BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:51 AM

"BS - despite the Peadar Kearney."
Didn't notice that when I scanned it in Guest.
I occasionally drink in the "Peadar Kearney" in Dublin, when I'm there - they spell it properly and it used to be a nice singing pub for elderly locals.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:45 AM

Give the others a chance Keith - all our points have been covered over and over again and we've taken up far too much space n this forum as it is.
Joe
"are the methods of war the most effective way to achieve justice"
I'm not the one to answer that - ask the Kenyans and the people of the Congo or Palestine or India who followed on the heels of Ireland in shedding their blood for independence; or more recently, the Vietnamese - did pacifism work for them - would turning the other cheek change the fact that the Palestinians are gradually being flushed out of existence as a people?
I am not a nationalist, Irish or British and I consider myself an instinctive pacifist, as, I believe, most human beings to be, but I believe we are forced to react to circumstances rather than our own philosophical beliefs.
My father was a pacifist, yet he went off and killed Spaniards for what he believed in.
If I had to choose one of the heroes of Easter Week it would, without hesitation, be Connolly, not because he "died in the chair", but because he wanted to change society and not just its leaders - "neither English nor Irish landlords" I love that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:22 AM

Jim, you accused me of Post Empire Loyalist jingoism.

Fr Séamus Murphy SJ is an Irish Jesuit priest who is currently teaching philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, and holds identical views.

Is he also a post empire loyalist jingoist?
No.
Those views are reasoned and supported by all the historical facts.
You have produced nothing to challenge any of them.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:16 AM

Jim, opening sentence of Dave's Article,
"Although it was widely disapproved by Irish opinion at the time, "

Do you still dispute that, which is one of my two points?

Your stuff about land wars is easily shown to be irrelevant to the rising.


"The major land reforms came when Parliament passed laws in 1870, 1881, 1903 and 1909 that enabled most tenant farmers to purchase their lands, and lowered the rents of the others."

" Act of 1903.This Act set the conditions for the break-up of large estates and gradually devolved to rural landholders, and tenants' ownership of the lands. It effectively ended the era of the absentee landlord, finally resolving the Irish Land Question."

"The 1903 Act gave Irish tenant farmers a government-sponsored right to buy, which is still not available in Britain itself today."

All sorted long before the rising.
If it had still been an issue, the rising would not have been an almost exclusively urban event.
There were no tenant farmers in metropolitan Dublin!

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:01 AM

Was the British occupation of Ireland legitimate?

In 1916, Britain was a united kingdom of England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
None was occupying any other.

Can we even agree that it was an occupation?

No.

Would Britain have granted home rule without the Easter rising?

It had already granted home rule, postponed only because it was fighting and losing a war for the very existence of Britain, including Ireland, as a free democratic state.

Is Ireland better off because of the Easter rising?

The rising achieved nothing, killed hundreds of innocent civilians, and led to the deaths of a couple of thousand more in the civil war.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:01 AM

BS - despite the Peadar Kearney.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 03:53 AM

Good article, Jim

Clicky here.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 03:50 AM

Points well taken, Jim. Still, I wonder whether the matter was at a point in 1916 where it could have been handled by diplomatic processes instead of by more bloodshed. Would the tactics of Gandhi have been more effective?

But I suppose that Gandhi's tactics came almost half a century later (although he also used them in South Africa earlier).

I guess it boils down to the basic question of pacifism: are the methods of war the most effective way to achieve justice?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 03:17 AM

"This one, as they say, could run & run.......!"
No it can't Mike - everything has been said and we are apparently down to the unchangeable opinion of a Jesuit Priest - where can we possibly go from here?
Would Britain have GRANTED (now there's a word to consider in post-Empire days) Ireland Home Rule - it still hasn't; six counties still remain as part of the remnants of Empire - a fact that is still the cause of disharmony, bloodshed and death nearly a century after Independence.
If Easter Week was a waste of time (a "contemptible joke" as Keith so eloquently put it), where does that leave the present day Irish people who are putting a great deal of time and effort into celebrating it as Ireland's first major step to freedom - with little more than a sense of humour, it would appear.
We have all been "taken in by propaganda in place of hard history" - a nation in denial - Keith's cut-'n-pastes have proved that beyond any doubt - who are we to argue with The Jesuits?
Must drop a line to the Pres., Michael D,, who just gave a very moving speech on Roger Casement on Banna Strand, poor deluded man!
This has been Post Empire Loyalist jingoism at its very worst - I wonder how Joe and his fellow-Americans would have reacted to 1777 being described as a "contemptible joke" - not well, I imagine.
It would appear that there are those who still have not got over the passing of the Empire.
There is enough here for people to make up their own minds - let's move on eh.
I was particularly impressed with the spirit of friendship and acceptance of this Guardian article - says what should be said nicely, I thought (can't blue-clickie again - must be something I said).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/25/the-guardian-view-on-the-easter-rising-centenary-irelands-history-lesson-for-britain
Onward and upward.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,joe at airport
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 07:07 PM

So, are there any facts that we agree upon?

• Was the British occupation of Ireland legitimate?
  Can we even agree that it was an occupation?
• Would Britain have granted home rule without the Easter rising?
• Is Ireland better off because of the Easter rising?

Yes, this discussion has been a bit combative, and we've had to clean up a number of off-topic posts; but I've learned a lot from it. It was my call to keep this thread in the music section since it began her and since so many songs have sprung from the Easter Rising. I know some people think it should be in the BS section, but I can't see how it's the end of the world either way.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 05:01 PM

Just to comment, tho committed to neither side, that the venerable Keith'n'Carroll Show has here transmuted into a sort of intellectual game of tennis, with each side serving to the other views of various indubitable authorities, who however start from heterogeneous & irreconcilable attitudes & partis pris (I think that the correct plural)...

This one, as they say, could run & run.......!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 12:43 PM

A bit more to ignore
"From 1918 to 1920 a major part of the unrest in rural Ireland, as so often in the past, related to land. The purchase and division of estates under the Land Acts had largely ceased during the Great War and emigration was curtailed. Sinn Féin's victory in the 1918 election is likely to have raised expectations; the party agitated on the land question during the 1918 election, with de Valera and Cosgrave in particular campaigning against landlords and large graziers.11 Thousands of farm labourers joined the ITGWU, which launched a land campaign in 1919 aimed at securing better wages and conditions. Strikes were accompanied by cattle running, arson and land occupations. Smallholders, labourers and eleven-month conacre tenants began forcibly to lay claim to land. As Frank Gallagher, at the time publicity officer for the first Dáil, described the situation in his Four Glorious Years (1957):
Farm hungry men do not believe in gentle methods ... When the farmer objected his crops were sometimes burned, his family set upon ... Those who led the taking over of estates did not hesitate to shoot owners who stood in their way.
More often than not, as Gallagher admitted, Protestant-owned land was the target, with ancestral grievances justifying occupations. A Land Settlement Commission established by the Dáil reported that "claims are being based on the assertion that the claimants or their ancestors were formerly in occupation of the property" and that some claims were being "put forward in the hope of intimidating the present occupiers". As one person sent by the Dáil to investigate the situation described it: "…the fever [of agrarian agitation] swept with the fury of a prairie fire over Connacht and portions of the other provinces, sparing neither great ranch nor medium farm and inflicting in its headlong course, sad havoc on man, beast, and property".12
Based on his reading of the Dáil Commission's reports, Diarmaid Ferriter describes many rural areas as on the verge of social anarchy:
Obduracy could be fuelled by long-term sectarian hatred or in many cases abject poverty, while those seeking land frequently organised themselves into ad-hoc committees to orchestrate agitation, or simply to plead for a fair hearing. Many locals deprived of land took it upon themselves to evict Protestant neighbours without recourse to arbitration.13
- See more at: http://www.drb.ie/essays/getting-them-out#sthash.I0YrcOh4.dpuf"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 12:39 PM

Not just me!
Fr Séamus Murphy SJ is an Irish Jesuit priest who is currently teaching philosophy at Loyola University Chicago.

"On the first day of the Rising, the Volunteers and Irish Citizen Army (ICA) members deliberately killed some civilians and unarmed Dublin Metropolitan Police constables.

They staged the Rising in the most densely populated part of Ireland, even choosing the South Dublin Union, full of sick and elderly like its descendant St James's Hospital, as one place to fight. There were far more civilian (260) than rebel (82) or combined military and police (142)deaths, and responsibility for their deaths lies primarily with the leaders of the Rising."

"With no authority, the Rising's leaders declared a republic, nominated themselves as its government, and shot anybody in their way.

As is clear from what Pearse, Connolly and Clarke stated at the time, democratic elections were beneath them. They believed that the people did not want an independent republic: they were determined to start a chain of events that would, by political emotional blackmail, compel the Irish people to 'want' it.

Nor did they represent the Volunteers or even the IRB in full. As Pearse himself admitted, they subverted the Volunteers, lying to Eoin MacNeill about their plans. They excluded IRB leaders (like Bulmer Hobson) who did not agree with them. "

"Militarily insignificant, the Rising had no political effect on Britain, strengthened extreme northern unionists, and was politically devastating for the IPP, as Redmond and many others understood at once.

In the Rising, the unelected gunmen defeated the elected representatives. That wrought dreadful long-term damage to Irish political culture, as regards democracy, peace, politics rather than violence, the rule of law, human rights, tolerance and pluralism."
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/just-war-no

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 12:35 PM

"Are you claiming that Wiki is wrong in this statement?"
You have just been given the situation of the land wars - did I make them up or are they all propaganda, as Fergie's statements are?
One more time
"The grazier system provoked the growth of the United Irish League and the so-called 'ranch war' of the early twentieth century[63]. Many landlords, particularly in the west and in the midlands, who had favoured the grazier system, once again found their estates under prolonged threat from agrarian agitators. In the post-1903 period, the U.I.L. demanded the break-up and distribution of estates belonging to landlords who were not willing to sell under
the terms of the Wyndham act. There was prolonged agitation on the Ashtown estate in Co Galway, for example,which lasted from around 1905 to 1914[64] . With the outbreak of World War I agitation temporarily abated on most estates as farming profits improved. Land sales under the land acts were suspended without provoking any great opposition. However, when the war ended and economic prosperity waned, smallholders and the landless once again began to clamour for the break-up of estates."
And again, one more time.
"do you believe that those at present celebrating the Rising, or those who have always cherished the event are simpletons?"
Your continued arrogance is beyond belief
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 12:12 PM

Sorry Fergie, but the fact is that none of your points stand up.
I "dismissed" them only by showing them to be false.
You have been taken in by propaganda in place of hard history.

Jim, I do not claim expertise in Irish history, but have backed everything I say with quotes from acknowledged experts.
Do you claim that you and Fergie know more than the professional historians whose statements refute your views?

Are you claiming that Wiki is wrong in this statement?

"The Ashbourne Act of 1885 started a limited process of allowing tenant farmers buy their freeholds, which was greatly extended following the 1902 Land Conference, by the 1903 Wyndham Land Purchase Act. Augustine Birrell's Act of 1909 allowed for compulsory purchase, and also allowed the purchase and division of untenanted land that was being directly farmed by the owners.

These Acts allowed tenants first to attain extensive property rights on their leaseholdings and then to purchase their land off their landlords via UK government loans and the Land Commission. The 1903 Act gave Irish tenant farmers a government-sponsored right to buy, which is still not available in Britain itself today."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_War

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 11:29 AM

"t says that the Irish Land question was resolved in 1903."
The Land League was in no way the end of the land disputes which, as I said, continued up to Independence and hangovers of t those disputes continued into The Free State Period.
"The grazier system provoked the growth of the United Irish League and the so-called 'ranch war' of the early twentieth century[63]. Many landlords, particularly in the west and in the midlands, who had favoured the grazier system, once again found their estates under prolonged threat from agrarian agitators. In the post-1903 period, the U.I.L. demanded the break-up and distribution of estates belonging to landlords who were not willing to sell under
the terms of the Wyndham act. There was prolonged agitation on the Ashtown estate in Co Galway, for example,which lasted from around 1905 to 1914[64] . With the outbreak of World War I agitation temporarily abated on most estates as farming profits improved. Land sales under the land acts were suspended without provoking any great opposition. However, when the war ended and economic prosperity waned, smallholders and the landless once again began to clamour for the break-up of estates."
The disputes mentioned above occurred here in Clare, Kerry and parts of Limerick and took the form of rusting the big landlord's cattle, driving them through the towns then freeing them on open land.
You have insulted a large number of people here with your ignorance and arrogance and your habit of hstily scooping up bits you think make your case continues to spoil these discussions.
Yo once said you had read nothing of Irish history and were not interested enough to do so - it shows.
I'm British but my personal associations with Ireland go back to my childhood and my family history with Ireland is centuries old.
I know from personal contact that Fergie's knowledge of the subject is voluminous - far more than mine, yet you still think you know more than we do through your internet raids.
In describing The Rising as you have, vitrually single-handedly placed yourself above all those who are proudly celebrating the events of Easter 1916, reading anw writing about it as making dozens of programmes about it.
I ask again "do you believe that those at present celebrating the Rising, or those who have always cherished the event are simpletons?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 10:44 AM

Keith,

Your ability to vacillate is remarkable, but not in a good way. Your dismissive attitude is tiresome and I'm done with wasting my time trying to have an honest discussion with somebody that seems unwilling to accept that their understanding of the issues are weak and seems to regard the state of ignorance as a virtue.

I'm out of here.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 10:41 AM

House Of Commons 1892.
"The Commissioner of Police reports there are seven superintendents in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and they are all Roman Catholics. "

"The Commissioner adds that the question of religion does not form any factor in the promotions in the Force. "

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1892/mar/28/dublin-metropolitan-police

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 10:25 AM

Fergie, The DMP was an unarmed police force modelled exactly on the London MP.
I am sure that neither one behaved worse than the other by our standards.
British police were guilty of the same behaviour towards strikers in the early 20th Century.

The IRB may have been secret but if it was to have any hope of fighting the British out of Ireland, it would need many more than its tiny fringe membership to achieve anything.
But it could not recruit them.
Sinn Fein had the same aims but was not a secret organisation.
It published articles in The United Irishman and stood for elections.
Unfortunately no-one was interested.

Jim, is WIKI wrong on the Land League?
It says that the Irish Land question was resolved in 1903.


"The major land reforms came when Parliament passed laws in 1870, 1881, 1903 and 1909 that enabled most tenant farmers to purchase their lands, and lowered the rents of the others.[8] From 1870 and as a result of the Land War agitations and the Plan of Campaign of the 1880s, various British governments introduced a series of Irish Land Acts. William O'Brien played a leading role in the 1902 Land Conference to pave the way for the most advanced social legislation in Ireland since the Union, the Wyndham Land Purchase Act of 1903.This Act set the conditions for the break-up of large estates and gradually devolved to rural landholders, and tenants' ownership of the lands. It effectively ended the era of the absentee landlord, finally resolving the Irish Land Question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Land_League

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 10:06 AM

Keith.

Trying to educate you is like playing handball against a haystack.

You replied "The DMP were an Irish Catholic organisation. Not British."

The DMP = Dublin Metropolitan Police it was the title of the police service that controlled the Dublin area. It was comprised of Catholic and Protestant members and the senior offers were almost exclusively protestant and unionist inclined. I know this because, much to my shame some of my ancestors were members and they were all Church of Ireland and unionist by inclination. Believe me the thought that they were part of "an Irish Catholic organisation" would have made them guffah with mirth.

You also said "Why did the IRB never attract more than a fringe membership?"

Keith any person with a modicum of understand of Irish history would understand why the IRB had a small membership. The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) were a secret society whose membership was controlled by it's leadership. You could not join the IRB, membership was by invitation only.

I trust that you motives in being involved in this discussion are honest, but for somebody who holds such strong opinions on the subject of the 1916 Rising you seem to be almost wilfully ignorant of some of the key organisations involved.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 08:57 AM

! Land Wars and Land League were all settled amicably and finally in the 19th Century."
Not true again.
The official Land War protests lasted until 1911 when the West Meath MP who organised the Cattle Drives called them off, but in fact they continued in parts of Ireland right up to Independence - this County was one of the foremost in those events.
We recorded about half a dozen songs about the events made during the lifetimes of the singers
Go look it up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 08:48 AM

"Ireland was excluded from conscription BEFORE the rising."
And after the rising Briain attempted to introduce compulsory conscription - fact.
"Sure it was suggested in 1918, but rejected immediately."
It was rejected by the Irish politicians who would have accepted it before the Rising - the Rising saved many thousands of young Irish lives - nothing to you maybe.
Blaming the soldiers for the Bachelors Walk massacre is simple abrogation of responsibility, just as blaming tho=e soldiers on the spot during the Bloody Sunday massacre was - the officers, and overall, the Government who put the army there were responsible in both cases - The British Govenment underlined that fact when they apologised for the Derry massacre.
Your behaviour here has demonstrated beyond all doubt why The British Empire was always has hated by the Irish people as it was - describing what Ireland is celebrating at the present time as "A contemptible joke" is beyond belief - having said it, refusing either to defend it or to withdraw it is.... well - word fail.
A question; do you believe that those at present celebrating the Rising, or those who have always cherished the event are simpletons?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 08:00 AM

Fergie, the issues of the Land Wars and Land League were all settled amicably and finally in the 19th Century.
It was not an issue by 1916.

The DMP were an Irish Catholic organisation. Not British.

The Batchelors Walk massacre was not an example of British oppression of the Irish.
The army was called out because German weapons were being smuggled into the country.
It was wrong that they fired on a crowd when they were returning to barracks, but they were not acting on higher orders. It was a heat of the moment thing.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 07:49 AM

Fergie, I think that your interpretation is wrong, and based on propaganda not fact.
If it were true, why was there no outcry or demand for independence?
Why did the IRB never attract more than a fringe membership?
Why did membership and votes for Sinn Fein collapse after 1908? By 1915 they had so little support that they went broke and could not pay their office rent.

Jim,
had Easter Week not happened, they would have introduced it earlier - why wouldn't they have.

Wrong again Jim.
Ireland was excluded from conscription BEFORE the rising.
Sure it was suggested in 1918, but rejected immediately.
There was not even conscription in the British North in WW2!

The rising achieved nothing, and certainly had nothing to do with Irish exemption from conscription.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 07:19 AM

Keith thank you for some more straight answers,

I'm not in a position to deal with all you said at this moment, so I'll answer it section by section

You said - The occupation was not seen as "aggressive and oppressive subjugation."

Incorrect - In consequence of the "Land Wars" and the activities of the Land League. Ireland was in the years leading up to the rising the most heavily policed part of Britain, there were armed Police stationed in fortified barracks in almost every village in Ireland. The police had a reputation for brutality and an absolute intolerance of any activity that they considered "seditious". In addition the police were backed up by a system of "justice" that was presided over by establishment JPs, magistrates and judges that would sentence dissenters to punative periods of incarceration solely on the word on any police officer.
Th Dublin Metropolitan Police were hated by the ordinary citizens. the DMP carried batons and swords and patrolled the streets in groups. They delighted in smashing heads at the slighest excuse and many the innocent man was hauled off to spend the night in a cell and was then charged on the word of a DMP and condemned to months in prison. If you want to know how these bullies behaved look up the DMP and it's roll in the 1913 Lockout.
The British Garrisons were also feared and hated, they were brutal in the extreme and fired on innocent, unarmed civilians on many occasions. Read up on the activities of King's Own Scottish Borderers and their role in the event that has come to be known as the Bachelors Walk Massacre in 1914.

The majority of ordinary citizens feared the police and soldiers for good reason. They kept their heads down and submitted to the authorities because they knew what the cost of putting their heads above the parapet would be. They behaved in that fashion precisely because they lived under occupation and were ruled over by a vindictive, aggressive and oppressive regime that deliberatly kept them in subjugation.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 04:26 AM

"It's pretty difficult to put over 700 years of suppression into a post on Mudcat."
How stupid do these people think the Irish are - putting teh effort they are norw doing into celebrating A contemptible joke
The jingoists have learned nothing sine the Empire went walkabout - still the superior race with all the answers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 04:16 AM

It's pretty difficult to put over 700 years of suppression into a post on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 04:11 AM

"There was never going to be conscription in Ireland, rising or no rising."
The British attempted to introduce forcible conscription in 1918 - had Easter Week not happened, they would have introduced it earlier - why wouldn't they have.
"That did not stop 210 000 Irishmen joining the British Army in WW1."
And those same people turned around and kicked the world's strongest Empire out on its arse when it displayed its true nature.
I suggest you read this selectively and see why Irishmen joined up (and not just pick the bits that suit you) - it represents what all those who joined that bloodbath did - not the jingoistic claims that it was for the cause of freedom.
You were given six reasons why men (and in some cases boys) enlisted - you ignored them then and you will ignore them now.
http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/Articlesandlecturesbyourteachingstaff/IrelandandtheFirstWorldWar/
Can't blue clickie it
I take your silence on your contempt for the Irish as confirmation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 03:58 AM

Jim, I only said that the rising was a contemptible joke, not the legitimate struggle for Irish independence.

The fact is that home rule was going to happen anyway.
The rising did nothing to hasten it.
Violence and death for no purpose.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 03:52 AM

Jim,
Except the ones that would have been forcibly conscripted to fight in W.W.1.

You are wrong again!
The conscription bill predated the rising.
There was never going to be conscription in Ireland, rising or no rising.

That did not stop 210 000 Irishmen joining the British Army in WW1.
By comaprison "the IRB (responsible for the rising)probably never exceeded 2,000 members"

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 03:12 AM

Fergie, I disagree with all three.


1) It was Britain's illegal and immoral occupation of Ireland and the aggressive and oppressive subjugation of the Irish people that was the root of the troubles in Ireland

The occupation was not seen as "aggressive and oppressive subjugation."
There was no popular movement against it.
The Irish people were happy with the peaceful progress to home rule.

2) the Irish people had every right to oppose that occupation.

They did have every right to, but they did not oppose it.

3) They did so in arms in 1916 and their right to do so does not have to be justified to historical revisionists".

No they did not. It was a tiny unrepresentative minority with no mandate from the Irish people.

Joe,
The Rising resulted in the execution of the best and brightest of Irish leadership

They were not "Irish leadership."
They had no mandate or support.
Only one had ever sought election, and came last in the ballot.
They were just self appointed hotheads.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 03:08 AM

"Jim, from some angles, it does seem that the 1916 Easter Rising was a waste."
Keith has just demonstrated perfectly in his contempt for the Irish people and their achievements why it was not.
Ireland is at present celebrating the major step in achieving independence - it will spend the rest of the year in discussing, examining and celebrating what Keith has just described as "a contemptible joke" - that sums up Britain's attitude to Ireland and to anybody who dared to challenge the Empire's authority
then perfectly and in writing what he did, it sums up the Empire Loyalsts' hatred and contempt of their former subjects now.
Would you accept that The Boston Tea Party of 1771 "a contemptible joke"?
Within three months of the Rising Britain had about turned on the Home Rule Bill and added a clause that would guarantee Ireland a century of division, inequality, unrest and bloodshed which has lasted to the present day - permanent partition.
That's how definite The Home Rule Bill was.
Keith has not responded to that fact.
Had the rising not taken place, Irish youth would have been compulsorily whisked off to be slaughtered on the killing fields of Europe and, given the death toll there, would have been an unsustainable country - we had lost a third of our population to famine and enforced eviction half a century earlier, thanks to British greed and misrule.
Even as late as 1918, Britain tried to introduce enforced conscription - Easter Week had given the politicians the balls to say "no".
I have put up Lloyd George's statement about Home Rule - Keith chooses to ignore it.
If Ireland had "a fair amount of self-determination already", what was the Black and Tan Period about, or the fight for Independence, or the Civil War, or the further half century of struggle against injustice or inequality in the North, another "contemptible joke".
Easter Week not only eventually brought about Independence for Ireland, it set the Empire dominoes falling and was the beginning of the emd of the contemptible British Empire, that's how much of "a contemptible joke" it was.
I'm delighted that Keith finally came out of the closet and said what he said about Ireland and its traditions - long overdue.
I would love to be present if he came over here and told us that we are making fools of ourselves by celebrating "contemptible joke"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 08:33 PM

Thank you Keith for your straight answer,

Which part of my statement do you not agree with;

1) It was Britain's illegal and immoral occupation of Ireland and the aggressive and oppressive subjugation of the Irish people that was the root of the troubles in Ireland

2) the Irish people had every right to oppose that occupation.

3) They did so in arms in 1916 and their right to do so does not have to be justified to historical revisionists".

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 05:25 PM

most of the songs are were written from the irish point of view imo quite understandably, very few from the english point of view.
i mean who in their right mind would write a song which went like this, we occupied a country that didnt belong to us,we sent soldiers who were not fighting in the first world war and who were only prepared for trench warfare, not guerilla warfare, who did not know where they were going until they realised they were heading westwards instead of to france, who had no idea they would be fired upon when arriving in dublin, who had no idea there was about to be an easter rising. why not, you ask, because it would show how unprepared and incompetent the glorious british empire was,now do you understand why there were no songs from the british point of view , because it would illustrate how incompetent and unprepared they were, no glory n that is there

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 03:52 PM

Jim, from some angles, it does seem that the 1916 Easter Rising was a waste. To much of the world, it appeared that the Irish had a fair amount of self-determination already, and that they were going to have Home Rule within a very short period of time. The Rising resulted in the execution of the best and brightest of Irish leadership, and that was indeed a tragedy. One could argue that the British had no need to execute those men, and that is true; but one could also argue credibly that the Irish had no need to sacrifice their best leaders. At the very least, it seems that the Easter Rising was poor strategy.

Up above, somebody made an argument that I hadn't heard quite that way before - that the Rising was necessary to stem opposition to Home Rule from within Ireland. There's certainly credibility there - there certainly were some Irish who opposed Home Rule and worked to undermine it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 03:03 PM

"Thousands of Irish lives spared."
Except the ones that would have been forcibly conscripted to fight in W.W.1.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 02:39 PM

Fergie,
"It was Britain's illegal and immoral occupation of Ireland and the aggressive and oppressive subjugation of the Irish people that was the root of the troubles in Ireland and the Irish people had every right to oppose that occupation. They did so in arms in 1916 and their right to do so does not have to be justified to historical revisionists".

Do you agree with this statement?

No I do not.
Bad things happened everywhere to everyone hundreds of years ago.
The Irish people wanted home rule but did not feel victims of "aggressive and oppressive subjugation."
The rising was deeply unpopular and unwanted, as I have shown.

Mpdette,
Executing its leaders, especially a man who could not stand up, was a huge mistake and enhanced the Republican cause more than the Rising itself could ever have done.

I agree.
Had they just been locked up they would have continued to be seen as a contemptible joke.
The rising would have been forgotten, and a transition to full home rule would have been peacefully achieved and not one day later.

Thousands of Irish lives spared.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Martin Ryan
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 02:08 PM

See you in 2017!

Regards

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Mpdette
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 01:49 PM

No, Keith,

You're incorrect.

If there hadn't been a Rising then you Brits wouldn't have responded so heavy-handedly to it. Executing its leaders, especially a man who could not stand up, was a huge mistake and enhanced the Republican cause more than the Rising itself could ever have done.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 12:39 PM

Keith,
In response to my last comment you replied "Fergie, I do know that England has been involved in Ireland for centuries.
Nothing in your piece challenges or contradicts anything said by me."

This is what my piece said
"It was Britain's illegal and immoral occupation of Ireland and the aggressive and oppressive subjugation of the Irish people that was the root of the troubles in Ireland and the Irish people had every right to oppose that occupation. They did so in arms in 1916 and their right to do so does not have to be justified to historical revisionists".

Do you agree with this statement?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 12:16 PM

I will not discuss anything but the Rising here.
My case is that it was unwanted and unnecessary.

Unwanted.
"Why Was The Easter Rising So Unpopular" by John Gibney, currently Glasnevin Trust Professor of Public History and Cultural Heritage at Trinity College Dublin.

" Many of the insurgents who fought in 1916 recorded the hostility of the families of serving soldiers across the city (some went so far as to say that their British captors had saved them from angry mobs)."

"Alongside this was the fact that the Rising had caused massive death and destruction, and disrupted everyday life in the city; Oscar Traynor recalled how he and his fellow Volunteers were accused by one irate Dubliner of being 'starvers of the people'. Hostility to the Rising on these various grounds was inevitable, and surely understandable"

"Condemnation of the Rising spread far beyond the city in which the vast bulk of the fighting took place."
http://www.independent.ie/incoming/just-why-was-the-easter-rising-so-unpopular-34563527.html

Heather Jones, associate professor in international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

"Heather Jones traces how this failed military insurrection against British rule – mounted by a small, unrepresentative minority of Irish republicans – "

"The majority of the nationalist population was satisfied with the passing of the home rule bill in 1912;"

"Even within the ranks of republicanism, the Rising was carried out by a small minority. "
http://www.ippr.org/juncture/commemorating-the-rising-history-democracy-and-violence-in-ireland

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 12:10 PM

"I'll edit out or move the off-topic posts once this discussion dies down,"
Finished with this particular spat as far as I'm concerned Joe - sorry to have bogged it down again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 10:53 AM

I think that I'd like to learn the various perspectives on the Easter Rising. I'm sure there was a variety of opinions among the British and the Irish, and I think it's important for us to understand those perspectives. I think a lot of Americans sing Irish rebel songs without knowing their context. A thread like this should present that context, from all sides - not try to prove which side was right (or which Mudcatter was right).
I'll edit out or move the off-topic posts once this discussion dies down, but I do think it's important for us to have a discussion of the Easter Rising on the centennial of the event. I don't see value in having two threads on this topic, one combative and one non-combative.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MartinRyan
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 10:34 AM

Not sure why this thread stayed above the line? Surely time for it to head to the home of blindfolded argument?

Regards

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 10:14 AM

"My case was that the rising was not wanted by the people"
We have no idea that this was the case - those in Dublin who protested represented a tiny minority of Dubliners.
There were in fact plans for risings to take place elsewhere whih were botched, but Irish peole had been fighting for independence for centuries - the demand was ongoing.
Even those who supported the war did so because they believed it would bring independence - the Robert Kee passage (which you, of course have ignored) proved that this was not the case and they changed their minds when British brutality was demonstrated (no out of sympathy for the martyrs, but as a reaction to Britain with the mask off)
Within a matter of months the country was up in arms fighting for Britain to get out of Ireland.
Yopu respond to the devastation of British mortar fire with a few antiseptic pictures of your own and no comment.
They did not "choose" a residential area - they chose the main building of the main thoroughfare in Dublin city because that was where it would make the most effective statement - It was a demand for independence, not an attempt to kill people or destroy property - they occupied buildings as a gesture.
The indiscriminate destruction has been demonstrated by the photographs and is to be found in the many photographs - a few of which you have been given and choose to ignore.
I think we're finished here, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:41 AM

Here's some reading for you Keith about the Black & Tans. You will note in the section marked "Legacy" it refers to the War Crimes of the Black & Tans.

Black & Tans

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:39 AM

their choice of venue was somewhere that would make te most impact.

So you acknowledge the accuracy of my statement, "No-one told them which buildings to occupy and defend."

They chose overcrowded, residential areas with the inevitable consequence of mass casualties.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:36 AM

I have no doubt you will ignore this as you have everything else that has been put up.

I have made no case about events after the Rising.

My case was that the rising was not wanted by the people, and I have shown that to be true.
My case was that the rising was unnecessary and pointless because home rule had already been agreed.
I showed that was true also.

You have been unable to challenge or contradict either.

I challenged your claim that the British fired indiscriminately.
You have failed to substantiate that claim.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:33 AM

"(Why no link Jim?)"
Because I named the source and am not in the habit of making things up, but there you go.
History on line (again)
"Do you not use the links I provide?"
All your "evidence has been an afterthought subsequently dug out to support former claims.
"No-one told them which buildings to occupy and defend."
They were a heavily outnumbered force who knew they were probably doomed to failure - their choice of venue was somewhere that would make te most impact.
Why did British soldiers choose to burn Cork City or Miltown Malbay or Lahinch or Ennistimon - that was a deliberate act of destruction and murder.
I have not "switched to the Tans - I was using the period to compare how the different groups of fighters behaved - both involved the behavior of British soldiers being used to suppress Irish independence and both were aspects of the Irish War of Independence.
You criticise one yet ignore the other - why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:30 AM

You have given no eye witness report of indiscriminate fire.
Here is the YMCA Sackville Street.
Notice that the gunners did not just shoot at the building, but at the windows where the rebels fired from.
(first pic)https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=easter+rising+dublin+ymca&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=685&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3xJemp

Here is the Liberty Hall, shelled by both Helga and 18pdr artillery.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=easter+rising+dublin+liberty+hall&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=685&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKE