Print Page | Close Window

1916 Rising in Ireland. Progress or regress?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Description: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
Moderators: Constantine XI, The Hidden Face, Pikeshot1600, Sparten, Leonidas, gcle2003
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17662
Printed Date: 21-Mar-2019 at 05:36
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 1916 Rising in Ireland. Progress or regress?
Posted By: Dolphin
Subject: 1916 Rising in Ireland. Progress or regress?
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 07:10
This topic could have a website of its own, there's that many interpretations out there. That's why I pose the question, and why I give no opinion of my own as of yet.
 
What's your opinion?


-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?



Replies:
Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 08:36
I believe the 1916 Rising resulted in stifling the cause of Irish freedom. You ask why Dolphin, why? I'll tell you why:
 
1) It ended the period of peaceful, or parliamentarian nationalism and replaced it with a vigorous, violent sort meaning lives were lost unneccesarily.
 
2) The aims of the 'martyrs' of 1916 could have been achieved by now (Except with the end result of a united Ireland of course) if the Easter Rising hadn't of taken place. When people look at the Easter Rising they fail to look at the context of the time; England was the powerful Empire in the world engaged with a fight to the death against the most rapidly growing economic and military power at the time (I think German growth rates were higher than the US at this time, i could be wrong) Of course its response to the Easter Rising was going to be violent and brutal. Furthermore, although you didn't bring the Treaty into this equation I feel the two events are interlinked solidly; IF the rising hadn't of happened I honestly believe the War of Independance wouldn't have happened. And if it did, it would have been quashed a lot sooner. Like the old saying; 'Symbols without meaning are useless, symbols with meaning can save the world' Well I believe the symbol of the Easter Rising spurred on the quest for Irish freedom, which in my eyes was mislead from the start.


-------------
"Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing"

Victor Hugo


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 12:24
I put it to you Denis, that you answered my poll question incorrectly, judging by your written response. My mistake, I probably made the poll question a bit overly complicated and misleading.
I myself am of the opinion that in the context of the time, in the midst of World War 1, with Britain engaged in a deathly struggle with Germany and the future of Europe as we see it today in real jeopardy, the Rising was a grossly mistimed and imprudent grasp at Freedom. Of course, the intentions of the main parties involved, namely James Connolly, Padraig Pearse,Thomas J Clarke, Sean Mac Diarmada, Thomas Mac Donagh, Eamonn Ceannt and Joseph Plunkett among others were honorable within their own sphere of social and political philosophy, but unjustifiable in a modern context.
The old mantra of "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" could have stretched the English forces too broadly and weakened their position in the war, meaning that, in all honesty I could be sitting here today, writing this reply in German from an entirely different perspective. That's a scary thought. 
Anyway, thanks for the insight.


-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 12:47
Quote
I put it to you Denis
 
And I put it to you that you are a
 
 
for using such terminology. Anyway, back to the point.
 
My point is that the Easter Rising (And violent republicanism in general) is well intentioned of course (But then again so was communism, socialism, anarchism etc.) but that the rebels were mislead.
 
In the context of the time complete seperation from the British Empire was a virtual impossibility. In the context of the time the Rising can be admired from a romantic point of view, but from a practical point of view it was madness. The greatest chance we had ever had for unification was in the Home Rule movement under Parnell. If he hadn't had the misfortune to live in a Victorian society where his relationship with Kitty o Shea was frowned upon on 'moral grounds' by Gladstone and the ilk, we may very well have a Protestant icon for the Northern Unionists to rally around, rather than an image of small mindedness, intolerance and priests which is essentially all the 1916 Easter Rising brought about. We literally made our choice in the aftermath of 1916; Either embrace peace or war. The peaceful path bared the risk of us simply being a devolved member of the UK, much like Scotland is today but it also had the advantage of economic prosperity, the rule of reason rather than superstition (As in under the catholic theocracy) and the potential peaceful unification of this island. Well, we've all seen what embracing of the violent path has done for this nation.


-------------
"Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing"

Victor Hugo


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 12:56
A clown I may be, but at least i'm not aguing against someone with the same point! Just to take you up on something, violent republicanism in an Irish context has never been well intended, emerging from the British oppresion of the Irish since Dermot Mac Murrugh up to the deplorable behaviour of the IRA, as it has always een founded on individual greed whether due to the expropopriation of land or the opportunities to make large sums of money taking goods illegally across a border that the IRA were supposedly fighting to irradicate.

-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 13:00
Quote
A clown I may be, but at least i'm not aguing against someone with the same point!
 
True enough, seems we are in agreement on this, like we seem to be on a lot of things.


-------------
"Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing"

Victor Hugo


Posted By: UberCoolist
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 10:39

A clown he may be but this is how I imagine you Denis typing away your nonsense on the computer



-------------
San Marino 1 - 2 Losers, Sack the board and Stan


Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 10:54
Very witty...

-------------
"Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing"

Victor Hugo


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 12:04
Please dont bring the topic down to that, I started this thread to seriously ask people's opinions.

-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Danbar
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 10:18

thats a difficult question. . . .in terms of progress or regress it comes down to everybody's own personal opinion. In my opinion i feel that there could have been two possible scenarios in 1916. It must be remembered that at the time in 1916 a lot of irish people in general were happy under british rule, demonstrated by the fact the rebels had rotten fruit thrown at them after their surrender. Had there not been a rising, Ireland most probably would have been granted home rule. If this had happened ireland would still be under british rule and be no different to scotland or wales at this time. The fact is the executions of pearse, connolly etc. awoke a yearning for total independence in the majority of irish people which in turn led to the war of independence. Overall the rising was the catalyst for the 26 counties achieving total independence from britain and is the reason we are now able to make our own laws free from british rule. The rising may have been a horribly planned cheap shot at a nation on it's knees but without the rising we would most likely be no more than a puppet state like scotland or wales having to pay taxes to the Queen and for that reason i have to say overall it proved to be progress



Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 17:01
My answers is no. Look at India's independence, for instance.

-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 17:10
I'm just after realising that Waty refused to comment on this thread, instead attacking the integrity of the person rather than the integrity of the post. Troll anyone?

-------------
"Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing"

Victor Hugo


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 07:27
Heard trolls don't taste very good, so no thanks

-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 11:36
We must note that in the initial stages and during the battle in the streets ,very few Irish actually were with the rebels.Most supported them after the rebels were captured and during their trials.

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 16:17
That's because they ruined half of the city due to their actions and over 350 civilians were killed before the unconditional ceasefire was issued.
 
John Dillon said to General Maxwell when he ordered the deaths of the rebels that he was 'washing our life's work away in a sea of blood', by which he meant that the peaceful methods that Dillon had spent his political career employing to gain Irish independence were being destroyed by a wave of nationalistic and violent revolt against the heavy hand of the British. And he was right, as was Pearce, who had predicted the very same thing, except with enthusiasm and not anger. 


-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 16:56
Well,one could argue that it was not the Irish rebels who were responsible for the destruction of Dublin,but the British artilery.The Irish did not expect from the British to actually use any artillery in such an inhabited area.

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 20:30
Its just an abstraction, due to their actions the artillery was employed to deal with them and then the city was subsequently heavily damaged. Without the actions of the rebels the city would not have been bombed.

 



-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2007 at 14:05
Without the actions,freedom would be postponed for who knows how much time.

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 12:08
Exactly, WHO KNOWS how long before we would have achieved freedom, it could have been peaceful, it might not have started a civil war and polarised the country, we could be living in a 32 county Republic now, the troubles might never have happened, the religious hatred still felt in northern Ireland might have been quelled. We just don't know. Redmond's Home Rule Bill was set for implementation in 1914, but was set to be postponed until the First World War finished. Yes, we gained more off the British from the 1921 treaty than from the proposed Home Rule Bill, but we paid for it with the blood of innocents and misleds.
 
Was the hypothetical 'time gain' towards freedom worth the lives that were lost?


-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 07:03
Heres another posing question:
 
What if the Free State aided Britain in WW2 and Churchill lived up to his promise of helping us get the North if we co-operated during the war?


-------------
"Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing"

Victor Hugo


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 13:18
We would be in a 32 county Republic, but Churchill would never have lived up to his promise, in fact he considered invading Ireland and forcing us to fight while using our Treaty ports. He would never give away a section of British territory to a minion like Ireland.

-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 15:16
Originally posted by Denis Denis wrote:

Heres another posing question:
 
What if the Free State aided Britain in WW2 and Churchill lived up to his promise of helping us get the North if we co-operated during the war?
Did he actually promise that?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 18:42
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Denis Denis wrote:

Heres another posing question:
 
What if the Free State aided Britain in WW2 and Churchill lived up to his promise of helping us get the North if we co-operated during the war?
Did he actually promise that?
 
At a time of crisis, when the support of the entire nation was critical, I doubt Churchill, or anyone else, would make such a promise.  There was never any question of Irish collusion with Nazi Germany.  The Irish were hardly fascist in outlook.
 
Why would any leader of the UK alienate the loyal population of Ulster?
 
 


Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2007 at 05:44
Churchill tried to lure Ireland into the war by 'promising to work towards unity with Northern Ireland'. I think they were his exact words. I'm sure I could find it somewhere on the net.

-------------
"Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing"

Victor Hugo


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2007 at 12:13
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

Exactly, WHO KNOWS how long before we would have achieved freedom, it could have been peaceful, it might not have started a civil war and polarised the country, we could be living in a 32 county Republic now, the troubles might never have happened, the religious hatred still felt in northern Ireland might have been quelled. We just don't know. Redmond's Home Rule Bill was set for implementation in 1914, but was set to be postponed until the First World War finished. Yes, we gained more off the British from the 1921 treaty than from the proposed Home Rule Bill, but we paid for it with the blood of innocents and misleds.
 
Was the hypothetical 'time gain' towards freedom worth the lives that were lost?


Well,why a State like Britain should give independence to a,supposengly, non-troubling State like Ireland?Usually,the Great Powers gave independence to States due to the problems they presented .One could argue that if Ireland did not present any trouble by the natives,would stay under British occupation until WWII.The rebelion showed what the Iris were capable of doing,thus giving serious worries to the Crown.And when a Crown is worried about one of it's substitute nations,that's a success because the King has his attention to you.And that's what rebelions for.They are a demonstration of power by the natives towards the occupational force,so it leaces them alone.


-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: IrishNation1
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2007 at 20:13

Well getting back to the actual topic as intended(many people went off it even thoguh I saw many things I want to reply to I will stick to the Topic) I believe that the 1916 Rebellion in the Long run did do good for Ireland. For the following reasons. First of all though it was doomed to military Failure from the start(as not as many men or guns as intended were used in the Rising and it was well known that it would not succeed.) But even though it was doomed to failure it awakened Irish Nationalism and brought the Nation hood of the Country back. Many Men who would later be Drivng forces in the War of Independance were Junior Officers or Soldiers in the Rising(Including one Michael Collins without who we would have no Republic of Ireland today) Also It needs to be said that I do not believe that the Rising as Intended was a Weak Shot for Independance as someone else said. In the Start the Rising was meant to be a Nation wide one. However many things did go wrong and in the end it was largely Confined to Dublin. At that Point it was doomed to Failure but them Men still went out and Fought for there Country. I for one think that takes Guts. But thats getting away from the Historical Context of it.Fact is that more of the Irish people after the Rising were on the Old IRAs side. Not just because of the Executions of the Rebels but also because of the fact that Curfew and Other Annoying Laws as well as some bans were put on Ireland after the Rising took place. But besides all that the Rising began what was to become the War of Independance and It did restore Nationalism to this Country. So Yes I do beleive that in the long run the Rising did more Good for Ireland than Bad. Also On another topic I saw Churchill would never have given The North to Ireland that was a Lie from the start and that is why Valera did not buy into it. Even if he did give it to us what do you think the Reaction of the Oroange men and Loyalists would be??? It would never of happened. It was just a Political Lie designed to get wa time Britain another Allie. And lastly I also must say that Without Republican Voilance at the time there would be no Republic today. I do not support the IRA today in any way but we must distinguish the two apart from each other. One was a Guerrilla Independance movement whitch attacked British Soldiers Spys and Officials. The other is a Criminal Organisation that Blows up Buildings and kills inocent people. And Voilance was needed at the time The time for talking was over. We had enough Centurys of Talking with the British and fact is that a Super power like britain was at the time would never give Independance to Ireland unless they were forced into it or at least had to put up a fight to try and keep Ireland. I mean why else would they?? Without the War of Independance we would have no Republic today and as a other User already said Ireland would be like Wales and Scotland today. Sorry for the Long comment but I wanted to get back to a few things



-------------
Early this morning I signed my death warrant.
Michael Collins, to friend John O'Kane after signing Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:35
Of course the Rising was progress. It moved the Independence movement forward by light years. Especially considering the snail like pace of the Home Rule movement and the fact that the Independence movement as a whole had practically stagnated.

A separatist document that has stood the test of time was formulated, one that clearly and concisely set down what the Irish People should stand for, a Republic was declared and our National Sovereignty defended.

Of course the Rising was to end after a week with the unconditional surrender of the Rebels, however as I said, the Independence movement had progressed immeasurably.

 


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 07:07
What would have happened had the Germans taken the plan seriously, went into cahoots with the rebels, won the 'war' in Ireland and then had a base from which to attack Britain on two fronts? Would it have been justified to use the Germans like this, even though it could have led to the Germans winning the war and the majority of Europe speaking german today? These were real possibilities had the rebels enlisted the German's help.
 
I think the mantra, 'England's difficulty is Ireland's oppurtunity' should never have been employed when Britain was at war because the stakes were far too high and thus the actions of the rebels were irresponsible and selfish.


-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 14:34
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

What would have happened had the Germans taken the plan seriously, went into cahoots with the rebels, won the 'war' in Ireland and then had a base from which to attack Britain on two fronts? Would it have been justified to use the Germans like this, even though it could have led to the Germans winning the war and the majority of Europe speaking german today? These were real possibilities had the rebels enlisted the German's help.


The German's did take the plan "seriously", at least as "seriously" as they were capable of at the time.

The only way Germany could have used Ireland as a Base was if they controlled the seas. The German's were never able to gain control of the seas during the War but anyway even if they had gained control of the seas, why would they come to Ireland? Why wouldn't they not just go straight for the jugular and invade Britain? There doesn't seem to be any logical reason to make a detour through Ireland at that point, gaining control of the seas would have been enough.

There is also the fact that the British Navy intelligence pretty much had the German's in their pocket. They were after all aware of the Rising a couple of weeks before hand, so I think any German plans to use Ireland would have been well flagged and countered long before they could come to fruition.

Then there would be the fact that the German's didn't even manage to land a couple of hundred rifles. How in the Hell would they be capable of landing a whole army?

So with all due respect they were no more "real possibilities" than Fionn Mac Cumhaill and Cúchulain being resurrected to man the GPO during the Rising!

Quote I think the mantra, 'England's difficulty is Ireland's oppurtunity' should never have been employed when Britain was at war because the stakes were far too high and thus the actions of the rebels were irresponsible and selfish.


Imperialism is selfish, regardless of whether it was German Imperialism or British Imperialism, occupying Ireland because of British greed was selfish.

Not listening to the democratic will of the people of Ireland was irresponsible, fighting a war in the name of small nations while oppressing other small nations was irresponsible.




Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 05:02
The german could have easily landed hundreds of soldier to Ireland if they wanted to, and they didnt take the plan seriously, sending out sub-standard arms in the first place. They thought it was crackpot. But if they had of taken over Ireland, they could have launched short trip air bombing raids at the British mainland, as well as docking their navy there. It would have turned the tide against Britain.
 
The actions of Britain in taking over Ireland are accesory to this discussion, as it is the actions of the rebels that are under scrutiny. And in my view, they acted irresponsibly and short-sightedly. Just my opinion. And in case ya think it, i'm not pro-British or anything, I just dont buy into the 'great hero of 1916 thing'..


-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 05:31
Ireland has always been a wonderful site to any foreigner looking to kick the Brits in the teeth. Be it the Spainiards or French in their wars with England, Ireland has always being considered a back door to invade England.
 
Even with a nominal pro German force on Britains western border, even with only a few hundred German troops, Ireland could have provided a key distraction on the western front, if only for a few weeks.


-------------
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 11:23
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

The german could have easily landed hundreds of soldier to Ireland if they wanted to, and they didnt take the plan seriously, sending out sub-standard arms in the first place. They thought it was crackpot. But if they had of taken over Ireland, they could have launched short trip air bombing raids at the British mainland, as well as docking their navy there. It would have turned the tide against Britain.


...and  the British could have easily defeated that plan if they wanted to.
...and the Irish could have easily been the first nation to land on the moon... if they wanted to.
...and I could have easily married Eliza Cuthbert... if I wanted to.

Do you see the problem with prefacing an action " they could have easily" and ending it "if they wanted to"? It can easily justify anything you want it to regardless of the reality.

The reality of the time was the German's were in no position to invade Ireland unless they controlled the sea. They never managed that throughout the war. Their fleet was held up in the North Sea by the British so they could not have used Ireland as a place to dock and they were capable of launching bombing raids from Europe.

Quote The actions of Britain in taking over Ireland are accesory to this discussion, as it is the actions of the rebels that are under scrutiny. And in my view, they acted irresponsibly and short-sightedly. Just my opinion. And in case ya think it, i'm not pro-British or anything, I just dont buy into the 'great hero of 1916 thing'..


Yes the actions of Britain in taking over Ireland are not really relevant to this discussion, what is relevant though, is Britain's actions being in Ireland in 1916 for the simple reason: no British no rebels. However mythical German invasions of Ireland are also wholly irrelevant to this discussion and do not reflect the reality of the War or the Rising.

I still fail to see how the attempted liberation of my country is irresponsible, but hey that's just me, I happen to not agree with Imperialism be it German or British. It seems from your line of arguing that you are in favour of British Imperialism and in my experience there is only one kind of Irishman in favour of British Imperialism... Tongue


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 11:32
Originally posted by Fódhla Fódhla wrote:

 
It seems from your line of arguing that you are in favour of British Imperialism and in my experience there is only one kind of Irishman in favour of British Imperialism... Tongue
 
 
But then he wouldn't be Irish would he? LOL
 
Peaceful means all the way, that's what I say, call me what you will..


-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 11:44
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

But then he wouldn't be Irish would he? LOL
 
Peaceful means all the way, that's what I say, call me what you will..


A Pacificist?...who supports  British Imperialism...that's quite bizzareConfused


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 11:50
Talk about twisting things. He doesn't support Imperialism of any sort, and I highly doubt he's a full blown pacifist. Its called common sense. At the time the Rising was begun, the people were content with the thoughout of Home Rule, based on the stepping stone concept which Collins later advocated. The absolutist rubbish the Shinners later adopted have completely ruined this country; the lack of pragmatism inherent causing the Civil War. It truly is remarkable how a radical few had completely changed the political playing field in this country, but there you go.

-------------
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 12:18
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Talk about twisting things. He doesn't support Imperialism of any sort, and I highly doubt he's a full blown pacifist. Its called common sense.


Maybe he can speak for himself? So why does he think the Rising was selfish and irresponsible in the context of the British War effort? Seems fairly cut and dry to me why someone would think such a thing. British Imperialism is "good", German imperialism "bad", Irish Rebels fighting against the British Empire are "selfish and irresponsible" because their actions may have imperiled British Imperialist interests in Ireland and elsewhere.

Quote At the time the Rising was begun, the people were content with the thoughout of Home Rule, based on the stepping stone concept which Collins later advocated.


I think you wish they were content. The people for all intents and purposes wanted self determination. Something the British were vehemently against.

Quote The absolutist rubbish the Shinners later adopted have completely ruined this country; the lack of pragmatism inherent causing the Civil War.


As for Shinner absolutist rubbish ruining the country? I don't even know what that means to be honest but anyway the last time I looked the country was doing alright. Thew Civil War was a terrible tragedy and probably should never have happened, however I don't see the relevance here to 1916 other than giving you an excuse to rant.

Quote It truly is remarkable how a radical few had completely changed the political playing field in this country, but there you go


Yes the indomitable  Human spirit is  remarkable. I don't see why you are so bitter about it though it's not good for the heart... chillax manCool



Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 12:22
I'm not bitter about anything! You were the one who twisted what he said to make it seem like he supported 'British Imperialism'. Seemed like the same auld sh*te Shinner talk I'm all too used to hearing it!

-------------
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 12:27
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

I'm not bitter about anything! You were the one who twisted what he said to make it seem like he supported 'British Imperialism'. Seemed like the same auld sh*te Shinner talk I'm all too used to hearing it!


I didn't twist anything. It's the logical conclusion of what he is saying.  However I think you'd want to lose those bitter prejudices life is too short!


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 15:32
Hardly a prejudice - I don't like dogma. Shinners revel in it. Take it or leave it.

-------------
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 15:56
Ah well there are none so blind as those that will not see, nothing I can do I suppose. Does beg the question why you are blathering on ranting and raving about "shinners" in a thread on 1916?


-------------
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 20:15
I blather and rave about everything... Its all I have :P

-------------
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 04:27
I'll be blunt, do not call me an imperialist and a Supportor of Britain etc when you do not know me. I dont have the energy, nor do I think it is a good use of it, to show you why you are reactionary and wrong, but the fact is, you are. Read the posts again and don't embarass yourself..

-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 10:50
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

I blather and rave about everything... Its all I have :P


Well at least you admit it ClapWinkTongue


-------------
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 11:11
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

I'll be blunt, do not call me an imperialist and a Supportor of Britain etc when you do not know me. I dont have the energy, nor do I think it is a good use of it, to show you why you are reactionary and wrong, but the fact is, you are. Read the posts again and don't embarass yourself..



Take your own advice and reread the posts, you'll see at no time did I call you an imperialist or supporter of Britain. I'm not the one embarrassing myself (indeed I don't think anyone is, so where you're coming from with that one only God knows). But please by all means show why I am "reactionary and wrong", simply stating it doesn't make it so and I can assure you that my position is not the one here that is flawed...


-------------
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2007 at 18:33
Hello all of you
 
I know I am meddling in affairs that are not my concern but lets be frank, what did Ireland gain from independence. It was divided, went to civil war and the young andbright immedeatly left for America or England, then a very long depression that made it the poorest country in western Europe for 60 years. the oppresion of the Brits was substituted with the oppression of the church and it supporters and the young literally escaped from Ireland to where? to England of course. Now, 80% of the economy directly depends on the UK, the dream that every one will speak Gaelic and religious Irish culture with its songs and jigs is shattered because less than 20% of the people understand the language despite studying it from the beginnig and the culture is fully americanized and anglophile.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 09:31
Must agree Al Jassas, and your opinions are always welcome! What the government needs to do is ban everyone from speakng Irish. Within twenty years the entire country would be fluent.

-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 12:06
Al Jassas hi;

Of course you are more than welcome to give your opinion! You raise a lot of interesting points, however, your reading of Irish history over this period is naive in the extreme and there are too many fundamental flaws.

Just to give one example, you cite "the oppression of the church and its supporters". First of all there was no oppression, it is a myth. The fact it is a myth is of course shown in your own description "and its supporters". The Catholic Church's supporters were 90% of the Irish Population! During the first half of the 20th Century Irish people were devoutly religious, however the 90% were devoutly Catholic, this led to great reverence for the Catholic Church. Of course this reverence is strange to our secular 21st Century thinking, if not a little extreme but retrospectively applying our 21st Century thinking to this period is wrong as it distorts our understanding of the past.

As I said Al Jassas, you raise some interesting points however you commit some of the most basic historical errors and it is hard to take anyone who agrees with you serious.



-------------
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 13:13
Thanks for your response
I read a lot about Eamonn de Valera's life and the Irish struggle for independence as well as the struggle in NI and actually, Ireland was the first country to interest me when I became able to use the internet back in late 1999 (I even tried to learn Gaelic LOL) and though I definitely can not tell you about your country's history what I said in my post were impressions from dissidant Irish people as well as my own conclusions. Of course the country was a true democracy no doubt about that but I stick to my point that the Church had too great a power and that politicians gave it their support, angering the Church in the 30's and 40's was a political death sentence to the politician who does that. The church also had defacto immunity from prosecution for a long time in addition to "special previlages" given to it by the state. Divorce, abortion (I support the ban by the way contrary to most Irish people) and other social aspects that the church opposes (I still don't believe that divorce was allowed only in 1995). Finally, my point in my earlier post is that Ireland was better off united with the UK than independent. The UK did not force conscription on Ireland in WWI and tried not to provoke Irish sentiment but Irish nationalist took it too far when they rebelled in April of 1916. If the Irish waited till after the war when the congress sent its letter demanding Irish freedom and the people in the UK were prepared for independence without war, Ireland might have been united by now and those fundamentalist unionists would accept the fact on the ground not gain popular support from the home country which was sick and tired from the long Irish question.
 
al-Jassas


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 16:14
Tolstoy believed that individuals did not decide history, but events did. Although the few thousand men and women who fought in Easter 1916 died and lost horribly, they inspired and persuaded the Irish people to believe that full independence was the only acceptable end point of any dealing with the UK.  Its hard to rationalise the will of the people in any given situation, but especially Irelands following Easter 1916...

-------------
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 04:51
Originally posted by Fódhla Fódhla wrote:


Just to give one example, you cite "the oppression of the church and its supporters". First of all there was no oppression, it is a myth. The fact it is a myth is of course shown in your own description "and its supporters". The Catholic Church's supporters were 90% of the Irish Population! During the first half of the 20th Century Irish people were devoutly religious, however the 90% were devoutly Catholic, this led to great reverence for the Catholic Church.

 
 
The Catholic Church is a great, festering boil on Irish society that thankfully has been burst by secularity. Too much power, abuses, bigotry, racism and control in my view..There was significant oppression from the Catholic church, with church schools indoctrinating and beating students, 'Priest schools', places like the Magdelene Laundries, the workschool in Galway in the 50's etc etc. People started seeing how they had been misled when their own hard work started to earn them a better standard of living, not baseless reverence to a church that impoverished them and told them to look for riches in the afterlife. Poor people are easier to control with faith.


-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 08:11
Alas tis the fate of being poor. When the government couldn't supply basic services to the people, the Church came in and supplemented these services to the people as well as indoctrination...

-------------
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 13:03

Al Jassas hi;

As you say you can not tell me the history of my country, indeed I only know it too well. I have to say dissident Irish people and your own conclusions are not a good mix. Regarding your point about the Catholic Church it was well noted the first time and as I explained was complete rubbish, simply reiterating the point doesn’t change that fact. It is still a myth; indeed, subsequent responses to this thread have actually proven me right on that.

However, you do say going against the Catholic Church was a death sentence for politicians; maybe you would like to name some names or give some examples? Off the top of my head I can think of one politician who went against the Catholic Church many times, Éamon de Valera and most notably when he refused to make the Catholic Church the official Church in his 1937 Constitution. De Valera was, of course, the most successful Irish politician of this period.

As for your contention that Irish People have no right to Independence, well, a good few million Irish men and women would disagree, somehow I think their opinion matters more than yours. Your contention is nothing to do with history by the way, it is politics which I refuse to discuss. I will say one thing though; staying under foreign domination would not have improved the lot of the Irish people. Ireland would have still remained a neglected region social conditions would have been bad if not worse. In fact I could envision a scenario whereby disaffection with social conditions, combined with the tradition of Armed Insurrection, as well as the spread communism, aligned with radicals such as Connolly, Larkin, Mellows, O’Casey and others would have probably made Ireland ripe for sustained violence that could well have even led to a communist takeover, maybe a European Cuba?

Britain did not force conscription on Ireland because it was not politically expedient for them to do so, not as you seem to believe out of the goodness of their heart. I think you have just proven your own lack of understanding of Irish history here. Ireland did indeed send their wishes for independence peacefully and democratically. For the thirty years previous to the WWI Irish People had agitated democratically for self rule, in 1919 they even sent a message through their democratically elected Government to the Peace Conference which Britain refused to even acknowledge. So I think its fair to say that Irish People had been waiting long enough, the simple fact is that the British Government did not want to grant Irish People Independence as ALL the evidence shows.

 

 

 



-------------
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 13:10

Dolphin a chara,

You left out the most important part of my post when you quoted me: "Of course this reverence is strange to our secular 21st Century thinking, if not a little extreme but retrospectively applying our 21st Century thinking to this period is wrong as it distorts our understanding of the past"...
why? Were you incapable of understanding what it meant or did you just wilfully ignore it so you could get your little rant in?

It doesn’t matter either way you proved me right by distorting the past. Indeed you even have to create a new myth in the process, that " people " were " misled ". It’s funny everything you don’t agree with comes down to the fact that " people " were " misled ". What a delightfully empty phrase that says everything and nothing all at the same time! lol! I suppose " people " were being " misled " since the time of St Patrick? lol!

Yes the Church abused its position; yes secularism is a good thing. That still doesn’t mean that there was oppression of the church. As I said it is largely a modern day myth that simply distorts the past.



-------------
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 13:55
Hello http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=6564&FID=16 - Fódhla
I think you misunderstood my point earlier so I will explain my views again.
 
First, I never said that Ireland has no right for independence, in fact I think breaking the current UK is the best option at the moment. I merely said that it was better not to have gained independence so early because the consequences were sever and I explained them in my first post. If the Irish waited for 20 more years Ireland might have already recovered from the effects of WWI and the Protestant north would have been more acceptable to the idea of an Irish republic and the independence would be complete.
 
As for my second point, unfortunatly the facts do not support your claim that my thoughts are rubbish (thanks for your complements by the way). The child sex abuse scandals that go way back to the 50s with no charges being filed until the 2000's is a proof of the power of the church.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 15:45
Al Jassas hi;

I understood your point perfectly well in fact if you go back to my original post to you, you will see that. I said in that post that you made some of the "most basic historical errors" and that "your reading of Irish history was naive in the extreme". This is because you commit the fatal error of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian_fallacy - Historian's fallacy until you accept that fact your reading of Irish history is rubbish.

As an old saying around my way goes "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle". However that's not the point, your little "what if" scenario only highlights further your naive understanding of Irish History. Ireland actually did quite well during WWI, indeed there was no need to "recover from the effects" whatever you mean by that and in some ways it was for this very fact that the Independence movement gained so much momentum when it did.


As for the "Protestant north (sic)", again you are showing your naivety.  The very basis of Unionism is to keep their privileged position in Irish society over (in their view) the savage papists. Only this year they agreed to finally share power with Nationalists.

As for your second point, what facts? You haven't supplied any apart from wishy washy phrases about "oppression" and what not. You couldn't even supply any politicians name.

edited to fix link


-------------
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 18:31

Hello http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=6564&FID=16 - Fódhla

Obviously you need to chill out a little bit. I know a fairly good deal about the plantation system that existed in Ireland as a whole and in NI in particular and its role in the Great Famine as well as the bigotry that some of the immigrant protestant community had against the catholic population and their staunch opposition to any reform law that changes the size of the electorate because that means that more "Papists" will enter and the discrimination that they wanted to continue just like the white opposition to the enfranchisement of Backs in the 1960s America.
 
However, that does not mean that those were the only reasons for unionism, remember, there are "Papist" unionist as well as "Protestant" republicans ( Hyde the first president of th Ireland was protestant) and each team had its own reason namely economic as was as liberal laws that exist in England. After independence, several liberal laws like divorce  were scraped and Eamonn de Valera agreed that the catholic church would have a special position (including state funding). The economic situation was dire and terrible and Ireland was the pooerest country in western Europe until. as for conscription, I thought Ireland was a part of the "United Kingdom" under the unification law of 1801 and thus conscription had to be applied to Ireland but it didn't.
as for 90% of Ireland being practicing catholics and supporting the church will did you survey them back then? If what we know now about the child sex abuse that happened in which the church used its power to prevent these cases from even being registered at the police (it was in the 2000s when we finally knew how big the hole was) and the state refrained from protecting children from predators whom the church only gave a slap on the wrist. Well, if that is not abuse then what is it?
 
Finally, one time I was hearing NPR covering the enthusiastic inaugeration of pope Benedect XVI when she told that young Italian women enthusiatically attended the ceremony and the mass with their live in boyfriends and the Pill in their trouser pockets and you understand the meaning.
 
Al-Jassas
 


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 19:28
Al Jassas hi;

I'm still waiting for you to supply some politicians name, perhaps you would like to withdraw that point? As for the abuses of the Church I never said they did not happen or that they were not horrific. They did happen and they were horrific, however, that doesn't mean we get to make up stuff  now does it?

As for you knowing a good deal about the plantations, well I hope you do, however it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. In my point about Unionism I never mentioned their sectarianism as such and it had nothing to do with my point, although it is a problem that unfortunately still exists in Ireland today that does need to be tackled. My point, originally was, that one of the basic tenets of Unionism is keeping their privileged position whether it be political or economic. This fact would seem to contradict your naive belief that had Irish People "waited" then they would have had a fully independent 32 county Irish Republic.

Al Jassas if you want to actually discuss history, as in what happened, then I will no problem. However if you want to talk myth, what ifs and made up stuff well count me out.


-------------
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 06:13
Sorry about my politician comment, I take it back Embarrassed.
 
As for my "Naive" notion that the Irish would have gotten full independence if they waited, well, from the other post by your fellow Irishpeople (trying not to be sexist) I think I am not alone in that thought. Any way, it is an Irish business that I have no business in it but on record, I still believe in what I said earlier. I am out
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 11:09
AJ hi;

Of course you are entitled to believe anything you want, I mean some people believe that the American President is a shape shifting lizard from another planet.

The fact is that Unionist intransigence still exists in the year 2007 eighty or so years after Independence. How this intransigence would have suddenly disappeared within 20 years is a mystery to me especially considering it meant reinforcing the basis of that intransigence in the first place.

As to the contention that Irish people should have "waited" what does that even mean? Should the French Resistance have "waited" for Europe to be liberated? Self determination is a basic right, the Irish people were denied that right by a foreign power. That wasn't going to change anytime soon. Either Irish people are allowed to exercise that right or not. You seem to be of the opinion that they should not be allowed have the right to self determination because, you believe, they should have "waited".

I would say you are basing that judgment on hindsight and that judgments based on hindsight are useless. However it is not even based on hindsight because if Ireland had have "waited" for twenty years then it would have found it self still in the Empire when WWII broke out. There is no way Britain would have allowed Ireland to become Independent while it was fighting a war. The War, and more particularly Britain's scare at the hands of Nazi Germany, would have only given Britain a further excuse not to grant Ireland Independence afterwards on grounds of security. Funnily enough the same excuse they had been using for hundreds of years.

This is, of course, a moot point anyway because Irish people have a right to self determination.



-------------
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2007 at 04:13
Yeah, Al Jassas, you are right to back out of this 'discusssion'. I deal with enough people like Fódhla to know that he is always right, and therefore it is pointless to even discuss anything with him. We'll leave it at this, I am wrong, lol, lol, lol <<quote>> and Fodhla is right, and I am also out.
 
 
BTW, you're still wrong Thumbs%20Up
 


-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: Caoimhe
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2007 at 08:09
Yes, indeed, because as everyone knows having an opinion that is logical, rational and most importantly based on stuff that actually happened is clearly wrong...whereas empty phrases, no evidence and made up stuff that didn't happen has to be right...Confused



-------------
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2007 at 09:07
Thumbs%20UpThumbs%20Up
 
You're right!


-------------
Am not I Dametas? Why, am not I Dametas?


Posted By: YohjiArmstrong
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2007 at 09:08
Originally posted by Fódhla Fódhla wrote:

the simple fact is that the British Government did not want to grant Irish People Independence as ALL the evidence shows.


Uh, thats not entirely true. The Irish people were, if you will, apathetic about full independance (i.e. Independance as a seperate nation state. Independance in the form of Home Rule is a different matter) until 1916. Before that Home Rule and Land Reform were the issues of the day. Even radicals like Arthur Griffith originally wanted, at best, a dual monarchy of Ireland and Great Britain. Furthermore the Ulstermen do count as part of the Irish people and as the UVF and Larne gunrunning episodes show they were not at all in favour of independance. That the British Government did not want to give full independance is true but they did try (albeit depending on Parliamentary majorities) to sort out Ireland with an extensive and unpartisan series of land and government reforms as well as the promise of Home Rule (which was supported by the whole Liberal Party from 1886 onwards- as all the evidence shows).

1916 was incredibly important.  Because it happened and because of the executions a great sympathy was born for the Republicans whilst the Home Rule Nationalists looked weak. Home Rule was therefore chucked, despite the Liberal Partys best efforts. We can see this in the 1918 election results:
Unionists: 26
Home Rule Nationalists: 6 (4 from deals with Sinn Fein)
Sinn Fein: 73
Previously the Home Rule party had been the strong contender- reflecting of course the wishes of the general Irish population pre-1916.

Incidentally you have called Dolphin an Imperialist. Several times you have claimed he supported British Imperialism, if not German, which amounts to support for at least one national form of Imperialism.







Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net