BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 01:39 AM

No doubt all that is good, HiLo - but so is fiction. Can you honestly tell me that novelists like Hemingway and Faulkner and Steinbeck and Harper Lee, did not convey history with extreme quality, accuracy, and effectiveness?
Surely there must be novelists who chronicled the 1916 Easter Rising.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:57 AM

"Can you honestly tell me that novelists like Hemingway and Faulkner and Steinbeck and Harper Lee, did not convey history with extreme quality, accuracy, and effectiveness?" Joe
.,,.

I query that 'accuracy', Joe;

in that the fiction-writer's 'accuracy', designed to motivate the narrative of his invented world while retaining the reader's interest by such devices as suspense, mystery, ambivalences of characters' motivations, humour, & so on,

will surely not be of precisely the same nature as the 'accuracy' of the true historian, whose aim is purely to try & establish the facts of the matter to the best of his abilities & interpretations,

hoping to gain the agreement of his readers -- & esp his fellow-students of history -- with such interpretations & theories & hypotheses as he may propound.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:02 AM

... and those novelists you name had all, surely, a political agenda & tendentious purpose in their creativity. To call a fiction writer 'creative' will be praise. To apply the adjective to a professional historian could be, at least ambivalently, pejorative --

would you not agree?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:07 AM

... hope I am not too much beating this point to death: but the novelist's use of history will be of selective service in the pursuit of his narrative impetus, while the historian will just be endeavouring to establish as objectively as possible what the facts of the historical events actually were.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:08 AM

"Is it possible that there is truth in all these perspectives? "
As far as Ireland is concerned, every event is being examined in the minutest detail this year and presented to the public with a seriousness and skill that has impressed me.
I was reading about the exhibition of log books of the firemen who were on the spot at the time and documented the damage done by the artillery - dug out for the first time - aeem to confirm the extent of the damage done by artillery fire.
I caught the end of a news item on a march that took place yesterday to commemorate the support given by local people at the time of The Rising - I didn't know about that.
This anniversary, like that of The Famine, has inspired the re-examination of an event that Irish people have tended to take for granted.
There has never been any question of the rights and wrongs of kicking Britain's arse out - that has always gone unchallenged (except by Kevin Myers maybe!!)
The details of the rising have always been known but seldom put together other than as part of The War of Independence as a whole.
Somewhat typically, the authorities in Britain have largely ignored the event in the true spirit of begrudgery (good Irish word), much on display here by a couple of its supporters,
In six years time all will start all over again when Ireland celebrates Independence - hope I'm around to see that one.
"Surely there must be novelists who chronicled the 1916 Easter Rising."
There are, and there are several excellent plays, some written by people like O'Casey, who were around at the time, but if you want to understand Easter week, you really do have to go to the documented and researched information - there will be plenty to choose from in the next few months.
There are a few excellent, extremely readable books of eye witness accounts of Easter week: the best I have come across is 'Agony at Easter' by Thomas Coffey
Another worth looking out is 'Dublin 1916', made up of essays covering the events, including one by Hannah Sheehy-Skeffington (widow of the murdered pacifist) and a fascinating letter of support from Sylvia Pankhurst - first published in 1966, and edited by Roger McHugh.
"Interested to hear that there is a "pecking order" on this forum Jom, does Max know about it "
I gave you an example of virtually every post you make in response to anybody who has the temerity to disagree with you - seems to have hit a raw nerve - good! might lead to your responding to people as if they - just might - know as much as you do.
Let's see!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:18 AM

Steve, all that has happened since the rising has been effected by the rising.
My case has been very simple.
The rising was unnecessary because home rule was already agreed and assured.
That is a plain fact.
All those hundreds of deaths, including the cold blooded murders of Dubliners by the rebels, achieved nothing.

Also that the rebels had no mandate from the people of democratic Ireland.
They appointed themselves as leaders and shot anyone who challenged them.
The people were against them. That is a plain fact.

It is highly probable that but for the rising a peaceful transition to home rule and full independence was achievable, sparing Ireland the bloody horror of the civil war and thousands more Irish dead.

Jim,
It is true that I do not discriminate between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants.
That is the mark of a sectarian bigot.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:27 AM

Murder in cold blood.
An unarmed policeman, James O'Brien from Kilfergus, Co. Limerick. blocked the gate of Dublin Castle to a large body of rebels.
They could easily have overpowered him, but "Captain" Connolly chose to shoot him down with his pistol at point blank range.
The first killing of the rising.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 05:17 AM

"Murder in cold blood"
This becomes intolerable.
Not only has Keith written of teh entire Irish nation (including his own daughter-in-law presumably) as gullible and ignorant of their own history and swayed by propaganda, but he is now accusing them of celebrating murder by treating the Uprising as they are now doing - racism in the extreme.
Can I suggest that, if this thread is to be allowed to continue, such openly inflammatory posts are deleted.
There can be no better evidence of why The Rising was necessary than this display of post-Imperial jingoist hatred.
You want so talk about murder Keith - look up "Sheehy-Skeffington" and how his murderer was 'punished'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 05:34 AM

Internet culture is obsessed with winning arguments, not with coming to understanding. Rather than accumulating facts and figures with which to win arguments, I want an understanding of how people felt about what was happening around them, and fiction can often convey that far better than nonfiction. I don't read to collect ammunition to win arguments. I read to come to understanding.

So what happens on a discussion forum when what you read about something is just simply totally wrong? Do you just let it pass and allow the myth to stand, or do you attempt to inform and correct it?

Two examples out of many on this thread alone:

The Curragh Mutiny in March 1914 that wasn't even a mutiny was an act of military aggression - put plainly and simply - IT WASN'T.

The Irish Home Rule Bill of 1914 was thrown out and defeated - put plainly and simply - IT WASN'T it received Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914.

The only way to correct and destroy a myth, no matter how dearly held, is present the facts and figures that show the myth to be exactly what it is and the best source for accumulating the required facts and figures is from Historical works, NOT works of fiction. On numerous occasions on threads on this forum I have been told by one particular poster that because it was depicted in a Television drama then whatever was being shown MUST HAVE HAPPENED in real life - totally ridiculous.

I also find it rather telling that when confronted by the actual facts and figures that confront the myth, those supporting the myth never address or counter those facts or figures. It has nothing whatsoever to do with winning arguments it has everything to do with establish truth and that is truth from a whole range of perspectives.

If you are studying or discussing the period and era of the Easter Rising then what happened afterwards is irrelevant as none of that could have had any bearing on the event under discussion.

Was the Easter Rising a useless waste? Yes it was to everyone except those who wished to promote armed struggle (Exactly the same could be said about "The Troubles"). Would Ireland have gained home rule and then total independence had there been no Easter Rising yes it would the Bill was already on the statue books. Would the North have still elected to break away, yes in all probability it would as it's industry, commerce and culture was more aligned to the mainland than that of the South and they would naturally look to their own best interests.

The Easter Rising was only one of a number of factors that led to a landslide election victory for Sinn Fein in the 1918 election and in the following War of Independence and the Irish Civil War that followed on from that it was The Irish Free State/Irish Republics claim to the North that was the source that fomented all subsequent bloodshed in Ireland - thankfully that constitutional claim has now been abandoned

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:09 AM

"Do you just let it pass and allow the myth to stand,"
No - you argue it out without denigrating an entire nation - you have proved nothing so far and each time you are knocked down you walk away and start something else - a war of attrition.
"aren't you being a bit bullyingly censorious?
No Mike - Keith is the first to cry thread drift whenever he is in trouble and has suggested more than once that those who aren't Britisjh have no right to criticise Britain.
I am suggesting that deliberately inflammatory and racist statements be deleted in order that this discussion can be continued.
There has been a fair amount of interesting and valuable information exchanged here- it would be an awful shame to spoil that.
The Irish people are not stupid and ignorant of their own history and suggest they are reduces this discussion to the Bernard Manning.
Nor was the Easter Rising "Murder, pure and simple" - if anybody wants to discuss looting, rape, torture and mass-murder they need only open a thread on The Black and Tans
I'll be gone from here in the morning; off to Liverpool (no doubt to meet up with some stupid, ignorant fellow-Brits who will be celebrating Easter Week as we are) - I would hate to leave to a deliberately closed thread.
"If you are studying or discussing the period and era of the Easter Rising then what happened afterwards is irrelevant as none of that could have had any bearing on the event under discussion."
Everything that happened after Easter Week - especially the War of Independence and the gun-point signing of the treaty is vital to this discussion - it vindicates the need for and the success and weaknesses of the rising.
To remove such discussion would be simple manipulation.
"Ah but Michel there is the Carroll pecking order to be taken into account"
Nice to see my humour hit home Terri - try Germolene -always good for sore spots.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:16 AM

"Was the Easter Rising a useless waste? Yes it was to everyone except those who wished to promote armed struggle (Exactly the same could be said about "The Troubles"). Would Ireland have gained home rule and then total independence had there been no Easter Rising yes it would the Bill was already on the statue books. Would the North have still elected to break away, yes in all probability it would as it's industry, commerce and culture was more aligned to the mainland than that of the South and they would naturally look to their own best interests."

Nothing like a nice bit of theory. Lots of what-ifs there.

The recording and interpretation of history is replete with partiality, imperialism, political tendentiousness and revisionism. And some very good work. Squabbling about sources says a lot about your own desire to see things the way you've already decided. Dickens was a storyteller who told us a lot about the ordinary lives of Victorians. Woody Guthrie was a storyteller who told us a lot about the privations of exploited people. A storyteller isn't a liar any more than a biased historian is a liar. The latter can be somewhat harder to detect. Your hardback book with luxury dustcover sitting on the shelf of a respected bookshop could be a prime part of the deceit . Easy enough to select as your main source if you're of a certain mind. The hardest thing is to ditch your preconceptions and let all of them grab your attention equally. A PhD in history never made an honest man of anyone.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:57 AM

If Terribus's statements are to be taken seriously he needs to address every poing thet has been put up which, I believe, proves the contrary.
The treaty was accepted but not ratiied because of the war - there was every reason to believe that it never would be given the opposition to any form of Home Rule in the British Parliament - Tories still continued to attack it after it had been passed and The House of Lords had to be over-ruled.
When it was re-presented in July it had been radically altered, making partition permanent rather than being ended one year after the war ended.
Britain only surrendered sovereignty afre a bloody War of Independence and even then, a treaty had to be forced through by a threat of War.
That Treaty was the cause of a year-long bloody Civil War and the repercussions of the enforced partition are still being felt
That'll do for a start
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:20 AM

Jim,
Not only has Keith written of teh entire Irish nation (including his own daughter-in-law presumably) as gullible and ignorant of their own history and swayed by propaganda, but he is now accusing them of celebrating murder by treating the Uprising as they are now doing - racism in the extreme.

Fr Séamus Murphy SJ is an Irish Jesuit priest who is currently teaching philosophy at Loyola University Chicago.
He holds exactly the same views on the rising as I do, and the Irish Times is happy to publish them.

Are the Irish Times and Fr Murphy also racist in the extreme against Irish people, or are you just wildly lashing out because you have no other argument?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:25 AM

"Was the Easter Rising a useless waste? Yes it was to everyone except those who wished to promote armed struggle (Exactly the same could be said about "The Troubles"). Would Ireland have gained home rule and then total independence had there been no Easter Rising yes it would the Bill was already on the statue books. Would the North have still elected to break away, yes in all probability it would as it's industry, commerce and culture was more aligned to the mainland than that of the South and they would naturally look to their own best interest"
this comment is debatable, we simply do not know whether home rule would have happened or not.
irelands has not even now got full independence.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:30 AM

For someone who stated that they were "staying clear of threads that involve Keith and Teribus" you seem to be having a great deal of trouble doing precisely that.

Teribus: "Was the Easter Rising a useless waste? Yes it was to everyone except those who wished to promote armed struggle (Exactly the same could be said about "The Troubles"). Would Ireland have gained home rule and then total independence had there been no Easter Rising yes it would the Bill was already on the statue books. Would the North have still elected to break away, yes in all probability it would as it's industry, commerce and culture was more aligned to the mainland than that of the South and they would naturally look to their own best interests."

Steve Shaw: "Nothing like a nice bit of theory. Lots of what-ifs there."

Oddly enough Shaw - not one single WHAT-IF to be seen in what I stated, only piece of conjecture there regarded the decision of the North to part company from any united independent Ireland and that is hardly conjecture as that is exactly what they did in fact do in 1921.

Some posters here seem desperate to move the discussion on three years to highlight the atrocious behaviour of the "Tans" but those self same people feel it appropriate to pass over the reasons the "Black and Tans" and the "Auxiliaries" came into existence. These were the result of Sinn Fein winning the 1918 election and their failure to outrightly condemn the murder of a policeman lawfully engaged in escorting a delivery of explosives to a quarry that was attacked by members of the IRA (who obviously needed those explosives for some perfectly legal and peaceful purpose no doubt). The failure to condemn the action prompted an "open season" on anyone wearing the Crown on their uniforms and as their elected government in Ireland did not protect its "servants" charged with the maintenance of law and order recruitment plummeted and alternative arrangements had to be made. The actions of the RIC, the Tans and the Auxiliaries were rightly condemned both in Ireland and in the rest of Great Britain which caused them to be first withdrawn and then disbanded. Here we come to the value of fiction versus historical fact the outrage at Croke Park is attributed in fiction and in popular belief to the Black and Tans the fact of the matter was that not a single member of the Black and Tans was present in Croke Park that Sunday - Regular members of the RIC accompanied by a small detachment of Auxiliaries carried out the massacre. Still no matter eh? Never let fact get in the way of a good story. And that is where I part company with most here on this forum - I believe that if you are going to tell a story then at least have the integrity and honesty to get it right. Ask Mr Carroll for the date Kitchener was forced to resign - then go to the history books and find out that he never did resign and that he was never forced to resign. Mr Carroll however knows better and will still persist in claiming that Kitchener was forced to resign. One of the reasons I have long since given up entering into any discussion with him as even when proven to be completely wrong he conveniently ignores all presented and recorded fact.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:42 AM

Do we know whether or not Ireland would have been granted Home Rule? Yes of course we do, it was one of the items of business to be addressed put at the top of the Westminster Governments order of business after the end of the Great War - don't take my word for it consult Hansard and any history book covering the topic at the time.

Carroll should read up on Parliamentary procedure the House of Lords having objected the Irish Home Rule bill for the Third time in 1914 means that as far as the House of Lords went that was the end of their objections and the Bill would receive Royal Assent irrespective of their objections and that is what DID IN FACT HAPPEN.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:45 AM

""Tans" but those self same people feel it appropriate to pass over the reasons the "Black and Tans" and the "Auxiliaries" came into existence. These were the result of Sinn Fein winning the 1918 election and their failure to outrightly condemn the murder of a policeman lawfully engaged in escorting a delivery of explosives to a quarry that was attacked by members of the IRA (who obviously needed those explosives for some perfectly legal and peaceful purpose no doubt)."
Two yeas of rape, mass murder, torture, terrorism and pillage because of the "failure to outrightly condemn the murder of a policeman lawfully engaged in escorting a delivery of explosives to a quarry"
Are you joking?
The Tans were sent in to soften up the Irish people to accept a forced-though treaty which partitioned Ireland - like the executions of the Rising leaders, it failed miserably and backfired.
The treaty was eventually forced through at gunpoint.
I know somebody has already put this up but worth a revisit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:18 AM

"For someone who stated that they were "staying clear of threads that involve Keith and Teribus" you seem to be having a great deal of trouble doing precisely that."

I said I was increasingly staying clear. My posting record will confirm that. I didn't say I promised to stay clear or that I would permanently stay clear out that I would always stay clear. It makes a difference. The thing is, Teribus, it's precisely that kind of twisting that makes most people here mistrust your take on historical records. What with you trying that kind of thing on, and Keith with his Wheatcroft moments, and both of you with your obvious right-wing king-and-country bias, we often find we can't believe a word you say.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:37 AM

Steve, I am going to disagree with you on several points. Your observation that a PhD in history does not make one honest is true, of course. There are both good and bad historians, as there are good and bad in any walk of life. I suspect that you have not read much history and that you underestimate readers of history. Not everyone is hoodwinked by glossy books in a shop. In fact, much of good historical research goes unnoticed by the general public.
I also disagree with your comments about "obvious" right wing bias on the part of Teribus. For the most part he presents facts, some of which are largely ignored by those opposed to him. Again, I think you have not read much history Steve or you would not be so quick to dismiss many writers of history as biased or worse. Just an observation, not meant to insult you.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:42 AM

A bit tendentious, Steve, tho, eh, implicitly to equate 'king-and-country·dom' with manifest dishonesty.

Eh wot·wot·wot !!

〠

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:51 AM

I'm not dismissing historians as a body of people. I am saying that we can see things in the round far better if we take on board not just the professional historians we personally favour (plenty of name-dropping in these threads) but also the ones who grate with our personal politics, as well as contemporary chroniclers and writers who we may not think of as historians but who can speak to us about the lives of ordinary people. Too right I haven't read much history, but I have read much. I know how to discriminate, thank you. It's a study skill that goes across the board, not confined to history. There are people singing in amateur choirs and playing in local village orchestras who understand Handel and Beethoven far better than many a professor of music.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:52 AM

That is not what I did, Michael.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:54 AM

"I suspect that you have not read much history "
Can we concentrate on the history that has been presented rather than what people "suspect" others do or do not know, which, as far as I can see, we have been warned about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 09:04 AM

Oh, wasn't it Steve? -- then kindly explain what you meant by

"both of you with your obvious right-wing king-and-country bias, we often find we can't believe a word you say."

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLoI
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 09:05 AM

Tell me how you discriminate Steve if you have not read much history ?It is a study skill that goes across the board, well, no it is not. I would think that a fairly wide knowledge of a subject would be essential in making judgements, as in any discipline.
Jim, you have missed my point ...again.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 10:52 AM

"we often find we can't believe a word you say."

Perhaps you can remember an untrue word?
I think not, and certainly not from me on Wheatcroft or anything else.

Will you finally substantiate one of your baseless assertions Steve?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 01:09 PM

Do you believe a word that Jim says Steve?
While you are trying to remember anything untrue from T and I, read T's list of historical falsehoods asserted by Jim.

You can add to that list his claim that the rising prevented Irish conscription.
In reality the act that brought in conscription for everyone else in Britain was passed before the rising, and it specifically and uniquely excluded Ireland.
So nothing to do with the rising.

Joe, you said that you had learned a lot from this thread. Can you give us a couple of for instances?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 01:34 PM

"Do we know whether or not Ireland would have been granted Home Rule? Yes of course we do,"
this is just your opinion, but is not based on fact, the fact that a bill is on the statute book does not mean it will be passed or rejected, it is something we will never know., it is akin to predicting which horse will win a race or whether it will be a non runner. no one can predict the future

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 01:50 PM

Absolutely right, Dick.

"Perhaps you can remember an untrue word?
I think not, and certainly not from me on Wheatcroft or anything else."

That's completely untrue for a start. You must think we have very short memories. You completely misrepresented the man then brazenly denied it, and Teribus backed you to the hilt. I suspect it was more a case of his closing ranks than feeling enthusiastic about you.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:10 PM

Oh, wasn't it Steve? -- then kindly explain what you meant by

"both of you with your obvious right-wing king-and-country bias, we often find we can't believe a word you say."

Michael, don't do this please. The comment you're taking issue with was inextricably connected to the bit you didn't quote about Teribus's twisting of my words. They do have that bias, both of them, vide their extensive posting history sycophantically defending those wax-moustachioed society toffs who sent millions to their deaths in the Great War. But my beef was with the twisting of my words. Get a grip, Michael, and don't waste my time.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Dr. Modette
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:24 PM

It's great fun (not!) watching a bunch of Brits agonise about our history.

Meanwhile, many thousands of us have been out on the streets today celebrating and commemorating those who died in 1916.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:34 PM

We're not agonising about your history, some of us. We're right with you. But denial and revisionism cast long shadows. That's what this unseemly tussle is about. Know thine enemies!

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:37 PM

Not everyone is hoodwinked by glossy books in a shop.

Just those who insist that historians can only be taken seriously if they have books published in high street book shops by any chance?

Just asking...

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:06 PM

"Get a grip" right back to you, Steve. Whatever the motivations or context, or whoever the "both of you" you apostrophise, your

"right-wing king-and-country bias, we often find we can't believe a word you say"

will bear no interpretation other than that which I put on it, of dishonesty implicit in any "king-&-country" postulation. Can't see how you can deny it.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:36 PM

That's entirely your problem. I did explain it to you.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:45 PM

Dave, with all " due" respect, you have a great gift for missing the point! you constantly go back to previous threads, please try and focus on the discussion at hand.
also , I will observe that "left wing " ideology is also rife with bias.
An ideology, left or right is not what the study of history is about, those ideologies are what politics and social science are about. just my take on it based on many years of close study.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:57 PM

No, but you'd have to be far more saintly than any modern historian you choose to name in order to execute that study without all manner of bias creeping in.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:07 PM

Name a few Steve! I am curious who you have read ?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:00 PM

Well you might as well be telling me that I can't comment on Liverpool matches because I haven't actually played for the first team. Absurd.

You will not find me commenting, ever, on the quality of historical sources. Why not? Because I don't read any, that's why. I don't step beyond the bounds of my very limited knowledge. Prove that I do, if you dare. But you appear to have this problem, thinking that I'm not able to extrapolate from my scientific background, which requires a good deal of automatic scepticism about everything I'm told, to any other topic. Well, I assure you that my grounding is quite sound. Unlike science, and unfortunately for those history buffs who would like to claim exclusivity, there is nothing technical about reading history. A non-specialist is perfectly capable of reading even the most testing historical tome with little difficulty, given a sufficient degree of curiosity and desire for background knowledge. So please don't come the "how many history books have you actually read, Steve?" bullshit. Irrelevant. If I glean that you don't agree, be very wary of ever saying anything about science at all. I just might be on your case, and you won't have a leg to stand on.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 12:12 AM

The empower has no clothes! unlike your good self Steve, I do not pontificate on subjects I have little knowledge of.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 12:59 AM

Of course it should read "emperor". , sorry !

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 01:11 AM

The last ten messages or so had nothing to do with the Easter Rising, so I deleted them. Keeping this thread in the music section is an experiment, to see if we can have civil and on-topic discussions of controversial topics here if they are related to music. I undeleted most of the messages after I moved the thread to the BS section.
-Joe Offer, Music Editor-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 01:50 AM

We were talking about history Joe God, you just don,t get it do you? I think it is both a shame and a disgrace that you have so much power to control debate here. you yourself engaged in this fairly civil discussion relating to history. not all of YOUR posts have dealt exclusively with the Easter rising.
I do wish two things, restore what you have deleted and and stop being so hypocritical.
I do not expect this post to last , but I hope it remains long enough that others may comment

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 03:09 AM

I was hoping this thread could be kept in the music section, since so many songs sprang from the Easter Rising. Alas, this thread has deteriorated into the usual squabbling, so I have to admit defeat.
I kept the music posts in the music section, and moved the rest to BS.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 03:45 AM

Good Soldier Schweik - 24 Apr 16 - 01:34 PM

The 1914 Irish Home Rule Bill received Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914 - that having been signed meant that it would be put into effect, the fact that the country was at war delayed that implementation - those are the clearly established facts and they are a simple matter of record.

The matter would not go back to the Commons or to the Lords, it is British Parliamentary procedure today as well as back then that the Lords only get the chance to "amend" Bills proposed by the Commons for three readings after which they go through irrespective of what the House of Lords thinks - again that is well recorded fact to anyone who knows anything about the British Parliamentary system.

The above being true means that having received Royal Assent in 1914 and under a separate Parliamentary Bill which delayed implementation until after the war, then Irish Home Rule was a done deal as far as the Westminster Parliament was concerned - no matter of opinion enters into it. Implementation of Irish Home Rule was in fact the first thing the elected Government turned its hand to after the 1918 elections - again clearly established fact that can be easily checked, it is a matter of Parliamentary record.

Steve Shaw - 24 Apr 16 - 08:18 AM

" we often find we can't believe a word you say."

In that case why don't you check what is being said? You never have come back with any facts to counter what has been said, which leads one to believe that you either didn't check, or that you did check and found the information given correct? The other alternative is that you are just arguing for the sake of it based on perceived personalities - I think that it is the latter that is in fact the case.

But just for the record I have never supported any political party in my life, I have however seen the damage to our country wrought by them and am perfectly capable in forming my own opinion as which ones have been the worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 04:17 AM

Why don't you just become a member, HiLo, then you can tell me which point I am missing?

Is it the point that we should not be hoodwinked by glossy history books in shops or the point that we should only believe glossy history books in shops?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 06:32 AM

Steve, if you are going to throw muck at members, saying you can not believe a word they say, you should be prepared to justify the accusation.
Really you should not attack a person at all, just what they actually say.
You were given examples of someone else's false statements, who you chose not to attack.

Will you now give an example of untruths from T and me?
If not you should withdraw the slander.

Wheatcroft.
You accused me of dishonesty because I only partially quoted him, when I had quoted the passage in full just 2 days before.
So there was no deception and no dishonesty at all, and that was back in 2014!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 06:41 AM

Dick, of course it is true that any act of parliament can be overturned by another, but in practice it does not happen, certainly not within a couple of years.

When the bill was being passed Britain had no intention of becoming involved in any war between Germany and France, so it was assumed by all involved that it would come into force at once.

The people of Ireland were content to get the war out of the way first and then have the peaceful transition of power that everyone except believers in blood sacrifice wanted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 09:55 AM

"Will you now give an example of untruths "
Don't know about T -you claimed to have responded to all my questions - you have responded to none.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that telling porkies
You have denigrated the entire Irish nation and refuse to qualify your attacks -- not lying as such, but certainly evasive dishonesty.
Terrytoon doesn't usually lie as such - just makes prononcments and retires into silence when shot down......
Sorry, but you did ask (and I didn't mention your posting under a false identity!!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 09:59 AM

Quite right Bridge - no go tell the Spartans