BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will you finally substantiate one of your baseless assertions Steve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not what I did, Michael.

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

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

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

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

Eh wot·wot·wot !!

〠

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two examples out of many on this thread alone:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would you not agree?

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

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

I query that 'accuracy', Joe;

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

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

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

≈M≈

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

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

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 09:51 PM

A theatre production Tim Van Eyken has been helping on

Jermyn Street Theatre,
London SW1Y 6ST

Easter Rising and Thereafter

Tue, 26th - Sat, 30th April (28th sold out)

"....part drama, part revue, part session. Incorporating poems, songs and speeches by W.B. Yeats, Dominic Behan, James Mangan, Louis MacNeice, Walter Savage Landor, Roger Casement, Winston Churchill, Sean O'Casey and others, it reveals the contrasting takes of the Easter Rising, the War of Independence, the Civil War and their legacies for Britain and Ireland. Shedding light on this often skewed period of history and in so doing, illuminating it."
http://www.jermynstreettheatre.co.uk/show/easter-rising-and-thereafter/ 

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 09:02 PM

Well Steve, I may well diss Dickens but if Jane Austen said that Mr. Darcy arrived in Mercedes, I,d believe her.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:43 PM

Yes, Steve, I do see your point and I agree.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:41 PM

Sorry, slip of the big digit on small device. Joe, you really need to read more history, it isn,t all political. there are many writers of good social and cultural histories, histories of music, art, architecture, many wonderful histories of food, what people eat and why... Histories of architecture, games, sports, fasihion. It is all there to be read and enjoyed. Then there are letters, diaries., newspapers and thousands of essays by ordinary people about things as diverse as keeping pigeons to what to put in a proper pasty. These are the histories of ordinary life, written by men and women who had little notion that they were keeping cultural records, they were just living life and that is good history.
"

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:28 PM

What I was saying, HiLo, is that what happened happened. The fallout over the subsequent hundred years is what we should be discussing. When I say water under the bridge, I'm not saying that we should forget and not learn. But, to listen to K and T, you'd almost think that the last hundred years hadn't happened. The thing is, what has happened doesn't fit very well with their view that the rising was a useless waste of time.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:20 PM

Bloody hell, Joe, stop saying things that force me to agree with you! 😉

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:18 PM

Hello Steve, just want to comment briefly on your post re " water underThe bridge". I don,t think the past is ever water under the bridge, nations, cultures and so forth are a bit like the Robbie Burns man , "Nursing their wrath to keep it warm!" old hates and grudges, misconceptions and distorted memories motivate much that goes on in the world, the study of history won,t cure it but it might help us to understand it, don,t you think ?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:17 PM

Well some of us have sufficient study skills to sort the wiki wheat from the wiki chaff. I am very sceptical of people who summarily dismiss wiki. Reading wiki is like reading any other non-fiction, except that wiki has millions of people poised to instantly rebel if something falls short, me included. You don't get that with esteemed historical tomes, which can often be in severe danger of turning into unopposed received wisdom. Let's call it the Keith 'n' Bill syndrome. When you look back at a particular era, it's a good idea to take note of historical tomes. After all, we admire scholarship. But that is severely two-dimensional without taking account of the feelings, the culture and the daily lives of ordinary people. Sometimes, just sometimes, fiction can inform. You wouldn't diss Dickens, would you?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:11 PM

Teribus, there is no guarantee that either non-fiction or fiction is accurate. That's up to the reader to decide, by reading critically from a number of sources that represent a number of perspectives. Reading book reviews from credible publications, is also helpful.

I travel extensively, and I appreciate my travels more if I have read extensively about the place I'm going to visit. That helps me form preliminary ideas about the area, which I confirm or refute with what I learn in my travels.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that for the most part, history is political history. Too many people see political events and the sum and substance of a place, and I disagree. Politics affects people only to a certain level. Most of everyday life has nothing to do with politics. I think that most Irish people of 1916, were more concerned about earning a living and raising their families, than they were about who held political power.

Too much emphasis on politics and political arguments, gives one a distorted perception of reality.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:51 PM

I read a lot of fiction Joe, historical as well as other types, I am very appreciative of its, merits. good social historians provide much by way of cultural and social content. I do not think these arts are in opposition to each other but they do serve different roles and neither should be regarded as a sole source for Windows on the past, However, when I want to "know" history, I read history when I want to be entertained I read novels .
I totally disagree with your assertion that not fiction can go only so far in revealing the aspects of the past that touch people.. Read some good social historians Joe,
Internet "culture" is also obsessed with instant wiki scholars who think Wikipedia is the apex of all knowledge, when actually it is the revealer of great ignorance. it is not really hard to tell who studies things and who wikis them.
As for who wins and lloses, that's not confined to the Internet , that,s what happens when the poorly informed embark upon "debate" rather than discussion.
just my thoughts on things.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:48 PM

Joe Offer, that is a very good, measured post. I am increasingly staying clear of threads that involve Keith and Teribus precisely because those people appear to have no concept of the culture, thinking and life of the eras they profess to have so much knowledge of, yet no empathy with. It's a bloody hard case to argue, ultimately rather pointless. When it comes to the Easter Rising, there is no Keith-stroke-Teribus black and white, though, reading this thread, you'd think it was so simple. The last hundred years of Irish history has been defined by those events, not to speak of political and community fallouts. Maybe you have to live there. The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. The fallout is a different matter altogether.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:45 PM

Thank you for your courtesy, GUEST,HiLo. The anonymity is because I no longer care to have my name associated with what I regard as a dishonestly run forum. I use that description carefully and coldly, having been involved in Mudcat since Max took The Digital Tradition under his wing all those years ago.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:42 PM

For most of us, it is far more important for us to learn the culture, thinking, and life of an era.

And who on earth guarantees that that is what you get when you read a work of "historical fiction"? How do you know that it reflects the culture, thinking and life of an era if you have not bothered to study the social history of the period.

Classic example: How many people believe that stand up "go for gun gunfights" took place in "The Wild West" because of fiction and cinema? Plain truth and fact is they were a myth, not one single such fight ever happened. I suppose someone will tell me that "Braveheart" was a representative depiction of the life of William Wallace and accurately reflects the culture, thinking and life of that era in Scottish History.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:11 PM

Take another look at fiction, HiLo and Teribus. For most of us, it is far more important for us to learn the culture, thinking, and life of an era. Nonfiction can go only so far in portraying these things in a way that affects people. For historical fiction to be credible, it must not betray the facts of the events within which the story is set.

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

I wouldn't advise a steady diet of fiction, but I do think it has an important place. I suppose my fiction/nonfiction balance is about 50-50. That feels about right for me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:58 PM

" undermines the credibility of this forum" ,, easy for guest to say. many " guests "are avid readers of music threads but are deprived of civil debate in the so called bs section. your anonymity does not do much for the forums so called " credibility"!

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:41 PM

Joe, you do not learn history from fiction, that is why it is called. "Fiction" ! I have been both a student and teacher of history for many years, history is hard work and requires intense study and an acute awareness of the difference between concepts such as bias, neutrality, objectivity and factual information, novelists are not bound by any of these considerations and are often driven by populist narrative. that is why, for the most part, they cannot be taken seriously by historians.
If one wishes to study history, read history, if one wishes to discuss literature, discuss novelists, but don,t confuse the two.
as a result of reading this thread I have read more Irish history and years of study will be required to fully understand it but this has been an interesting introduction .

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:40 PM

It remains absurd that this thread is retained in the "music" section. It's presence there undermines the credibility of this forum - such as it retains.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:36 PM

Interested to hear that there is a "pecking order" on this forum Jom, does Max know about it - fortunately for all other members you are the only person who seems to think one exists and if it is all the same to you I will continue to blissfully ignore it.

One interesting point regarding this "crossfire" you mention was that "crossfire" in which British troops were firing at British troops or was it "Crossfire" where British troops were exchanging fire with Irish Volunteers? If the latter could you explain how it was only shots fired by the British troops that killed civilians - the rebels occupied a tiny part of the city and they had evacuated most of the civilian population from it before the fighting started - the area the rebels were firing into was the rest of the city which had not been evacuated therefore more civilians in the line of fire of the Volunteers.

Joe any argument based on fiction is inherently weak. In discussing any historical event there are certain reference points that are fixed.

The Irish Home Rule Bill WAS passed in the summer of 1914 and it received the Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914 so Home Rule was coming once the Great War had ended no matter what, nothing could have stopped it.

The Nationalist cause and any will to carry on any armed struggle was dying on its feet Pearse himself said it needed a blood sacrifice to revive it - hence the Easter Rising. The British Government felt that it had no option but to deal with the leaders harshly as they had visited and colluded openly with the enemy in time of war. Personally I believe that the better course would have been to imprison the leaders and expose their treachery. Ireland in being given Home Rule as envisioned was being offered Dominion Status as enjoyed by Australia, South Africa and Canada, nothing like Scotland which was and still remains as part of the United Kingdom. Those actively supporting the rising numbered less than 10,000, those who actively supported the British Government in their pursuit of the war vastly out numbered 210,000 men who all volunteered to fight. Not one single man was conscripted in Ireland. Keith A is correct in saying that had conscription been forced on the population of Ireland by it being introduced in April 1918 then not one man would have seen active service the process of organising the drafts and training them would have taken too long (Example in England: Harry Patch conscripted in September 1916 deployed to France in June 1917 - I make that 10 months so someone conscripted in Ireland in April 1918 would not have got to France until January 1919, almost three months after the end of the war). Keith A is also correct in stating that while conscription may have been considered in 1918 as a result of the German Spring Offensive of that year it was very quickly discounted and abandoned, the US troops who had crossed to France would have been combat ready long before any conscripts raised in the summer of 1918 in the British Isles.

The numbers tell their own story almost six days of fighting in a built up area in which field artillery, machine guns and rifles were used and this resulted in 485 fatalities - 260 civilians out of a population of around 306,000 (0.008%), Government forces and police 143 out of a force of 16,000 (Less than 1%), Rebel forces 82 out of a force of 1,250 (6.56%) - considering what the carnage could have been the numbers indicate proportionate restraint (The recent attacks in November in Paris last year killed 137 in just over two-and-a-half hours). Had there been no rising not one single person would have been killed by troops, police or rebels that Easter and not one building would have been destroyed.


No military aggression against Home Rule as first suggested in 1914, but having views based on works of fiction and television drama it is amazing what some "believe" and hold to be "fact" - it also might account for the over emotive language used

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 04:32 PM

Please remember to tone the animosity down, and stick to the facts.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out what's the truth in this matter. Nathaniel Kahn directed and produced a 2003 film titled My Architect: A Son's Journey. The movie has a quote from Louis Kahn (the father) that goes something like this: "Everyone speaks the truth. It may be their truth, but nonetheless, it is the truth."

So, in this thread, we have various people expressing various conflicting truths about an event that took place a hundred years ago. Is it possible that there is truth in all these perspectives? I think so. Parliament passed an Irish Home Rule bill in 1914, and I'm sure many were surprised that the Irish would have an uprising (er, "Rising") in 1916. It's interesting to see that some people above were perturbed to see this event referred to as an "uprising." I would suspect that supporters saw it as a "Rising" (title case) and opponents as an "uprising" (lower case). Both terms are valid, within their particular perspectives.

And then I wonder what percentage of Irish people were satisfied with British rule. I've certainly heard many complaints here about the Irish government, particularly regarding its unholy alliance with the Catholic Church. According to posts from some Irish Mudcatters, the Irish government has been corrupt from the very beginning. Would Ireland have been better off as a semi-autonomous entity tied to the UK in the same way that Scotland is?

I would think that this centennial is a good opportunity for us all to examine the movement toward Irish independence with an open mind, learning the lessons that can be taught. I see no need to fight the battle again - but I can see great value in examining the event and learning from it.

When I worked as an intelligence analyst, I quickly learned that it is of utmost importance to learn to see things from the perspective of the opposition. Loyalty to one's own side may have some value, but I think a broader perspective is far more valuable.

And despite strong opinions to the contrary that are expressed here, I will continue to believe in the value of learning history from high-quality works of fiction. I read 4-6 nonfiction history books a year to balance things out, but fiction often gives me deeper insight.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 03:51 PM

By the way, I was referring to your attack on Joe when I referred to fiction, which I never quote as evidence.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 03:03 PM

"Now as for an actual example of someone talking down to someone how about this:"
Nothing wrong with retaliation as I'm sure you are aware as an ex (whatever!)
It seem your grasp doesn't extend to irony either - and you still talk down to people..
"I can think of many sources of ignition even if you cannot."
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."
From Wiki - Easter Week' entry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 02:37 PM

Nice one Jom - another brilliant example of you shooting yourself in the foot again.

Jim Carroll - 23 Apr 16 - 01:46 PM

"Tell me Jom do you know why in the British Isles we have Ordnance Survey Maps"
an you tell me why you insist on talking down to people - you really don't know enough to do so?"

Merely asking you a question Jom, which you obviously are unwilling to answer, or do not know the answer and are covering your lack of knowledge with bluster and deflection. On this particular aspect of the subject I clearly know more than you.

"As I said, it must have been all those nasty man with rifles who destroyed all those buildings

What no gas, no fires, no oil-fired lamps, no candles, no flammable materials to catch light?

the devastation of Ireland and the killing of its people was ongoing for the centuries Ireland was occupied - right into the 20th century

If one was to pull ones head out of ones arse Jom and do a bit of non-fictional reading you will find that the rulers you accuse of this devastation treated the people of Wales, England and Scotland no differently.

Now as for an actual example of someone talking down to someone how about this:

Now - try to remember your place in the pecking order of things.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 02:20 PM

I am curious about this pecking order Jim..you have gone off in that direction before. Could you explain that to us or is it just your default position when you have facts presented to you.