BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 06:32 PM

"Throughout this argument you have offered not a shred of proof of anything you say - nothing."

Shall I list the proof that I have submitted:

1: Curragh Incident - The text of the telegram sent by Sir Arthur Paget to the War Office on the 20th March 1914 - detailed the extent of resignations from the officers of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade. That evidence to counter your claims that:
(a) The Army would refuse orders to move against the UVF
(b) That half the Army threatened to resign
(c) That the Army could not be relied upon

In actual fact all orders given were obey and carried out to the letter without so much as one seconds delay.

2: You stated that the Home Rule Bill 1914 was kicked out and defeated by the Tories and the House of Lords - I posted direct links to the actual Government of Ireland Act 1914 that detailed far from having been defeated it received Royal Assent and passed into Law on the 18th September 1914.

3: You claimed that the Government of Ireland Act 1914 was altered after it had received Royal Assent. I posted direct links to the actual Government of Ireland Act 1914 that showed that at no time at all after receiving Royal Assent was the Act amended in any way between 1914 and 1920 when the Act was repealed and replaced by the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

4: You claimed that the IRB did not collude with the Germans in order to mount their armed insurrection. I posted links and detailed sources from websites detailing the history of the IRB and Irish Volunteers that showed the opposite.

5: You claimed that the Irish Volunteers did not split - yet the link you provided STATEMENT BY WITNESS DOCUMENT NO. W.S. 242 clearly states that it did - to the extent that out of a Company of 130 men when given the choice which faction to side with (Redmond-ite Constitutional Nationalists or Pearse-ite Republican Nationalists only 7 men turned out for the Republican Nationalist muster. that was representative right across the board for the Irish Volunteer Force that numbered roughly 180,000 men (92.5% of them backed Redmond - only 7.5% of them backed Pearse). To support this I quoted and provided sources from the History of the Irish Volunteers.

6: You claimed that the armed rising was backed by the people of Ireland - Both Keith A and myself supplied links, quotations and sources that showed your contention to be complete and utter nonsense. So massive was the popular support for this armed rising that the seven men who planned it kept it secret from the Executive Council of the Irish Volunteers and from the Supreme Council of the IRB - It was kept secret because those plotting this armed uprising knew that their own leaders would have stopped it in its tracks, which is what they did their utmost to do. So great was the support that only 0.04% of the population turned out for it - 1,500 out of a population of 3.1 million.

7: Artillery being the cause of the fires in Sackville Street - I think that we have conclusively shown that fires were started in Sackville Street at least 40 hours before artillery engaged any target in Sackville Street

8: Who was responsible for the destruction and loss of life? You do not have to be a genius to work out that had there not been an armed rising then none of what happened would have occurred.

9: You stated that the unionists were guaranteed permanent partition in July 1916 by Lloyd George - I supplied sources and quotations that detail that what was guaranteed was that Ulster Unionists would not be forced into any union against their will and links were provided to the Abandoned Amending Bill of 1914 which mentioned the time limited temporary exclusion for Ulster for a six year period and the Unionists agreement to this and also the details of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 that offered the same time limited temporary exclusion - That proves that at no time at all did the British Government offer the Unionists permanent partition - you were asked to provide evidence that they had - you failed to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:28 PM

You really are astoundingly arrogant
Throughout this argument you have offered not a shred of proof of anything you say - nothing.
You reject documented and identified evidence fro historians, from journalists, from some of the massive amount of research that is being carried out at present, from contemporary eye-witness accounts.... if it disagrees with your claims it is automatically wrong.
Now you are claiming something that anybody who is the slightest familiar with Dublin knows to be wrong.
And you expect people who have been subjected to your barrage of arrogance to still accept your claims over published information
What are you on and who's your dealer - we could all do with some of that!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:01 PM

Incidentally
The favourite form of Victorian architecture throughout Dublin for large buildings was concrete-rendered pseudo-Grecian; the Rotunda, the GPO, several theatres and hospitals - Dublin was, and still is, full of them
Are you completely mad to expect us to accept your denial and reject The Irish Times?
Did you have to widen the doors of your house when you moved in?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 04:54 PM

"Must remember in future to just agree with everything Rapparee says"
Why not youi expect the rest of us to agree with everything you say?
You mut think we're all as big gobshites as you?
"Of course it is important to correct inaccurate and misleading information."
Or as pompous
"But please do ignore evidence if you like, "
You've dismissed every piece of verified and documented evidence as "Irrelevant" or "made up Carroll shite".
You really are up your own arse a long way, aren't you?
s I said, why the **** should we believe anything you say - you arse arrogant enough never to corroborate anything
Sheesh!!!
"! identify any buildings made of concrete."
Wha....!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 04:12 PM

Must remember in future to just agree with everything Rapparee says.

Of course it is important to correct inaccurate and misleading information. According to some contributing to this thread the fires were started by British Artillery fire - plain fact of the matter was that they weren't - Why can I say that with absolute certainty? There was no British Artillery in Dublin at the time the fires were started and there were no British troops in Sackville Street at the time the fires started. But please do ignore evidence if you like, if you prefer to believe "myths" rather than the truth dig out.

One other thing from the Irish Times witness account - take a good look at pictures of Sackville Street pre-1916 - identify any buildings made of concrete.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:40 PM

"No it wasn't - if so, where was it?"
Was it what - Keith said it was debiunked - I said it was one of your ususal unqualified makkie ups - how do you prove a negative - you prove it wqsn't made up.
"but I will go through the process again if you like:
"
Not with unqualified statements you won't - you make up things all the time and expect us to take them at face value.
As far as I'm concerned, with yor track record you'd have to produce evidence if you told us it was Tuesday
You link nothing because you invent everything - was never impressed but you've really blown it with your behaviuour here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:25 PM

Jim Carroll - 08 Jun 16 - 05:18 AM

"artillery duel" nonsense was debunked in minute detail."

No it wasn't - if so, where was it?

It most certainly was Jim Carroll, but I will go through the process again if you like:

This supposed "artillery duel" witnessed by some unnamed "volunteer" who somehow managed to see both guns and gun crews and the fall of shot stated that this took place on the 27th April 1916.

Now considering that the man was probably under fire and doing what he was supposed to be doing to free Ireland from 7/800 years of English/British oppression the above would be impossible to do in the centre of a city. Raggytash put this up previously from the joemulveney website.

The only other thing that tends to throw a spanner in the works for taking this at face value is the recorded fact that HMY Helga entered the Liffey on the evening of the 25th April 1916 and at 20:15 that evening put two shells into the upper floors of Boland's Mill. The following morning (26th April 1916) HMY Helga opened fire on direct line of sight and fired 24 Shells into Liberty Hall starting at 08:30hrs. The bombardment finished at around mid-day. HMY Helga was then assigned targets in Sackville Street and she fired 14 shells at those. Thereafter she did not fire another shot.

So if Helga did not fire after the 26th April 1916 - care to tell us all how she could have possibly taken part in an artillery duel on the 27th??? Just asking like.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 02:34 PM

.303 tracer was in use by the British since 1914

No it was not.
"The British invented tracer
bullets—bullets which gave off small amounts of flammable material that left a
phosphorescent trail. The first attempt, in 1915, wasn't actually that useful,
as the trail was not straight and limited to 100 meters, but the second tracer
model developed in 1916, emitted a regular bright"
https://infogr.am/harashvivek_1393537750

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 12:22 PM

As an Infantryman I greatly appreciate my artillery support and will use it whenever needed. I do not appreciate yours, so just stop doing that!

Explosives used in any urban setting cause destruction, whether they are 12 pounder or 175mm shells, hand grenades, mortars, or anything else.

.303 tracer was in use by the British since 1914 and given the number of Irish who had already served in The War it's unlikely it would have been considered remarkable; I'm certain that troops at the front would have mentioned it in letters home. Besides (and trust me on this!) you really don't notice too much what sort of bullets are coming at you when YOU are the target and you're not under cover.

Frankly, I don't really give a hoot who set the fires. They existed, and this business of assigning blame a century later ranks with Daesh never forgetting how Richard massacred the Saracens at Acre in 1191.

Learn from the Past and get on with life!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 10:11 AM

"They would have been mentioned in eye witness reports had they been used."
I noticed from Thursday there were many tracer bullets used by the British and a constant shower of such bullets hit the Nelson Pillar. The front or the G.P.O. received very little rifle fire. From the time that the buildings on the opposite side of O'Connell Street went on fire we ceased to fear any frontal attack.
STATEMENT BY WITNESS DOCUMENT NO. W.S. 242
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 09:16 AM

and in April 1916 no-one would ever have seen such a thing before.

HUNH??

They would have been mentioned in eye witness reports had they been used.

HUNH ??

Would have, cound have, might have, should have & etc.- from the steel-trap mind of out professional Mudcat Historian, The Professor.

Gimmie shelter.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:18 AM

""artillery duel" nonsense was debunked in minute detail. "
No it wasn't - if so, where was it?
It has been denied by Teribus certainly - he has denied every fact that doesn't fit his and your jingoist agenda.
He hasn't produced proof - made up military statistics aren't proof.
If you want to "debunk" it, produce evidence, not denials.
Dublin City was destroyed by the British troops using artillery among other things - they were the only ones who were equipped to carry out such destruction.
The Helga is a smokescreen - it lobbed shells indiscriminately over buildings in order to help subdue the uprising - that's what it was there for.
It helped destroy the area surrounding Sackville/O'Connell Street, no matter what it's claimed restrictions - it is not a feature here - you are attempting to set it up as yet another 'straw man' - it was the artillery that did the major damage - there is no dispute of that fact.
I see yo have adopted your mate's arrogant little habit of presenting personal opinions as undisputed facts
I take it we're now finished with you hate-filled "brainwashing" nonsense (for the time being anyway)
No doubt it will raise its ugly head again when the oportunity arises for you to do so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:53 AM

Tracer rounds from a machine gun are a spectacular site, and in April 1916 no-one would ever have seen such a thing before.

They would have been mentioned in eye witness reports had they been used.

Jim, the "artillery duel" nonsense was debunked in minute detail.
Helga's log reported no incoming fire.
The one pound shells fired over the buildings would land far beyond the Liffey.
One pound shells could not raise fountains of spray that "drenched the crew."
And much else.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:31 AM

"The report of the artillery duel is a complete and utter myth - one that has been well and truly exploded earlier on this thread."
Where and by whom - you have denied it and produced nothing to back up that claim - so it is an invention of your, certainly not "explosive" proof, and it is an ongoing sign of your arrogance that you should claim it to be.
That the looters set fire has never been denied - you have claim the looters and the rebels to have caused the destruction - not true and not possible
The fires that destroyed Dublin were the result of artillery fire - that is undeniable
Stop creating smokescreens
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:30 AM

"The report of the artillery duel is a complete and utter myth - one that has been well and truly exploded earlier on this thread."
Where and by whom - you have denied it and produced nothing to back up that delian - so it is an invention of your, certainly not "explosive" proof, and it is an ongoing sign of your arrogance that you should claim it to be.
That the looters set fire has never been denied - you have claim the looters and the rebels to have caused the destruction - not true and not possible
The fires that destroyed Dublin were the result of artillery fire - that is undeniable
Stop creating smokescreens
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:20 AM

Sorry folks - I was pleased when others began to join in this melee but now this feller has appeared to have painted it into a corner with his claims that the looters (armed with their flame-throwers, presumably) were the cause of mass destruction of Dublin city centre.
That seems a reasonable argument Sackville Street, Henry Street, Abbey Street and Moore Street were made up of small wooden huts and a box of matches can do a hell of a lot of damage, after all.
This ia a summary of the Weapons used during Easter week so it's fairly obvious that our boys in khaki were really up against it.
Perhaps it's time to move on - this really is treading stagnant water, the actual (not imagined and wishfully invented-on-the spot) facts are all up for grabs and, given the fact that this is the centenary of this event of this historic and world-changing event, lots more new facts are emerging every day, certainly here in Ireland, where every week brings yet another television documentary, another newspaper or radio documentary another newspaper or magazine supplement - and yet another well-researched researched book or lecture or exhibition.
I really don't expect a couple of long-live-the- Empirists to accept this event for what it was, as they've proved in past arguments, it's not their thing.   
I don't think I have ever come across a display of unremitting and persistent hatred against one national group ever before, on this Forum or anywhere, unless you count The Famine, where we saw a similar display by the same two people - says what needs to be said, as far as I'm concerned.
The Famine argument has been dredged up once again with totally false claims, to prove that the Irish hate Britain - surprisingly they don't, considering the history of the relationship.
The fact that the Irish don't hate Britain is beyond question; the only manifestation of hatred in these islands has been between two sections of the British nation - the republic in general standing aside and letting them at it - of course you had some supporting and sympathising - bound to happen seeing someone, somewhere had drawn a line across Ireland.
I find it utterly despicable that someone should invent a hatred that does not exist and they are not prepared to identify (and then, equally dishonestly, claim that they had) - first "I did give examples." then "There is a wide spectrum of ways in which hate can be manifested, and I am not getting in to it."
That dishonesty has played a prominent part in this argument - first we were given, Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.",
then
"hate the British" is not a phrase I have used in this discussion.
That dishonesty and invention is are forms of extreme hatred in themselves.
No serious historian has ever suggested that the people of Ireland have been "brainwashed" through their education system to hate Britain - nowhere - that is pure invention.
Keith's witness, Christine Kineally, said exactly the opposite, arguing that Irish educationalists bent over backwards to avoid the question of blame because it was politically expedient to do so - she based an entire work on that avoidance.
She argued that Irish history came in three distinct phases: the 'Free State Period which, when, in the fresh atmosphere of freedom, there were just "heroes and villains" and no substance (the Romantic Period).
1932 and the Republican Government brought a change, whereby history became totally uncritical and refused to apportion blame, largely due to the fact that Ireland was reliant on Britain accepting Irish emigrants, so they didn't wish to 'bite the had that fed them', so to speak (The Revisionist Period).
In this period there was little serious discussion on Ireland's long-running dispute over Independence (only one major work on Ireland's greatest disaster - by an Englishwoman).
From 1962 onwards, Irish education began to examine it's history in more depth, but still avoided blame (enlightened revisionism) - She might have added the (new enlightenment period) following the 150th anniversary of The Famine, when historians began to point fingers and apportion real blame - she was one of those who argued that Britain was not only responsible for fatally mishandling the Famine, but that there was a possibility that is was used as a deliberate ploy to solve 'the Irish Question'.
Keith (of course) used her in defence of his argument that Britain was in no way to blame for the depopulation of Ireland - "She says what I say about the dispute".
Now we're back to her supporting his case here, though he has admited that he has read nothing and is not interested in doing so.
No doubt he will continue to do so (quore her and refuse to read anything, that is)
The stark facts of this are - the Irish have not been "brainwashed to hate Britain, though they have every reason to do so - it is patently untrue that "generations of school children have ever been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive" - that is pure invention on Keith's part.
There was certainly reason to hate - firm evidence is now available that Britain did engineer the outcome of the Famine - I think I'd hate an Imperial administration that killed off, evicted and forcibly emigrated millions of my descendants, in fact I do, but I reserve that hatred for those at the top, not the people as a whole
It's about time that this display of race hatred is put a stop to - we really should be able to discuss serious matters without it.
Let's move on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 02:20 PM

Thanks Rapparee, interesting article, none of which alters a single thing that I have said - the fires started in Sackville Street on the 24th April, 1916 {Emphasis my own} were not started as the result of British artillery fire.

"Also the gunboat HMY Helga mounted a 12 pounder gun which fired into Dublin. A one pounder was dismounted from the boat, mounted on a cart, and used as a mobile artillery piece. There is one online report that the Helga and the one pounder engaged in and artillery duel between themselves."

The report of the artillery duel is a complete and utter myth - one that has been well and truly exploded earlier on this thread. If that appears in the Irish Times Chronology then that alone would cast doubts on the rest of it.

the fact that the rebels took up positions in Sackville Street makes it a legitimate target and one that must accept the reality of urban warfare - which is the attacker will not put their troops needlessly in harms way and if that means massive support fire to reduce that risk then that is what will happen - you as an ex-combat infantryman should know that.

I don't think the causes of the fires that swept parts of Dublin can be definitely lain at the feet of any one group.

Those fires that started on the evening of the 24th April most certainly can be attributed to the activities on one group. And if you wish to strip away all the dressing and posturing there was only one group responsible for the destruction of the centre of Dublin and for all the deaths - that was a very small group of unelected men, who represented nobody, who decided to take up the gun on the 4th September 1914. What they were supposed to be fighting for was a united independent Ireland, because of their efforts and because of their example, they are further away from that goal today than they were the day before they took their decision 102 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 11:01 AM

Extracted from the online Irish Times chronology for April 26 (my emphasis):

09.36hrs - Both British troops in the Gresham Hotel in Sackville Street and Volunteers in the GPO have been engaged in a ferocious sniper battle for several hours. Shouts claiming kills have been heard from the windows of both buildings. The huge walls of the majestic buildings lining Dublin's main street resound continuously to rifle-cracks. Gun smoke hangs in the morning air. The crash of artillery is almost constant and echoes thunderously through the streets.

11.23hrs - Sackville Street a fully-fledged warzone! Stephen's Green may be peaceful right now, but Sackville Street is anything but tranquil. It is now a war-zone like any other. From the south side of the river machine guns are raking the street. Incendiary bullets are setting fire to the few remaining unburnt shop canopies while concrete is gouged from walls. Glass is shattering everywhere. Casualties are mounting on both sides from unrelenting sniper fire. The battle is escalating.

14.40hrs - Sackville Street now resembles Western Front! Sackville Street is under artillery fire from D'Olier Street. Kelly's Fishing Tackle Shop on Batchelor's walk is being pummelled with shrapnel shells and Vickers machine gun bullets. The British have set up a heavy machine gun position in Purcell's Shop at the tip of Westmoreland Street's junction with D'Olier Street. Sackville Street is being saturated with bullets. It appears that Sackville Street is being softened up for an assault.

15.20hrs - Lower Sackville Street is still under unrelenting fire from both artillery and machine gun. The sniper fire from the southern quays and Trinity College is lethal. Sparks are flying from the O'Connell monument. It appears that sharpshooters may be using the monument to range their guns. The Hibernian Bank at Lower Abbey Street's junction is under vicious fire from the Ballast Office on Aston Quay.

Also the gunboat HMY Helga mounted a 12 pounder gun which fired into Dublin. A one pounder was dismounted from the boat, mounted on a cart, and used as a mobile artillery piece. There is one online report that the Helga and the one pounder engaged in and artillery duel between themselves.

Briefly, the Cartridge S.A.Tracer SPK .303 inch Mark VII.T, which was formally approved in June, 1916, carried a tracer "light" for about 800 yards. Whether or not the cartridges were available on an emergency basis to the troops heading for Dublin I haven't been able to determine, but I suspect that they were given plenty of whatever was available.

Speaking from personal experience as a combat Infantryman, I can assure everyone that bullets and bits of hot, flying, metal of any sort can act in manners of which the manufacturer or the military would hardly approve. These things do not care where they go, whether or not they perform to specifications, or where, when, or in whom they land. Fires can also start by sparks caused by any number of sources, including escaping gas.

I don't think the causes of the fires that swept parts of Dublin can be definitely lain at the feet of any one group. There are now, a century later, still too many variables and there always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 09:50 AM

It was a slingshot, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 09:48 AM

Ah Raggy you cannot be bothered to research stuff and look it up yourself.

From any internet article relating to HMY Helga you will get the following information:

HMY Helga was based out of Dún Laoghaire and on the night of the 25th of April, 1916, the Helga was ordered up the Liffey and to shell Liberty Hall with her 12 pounder gun.

From RTE Chronology of Events:
20.15 – British gun yacht, the HMY Helga has entered the Liffey and fired (2 shells) at Boland's Mills damaging the upper storeys.

The following morning on the 26th April 1916 the same source has HMY Helga shelling Liberty Hall between 08:30hrs and 12:00hrs when 24 shells were fired.

The 12 pounder gun on Helga was then assigned targets in Sackville street at which she fired 14 shells after which Helga played no further part in the proceedings apart from unshipping and landing a 1 pounder gun for use ashore by the Army.

If I remember correctly it was the discrepancy concerning the dates that blew your "Volunteers" artillery duel hogwash to bits.

So unless you can come up with some factual evidence to the contrary I will stand by my statement at the time the first fires were started in Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 the British had no artillery in Dublin.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 07:35 AM

Question for you Teribus. You state there was no artillery in Dublin when the fires started. What do you call the weapon on the ship, what do you call the weapon that was taken off the ship and given to the Sherwood Foresters.

Just asking like, , I,m still up ladder just having a break.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 06:08 AM

Dublin Fire Brigade's first call out for a fire came at 3;58pm on the 24th April,
I introduced the looters to this discussion, I have never claimed that their fires were started by the artillery – that is a red herring
The looters fires were brought under control on the second day – those cased by artillery and devastated Dublin blazed throughout the week – which was the point of your accusing the fires to have been caused by the looters "not the artillery"
1: No British troops present in Sackville Street at the time the fires were reported.
Who said they were – red herring?

2: No Artillery at all in Dublin at the time the fires started.
Who said they were – red herring?

3: No heavy artillery was ever deployed in Dublin in 1916.
You claim there wasn't (without proof – I am not it the position to prove there was, but eye-witness reports (provided) say there was.
The fires that devastated Dublin were cause by artillery fire –n not by the rebels, as you claimed
As you never attempt to prove your claims, I know who I believe.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 05:06 AM

"Your time line gives the looters starting fires at the beginning of the week - apparently those 'looters fires' were still blazing away at the end of the week despite being fought by firefighters"

When were those fires fought Jim - Dublin Fire Brigade log book has them being called out at 23:39hrs on the 24th April 1916 for a fire in the Trueform Shoe Company premises in Sackville Street appliances sent but all returned by 00:30hrs on the morning of the 25th April 1916 - they never actually got to the fire.

Dublin Fire Brigade's first call out for a fire came at 3;58pm on the 24th April, 1916 to a fire at the Magazine Fort Phoenix Park. They never made it there and the Fire Appliance returned at 4:06pm because of a barricade at the Church Street Bridge where the Officer in charge of the Irish Volunteers refused to let the Fire Brigade past.

Still missing the point though Jim - you stated that the fires in Sackville Street were started by the British Army using heavy artillery - I have pointed it out to you that according to research carried out by RTE and Boston College and now confirmed by the logbook of the Dublin Fire Brigade that the first fires to be started and reported in Sackville Street could not possibly have been started by the British Army for two very good reasons:

1: No British troops present in Sackville Street at the time the fires were reported.

2: No Artillery at all in Dublin at the time the fires started.

3: No heavy artillery was ever deployed in Dublin in 1916.

Now just to get this cleared up once and for all are you going to retract your statement about the fires in Sackville Street being started by British Artillery? Or are you going to persist in your "myth" - to any sporting types here on Mudcat, my money is on the latter, Jim never lets fact get in the way of a good story.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 04:52 AM

I suggest that "generations" are significant enough.

What did I say about generations?
I said that generations of Irish schoolchildren had been subjected to indoctrination in their schools, and substantiated that assertion by quoting three Irish historians who state that to be the case.

You assert that they are all wrong, but can not substantiate it with anything.

"It is shite because we have her own actual words."
Yes we do - and you are ignoring them as I have just quoted them

She says exactly what I quoted her as saying, and in exactly that context.
Your "description" of what you wish she said is shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 04:19 AM

"It is shite because we have her own actual words."
Yes we do - and you are ignoring them as I have just quoted them
"Kineally"
"I have never claimed that significant numbers do."
I suggest that "generations" are significant enough.
You said you have produced evidence - you lied - you refused to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 04:01 AM

You have had my description of how Kineally assess Irish history to which you responded "It is shite"

It is shite because we have her own actual words.
What is your "decription" worth compared to the original?
Shite!

I asked for proof that Irish people hate Britain -

I have never claimed that significant numbers do.
You faked quotes to claim that I had.
I have produced three Irish historians who all agree children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-british propaganda."

I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
I have experienced nothing but goodwill from all the Irish folk I have ever met, so the brainwashers may not have been too successful in their aim.
However I am quite certain that it has coloured their view of history and explains why so many are so uncritical of the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 03:58 AM

"Still struggling to make this into a Famine thread then Jim."
Still avoiding Britain's culpability that brought about this rebellion Terribus - and still using tyops in sead of honest arguments - I never use typos being the poor typist I am.
s I said - the looters fires were never disputed - they were got under control fairly quickly - the entire street was virtually destroyed throughout the week by British artillery a few looters could not possibly have done.
As you can see from THIS , the looter's fires occurred during the first two days
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 03:46 AM

You have had my description of how Kineally assess Irish history to which you responded "It is shite"
You have just been given her assessment of Britain's culpability in the outcome of the Famine, on which you based your arguments in supporting Britain - she not only blamesd Britain but she suggests that it might have been deliberate genocide.
Her assesment of how history has been manipulated to protect for political reasons rather than blame Britain for The famine is brilliant, yett you still claim her as a supporter of your suggestion that Irish children were brainwashed - utterly grotesque.   
"Some Irish must inevitably hate Britain if they believe all the lies fed to them as children.
Professor Richardson did. In her case it was manifested as a desire to join IRA.
There is a wide spectrum of ways in which hate can be manifested, and I am not getting in to it.
And that is your summing up of the result of generations of brainwashing - one out of context statement from someone who wants to give a platform to wants to give a platform to Islamists in Britain and a plea of 'I refuse to comment on the grounds that it may incriminate me'.
I asked for proof that Irish people hate Britain - you claim to have given it saying "There is a wide spectrum of ways in which hate can be manifested, and I am not getting in to it.
How utterly stupid can you get.
Terribus - one again you give technical descriptions that you refuse to link to documented facts - you are inventing these 'facts to make a case that has been totally disproved by eye-witness accounts

The Shelling of Dublin City Centre
Eye witness account from 'The Scrap' Gene Kerrigan.
"The shelling of Dublin city centre continued through Thursday. Unable to do their job, the Dublin Fire Brigade watched helplessly as the flames spread. Around 7.30pm, the outsize DBC building collapsed into Sackville Street - a terrible noise, a vast mass of falling bricks and debris, the impact shaking the whole street. Colossal clouds of dust and smoke rose into the sky. Watching from the Imperial Hotel.
Having consumed the Hibernian Bank, flames continued moving north along the block. Hoyte's, a chemist's premises equipped with barrels of turpentine and methylated spirits, caught fire and the whole building went up. Barrels of chemicals exploded, some of them landing on the roof of the Imperial Hotel.
The immense conflagration at Hoyte's took the fire to the end of that block, with just the narrow lane of Sackville Place separating it from the block dominated by Clerys department store and the Imperial Hotel.
The flames crept along the barricade at the top of Sackville Place - the barricade through which Frank Henderson and his F Company comrades had passed when they arrived in the city centre on Tuesday evening. The fire soon reached the building on the other side of the lane and began to crawl up the window frame. Clerys and the Imperial Hotel would be next.
The British artillery was taking its time about finding the range of the GPO, and its efforts were spraying shells far and wide. Guns in the garden of the Rotunda Hospital were lobbing shells over buildings to drop into the Sackville Street area. Some hit the roof of the Imperial. A water tank attached to a side wall, under the roof, took a direct hit and shattered. The water fell straight down into an annex where a number of Volunteers were resting – it hit them like a wave and washed them along the floor.
Besides drenching the Volunteers, the direct hit on the water tank had deprived the Imperial garrison of water to fight fires.
A shell hit the roof of the Metropole Hotel."
Your time line gives the looters starting fires at the beginning of the week - apparently those 'looters fires' were still blazing away at the end of the week despite being fought by firefighters until a British shell destroyed the water supply - what exactly were the looters using-flame throwers?
Your description describes dedicated arsonist supporters of the rebellion, not what history has described them to be, the poorest citizens of the poorest City in Europe taking the opportunity of a diverting rebellion to help themselves to a little schmutter.
They were looters - not arsonists.
Have you ever seen the length of Sackville/O'Connell Street and the height of its buildings?
Somewhat pathetic, even for you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 02:57 AM

Don't think so Rapparee, here are the details related to the mention of first use of machine guns during the Easter Week Rising:

From RTE Chronology of the Rising.

Remembering and taking note of the fact that the fires in Sackville Street started around 20:30hrs in the evening of the 24th April, 1916

Tuesday, 25 April, 1916

• 02.15 – Capt. Elliotson and an army machine gun group of 100 men secure Shelbourne Hotel which offers them military control of St Stephen's Green.

• 03.20 – Troops take control of Royal Services Club on St Stephen's Green.

• 03.45 – Brigadier Lowe arrives at Kingsbridge with remainder of 25th Reserve Infantry Brigade and takes personal control of British forces.

• 05.30 – Intense gunfire around Stephen's Green under fire with high numbers of rebel casualties.

• 08.00 – British forces take control of City Hall having re-captured the roof. All rebels remaining in the building are taken prisoner.

• 08.30 – Under heavy fire the Citizen Army force at St Stephen's Green take the decision to abandon their exposed positions in the Green and take up new positions in the Royal College of Surgeons. They take to the roof and begin exchanging fire with British forces. Four rebels are confirmed killed in the Green.

Maximum range of that ammunition was only 350 yards by which time the "tracer" material would have burned itself out. As the crow flies the distance from the Shelbourne Hotel to Sackville Street is more than 1,250 metres.

The geography is also wrong for any fire from the British gunners positions firing into Stephens Green for any stray rounds to land in Sackville Street. From the Shelbourne Hotel which lies on the North side of Stephens Green the gunners would be shooting to the South (Stephens Green) and to the West (College of Surgeons) - Sackville Street was located on the North side of the Liffey.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 10:40 PM

Could the fires have been caused by .303 tracer ammunition fired from Vickers Heavy Machine Guns? The UK started using .303 tracer in 1915, and those machine guns were in use in Dublin in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 01:58 PM

Still struggling to make this into a Famine thread then Jim.

And it was you and Raggy who were so sensitive about getting names right if I remember correctly.

Care to explain the point in your repeated Wiki cut'n'paste Jim?

The fires started at around 20:30hrs on the evening of the 24th April 1916. There were no British troops in the area and there were no British guns in the area - there were only two groups of people present in the area of Sackville Street at that time on that day, the Irish Volunteers and the civilian looters. So come on Sherlock tell who could not have possibly started those fires - the people you claimed did.

The fires burned unchecked for 40 hours before any artillery fire was directed at Sackville Street. Now in a built up area during those 40 hours are the fires going to get worse and build or are they just going to fizzle out - James would appear to favour the latter, common sense screams that the opposite would be the case - but logic, reasoning and common sense are not tools in Jim Carroll's armoury.

I have no doubt whatsoever that artillery fire did cause fires, but it did not start the fires that burned on Sackville Street and that is what Jim Carroll originally claimed, not just artillery but Heavy Artillery at that, i.e. weapons that were not even present in Ireland at that time - Just how wrong can you get it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 01:44 PM

You have either misunderstood or deliberately distorted your quote - both are probable

I have done neither. Here is the proof of your dishonesty.
http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/beyond-revisionism-reassessing-the-great-irish-famine/

You have yet to describe the form in which the hatred of the Irish takes - and you won't.

Yes I have.
04 Jun 16 - 01:45 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 01:14 PM

It goes against all my instincts to respond to these eejits, but one last time
Kinealy's attitude to The Famine as treated by revisionist historians.

Death Dealing Famine review by a defender of Britain's role -
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.

Dr Kinealy never explicitly aspires to emulate Mrs Cecil Woodham-Smith, but she shares with her a sense of outrage at what the government of the United Kingdom failed to do to alleviate the sufferings of the Great Famine. Woodham-Smith's villains are Kinealy's villains; and like Woodham-Smith, her interpretation of events is coloured by what ought to have happened rather than by what actually did take place.
The purpose of all this ancestor display is, I presume, to make the point that historians are prisoners of their environments and cannot write history objectively. Dr Kinealy's view is unambiguous. "Fundamentally the concept of value-free history, whilst noble in its intentions, is flawed in its execution. In striving for objectivity, that very purpose itself violates the concept, as the quest reflects the writer's own value-system and is set in the context within which the historian is writing (p.2)." In plain English, all history is subjective polemic.

Kinealy's response
Why was one of the most profound events in modern Irish history ignored for so long by academics in Ireland? The self-imposed censorship has now been replaced with an attempt to destroy the character of people who have broken that silence, yet who do not belong to an remote inner-circle of Irish historians.

ii. Regarding the weary revisionist arguments of whether historians should allocate 'blame', and the need to judge the official response to the Famine in the context of the time. I do not use the word blame myself, but I do seek to understand why certain events occurred, even if this means confronting unpleasant realities. In a less emotive context, Irish people (and even some historians) might be interested in understanding if - in the context of the time - it could have been possible to alleviate the effects of the loss of the potato crop. The answer, if we look at the evidence, is very clear. The debate at the time, the massive food exports at the time, the resignation and disillusionment of senior officials at the time due to the parsimony of official relief, the example at the time of how other countries were responding to the loss of their own crops, are compelling evidence of an inadequate government response. This can hardly be said of Dr Clarkson's effort to depict Charles Trevelyan in a more favourable light than his actions would permit, given Trevelyan's knowledge of conditions at the time.

Quote used by her from Colm Tobín
"In 1966 the state celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Rising with enormous gusto, with marches in which schools took part and rousing speeches and an emotional television series called Insurrection, broadcast nightly. But once the North broke and the IRA campaign recommenced, the state's attitude changed. 'In an act of astonishing political opportunism, O'Loughlin wrote, '1916 was revised. By 1976, and the 60th celebrations, a different tune was being played. For people of my generation, who were and are, in an important sense, neither Republican nor non-Republican, this was a lesson they would never forget. To see history so swiftly rewritten was to realise that what was called history was in fact a facade behind which politicians manoeuvred for power.'. ."

Or this from a Famine conference introduction
"Kinealy, for example, concludes her 1997 work with a chapter entitled „A Policy of Extermination‟ referring to the genocidal interpretation of the Irish Famine"

Lots more where that came from
As far as Teribus's claim that he is still waiting for a reply on the fires - try here
Date: 18 May 16 - 08:26 PM
19 May 16 - 08:01 AM
more examples above.

"Almost 500 people were killed in the Easter Rising. About 54% were civilians, 30% were British military and police, and 16% were Irish rebels. More than 2,600 were wounded. Many of the civilians were killed as a result of the British using artillery and heavy machine guns, or mistaking civilians for rebels. Others were caught in the crossfire in a crowded city. The shelling and the fires it caused left parts of inner city Dublin in ruins."
Wiki
And again
Many of the civilians were killed as a result of the British using artillery and heavy machine guns, or mistaking civilians for rebels. Others were caught in the crossfire in a crowded city. The shelling and the fires it caused left parts of inner city Dublin in ruins."
(ibid)
Any sign of that prooof of hatred yet Keith - no - ah well!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 11:54 AM

"It is shite."
#There's no answer to that as irt is not an intelligent response.
Come bacxk whan you have one.
You have either misunderstood or deliberately distorted your quote - both are probable
You have yet to describe the form in which the hatred of the Irish takes - and you won't.
" able to get the spelling of her name correct.!
Typos and insults again - why not, you've nothing else.
Go back an check my responses to your timeline regarding the fires - you have been fully answered.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 11:39 AM

Of course Keith, if Jim Carroll really was such a great fan of Christine Kinealy and her work then you would think that, just out of respect, he would at least be able to get the spelling of her name correct. But then it took him years to get Philip Donnellan's name right as well.

As previously stated he's made getting things wrong almost an art form has our little Anglophobe.

Absolutely dying to see him launch his great work, his opus on the "Famine" creative it might be, but factual it certainly won't be.

Still hasn't told us yet how the British could have started those fires in Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 by firing artillery while it was on the move from Athlone.

Wonder what he is going to get wrong next.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 11:16 AM

Rag,
As usual I have nothing but kindness and hospitality from a wonderful nation of people.

That is my experience too.
North and South.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 11:11 AM

I've given you my assessment of Kineally - respond to it

It is shite.
I've given you her actual words on the subject.
Not from a book, but from her writing in the journal, "History Ireland."

What is your assessment worth?
Shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 09:19 AM

Never been contradicted on a book I have read by someone who has never read one
First time for everything, I suppose!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 08:53 AM

For that to happen Jim he,d have to read a book, a whole book. It ain,t going to happen.

Still decorating, still very warm

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 08:10 AM

"
Simply not true and utterly dishonest."
I've given you my assessment of Kineally - respond to it - as far as I'm concerned it proves you hopelessly wrong.
Do not accuse me of being dishonest again - a reminder of your own list of dishonesties
What you denied saying:
"generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive." ?"
What you actually said:
"generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive." ?
You have repeated this some dozen times and you still claim I am not responding to what you actually say - another dishonesty.
I have asked you to describe how "brainwashed" Irish hatred manifests itself and have given you a list of alternatives
"If the Irish hate Britain, how does that hatred manifest itself - letter bombs, suicide bombers, hate mail, stones through British windows, anti-British demonstrations, Irish children terrorising British kids, British holidaymakers being treated with hostility - what form does that hatred take?"
You claim to have responded to it.
You claim you have responded to it - you patently have not - another dishonesty.
Do not accuse me of dishonesty again.
You want to debate Kineally - go read her book and do not say I'm wrong until you have.
This is the end of this pert of the discussion and until you respond with your examples of Irish hatred, the end of my responses to you here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 08:04 AM

Ah Jim, so you cannot detail a single thing that Keith A or I have said that you can dispute.

See that you are still trying to steer the thread away from the complete and utter balls up that the Easter Rising was. Why is that Jim?

Still say that everyone in Ireland is "celebrating" the events of 1916?

From the Department of the Taoiseach website

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 07:41 AM

jim,
scooped up, out of context quotes

Simply not true and utterly dishonest.
The quotes were given along with a link to the whole article to show that thhey were given in their original, intended context.


Perhaps it's worth explaining exactly what Kineally's position was on education,

Reading what she actually says in her article published in the most pre-eminent Irish History journal, trumps your "explanation" of what you wish she had said Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 07:11 AM

Respond to what I have said with verified facts if you want further discussion - simple as that
Jim Carroll

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

"You want to discuss The Easter Rising, fine, as long as you provide backup to your statements I'm happy to respond"

What statements of fact that I have made do you require back up to?

1: You said that the Home Rule Bill of 1914 was defeated by the Tories and the House of Lords. Keith A and myself pointed out to you that not only was the Bill not defeated it was passed into law on the 18th September 1914 when it received Royal Assent. At no time at all have you conceded that your original contention was wrong.

It is not required to put up substantiation for any of that as it is a simple matter of Parliamentary and historical record - just Google Irish Home Rule Bill 1914. If you cannot do that or are not prepared to do that in order to keep a dearly held "myth" alive then please have the honesty and integrity to admit it.

2: You said that in the time between the 1914 Home Rule Bill becoming an Act and the Easter Rising the Bill was amended, altered and changed by the British Government. It was pointed out to you that under Parliamentary procedure that what you stated was impossible. To amend an Act of Parliament then a Bill has to be introduced and be debated in Parliament - Again a simple matter of record - no such Amending Bills were ever introduced or passed in the period. If you think alterations were made then it is up to you to provide the proof that amendments were made and added as clauses to the Act.

3: You rather emotively made the statement that the Curragh Incident in March 1914 constituted an act of military aggression. Keith A and myself pointed out to you that there was no act of military aggression committed, and the record shows that there was no "Mutiny" by any stretch of the imagination, not one single order given was disobeyed and that the preventative measures to ensure that arms depots in the North of Ireland were secure.

4: You stated that the Republican Nationalists had the support and backing of the people of Ireland. Keith A, myself and others have pointed out the fallacy of that statement. The rising was the idea of a tiny clique, within an clique, within a clique. Most of the men who turned out on that Easter Week-end in 1916 hadn't the foggiest notion of what they had assembled to do. Those responsible for planning the rising did not even inform their own organisation as to what they were about to do.

5: You have stated that the IRB and those looking to mount the insurrection did not collude with the Germans in order to bring their plans to fruition. Simple matter of record indicates that all the evidence points to the fact that from 4th September 1914 they undoubtedly did collude with the Germans.

6: You have stated that the British used Heavy Artillery in Dublin to suppress the Rising. Keith A and myself pointed out to you and provided links whereby you could check for yourself that at no time at all was there any Heavy Artillery present in Ireland at that time. No concession on your part that your original statement was wrong.

7: You stated quite clearly that it was British artillery fire that started the fires that gutted Sackville Street. Keith A and myself pointed out to you that the fires on Sackville Street were started before British troops or artillery arrived in Dublin. Links were given of work undertaken for this years commemorative programmes by RTE and Boston College that substantiate that fires were started before the arrival of British troops and artillery, those links also indicate that the fires started on the 24th April 1916 burned unchecked for 40 hours before any artillery fire fell on rebel positions on Sackville Street.

8: You stated that permanent partition was guaranteed to the Northern Irish Unionists by the British Government. Keith A and myself have pointed out to you that no such guarantee was ever given and you have not been able to provide any evidence that such a guarantee was ever given. Substantiation that no such guarantee was ever given comes in the form of only temporary time limited partition being included in any Government of Ireland Act.

The list of your ill-informed and incorrect suppositions is massive, the above are only eight examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 06:05 AM

"for two centuries."
Correction - a century and a half
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM

Perhaps it's worth explaining exactly what Kineally's position was on education, and then perhaps we can put an end to this misinterpretation.
Her basic criticism was of the 'revisionist' approach taken by many historians and taken up by the schools, particularly on The Famine.
She argues that what was taught was the effects of the Famine, not the reason for it – all those poor dead people – without explaining exactly why they were dead – the question of actual blame was never questioned, it was never under any doubt.
The British were responsible for the administration of Ireland (- no question), there was enough food being produced to feed the entire population (- no question), the warehouses were full and were locked and guarded by armed soldiers (- no question), the landlords evicted tenants who failed to pay rents and destroyed their former homes, - no question, the workhouses and relief schemes put into motion by the Peel Government, were all closed and financial support for relief was withdrawn (- no question.
In addition to this, The Russell Government, on the advice of the man in charge, Sir Charles Trevelyan, adopted a laissez faire policy of selling food at current market prices so as not to upset the economy - no question.
The famine victims were given the choice – emigrate or die – no question.
Kinealy argues that the effects were explained graphically without attempting to understand the causes or apportion blame; if hatred was generated then it was the causes that generated that hatred, not an attempt to implant it into children.
History was, as is all revisionist history, in England as well as Ireland, all about heroes and events rather than causes and consequences.
The reason this approach was adopted, as Kineally and other progressive historians have pointed out is that after the Famine Britain became the most attractive destination for Irish emigrants – no long journey and the opportunity to return home in relative ease if the opportunity arose.
Up to the 150th anniversary of the Famine in 1995, there was only one major work on the famine, 'The Great Hunger', written by Englishwoman, Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith, that was in general, revisionist, touching only briefly on the laissez faire, policy but never attempting to explain it in depth .
The Irish establishment did not wish to strangle the Golden Goose by drawing attention to Britain's culpability over the outcome of the Famine so the subject was avoided – for two centuries.
Kineally says that, prior to her own studies of the Famine she didn't realise the depth of blame due to Britain for the outcome of the famine – pretty well the case all round – now, she says, she is convinced that not only was Britain to blame, but that it was possibley used as a cynical attempt to solve 'The Irish Question' .
1995, Coogan's reproduction of Trevelyan's letter and all the other information that has been unearthed since has turned things around.
Exactly the same thing is now happening to the information we now have on Easter Week.
It is the facts of history that have generated any hatred that might have been, not the misinterpretation of that history or the avoidance of pointing fingers (revisionism)
If I have misunderstood Kineally's objective then I will be happy to be corrected by somebody who hs read her books – not by somebody who opportunistically uses soundbites to win arguments.
If anybody wishes to claim that Irish kids have been brainwashed to hate Britain, then they have to explain how that hatred manifests itself otherwise they are obviously telling lies – whoever they misquote.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 04:11 AM

Not going here any more - not with you - not with Keith anyway.
We've been here before - I'd never heard of Kinealy before her name came up on the Famine thread; since then, I have read three of her books and become an ardent fan, so I haven't had to rely on hastily gathered, cut-'n-pastes to understand what she thinks.
You want to go and read what she has to say in full, fine, happy to debate it, but I have no intention of taking seriously scooped up, out of context quotes gathered to 'prove' pre-conceived opinions.
I have said what I believe in my response to Jeri - the final straw was Keith's attempts to justify the unjustifiable.
The level of your comments here is indicated to your somewhat overstated use of (as I explained) my "pecking order" joke.
You want to discuss The Easter Rising, fine, as long as you provide backup to your statements I'm happy to respond, I've already worked out your personal opinions and they don't interest me particularly.
If anybody else wishes to continue - and I hope they do - I'll carry on providing what I believe is relative information.
If not, I'm disappointed, but I see no reason to go round in circles with you pair any more.
Yoy see no reson to celebrate the deaths of 485 people (a pretty good indication of your understanding of the subject if you think that's what's being celebrated) but you were happy to celebrate the deaths of many millions of young men who were slaughtered during WW1 on several other threads - hmmmmm!!
If you have nothing new to add, "Goodbye, and thanks for the fish' as Douglas Adams once remarked.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 04:02 AM

IF THE IRISH HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED TO HATE THE ENGLISH, WHERE IS THAT HATRED?

I have never made such a claim.
Why not stick to the actual quote that I stand by?

I suggest you stop this NOW - this abusive racism has gone far enough.

Then all those historians are guilty of it.
I just quoted them.

The reason I have quoted them on the long term indoctrination of school children is that it explains why so many Irish people are so uncritical of the rising that destroyed the process of independence already in effect, and led to years of conflict and death.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 03:06 AM

At the present time, the whole of Ireland is celebrating what it regards to be one of the most important events in its history

I thought it was commemorating the events of 1916. I would dearly like to know what there is to celebrate about the deaths of 485 people whose deaths were a pointless and unnecessary waste of human life.

Two people have decided to use this thread to attack the Irish as a race and have gone to great lengths to do this.

Really? Who are they? I would love to see quoted examples of these attacks. All I have noted have been posts attacking the mythology of the events that led up to the Easter Rising and what happened as a result of it. I have seen no attack on the Irish as a race at all - quite the opposite in fact.

we could walk away and leave them to it - we could do that whenever any two bully boys decide to take over any subject and drive it into the ground.
That's not the way free speech works.

Reading through this thread Jim, who was it that was going on about there being a "pecking order" and reminding people of where they stood in that order? Who was it that was calling for people to be thrown off and banned from posting? That was you wasn't it? Well Mr.Carroll "That's not the way free speech works." either.

Points made by you relevant to the subject of this thread have been disproven and you have responded by making up baseless allegations and firing them like buckshot from a scatter gun, when that didn't work you attempted to divert the subject matter of the thread, as I have said before if you wish to discuss the Famine then open a thread on it - you will find it rather a lonely place.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 02:42 AM

"To a large extent, the popular understanding of the Famine in Ireland still follows a traditional, nationalist paradigm. Within this model, 'blame' is generally attributed to key groupings, either within the British government or within the landlord class. 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). In Protestant schools in Northern Ireland, Irish history was rarely part of the curriculum (see Peter Collins, 'History teaching in Northern Ireland' in HI Spring 1995). 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." - Christine Kinealy

Two obvious comments here, the first is that Nationalists at the time certainly used the "Famine" for propaganda purposes and second, who here thinks it acceptable under any circumstances for a government to instruct teachers to teach a subject that should be taught factually and objectively with a deliberate political slant to it?

This did not just happen in the Irish School system, in Scotland history was taught in exactly the same simplistic way from Primary School up until the first two years of High School. Myself and my classmates were very fortunate as right from the start of High School we had an excellent History Teacher - but it is amazing how many in Scotland view any conflict in Scotland as a straightforward England v Scotland affair with England always cast in the role of villain - once you actually start studying the history of the country you find that nothing could be further from the truth. A couple of examples:

1: The Jacobite Rebellions - More Scots fought on the side of the Government than fought for the rebels (At Culloden there were more Scots fighting on the Government side than there were Scots in the Army of Charles Stuart).

2: The Clearances were introduced and driven by British Government policy in the aftermath of the '45 rebellion. In actual fact the Clearances had started much earlier and were driven by the greed of Scottish Landlords.

The 2014 Independence Referendum demonstrated how thin the veneer was, of people who pretended that anti-English comments were all just banter, hell as like it was, most of it was fuelled by ill-informed and atrociously presented history learned at an early age.

Back to Irish history - I do not believe that what was said equated to anything like - the Irish have been taught to hate the British - I think what was said was the way Irish history is taught keeps hate alive.