One of the benefits of long-running arguments like this for me has always been that they force you to check things you think you know and have always taken for granted and bring them together into one big whole – it happened for me with the 'Famine' epics (same old two protagonists defending the same old Empire in exactly the same old way – "Britain didn't do nuffin'") .
It's been the case here as well – thanks again lads.
My forebears were Famine refugees so I grew up with some awareness, even knowledge of those events through listening to my parents and grandparents talking about it; it was part of my early education at home.
Likewise, members of my father's family were supporters of Ireland's fight for Independence; my father and his mates were active in dissuading men from joining the Black and Tans who were being sent to soften-up the Irish people during the run-up to the Treaty being signed – there's a book which touches on the campaign PINKMAN
My dad knew the man on whose reminiscences the book is based – I guess he isn't mentioned as the author was pro-treaty, 'Free Staters' and my family decidedly weren't.
None of this, of course, makes me 'right', or an expert, but it has given be a personal reason to take an interest, a 'ringside seat', sort of.
I've superficially known about these events since childhood and later I began to read them up, but there was so little specifically on Easter Week – this argument has been a great help in getting me join all the dots and make sense of what I have always believed to be a magnificent symbolic gesture by brave men and women but, as it turns out, was much, much more than that.
I'll try to put together what I believe about where Easter Week fits into all this later as I have tried to do with the situation which brought it about.
It's been interesting to see the somersaults, backtracking and evasions of our (two only again) defenders of the Imperial Faith – Keith, unable to find "real, living historians" to back his case, reduced to repeating things that have been shown not to be true and Teribus's contradictory "how dare you accuse me of suggesting that Ireland has no right to Independence" leading to "they were never a united nation before the Normans so why should they become a United nation now?" and finally and somewhat spectacularly, "They were conned by Spain and France into demanding Independence in the first place" so presumably they never, deep-down, wanted independence anyway - not exactly a confession, but as near to one as we can expect– love it, love it!!
"Jim, none of your paste jobs contradict the facts I gave you."
'Course they didn't Keith, hold on to that thought if it comforts you.
It is extremely presumptuous of whoever wrote the BBC piece to suggest who wanted what in 1916 – there are no accurate figures as to who supported what or why they did, only the behaviour of the Dublin women towards the rebels as they were being led out; there is not a shred of evidence to suggest any significant number supporting remaining within the Empire apart from the Unionists.
What is beyond any doubt is the fact that, shortly after the rising, when Britain's behaviour in secretly inserting permanent partition finally scuppered the move towards Home Rule, the overall mood became one of demanding full independence.
The call for full independence had certainly gone into a bit of a rest period prior to The Rising, but had not gone away, as many of the quotes I have put up have shown
All immaterial anyway; the demand for full independence was supported; even the Redmondites expected it to happen within six years of the war, but they were sold out by the people they had loyally supported and did not hesitate in declaring that fact; it was that betrayal that led to the destruction of the Home Rule Movement and eventually led to the Civil War and a repressive six-county State.
I intend to deal in full with what happened to the Catholics under the gerrymandered Six Counties later, when I've finished with Easter Week.
The brutality of post Easter Week was repeated later when the Brits sent in the Tans and Auxies to 'steer the Irish people onto the straight and narrow' when they forced through the Treaty
"jim accuses someone else of being against independence, a quite unnecesary and uncalled for comment."
If you read through what has been written you will see that Teribus has been asked on several occasions to explain how his 'before the Normans' doesn't show he is opposed to independence for Ireland - he hasn't responded to requests for an explanation and I doubt if he will explain how his 'Ireland had been conned by Spain and France into demanding independence' doesn't show the same thing – I have little doubt that this is his belief.
Perhaps you might explain it on his behalf!!
Your "running to teacher with stories" really is quite unnecessary - Joe's a bright feller - we had a word for people like you in junior school, which was about the last time I experienced your behaviour.
Keith (again)
"That is where it came from. An invention."
Isn't it about time you stopped flinging your accusations about - neither of you have ever explained your attitude and you, in particular have not explained how somebody who has expressed no interest and admitted having no knowledge in this subject can persist as long as you have - I can only presume an agenda.
Jim Carroll
Is anybody else having regular problems with logging into this site, or is it just the steam-driven West Clare Internet?