Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So 1916 then....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    So 1916 then....

    Well that military parade was shit, and probably the low point of the whole commemorations, which on the whole seem to have been pretty well handled, largely because it avoided a lot of that old shite.

    We got a load of our rather diverse primary school kids to come up with their own updated version of the proclamation, which generally featured a lot more in the way of hugs and acceptance of diversity, than calls to arms.

    We issued a bunch of stamps, which commemorated the 1916 signatories, but also the first person shot in the rising (a dublin catholic policeman standing outside dublin castle.) He was literally one of a handful of armed people in dublin castle, because everyone was at the Easter Races at Fairyhouse.

    There were stamps commemorating o'connell, parnell and redmond. there was another one for a 2 year old child killed in the rising to commemorate all the dead children, and a stamp to commemorate two brothers, one who died in the GPO, and one who died in the Somme.

    So basically you get the idea. Everyone pleased that we have our own country, everyone slightly embarrassed by the weirdos and lunatics that brought it about. But then again the english were flat out evil, and everything was really complicated, and it was a long time ago, so lets not get too excited.

    and lets all be glad that we're not living under the iron boot of some fucking inbred etonian drug addled deviant, or bending the knee to some ageing weirdo who married her cousin.

    #2
    So 1916 then....

    "So. 1916 then" doesn't start until 1st July, surely?

    Unless we're talking about worthless stinking sub human murderous bog-trotting traitorous shit who a sensible government would have wiped clean from the face of the nation within a day and a half?

    Comment


      #3
      So 1916 then....

      You're not allowed to call it Easter Rising any more as it may upset other faiths. It's Seasonal Rising, or Milk Chocolate Rising.

      Comment


        #4
        So 1916 then....

        Carnivorous Vulgaris wrote: I don't know if I'm metaphorically pissing on the corpses of the Rising leaders by saying this but I really don't care about the commemoration. It's not that the Easter Rising isn't an interesting and important historical event - it is. It's just that coverage and discussion of the whole thing has reached saturation point and I can't escape the feeling that I'm being told what to consider important, I'm being told what to like. I don't know if anyone else feels that way about it?

        Come June this year I'd imagine I'll have the same reaction to the inevitable media deluge of programmes and articles about the Somme - a subject that's fascinated me and that I've read much about but don't want to have rammed down my throat.
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the "leaders" of the rising send out orders to stop before it happened?

        "This isn't going to help us, so stop, and we'll reconsider our actons". And members of the movement chose to disobey their leadership and orders?

        Comment


          #5
          So 1916 then....

          I wouldn't take it so personally. It's just dragging on longer than your interest in it can be sustained. They probably started a bit early I suppose.

          Comment


            #6
            So 1916 then....

            Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the "leaders" of the rising send out orders to stop before it happened?

            "This isn't going to help us, so stop, and we'll reconsider our actons". And members of the movement chose to disobey their leadership and orders?


            Eoin Mac Neill was head of the volunteers, and when he found out that the others were going to go ahead with this partial uprising, without a huge infusion of german weapons, he tried to countermand the orders, and a lot of people stayed home.

            Comment


              #7
              So 1916 then....

              I really enjoyed that, ta.

              Comment


                #8
                So 1916 then....

                Watched the official thing on TV. Dignified and dull, as you'd expect. The Army named after a pub stripper ('Ugly Erin') always gets a chuckle.

                Elsewhere, the non-retired IRA marched round and round a Lurgan estate until eventually a DUP councillor noticed them on Facebook and launched into exaggerated outrage.

                The Tric end of Belfast's Shore Road was gaily bedecked in bunting, but alas it failed to inspire Dungannon Swifts who lost 2-0 at next door Seaview.

                Comment


                  #9
                  So 1916 then....

                  Guy Profumo wrote: "So. 1916 then" doesn't start until 1st July, surely?

                  Unless we're talking about worthless stinking sub human murderous bog-trotting traitorous shit who a sensible government would have wiped clean from the face of the nation within a day and a half?
                  ?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    So 1916 then....

                    everyone slightly embarrassed by the weirdos and lunatics that brought it about.
                    Calling the likes of Joseph Mary Plunkett, James Connolly and Eamonn Ceannt "weirdos and lunatics" is a bit silly. They were highly intelligent people, especially Plunkett. Padraig Pearse was certainly an oddball, but that doesn't automatically mean the rest of them were too.

                    But then this thread is already showing one or two early signs of descending into madness.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      So 1916 then....

                      Easter Risible wrote: The Army named after a pub stripper ('Ugly Erin') always gets a chuckle.
                      Why?

                      And isn't the actual anniversary in 4 weeks, well at least according to Wikipedia?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        So 1916 then....

                        They held it this weekend, rather than the proper anniversary, in order to have it as close to St Patrick's Day as possible and thereby reap more of a tourism benefit. That's the way this government thinks.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          So 1916 then....

                          A shame that Alan Rickman couldn't live to take part.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            So 1916 then....

                            Mrs. Calvert's mother, an unreconstructed bon jovi was bemoaning the lack of colour parties firing shots over Republican graves
                            'Useless Free-Staters', I think the phrase was.
                            Mrs. Calvert had to try really, really hard not to laugh.

                            That DG is a bad 'un.
                            Ugly Erin, indeed.

                            Meanwhile, Unionists being Unionists and not being able to help themselves...

                            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35908564

                            Comment


                              #15
                              So 1916 then....

                              Interesting article here on the influence and inspiration the Easter rising had on the Bolsheviks. It makes reference to the legend that Lenin spoke English with an Irish accent.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                So 1916 then....

                                Re GP's barbed rejoinder and TonTon's ?, I finished reading Eugene Rogan's 'The fall of the Ottomans - The Great War in the Middle East, 1914-1920 about half an hour ago, which recounts numerous aspects of the Ottoman state's genocidal policies against the Armenians. The Armenians were seen as a rebellious enemy within etc., and as I suspect Guy is riffing on, got dealt with a darn sight more harshly than the Irish people did at that time. Not that that makes it alright and all that.

                                Rogan has a great passage in his book where he tells of the official investigation into the genocide after the war ended, which resulted in eighteen death sentences for Ottoman officials and other prime movers in the genocide (only three were carried out, the other fifteen were tried in absentia having already fled) and how this absolutely makes a mockery of modern official Turkey's denials that any such genocide ever took place. Interestingly, a fair few of the convicted were later killed by Armenians from a group called Dashnak who were acting as proto-Nazi hunters.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  So 1916 then....

                                  One thing that I actually learned from the Rubberbandits was the existence of the Limerick Soviet.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    So 1916 then....

                                    We can all learn from the Rubberbandits.
                                    I still prefer their version of Irish history.
                                    Gascunts.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      So 1916 then....

                                      Interesting approach taken by the Journal - if rolling news existed 100 years ago.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        So 1916 then....

                                        Speaking of interesting approaches



                                        Good to know that "orangeman" is no longer only a term of abuse in the Republic.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          So 1916 then....

                                          It wasn't just the Soviets though. It was Gandhi, it was Jomo Kenyatta, it was the stern gang. Whatever means you were going to use to try and seize political power, you were going to be looking at post famine ireland.

                                          Daniel O'Connell essentially invented modern organised non-violence in order to get catholic emancipation. Anywhere else, the sight of half a million people in a field, would lead to a cavalry charge. Then after that you had the irish parliamentary party, inventing the party whip, and by extension modern parliamentary democracy. That was there to provide a solid block of votes to be able to trade in return for home rule. But we did everything from the boycott, to the roadside IED via, the organised use of Public Relations, and shame as a weapon

                                          But Passive resistance, or non violent protest wasn't going to get us home rule. Non violent protest only works when there is a credible threat of real violence. The problem for Home Rule was that the english just didn't want to give it, we were their highly lucrative extractive colony, and source of cheap white labour, and our opinion on the matter really didn't actually count for much.

                                          The first two attempts were killed by the house of lords. So when the budgetary crisis with the lords, gave the liberals the reason to do what the parliamentary party wanted, it looked like it might happen.

                                          But then the prospect of it actually passing then lead to the creation of the ulster volunteers, a large paramilitary army, the importation of a large number of german rifles, and the ulster covenant, where half a million nordies swore to do whatever it took to prevent being ruled from dublin.

                                          having firmly put the gun in Irish politics, the ulster unionists were not going to be accepting a dublin parliament anytime soon, and the curragh mutiny made it very clear that the army wasn't going to force them to do anything, and that the irish could expect absolutely nothing from the government on Home rule.

                                          Then you had the national convention in 1917-18, where lloyd george offered the two sides separate deals i.e. the unionists were promised six counties, and redmond was promised that any partition would be purely temporary, and when that convention was over, it looked like redmond was getting fucked every which way, and he was utterly humiliated.

                                          Then they tried to introduce conscription in the run up to the 1918 election in conjunction with this convention, and that completely destroyed the home rule movement and gave sinn fein a platform to win virtually every home rule party seat. The discussion had moved on, and home rule wasn't going to be enough. Things were only going to go one way at that point.

                                          1916 happens in the middle of this. It was very unpopular with the people of dublin at the time, because it turned the city into a fucking warzone, and a meaningful chunk of the city was blown to pieces. A bunch of lunatics and weirdoes decided to stage a rebellion with almost no hope of success, and an almost certain execution for the leaders.

                                          A fringe of a fringe within the volunteer movement (which was controlled by the IRB) got together with the Irish Citizen Army who had been planning their own insurrection earlier in 1916, and they kicked off. Instead of locking them up for a long time as ridiculous nuisances, the British govt decided to demonstrate that they were a brutal, blood-soaked murderous empire, just like the 1916 men claimed.

                                          By killing them at a rate of three a day, over such a long period of time, they turned them into brave utopian martyrs who were prepared to give their life for what they hoped would be a better Ireland.

                                          That was a bad move. and it set the template for any fringe group seeking to use government overreaction, to radicalize a previously mostly acquiescent population. They also interned a large number of people, creating a framework for the next fight which was coming down the road. ( does this sound familiar?)

                                          I think that something that is forgotten when people consider the rights and wrongs and the wheretofore's of 1916 and the war of independence, is that it drove a fucking great big stake right into the heart of the British empire, which was a dirty rotten cancerous sore on the world. A global system of racist subjugation and organized theft on an unprecedented scale.

                                          It took another 25 years for it to start to collapse utterly, but once it became clear that the british couldn't even hang onto part of their own country, then how the fuck were they still in charge of india?

                                          People look back now and say couldn't things have been settled peacefully, and collins only got what had been offered to redmond in 1918, but there are two very clear differences.

                                          The first is that treaty represents something that was actually achieved, rather than a vague promise to someone who was about to be fucked into political irrelevance, by his supposed allies. And secondly the treaty of 1921 left us a hell of a lot nearer the exit door than we would have been under home rule, because after assessing the totality of Britain's role in ireland history since the 1650's, then only a fucking psychotic masochist would come to any other conclusion than that we should have as little as possible to do with them.

                                          Clearly this makes the totality of unionism as psychotic masochism, and I think we're all agreed that the 100 years since 1916 haven't worked out very well for the protestant community of northern Ireland. They've been fucked so many times by the British Government yet still they cling on so desperately. It's sad really. They're like a swarm of frogs carrying scorpions across the river.

                                          People who like to posit alternative economic development paths for ireland if we had remained part of the UK, (Usually wildly successful ones, involving the NHS and what not) would do well to examine the patterns of the 100 years before independence, along with the subsequent economic history of Northern Ireland, and England, outside the south. Things didn't go very well in Ireland in the run up to the second world war, but british economic history from this period is pretty grim reading as well.

                                          I suppose it's necessary to see the 1916 rising in the setting of the general all round level of craziness that had exploded across europe in 1912, where politicial life in the UK at the very least became considerably more radical, because while the army would sooner rebel than enforce any laws to do with home rule, they were dead keen on fighting trade unionists, meanwhile suffragettes were throwing bombs and killing themselves in public for the vote, and I think all the ruling houses of europe must have been relieved when the war eventually broke out, to purge some of this crazy. Unfortunately it all got a little out of hand.

                                          This was just one more episode of Crazy, that also got completely out of hand, I mean one minute you're being hailed as heroes, as you march the 1916 rebels off to prison, the next you're burning down the city centre of cork, and firing a machine gun into the crowd of a GAA match at croke park, because you've just had almost your entire military intelligence network shot dead in a single morning, and this is literally the only thing you can think of.

                                          So it's kind of hard to decide really. If you were alive back then, it would be difficult to gauge exactly how you'd feel about it. I think if like the vast majority of people you had virtually nothing, and were waiting to die of some poverty related illness, you might think fair play to them. It's not like the system couldn't do with a bit of a change, and violence is probably the only means of meaningful change in the first two decades of the last century.

                                          If you were better off, and making a lot of money out of the empire, and you were able to lie to yourself about what that actually meant, then you'd be against it. The problem is getting a glimpse of what the empire was actually like when they started killing people and dragged it out long after everyone was telling them to stop. we got a little of the empire at home, and we didn't like it one little bit.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            So 1916 then....

                                            Thanks for that post TAB

                                            It makes up for the time I spent looking at the rubbish from the Rubberbandits, not to mention the various other columnists who have been struggling to come to terms with the Easter Rising

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              So 1916 then....

                                              Yes. I'm normally out of my depth (and interest levels) on many of the Irish threads, but that's a cracking post.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                So 1916 then....

                                                san2sboro wrote: Re GP's barbed rejoinder and TonTon's ?, I finished reading Eugene Rogan's 'The fall of the Ottomans - The Great War in the Middle East, 1914-1920 about half an hour ago, which recounts numerous aspects of the Ottoman state's genocidal policies against the Armenians. The Armenians were seen as a rebellious enemy within etc., and as I suspect Guy is riffing on, got dealt with a darn sight more harshly than the Irish people did at that time. Not that that makes it alright and all that.
                                                I think the particular part of the history of British-Irish relations that would be more apt for comparison with the Armenian situation would be the mid-19th century. While the intent of the two situatons might have differed, the results were broadly similar.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  So 1916 then....

                                                  nah, that's just the highland clearances, with a million extra deaths. The armenian situation was more like cromwell.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X