Did you catch that RTÉ Prime Time discussion they held in the GPO a week or two ago? David McCullagh talked to a number of pro- and anti-Easter Rising people (Kevin Myers, Michael McDowell, Eamon O Cuiv, Patsy McGarrry, Ruth Dudley Edwards) and while things got heated, mercifully they’d left their guns outside.
Two matters, both related, quickly emerged as the focus of debate: was the Easter Rising morally justified, and would (limited) Irish independence have happened without physical force?
Eamon O Cuiv, not surprisingly, was on the pro-Easter Rising side. Michael McDowell, very surprisingly indeed, was also on the pro-Easter Rising side. When David McCullagh asked Michael if violence could ever be justified, McDowell told him: “It depends on what you mean by ‘justified’ The revolutionaries plotted in secret. They’re not going to go and have a referendum beforehand”.
Michael, of course, is famous as having been the leader of the Progressive Democrats, which political ship he steered onto the nearest rocks and holed it below the waterline. He’s also famous because his grandfather was General Eoin McNeill, who countermanded the order for the Irish Volunteers to join the Easter Rising. “He wasn’t a revolutionary socialist like Connolly” McDowell told us. “Nor like Pearse – soaked in blood and orchestrating a political and military theatre.”
As Michael told it, his grandfather was all for the Rising but only if (i) the British to disarm the Irish Volunteers; and/or (ii) there was a reasonable prospect of success. Neither of these conditions, he concluded, were present at the time of the Easter Rising, so McNeill put his famous advertisement in the Irish Independent (where else?) calling off the revolution.
Not that McNeill was a wimp. Michael put heavy emphasis on the fact that his grandfather and his grand-uncle, after release from Frongoch Camp, returned to Ireland and committed themselves totally to the war to secure the removal of the British.
Eamon O Cuiv responded to the was-the-violence-of-the-Rising-justified by the old but telling tactic of answering the question by posing another: “Was it right for Britain to assume the right to run Ireland?”
On the anti-side, Ruth Dudley Edwards told us that Pearse “was driven by a death wish. He was a brilliant propagandist – he turned Irish nationalism into a religion”. Her companion in arms, so to say, was Patsy McGarry of RTÉ, about whom I blogged the other day . “Look at Canada, Australia” Patsy urged us. “They had achieved Dominion status already. A lot of the GPO combatants didn’t know what they were doing: they thought the whole country was rising. There were 485 people killed – and for what?”
It was a surprisingly interesting debate, partly because of its historic setting and partly because all involved felt passionately about the subject. Eamon O Cuiv, though looking and sounding like a middle-aged fogey, brought the debate into a final sharp focus: “The British Empire was created by force. To believe that the British Empire would walk out of Ireland is naïve”.
But it was left to the redoubtable Ruthie D E to identify the Big Contradiction at the heart of Easter Rising commemoration. “What right had those seven signatories to initiate armed action? And if they had the right, we seven here have the right. And the Provos and the dissident republicans have the right”.
Right enough, Ruthie…
Did you catch Vernon Coaker on the radio yesterday, waxing on about our country and our sovereignty? There are many in the six counties who many not share his view about our sovereignty and our country. There are many in the 26 counties who may not share his views either. There are those who say it will never be possible to force a united Ireland into existence. British politicians had no qualms about forcing through a treaty which helped create and sustain sectarian divisions in the north of Ireland. It would appear that there is a big contradiction at the heart of Mr Coaker’s definition of democracy also.
“What right had those seven signatories to initiate armed action? And if they had the right, we seven here have the right. And the Provos and the dissident republicans have the right”.
The provos did not initiate armed action, they came into being as a result of unionist initiated armed actions.
You would think historians would know things like that.
Perhaps one day they will finally cop on, if you try to justify any violence, you justify all violence, from a certain point of view.
“But it was left to the redoubtable Ruthie D E to identify the Big Contradiction at the heart of Easter Rising commemoration. “What right had those seven signatories to initiate armed action? And if they had the right, we seven here have the right. And the Provos and the dissident republicans have the right”. Right enough, Ruthie…”
So what’s your answer, Jude? Why was it OK for Pearse et al to kill but not the Provos, dizzies or indeed any of us?
MT
There is apparently no obvious answer to that question.
Anyone raising it is attacked ridiculed or ignored.
“MT
There is apparently no obvious answer to that question.
Anyone raising it is attacked ridiculed or ignored”
Gio, are you seriously suggesting that Pearse and the others simply had this weird idea one day to storm the GPO and effectively sacrifice themselves for….nothing? There was no background to the Easter Rising, is that what you are seriously suggesting? Because its either your extremely, extremely ignorant of Irish History or you have the Unionist blinkers on. I think I know which…..There was valid and legitimate reasons why Pearse and the others lead the Easter Rising and it was after watching decades of nationalist politicians commit to politics and their democratic wishes being repeatedly obstructed, either by Unionism or the British Government or both, it was getting us no where. Hence why the Uprising was legitimate. It was legitimate anyway even if the political path had not been trodden because Britain has no right to be in Ireland.
BTW, what we’re doing now Gio is called debating, its not attacking or ridiculing anyone. Of course there is a slight ridiculing of peoples opinions in every debate, in this case some Unionists would ridicule Nationalist views and vice versa. Disagreeing with someone is not attacking them. I wouldn’t say you “attack” me just because you may disagree with much of my views or ridicule them.
An attack in a debate, in my opinion, is if say Jude blocked anyone who didn’t share Judes opinion. Of course he doesn’t do that. But go onto many Loyalist facebook pages and if they get even a hint that your a Catholic or a “taig” your blocked quicker than the Pope would be thrown out of an Orange Hall. Now that’s an attack, not only on a persons views but also on freedom of speech and democracy essentially.
Watch Loyalists do it to Gerry Lynch on the Nolan show.
Ryan
Take a look at the Geldof thread if you wan to see what I mean by insulting rather than addressing opinions.
Should those who question the rising be labelled traitors or west Brits simply for holding a different view?
I am not suggesting anything about the rising I am pointing out as MT has already done and indeed Ruth Dudley Edwards (recipient of frequent insults round here) that any group can claim the same right to take up arms if they believe in it to the same degree. Some (like jessica) feel the GFA is now useless and the British will never willingly relinquish power. They may wish to have another rising, kill a few more people for Ireland. So why not? if they believe they are right?
You say the rising was legitimate. That is not fact that is opinion. I have never said it was not legimate by the way I have simply asked questions about it
I am not a Unionist by the way, but accusing me of being having blinkers on is just more insult instead of argument
I agree, gio. If you are declared blinkered without supporting evidence, that’s unfounded insult. In fact, I’m wondering if we need to draw up a few ground rules for this site, as to what is and what is not acceptable comment. I’d be interested in your views and those of other posters here…
Jude
Guidelines might help.
I feel like I moan a fair bit about the personal stuff though not much is directed at me to be fair.
I am not priggish about robust exchanges but the insults are just a way of shutting down debate or dismissing the other argument by belittling the individual.
Ryan’s (poor Ryan) comments about RDE above for example when he uses ‘poor Ruth’ twice.
What is poor about her? How is it relevant?
Why use that adjective because she is expressing her opinion? It may not be very insulting in itself but it is clearly a way of diminishing her rather than addressing her argument.
Also it only encourages others to respond in kind, you big turd!
If an argument is weak then dismantle it.Simple really.
That’s my two cents worth.
That’s helpful, gio – thanks. I’m wondering about the ‘poor Ruth’ thing. Not in particular but in general: if we’re making a case against someone’s argument, there is a (natural?) tendency to throw in the odd little dig. I don’t know that I’d want to block a comment because they referred to their opponent as ‘poor X’. On the other hand if they said ‘stupid X’, much less ‘sectarian X’, I’d seriously think about putting a ban on posts containing that. But I’d like the views of MORE PEOPLE WHO POST (you lazy bloody shower…Ooops – have I banned myself??)
Jude
you’re welcome.
I don’t mean to suggest the ‘poor Ruth’ comment is worthy of censure. It detracts from the point being made in my view,but it is not especially offensive.
Mind you, if I started comments with ‘poor Jude’ I suppose you might get a bit fed up with it!
Let’s see what all the other useless gobshites have to say.
“Gio, are you seriously suggesting that Pearse and the others simply had this weird idea one day to storm the GPO and effectively sacrifice themselves for….nothing?”
So your answer is thst Pearse et al were entitled to kill because they werent doing it for nothing.
In that case why were the Provos and the dizzies not entitled to kill. They didn’t do it for nothing either.
And if I decided to kill for something is that ok too?
“There was valid and legitimate reasons why Pearse and the others lead the Easter Rising and it was after watching decades of nationalist politicians commit to politics and their democratic wishes being repeatedly obstructed, either by Unionism or the British Government or both, it was getting us no where. Hence why the Uprising was legitimate. It was legitimate anyway even if the political path had not been trodden because Britain has no right to be in Ireland.”
It wasnt legitimate. They had no mandate to do what they did. They went against the democratic will of the people. They used violence as a first resort not a last resort.
“So what’s your answer, Jude? Why was it OK for Pearse et al to kill but not the Provos, dizzies or indeed any of us?”
Why was it OK for Britain to declare War on Germany in 1914 and engage in far greater violence, killing, destruction and general mayhem than what had occurred in Dublin in Easter week in 1916? The Battle of the Somme alone was a massacre of British troops, tens of thousands of men died in just 1 day and overall the Battle was inconclusive, it was basically all for nothing. All this will be glorified, commemorated, soon enough by people all over the UK and especially Unionists here. But here is what the last surviving British veteran of WW1, Harry Patch, who died in 2009 at the age of 111 said of WW1:
“When the war ended, I don’t know if I was more relieved that we’d won or that I didn’t have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany’s only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We’ve had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it’s a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn’t speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?” – Harry Patch
“We came across a lad from A company. He was ripped open from his shoulder to his waist by shrapnel and lying in a pool of blood. When we got to him, he said: ‘Shoot me’. He was beyond human help and, before we could draw a revolver, he was dead. And the final word he uttered was ‘Mother.’ I remember that lad in particular. It’s an image that has haunted me all my life, seared into my mind” – Harry Patch
“War is organised murder, and nothing else” – Harry Patch.
Now if Pearse and the Leaders of the Uprising strike for freedom, not Imperialism, was immoral, how can you possibly defend and commemorate the carnage, the utter carnage, of the First World War and the countless other similar Wars Britain has fought and often started?….It stinks of hypocrisy.
I ask why was it OK for Pearse et al to kill but not the Provos, dizzies or indeed any of us, and you answer by asking why was it OK for Britain to declare War on Germany in 1914.
That is easily answered, but the implication from what you have written about the war is thst you do not think it was OK.
By your own logic (you use the declaration of war as an analogy), therefore, you appear to be agreeing that Pearse et al were also wrong.
Interesting.
The answer, by the way, is that Germany had invaded Belgium and the UK and France were duty bound to protect Belgium. Maybe you think Britain and France should have allowed Germany to do that, but that’s beside the point here.
(By the way I don’t defend and commemorate the carnage of the Somme.)
“Why was it OK for Pearse et al to kill but not the Provos, dizzies or indeed any of us?”
Why was it ok for unionism to use violence and threaten to use further violence to achieve their political aims?
Quite the most jolting (one almost wrote ‘revolting’!) facet, Esteemed Blogmeister, of said programme was the choice by RTE of panellist to give the moral slant on the Easter 16 thingy.
Not one in clerical robes, as might be expected, much the same way as, say, an economist is invariably recruited by RTE to speak on the dismal science or a sainted soccer player of yore is planted on the panel to discuss, erm, football.
In this instance, it was the (gulp) Religious Affairs Correspondent (R.A.C.) of its newspaper wing, The Unionist Times, which RTE, after due and perhaps even undue deliberation, opted for. And clad in the gladrags to suit the zeitgeist too, in eminently civilized civvies.
Now despite being a R.A.C. the holder of that lofty, heavens-tilted title is nonetheless, at the end of the day, going f., still a hack. A groundbound, earthling of a H.A.C.K. Just no gainsaying that fact.
Granted, Patsy McGarry (for it is he!) is understood to be a pillar of the Unitarian Church of Dublin (an entirely irrelevant factoid never referred to, and quite rightly so ) but that scarcely qualifies him to the otherwolrdly role he was entrusted with.
Despite being the l’eglise du jour dernier of many ex-RC’s in the homogenous hackitariat on Liffeside who cannot quite countenance the prospect of saying their final slan / adios in an ambiance of soulless atheism, opt for this atmospheric neo-gothic edifice on St. Stephen’s Green. Which surprisingly guarantees it more than the normal dollop of propaganda which any minuscule cult would reasonably expect.
And, alas, cult it is . On the religious basis that the Unitarian Church of Dublin still has to reach, erm, Critical Mass, even Critical High Mass or, dare one whisper it, Concelebrated Critical Mass itself. Cult it indubitably is – as of now. God alone knows, what with all the artificial pumping up it is receiving by the bicycle-pedallers of the benign media , it may well achieve Critical Mass in time, and so attain – halleluyah ! – the status of a full-blow religion.
Witness the amount of moulting which, say, the RC Church has undergone at the hands of Montrose in the last 50 years. Where it is being fast tacked to the status of not just any cult, but that of a mere cult. In the Year of Our Lord, 1966 it was a Jesuit, the feathery Father Shaw for sure, who was the anointed query person on the morality end of things. Even if he was a high-collar representative of the Ye Olde Recusant RC tradition of Ye Olde Merrie Mainland itself.
Thus, the jolt one received each time the m-word sashayed out the mouth of Patsy McGarry, B.A. It made one sit up higher each time one received this jolt, till one’s much admired head (from a certain angle) was almost touching the ceiling by the end of the nuancy progamme.
And the m-word in q. ? That would be m for mandate.
But it not just the exalted position which the moralist holds which surprised one at his being The Chosen One . (The Perkin had reckoned beforehand it was going to be a toss up between these three: Panty Biiss or the Silenced Two, Fathers D’Arcy and Flannerry). But rather it was the , erm, the pebble in the church door which, in retrospect, caused one’s much admired eyebrows (again, depending on the angle of viewpoint) to arch in awe.
Consider the following intriguing line in the New Testament of our, erm, Times aka Wikipedia. It appears in the entry on the man who was mandated by RTE to query the morality of the Easter 16 thingy.
-In February, 2014* he (Patsy McGarry) was implicated by fellow Irish Times journalist Irish Times journalist, John Waters, as the author of ad hominem Tweets written anonymously.
Eh?
Intrigued by this intriguing line Sherlock Warback followed the * trail and came up with the following :
-*Waters, John (23 April 2014): ‘So, who’s illiberal here?’ ; Village Magazine.
To say this essay by John Waters ( since essentially ex-communicated from The Unionist Times) is intriguing is a bit like saying that W. Amadeus Mozart was a tidy tunesmith.
To coin a phrase,: bide a wee, there’s plenty to see here.
It’s not much of a cult though with no dogma and no hierarchy. Unitarians themselves are happy to call their church the halfway house to atheism (or perhaps a half-way house back from atheism). Regarding the microscopic nature of the Church and whether its appropriate for Unitarians to comment on revolution, up here Unitarianism goes by the name of (or falls under the umbrella of) non-subscribing Presbyterianism and that lot played a fairly big part in earlier rebellions. It’s a naturally republican church – a number of Unitarians were amongst the American founding fathers – Jefferson was one. But I take the point that Unitarianism is hardly a mass movement – they don’t even seem to evangelise – it’s as if they think anyone smart enough to be a Unitarian is smart enough to find the Church on their own.
“But it was left to the redoubtable Ruthie D E to identify the Big Contradiction at the heart of Easter Rising commemoration. “What right had those seven signatories to initiate armed action? And if they had the right, we seven here have the right. And the Provos and the dissident republicans have the right”.”
Its a shame poor Ruth doesn’t see the big contradiction when Britain condemns violence and so called “terrorism”, it wasn’t the IRA or any other country that ran the biggest Empire in History, an Empire Ruth said we should be “grateful” they colonized us. Ruth and others speak of the British Empire as if its something to be “proud” of. That Empire came about not by mere violence but by mass murder, invasion and genocide. They even ran a slave trade, the proceeds of which funded the City of London and Liverpool and no reparations have to paid out to Black people. That’s not including the mass, systematic theft from different peoples/nations resources. Britain didn’t walk into those places and take over without a drop of blood spilled, it involved great violence on a massive scale. Indeed the British were the first to invent and put in use concentration camps, 20,000 South Africa Boer women and children died in them. The Nazis/Soviets did many bad things but they were nothing in comparison to what the British got up to throughout their existence.
I don’t think poor Ruth intended to point out the moral position some consider dissident republicans to hold. I may not agree with dissident republican tactics but their overall ultimate objective, a United Ireland, is a righteous one. But does the end justify the means? No I would say it doesn’t because we’re not in 1969 anymore but I know many dissidents would say Britain still occupies the North Eastern corner of our country, which is immoral. Overall that’s why I believe that Joint Authority between Dublin and London should be brought in or some kind of Joint Authority between Dublin and Stormont.
But violence today is definitely not the way forward, morally or tactically, for Republicans. That’s the one thing dissident Republicans cant get into their head, there’s much, much more to be gained through politics and peace than in violence. Unionism cant do a repeat of 1912, they were forced to accept the rights of the Catholic population and accept also that an aspiration for a United Ireland is legitimate. Repartition too is no longer an option, which even Thatcher considered but realized it would not resolve the issue. So when SF does hold the First Minister post or when they and the SDLP hold the majority of MLA seats at Stormont, there’s nothing Unionism can do to stop that. But the fact that Unionism would want to stop that shows that NI simply isn’t workable and it never be.
“Overall that’s why I believe that Joint Authority between Dublin and London should be brought in or some kind of Joint Authority between Dublin and Stormont. ”
Do you seriously still think Dublin rule by either FG or FF would be a better thing?
No thanks. I have seen and heard enough of how we will be treated by that shower.
But seriously Ryan. What has the Republic of Ireland ever done for us?
Please answer me that.
We should finish the job on our own and then make our part of Ireland the county that we want it to be.
“But violence today is definitely not the way forward, morally or tactically, for Republicans. That’s the one thing dissident Republicans cant get into their head, there’s much, much more to be gained through politics and peace than in violence. ”
What have we gained Ryan?
I was in blissful ignorance thinking we were part of Ireland all throughout the troubles.
It took an end of the violence for us to find out we have no country and the true feelings of the southern state.
britain still occupies the north eastern corner of our country………..
thats their mandate same as 1916.
Jessica :
In every thread you keep telling us – over and over again – that you never, ever want a
Re-United Ireland and that you have nothing in common with Irish people in this part of Ireland.
By the way, which country will you emigrate to after the re-unification of the country ?
Will you use your Irish passport when emigrating – or will you burn it ?
Really, you think I should emigrate?
That is funny as that what unionists have told me all my life, if I am not happy within the UK, bugger off down south.
Now the establishment in the south has turned on us, and I am being told once again to leave though this time no suggestions as to where to.
The Republic of Ireland is not the Irish Republic.
Do you really think the 6 counties can now integrate into the Republic of Ireland?
Jessica – you loathe the idea of a Re-Uinted Ireland so much I very much doubt you’ll be able to stomach it.
Of course we all hope Unionists like yourself stay after the inevitable ReUnification of our country so no worries on that front.
“Jessica – you loathe the idea of a Re-Uinted Ireland so much I very much doubt you’ll be able to stomach it.
Of course we all hope Unionists like yourself stay after the inevitable ReUnification of our country so no worries on that front.”
So who is this we Kinvara and why do you consider me a unionist?
“Jessica is republican on Mondays, entrepreneur on Tuesday,Freestater on Wednesday,pro southern government on Thursday, anti southern government on Friday and foul mouthed on every day.”
When was I ever pro southern government or a Freestater and I am not foul mouthed?
Jessica is republican on Mondays, entrepreneur on Tuesday,Freestater on Wednesday,pro southern government on Thursday, anti southern government on Friday and foul mouthed on every day.
Yep…….that’s the size of it about Jessica.
False Flag – or should that be Fleg – on every day too.
“Yep…….that’s the size of it about Jessica.
False Flag – or should that be Fleg – on every day too.”
You may be happy to be considered second rate Irish in your own lands, I am not.
Says more about you than me.
“Jessica is republican on Mondays, entrepreneur on Tuesday,Freestater on Wednesday,pro southern government on Thursday, anti southern government on Friday and foul mouthed on every day.”
And just to clarify fiosrach
I do not consider myself any of those labels and don’t want to
And no, as mentioned in your previous post, I do not really understand the difference between a pro treaty insurgent and an anti treaty insurgent, but I am not sure that I want to.
I dislike the term republican and I don’t see the need to pigeon hole ourselves into distinct groupings though you seem to know the criteria that is required for each very well.
I am simply Irish, and I live in Ireland, not northern Ireland, not the republic of Ireland, just Ireland.
I have no control over the states that rule on this island, but neither reflect my aspirations.
All I want is to be accepted as Irish, and to be treated as an equal in a country I can be proud to call my own along with every other citizen, no matter what their background including those from a loyalist or unionist background.
I accept that I grew up in what is referred to as a republican community so I have seen what went on first hand. I believe the southern establishments reaching out to unionism and demonising republicans is more about stopping Sinn Fein, but is hurting a lot of people who have nothing to do with Sinn Fein other than vote for them.
I will try harder to be less foul mouthed but I have never claimed to be perfect.
I too watched the above programme and ironically enough enjoyed the input from Myers,Edwards and mcgarry. They had the pro rising representatives squirming as they tried to get them to explain what was the difference between the participants in the rising and those militant republicans that came after.
O’cuiv, McDowell etc tried their best to distance the rising from other militant republicanism. If only they had said what others said/believed before the rising, during the rising and the war of independence etc, I.e every irish person has the right to force Britain interference from their country. Sin é. No more squirming. No but wait that would open up another can of worms that pro rising free staters don’t wanna deal with that is the occupied six counties.
At least Myers etc raised the topic of the north. A lot more than the others did. The root causes have not been dealt with, just ignored.
Why are the two equivalent? There’s a substantial unionist population in Northern Ireland and there wasn’t one in the South. A short war to remove an external colonial power in the South could only become a long fratricidal civil war if extended against the unionist population in the North. So more suffering and a less certain benefit. That’s a different calculation altogether.
By the way, it’s interesting how Jude blogs but never responds to any challenges to what he says in his blog.
A bit like David Vance, the BBC’s other favourite controversialist.
I always notice insults, MT. I feel no obligation to answer anyone. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. Why don’t you write a blog about it and I’ll put it up? With the usual libel/abuse limitations…