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

1235

Comments

  • #202
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    How wrong you are. A wiki, not always the most reliable but - " The building was originally known as the Joseph Stalin Palace of Culture and Science (Pałac Kultury i Nauki imienia Józefa Stalina), but in the wake of destalinization the dedication to Stalin was revoked; Stalin's name was removed from the interior lobby and one of the building's sculptures"

    This is equivalent to changing names of the Royal barracks to Collins baracks rather than blowing up Nelsons pillar.
    There are however more equitable examples in other Eastern European cities such as the Stalin monument in Budapest, torn down in 1956 or a similar monument in Prague, blown up in 1962. Since 1990 most emblems of Communism have been removed from Eastern European cities.


  • #203
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    How wrong you are. A wiki, not always the most reliable but - " The building was originally known as the Joseph Stalin Palace of Culture and Science (Pałac Kultury i Nauki imienia Józefa Stalina), but in the wake of destalinization the dedication to Stalin was revoked; Stalin's name was removed from the interior lobby and one of the building's sculptures"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science,_Warsaw

    Just goes to show you, the Poles don't just have gorgeous women but have an unapologetic pride in their country. Now that's what I call maturity as a nation.

    I was fully aware of that as I have been there. The Poles removal of Stalin's name was sensible and, as you point out, showed 'maturity as a nation.' Just goes to prove my point (and that of many others) that those of the armalite and dynamite persuasion in Ireland showed their immaturity in destroying the Pillar.


  • #204
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    I was fully aware of that as I have been there. The Poles removal of Stalin's name was sensible and, as you point out, showed 'maturity as a nation.' Just goes to prove my point (and that of many others) that those of the armalite and dynamite persuasion in Ireland showed their immaturity in destroying the Pillar.
    Oh I see, so those who tore down the Stalin monument in Budapest 1956 or better again in Prague in 1962 blew it, up along with notable others such as the Iraqi's pulling down/blowing up statues of Saddam and his regime, showed their immaturity also ?


  • #205
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    This is equivalent to changing names of the Royal barracks to Collins baracks rather than blowing up Nelsons pillar.
    There are however more equitable examples in other Eastern European cities such as the Stalin monument in Budapest, torn down in 1956 or a similar monument in Prague, blown up in 1962. Since 1990 most emblems of Communism have been removed from Eastern European cities.
    They just didn't change the name, they also they physically removed reference to him in the interior and on a sculpture. Just like the those with Nelsons pillar - but in a more dramatic fashion :)


  • #206
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    Oh I see, so those who tore down the Stalin monument in Budapest 1956 or better again in Prague in 1962 blew it, up along with notable others such as the Iraqi's pulling down/blowing up statues of Saddam and his regime, showed their immaturity also ?

    Your comments are becoming increasingly absurd. Firstly, I responded to a comment from another poster about Stalin in Poland. You saw fit to jump in with another ill-informed, sexist comment. Secondly, you now have seized on a comment by the Mod. and have quoted it out of context. Thirdly, to compare Nelson to what Stalin and Saddam Hussein did to their people is absurd and shows a ludicrously poor grasp of both history and current affairs. :rolleyes:


  • #207
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Your comments are becoming increasingly absurd. Firstly, I responded to a comment from another poster about Stalin in Poland. You saw fit to jump in with another ill-informed, sexist comment. Secondly, you now have seized on a comment by the Mod. and have quoted it out of context. Thirdly, to compare Nelson to what Stalin and Saddam Hussein did to their people is absurd and shows a ludicrously poor grasp of both history and current affairs. :rolleyes:
    Not quoting anything out of context, just using these examples along with Saddam etc to show that we are not the only ones who have violently removed statues and so on. As for comparing Nelson to Stalin, two megalomaniacs in 2 tyrannical regimes though I will concede Uncle Joe was very much the worse.


  • #208
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Thirdly, to compare Nelson to what Stalin and Saddam Hussein did to their people is absurd and shows a ludicrously poor grasp of both history and current affairs.

    This is a good point. It would help us understand your view on this commietommie if you could explain what it is that Nelson did to Ireland that you feel is intolerable (and indeed make him comparable to Stalin)?


  • #209
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    I was fully aware of that as I have been there. The Poles removal of Stalin's name was sensible and, as you point out, showed 'maturity as a nation.' Just goes to prove my point (and that of many others) that those of the armalite and dynamite persuasion in Ireland showed their immaturity in destroying the Pillar.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    This is a good point. It would help us understand your view on this commietommie if you could explain what it is that Nelson did to Ireland that you feel is intolerable (and indeed make him comparable to Stalin)?

    It's actually a crap, historically illiterate point, as usual from pedroeibar1. I trust you won't censor that because you had no problem with his accusing other posters of, ironically, being historically ignorant?


    Right, so here goes.


    Nelson was a huge hero of the British Empire, an empire which rests upon mass murder, dispossession and centuries of colonialism and subjugation in this country. You and he both appear to have considerable resistance to this historical fact. That's your problem. Your dislike or otherwise doesn't negate its reality.

    That you want this society to honour heroes of that rapacious foreign oppressive régime and that you're objecting to their being treated with the contempt that the Poles and other European peoples have treated monuments to the heroes of foreign régimes which misruled them says much more about your political viewpoints than it does about some nebulous and profound historical knowledge which pedroeibar1 at any rate would like to think he is the purveyor of.

    As I explained in another thread, the logic of your line is that this country would still be plastered with monuments glorifying the history of a foreign elite simply because they had the power to erect them all. Your argument is that public space in Ireland should continue to be monopolised to glorify the enemies of the Irish people/heroes of the British Empire, people who crushed Irish Ireland. When it comes down to it the only "history", as you two define it, which we'll have in our squares from British rule times is that erected by the coloniser to represent heroes of the coloniser's world. Oh how narrow, sectarian and entrenched is your true conception of Irish "history" when your support for these monuments is examined. It's not like the British were erecting monuments to Tomás an tSíoda, Fiacha Mac Aodha, Liam Nuinseann, Ó Néill, Ó Dónaill, Ó Dochartaigh & rl between the years 1603 and 1922.
    "Historical memory", in terms of the defence of all apologists for these British imperial monuments, is an awfully one-sided affair. When stripped to its essence, your plea to "respect the past and keep these British monuments here" is unequivocally a plea to respect their reflection of their elite past. Your plea is anything but historically inclusive or historically balanced or concerned with being historically representative of Irish society. When stripped your plea for such one-sided historical "memory" is, at best, intellectually vacuous. At best.

    Why you both get so defensive and intent upon ensuring that that colonial elite continues to have a massively disproportionate control over public space and historical memory in this society again can only go back to your political preferences rather than to a considered historically-informed view that takes the sentiments and sensitivity of all Irish society into account rather than the narrow interests of the British colonial elite whom you both believe should in effect get special treatment in Irish public spaces and memory.

    Like Soviet glorifications of their former power in modern Poland, British colonial glorifications of their former power in Ireland should be removed as quickly as the English smashed the inauguration stone of the Uí Néill/historical tradition in 1602, or indeed as quickly as they destroyed medieval statues and pilgrimage sites when, in the late 1530s, they found they were representative of a political powerbase which they, iconoclastic English colonialists in Ireland, did not like. This sudden British nationalist respect for monuments is, to say the least, breathtakingly selective.

    Amen.


  • #210
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    It's actually a crap, historically illiterate point, as usual from pedroeibar1. I trust you won't censor that because you had no problem with his accusing other posters of, ironically, being historically ignorant?
    You have personalised your comment with the unnessesary addition of
    as usual from pedroeibar1
    This is against the forum charter which you should read if you do not understand this. Do it again and you will be censored. If you dont understand the difference between criticising an opinion and criticising the person making the opinion then you can PM me for a longer explanation.

    Moderator.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I grew up in a medieval town and the fabric of our lives included monuments and buildings to both traditions.

    You have the same in Dublin with its heritage.

    1707 – Custom House, Dublin

    Architect: Thomas Burgh
    0134.jpg
    The previous Custom House by Thomas Burgh and built in 1707 was sited up river at Essex Quay and was judged as unsafe just seventy years later. The site chosen for the new Custom House met with much opposition from city merchants who feared that its move down river would lessen the value of their properties while making the property owners to the east wealthier. The old Custom House was used as a barracks for a time until it was demolished.


    http://archiseek.com/2012/1707-custom-house-dublin/

    Its replacement
    The Custom House, designed by James Gandon is an exquisite building and was the cause of much rioting at the time of its construction as it changed the location of much of the cities trading. The building was completed in 1791, only to be burned down by the IRA in 1921. The building has been beautifully restored by the Office of Public Works.

    Custom house was the first building built for the public in Dublin. Architecturally it's considered as one of Dublins most historical and important building.

    Graceful pavilions, arcades and columns mark the elegance of this exquisite Georgian building. The central dome is topped by a 16 foot- statue of Commerce. There are 14 keystones over the doors and windows, known as the Riverine Heads in respect of the Atlantic Ocean and the 13 principal rivers of Ireland. The exterior of the building is beautifully adorned with sculptures, coats of arms and a series of sculpted keystones symbolizing the rivers of Ireland.

    During the Irish Civil war from 1921-1922 the building was terribly affected as it was completely engulfed by fire for 5 days, resulting in a major loss of public records. Due to the intensity of the heat the dome melted and the stone was still cracking when it began cooling five months later. The Gandon's interior section was completely destroyed.

    The building went under a prolonged series of massive reconstruction and was further catered to by the Office of Public Works in the 1980's.


    http://www.dublinevents.com/dublin-places-to-visit/custom-house.php

    To me Nelson is not a powerful symbol of the empire and I am really ambivalent about the monument.

    And the monument had more to do with Dublin's prominence/development as a port than anything else.

    Dublin Castle is the symbol of power in my mind.
    Aras an Uachtarain/Vice Regal Lodge and Leinster House are others.

    I can't see any cult of personality for Nelson .From the 1500's to the 1700's you had the growth of the Cult of St Patrick - well in Munster we had St Declan. St Patrick's Day was a holiday. The Ui Neills were hardly Brian Boru fan's and what we were taught about him in school was not really true and the Battle of Clontarf was really part of a civil war.

    Now they are personality cults.!!!

    Maybe there was a Nelson cult , was it really an important emblem for protestant unionist Dublin. In my opinion it wasn't.

    I just can't see it.


  • #212
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    It's actually a crap, historically illiterate point, as usual from pedroeibar1. I trust you won't censor that because you had no problem with his accusing other posters of, ironically, being historically ignorant?


    Right, so here goes.


    Nelson was a huge hero of the British Empire, an empire which rests upon mass murder, dispossession and centuries of colonialism and subjugation in this country. You and he both appear to have considerable resistance to this historical fact. That's your problem. Your dislike or otherwise doesn't negate its reality.

    That you want this society to honour heroes of that rapacious foreign oppressive régime and that you're objecting to their being treated with the contempt that the Poles and other European peoples have treated monuments to the heroes of foreign régimes which misruled them says much more about your political viewpoints than it does about some nebulous and profound historical knowledge which pedroeibar1 at any rate would like to think he is the purveyor of.

    As I explained in another thread, the logic of your line is that this country would still be plastered with monuments glorifying the history of a foreign elite simply because they had the power to erect them all. Your argument is that public space in Ireland should continue to be monopolised to glorify the enemies of the Irish people/heroes of the British Empire, people who crushed Irish Ireland. When it comes down to it the only "history", as you two define it, which we'll have in our squares from British rule times is that erected by the coloniser to represent heroes of the coloniser's world. Oh how narrow, sectarian and entrenched is your true conception of Irish "history" when your support for these monuments is examined. It's not like the British were erecting monuments to Tomás an tSíoda, Fiacha Mac Aodha, Liam Nuinseann, Ó Néill, Ó Dónaill, Ó Dochartaigh & rl between the years 1603 and 1922.
    "Historical memory", in terms of the defence of all apologists for these British imperial monuments, is an awfully one-sided affair. When stripped to its essence, your plea to "respect the past and keep these British monuments here" is unequivocally a plea to respect their reflection of their elite past. Your plea is anything but historically inclusive or historically balanced or concerned with being historically representative of Irish society. When stripped your plea for such one-sided historical "memory" is, at best, intellectually vacuous. At best.

    Why you both get so defensive and intent upon ensuring that that colonial elite continues to have a massively disproportionate control over public space and historical memory in this society again can only go back to your political preferences rather than to a considered historically-informed view that takes the sentiments and sensitivity of all Irish society into account rather than the narrow interests of the British colonial elite whom you both believe should in effect get special treatment in Irish public spaces and memory.

    Like Soviet glorifications of their former power in modern Poland, British colonial glorifications of their former power in Ireland should be removed as quickly as the English smashed the inauguration stone of the Uí Néill/historical tradition in 1602, or indeed as quickly as they destroyed medieval statues and pilgrimage sites when, in the late 1530s, they found they were representative of a political powerbase which they, iconoclastic English colonialists in Ireland, did not like. This sudden British nationalist respect for monuments is, to say the least, breathtakingly selective.

    Amen.


    I suppose a point might be lurking in that rant, buried somewhere, camouflaged, hidden beneath a multitude of derisory adjectives.
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    a crap, historically illiterate point
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    rapacious foreign oppressive regime
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    nebulous and profound historical knowledge
    (rather contradictory, that):rolleyes:
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    narrow, sectarian and entrenched is your true conception
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    British imperial monuments
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    iconoclastic English colonialists
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    When stripped your plea for such one-sided historical "memory" is, at best, intellectually vacuous.

    My plea? What plea? I've not plead for anything. That humbug above is not historical; it is political invective and reminiscent of a schoolboy’s essay from Mao era China. People like that could not see the world; wood for trees. They never went anywhere and when eventually they were allowed out on their own, they saw nothing through the dialectic of their thick lenses.
    You seem keen on the O’Neills: my granny was an O’Neill. Literary people: you should look up the response Hugh O’Neill wrote to Sir John McCoughleyn. Erudite, succinct, polite (and not an adjective in sight.)
    There are many contributors to this board who enlighten, entertain and amuse. There are others who do the opposite.
    Seeing as we spoke of Poland, more than 32 years ago a Polish man came to Dublin and said ‘Pervading nationalism imposes its dominion on man today in many different forms and with an aggressiveness that spares no one…The challenge that is already with us is the temptation to accept as true freedom what in reality is only a new form of slavery.’ I did not agree with many of his other views, being that he was Pope, but on that occasion he hit the nail.


  • #213
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Don't know about Nelson but this thread certainly looks like it has blown up...


  • #214
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The house I grew up in had a monument to Nelson a few hundred yards away. It was one if the first and was funded by fellow officers and men.

    There was a genuine fear that the French were going to invade and Nelson was seen as being instrumental in removing that threat. Not only was he a national hero, he was also loved by his men and was a bit of a character. He directly disobeyed orders (the famous one being when he out his looking glass to his blind eye and didn't see orders to withdraw) which appealed to people and he created gossip but didn't seem to care.

    His early death added to his stardom, particularly in the manner in which it came about.


  • #215
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    CDfm wrote: »

    The building went under a prolonged series of massive reconstruction and was further catered to by the Office of Public Works in the 1980's.

    The main reason for that renovation was due to the aftermath of the fire in the '20's. Much of the cornice was pegged to the top of the building by iron pins, each one encased in lead to prevent rust. The heat of the fire melted the lead and the iron rusted over the years, causing spalling, with bits falling off onto passers by. That is why the building was fenced off for years.
    As for the first Custom House, many of the 18th C buildings - including many of those in our Georgian Squares - were gerrybuilt. Zoe Developments and Priory Hall were not unique!


  • #216
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    As for the first Custom House, many of the 18th C buildings - including many of those in our Georgian Squares - were gerrybuilt. Zoe Developments and Priory Hall were not unique!

    Not a fan of Georgian Dublin then ? :D


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »


    My plea? What plea? I've not plead for anything. That humbug above is not historical; it is political invective and reminiscent of a schoolboy’s essay from Mao era China. People like that could not see the world; wood for trees. They never went anywhere and when eventually they were allowed out on their own, they saw nothing through the dialectic of their thick lenses.

    Who are you referring to in this? "People like that" ? I am confused by your posts -


  • #218
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    CDfm wrote: »
    Not a fan of Georgian Dublin then ? :D

    Colonialist, imperialist dross. Built by the enemies of the Irish people/heroes of the British Empire, people who crushed Irish Ireland. Burn the lot of it and replace it with the stunning architecture of the fior gael, true Irish Ireland, like the ESB did!;)


  • #219
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Colonialist, imperialist dross. Built by the enemies of the Irish people/heroes of the British Empire, people who crushed Irish Ireland. Burn the lot of it and replace it with the stunning architecture of the fior gael, true Irish Ireland, like the ESB did!;)

    I believe that you have found yourself to be entirely at odds with the idea that a young nation may express a desire to establish a new identity. Nations that were born of blood and revolt don't often place value on the edifices of the former occupier, no matter how pretty and grand you may feel they look. It would be misguided to assume otherwise, as such an attitude has been evidenced in countless nations throughout recorded history - most prominently the Middle-East, but also Revolutionary France and Soviet Russia.

    As such, one could argue that the destruction of Nelson's column was simply another step in the effort to formulate what could be considered an "Irish identity", one which was clearly distinct from it's imperial British past. Therefore, monuments dedicated to the lives of foreign Military figures would then cease to have any relevance beyond their clear ascetic value.


  • #220
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    I believe that you have found yourself to be entirely at odds with the idea that a young nation may express a desire to establish a new identity. Nations that were born of blood and revolt don't often place value on the edifices of the former occupier, no matter how pretty and grand you may feel they look. It would be misguided to assume otherwise, as such an attitude has been evidenced in countless nations throughout recorded history - most prominently the Middle-East, but also Revolutionary France and Soviet Russia.

    As such, one could argue that the destruction of Nelson's column was simply another step in the effort to formulate what could be considered an "Irish identity", one which was clearly distinct from it's imperial British past. Therefore, monuments dedicated to the lives of foreign Military figures would then cease to have any relevance beyond their clear ascetic value.

    So should we expect the destruction of Dun Laoghaire harbour, the Dublin to Rosslare railway and the grand canal next?


  • #221
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    I believe that you have found yourself to be entirely at odds with the idea that a young nation may express a desire to establish a new identity. Nations that were born of blood and revolt don't often place value on the edifices of the former occupier, no matter how pretty and grand you may feel they look. It would be misguided to assume otherwise, as such an attitude has been evidenced in countless nations throughout recorded history - most prominently the Middle-East, but also Revolutionary France and Soviet Russia.

    As such, one could argue that the destruction of Nelson's column was simply another step in the effort to formulate what could be considered an "Irish identity", one which was clearly distinct from it's imperial British past. Therefore, monuments dedicated to the lives of foreign Military figures would then cease to have any relevance beyond their clear ascetic value.

    Quite wrong in all respects. Immediately after a revolution a few statues of individuals are destroyed, but these inevitably are despots - Hoxha, Saddam, Stalin, Ceausescu, Pahlavi , etc. and that is quite ‘normal’ given what they did to their peoples. My point is that too many of Ireland’s ‘heros’ were (are) narrow-minded blinkered peasant hillbillies, intent on destruction, without a mandate and without an ability to differentiate between history and heritage. I fully understand and accept the desire, need and merit for ‘new’ countries (including Ireland) to establish an identity. I’ve worked with many of them in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, and it is great to see the respect they have for the past. When the Old Town of Warsaw was destroyed by the Germans, it was rebuilt, brick by brick, exactly as it had been, by workers bussed in after their shifts were over. That is respect for history and heritage.
    Destruction of buildings was much more rare, usually by a mob intent on plunder. Very few buildings were destroyed in France, the Bastille was stormed to obtain gunpowder, nothing else. It was primarily a storehouse and a prison for the better-off, not the poor. During the same revolution a mob stormed the Tuileries Palace and looted it: in the 1848 revolution it again was looted, and also by the Communards in the 1870’s, who also robbed and set the Louvre on fire. Much later when it finally was destroyed, it was against the forceful opposition of France’s chief architect, Baron Haussmann, who said it was a crime against French history. Haussmann ‘s ‘destruction’ of Paris was primarily to do with slum clearance and had nothing ‘political’ about it, although his grandes avenues scheme did have a military overtone. The destruction of the Tuileries actually allowed a 16th century plan be completed – the result is the rue de Rivoli and the layout we see today. Hardly trying to escape the past. The principle museum in Baghdad was looted during the second Gulf War, as were several state buildings in Egypt during the Arab Spring rising in Cairo. Booty was the objective, not politics.
    The reason France has such a beautiful built heritage is that banks and insurance companies are required to own and maintain them – they are included in their ‘primary liquidity’ requirements. In Ireland we see fit to destroy everything, look at the ESB building on was once was the longest Georgian facade in Europe, look at Wood Quay, etc.
    The sad thing is that the gombeen ‘patriots’ of today are such fanatics that they drive away an interest by ordinary citizens in history and heritage.
    (and its aesthetic, not ascetic;))


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Quite wrong in all respects. Immediately after a revolution a few statues of individuals are destroyed, but these inevitably are despots - Hoxha, Saddam, Stalin, Ceausescu, Pahlavi , etc. and that is quite ‘normal’ given what they did to their peoples. My point is that too many of Ireland’s ‘heros’ were (are) narrow-minded blinkered peasant hillbillies, intent on destruction, without a mandate and without an ability to differentiate between history and heritage. I fully understand and accept the desire, need and merit for ‘new’ countries (including Ireland) to establish an identity. I’ve worked with many of them in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, and it is great to see the respect they have for the past. When the Old Town of Warsaw was destroyed by the Germans, it was rebuilt, brick by brick, exactly as it had been, by workers bussed in after their shifts were over. That is respect for history and heritage.
    Destruction of buildings was much more rare, usually by a mob intent on plunder. Very few buildings were destroyed in France, the Bastille was stormed to obtain gunpowder, nothing else. It was primarily a storehouse and a prison for the better-off, not the poor. During the same revolution a mob stormed the Tuileries Palace and looted it: in the 1848 revolution it again was looted, and also by the Communards in the 1870’s, who also robbed and set the Louvre on fire. Much later when it finally was destroyed, it was against the forceful opposition of France’s chief architect, Baron Haussmann, who said it was a crime against French history. Haussmann ‘s ‘destruction’ of Paris was primarily to do with slum clearance and had nothing ‘political’ about it, although his grandes avenues scheme did have a military overtone. The destruction of the Tuileries actually allowed a 16th century plan be completed – the result is the rue de Rivoli and the layout we see today. Hardly trying to escape the past. The principle museum in Baghdad was looted during the second Gulf War, as were several state buildings in Egypt during the Arab Spring rising in Cairo. Booty was the objective, not politics.
    The reason France has such a beautiful built heritage is that banks and insurance companies are required to own and maintain them – they are included in their ‘primary liquidity’ requirements. In Ireland we see fit to destroy everything, look at the ESB building on was once was the longest Georgian facade in Europe, look at Wood Quay, etc.
    The sad thing is that the gombeen ‘patriots’ of today are such fanatics that they drive away an interest by ordinary citizens in history and heritage.
    (and its aesthetic, not ascetic;))

    Again I am asking you to actually identify who you are referring to?

    This reads highly hyperbolic and caricatural - just hitting out - but you are not giving details or identifying your personal targets.


  • #223
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    I believe that you have found yourself to be entirely at odds with the idea that a young nation may express a desire to establish a new identity. Nations that were born of blood and revolt don't often place value on the edifices of the former occupier, no matter how pretty and grand you may feel they look. It would be misguided to assume otherwise, as such an attitude has been evidenced in countless nations throughout recorded history - most prominently the Middle-East, but also Revolutionary France and Soviet Russia.

    As such, one could argue that the destruction of Nelson's column was simply another step in the effort to formulate what could be considered an "Irish identity", one which was clearly distinct from it's imperial British past. Therefore, monuments dedicated to the lives of foreign Military figures would then cease to have any relevance beyond their clear ascetic value.

    Yes, it had to do with a post-independence evolving sense of Irish identity. While I don't think that the method of removing Nelson was the way to do it most Dubliners at the time where supportive of keeping the pillar and replacing Nelson - and something that has not so far being mentioned on the thread I think was the actual position that the statue was placed in. It stood literally in the very centre of the Irish capital, Dublin.

    So for years this was also part of the talk/discussion - removing the statue and replacing it with something more suitable to the position the statue was actually placed in at very the centre of the Irish capital. Many believed that it was more appropriate to place something of Irish identity there.


  • #224
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    ...

    It stood literally in the very centre of the Irish capital, Dublin.

    So for years this was also part of the talk/discussion - removing the statue and replacing it with something more suitable to the position the statue was actually placed in at very the centre of the Irish capital. Many believed that it was more appropriate to place something of Irish identity there.

    Dare I ask what figure do people think should have replaced Nelson??? A suitable figure seems an impossible target.


  • #225
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The house I grew up in had a monument to Nelson a few hundred yards away. It was one if the first and was funded by fellow officers and men.

    There was a genuine fear that the French were going to invade and Nelson was seen as being instrumental in removing that threat. Not only was he a national hero, he was also loved by his men and was a bit of a character. He directly disobeyed orders (the famous one being when he out his looking glass to his blind eye and didn't see orders to withdraw) which appealed to people and he created gossip but didn't seem to care.

    His early death added to his stardom, particularly in the manner in which it came about.
    The British navy was rampant with sodomy and gang rape but even the bisexual Nelson couldn't have been loved by all of the British navy :D Besides, I doubt if the many men pressed ganged into the British navy and economic conscripts who were often the victims of the cat of nine tails etc for the slightest mistake or indisgression, thought highly of him.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    So should we expect the destruction of Dun Laoghaire harbour, the Dublin to Rosslare railway and the grand canal next?
    Harbours, railways, canals have an economic function, Nelsons pillar was built to honour an imperialist megalomaniac.


  • #226
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Dare I ask what figure do people think should have replaced Nelson??? A suitable figure seems an impossible target.
    Micheal Collins.


  • #227
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Dare I ask what figure do people think should have replaced Nelson??? A suitable figure seems an impossible target.

    The Haslam's or the Sheehy-Skeffington's would have been symbolically been a good fit for both traditions.


  • #228
    Hannibal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭Hannibal


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    Micheal Collins.
    Collins is too much of a division, to FG this ex-IRA commander is revered but to SF and FF he's perhaps the biggest sell out and traitor the country has ever seen.
    Anything that can be said of erecting a statue of Collins could be argued for a statue of DeValera.


  • #229
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    CDfm wrote: »
    The Haslam's or the Sheehy-Skeffington's would have been symbolically been a good fit for both traditions.
    Dotsey wrote: »
    Collins is too much of a division, to FG this ex-IRA commander is revered but to SF and FF he's perhaps the biggest sell out and traitor the country has ever seen.
    Anything that can be said of erecting a statue of Collins could be argued for a statue of DeValera.
    :rolleyes: Ok, maybe Jedward then so ?


  • #230
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    :rolleyes: Ok, maybe Jedward then so ?

    Tut tut.:p


  • #231
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    So should we expect the destruction of Dun Laoghaire harbour, the Dublin to Rosslare railway and the grand canal next?

    Absolutely not.

    You have to be able to make the clear distinction between buildings and settlements which were clearly established for entirely commercial and practical purposes, and monuments which were erected solely to regale the memories of what are now considered to be foreign military figures.

    As I had mentioned in my previous post, many of these monuments have a clear ascetic value as far as their design is concerned. However, they no longer maintain any sort of relevancy to the majority of the Irish population beyond any sort of historical value - not least due to the fact that Nelson only witnessed five years of Britain's new found Union, and as such had little influence in Ireland.

    Perhaps you could provide a reason why the Irish people should be interested in maintaining British Military monuments.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    golfwallah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Dare I ask what figure do people think should have replaced Nelson??? A suitable figure seems an impossible target.

    William Dargan would have been a suitable figure - an Irishman, pioneer of railways in Ireland and a man who implemented large scale practical economic improvements for the betterment of the country and its people:
    http://www.irrs.ie/Journal%20171/171%20Dargan.htm


  • #233
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Quite wrong in all respects. Immediately after a revolution a few statues of individuals are destroyed, but these inevitably are despots - Hoxha, Saddam, Stalin, Ceausescu, Pahlavi , etc. and that is quite ‘normal’ given what they did to their peoples.

    You have simply created your own conditions for what you would consider to be appropriate dissent.

    The British occupation of Ireland obviously being quite tame and uneventful, the Irish people would have no reason but to respect such monuments.
    My point is that too many of Ireland’s ‘heros’ were (are) narrow-minded blinkered peasant hillbillies, intent on destruction, without a mandate and without an ability to differentiate between history and heritage.

    Then perhaps one may argue that the Irish people are simply treating Britain's military "heroes" with the same level of respect which has been demonstrated in your "narrow-minded" post. A few posts back you dismissed a posters entire arguement as "bigoted" simply because he derided many of Britain's undeniable failures in Ireland.

    If you're attempting to inspire a new found appreciation for British culture in Ireland, then perhaps you should rethink your strategy and approach the topic with more sensitivity. Just a thought.
    I fully understand and accept the desire, need and merit for ‘new’ countries (including Ireland) to establish an identity. I’ve worked with many of them in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, and it is great to see the respect they have for the past. When the Old Town of Warsaw was destroyed by the Germans, it was rebuilt, brick by brick, exactly as it had been, by workers bussed in after their shifts were over. That is respect for history and heritage.

    You've ignored the fact that I was referring specifically to monuments rather than buildings. Could the restoration of popular period architectural style be considered an appreciation for Polish/Lithuanian/Russian/Prussian heritage, or simply an expression of a renewed national spirit?
    Destruction of buildings was much more rare, usually by a mob intent on plunder. Very few buildings were destroyed in France, the Bastille was stormed to obtain gunpowder, nothing else. It was primarily a storehouse and a prison for the better-off, not the poor. During the same revolution a mob stormed the Tuileries Palace and looted it: in the 1848 revolution it again was looted, and also by the Communards in the 1870’s, who also robbed and set the Louvre on fire. Much later when it finally was destroyed, it was against the forceful opposition of France’s chief architect, Baron Haussmann, who said it was a crime against French history. Haussmann ‘s ‘destruction’ of Paris was primarily to do with slum clearance and had nothing ‘political’ about it, although his grandes avenues scheme did have a military overtone. The destruction of the Tuileries actually allowed a 16th century plan be completed – the result is the rue de Rivoli and the layout we see today.

    As noted, I was not referring to buildings, rather monuments dedicated to foreign military figures.
    In Ireland we see fit to destroy everything, look at the ESB building on was once was the longest Georgian facade in Europe, look at Wood Quay, etc.

    Architectural abominations are hardly the sole reserve of the Irish people. Such abominations can be evidenced in every major Nation and City across the globe.

    I personally find Georgian architecture to be beautiful, and frankly I consider the ESB building to be utterly repulsive. However, this is clearly beyond my initial point.
    The sad thing is that the gombeen ‘patriots’ of today are such fanatics that they drive away an interest by ordinary citizens in history and heritage.
    (and its aesthetic, not ascetic;))

    I'm not aware of which "patriots" you are referring to, but I'm absolutely certain that you will provide a comprehensive list in your next post.

    Also, it's "bigoted", not "biggoted"

    It's "heroes", not "heros".

    The fact that you missed the entire message of my original post in favour of pointing out a spelling error is frankly disconcerting.


  • #234
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sound of Silence wrote: »

    The British occupation of Ireland obviously being quite tame and uneventful, the Irish people would have no reason but to respect such monuments.



    This was different and happened in 1966 and was not carried out by the state.Those who blew up the monument had no right to.

    There is a huge distinction.

    We have some obligations to those who stayed on, and they include Yeats and Douglas Hyde, who did lots for Irish Culture.


  • #235
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »

    We have some obligations to those who stayed on, and they include Yeats and Douglas Hyde, who did lots for Irish Culture.
    An excellent point.

    In reference to our built heritage, Nelsons statue was the work of Thomas Kirk sculptor from Cork http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib3_1202298339 .
    The pillar itself was made from a comination of Limestone and Granite. The granite came from Gold hill in Wicklow, one of the well known quarries that have sadly closed now http://wicklowgranitequarries.jimdo.com/history-of-the-quarries/ . The quarrying of granite for this type of project was a huge undertaking in that era and overall it seems there was a massive effort of craftwork by Irish artisans. On this basis it is another example of needless destruction of our built heritage. The people who worked their crafts on the monument are not considered yet in this argument. I am taking about ordinary masons that would have had the trade handed through generations of families from father to father.


  • #236
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Dare I ask what figure do people think should have replaced Nelson??? A suitable figure seems an impossible target.

    Well I'm only recalling the talk of the period and it was a constant suggestion that someone who had contributed to Irish freedom and to the making or establishing of the Irish nation who ought to occupy the central place in the capital city.

    Personally I didn't have a favourite - but I would have liked for the actual pillar to have remained.


  • #237
    Sound of Silence
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Sound of Silence


    CDfm wrote: »
    This was different and happened in 1966 and was not carried out by the state.Those who blew up the monument had no right to.

    There is a huge distinction.

    We have some obligations to those who stayed on, and they include Yeats and Douglas Hyde, who did lots for Irish Culture.

    The bombing wasn't carried out by the Irish State? Of course it wasn't.

    And in the eyes of the British Government, neither was the War of Independence.

    Regarding your comment on Yeats and Hyde, I believe you have entirely misunderstood my posts. I'm having difficulty seeing how British Military monuments have anything to do with the Anglo-Irish diaspora and the Celtic revival, as the two groups are in fact mutually exclusive.

    I hope you're not mistaking me for a nativist.


  • #238
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    The bombing wasn't carried out by the Irish State? Of course it wasn't.

    And in the eyes of the British Government, neither was the War of Independence.

    Are you comparing the 2?

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


  • #239
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    You have simply created your own conditions for what you would consider to be appropriate dissent.
    ..........
    You've ignored the fact that I was referring specifically to monuments rather than buildings.
    ..................
    As noted, I was not referring to buildings, rather monuments dedicated to foreign military figures.
    .........
    I'm not aware of which "patriots" you are referring to, but I'm absolutely certain that you will provide a comprehensive list in your next post.

    This has become more than tiresome, with selective revisionary quoting by you. In your post you spoke of edifices, not monuments.
    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    Nations that were born of blood and revolt don't often place value on the edifices of the former occupier, no matter how pretty and grand you may feel they look
    An edifice is a building, particularly a large, imposing building. From late Middle English: via Old French from Latin aedificium, from aedis 'dwelling' + facere 'make'. If you write edifice I cannot be expected to know that you are referring to monuments, which are a different thing altogether. That is why I wrote about the buildings of Warsaw, Paris, etc.

    As for the gombeen 'patriots' I was referring to those who obliterated centuries of records in the Four Courts, to those who killed unarmed policemen, an old retired admiral who helped a few local lads when asked, and to those who torched countless historic houses. Include those who burned the home of Plunkett, founder of the Co-op movement, and Gogarty. Sadly the list is too long, but you probably get my drift. The taxpayer of course had to pay eventually, under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923. Plus ca change..........


  • #240
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Sound of Silence wrote: »
    The bombing wasn't carried out by the Irish State? Of course it wasn't.

    And in the eyes of the British Government, neither was the War of Independence.

    Whoa there.

    Regarding your comment on Yeats and Hyde, I believe you have entirely misunderstood my posts. I'm having difficulty seeing how British Military monuments have anything to do with the Anglo-Irish diaspora and the Celtic revival, as the two groups are in fact mutually exclusive.

    I quoted Yeats view in post 124
    In the Senate, W.B. Yeats suggested that “if
    another suitable site can be found Nelson’s Pillar should not be broken up. It represents the
    feeling of Protestant Ireland for a man who helped to break the power of Napoleon. The life
    and work of the people who erected it is a part of our tradition. I think we should accept the
    whole past of this nation and not pick and choose. However it is not a beautiful object”
    (quoted in Henchy, 1948: 62).

    http://www.ucd.ie/gsi/pdf/34-2/sack-2.pdf

    So they were Yeats thoughts and i respect them.
    I hope you're not mistaking me for a nativist.

    I don't know what a nativist is.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    CDfm wrote: »
    I don't know what a nativist is.

    Nativist is a term from US history, specifically the anti-immigration groups who particularly oppose Irish immigration in period 1840-1870. Think of Daniel Day Lewis character in "Gangs of New York". the "Know Nothing" party and the "Bowery Boys" are examples of Nativist groups in US history.

    Of course it also ties in with the rebirth of the Klan in the 20th century etc.

    674px-Poperob.jpg


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


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Are you comparing the 2?

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

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

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

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


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


    dubhthach wrote: »
    X

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

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


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


    CDfm wrote: »
    Whoa there.

    I make reference to my intent in a previous post.

    I quoted Yeats view in post 124

    So they were Yeats thoughts and i respect them.

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

    Who exactly deifies these people?


  • #246
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

    Nelsons pillar was built to honour an imperialist megalomaniac.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


    CDfm wrote: »

    I quoted Yeats view in post 124


    So they were Yeats thoughts and i respect them.


    .

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

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


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


    MarchDub wrote: »

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


  • Advertisement
Advertisement