.

    The IRA left the structure unstable and dangerous too, did that affect it. ?
    The IRA did not blow up Nelson.


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


    The height difference is inconsequential IMO. It would take alot less explosives to blow up a statue on top of a pillar than the actual pillar itself, the pillar would have alot more bulk and would have substantial foundations.
    Thus more explosives= more damage.

    Sort of. The purpose of a controlled explosion is to use the smallest possible charge to produce the maximum possible effect. A small charge placed under one side of the statue would have removed a part of its support and it would have toppled. The IRA wanted the pillar down, and placed a necklace charge around it (on the inside) which caused the sides to blow out evenly and the weight of the upper structure would have fallen straight down. The blast was mainly confined within a sealed column, at a height of +/- the roof level of surrounding buildings, so surrounding blast damage was minimal. In treating the demolition of the stump, the charges would have had to be placed much lower down, where the blast damage would have been somewhat confined by the surrounding buildings, hence the broken glass. That could have been minimised by building a sandbank wall around the stump to confine and redirect the blast, but I imagine the primary object was to get the main thoroughfare open asap.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    Yes, I agree, which is why I said that the fact that more windows were in fact broken by the army became the narrative - there was nothing 'subversive' about the talk at all.
    I think that you are reading to much into it if you think it was "to subvert democracy and its legal servants". To me it seems more likely that it was simply typical Irish humour and typical Irish folklore based upon windows been broken by the army demolition (and I doubt there was any offence meant to the army either).

    It was the type of rubbish that the gombeen Irishman loves – anything that will ‘knock’ officialdom, the navy that comes home to tea, etc. Successive Governments at the time (and up to the early 1980’s at least) were very aware of the subversive propaganda efforts by the IRA and its fellow travellers. It included rumour-mongering as above and also extended to a concerted effort to discredit the Republic’s legal system whenever possible. Some politicians were more paranoid than others, for e.g. Paddy Cooney, when Justice Minister, was convinced that ‘Tuairsceal’ in the Irish Times was publishing sedition.

    My granduncle had an Old IRA pension, a Grandaunt (his sister) was active and is mentioned favourably by Dan Breen in his book, my grandfather was involved with Michael Collins’ intelligence staff. All regarded the IRA of the sixties and seventies as thugs and requested that no IRA presence be allowed at their funerals; as a consequence two of those funerals had an Irish Army presence. Today those of the IRA persuasion have descended from being thugs to mere scum, motivated by drug money and turf.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    The IRA did not blow up Nelson.

    My point exactly.

    How did those who did access the explosives. I wouldn't even know where to buy fireworks.

    Also, it was not Nelson that was blown up but the column and the taxi driver whose car was destroyed was very lucky. So it was not risk free.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 Pike in the Thatch


    CDfm wrote: »
    My point exactly.

    How did those who did access the explosives. I wouldn't even know where to buy fireworks.

    Also, it was not Nelson that was blown up but the column and the taxi driver whose car was destroyed was very lucky. So it was not risk free.

    Why do you keep repeating the claim, saying the "IRA" did this or that?

    Fact is, they didn't. Just because you don't know where to get fireworks doesn't mean that a group of determined individuals nearly 50 years ago with experience with explosives didn't know where to get some.

    It wasn't an IRA operation, or do you have evidence to suggest otherwise that it was an "officially sanctioned" operation and not as has been reported consistently, that it was a group of individuals which may have included ex IRA members?

    It was unfortunate that his car was damaged but in fairness every precaution they could have taken was.

    I find your attempt to portray the destruction of Nelson as the inspiration for the British sponsored UVF bombings in 1974 quite confusing and I have to respectfully disagree, utterly. The motivation for those attacks was simply to massacre fenians, to "bring the war to them" and to discourage support for the IRA. This is what loyalist figures have said in interviews in programs such as "Loyalists" (Provos, Brits, Loyalists).

    Had a discussion yesterday with my 90 odd year old grandfather who was a police man in Dublin at the time. His recollection is quite similar to my fathers, initial disbelief followed by mirth. He went further and said that the general feeling at the time was that the pillar should be rebuilt/replaced with an Irish hero on top. Being a Fine Gael man at the time (still is in fact) he championed Collins. He remembered "Up Went Nelson", the words too and he still has the record of it he bought at the time somewhere in his attic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    @pike in the thatch .

    I read the history differently to you and its the history and not the politics that I am discussing.


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


    CDfm wrote: »
    My point exactly.

    How did those who did access the explosives. I wouldn't even know where to buy fireworks.
    Back then explosives were quite common in the countryside, a farmer could get what he needed to do 'a bit of blasting'. During the 1960's most of the IRA's explosives were stolen, usually from quarries. As a result there was a general tightening up, and in N Irl the Explosives (Northern Ireland) Order was brought in in 1972. Subsequently American C4 and Czech Semtex were obtained from the US and the latter particularly from Libya. It is accepted knowledge today that most drug shipments coming into Ireland contain firearms, and explosives can be obtained with th esame order. That is why so many ordinary gun owners are so annoyed by the spin being put out on 'firearms controls' and trying to link private gun ownership to crime.
    As kids we used to make homemade bombs out of a mix of <-snip-> (the former was a readily available <-snip->, sold over the counter. :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    As kids we used to make homemade bombs out of a mix of <-snip-> (the former was a readily available <-snip->, sold over the counter. :eek:

    Not to be a killjoy but I would rather that we didn't have such "home-made recipes" on the forum.


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


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Not to be a killjoy but I would rather that we didn't have such "home-made recipes" on the forum.

    Not to be pedantic, but it was not a recipie, it did not give quantities or the method. Nor is the main ingredient I mentioned available today, it was taken off years ago, because of kids like me;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 Pike in the Thatch


    CDfm wrote: »
    @pike in the thatch .

    I read the history differently to you and its the history and not the politics that I am discussing.

    What evidence do you have to back your claim that the IRA carried this out?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    What evidence do you have to back your claim that the IRA carried this out?

    I would rather not go there, if you don't mind, as all we would be doing is semantics and splitting infinitives.

    No prob here with Nelson being removed from his perch per se.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 Pike in the Thatch


    CDfm wrote: »
    I would rather not go there, if you don't mind, as all we would be doing is semantics and splitting infinitives.

    No prob here with Nelson being removed from his perch per se.

    Why not? If you are going to make a claim should you not back it up? If we want to deal with the history of it, surely a major part of it is who blew it up?

    You say it's the IRA, I'd like to see some evidence as if your claim is true it is actually quite significant and of interest to those who have a historical interest in the the IRA/troubles.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Why not?

    I will pass on this one, as I have made my points.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    Let’s not engage in an unproductive circular argument about who did or didn’t plant the bomb in the pillar.

    According to Wikipedia link (now works – click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Pillar), it was a group of former IRA people. I’m no forensic lawyer or historian, doubt if any other posters are either, so why not leave that issue open for posterity to decide, as that’s not the original point of this thread.

    I’m more interested in how people feel about the spire and, more importantly, how best we can commemorate the 100th anniversary of 1916 in a positive way that can be of benefit to everyone on the islands of Ireland and Britain.

    What we need now, is solutions to today’s real problems – can we just leave recriminations, the blame game and negativity behind and focus on how to build on the past to make a better future.

    We can’t do much about the past except learn from it.

    So, how about some positive ideas – in the areas of culture (cross-border and here), tourism, etc. or is that too much to ask?


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


    As kids we used to make homemade bombs out of a mix of <-snip-> (the former was a readily available <-snip->, sold over the counter. :eek:
    dubhthach wrote: »
    Not to be a killjoy but I would rather that we didn't have such "home-made recipes" on the forum.
    Well hopefully you can be more of a killjoy more often and do something about obvious trolling, baiting and deliberately dragging the subject off topic the above poster intends on doing in the thread.

    ( Now Tommy is the one who gets the slap on the wrist for criticising the mods !!!!! )


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Well hopefully you can be more of a killjoy more often and do something about obvious trolling, baiting and deliberately dragging the subject off topic the above poster intends on doing in the thread.

    ( Now Tommy is the one who gets the slap on the wrist for criticising the mods !!!!! )
    Writing about yourself in the third person Tommy???
    :confused: You want a slap on the wrist?


    In future Tommy should refrain from commenting in this manner.
    Accusing another poster of trolling, baiting, etc. is a form of abuse and not allowed. If you have a problem with a post you should report it. If you have reported a post and no action has been taken by a moderator then it is most likely that on consideration it was deemed that the reported post did not require action. You may disagree with this but this should be by PM, not in a thread where it is off topic. The infraction is for abuse of another poster by the way (the comment about 'obvious trolling, baiting' being aimed at quoted poster).

    Please heed this warning and if you require more on this you are welcome to do so by PM. Any future posts on this are liable to be deleted. It would be good if all could follow the OP's direction which is repeated a few posts back.

    Moderator


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 Pike in the Thatch


    golfwallah wrote: »
    Let’s not engage in an unproductive circular argument about who did or didn’t plant the bomb in the pillar.

    According to Wikipedia link (now works – click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Pillar), it was a group of former IRA people. I’m no forensic lawyer or historian, doubt if any other posters are either, so why not leave that issue open for posterity to decide, as that’s not the original point of this thread.

    I’m more interested in how people feel about the spire and, more importantly, how best we can commemorate the 100th anniversary of 1916 in a positive way that can be of benefit to everyone on the islands of Ireland and Britain.

    What we need now, is solutions to today’s real problems – can we just leave recriminations, the blame game and negativity behind and focus on how to build on the past to make a better future.

    We can’t do much about the past except learn from it.

    So, how about some positive ideas – in the areas of culture (cross-border and here), tourism, etc. or is that too much to ask?

    It's not so much the blame game or whatever, but the significance of the IRA denying they did this, but they actually did, would be quite significant given the nature of IRA statements and their methods before the troubles.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    It's not so much the blame game or whatever, but the significance of the IRA denying they did this, but they actually did, would be quite significant given the nature of IRA statements and their methods before the troubles.

    If you want to put down your sequence of events, people and sources then I am interested.

    Anyway, history is about uncovering facts and that inevitably happens and then we interpret them & the Spire is not going away ;)


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


    MOD SNIP>

    Infraction for ignoring previous warning. I am trying not to issue a ban to you but if you keep ignoring warnings that will follow.
    As per advice in post 72.

    EDIT> Moderator


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    nice photo of the remains of the pillar the day after

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/6966397633/in/photostream

    Good view of the pillar and the news headline.

    There can't be too many English Admirals who have stood as a character witness for an Irish rebel on trial for treason.


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



    There can't be too many English Admirals who have stood as a character witness for an Irish rebel on trial for treason.

    Edward Despard & his Plot. Nelson also gave evidence in favour of another Irishman, a former shipmate, Capt. McNamara at his Old Bailey trial for manslaughter following a duel.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    golfwallah wrote: »
    is the spire that eventually replaced it any better as a city centre landmark?

    Yes. Anything which does not colonise public space in this city to glorify the mass murderers who fought for the Brtish Empire and its inherent fanaticism, racism and supremacy is an improvement. Obviously.

    Let the British honour their warmongers/"heroes" in their own country.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Yes. Anything which does not colonise public space in this city to glorify the mass murderers who fought for the Brtish Empire and its inherent fanaticism, racism and supremacy is an improvement. Obviously.

    Let the British honour their warmongers/"heroes" in their own country.

    Could the pilar not have been seen as a relic from times gone by, a sign of what Ireland achieved by gaining independence. Your view could be construed as overly negative to the Irish disposition- not very appropriate on St. Patricks day.


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


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Yes. Anything which does not colonise public space in this city to glorify the mass murderers who fought for the Brtish Empire and its inherent fanaticism, racism and supremacy is an improvement. Obviously.


    For the most part I agree with you - and former colonies have for the most part taken down anything be it statues or titles that 'honours' or glorifies the departed colonial presence. In the case of the Pillar, I have said that Nelson's statue ought to have gone, and this was pretty much a general feeling in Dublin at the time. But the Pillar could have been allowed to stand with a more appropriate top for the recently independent Ireland.

    I don't personally agree with any sentiment that says we have to be kowtowingly apologetic about our past in any way. Or be in any way concerned about addressing the past based on how we might 'appear' to anyone in order to not be - God forbid - considered antagonistic or whatever. That's not supposed to be the concern of history -
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Let the British honour their warmongers/"heroes" in their own country.

    And that's a good point - yes, of course they are free to do this and do indeed honour their own. As the Americans have dotted their land with their heroes. It seems incredible in Ireland we still struggle apologetically over those who fought and died for our independence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    I
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Yes. Anything which does not colonise public space in this city to glorify the mass murderers who fought for the Brtish Empire and its inherent fanaticism, racism and supremacy is an improvement. Obviously.

    Let the British honour their warmongers/"heroes" in their own country.

    I wouldn't put Nelson in the "mass murderer" bracket.


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


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Yes. Anything which does not colonise public space in this city to glorify the mass murderers who fought for the Brtish Empire and its inherent fanaticism, racism and supremacy is an improvement. Obviously.
    Obviously?..........that is a political view, childish hyperbole, based on today’s values, bereft of historical fact and incorrect with regard to Nelson.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    .......... and former colonies have for the most part taken down anything be it statues or titles that 'honours' or glorifies the departed colonial presence. In the case of the Pillar, I have said that Nelson's statue ought to have gone, and this was pretty much a general feeling in Dublin at the time. But the Pillar could have been allowed to stand with a more appropriate top for the recently independent Ireland....................... It seems incredible in Ireland we still struggle apologetically over those who fought and died for our independence.

    I disagree. There are statues of Queen Victoria and prominent Victorians in Singapore, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and in other former colonies. Several roads in those cities and in India are named after colonila rulers. People there see them for what they are – reminders of times past and a link with history. The debates over what to do with Dublin's Victoria statue are worthy of a Monty Python sketch.

    There was an outbreak of fervent ‘patriotism’ in the lead-up to the 1916 commemoration in 1966, every school history class had a project. Talk of ‘doing something about the pillar’ was common, but I have no recollection of a wish to get rid of it, although some did want the statue to go. We struggle with our past because (a) too many people are unable to come to terms with it; (b) some of the past and its people are simply not worth celebrating; and (c) our civil war did not help to foster fond memories. As for public recognition, all the main railway stations were renamed in 1966, and many new roads/housing estates were named for dead Irish people from the 1930’s onwards.

    It is both a sign of national immaturity and sad that some people need to justify their notion of ‘patriotism’ with fervent hatred of a former ruling power. Most of their actions are wanton vandalism, such as the destruction of the cast iron drinking fountain on Dun Laoghaire seafront. Cromwell and many of our so-called ‘patriots’ have much in common, except he confined himself to iconography in churches.


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




    I disagree. There are statues of Queen Victoria and prominent Victorians in Singapore, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and in other former colonies. Several roads in those cities and in India are named after colonila rulers. People there see them for what they are – reminders of times past and a link with history. The debates over what to do with Dublin's Victoria statue are worthy of a Monty Python sketch.

    There was an outbreak of fervent ‘patriotism’ in the lead-up to the 1916 commemoration in 1966, every school history class had a project. Talk of ‘doing something about the pillar’ was common, but I have no recollection of a wish to get rid of it, although some did want the statue to go. We struggle with our past because (a) too many people are unable to come to terms with it; (b) some of the past and its people are simply not worth celebrating; and (c) our civil war did not help to foster fond memories. As for public recognition, all the main railway stations were renamed in 1966, and many new roads/housing estates were named for dead Irish people from the 1930’s onwards.

    It is both a sign of national immaturity and sad that some people need to justify their notion of ‘patriotism’ with fervent hatred of a former ruling power. Most of their actions are wanton vandalism, such as the destruction of the cast iron drinking fountain on Dun Laoghaire seafront. Cromwell and many of our so-called ‘patriots’ have much in common, except he confined himself to iconography in churches.

    Yes, well I think we will have to disagree because I too was around in the build up to 1966 - and I didn’t see it at all the way you do. We were a prouder people then – and we loved ourselves much better. I personally think it is good and healthy for a people, a nation, any nation, to be proud of its heroes and celebrate them openly without having to worry about ‘how we might be perceived’ or what ‘others might think of us’ and all the other mea culpla narratives that developed in the 1970s and remain with us today. I lived in England and the USA for long periods and always actually felt envious at the way they celebrated their own pasts, their heroes, unashamedly and proudly. But in Ireland we are faced with the old, and if I may say, now jaded ‘maturity’ argument – that somehow we are not ‘mature’ enough if we are not deprecating ourselves and denying our own – dare I say it – heroic past [yes, sorry but we did have heroes]. Since when does ‘maturity’ mean self denial or having to defend any attempt to establish a narrative that meets our own national needs and gives us our own self respect?

    The talk of replacing Nelson and other colonial statues WERE NOT acts of hated – and I disagree entirely with your thesis that somehow elevating our own culture and putting aside the colonial one is a mark of hatred or ‘immaturity’. One does not automatically mean the other and it is false logic to suggest so. It was all part of what Douglas Hyde described in his Necessity for De-Anglicising Ireland in 1892. The point being that we had to de-anglicise in order to gain and establish our own sense of identity - and I agree entirely with Hyde on that point. But further to that the generation that lived through the war of independence, the black and tan murdering gangs, the curfews, the random house raids, the undemocratic outlawing of the 1918 election results, the raw brutality of the British presence, were entirely entitled as far as I am concerned to take down reminders of those days and celebrate ourselves and our achievements. In fact IMO it was a necessary part of the transition to nationhood and self respect. I knew many of them and they were a bloody fine generation and I will never change my opinion on that.

    Who cares what the streets are called in Singapore or Hong Kong or where they stick Victoria … maybe they are the ones with maladjusted perspectives. Now there's a thought. Ours was a badly broken relationship - be done with it, throw out the pictures. Move on, yes. But an awareness of the historic past, being informed about the past, admitting the atrocities of the Colonial period and proudly establishing our own identity does not at all ipso facto lead to malevolence and hatred – and it is immature to think or suggest so. But I’ve been hearing this for over 40 years now - that we have to deny our very reality, our own track record, our own gallant heroes - and all it has given us is a bloodless, formless culture without very much self respect.


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


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Yes, well I think we will have to disagree because I too was around in the build up to 1966 - and I didn’t see it at all the way you do. We were a prouder people then – and we loved ourselves much better. I personally think it is good and healthy for a people, a nation, any nation, to be proud of its heroes and celebrate them openly without having to worry about ‘how we might be perceived’ or what ‘others might think of us’ and all the other mea culpla narratives that developed in the 1970s and remain with us today. I lived in England and the USA for long periods and always actually felt envious at the way they celebrated their own pasts, their heroes, unashamedly and proudly. But in Ireland we are faced with the old, and if I may say, now jaded ‘maturity’ argument – that somehow we are not ‘mature’ enough if we are not deprecating ourselves and denying our own – dare I say it – heroic past [yes, sorry but we did have heroes]. Since when does ‘maturity’ mean self denial or having to defend any attempt to establish a narrative that meets our own national needs and gives us our own self respect?
    I’ve absolutely no issues with any nation being proud of its heroes; it’s a perfectly normal sentiment and rational within reasonable boundaries. Where I do have a problem and what I wrote about earlier is the self-congratulatory pride and the type of fervent patriotism that are particularly evident in some sectors of Irish society, (and as you mention in England and the USA). By this I mean the ‘my country right or wrong’ attitude that I regard as downright stupid. A US naval man, Decatur, came out with that bit of jingoism and Nelson shared the stupidity,when he said ‘you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king and hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil’.
    The Irish may have been ‘a prouder people’ in the 1960’s, but they were a lot simpler, less informed, less questioning and more subservient to both Church and State. Personally, I’m glad we have moved on. I never mentioned the mea culpa or perception attitude you describe. I am proud of being Irish, not in your face proud, but quietly, confidently so. I decry those who hold that denying the so-called heroism or their interpretation of some events in our past makes me less Irish. That is not denial, that is maturity. Heroism is in the eye of the beholder, the problem arises when, to ‘establish a narrative that meets our own national needs and gives us our own self respect, the facts are bent to suit a particular need and anyone who does not kow-tow or bend the knee is accused of being unpatriotic and ‘denying our own’ as you state.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    The talk of replacing Nelson and other colonial statues WERE NOT acts of hated – and I disagree entirely with your thesis that somehow elevating our own culture and putting aside the colonial one is a mark of hatred or ‘immaturity’. One does not automatically mean the other and it is false logic to suggest so. It was all part of what Douglas Hyde described in his Necessity for De-Anglicising Ireland in 1892. The point being that we had to de-anglicise in order to gain and establish our own sense of identity - and I agree entirely with Hyde on that point. But further to that the generation that lived through the war of independence, the black and tan murdering gangs, the curfews, the random house raids, the undemocratic outlawing of the 1918 election results, the raw brutality of the British presence, were entirely entitled as far as I am concerned to take down reminders of those days and celebrate ourselves and our achievements. In fact IMO it was a necessary part of the transition to nationhood and self respect. I knew many of them and they were a bloody fine generation and I will never change my opinion on that.
    I never said that the talk of replacing Nelson was an act of hatred. Re-read my post. Your interpretation of Hyde’s speech is somewhat specious; his discourse was on the influence of imported ideas, dress and literature in particular, rather than de-anglicizing Ireland of its statues. I fully agree with him on several topics and all one has to do is look at the organic fertilizer dross that is shown nightly on RTE to see that some of his views still hold good. However, he was part of the Pegeen Mike bainin & crios syndrome that turned thousands away from the language with Jimin Maire Thadgh and Peig. I can understand why people who have been shot at dislike those who were on the other side of the trigger. That does not make them a ‘bloody fine generation’ ; those I met, a few, not many, were mainly simple men who like many in a time of strife were useful, used and expendable. Most returned to the land, where they were at ease. The lucky ones ended as perennial Captains in the army and were retired early. A few rose to greater things: MJ Costelloe was one, Joe McGrath another, although his tactics on tax avoidance and role of the Sweepstakes are nationalistically questionable and hardly heroic.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    Who cares what the streets are called in Singapore or Hong Kong or where they stick Victoria … maybe they are the ones with maladjusted perspectives. Now there's a thought. Ours was a badly broken relationship - be done with it, throw out the pictures. Move on, yes. But an awareness of the historic past, being informed about the past, admitting the atrocities of the Colonial period and proudly establishing our own identity does not at all ipso facto lead to malevolence and hatred – and it is immature to think or suggest so. But I’ve been hearing this for over 40 years now - that we have to deny our very reality, our own track record, our own gallant heroes - and all it has given us is a bloodless, formless culture without very much self respect.
    As citizens we have a duty to know our history. I never said that the awareness leads to malevolence or hatred. What I said was some people need to justify their notion of ‘patriotism’ with fervent hatred of a former ruling power. Use of emotive language, acts of vandalism and concomitant blather are what drive people away from our heritage. Some of the most visited sites in foreign cities are its colonial artefacts. Imagine the tourist draw the Pillar would have in Dublin today. Our past is ourselves, it should be incorporated, whole, entire, good and bad, and accepted for what it is. Cleansing it to suit self-decided patriotic needs is neither helpful nor historical. Doing so with explosives and no political mandate is, as I said earlier, vandalism


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I am intrigued that the bombing of the pillar is being described as patriotic ?

    Can someone explain the value system.

    Wasn't NI Premier O'Neill making overtunes to Lemass & Co. 1966 was around the corner. We were trying to join the EU with the British.

    What context are we talking about here .


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


    CDfm wrote: »
    I am intrigued that the bombing of the pillar is being described as patriotic ?

    Who is talking about the bombing in this way? Certainly not me. I am referring singularly to the talk and the fact of displacement of the older iconography with new iconography. IMO a perfectly rational and healthy thing for an emerging nation to do. I have alredy said that the Pillar itself should have been allowed to stand. Far better than what replaced it.

    I am also objecting to the use of the word 'maturity' in the context it is being used and have expressed that - and my opinion on that remains.


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


    nice photo of the remains of the pillar the day after

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/6966397633/in/photostream

    Good view of the pillar and the news headline.

    Ditto - I already posted that photo in post #17 above and ref the headline - with the fact that the IRA immediately dissociated itself from it all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,767 ✭✭✭eire4


    I think it is good that Nelson's Pillar was destroyed. Although I think it would have been much better had his statute been taken down by the government and replaced by an Irish patriot say such as Wolfe Tone or Robert Emmet who were Irish patriots of the same time as Nelson.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    .....
    I too was around in the build up to 1966 - and I didn’t see it at all the way you do. We were a prouder people then – and we loved ourselves much better. I personally think it is good and healthy for a people, a nation, any nation, to be proud of its heroes and celebrate them openly without having to worry about ‘how we might be perceived’ or what ‘others might think of us’ and all the other mea culpla narratives that developed in the 1970s and remain with us today.

    I was not around in 1966 but the underlined point makes me wonder a couple of things and I wouldnt be fully convinced of it, for one thing it is quite a sweeping statement. For example was there more appreciation of our heritage and culture in 1966 than now. Take Irish music that now traverses the globe, in the 1960's Davey Arthur and the Fureys, and the Dubliners were beginning the process of popularising Irish music to a wider audience both abroad and in Ireland.
    Another relevant point in regard of this is the proximity of events. In 1966 there was a generation of people alive who could remember Ireland being ruled by Britain. I think this would leave an impact. That we are now a further distance away from this means that people look at history differently. What I disagree on is how this difference is described, I would not consider that someone in the 1960's was 'prouder' than I am or loved their country more than I do simply because they were from a different era. Furthermore, at this remove from events such as WWI Irishmen and women seem to be more capable of embracing the memories of people of the time more openly than before.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Ditto - I already posted that photo in post #17 above and ref the headline - with the fact that the IRA immediately dissociated itself from it all.

    indeed.

    Quite a few nice images of and from the Pillar floating around Flickr from the NLI collection.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/5786212550/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/5785633295/in/photostream/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/6817741408/

    Pathe News video of the Army at work etc
    http://www.britishpathe.com/video/nelson-pillar-remains-demolished-aka-nelson-pillar


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I was not around in 1966 but the underlined point makes me wonder a couple of things and I wouldnt be fully convinced of it, for one thing it is quite a sweeping statement. For example was there more appreciation of our heritage and culture in 1966 than now. Take Irish music that now traverses the globe, in the 1960's Davey Arthur and the Fureys, and the Dubliners were beginning the process of popularising Irish music to a wider audience both abroad and in Ireland.

    Interesting that you pick two acts one would not associate with political songs but folk music.

    Another relevant point in regard of this is the proximity of events. In 1966 there was a generation of people alive who could remember Ireland being ruled by Britain. I think this would leave an impact. That we are now a further distance away from this means that people look at history differently.

    They were old men like my grandfather and pedro's and whose ideologies were democratic.


    What I disagree on is how this difference is described, I would not consider that someone in the 1960's was 'prouder' than I am or loved their country more than I do simply because they were from a different era. Furthermore, at this remove from events such as WWI Irishmen and women seem to be more capable of embracing the memories of people of the time more openly than before.

    I don't know. My grandfather grew up in an area where some people lived mud huts and in real third world conditions.

    I certainly think the recent neutrality debate put up concepts that showed some remove from that reality or did I miss something.

    An puc ar buile
    , great craic that.


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


    I was not around in 1966 but the underlined point makes me wonder a couple of things and I wouldnt be fully convinced of it, for one thing it is quite a sweeping statement. For example was there more appreciation of our heritage and culture in 1966 than now. Take Irish music that now traverses the globe, in the 1960's Davey Arthur and the Fureys, and the Dubliners were beginning the process of popularising Irish music to a wider audience both abroad and in Ireland.
    Another relevant point in regard of this is the proximity of events. In 1966 there was a generation of people alive who could remember Ireland being ruled by Britain. I think this would leave an impact. That we are now a further distance away from this means that people look at history differently. What I disagree on is how this difference is described, I would not consider that someone in the 1960's was 'prouder' than I am or loved their country more than I do simply because they were from a different era. Furthermore, at this remove from events such as WWI Irishmen and women seem to be more capable of embracing the memories of people of the time more openly than before.

    Well that’s my opinion – and the thread is full of opinion as per the OP’s original direction which has not been modified in any way or re-directed to stick to historical facts, so I put that in there as one of mine. But it is not nevertheless if I may say, an opinion based on air – it is an observation of mine based on what I have seen evolve since 1966 when we openly and I again say, proudly, celebrated 1916 in many ways that honoured the event. There was a much stronger strong sense of self love and political achievement of independence which frankly, I don’t experience now. Like Pedroeibar said, we even renamed many of the railway stations in Dublin – Amiens St became Connolly, Westland Row became Pearce. I personally can’t image that happening now – we usually nowadays stick exclusively to Irish writers and authors [or musicians as you yourself point to], - safer it seems, less to explain.

    The Garden of Remembrance was opened in 1966 on the spot where the Volunteers had originally been formed and where many of the leaders of the 1916 Rising were held after their surrender. Sacred space. These days we can’t even get the house on Moore Street where they surrendered kept safe for our inheritance. Just go by there and look at the state of it. It’s a national disgrace.

    From 1972 the Government shunned celebrating the 1916 Rising – running away from it all? - and in 1991 when the 75th anniversary came around there was a furtive attempt at celebrating and not celebrating all at once but only after pressure was brought to bear about it by citizens who wanted the date marked in some official way. I think the ceremony took about 15 mins at the GPO - VERY different from 1966.

    Robert Ballagh says about our meagre attempts to celebrate important national anniversaries:
    When I read in the paper the statement by the Taoiseach that the Government intended restoring the military parade in Dublin to commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the Easter Rising, I found myself unable to prevent a wry smile forming on my face; you see, I still retained clear memories of the remarkable experiences of those brave souls who dared commemorate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Rising just fifteen years before.

    In early 1990, a group of concerned citizens, aware that the government seemed determined to ignore the anniversary, decided to take steps to insure that the event would be properly celebrated. I decided to sign up to this initiative which took as its title ‘Reclaim the Spirit of Easter’. My own reasons for taking this action were both personal and complex. For many years I found myself dismayed by an intellectual atmosphere that had been allowed to develop that appeared to me to be driven by a kind of self-loathing. Certainly, as a reaction to the conflict in the North, many southern politicians and ‘thinkers’ constructed a whole new way of seeing Ireland and the Irish! There was a time when Unionism was seen as a bullying, discriminating, and occasionally violent force, which, with British support, oppressed the nationalist people in the North. Now, however, nationalists were portrayed as negative, uncooperative and recalcitrant while hard line unionists were lionized by a sycophantic Dublin media. In this scenario, the British played the role of a benevolent and frustrated neighbour attempting to separate two feuding delinquents. This process of self delusion, once begun, led to some quite startling conclusions.
    So it seems to me who lived through those years that there is a major difference between, back then, the lead up to 1966, and the lead up to 2016. There is an air of caution, even reticence and apologetics about it all. And it has little or nothing to do with proximity to the event - look at the endless memorials to the Somme, Poppy Day, the Normandy invasions etc. - and I was in the US in 1976 for their 200 year anniversary of independence and it was not by any means a furtive dimly remembered affair in any way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Well that’s my opinion – and the thread is full of opinion as per the OP’s original direction which has not been modified in any way or re-directed to stick to historical facts, so I put that in there as one of mine. But it is not nevertheless if I may say, an opinion based on air – it is an observation of mine based on what I have seen evolve since 1966 when we openly and I again say, proudly, celebrated 1916 in many ways that honoured the event. There was a much stronger strong sense of self love and political achievement of independence which frankly, I don’t experience now.

    People celebrated 1798 200 year anniversary in low key manner but it is less known. I expect that alot more will be done to celebrate the centenary of 1916. It was a feature of last years presidential campaign that the successful candidate would be in position for the 2016 celebrations. These celebrations will require a collective decision by Irish people. This to is my opinion but I would expect that the choice will be to have a widely celebrated date that will both respect opposing views but mostly remember correctly the heroes who knowingly made a 'blood sacrifice' believing correctly that this would bring their aims closer.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    it is an observation of mine based on what I have seen evolve since 1966 when we openly and I again say, proudly, celebrated 1916 in many ways that honoured the event.
    Why do you think people are less willing to celebrate proudly now? Have the troubles negatively influenced our history?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    From todays Irish times some more fuel on this:
    “As we prepare to commemorate the enactment of Home Rule in 1914, the sacrifices by Irish soldiers in the Great War, and the deaths in and after rebellion of Easter 1916, the content of Fr Shaw’s essay is as relevant, and probably as controversial, today, as it was 46 years ago, when it was first offered for publication,” said Mr Bruton.

    In his analysis of the physical force tradition of Irish nationalism Fr Shaw quoted extensively from the writings of Patrick Pearse and questioned Pearse’s identification of nationalism with holiness, his hatred of England, and his glorification of death and violence.

    “All commemorations serve an educational purpose for the future. It is important that such sentiments as these not be glorified in 2016, and that their consequences be fairly assessed. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0321/1224313641525.html
    He is advocating restrained celebrations.


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


    People celebrated 1798 200 year anniversary in low key manner but it is less known.

    But the pivotal fact is that 1798 did not lead to the establishment of an independent Ireland. 1916 was the moment of Proclamation, the start of our War of Independence and shortly after the establishment of Dail Eireann.
    Why do you think people are less willing to celebrate proudly now? Have the troubles negatively influenced our history?

    Well, the historic record is the historic record and that doesn't change - what we do with it is the question - celebrate/acknowledge it or not? - and more to the point being made.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Well, the historic record is the historic record - what we do with it is the question - celebrate/acknowledge it or not? - and more to the point being made.

    Fact are facts of course. But it is possible for these celebrations to gain associations that turn some people off them. I think this has happened and it is very regretable.

    You have experience of the 1960's so I would ask (respectfully if you don't mind) if Irish involvement in WWI was celebrated moreso then (50 years after) than now? The reason I ask is that I get the impression that the WWI heroes in this context may be the mirror opposite to those of 1916 and war of independence.


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


    Fact are facts of course. But it is possible for these celebrations to gain associations that turn some people off them. I think this has happened and it is very regretable.

    You have experience of the 1960's so I would ask (respectfully if you don't mind) if Irish involvement in WWI was celebrated moreso then (50 years after) than now? The reason I ask is that I get the impression that the WWI heroes in this context may be the mirror opposite to those of 1916 and war of independence.

    Well WWI wasn't celebrated - that is correct. Personally I don't get why we would even now celebrate a war that we didn't officially particpate in - and most of Ireland went berserk even at the idea of conscription for same. The General Strike in April 1918 in protest to conscription was a huge success by Irish labour, indicating little public support in Ireland for the war.

    But I also wouldn't call the Irish men of WWI the mirror opposite to 1916 by any means because that would not be a true and fair picture. The issue of WWI participation is very complex in itself. The Volunteers originally formed in 1913 to fight for Irish freedom - and organised against the Unionists who were by then gun running into the North. Many, many of those Irishmen who fought in WWI were volunteers who were responding to Redmond's call - Irish nationalists who believed that they were helping Irish Independence, and some of them returned after WWI and then joined the IRA. BTW I was glad to hear Diarmaid Ferriter pointing this out in the RTE coverage when the Queen came over and they had that ceremony at Islandbridge. [Fair dues to that little Lady though - I much appreciated what she did at the Garden of Remembrance.]

    Not all volunteers joined the IRA though on return to Ireland after WWI. Another complex piece. I had two relatives in WWI but they just returned home to Dublin and wanted nothing more to do with any army [can't say I blame them] - but they would certainly not have considered that they were fighting for the Empire. Far from it. It was their way of fighting for Irish freedom as they understood it.

    Now, I know this was not the whole picture covering every situation, but I just want to point out that it gets really complex when we have to consider why men did what they did at the time. And we do have to try to understand this from the history of the time and not overlay one set of misconceptions with another as we may be now doing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    On a point of interest and slightly lighter note, a new musical “1916 The Musical” has been written and the principals behind it are working towards a launch in Boston (website says 2012 but this may be aspirational) before coming to Dublin for the centenary in 2016.

    Reading the website, the musical is based on a concept by a 2nd generation Irishman and involves musicians and lyricists with track records in other successful musical productions such as “Les Miserables”. So, it is a substantial piece of work backed up with all the right artistic connections from the world of stage musicals.

    An unlikely setting for a musical, you might think ..... but perhaps not! It has key ingredients of previous successful musicals - a love story that crosses the cultural divide, set in the context of a major historic conflict.

    Extracts from the website:

    "1916, is a new, epic musical; a love story set in Dublin during The Rising of the same year".

    "At the heart of the story, our heroine, Bridie, falls in love with a British soldier; maybe he is her way out, her ticket to England, but Bridie’s brother, Ciáran, is determined to fight for the freedom of the nation. Ireland’s sovereignty has been held under the British heel for 900 years, and after decades of famine and depression, the population has been depleted by hunger and is now leaving in hordes, mostly emigrating to the USA.

    In 2011, there are 80 million Irish around the world; 4 million of them live in Ireland".

    Today’s Irish Times article makes the point about not glorifying the negative physical force connotations associated the rising. At the same time, there is something to celebrate in 2016 and “1916 The Musical” just might be one of the ways of doing it, in a constructive and positive manner for a large audience.

    I think it fair to say that most people would agree that we should not glorify physical force. But at the same time, 1916 is part of our history that should be remembered. Just how to do this in a balanced manner – holding up a mirror to our past – looking at it in the context of a personal story (even, if fictitious, for dramatic purposes), without causing offence to people from either nationalist or unionist tradition, is a difficult thing to do.

    I, for one, hope it is successful.

    Link to website: http://www.1916themusical.com/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I heard something about a project involving James Connolly Heron ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    CDfm wrote: »
    I heard something about a project involving James Connolly Heron ?

    As far as I know, this is a separate project to "1916 The Musical" - but I expect both projects would be somewhat complementary.


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


    Interesting content & perspective from John Bruton, not least because although I’d not heard of Fr. Shaw before (:o ) I paraphrased some of his views in my earlier posts. Fr. Shaw’s comments would have gone down like a lead balloon in 1966.
    You have experience of the 1960's so I would ask (respectfully if you don't mind) if Irish involvement in WWI was celebrated moreso then (50 years after) than now?
    In my circle during the sixties there was no talk of Irish soldiers in WWI, not that it was hushed up, rather it never was a topic. WW2 was not specifically mentioned either, but if it came up it was because many of us had parents/uncles who saw service. Our Civil War – the topic was suppressed, never mentioned and any question was discouraged. In school Irish history stopped at 1916.
    Why do you think people are less willing to celebrate proudly now? Have the troubles negatively influenced our history?
    I believe that ‘The Troubles’ have influenced our view of history – particularly those in the North. I recall Burntollet and the student anger in Dublin; the fury at that and the subsequent antics of the RIC & the B Specials, the tacit support for the IRA (initially) that then turned to ambivalence due to the way in which successive British governments made a total pigs ear of reading the situation in Ireland and alienating many who by that time had no love for the IRA. I remember the burning of the British Embassy – I was overseas at that time – and Lord Kilbracken returning his medals and renouncing British citizenship after Bloody Sunday.
    By 1991 and the 75th anniversary of 1916 there was a growing feeling that the IRA had not only taken possession of the Rising’s history, they also had hijacked the Irish language. People in the ‘South’ were sick and tired of the ‘North’ and were happy to ignore the entire event. It also did a huge disservice to the Irish language as many gaelgoirs were (or perceived to be) of a bigoted Republican leaning. I was living abroad at that time and on visits home remember my father railing about political ineptitude and cowardice, and the need to reclaim our heritage.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Interesting that you pick two acts one would not associate with political songs but folk music. An puc ar buile , great craic that.
    Most of the traditional Irish music at the time the Pillar was destroyed was not political, it was a turn-off – the pianothump of Kilfenora Ceile Band and Dinjoe variety, Abbey Tavern stuff in Howth for the tourists. Although the folk revival did start in the early 1960’s, apart from the Dubliners & the Clancy Bros it was tiny, and did not get going until the late 1960’s – the music scene of O’Donohues in Merrion Row, the Swamp in Rathmines, Slattereys in Capel St, Dowlings in Prosperous, etc., all date to that time. O’Riada and Ceoltoiri Chualann were the main musical impetus. The Chieftains third album came out in 70 or 71(?) and that firmly settled trad in the public eye. Few trad supporters had any time for The Wolfe Tones – regarded them as too commercially ‘political’ and never went to hear them play in either the Embankment in Tallaght or Bill Fuller’s place in Raheny (both viewed as very IRA pubs at the time) . Even the Dubliners dropped their ‘rebel’ songs in the sixties because of the Northern ‘Troubles’. An Puc ar Buile was made famous by Sean O’Se - it is on the one of the early O’Riada albums I think.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement