BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 16 - 06:23 PM

Jim Carroll - 02 May 16 - 06:33 AM

Thing is Jom you don't put up any facts, you put up ill-informed and biased opinion and present it as fact. Thing is Jom you don't put up any facts, you substitute conjecture and present it as fact. Any time that you do actually put up a fact it will be responded to.

The executions Jom were the sentence demanded by the law for anyone found guilty of treason in time of war. As for mobilising the Irish people? It managed to mobilise what percentage of the Irish people to take part in the Irish War of Independence - 0.48%, the deal negotiated to end the War was not universally accepted and the country slipped into civil war that managed to rouse the interest and participation of only 3.33% of the Irish people.

As for the British Empire Jom, the events of 1916 and 1921 had nothing whatsoever to do with its demise, that is mere conjecture on your part. That Empire Jom carried on for another half a century and demonstrated that an Empire can be ended through peaceful transition, its strength is still in evidence today as represented by the second largest international body in the world after the United Nations - The Commonwealth of Nations consisting of 53 sovereign member states most of whom were former British Colonies or dependencies. This transition occurred during our lifetime Jom and guess what? I didn't hear any crash.

Oh dear Jom have you just found out that politicians are dishonest? That they will do anything to get a deal? What planet have you been living on? Talking of honesty Jom your leaders of 1916 weren't exactly honest with their followers were they? de Valera wasn't exactly honest with Michael Collins was he?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 May 16 - 05:38 PM

You and I and everyone else knows that you can not find a single flaw in the history I have put up.

Correct for once, Professor. Congratulations.

Not a single flaw, but a cornucopia thereof.

Go read a book or three & educate yourself.

PS: you haven't "put up" history, you've posted horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 16 - 03:32 PM

You and I and everyone else knows that you can not find a single flaw in the history I have put up.

If you could, what an issue you would make of it.
But you have nothing.

Or will you produce something now?
Good luck with that Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 May 16 - 03:22 PM

Professor, by your own admission on numerous occasions you have clearly stated you have no knowledge and more importantly no interest in Irish history.

You have now read a little from cut an' pastes from the internet. That does not mean you have any insight into Irish history nor will you have until you take the trouble to read a few books about the subject.

However I know and you know and everyone else knows you will never do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 16 - 03:12 PM

Jim, I was obviously being too modest about my knowledge of history.
I clearly knew a lot of things about the rising that you did not, and what you thought you knew has been shown to be myth.

You now know that home rule was assured by Act of Parliament, making all the Irish bloodshed in the rising and what followed wholly unnecessary.
You now know that the people did not support the rising, and that the rebels murdered unarmed Irish people in cold blood.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 16 - 06:33 AM

Bit more time now Terrytoon
"Doesn't quite square with:"
Why exactly - what of the facts I have put up do you actually dispute with facts of your own rather than simply deny - what do you have against linking your pearls of wisdom rather than stating them for all to believe unquestioningly?
The executions were a display of what would happen to anybody who dared to defy the Empire - it turned out to be enough of an example of Britain's brutality to mobilise the Irish people and eventually to help bring the Empire crashing around its own ears.
Even Keith has had to accept the dishonest nature of the British establishment in agreeing Home Rule then secretly going behind the back of one of the signatories to connive with the other to add permanence to partition - Lloyd George admitted having done so.
This is the type of behaviour one would expect from a Banana Republic dictatorship.
"Jimbo"
A step in the right direction, I suppose, but not very imaginative and you have used it before.
Why not try "Carroll's a girls name" - used to make my infant school mates curl up.
Keith
You seem now to have reverted to trolling - you want to take part in this, address your remarks to the thread in general or, at the very least, to somebody else.
This is not a dialogue
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:53 AM

Jim,
You have been given the facts and have ignored them

I have ignored no fact. If I have say what it is. Good luck with that Jim because you have nothing.

YOU ignore the FACT that the Home Rule Bill was passed in 1914 with the blessing of Nationalists, Unionists and the Irish people.

That means that the rising was completely unnecessary, against the will of the people of Ireland, and actually counter productive in bringing about independence.
All facts Jim, which you close your mind to because it undermines your ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:46 AM

Jim,
Happy to concede that your priest is Irish, which makes Keith's backers a philosophy student and a journalist-cum-novelist -

No.
A university lecturer in philosophy, and an Irish Times correspondent are my two examples of Irish people who believe that the rising was wrong.

I am sure they are representative of the views of many Irish people, and I quoted them because you keep claiming that the whole nation celebrates rising.
It does not.
You were wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:44 AM

Not going here again Keith - dialogoe over
You have been given the facts and have ignored them
I am happy to accept as truth your statement that you know nothing about Ireland, have never read a book on any of these subjects and are not interested enough to do so in the future - you said it, you have confirmed it over and over again here and elsewhere with your displayed ignorance of Ireland and I believe it.
Why on earth should I wish to debate with anybody who has made such a confession?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:39 AM

Carroll if you want to discuss the Famine then start a thread on it.

I think that you find yourself pretty lonely there.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:22 AM

"The Famine" was a natural disaster it was not the fault of the British - it is lazy and convenient for anyone to blame them for it."
The Famine was described by Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was responsible for distributing relief as "God's punishment on the indolent Irish" - he advised the Government to sell relief food to the starving Irish at market prices so as not to interfere with the market economy (laissez faire) and suggested that The Famine could be used to solve 'The Irish Question' - the Russell Government complied and closed down the relief system that the former Peel Government set up.
There was four times the amount of food necessary to feed the Irish people, what wasn't shipped abroad for sale was locked in warehouses under armed guard.
The 'assistance' that Britain gave to Ireland was enforced emigration - the effect on the population according to the 1851 census was to cut the population from 8,175,124 in 1845 to 6,552,385 in 1851 - which is why it is still referred to as "The Irish Holocaust".
"What "Land-Takings"? Between 1870 and 1903"
The land that had been acquired by absentee landlords evicting starving farmers during the Famine - the practice was known as 'cabin tumbling' because of the practice of destroying the homes of those evicted with battering rams so they could not return.
The Bailiffs, backed by the police, would turn the starving families out onto the roads, where many thousands died of fever and starvation, the lucky one made it to the Coffin Ships heading for America.
In the period when Lord Russell was Prime Minister, the workhouses had been closed, so those evicted were often forced to live in hedges or even dig holes in the earth to survive, as the voluntary relief set up mainly by the Quakers was woefully inadequate.
Other religious groups assisted, but in areas like this the Protestant Groups would only feed and educate the children if their parents agreed to change their religion - these are still known as "The Soupers"
When the British Government finally agreed, under protest, to return the bigger estates to the Irish people, they did so in such a manner as to provoke the Land Wars - those farmers who already had substantial amounts of land were given priority, leaving the poorer ones to struggle.
The protests took the form of rustling the big landlord's cattle, driving them through the towns and letting then letting them loose on open land (The Burren was the favourite around here)
The protests officially lasted till 1911, but in fact continued in some Counties up to and beyond independence in 1922, well within the lifetimes of several of the people we have heard talking about their family's experiences.
All these facts and many more have been put up with the relevant linked documentation over and over again on the threads dedicated to the famine on which Teribus and Keith have attempted to rewrite Irish history - they are fully aware of the facts and yet continue their crusade.
Joe
Happy to concede that your priest is Irish, which makes Keith's backers a philosophy student and a journalist-cum-novelist - a change from real historians who sell their books in real bookshops, I suppose.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:20 AM

Jim, the Home Rule Bill 1914 was genuine.
No secrets.
There is no suggestion that the Irish Nationalist members did not have full confidence in it, or the people of Ireland.

No-one suggested partition until the final stages, and then only a temporary exclusion for Ulster was requested and agreed.
The Bill was passed with an unusually large majority of 77.

Had Belgium not been invaded it would have come into force at once.
But for the rising, it would have been enacted unchanged after the armistice.

The rising poisoned the well of negotiation and brought years of bloody conflict in place of a peaceful transition.

Education,
Kineally tells us that the Irish school system pushes "nationalist myths" instead of objective history. Is that not brainwashing?
Do you approve of it?
They also push religion. I know you object to that.
Read here about both abuses in Irish schools, and the propaganda text books.
(the text is in English) http://etudesirlandaises.revues.org/2119

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 16 - 03:05 AM

Amos - 01 May 16 - 01:05 PM

I think that those nationalists who supported Daniell O'Connell were perfectly aware of his vision and his goal of independence. The dissolution and repeal of the Act of Union was the first stepping stone on that path. If you do believe that the Rising advanced the cause then you should also accept that at the same time it hardened the Unionist opposition

Between the famine, the land-takings, and the executions of the leaders, etc., the British painted an ugly picture of themselves. I would certainly have felt getting shut of them would be a high priority, were I an Irishman in those days.

1: "The Famine" was a natural disaster it was not the fault of the British - it is lazy and convenient for anyone to blame them for it.

2: What "Land-Takings"? Between 1870 and 1903 the British Government passed a whole series of Laws giving Irish Tenant farmers what the Irish Land League demanded.

3: The executions were a mistake but the hands of the Government may have been tied both legally and in the interests of national security. 90 people were sentenced to death in the wake of the Easter Rising - 75 of those sentences were commuted to a term of 5 years imprisonment. The 15 who were executed were guilty of treason, I think back then if you committed murder the automatic sentence was death, the Judge having no option, I think the same was true of treason in time of war. As I have previously stated it would have been far far better to let the leaders of the rising live and then publicly shame them throughout Ireland and Great Britain, but that would run the risk of letting the Germans know that Britain's Naval Intelligence Service had broken Germany's Naval Codes.

4: Lastly Amos you would not have thought that way at all if you were an Ulsterman.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 16 - 02:30 AM

Thanks for posting the link to that article Joe - I think he got it spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 16 - 09:33 PM

Oh, by the way, Keith keeps quoting articles by Fr Séamus Murphy SJ, an Irish Jesuit priest who has been living in Chicago and teaching at Loyola University since 2009. He taught philosophy at Milltown Institute, Dublin, Ireland from 1987 to 1990, and again from 1996 to 2008. Click here for his bio from the Irish Jesuits.

Jim, he hasn't lived in the United States long enough for us to call him an American.

He had an article called Imposing Independence in the April 25 issue of the Jesuit America Magazine. He makes some good points, but I found him to be overly critical of the Easter Rising participants. I suppose he has a right to his opinion, despite my disagreement.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 16 - 08:55 PM

I kinda prefer that people back up their statements with copy-pastes of pertinent information - within reason. When people wage wars of nothing but copy-pastes, that's taking it too far - but that's not happening in this thread. There were too many posts here that only attacked other people and said nothing at all about the topic of discussion. I deleted a good number of those, and will continue to do so. I think it makes for a better discussion when people don't use ad hominem arguments, which is just a fancy name for a personal attack.

We don't allow personal attacks at Mudcat, but I don't think that prohibition requires moderators to review and pass judgment on every post. We're all adults here, and the assumption is that adults know how to carry on a discussion in a civil manner. Participants are expected to moderate themselves, for the most part.

I think that there is room for a wide variety of opinions about the Easter Rising. Opinions can be different without one being right and the other wrong - can't they?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:38 PM

"Professor, Instead of relying on cut and pastes from the internet try reading a full book, or preferably several books."

Why Raggy neither you or your pals do, yet you feel free to pontificate on any subject under the sun from a grounding of clueless ignorance

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:34 PM

Now come along Jimbo:

"Easter week Rising - 1,250 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.04%"
Which led immediately to a war of Independence which ended up forcing Britain to the negotiating table and eventually to the collapse of the entire British Empire - not bad for 1,250 rebels.

Doesn't quite square with:

the fact that brutish British behaviour led to the Irish starting a war of Independence, given that when the Treaty was finally forced through with alterations at gunpoint six years later it led to Civil War in the new Republic

If your 1250 rebels forced Britain to the negotiating table and brought about the collapse of the British Empire can you please explain how the Brits managed to force any conditions on the victorious nationalists to accept their terms at gunpoint in 1922? Doesn't quite add up does it. Mind you it might to you as reasoning and logic does not seem to be your strong suit whereas emotive twaddle does.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:30 PM

" If after the rising it had no bearing on the rising."
It was secretly decided with the Unionists before the rising - it had everything to do with the Rising.
Britain's previous conduct had proved them to be untrustworthy and their actions confirmed that as a fact - their track-record went before them.
What kind of biondingin agreement can be secretly altered without consulting one of the main signatories - is that the way Britain regards biding agreements?
Don't be stupid Keith - Britain had no intention of honouring that agreement and the rebels knew it - and weren't they right?
That was the period of history she was addressing - I've now read the ***** book and two more of hers.
You have her position on the famine and Britain's role in it in black and white.
Please repeat that you believe Irish children were brainwashed to hate Britain and confirm your racism.
Who the hell do you think you are?
You have boasted you have neither read a book nor are interested in doing so.
You call Fergie, who lives in Ireland and is steeped in its history.
My family are Irish, some were involved in the War of Independence.
Ireland has devoted the entire year to honouring this event.
Yaet you know more than all of us rolled together.
If you are a typical Briton there is every reason to hate the place - you are a jingoistic meglomaniac.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:13 PM

Amos, yes I agree with that too.

Jim,
the Home Rule they had agreed to was deliberately changed by the Brits to appease the Unionists

When did that happen Jim? If after the rising it had no bearing on the rising. Right?

You will note the dates covered by your quote (maybe you have and hoped I wouldn't) (History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35')
Rubbish Jim! That was just the title of one of the books she referred to!
She said that academics tried to stop the myths being pushed some time in the 30s, but it made no difference. She does not say it ever ended!

"Jim, that was by Gene Kerrigan, who is a journalist and novelist"
No Jim. He wrote the book that you quoted from as if it was historical fact.
I quoted an IT correspondent as an example of an Irish person who thought the rising wrong, along with the Irish priest/philosophy lecturer.

If Redmond refused to accept a partitioned Ireland,

No-one suggested partition until the third reading of the Bill, and the final Bill did not include "permanent partition."

Rag, unless you have found fault with any of the history I have quoted, what is your complaint?
If you have, please specify! (Good luck with that!)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 02:32 PM

Two points you need to answer if your 'signed sealed and delivered' Treaty is to be accepted.
If this was the case - how were the Brits able to change it - if they did, would that not invalidate it?
If Redmond refused to accept a partitioned Ireland, how could a treaty permanently partitioning it possibly be a valid one?
Please answer these points or stop making claims that are obviously false.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 02:03 PM

Professor, Instead of relying on cut and pastes from the internet try reading a full book, or preferably several books. Then and only then will you have anything worthwhile to add to this discussion.

You have said many times you have no knowledge and no interest in the history of Ireland. We all know this and frankly are bored with your bigoted, racist and uninformed rantings on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 02:01 PM

"It is a fact that they had already been granted home rule, "
You can repeat this as oftnas you like Keith but it simply isn't true - the Home Rule they had agreed to was deliberately changed by the Brits to appease the Unionists and this was unacceptable top the Irish politicians who described it as a betrayal - which particular part of this statement do you have a problem with - did I fake the quote?
Here is another quote showing that The doctored Treaty was unacceptable

This is a statement by head of the Irish Parliamentarians , John Redmond as reported in The Irish Times, July 1916

If we are to have self-government, Ireland must be a self-governing unit. That instinct is implanted deeply in the heart, of every thoughtful Irishman, Unionist or Nationalist. In the first place the country is too small to be divided between two systems of government. In the next place, the political, social and economic qualities of North and South complement one another; one without the other must be miserably incomplete. For Southern Unionists ... the idea of the dismemberment of Ireland is hateful. ... In a word, the permanent partition of our country is inconceivable.1
From Robert Kee's 'Ourselves Alone (vol 3 of The Green Flag)
"Jim, instead of trying to make a case against me,"
I have made a case for the Risingt you have made your own case against yourself.
Kineally's position on revisionist teaching is outlined here.
"Her new work, A Death-Dealing Famine, is a curate's-egg sort of a book. I am not sure for whom it is intended. Dr Kinealy seems to be striving to achieve two things simultaneously. At one level she assumes the role of the Roy Foster of Famine history and at another the mantle of a modern Cecil Woodham-Smith. She will not like the first description, for Foster is the arch-revisionist, not a species that finds favour with Dr Kinealy, since revisionists seek to remove blame from considerations of Ireland's past and Kinealy is very strong on blame. "
You will note the dates covered by your quote (maybe you have and hoped I wouldn't) (History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35')
You were referring to the present day children being brainwashed.
"Neither did I."
You described Fergie as such and he was echoing what is happening now in Ireland - you claimed he was ignorant of his own history.
"and the other a correspondent on the Irish Times"
"Jim, that was by Gene Kerrigan, who is a journalist and novelist"
Make up your mind
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:53 PM

Keith:

What I was trying to say is that that sentiment shifted as a result of the British heavy-handed reaction to the Rising, afterwards.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:17 PM

Amos,
I would certainly have felt getting shut of them would be a high priority, were I an Irishman in those days.

If all that propaganda were true, so would anyone.
It is a fact that they had already been granted home rule, and a fact that they did not support the rising.
Beware of historical myths.

Jim, instead of trying to make a case against me, please return to making a case for the rising.
Is the problem that you can't?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:10 PM

Jim,
You have quoted a novelist and an American Jesuit

Dishonest Jim.
One was an Irish Jesuit priest currently teaching philosophy in a US university, and the other a correspondent on the Irish Times who agreed with me on that point.
Neither described the Irish as ignorant of their own history
Neither did I.

I am sorry I misremembered whose wild claim I responded to.
Do you distance yourself from it?

What she actually said that the "revisionists" who avoided placing direct blame for the Famine on anybody taught that to children , and that ended in the 1930s.

Completely untrue Jim!
This is what she actually said,

"To some extent, these beliefs were fostered by the state school system south of the border, which itself arose out of particular historical circumstances. In 1922, for example, the Free State government instructed history teachers that pupils should be 'imbued with the ideals and aspirations of such men as Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse' and that they should emphasise 'the continuity of the separatist idea from Tone to Pearse' (see Francis T. Holohan, 'History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35' in HI Winter 1994).

" Accordingly, in many Irish schools, a heroic but simplistic view of Irish history emerged, a morality story replete with heroes and villains. This approach, however, was subsequently challenged by the Irish academic establishment. In the 1930s, a number of leading Irish academics—following the lead of British historians earlier in the century—set an agenda for the study of Irish history, which placed it on a more professional and scientific basis in terms of research methods and source materials. At the same time this approach also demanded the systematic revision and challenging of received wisdoms or unquestioned assumptions. What was specific to Ireland, however, was the declared mission to challenge received nationalist myths, and by implication, although less centrally, loyalist myths. Thus, at the launch of the influential Irish Historical Studies journal in 1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. To a large extent, however, this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms either north or south of the border."

So, the Irish school system pushed "nationalist myths" at Irish children instead of objective history. That is brain washing, and she says it has not been changed. The person quoted in my Indy article called them "gobshites" for putting such shit in his schoolbooks.

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

My impression is that it was the backlash (against the brutality of the British punishment of the Rising) that shifted national sentiment in Ireland, and moved it toward determination for independence, rather than settling for Home Rule. Between the famine, the land-takings, and the executions of the leaders, etc., the British painted an ugly picture of themselves. I would certainly have felt getting shut of them would be a high priority, were I an Irishman in those days.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 12:21 PM

"Easter week Rising - 1,250 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.04%"
Which led immediately to a war of Independence which ended up forcing Britain to the negotiating table and eventually to the collapse of the entire British Empire - not bad for 1,250 rebels.
It's not bad for so few inexperienced and poorly-armed freedom -fighters to have held at bay the army of the most powerful Empire at arms-length for a week either - real Vietcong stuff eh.
A nice example of British justice occurred flowing the rising
" About 3,500 people were taken prisoner by the British, many of whom had played no part in the Rising, and 1,800 (how many did you say took part? of them were sent to internment camps or prisons in Britain."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 11:49 AM

What percentage Raggy - just taking the men 48%

But while you are on about percentages that would take up arms - here's the percentages for the Nationalists:

Easter week Rising - 1,250 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.04%
Irish War of Independence - 15,000 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.5%
Irish Civil War - 70,000 out of a population of about 2.1 million = 3.33%

So as far as winning Irelands freedom by force of arms the best effort the nationalists ever mustered was when they were fighting one another.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 11:18 AM

" I have quoted a couple."
You have quoted a novelist and an American Jesuit - overwhelming
Neither described the Irish as ignorant of their own history - perhaps you might give an example of what you mean by "many" and who they are, and more to the point, how you know?
No - didn't think so.
"No I did not. That is what I said about one of YOUR wild claims."
"Fergie, I think that your interpretation is wrong, and based on propaganda not fact."
Someone posting in your name again - you were referring to a statement by Fergie.
Please stop making things up.
"No I did not. I did say they committed some and that is a fact."
I accused you of saying that those commemorating the Uprising were celebrating murder, which is exactly what you have claimed - I have never suggested a few incidents didn't happen, nor will I, but they measure small to the killing that took place though artillery fire and the at least five executions of non-combatants by Capt. Bowen Colthurst - not to mention the mindless butchering of the leaders
(The first man to die in the Easter rebellion was an unarmed Constable James O'Brien, from Kilfergus, Co Limerick.)
The greeated
s number of cold -blooded murdere were carried out by the British - five were by the serial killer Colthurst - not worth a mention by you.
"That referred to Kineally's observation that the Irish school system forced a biased version of history to be taught"
No - it was your deliberate misinterpretation of what she said.
What she actually said that the "revisionists" who avoided placing direct blame for the Famine on anybody taught that to children , and that ended in the 1930s.
Your reference was to today's Irish hating the British because they had been brainwashed to do so - nothing could be further from the truth and it is racist to suggest otherwise - the Irish do not hate the British, nor anybody particularly.
You did as you always do - grab a quote out of context and distort it to make a point.
Kineally in fact blew up in your face - it is she who blames the British for the outcome of the Famine and that has come from her researches in the late 1990s
Are we to assume that you and your mate are going to continue to ignore the points put up?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 09:14 AM

Why Irishmen joined up - Queens Uni, Belfast.

The standard, public reason for joining up was the moral purpose of the war. At the time it was widely seen as a kind of crusade against 'Prussian militarism'. Tom Kettle, an Irish nationalist who had actually been in Belgium buying guns for the nationalist paramilitary Irish Volunteers, argued that men went because the cause was a just one. It was, said Kettle, the cause of small nations threatened by large ones, of Belgium and Serbia, which Germany and Austria had outraged, and Britain and her allies had taken up. This made it right for Ireland to fight on England's side, especially since England had (at last) granted Home Rule for Ireland. Kettle himself joined up and died on the Somme in September 1916.

Home Rule had been the aspiration of Irish nationalists for fifty years and, finally, in 1914 it appeared that the deed was done. On 18 September 1914 the third Irish Home Rule Bill became law, although its operation was suspended for the duration of the war. No-one (at least on the nationalist side) thought that this would be for very long, but the passage of the legislation was crucial for John Redmond, the leader of the Irish nationalist movement. On 20 September he made a celebrated speech at Woodenbridge, county Wicklow, in which he said that 'the interests of Ireland, of the whole of Ireland, are at stake in this war'. He drew out the high moral purpose of the struggle against the Germans and Prussian militarism: 'This war is undertaken in defence of the highest interests of religion and morality and right, and it would be a disgrace for ever to our country, a reproach to her manhood, and a denial of the lessons of her history if young Ireland [note the allusion here to 1848 and the traditions of Irish nationalism] confined their efforts to remaining at home to defend the shores of Ireland from an unlikely invasion, and shrinking from the duty of proving on the field of battle that gallantry and courage which have distinguished their race all through its history'. Stirring words indeed, and words which clearly found a response among many young Irishmen.

But high patriotic duty was not the only possible reason why men might join up. Another factor was a simply desire for adventure. For many at home the war offered excitement and the chance of glorious opportunity. Tom Barry, later to become a leader of the IRA in Cork, enlisted in June 1915. Seventeen years old, he said he 'had decided to see what this Great War was like … I went to the war for no other reason than that I wanted to see what war was like, to get a gun, to see new countries and to feel like a grown man'. This was nearly a year after the war had started, and provides some evidence that the recruiting rush of the early days does not tell the whole story.

And if Irish nationalists were responding to their 'patriotic duty' as articulated by John Redmond, so Irish unionists, too, in Ulster and elsewhere, also joined up for patriotic reasons. Having pledged their loyalty to the Crown and the link with Great Britain, they could hardly stand back when the 'Mother Country' was in its hour of need. 'We do not seek to purchase terms by selling our patriotism', said Carson. 'England's difficulty is our difficulty.'

There were also economic motives for joining up, as there always had been. Service in the army, after all, was a steady job, and one with a pension at the end. Even in wartime, with the heightened risks of military service, many men were undoubtedly attracted by the rates of pay which the military offered (and the family allowances which accompanied them). The August 1914 rush to the colours was also boosted by the fact that across Ulster many factories laid men off, or put them on short time, when war broke out because of uncertainties in the economic situation. Irish linen mills specialised in the quality end of the market—fine table and bed-linen, high quality shirting and so on—just the sort of products which people might stop buying (as they did) because there 'was a war on'. Export markets in continental Europe and the USA were disrupted. Thus, just at the moment when there was a stirring and insistent call for troops, many workers were put out of a job, evidently making enlistment more attractive than might otherwise have been the case.

Nor were these the only possible motives for joining up. Some men enlisted through family tradition, for others it was merely a kind of emigration, though one which was not necessarily so permanent as going to America. Looking especially at big urban centres like Belfast, it is also evident that many men joined up in groups, with 'peer pressure' carrying them into the army with friends and work mates. By one account, Francis Ledwidge, the poet from Slane (and a socialist and nationalist), enlisted 'on the rebound' from being rejected by a sweetheart. Whether true or not, it adds another possibility to the wide range of motivations to joining up.

Looking at the recruiting figures, and taking into account the many possible reasons behind enlistment, it is impossible facilely or glibly to generalise about these fellows, about who they were or why they joined up. No single or simple explanation will do, and in many cases it must have been a combination of factors. Patriotic feeling might have been significant but not in itself sufficient to impel a man to enlist. Yet combine it with uncertain prospects at work and the urging of a next-door neighbour—'Come on, John, it'll be great crack'—and the lure might be irresistible. What, in any case, we can say about these men—who were both 'ordinary' and extraordinary at the same time— is that they became victims of circumstances well beyond their control.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/Articlesandlecturesbyourteachingstaff/IrelandandtheFirstWorldWar/

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 09:13 AM

Rag, I answered those questions you posted yesterday.
How could you have missed it?
See my post 30 Apr 16 - 10:29 AM

Jim,
You have described the events that are being celebrated at the present time in Ireland as a "contemptible joke"

I have indeed described the rising thus, and many Irish would agree. I have quoted a couple.
The Irish need little excuse to celebrate though.

and have described those who support these events as being "based on propaganda not fact."

No I did not. That is what I said about one of YOUR wild claims.

You have described the events as "the cold blooded murders of Dubliners by the rebels"

No I did not. I did say they committed some and that is a fact.
I acknowledge that the rebels fought bravely, but some despicable, unjustifiable acts also were committed by some of them.
(The first man to die in the Easter rebellion was an unarmed Constable James O'Brien, from Kilfergus, Co Limerick.)

In the past, you have described Irish children as having been "brainwashed into hating Britain".

That referred to Kineally's observation that the Irish school system forced a biased version of history to be taught. The Indy article I linked to quoted and Irishman making the same complaint.

No "racist slurs" from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:12 AM

" I'm not going to waste my time on it."
'Course your not after the last fiasco
"Throughout your rant you constantly contradict yourself"
Where exactly - more unqualifies pronouncements - smoke and mirrors.
Contradiction didn't you write this "Again that is your rather weird take on things, but in a way it is true"?
"You have no right whatsoever to say what anybody else would do, say or think"
Where have I ever done that - I've just stopped Keith from doing it - perhaps you're confusing us (hope not!)
"But please answer the question a Free State - V IRA civil war"
Beyind me how you dae to demand answers when you constantly sprint away when you are asked a question, but it doesnmt matter anyway, I'm mre than happy to answer.
One was the result of a treaty forced through at gunpoint and by blackmail, conniving and other dirty tricks by Britain, the other would have been brought about by Britain's appeasing Unionism as they were doing - Hobson's Choice beyond the control of the Irish people anyway.
Had Britain made the same demands on the Unionists and insisted that the Catholic/Protestant had the same voting, property and employment rights as part of the Treaty, there need have been no war, just as, if Britain had stuck to the signed agreement that partition would be temporary, instead of altering it in mid-steam, there would have been no Civil war.
Britain not only succumbed to the threats of the mutineers but was happy to see six counties in 'a safe pair of hands'      
What's on earth's your point?
To date, I have responded to all your questions - you have responded to none of mine.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:10 AM

And just how many of that 452,000 would have been prepared to take up arms. 10%......... 20% give it a rest and as for the preposterous suggestion that someone signed it in blood, give us a break.

Frederick Crawford reckoned he signed it in blood. Utter tosh. It's a pity for gullible buggers like you that modern science has put paid to that little myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:03 AM

Over 210,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight in the First World War - your 134,000 figure details those enlisted IN IRELAND - not the same thing at all, but good try.

As to proportions and percentage casualty/fatalities that will vary if you detail branch of service wouldn't it.

Percentage fatalities amongst those who served as infantrymen will be higher than those who served as Engineers, Signallers or artillerymen.

None-the-less of the 8 million plus who served in the armed forces of Great Britain, the Empire and the Commonwealth 888,000+ died - Which means that my statement is true nine out every ten came home alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 06:52 AM

Jim Carroll - 01 May 16 - 04:27 AM - more ill-informed opinion and emotive twaddle presented as fact.

The Irish Holocaust -start a thread so that we can hammer over the same old ground with the same old facts - dig out, I'm not going to waste my time on it.

Throughout your rant you constantly contradict yourself - Your history is based on pure conjecture, but I see your pals on this forum let you get away with it unchallenged, fortunately for the sake of honest discussion and debate neither Keith, myself and a few others do not.

You have no right whatsoever to say what anybody else would do, say or think, restrict those statements for the only person you can speak for - YOURSELF.

But please answer the question a Free State V IRA civil war, or a Independence V Unionist civil war - which would have been worse for Ireland as a whole.

Figures Raggy come from the Covenant, many of the signatures written in blood, signed in the North in 1913 (452,252 in 1913 is close enough to ~500,000 in 1919 for me). Any civil war between North and South would have been bitter, protracted and bloody in the extreme and that was the point I was making. By the way no children signed the Covenant and women can pull triggers and throw bombs just as well as men. If you are going to quote the right of self-determination as justification for one group then it must be quoted for all - True?

The plain truth is that Daniell O'Connell sought Dominion Status for a United Ireland with the British Sovereign serving as Head of State.
It worked for Australia and for Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:42 AM

Should read; "We are not discussing Daniel O'Connell either, but some people believe it to be relevant and you have said nothing"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:36 AM

"You lie. You can not put up any such statement from me."
You have described the events that are being celebrated at the present time in Ireland as a "contemptible joke" and have described those who support these events as being "based on propaganda not fact."
Did you not write this?
That pretty well sums up what is happening in Ireland at the present time.
You have described the events as "the cold blooded murders of Dubliners by the rebels"
Did you not write this?
In the past, you have described Irish children as having been "brainwashed into hating Britain".
Did you not write this?
Whoever wrote them, these are racist slurs on the Irish people.
I have carefully avoided making this personal - I have responded to what you wrote each time.
your arguments have all been knocked down "
"I win" again
You have answered nothing, you have merely repeated the same jingoistic misinformation.
"We are not discussing the famine here,"
We are not discussing Daniel O'Connell either, but some people
The Famine had an enormous relevance to what happened in 1916, as has W.W.1., the Curragh Mutiny, The Land Wars.... and all other related subjects which you have been happy to participate in
regard it as part of this discussion.
Please stop attempting to suppress what people believe is relevant because it doesn't fit your particular agenda - you have been asked not to on previous threads and have denied doing so - now you're at it again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:24 AM

Statistics

Now if 30,000 of the 134,000 recorded enlistments were killed that equates to over 22% of Irish were killed not the one in 10 that Terricola is suggesting.

Hmm the Irish were twice as likely to be killed I wonder why that was.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:08 AM

"Practically the entire nation was against them" It's not the first time you made this statement I have asked for your evidence you have no provided it.

Yesterday I posted:
"That is not how the people felt in 1916. They were happy with the plans for home rule, supported the war against Germany, and reviled the rebels"

1. Show us your evidence for such a claims.

2. Are these the same people who considered the leaders martyrs.

3. Are these the same people who by 1919 were fighting a War of Independence.

Are you going to answer the questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:05 AM

The leaders instigated the rising, the Irish people opposed it.
The fools were the instigators, not those who like me thought them fools or worse than fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:03 AM

Care to give us the real figures for the number of Irish who survived.

30 000 killed out of over 20 000.
That is better than 8.5 out of ten surviving. No significant difference to overall survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:59 AM

Squirm as much as you want Keith, we all know what you meant. If you had meant the leaders you would have said the leaders. You didn't and everyone can see it in black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:55 AM

Rag,
You call a entire nation "fools"

No. I call the rebel leadership fools. Practically the entire nation was against them.
They called them worse than fools on the streets of Dublin.

Jim,
No personal attack Keith - your statements are racist, plain and simple

You lie. You can not put up any such statement from me.
You resort to personal attack because your arguments have all been knocked down and you ignorance of the actual history exposed.

The Famine, the deliberate ...

We are not discussing the famine here, but when we did I pointed out that not all historians blame Britain, and it emerged that only a minority do or ever have.

This thread is about the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:53 AM

Who's making up "FACTS" now:

"70,000 men in the South would have had to face ~500,000 armed pro-Union supporters firmly established in the North"

Are you seriously suggesting that every protestant man, woman and child would have taken up arms. What are the babies going to do, hit someone over the head with their rattle.

"NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN MEN CAME BACK ALIVE"

Care to give us the real figures for the number of Irish who survived. They don't make very good reading do they.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:27 AM

"In short Raggy he had very little in common with your heroes of 1916."
Utter rubbish - again.
When O'Connell advocated non-violence the Irish Holocaust had not taken place and the Irish population had not been either starved to death or driven into exile (1 million deaths and 1.5 million forced emigrations.
When this happened, his party split, large sections of them advocating violent opposition to British rule.
Two years into the Famine, O'Connell set off for Rome, but died in Geneva.
Had he survived to witness the mass evictions, the full granaries and the closed workhouses (and read the Trevelyan letter), there is no doubt that O'Connell would have supported Home Rule by any means, as most of his party did at the time of his death.
The Famine, the deliberate depopulation of Ireland and the Land Wars removed all possibility of a peaceful transition to Independence.
O'Connell was, by nature, a pacifist - Christ knows what he would have made of the killing fields of W.W.1.
O'Connell one of yours - you cannot be serious.Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:21 AM

Oh Shaw, I forgot this bit:

"And what Jim said in his final sentence above, the two of you, to a tee."

In that I take it you were referring to this absolute gem of Jim the infallible's:

"once again, you are involved in yet another Rourke's Drift in defence of the Empire"

Hate to have to point this out to you both but the defence of Rourke's Drift was successful - it was a victory.

Yet another "own goal" - Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:15 AM

And so is the other bit Raggy, the bit where he also campaigned for that independent Ireland with Queen Victoria as the Queen of Ireland.

Don't be so disingenuous when shoving forward your candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:11 AM

As you very rarely ever say anything Shaw I find little or no reason to seek clarification from you on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:08 AM

"It would have been no different than the "stepping stone" that was forced on Ireland in 1922 the brought about civil war and a near century of inequality, Anti-Catholic rioting and eventually open warfare in Ireland and in Britain.
The only difference might have been that, if Easter Week had not happened all these things would have been brought forward a few years and would have entailed Irish youth being sent off to fight for the Empire they had spent centuries trying to be rid of, in the European bloodfest.
Had that happened, Ireland would have been left non-viable as a nation giving the number of youths who were being slaughtered as 'cannon-fodder'"

Sorry Carroll that is merely YOUR opinion - please do not present it as fact.

A Civil War in Ireland was a foregone conclusion as ace tooth-sucker Eamon de Valera threw his toys out of the pram because the delegation sent to England didn't get all that HE wanted. Just as well because (And this is MY opinion Carroll) had independence and separation from the UK been forced on Ulster then the Civil War that Ireland would have seen would have been much much worse - reason for believing that Jim? In the Civil War THAT DID OCCUR the protagonists were a National Army (Free State) of ~55,000 men fighting a "Nationalist Force" (The IRA) of ~15,000 men. That war lasted 10 months, 3 weeks and 5 days in which ~4,000 combatants were killed and even today the number of civilians who died is unknown (~250 in Dublin alone is the estimate). Now had de Valera got all he wanted those ~70,000 men in the South would have had to face ~500,000 armed pro-Union supporters firmly established in the North - you tell me Jim how long would that have lasted and what would the extent of the carnage have been?

By the way who was going to send those Irish youths off to die? All Irishmen who did join up did so as Volunteers. There was no conscription in Ireland - that Jim is a fact - against which your opinions are complete and utter twaddle.

Worth noting Jim that out of more than 8 million who fought during the First World War for the British, Empire and Commonwealth armed forces NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN MEN CAME BACK ALIVE - now that could not be said for those who fought for any of the other 1914 combatant nations - another cold hard FACT for you Jim.

As to "them" having fought against England/Britain for centuries very few of them did for very few years down through those centuries - again that is fact.

As with most of your postings, your last is an example of poorly researched emotional twaddle.