BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 03:30 AM

The 19th century "a brutal age"? Relative to the centuries that preceded it? Don't think so and neither does Margaret MacMillan. The dark ages, medieval and renaissance times were far more brutal. Are you seriously attempting to tell us that the root cause of all the brutality in the world during the 19th century was "imperialism" - utterly ridiculous.

But I suppose as an American to you the dark ages, medieval and renaissance times are abstracts and don't really count much in the scheme of things - so Joe if I am to you a "pith helmet, shorts and gaiter" wearing defender of empire, you are a hair-shirt wearing, self-flagellating failed?wannabe priest.

But if I look at Thompson's list of treaties broken by the US Government from 1778 onward and look at just what happened in the USA and elsewhere in the Americas I can see your point. And in all fairness to Thompson he probably does not know that the US Government had no intention at all in honouring, or enforcing any of the Treaties it signed with the native North Americans - hells teeth your War of Independence was fought specifically to break a treaty made between the five nations and the British Government in 1754 - a treaty that the British Government not only kept but enforced - and that Joe did not suit the greedy ambitions of the colonists who wanted to expand westward - your war of independence had absolutely S.F.A. to do with taxation or representation, they were just the excuses latched onto. Same opportunistic attempt at a land grab was made in 1812, fortunately for those who call themselves Canadians it didn't come off. Elsewhere in the Americas you had the Spanish who DID established their empire through ruthless and brutal conquest where whole races were destroyed in the name of Holy Mother Church - the main point of difference between the Spanish and the British Empires that you as an American reader of historical fiction can't seem to grasp is that the British Empire was founded on trade NOT conquest - and the plain fact of the matter is that you cannot trade with dead people.

Throughout the 19th century the British fought hard to abolish slavery and eradicate the slave trade - the Americans did little or nothing about it until the century was almost three-quarters past and even then freedom didn't mean freedom did it? That took almost another hundred years - true? You wear your hair-shirt if you like, I will continue to explode ill-informed and inaccurate myths whenever they are trotted out on this forum by those who are clearly biased.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 06:00 PM

You sure look cute in those garters, Teribus...

You refute my examples of brutality by saying that they didn't happen somewhere where they didn't happen. But my point was to give examples to show that brutality existed the world around, in one form or another. It was a brutal age.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 05:20 PM

"but it's clear in the overview that there was mass oppression in the 19th century by the upper classes - slavery, especially in the Americas; serf labor in Europe; the Highland Clearances in Scotland and the famine in Ireland; workhouses all over Europe; the systematic extermination of Native Americans in the United States; the European colonization of Africa and much of Asia."

Really Joe - may be "clear" to you but then as you are not so keen on detail you miss quite a lot out in your rather biased perspective.

You mention slavery - no nation on this planet did more to eradicate the slave trade than the British

Serf labour in Europe? Hardly Joe the only country where serfs existed in "Europe" in the 19th century was Tsarist Russia - nowhere else.

Highland Clearances? More a 18th century thing greed on the part of land-owners was the motivation not Government policy.

You ignore the massive advances made throughout the 19th century in a vast variety of fields. The Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan commented on it comparing the social and economic improvements made between 1815 and 1914.

In Africa for the tribes who were subservient to the Zulu, or further North the Maasia definitely found the British to be more benign rulers.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:48 PM

It's called humor, Teribus - or "humour," if you prefer. Nonetheless, I think it's worthwhile to take a broad look at things at times, and not get bogged down in minutiae.

If you look at individual situations, I'm sure you can find examples of slaves who were happy on their plantations, and Irish farmers who loved their landlords - and I'm sure it's true that there were plantation owners and landlords who were truly benevolent. You may call a broad overview a generalization, but it's clear in the overview that there was mass oppression in the 19th century by the upper classes - slavery, especially in the Americas; serf labor in Europe; the Highland Clearances in Scotland and the famine in Ireland; workhouses all over Europe; the systematic extermination of Native Americans in the United States; the European colonization of Africa and much of Asia.

What can you say that's good about all that, Teribus?

Oh, yeah, they gave us Kipling and Little Black Sambo, and for that we are eternally grateful.

Admit it, Teribus - it was a century of oppression, and I would really like to know where the goodness was in that mindset. But hey, I think you'd look cute in garters and a pith helmet.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:37 PM

Great believer in generalisations and stereotypes are you Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:29 PM

Jim, I think there's a lesson here - partly thanks to the advance of technology, the 19th Century was THE century of brutal imperialism and oppression, particularly on the part of Americans and Europeans. The upper classes seemed to believe they had a right to oppress all others. I wonder what rationalization they used to justify that mindset.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:17 PM

"that the British and American imperialists did have good intentions"
Some may have done Joe, but don't forget, 'Gallant Little Belgium' slaughtered up to ten million Congolese Colonials and cut the hands of countless numbers of rubber workers who did not meet their quotas, in pursuit of profit.
Britain wasn't above massacring and ill treating its inferior colonials, and I'm assured by Terribus, Keith and others that life for the colonials under Germany, had they won W.W.1. would have been pretty intolerable.
There were certainly those who believed they were doing a favour to 'The White Man's Burden' (as our colonial brothers were known) and there were those who actually contributed to the lives of some under their care (often by offsetting the excesses of colonial life), but it needs to be remembered that the Empire was a profit-making business, not a charity.
Loved the "pith helmet and Bermuda shorts with black stockings and garters" image - didn't take you to be old enough to remember 'Jungle Jim'.
"So Jim how long have you been the spokesperson for the Irish Nation?"
I'm not a spokesman for anybody, though I am a keen observer who has had the privilege in hearing about these events from people who were there and who took part in much of what is under discussion.
I'm also here at the present time and have the opportunity to shower in the delights of wall-to-wall programmes on The Easter Rising put together by scholars and researchers - all praising the people they regard as national heroes who have changed Irish History, never mentioning the terms "gullible" or 'contemptible joke".
Perhaps reading books and showing an interest disqualifies me from having strong opinions on these matters.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:13 PM

😉

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 02:52 PM

And yes, Keith, you are spending a lot of time defending yourself and not adding to the discussion. This is not a battle to see who wins or loses. Your messages are getting boring and repetitive.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 02:49 PM

But you have to admit, Jim, that the views from Teribus are interesting. A(n) historical curiosity, almost a trip back in time. I didn't think there was anyone left living on the face of the earth who would still defend British and American imperialism (well, he condemns the American and missionary imperialism, but thinks British imperialism benign). I can picture him now, in his pith helmet and Bermuda shorts with black stockings and garters, drinking tea and ordering the natives about - benignly, of course.

I think, though, that the British and American imperialists did have good intentions, and may truly have believed that they were giving the natives a better life. And yes, there were many things that they and even the missionaries did, that were not all bad. Nobody is all bad, and nobody is all good.

I think it's worthwhile to explore things from the point of view of the imperialists, too.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 02:38 PM

"By the way.
Those who argue about what the majority of the people want or don't want are invariably those who don't give a toss what ordinary people want until it becomes a handy alternative to arguing on facts - as is the case here." - Jim Carroll

You mean people who make statements like this?

"Sigh - they totally supported the Rising in 1916 as soon as Britain revealed what an appalling load of shit they were and that there was no hope whatever of obtaining Independence in any other way - repeating this piece of misinformation just confirms your dishonesty
Irish people always wanted Independence from Britain - Britain's "traitorous" behavior was n indication that even the limited aims of 'Home Rule would never be honoured so within months the call went out for full Independence - **** the Free State." - Jim Carroll

So Jim how long have you been the spokesperson for the Irish Nation?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 09:20 AM

By the way.
Those who argue about what the majority of the people want or don't want are invariably those who don't give a toss what ordinary people want until it becomes a handy alternative to arguing on facts - as is the case here.
We don't know what the people wanted one way or another because they were never consulted, including changes in Ireland.
Revolutionary changes of the left, right and centre are invariably brought about by a tiny minority.
The people did not oppose the changes brought about by Easter Week other than to take up arms against the decisions forced on Ireland by the imposed Treaty - by anybody's logic, an indication that those changes were unacceptably wrong.
One of the great mistakes in assessing history, Irish history in particular, is to judge it by at happens in the cities, ignoring the fact that Ireland is a largely rural nation.
It's still a truism that if it rains in Dublin, then it must be raining everywhere - I know that to be a fact, that nice weather-forecasting lady told me!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 08:35 AM

Sorry Terri - no valid verification of your claims, no response - don't ring us, we'll ring you.
And don't demand an answer until you start giving them yourself.
"Anyhow, my thinking on all this is starting to gel"
That's a nice, handy summing up of the chronological reality of Irish history Joe.
I've just had a dip into my 'Chronology of Irish History' (one of those handy little books you can still pick up for half-nothing in many bookshops – also available on 'British', 'Scottish' and 'World' history – all indispensible little aides memoires in my opinion.
The timeline between 1798 to the Independence is an interesting one to work through.
You have Emmet's rising in 1803, the Thresher agitation in Longford (1807), the Ribbonmen, Rockites and Whiteboys (1820s), the Tithe War in Kilkenny (1831) and masses and masses of political activity right up the Great Famine in 1845.
The years following The Famine with the evictions and the sheer callous brutality of Britain's response to the Famine brought about more or less permanent struggle, including the Fenian Rising in 1867, followed by the Land Wars, which actually continued right up to and in some places, after Independence.
Even up to the Eve of the Rising, there was an active anti-recruitment campaign in cities such as Dublin and Cork.
Easter Week didn't come as a spur-of-the-moment whim – it was part of long line of protests and revolts dating back to over a century earlier.
To say the Irish people didn't want change is utter nonsense – some may have been happy to get World War One over certainly – that was the Redmondite line, but most people were under no illusion that Britain would give up Ireland and go quietly – they wouldn't and they didn't, and that was what Easter Week was about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 08:05 AM

"British policy down the centuries has effected the lives of every country they have ever ruled over, usually adversely."

Yes I dare say it has, but most would disagree with your opinion regarding "usually adversely" - as others have ignored it I will say again - if that was indeed the case there never would have been a Commonwealth, having shaken off what you seem to view as the brutal tyranny of British Rule by bloody rebellion they would naturally enough would want absolutely nothing to do with their former rulers - But that was not the case was it?

Largest democracy on the planet is? INDIA - not even an entity when the Europeans first arrived to trade, just a group of separate Kingdoms. Now who was it that gave them democracy and rule of law and order? The British knew that they were going to have to leave India shortly after the end of the First World War, here as in Ireland two distinct religious groupings came to the fore - now unlike Ireland they didn't undertake to advance their cause by violence, all three parties talked, neither of the two religious groups trusted the other and they elected for partition and two countries were formed India and Pakistan (East and West). It was only then after the British left that horrendous violence flared fuelled by religious hatred, mistrust and intolerance.

The Home Rule Bill of 1914 was the declaration of intent on the part of the British Government that it would grant self-government to Ireland - it was then to be up to the pro-independence group to talk to the pro-union group and come up with a compromise that would work. The British Government's declaration of intent that they would support that effort was signalled by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Unfortunately the 1916 rising hardened attitudes all round both Nationalist and Unionist. What happened after the Treaty that saw the creation of the Irish Free State was a tiny civil war that the newly formed Irish Government could contain, fight and win. Had the massive pro-union support base in the North been forced into an independent Ireland the newly created country would have been destroyed. That was the reality that Michael Collins & Co recognised and Eamon de Valera DID NOT. The Irish civil war demonstrated clearly to those in the North that they had chosen wisely and had done the right thing.

Support for armed struggle in Ireland has always been extremely weak.
The rising in 1916 had to be kept secret from the men who were in charge of the IRB and the IVF as they would have prevented it from happening - participation amounted to 0.004% of the Irish population.

The War of independence only managed to excite the interest and participation of 0.04% of the Irish population - hardly massive by any stretch of the imagination.

The civil war that followed attracted participation by 3.33% of the population so incensed were they at the partition - basically they could have cared less - they had to deal with life, loss of markets, and the "dog-in-the-manger" destruction of property and essential infra-structure wrought by the IRA in the death throws of their idiotic and completely unnecessary conflict.

Mourn the loss of Empire? Don't be ridiculous, I lived through the transition of many countries to independence all of them peacefully.

"It has destroyed existing cultures and manipulated economies to suit the Empire's interests rather than those of the people they ruled."

Examples please Jom. Give you a couple Hawaiian culture was all but totally destroyed by American Missionaries, elsewhere in the Pacific Islands missionaries from the British Missionary Society recorded the native languages, created written word where none existed and translated the Bible into those native languages.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 06:46 AM

Terrytoon
"look forward not BACKWARDS."
British policy down the centuries has effected the lives of every country they have ever ruled over, usually adversely.
It has destroyed existing cultures and manipulated economies to suit the Empire's interests rather than those of the people they ruled.
In the case of Ireland, an enforced and permanent partition has been the cause of inequality, persecution, ongoing violence and death - in the seventies and eighties, that spread to mainland Britain.
You're "forgive and forget" plea doesn't hack it and it won't begin to until the past is acknowledged and matter put right - it's called 'coming to terms with your history'.
Following the Famine, Ireland was left with a legacy of massive depopulation caused by avoidable death and enforced emigration.
The 'gunpoint' 'treaty' led immediately to civil war and a divided Republic on one side of the border and viciously violent sectarian riots and demonstrations on the other, lasting to the present day.
Your behaviour on this forum and your open defence of the 'good old days of Empire' is a perfect example of why that period of history is a thing of the past and why it was necessary to end it - you display all the strutting mannerisms of the Empire at its worst - and long may you continue to do so as an example of what it represented.
As with Keith, your contempt for the Irish and the other ex subjects is manifest.
Keith has at least had the balls to articulate his contempt even to the point of demonstrating how he believes it is not even necessary to seek knowledge or be interested in the subject in order to dismiss Irish history as "a contetible joke"
You, on the other hand, strut around, declaring that the world was better off as loyal subjects of her Maj.
You have Ballsed up big-time here - on The Treaty, on mutiny. on the fitting-up of Tom Kent, the kangaroo courts, the breaches of laws and rues by the British authorities...... on virtually everything you have claimed.
You declare rather than attempt to actually prove what you say; you put up your statements without evidence and expect them to be accepted without question, and when they are questioned, you sneer at those who don't accept what you have to say - a bit of a mess really.   
You have convinced nobody and now appear to have given up trying to, resorting to "go read a history book" - when you obvousley never have.
Think you're done here, don't you?
Keith - "Not before, not during, and not after the rising.." was what I was responding to - your addition alters that not one iota
Dishonest of you to have denied it and stupid for you have to done so publicly, as is your present attempt top extract yourself from it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:07 PM

True, Raggytash - but from what I've read, it seems that in most parts of Ireland, it was impossible to tell that anything was going on at the time of the Rising. Certainly not a justification for arresting thousands of people.

So, Teribus, you go to great lengths to emphasize very minor points and attack insignificant discrepancies. What is the point you are trying to make? What is your overview of what happened and its significance? Are you mourning the lost Empire?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:39 PM

Joe, There were other, albeit small, disturbances in many other parts of Ireland, in Galway, Mayo, Cork and Kerry for certain. I'd have to do some more research to be entirely confident (fbecause of the obvious doubters) before I cited other towns.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:30 PM

Your true colours have once again come to the fore Terikins.

Does one have to be personally affected to know that something is inherently wrong.

If you child was murdered does it not matter because it wasn't YOU that was murdered.

Some of us are only too well aware that you and your ilk don't give a single f**k about it or about the world in general as long as you can adhere to your MYTH that the "British Empire" was wonderful.

I've got news for you, a good part of the world, America included think the "British Empire" were out and out bastards, to a man.

It is arrogance like your that creates so many problems in the world, not just Ireland, but globally.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:01 PM

The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd. If Germany won WWII and occupied Britain, and then went to war with, say, Scandinavia, would the British be considered treacherous or treasonous for failing to support Germany in this war?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:25 PM

not far off the mark, joe however
"So, it would seem to me that by 1916, most people in Ireland just didn't care any more"
no, that is overstated, imo, my impression is that it was about 50 per cent, but I   could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:08 PM

Thompson says: Some modern historians say that if Home Rule had been brought in, the result would have been civil war in Ireland, between the heavily armed unionists, resisting it, and the majority nationalists, defending it.

Wait! Wait! Wait! What was that thing that happened in Ireland between 1922 and 1923?

I wrote up a theory of combat this morning, applying it to the conduct of discussions at Mudcat, but I think it applies to many things in life: The militants who promote a cause, are convinced that because their cause is unquestionably righteous, all means are justified in their quest to ensure that the cause prevails. In most cases, there is another group of people (usually a much larger group) who also support the cause, but are unwilling to employ coercive measures. They prefer to use facts, logic, persuasion, and patience.
And then there is a huge number of people who don't really care, and are simply annoyed by all the squabbling. They are much more concerned about keeping their jobs and making sure their kids do their homework at night; and they have no time to concern themselves with lofty political matters. And at Mudcat, those people have the annoying habit of wanting to talk about folk music rather than politics, but that's another matter. In Ireland, I'm sure the dairy farmers were far more concerned about cows, than they were about Home Rule. Annoying, but true.

Anyhow, my thinking on all this is starting to gel as this thread progresses (at those times when it's not going around in circles).

I'm sure there were many moves to separate Ireland from England in earlier years, but it seems to me that the final drive to separate Ireland began in 1798 - and lasted until 1921, more or less. I'm sure that for most of the people of Ireland, life went on during the 19th century; and most people were not constantly involved in the campaign to separate from England. And it seems to me that at times, people would have grown weary of the whole thing. So, it would seem to me that by 1916, most people in Ireland just didn't care any more. I think Keith may be quite right that most people in Ireland didn't want the Rising. The militants did, and it seems to me that credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule bill that had passed Parliament. So, the militants brought about the Easter Rising. And it's clear that the campaign was a failure, and that a whole lot of people just didn't care about it. Most of Ireland was calm - the battle was only in a small portion of Dublin. But it was guerrilla warfare in the middle of a crowded city, so many noncombatants were affected.

But then the British responded to the Easter Rising by condemning ninety Irish militants to death. Now, it's true that only 15 were executed, but 90 families were at one point quite sure that their sons were to be executed. On top of that, Wikipedia says a total of 3,430 men and 79 women were arrested, although most were subsequently released. 1,836 men were interned at internment camps and prisons in England and Wales. Although Teribus finds it significant that only Kent was executed because of how he responded to this widespread roundup of Irish people, I'm sure most of the people of Ireland viewed these mass arrests as brutal imperialism on the part of the British.

Now, it appears to me that Britain had stationed officers in Ireland who were considerably less than the cream of the crop. A number of these officers were political extremists, not prone to diplomacy. And so, their response to the Easter Rising was brutal.

All of a sudden the Irish people had a reason to care about independence - and they got it.

And after that, they got the Irish Civil War and more than a half-century of Protestant-Catholic conflicts. I'm still trying to understand that part of the story, but I think my analysis of the Easter Rising has some merit. Thoughts?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:55 PM

Some modern historians say that if Home Rule had been brought in, the result would have been civil war in Ireland, between the heavily armed unionists, resisting it, and the majority nationalists, defending it.

Really?
Do they not know that the Unionists were happy with the 1914 Act.
It was the rising that soured everything.

They wanted independence - when they relised they wouldn't get it they opted for full revolution

They never "realised" any such nonsense because it was all agreed and accepted until the rising violently polarised everyone.

Your statement was actually "Not before, not during, and not after the rising" which, as you well know was not true.

Thyat was not my statement.
By editing out the second sentence you change its meaning.
Dishonest of you Jim.

My full statement, which as you now know, is the absolute truth.
"Not before, not during, and not after the rising.
Only the executions brought them onside, so nothing the rebels said or did."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:49 PM

"" you will find out that he treated the Irish no differently than he treated the English"
Utter bloody nonsense
He did not carry out wholesale massacres of entire towns, such as Drogheda, or Wexford"

Seriously Jom - read some history will you - not just the bits that you like - and them Jom comes the important question - what the fuck does what "so-and-so" did 300 years ago affect life today - look forward not BACKWARDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:42 PM

Raggytash - 10 May 16 - 06:31 AM

C'mon then Raggy tell us all how that 700 years has actually personally affected you.

Me with my 70 years it hasn't affected me one iota - basically I couldn't give one single F**k about it. I find it incredibly ridiculous how people like you and Jom hype your "victimhood" into what is almost an art-form and adopt this supposed moral high ground - give you a hint buddy - it doesn't exist - live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:39 AM

"It was the case Jim, but they did not want the rising before it started"
They wanted independence - when they relised they wouldn't get it they opted for full revolution
Your statement was actually "Not before, not during, and not after the rising" which, as you well know was not true.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Your exact statement - in full context was; "The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge which is arrant nonsense.
Since the British betrayal"
You have proved that the only concept of the Irish you have is your utter contempt for them and their history
You really should have stuck at your "contemptible joke" exposure and left it there and not dug your self as deeply as you have now.
the pair of you have disgraced yourselves with your ignorance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:33 AM

Incidentally, I see someone above rather cavalierly referring to the men and women who went out in the Rising as "fools" because they had supposedly prevented a peaceful transition to independence via Home Rule.
Some modern historians say that if Home Rule had been brought in, the result would have been civil war in Ireland, between the heavily armed unionists, resisting it, and the majority nationalists, defending it.
Really, some of the ideas posted here are a little bizarre. It's a bit like saying the Native Americans were awfully foolish not to sit and wait for the peaceful transition to the justice promised by the treaties they made with the US government in 1778, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1789, 1790, 1794, 1795, 1805, 1816, 1818, 1826, 1828, 1830, 1832, 1852, 1853, 1865, 1867 and 1868. The fools! They could have had a peaceful transition to co-ownership of the land!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:31 AM

I suppose that's why all the books, TV programmes etc, etc have been produced.

As to the rest of your "contribution" the rest of us recognise the reasons were many and varies and have been discussed here and elsewhere at length.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:23 AM

Rag,
They did not want a rising in 1916.
210 000 volunteered to fight for Britain in WW1.
Just twenty years after the tans, when Britain seemed to have no hope but to go down fighting, they volunteered to save her again despite the ban on leaving the country, some even deserting the Irish Army.

Total figures on Irish volunteers and war workers remain uncertain, but the number of 'new travel permits', identity cards and passports issued to men and women in 1940-1945 was in the region of 200,000. To this should be added the 45,000 which the Department of External Affairs estimated went to the UK between September 1939 and the fall of France in June 1940, after which restrictions were imposed. In other words, out of a total population of approximately 2,968,000 (1936 census), over 8 per cent emigrated during the war. This is all the more significant when it is appreciated that those living in agricultural areas and all those under twenty-two years of age were prohibited from leaving the state, except in exceptional circumstances. If those under fourteen and over sixty-five are excluded, the figure rises to over 13 per cent and if we factor in the restrictions on those under the age of twenty-two, the number who travelled may have been well over 15 per cent of the eligible population.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:07 AM

I don't know of another country were the people are so well versed in their own history.
In the pub a young lad will be able to tell you the legends of prehistory, the invasion of Strongbow and the reasons for it. They know all about Elizabeth and Cromwell, the Famine, Wolfe Tone, Daniel O'Connell and the Rising.
What's more they are interested in it for good and ill. History is not water under the bridge for them it's a part of their very being.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:59 AM

I think not.

Spot on, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:58 AM

Rag, "water under the bridge" referred to ancient history back to the Normans, not the rising!

Read the posts using that phrase.
That was my context.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:46 AM

Is it really water under the bridge when much of the country has been involved in commemorations for the past few weeks, when one of the men killed is given a STATE funeral attended by the President AND the Taoiseach, when more than 20 new books have been published in the past year, when literature, art, drama and music have all remembered the Rising, when TV and Radio produce a myriad of programmes about it.

The word cretin comes to mind, but I mustn't say that even though it fits.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:40 AM

Rag,
Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter ignorance of the subject.

I think not. Identify something I got wrong.

Jim,
Within weeks of the Rising - show that this is not the case Keith

It was the case Jim, but they did not want the rising before it started, while it was going on, or after its defeat.
Not until the executions did they start to sympathise, so it was nothing the rebels said or did apart from being shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:32 AM

I've mentioned this before, but up to recently there have been few books dealing specifically withe the Easter Rising - a few books of essays at the time of the 50th anniversary in 1966, but very little before that or since.
While we were in Galway over the weekend we went into Charlie Byrne's Bookshop to find a virtual landslide of well-researched books on the subject, from the actual events in Dublin to how it was received locally throughout Ireland - it seems that the predictions that this would happen have been proved right.
Those on the Rising include a set of volumes covering each of the executed.
I believe that this is only the beginning and between now and the hundredth anniversary of independence we will see more and more, from the War of Independence to the Black and Tan Period right through to the signing of the Treaty - hopefully, the Civil War will be part of this historical soul-searching.
It's always seemed to me sadly ironic that the best book on The Civil War was by Englishman, Carlton Younger, which struck me as being extremely balanced at the time but as it was written nearly fifty years ago, could probably do with updating.
Like the Famine, many of these subjects have been avoided so as not to disturb the neighbours, but since Ireland joined the European Community, and are no longer reliant on it young people looking for work in Britain, as they once where, things will hopefully change.
"the Irish people considered it water under the bridge"
More utter nonsense - Cromwell remains the archetypal English bogeyman, still very much discussed by historians and remembered in the poorer rural areas
What planet do you occupy - read a book.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:57 AM

"Not before, not during, and not after the rising."
Within weeks of the Rising - show that this is not the case Keith
I ask again Keith - If you have been honest in what you';ve said and are genuinely ignorant and disinterested in the history of Ireland, where are you getting this and why are you persisting in it?
Who the hell are you to claim that you know more than the Irish people
This is no more than open dishonest trolling.
What the hell is Ireland celebrating at the present time.
If they did not support the Rising they have never ever supported Britain's behaviour towards the Rising since - not ever.
You haven't even been able to come up with one of your "historians" who have - not one.
Do you still believe Irish people to be gullible and fooled by propaganda and her children brainwashed to hate Britain as you have claimed?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:50 AM

"the Irish people considered it water under the bridge"

Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter ignorance of the subject. Over 20 new books were published last year alone. The country has been awash with memorial dedications to the fallen. Art, Literature, drama, music have all paid homage over the last few months to say nothing of the Government involvement. Last week and this there are ceremonies each day at Kilmainham Jail to remember those executed. In 2015 Thomas Ceannts remains were given a state funeral reinterred in Cork at a ceremony attended by the President Michael D Higgins and the Taoiseach Enda Kelly. Ask Jim how many programmes on the TV and radio have been given over to it.

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:48 AM

Sigh - they totally supported the Rising in 1916

Not before, not during, and not after the rising.
Only the executions brought them onside, so nothing the rebels said or did.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:33 AM

"They did not want a rising in 1916."
Sigh - they totally supported the Rising in 1916 as soon as Britain revealed what an appalling load of shit they were and that there was no hope whatever of obtaining Independence in any other way - repeating this piece of misinformation just confirms your dishonesty
Irish people always wanted Independence from Britain - Britain's "traitorous" behavior was n indication that even the limited aims of 'Home Rule would never be honoured so within months the call went out for full Independence - **** the Free State.
Forcing The Free State was the final straw.
By then, even the Free Staters wanted no part of a partitioned Ireland and belived it could be a temporary thing.
If you have been honest in what you';ve said and are genuinely ignorant and disinterested in the history of Ireland, where are you getting this and why are you persisting in it?
Who the hell are you to claim that you know more than the Irish people
This is no more than open dishonest trolling.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:00 AM

Source last quote,
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-forgotten-volunteers-of-world-war-ii/

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:58 AM

Rag, the Irish people considered it water under the bridge.
They did not want a rising in 1916.
210 000 volunteered to fight for Britain in WW1.
Just twenty years after the tans, when Britain seemed to have no hope but to go down fighting, they volunteered to save her again despite the ban on leaving the country, some even deserting the Irish Army.

Total figures on Irish volunteers and war workers remain uncertain, but the number of 'new travel permits', identity cards and passports issued to men and women in 1940-1945 was in the region of 200,000. To this should be added the 45,000 which the Department of External Affairs estimated went to the UK between September 1939 and the fall of France in June 1940, after which restrictions were imposed. In other words, out of a total population of approximately 2,968,000 (1936 census), over 8 per cent emigrated during the war. This is all the more significant when it is appreciated that those living in agricultural areas and all those under twenty-two years of age were prohibited from leaving the state, except in exceptional circumstances. If those under fourteen and over sixty-five are excluded, the figure rises to over 13 per cent and if we factor in the restrictions on those under the age of twenty-two, the number who travelled may have been well over 15 per cent of the eligible population.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:52 AM

"Why should we believe you over the rebels themselves Jim?"
By the way Keith - you don't have to "believe" anything I say, you just have to produce examples of how the Rebels actually supported the Germans rather than pay lip-service to it to get guns.
The Rebellion was an Anti Imperialist Revolt - Germany was an Imperial power - speaks for itself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:45 AM

" you will find out that he treated the Irish no differently than he treated the English"
Utter bloody nonsense
He did not carry out wholesale massacres of entire towns, such as Drogheda, or Wexford" or the Protestants of Ulster floooews by the razing of entire towns and the destruction of crops; he didn't drive entire populations off their land to "Hell or Norfolk" as he did "To Hell or Connaught"
Is there no limit to your invention?
Take it we're finished with your colourfully creative history of Home Rule as well??
Still no links to your claims??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:31 AM

It might be water under the bridge to you but to the people of Ireland it is their history for good or ill. Do you really expect them to say that it doesn't matter.

For over 700 years the British (in various guises) trampled over the people for their own ends. The native population suffered at the hands of the British (in various guises) and to compound the matter some idiot on a folk forum tells them it's all water under the bridge.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:27 AM

Sorry Thompson, I forgot this bit - That ISIS Cromwell chap you mentioned, if you do a bit of checking up on him you will find out that he treated the Irish no differently than he treated the English, Welsh or the Scots. Scotland, Ireland and parts of England were ripe stamping grounds for Royalist supporters ever keen to reignite the flames of rebellion and civil war - he put all down equally ruthlessly.

Again in today's world his actions are totally irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:19 AM

Thompson - 10 May 16 - 05:00 AM

Very lazy and one-sided synopsis

No mention of overtures made by self-serving Irish Nobles hoping to claw their way to the top of the pile by selling "their" country out to either the Spanish or the French - The Catholic Church didn't mind, as long as the Protestant English were kicked out.

The other thing you omitted - when the Normans came to Ireland the High King of Ireland swore an oath of fealty to King Henry II - that still held good at the time of Henry VIII.

Besides none of that matters Thompson I answered Joe Offers original question - what were the British doing in Ireland. All the rest - water under the bridge - now irrelevant except to those looking to stir up trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:54 AM

"The rebels said they were."
And they did nothing other than accept the weapons - do you have any evidence that they did - no - thought not??
" what happened was that Lloyd George and Redmond had a chat about it. "
It was invalid because it had been unilaterally altered to appease the Unionists by permanently Ireland - very egalitarian.
Redmond's "chat" was to reject the doctored version as "a betrayal" - as the Rebels always knew would happen. or something of the sort
Asquith made an effort to reintroduce it in 1917 but by then even the Redmondites would not associate themselves with it - British dishonesty had put paid to that.
Home rule never too effect because it was dead in the water long before The Civil War which took place as a result of the stitched-up version being forced through at gunpoint.
I take it we're now agreed on the Kent trial, though I don't expect you to acknowledge that fact in a million years
Do you not realise how stupid your making up 'facts' then doing a runner when they are shot down in flames makes you look?
Obviously not.
Stop making things up and arrogantly presenting them as fact.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:10 AM

"Jim, of course Germany was Ireland's gallant ally in Europe"
No it wasn't -

The rebels said they were.
Why should we believe you over the rebels themselves Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:00 AM

There's a bit of a difference between the Normans and the 'British'.

A king of Leinster, Dermot MacMurrough, was deprived of his lands by the High King, Rory O'Connor, because he had abducted Dervogilla, wife of the king of Breifne. In classic schoolyard manner, he called in a bigger bully - a bunch of Norsemen settled in Wales - to take his side. They took his side and his land and everyone else's land, and built a string of castles across Ireland. The Norsemen/Normans had a bigger bully still, the English Normans, and they agreed to make Ireland subservient to them.

(These 12th-century Normans were the descendants of the 8th-century Norsemen who had harried the coasts of Ireland and Britain.)

These Irish-settled Normans then rapidly began speaking Irish, dressing in Irish clothes, marrying Irishwomen, playing Irish games, eating the Irish diet (based on raw — ewww! — vegetables, soured-milk products like yogurts and cheeses, oatmeal bread, lots of fish, etc), using the Irish system of name and surname, and generally behaving in an Irish manner.

Fast-forward to the 16th century, and Britain is in the throes of a Protestant revolution — enormous amounts of land being stolen from monasteries to enrich the Tudor 'kings', the social welfare system of those monasteries being dismantled, statues being smashed, etc. So far, so ISIS.

It is now that the real invasion of Ireland happened.

These Tudor boyos decided, Burglar Bill-style, that they liked Ireland. "That's a nice country. I'll have that." They proceeded to spread the invasion from its former enclave in the east of the country and, using famine as a deliberate weapon, to remove the Normans' descendants (known as the 'Old English') and the Gaelic Irish, and steal their land. The south, west and north of the country were utterly devastated. Some Norman-descended quislings, notably the Butlers, helped in this, hoping to ladle in to themselves some of the spoils.

(At this stage, it was illegal for any Irish person to enter Dublin without a pass issued by the British-run Dublin government; the penalty for doing so was death.)

A couple of generations later, another Protestant ISIS type, Oliver Cromwell, invaded; he tasked William Petty with surveying all Catholic-owned land in Ireland with a view to stealing it, and then did so; he attempted to remove all Catholics to Connacht, but the farmers brought in from England and lowland Scotland could not farm the land, and the former owners often returned as illegal, insecure and impoverished tenants.

This colony continued into the 18th century — maintaining many laws under which Catholics could not practise the professions, teach school, own land, carry arms, own good horses, foster orphans, hold public office, serve in the British Army, marry a Protestant, inheritant Protestant land, etc. Catholics and 'Dissenters' (Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc) had to pay one-tenth of their income to support the Protestant Church of Ireland.

The Act of Union of 1801 (secured by massive bribery of the Protestant-only parliament in Dublin, which was then repaid to the British exchequer through Irish taxes) closed down that Dublin parliament and removed the rule of Ireland altogether to London. The removal of this 'Union' and the return of the government of Ireland to the people of Ireland was the main focus of Irish political life throughout the 19th century. It was from this that the Irish Parliamentary Party and Gladstone's plan for Home Rule came about.

Home Rule was not independence; it was a very limited devolution, in which all decisions of the Irish parliament would have been subject to a veto by the British-imposed Lord Lieutenant.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:43 AM

Ah Jom so the Irish Home Rule Bill did not come back before Parliament in June/July or at anytime back in 1916 - what happened was that Lloyd George and Redmond had a chat about it. Only those on the Republican side had the right to self-determination did they Jom? How egalitarian.

Thompson the Irish Home Rule Bill 1914 was delayed at six month intervals throughout the course of the Great War and after during the War of Independence. That latter war caused the 1914 Bill to be repealed and the Government of Ireland Act 1920 brought in to replace it.

The Act was intended to establish separate Home Rule institutions within two new subdivisions of Ireland: the six north-eastern counties were to form "Northern Ireland", while the larger part of the country was to form "Southern Ireland". Both areas of Ireland were to continue as a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and provision was made for their future reunification under common Home Rule institutions.

Home Rule never took effect in Southern Ireland, due to the Irish War of Independence, which resulted instead in the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the establishment in 1922 of the Irish Free State."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:13 AM

Home Rule Bill.
"Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader, Carson, a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced into a self-governing Ireland. His tactic was to see that neither side would find out before a compromise was implemented.[13] A modified Act of 1914 had been drawn up by the Cabinet on 17 June. The Act had two amendments enforced by Unionists on 19 July – permanent exclusion and a reduction of Ireland's representation in the Commons. When informed by Lloyd George on 22 July 1916, Redmond accused the government of treachery. This was decisive in sealing the future fortunes of the Home Rule movement. Asquith made a second attempt to implement Home Rule in 1917, with the calling of the Irish Convention chaired by Horace Plunkett. This consisted of Nationalist and Unionist representatives who, by April 1918, only succeeded in agreeing a report with an 'understanding' on recommendations for the establishment of self-government."
Jim Carroll