Nelson's Pillar - 46th anniversary

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.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

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.

CDfm wrote: »

jonniebgood1 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.

Pike in the Thatch wrote: »

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.

@pike in the thatch .

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

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?

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.

Pike in the Thatch wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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

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.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

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.