BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: BS: Easter Rising Ireland 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 02:11 PM

May we continue the non-music discussion here please?

Jim said,
And immediately changed their minds following the uprising.

Not true. They continued to serve loyally.

Incidentally, far from a Home Rule Bill being agreed, there was the question of partition to be decided.

The bill had been passed by parliament. The question of partition was unresolved, but the Dublin bloodbath hardly helped deal with that!

There was no agreement for Home Rule

Yes there was. The bill had passed.

Even if there had been agreement Civil War would have been inevitable - only the Unionists wanted partition

The civil war was not about the partition.

There was never support for the war in Ireland and the government was aware of that otherwise they would have introduced compulsory conscription as they did throughout the rest of the British Isles -

Yes there was support. Over 200,000 volunteers!
No need for conscription.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising Ireland 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 02:32 PM

"May we continue the non-music discussion here please?"
No we can't Keith - not as far as I'm concerned.
Once again you have scurried behind historians you haven't read and totally ignored the facts as seen and now being widely stated on our media by those who were involved in the form of documentary evidence they have left behind - not historians, but actual participants.
You many stick your Little Britain mind games - I have the facts of the civil war and the war of Independence - you have out-of-context quotes again - you cannot turn on the television here or open a newspaper without being bombarded by it.
Answer the points made - I have no intention of being part of closing yet another thread as you and your historian have just done
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 04:10 PM

As the music editor, I am going to overrule the decision to close this thread, and I will move the messages from the BS thread here. This will no doubt be a controversial discussion. Please stick to the subject and refrain from personal remarks or attacks. If you disagree with a point of view, refute it with facts and logic - not namecalling. Be aware that an opposing opinion gives your side an opportunity to present its case and provide information that may be of value to us all. This topic is of folkloric value, and forms the context for many important songs. Mods, leave it alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising Ireland 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 04:10 PM

Keith you know next to nothing about Irish history, so stop trying to pretend that you do. Your statements are widely inaccurate and you are parroting an interpretation of history that has being cobbled together and peddled by establishment apologists and revisionists since the end of WW1.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: keberoxu
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 05:00 PM

Earlier posts have remarked on a connection between Irish nationalism, and Germany. This connection is a complex one with multiple layers. I am thinking of the sad ending to the career of Dr. Kuno Meyer.

The layer in question here is language, linguistics, literature, lyrics.

Dr. Kuno Meyer was a German born and bred, and ultimately he would die there. But his career took him elsewhere. His studies of languages led him to Dr. Ernst Windisch, a 19th-century German specialist in Middle Irish. I don't know nearly enough about Windisch, nor about Zeuss whose first name I can't recall right now, Zeuss specialized in Old Irish actually. This earlier generation of German scholars became deeply devoted to Gaelic literature. These are the professors who went and looked for the manuscripts scribed in the monasteries by Irish monks, and copied down the Gaelic quatrains in the margins, or the longer poems that filled up larger spaces such as the beloved "Messe ocus Pangur Bán."

These were the authorities in place when a relatively young Douglas Hyde pleaded the case for Gaelic as a language in its own right; he called upon them for support, and their opinions and research overcame the opposition, at least in that particular contest.

Kuno Meyer had a solid career teaching this language and literature in Dublin, and he was branching out to North America as a lecturer, when the Great War began. Because Meyer, somewhat automatically, sided with his native Germany, his career collapsed like a house of cards, because the countries in which his career was based were all opposed to the aggression of the Germans. Suddenly he could no longer teach in Dublin, and Harvard University changed its mind and decided that he did not belong on their faculty.

By the time the Easter Rising took place, Meyer was more or less persona non grata in Ireland and Englsnd. He found himself in North America, lecturing, and hanging on to the remnants of his career in linguistics. After a brief marriage to an American woman, he made his way back to the Continent; while the Ireland that he loved made its destiny without him, he returned to Germany and died in 1917.

Meyer was a scholar of such stature that an entire generation of Irish or Anglo-Irish linguists learned their craft from him, and owed their very educations and careers to professors like him.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 10:29 PM

Fergie says: Keith you know next to nothing about Irish history, so stop trying to pretend that you do. Your statements are widely inaccurate and you are parroting an interpretation of history that has being cobbled together and peddled by establishment apologists and revisionists since the end of WW1.

I know you can do better than that, Fergie. Please provide historical facts to support what you have to say. Address issues, not posters. Many of us have a lot to learn about this subject. All I know, is what I read in the Leon Uris books. Well, a bit more - but not much.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:08 AM

Well at least we are getting some progress albeit slight.

The Curragh Mutiny is now acknowledged as not being a mutiny at all and is more accurately described historically as the Curragh incident, an incident in which no law (Civil, Military or Criminal) was broken, hence no trials, or executions.

The resignations mentioned were forced resignations from the high offices held not resignations from the Army.

Thompson where does this figure of 1,200,000 Arabs fighting for the British Army come from? I think I remember you bringing this up on another thread in which you also claimed that 500,000 of them were killed. Like your figure of 30,000 British troops being deployed in Ireland to counter the Easter Rising your information is just plain wrong and your figures are fanciful myth.

On India I would direct you towards Niall Ferguson on the subject

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:37 AM

Further progress in as much as the Curragh Incident originally described as being the first military aggression has now been downgraded to military action, which of course is also incorrect as no military action took place at all, what was proposed was no action at all by way of massed resignations from the army.

Joe Offer - Date: 17 Apr 16 - 10:29 PM

Well said Joe, in general that has been needed saying for some time now, I hope heed is taken of it.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 04:05 AM

Jim,
- I have the facts of the civil war and the war of Independence - you have out-of-context quotes again

Facts like the bill not having been passed?
You were wrong about that.

It is true that I read what historians say about history.
They do the research and write the books.
You are deluded if you believe that you know better.

You were wrong about the naming of the Imperial War Museum.
It was originally called the British War Museum.
The name was changed to acknowledge that much of the fighting was done by Empire not British fighters.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 04:47 AM

You accuse me of "out of context quotes."
I have only quoted one historian, and I provided a link so that it could be seen in its original full context, exactly as quoted.

You have failed to challenge a single point that I have made.
Many of yours have been shown to be wrong.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 05:26 AM

The Imperial War Museum was opened in 1920 and was called the Imperial War Museum from 1917.

Facts

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 06:45 AM

Thanks.
The original name was "The National War Memorial" and not quite as I recalled.
It is a fact that the name "Imperial War Museum" was chosen to acknowledge the contribution of the Empire, and Jim was wrong to claim it as evidence of an imperial war.

The museum's name was changed in November 1917 at the request of the India and Dominions Sub-Committee, who wanted a name that ensured 'India and the Dominions would feel that their part in the War would be permanently commemorated in the centre of the Empire'.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 06:58 AM

"It was originally called the British War Museum."

Any chance of an acknowledgement that you were mistaken.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 08:02 AM

"The Curragh Mutiny is now acknowledged as not being a mutiny at all and is more accurately described historically as the Curragh incident,"
Not true - it was an attempt by a number of high ranking officers to influence British policy by refusing to act should they be ordered to do so - mutiny by threat and if it had come to it, mutiny by action tantamount to a military coup on behalf of the Ulster Unionists.
If it had happened during wartime it would have been treasonable and subject to trial and execution if those concerned had been found guilty.
It was described by the Government as "a misunderstanding and largely ignored, which was confirmation, if any were needed, that Home Rule could never be arrived at by peaceful means.
That there was no intention of ratifying the Home Rule Bill, (which was re-introduced and rejected by the Irish Parliamentarians in 1916) was confirmed by the fact that, by the end of 1919 no moves were made to introduce independence, instead, yet more thuggish violence on Britain's part by sending in the Black and Tans and Auxies to beat the Irish into submission.
Any violence that took place subsequently was in reaction to that instigated and carried out by Britain and the Ulster Protestant State, culminating in the viciousness towards the Civil Rights Protests, which led to open warfare.
"The Imperial War Cabinet" was the British Empire's wartime coordinating body. The Imperial War Conferences of 1917 and 1918 were a series of meetings held concurrent with the Imperial War Cabinet to co-ordinate governance of the British Empire during the war and prepare for the post-war situation."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 08:25 AM

Rag your Wiki page gives the original name as The National War Museum.
I recalled it as The British War Museum.
Sorry for the slight but irrelevant error.

Jim, the word "imperial" was appropriate because it was not just a British fight. The whole Empire was involved.
Britain was not fighting an "imperial war" as you claim, but was fighting to defend Britain and Europe from an aggressive invader.

Britain was not fighting for territory, only defending.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 08:43 AM

Question: Just how much territory did Britain acquire post WW1 that pre WW1 had been German or Ottoman territory.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 09:02 AM

"Jim, the word "imperial" was appropriate because it was not just a British fight"
You've claimed this once before without evidence - you provide none now
It was a war over world domination - doesn't matter who started it - it was Empire defending Empire plain and simple and its excesses led to the eventual collapes of the Imperial system - after how many centuries?
Finished with this.
On to why Britain was all agog to give Ireland independence but never quite got round to it.
To repeat - Icidents such as the constant defeat of Home Rule bills and the Curragh mutiny proved beyond doubt that Ireland would never get Independence without forcibly seizing it - even when it succeeded, the partition that was forced on them led to ongoing oppression, violence and eventually open warfare.
Easter Week was the frst major step towards Independence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 10:33 AM

Part of the geographical island of Ireland gained independence.
however they sold their independence to Europe and now appeared to be ruled by Brussels.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 10:51 AM

Having said that Dick Ireland has done very well out of Europe. Look at your infrastructure for a start.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 11:31 AM

It was a war over world domination

Not for Britain.
It was just about the invasion, and the war aims were just to halt the invader and push him back to his own borders, freeing the conquered and enslaved peoples.

No domination.
No territorial gain.
Irishmen did not and would not volunteer to expand the British Empire.
They volunteered to fight against a threat to civilisation and democracy including that of Britain and Ireland.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 12:16 PM

most of the infra structure here was built by the British.
the IRISH Reduced the rail network about the same time as Beeching,the European union has done very little towards improving the rail network, they have provided some road funding, but some of that was ill advised, they would have done better to have spent it on the rail network, they have contributed to destroying a heritage site, read this letter

Madam, - I read in a recent article here in Germany that the M3 motorway being built through the Tara valley will be partly financed by European Union subsidies.
It is a condition for EU member-states which receive subsidies that they undertake not to destroy any heritage in the course of using EU funding. Yet if the M3 motorway proceeds on its planned route it will destroy the recently discovered archaeological site at Lismullin.
This matter was raised in the European Parliament in May by the Irish MEP Proinsias De Rossa, and also by the British MEP Roger Helmer. I believe the issue will also be raised in the future by German MEPs.
During my studies I lived for a period in Ireland, and came to deeply appreciate Irish culture and heritage. I find it so hard to believe that the Irish Government would seek to build a motorway through what has rightly been called the heart of Irish culture. Irish heritage is part of European heritage. Surely European Union money must not be used to destroy what all European visitors to Ireland know is something unique and precious. - Yours, etc,
CHRISTA SPANNBAUER, Holzkirchen, Germany.
Raggytash, your comment is an example of someone who makes occasional visits, but does not really understand what has happened in this country.
I have a lot of criticsms of Europe and their inept petty Imperalistic bureaucracy but I am in favour of staying in, better the devil you know than the deep blue sea that you do not.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 12:19 PM

"Irishmen did not and would not volunteer to expand the British Empire."
Nope - they went out because they were offered jobs, an easy war and meals every day, which many of them did not have at home.
Expalin the sudden U-turn - from support for Britain to a War of Independence that drove Britain out of Ireland in a matter of months.
Ireland had everey reason to hate Britain in teh shape of a deliberately manipulated Famine ("God's punishment for indolence" according to Sir Charlie") and mass enforced (sail or starve) immigration.
As with every nation, the Irish have their flaws, but they would have to be a nation of masochists to support a nation which did that to them.
The war provided work and wages, as it did for many in Britain - it turned out to be not as easy as they had been led to believe.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 12:53 PM

Jim Carroll - 18 Apr 16 - 08:02 AM

Lots of "IFs" in all of that Jim - Unfortunately examining the ifs does not reflect either the times or the events - as relevant as the old saying "IF my Aunt had balls She'd be my Uncle".

There was no mutiny, no laws were broken, no offences committed - yet to Mr Carroll it was an act of military aggression for which people should have been tried and executed - his only rational for justifying this is to apply his IFs and present those as if they represented the situation and conditions that prevailed in March 1914.

Still he's back to calling it the Curragh Mutiny so no progress made at all. No point in entering into any "discussion" with Carroll at all.

As for putting up "facts" and backing them up Thompson (Who doesn't think that there ever was an actual "mutiny" at The Curragh) seems to have gone very quiet when his facts are challenged.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 01:14 PM

"There was no mutiny, no laws were broken,)
'Course here wasn't - it was all a dreadful mistake and the ones that resigned just needed a couple of weeks off!!
Try answering the specific points rather than the old usual denial with a little sprinkle of bullshit.
The Officers informed the Government that they would have no part fighting the Unionists if ordered to doi so - Bad hair day, schoolboy petulance - or what exactly.
It was a case of leading officers refusing to do what they were paid to do for political reasons, simple as that - if not, what exactly was it (or did we all dream it.
Of course, it never got beyond a threat because the occasion did not arise, but it remains what it was, the military attempting to intervene in Government policy - if not an actual mutiny a threatened one for political purposes - hair-splitting - the difference between industrial action and threatened industrial action.
You'll be scrabbling round for typos next.
BBC
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 01:17 PM

BBC AGAIN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 01:37 PM

From the link dealing with the incident Jom we read this:

The 57 officers were not actually guilty of 'mutiny'; they had not disobeyed direct orders of any kind.

So care to tell me why you are calling it a "Mutiny" when it wasn't?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:08 PM

"So care to tell me why you are calling it a "Mutiny" when it wasn't?"
It is generally known as a mutiny - it was mutinous in its intent and it was an open attempt to interfere in Government policy - the question as to whether it succeeded in changing Governmenyt policy has never been resolved.
Would you mind telling me why you are claiming that what the officers did was not wrong - by both military and civilian law?
Why are you defending Military interference in in Government actions.
I repeat, if it had taken place a few months later, whether it was successful or not, it would have been a treasonable act subject to the death penalty.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:31 PM

Definition of Mutiny
"Mutiny is a criminal conspiracy among a group of people (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change, or overthrow a lawful authority to which they are subject. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s), but can also occasionally refer to any type of rebellion against an authority figure."
Which bit of that did they not do?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: keberoxu
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:36 PM

Leon Uris? Really? The author of the pro-Zionist "Exodus"? Surely someone somewhere has done better.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:37 PM

Nope - they went out because they were offered jobs, an easy war and meals every day, which many of them did not have at home.

There was plenty of well paid civilian war work available.
Most joined during and after the retreat when there was no hope of an easy or quick victory, and defeat much more likely.

Expalin the sudden U-turn - from support for Britain to a War of Independence that drove Britain out of Ireland in a matter of months.

The British misjudged the situation and Ireland sympathised with their martyrs.
Britain was not driven out of Ireland in months. Home rule had to wait for the end of the war when it would have happened anyway.
All the bloodshed of the Rising was irrelevant.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:41 PM

Jim, your first BBC link supports my case not yours!

"Irishmen enlisted for the war effort for a variety of reasons. Some, just like their fellows in other warring states, joined up for the perceived justice of the cause. But in Ireland, which in 1914 was deeply divided between nationalist and unionist political groups, more local considerations played an important part for many individuals.

Nationalists, for whom the establishment of an Irish 'home rule' parliament in Dublin had been the principal political aim for most of the 19th century, were committed to the war effort by their leader, John Redmond, in September 1914.

This was on the grounds that the necessary legislation had been passed (though in fact it was suspended for the duration of the war), and that the 'freedom of small nations' (such as Belgium or Serbia) was that of Ireland as well. The plight of gallant, Catholic little Belgium, invaded by a militaristic aggressor, was disadvantageously compared with Ireland, achieving freedom (so Redmond argued) within the British Empire, rather like Canada or Australia."

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 03:18 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the Leon Uris novel Trinity did a good job of telling the history of the troubles in Ireland. And although "Zionism" is not popular today, I think that the Uris book Exodus presented a valid perspective. There are two sides to the discussion in the question of Israel (let's not go there in this thread). Neither side is completely right, nor completely wrong. The same goes for Ireland.

But what's wrong with the novel Trinity and its description of Ireland?

Joe

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 10:21 PM

Refresh. Keep it civil, folks. If you disagree, provide evidence to the contrary. If all you can say is that you're right and somebody else is wrong, why should anyone believe you, and what does anybody learn from your post?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 01:21 AM

"Mutiny is a criminal conspiracy among a group of people (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change, or overthrow a lawful authority to which they are subject. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s), but can also occasionally refer to any type of rebellion against an authority figure."

What evidence do you have that there was any CRIMINAL conspiracy? Taking into account that it is perfectly legal for any officer to tender his resignation at any time. Nothing to do with this instance at all but it is also perfectly within the rights of any serving member of the armed forces to disobey any order that they believe to be unlawful.

Where did they openly oppose the Government of the day? Nowhere - the choice they were given was obey or face dismissal from the Army, 57 officers each personally elected to submit their resignations - face saving opportunity for the Army and Government of the day, as neither had to dismiss anybody.

As no actions were ordered and no changes demanded by those who submitted their resignations, the change bit doesn't hold water either.

Who exactly was overthrown by the officers who submitted their resignations? The men who were forced to resign their posts in the aftermath of the incident were forced to resign by their superiors, not by those who submitted their resignation at the Curragh.

So Mr Carroll:
No Military aggression - as you originally claimed
No Mutiny - as both Thompson, numerous articles including the one you posted and myself have stated
No overt action against Home Rule (I also believe that the Irish Home Rule Bill was given Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914).

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 03:31 AM

Joe, I have not read Uris.
Why do you think the book gives a balanced view?

I found this review which questions the objectivity.

"Social commentary, perhaps outright propaganda, is an integral element of this historical presentation. Each of the three factions in the political war is examined, but the native Irishmen obviously have thé sympathy of the author. Uris does manage to a great degree to avoid the depiction of the Irish as the quaint folk of the popular stereotype, but he cannot resist the image of an innocent and poetical people provoked to acts of violence by their greedy and unfeeling neighbors. "
http://www.enotes.com/topics/trinity

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 04:02 AM

"What evidence do you have that there was any CRIMINAL conspiracy? "
You really are claiming that none of this happened and high ranking members of the armed forces did not attempt to force Government policy on Ulster and "The Curragh Mutiny" was a figment of the imagination - aren't you?
Ah well - it takes all sorts!!
It was military aggression though no violence occurred - which nobody, not I, claimed it did.
That you appear to see such behaviour as the role of Her Majesty's Forces says what needs to be says what needs to be said. I think - We'll have our keep our eyes on an armed force capable of influencing Government policy - such things are military dictatorships made of.
"Where did they openly oppose the Government of the day?"
They gave notice that they would refuse to take part in action against Ulster if orders were given.
"The Curragh Mutiny" is part of British/Irish History as is'Bloody Sunday' - despite what the deniers say - go and look it up.
Joe.
Trinity, and its follow up are excellent and enjoyable novels which helped paint a somewhat romaniticised (i.m.o.) picture of life at the time, though they are works of fiction and cannot be relied on as history, nor did they pretend to be - the same with Exodus, of course.
The bit that always sticks in my mind is the effect that the priest's castigating the enjoyment of sex has on the family life of the two main characters - but that's me!
Have never read his follow up, Redemption.
Leon and Jill Uris produced an interesting modern photographic survey of modern Ireland entitled 'Ireland - a Terrible Beauty (1976) - worth looking up if you haven't read it.
For a novelised account of Easter Week, , I thoroughly enjoyed Peter De Rosa's 'Rebels.
One of the best eye-witness-account books on the Uprising is Agony at Easter by Scots/American, Thomas Coffey - a minute-by-minute account made up of interviews with people who were around at the time.
It carries a lovely story of a bunch of Liverpudlians who came across on the boat to join the fight, get off at the North Wall, board a tram-car and ask for "six tickets to the revolution please".
Keith - we've been over all this interminably and got nowhere - we are not going to change each others' minds so let's not **** up another thread - please!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 04:32 AM

Dick, Funny you should mention the N3 motorway. An old friend of mine (Steve Linnane) was Director of Archaeology for the Baronstown excavation prior to the motorway being constructed. If you want to look up his papers on the dig they can be found at:

DIG

Just for the record Steve and I were in the same class at school and drank together for some year after.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 04:34 AM

Typo alert M3 not N3

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 04:48 AM

a very self explanatory post where was that school,Borstal?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 05:23 AM

Going back to your mention of creating a rail network there are various issues that do not lend themselves to one.

For the most part the population outside the major cities (Dublin, Cork, Galway etc) live in fairly small, even isolated, communities that a rail network could not viably service. In order to commute a decent road network is essential.

Now I know down in West Cork where you reside such a network is long overdue but in other areas of the country numerous by-passes have been built to reduce travelling times. (although the N71 has been upgraded in some parts)

Going to the capital (and major port) has been made easier with the creation a system of motorways that facilitate transport. It is now possible to drive to Galway for instance in about 2 hours. Twenty years ago take would have taken 4 to 5 hours all subsidised by the EU.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 05:25 AM

You really are claiming that none of this happened and high ranking members of the armed forces did not attempt to force Government policy on Ulster and "The Curragh Mutiny" was a figment of the imagination - aren't you?

Not imagination.
Is anyone prepared to quit their job because they disapprove of the work a criminal?
Of course not.
That is all that was being considered.
No crime. No mutiny.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 05:34 AM

"s anyone prepared to quit their job because they disapprove of the work a criminal?"
The Army and the police hold a position of privilege in our society - they rely on the consent that those privileges give them and both are restricted in the actions they are allowed to take - the alternatives are a police or a military state - of course they are not allowed to intervene in Government policy
"But should the government go further and allow troops to enlist in a trade union ... and the right to strike?
It is illegal for a non-civilian member of the armed forces to do either. Britain is not breaching the European convention on human rights which allows for legal exemptions. And the relevant law in the UK is the Queen's Regulations, by which every serviceman and woman is bound."
GUARDIAN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 07:14 AM

- of course they are not allowed to intervene in Government policy

Of course they are not, and they did not.

They merely considered exercising their perfect right to quit.
Nothing wrong with that.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 07:25 AM

No nothing wrong with that, better to resign than refuse an order.

It's a pity the boys in the trenches didn't have that option.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 07:37 AM

"Of course they are not, and they did not."
They attempted to by threatening to refuse to accept the decision of the Government - leading members of the Army tried to force the Government to change their policy - they interfered with the running of the country - that is wrong, it is illegal and it could have set a horrendous precedent - a armed force with the power to defy or change government policy.
Look Keith - you have opposed the subject o this thread on every step - why not stop tip-toeing around that fact as state your position instead of constantly raising thes bling alleys.
As far as I am concerned, Easter Week was not just a courageous act to free Ireland from British rule - it was an essential act to stop the foot-dragging that had taken place over Home Rule.
Even a few months after the uprising, no agreement had been reached on ratifying the Bill.

"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.
The end of the war, in November 1918, was followed in Ireland by the December 1918 general election, the majority of seats being won by the republican separatist Sinn Féin party, then in January 1919 by the Irish War of Independence, so that the Act was never implemented. The future of Home Rule was determined by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. It established Northern Ireland, with a functional government, and Southern Ireland, whose governmental institutions never fully functioned. Southern Ireland, following the Anglo-Irish Treaty, became the Irish Free State."

Easter Week was significant beyond Ireland in that it was a major step in bringing the predatory British Empire crashing in ruins.
It preceded the Russian Revolution by over a year and it inspired many other national liberation movements to stand up and be counted.
I doubt if there are many who would oppose the right of countries to govern themselves nowadays - it was a much-needed revolutionary step.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 08:06 AM

Why the rising was so unpopular, by John Gibney, currently Glasnevin Trust Professor of Public History and Cultural Heritage at Trinity College Dublin..

" some (home rule nationalists) went so far as to view the Rising as an attack on Home Rule as much as the British.
Then there were the views of those who were literally on the ground. Many of the insurgents who fought in 1916 recorded the hostility of the families of serving soldiers across the city (some went so far as to say that their British captors had saved them from angry mobs).
There was a widespread perception (shared by Redmond) that the Volunteers were in cahoots with the Germans; from that point of view, those who fought in the Rising were stabbing other Irishmen – sons, husbands, brothers – in the back, and doing so in relatively safe circumstances at home; as one irate lady on Bridgefoot Street shouted at the young Volunteer Sean McLoughlin, 'it's out in Flanders you should be, you bastards'.
Alongside this was the fact that the Rising had caused massive death and destruction, and disrupted everyday life in the city; Oscar Traynor recalled how he and his fellow Volunteers were accused by one irate Dubliner of being 'starvers of the people'. Hostility to the Rising on these various grounds was inevitable, and surely understandable.
It can't just be blamed on 'jackeens' either, for (some) Dubliners were not the only ones hostile to the Rising. Local authorities and the provincial press across the country condemned it and, as Conor McNamara of NUIG has discovered, in Galway a committee of concerned citizens pledged themselves to supporting the British authorities; the Redmondite Nationalist Volunteers even patrolled Galway City with weapons provided by the British army.
Condemnation of the Rising spread far beyond the city in which the vast bulk of the fighting took place. But such attitudes changed utterly in subsequent weeks and months."
http://www.independent.ie/incoming/just-why-was-the-easter-rising-so-unpopular-34563527.html

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 08:10 AM

- it was an essential act to stop the foot-dragging that had taken place over Home Rule.
Even a few months after the uprising, no agreement had been reached on ratifying the Bill.

There was no foot dragging.
The bill had been passed, and enactment only postponed because of the world war that was raging and going badly.

The Rising achieved nothing. Pointless bloodshed. Home rule was going to happen anyway.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 08:28 AM

Keith, could I suggest you actually read a few books on Irish history instead of relying a cut and pastes which do not allow anyone to make the kind of statements you are coming out with.

Start with Strongbow in 1169/70 then read about the following 747 years. When you have done so you MAY have an insight into the 1916 Rising.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 08:40 AM

Give it a rest Keith; we've already had our warning and you have had your evidence
Finished
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 08:57 AM

Dick,I email my mate about the excavation you referred to. Below is his reply which to my mind answers the concerns put by Christa Spannbauer quiet succinctly:

Hello, Hope all goes well with you.

You are right that I worked on the M3 project in Ireland and very interesting it was too. As regards Lismullen, I did some work on this but the director was Aidan O'Connell who now works at Archer Heritage.ie. The site was published as Harvesting the Stars: An Iron Age Temple at Lismullen (Wordswell) and the book got very good reviews. The whole M3 road project was controversial because of its proximity to The Hill of Tara and there was considerable protest at the time. However the route of the road is not that close and did not impact on the hill itself but only on the wider landscape (I'm not even sure whether you can see the road from the hill). Google earth it and see for yourself. There was European money involved in the project. All of the archaeological work was done to the highest of standards and was closely scrutinised by central government. The standards followed were very high including 100% resolution of all sites (i.e. everything was excavated) whereas in England a sampling strategy is adopted where anything as low as 10% is accepted. I'm not going to outline the full methodology of road archaeology here, but you will find lots of additional information on the NRA.ie website under archaeology. All the final reports used to be on this site but they seem to have gone now. Check out the contents of Seanda for general articles on the M3 and Lismullen in particular. Also Google Stuart Rathbone and see what you get as he entered into the public on-line debate with some energy.

At the end of it a great deal of misinformation was spread by those against the route - most of it wrong.

Hope this helps and a Merry New Year to you and yours

Steve