The laughable assertion by Ruth Dudley Edwards that the 1916 Insurgents ushered in a century of bloodshed in Ireland prompts me to wonder how many wars and warlike campaigns have been waged by the United Kingdom, by France and by the United States in the same period. I think perhaps a Mathematical Genius is required to enumerate them.
Following the Armistice of 1918 perhaps even Ms Dudley Edwards knows the UK waged war on the people of Ireland. But also in Russia, and against Turkey, and various other places. Aerial bombardment of civilians and the machine-gunning of fleeing civilians were not pioneered by Hitler’s Condor Legion at Guernica although humanity owes Picasso a debt for ensuring that the atrocity is not forgotten.The British were at it in Iraq in 1923. At least. I’d be surprised
if Iraq was the only theatre where the British employed such terror.Britain fought various wars which they labelled Emergencies. In Malaya such labelling was to save the owners of mines and rubber plantations the higher insurance premiums associated with war. In Kenya alone during the 1950s Her Majesty’s hangmen despatched 1,100 Africans after farcical trials – an appreciably higher body count than all those killed in the 26 counties since Frank Aiken issued his “Dump Arms” order in May 1923. Aiken devoted the next 50 years to peace, not only in Ireland, but worldwide – a record unmatched by any British figure of influence in the last century. Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Cyprus, Korea, the Malvinas, Indonesia, the Yemen, and God knows how many secret campaigns of violence have been waged from London.
France and the United States have waged overt and covert wars over the since the end of the Great “War to End Wars” involving the killings of millions of human beings. Is there no historian with the intestinal fortitude and the mathematical competence to enumerate the wars and provide a reasonable estimate of the casualties arising from the actions of States held up to the mere Irish as models for emulation?
Or are we to be happy to be fed the cruel mental gruel of the likes of Ms Dudley Edwatds and Seamus Murphy, S.J.?.
I think the mathematical genius you are looking for is Dublin resident Fergus Crawford, a man of imperious integrity, a concerned citizen.
At least that’s how he portrayed himself yesterday when facing down Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Fein, casting serious aspersions on their financial acuity.
But then, as CEO of a Swiss merchant bank, was he not one of the eejits who blew the world’s financial markets to smithereens five years ago?
So, as he has proved himself so inept at financial matters, maybe he could cope with your required task of simple addition.
I am writing this out of charity as no man should spend his life at a job where he has proved himself totally out of his depth!
It sounds as if concerned citizen is losing some of his functions. “My feeling is in my pocket…” Whoever heard of a banker putting his hand in his own pocket? Perhaps he is just losing interest. He now wishes to help the electorate with problems, created by bankers. Mark Twain reminds us that a banker is someone who lends an umbrella when the sun is shining and then charges a fee for it when it is raining. It is good to see a concerned citizen dealing with big issues or is he now so out of his depth that he is reduced to selling them?
I don’t think it would make any difference to the likes of DudleyEdwards or the Jesuit Murphy is the brutal record of the British and their allies all over the world was spelled out in detail. They well know about the brutality of the Brits but have chosen or have been chosen to present a different narrative which keeps the Brits and their allies happy. The good news is that few people take them seriously. They are not serious historians but propagandists for imperialism.
An observation imparted from years in a Northern Irish school … the United Kingdom has done well, statistically beating our rivals when such a victory was not a given.
I am Northern Irish, British because I can “do the math.”
Sorry one more observation, mathematics is precise. This column is written as if the United States and the United Kingdom were one sided actors, this is not true. Every mathematical equation has two sides. And should we be honest, the majority of the Earth’s inhabitants would solve the equation in favor of the United States and it’s allies. A choice made in hopes of gaining the freedoms we in Ireland and Northern Ireland take for granted.
“The laughable assertion by Ruth Dudley Edwards that the 1916 Insurgents ushered in a century of bloodshed in Ireland”
How is this laughable?
In 1913 blood was shed in Dublin when police bludgeoned workers.
On 26 July 1914 blood was shed as the King’s Own Scottish Borderers shot down unarmed
Dubliners.
From August 1914 Irishmen were shedding their blood under British orders and shedding the
blood of Germans, Turks and Austrians with whom they had no excuse to quarrel. Irishmen
who resmained in the British forces shed blood in Russia and Godknowes many other countries.
Ms Dudley Edwards contention that the 1916 Insurrectionists ushered in a century of bloodshed is nonsensical. And the laughter she earns is bitter. Her career is funny peculiar,
not funny ha-ha.
The USA in Vietnam, Cambodia,Guatemala, Panama,Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Chile, Indonesia, was involved in mass murder.
The French in Indo-China, Algeria, Suez and many more countries were not the champions
of Liberte, Egalite & Fraternite.
I’m not anti-Western. I just wish that Western Powers had lived up to, or might still adopt
the values which they claim to espouse.
And I believe that the Insurgents of 1916 were, if not the most altruistic men and women who ever drew breath, the equal of such people.
ever drew breath,
is
But neither the incidents in 1913 and 1914 nor the First World War inspired 100 years of violence. The 1916 rebellion did. And continues so to do.
How about 1912, MT? It’s generally acknowledged that 1912 and the UVF inspired the Irish Volunteers and ultimately the Easter Rising. So would that maybe….Nah. Impossible. Only republicans do violence.
1912 was entirely peaceful.
The Ulster Volunteers, founded in 1913, didn’t commit any violence.
The Irish Volunteers were indeed formed in response, but they didn’t commit any violence either. That was a break way group which some how managed to retain the name.
No, MT, they didn’t – well, only on Germans, and they don’t count. They merely threatened violence. But that’s different. Like a bank raid – pointing the gun isn’t violence at all at all – sure nobody got shot.
“No, MT, they didn’t – well, only on Germans, and they don’t count. They merely threatened violence. But that’s different. Like a bank raid – pointing the gun isn’t violence at all at all – sure nobody got shot.”
Correct. Just like Redmond’s Volunteers.
And neither inspired 100 years of violence.
The actual violence carried out by the 1916 rebels, on the other hand, did.
So it is okay, MT, to threaten people with menaces and threats if they do not meet certain objectives? The gun-running of the UVF in 1912 and the totally irresponsible, reckless words of people like Carson and Bonar-Law set in motion a chain of events which led to the momentous uprising of Easter week 1916 and the partial deliverance of Ireland in 1922 from a foreign power..
“So it is okay, MT, to threaten people with menaces and threats if they do not meet certain objectives?”
Obviously that depends on the context, but it’s an irrelevant question.
The question, regardless of justification or otherwise, was whether it inspired 100 years of violence.
“1912 was entirely peaceful.” What? Completely and utterly, factually incorrect!
According to ATQ Stewart, there was an “increase in disorder” namely, violence during 1912:
February 1912, a Unionist mob try to attack Winston Churchill in Belfast as he came to deliver a speech in favour of Home Rule – violence and intimidation used to try and overturn his car!
Castledawson incident – violence between AOB and Sunday School leading to inevitable reprisals;
July 1912 – thousands of Catholics driven from their jobs in the shipyards of Belfast. “Terrorised to leave.” Violence, intimidation used against them. Due to simmering tension In the yard there was 25 reported assaults in the yard and 55 reported outside that month alone;
12th July 1912 – riots over the marching period between Unionists and Nationalists and tension continued to escalate;
September 1912 – During Belfast Celtic / Linfied game, serious rioting at half time between Unionsts and Nationalists. Up to 100 people were injured, stones were thrown along with fists. 5 wounded after shots from revolvers. The violence spilled out into the Donegall Road / Broadway where rioting continued;
Threats of the setting up of provisional governments didn’t do much to stabilise an already deteriorating situation;
“The Ulster Volunteers, founded in 1913, didn’t commit any violence.”
So to use violence as a threat is justifiable?
Ah, so shipping in 25000 rifles was a sign of peaceful intent? Threats of civil war, no doubt were peaceful in intent?
As Michael Laffan stated “Carson brought the gun back into Irish politics” and events that unfolded thereafter, could be attributed to him: his menacing rhetoric, inflammatory speeches and militancy, radicalised not only Unionism but nationalism.
“What? Completely and utterly, factually incorrect. According to ATQ Stewart, there was an “increase in disorder” namely, violence during 1912: February 1912, a Unionist mob try to attack Winston Churchill in Belfast as he came to deliver a speech in favour of Home Rule – violence and intimidation used to try and overturn his car! Castledawson incident – violence between AOB and Sunday School leading to inevitable reprisals; July 1912 – thousands of Catholics driven from their jobs in the shipyards of Belfast. “Terrorised to leave.” Violence, intimidation used against them. Due to simmering tension In the yard there was 25 reported assaults in the yard and 55 reported outside that month alone; 12th July 1912 – riots over the marching period between Unionists and Nationalists and tension continued to escalate; September 1912 – During Belfast Celtic / Linfied game, serious rioting at half time between Unionsts and Nationalists. Up to 100 people were injured, stones were thrown along with fists. 5 wounded after shots from revolvers. The violence spilled out into the Donegall Road / Broadway where rioting continued; Threats of the setting up of provisional governments didn’t do much to stabilise an already deteriorating situation;”
Jude understood we were talking the Ulster Volunteers. I suspect you did too. But regardless, the incidents referred to above didn’t inspire 100 years of violence.
“So to use violence as a threat is justifiable?”
It may or may not be, obviously depending on context. But the question is irrelevant as we’re discussing whether or not the threat and non-employment of violence by the Ulster Volunteers inspired 100 years of actual violence.
“Ah, so shipping in 25000 rifles was a sign of peaceful intent? Threats of civil war, no doubt were peaceful in intent?”
Why do you think that?
*AOH
“Jude understood we were talking the Ulster Volunteers” – As you stated, the Ulster Volunteers were set up in 1913 – you said, “1912 was entirely peaceful” – It wasn’t – what made you think it was?
Are you joking MT? The First World War, planned by Britain and France with Felonious
Entente, started a chain reaction of wars, revolutions, coups and resource robbery which
continues today and seems set to continue for another century, or destruction of all
life on earth, whichever is the sooner.
“Are you joking MT?”
No.
“The First World War, planned by Britain and France with Felonious Entente, started a chain reaction of wars, revolutions, coups and resource robbery which continues today and seems set to continue for another century, or destruction of all
life on earth, whichever is the sooner.”
The First World War wasn’t planned. And it inspired revulsion, leading to the League of Nations and ultimately to the appeasement of Nazi Germany, such was the desire to avoid another war.
France was set on avenging its defeat following its attack on Prussia in 1870 and the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. Britain had resolved to see its trade rival Germany crushed. Hence the Entente Cordial, its encouragement of Russia with
the bait of Constantinople. Britain encouraged Italy to seize Ottoman Ruled
Libya in 1910.T.E. Lawrence was spying all over Otttoman ruled territories
in the Middle East. British Naval Officers coming back from a courtesy visit
to Constantinople took time out to explore the Dardanelles. The Committee
of Imperial Defence prepared for War, The Official Secrets Act was passed
MI5, MI6 and God knows how many more Secret Services were established.
France and Russia with their huge armies were to crush the Germans and the
British Navy was to blockade German ports and transport a smallish
Expeditionary Army to the Continent. Britain and France seized oil rich and strategic land from the Turks.
“Obviously that depends on the context, but it’s an irrelevant question.
The question, regardless of justification or otherwise, was whether it inspired 100 years of violence.”
It is very much pertinent to the question at hand, MT. The infamous Larne gun-running episode in 1912 and the violent bluster and irresponsible threats of Carson, Bonar-Law and their supporters et al added fuel to a very volatile situation and brought Ireland to the brink of civil-war. So you see, one cannot escape the implications of those particular realities as the Irish Volunteers was set up as a counter-reaction to safeguard the integrity of Home Rule. In turn the IRB army council infiltrated the IV and the rest became history.
“It is very much pertinent to the question at hand, MT.”
It’s not. The question is about whether or not it inspired 100 years of violence. Whether or not it was justified is entirely a different question.
“The infamous Larne gun-running episode in 1912 and the violent bluster and irresponsible threats of Carson, Bonar-Law and their supporters et al added fuel to a very volatile situation and brought Ireland to the brink of civil-war. So you see, one cannot escape the implications of those particular realities as the Irish Volunteers was set up as a counter-reaction to safeguard the integrity of Home Rule. In turn the IRB army council infiltrated the IV and the rest became history.”
There was no gun-running in 1912. It was in 1914.
The gun-running was in 1914 and not 1912 and I stand corrected on that. But that little faux pas does not undermine my original thesis that the militarism of the UVF and the verbal threats of the leaders of unionism set the trend for the violence which followed up to 1922/23 and which we have experienced in our time. The Easter Rising of 1916 cannot be seen in isolation from the preceding events and one can justifiably argue that the gun-running of 1914 was the catalyst for the violent events which followed.
You might argue that, but it doesn’t alter the fact that it was the 1916 rebellion that inspired the 100 years of republican violence that followed, and sadly still continues today.
“You might argue that, but it doesn’t alter the fact that it was the 1916 rebellion that inspired the 100 years of republican violence that followed, and sadly still continues today.”
That is not a fact, it is Ruth’s and now your opinion as it suits your narratives of removing all responsibility for the conflicts in Ireland from the British and unionism.
There are many shades of opinion even within unionism MT. Sooner or later unionism will have to come to terms with its own past.
“That is not a fact, it is Ruth’s and now your opinion as it suits your narratives of removing all responsibility for the conflicts in Ireland from the British and unionism.”
It is fact. The various violent nationalist groupings down the years have expressly sought to legitimise themselves with reference to the 1916 rebellion.
“It is fact. The various violent nationalist groupings down the years have expressly sought to legitimise themselves with reference to the 1916 rebellion.”
The Irish republic was declared in the 1916 rebellion.
It was democratically supported electorally in 1918, any conflict that followed is down to the refusal by britain to respect the democratic wishes of the Irish people to appease threats of violence from ulster unionists who wanted nothing more than to keep protestant control over the jobs and wealth in the north.
Britain knew this was wrong but went ahead anyway which has had devastating impact in Ireland ever since.
It would be the equivalent of the EU saying all of Britain can leave the EU if a majority vote for a brexit, but not the south of England which would have to remain in the EU.
How would that go down do you think MT?
“The Irish republic was declared in the 1916 rebellion.”
A fictitious Irish republic was declared, yes.
“It was democratically supported electorally in 1918, any conflict that followed is down to the refusal by britain to respect the democratic wishes of the Irish people to appease threats of violence from ulster unionists who wanted nothing more than to keep protestant control over the jobs and wealth in the north.”
Nationalist terror was and is the responsibility of those nationalists who run and participate in tterpr gangs, all.of whom draw inspiration from the anti-democratic 1916 rebels.
“Nationalist terror was and is the responsibility of those nationalists who run and participate in tterpr gangs, all.of whom draw inspiration from the anti-democratic 1916 rebels.”
So who bears the responsibility for British state murder and terrorism, or unionist murder and terrorism MT and where was their inspiration drawn from?
1690 for many unionists I suppose.
“So who bears the responsibility for British state murder and terrorism, or unionist murder and terrorism MT and where was their inspiration drawn from?”
Obviously those involved in terrorist actions bear responsibility.
I’d imagine anyone involved in state murder was inspired by a desire to defeat nationalist terrorism. Loyalists may have been similarly inspired, but also by a misguided desire to “defend their community” and no doubt many were inspired by sectarian hatred.
“I’d imagine anyone involved in state murder was inspired by a desire to defeat nationalist terrorism. Loyalists may have been similarly inspired, but also by a misguided desire to “defend their community” and no doubt many were inspired by sectarian hatred.”
Back to the circular argument.
The IRA were ready to disappear n 1965, it was Paisleys as we now know unwarranted fears of an IRA resurgence that caused him to campaign for loyalist militancy and to engage in pre-emptive strikes. These were not in defence but designed to drive nationalists out of the north to deal with the growing numbers of Catholics who were demanding civil rights.
The truth is, unionism started these attacks, not in defence and the level of aggression got so severe the Irish army had to setup field hospitals along the border.
There was no killings by republicans between 1965 and 1969 before the army were shipped over.
All bombings in that period were the work of the unionist and british.
The first attacks by republicans were in defence of their communities from loyalist gun attacks. It wasn’t until the british army started killing innocent civilian also that the conflict began and physical force republicanism replaced the official IRAs civil rights movement strategy.
However we tweak the narratives of history, it is clear wrongs were committed on both sides and republicans will never be forced to accept all responsibility from any quarter. As time goes on and peace continues, the truth of british actions here will be laid bare and republicans will be justified in their actions and commemorated for the bravery they have shown in facing down the terrorism of a vastly superior force.
None of that alters the fact that the latter day nationalist men of violence drew inspiration from 1916 and saw themselves as the successors of 1916 and that they were in many ways correct to see themselves in such light
“None of that alters the fact that the latter day nationalist men of violence drew inspiration from 1916 and saw themselves as the successors of 1916 and that they were in many ways correct to see themselves in such light”
Actually MT, most inspiration came from the parachute regiment and british army murdering innocent civilians in Belfast and Derry.
The age-old motto of Irish Republicanism has been “England’s Difficulty is Ireland’s Opportunity” and 1916 was one of various uprisings which Irish patriots have taken part in to remove the foreign colonial power of Britain from Ireland’s shores. It was instrumental in starting the process to end British rule in a part of Ireland. Modern day republicans in Ireland pay tribute to the 1916 signatories annually every Easter but the vision of their iconic Proclamation has inspired many people outside republicanism and indeed outside Ireland. The violence of loyalist terror groups predated the reformation of the Provisional I.R.A. as evidenced by the brutal killings of innocent Catholics John Scullion and Peter Ward in 1966 by a UVF gang(who of course claim to the modern descendants of the original paramilitary force formed in 1912). So in that light, one can claim that the actions of militant unionism in the period 1912-14 and after gave inspiration to the likes of the UVF and UDA in their slaughter of innocent Catholics for over 30 years or more. But of course unionists tend to turn a blind eye to such inconvenient facts as these.
Well, Gearoid, I’m glad we are agreed about the terrible violent legacy of the 1916 rebellion.
As for the 1966 UVF yes of course they cited the 1913 Volunteers as inspiration. And shame on them for doing so.
The difference, of course, is that the UVF was wrong to have been inspired by the men of 1913-14 whereas the nationalist death squads were rightly following the example of their anti-democratic self-appointed violent forbears.
True, Gearoid – the Easter Rising isn’t an isolated event and should not be categoried as such – that’s the mistake and thus ignorant of perspective.
I have written an article previously on Unionism and commemoration that examines the background to the Rising and in effect, Unionisms role in creating the conditions for the Rising: http://www.judecollins.com/2015/10/unionism-and-the-easter-rising-by-ciaran-mc-2/
I think you’ve missed the point about the “rising” inspiring 100 further years of nationalist violence.
But if we’re to note the role of the Unionist Volunteers in setting conditions we need to look at why they were established: because of nationalists’ failure even to attempt to accommodate unionists.
“But if we’re to note the role of the Unionist Volunteers in setting conditions we need to look at why they were established: because of nationalists’ failure even to attempt to accommodate unionists.”
In what way were unionists not accommodated MT?
I was under the belief that their main reasoning, was because of shipbuilding, ulster had the majority of wealth at the time which was more or less 100% controlled by protestants who had 40 to 1 share of the wealth over Catholics and they were afraid that home rule would result in equality which would mean protestants would be worse off as a result.
Was that not the case?
“In what way were unionists not accommodated MT?”
A strangely constructed question. They weren’t accommodated in any way. Nationalists ignored them and sought simply to steamroller them through force of numbers.
“A strangely constructed question. They weren’t accommodated in any way. Nationalists ignored them and sought simply to steamroller them through force of numbers.”
Do you mean ignore them the way we are discussing unification now, i.e. unionists refusing to discuss or debate anything they don’t like in any way whatsoever?
“But the question is irrelevant as we’re discussing whether or not the threat and non-employment of violence by the Ulster Volunteers inspired 100 years of actual violence.”
The inspiration of violence is different for each individual involved MT.
What I can say with confidence however, is that Ian Paisley and a great many ulster unionists spent 30 years inspiring and encouraging violence. There is plenty of evidence in the testimony of young protestants who on facing jail time for murdering innocent Catholics, wished nothing more than to have never heard of that man Paisley.
“Almost everybody in Belfast knows that importation of arms into Belfast has been going on
regularly for more than a year and a half. A good many thousand army rifles have been received and distributed during that period…….Rifles,and not only rifles, but machine guns and a large quantity of ammunition have reached Ulster from many sources and under many
aliases”- Report in “The Northern Whig”, Belfast JUNE 4th 1913.
MT -why hide behind initials? Why not quote sources to support your statements? I’m
quite happy to retract any of my assertions if they can be proven mistaken. Donal.
Totally agree, Donal. Rifles had been making their way into the north as early as 1909/ 1910. (Alvin Jackson)
“Well, Gearoid, I’m glad that we agree about the terrible violent legacy of the 1916 rebellion.”
It is hard to know where to start with the erroneous nature of such assertions. The self-sacrifice of the men and women of 1916 led to the removal of the British presence from most of our country and inspired multiple nationalist movements abroad to work for the independence of their countries. The events of that Easter week was not just some grubby exercise in the use of violence for it’s own sake. It demanded huge courage and involved leaders of great integrity and vision who had a non-sectarian, forward-looking Ireland as their eventual goal. I am not a supporter of violence myself but believe that Pearse, Connolly and their comrades saw it as the only way to remove the tight political and socio-economic grip that the British held on Ireland. The Third Home Rule was running into the sands by the time the Rising was staged.
As for the 1966 UVF of course they cited the 1913 Volunteers as inspiration. And shame on them for doing so.
The difference, of course, is that the UVF was wrong to have been inspired by the men of 1913-14 whereas the nationalist death squads were rightly following the example of anti-democratic self-appointed violent forbears.”
Why do you say that the modern UVF was wrong to follow the example of their progenitors whereas republican groups were rightly following in the footsteps of the men and women of 1916? It seems to me that you are somehow trying to say that the murderous activities of the UVF gangs and other loyalist terror outfits were not naturally inspired by the paramilitary nature of their early equivalents in 1912-14. I think that if push came to shove during that period, the imported weapons, which came courtesy of Kaiser Bill(leader of a resurgent Germany and unfriendly rival of Britain), would have been used to murder innocent Catholics and nothing would have changed in that respect. The UVF brought the gun into the equation to settle the Home Rule question in favor of their narrow interests and was totally anti-democratic as it sought to overturn parliamentary authority and the peace of these Islands by violent threats. A fine example to set which the founders of the modern UVF picked up and took to it;s natural conclusion. The women and men of 1916 were acting out of selfless, non-sectarian motives and had no interest in the wanton slaughter of civilians. The action they took in their eyes was necessary and had within it the redemptive qualities to inspire others to carry on the fight for full Irish Independence.
“It is hard to know where to start with the erroneous nature of such assertions. The self-sacrifice of the men and women of 1916 led to the removal of the British presence from most of our country and inspired multiple nationalist movements abroad to work for the independence of their countries. The events of that Easter week was not just some grubby exercise in the use of violence for it’s own sake. It demanded huge courage and involved leaders of great integrity and vision who had a non-sectarian, forward-looking Ireland as their eventual goal. I am not a supporter of violence myself but believe that Pearse, Connolly and their comrades saw it as the only way to remove the tight political and socio-economic grip that the British held on Ireland. The Third Home Rule was running into the sands by the time the Rising was staged.”
I’m not sure of the relevance of any of this. Are you now saying that the 1916 rebellion (and retrospective lauding of its protagonists as heroes) DIDN’T provide express inspiration for subsequent nationalist anti-democratic violence that sadly continues today?
“Why do you say that the modern UVF was wrong to follow the example of their progenitors whereas republican groups were rightly following in the footsteps of the men and women of 1916?”
Because, unlike the 1913-14 UVF the modern UVF waa anti-democratic, unaccountable and had no legitimate reason to do what it did.
“It seems to me that you are somehow trying to say that the murderous activities of the UVF gangs and other loyalist terror outfits were not naturally inspired by the paramilitary nature of their early equivalents in 1912-14.”
I’m saying it was wrong for them to be inspired: that they wrongly saw themelves as the successors of the 1913-14 UVF.
The IRA and its offshoots on the other hand were correctly positioning themselves in the position of the 1916 rebels, ie self-appointed and disregarding of the wishes of the people they purported to represent.
“The IRA and its offshoots on the other hand were correctly positioning themselves in the position of the 1916 rebels, ie self-appointed and disregarding of the wishes of the people they purported to represent.”
Sounds more like the unionist parties who ran the north since partition until the conflict started MT. Or are you denying unionism misruled the north?
“I’m not sure of the relevance of any of this. Are you now saying that the 1916 rebellion (and retrospective lauding of its protagonists as heroes) DIDN’T provide express inspiration for subsequent nationalist anti-democratic violence that sadly continues today?”
I was giving you a little background to the ideals and vision of the men and women of 1916 which has inspired so many inside and outside of Ireland down the years. It was a retort to your “terrible legacy” point which distorts the galvanizing effect that the ’16 rising had on nationalist movements(besides Ireland) across the globe who had their own struggles against colonial tyrannies. A small nation eventually was able to get partially free because of it in 1922 and in doing so caused a breach in the dam of the British empire which allowed the flood-waters of independence to come through for other colonized countries. I do not deny that the modern day Irish republicans laud the leaders of the 1916 enterprise but it was only one of a line of national uprisings stretching back to the 1798 revolt.
“Because, unlike the 1913-14 UVF the modern UVF waa anti-democratic, unaccountable and had no legitimate reason to do what it did.”
The original UVF subverted the authority of the Westminster parliament through the gun and thus posed a direct threat to democracy itself. Their modern descendants recognized this and reformed this organization in 1966 with the encouragement of certain unionist politicians.
“The IRA and its offshoots on the other hand were correctly positioning themselves in the position of the 1916 rebels, ie self-appointed and disregarding of the wishes of the people they purported to represent.”
The position of the “people they purported to represent” was that of 3rd class citizens or non-citizens in a thoroughly dysfunctional state which has no semblance to any decent democracy in the western world in the late 60’s when the IRA was reformed. They were reformed initially to protect nationalist areas in Belfast threatened by hate-filled loyalist mobs aided and abetted by the so called forces of law and order. Nationalist representatives sent to Stormont had no influence on legislative decisions made by a one-party unionist junta dominated by the Orange Order since the inception of NI. So how can you talk about democracy in a place where it was never really practiced for the greater part of it’s existence.
“It was a retort to your “terrible legacy” point which distorts the galvanizing effect that the ’16 rising had on nationalist movements(besides Ireland) across the globe who had their own struggles against colonial tyrannies.”
Though Ireland in 1916 wasn’t a colonial tyranny.
“A small nation eventually was able to get partially free because of it in 1922 and in doing so caused a breach in the dam of the British empire which allowed the flood-waters of independence to come through for other colonized countries.”
We were discussing 1916, not 1922.
“I do not deny that the modern day Irish republicans laud the leaders of the 1916 enterprise but it was only one of a line of national uprisings stretching back to the 1798 revolt.”
But the 1916 “rising” took place in the democratic era and thus cannot be equated with 1798. Completely different contexts.
“The original UVF subverted the authority of the Westminster parliament through the gun and thus posed a direct threat to democracy itself.”
It didn’t. On the contrary, Westminster posed a direct threat to democracy, which the UVF was defending.
“Their modern descendants recognized this and reformed this organization in 1966 with the encouragement of certain unionist politicians.”
The modern UVF was wrong to see itself as the descendants of the 1913-14 UVF.
“The position of the “people they purported to represent” was that of 3rd class citizens or non-citizens in a thoroughly dysfunctional state which has no semblance to any decent democracy in the western world in the late 60’s when the IRA was reformed. They were reformed initially to protect nationalist areas in Belfast threatened by hate-filled loyalist mobs aided and abetted by the so called forces of law and order. Nationalist representatives sent to Stormont had no influence on legislative decisions made by a one-party unionist junta dominated by the Orange Order since the inception of NI. So how can you talk about democracy in a place where it was never really practiced for the greater part of it’s existence.”
First, the majority of the people whom the IRA purported to represent didn’t live in NI. Second, of those who did live in NI, the vast majority opposed them.
“Though Ireland in 1916 wasn’t a colonial tyranny”
Ireland was held at gun point by a colonial power which would not concede to any movement for national self-determination. The men and women of 1916 were not prepared to see their fellow countrymen as second class citizens in their own land and accordingly made a dramatic strike against that imposition.
“We were discussing 1916, not 1922.”
But you talked about the “legacy” of 1916 and one of the positives was the partial independence of Ireland following the treaty negotiations which left the British only occupying 6 counties So you cannot escape that fact as far as the ramifications of the Rising are concerned just as you cannot separate the Larne gun-running in 1914 from the further militarization of the Irish situation which led to the events of East week(as much as you would like to separate these realities from each-other).
“But the 1916 “rising” took place in the democratic era and thus cannot be equated with 1798. Completely different contexts.”
But Irish democratic wishes were being thwarted and undermined by a cynical cabal of unionists and conservatives who threatened terrible violence if the 3rd Home Rule Bill included the Ulster counties in it’s provision. By 1916 all chances of Ireland getting devolution in reality was dead in the water. Lloyd-George was in charge of a conservative administration and he made Carson First Lord of the Admiralty. So perfidious Albion failed to live up to it;s promises. The 1798 rebellion was of course in a different era but the age-old right of the Irish people to be free of foreign interference and sovereign in their own land was the common thread which united the patriots of 1916 with the United Irishmen of the earlier time.
“It didn’t. On the contrary, Westminster posed a direct threat to democracy, which the UVF was defending.”
I think you have the cart before the horse here. The constitutional authority of Westminster was very much under threat from dangerous subversives who set a dangerous precedent i.e.getting your way through the barrel of a gun if the decisions of a parliamentary majority do not go our way.
“First, the majority of the people whom the IRA purported to represent didn’t live in NI. Second, of those who did live in NI, the vast majority opposed them.”
I agree that the majority of the electorate down south certainly have reservations about those who would use physical force to achieve a united country. But they did not experience the violent circumstances which brought about the reformation of the IRA in the north during the late sixties e.g. the real threat of Catholic areas in Belfast being overrun by rampaging mobs of loyalists. Constitutional nationalism did speak for the majority of northern nationalists during the 70’s and 80’s but the SDLP became eclipsed by Sinn Fein electorally for the first time in 2001. Sinn Fein is now the biggest party in all of Ireland and is a government party in the northern jurisdiction and a serious contender to be part of the administration in the south. People need to ask serious question about themselves why this is so
“Ireland was held at gun point by a colonial power which would not concede to any movement for national self-determination.”
Eh? No it wasn’t. The Home Rule Act was on the statute book ready for commencement after the war.
“But you talked about the “legacy” of 1916 and one of the positives was the partial independence of Ireland following the treaty negotiations which left the British only occupying 6 counties So you cannot escape that fact as far as the ramifications of the Rising are concerned just as you cannot separate the Larne gun-running in 1914 from the further militarization of the Irish situation which led to the events of East week(as much as you would like to separate these realities from each-other).”
Nobody has claimed that independence for the South didn’t result from the “rising”. The discussion is about the terrible legacy of subsequent violence.
“But Irish democratic wishes were being thwarted and undermined by a cynical cabal of unionists and conservatives who threatened terrible violence if the 3rd Home Rule Bill included the Ulster counties in it’s provision.”
It was rather the opposite. The Act passed provided for the inclusion of the Ulster counties against the will of the people living there. It was unionist democratic wishes being thwarted.
“By 1916 all chances of Ireland getting devolution in reality was dead in the water.”
No they weren’t. The Act was still on the statute book ready for implementation.
“Lloyd-George was in charge of a conservative administration and he made Carson First Lord of the Admiralty.”
He wasn’t. He was in charge of a Coalition. And Carson wasn’t First Lord of the Admiralty at the time of the “rising”.
“So perfidious Albion failed to live up to it;s promises.”
It didn’t. It promised to implement home rule after the war. The war hadn’t ended.
It didn’t. In 1916 the Irish people didn’t want to be “free” in the sense meant by the 1916 rebels.
“I think you have the cart before the horse here. The constitutional authority of Westminster was very much under threat from dangerous subversives who set a dangerous precedent i.e.getting your way through the barrel of a gun if the decisions of a parliamentary majority do not go our way.”
So what you are saying is that it was democratic for unrepresentative nationalists to actually commit violence against a government that intended to facilitate nationalist wishes. But it was undemocratic for representative unionists merely to threaten violence against a government that intended to subvert its wishes. Logic and consistency are clearly not your strong points!
“First, the majority of the people whom the IRA purported to represent didn’t live in NI. Second, of those who did live in NI, the vast majority opposed them.”
“I agree that the majority of the electorate down south certainly have reservations about those who would use physical force to achieve a united country. But they did not experience the violent circumstances which brought about the reformation of the IRA in the north during the late sixties e.g. the real threat of Catholic areas in Belfast being overrun by rampaging mobs of loyalists. Constitutional nationalism did speak for the majority of northern nationalists during the 70’s and 80’s but the SDLP became eclipsed by Sinn Fein electorally for the first time in 2001. Sinn Fein is now the biggest party in all of Ireland and is a government party in the northern jurisdiction and a serious contender to be part of the administration in the south. People need to ask serious question about themselves why this is so”
I’m glad you agree the Provos acted against the wishes of the people they purported to represent.
“It didn’t. It promised to implement home rule after the war. The war hadn’t ended.”
Britain promised to implement home rule to nationalists but it also promised ulster unionists it would not.
That meant partition and the rising was to pre-empt partition and make a sacrificial stand against British rule in any part of Ireland.
For as long as Britain remain control in any part of this island, there will be those prepared to oppose it through whatever means necessary.
That is a reality.
The GFA provides a peaceful means of achieving that with a 50% + 1 majority so even a 49% unionist population can no longer prevent reunification.
That is a significantly different situation MT, but make no mistake the determination has not gone away.
“Britain promised to implement home rule to nationalists but it also promised ulster unionists it would not.”
No it didn’t.
“That meant partition and the rising was to pre-empt partition and make a sacrificial stand against British rule in any part of Ireland.”
The “rising” wasn’t to pre-empt partition. It was to establish a republic. And even if it were to pre-empt partition, it still would have been wrong.
“For as long as Britain remain control in any part of this island, there will be those prepared to oppose it through whatever means necessary.”
There may or may not be, but that doesn’t make it right.
“The GFA provides a peaceful means of achieving that with a 50% + 1 majority so even a 49% unionist population can no longer prevent reunification.”
That was always the case. GFA didn’t change that.
“That is a significantly different situation MT, but make no mistake the determination has not gone away.”
It’s not significantly different.
“The “rising” wasn’t to pre-empt partition. It was to establish a republic. And even if it were to pre-empt partition, it still would have been wrong. ”
MT, british rule in Ireland has always been wrong and will always be wrong.
The sooner it ends the better.
It seems to me that MT accepts that Unionist gunrunning preceded the LARNE incident.
So he has larned a fact that demolishes his protestations.
That is progress.
If the Good Lord hasn’t given him the Grace to acknowledge it publicly I doubt there’s any point in humans trying to Larne him/her manners.